FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM
2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

School Name: JAMES S. RICKARDS MIDDLE SCHOOL

District Name: Broward

Principal: Ron Forsman

SAC Chair: Kimberly Young

Superintendent: James Notter

Date of School Board Approval: December 1, 2009

Last Modified on: 12-06-2009

Dr.Eric J.Smith, Commissioner
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dr.Frances Haithcock, Chancellor
K-12 Public Schools
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

"The mission of Rickards Middle School is to provide a directed learning environment that is challenging and relevant to students of all abilities."

Vision:
We will continue to be an exemplary school that provides the highest quality education for all students.

Belief Statements:
1. Learning must take place at home, in school, and in the community.
2. Professional staff development enhances a quality school.
3. We are accountable for improving student achievement.
4. All students will learn when their individual needs are met.
5. Learning is an important aspect of a student's life. The school must provide educational opportunities from school readiness to adult education.
6. All students will be taught how to learn.
7. We must provide a safe and secure environment, which is essential for teaching and learning.
8. We must prepare all students for a knowledge-based, technologically rich, and culturally diverse 21st century.
9. Partnerships, which include parents, community and businesses, enhance student achievement with stakeholder involvement.
10. All individuals will be treated with respect and dignity.
11. Stakeholder involvement is a valuable tool for decision-making.
The school is committed to promoting cultural diversity and reinforcing the positive tenets of character education in a democratic society.

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS

Brief History and Background of the School

Rickards Middle School is located in the Northeast section of Broward County. The school reopened in 1990 and is a traditional neighborhood school. The school has qualified as a Title I school since the reopening. The school serves 924 students in grades 6-8. The Students matriculate from Oakland Park Elementary, North Andrews Gardens Elementary, and Floranada Elementary.

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Well-developed writing, math and reading programs. Professional development aligned to weaknesses. Addition of a math coach.

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Budget cuts that prevent purchase of support materials for AYP subgroups not making AYP. Budget cuts that prevent provision of extended learning opportunities for remediation of students in subgroups not making AYP. Loss of key administrative personnel.

Student Demographics

The Students matriculate from Oakland Park Elementary, North Andrews Gardens Elementary, and Floranada Elementary. The demographics include: White 39%, Black 18 %, Hispanic 39%, Asian 2%, Multi-Racial 2%, LEP 11%, ESE 16%, Free/Reduced Lunch 64%

Student Attendance Rates

Average Daily Attendance for the 2008-2009 school year is 94.7%

Student Mobility

Average student Mobility rate is 19%

Student Suspension Rates

Average in-school suspensions is 16%
Average out-of-school suspension is 7%

Student Retention Rates

Average retention rates is approximately 1%

Class Size

Approximately 20.5 : 1

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Floranada Oakland Park North Andrews Gardens
’09 B met 85% A met 100% A met 95%
’08 A met 92% A met 92% A met 100%

Partnerships and Grants

Title I
Title IIA
Outback Steakhouse –Donation of goods and service for outstanding student achievement
Big Brothers – Big Sisters – Provides services for mentoring of our students
Galaxy Skateway – Donation of goods and service for students achievement
McDonalds – Donation of goods (McFamily Night and Mc Math)
Smokey Bones – Donation of goods and Services for students behavior
Oakland Park Library – Donation of services for our Beach Bash Event
FELC Tutors – offers free tutoring for students. Tutoring is done on or off school campus, provide movie passes for student achievement
Downtown Pizza – pizza deals for our students after school. Discounted food rates fro school events
Walgreens Pharmacy – Donation of goods and services for school events and student groups
City of Oakland Park Recreation Department – ‘Open Gym’, donation of goods for school events
City of Oakland Park Library
BJ’S Wholesale – Donation of goods and service

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	Ronald Forsman	Degrees – BA – Math & Finance M Ed. – Ed. Leadership Certifications Math 6 – 12 School Principal all levels Gifted Endorsement Middle Grade Endorsement	6	12	Principal of Rickards MS In 2008-09 Grade: A Reading Mastery: 65% Math Mastery: 72% Science Mastery: 39% Writing Mastery: 98% AYP: White, Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math In 2007-2008 Grade: B Reading Mastery: 61% Math Mastery: 65% Science Mastery: 30% Writing Mastery: 97% AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, HISPANIC, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math IN 2006-2007 Grade: B Reading Mastery: 59% Math Mastery: 64% Science Mastery: 37% Writing Mastery: 91% AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math IN 2005-2006 Grade: A Reading Mastery: 61% Math Mastery: 61% Science Mastery: 25% Writing Mastery: 82% AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, HISPANIC, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math IN 2004-2005 Grade: B Reading Mastery: 53% Math Mastery: 60% Science Mastery: N/A Writing Mastery: 79% AYP: ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math IN 2003-2004 Grade: B Reading Mastery: 55% Math Mastery: 57% Science Mastery: N/A Writing Mastery: 84% AYP: ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math
Assis Principal	Denise dePasquale	Degrees BA – Elementary Education M Ed. - Educational Leadership Certifications Educational Leadership K--12 Elementary Education 1 – 6 Reading Endorsement ESOL Endorsement	5	3	AP of Rickards MS 2007 B MET 82% AYP 2008 B MET 87% AYP 2009 A MET 82% AYP
Assis Principal	Andrea Doughty	Degree(s) BA – English M Ed. - Educational Leadership Certifications – Educational Leadership K-12 English 6-12 Psychology 6 -12 ESOL Endorsement	1	3	AP of Boyd Anderson HS 2007 F MET 59% AYP 2008 D MET 62% AYP AP of Rickards MS 2009 A MET 82% AYP
Assis Principal	Kwan Drake	Degree(s) BA – Social Studies M Ed. – Social Studies Ed. D - Education Certifications – Educational Leadership English 6-12		7	AP of Plantation MS 2004 B MET 80% AYP 2005 C MET 80% AYP 2006 A MET 92% AYP 2007 C MET 79% AYP 2008 B MET 95% AYP 2009 C MET 77% AYP

* 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 *
Reading	Charlotte Jackson	Degree(s) BA Certification(s) Marketing 6 – 12 Reading Endorsement ESOL Endorsement	14	2	2008-09: Grade A AYP: White, Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math 2007-08: Grade B AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, HISPANIC, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math 2006-07: Grade B AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math
Writing	Grace Greenwood	Degree(s) BA –Literature & Social Sciences MS – Mass Communication Ed D – Adult Ed. & Human Resource Development Certification(s) English 6-12 & 5-9	15	3	2008-09: Grade A AYP: White, Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math 2007-08: Grade B AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, HISPANIC, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math 2006-07: Grade B AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math
Math	Ayauna King	Degree(s) BS _ Biology MS – Science Ed. Certification(s) Math 6-12 & 5-9	3		2008-09: Grade A AYP: White, Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math 2007-08: Grade B AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, HISPANIC, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math 2006-07: Grade B AYP: Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading; Black, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in Math

* 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
Utilize staff at Instructional Staffing for identifying qualified candidates	Assistant Principal	ongoing
NESS - Regular meetings of new teachers with Assistant Principal	NESS Liaison & Asst. Principal	ongoing
Buddy Program - Partnering new teachers or teachers with less than 3 years experience with veteran staff	Principal	8/17/09
SPA Day	Coaches & Principal	Ongoing
PLC	Department Chairs	ongoing

Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

Name	Certification	Teaching Assignment	Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
Emmanuelli Nereida	Para Pro	Unique aide	Will attend classes over the summer

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
57	1.8	22	48	30	26.3	100	24.6	17.5	100

Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor Name	Mentee Assigned	Rationale for Pairing	Planned Mentoring Activities
Jackson, Charlotte	Hankerson, Pamela	Ms. Hankerson’s students have shown below average performance levels in Reading achievement. Mrs. Jackson’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Reading Achievement.	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers
Jackson, Charlotte	Williams, Mothline	Mrs. Williams’ students have shown below average performance levels in Reading achievement. Mrs. Jackson’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Reading Achievement	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers
Jackson, Charlotte	Waters, Deanna	Mrs. Waters’ students have shown below average performance levels in Reading achievement. Mrs. Jackson’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Reading Achievement	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers
King, Ayauna	Myhre, Rachel	Ms. Myhre’s students have shown below average performance levels in Math achievement. Ms. King’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Math Achievement	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers
King, Ayauna	McMorris, Brian	Mr. McMorris’ students have shown below average performance levels in Math achievement. Ms. King’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Math Achievement	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers
King, Ayauna	Lavette, Althea	Ms. Lavette’s students have shown below average performance levels in Math achievement. Ms. King’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Math Achievement	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers
Hargrove, Angela	Edwards, Orville	Mr. Edwards’ students have shown below average performance levels in Science achievement. Ms. Hargrove’s students have shown improvement by scoring at high performance levels in Science Achievement	* Individual staff development in effective teaching strategies, questioning strategies, differentiated instruction, Marzano’s High Yield Strategies, etc. * Modeling of strategies from above * Observation of implementation and feedback * Ongoing throughout the year * PLC - partnered with grade level job-alikes to review student work, plan instruction and to observe peers

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A

Title I dollars are used to hire additional classroom teachers and lower class size, hire teachers’ assistants are to provide additional student support in the classroom, provide professional development for staff and parents. Parental activities are planned that will assist parents in helping their child improve his/her academic performance.

Title I, Part C- Migrant

Migrant Liaison provides services and support to students and parents. The liaison coordinates with Title I and other programs to ensure student needs are met.

Title I, Part D

District receives funds to support the Educational Alternative Outreach program. Services are coordinated with district Dropout Prevention programs.

Title II

This money is used to provide designated department chairs an additional period of release time to serve as instructional coaches and provide support and services to their department. District receives supplemental funds for improving basic education programs through the purchase of small equipment to supplement education programs.

Title III

Services are provided through the district for education materials and ELL district support services to improve the education of immigrant and English Language Learners.

Title X- Homeless

District Homeless Social Worker provides resources (clothing, school supplies, social services referrals) for
students identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act to eliminate barriers for a free and appropriate education. In addition, academic tutoring is provided at homeless shelters.

Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

SAI funds are used to provide additional tutoring before and after schools and for additional instructional support

Violence Prevention Programs

Violence prevention programs, Silence Hurts and Anti Bullying, are integrated through the Peer Counseling program and student workshops and training are provided across the school. The school offers a non-violence and anti-drug program to students that include field trips, community service, and counseling.

Nutrition Programs

n/a

Housing Programs

n/a

Head Start

n/a

Adult Education

n/a

Career and Technical Education

n/a

Job Training

n/a

Other

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Principal, Asst. Principals, Instructional Coaches, Department Chairs, ESE Specialist, ESE Support Facilitators, and AP in charge of ELL

Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g. meeting processes and roles/functions).

RtI is primarily a general education initiative designed to address the needs of struggling learners early in their educational experience. The team will meet once per week to review cases and monitor student progress.

Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan

The RtI Leadership Team met with the School Advisory Council (SAC) and principal to help develop the SIP.

RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Baseline data: Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN), Broward Assessment Test (BAT 1 & 2 for reading,
math, and science), Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
Progress Monitoring: PMRN, Mini Assessments, FCAT Simulation
Midyear: Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR), Diagnostic Assessment for Reading (DAR), Early Reading Diagnostic Assessment (ERDA)
End of year: FAIR, FCAT
Frequency of Data Days: twice a month for data analysis

Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

Professional development will be provided during teachers’ common planning time and small sessions will occur throughout the year. Two PD sessions entitled: “RtI: Problem Solving Model: Building Consensus Implementing and Sustaining Problem-Solving/RtI” and “RtI: Challenges to Implementation Data-based Decision-making, and Supporting and Evaluating
Interventions” will take place in mid-August and in October.
The RtI team will also evaluate additional staff PD needs during the weekly RtI Leadership Team meetings.

School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data

What strengths and weaknesses were identified in the 2009 data by grade level, subject area, and clusters/strands?

Strengths: Across all grade levels, students are performing at or above district and state averages in Geometry content. 98% of students meet standards in writing. The number of students below grade level in math and reading has decreased.
Weaknesses: Across all grade levels, the lowest content area in math is measurement and number sense. Grade 8 scores well in number sense, while grades 6 and 7 score lower. In grades 6 and 7, student scores in main idea/plot and author’s purpose content dropped about 4% from last year.

Instructional Calendar Development

What is the process for developing, implementing, and monitoring an Instructional Focus Calendar for reading, writing, mathematics, and science?

The IFC’s were created in July 2009. The IFC will be updated in October 2009 as determined by disaggregated data results from the September Pre-Test, and again in January 2010 as determined by the disaggregated data results from the December Mid-Term Test.
Strengths and weaknesses are identified and a plan is developed to address the weaknesses at least three times prior to the FCAT. This is done using a spiraling focus that permits revisiting periodically throughout the year.

Which instructional Benchmarks will be given priority focus, based on need, for each content area (reading, writing, mathematics, and science)?

Reading: Main Idea/Purpose & Words/Phrase were the least proficient strands and will be given priority focus.
Writing: Organization was the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.
Mathematics: Number Sense, Measurement & Data Analysis were the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.
Science: Scientific Thinking was the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.

What is the process to ensure instruction is based on individual students’ needs, as opposed to the master schedule?

We take a look at the whole child and address individual needs through the use of Differentiated Instruction.
Once FCAT scores were released, the administration determined student learning gains by teacher and
adjusted the master schedule to prevent low-performing teachers from teaching the same class again. An analysis of learning gains allowed the strongest teachers to be paired with the weakest students.

How does the school incorporate applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future?

A daily focus of the school is for teachers and students to ask each other, “why are we learning this?” to ensure that instruction is always relevant. Teachers are also provided reading materials and “bell ringers” that are based on current events.

How does the school incorporate students’ academic and career planning, as well as promote student course selections, so that students’ course of study is personally meaningful?

n/a

Direct the Instructional Focus

How are lesson plans and instructional delivery aligned across grade levels and subject areas?

Grade level job-alikes collaboratively plan lessons, assessments and instruction weekly. In addition, interdisciplinary teams plan cross-curricular support and implementation.

How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

Departments meet weekly to utilize collaborative planning of instructional focus lessons. At these meetings teachers discuss strategies for delivery and implementation of higher order questioning and research based strategies for learning that can be used with each focus lesson.

How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

Teachers will analyze common assessments to look for trends and markers of effective strategies and areas needing revisiting. Based on the student data, teachers will identify revisions to be made and areas to be retaught or remediated.

CHECK

Assessment

Describe the types of ongoing formative assessments to be used during the school year to measure student progress in core, supplemental, and intensive instruction/intervention.

Teachers developed common assessments, mini-BATs (Benchmark Assessment Tests), and District-wide BATs

How are assessments used to identify students reaching mastery and those not reaching mastery?

Data is analyzed and students are identified as reaching or not reaching mastery. Based on their designation, students will be provided with enrichment or remediation. If they are receiving remediation, they will be reassessed at predetermined interval to determine if they have moved into a mastery level.

Maintenance

How is ongoing assessment and maintenance of Benchmark mastery for each grade level and content area built into the Instructional Focus Calendar?

The calendars outline when assessment is to be conducted. The calendars also provide for spiraling back to revisit benchmarks throughout the course of the year.

Describe the process and schedule for teams to review progress monitoring data (summative and mini assessments) to identify the required instructional modifications that are needed to increase student achievement.

The leadership team analyzes and disaggregates summative and mini assessment data throughout the year. This information is used to identify instructional modifications that are needed to remediate students and raise achievement.

Monitoring

Describe the Principal’s and Leadership Team’s roles as instructional leaders and how they will be continuously involved in the teaching and learning process.

Principal and assistant principals are active members of academic departments. They plan and develop the Instructional Focus Calendars. They monitor implementation through daily/weekly classroom walkthroughs. They are part of analyzing department and school-wide data. And making revisions to calendars and instructional plans.

ACT

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions

Identify the core, supplemental, and intensive instruction and interventions.

Marzano’s High Yield strategies spread across the core, supplemental, and intensive instruction and interventions. Academic instructional is planned and implemented to incorporate these research-based strategies. In addition, differentiated instruction is a key instructional strategy implemented across the school to target the individual student needs.

How are supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions and tutorials structured to re-teach non-mastered target areas?

Utilizing differentiated instruction and learning centers planned for the needs of the student. Specific activities are designed to address the weakness and develop to mastery level. This includes the use of the CCC and Compass Odyssey computer software programs.

How does the school identify staff’s professional development needs to improve their instructional strategies?

Professional development needs are identified through staff surveys, analysis of FCAT data and CWT data.

Which students will be targeted for supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions?

As a result of progress monitoring (class work assignments and assessment results) and observations
(Classroom teacher, instructional coach, administrators, counselors, etc.) Students who consistently demonstrate academic difficulty will receive supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions.

How will the effectiveness of the interventions be measured throughout the year?

All personnel providing services to a student not making mastery will meet to discuss their evidence and/or documentation of strategies and interventions that have previously been utilized. Factors hindering implementation of a strategy (attendance, behavior, etc.) will be addressed and resolved. Strategies that are unsuccessful will be discontinued and replaced with alternative interventions

Enrichment

Describe alternative instructional delivery methods to support acceleration and enrichment activities.

Glides

Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

FCAT results, in addition to student progress in a specific course, as well as assessment results that
demonstrate consistent proficiency/mastery are used to determine placement in higher level courses and
academic programs. Teacher recommendation is also taken into consideration.
Parent conferences are held with the recommending teacher, instructional coach, guidance counselor, and a member of the leadership or administrative team. The parents are counseled on the expectations for the student in the higher-level course, as well as their continued parental involvement.

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)
Language Arts teachers, writing coach, ESE teacher and ELL teacher	Grace Greenwood, Writing Coach and Language Arts Department Chair	2X per week	8:20 – 9:00 am	Curriculum development and alignment, lesson study, data analysis
Math teachers, math coach, ESE teacher, and ELL teacher	Ayauna King, Math Coach and Math Department Chair	2X per week	8:20 – 9:00 am	Curriculum development and alignment, lesson study, data analysis
Reading teachers, reading coach, ESE teachers and ELL teacher.	Charlotte Jackson, Reading Coach	2X per week	8:20 – 9:00 am	Curriculum development and alignment, lesson study, data analysis
Social Studies teachers, ESE teacher and ELL teacher	Megan Weller, Department Chair	2x per week	8:20 - 9:00 am	Curriculum development and alignment, lesson study, data analysis
Science teachers, ESE teacher and ELL teacher	Angela Hargrove, Department Chair	2x per week	8:20 - 9:00 am	Curriculum development and alignment, lesson study, data analysis
Leadership Team – administration, guidance, academic coaches, ESE Specialist, ELL resource teacher, and ESE Support Facilitators	Ron Forsman, Principal	Weekly	Various times	Data analysis, CWT, IFC
Curriculum Council – department chairs, coaches and administration	Ron Forsman, Principal	Monthly	All day	Curriculum development and alignment, lesson study, data analysis, CWT, IFC

NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only

Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status
Show Attached Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status (Uploaded on 9/2/2009 12:48:03 PM)
Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification
Show Attached Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification (Uploaded on 9/2/2009 12:49:15 PM)
Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status
Show Attached Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification (Uploaded on 9/2/2009 12:49:36 PM)

Pre-School Transition

n/a

Postsecondary Transition

Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.

n/a

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
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 64% of White students scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of whites scoring at or above a Level 3 from 64% to 72% on 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. Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all whites. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	1. Reading Coach	1. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	1. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of FAIR data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.	2. Reading Coach	2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 44% of Black students scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of blacks scoring at or above a Level 3 from 44% to 56% on 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. Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all whites. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	1. Reading Coach	1. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	1. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of FAIR data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.	2. Reading Coach	2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core.	3. RTI Team	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.	3. FAIR OPM data and DIBELS data when appropriate will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 58% of Hispanic students scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of Hispanic scoring at or above a Level 3 from 58% to 65% on 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. Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all whites. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	1. Reading Coach	1. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	1. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of FAIR data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.	2. Reading Coach	2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core.	3. RTI Team	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.	3. FAIR OPM data and DIBELS data when appropriate will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 55% of Economically Disadvantaged (ED) scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of ED scoring at or above a Level 3 from 55% to 63% on 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. Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all whites. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	1. Reading Coach	1. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	1. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of FAIR data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.	2. Reading Coach	2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core.	3. RTI Team	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.	3. FAIR OPM data and DIBELS data when appropriate will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 39% of English Language Learners (ELL) scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of ELL scoring at or above a Level 3 from 39% to 49% on 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. Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all whites. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	1. Reading Coach	1. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	1. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of FAIR data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.	2. Reading Coach	2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core.	3. RTI Team	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 26% of Students With Disabilities scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of SWD scoring at or above a Level 3 from 26% to 36% on 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. Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all whites. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	1. Reading Coach	1. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	1. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of FAIR data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.	2. Reading Coach	2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	3. Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core.	3. RTI Team	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.	3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or DIBELS data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
Increase the percent of whites scoring at or above a Level 3 from 64% to 72% on the 2010 FCAT Reading.	Effective use and implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.	Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum, Differentiated Tam	August 2009 (ongoing)	Classroom observations, group discussions and feedback, focused walkthroughs with Principal and Reading Coach to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction	Principal, Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum
Increase the percent of blacks scoring at or above a Level 3 from 44% to 56% on the 2010 FCAT Reading.	Effective use and implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.	Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum, Differentiated Tam	August 2009 (ongoing)	Classroom observations, group discussions and feedback, focused walkthroughs with Principal and Reading Coach to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction	Principal, Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum
Increase the percent of Hispanic scoring at or above a Level 3 from 58% to 65% on the 2010 FCAT Reading.	Effective use and implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.	Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum, Differentiated Tam	August 2009 (ongoing)	Classroom observations, group discussions and feedback, focused walkthroughs with Principal and Reading Coach to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction	Principal, Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum
Increase the percent of ED scoring at or above a Level 3 from 55% to 63% on the 2010 FCAT Reading.	Effective use and implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.	Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum, Differentiated Tam	August 2009 (ongoing)	Classroom observations, group discussions and feedback, focused walkthroughs with Principal and Reading Coach to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction	Principal, Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum
Increase the percent of ELL scoring at or above a Level 3 from 39% to 49% on the 2010 FCAT Reading	Effective use and implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.	Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum, Differentiated Tam	August 2009 (ongoing)	Classroom observations, group discussions and feedback, focused walkthroughs with Principal and Reading Coach to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction	Principal, Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum
Increase the percent of SWD scoring at or above a Level 3 from 26% to 36% on the 2010 FCAT Reading.	Effective use and implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.	Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum, Differentiated Tam	August 2009 (ongoing)	Classroom observations, group discussions and feedback, focused walkthroughs with Principal and Reading Coach to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction	Principal, Reading Coach, Assistant Principal over Curriculum

For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher

On a bi-weekly basis, the Reading Coaches will review an activity from the “Lessons Learned” book to build the knowledge base of all teachers. Instructional Focus Calendars will also be used in social studies that will be aligned with the reading instructional focus. The school will participate in a comprehensive reading block where every teacher will teach a school-wide novel and vocabulary.

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
Development of Reading, Language Arts, and Social Studies Instructional Focus Calendars- Stipends for Summer Development	Title I	$8,000.00
Total: $8,000.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Final Total: $8,000.00

End of Reading Goal

Mathematics Goal

Needs Assessment:

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 50% of Blacks scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of blacks scoring at or above a Level 3 from 50% to 58% on the 2010 FCAT Math.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing common assessment data for all students within bottom quartile. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/interventi ons within the mathematics blocks.	1. Mathematics Coach	1. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 6 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	1. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
2	2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of common assessment data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice. Supplemental instruction is provided in addition to core instruction.	2. Mathematics Coach	2. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 4 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	2. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
3	3. Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core instruction.	3. RtI Team	3. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data bi-weekly to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	3. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 63% of Economically Disadvantaged scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of Economically Disadvantaged scoring at or above a Level 3 from 63% to 72% on the 2010 FCAT Math.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing common assessment data for all students within bottom quartile. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/interventi ons within the mathematics blocks.	1. Mathematics Coach	1. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 6 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	1. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
2	2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of common assessment data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice. Supplemental instruction is provided in addition to core instruction.	2. Mathematics Coach	2. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 4 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	2. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
3	3. Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students not responding to core plus supplemental instruction using problem-solving process. Interventions will be matched to individual student needs, be evidence-based, and provided in addition to core instruction.	3. RtI Team	3. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data bi-weekly to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	3. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 53% of English Language Learners scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of English Language Learners scoring at or above a Level 3 from 53% to 63% on 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. Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts.	1. Principal, Mathematics Coach	1. Math Coach will assist teachers in the creation of centers and stations, and administration will ensure activities are implemented.	1. Progress of students on assessments.
2	2. Identify and closely monitor the progress of the lowest 25 percentile consistently; revise instruction and intervention groups as indicated by student progress.	2. Principal, Mathematics Coach	2. Maintain a record of strategies and interventions utilized with the lowest 25 percentile.	2. Increased achievement between assessments.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 40% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above Level 3.			Increase the percent of Students with Disabilities scoring at or above a Level 3 from 40% to 50% on the 2010 FCAT Math.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	. Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts.	1. Principal, Mathematics Coach	1. Math Coach will assist teachers in the creation of centers and stations, and administration will ensure activities are implemented.	1. Progress of students on assessments.
2	2. Identify and closely monitor the progress of the lowest 25 percentile consistently; revise instruction and intervention groups as indicated by student progress.	2. Principal, Mathematics Coach	2. Maintain a record of strategies and interventions utilized with the lowest 25 percentile.	2. Increased achievement between assessments.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
Increase the percent of blacks scoring at or above a Level 3 from 50% to 58% on the 2010 FCAT Math.	Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar	Mathematics Coach	August 2009	Modeling of Lessons Classroom Visits	Principal, Mathematics Coach
Increase the percent of Economically Disadvantaged scoring at or above a Level 3 from 63% to 72% on the 2010 FCAT Math.	Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar	Mathematics Coach	August 2009	Modeling of Lessons Classroom Visits	Principal, Mathematics Coach
Increase the percent of English Language Learners scoring at or above a Level 3 from 53% to 63% on the 2010 FCAT Math.	Effective Use of Manipulatives and Hands-On Activities	Mathematics Coach	September 2009	Observation of center use and documentation in lesson plans	Principal, Mathematics Coach
Increase the percent of Students with Disabilities scoring at or above a Level 3 from 40% to 50% on the 2010 FCAT Math.	Effective Use of Manipulatives and Hands-On Activities	Mathematics Coach	September 2009	Observation of center use and documentation in lesson plans	Principal, Mathematics Coach

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Manipulatives and department traing through the Curriculum SPA (payment for substitutes for teacher release)	Title I	$2,000.00
Total: $2,000.00
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: $2,000.00

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
Based on 2009, FCAT Science data, 42% of Students achieved level three and above.			Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 50% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	1. Utilize hands-on laboratory experiments three times per week using the 5E model, science stations.	1. Principal and Science Coach	1. The created lab schedule will be implemented with fidelity and monitored by the Principal.	1. Improvement on the science mini-assessments.
2	2. Provide real world science experiences and engaging activities.	2. Principal and Science Coach	2. Teachers will require students to read a National Geographic article twice a week for homework. Homework log will be reviewed consistently by Coach and Principal.	2. Improvement on the science mini-assessments.
3	3. All students will complete hands-on lab activities weekly and use a common lab report format to document hands-on investigations.	3. Teachers and Science Department Chair	3. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 6 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	3. Common assessments tied to Florida Science Standards administered weekly

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 50% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.	Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model Training	HRD	August 2009	PLC minutes will be reviewed to ensure data trends are discussed and lesson plans are developed	Principal, Science Coach

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Curriculum SPA - specific training for SSS in Science (funding for substitutes for teacher release)	Accountability	$1,600.00
Total: $1,600.00
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
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Materials and supplies for hands-on activities	SAC Funds	$1,500.00
Total: $1,500.00
Final Total: $3,100.00

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
On the 2009 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 95% of the students in 8th grade scored level 4.0 or above in writing.			On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 97% of the 8th grade students will achieve a 4.0 or above.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	1. Students will use the writing process daily; all writing will be dated, and recorded in a journal, notebook, or work folder for monitoring of growth across time.	1. Principal, Reading Coach Writing Coach	1. A school wide consistent method of saving student work will be established. During the class period, students will place their writing notebooks, open to their last entry, on top of their desks for the principal to walk through to monitor.	1. Progress between the Pretest Prompt and Mid-year Prompt.
2	2. The revision and editing process will be explicitly taught and seen in student writing drafts.	1. Principal, Reading Coach Writing Coach	2. Administration will monitor revision and editing process by reviewing student drafts.	2. Progress between the Pretest Prompt and Mid-year Prompt.
3	3. Tier 1: Students use the writing process daily; all writing will be dated, and recorded in a journal, notebook, or work folder for monitoring of growth across time.	1. Principal, Reading Coach Writing Coach	3. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored bi-weekly by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once every 6 weeks by comparing writing trend data to expected rate of growth	3. Scored writing samples will be used to determine progress between the Pre-test Prompt and Mid-year Prompt.
4	4. Tier 1: The revision and editing process is explicitly taught and seen in student writing drafts.	1. Principal, Reading Coach Writing Coach	4. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored bi-weekly by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once every 6 weeks by comparing writing trend data to expected rate of growth	4. Scored writing samples will be used to determine progress between the Pre-test Prompt and Mid-year Prompt.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 97% of the 8th grade students will achieve a 4.0 or above.	Teaching the use of revision and editing strategies.	District Language Arts Supervisor	September 2009	Monitor student writing portfolios, notebooks or journals. The students will use red pens to make revisions and edit so that their self-correcting behavior can be easily monitored.	Principal, Reading Coach Writing Coach

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
Substitute teachers to provide temporary coverage for Professional Development	School’s General Budget	$1,500.00
Total: $1,500.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Final Total: $1,500.00

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
School staff survey indicated teachers communicated with only 10% of parents once per month.			Increase teacher communication with parents to 40% of their student’s parents, at least once per month.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1. Evaluate school’s
“Family Friendly”
rating.

1. Principal
Parent Liaison

1. Collect feedback
surveys from parents
and teachers.

1. Parent and
Teacher Surveys.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Sign-in Sheets from Parent Workshops during 2008-09 indicate only 20% of students’ parents attended at least one parent workshop			Increase parent participation at parent workshops to 40% of students’ parents
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	1. Survey parents to determine high interest topics and best days and times for workshops	1. Principal Parent Liaison	1. Collect sign-in sheets and participant feedback for each workshop	1. Sign-in Sheets and Workshop Evaluations
2	1. Sign-in Sheets and Workshop Evaluations	1. Principal Parent Liaison	1. Collect sign-in sheets and participant feedback for each workshop	1. Sign-in Sheets and Workshop Evaluations
3	3. Get more parents to enroll in Parent Training Academy’s	1. Principal Parent Liaison	1. Collect sign-in sheets and participant feedback for each workshop	1. Sign-in Sheets and Workshop Evaluations

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Parent survey indicated only 5% of parent notifications were sent out in multiple languages.			Increase parent notifications translated in multiple languages to 30% throughout the year.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1. Work with the multicultural department for translation of parent notifications.

1. Principal Parent Liaison

1. Collect feedback surveys from parents.

1. Parent Surveys

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
Increase teacher communication with parents to 40% of their student’s parents, at least once per month.	Effective two-way Communication	Assistant Principal	Prior to start of school	Parent liaison will participate in common planning to provide follow-up	Parent Liaison

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
Materials and supplies for workshop handouts; stipend to workshop consultant	Title I Funds	$2,000.00
Total: $2,000.00
Final Total: $2,000.00

End of Parent Involvement Goal

Other Goals

Professional Development for Instructional Leaders Goal:

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
Professional Learning Communities at work	PLC's	Richard and Rebecca DuFour, Robert Marzano, etc.	Oct. 20-23, 2009	Monitoring of PLC's and followup conversations with participants.	Principal
Reaching AT-Promise students	A conference that offers expert, hands-on strategies in education, leadership, and community involvement, specifically designed for addressing the needs of the at-promise population.	Willard Daggett, Ronald Ferguson. Pedro Noguera, etc.	Feb. 19-21, 2010	Design professional development for all staff beginning in the spring of 2010 and continuing through the following school year.	Principal

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
Florida State Leaders Summit - PLC's	Title I	$4,792.00
RAPSA - Reaching At- Promise Students	Title I	$5,750.00
Total: $10,542.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Final Total: $10,542.00

End of Professional Development for Instructional Leaders Goal

FINAL BUDGET

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Goal	Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Mathematics	Manipulatives and department traing through the Curriculum SPA (payment for substitutes for teacher release)	Title I	$2,000.00
Science	Curriculum SPA - specific training for SSS in Science (funding for substitutes for teacher release)	Accountability	$1,600.00
Total: $3,600.00
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
Reading	Development of Reading, Language Arts, and Social Studies Instructional Focus Calendars- Stipends for Summer Development	Title I	$8,000.00
Writing	Substitute teachers to provide temporary coverage for Professional Development	School’s General Budget	$1,500.00
Professional Development for Instructional Leaders	Florida State Leaders Summit - PLC's	Title I	$4,792.00
Professional Development for Instructional Leaders	RAPSA - Reaching At- Promise Students	Title I	$5,750.00
Total: $20,042.00
Other
Goal	Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Science	Materials and supplies for hands-on activities	SAC Funds	$1,500.00
Parental Involvement	Materials and supplies for workshop handouts; stipend to workshop consultant	Title I Funds	$2,000.00
Total: $3,500.00
Final Total: $27,142.00

Differentiated Accountability

School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance

Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 1/8/2010 12:28:40 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
Curriculum SPA	6000
Team Academic Programs	4000
ESE software	1500
ELL dictionaries and computer accessories	700

Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year

SAC Members

Members
1) Ron Forsman, Principal
2) Kimberly Young, SAC Chair
3) Opal Ferron, SAC Chair
4) Gabriella Rizzo, Student
5) Leah Pavone, Student
6) Alexandra Perez, Student
7) Louiseana Perez, Student
8) Pamela Hankerson, Teacher
9) Christina Kimling, Business Member
10) Michael Kimling, Business Member
11) Teresa Perez, Parent
12) Dwayne Richmond, Parent
13) Lori Richmond, Parent
14) Rosemary Rizzo, Parent
15) John Perez, Parent
16) Doug Perez, Parent
17) Elizabeth Ziel, Parent
18) Tula Yow, Parent
19) Susan Kuretski, Parent
20) Cindy Pavone, Parent
21) Alex Sanchez, Parent
22) Giselle Sanchez, Parent
23) Magalis Roman, Parent
24) Jean Dunley, Parent
25) Herbertny Perez, Parent
26) Andrea Sanchez, Parent
27) Heather Blystone, Parent
28) Scott Blystone, Parent
29) Joe Ford, Parent
30) Marlena Gurnari, Parent
31) Jeff Adani, Community Member
32) Chet Ludwick, Community Member
33) Deputy Fuller, Community Member
34) Lori Bolte, School Support Personnel
35) Lauren Barbato, School Support Personnel
36) Marie Howard, Union Steward
37) Denise dePasquale, Assistant Principal

AYP DATA

No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Broward School District JAMES S. RICKARDS MIDDLE SCHOOL 2008-2009
	Reading	Math	Writing	Science	Grade Points Earned
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)	65%	72%	98%	39%	274	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	68%	70%			138	3 ways to make gains: Improve FCAT Levels Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5 Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?	72% (YES)	69% (YES)			141	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					553
Percent Tested = 99%						Percent of eligible students tested
School Grade					A	Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

Broward School District JAMES S. RICKARDS MIDDLE SCHOOL 2007-2008
	Reading	Math	Writing	Science	Grade Points Earned
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)	61%	65%	97%	30%	253	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	61%	71%			132	3 ways to make gains: Improve FCAT Levels Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5 Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?	63% (YES)	70% (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					518
Percent Tested = 99%						Percent of eligible students tested
School Grade					B	Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

Broward School District JAMES S. RICKARDS MIDDLE SCHOOL 2006-2007
	Reading	Math	Writing	Science	Grade Points Earned
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)	61%	65%	93%	39%	258	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	58%	67%			125	3 ways to make gains: Improve FCAT Levels Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5 Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?	61% (YES)	59% (YES)			120	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					503
Percent Tested = 99%						Percent of eligible students tested
School Grade					B	Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS

Brief History and Background of the School

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Student Demographics

Student Attendance Rates

Student Mobility

Student Suspension Rates

Student Retention Rates

Class Size

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Partnerships and Grants

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

Staff Demographics

Teacher Mentoring Program

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

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

NCLB Public School Choice

Pre-School Transition

Postsecondary Transition

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Reading Goal

Mathematics Goal

Science Goal

Writing Goal

Parent Involvement Goal

Other Goals

Professional Development for Instructional Leaders Goal:

FINAL BUDGET

Differentiated Accountability

School Advisory Council

School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance

Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year

SAC Members

AYP DATA

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM
2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN