VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision
The vision of Combee Elementary is to provide an on-going safe environment that promotes a high quality education to meet the needs of a diverse community of learners where all are expected to learn.
Mission
The mission of Combee Elementary is to accomplish the highest student achievement for all students using multiple instructional strategies within a safe school environment that is staffed by well-qualified teachers working together with families and the community.
Belief Statements
All students can be successful learners.
All students will achieve their academic potential.
All faculty members will participate in professional development enhancing quality instruction for all students.
All faculty members and administration will use data analysis to target subgroup performance needs to improve overall academic success.
Family and community involvement will enhance student achievement.
A safe and secure environment is essential for teaching and learning.
Teachers believe all children can achieve. No Exceptions. No Excuses.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Combee Elementary is a Title I school built in the 1950’s and located on a campus in North East Lakeland. In the 2008-2009 school year, the school underwent a renovation. Thirteen classrooms were demolished and two wings containing twenty-two classrooms were added. During the 2007-2008 school year, our fifth grade wing was opened and is also technologically enhanced. This wing also contains an art lab with a kiln for student art projects.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
The two new wings housing twenty-two new classrooms are fully equipped with technological advancements ie. SmartBoards, projectors, and Light Speed Sound System. Our new additions include a Science Lab and Graphic Art Suite. Portable SmartBoards are available check-out to those teachers who do not have one accessible in their classroom.
All fifth grade students at Combee Elementary have access to personal Intel Classmate Txt books for instructional enhancement. Fifth grade teachers have Elmo projectors and additional projectors are on order for our fourth grade team as well.
Combee Elementary improved our school grade in 2008-2009 from a D to a C.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Combee Elementary did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress during the 2008-2009 school year.
Student Demographics
Combee Elementary serves a multi-ethnic school population that consists of 690 students from a predominately economically disadvantaged community. 52% of students are white, 16.81 % of students are black, 25.29% of students are Hispanic and 1.02% of students are Asian. Economically Disadvantaged students make up for 89% of the population. Additionally, 12.43% are Students with Disabilities, 10% of students are classified as English Language Learners.
Student Attendance Rates
During the 2006-2007 school year, the attendance rate for Combee Elementary was 92.54%. In 2007-2008, the attendance rate was 92.20% and 2008-2009 the attendance rate was 92.61 %.
Student Mobility
The mobility rate for the school during the 2007-2008 was 41.09% and in 2008-2009 was 40.14%. Mobility rate comes from our transient population.
Student Suspension Rates
2006-2007: In school 51, Out of school is 554: 2007-2008 In school was 253, Out of school 526 and 2008-2009: In school suspension 85 and out of school 478. The out of school suspension decreased continuously each year. In school suspension peaked in 2007-2008 and then decreased again in 2008-2009.
Student Retention Rates
Student retention rate at Combee Elementary during the 2008-2009 school year was 4.29%.
Class Size
A district wide effort has been made to reduce class size in all subject areas and in all grade levels to reduce discipline problems and strengthen the one on one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size in general education during 2007-2008 for Pre-K through Grade 3 was 16.76 and Grades 4 and 5 was 19.75. Teacher to student ratio in Exceptional Student Education classes for 2008-2009 was Varying Exceptionalities Primary: 1 teacher to 7 students: Varying Exceptionalities Intermediate: 1 teacher to 7 students: Emotional Behavior Disorder: 1 teacher to 4 students.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Combee Elementary, a Correct II school, increased the school grade from a D to a C in the 2008-2009 school year and Crystal Lake Middle School, maintained a school grade of C in the 2008-2009 school year, however moved from a Correct II status to a Prevent II status increasing two Adequate Yearly Progress points.
Partnerships and Grants
Combee Elementary will begin a partnership with the Junior League of Greater Lakeland, First Baptist Church at the Mall, and Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Polk County during the 2009-2010 school year.
Combee Elementary will participate in the Lakeland Rotarian BUSS (belts, underwear, shoes and socks) Program.
Combee Elementary will also continue with the 1 to 1 Technology Grant affording each fifth grade student the use of a computer notebook to enhance instruction in Reading, Math and Science.
Tenoroc High School will continue to serve as a partner for fourth and fifth grade students during the 2009-2010.
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
|
Steve Comparato
|
Health and Physical Education, Education Administration and Supervision, Administration/Supervision, Health Education, Physical Education K-12
|
3
|
19
|
Principal at Combee Elementary in 2008-2009: Grade: C, 60% meeting high standards in Reading, 63% meeting high standards in Math, 84% met high standards in writing, and 31% met high standards in science.AYP for 2008-2009 white, black, economically disadvantaged, English language learners did not make AYP in reading. Hispanic students did make AYP in Reading. No cell made AYP in math. 94% of fourth grade students met AYP in writing. Principal at Combee Elementary in 2007-2008. School Grade: D. 59% met high standards in reading, 61% of students met high standards in math, and 72% of fourth grade students met high standards in writing. 24% met high standards in science. AYP for 2007-2008: Total, black, Hispanic, Economically disadvantaged, English Language Learners and Students with disabilities did not meet AYP. Only white subgroup in reading made AYP. No subgroups in math made AYP. Principal in 2006-2007. School Grade B. 62% of students met high standards in Reading. 61% of students met high standards in math. 94% of students met high standards in writing and 22% of students met high standards in science. AYP for 2006-2007: Total, white and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups made AYP in reading. Black and Hispanic subgroups did not make AYP in reading. Total, white, black, and economically disadvantaged subgroups did meet AYP in math. The Hispanic subgroup did not make AYP.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Katherine Riley
|
Elementary Education Grades 1-6, Educational Leadership K-12, ESOL Endorsement
|
3
|
3
|
Assistant Principal at Combee Elementary in 2008-2009: Grade: C, 60% meeting high standards in Reading, 63% meeting high standards in Math, 84% met high standards in writing, and 31% met high standards in science.AYP for 2008-2009 white, black, economically disadvantaged, English language learners did not make AYP in reading. Hispanic students did make AYP in Reading. No cell made AYP in math. 94% of fourth grade students met AYP in writing. Assistant Principal at Combee Elementary in 2007-2008. School Grade: D. 59% met high standards in reading, 61% of students met high standards in math, and 72% of fourth grade students met high standards in writing. 24% met high standards in science. AYP for 2007-2008: Total, black, Hispanic, Economically disadvantaged, English Language Learners and Students with disabilities did not meet AYP. Only white subgroup in reading made AYP. No subgroups in math made AYP. Assistant Principal in 2006-2007: School Grade B. 62% of students met high standards in Reading. 61% of students met high standards in math. 94% of students met high standards in writing and 22% of students met high standards in science. AYP for 2006-2007: Total, white and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups made AYP in reading. Hispanic subgroup did not make AYP in reading. Total, white, black, and economically disadvantaged subgroups did meet AYP in math. The Hispanic subgroup did not make 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 * |
| 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. Regular Meetings of new teachers with Principal
|
Principal
|
on-going
|
|
|
2. Partnering new teachers with veteran staff
|
Assistant Principal
|
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 |
| 53 | 0.4 | 43 | 27 | 29 | 13 | 100 | 33 | 0 | 94 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Candace Crosby
|
Katherine Nenner
|
Ms. Crosby has experience with teaching primary and intermediate grades.
|
Weekly meetings
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Services are provided to ensure students requiring additional remediation are assisted through after-school
programs or summer school. The district coordinates with Title II and Title III in ensuring staff development
needs are provided.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Migrant Liaison provides services and support to students and parents. The liaison coordinates with Title I and
other programs to ensure student needs are met.
Title I, Part D
District receives funds to support the Educational Alternative Outreach program. Services are coordinated
with district Drop-out Prevention programs.
Title II
District receives supplemental funds for improving basic education programs through the purchase of small
equipment to supplement education programs. New technology in classrooms will increase the instructional
strategies provided to students and new instructional software will enhance literacy and math skills of
struggling students.
Title III
Services are provided through the district for education materials and ELL district support services to improve
the education of immigrant and English Language Learners.
Title X- Homeless
District Homeless Social Worker provides resources (clothing, school supplies, social services referrals) for
students identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act to eliminate barriers for a free and appropriate
education.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI funds will be coordinated with Title I funds to provide summer school for Level 1 readers. SAI funds will be
used to expand the summer program to all Level 2 students.
Violence Prevention Programs
Combee Elementary addressing anti-bullying education through daily ITV for all students.
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) |
|
Grades K-5
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Leadership Team
|
Weekly
|
Common Planning Block
|
Data Analysis, Instructional Strategies, Implementation of Learning Focused Solution model
|
|
Specialists
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Leadership Team
|
Weekly
|
Common Planning Block
|
Data Analysis, Instructional Strategies, Implementation of Learning Focused Solution model
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Two Pre-K programs on campus work with Combee Elementary Kindergarten teachers to introduce their students to Kindergarten. Pre-K teachers meet with Kindergarten teachers throughout the school year to gain an understanding of Kindergarten benchmarks and how those benchmarks are correlated with the current Pre-K program.
When incoming students attend Kindergarten Round-Up in the spring, they are screened for Letter/Print knowledge. Data is reviewed prior to August 24, 2009.
Core Kindergarten academic and behavioral instruction will include daily explicit instruction, modeling, guided practice and independent practice of all academic and/or social emotional skills identified by screening data.
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 3-5, 53% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 51% of black students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
. In grades 3-5, 42% of Hispanic students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 50% of Economically Disadvantaged students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 5% of Students with Disabilities achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 59% of the lowest quartile of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 56% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 32% of English Language students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 59% of our white students achieved mastery on the 2009 mastery of the 2009 FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 59% of all students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 57% of black students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 48% of Hispanic students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report
By Spring 2010, 55% Economically Disadvantaged students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report
By Spring 2010, 15 % of Students with Disabilities will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 70 % of the lowest quartile will make learning gains in Reading as evidenced by the school grade report. .
By Spring 2010, 70 % of students will make learning gains in Reading as evidenced by the school grade report.
By Spring 2010, 39 % of English Language students will achieve a level 3 or above on the 2010 FCAT administration as evidenced by the Safe Harbor AYP report..
By Spring 2010, 63 % of white 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.Teachers will address the 6 components of effective reading instruction using the Harcourt Trophies reading series during a 120 daily reading block.
2. Teachers will administer FAIR assessments to analyze results of student achievement.
3.The Academic Instructional Facilitator will work with classroom teachers on reading strategies and differentiated instruction.
4.Compass Odyssey Programs on computers will be available to supplement basic Harcourt Trophies reading instruction for all sub groups focusing on the seven comprehension tested skills on the FCAT. Computer reports will be given monthly to the principal to the classroom teachers.
5. Students will participate in the Accelerated Reader program with materials available throughout the school. We will be implementing a school wide Accelerated Reader incentive program.
6. LFS training, “Catching Students Up” and vocabulary instruction will be given by LFS facilitator or coach. It will be implemented in all classrooms.
7. Teachers will implement summarization within the 120 minute reading block.
8.Two SAI reading teachers will use KAPLAN Spell Read program to supplement reading instruction with those students with disabilities and retained third grade students.
9. Teachers will implement Polk County curriculum maps to guide instruction.
10. Leapfrog materials will be used with first and second grades students to reinforce reading skills.
11.Combee Family Involvement Nights/ daytime workshops presented by program facilitator or classroom teachers will include materials to reinforce reading skills.
12. All teachers will follow and integrate the monthly focus skill calendar. Grades 3-5 will include mini lessons tied to the focus skill calendar.
13. Title One funded reading resource teachers will focus on targeted students in grades 3-4.
14. Reading Assistant and Fast Forward computer software will be implemented school wide.
15. Students in grade 3-5 will be grouped according to reading level within the grade level.
16. ESE inclusion teacher will meet with the classroom teacher bi monthly to discuss the progress and needs of the ESE students.
17. Acceleration through previewing is included in the 120 minute reading block.
18. After school tutoring and a Saturday Academy will be made available to all grade 3-5 students until December 2009.
|
1. Administration and Leadership Team
2. Administration and AIF
3. Administration
1. Administration, network manager and teachers
2. Administration, media specialist, and classroom teacher
3. LFS facilitator and or LFS coach
1. Administration, AIF and classroom teacher
2. SAI teacher and administration
3. Administration and Leadership Team
1. Administration and AIF
2. Administration, program facilitator and teachers
3. Administration and AIF
1. Administration and AIF
2. Administration, AIF, network manager
3. Administration, and Leadership Team
1. Administration and Leadership Team
2. Administration and Leadership Team
3. Administration
|
1. Walk through with follow up and feedback.
2. Review FAIR reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.
3. Training schedule, weekly meetings and classroom walk through
1. Compass Odyssey report data reviews and review of lesson plans.
2. Classroom walk through and teacher recorded information and visible for student incentive.
3. Classroom implementation, look for and learning communities reflection meetings.
1. Lesson plans, classroom walk through ,weekly learning communities reflection meetings
2. KAPLAN Spell Read guidelines
3. Lesson plan
1. Classroom walk through and teacher observation
2. Parent will complete parent survey
3. Classroom observation, weekly PLC reflection
1. Progress monitoring, FAIR, Compass reports, classroom walk through
2. Review appropriate reports in grade level teams.
3. Ongoing progress monitoring review during weekly PLC
1. Lesson plan reviews
2. Classroom walk through and lesson plan review, and weekly PLC reflection.
3. Ongoing progress monitoring
|
1. Walk through worksheet
2. Printout of FAIR assessments.
3. Classroom walk through log, review of lesson plans.
1. Compass reports and lesson plans
2. Accelerated Reader reports
3. Lesson plan and walk through
1. Walk through and lesson plan feedback and review of student samples shared with teachers.
2. Classroom walk through
3. Lesson plan evaluation and feedback
1. FAIR and ongoing classroom assessment
2. Results of parent survey
3. Classroom walk through log
1. Data Review
2. Program reports and ongoing progress monitoring.
3. Compass testing, FAIR and other benchmark assessments
1. Ongoing assessment
2. Ongoing progress monitoring and lesson plan feedback.
3. Ongoing progress monitoring data
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
All objectives above
|
Catching Kids Up
|
Barbara McSwain
|
08/21/09
|
Weekly PLC meeting and Progress Monitoring
|
Administration
|
|
All objectives above
|
Vocabulary
|
Assistant Principaland LFS Coach
|
09/01/09
|
PLC
|
Administration
|
|
All objectives above
|
Extended Thinking/ Refining
|
LFS
|
September/October (multiple Sessions)
|
Classroom walk through and lesson plan evaluation and progress monitoring data
|
Administration
|
|
All objectives above
|
Compass Odyssey integration
|
Chris Kocher
|
Ongoing through the year
|
Compass reports and classroom observation
|
Administration
|
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 |
| Guided reading materials |
Title One |
$5,000.00 |
| Catching Kids Up with Acceleration materials |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $5,225.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SMARTBOARDS |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| SMART response system |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $5,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Learning Focused Solutions Training |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| “Catching Kids Up” Materials |
Title One |
$150.00 |
| Extended Thinking Training |
Title One |
$1,091.25 |
| Vocabulary Training |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Compass Odyssey |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| Total: $2,041.25 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Substitutes for collaborative planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| Resource Teachers X2 |
Title One |
$72,000.00 |
| LFS trainer |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| LFS Coach/Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Substitutes |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Media/Library books |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Reading workbooks |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Total: $89,481.50 |
| Final Total: $101,747.75 |
|
| 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 3-5, 55% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 60% of all students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Shape Bait and Number Literacy are implemented during Math instruction for all subgroups.
2. Compass Odyssey Program will be used on available computers throughout the school for all students.
3. Teachers will meet monthly in PLC to discuss effective strategies and data analysis.
|
1. Administration and Leadership Team
2.Administration, Network Manager
3.Administration, Leadership Team, Vertical Teams
|
1.Classroom Observation and PLC reflection by grade level
2. Compass Odyssey Tests
3. Classroom observation, Ongoing Progress Monitoring
|
1.Progress Monitoring
2.Compass Odyssey data analysis
3. Teacher Survey, Progress Monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In grades 3-5, 53% of black students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 61% of white students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 23% of English Language Learning students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 58% of black students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 65% of white students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 31% of English Language Learning students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
4.Combee Family Information Nigh/Day time workshops to reinforce Math skills with materials presented by Program Facilitator or classroom teacher.
5. Students keep a math journal including written explanations on how a specific math problem is solved or how a math strategy is used.
6. School wide vocabulary will be included in special blocks.
7.I TV program will be used to reinforce math benchmarks for grades 2-5.
9. After school tutoring and a Saturday Academy will be made available to all grade 3-5 students until December 2009.
|
1.Administration
2. Administration and Leadership Team
3. Administration and AIF
Administration, Title One Resource teacher
Administration
|
1. Parents complete Title One Parent Survey
2. Random observation of student work
3. Application in student work samples from academic classrooms.
Weekly student benchmark assessment
|
1. Title One Parent Survey results
2.Walkthrough checklist
Walkthroughs
Progress Monitoring of weekly assignments.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 3-5, 43% of Hispanic students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 49% of Hispanic students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
10. ESE inclusion teacher meet with the classroom teacher bi monthly to discuss the progress and needs of the ESE students.
11. Acceleration through previewing included in the 60 minute Math block.
12. On-going assessments for Math will be completed 3 times a year.
|
1.Administration and Leadership Team
2.Administration and Leadership Team
3. Administration
|
1. Teacher Log and lesson plans
2.PLC weekly reflection meetings,
3. Data Analysis
|
1. Evidence of individual Student accommodations
2. Walkthroughs
3. Progress Monitoring results
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In grades 3-5, 54% of Economically Disadvantaged students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 55% of the lowest quartile of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test
In grades 3-5, 57% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test
In grades 3-5, 5% of students with disabilities achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 59% of Economically Disadvantaged students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 65% of the lowest quartile will make learning gains in Reading as evidenced by the school grade report
By Spring 2010, 80 % of students tested will make learning gains in Math as evidenced by the school grade report.
By Spring 2010, 15% of Students with Disabilities will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
13. Research based Vocabulary strategies are used to instruct all math vocabulary.
14. Guided Distributed Practice and Error Analysis are a part of Math instruction.
15. Teachers will Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts.
|
1. Administration and Leadership Team
2. Administration and Leadership Team
Administration and Leadership Team
|
1. On-going progress monitoring, classroom observation, student work samples
2. Student work samples, classroom observation
|
1. Progress monitoring results
2. Progress Monitoring Reports
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
All Objectives above
|
Number Literacy
|
BBY
|
8-18-09
|
Classroom observations
|
Administration
|
|
All Objectives above
|
Catching Kids Up
|
LFS
|
8-21-09
|
Lesson Plans, Classroom observations
|
Administration
|
|
All Objectives above
|
LFS Mathematics
|
LFS Coach
|
10-2009
|
Lesson Plans, Classroom observations
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Shape Bait and Number Literacy |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Math Manipulatives |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Catching Kids Up w/Acceleration Materials |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $725.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SMARTBOARDS |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| SMART response system |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Compass Odyssey |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| FCAT Explorer |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| Total: $5,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Training in Number Sense application |
Title One |
$1,700.00 |
| LFS: Catching Kid Up with Acceleration
Materials
|
Title One |
$675.00 |
| LFS: Catching Kid Up with Acceleration Materials |
Title One |
$150.00 |
| How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| LFS Mathematics |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Total: $2,650.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Teacher |
Title One |
$39,000.00 |
| Substitutes for Collaborative Planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| LFS Coach/Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| LFS Trainer |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Total: $56,481.50 |
| Final Total: $64,856.50 |
|
| 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 grade 5, 31% of Fifth grade students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 45% of fifth grade students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Science as evidenced by the School Grade Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Science curriculum is addressed within the 120 minute reading block using Harcourt Trophies Reading and Harcourt Science series as well as supplemental-guided reading materials.
2. Teachers require student Accelerated Reader choices to include non-fiction science titles.
3. Hands-on activities/
experiments are implemented in Science Acquisition lessons
4. Summarization is implemented into science instruction.
5. Fifth grade students will utilize school science lab on a weekly basis.
|
Administration and Leadership Team
Administration and Leadership Team
Administration and Leadership Team
Administration and Leadership Team
Administration and Leadership Team
3.
|
Evidence of Acquisition Lesson Plans, Administrative and Leadership team walk-through, Professional Learning Communities
3.
1.
2.
3.
|
Walk through feedback worksheet
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
All objectives above
|
Catching Kids Up through Acceleration
|
Barbara McSwain
|
August 2009
|
Weekly PLC meetings, Administrative Walk throughs with feedback, lesson plan check
|
Administration and Leadership Team
|
|
All objectives above
|
Learning Focused Solutions: Extending and Refining
|
TBD
|
September
2009
|
Weekly PLC meetings, Administrative Walk throughs with feedback, lesson plan check
|
Administration and Leadership Team
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Catching Kids Up through Acceleration |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $225.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart Boards |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Smart Response System |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $5,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Catching Kids Up with Acceleration |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Extending Thinking |
Title One |
$1,091.25 |
| How to get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $1,891.25 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Substitutes for Collaborative Planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| LFS Coach |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Total: $16,806.50 |
| Final Total: $23,922.75 |
|
| 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 grade 4, 84% of students scored a level 3.0 or higher as evidenced by AYP results.
In grade 4, 84% of the fourth grade students tested will score an average of 3.0 and 4.0 as evidenced by the 2010 school grade report.
|
By February 2010, 98% of fourth grade students will score a level 3 or higher as evidenced by the 2010 AYP report.
By February 2010, 90% of fourth grade students will score an average of 3.0 and 4.0 as evidenced by the 2010 school grade report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Action Step
1. Combee Writing curriculum will continue to be implemented including Write Reflection strategies.
2. Students will participate in monthly mock test in either Expository or Narrative writing.
|
1. Administration Leadership Team
2. Administration Leadership Team
|
1. Walk through
2. Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teachers and administration.
|
1. PLC reflection meetings, administrative feedback and student writing samples will be shared.
2 Progress of writing between the beginning writing sample and midyear sample.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
All objectives above
|
Catching Kids Up through Acceleration
|
Barbara Mc Swain with Learning Focused Solutions
|
August 21, 2009
|
Administrative Walkthroughs and weekly PLC reflection meetings
|
Administration
|
|
All objectives above
|
How to get the Most from your Vocabulary Instruction
|
LFS Coaches
|
September 1st and 3rd 2009
|
Administrative Walkthroughs and weekly PLC reflection meetings
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Catching Kids Up through Acceleration training |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| How to get the Most from your Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $225.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart Response System |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Smart Boards |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $5,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS: Catching Kids Up through Acceleration training/Materials |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| LFS: Catching Kids Up through Acceleration training/Materials |
Title One |
$150.00 |
| How to get the Most from your Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $950.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Substitutes for Collaborative Planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| LFS Coach |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Total: $16,806.50 |
| Final Total: $22,981.50 |
|
| 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 3-5, 42% of Hispanic students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 53% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
In grades 3-5, 55% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT test.
|
By Spring 2010, 59% of all students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 59% of all students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
By Spring 2010, 60% of all students will be at an achievement level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.PIF will attend 13 weeks of basic Spanish language instruction to aid in communication w/Hispanic families.
2. Translation of documents as needed.
3.Provide translators at events as needed.
4. Combee Family Involvement Nights/ daytime workshops presented by program facilitator or classroom teachers will include materials to reinforce reading/math skills.
5.Title I funded reading resource teachers will focus on targeted students in grades 3-4.
6.Title I funded math resource teacher will focus on targeted students in grades 3-4.
7. Provide Parent Resource Room w/educational materials for parents to assist their child(ren) in learning.
8. Provide funds for three parents to travel and attend 15th Annual Family Involvement Conference in Orlando, FL on 11/10/2009 to encourage and promote parental involvement in education.
9. Provide student and teacher planners (agendas) to facilitate communication between teachers and parents regarding progress, concerns and school events.
|
1.Principal, AP
2.Principal, AP, PIF
3.Principal, AP, PIF
4.Principal, AP, PIF
5.Principal, AP, AIF
6. Principal, AP
7. Principal, PIF
8.Principal, PIF
9.Principal, PIF
|
1. Successful completion of program.
2. Samples of translated documents.
3. Special Activity Time Log sheets for translators.
4.Sign-In Sheets at events & Parent evaluation forms
5.Progress Monitoring Reports, FAIR, Compass Reports
6. Progress Monitoring Reports, Compass Reports
7.Parent Sign-In Log
8. TDA, Travel Voucher & Conference Registration
9. Parent Survey
|
1.Certificate from instructor.
2.Title I School Parent Survey Results
3. Title I School Parent Survey Results
4. Sign-In sheets & evaluation analysis
5.Data Analysis
6. Data Analysis
7. Sign-In Log; Title I Parent Survey Results
8. Copies of Conference Evaluations from those in attendance
9. Survey 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 |
| Student Planners; Administrative (Teacher)Planners |
Title One |
$4,500.00 |
| Total: $4,500.00 |
| 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 |
| PIF/Teachers Stipends |
Title One |
$5,000.00 |
| Supplies |
Title One |
$3,000.00 |
| Postage |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Phone |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Conf.Registration fees |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Travel |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Total: $21,056.50 |
| Final Total: $25,556.50 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
Combee Elementary had 602 documented Office referrals as evidenced by school discipline reports. By June 2010, office referrals will decrease by 10% as evidenced by school discipline reports. Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Combee Elementary had 602 documented Office referrals as evidenced by school discipline reports.
|
By June 2010, office referrals will decrease by 10% as evidenced by school discipline reports
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
School wide expectations will be implemented
|
Administration and RTI-B school wide team
|
RTI-B team will meet monthly
|
Office discipline data will be analyzed monthly by team
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Combee Elementary had 602 documented Office referrals as evidenced by school discipline reports.
|
School Wide Expectations
|
RTI-B team
|
On-going
|
RTI-Team will analyze school wide data and meet with teachers.
|
Administration and RTI-B team
|
|
| |
| 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 Combee Elementary had 602 documented Office referrals as evidenced by school discipline reports. By June 2010, office referrals will decrease by 10% as evidenced by school discipline reports. Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Guided reading materials |
Title One |
$5,000.00 |
| Reading |
Catching Kids Up with Acceleration materials |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| Reading |
How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Mathematics |
Shape Bait and Number Literacy |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Math Manipulatives |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Catching Kids Up w/Acceleration Materials |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| Mathematics |
How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Writing |
Catching Kids Up through Acceleration training |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| Writing |
How to get the Most from your Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Science |
Catching Kids Up through Acceleration |
Title One |
$100.00 |
| Science |
How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Student Planners; Administrative (Teacher)Planners |
Title One |
$4,500.00 |
| Total: $10,900.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
SMARTBOARDS |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Reading |
Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Reading |
SMART response system |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
SMARTBOARDS |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
SMART response system |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Compass Odyssey |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
FCAT Explorer |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Smart Response System |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Writing |
Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Writing |
Smart Boards |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Science |
Smart Boards |
Title One |
$2,500.00 |
| Science |
Smart Response System |
Title One |
$1,500.00 |
| Science |
Elmo |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $20,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Learning Focused Solutions Training |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Reading |
“Catching Kids Up” Materials |
Title One |
$150.00 |
| Reading |
Extended Thinking Training |
Title One |
$1,091.25 |
| Reading |
Vocabulary Training |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Reading |
Compass Odyssey |
District Funds |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Training in Number Sense application |
Title One |
$1,700.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS: Catching Kid Up with Acceleration
Materials
|
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS: Catching Kid Up with Acceleration Materials |
Title One |
$150.00 |
| Mathematics |
How to Get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS Mathematics |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
LFS: Catching Kids Up through Acceleration training/Materials |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Writing |
LFS: Catching Kids Up through Acceleration training/Materials |
Title One |
$150.00 |
| Writing |
How to get the Most from your Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Science |
Catching Kids Up with Acceleration |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Science |
Extending Thinking |
Title One |
$1,091.25 |
| Science |
How to get the Most from Vocabulary Instruction |
Title One |
$125.00 |
| Total: $7,532.50 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Substitutes for collaborative planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| Reading |
Resource Teachers X2 |
Title One |
$72,000.00 |
| Reading |
LFS trainer |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Reading |
LFS Coach/Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Reading |
Substitutes |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Media/Library books |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Reading workbooks |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Teacher |
Title One |
$39,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Substitutes for Collaborative Planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS Coach/Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Mathematics |
LFS Trainer |
Title One |
$675.00 |
| Writing |
Substitutes for Collaborative Planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| Writing |
Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Writing |
LFS Coach |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Substitutes for Collaborative Planning |
Title One |
$6,250.00 |
| Science |
LFS Coach |
Title One |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Parental Involvement |
PIF/Teachers Stipends |
Title One |
$5,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Supplies |
Title One |
$3,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Postage |
Title One |
$1,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Phone |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Program Facilitator |
Title One |
$10,556.50 |
| Parental Involvement |
Conf.Registration fees |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Travel |
Title One |
$500.00 |
| Total: $200,632.50 |
| Final Total: $239,065.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 12:21:23 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
To be completed after the first SAC meeting.
SAC Members
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk COMBEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0091 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 313
Math: 313
|
2008-2009
School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| 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 |
53 |
N |
55 |
N |
84
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
49 |
47 |
N |
47 |
45 |
N |
57 |
N |
52 |
N |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
59 |
N |
61 |
N |
87
|
92 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
41 |
41 |
N |
41 |
39 |
N |
60 |
N |
55 |
N |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
51 |
N |
53 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
53 |
49 |
N |
51 |
47 |
N |
55 |
N |
51 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
42 |
N |
43 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
69 |
58 |
Y |
59 |
57 |
N |
52 |
NA |
48 |
N |
| 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 |
50 |
N |
54 |
N |
83
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
52 |
50 |
N |
49 |
46 |
N |
56 |
N |
51 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
32 |
N |
23 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
68 |
NA |
|
77 |
NA |
39 |
N |
34 |
N |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk COMBEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0091 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 318
Math: 318
|
2007-2008
School Grade1: |
D
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| 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
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
51 |
N |
53 |
N |
93
|
84 |
N |
|
|
NA |
45 |
49 |
NA |
42 |
47 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
56 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
59 |
Y |
59 |
N |
93
|
87 |
N |
|
|
NA |
39 |
41 |
NA |
40 |
41 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
60 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
47 |
N |
49 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
55 |
53 |
NA |
42 |
51 |
NA |
51 |
NA |
56 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
31 |
N |
41 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
57 |
69 |
NA |
52 |
59 |
NA |
50 |
NA |
47 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
48 |
N |
51 |
N |
91
|
83 |
N |
|
|
NA |
49 |
52 |
NA |
44 |
49 |
NA |
52 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
23 |
N |
26 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
77 |
NA |
|
74 |
NA |
32 |
NA |
40 |
NA |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk COMBEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0091 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 271
Math: 271
|
2006-2007
School Grade1: |
B
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| 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 |
55 |
Y |
58 |
Y |
92
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
49 |
44 |
NA |
62 |
42 |
NA |
52 |
NA |
69 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
61 |
Y |
60 |
Y |
94
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
47 |
41 |
NA |
61 |
40 |
NA |
57 |
NA |
70 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
45 |
N |
58 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
50 |
46 |
N |
67 |
42 |
NA |
40 |
N |
76 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
43 |
N |
48 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
59 |
52 |
Y |
65 |
52 |
Y |
44 |
NA |
57 |
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 |
51 |
Y |
56 |
Y |
90
|
91 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
51 |
47 |
NA |
64 |
44 |
NA |
49 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District
COMBEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2008-2009
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
60%
|
63%
|
84%
|
31%
|
238
|
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 |
56% |
57% |
|
|
113 |
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) |
55% (YES) |
|
|
114
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
465 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District
COMBEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2007-2008
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
59%
|
61%
|
72%
|
24%
|
216
|
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 |
53% |
51% |
|
|
104 |
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? |
50% (YES) |
58% (YES) |
|
|
108
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
428 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
D |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District
COMBEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2006-2007
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
62%
|
61%
|
94%
|
22%
|
239
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
61% |
78% |
|
|
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? |
55% (YES) |
87% (YES) |
|
|
142
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
520 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |