VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
PONCE DE LEON HIGH SCHOOL'S VISION:
Ponce de Leon High School's administration, faculty, and support staff visualize literate students who are seekers of meaning and knowledge and are using this knowledge to satisfy their curiosity about life's complexities as they explore. These students will discover the old and compare it to the new as they strive to clarify their own identity and understand a world of many cultures and different beliefs.
As these students progress through the educational process, they will recognize their responsibility for changing conditions detrimental to human development, opportunity, and community. They will promote equity, tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of all people. The VISION mirrors an educational environment that provides for the development of the potential of all students and allows students to progress at their own ability level---yes, an environment rich with language, the arts, mathematical exercises, scientific explorations, and a program that inspires the art of communication with confidence. Looking to the future, students will harness knowledge in productive ways. The world of technology will be nothing to them. They will have developed skills to enter another phase of education. Ponce de Leon students will be "lifetime learners."
PONCE DE LEON HIGH SCHOOL'S MISSION:
With a philosophy grounded in the firm belief that each student is a unique person of intrinsic worth, Ponce de Leon High School's faculty and staff have a clear mission: to support an educational program which accomodates individuality rather than uniformity.
Building upon this basic belief that our students are individuals of diversified interests, aptitudes, talents, and goals, we seek to offer a program which accepts each student for who he is; thus, one that has a diversified curriculum of educational equity and reality-based relevance to the world beyond the classroom. Our mission requires that our teachers gain a greater knowledge of the student as an individual and use that knowledge to assist the student in developing the potential which is inherent in each. As educators, we pledge that this mission will be an ongoing one as we seek to make a positive difference in the lives of the sons and daughters of Ponce de Leon High School and to make our vision a reality.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Ponce de Leon High School is located on the western side of Holmes County, a rural county in the Florida panhandle. The school is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The majority of the community members are Caucasian and are employed outside of the immediate area. Ponce de Leon High School serves students in grades 6-12. This year's enrollment is approximately 432 students. This enrollment has fluctuated from around 404 to 450 over the past 8 years. It seems that, as there are those that move out, others move in to balance the process. A graduation class for PDLHS over the past 10 years has varied from 45 to 60 students.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
The school saw gains in 11th grade science, 8th grade writing, and 9th grade math in the 08-09 school year.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
The school saw declines in nearly every other area. The faculty are cognizant that the school has earned a "B" for the last two years, after a long string of "C" grades, and this is more relevant to them than making AYP.
Student Demographics
*Student population is consistent with that of the surrounding area within the county: 97% white and 3% other.
*Population by grade level: 65 - 6th grade; 72 - 7th grade; 75 - 8th grade; 62 - 9th grade; 52 - 10th; 51 - 11th; and 54 - 12th as of this writing. Approximately one-half of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch;
*Staff includes: 25 full-time faculty; 2 part-time faculty; 2 Administrators; 1 Guidance Counselor; 1 Reading Coach; 1/2 time Curriculum Coordinator; 1 Media Specialist; 2 ESE Instructional Aides; 4 Office Support Staff; 4 Cafeteria Personnel; and 4 Custodial Employees.
*Average class size for grades 9-12 is 17 and for grades 6-8 is 21.
*ESE teachers offer support in 6 core curriculum courses for inclusion students.
*Ponce de Leon Elementary is our feeder school.
*Special Programs include: A Dual Enrollment offered through Chipola College, Technical programs offered through Washington Holmes Technical Center and DCT.
Student Attendance Rates
Data not available.
Student Mobility
Data not available. However, PDLH has a limited mobility rate. Most students enter in grade 6 and exit in grade 12, after attending PDLE, the feeder elementary school down the hill.
Student Suspension Rates
Data not available for SY 2008-09. However, there has been one 3-day suspension to date in SY 2009-2010.
Student Retention Rates
Eleven (11) students were retained for the 2009-2010 school year. This represents less than 1 percent of the student body. The largest number of students (5) were retained in 9th grade.
Class Size
Classes conform to the statutory class-size limits in all grade levels.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
The feeder school for PDLH is Ponce de Leon Elementary School, located on an adjacent campus. PDLE has not made AYP and is in restructuring. However, it has been strenghtening its academics and has shown progress with several student subgroups.
Partnerships and Grants
NA
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
|
Buddy Brown
|
B.S. Social Science Interdisciplinary; MS Educational Leadership; Teaching Certification in Social Studies 6-12; Principalship K-12
|
9
|
10
|
Mr. Brown served as AP from 1999-2005, during which time PDLH was a C school. Under his leadership, the school has earned a B grade the past two years.
|
* 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
|
MaeLynn Hatfield
|
BS in Elementary Education with a Reading Endorsement
|
1
|
5
|
Maelynn is a former reading coach at Poplar Springs School and helped them improve their grade from a 'D' to a 'B'.
|
* 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) |
|
NA
|
HR at the district level
|
NA
|
All Holmes County teachers are highly qualified.
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
NONE
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
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 |
| 28 | 0.03 | 19 | 23 | 56 | 50 | 100 | 25 | 0 | 0 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Mentoring programs are being established at this time.
|
Mentors will be assigned to struggling teachers.
|
Experience in subject area and track record of student success.
|
Classroom observations and meetings regarding student achievement and teaching strategies.
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I funds are used to provide supplemental instructional materials and intervention/remediation programs, such as Read 180 and Study Island.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
NA
Title I, Part D
Part D funds are used to provide dropout prevention services and to fund the alternative school.
Title II
These funds support professional development activities for instructional staff, class size reduction and technology activities.
Title III
NA
Title X- Homeless
NA - Holmes is not a grantee.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI funds are used to support third grade summer reading camp and summer school.
Violence Prevention Programs
Holmes County provides violence prevention programs focusing on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs through a partnership with the health department. PDLH has a very low violence rate, as does the district.
Nutrition Programs
PDLH participates in the free breakfast and free lunch program.
Housing Programs
NA
Head Start
NA
Adult Education
These programs are not provided through Holmes County Schools. The district contracts with Washington-Holmes Technical Center to provide adult education services.
Career and Technical Education
Ponce de Leon High has an active career and technical education program including business, agriculture,childcare and interior design. Ponce de Leon High also has a Business Academy.
Job Training
NA
Other
NA
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) |
|
PDLH is not implementing PLCs as it lacks common planning time or sufficient teachers at any one grade level or subject area to form a natural group.
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Not applicable to this school.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
Many students who attend PDLH do not pursue secondary education; instead, they work on family farms or in family-run businesses. Those students who do pursue secondary education generally begin at one of the local community colleges, and then attend FSU, UF or one of the schools in Alabama.
Our focus on upgrading the academic press of the entire school should have the desired effect of improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level.
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 6-10, 51% of white students scored at or above grade level on the 2009 FCAT Reading test.
|
In grades 6-10, 72% of white students will score at or above grade level on the 2010 FCAT reading test, and 79% will score at or above grade level on the 2011 FCAT Reading test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive reading classes for targeted students
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Coach
|
Periodic walk-through and review of progress monitoring data to ensure effectiveness of reading intervention
|
PMRN data
2010 FCAT results
|
| 2 |
Implement FAIR assessments to monitor student progress
|
Principal
Reading Coach
|
Review data to ensure teachers are assessing based on state schedule
|
FAIR data
|
| 3 |
Classroom walkthroughs to determine teacher effectiveness and student engagement
|
Principal, Reading Coach
|
Review of lesson plans, data notebooks, student work
|
Student data, classroom grades
|
| 4 |
Implementation of RTI
|
Principal,RTI Coordinator
|
Monthly meeting of RTI team to reveiw data and determine effectiveness
|
Student performance, student data
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 3-10, 58% of white students scored at or above grade level on the 2009 FCAT Reading test.
|
Teaching Reading
|
Textbook Company
|
August 20, 2009
|
Teachers will incorporate activities provided by the textbook into their lesson plans
|
Principal
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
The reading coach is responsible for implementing a set of common procedures across the school (Seven Steps to Success) so that students deal with text in the same way across the content areas as well as in formal "reading" classes.
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| McDougall-Littell, Elements of Literature |
Textbook Allocation |
$37,000.00 |
| Total: $37,000.00 |
| 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 |
| Substitutes for professional development in small group instruction and data analysis |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Instructional implications of the FAIR assessment |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Total: $700.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $37,700.00 |
|
| 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 6-10, 66% of white students scored at or above grade level on the 2009 FCAT mathematics test.
|
In grades 6-10, 74% of white students will score at or above grade level on the 2010 FCAT math test, and 80% will score at or above grade level on the 2011 FCAT mathematics test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Give students in grades 3-10 baseline and mid-year assessment instrument provided by DOE.
|
Principal
|
Review assessment results to determine if teachers are teaching all FCAT strands
|
Baseline and mid-year assessment results, 2010 FCAT results
|
| 2 |
Remediation within math classes for targeted students
|
Principal
|
Periodic classroom walkthroughs and review of data notebooks on to ensure effectiveness of classroom interventions
|
Progress monitoring data, 2010 FCAT results
|
| 3 |
Implementation of RTI school wide
|
Principal, RTI coordinator
|
Monthly meeting of RTI team to review effectiveness
|
Data notebooks, student assessments, student work, lesson plans
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 6-10, 59% of economically disadvantaged students scored at or above grade level on 2009 FCAT math test.
|
Math concepts and skills
|
Teacher led
|
August 17, 2009
|
Data review, Standardized Testing, Teacher assessments
|
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 |
| substitutes for data meetings |
Title I and Title II |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $500.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
While maintaining progress made in 11th grade, increase emphasis on science in grades 9 and 10, and increase proficiency in grade 8
|
Teachers will ensure that science covered on the FCAT is covered, at the appropriate level of cognitive complexity, in grades 8,9, 10 and 11
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Review science FCAT released tests; review cognitive complexity; require teachers to use FLDOE-developed focus calendar
|
Buddy Brown
|
Classroom walk throughs
|
mini-assessments and benchmark assessments
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 8 and 11 46% of students scored at or above level 3 on FCAT science.
|
In grades 8 and 11, 50% of students will score at or above grade level 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 |
Incorporate higher cognitive science questions on assignments, activities, and tests
|
Principal
|
Review student work samples, classroom assessments, data notebooks, and lesson plans Baseline and mid-year data.
|
2010 FCAT science results
|
| 2 |
Weekly classroom walkthroughs to determine the types of activities and student engagement
|
Principal
|
Review of lesson plans, student work, and data
|
Student assessment data
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
1
|
cognitive complexity
|
Sheri Brooks
|
9/09
|
review of teacher assignments and lesson plans
|
Janie Lolley
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Ensure writing is included as part of regular instruction in grades 6, 7, 9, and 10
|
Reading and Language Arts teachers will include weekly writing activities that are aligned with FCAT writing.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Review teacher lesson plans and student work examples
|
Buddy Brown
|
Classroom observation and presence of writing lessons in teacher lesson plans
|
district-developed WOWs and FCAT
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 8 and 10, 84% of students scored at or above grade level on the 2009 FCAT writing test.
|
In grades 8 and 10, 90% of students will score at or above grade level on the 2010 FCAT writing test and will increase by 1% on the 2011 FCAT writing test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Students will participate in the WOW writing in Holmes County
|
Principal
|
Review of writing samples, WOW results Baseline and mid-year data provided by WOW,
|
2010 FCAT writing results
|
| 2 |
Teachers will continue to implement the 6 traits of writing
|
Principal
|
Review of student writing, data notebooks
|
2010 FCAT writing results
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
1
|
integrating writing into reading/language arts
|
MaeLynn Hatfield
|
11/09
|
classroom observations
|
Buddy Brown
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
McDougall-Littell, Elements of Literature |
Textbook Allocation |
$37,000.00 |
| Total: $37,000.00 |
| 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 |
Substitutes for professional development in small group instruction and data analysis |
Title II |
$500.00 |
| Reading |
Instructional implications of the FAIR assessment |
Title II |
$200.00 |
| Mathematics |
substitutes for data meetings |
Title I and Title II |
$500.00 |
| Total: $1,200.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $38,200.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
No Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance
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 Members
| Members |
|
1)
Buddy L. Brown,
Principal
|
|
2)
Pam Carroll,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Madalyn McCombs,
Student
|
|
4)
Keaton Peak,
Student
|
|
5)
Brandi Baker,
Student
|
|
6)
Larry Sweat,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Debbie Kolmetz,
Business Member
|
|
8)
Wayne Mayo,
Business Member
|
|
9)
Malisa Yates,
Parent
|
|
10)
Jennifer Knowles,
Parent
|
|
11)
Chris Carroll,
Parent
|
|
12)
Gerald Commander,
Community Member
|
|
13)
Joan Tinsley,
Community Member
|
|
14)
Richard Garner,
Community Member
|
|
15)
Carol Alford,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Holmes School District PONCE DE LEON HIGH SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
54%
|
72%
|
67%
|
46%
|
239
|
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% |
73% |
|
|
131 |
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? |
64% (YES) |
68% (YES) |
|
|
132
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
502 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Holmes School District PONCE DE LEON HIGH SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
60%
|
74%
|
74%
|
40%
|
248
|
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 |
63% |
79% |
|
|
142 |
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? |
64% (YES) |
68% (YES) |
|
|
132
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
522 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Holmes School District PONCE DE LEON HIGH SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
56%
|
73%
|
66%
|
45%
|
240
|
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 |
59% |
76% |
|
|
135 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
54% (YES) |
65% (YES) |
|
|
119
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
494 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |