VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
The vision of the School District of Lee County is to be a world class school.
The mission of Trafalgar Elementary School is to provide a quality education in a safe and well-managed environment.
Core Values: We believe that all students can learn and that our staff will do whatever it takes to ensure learning.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Trafalgar Elementary presents a comprehensive curriculum in which the primary focus of instruction is on basic skills with an emphasis on reading, writing, math and science. There is a commitment on the part of the administration, teachers, and staff to set high standards for student achievement and the belief in the potential of every child. We provide a safe and caring environment that promotes individual success in academics and inspires students to be life-long learners and good citizens. Researched based strategies are implemented in each grade level, such as intensive reading programs, Kagan Cooperative Learning and Multiple Intelligences. Individual and small group tutoring strategies are incorporated during and after the school day.
All of our teachers are "tech" saavy and utilize "Smart Boards" daily.
Students are encouraged to show responsibility, respect, and compassion for their peers. Our school wide discipline plan, Positive Behavior Support, has reduced the number of serious discipline incidents. A mandatory uniform policy helps to create a learning environment that is safe and conducive for learning. Numerous school-wide recognitions are in place to reinforce our behavior system.
Promotion of home and school relationships and strong communication is a high priority at Trafalgar Elementary. This year we are continuing with the Parent Link Communication System. We are also continuing parent involvement programs such as parent conference nights and Spanish parent nights. We continue to enourage and have strong parental involvement at our PTO and SAC meetings. Curriculum nights and an Academic Fair are planned again this year.
Since Trafalgar Elementary has opened in 2003, we have earned an A through the Department of Education School grading program and met Adequate Yearly Progress According to the Florida Adequate Yearly Progress report. In the 2008-2009 school year, 75% of our students made learning gains in reading and 66% made learning gains in math. In writing 98% of our fourth grade students met or exceeded the standard of 3.5 with our average score of 4.4 being the highest in the district. All of our subgroups met or exceeded the standards. We are continuously working with all of our subgroups, specifically our ESOL and our ESE populations so that they continue to make learning gains.
Trafalgar Elementary will apply for Kagan Model School status during the 2009-2010 school year. We will continue to strive to earn a grade of A and make AYP.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
All teachers were trained with Kagan Multitple Intelligences this past summer. Our new web-based parent communication, Share Point, will enable teachers to communicate effectively with parents. Two of our teachers are Nationally Board Certified, several have masters degrees. Additionally, we have two Golden Apple recipients and a Lee County teacher of the year on our team. For the past five years we have had finalists and teachers of distinction. Several of our teachers are recent winners of District Teacher of the Year awards in their fields of expertise. Many of our staff members have ESOL, reading, and/or gifted endorsements. Our leadership structure consists of a Principal, Assistant Principal and Grade Level Team Leaders.
For the past five years we have earned Model School status from the Positive Behavior Support team at the University of South Florida. We have also earned the 5 Star Award for Community Involvement for the past few years.
Although all Trafalgar subgroups preformed well on the FCAT, our Economically Disadvantaged students scored well above the District average in both Math and Reading.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Due to budget constraints, our staff has decreased with the loss of a guidance counselor and a part-time ESE certified teacher. The budget also had an impact on our performing arts program. One AYP subgroup that will be affected by these cuts is our ESE population. We will strive to mitigate the loss.
Student Demographics
School Year 08/09
Total Enrollment - 837
Total Minority - 35.4%
Free and Reduced - 45%
ESE - 10.6%
Gifted - 9%
LEP - 3.1%
Student Attendance Rates
In 2008-2009, the attendance rate was 95.7%.
Student Mobility
Mobility Rate 15.2%
Stability Rate 92.9%
These were both areas of improvement.
Student Suspension Rates
Out of School Suspension 2008-2009 - 24
In school suspension 2008-2009 1.5 days
Student Retention Rates
17 students were retained in 2008-2009
K-8 students
1st-4 students
2nd- 3 students
3rd grade 4 students
4th grade- 3 students
5th grade- 1 student
Class Size
Kindergarten - Grade 3 Average of 16.46 students
Grades 4 - 5 Average of 18.26 students
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
There is no discernible pattern of students that attend Trafalgar due to school choice. We are a feeder school for Trafalgar Middle School. The past two years over *** of our 5th grade students have made the transition into 6th grade at Trafalgar Middle.
Partnerships and Grants
Trafalgar Elementary has developed a strong connection with many businesses in our community through the Cape Coral Chamber of Commerce. In the past, we have received grants through Lee County Public Schools Foundation, Target, and Bonita Bay Group to name a few.
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
|
Marie Vetter
|
Masters
|
6
|
15
|
Opened TES in 2003. Received an A from the state and AYP every year since.TES made PBS school for our outstanding disipline program since 2004. As a Kagan school, we plan on applying to become a model demonstration school. Mrs.Vetter has been trained along with the entire faculty and is a certified Kagan coach. We led Trafalgar to the highest writing scores in Lee County.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Ann Fainer
|
Masters in Educational Leadership
|
3
|
6
|
Assistant Principal at Trafalgar Middle School, an A+ school, 2004-2007. Assistant Principal at Trafalgar Elementary 2007-current. Has been trained along with the entire faculty and is a certified Kagan coach. We led Trafalgar to the highest writing scores in Lee County.
|
* 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 * |
|
All
|
Jill Zaiser
|
BS
|
6
|
6
|
2003-2009: Grade A
Made AYP
|
|
All
|
Kathy Eva
|
Masters
|
5
|
1
|
2003-2009: Grade A
Made AYP
|
* 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) |
Incentives
Yes Awards
Staff Development
Mentor new teachers
|
Staff
|
Ongoing
|
|
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 |
| 54 | 0 | 48 | 35 | 15 | 69 | 100 | 11 | 4 | 56 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Jeannette Castilla
|
Natalie Walker-Grant
|
New to school
|
Common Planning
Grade Level Meetings
Modeling
Kagan Coaching
|
|
Lori Mazon
|
Diana Rose
|
New to classroom
|
Common Planning
Grade Level Meetings
Modeling
Kagan Coaching
|
|
Debbie Suhrie
|
Amy Hopper
|
New to grade level
|
Common Planning
Support as needed
|
|
Kelle Brooks
|
Diane Clementi
|
New to grade level
|
Common Planning
Support as needed
|
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) |
|
Writing Goal Team
|
Linda Skidd
|
Monthly
|
Last week of the month
|
Data Analysis
Goal Atainment
Lesson Study
SAC Liaison
|
|
Science Goal Team
|
Linda Hamstra
|
Monthly
|
Last week of the month
|
Data Analysis
Goal Atainment
Lesson Study
SAC Liaison
|
|
Math Goal Team
|
Nancy Feather
|
Monthly
|
Last week of the month
|
Data Analysis
Goal Atainment
Lesson Study
SAC Liaison
|
|
Reading Goal Team
|
Jill Zaiser
|
Monthly
|
Last week of the month
|
Data Analysis
Goal Atainment
Lesson Study
SAC Liaison
|
|
Parent Involvement
|
Ann Fainer
|
Monthly
|
Last week of the month
|
Data Analysis
Goal Atainment
Lesson Study
SAC Liaison
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Trafalgar Elementary invites parents and their incoming Kindergarten students to an open house each spring. Students and their parents receive an overview of the Kindergarten program from Mrs. Vetter and Mrs. Fainer through a Power Point presentation. Parents and students then tour the campus and participate in classroom visits.
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 |
|
While all subgroups at Trafalgar Elementary made AYP in Reading for 2008-2009, it was noted that our percent of lowest 25% making gains in reading decreased by 1 percent from 74% to 73%. The lowest 25% includes ESOL, ESE and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups, therefore we will address our lowest 25% on the 2009-2010 current plan.
|
For the 2009-2010 school year, Trafalgar Elementary will increase the percentage of students identified as the lowest 25% making learning gains in reading from 73% to 75% according the Florida School Grades report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
The school will implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.
|
Curriculum Specialist, Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Analyze FAIR data and common assessments
|
FAIR and common assessments
|
| 2 |
A minimum 90 minute reading block for all classrooms with an additional 30 minutes of instructional time for students who are not proficient by FCAT or SAT 10 standards.
|
Curriculum Specialist, Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Lesson Plans and CWT
|
FAIR and common assessments
|
| 3 |
Students in the Intensive Reading Classrooms will use the Research based Reading Mastery program as well as McMillan Trophies.
|
Curriculum Specialist,Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Analyze FAIR data and common assessments
|
FAIR and Common assessments
|
| 4 |
Students identified as the lowest 25% in all grades will be grouped with additional instructional support within a smaller class size.
|
Curriculum Specialist,Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Analyze FAIR data and common assessments
|
FAIR and Common assessments
|
| 5 |
Monthly meeting
|
PLC Reading Goal Team
|
Continuous Improvement Process
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science
|
| 6 |
Teachers will integrate Kagan Cooperative Learning and Multiple Intelligence structures.
|
Kagan Coaches
|
Monthly coaching
|
Coaching instruments
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
1,2,3,4
|
FAIR Training
|
District
|
Preschool
|
Further training by Curriculum Specialist/Inservice report
|
Administration
|
|
1,2,3,4
|
Kagan Multiple Intelligences
|
National Trainer
|
Preschool
|
Lesson plans, CWT, SAMS Club, coaching
|
Administration and Kagan Coaching Team
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| 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 |
| Kagan Multiple Intelligence Training |
District Monies |
$19,195.00 |
| Kagan Multiple Intelligence Training |
Internal Funds |
$15,120.00 |
| Kagan Coaching |
Title II |
$4,700.00 |
| Total: $39,015.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $39,015.00 |
|
| 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 2008-2009, 66% of Trafalgar Elementary students made learning gains in math; an increase of 9% over 2007-2008. However, 70% of students in the district made learning gains.
|
In 2009-2010, the percentage of our students making learning gains on the FCAT math assessment will increase from 66% to 70% as measured by the School Grades Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Implementation of Voyages Math program
|
Math Goal Team and Administration
|
Analyze common assessments
|
District Assessments
|
| 2 |
Tutoring during the school day with Singapore Math for students that did not make gains
|
Math Goal Team and Administration, Kathy Eva, Shelly Wilson
|
Analyze common assessments
|
District Assessments
|
| 3 |
Monthly meeting
|
PLC Math Goal Team
|
Continuous Improvement Process
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
1 & 2
|
Model Math
|
Laurie Delikat
|
Preschool and ongoing
|
Common Assessments, Lesson Plans, student grades
|
Goal Team and Administraton
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Singapore Math Workbooks, TEs, and textbooks |
Internal |
$1,208.09 |
| Total: $1,208.09 |
| 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: $1,208.09 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In 2008-2009, 64% of Trafalgar Elementary students made learning gains in science; an increase of 21%over 2007-2008. This goal will require that we continue to make continued growth.
|
For the school year 2009-2010, the percentage of students that will meet or exceed standards on the FCAT Science assessment will increase from 64% to 66%.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Students K-5 will utilize the science lab
|
Administrators
|
Analyze common assessments
CWT
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science Scores
|
| 2 |
Teachers will incorporate Leveled Readers in Science
|
Kym Bisbe
Administrators
|
Analyze common assessments
|
Common Assessments
|
| 3 |
Ecology Club will be offered to 4th and 5th grade students
|
Suzy Corace
|
Observation
|
Common Assessments
|
| 4 |
ELL Parent/student science orientation
|
ESOL Teachers
Administration
|
Sign in sheets
Analyze common assessments
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science Scores
|
| 5 |
Monthly meeting
|
PLC Science Goal Team
|
Continuous Improvement Process
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science Scores
|
| 6 |
Trafalgar Writes utilizing short and extended response
|
Administration
|
Analyze common assessments
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science Scores
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
1
|
Lab orientation
|
Kelly Johnson
|
October
|
Observation, Lesson Plans, Lab Calendar
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In examining the State Accountability Report for 2008-2009 we noticed that our current performance in writing maintained at 98% meeting or exceeding standards and is ahead of state and district scores and projections. This goal will require that we continue to excel in the area of writing.
|
In 08-09 98% of 4th grade students met or exceeded standards on FCAT Writing. For the school year 2009-2010, 90% of Trafalgar Elementary 4th grade students will meet or exceed standards on the FCAT Writes assessment as measured by the AYP report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Continue school wide implementation of Writers In Control
|
Writing Goal Team Administration
|
Administer monthly Trafalgar Writes
|
Trafalgar Writes
|
| 2 |
After school writing tutoring
|
Teachers and Administration
|
Administer monthly Trafalgar Writes
|
Trafalgar Writes
|
| 3 |
Weekly writing samples by 4th grade students
|
Teachers and administration
|
Analyze common writing assessments using common prompts
|
Rubrics
|
| 4 |
Individual and grade level writing goals
|
Teachers and Administration
|
Administer monthly Trafalgar Writes
|
Trafalgar Writes
|
| 5 |
Monthly meeting
|
PLC Writing Goal Team
|
Continuous Improvement Process
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science Scores
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Writing
|
Writing
|
National Trainer
|
October
|
Lesson Plans, Observation
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Writers In Control |
Title II |
$2,400.00 |
| Total: $2,400.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $2,400.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
At our PTO/SAC meeting we discussed this goal with the parents and teachers. It was apparent that communication in certain areas needs improvement in some areas. We discussed ways to improve communication between school and home.
|
For the school year 2009-2010, our goal is to build better communication between parents and the school. The PTO will increase the number of monthly columns for the newsletter (Trafalgar Gazette) from zero to a minimum of 6.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
The PTO parents in conjunction with the assisant Principalwill put together a monthly column for the Trafalgar Gazett Newsletter.
|
Assistant Principal
|
Parent feedback
|
Increased parent/family involvement in existing activities
|
| 2 |
The PTO parents in conjunction with the technology specialist will put together a Trafalgar PTO website that will link to the school's website. This group will update the website as needed.
|
Administration
|
Hits to site and feedback from parents
|
Website visit counter
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
| |
| 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
Reading SAT 10 Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In the school year 2008-2009, 94% of the K-2 students met or exceeded standards in reading acording to SAT 10. In the year 2014 NCLB requires all students to meet or exceed grade level standards. In order to meet those high standards in the FCAT grades, high acheivement is expected in the primary grades.
|
In 08-09 94% of K-2 students met or exceded standards on the SAT 10. For the school year 2009-2010, 95% of Trafalgar Elementary K-2nd grade students will meet or exceed standards on the Stanford 10 reading assessment.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Teachers will integrate Kagan Cooperative Learning and Multiple Intelligence structures.
|
Kagan Coaches
|
Monthly coaching
|
Coaching instruments
|
| 2 |
Monthly Meeting
|
PLC Reading Goal Team
|
Continuous Improvement Process
|
Common Assessments
FCAT Science Scores
|
| 3 |
The school will implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.
|
Curriculum Specialist, Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Analyze FAIR data and common assessments
|
FAIR and common assessments
|
| 4 |
A minimum 90 minute reading block for all classrooms with an additional 30 minutes of instructional time for students who are not proficient SAT 10 standards.
|
Curriculum Specialist, Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Lesson Plans and CWT
|
FAIR and common assessments
|
| 5 |
Students in the Intensive Reading Classrooms will use the Research based Reading Mastery program as well as McMillan Trophies and Read Well.
|
Curriculum Specialist,Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Analyze FAIR data and common assessments
|
FAIR and common assessments
|
| 6 |
Students identified as the lowest 25% in all grades will be grouped with additional instructional support within a smaller class size.
|
Curriculum Specialist,Co-teachers, Administration, Reading Goal Team
|
Analyze FAIR data and common assessments
|
FAIR and common assessments
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
3
|
FAIR traing
|
district
|
August
|
ongoing
|
Curriculum coaches
|
|
2
|
As need assessed by Reading Goal team meetings
|
Reading Goal Team
|
ongoing
|
training
|
Curriculum Coaches and Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Reading SAT 10 Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Mathematics |
Singapore Math Workbooks, TEs, and textbooks |
Internal |
$1,208.09 |
| Total: $1,208.09 |
| 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 |
Kagan Multiple Intelligence Training |
District Monies |
$19,195.00 |
| Reading |
Kagan Multiple Intelligence Training |
Internal Funds |
$15,120.00 |
| Reading |
Kagan Coaching |
Title II |
$4,700.00 |
| Writing |
Writers In Control |
Title II |
$2,400.00 |
| Total: $41,415.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $42,623.09 |
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 |
|
Schools were not awarded SIP founds for the 09-10 school year.
|
0
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
Trafalgar elementary SAC approved the SIP on September 3rd 2009. The purpose of School Advisory Council is to perform the functions that are prescribed by the regulations of the School Board. The SAC will assist in the preparation and evaluation of the School improvement Plan, will give advise concerning the annual school budget, and will approve the use of the school improvement funds. Meeting dates and their agendas and posted in the school, emailed to the staff and publicized through the school district.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Marie Vetter,
Principal
|
|
2)
Kimberly Bisbe,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Jill Conforte,
SAC Chair
|
|
4)
Nancy Feather,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Donna Berry,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Marlo Bromfield,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Linda Hamstra,
Teacher
|
|
8)
Shawn Caneer,
Teacher
|
|
9)
Ed Bolter,
Business Member
|
|
10)
Meri Sutphen,
Business Member
|
|
11)
Dian Ramsey,
Parent
|
|
12)
Gina Sostack,
Parent
|
|
13)
Maria Rivera-Kirk,
Parent
|
|
14)
Rosemary Teague,
Parent
|
|
15)
Nicole Baughman,
Parent
|
|
16)
Kim Purdy,
Parent
|
|
17)
Tara Golub,
Parent
|
|
18)
Annette McBride,
Parent
|
|
19)
Kelly Smith,
Parent
|
|
20)
Dana Baird,
Parent
|
|
21)
Kathy Mangone,
Parent
|
|
22)
Hector Garcia,
Community Member
|
|
23)
Rachel Garcia,
School Support Personnel
|
|
24)
Darlene Martin,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Lee TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0762 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 421 Math: 421
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
88 |
Y |
82 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
16 |
12 |
NA |
23 |
18 |
NA |
85 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
90 |
Y |
84 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
16 |
10 |
NA |
17 |
16 |
NA |
85 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
84 |
Y |
78 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
15 |
16 |
NA |
34 |
22 |
NA |
82 |
NA |
64 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
82 |
Y |
78 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
22 |
18 |
NA |
32 |
22 |
NA |
83 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Lee TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0762 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 435 Math: 435
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
84 |
Y |
77 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
18 |
16 |
NA |
20 |
23 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
84 |
Y |
83 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
14 |
16 |
NA |
14 |
17 |
NA |
78 |
NA |
69 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
85 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
90
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
25 |
15 |
NA |
31 |
34 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
64 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
78 |
Y |
68 |
Y |
91
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
26 |
22 |
NA |
28 |
32 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
63 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
56 |
N |
66 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
37 |
44 |
N |
33 |
34 |
NA |
61 |
Y |
57 |
NA |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Lee TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0762 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 455 Math: 455
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
82 |
Y |
80 |
Y |
92
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
25 |
21 |
NA |
25 |
20 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
86 |
Y |
86 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
18 |
15 |
NA |
20 |
14 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
75 |
Y |
69 |
Y |
86
|
90 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
37 |
30 |
NA |
30 |
31 |
NA |
74 |
NA |
74 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
74 |
Y |
72 |
Y |
85
|
91 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
36 |
29 |
NA |
32 |
28 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
67 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
38 |
NA |
40 |
33 |
NA |
61 |
NA |
63 |
NA |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Lee School District TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
92%
|
86%
|
98%
|
64%
|
340
|
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 |
75% |
66% |
|
|
141 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
73% (YES) |
71% (YES) |
|
|
144
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
625 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Lee School District TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
90%
|
80%
|
98%
|
43%
|
311
|
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% |
57% |
|
|
126 |
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? |
74% (YES) |
55% (YES) |
|
|
129
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
566 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Lee School District TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
88%
|
85%
|
88%
|
42%
|
303
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
74% |
71% |
|
|
145 |
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? |
74% (YES) |
73% (YES) |
|
|
147
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
595 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |