VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision: Dixieland Elementary will address the achievement needs of all diverse students during the 2008-2009 school year.
Dixieland Elementary will provide a quality education for students as they acquire the skills necessary to succeed in the twenty-first century. A nurturing environment will provide support for integrated curriculum, cooperative learning, and use of technology as the achievement needs are addressed for all diverse students.
Mission:
The mission of Dixieland Elementary is to promote life-long enthusiastic achievement that is relevant and rigorous in a nurturing environment.
Belief Statements:
Our guiding principles are respect, responsibility, perseverance, optimism, and honesty.
Our message:
We believe that learning is for everyone, everyday, everywhere!
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Dixieland Elementary School is one of the few remaining neighborhood schools in Polk County. Dixieland was constructed in 1924 and remodeled to the present state 15 years ago. The campus features an updated two story building with an adjoining kindergarten wing, six portables, cafeteria, and one additional stand alone classroom. All of the classrooms are equipped with ceiling mounted projectors and student computers. Most classrooms are equipped with SMARTBOARDS and other technological tools for instruction. The current enrollment at Dixieland Elementary is 430 students. Our school population is comprised of 36 percent white, 34 percent black, 28 percent Hispanic, 1 percent Asian and 1 percent multiracial. With 87percent of the students receiving free or reduced lunch, Dixieland is a Title I school. The majority of students come from the older neighborhood surrounding the school. Dixieland serves as the site school for the students residing at the Florida Baptist Home. Students not only come from a variety of economic, social, and racial backgrounds, but also have various needs. Nine percent of our students attend special education classes, and nine percent of our students attend classes for students who speak little or no English. In 2007-2008 Dixieland was recognized as a model school by Learning Focused Solutions for leadership with an emphasis on support, monitoring, planning, and classroom application of exemplary instructional practices. Dixieland was also recognized as a Five Star school for involvement with community. Dixieland is supported by the community through an active volunteer program hosted by several neighborhood retirement communities.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Dixieland Elementary has made AYP for the past three years. Instructional strategies that are evidence based, and research based have been implemented school wide. The school has a strong support for Hispanic students, including a weekly after school reading club for Hispanic students.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Dixieland Elementary has consistently closed the gap for African American students in reading and math. However, this subgroup is still lagging behind the other groups within the school.
Student Demographics
Dixieland Elementary School serves a multi-ethnic school population that consists of 430 students from a predominantly economically disadvantaged community. 25% of students are Hispanic, 29% are Black,38% are White, and 8% are American Indian, Asian, or multi-racial. Economically disadvantaged students account for 86% of the population .Additionally, 9% of students are Students with Disabilities (SWD), 11% are classified as English Language Learners (ELL), and nearly 3% of students are gifted.
Student Attendance Rates
Dixieland Elementary has maintained a slight increase over the district during the last three years in attendance.
Dixieland Elementary has exceeded the growth of the district over the years: Dixieland Elementary School,
2006-2007: 95.20%; 2007-2008: 94.65%; 2008-2009: 95.08%; Polk District 2006-2007: 94%; 2007-2008:
94.32%; 2008-2009: 94.56%.
Student Mobility
The mobility rate of the school during 2007-2008 was 38.15%. This number decreased to 29.70% during the 2009-2009 school year.
Student Suspension Rates
2006-2007: Out-of-school 84 days; 2007-2008: Out-of-school 67 days; 2008-2009: Out-of-school 23 days. The suspension rates have decreased over the past three years.
Student Retention Rates
The retention rate slightly increased from 2007-08 (9.67%) to 2008-09 (12.99%). However, the school had a drastic reduction in retentions from 2006-07 (25.87%)
Class Size
The school has maintained the school average for class size in 2006-2007 for K-3 Classrooms at 17.13 and 4-5 Classrooms at 20.23. The class size average for 2007-2008 for K-3 Classrooms was 17.13 and 4-5 Classrooms was 18.95.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Dixieland Elementary feeds into two middle schools. The majority of students attend Southwest Middle School, which earned a school grade of “A” in 2008-2009. The school did not make AYP. A few students feed to Sleepy Hill Middle School, which earned a grade of “C” and did not make AYP during the 2008-2009 school year.
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships and Grants
The school will continue its strong partnership with Westminster Presbyterian Church, which
provides a number of resources, including tutors during the school week and tutoring on Saturday mornings for the Hispanic student population.
Dixieland also partners with Lakeland High School through the Teen Trendsetter Grant in which high school students dedicate one hour a week to reading and mentoring for second grade classrooms.
The Lakeland Rotary is also a generous partner in providing school supplies and clothing for students in need.
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
|
Debbie Henderson
|
BA- Elementary
Education, Oklahoma Baptist University; Master of
Science- Educational
Leadership,
Nova Southeastern University;
Principal Certification-
State of Florida
|
4
|
7
|
Principal of Dixieland Elementary in 2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
75%, Math mastery: 81%,
Science Mastery: 53%. AYP:
100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math.
2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 65%, Math Mastery
71%, Science Mastery 33%.
AYP 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math
2006-2007: Grade A, Reading
Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery
75%. AYP: 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math.
2003-2006 Assistant Principal at Elbert Elementary
2005-2006: Grade A, Reading
Mastery 74%, Math Mastery
74%. AYP: 100%,
2004-2005:: Grade: A,
AYP: 100%
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Mary Dwight
|
BS- Elementary
Education,
University of South Florida; Master
of Science- Educational Leadership,
Nova Southeastern University
Certification-
Educational
Leadership, State of
Florida
|
5
|
5
|
Assistant Principal of Dixieland Elementary in 2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
75%, Math mastery: 81%,
Science Mastery: 53%. AYP:
100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math.
2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 65%, Math Mastery
71%, Science Mastery 33%.
AYP 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math
2006-2007: Grade A, Reading
Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery
75%. AYP: 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math.
|
* 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 * |
|
Math and Science
|
Joy Conley
|
Professional
Educator’s:
Elementary Ed.
1-6, Gifted Ed. Endorsement
|
12
|
4
|
Instructional Coach at Dixieland Elementary in 2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
75%, Math mastery: 81%,
Science Mastery: 53%. AYP:
100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math.
2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 65%, Math Mastery
71%, Science Mastery 33%.
AYP 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math
2006-2007: Grade A, Reading
Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery
75%. AYP: 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math
|
|
Reading
|
Beth Dawson
|
Professional
Educator’s:
Elementary Ed.
1-6, ESE Certification
Master of Science, Instruction and Curriculum
|
8
|
8
|
Reading Coach at Dixieland Elementary in 2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
75%, Math mastery: 81%,
Science Mastery: 53%. AYP:
100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math.
2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 65%, Math Mastery
71%, Science Mastery 33%.
AYP 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math
2006-2007: Grade A, Reading
Mastery: 74%, Math Mastery
75%. AYP: 100%, all subgroups made AYP in Reading and Math
|
* 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
|
Ongoing
|
|
|
2.Partnering new teachers with veteran mentors
|
Principal
|
Ongoing
|
|
|
3.Collaborative Planning Time Weekly / Teams
|
Principal
|
Weekly, ongoing
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
| No data submitted |
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 24 | 0 | 38 | 33 | 29 | 19 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 77 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
AIF, Beth Dawson
|
Marla Pyle
|
AIF will provide support for implementation of effective instructional strategies.
|
Weekly observations and collaboration/feedback/modeling
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services to Dixieland Elementary School. The Title I funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title I, Part A, support provides after-school and summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resource teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for parents.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Migrant students enrolled in Dixieland Elementary School will be assisted by the school and by the District Migrant Education Program (MEP). Students will be prioritized by the MEP for supplemental services based on need and migrant status. MEP Teacher Advocates, assigned to schools with high percentages of migrant students, monitor the progress of these high need students and provide or coordinate supplemental academic support. Migrant Home-School Liaisons identify and recruit migrant students and their families for the MEP. They provide support to both students and parents in locating services necessary to ensure the academic success of these students whose education has been interrupted by numerous moves.
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D, provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned school. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at schools to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement.
Title II
Professional development resources are available to Title I schools through Title II funds. In addition, School Technology Services provide technical support, technology training, and licenses for software programs and web-based access via Title II-D funds. Funds available at Dixieland Elementary School are used to purchase Accelerated Reader Web-Based and PD 360 for staff development.
Title III
Title III provides supplemental resources for English Language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in this Title I school, as well as professional learning opportunities for school staff.
Title X- Homeless
The Hearth program, funded through Title X, provides support for identified homeless students. Title I provides support for this program, and many activities implemented by the Hearth program are carried out in cooperation with the Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded through Title I, Part C.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI units provided to Dixieland Elementary School enhance achievement by providing small group instruction through the Kaplan Spell Read program for striving readers.
Violence Prevention Programs
Title IV provides violence and drug prevention programs in schools in order to promote a safe school environment. Examples of violence prevention programs include anti-bullying, gang awareness, gun awareness, etc.
Nutrition Programs
Dixieland Elementary is a location for a summer feeding program for the community.
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
Head Start is not located on our campus.
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
Not Applicable
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) |
|
Targets and Data
|
Principal
|
Monthly
|
First Tuesday of every month
|
Charts and graphs for data analysis for OPM for all students.
|
|
Reading Assignments
|
AIF
|
Every three weeks
|
Sept. Oct. Nov. Jan.
|
Making appropriate reading assignments and lesson plans reviewed through Lesson Plan Study
|
|
Higher Level Thinking
|
Assistant Principal
|
Every three weeks
|
Sept. Oct. Nov. Jan.
|
Lesson Plan Study to include evidence of higher level thinking questions during instruction.
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Dixieland currently has one preschool on campus, a blended unit with ESE students and general education students. The unit is supported by one teacher, one certified assistant (CDAT), and one paraprofessional. The program focuses on preschool standards and socialization skills. The school offers the following activities to facilitate a smooth transition for children coming from local preschools and daycares:
•Provide local daycares with Polk County’s curriculum guide for kindergarten.
•Provide community notification and information concerning pre-registration requirements and an
invitation to an orientation/workshop.
•Provide a preschool orientation (Kindergarten Round-Up) in April that includes school
information, grade level expectations, learning activities, and school readiness information. A
tour of Dixieland’s facility is also offered.
•The Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener (FLKRS) is given by the classroom teacher to all students enrolling in Kindergarten to assess learning readiness.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
NA
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, 75% of
students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Reading Test
|
In grades 3-5 ,
78% of the
students will
achieve mastery
for reading on the
2010 FCAT
Reading Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Develop and follow and instructional focus calendar.
|
Principal and AP
|
1.Administration will monitor the planning and implementation of the instructional focus calendar.
|
1. Effectiveness to be measured through FAIR, benchmark assessments, and progress monitoring
|
| 2 |
2. Professional Learning Communities to focus on higher order
questions in
lesson plans, meaningful reading assignments.
|
2. Academic Coach, Principal, Asst. Principal
|
2. Administration will monitor feedback from PLCs, review lesson plans, and observe in classroom walk-throughs.
|
2. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine
frequency of higher
order questions and effectiveness of reading assignments.
|
| 3 |
3. Focus an emphasis on main idea and inferencing skills in all reading lessons
|
3. Academic Coach, Principal, Asst. Principal
|
3.Administration will monitor weekly lesson plans for the inclusion of inferencing skills
|
3.Progress monitoring assessments and check points
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In grades 3-5, 69% of
students achieved
learning gains on the
2009 administration of
the FCAT Reading
Test.
|
In grades 3-5,
80% of students
will achieve
learning gains 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 |
Achievement Target setting for proficiency and learning gains for every student.
|
Classroom teachers, administration
|
Administration will maintain spreadsheet on student achievement targets in collaboration with classroom teachers
|
Student targets are to be posted in student’s personal agenda planner.
|
| 2 |
Student
Test Talks
will be conducted
with all students
following FAIR
assessments
|
Administration
|
Test Talk forms to be signed by student, parent, and administrators.
|
Effectiveness to be measured through gains in scores in FAIR assessments and benchmark assessments.
|
| 3 |
Emphasis on implementation of evidence based high yield instructional strategies in the classroom (summarizing, vocabulary, graphic organizers, extending thinking, and non-linguistic representations).
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Administration will monitor implementation of strategies by lesson plans and daily walk-throughs.
|
Effectiveness to be measured through gains in mini-assessments and quarterly benchmark assessments
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
Based on the 2009
FCAT Reading data,
students in grades three and five decreased slightly in mean points in Words and Phrases
|
In grades 3-5, students will increase 2 mean points in Words and Phrases 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 |
Emphasis in reading instruction on multiple meaning words, synonyms, homonyms, and words in context, prefixes and suffixes.
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Administration will monitor implementation of strategies by lesson plans and daily walk-throughs.
|
Effectiveness to be measured through gains in mini-assessments and quarterly benchmark assessments.
|
| 2 |
Assignments in Compass Odyssey to align with vocabulary instruction in the classroom.
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Administration will monitor time on task from Odyssey reports
|
Effectiveness to be measured through gains in activities and quizzes completed in Odyssey assignments
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
Based on the 2009
FCAT Reading data,
47% of Students With Disabilities students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3
|
In grades 3-5, 72% of Students With Disabilities will score a Level 3 or higher on the 2010 FCAT Reading .
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Implement daily reading lab periods for SWD students with FAST FORWARD program
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Student progress is
assessed using progress checks within the FAST FORWARD program.
|
Effectiveness to be measured during ongoing progress monitoring and benchmark assessment gains.
|
| 2 |
Weekly previewing and acceleration strategies taught by inclusion and resource teachers
|
Administration
|
Administration will monitor growth through mini-assessments.
|
Effectiveness to be measured during ongoing progress monitoring and benchmark assessment gains
|
| 3 |
Vocabulary instruction supported through high yield strategies in classroom (organizers, repeated experiences with vocabulary, evidence based vocabulary strategies).
|
Administration
|
Administration will monitor through lesson plans and classroom walkthroughs.
|
3. Effectiveness to be measured during ongoing progress monitoring and benchmark assessment gains
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 54% of African American students in grades 305 scored at or above Level 3.
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of African American students will score a Level 3 or higher on the administration of the 2010 FCAT Reading.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Implement daily reading labs for striving students with FAST FORWARD program.
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Student progress is
assessed using progress checks within the FAST FORWARD program.
|
Effectiveness to be measured during ongoing progress monitoring and benchmark assessment gains
|
| 2 |
Extended Day reading tutorials for striving students.
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Student progress assessed using mini-assessments.
|
Effectiveness to be measured during ongoing progress monitoring and benchmark assessment gains
|
| 3 |
Teachers will include strategies for ESR (every student response) to enhance accountability for all students.
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Effectiveness of ESR will be monitored by administration through classroom walk-throughs.
|
Effectiveness to be measured during ongoing progress monitoring and benchmark assessment gains
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
In grades 3-5 ,
78% of the
students will
achieve mastery
for reading on the
2010 FCAT
Reading Test
|
High Yield Strategies implemented in the classroom
PD 360
|
Academic Coaches and Administration
|
August-October 2009
|
Lesson Plans, Grade Level Collaboration and Planning, Walk- throughs by Administration
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Academic Coach
|
Increase the
percent of Hispanic students in grades 3-5 scoring a Level 3 or higher from 66% to 75% on the 2010 FCAT Reading.
|
FAST FORWARD reading program
PD 360
|
Academic Coach
|
September 2009
|
Schedule of Planning, Reports from Program
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Academic Coach
|
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 |
| Learning Focused Instructional Support Materials / Manual |
Title I |
$3,000.00 |
| Total: $3,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| FAST FORWARD |
District Funding |
$0.00 |
| Document Cameras, SMARTBOARD technology |
District, Title I |
$6,000.00 |
| Total: $6,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Academic Coach, Learning Focused Coach |
District, Title I |
$120,000.00 |
| Total: $120,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $129,000.00 |
|
| 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 3-5, 81
% of students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Mathematics
|
In grade 3-5,
85% of students
will achieve
mastery on the
2010
administration of
the FCAT
Mathematics Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Student Learning maps to include focus on vocabulary and graphic organizers.
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Focused
walkthroughs by
administration will be
used to ensure all
teachers are using student learning maps with a focus on math vocabulary and graphic organizers.
|
Feedback from administration aligned to walk-throughs.
|
| 2 |
Data Analysis to identify striving students and students needing enrichment.
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Monthly data meetings for ongoing progress monitoring
|
Analysis charts and graphs to record data from OPM.
|
| 3 |
Math journals to focus on the steps in problem solving
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Focused walkthroughs by the administration to ensure all teachers are using math journals to record processes of problem solving.
|
Review by administration during weekly collaborative planning meetings.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In grades 3-5, 58% of African American students achieved mastery on the
2009 administration of
the FCAT Mathematics
Test.
|
In grades 3-5, 65% of African American students will achieve mastery on
the 2010
administration of the FCAT Mathematics
Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Increase math flexible grouping in the classroom
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Lesson Plan Review and Classroom Walk-Throughs
|
Progress of
students on
assessments.
|
| 2 |
Increase use of math manipulatives to reinforce concepts and skills
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Math Coach will
assist teachers in the
creation of centers and administration will
ensure activities are
implemented.
|
Progress of
students on
assessments.
|
| 3 |
Math justifications to be written and recorded in math journals to check for understanding of math concepts.
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Weekly review by administration of math journals to ensure justifications are being recorded at end of lesson.
|
Increase of proficiency during OPM.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Mathematics data, 79% of the all students in grades 3-5 showed learning gains.
|
In grades 3-5, 85% of all students will
show learning gains on the 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 |
Daily implementation of What’s My Place, What’s My Value (daily number literacy activities) in all classrooms
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Classroom walk-throughs to monitor implementation of number literacy through What’s My Place, What’s My Value
|
Common
assessments tied to
Next Generation Math
Standards
administered weekly for OPM of number literacy.
|
| 2 |
Error analysis consistently in place in all classrooms to ensure re-teaching of common errors. Use of SMARTBOARD technology for reteaching
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Lesson plans, classroom observations
|
Common
assessments tied to
Next Generation Math
Standards
administered weekly
|
| 3 |
Monthly Bait Calendars for Geometry, Time, and Measurement to ensure ongoing instruction and review.
|
Learning Focused Coach, Administration
|
Daily Classroom Walk-throughs
|
Common
assessments tied to
Next Generation Math
Standards
administered weekly.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
In grades 3-5, 65% of African American students will achieve mastery on
the 2010
administration of the FCAT Mathematics
Test.
|
Use of manipulatives for math instruction, flexible grouping strategies for math
PD 360
|
Learning Focused Coach
|
September 2009
|
Observation of center
use and
documentation in
lesson plans
|
Principal, Learning Focused Coach
|
In grades 3-5, 85% of all students will
show learning gains on the the 2010 administration of
the FCAT Mathematics
Test.
|
Implementation of high yield instructional strategies to include
error analysis and summary writing (justifications) in math
PD 360
|
Learning Focused Coach
|
September 2009
|
Observation of strategy implementation and
documentation in
lesson plans
|
Principal, Learning Focused Coach
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Math Journals |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SMARTBOARDS |
District |
$3,000.00 |
| Total: $3,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Learning Focused Coach |
Title I |
$65,000.00 |
| Total: $65,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $69,000.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
Based on 2009 FCAT
Science data, 53% of
students achieved
level three and above.
|
Given instruction
based on the
Sunshine State
Standards, 55% of
students will score
at level three or
above on the 2010
FCAT Science
Assessment.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Provide real-world science
experiences and
engaging activities.
Student interaction with SMARTBOARD technology.
|
Princpal, Assistant Principal
|
Lesson Plan Analysis and classroom observations by administration
|
Improvement on
science mini-assessments.
|
| 2 |
Pervasive classroom instruction that teaches the scientific method and participation in the school and district science fair
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
Instructional Focus Calendar implementation and classroom observations
|
Improvement on
science mini-assessments.
|
| 3 |
Extensive science vocabulary taught in all classrooms.
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
Lesson plan analysis and classroom walk-throughs
|
3. Improvement on
science mini-assessments.
Quarterly benchmark assessments.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on 2009 FCAT Science data, 53% of fifth students achieved level three and above
|
Given instruction
based on the
Sunshine State
Standards, 55% of
fifth grade students will score
at level three or
above on the 2010
FCAT Science
Assessment.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Writing to Inform strategies implemented daily
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
Lesson plan analysis, classroom walk-throughs
|
Improvement on science mini-assessments
|
| 2 |
Science Journals recording daily summaries
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
Observations in classrooms
|
Improvement on science mini-assessments
|
| 3 |
Reading assignments using leveled readers for content to master understanding.
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
Lesson plan analysis, classroom walk-throughs
|
. Improvement on science mini-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, 55% of fifth grade students will score
at level three or
above on the 2010
FCAT Science
Assessment.
|
Scientific Investigative Process
PD 360
|
Learning Focused Coach
|
October
|
Lesson Plan Analysis, Collaboration team meetings with administration.
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science Journals |
Title I |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SMARTBOARD technology |
District Funds |
$3,000.00 |
| Total: $3,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Learning Focused Coach |
Title I |
$65,000.00 |
| Total: $65,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $68,500.00 |
|
| 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 3rd grade scored level
3.5 or above in writing.
|
On the 2010
administration of
the FCAT Writing
Test, 98% of the
3rd grade students
will achieve a 3.0
or above.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
School will develop a school-wide writing timeline and instructional focus calendar for writing.
|
Title I Facilitator, Assistant Principal, Principal
|
Collaboration between Title I Facilitator and administration to ensure the timeline is followed.
|
Progress between
the Pretest Prompt
and Mid-year Prompt.
|
| 2 |
Students will use
the writing process
daily; all writing will
be dated, and
recorded in a
notebook, scored with a rubric,
for monitoring of
growth across time.
|
Title I Facilitator, Assistant Principal, Principal
|
Vertical teams to share samples of student work to ensure a year’s growth between grade levels
|
Progress between
the Pretest Prompt
and Mid-year Prompt.
|
| 3 |
The revision and
editing process will
be explicitly taught
and seen in student
writing drafts.
Write Reflections writing curriculum will be used school-wide.
|
Title I Facilitator, Assistant Principal, Principal
|
Writing notebooks monitored by administration during classroom walk-throughs.
|
Progress between
the Pretest Prompt
and Mid-year Prompt.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
On the 2010
administration of
the FCAT Writing
Test, 98% of the
3rd grade students
will achieve a 3.5
or above.
|
Writing process of drafting, editing, and revising through Write Reflections curriculum
|
Write Reflections Consultant
|
September, October, November, December, January, February,
|
Monitor student writing notebooks. The students will use color coding with colored pencils to
make revisions and edit in order for the process to be monitored.
|
Assistant Principal, Principal
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Writing Notebooks |
Title I |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| 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 |
| Write Reflections Consultant |
Title I |
$6,000.00 |
| Total: $6,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $6,200.00 |
|
| 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 3-5, 75% of
students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
In grade 3-5,
85% of students
will achieve
mastery on the
2010
administration of
the FCAT
Mathematics Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Saturday School math sessions.
|
Administration
|
Benchmark assessments
|
Progress monitoring checks.
|
| 2 |
Curriculum Nights for parents in grades 3-5 to review standards and expectations.
|
Administration
|
Collect participation
data and survey
families.
|
Progress monitoring checks
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In grades 3-5, 75% of
students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Reading
Test.
|
In grade 3-5,
78% of students
will achieve
mastery 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 |
Muffins for Moms workshop presented by Learning Resource Center.
|
Guidance Counselor, Administration
|
Collect participation
data and survey
families.
|
Progress monitoring checks
|
| 2 |
Reading Nights Hosted by Literacy Team in the media center.
|
Academic Coach, Administration
|
Collect participation
data and survey
families.
|
Progress monitoring checks
|
| 3 |
Offer weekly after school reading club for Hispanic students and parents.
|
Guidance Counselor
|
Weekly reading reports from Accelerated Reader
|
OPM in STAR reading.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
In grade 3-5,
78% of students
will achieve
mastery on the
2010
administration of
the FCAT
Mathematics Test.
|
Math Workshop for parents presented by Learning Resource Center.
|
Learning Resource Staff
|
October, November
|
Effectiveness survey completed by parents
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Services for training and supplies for workshops |
Funding provided by Learning Resource Center |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| 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: $200.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Learning Focused Instructional Support Materials / Manual |
Title I |
$3,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Math Journals |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Writing |
Writing Notebooks |
Title I |
$200.00 |
| Science |
Science Journals |
Title I |
$500.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Services for training and supplies for workshops |
Funding provided by Learning Resource Center |
$200.00 |
| Total: $4,900.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
FAST FORWARD |
District Funding |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Document Cameras, SMARTBOARD technology |
District, Title I |
$6,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
SMARTBOARDS |
District |
$3,000.00 |
| Science |
SMARTBOARD technology |
District Funds |
$3,000.00 |
| Total: $12,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Academic Coach, Learning Focused Coach |
District, Title I |
$120,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Learning Focused Coach |
Title I |
$65,000.00 |
| Writing |
Write Reflections Consultant |
Title I |
$6,000.00 |
| Science |
Learning Focused Coach |
Title I |
$65,000.00 |
| Total: $256,000.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $272,900.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
No Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The School Advisory Council (SAC) has an important function for the success of Dixieland Elementary School. Listed below are some of the functions of the SAC.
• Reach out to community to obtain more partners
• Review and advise on final review of School Improvement Plan
• Sponsor drives to increase parent involvement
• Assist the school to create and analyze school climate surveys for parents and students
• Review student performance data
• Visit classrooms to review instructional programs and technology
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Debbie Henderson,
Principal
|
|
2)
Janiene Bambridge,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Patty Houk,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Colleen Hiers,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Jagie Zamot,
Parent
|
|
6)
Susan Holmes,
Parent
|
|
7)
Y. Luaces,
Parent
|
|
8)
Melinda Bizzell,
Parent
|
|
9)
Benita White,
Parent
|
|
10)
Nadia Salazar,
Parent
|
|
11)
Johnny Jackson,
Parent
|
|
12)
S. Jones,
Parent
|
|
13)
Crystle Feran,
Parent
|
|
14)
Kendall Morris,
Parent
|
|
15)
Connie Lattimer,
Parent
|
|
16)
A. Fernandez,
Parent
|
|
17)
Manny Delgado,
Community Member
|
|
18)
Jay Croteau,
Community Member
|
|
19)
Rita Selvage,
School Support Personnel
|
|
20)
Arvilla Stokes,
School Support Personnel
|
|
21)
Kay Llewellyn,
School Support Personnel
|
|
22)
Shauna Solomon,
School Support Personnel
|
|
23)
Eugenia Bendana,
School Support Personnel
|
|
24)
Mary Dwight,
Assistant Principal
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DIXIELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0131 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 187 Math: 187
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
72 |
Y |
81 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
40 |
28 |
NA |
32 |
19 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
81 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
82 |
Y |
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
28 |
18 |
NA |
22 |
6 |
NA |
82 |
NA |
93 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
54 |
N |
58 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
53 |
46 |
Y |
49 |
42 |
Y |
62 |
NA |
66 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
85 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
48 |
34 |
NA |
31 |
15 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
78 |
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 |
70 |
Y |
80 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
45 |
30 |
NA |
36 |
20 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
80 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DIXIELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0131 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 195 Math: 195
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
B
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
60 |
Y |
68 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
34 |
40 |
NA |
34 |
32 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
74 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
72 |
Y |
78 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
27 |
28 |
NA |
24 |
22 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
47 |
N |
51 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
43 |
53 |
N |
47 |
49 |
N |
60 |
Y |
69 |
Y |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
52 |
N |
69 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
41 |
48 |
N |
42 |
31 |
NA |
62 |
Y |
81 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
55 |
N |
64 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
37 |
45 |
N |
41 |
36 |
NA |
64 |
Y |
72 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DIXIELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0131 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 217 Math: 217
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
51 |
34 |
NA |
47 |
34 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
78 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
73 |
Y |
76 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
47 |
33 |
NA |
42 |
24 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
85 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
57 |
Y |
53 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
56 |
36 |
NA |
61 |
47 |
Y |
57 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
59 |
Y |
58 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
34 |
NA |
54 |
42 |
NA |
63 |
NA |
78 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
59 |
Y |
92
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
58 |
35 |
NA |
53 |
41 |
NA |
64 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District DIXIELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
75%
|
81%
|
95%
|
53%
|
304
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
69% |
79% |
|
|
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? |
67% (YES) |
83% (YES) |
|
|
150
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
602 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District DIXIELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
65%
|
71%
|
92%
|
33%
|
261
|
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 |
67% |
71% |
|
|
138 |
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? |
67% (YES) |
57% (YES) |
|
|
124
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
523 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District DIXIELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
74%
|
75%
|
96%
|
44%
|
289
|
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 |
81% |
83% |
|
|
164 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
73% (YES) |
90% (YES) |
|
|
163
|
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 |