VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
The vision of Springfield Elementary is that all students are precious individuals with unique social, emotional, and intellectual needs. The students learn in different ways and at different rates. Our students will be given a variety of instructional strategies and support based upon their learning style while learning the Florida Sunshine State Standards. Students will be actively engaged in the learning process and have opportunities to apply their knowledge in a safe environment. Our school is committed to continuous improvement enabling our students to become confident, lifelong learners. The highly-qualified faculty and staff at Springfield believe that all students can learn. We value each student as an individual with different needs.
Our mission is to build a strong foundation for learning by guiding and challenging all of our students to achieve their greatest potential through mastery of the Florida Sunshine State Standards. We will accomplish this by providing every student with a positive, safe, and secure environment to apply their knowledge.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
The community in which Springfield Elementary is located has a mix of businesses including: a paper mill, a chemical plant, fast-food restaurants, lounges, bingo halls, and small independent businesses. Housing consists of: mobile home parks, apartment buildings, public housing projects, single family homes, and small rental houses. Included in our community are many small to medium-sized churches of various denominations. There are numerous after-school and early-intervention programs within the community including: a Head Start Center, Boys’ Club, Youth in Action, Bay BASE (Before and After School Education), ASAP (After School Assistance Program) provided by the Public Housing Authority, Bay in Action, numerous church day cares, Boy Scouts, and recreational sports activities. Supplemental Educational Services, as mandated by the Federal Government through Title I, are provided two to three afternoons on site. There are several companies that provide these tutorial services employing school board employees as tutors. The majority of the community’s adult population has a high school education or less. A large segment of the population is on public assistance. There are also many single-parent (or grandparent) families. A number of our students are
in Foster Homes as a result of abuse, neglect, or criminal activities of parents/guardians. There are pre-kindergarten classes available which are intended to provide early intervention for children that qualify by specific screenings. The 2008-2009 school year, Springfield received a new principal, Harriet Taylor. Prior to Springfield Elementary, she had 10 successful years as an instructional leader. To promote student achievement, parent involvement, and to improve school climate, Mrs. Taylor implemented a variety of instructional strategies and motivational activities such as after school clubs, school wide assemblies, yearbook, and faculty social activities. She has set high expectations and job responsibilities for all stake holders.
Springfield is in a Correct II Differentiated Accountability Status and a Title II School in Restructuring. Due to a small school near our community closing, our student enrollment has increased from 432 to 516 students. We have been fortunate to hire the following experienced employees to our school: an Administrative Assistant, Guidance Counselor, RTI Coach, Reading Coach, Math/Science Coach, two regular education teachers, two ESE teachers and five paraprofessionals. Currently there are 21 regular education teachers, 13 ESE teachers, and 41 paraprofessionals.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
• After- School Clubs
• Departmentalizing of 5th grade
• RtI Team and Model
• Positive Behavior Support Model (PBS)
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
• Rezoning of the District
• Budget Cuts
• High Mobility Rate
Student Demographics
Springfield Elementary School served a varied population of 435 students in 2008-2009 school year with 85% from predominantly economically disadvantaged homes. The student population included 167 White, 177 Black, 19 Hispanic, 25 Asian, 4 Indian, 43 Multiracial, 135 Students with disabilities, 354 Economically Disadvantage, and 15 English Language Learners.
Student Attendance Rates
Springfield Elementary average daily attendance rate for 2008-2009 school year was 94.81%. This has been the consistent rate for the past several years.
District 05 - 92.5 Spgfld 05 - 92.5
06 - 92.6 06 - 92.4
07 - 92.3 07 - 92.6
08 - 95.2 08 - 96.0
09 - 93.64 09 - 94.81
Student Mobility
N/A
Student Suspension Rates
During the 2007-2008 school year, Springfield Elementary had 47 students who were suspended out-of-school to include 14 females and 33 males. The in-school suspension included 11 students.
During the 2006-2007 school year, Springfield Elementary had 6 students who were out-of-school suspended. There were no students in in-school suspension.
Student Retention Rates
Springfield Elementary retained 19 students in the 2008-2009 school year. In 2007-2008, 26 students were retained. In 2006-2007, 23 students were retained.
Class Size
Springfield Elementary continues to meet No Child Left Behind guidelines of lower teacher to student ratio.
Currently in the 2009-2010 school year, the class size average is the following: Kindergarten, First grade, Second, and Third grade is 18 students per class. Fourth grade is 19 students per class. Fifth grade currently have 22 students per class.
In 2008-2009, the class size average was the following: Kindergarten was 18 students, First grade was 16 students, and Second grade was 18 students. Third grade and Fourth grade had 19 students per class. Fifth grade was 18 students per class.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Springfield Elementary School feeds into Everritt Middle School. Everritt Middle School has a school grade of a “C” and has the same demographics as Springfield Elementary.
Partnerships and Grants
Springfield Elementary has formed partnerships with community businesses such as: Arizona Chemical, Chick-fil-A, Silver Circle East, McDonald's, Applebees, East Bay Rotary, and the Wal-Mart Super Center, which provide monetary and in-kind support. We are pursuing additional partnerships with TRANE, Gulf Power, Winn Dixie, Arby's, Smurfitt-Stone Container, First United Methodist church, and Po-Folks.
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
|
Harriet Taylor
|
BS in Elementary Education
Masters in Educational Leadership
and Administration
Certification for school principal for all levels
Certification in Early Childhood (Pre-K and Kdg)
ESOL Endorsement
|
2
|
13
|
2007-2008: Assistant Principal at Parker Elementary School Grade C, Reading Mastery: 80%, Math Mastery: 71%, Science Mastery: 29%. The Black and FRPL subgroups did not make AYP in math.
2006-2007:Assistant Principal at Parker Elementary School Grade A, Reading Mastery: 77%, Math Mastery: 77%, Science Mastery: 41%. AYP: 97%, The SWD subgroup did not make AYP in math.
2005-2006: Assistant Principal at Parker Elementary School Grade C, Reading Mastery: 77%, Math Mastery: 71%. AYP: 92%, The Black and SWD subgroups did not make AYP in Math.
2004-2005: Assistant Principal at Parker Elementary School Grade B, Reading Mastery: 75%, Math Mastery: 63%. AYP: 97%, The Black subgroup did not make AYP in math.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Joseph (Ivan) Beach
|
BS Interdisciplinary Social Science, Master of Science- Psychology and Counseling, Certification- Guidance K-12
|
1
|
1
|
Guidance Counselor at Surfside Middle School for 2008-2009: Grade: A, Meeting High Standards- Reading: 82%, Math: 78%, Writing: 91%, Science: 60%, 68% of students made learning gains in Reading, 77% of students made learning gains in Math, 65% demonstrated adequate progress in reading, 78% demonstrated adequate progress in math, all categories met AYP.
2007-2008: Grade A, Meeting High Standards- Reading: 79%, Math: 78%, Writing: 91%, Science 50%, 69% of students made learning gains in reading, 78% of students made learning gains in Math, 68% demonstrated adequate progress in reading, 72% demonstrated adequate progress in math, Students with disabilities did not meet math proficiency, AYP- No.
2006-2007: Grade A, Meeting High Standards- Reading: 73%, Math: 71%, Writing: 91%. Science 49%, 62% demonstrated adequate progress in reading, 76% demonstrated adequate progress in math, Student’s with disabilities did not meet proficiency in reading or math, AYP- No.
2005-2006: Grade A, Meeting high Standards- Reading: 71%, Math: 67%, Writing: 86%, 68% of students demonstrated adequate progress in reading, 70% demonstrated adequate progress in math, Economically disadvantaged students did not meet proficiency in math, Student’s with disabilities did not meet proficiency in math or reading, AYP- No
|
* 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 * |
|
AYP Intervention Teacher
|
Nell Burdette
|
BS in Elementary Education
Masters in Exceptional Student Education (ESE)
Emotional Handicap Endorsement
Certification in Elementary (K-6)
|
2
|
2
|
2007-2008: Grade C, Reading Mastery: 80%, Math Mastery: 71%, Science Mastery: 29%. The Black and FRPL subgroups did not make AYP in math.
2006-2007: Grade A, Reading Mastery: 77%, Math Mastery: 77%, Science Mastery: 41%. AYP: 97%, The SWD subgroup did not make AYP in math.
2005-2006: Grade C, Reading Mastery: 77%, Math Mastery: 71%. AYP: 92%, The Black and SWD subgroups did not make AYP in Math.
2004-2005: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 75%, Math Mastery: 63%. AYP: 97%, The Black subgroup did not make AYP in math.
|
|
Reading Coach
|
Linda Pitts
|
BS in Elementary and Primary Education
Certification in Elementary and Primary Education
ESOL Endorsement
|
1
|
1
|
2008-2009
Grade A
Reading Mastery: 67%
Learning Gains: 65%
Lowest 25% Gains: 57%
Black and Economically Disadvantaged Groups did not make AYP. All other groups made AYP.
2007-2008
Grade C
Reading Mastery: 72%
Learning Gains: 55%
Lowest 25% Gains: 47%
Black and SWD Groups did not make AYP. All other groups made AYP.
|
|
RtI Coach
|
Leah Margulies
|
BS in Elementary Education
Certification in Primary Education
Reading Endorsement
|
1
|
1
|
2005-2009
Served as a Regional Sales Consultant for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Specialized in reading, early childhood, science, and social studies curriculum.
|
|
Math/Science Coach
|
Marica Brady
|
BS in Elementary Education
Master of Education with Highest Honors; academic concentration Life Sciences and Science Education
Certifications, K-6 Elementary, Middle Grades Science, Biology, and Chemistry
|
2
|
2
|
1993-2009
Served during tenure as resource teacher in the areas of science, Tech Prep, and mathematics. Served in the area of science for the duration of employment.
|
* 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. To be in compliance of No Child Left Behind guidelines, principal will network with Bay District Human Resource department to screen all applicants.
|
Harriet Taylor
|
August 2009
|
All teachers at Springfield Elementary are Highly Qualified
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
No Data Submitted
|
No Data Submitted
|
No Data Submitted
|
No Data Submitted
|
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 |
| 41 | 0 | 22 | 31.7 | 46.3 | 36.6 | 100 | 2 | 12.2 | 49 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Allocated $438,162 to support school wide program. In addition, the District Title I department is providing computers to upgrade the labs, SMART centers, remediation programs, instructional technology, professional development, SES with transportation, RtI coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES leader, and District Resource teachers for support.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Springfield will continue to network with the district and various agencies to support families in need of services.
Title I, Part D
N/A
Title II
Due to Springfield’s Corrective Status, a Math/Science Coach was assigned during this year in order to support student achievement. Title II provides staff development opportunities for all schools.
Title III
District provides services for academic support for immigrant and English Language Learners.
Title X- Homeless
District Homeless Social Worker provides resources(social services referrals, school supplies,clothing) for students identified as homeless. The school’s guidance department will work closely with all stakeholders to provide needed resources and support.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI funds will be coordinated with Title 1 funds to provide after-school tutorial.
Violence Prevention Programs
Springfield Elementary will be implementing the Positive Behavior System Model(PBS). The Guidance department will work with the necessary agencies to provide services, resources, and support to families.
Nutrition Programs
N/A
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
N/A
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
Students in grades third, fourth, and fifth have the opportunity to participate in school-to-work jobs such as; ITV Crew, Safety Patrol, and Student Council.
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) |
|
Kindergarten through Fifth grade Reading team
|
Linda Pitts, Reading Coach
Leah Margulies, RtI Coach
|
Monthly
|
First Thursday of the month
|
Analyzing effectiveness of curriculum calendar and reading strategies and analysis FAIR
|
|
Kindergarten through Fifth grade Math team
|
Maricia Brady, Science and Math Coach
|
Monthly
|
First Thursday of the month
|
Analyzing effectiveness of curriculum calendar, math strategies, analysis data, and revision to the IFC
|
|
Kindergarten through Fifth grade Science team
|
Maricia Brady, Science and Math Coach
|
Monthly
|
First Thursday of the month
|
Analyzing effectiveness of curriculum calendar, science strategies, analysis data, revision to the IFC
|
|
Kindergarten through Fifth grade Writing team
|
Nell Burdette, AYP Intervention Teacher
|
Monthly
|
First Thursday of the month
|
Analyzing effectiveness of curriculum calendar, writing strategies, analysis data, and revision to the IFC
|
|
Grade level team
|
Team Leader
|
Bi-Monthly
|
During daily planning time
|
Lesson planning, Analyzing effectiveness of curriculum calendar, strategies, and other specific grade level issues
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Our transition plan starts in the spring when children are invited to the school to participate in activities such as visits to classrooms, playgrounds, and lunchroom areas. Parents receive information on how to enroll their child in the school and how to prepare their child for Kindergarten.
An Orientation Day is provided prior to school starting. Students are introduced to the teachers and an optional tour of the campus is available.
Title I schools send surveys and newsletters to inform parents of transitional events.
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 |
|
In grades 3-5, 61% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 FCAT Reading test.
|
In grades 3-5, 65% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Reading test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Utilize SMART centers and Individual/ small group instruction to support differentiated instructional strategies on Main Idea, Comparisons, and Words and Phrases.
|
1. Classroom teacher, Principal, Reading Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. CWT, formative and summative assessments, lesson plans
|
1. SMART and FAIR assessments
|
| 2 |
2. The school will implement FAIR assessments for on-going progress.
|
2 Classroom teacher, Principal, Reading Coach,
|
2. Review FAIR results
|
2. FAIR assessments
|
| 3 |
3. Teacher will do student data chats following FAIR and FCAT Simulation days.
|
3. Classroom teacher, Principal, Reading Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
3. Administrators will do CWT
|
3. FAIR assessments
|
| 4 |
4. A school-wide Reading committee will be formed.
|
4. Classroom teacher, Principal, Reading Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
4. Agendas, Meetings notes
|
4. CWT, grade level assessments, and FCAT
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 4-5, 56% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 FCAT Reading test.
|
In grades 4-5, 65% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Reading test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Administration will conduct FAIR assessment meetings to discuss results to analyze and plan instruction.
|
1. Grade-level teachers, Principal, Reading Coach, AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. CWT
|
1. FAIR assessments
|
| 2 |
2. Teachers will give additional 30 minutes of intensive remediation Monday through Thursday.
|
2. Classroom teachers, Principal, AYP Intervention teacher, Reading Coach
|
2. CWT
|
2. Breakdown FAIR assessments to determine the effectiveness of reading instruction.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 46% of Student With Disabilities (SWD), 61% of Economically Disadvantaged, and 50% of Black students scored at or above Level 3.
|
Increase the percent to 52% of the SWD, 65% of Economically Disadvantaged, and 55% of Black students scoring at or above Level 3 the 2010 FCAT Reading.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Weekly Enrichment classes to include high achieving and low performing students; inclusion classes with hands on activities.
|
1. Reading Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, ESE Teacher
|
1. Student progress will be assessed by FAIR.
|
1. FAIR data will be used to determine progress.
|
| 2 |
2. ESE teachers will team teach with regular education teachers.
|
2. Reading Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, ESE Teacher
|
2.. Student progress will be assessed by FAIR.
|
2. FAIR data will be used to determine progress.
|
| 3 |
2. FAIR data will be used to determine progress
|
3. Reading Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, ESE Teacher, and instructional paraprofessional
|
3.. Student progress will be assessed by FAIR.
|
3. FAIR data will be used to determine progress.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 3-5, 65% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Reading test.
|
Effective implementation of the specific academic strands (Main Idea, Comparison, and Words and Phrases)
|
Reading Coach
|
June 2010
|
Lesson plans,
Classroom visits,
CWT
|
Principal, Reading Coach
|
|
In grades 3-5, 65% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Reading test.
|
Effective implementation of an Instructional Focus Calendar for Reading classes
|
Reading Coach, and District Title I Resource Teacher for Restructuring
|
October 2009
|
Lesson plans, Classroom visits, CWT
|
Principal, Reading Coach
|
|
Increase the percent to 52% of the SWD, 65% of Economicly Disadvantage, and 55% of Black students scoring at or above Level 3 the 2010 FCAT Reading.
|
Effective implementation of the FAIR assessment
|
Reading Coach
|
June 2010
|
Training Days, CWT
|
Principal, Reading Coach
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart Reading Centers |
District Title I |
$13,800.00 |
| Read Naturally |
District Title I |
$3,000.00 |
| Harcourt and SRA Reading Programs |
District Textbook Budget |
$500.00 |
| Total: $17,300.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smartboards, document cameras, projectors, laptops, and carts |
District Title I |
$5,000.00 |
| Paraprofessional Support to manage SME computer labsAR Program Renewal |
Title I |
$27,500.00 |
| Total: $32,500.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Development of Instructional Focus Calendars(Substitutes for teachers)(District Restructuring Personnel) |
District and School Title I |
$5,960.00 |
| Analyze FAIR Data |
District Title I |
$500.00 |
| Total: $6,460.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Administrative Assistant,RtI Coach ,AYP Intervention teacher,SES Leader,Paraprofessionals,Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
District Title I and Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Total: $140,856.00 |
| Final Total: $197,116.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
In grades 3-5, 54% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 FCAT Math test.
|
In grades 3-5, 59% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Math test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. In Individual/ small group instruction, teachers will implement differentiated strategies in measurement and real world applications.
|
1. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. CWT, formative and summative assessments, lesson plans
|
1. Math assessments and progress monitoring of ThinkLink
|
| 2 |
2. Teachers will utilize classroom assessments to identify students in the core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment.
|
2. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
2. CWT, formative and summative assessments, lesson plans
|
2. Math assessments and progress monitoring of ThinkLink
|
| 3 |
3. Develop an Instructional Focus Calendar based on student assessment data
|
3. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
3. CWT, formative and summative assessments, lesson plans
|
3. Math assessments and progress monitoring of ThinkLink
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 4-5, 69% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 FCAT Math test.
|
In grades 4-5, 70% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Math test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Classroom math centers and the use of manipulatives will be implemented.
|
1. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. CWT, formative and summative assessments, lesson plans
|
1. Classroom observations
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 46% of Student With Disabilities (SWD), 60% White, 54% Economically Disadvantaged, and 40% of Black students scored at or above Level 3.
|
Increase the percent to 52% of the SWD, 64% for Whites, 59% Economically Disadvantaged and 46% of Black students scoring at or above Level 3 the 2010 FCAT Math.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. ESE teachers will team teach with regular education teachers.
|
1. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, ESE teacher, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. CWT, lesson plans, and formative and summative assessments
|
1. Math assessments and progress monitoring
|
| 2 |
2. Weekly Enrichment classes to include high achieving and low performing students; inclusion classes with hands on activities will be taught.
|
2. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, ESE teacher, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
2. CWT and lesson plans
|
2. Math assessments and progress monitoring
|
| 3 |
3. A school-wide Math committee will be formed.
|
3. Classroom teacher, Principal, Math Coach, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
3. Agendas, Meetings notes
|
3. CWT, grade level assessments, and FCAT
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 4-5, 70% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Math test.
|
Snapshot
|
District Restructuring Personnel/
Consultant
|
June 2010
|
Sign in sheets
|
Administration and Classroom Teacher
|
|
In grades 4-5, 70% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Math test.
|
Differentiated Learning Math centers and SMART
|
Consultant
|
June 2010
|
Sign in sheets
|
Trainer, Administration, and Classroom Teacher
|
|
In grades 3-5, 59% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Math test.
|
Next Generation Math Standards
|
Classroom Teacher and
Consultant
|
June 2010
|
Copies of standards with date taught and assessed written on them
|
Administration and Classroom Teacher
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Connecting Math, Harcourt Math and
Saxon Math Program
|
Textbook Fund |
$8,619.00 |
| Total: $8,619.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| ThinkLinkSmartboards, document cameras, projectors, laptops, and cartsParaprofessional Support to manage SME labs |
District Title I and Title |
$3,500.00 |
| Total: $3,500.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Consultant Michelle Gainer(New Generation Standards),Peer Coaches,Carissa English and Myra Burris(Substitutes for teachers) |
District Title I and Title |
$1,320.00 |
| Total: $1,320.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Administrative Assistant, RtI Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES Leader, Paraprofessionals, Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
Title I and District Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Total: $140,856.00 |
| Final Total: $154,295.00 |
|
| 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?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In 5th grade, 24% of students achieved level 3.0 or above on the 2009 FCAT.
|
In 5th grade, 28% of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Science test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Departmentalized Teachers will integrate science throughout other curriculum and do concept mapping.
|
1. Classroom teacher, Principal, and Science Coach
|
1. CWT, lesson plans, and formative and summative assessments
|
1. Assessments and progress monitoring
|
| 2 |
2. Teachers will use ThinkLink, SRA Snapshots and do activities and experiments to explore science topics.
|
2. Classroom teacher, Principal, Science Coach, and Lab Teacher
|
2. CWT, lesson plans, and formative and summative assessments
|
2. Assessments and progress monitoring
|
| 3 |
3. In Individual/ small group instruction, teachers will implement differentiated strategies in Scientific Thinking.
|
3. Classroom teacher, Principal, and Science Coach
|
3. CWT, lesson plans, and formative and summative assessments
|
3. Assessments and progress monitoring
|
| 4 |
4. A school-wide Science committee will be formed.
|
4. Classroom teacher, Principal, and Science Coach
|
4. Agendas, Meetings notes
|
4. CWT, grade level assessments, and FCAT
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In 5th grade, 28 % of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Science test.
|
Snapshot
|
Administrators
|
October 2009
|
Sign in sheets
|
Administrators
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Harcourt ScienceWeekly ReadersManipulatitivesSnapShots Video |
|
$1,324.00 |
| Total: $1,324.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| ThinkLink
Smartboards, document cameras, projectors, laptops, and carts
Paraprofessional Support to manage SME labs
|
District Title I |
$3,500.00 |
| Total: $3,500.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science Coach(Marcia Brady) |
Title II |
$9,678.00 |
| Total: $9,678.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Administrative Assistant,RtI Coach,AYP Intervention teacher,SES Leader,Paraprofessionals,Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
Title I and District Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Total: $140,856.00 |
| Final Total: $155,358.00 |
|
| 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 4th grade, 68% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 FCAT Writing.
|
In 4th grade, 69% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Writing.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Teachers will continue to administer monthly GROWLS (a school wide writing activity) utilizing previous FCAT writing prompts.
|
1. Teachers, Principal, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. CWT, Lesson planning, and students’ writing
|
1. Writing rubric
|
| 2 |
2. Teachers will implement SMILE writing portfolios.
|
2. Teachers, Principal, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
2. CWT, Lesson planning, and students’ writing
|
2. Teacher assessment
|
| 3 |
3. AYP Intervention Teacher and teachers will use small group and whole group to model the writing process.
|
3. Teachers, Principal, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
3. CWT, Lesson planning, and students’ writing
|
3. Teacher and AYP Intervention Teacher assessment
|
| 4 |
4. Teachers will do concept mapping to integrate writing throughout other curriculums.
|
4. Teachers, Principal, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
4. CWT, Lesson planning, and students’ writing
|
4. Teacher assessment
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In 4th grade, 69% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Writing.
|
Effective use Smile Writing strategies
|
Kathy Edwards
|
June 2010
|
Sign in sheets
|
Classroom teachers, Administrators, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
|
In 4th grade, 69% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Writing.
|
Effective implementation of SMART Centers
|
April Decesare
|
June 2010
|
Sign in sheets
|
Classroom teachers, Administrators, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
|
In 4th grade, 69% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Writing.
|
Effective implementation of scoring of FCAT Writing Prompts
|
AYP Coach
|
October –November 2009
|
Sign in sheets
|
Classroom teachers, Administrators, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SMILE materials |
District Title I |
$3,500.00 |
| Total: $3,500.00 |
| 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 |
| Administrative Assistant, RtI Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES Leader, Paraprofessionals, Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
Title I and District Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Total: $140,856.00 |
| Final Total: $144,356.00 |
|
| 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?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Title I Parent Survey results showed that parents would like more information regarding helping their child study, FCAT Information and working with students with disabilities and/or behavior issues.
|
To provide more information to parents in the areas of concerns and offer parent workshops.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Parent Workshops
|
1. Nita Tancredi, Administration, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
1. Parent surveys, sign in sheets
|
1. Parent Surveys
|
| 2 |
2. FCAT Information Nights
|
2. Nita Tancredi, Administration, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
2.. Parent surveys, sign in sheets
|
2. Parent Surveys
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
To provide more information to parents in the areas of concerns and offer parent workshops.
|
Calendar of monthly parent involvement activities
|
Administration, Leadership Team, Teachers
|
June 2010
|
Parent surveys, sign in sheets
|
Nita Tancredi, Administration, and AYP Intervention teacher
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Family Reading/Math Night |
Title I |
$500.00 |
| FCAT Workshop |
Title I |
$100.00 |
| Total: $600.00 |
| 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 |
| Presenters for Parent Involvement Workshops |
Title I |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parent Liaison,Crisis Intervention Teacher,Stamp, Postage, Phone, Notices, Supplies(pens, paper, ink, books, etc) |
Title I |
$16,649.00 |
| Total: $16,649.00 |
| Final Total: $17,449.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
PBS Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on parent survey and previous discipline data, we notice a lack of interest in school and an increase in discipline referrals.
|
To decrease the number of discipline referrals by 10% by motivating students
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Implement, school wide, Positive Behavior Support Model (PBS)
|
1. PBS Team
|
1. Monthly reports to staff, monthly PBS team meetings
|
1. SWIS Reports
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
To decrease the number of discipline referrals by 10% by motivating students
|
Positive behavior
|
PBS team
|
June 2010
|
School Climate Survey, SWIS Reports, and PBS year-end survey
|
PBS Team, Principal
|
|
| |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SWISS Software |
School Budget |
$250.00 |
| Supplies |
District Budget |
$200.00 |
| Total: $450.00 |
| 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 |
| Administrative Assistant, RtI Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES Leader, Paraprofessionals, Reading Coach, Science Coach, Crisis Intervention Teacher |
Title I, School budget, and District Title I |
$167,656.00 |
| Total: $167,656.00 |
| Final Total: $168,106.00 |
|
| End of PBS Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Smart Reading Centers |
District Title I |
$13,800.00 |
| Reading |
Read Naturally |
District Title I |
$3,000.00 |
| Reading |
Harcourt and SRA Reading Programs |
District Textbook Budget |
$500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Connecting Math, Harcourt Math and
Saxon Math Program
|
Textbook Fund |
$8,619.00 |
| Writing |
SMILE materials |
District Title I |
$3,500.00 |
| Science |
Harcourt ScienceWeekly ReadersManipulatitivesSnapShots Video |
|
$1,324.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Family Reading/Math Night |
Title I |
$500.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
FCAT Workshop |
Title I |
$100.00 |
| PBS |
SWISS Software |
School Budget |
$250.00 |
| PBS |
Supplies |
District Budget |
$200.00 |
| Total: $31,793.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Smartboards, document cameras, projectors, laptops, and carts |
District Title I |
$5,000.00 |
| Reading |
Paraprofessional Support to manage SME computer labsAR Program Renewal |
Title I |
$27,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
ThinkLinkSmartboards, document cameras, projectors, laptops, and cartsParaprofessional Support to manage SME labs |
District Title I and Title |
$3,500.00 |
| Science |
ThinkLink
Smartboards, document cameras, projectors, laptops, and carts
Paraprofessional Support to manage SME labs
|
District Title I |
$3,500.00 |
| Total: $39,500.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Development of Instructional Focus Calendars(Substitutes for teachers)(District Restructuring Personnel) |
District and School Title I |
$5,960.00 |
| Reading |
Analyze FAIR Data |
District Title I |
$500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Consultant Michelle Gainer(New Generation Standards),Peer Coaches,Carissa English and Myra Burris(Substitutes for teachers) |
District Title I and Title |
$1,320.00 |
| Science |
Science Coach(Marcia Brady) |
Title II |
$9,678.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Presenters for Parent Involvement Workshops |
Title I |
$200.00 |
| Total: $17,658.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Administrative Assistant,RtI Coach ,AYP Intervention teacher,SES Leader,Paraprofessionals,Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
District Title I and Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Mathematics |
Administrative Assistant, RtI Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES Leader, Paraprofessionals, Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
Title I and District Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Writing |
Administrative Assistant, RtI Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES Leader, Paraprofessionals, Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
Title I and District Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Science |
Administrative Assistant,RtI Coach,AYP Intervention teacher,SES Leader,Paraprofessionals,Reading Coach, 3 Title1 Resource Personnel, and Instructional Supplies |
Title I and District Title I |
$140,856.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Parent Liaison,Crisis Intervention Teacher,Stamp, Postage, Phone, Notices, Supplies(pens, paper, ink, books, etc) |
Title I |
$16,649.00 |
| PBS |
Administrative Assistant, RtI Coach, AYP Intervention teacher, SES Leader, Paraprofessionals, Reading Coach, Science Coach, Crisis Intervention Teacher |
Title I, School budget, and District Title I |
$167,656.00 |
| Total: $747,729.00 |
| Final Total: $836,680.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 4:38:51 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 Team will participate in the approval of the School Improvement Plan. The team will assist with budgets and curriculum development. SAC Team will participate in on-going data review and progress monitoring. The team will recruit new members and adjust rooster as needed.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Harriet Taylor,
Principal
|
|
2)
Renee Warren,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Susan Sanders,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Linda Pitts,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Eva Abrams,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Karen Doak,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Dr. David Rosier,
Business Member
|
|
8)
Anthony Everidge,
Parent
|
|
9)
Susie Everidge,
Parent
|
|
10)
Joe Koonce,
Parent
|
|
11)
Sarah Koonce,
Parent
|
|
12)
Erica Lester,
Parent
|
|
13)
Lashunda Maye,
Parent
|
|
14)
Lekisha McElroy,
Parent
|
|
15)
Amanda Odom,
Parent
|
|
16)
Tarika Polk,
Parent
|
|
17)
Eddie Taylor,
Parent
|
|
18)
Jawanda Perryman,
Parent
|
|
19)
Terry Rigdon,
Parent
|
|
20)
Elijah Smiley,
Parent
|
|
21)
Michael Warren,
Parent
|
|
22)
Marganita Boggess,
Parent
|
|
23)
Giesala Bryan,
Parent
|
|
24)
Jamie Burton,
Parent
|
|
25)
Amanda Climer,
Parent
|
|
26)
Daisy Crider,
Parent
|
|
27)
Gerry Lowther,
Parent
|
|
28)
Liz Stephens,
School Support Personnel
|
|
29)
Jana Connelly,
School Support Personnel
|
|
30)
Virginia McDaniel ,
Union Steward
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Bay School District SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
69%
|
60%
|
41%
|
24%
|
194
|
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 |
56% |
69% |
|
|
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? |
50% (YES) |
60% (YES) |
|
|
110
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
429 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
D |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Bay School District SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
75%
|
62%
|
56%
|
23%
|
216
|
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 |
72% |
71% |
|
|
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? |
63% (YES) |
67% (YES) |
|
|
130
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
489 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Bay School District SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
77%
|
72%
|
87%
|
32%
|
268
|
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 |
78% |
71% |
|
|
149 |
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? |
73% (YES) |
60% (YES) |
|
|
133
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
550 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |