3 26 14 Csap Goal Summary 2 Reading Writing

Students will write responses that demonstrate knowledge through the use of reading and writing strategies.
Hainerberg Elementary School
Goals Summary Goal 1: Students will write responses that demonstrate knowledge through the use of reading and writing strategies.
Progress Notes: Measurable Objective 1: 75% of All Students will demonstrate a proficiency 75% or more of our student population in English Language Arts by 06/30/2014 as measured by demonstrate kneledge through the use of reading and writing strategies that interpret and extend the use of information from texts across the curriculum as measured by various assessments.. Strategy 1: Differentiated Instruction: Small Group - Teachers will use the Scott Foresman Reading Street curriculum buy from DoDEA. Reading Street provides unique support for the teacher through direct and explicit instruction for each grade level; a step-by-step instructional plan; an assessment plan to ensure adequate yearly progress; customized instruction by strand; and differentiated instructional plans for struggling readers, advanced readers, and English Language Learners. Teachers provide both Tier I and Tier II instruction within the classroom. Special education teachers and reading coaches work collaboratively with grade level teachers to provide Tier III intervention.
Research Cited: Reading Street follows the Response to Intervention model (RTI). The goal of this three-tier model of reading instruction is to meet the instructional needs of all students. Reading Street meets this goal by providing a process that monitors student progress throughout the year. Through continuous progress monitoring, struggling readers are identified early and interventions are put in place to prevent them from falling behind. Tier I is the core classroom instruction for all students. In Reading Street, the On-Level or Advanced instruction addresses the five core areas of reading instruction: Phonemic awareness Phonics Fluency
Hainerberg Elementary School 2013 AdvancED
38
Page 1 www.advanc-ed.org
Vocabulary Comprehension Tier II is supplemental small-group instruction for Strategic Intervention students. It is designed to prevent struggling readers from falling behind. Daily instruction supports and enhances core classroom instruction by reteaching core concepts and providing additional teacher modeling, more scaffolding, and multiple opportunities for practice. More time is spent on task with these students because children in this tier benefit from an additional thirty minutes per day of small-group instruction. Tier III instruction consists of an intensive intervention program called My Sidewalks that parallels Reading Street in concepts and vocabulary. The instruction in My Sidewalks moves at a slower pace.
Activities: Activity - Assessment Folder and Binders Folders containing assessment calendars, prompts, administration protocols, assessment materials, and individual student assessment card were created for each grade level and placed on common drive for easy access. Data teams update content as needed. Hard copies are also provided in an Assessment Binder for each grade level. Activity - Common Planning Time Activity Type Academic Support Program Begin Date 05/02/2011 End Date 06/13/2014 Resource Assigned $0 Source Of Funding No Funding Required Staff Responsible CSI Leadership, ISSP Internal Climate Committee Staff Responsible All Staff and Coaches
Activity Type
Begin Date 09/04/2012
End Date 06/13/2014
Weekly CP time is held at all grade levels. Discussions include ways to use Academic data to differentiate instruction; reflection on the use of specific school-wide Support instructional strategies; and determining the instructional strategy of the Program month. Activity - Use of Assessment Data to Drive Instruction Activity Type
Resource Assigned $0
Source Of Funding No Funding Required
End Date 06/11/2015
During common planning time (CP) ISSPs and teachers used BOY, MOY, Academic and EOY as well as formative assessment data to facilitate the team Support development of grade level assessment plans and instructional plans to Program meet the needs of students. Increase use of ExamView and Smart Response systems to gather assessment data.
Staff Responsible ISSP Grade level teachers
39
Activity - Training for the Benchmark Assessment System
Activity Type
End Date 06/14/2013
Through system training for the K-3 Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) Professional for reading, teachers learned to administer and score the BAS, identify Learning student learning needs and instructional level, and form flexible groups for guided reading instruction. Activity - Understanding and Using Differentiated Instruction Activity Type
Source Of Funding District Funding
Staff Responsible Coaches District ISS
End Date 06/14/2013
HQ sponsored training for 2 school trainers to support the Differentiation Professional Module from ASCD for 2 years. Training took place during the summer and Learning during 2 school years as 15 teachers implemented the strategies learned in the summer. Graduate credit was offered. Following the first 2 years, PLTs met after school. Activity - PLT: Focus on Differentiation in Reading Instruction Activity Type
Source Of Funding District Funding
Staff Responsible DI Trainers Teacher
End Date 06/13/2014
Teachers who selected the book, Caf, meet monthly to learn more about Academic how to differentiate instruction in reading. Graduate Credit is offered. Support Program Activity - PLT: Leveled Library Support Each month, on the 4th Tuesday which is dedicated to professional learning, an ISSP for ELA is available to assist any teacher to develop a leveled library for differentiated reading needs in the classroom based on assessment data. Activity Type Academic Support Program
Source Of Funding No Funding Required Source Of Funding No Funding Required
Staff Responsible Literacy Coach Staff Responsible ISSPs Teachers
End Date 06/12/2014
Strategy 2: 6+1 Traits of Writing - The 6+1 trait analytical model for writing uses common language and scoring guides to identify traits year-to-year as students and teachers refine our idea of what "good" writing looks like. Teachers teach the 6+1 traits as well as utilize the rubrics for scoring all writing assignments and writing assessments. The 6+1 Trait Writing analytical model for assessing and teaching writing is made up of 6+1 key qualities that define strong writing. These are: Ideas, the main message; Organization, the internal structure of the piece; Voice, the personal tone and flavor of the author's message; Word Choice, the vocabulary a writer chooses to convey meaning; Sentence Fluency, the rhythm and flow of the language; Conventions, the mechanical correctness; and Presentation, how the writing actually looks on the page. Ideas The Ideas are the main message, the content of the piece, the main theme, together with all the supporting details that enrich and develop that theme. The ideas are
40
strong when the message is clear, not garbled. The writer chooses details that are interesting, important, and informativeoften the kinds of details the reader would not normally anticipate or predict. Successful writers do not "tell" readers things they already know; e.g., "It was a sunny day, and the sky was blue, the clouds were fluffy white " Successful writers "show" readers that which is normally overlooked; writers seek out the extraordinary, the unusual, the unique, the bits and pieces of life that might otherwise be overlooked. Organization Organization is the internal structure of a piece of writing, the thread of central meaning, the pattern and sequence, so long as it fits the central idea. Organizational structure can be based on comparison-contrast, deductive logic, point-by-point analysis, development of a central theme, chronological history of an event, or any of a dozen other identifiable patterns. When the organization is strong, the piece begins meaningfully and creates in the writer a sense of anticipation that is, ultimately, systematically fulfilled. Events proceed logically; information is given to the reader in the right doses at the right times so that the reader never loses interest. Connections are strong, which is another way of saying that bridges from one idea to the next hold up. The piece closes with a sense of resolution, tying up loose ends, bringing things to a satisfying closure, answering important questions while still leaving the reader something to think about. Voice Voice is the writer coming through the words, the sense that a real person is speaking to us and cares about the message. It is the heart and soul of the writing, the magic, the wit, the feeling, the life and breath. When the writer is engaged personally with the topic, he/she imparts a personal tone and flavor to the piece that is unmistakably his/hers alone. And it is that individual somethingdifferent from the mark of all other writersthat we call Voice. Word Choice Word Choice is the use of rich, colorful, precise language that communicates not just in a functional way, but in a way that moves and enlightens the reader. In descriptive writing, strong word choice resulting in imagery, especially sensory, show-me writing, clarifies and expands ideas. In persuasive writing, purposeful word choice moves the reader to a new vision of ideas. In all modes of writing figurative language such as metaphors, similes and analogies articulate, enhance, and enrich the content. Strong word choice is characterized not so much by an exceptional vocabulary chosen to impress the reader, but more by the skill to use everyday words well. Sentence Fluency Sentence Fluency is the rhythm and flow of the language, the sound of word patterns, the way in which the writing plays to the ear, not just to the eye. How does it sound when read aloud? That's the test. Fluent writing has cadence, power, rhythm, and movement. It is free of awkward word patterns that slow the reader's progress. Sentences vary in length, beginnings, structure, and style, and are so well crafted that the reader moves through the piece with ease. Conventions The Conventions Trait is the mechanical correctness of the piece and includes five elements: spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar/usage, and paragraphing. Writing that is strong in Conventions has been proofread and edited with care. Since this trait has so many pieces to it, it's almost an analytical trait within an analytic system. As you assess a piece for convention, ask yourself: "How much work would a copy editor need to do to prepare the piece for publication?" This will keep all of the elements in conventions equally in play. Conventions is the only trait where we make specific grade level accommodations, and expectations should be based on grade level to include only those skills that have been taught. (Handwriting and neatness are not part of this trait. They belong with Presentation.) Presentation Presentation combines both visual and textual elements. It is the way we exhibit or present our message on paper. Even if our ideas, words, and sentences are vivid, precise, and well constructed, the writing will not be inviting to read unless the guidelines of presentation are present. Some of those guidelines include: balance of white space with visuals and text, graphics, neatness, handwriting, font selection, borders, overall appearance. Think about examples of text and visual presentation in
41
your environment. Which signs and billboards attract your attention? Why do you reach for one CD over another? All great writers are aware of the necessity of presentation, particularly technical writers who must include graphs, maps, and visual instructions along with their text. Presentation is key to a polished piece ready for publication.
Research Cited: Experimental Study on the Impact of the 6+1 Trait Writing Model on Student Achievement in Writing By Michael Kozlow and Peter Bellamy http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/446 This report presents the results of a study that examined the efficacy of professional development for teachers using the 6+1 Trait Writing model with respect to improving student writing skills. To achieve this purpose, a randomized experimental study was conducted in 2003-2004 in grades 4 to 6 to determine the extent to which a two-day workshop on the 6+1 Trait Writing model affected teacher practices and student achievement in writing. The study examined fidelity of implementation through a teacher survey on classroom practices to determine the extent to which teachers implemented the desired strategies and to describe differences between classroom practices of teachers in the treatment group and those of teachers in the control group. Student achievement in writing was measured by having students write on assigned prompts to produce narrative, descriptive, or persuasive pieces of writing. Research on Writing with the 6+1 Traits By Peter C. Bellamy http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/447 The notion is widespread that children must learn to read before they can write. However, Bissex (1980), Chomsky (1971) and Graves (1983) found that young children begin writing as or even before they learn to read, because they have a need to communicate ideas and concepts that have been discovered by experience rather than in books. And this communication serves not only to share thoughts, but also to help organize them into coherent categories. Six-Trait Writing Model Improves Scores at Jennie Wilson Elementary Journal of School Improvement Fall/Winter 2000; Vol 1, Issue 2 By Deb Jarmer, Maurine Kozol, Sheri Nelson, Trudy Salsberry http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/449 "Anecdotal data is supported by more systematic research studies like the one conducted in 1992-1993 in Portland, Oregon (NWREL, 1992-1993). Six fifth-grade classrooms were selected to study the effect of teaching the six analytic traits to students. The classrooms represented diverse student populations (rural/urban, native/non-native English speakers, and a range of ethnicities). Three of the classrooms received traditional instruction while the other three were taught the six-trait method. The results from pre and post tests revealed large differences in writing performance between the two groups. "
Activities:
42
Activity - Reading Street Writing & 6+1 Traits
Activity Type
End Date 06/13/2014
Teachers use the writing component of Reading Street and its correlation Academic to 6+1 Traits Writing for weekly writing trait instructional focus and to select Support writing prompts for BOY, MOY, and EOY Assessment Program Activity - 6+1 Traits Training for 1st Grade Activity Type
Source Of Funding No Funding Required Source Of Funding District Funding
Staff Responsible All GL teachers and Coaches Staff Responsible Teachers Literacy Coach Staff Responsible Teachers and Literacy Coach Staff Responsible All staff
End Date 12/19/2014
Using a combination of half-day training (2 days), Common Planning Time, Professional co-teaching, and PLT (14-15) teachers will study the 6+1 Traits, determine Learning a common sequence of trait instruction for their grade level, and teach the identified trait 2-3 weekly. Activity - Development of Individual Student Assessment Cards ISSP/Coaches and ET designed and trained teachers. Teachers responsible for entering their student data. Activity - Administration and scoring of local writing assessment, BOY, MOY, and EOY. Reading ISSP/Coaches coordinated the administration and scoring. Results compiled on common data collection sheets. ET and CSI Leadership collected data and facilitated data analysis. Activity - Assessment Folder on the Common Activity Type Academic Support Program Activity Type Academic Support Program Activity Type
End Date 06/13/2014
Source Of Funding No Funding Required Source Of Funding No Funding Required Source Of Funding No Funding Required
End Date 06/19/2015
End Date 06/19/2015
Writing assessment prompts, administration protocols, and rubric Academic information for mid-year and final writing assessments (k-5) updated and Support located on the common drive. 6+1 writing assessment revised for SY 2012- Program 2013. Activity - Develop and Use Rubrics Activity Type
Staff Responsible CSI CoChairs ISSP Standard 5 Committee Staff Responsible Classroom teacher and literacy coach
End Date 09/09/2014
In the fall of 2013 the writing assessment, rubric and anchor papers were Academic closely aligned with the current CSI school-wide goal for responding to and Support analyzing text. Each grade level determined prompts and texts appropriate Program for the grade level. During CP time teams worked to strengthen inter-rater reliability through the use of anchor papers. Activity - Student Data Binders for ELA Creation of student data binders to assess and monitor progress in language arts. Students will use data binders to complete self-reflection on progress, set personal learning goals, and communicate with parents.
Activity Type Direct Instruction
End Date 06/11/2015
Staff Responsible Teachers and ISSPs
43
Activity - ISSP Coaching Support
Activity Type
End Date 06/12/2014
ISSPs provide regular mentorship, coaching support, and co-teaching with Academic all grade levels to support the use of 6 +1 Writing Traits and Writer's Support Workshop. ISSPs have provided common exemplars and regular Program discussion and collaboration occurs at CP meetings based on writing assessment data.
Staff Responsible ISSPs Teachers
Strategy 3: Graphic Organizers - Teachers will use anticipation guides and graphic organizers to prepare for and assist students with reading. Graphic organizers help students construct meaning. Teachers will draw from a variety of graphic organizers to include organizational outlines, idea webs, venn diagrams, overlapping concepts, causeeffect, timeline, KWL charts, story maps, setting comparisons, sequence of events and teacher created organizers. Research Cited: There is solid evidence for the effectiveness of graphic organizers in facilitating learning. Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Children's transfer of graphic organizer instruction. Reading Psychology, 7(2), 87-100. Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 461-484. Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student- generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(4), 228-235. Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J. B., & Deschler, D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17. Carnes, E. R., Lindbeck, J. S., & Griffin, C. F. (1987). Effects of group size and advance organizers on learning parameters when using microcomputer tutorials in kinematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 781-789. Clements-Davis, G. L., & Ley, T. C. (1991). Thematic preorganizers and the reading comprehension of tenth-grade world literature students. Reading Research & Instruction, 31(1), 43-53. Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kammeenui, E. J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(4), 275-295. Gallego, M. A., Duran, G. Z., & Scanlon, D. J. (1989). Interactive teaching and learning: Facilitating learning disabled students' transition from novice to expert. Literacy Theory and Research, 311-319.
44
Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17. Herl, H. E., O'Neil, H. F. Jr., Chung, G. K. W. K. & Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 315-333. Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8 (2), 106-126. Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(3), 214-229. Merkley, D.M. & Jefferies, D. (2001) Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. The Reading Teacher, 54 (4) 350-357. Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17. Newby, R. F., Caldwell, J., & Recht, D. R. (1989). Improving the reading comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story grammar. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(6), 373-380. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29-52. Scanlon, D., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(1), 41-57. Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. Reading Teacher, 38(1), 2229. Tindal, G., Nolet, V., Blake, G. (1992). Focus on teaching and learning in content classes. Resource Consultant Training Program, University of Oregon Eugene; Training Module No. 3, 34-38. Willerman, M., & Mac Harg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 705-712.
Activities:
45
Activity - Continued Use and Monitoring of Graphic Organizers
Activity Type
End Date 12/16/2011
During SY 08-11 teachers learned to use graphic organizers in their Academic literacy instruction. Teachers felt this practice was strong enough to include Support it in this plan to ensure that this best practice continued as a focus. Program
Source Of Funding Other
Staff Responsible All Staff
Strategy 4: Vocabulary Development - Vocabulary: Read regular and irregular high frequency words automatically. Develop vocabulary through direct instruction, concrete experiences, reading, and listening to text read aloud. Use word structure to figure out word meaning. Use context clues to determine word meaning of unfamiliar words, multiple-meaning words, homonyms, and homographs. Use grade-appropriate reference sources to learn word meanings. Use new words tn a variety of contexts. Use graphic organizers to group, study, and retrain vocabulary. Classify and categorize words. Research Cited: The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) identified vocabulary as one of five major components of reading. Its importance to overall school success and more specifically to reading comprehension is widely documented (Baker, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998; Anderson & Nagy, 1991). The National Reading Panel (NRP) stated that vocabulary plays an important role both in learning to read and in comprehending text: readers cannot understand text without knowing what most of the words mean. Teaching vocabulary will not guarantee success in reading, just as learning to read words will not guarantee success in reading. However, lacking either adequate word identification skills or adequate vocabulary will ensure failure (Biemiller, 2005). Vocabulary is generically defined as the knowledge of words and word meanings. More specifically, we use vocabulary to refer to the kind of words that students must know to read increasingly demanding text with comprehension (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005). It is something that expands and deepens over time. The NRPs synthesis of vocabulary research identified eight findings that provide a scientifically based foundation for the design of rich, multifaceted vocabulary instruction. The findings are: Provide direct instruction of vocabulary words for a specific text. Anderson and Nagy (1991) pointed out there are precise words children may need to know in order to comprehend particular lessons or subject matter. Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important. Stahl (2005) cautioned against mere repetition or drill of the word, emphasizing that vocabulary instruction should provide students with opportunities to encounter words repeatedly and in a variety of contexts. Vocabulary words should be those that the learner will find useful in many contexts. Instruction of high-frequency words known and used by mature language users can add productively to an individuals
46
language ability (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Research suggests that vocabulary learning follows a developmental trajectory (Biemiller, 2001). Vocabulary tasks should be restructured as necessary. Once students know what is expected of them in a vocabulary task, they often learn rapidly (Kamil, 2004). Vocabulary learning is effective when it entails active engagement that goes beyond definitional knowledge. Stahl and Kapinus (2001) stated, When children know a word, they not only know the words definition and its logical relationship with other words, they also know how the word functions in different contexts. Computer technology can be used effectively to help teach vocabulary. Encouragement exists but relatively few specific instructional applications can be gleaned from the research (NICHD, 2000). Vocabulary can be acquired through incidental learning. Reading volume is very important in terms of long-term vocabulary development (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998). In later work, Cunningham (2005) further recommended structured read-alouds, discussion sessions and independent reading experiences at school and home to encourage vocabulary growth in students. Dependence on a single vocabulary instruction method will not result in optimal learning (NICHD, 2000). Stahl (2005) stated, Vocabulary knowledge is knowledge; the knowledge of a word not only implies a definition, but also implies how that word fits into the world. Consequently, researchers and practitioners alike seek to identify, clarify, and understand what it means for students to know what a word means. The sheer complexity of vocabulary acquisition, as evidenced by reviewing critical components such as receptive vocabulary versus productive vocabulary, oral vocabulary versus print vocabulary, and breadth of vocabulary versus depth of vocabulary (Kamil & Hiebert, 2005) raise questions worthy of further research. Other factors such as variations in students vocabulary size (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Nagy, 2005), levels of word knowledge (Dale, 1965; Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002), as well as which words are taught (Beck et al., 2002; Biemiller, 2005) and how word knowledge is measured (Biemiller, 2005) must all be considered in shaping our understanding of vocabulary acquisition.
Activities: Activity - Continued Use and Monitoring of Vocabulary Development Activity Type Begin Date 09/09/2008 End Date 06/13/2014 Resource Assigned $0 Source Of Funding No Funding Required Staff Responsible Teachers and Coaches
During SY 08-2014 teachers learned to use direct vocabulary instruction in Academic their literacy instruction. Teachers felt this practice was strong enough to Support include it in this plan to ensure that this best practice continued as a focus. Program
47
Activity - Developing Vocabulary through 6+1
Activity Type
End Date 06/12/2015
Teachers will expand the use of 6+1 traits with an emphasis on connecting Academic word choice and vocabulary development with PD Support Program
Staff Responsible Teachers and coaches
Strategy 5: Kid Friendly Standards - "Kid Friendly" standards help both the teacher and student identify the standards they are required to learn at each grade level. The DoDEA math standards are shared with students before, during and after lessons using "kid friendly" language, "I Can" statements, Common Core (crosswalked to DoDEA) I can statements or teacher paraphrased statements for a clear understanding of the learning objective. Activities: Activity - Develop Kid Friendly CSI Goals, Mission, and Vision Rewrote the school-wide CSI goals, mission, and vision in kid friendly language, designed posters for use in classrooms and school. These are reviewed in morning announcement and classrooms on a regular basis Activity - Posting Standards with Authentic Work Samples When posting student work, both DoDEA standards and kid friendly learning goals are used. Daily objectives are being written in I can language. During CSI and CP meetings discussions are held to clarify standards and share various ways of posting and communicating the standards. Activity Type Academic Support Program Activity Type Academic Support Program Begin Date 09/04/2012 End Date 06/13/2014 Resource Assigned $0 Source Of Funding Other Staff Responsible All Staff
End Date 06/12/2015
Staff Responsible All Staff
48

3 26 14 Csap Goal Summary 2 Reading Writing

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3 26 14 Csap Goal Summary 2 Reading Writing

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Students will write responses that demonstrate knowledge through the use of reading and writing strategies.

Hainerberg Elementary School

Begin Date 09/04/2012

End Date 06/13/2014

Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Begin Date 09/06/2011

End Date 06/11/2015

Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Staff Responsible ISSP Grade level teachers

Hainerberg Elementary School 2013 AdvancED

Activity - Training for the Benchmark Assessment System

Begin Date 09/06/2011

End Date 06/14/2013

Source Of Funding District Funding

Staff Responsible Coaches District ISS

Begin Date 08/01/2011

End Date 06/14/2013

Source Of Funding District Funding

Staff Responsible DI Trainers Teacher

Begin Date 08/06/2013

End Date 06/13/2014

Source Of Funding No Funding Required Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Staff Responsible Literacy Coach Staff Responsible ISSPs Teachers

Begin Date 09/03/2013

End Date 06/12/2014

Hainerberg Elementary School 2013 AdvancED

Activity - Reading Street Writing & 6+1 Traits

Begin Date 09/06/2011

End Date 06/13/2014

Source Of Funding No Funding Required Source Of Funding District Funding

Begin Date 03/21/2014

End Date 12/19/2014

Begin Date 09/11/2012

End Date 06/13/2014

Begin Date 09/04/2012

End Date 06/19/2015

Begin Date 09/04/2012

End Date 06/19/2015

Begin Date 03/04/2013

End Date 09/09/2014

Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Activity Type Direct Instruction

Begin Date 01/10/2014

End Date 06/11/2015

Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Staff Responsible Teachers and ISSPs

Activity - ISSP Coaching Support

Begin Date 09/04/2012

End Date 06/12/2014

Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Staff Responsible ISSPs Teachers

Hainerberg Elementary School 2013 AdvancED

Hainerberg Elementary School 2013 AdvancED

Activity - Continued Use and Monitoring of Graphic Organizers

Begin Date 09/09/2008

End Date 12/16/2011

Source Of Funding Other

Staff Responsible All Staff

Activity - Developing Vocabulary through 6+1

Begin Date 03/01/2013

End Date 06/12/2015

Source Of Funding No Funding Required

Staff Responsible Teachers and coaches