VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Guiding individuals to reach their full potential as they grow academically, socially, emotionally, and physically.
We believe that every middle school student is a unique individual with special needs, interests, and capabilities.
As a community of students, parents and teachers, and as individuals, we recognize cultural diversity as a way of life. We endeavor to provide an educational environment that fosters the principles and ideas of our democratic society and encourages the development of each student’s potential. Education lies in personal experience as well as personal responsibility for learning and conduct. Each individual has a natural dignity and worth that merits caring, respect, honesty, and fosters initiative, industry, and resourcefulness.
It is our belief that a child who is given room to “stretch” both physically and mentally, probing into areas of learning and activities one has never known before is more likely to develop an active mind and body and become a more resourceful, well-rounded, and responsible adult. Special scheduling and subject area offerings are necessary to motivate the pre- and early-adolescent child.
The middle school curriculum, must be built by increments and be a continuation of the elementary program. It should provide experiences and activities that prepare the middle school student for the more specialized high school curriculum.
This school reflects our society, and through the utilization of the available resources, enriches and enhances the community as the community enhances the educational atmosphere. Thus all individuals – student, teachers, staff, administrators, parents, and community members – have a vested interest as manifested through the decision-making process, in helping our students recognize and effectively deal with the challenges confronting them, and all have responsibilities toward achieving this goal.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
In September of 1956, Lincoln High School opened at its present location of 1001 SE 12th Street (on Williston Road). Previously, Lincoln High occupied what is now the A. Quinn Jones Center, the red brick building on NW 8th Avenue. Back then, Lincoln was THE public high school for African American students in Alachua county. That is, it was the only public high school African American students were allowed to attend. There was a great deal of community pride for the “Big Red”, as the school colors were red & white, and the mascot was the terrier.
Segregation came to an end in 1970 as the federal courts ordered that Alachua county integrate its schools. Lincoln High School was closed in December of that year, and the students were sent to Gainesville High School on NW 13th Street. It was hardly a smooth transition. There were many students who did not welcome the students from Lincoln, and the Lincoln students were upset at being removed from their school.
Lincoln was converted into a middle school and re-opened in 1973. The mascot was changed from a terrier to a bulldog. Some might say there’s little difference, but the bulldog was more of the classic English bulldog. The colors also changed to blue and yellow. Lincoln Middle School served students across southern Alachua county.
In 1994, The Lyceum magnet program was started at Lincoln Middle School. This was a program of advanced study classes for highly motivated students. The Lyceum remains the premier middle school magnet program in Alachua county. Students from all across the county apply to the program every year. Students are accepted based on their grades, test scores and attitude. Over the last 3 years, just less than half of the applicants to The Lyceum were admitted to the 6th grade class. Students who successfully complete the three years of The Lyceum program are well-prepared for any high school magnet program, but the majority of them go on to the International Baccalaureate program at Eastside High School.
In addition to the magnet students, Lincoln serves the middle school-aged children of south east Gainesville. Our zoning boundaries are south of University Avenue, and east of West 13th Street. After learning about the sense of pride that the community felt about Lincoln, and especially from those who attended Lincoln High School, Principal Don Lewis decided to change the mascot back to the terrier in 2007. While many old Lincoln Middle School students were not happy with the change, there was tremendous positive feedback from the community.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
This past year Lincoln earned its fifth consecutive “A” rating by the state. Lincoln’s 561 points earned were well over the 525 points necessary to earn an A. Lincoln students earned a higher percentage of the top scores (Level 5) in reading, math, and science than any other middle school across all three grade levels. Each year presents its own challenges, but Lincoln will continue with roughly the same grade-level teams as the previous year. Lewis’ strong belief in the middle school concept of teaming is the core of Lincoln, as the teams take ownership of their students. Next year’s 6th grade team, led by Ms. Lyons, has spent time over the summer working on activities to get and keep their students on track, as well as involve their parents.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Due to a projected enrollment for the 2009-2010 school year of only 668 students, Lincoln was cut two teacher units. This was after losing ten teacher positions the previous year. Now we have to do even more with less. The big unknown will be how many of the students that are currently in our registration will actually show up when school begins. There are over 700 students in the data base that are scheduled to come to Lincoln. Throughout last year there was a marked trend of students withdrawing from Lincoln and moving to other school zones in western Alachua county.
The percentage of students scoring Level 1 or 2 in math and reading is also too high. Efforts need to be concentrated to bring these students up to scoring on grade level (Level 3) in math & reading.
Continued budget restrictions have led us to cut the Saturday School program for next year. This was an alternative to suspension that was used throughout the past school year.
Student Demographics
Lincoln’s demographic picture is clouded by the fact that it is the zoned middle school for students living in south east Gainesville, known as the Major Program, as well as housing The Lyceum magnet program. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Lincoln had 700 students. Of these 700 students, 54% were Black, 27.4% were White, 11.5% were Asian, 4.3% were mixed, and 2.1% were Hispanic. 51.4% of Lincoln’s students were on Free and Reduced lunch, and 19.8% of the students are classified as having a learning disability (SWD). Again, these percentages are looking at Lincoln as a whole. If looked at separately from The Lyceum, the Major Program students are approximately 98% Black, and about 85% of these students receive Free and Reduced lunch.
Student Attendance Rates
Last year Lincoln had an average daily unexcused absence rate of 5.92, or an average daily attendance rate of 99.15%.
Student Mobility
Between Labor Day 2008 and May 15, 2009, Lincoln had 73 new students enter school and 99 students withdraw for a mobility rate of 29.6%. This is higher than in previous years. As mentioned before, a number of families moved from east Gainesville to housing on the other side of town, primarily in the I-75 corridor.
Student Suspension Rates
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 OSS: 754 549 851
ISS: 295 371 833
Student Retention Rates
The 2007-08 retention rate for Lincoln was 1.1%. The district average was 5.6% and the state average was 5.0%.
Class Size
In keeping with the Florida Class-Size Amendment, which is being phased in for all schools, the school-wide average for class sizes is not to exceed 22 students. Electives are exempt from this number. Lincoln has been fortunate that the number of zoned students for each of the grade levels has been fairly consistent of around 120 each. This allows us to maintain a core team for each grade level of 5 academic teachers. Varying Exceptionality classes for students with learning disabilities are also kept under this average. Enrollment in The Lyceum has been capped at 110 students for the incoming 6th-grade class the past two years. Maintaining a school average is not too difficult as this becomes a simple question of dividing the number of students by 22 and adding teachers as necessary. However, beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, the law states that each individual class shall not have more that 22 students. No one has figured out just how to accomplish this as it is nearly impossible to have a schedule that does not have some “bubbles” in it, which cause numbers to fluctuate from class to class.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
For the Major Program students, most of Lincoln’s students come from the following elementary schools whose FCAT grades for the past 3 years are included in parentheses: Williams Elementary (A, C, A), Lake Forest Elementary C, B, C), and Idylwild Elementary (A, C, C). Students in The Lyceum come from elementary schools all across the county, but predominantly from schools in the northwest and southwest. The number of students from Williams Elementary’s magnet program has declined in the past two years. This includes representation from nearly all of the private school as well.
Partnerships and Grants
The Lincoln PTA has been a tremendous asset to the school over the past three years, primarily due to the energy of PTA President Janice Acosta and the Executive Board. Through the PTA “Wish List”, money has been donated to help purchase Smart Boards for the school. We are progressing towards our goal of having a Smart Board in every classroom. Last year Mrs. Acosta obtained a grant from Walmart to fund our student planners. More efforts are being made this year to gain support from our business partners with the assistance of the Alachua County Schools Foundation.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
Note: The following links will open in a separate browser window.
School Grades Trend Data
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data
HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS
| Position | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as an Administrator | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Principal
|
DonaldS. Lewis
|
BA in History (UF), Med (UF), EdS in Ed Leadership (UF) BA in History (UF), Med (UF), EdS in Ed Leadership (UF) BA in History (UF), Med (UF), EdS in Ed Leadership (UF) BA in History (UF), Med (UF), EdS in Ed Leadership (UF) BA, Univ of Fla.
MEd, Univ of Fla.
|
4
|
25
|
Lincoln has been an A school every year that Mr. Lewis has been principal. Prior to his assignment at Lincoln, he was the Director of Secondary Education for nine years. His responsibilities included providing leadership for all 47 school sand centers in addition to 15 charter schools. During this time Mr. Lewis guided district staff in providing technical assistance to an “F” school which raised its grade to and “A” the following year and four “D” schools that also raised their grades to a “C” or a “B”.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Lawson Brown, Jr.
|
BA in Elementary Ed. (UF), Med in Elementary Ed (UF), EdS in Educational Leadership (UF)
|
1
|
2
|
Asst. Principal at Metcalfe Elementary School 2007-2008. Went from an F to an A school during his time.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Michael P. Gamble
|
BA in Political Science (UF), MA in Latin American Studies (UF), EdS in Instruction & Curriculum (UF).
|
4
|
9
|
Asst. Principal at Westwood Middle School for 5 years prior to Lincoln assignment. Last four Westwood grades were A, A, B, B during that time.
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
| Subject Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as a Coach | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Beginning Teachers
|
Lynn Meyers
|
BA
|
1
|
7
|
Reading Coach at Westwood Middle, "A" school past 5 years.
|
|
ESE/Data Coach
|
Brad Stumpf
|
BA
|
|
1
|
Teacher at Kanapaha Middle School, "A" school past 5 years.
|
|
Reading Coach
|
Carol Moore
|
BA
|
1
|
2
|
Teacher at Lincoln 1 year, "A" school
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
1. Regular observations and informal meetings with assigned administrator.
|
Principal, Assistant Principals
|
June 2010
|
|
|
2. Meet with new teacher coaches
|
Coaches as assigned by district
|
June 2010
|
|
|
3. New Teacher Induction Program
|
District Staff Development
|
May 2010
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Williams, Leroy
|
ESE, K-12
|
ESE Science, ESE Social Studies
|
Take Core Subject exams
|
|
Williams, Naomi
|
ESE, K-12
|
ESE Reading
|
Finish Reading Endorsement
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 42 | 12 | 18 | 42 | 27 | 47 | 96 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Lynn Meyer
|
Jillian Shorter, Krystel Rushing, Rhonda Jones, Caroline Barba
|
Lynn Meyer is the beginning teacher coach
|
Regular weekly meetings with beginning teachers, observations.
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part D
Title II
Title III
Title X- Homeless
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Violence Prevention Programs
Nutrition Programs
Housing Programs
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
|
6 grade-level teams. 6-8 grade for both Major Program and Lyceum
|
Team Leaders
|
Weekly
|
Tuesdays
|
Cross-curriculum integration.
|
|
Subject-area departments
|
Department Chairs
|
Monthly
|
Thursdays/monthly
|
Subject-area vertical integration.
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Major program students.
|
72% of students in all subgroups must be on grade level in reading.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
CIMS
|
Administration and Reading Coach.
|
Classroom walkthroughs, review of lesson plans.
|
Focus testing, On-Track assessment.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Reading
|
Reading/Literacy strategies
|
Administration
|
October 2009
|
Classroom walkthroughs, lesson plans.
|
Administration
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
Administrators will meet with their respective teachers to review objectives and goals for Professional Development Plans. Reading coach will also meet with reading teachers during the year.
|
| |
| 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 Reading Goal |
|
Mathematics Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Major program students.
|
74% of students in all subgroups must be on grade level.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
CIMS
|
Administration
|
Classroom walkthroughs, review of lesson plans and benchmarks.
|
Focus testing, On-Track assessment.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
That 74% of all students will be on grade level in math.
|
Implement Instructional Focus Calendar
|
Administration
|
October 2009
|
Classroom walkthroughs, review of PDPs
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| 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 Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| 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 Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In 2009, 87% of all 8th-graders scored a 3.5 or above on the Florida Writes exam.
|
In 2010, 95% of all 8th-graders will score a 3.5 or above on the Florida Writes exam.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Writing across the curriculum will be emphasized. Language arts teachers will use scoring rubric for practice essays.
|
Language Arts teachers, administration.
|
Writing samples will be reviewed and scored by Language Arts teachers.
|
Writing prompts and essays.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| 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 Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| 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 Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 4:47:29 PM)
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 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.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
SAC will meet to approve use of School Recognition money. SAC writes climate surveys used for needs assessment. SAC will write the School Improvement Plan. SAC will also approve expenditures of SAC funds greater than $500.00.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Donald S. Lewis,
Principal
|
|
2)
Shellie Berkelhammer,
Teacher
|
|
3)
Adrienne Thieke,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Naomi Williams,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Sherry Geunes,
Parent
|
|
6)
Roger Christian,
Parent
|
|
7)
Julie Garrish,
Parent
|
|
8)
Ora White,
Community Member
|
|
9)
Carrie Parker-Warren,
Community Member
|
|
10)
Erica McCray,
Community Member
|
|
11)
Delores Golston,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Alachua ABRAHAM LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0112 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 700 Math: 700
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
A
|
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? |
65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
68% 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 |
| |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
60 |
N |
59 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
38 |
40 |
N |
39 |
41 |
N |
59 |
N |
59 |
N |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
93 |
NA |
|
NA |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
30 |
N |
28 |
N |
91
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
68 |
70 |
N |
70 |
72 |
N |
31 |
N |
28 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ASIAN
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
31 |
N |
28 |
N |
89
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
68 |
69 |
N |
70 |
72 |
N |
32 |
N |
29 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
12 |
N |
14 |
N |
|
90 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
88 |
88 |
N |
90 |
86 |
N |
15 |
N |
15 |
N |
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Alachua ABRAHAM LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0112 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 724 Math: 724
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
A
|
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
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
62 |
Y |
61 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
37 |
38 |
NA |
40 |
39 |
N |
61 |
NA |
67 |
Y |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
6 |
|
NA |
91 |
NA |
|
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
32 |
N |
30 |
N |
93
|
91 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
68 |
68 |
N |
70 |
70 |
N |
34 |
N |
43 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ASIAN
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
32 |
N |
30 |
N |
93
|
89 |
N |
|
|
NA |
67 |
68 |
N |
73 |
70 |
N |
35 |
N |
41 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
12 |
N |
10 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
83 |
88 |
N |
84 |
90 |
N |
18 |
N |
24 |
N |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Alachua ABRAHAM LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0112 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 759 Math: 759
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
A
|
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
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
60 |
Y |
94
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
37 |
37 |
NA |
41 |
40 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
Y |
94 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
6 |
|
NA |
|
6 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
88 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
32 |
N |
30 |
N |
88
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
66 |
68 |
N |
73 |
70 |
N |
35 |
N |
49 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ASIAN
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
33 |
N |
27 |
N |
88
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
66 |
67 |
N |
74 |
73 |
N |
36 |
N |
48 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
98 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
17 |
N |
16 |
N |
68
|
85 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
81 |
83 |
N |
84 |
84 |
N |
27 |
N |
38 |
N |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Alachua School District ABRAHAM LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
72%
|
70%
|
95%
|
62%
|
299
|
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 |
67% |
70% |
|
|
137 |
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? |
67% (YES) |
58% (YES) |
|
|
125
|
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.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
561 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Alachua School District ABRAHAM LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
73%
|
72%
|
94%
|
64%
|
303
|
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 |
67% |
76% |
|
|
143 |
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? |
60% (YES) |
71% (YES) |
|
|
131
|
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.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
577 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Alachua School District ABRAHAM LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
74%
|
70%
|
96%
|
59%
|
299
|
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 |
65% |
75% |
|
|
140 |
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? |
62% (YES) |
65% (YES) |
|
|
127
|
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.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
566 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |