VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
VISION:
As a safe, secure environment conducive to learning we prepare Medulla Elementary students with the academic skills, and character traits to achieve on or above grade level in middle school, high school and beyond.
MISSION: Medulla Elementary will prepare each child to meet life’s challenges by providing the best possible learning environment with the most effective methods and resources to insure that each child will develop academically, socially and aesthetically.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Brief History and Background of the School
Medulla Elementary was established in 1905, and has evolved from a rural to a suburban school. Facilities include buildings from 1927 through 2007. Our student population is very diverse, with 16% Hispanic and 15% students with disabilities.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Medulla Elementary looks forward to continuing to raise student achievement in writing, having a significant increase in the 2008-2009 school year, by entering our second year with Write Reflections, a school-wide writing program.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Medulla Elementary received a grade of “C” for the second consecutive year, falling 4 points below a “B”. Are free and reduced rate is 60% but not high enough for Title One status.
Student Demographics
Medulla Elementary serves a diverse group of 738 students. 57 % are white, 16% Hispanic, and 20% black. 60 % of our students are economically disadvantaged and 15% have disabilities.
Student Attendance Rates
The attendance rate of our students improved last year from 94 % the previous 2 years, to 95.27%.
Student Mobility
Our school’s mobility rate is 25%.
Student Suspension Rates
In 2008-2009 Medulla Elementary had 17 out of school suspensions and 35 in-school suspensions.
Student Retention Rates
The retention rate for Kindergarten is 3.88 percent, First grade is 2.61% Second grade is .84 and Third grade is 7.94%. Zero retention rate in fourth and fifth.
Class Size
A point has been made to reduce class sizes in all subject areas and across grade levels to reduce discipline
problems and strengthen the one-on-one relationship between students and teachers.
The average class size in general education classrooms is: 14.66 in PreK-3 for 07-08 and 15.41 in 4-5 for 07-08.
The teacher to student ratio in general education classrooms is: 1 teacher to 18 students in K-3, and 1 teacher to 22 students in 4-5.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
NA
Partnerships and Grants
The school will continue its strong partnership with Starbucks, Publix and the rotary club which
provides a number of additional resources, including tutors, supplies, incentives and academic materials to enhance the curriculum.
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
|
Jill Cheatham
|
BS, Elementary Ed., MA, Ed. Leadership,
|
9
|
19
|
Principal of Medulla Elementary in
2008-2009:
Grade: C, Reading Mastery:
74%, Math mastery: 69%,
Science Mastery: 34%. AYP:
Economically disadvantage and SWD did not
make AYP in Reading. Our totally population did not make AYP in math. No subgroup made AYP in Math
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Moe Hassler
|
BA, Elementary Ed., MS, Ed. Leadership
|
4
|
4
|
Assistant Principal of Medulla Elementary in
2008-2009:
Grade: C, Reading Mastery:
74%, Math mastery: 69%,
Science Mastery: 34%. AYP:
Economically disadvantage and SWD did not
make AYP in Reading. Our totally population did not make AYP in math. No subgroup made AYP in 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 * |
|
Reading
|
Gale Macleod
|
BA, Elementary Ed. ESOL endorsed. Enrolled in Competency 6. Reading endorsement complete in December 2009. Certification includes Tech 1, Tec 2, PD for PDers, Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Learning Skills Trainer, and Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading Master Trainer.
|
|
3
|
O8-09 School Grade B, AYP No
07-08 School Grade A, AYP Yes
06-07 School Grade A, AYP Yes
|
* 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
2. Partnering new teachers with veteran staff
1. Regular meetings of new teachers
2. Partnering new teachers with veteran staff
|
Principal
Assistant Principal
|
On-going
On-going
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Robin Bohn
|
Para Educator
|
PMH
|
Preparing for Para Pro Test
|
|
Nancy Brow
|
Para Educator
|
Media
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Lolli Burger
|
Para Educator
|
PE
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Maria Chaviano
|
Para Educator
|
ESOL
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Yolanda Goosby
|
Para Educator
|
PMH
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Karen Lovering
|
Para Educator
|
ESE Support
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Shelia McGhin
|
Para Educator
|
LPN
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Audra Montalbano
|
Para Educator
|
ESE/Class Specific
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Kathy Surrency
|
Para Educator
|
CDAT
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
|
Susan White
|
Para Educator
|
CDAT
|
Preparing for Para Pro test
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 54 | 0 | 20 | 13 | 44 | 28 | 100 | 0 | 6 | 67 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
NCBT Teachers
|
No one needed at this time will be assigned when needed.
|
No one needed at this time.
|
NA
|
|
Academic Instructional Faciliator
|
No one needed at this time will be assigned when needed.
|
NA
|
NA
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part D
Title II
Title III
Title X- Homeless
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Violence Prevention Programs
Nutrition Programs
Housing Programs
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
|
Grade level teachers
|
Grade level Chairs
|
Weekly
|
Common Planning Times
|
Data analysis and adjustments to instruction
|
|
Vertical Teams
|
Team Selected Leaders
|
Monthly
|
Tuesday after school
|
Curriculum articulation
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Our on-site Pre-K Early Learning program transitions our Pre-K students with an orientation to Kindergarten by visiting Kindergarten classrooms. In May, Kindergarten teachers have a Kindergarten Roundup for all entering Kindergartners. During the visit teachers provide information and packets for the parents to help in the transition. They also provide parents with information on what is expected during the school year for their Kindergarten child. Communication is provided via our marquee, Medulla website, and notes sent to preschool parents and parents of students presently attending Medulla.
Kindergarten teachers and resources teachers will assess students using FLKRS and FAIR to determine student readiness rate and their instructional strategies to differentiate instruction. The evaluation and effectiveness of the plan will be determined by the FLKRS results and FAIR assessment.
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, 57% of economically disadvantaged students achieved mastery on 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading test.
In grades 3-5, 28 % of students with disabilities achieved master on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading test
|
In grades 3 – 5, 72 % of economically disadvantaged students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading test.
In grades 3-5, 45% of students with disabilities will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT reading test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.The school will implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.
2.Follow the district provided instructional focus calendar in reading
|
1.Principal
AIF
2.Principal, Assistant principal, AIF
|
1.Review FAIR data reports
2.Lesson plans will be monitored for inclusion of mini lessons provided by the district.
|
1.FAIR assessment reports
2.Lesson plan log
|
| 2 |
1.Provide an additional 30 minutes per day instruction in SRA Reading mastery for students with disabilities.
2.Provide 60 minutes instruction per day for qualified ESE students in Kaplan, Spell, Read program
|
1.Principal,
ESE facilitator
2.Principal
Assistant Principal
|
1.Administrators will monitor through classroom walkthroughs
2.Weekly Spell Read reports will be reviewed and classroom walkthroughs
|
1.Classroom walkthrough logs
2. Spell Read Assessment.
|
|
| |
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, 72 % of economically disadvantaged students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading test.
|
Effective implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar
|
AIF
|
September, 2009 throughout the school year
|
Lesson plans, classroom walkthroughs
|
Assistant principal
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Reading 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, the number of students making learning gains in math decreased from 69% to 54% on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Math test.
In grades 3-5, 28% of students with disabilities achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT math test.
|
In grades 3-5, 75% of students will show learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT math test.
In grades 3-5, 50% of students with disabilities will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT math test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to teach math concepts
2.Closely monitor the progress of students performing in lower quartiles to adjust instruction.
3. Utilize the FCIM to identify students in core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment
1.Provide an additional 30 minutes 3 times per week for small group instruction for math
2.Utilize error analysis to guide reteaching.
|
Principal
Assistant Principal
|
1.Classroom walkthroughs
2.Regular meetings with teachers to monitor assessment data
3. .Regular meetings with teachers to monitor assessment data
1.Lesson plan monitoring, classroom walkthroughs
2.Classroom walkthroughs
3.
1.lesson plan monitoring and classroom walkthroughs
2.Classroom walkthroughs
|
1.Walkthrough logs
2.Math assessment from the state.
3.
1.Lesson plan and walkthrough logs
|
|
| |
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, 50% of students with disabilities will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT math test.
|
LFS
|
LFS Trained Teachers
|
Sept., 2009 and throughout the school year
|
Lesson plan monitoring and classroom walkthroughs
|
Principal
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| 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 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, 34% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of FCAT science, a decrease from 51% the previous year
|
In grade 5, 75% of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT science test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Implement departmentalized model for science instruction
2. Increase hands-on activities in science in every grade level.
|
Principal
|
1.Classroom walkthroughs
2.Lesson plan monitoring and classroom walkthroughs
|
1.Walkthrough logs
2.Lesson plan and walkthrough logs
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of 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, 78% of students achieved mastery on the FCAT writing test, an increase from 64% the previous year.
|
In grade 4, 85% of students will achieve mastery (3.5 or above)on the FCAT writing test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Implement Write Reflections writing program
2. Teachers will work collaboratively to identify exemplary writing at every grade level.
|
Principal
|
1.Classroom walkthroughs
2.Professional learning communities
|
1.Walkthrough logs
2.PLC logs
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grade 4, 85% of students will achieve mastery on the FCAT writing test.
|
Write Reflections
|
Principal
|
September 2009 and ongoing throughout the year
|
Classroom walkthroughs
|
Principal
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 3-5, 28 % of students with disabilities achieved master on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading test.
|
By Spring 2010, 38% of our students with disabilities in grades 3-5, will achieve mastery for reading on the AYP report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Encourage students with disabilities to participate in reading workshops such as: families Building Better Readers.
2. Every teacher calls parents within the firs two weeks of school to encourage students to read 20 minutes daily at home.
|
1. Academic Instructional facilitator.
Teachers
|
1. Collect participation data and survey families.
|
2. Parent Attendance Sign-in sheets.
|
|
| |
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, 28 % of students with disabilities achieved master on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading test
|
Effective implementation of parent programs
|
Academic Instructional facilitator
|
June 2010
|
Satisfaction survey for parents of students with disabilities
|
Academic Instructional facilitator
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| NA |
NA |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parental Involvement |
NA |
NA |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 1:10:28 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
As legislated, the Medulla Elementary School Advisory Council is the sole body responsible for final decision making at the school relating to implementation of the provisions of Sections 1001.42(16) and 1008>345, F.S. The Medulla Elementary Council helps develop, monitor and evaluate the results of our School Improvement Plan. They also assist in preparing the school’s annual budget and determine how our Lottery Funds and any School Recognition Funds are disbursed. Our SAC meets eights times per year and operates within the policies of the School Board and the parameters established by the state legislature. The council is kept up-to-date on any new information that may affect our school. Our SAC reflects the ethnic, racial and economic community served by our school. Each member of the SAC is elected by their stakeholder group.
The School Advisory Council (SAC) has an important function for the success of Medulla Elementary School. Listed below are some of the functions of the SAC.
• Reach out to community to obtain more partners
• Organize FCAT Family Night Event
• Sponsor drives to increase parent involvement
• Assist the school to create and analyze school climate surveys for parents and students
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Jill Cheatham,
Principal
|
|
2)
Lori Adams,
Parent
|
|
3)
Maryann Diggs ,
Parent
|
|
4)
Elsie Nwakakwa,
Parent
|
|
5)
Sara Meadows,
Parent
|
|
6)
Misty Medina,
Parent
|
|
7)
Latarsha Jennings,
Parent
|
|
8)
Tawanna Jones,
Parent
|
|
9)
Gary Pratt,
Community Member
|
|
10)
John Hatfield,
Community Member
|
|
11)
Minnie Kester,
School Support Personnel
|
|
12)
Jill Wolfersburger,
School Support Personnel
|
|
13)
Moe Hassler,
Assistant Principal
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District MEDULLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
74%
|
69%
|
78%
|
34%
|
255
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
63% |
54% |
|
|
117 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
62% (YES) |
57% (YES) |
|
|
119
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
491 |
|
| 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 MEDULLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
69%
|
74%
|
64%
|
51%
|
258
|
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 |
52% |
69% |
|
|
121 |
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? |
32% (NO) |
79% (YES) |
|
|
111
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
490 |
|
| Percent Tested = 97% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District MEDULLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
67%
|
63%
|
68%
|
46%
|
244
|
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% |
69% |
|
|
130 |
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? |
52% (YES) |
63% (YES) |
|
|
115
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
489 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |