VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision Statement:
Independence Middle School staff is committed to providing a safe environment with instruction that is rigorous and relevant, while holding high academic standards for all students. Faculty will continuously pursue individual professional growth and development to meet the needs of our students
Mission Statement:
The shareholders of Independence Middle School are committed to excellence in education that prepares students with the knowledge, skills, and values required to be productive citizens and life-long learners.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Brief History and Background of the School
Independence Middle School (IMS), was built in 2002, and currently serves a population of approximately 1,300 students. Our facility resides in Jupiter, Florida within the Abacoa Community Neighborhood. IMS has maintained an “A” rating since it opened its doors and also continues to be a “5 Star School.” There are four main buildings and twelve modular classrooms on the campus. Perimeter gates and fences have been installed to assist with safety and supervision.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
IMS offers a Pre-Teaching Academy which is part of the school Magnet and Choice Programs offered through the District.
Our school offers a variety of extra-curricular activities such as our Athletics Program, Intramurals and clubs such as: chess, fishing, guitar, book club, equestrian club and academic games.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
IMS recently was allocated two EBD units which will require additional staff training and District resources to meet the needs of this specific population. Additionally, we have three sub-groups that have nto made AYP which are: Black, Economically Disadvantaged (ED) and Students with Disabilities (SWD). We are now part of the Differentiated Accountability System since we did not meet AYP.
Student Demographics
Student Demographics
IMS serves a diverse school population that consists of 1,283 students. 72% of our students are white, 9% of our students are Black, 12% of our students are Hispanic, 3% of our students are Asian, 2% of our students are American Indian and 2% are classified as Multi-Ethnic. We serve approximately 19 ELL students currently. We have approximately 20% of our student population on the free/reduced meal program. Additionally, 11% are Students with Disabilities (SWD), and nearly 12% are gifted.
Student Attendance Rates
Student Attendance Rates
For 2009 IMS had the following attendance rate: 95% which is the same for the 2008 school year. The District attendance rate is 95% so IMS is in alignment with the District attendance rate.
Student Mobility
Student Mobility
The mobility rate of the school is 3%.
Student Suspension Rates
Student Suspension Rates
The student suspension rate for IMS was 8%, which is unchanged from the 2008 school year.
Student Retention Rates
Student Retention Rates
The retention rate for 2008 was 1% which decreased from 2% in 2007 and is below the District average of 4.9%.
Class Size
Class Size
The District has placed a strong emphasis on schools remaining within CSR requirements. IMS has complied with the 22:1 teacher-student ration in intensive reading and math classes however, we were not able to maintain these ratios within science and social studies. We did meet CSR requirements for District overall averages.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
The elementary schools that feed into Independence Middle School are: Beacon Cove Intermediate (BCI), and Jerry Thomas Elementary School. Both schools are “A” rated schools by the state and met AYP.
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships and Grants
IMS has numerous Business Partnerships such as: Town of Jupiter, Jupiter Fitness, Jupiter Public Library, and Barnes & Noble.
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
|
Mr. Scott Duhy
|
BS-History & Political Science, Florida State University, MA in Education-University of Phoenix, Certification-Social Science (K-12), Educational Leadership
|
5
|
4
|
Assistant Principal-Independence Middle School 2008-2009
Grade Reading Mastery: 84%, Math Mastery 82%, Science Mastery 63%, AYP: 92%. Black Students did not make AYP in Reading. Black and Economically Disadvantaged students did not make AYP in Math.
2007-2008
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 82%, Math Mastery: 81%, Science Mastery: 63%, AYP: 95%. SWD did not make AYP.
2006-2007
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 80%, Math Mastery: 80%, Science Mastery: 66% AYP: 97%. SWD did not make AYP in reading.
2005-2006
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 82%, Math Mastery: 83%. AYP: 97%. SWD did not make AYP in math.
2004-2005
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery: 83%. AYP: 100%. All sub-groups made AYP.
|
|
Principal
|
Mrs. Lori Bonino
|
BS-Varying Exceptionalities, Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), Master of Science-Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern, Principal Certification-State of Florida, ESOL endorse
|
1
|
21
|
Principal of Independence Middle School 2008-2009
Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 84%, Math Mastery: 82%, Science Mastery: 63%. AYP: 92%. Black students did not make AYP in reading. Black and Economically Disadvantaged students did not make AYP in Math.
Principal of Lighthouse Elementary School from 2001-2008
2007-2008
Grade-A
Reading Mastery: 96%, Math Mastery: 94%, Science Mastery: 81%.
2006-2007
Grade – A Reading Mastery: 96%, Math Mastery: 95%, Science Mastery: 82%.
2005-2006
Grade – A
Reading Mastery: 93%. Math Mastery: 91%.
2004-2005
Grade- A
Reading Mastery: 92%, Math Mastery: 89%.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Dr. Kathy Carden
|
Ed.D-Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University, Master of Arts-Education, USF, BS-Physical Education, UCF, Certification-Educational Leadership, Physical Education, MG Endorsement
|
7
|
10
|
Assistant Principal-Independence Middle-
2008-2009
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 84%, Math Mastery 82%, Science Mastery 63%, AYP: 92%. Black Students did not make AYP in Reading. Black and Economically Disadvantaged students did not make AYP in Math.
2007-2008
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 82%, Math Mastery: 81%, Science Mastery: 63%, AYP: 95%. SWD did not make AYP.
2006-2007
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 80%, Math Mastery: 80%, Science Mastery: 66% AYP: 97%. SWD did not make AYP in reading.
2005-2006
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 82%, Math Mastery: 83%. AYP: 97%. SWD did not make AYP in math.
2004-2005
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery: 83%. AYP: 100%. All sub-groups made AYP.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Mr. Martest Sheffield
|
BS-Computer Science, Voorhees College, MS-Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University, Certification-Computer Science (K-12), Educational Leadership
|
7
|
9
|
Assistant Principal-Independence Middle School 2008-2009
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 84%, Math Mastery 82%, Science Mastery 63%, AYP: 92%. Black Students did not make AYP in Reading. Black and Economically Disadvantaged students did not make AYP in Math.
2007-2008
Grade Reading Mastery: 82%, Math Mastery: 81%, Science Mastery: 63%, AYP: 95%. SWD did not make AYP.
2006-2007
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 80%, Math Mastery: 80%, Science Mastery: 66% AYP: 97%. SWD did not make AYP in reading.
2005-2006
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 82%, Math Mastery: 83%. AYP: 97%. SWD did not make AYP in math.
2004-2005
Grade A, Reading Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery: 83%. AYP: 100%. All sub-groups made AYP.
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
| Subject Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as a Coach | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Reading
|
Mary Ali-Smith
|
Professional Educator’s & Master’s Degree:
Elementary Education, English
MG Integrated Curr., Social Science, Gifted, Reading Endorsement
|
6
|
1
|
2008-2009: Grade A. Did not make AYP for Black students or ED students.
|
* 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. Regular meetings of new teachers with Principal
2. Regular meetings with ITAP
3. Pairing new staff members with veteran staff members
4. Soliciting referrals from current staff members
5.
|
Principal
ITAP coordinators
ESP Contact
Principal/Administration
|
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Michael Edgley
|
Professional State
|
Technology
|
Mr. Edgley will take the test necessary for further certification
|
|
Joann Parker
|
Professional State
|
ESE
|
Mrs. Parker took the necessary test and is awaiting her scores
|
|
Sara Macqueen
|
Professional State
|
ESE
|
Mrs. MacQueen is completing requirements.
|
|
Linda O’Toole
|
Professional State
|
ESE
|
Mrs. O’Toole is completing
requirements.
|
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 |
| 75 | 3 | 3 | 90 | 4 | 37 | 90 | 3 | 10 | 35 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
| No data submitted |
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
n/a
Title I, Part C- Migrant
n/a
Title I, Part D
n/a
Title II
n/a
Title III
n/a
Title X- Homeless
n/a
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
n/a
Violence Prevention Programs
n/a
Nutrition Programs
n/a
Housing Programs
n/a
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
n/a
Other
n/a
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) |
|
6th, 7th, and 8th grade reading teachers, reading coach, ESE teachers
|
Reading Coach
|
Bi-weekly
|
During planning time
|
Analyze the effectiveness of the IFC, mini-lessons, Read 180 data, to determine if revisions need to occur.
|
|
Reading Leadership Team, ESOL contact, ESE Teacher
|
Reading Coach
|
Monthly
|
PDD
|
Discuss the CRP, school-wide reading initiatives and their effectiveness
|
|
6th , 7th, and 8th grade math teachers, math coach and Secondary Technology Support Technician (STST)
|
Math Dept. Chair
Math Coach
|
Monthly
|
During common planning time
|
To discuss the math IFC, mini-lessons and data to determine if revisions are needed.
|
|
6th, 7th, and 8th grade science teachers and science coach
|
Science Dept. Chairs
Science Coach
|
Monthly
|
During Common Planning time
|
To discuss the science frameworks, embedded assessment data, and to determine if instructional revisions are needed
|
|
Grade Level Teams
|
Team Leaders
Administration
|
Monthly
|
PDDs
|
Data analysis of student diagnostics and other assessment
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
n/a
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
n/a
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 84% of students achieved high standards on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
In grades 6-8, 89% of the students will achieve high standards 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 curriculum frameworks and monitor student progress.. The school will develop an Instructional Focus Calendar for Reading and Language Arts Classes.
|
1. Administration, Reading Coach.
2.Administration,Reading Coach, Language Arts Department Chair
|
1. Review data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.
2. During classroom walkthroughs, the administration team will check to see that the lessons are following the Instructional frameworks, scope and sequence as well as pacing.
|
1. Diagnostic testing results.
2. Classroom observations by administrative team will determine if IFC are being implemented with fidelity.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 73% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
In grades 6-8, 78% of students will achieve learning gains and/or meet state requirements on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Student Achievement discussions will be conducted with all students following FORF, and reading diagnostics.
2. Social Studies teachers will implement effective reading strategies into their instruction.
|
1.Administration , Reading Coach, Reading Teacher, Language Arts Teacher
2.Administration, Reading Coach, Social Studies Teachers
|
1. Administration will review log for student achievement discussions during classroom walkthroughs.
2. During classroom walkthroughs, the Administration will focus on specific reading strategies utilized during instruction.
|
1. Administrators will monitor student performance and randomly ask students how they performed on assessments to determine success rate.
2.Reading Diagnostic Results, FCAT Reading Results
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 49% of our Black students scored at proficiency on the Reading FCAT
|
In grades 6-8, 72% of our Black students will meet proficiency and/or meet state requirements on the 2010 Reading FCAT.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Students not meeting proficiency will be identified through the use of FORF, SRI, and other diagnostic tests.
2. Level 1 & level 2 students will receive intensive reading instruction (90 minutes per day) through the use of Read 180 and other supplemental materials.
3. Plan supplemental instructional intervention for students not responding to core instruction. This will include: modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice.
|
1.Reading Coach
Reading Teachers
2.Reading Coach
Reading Teachers
3.Reading Coach
Reading Teachers
|
1.Student progress will be monitored through the use of FORF, SRI, diagnostics and Read 180 assessment data
2. Percent of students making progress toward benchmark will be assessed through reading diagnostic assessments.
3. Student progress will be measured by Read 180 reports, SRI reports, EDW reports, and FORF data.
|
1. Reading Coach and Administration will monitor the performance of targeted students through weekly meetings.
2. Assessment data will determine if students are progressing towards proficiency on benchmarks.
3. FCAT Reading Diagnostics, SRI results, Read 180 assessment data reports, SAL-P will determine if targeted students are making adequate progress on benchmarks.
|
|
| |
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, 89% of the students will achieve high standards on the 2009 administration of the FCAT reading Test.
|
Effective implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar
|
Reading Coach
Language Arts Department Chairperson
|
August-Sept. 2009
|
Classroom Visits
Lesson Plans
|
Administration
Reading Coach
|
|
In grades 6-8, 72% of our Black students will meet proficiency and/or state requirements on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.
|
Development of Reading and Language Arts Instructional Focus Calendars
|
Reading Coach
Language Arts Dept. Chair
|
August-Sept. 2009
|
Classroom Visits
Lesson Plans
|
Administration
Reading Coach
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
On a daily basis IMS will participate in DEAR where all teachers will demonstrate effective reading strategies through read-aloud, focused independent reading or school-wide novels, with aligned focus questions. Additionally, the Reading Coach will provide modeling, classroom visits and feedback to all core area teachers to build their knowledge base of effective reading strategies and to ensure that our reading program is implemented with fidelity.
|
| |
| 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 |
| Temporary coverage for Professional Development |
SAC
PTO
|
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Purchase Reading Counts Books/Quizzes that are high interest and appropriate lexiles. |
SAC
PTO
|
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Final Total: $1,500.00 |
|
| 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, 82% of students achieved high standards on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
In grades 6-8, 87% of students will achieve high standards in math 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. Math teachers will follow the instructional frameworks including the scope and sequence and pacing chart for math with fidelity.
2. Teachers will identify those students in need of intervention or enrichment.
|
1.Administration, Math Coach, Math Department Chair, Math Teachers
2.Math Coach, Math Department Chair, Math Teachers
|
1. Focused classroom walkthroughs by administration to determine if instructional frameworks are being followed.
2.Learning Team Meetings, PDDs, Department Chair Meetings
|
1.Results of embedded assessments, Math Diagnostic Reports, FCAT Math Scores
2.SAL-P Reports, Diagnostic Reports, FCAT Math Scores
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 74% of our Black students and Economically Disadvantaged (ED) students will score at least 74% above grade level in order to meet AYP or state requirements for 2010.
|
In grades 6-8, both
Sub-groups (Black and ED) students will score at least 74% above grade level in order to meet AYP or state requirements for 2010.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Increase the use of manipulatives, simulations and hands-on activities to reinforce math concepts/
2. Identify and closely monitor the performance of these students; revise instruction and intervention groups as needed.
3. Students scoring level 1 &2 on Math FCAT will receive intensive math instruction daily through the use of V-Math and other supplemental materials.
|
1Math Coach, Department Chair, Math Teachers.
2.Administration, Math Coach, Math Teachers
Math Department Chair
3. Math Coach,
Math Dept. Chair,
Math Teachers
|
1. Teachers will implement hands-on activities to assist students.
2. Maintain progress reports of these students and the intervention strategies utilized.
3. EDW. FCAT data
|
1. Student progress on assessments.
2. Increased student performance on assessments.
3.V-Math assessments, math diagnostic data, FCAT Math scores, AYP reports
|
|
| |
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, 87% of students will achieve high standards in math on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test
|
Effective implementation of the Instructional Frameworks for Math and V-Math Program
|
Math Coach
Math Department Chair
|
August-September 2009
|
Modeling of lessons
Classroom visits
|
Administration, Math Coach, Math Department Chair
|
|
In grades 6-8, 87% of students will achieve high standards in math on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test
|
Effective use of hands-on activities for teaching math concepts
|
District Staff
Math Coach
|
August-September 2009
|
Modeling of lessons
Classroom visits
|
Administration, Math Coach
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| V-Math |
District Funds |
$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 |
| Temporary Coverage for Professional Development |
SAC
PTO
|
$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 |
|
Based on 2009, FCAT Science data, 63% of the 8th grade students achieved level 3 and above.
|
Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 68% of students will score at level 3 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 /essential lab experiments weekly to reinforce concepts.
2. Provide real-world science experiments, essential labs and engaging activities.
|
1.Administration
Science Coach
Science Dept. Chairs, Science Teachers
2. .Administration
Science Coach
Science Dept. Chairs, Science Teachers
|
1. LTMS will occur to analyze student progress and to ensure that SSS frameworks are being implemented effectively.
|
1. Improvement on science embedded assessments.
2.Diagnostic results, common assessments
|
|
| |
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, 68% of students will score at level 3 or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
|
Effective instruction in science utilizing the instructional frameworks.
|
Science Coach
Science Dept. Chair
|
August-September 2009
|
Administration will conduct classroom walk-throughs to determine if frameworks are being followed and labs are being conducted
|
Science Coach
Administration
Science Teachers
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Essential/hands-on lab materials to reinforce concepts. |
SAC |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| 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 |
| Temporary Coverage for Professional Development |
SAC
PTO |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $1,500.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
On the 2009 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 95% of the students in grade 8 scored at proficiency.
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 96% of the 8th grade students will achieve proficiency
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Students will use the writing process daily; a work folder for monitoring growth will be kept.
2. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teacher on an on-going basis.
|
1.Administration
Reading Coach
Language Arts Teachers
2.Reading Coach
Language Arts Teachers
|
1.Student work folders will be reviewed during classroom walkthroughs
2. Monitor student work folders.
|
1.Progress between writing prompts, FCAT writing results
2.Progress between writing prompts, FCAT writing results
|
|
| |
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 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 |
|
In grades 6-8, 73% of students achieved made a year’s worth of progress in reading.
|
In grades 6-8, 78% of students will achieve a year’s worth of progress in reading, according to the School Accountability Report (SAR).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Encourage families to attend Curriculum Night and to participate in Reading Counts, and scheduled “Reading Nights.”
2. Reward students that meet RC goals.
|
1.Administration
Media Specialist
Reading Coach
2. Administration
Media Specialist
Reading Coach
|
1. Collect participation data and survey families.
2. Track Student RC data.
|
1.Parent Attendance
Sign-In sheets
2.RC management profiles
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 75% of students made a year’s worth of progress in math.
|
In grades 6-8, 78% of students will make a year’s worth of progress in math according to the School Accountability Report (SAR)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Encourage families to attend Curriculum Night.
2. Schedule “FCAT Math Night”
|
1.Administration
Math Teachers
2.Administration
Math Teachers
|
Collect participation data and survey families.
2. Collect participation data and survey families.
|
Parent Attendance
Sign-In sheets
2.Parent Attendance
Sign-In Sheets
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
School Effectiveness Questionnaire (SEQ), survey indicated a need for increased teacher/parent communication.
|
Increase Teacher/Parent use of Ed-Line.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Teachers will update student grades on a bi-monthly basis.
2. Parents will be informed on how to make proper use of Edline.
|
1.Adminisration
Teachers
2.Administration
Technology Asst.
|
1. Assistant Principals will review teachers’ Edline and report to the Principal
2. Collect participation data.
|
1. Bi-monthly checks to assure compliance
2. Track number of parent access to Edline as compared to 2009.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
63% of our 8th grade students scored at or above proficiency in Science.
|
68% of our 8th grade students will score at or above proficiency in science according to the School Accountability Report (SAR).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Encourage parents to attend Curriculum Night.
2. Communicate Science expectations and objectives to students/parents on a regular basis.
|
1. Science Teachers
2. Administration
|
1. Attendance and sign-in sheets
|
1. Science Diagnostic Results
2. SAR
3. FCAT Science Results
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
SEQ indicated a need for increased teacher/parent communication.
|
Increase Teacher/parent use of Ed-Line
|
Technology Assistant
|
September 2009
|
Bi-monthly checks of Ed-Line usage
|
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 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 |
| Mathematics |
V-Math |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Essential/hands-on lab materials to reinforce concepts. |
SAC |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| 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 |
Temporary coverage for Professional Development |
SAC
PTO
|
$500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Temporary Coverage for Professional Development |
SAC
PTO
|
$500.00 |
| Science |
Temporary Coverage for Professional Development |
SAC
PTO |
$500.00 |
| Total: $1,500.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Purchase Reading Counts Books/Quizzes that are high interest and appropriate lexiles. |
SAC
PTO
|
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Final Total: $3,500.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/28/2009 12:30:45 PM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Lori Bonino,
Principal
|
|
2)
Fred Sardinha,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
P.F.,
Student
|
|
4)
Joanna Hataway,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Denise McBrayer,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Lisa Petroccia,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Lisa Igo,
Teacher
|
|
8)
Melinda Pierce,
Teacher
|
|
9)
Debi Franklin,
Teacher
|
|
10)
Terri Monk,
Teacher
|
|
11)
Deena George,
Teacher
|
|
12)
Tracy Brackett,
Parent
|
|
13)
Donna Gephart,
Parent
|
|
14)
Jay Bloom,
Parent
|
|
15)
Janet Bell,
Parent
|
|
16)
Debra Halladay,
Parent
|
|
17)
Candice Yeager,
Parent
|
|
18)
Michelle Borenstein,
Parent
|
|
19)
Jacquie Gold,
Parent
|
|
20)
Bill Mallette,
Parent
|
|
21)
Don Dillon,
Parent
|
|
22)
Annette Majewski,
Parent
|
|
23)
Glenda Sheffield,
Parent
|
|
24)
Judi Ackerman,
Parent
|
|
25)
Wendy Harrison,
Community Member
|
|
26)
Dale Long,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Palm Beach School District INDEPENDENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
84%
|
82%
|
95%
|
63%
|
324
|
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 |
73% |
75% |
|
|
148 |
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) |
70% (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 |
|
|
|
|
616 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Palm Beach School District INDEPENDENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
82%
|
81%
|
92%
|
63%
|
318
|
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 |
60% |
75% |
|
|
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? |
61% (YES) |
68% (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 |
|
|
|
|
582 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Palm Beach School District INDEPENDENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
80%
|
80%
|
90%
|
66%
|
316
|
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% |
77% |
|
|
140 |
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? |
62% (YES) |
73% (YES) |
|
|
135
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
591 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |