VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision Statement:
The Marianna Middle School team joins the parents and community to assist all students to become productive members of society.
Mission Statement:
We will establish a strong educational foundation for lifelong learning by nurturing, guiding, and challenging each individual student in a safe, productive environment.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Marianna Middle School is located on a picturesque forty-acre campus and is one of the largest schools in the rural north Florida district of Jackson County. It is the only true middle school in the county serving approximately 700 students in grades 6-8. The low socioeconomic status of our population is reflected by a relatively high percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch (50%).
The school was first established in 1955. In 1970 it was converted into a middle school. The campus has a unique style with each grade in separate buildings. Our gym is currently being updated with the addition of air conditioning.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
After earning a record high 559 accountability points on the 2009 FCAT Marianna Middle School earns an "A" for the ninth year in a row. Our unique scheduling allows our teachers to work in teams with each grade having a common planning time. This common planning time allows our teachers time to schedule parent conferences, plan together during lesson study groups, meet with their professional learning committees and attend professional development activities. Our school also participates in the "Positive Behavior Support" program writing a school-wide discipline plan. This progressive approach to student discipline has helped us reduce the number of referrals to the office.
Marianna Middle School also offers a wide variety of extra-curricular activities including sports, clubs, and music.
Marianna Middle School has a dedicated, professional staff with several teachers enrolled in the District's Aspiring Leadership class.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Even though Marianna Middle School has been designated and "A" school for 9 years, we have never made adequate yearly progress. Therefore we are classified as a "Correct 1" school.
Student Demographics
Marianna Middle School serves approximately 700 students in grades 6-8.
59% of students are White, 33% are Black, and 8% are Asian, Hispanic, American Indian, or multi-racial. Economically disadvantaged students account for 50% of the population. Additionally, 14% of students are Students with Disabilities (SWD) and nearly 7% of students are gifted.
Student Attendance Rates
2006-2007 - 93.69%
2007-2008 - 92.9%
2008-2009 - 92.38%
Student Mobility
Data not available at this time.
Student Suspension Rates
Data not available at this time.
Student Retention Rates
Data not available at this time.
Class Size
Data not available at this time.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Riverside Elementary, Marianna Middle School's feeder school, maintained its FCAT school grade of an "A" for the second year in a row. However this year they did not make adequate yearly progress meeting 95% of the criteria. Students with Disabilities (SWD) failed to make AYP in reading and math.
The high school in the school's feeder pattern, Marianna High School (MHS), fell from a "C" to a "D". MHS's AYP status fell from 85% to 82%. Only white students made AYP in math and writing. No group made AYP in reading. A new principal has been placed at MHS this year.
Partnerships and Grants
The Educational Talent Search Program at Chipola College is working with middle school students. This program assists young people who have academic potential to complete their middle and high school education and to pursue post-secondary education or training upon graduation from high school.
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 * |
|
Assis Principal
|
Ms. Sue Ann Tharp
|
BS-Math/Science Education, University of West Florida
Master of Science-Educational Leadership, Troy State University at Dothan
Certification-Educational Leadership, State of Florida
|
5
|
5
|
AP of Marianna Middle School in 2008-2009:
Grade: A , Reading Mastery: 74 %, Math mastery: 75 %, Science mastery: 53 %. AYP: 90 %,
2007-2008:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 73 %, Math mastery:75 %, Science mastery: 46 %. AYP: 95 %,
2006-2007:
Grade: A Reading Mastery: 73 %, Math mastery:74 %, Science mastery: 42 %. AYP: 87 %,
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Mr. Eddie Ellis
|
A.A. Degree, Chipola College
B.S. Degree Physical Education (K-12), Athens State College
Master of Education Degree in Educational Leadership and Supervision , University of West Florida
|
8
|
7
|
AP of Marianna Middle School in 2008-2009:
Grade: A , Reading Mastery: 74 %, Math mastery: 75 %, Science mastery: 53 %. AYP: 90 %,
2007-2008:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 73 %, Math mastery:75 %, Science mastery: 46 %. AYP: 95 %,
2006-2007:
Grade: A Reading Mastery: 73 %, Math mastery:74 %, Science mastery: 42 %. AYP: 87 %,
|
|
Principal
|
Dr. Gayle Westbrook
|
B.S. in Social Studies/English Education, Florida State University
M.S. in English Education, Troy State University
Ph.D. in Educational Leadership, Florida A&M University
|
4
|
6
|
Principal of Marianna Middle School in 2008-2009:
Grade: A , Reading Mastery: 74 %, Math mastery: 75 %, Science mastery: 53 %. AYP: 90 %,
2007-2008:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 73 %, Math mastery:75 %, Science mastery: 46 %. AYP: 95 %,
2006-2007:
Grade: A Reading Mastery: 73 %, Math mastery:74 %, Science mastery: 42 %. AYP: 87 %,
|
* 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 * |
| No data submitted |
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
1. Jackson County New Teacher Program
|
Principal
|
June 2010
|
|
|
2. Teachers obtaining reading endorsement will receive a one-time bonus of $2400
|
JC School Board
|
on-going
|
|
|
3. Reimburse teachers out-of-field who pursue additional certification to become highly qualified
|
JC School Board
|
on-going
|
|
|
4. Teachers and staff will receive a bonus from the school recognition money received for being an "A" school
|
Florida Dept. of Education
|
on-going
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
| No data submitted |
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 43 | 7 | 37 | 19 | 37 | 30 | 100 | 16 | 2 | 50 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Wayne Tanner
|
Megan Wilson
|
24 years teaching, ESE certified
|
Collaborate weekly; provide formal & informal observations every 9 weeks; develop long and short term goals; analyzing data; assist with paperwork
|
|
Kim Mock
|
Kim Cianelli
|
19 years teaching, Elementary Certified
|
Collaborate weekly; provide formal & informal observations every 9 weeks; develop long and short term goals; analyzing data; assist with paperwork
|
|
Mary Hinson
|
Lorelei Nicholson
|
35 years teaching, accomplished Math teacher
|
Collaborate weekly; provide formal & informal observations every 9 weeks; develop long and short term goals; analyzing data; assist with paperwork
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part D
Title II
Title III
Title X- Homeless
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Violence Prevention Programs
Nutrition Programs
Housing Programs
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
|
Grade Level Teams
|
Team Leaders
|
Once a week
|
During Planning
|
Data Analysis,
School Information,
Planning
|
|
Subject Area Teams
|
Department Chair
|
Once a nine weeks
|
During Planning
|
Instructional focus calendars, data analysis, planning
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8 68% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
In grades 6-8 72% of the students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.The school will implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.
|
1.Principal and FAIR trainers
|
1.Review FAIR data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to created schedule.
|
1.Printout of FAIR assessments.
|
| 2 |
2.Include higher-order questions in lesson plans.
|
2.Principal
|
2. Lesson plans will be reviwed during classroom walkthroughs and will be submitted weekly to principal.
|
2.Printout of FAIR assessments.
|
| 3 |
3.Develop an Instructional Focus Calendar for Reading and Language Arts classes.
|
3.Principal and Reading teachers
|
3.Administration will be aware of the IFC’s upcoming focus and monitor implementation through classroom walkthroughs.
|
3.Effectiveness will be determined through FAIR assessments.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 49% of Black and 55% of Economically Disadvantaged students in grades 6-8 scored a 3 or above.
|
Increase the percent of Blacks and Economically Disadvantaged students scoring at or above a level 3 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 Black and Economically Disadvantaged students. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/interventions within class.
|
1.Reading Teachers
|
1.Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) 3 times a year. Data will be analyzed.
|
1.FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress.
|
| 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 teachers
|
2.Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM 3 times a year for all students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction. Data will be analyzed.
|
2.FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress.
|
| 3 |
3.Tier 3: Plan targeted intervention for students 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 3 times a year
and/or FAIR teacher toolkit data bi-weekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention. Data will by analyzed.
|
3. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 6-8 72% of the students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.
|
FAIR Training
|
FAIR Trainers
|
On-going
|
Lesson Plans
Classroom Visits
|
FAIR Trainers
|
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 49% of Black and 55% of Economically Disadvantaged students in grades 6-8 scored a 3 or above.
|
Closing the Achievement Gap
|
Larry Bell
|
On-going
|
Focused walkthroughs with Principal to observe the frequency and effectiveness of Larry Bell’s Closing the Achievement Gap Strategies.
|
Principal
|
|
In grades 6-8 72% of the students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.
|
Reading Strategies
|
Reading Consultant
|
On-going
|
Focused walkthroughs with Principal to observe the frequency and effectiveness of reading strategies
|
Principal
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
Teachers will use bell ringers, word walls, and Larry Bell’s Closing the Achievement Gap strategies.
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Jamestown Navigator
|
Textbook |
$16,000.00 |
| Total: $16,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Classworks |
District funds/Title I Part D |
$12,500.00 |
| ThnikLink |
Title VI |
$8,400.00 |
| Renaissance Learning |
Textbook & Title II Part D |
$7,500.00 |
| Total: $28,400.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Larry Bell Closing the Achievement Gap |
Title VI |
$8,500.00 |
| Reading Consultant |
Title VI |
$6,000.00 |
| Total: $14,500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $58,900.00 |
|
| 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 6-8, 69% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
In grades 6-8, 74% of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Common board configuration including objectives, date and homework assignment.
|
1.Principal, Mathematics Teachers
|
1.Focused walkthroughs by administration will be used to ensure all math teachers are using common board configurations.
|
1.Reports generated from walkthroughs.
|
| 2 |
2. Utilize the FCIM to identify students in the core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment.
|
2.Principal, Mathematics Teachers
|
2. Review student progress frequently and insure differentiated instructional strategies are meeting the needs of students
|
2.Progress of students on assessments
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 50% of Black and 54% of Economically Disadvantaged students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
In grades 6-8, 74% of Black and Economically Disadvantaged students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics.
|
| |
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 common assessment data for all students within the bottom quartile. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/intervention within the mathematics class.
|
1. Math Teachers
|
1. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 9 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark.
|
1. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards.
|
| 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.
|
2. Math Teachers
|
2. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 5 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark.
|
2. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards.
|
| 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 every 3 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark.
|
3. Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 6-8, 74% of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar
|
Mathematics Teachers
|
On-going
|
Modeling of Lessons, Classroom Visits
|
Principal, Mathematics Teachers
|
|
In grades 6-8, 74% of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
Best Practices
|
Randy Ward
District Wide Inservice
|
On-going
|
Classroom Visits
|
Principal
|
|
In grades 6-8, 74% of Black and Economically Disadvantaged students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics.
|
Larry Bell, Closing the Achievement Gap.
|
Larry Bell
|
On-going
|
Focused walkthroughs with Principal to observe the frequency and effectiveness of the Larry Bell Strategies.
|
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 |
| Classworks |
District Funds |
$12,500.00 |
| Total: $12,500.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Larry Bell, “Closing the Achievement Gap” |
Title VI |
$8,500.00 |
| Total: $8,500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $21,000.00 |
|
| 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 FCAT Science data, 53% of students achieved level three and above
|
Given instruction on the Sunshine State Standards, 55% 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 using the 5E model, science stations.
|
1 Principal and Science Teachers, Science Consultant
|
1. Create a hands-on lab setting demonstrating concepts relevant to each unit.
|
1. Improvement on the science assessment.
|
| 2 |
2. Provide real-world experiences and engaging activities.
|
2.Principal and Science Teachers, Science Consultant
|
2. Teachers will discuss current science related news.
|
2. Improvement on the science assessment.
|
| 3 |
3.Provides differentiated instructional activities to enforce science concepts.
|
3. Principal and Science Teachers, Science Consultant
|
3. Review students frequently and ensure differentiated strategies are meeting the needs based on assessment.
|
3. Progress of all students on assessment
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on FCAT Science data, 53% of students achieved level three and above
|
Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 55% of the 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 |
Tier 1. Utilize hands-on laboratory experiments using the 5E model.
|
1.Science Teachers
|
1. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 9 weeks to determine progress toward benchmarks
|
1. Common assessment tied to Florida Science Standards.
|
| 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, guided practice and independent practice. Supplemental instruction is provided in addition to core instruction.
|
2. Science teachers
|
2. Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 5 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark.
|
2. Common assessment tied to Florida Science Standards.
|
| 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 additional to core instruction.
|
3. RtI Team
|
3. Grade-level teams will review results of assessment data every 3 weeks to determine progress.
|
3. Common assessment 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, 55% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
|
Science Workshop
|
Donna Szpyrka, Science Consultant
|
On-going
|
Common planning minutes will be reviewed to ensure data trends are discussed and lesson plans are developed.
|
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 |
| Science Workshop/Donna Szpyrka |
Title VI |
$5,600.00 |
| Total: $5,600.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $5,600.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Writes data, 93% of students scored at or above proficiency.
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 95% of the 8th grade students will achieve a 3.5 or above.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Tier 1: Students use the 6 Traits of Writing process, all writing will be dated, and recorded in a journal, notebook, or work folder for monitoring for growth across time. Determine core instructional needs by reviewing Jackson County Writes scores every 9 weeks by comparing writing and data to expected rate of growth (aimline). Plan differentiated instruction using 6 Traits of Writing and the revision and editing process.
|
1.Principal and Teachers
|
1. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once.
|
1. Scored writing samples will be used to determine progress between Jackson County Writes.
|
| 2 |
2. Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of Jackson County Writes data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practiced and independent practice.
|
2. Teachers
|
2. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once every 5 weeks by comparing writing trend data to expected rate of growth (aimline).
|
2. Scored writing samples will be used to determine progress.
|
| 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/Teachers
|
3. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored. Progress will be determined once every 3 weeks by comparing writing trend data for all students receiving tier 3.
|
3. Scored writing samples will be used to determine progress.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 95% of the 8th grade students will achieve a 3.5 or above.
|
6 Traits of Writing and Instructional Focus Calendar
|
Tonya Gardner
|
On-going
|
Monitor student writing portfolios, notebooks, or journals. The students will make revisions and edit so that their self-correcting behavior can be easily monitored.
|
Teachers
|
|
| |
| 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?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
School staff survey indicated teacher communicated with only 10% of parents once per month.
|
Increase teacher communication with parents to 75% 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 |
1. Increase teacher communication with parents to 75% of their student’s parents at least once per month.
|
1. Teacher
|
1. Collect Progress Reports and Report Cards with parent/guardian signatures.
|
1. Parent and Teacher Survey
|
| 2 |
2. The school will utilize the mass calling phone system to notify parents/guardians of upcoming events.
|
2. Principal
|
2. Phone generated reports
|
2. Parent and Teacher Survey
|
| 3 |
3. Student agenda books will be used for school/home communication.
|
3. Teacher and Parent/Guardian
|
3. Teachers will perform periodic agenda checks.
|
3. Parent and Teacher Survey
|
|
| |
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 |
| Mass Calling Phone System |
School Funds |
$700.00 |
| Total: $700.00 |
| 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 |
| Student Agenda Books |
School Improvement Funds |
$2,925.72 |
| Total: $2,925.72 |
| Final Total: $3,625.72 |
|
| 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 |
Jamestown Navigator
|
Textbook |
$16,000.00 |
| Total: $16,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Classworks |
District funds/Title I Part D |
$12,500.00 |
| Reading |
ThnikLink |
Title VI |
$8,400.00 |
| Reading |
Renaissance Learning |
Textbook & Title II Part D |
$7,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Classworks |
District Funds |
$12,500.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Mass Calling Phone System |
School Funds |
$700.00 |
| Total: $41,600.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Larry Bell Closing the Achievement Gap |
Title VI |
$8,500.00 |
| Reading |
Reading Consultant |
Title VI |
$6,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Larry Bell, “Closing the Achievement Gap” |
Title VI |
$8,500.00 |
| Science |
Science Workshop/Donna Szpyrka |
Title VI |
$5,600.00 |
| Total: $28,600.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parental Involvement |
Student Agenda Books |
School Improvement Funds |
$2,925.72 |
| Total: $2,925.72 |
| Final Total: $89,125.72 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 8/18/2009 3:03:44 PM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
|
No funds will be available this year.
|
0
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The School Advisory Council (SAC) has an important function for the success of Marianna Middle School. Listed below are some of the functions of the SAC.
*Approve certain financial expenditures.
*Assist the school to create and analyze school climate surveys
*Participate in the development of the School Improvement Plan.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Dr. Gayle Westbrook,
Principal
|
|
2)
Charlene Merrifield,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Jeb Bruner,
Student
|
|
4)
Mary Katherine Pittman,
Student
|
|
5)
Alexus Jones,
Student
|
|
6)
Johnny Touchton,
Student
|
|
7)
Garrison Melzer,
Student
|
|
8)
Martha Godwin,
Teacher
|
|
9)
Rochelle Summerwell,
Teacher
|
|
10)
Mary Hinson,
Teacher
|
|
11)
Amber Tucker,
Teacher
|
|
12)
Angela Roberts,
Business Member
|
|
13)
Pam Bimberg,
Parent
|
|
14)
Cathy Pereda,
Parent
|
|
15)
Jane Michels,
Parent
|
|
16)
Susie Rodenbach,
Parent
|
|
17)
Sandra Baker,
Parent
|
|
18)
Carol Marks,
Parent
|
|
19)
Cephus Granberry,
Community Member
|
|
20)
Sonjia Barkley,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Jackson School District MARIANNA MIDDLE SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
74%
|
75%
|
92%
|
53%
|
294
|
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 |
69% |
66% |
|
|
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? |
71% (YES) |
59% (YES) |
|
|
130
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
559 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Jackson School District MARIANNA MIDDLE SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
73%
|
75%
|
86%
|
46%
|
280
|
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% |
71% |
|
|
139 |
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? |
65% (YES) |
66% (YES) |
|
|
131
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
550 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Jackson School District MARIANNA MIDDLE SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
73%
|
74%
|
84%
|
42%
|
273
|
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% |
70% |
|
|
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? |
59% (YES) |
62% (YES) |
|
|
121
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
525 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |