VISION/MISSION/BELIEF STATEMENTS
Note: Required for Title I
The vision of the Lee County School District is: To be a world-class school system.
The mission of Estero High School is to provide each member of our diverse student body with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in an increasingly complex world.
The six belief statements of the school focus on students learning and achievement:
1. Student learning is the chief priority of the school.
2. Student learning must be applicable to meaningful contexts.
3. Students learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning process.
4. Curriculum and instructional practices should incorporate a variety of learning activities to accommodate differences in learning styles.
5. Students require special services and resources.
6. Teachers commit to engaging in ongoing professional development which focuses on research-based best practices and effective classroom instruction.
SCHOOL PROFILE DEMOGRAPHICS
Estero High School is situated on 70 acres of land in the Southwest portion of Lee County, Florida. Originally constructed in 1987 as a 9-12 facility, one additional building was added to the campus in the year 2000. Presently there are 83 classrooms, nine science lab rooms, two medical academy rooms, four business technology labs, two drafting and computer assisted drawing rooms, an ROTC room, a childcare classroom and playground, a Culinary Operations classroom, and an outdoor classroom being utilized for instructional delivery.
The newest addition to our academic offering is the Hospitality and Tourism Academy for those students interested in exploring this area of industry as a possible career path. As the Culinary Operations program continues to grow, this new academy along with our geographical location makes the two programs ideal for students to explore possible career opportunities.
The administration building along with the kitchen, Media Center, JROTC , TV Production, Maintenance area, gym and locker room areas all received new HVAC over the spring and summer months. The entire campus has been painted and newly landscaped providing a clean and attractive updated learning environment for both students and staff.
The school is located near Coconut Point Mall in Estero. Continued business partnerships with Dillards, Moe's Southwest Grill, Hurricane's Island Grill, Bice, Smith’s Garage and Publix support the school through the supply of resources for facilities, program enrichment, athletic and activities equipment, technology, and materials.
Unique programs such as the Medical Academy, the new Hospitality and Tourism Academy and the Leadership program attract prospective students to the school.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
In the 07-08 school year, even though all sub-groups increased graduation rate by 1%, Estero did not meet Federal AYP. The AYP status for Estero High School was as follows for each sub-group with the exclusion of the increase in graduation criteria:
White – Met Math & Writing criteria, did not meet AYP in Reading
Black – N/A
Hispanic – did not meet AYP in Reading, Math, or Writing
Economically disadvantaged – did not meet AYP in Reading, Math or Writing
Limited English Proficient – did not meet AYP in Reading, Math or Writing
F/R Lunch SY07-08 = 30%
Minority% SY07-08 = 38.2%
ESE % SY07-08 = 11.8%
Mobility Rate SY07-08 = N/A% for SY06-07 =26.2%
Stability Rate SY07-08 = N/A% for SY06-07 =84.6%
Attendance % SY07-08 = N/A%
LEP% SY07-08 = 12.1%
SCHOOL GRADE:
Estero High School received a grade of "C" for 2007-2008. Most concerning was the drop in the percent students meeting high standards in reading along with drop in lowest 25% making learning gains in reading. Data analysis has been extensive over the summer to determine the root cause and focus on a systemic approach to rectifying this dip in scores for our students. Outside experts have been made part of a school-wide reading initiative that crosses the entire curriculum and provides a universal set of instructional strategies for both teachers and students to use.
CHALLENGES:
The short term goal for Estero is to attain a grade of "B" or better and continue to work towards meeting AYP in all categories.
The long term goal for Estero is attain a grade a "A" and to meet AYP.
SCHOOL MATCH
Note: Required for all Assistance Plus Schools
N/A
QUALITY STAFF
Highly Qualified Administrators
Note: Required for Title I
Principal: Mr. George H. Clover - 34 yrs. total education experience
Assistant Principals:
Marsha VanHook, Assistant Principal for Curriculum: 24 yrs. total education experience
James Nassiff, Assistant Principal for Administration: 37 yrs. total education experience
Howard Wendland, Assistant Principal for Operations: 27 yrs. total education experience
All administrators are certified and hold Master's Degree in Educational Leadership. Administrators have the expectation that teachers will implement the strategies into classroom practice for increased student achievement. All actively participate in the Reading Leadership Team, Professional Learning Communities, School Advisory Council and school Booster and Community groups. Each member of the administrative team spends time in classrooms observing and providing feedback on instruction to staff as well as sharing with team members.
Recruitment/Retention of Highly Qualified Teachers
Note: Required for Title I
The Lee County School District is continuing recruitment efforts, including our own recruitment fair, providing a competitive starting salary for beginning teachers, and investigating low-cost housing options. The district has expanded its employee wellness efforts and continues to explore insurance and benefits to meet the needs of all employees. All of these efforts should help the District recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in all areas.
Show Attached Staff List
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: Required for Title I
Title I, Title II and other programs coordinate through the SIP process. Each school completes a needs assessment before writing goals for the year. School improvement plans are written to ensure compliance with all state and national regulations. All school improvement plans are reviewed at the district level for appropriate use of funds and effective us of resources. This district level review prevents duplication of services and facilitates coordination between schools and departments. This collaboration ensures that all programs support schools.
School Wide Improvement Model
Note: Required for Title I
The School District of Lee County uses Sterling Quality as the improvement model.
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: Required for Title I
The school communicates with students, parents and the community in the following ways:
• Quarterly parent newsletter
• Open house twice annually
• Principal letters mailed to home of students
• School website
• Teacher websites
• Marquee updated weekly with events and information
• ParentLink communication system
• Local newspapers and periodicals
• SAC meetings
• "Message On Hold" communicates upcoming events to parents in both English and Spanish
• SPAR Report is available at the school for public review.
No Attached Public School Choice Notice to Parents file
No Attached Notification of SINI Status file
Pre-School Transition
Note: Required for Title I
N/A
MENTORING AND EXTENDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
Teacher Mentoring
Note: Required for Title I
Beginning July 1, 1997, teachers applying for their initial teaching position with The School District of Lee County enroll in an induction program with the acronym of A.P.P.L.E.S. - Accomplished Professional Practices for (the) Lee Educational System. A.P.P.L.E.S. is a program designed by and for teachers based on the 12 Educator Accomplished Practices, Florida Curriculum Frameworks & Sunshine State Standards, District Strategic Plan for The School District of Lee County, and legislation in FS 231.17.
The District’s induction program provides a support and information system for new teachers to:
• retain the most promising teachers;
• foster self-assessment and reflection;
• improve instructional practice;
• model professionalism;
• offer professional growth opportunities;
• and, familiarize new teachers with district and state initiatives.
New teachers are introduced to programs, practical tools, and strategies to enhance classroom performance in regularly scheduled regional sessions facilitated by experienced teacher-liaisons.
New teachers are also provided with a support system comprised of a Peer/Mentor Teacher and a building Administrator. The mentor provides support by:
• Modeling professional practices of educators
• Conducting formative observations
• Assisting with the construction and implementation of the Professional Development Plan
• Orienting to school based information, programs, logistics and procedures
• Meeting on a regular basis with the new teacher (initially once a week)
All teachers receive support and peer coaching through department mentors, and professional learning community participation.
Show Attached Teacher Mentoring List
Extended Learning Opportunities
Note: Required for Title I
After school tutoring is offered in math and reading on an individual and small group basis. Additionally, there are certified teachers on staff who provide tutoring both during student lunch period and after school. NovaNet credit retrieval opportunities are also offered after school for those students needed to regain credit in addition to a full academic schedule.
SCHOOLS GRADED C OR BELOW
Professional Development
We recognize that teachers need to provide multiple instructional strategies so that students of different abilities, interests or learning needs experience equally appropriate ways to absorb, use, develop and present concepts as a part of the daily learning process. It allows students to take greater responsibility and ownership for their own learning and provides opportunities for peer teaching and cooperative learning. To assist teachers in becoming diverse in their instructional styles, teachers are offered a variety of professional development opportunities. This year teachers will be engaged in differentiated instruction, strategies for increased minority achievement in the classroom, writing in all curricular areas, , academic vocabulary building strategies, and Small Learning Communities centered around Reading strategies. Additionally, SMART Board training continued over the summer with both a beginning level and an intermediate user level training offered. As more SMART Boards are integrated into everyday classroom use this additional level of training was requested by teachers for more advanced users.
Teachers will also receive training during the year on Data Folders.
Disaggregated Data
In August, the school faculty participates in school-wide data disaggregation workshop. The staff reviews the disaggregated data school-wide, then meets as a department to begin planning for upcoming year based on data indicated needs.
Progress monitoring data for Reading, Math, Writing and Science is examined closely each quarter.
The 9th and 10th bottom quartile students have been assigned to administration for consistent monitoring. Administrators will be meeting with them to set goals and begin tracking grades and progress. The students have been identified and shared with staff for monitoring within the content areas.
Failure rates for Senior Level courses are monitored in an effort to identify any student that may fall into "at-risk" status without prior indication so that appropriate intervention strategies can keep this student on track to graduate.
Informal and Formal Assessments
• Progress Monitoring Resource Network (PMRN) for Reading
• Math Progress Monitoring data
• Interactive Writing Lab
• Accelerated Math
• Classroom Assessments --- on-going
• Yearly - FCAT (Oct. Retakes, Feb. Writing, March)
Alternative Instructional Delivery Methods
• SMART Board technology in the classroom
• One-on-one individual teacher instruction
• Small group instruction
• Peer tutoring
• Cooperative Learning Groups
• Hands-on Instructional activities
SCHOOLS OFFERING PRIMARILY GRADES 6 THROUGH 12
Different Innovative Approaches to Instruction
Teachers utilize SMART Board technology in their instructional delivery. Additionaly teachers incorporate Reading Strategies learned during professional development into the technological delivery of content area specific instruction.
Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
It is the responsibility of every teacher to incorporate the reading strategies learned during the PLCs into their individual classrooms as evidenced in lesson plans and Classroom Walk Thrus. Individual SIP goals contain additional reading strategies for all content areas.
Quality Professional Development for Teachers and Leaders
PLCs are ongoing through-out the school year focusing on Reading Strategies. Learning Labs are conducted monthly by district experts for teacher observation in actual classrooms.
Small Learning Communities (SLC)
Professional Learning Communities have been established for SY2008-2009 focusing on Reading strategies for all content areas and all students. See each goal under "strategies".
Intensive Intervention in Reading and Mathematics
See Reading and Math under "strategies". Both contain intensive intervention strategies for all Level 1 and Level 2 students.
Parental Access and Support
FCAT Parent Night in January 2009. See Parent Involvement Goal under strategies and SAC.
Applied and Integrated Courses
See all goals within SIP.
Course Choice Based on Student Goals / Interests / Talent
Evidenced by students choosing to attend on-site career academy programs through school choice opportunities.
All students attend a computer-based course request session with counselor advisement in the Spring for following school year.
Master Schedules Based on Student Needs
Master Schedule is developed based on 2008 FCAT data analysis. These results determine student academic needs and courses that are offered such as the number and level of intensive reading and math. This has an effect on the type and number of elective courses that can be offered.
Academic and Career Planning
Academic and Career Planning with Guidance, Career Specialist and Career Academies. All students will declare a major area of interest and review it annually when selecting their courses for the upcoming year.
Goal setting for the bottom quartile is accomplished in meetings with Assistant Principal. Students meet review FCAT performance levels and to set goals.
GOALS
Goal: Reading
*Note: Required for Title I
Scroll down for school data
|
| *Needs Assessment: |
In 2007-2008 the School Accountability Report showed that 42% of our students scored met high standards with only 38% of the bottom quartile making learning gains as measured by FCAT Reading. This was a decrease in 1% overall from 2006-2007 and a decrease in the bottom quartile of 16%. None of the subgroups for which we have members made AYP.
It is critical to raise the performance of the bottom 25%. Data analysis revealed that over 25% of students had a DSS of 1926 or higher which is adequate for graduation purposes but does not meet high standards.
Focusing on the AYP subgroups will improve the learning gains for all students and improve the school grade. English Language Learners proficiency performance was not reported in order to maintain anonymity and privacy of student as value was less than 5%. This also makes setting the Safe Harbor goal challenging. District data indicates approximately 3% of our ELL students to be proficient in Reading. This number will be utilized to determine our goal. |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 37% of the total subgroups scored at or above grade level in reading.
In 2008-2009, we will decrease the total subgroup percentage of students scoring below grade level from 63% to 57% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Intensive Reading and Language Arts
courses
• Great Source Readers Handbook
• Academic Plans provided for all reading courses
• Intensive reading
• Teen Biz
• Holt Elements of Literature Series Reader’s Handbook
• LANGUAGE!
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled monthly to demonstrate strategy use with students for teachers
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction
• Fluency probes utilized to determine student needs
• Students grouped by educational need
• Reading strategies are listed in daily lesson plans
• Reading Coach serves as a resource for modeling scientifically based reading instruction
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Marking the Text
• Professional Learning Communities - Reading Strategies
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Progress Monitoring data analysis of the Florida Oral Reading Fluency and MAZE assessments.
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Academic Improvement Plan evaluation with bottom 25%
• Log of meetings with lowest quartile students
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Language!
• Great Source
• Sustained Silent Reading
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Analysis of student performance data
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, less than 5% of our English Language Learners scored at or above grade level in reading. District date indicates the number to be 3% proficient. In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of ELL students scoring below grade level from than 97% to 88% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Intensive Reading and Language Arts
courses
• Great Source Readers Handbook
• Academic Plans provided for all reading courses
• Intensive reading
• Teen Biz
• Holt Elements of Literature Series Reader’s Handbook
• LANGUAGE!
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled monthly to demonstrate strategy use with students for teachers
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction
• Fluency probes utilized to determine student needs
• Students grouped by educational need
• Reading strategies are listed in daily lesson plans
• Reading Coach serves as a resource for modeling scientifically based reading instruction
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Marking the Text
• Professional Learning Communities - Reading Strategies
• ESOL Para assigned to core classrooms to assist students in understanding content
• ESOL strategies incorporated into instruction
• International Center for students new to country that speak no English provides Intensive Reading and ESOL Language Arts instruction
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Progress Monitoring data analysis of the Florida Oral Reading Fluency and MAZE assessments.
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Use of released FCAT Reading Tests as practice
• Academic Improvement Plan evaluation with bottom 25%
• Log of meetings with lowest quartile students
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Language!
• Great Source
• Sustained Silent Reading
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Analysis of student performance data
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 49% of the White subgroup scored at or above grade level in reading.
In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of students scoring below grade level from 51% to 46% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Intensive Reading and Language Arts
courses
• Great Source Readers Handbook
• Academic Plans provided for all reading courses
• Intensive reading
• Teen Biz
• Holt Elements of Literature Series Reader’s Handbook
• LANGUAGE!
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled monthly to demonstrate strategy use with students for teachers
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction
• Fluency probes utilized to determine student needs
• Students grouped by educational need
• Reading strategies are listed in daily lesson plans
• Reading Coach serves as a resource for modeling scientifically based reading instruction
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Marking the Text
• Professional Learning Communities - Reading Strategies
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Progress Monitoring data analysis of the Florida Oral Reading Fluency and MAZE assessments.
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Academic Improvement Plan evaluation with bottom 25%
• Log of meetings with lowest quartile students
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Language!
• Great Source
• Sustained Silent Reading
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Analysis of student performance data
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 15% of the Hispanic subgroup scored at or above grade level in reading.
In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of Hispanic students scoring below grade level from 85% to 77% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Intensive Reading and Language Arts
courses
• Great Source Readers Handbook
• Academic Plans provided for all reading courses
• Intensive reading
• Teen Biz
• Holt Elements of Literature Series Reader’s Handbook
• LANGUAGE!
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled monthly to demonstrate strategy use with students for teachers
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction
• Fluency probes utilized to determine student needs
• Students grouped by educational need
• Reading strategies are listed in daily lesson plans
• Reading Coach serves as a resource for modeling scientifically based reading instruction
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Marking the Text
• Professional Learning Communities - Reading Strategies
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Progress Monitoring data analysis of the Florida Oral Reading Fluency and MAZE assessments.
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Use of released FCAT Reading Tests as practice
• Academic Improvement Plan evaluation with bottom 25%
• Log of meetings with lowest quartile students
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Language!
• Great Source
• Sustained Silent Reading
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Analysis of student performance data
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 18% of our Economically Disadvantaged subgroup scored at or above grade level in reading. In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students scoring below grade level from 82% to 74% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Intensive Reading and Language Arts
courses
• Great Source Readers Handbook
• Academic Plans provided for all reading courses
• Intensive reading
• Teen Biz
• Holt Elements of Literature Series Reader’s Handbook
• LANGUAGE!
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled monthly to demonstrate strategy use with students for teachers
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction
• Fluency probes utilized to determine student needs
• Students grouped by educational need
• Reading strategies are listed in daily lesson plans
• Reading Coach serves as a resource for modeling scientifically based reading instruction
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Marking the Text
• Professional Learning Communities - Reading Strategies
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Progress Monitoring data analysis of the Florida Oral Reading Fluency and MAZE assessments.
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Use of released FCAT Reading Tests as practice
• Academic Improvement Plan evaluation with bottom 25%
• Log of meetings with lowest quartile students
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Language!
• Great Source
• Sustained Silent Reading
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Analysis of student performance data
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| PLCs - I Read It, But I Don't Get It |
Title II |
$2,000.00 |
| Total: $2,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SMART Boards |
Internal Funds |
$6,520.66 |
| Total: $6,520.66 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Data Analysis |
Title II |
$5,043.48 |
| Language Arts Common Assessments |
Title II |
$1,000.00 |
| Levels of Questioning Training |
Title II |
$1,000.00 |
| Data Folder Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Adv. Placement Training |
Title II |
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $9,043.48 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Full Time Reading Coach: ESOL Paras: 2 Teachers |
SAI |
$325,000.00 |
| Model Schools Conference |
Title II |
$3,000.00 |
| Total: $328,000.00 |
| Final Total: $345,564.14 |
|
|
*Non-Highly Qualified Instructors:
|
All teachers are in field and Highly Qualified with the exception of Luisa Villa and Annmarie Ferry who are working towards their Reading Endorsement. Luisa Villa is also working towards ESOL certification.
|
| End of Reading Goal |
|
Goal: Mathematics
*Note: Required for Title I
Scroll down for school data
|
| *Needs Assessment: |
In 2007-2008 the School Accountability Report showed that 74% of students met high standards with 70% of the bottom quartile making learning gains as measured by FCAT Math. This surpassed the 2008 benchmark of 68% necessary for making AYP in Math. While the total and white population met AYP, three subgroups did not - Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and English Language Learners. These subgroup members will need to be identified and assigned a teacher mentor in order to meet the goal for 2008-2009. |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 67% of our total subgroups scored at or above grade level in Math. In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of students scoring below grade level from 33% to 30% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Intensive Math classes for Level 1 and Level 2 FCAT Math students.
• Accelerated Math
• During and after school tutoring offered by certified teachers
• FCAT Explorer login is provided for student access beyond school hours
• Student and Teacher analysis of FCAT performance data with goal setting objectives
• Marzano's Research Based Instructional Strategies
• Professional Learning Committees
• Quarterly monitoring of student progress with a baseline to be established by the end of September and data checks in November, early January, and late February
• Practice with released FCAT Math test items
• Use of SMART Board technology in math courses
• One FCAT like written response item included in chapter tests and exams
• Math academic vocabulary is stressed
• Marking the Text
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Analysis of Progress Monitoring student performance data
• Student performance report for Accelerated Math
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Teacher lesson plans reflecting Marking the Text & Marzano Instructional Strategies
• PLC professional development attendance log
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Analysis of student performance data
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Professional Learning Communities Reading Strategies
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 50% of our Hispanic subgroup scored at or above grade level in Math. In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of Hispanic students scoring below grade level from 50% to 45% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Intensive Math classes for Level 1 and Level 2 FCAT Math students.
• Accelerated Math
• During and after school tutoring offered by certified teachers
• FCAT Explorer login is provided for student access beyond school hours
• Student and Teacher analysis of FCAT performance data with goal setting objectives
• Marzano's Research Based Instructional Strategies
• Professional Learning Committees
• Quarterly monitoring of student progress with a baseline to be established by the end of September and data checks in November, early January, and late February
• Practice with released FCAT Math test items
• Use of SMART Board technology in math courses
• One FCAT like written response item included in chapter tests and exams
• Math academic vocabulary is stressed
• Marking the Text
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Analysis of Progress Monitoring student performance data
• Student performance report for Accelerated Math
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Teacher lesson plans reflecting Marking the Text & Marzano Instructional Strategies
• PLC professional development attendance log
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Analysis of student performance data
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Professional Learning Communities Reading Strategies
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 53% of our Economically Disadvantaged students scored at or above grade level in Math. In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students scoring below grade level from 47% to 42% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Intensive Math classes for Level 1 and Level 2 FCAT Math students.
• Accelerated Math
• During and after school tutoring offered by certified teachers
• FCAT Explorer login is provided for student access beyond school hours
• Student and Teacher analysis of FCAT performance data with goal setting objectives
• Marzano's Research Based Instructional Strategies
• Professional Learning Committees
• Quarterly monitoring of student progress with a baseline to be established by the end of September and data checks in November, early January, and late February
• Practice with released FCAT Math test items
• Use of SMART Board technology in math courses
• One FCAT like written response item included in chapter tests and exams
• Math academic vocabulary is stressed
• Marking the Text
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Analysis of Progress Monitoring student performance data
• Student performance report for Accelerated Math
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Teacher lesson plans reflecting Marking the Text & Marzano Instructional Strategies
• PLC professional development attendance log
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Analysis of student performance data
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Professional Learning Communities Reading Strategies
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 24% of our English Language Learners subgroup scored at or above grade level in Math. In 2008-2009, we will decrease the percentage of English Language Learners student scoring below grade level from 76% to 69% to meet Safe Harbor. |
| *Strategies: |
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
Intensive Math classes for Level 1 and Level 2 FCAT Math students.
• Accelerated Math
• During and after school tutoring offered by certified teachers
• FCAT Explorer login is provided for student access beyond school hours
• Student and Teacher analysis of FCAT performance data with goal setting objectives
• Marzano's Research Based Instructional Strategies
• Professional Learning Committees
• ESOL Para assigned to core classrooms to assist ELL learners with content
• ESOL strategies utilized in lesson content delivery
• Quarterly monitoring of student progress with a baseline to be established by the end of September and data checks in November, early January, and late February
• Practice with released FCAT Math test items
• Use of SMART Board technology in math courses
• One FCAT like written response item included in chapter tests and exams
• Math academic vocabulary is stressed
• Marking the Text
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Analysis of Progress Monitoring student performance data
• Student performance report for Accelerated Math
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Teacher lesson plans reflecting Marking the Text & Marzano Instructional Strategies
• PLC professional development attendance log
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Analysis of student performance data
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Professional Learning Communities Reading Strategies
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| PLCs - I Read It, But I Don't Get It! |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| CPS Unit Training |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| SMART Boards |
Internal Funds |
$6,520.66 |
| Total: $6,720.66 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Data Analysis |
Title II |
$1,000.00 |
| Common Assessments |
Title II |
$2,000.00 |
| Total: $3,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Data Folder Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Final Total: $10,420.66 |
|
|
*Non-Highly Qualified Instructors:
|
All teachers are in-field and Highly Qualified. |
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Goal: Writing
*Note: Required for Title I
Scroll down for school data
|
| *Needs Assessment: |
In 2007-2008 the School Accountability Report showed that 72% of 10th grade students scored a 3.5 or higher in Writing. This was a decrease of 9 percentage points from the previous year. AYP was not met overall, with White being the only subgroup to meet the AYP goal. The Hispanic subgroups decreased writing performance by 2%, Economically Disadvantaged by 5%, and most notably ELL by 10%. ELL students will need to be monitored closely for writing skill development along with members of the other two subgroups. |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 88% of our total subgroups scored at grade level as reported on AYP report. In 2008-2009, at least 90% of students will score at grade level as reported by the AYP report. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Language Arts and other core academic
classrooms
• Academic Plans provided for all Lang. Arts. courses
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled to demonstrate Writing strategies use with students
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction on writing
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Student analysis of writing using released FCAT Writing anchor papers
• Language Arts classes to utilize FCAT Writing practice books
• Professional Learning Communities
• Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• All content areas to include one written question of substance that is FCAT-like on every exam or quiz
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Lesson Plans
• Inservice records for PLCs & District Preschool Training
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Marzano high yield instructional strategies
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• FCAT Writing Training
• Preschool Professional Development Writing Training: Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• PLC Professional Development
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 79% of our Economically Disadvantaged subgroup
students scored at grade level as reported on AYP report. In 2008-2009, at least 81% of students will score at grade level as reported by the AYP report. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Language Arts and other core academic
classrooms
• Academic Plans provided for all Lang. Arts. courses
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled to demonstrate Writing strategies use with students
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction on writing
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Student analysis of writing using released FCAT Writing anchor papers
• Language Arts classes to utilize FCAT Writing practice books
• Professional Learning Communities
• Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• All content areas to include one written question of substance that is FCAT-like on every exam or quiz
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Lesson Plans
• Inservice records for PLCs & District Preschool Training
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Marzano high yield instructional strategies
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• FCAT Writing Training
• Preschool Professional Development Writing Training: Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• PLC Professional Development
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 47% of our English Language Learner subgroup students scored at grade level as reported on AYP report. In 2008-2009, at least 49% of students will score at grade level as reported by the AYP report. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Language Arts and other core academic
classrooms
• Academic Plans provided for all Lang. Arts. courses
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled to demonstrate Writing strategies use with students
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction on writing
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Student analysis of writing using released FCAT Writing anchor papers
• Language Arts classes to utilize FCAT Writing practice books
• Professional Learning Communities
• Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• All content areas to include one written question of substance that is FCAT-like on every exam or quiz
• Use of SMART Board technology in Language Arts and other core academic
classrooms
• Academic Plans provided for all Lang. Arts. courses
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled to demonstrate Writing strategies use with students
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction on writing
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Student analysis of writing using released FCAT Writing anchor papers
• Language Arts classes to utilize FCAT Writing practice books
• Professional Learning Communities
• Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• All content areas to include one written question of substance that is FCAT-like on every exam or quiz
• ESOL Paras assigned to Language Arts classes to assist ELL learners
• ESOL strategies utilized in content delivery
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Lesson Plans
• Inservice records for PLCs & District Preschool Training
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Marzano high yield instructional strategies
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• FCAT Writing Training
• Preschool Professional Development Writing Training: Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• PLC Professional Development
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 79% Hispanic subgroup scored at grade level as reported on AYP report. In 2008-2009, at least 81% of students will score at grade level as reported by the AYP report. |
| *Strategies: |
• Use of SMART Board technology in Language Arts and other core academic
classrooms
• Academic Plans provided for all Lang. Arts. courses
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled to demonstrate Writing strategies use with students
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction on writing
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Student analysis of writing using released FCAT Writing anchor papers
• Language Arts classes to utilize FCAT Writing practice books
• Professional Learning Communities
• Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• All content areas to include one written question of substance that is FCAT-like on every exam or quiz
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Lesson Plans
• Inservice records for PLCs & District Preschool Training
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Marzano high yield instructional strategies
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• FCAT Writing Training
• Preschool Professional Development Writing Training: Relevancy, Modeling, and Immediate, Specific Feedback in writing in all content areas
• PLC Professional Development
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Writing Training |
Title II |
$2,000.00 |
| Total: $2,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $2,000.00 |
|
| End of Writing Goal |
|
Goal: Science
*Note: Required for Title I
Scroll down for school data
|
| *Needs Assessment: |
The 2007-2008 School Accountability Report indicates 30% percent of our students met high standards in Science, a decrease of 1% from 2006-2007.
Our benchmark school for science is Island Coast High School. In 2007- 2008, 33% of their students met high standards in Science. Our goal will be to meet and surpass this mark within two years. |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008 the School Accountability Report showed that 30% of students met high standards as measured by FCAT Science. In 2008-2009, 33% of our students will meet high standards as measured by FCAT Science. |
| *Strategies: |
• Pre and Post practice Science FCAT
• All test and exams to include one FCAT-like test written response item
• Use of SMART Board technology in Science classrooms
• Lesson plans to include weekly reading strategies
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Lesson plans
• Pre and Post practice FCAT scores
• Progress Monitoring Assessment Data
• PAWS TO READ: Sustained Silent Reading
|
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
• Marzano High-Yield strategies
• Glencoe Science
• Sustained Silent Reading
• K-12 CRP: Reciprocal Teaching, a research-based instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text
|
| *Professional Development: |
• Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
• Goal Setting & Data Folder Training
• Analysis of student performance data
• SMART Board technology integration training
|
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| PLCs - I Read It, But I Don't Get It! |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| CPS Unit Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| SMART Boards |
Internal Funds |
$6,520.66 |
| Total: $7,020.66 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Levels of Questioning Training |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Common Assessments |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Data Folder Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Total: $1,200.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $8,420.66 |
|
|
*Non-Highly Qualified Instructors:
|
All teachers are in-field and Highly Qualified. |
| End of Science Goal |
|
Goal: Parental Involvement
*Note: Required for Title I
|
| *Needs Assessment: |
The 2007-2008 Parent Survey received only 451 responses. This represents less than one-third of our parents from enrollment numbers last year.
Majority percentages of parent responses are outlined below:
• 42% somewhat agree teachers do a good job of teaching students
• 37% somewhat agree students receive extra help when having difficulty
• 40% strongly agree students are safe at this school
• 45% strongly agree parents find it easy to contact teachers and administrators
• 45% strongly agree counselors and administrators are available to students and parents
• 31% somewhat agree students are fairly and reasonably disciplined
• 39% somewhat agree the school provides a clean learning environment
• 44% somewhat agree the school operates in an effective manner
• 38% strongly agree parents are kept well informed about students' progress
• 44% strongly agree parents feel welcome at Estero High School
These responses represent a positive increase over 2006-2007 in responses, a larger sampling size would give voice to more parents and a clearer view of parental involvement needs as viewed by parents. |
| *Objective: |
In 2007-2008, 451 parents responded to the Parent Survey conducted via Parent Link. In 2008-2009, the goal is to increase that number to 500 responses. |
| *Strategies: |
• Advertise Parent Survey dates in advance on school website & in school newsletter
• Make survey available in English and Spanish
• Announce upcoming dates during "On Hold" phone message in English and Spanish
|
| *Evaluation: |
• Document number of respondents to parent survey at end of SY2008-2009. |
| *Evidence-based Program(s): |
|
| *Professional Development: |
|
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parental Involvement Goal |
|
Goal: Return on Investment
|
| Needs Assessment: |
In 2007-2008 only 38% of the bottom quartile made adequate progress, far below the necessary 50%. This figure also represented a sharp decrease of 16% in the performance of this group from 2006-2007. For this reason, this group has been identified and assigned to both administrators and teachers for mentoring and tracking of progress throughout the year and across the curriculum.
Our benchmark school is Mariner High School. in 2007-2008, the % of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading was 51% and in Math was 73% compared to Estero's 38% and 70% respectively. Our goal will be to meet and surpass this target for 2008-2009. |
| Objective: |
The 2008 School Accountability Report that 38% of our students in the bottom quartile made adequate progress in Reading and 70% in Math. In 2008-2009, this number will increase to 52% in Reading and 73% in Math for the bottom quartile. |
| Strategies: |
• Identify the bottom quartile and share list with faculty
• Assign admin team to students for mentoring and tracking
• Set goals and share FCAT results with students to incorporate into Data Folders
• Meet every three weeks with student to monitor progress on goals and grades
• Use of SMART Board technology in Intensive Reading and Language Arts
courses
• Great Source Readers Handbook
• Academic Plans provided for all reading courses
• Intensive reading
• Teen Biz
• Holt Elements of Literature Series Reader’s Handbook
• LANGUAGE!
• Professional Development Resource Teacher scheduled monthly to demonstrate strategy use with students for teachers
• Direct, explicit, systematic instruction
• Fluency probes utilized to determine student needs
• Students grouped by educational need
• Reading strategies are listed in daily lesson plans
• Reading Coach serves as a resource for modeling scientifically based reading instruction
• Paws To Read - sustained silent reading initiative 5 days a week spread across departments for maximum impact
• Marking the Text
• Professional Learning Communities - Reading Strategies
• ESOL Para assigned to core classrooms to assist students in understanding content
• ESOL strategies incorporated into instruction
• International Center for students new to country that speak no English provides Intensive Reading and ESOL Language Arts instruction
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
Intensive Math classes for Level 1 and Level 2 FCAT Math students.
• Accelerated Math
• During and after school tutoring offered by certified teachers
• FCAT Explorer login is provided for student access beyond school hours
• Student and Teacher analysis of FCAT performance data with goal setting objectives
• Marzano's Research Based Instructional Strategies
• Professional Learning Committees
• Quarterly monitoring of student progress with a baseline to be established by the end of September and data checks in November, early January, and late February
• Practice with released FCAT Math test items
• Use of SMART Board technology in math courses
• One FCAT like written response item included in chapter tests and exams
• Math academic vocabulary is stressed
• Marking the Text
|
| Evaluation: |
• Progress Monitoring data analysis of the Florida Oral Reading Fluency and MAZE assessments.
• Usage report for FCAT Explorer
• Academic Improvement Plan evaluation with bottom 25%
• Log of meetings with lowest quartile students
• Accelerated Math, Renaissance Learning
• Marzano high-yield instructional strategies
• Progress Monitoring System
• SMART Board Technology (National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students)
• PLCs
|
| End of Return on Investment Goal |
|
ADDITIONAL GOALS
Additional Goal: Drop Out/Graduation Rate |
| Needs Assessment: |
According to AYP data, all subgroups of our school population increased graduation rate from 2007 for a total of 67%. This represents an increase from 2006 of 59% as reported on AYP. Subgroups increased as follows: White- 9%; Hispanic - 15%; Economically Disadvantaged - 14%; ELL - 16%; Students with Disabilities - 10%.
Credit Retrieval opportunities such as NovaNet within the school day have been very successful for many of our students as a way to get back on track for graduation. |
| Objective: |
Increase the number of credits earned in NovaNet credit retrieval classes from 75 half credits 2007-2008 to 100 half credits in 2008-2009. |
| Strategies: |
Credit Retrieval offered:
• via Nova-netduring regular school hours
• identify number of students school-wide needing credit retrieval in core courses
• individual counseling for credit retrieval and drop-out prevention for Migrant and ELL students
• individual counseling for bottom quartile for both drop-out prevention and academic progress
Keeping students enrolled in order to complete graduation requirements:
• Career academies
• GED Fast Track
• GED Prep Courses
• Counselor services
• GEO High School GED Option
Parent Involvment in Academic planning services via school website and one on one conferences with teachers, guidance counselor and administration.
|
| Evaluation: |
• Track participation of students in Credit Retrieval.
• Document number of credits earned in NovaNet per semester.
• Guidance Counselor Appointment Log |
| Evidence-based Program(s): |
|
| Professional Development: |
• Guidance Counselor training for enhanced student services
• Training of Process Documents related to options available to students
• Data Analysis Training for Guidance Counselors |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Drop Out/Graduation Rate Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
PLCs - I Read It, But I Don't Get It |
Title II |
$2,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
PLCs - I Read It, But I Don't Get It! |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Science |
PLCs - I Read It, But I Don't Get It! |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Total: $2,400.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
SMART Boards |
Internal Funds |
$6,520.66 |
| Mathematics |
CPS Unit Training |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Mathematics |
SMART Boards |
Internal Funds |
$6,520.66 |
| Science |
CPS Unit Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Science |
SMART Boards |
Internal Funds |
$6,520.66 |
| Total: $20,261.98 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Data Analysis |
Title II |
$5,043.48 |
| Reading |
Language Arts Common Assessments |
Title II |
$1,000.00 |
| Reading |
Levels of Questioning Training |
Title II |
$1,000.00 |
| Reading |
Data Folder Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Reading |
Adv. Placement Training |
Title II |
$1,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Data Analysis |
Title II |
$1,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Common Assessments |
Title II |
$2,000.00 |
| Writing |
Writing Training |
Title II |
$2,000.00 |
| Science |
Levels of Questioning Training |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Science |
Common Assessments |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Science |
Data Folder Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Total: $15,243.48 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Full Time Reading Coach: ESOL Paras: 2 Teachers |
SAI |
$325,000.00 |
| Reading |
Model Schools Conference |
Title II |
$3,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Data Folder Training |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Total: $328,500.00 |
| Final Total: $366,405.46 |
SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district.
The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers,
education support employees, students (for middle, junior high and high school only),
parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic,
racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
SAC Involvement
SAC appproved the SIP at the Oct. 6, 2008 meeting.
The purpose of the School Advisory Council is to perform the functions that are prescribed by the regulations of the School Board. The SAC will assist in the prepartion and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan, will give advice concerning the annual school budget, and will approve the use of the school improvement funds.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
George Clover,
Principal
|
|
2)
Pamela Pass,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Alasdiar Waterhouse,
Student
|
|
4)
Brittany Cavazos,
Student
|
|
5)
Nikki Stewart,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Annmarie Ferry,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Kathleen Jasper,
Teacher
|
|
8)
Ernest Pittman,
Teacher
|
|
9)
Greg Blackburn,
Business Member
|
|
10)
Peter Enis,
Business Member
|
|
11)
Larry Mottashed,
Business Member
|
|
12)
Tod Smith,
Business Member
|
|
13)
Sandra Reyes,
Parent
|
|
14)
Lynn Graczyk,
Parent
|
|
15)
Jennifer Gunder,
Parent
|
|
16)
Belinda Zivich,
Parent
|
|
17)
Ingrid Walsh,
Parent
|
|
18)
Valerie Gambino,
Parent
|
|
19)
Barbara Robinson,
Parent
|
|
20)
Hugo Vasquez,
Community Member
|
|
21)
Anita Smith,
School Support Personnel
|
|
22)
Sally Waterhouse,
School Support Personnel
|
|
23)
Dionicia Vasquez,
School Support Personnel
|
|
24)
Marsha VanHook,
Assistant Principal
|
IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION
Adequate Progress for Estero High School is defined as the school meeting 15 out of the 17 academic goals in the 2008-2009 School Improvement Plan.
Exceeds adequate progress for Estero High School is defined as the school meeting 16 out of the 17 academic goals in the 2008-2009 School Improvement Plan or achieving the state grade of "A".
REPORTING
Baseline Data Report
Note: Baseline Data Report is required for all Repeating F, F schools and D schools that were F in 2005-2008
and all Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI).
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 3 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 4 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 5 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 6 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 7 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 8 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 9 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 10 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 11 |
| |
Reading Baseline Data |
Mathematics Baseline Data |
Writing Baseline Data |
Science Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Name of Assessment Used |
|
|
|
|
|
Baseline data aggregated at school level
|
Reading
Baseline Data |
Mathematics
Baseline Data |
Writing
Baseline Data |
Science
Baseline Data |
Baseline Data
|
End of Baseline Data Report
Mid-Year Report
2008 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT
Differentiated Accountability Status:
|
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 3 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 4 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 5 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 6 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 7 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 8 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 9 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 10 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| FCAT Assessed Grade Level: 11 |
| |
Reading |
Mathematics |
Writing |
Science |
| |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
% Mastery |
%Non- Mastery |
| Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| Mid-Year Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| % Change from Baseline Data |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Empty data from baseline data aggregated for your school.
Reading Data Analysis
1. Describe the gains and/or decreases in mastery that have occurred since the baseline assessment. Include specific information about the grade levels or subgroups where improvements or declines have occurred.
2. Describe the specific strategies or school improvement activities that have contributed to increases in student mastery. Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup.
3. What changes to instruction, strategies, and/or school improvement activities will be made prior to the administration of the FCAT to ensure that students reach mastery? Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup that saw declines.
4. What specific strategies will be used to improve the achievement of non-AYP subgroups?
Mathematics Data Analysis
1. Describe the gains and/or decreases in mastery that have occurred since the baseline assessment. Include specific information about the grade levels or subgroups where improvements or declines have occurred.
2. Describe the specific strategies or school improvement activities that have contributed to increases in student mastery. Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup.
3. What changes to instruction, strategies, and/or school improvement activities will be made prior to the administration of the FCAT to ensure that students reach mastery? Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup that saw declines.
4. What specific strategies will be used to improve the achievement of non-AYP subgroups?
Writing Data Analysis
1. Describe the gains and/or decreases in mastery that have occurred since the baseline assessment. Include specific information about the grade levels or subgroups where improvements or declines have occurred.
2. Describe the specific strategies or school improvement activities that have contributed to increases in student mastery. Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup.
3. What changes to instruction, strategies, and/or school improvement activities will be made prior to the administration of the FCAT to ensure that students reach mastery? Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup that saw declines.
Science Data Analysis
1. Describe the gains and/or decreases in mastery that have occurred since the baseline assessment. Include specific information about the grade levels or subgroups where improvements or declines have occurred.
2. Describe the specific strategies or school improvement activities that have contributed to increases in student mastery. Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup.
3. What changes to instruction, strategies, and/or school improvement activities will be made prior to the administration of the FCAT to ensure that students reach mastery? Please be specific for each grade level and/or subgroup that saw declines.
Extended Learning Programs for Students
Describe the activities (e.g. after school, pull-outs, etc) that have taken place to date.
| SUBJECT AREA | FREQUENCY | DURATION | TOTAL # OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL | AVERAGE # OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 STUDENTS PARTICIPATING | AVERAGE % OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 STUDENTS PARTICIPATING |
| No data submitted |
|
Please describe the academic improvement that has occurred for participating students (please refer to specific data points).
Research-based Professional Development Activities for Teachers
Describe the professional development activities to date that are aligned with the school’s instructional needs.
| NAME OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | DATE
(MM/DD/YYYY) | INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS ADDRESSED | # OF TEACHERS PARTICIPATING |
| No data submitted |
|
Based on the baseline and mid-year data, what additional professional development will be offered before the FCAT to help teachers increase student performance?
Parent Involvement Activities
Describe the parent involvement activities to date that are aligned with the school’s student achievement needs.
| ACTIVITY | DATE
(MM/DD/YYYY) | ACHIEVEMENT NEED ADDRESSED | # OF PARENTS PARTICIPATING |
| No data submitted |
|
Based on the baseline and mid-year data, what additional parent involvement activities will be offered before the FCAT to address student achievement needs?
End of Mid-Year Report
AYP DATA
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Lee ESTERO HIGH SCHOOL 0731 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 800
Math: 798
|
2007-2008
School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading
Tested 95% of the students? |
Math
Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe
Harbor
Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe
Harbor
Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
37 |
N |
67 |
Y |
90
|
88 |
N |
59 |
68 |
Y |
63 |
63 |
NA |
36 |
33 |
NA |
42 |
NA |
80 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
98 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
49 |
N |
77 |
Y |
93
|
92 |
Y |
73 |
76 |
Y |
54 |
51 |
NA |
26 |
23 |
NA |
54 |
NA |
86 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
15 |
N |
50 |
N |
81
|
79 |
N |
33 |
48 |
Y |
82 |
85 |
NA |
56 |
50 |
NA |
21 |
NA |
70 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
18 |
N |
53 |
N |
84
|
79 |
N |
33 |
47 |
Y |
79 |
82 |
NA |
54 |
47 |
NA |
24 |
NA |
70 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
|
N |
24 |
N |
57
|
47 |
N |
21 |
37 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
75 |
76 |
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
96 |
Y |
95 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
26 |
36 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Lee ESTERO HIGH SCHOOL 0731 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 780
Math: 779
|
2006-2007
School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading
Tested 95% of the students? |
Math
Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe
Harbor
Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe
Harbor
Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
37 |
N |
64 |
Y |
87
|
90 |
Y |
65 |
59 |
N |
69 |
63 |
NA |
35 |
36 |
NA |
46 |
NA |
78 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
46 |
N |
74 |
Y |
93
|
93 |
Y |
74 |
73 |
N |
63 |
54 |
NA |
27 |
26 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
82 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
27 |
23 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
18 |
N |
44 |
N |
72
|
81 |
Y |
48 |
33 |
N |
81 |
82 |
NA |
52 |
56 |
NA |
30 |
NA |
69 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
67 |
67 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
50 |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
21 |
N |
46 |
N |
77
|
84 |
Y |
45 |
33 |
N |
84 |
79 |
NA |
51 |
54 |
NA |
29 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
N |
25 |
N |
45
|
57 |
Y |
31 |
21 |
N |
|
|
NA |
74 |
75 |
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
73
|
|
NA |
27 |
26 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Lee ESTERO HIGH SCHOOL 0731 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 819
Math: 816
|
2005-2006
School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? 5 |
NO |
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
| Group |
Reading
Tested 95% of the students? |
Math
Tested 95% of the students? |
44% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
50% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe
Harbor
Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe
Harbor
Math |
| |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2004 |
2005 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
31 |
N |
65 |
Y |
87
|
87 |
N |
64 |
65 |
Y |
70 |
69 |
NA |
41 |
35 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
37 |
N |
73 |
Y |
90
|
93 |
NA |
74 |
74 |
NA |
63 |
63 |
NA |
33 |
27 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
38 |
27 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
19 |
N |
48 |
N |
76
|
72 |
NA |
43 |
48 |
NA |
84 |
81 |
NA |
59 |
52 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
16 |
N |
49 |
N |
81
|
77 |
NA |
44 |
45 |
NA |
80 |
84 |
NA |
54 |
51 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
97 |
Y |
96 |
Y |
|
NA |
26 |
NA |
62
|
45 |
NA |
28 |
31 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
96 |
Y |
95 |
Y |
10 |
NA |
30 |
NA |
74
|
73 |
NA |
26 |
27 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Lee School District
ESTERO HIGH SCHOOL
2007-2008
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
42%
|
74%
|
72%
|
30%
|
218
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
48% |
74% |
|
|
122 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
38% (NO) |
70% (YES) |
|
|
108
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
49% |
87% |
|
|
0 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
448 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Lee School District
ESTERO HIGH SCHOOL
2006-2007
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
43%
|
72%
|
81%
|
31%
|
227
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
51% |
74% |
|
|
125 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
54% (YES) |
69% (YES) |
|
|
123
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
55% |
72% |
|
|
10 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
485 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Lee School District
ESTERO HIGH SCHOOL
2005-2006
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
36%
|
71%
|
76%
|
183
|
Writing: Takes into account % scoring 3.5 and above. Sometimes the District writing average is substituted for the writing average.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
47% |
74% |
|
121 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
43% (NO) |
|
|
43
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students . Yes, if 50% or more make gains .
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
347 |
|
| Percent Tested = 97% |
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |