VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
The vision of our school is: Our students, parents, staff and community will be involved and accountable to prepare students for the future. We will all work together to instill a positive attitude toward lifelong learning and a vision for the future. An environment will exist that will promote self-discipline and active learning with application of skills taught to real world situations. Self-esteem, self-respect and respect for others will be developed in our children as they are given opportunities to enhance their individual talents. Our staff must ensure that each child builds a strong academic foundation, develops a desire to learn, and grows in self-confidence and compassion through a rigorous and relevant curriculum which nurtures each student’s abilities and aspirations in partnership with parents and family. Our parents and staff will recognize their responsibility as a positive role model in the success of our children.
The mission of Eastside Elementary, a diversified community school, is to ensure all children will learn and maximize their academic potential, through an educational system characterized by: a caring staff, who are the determining factor in students’ daily educational lives, instruction that meets individual needs, and by empowering students to be life long learners.
Aimed on Success…Everyone Achieves, No Exceptions, and No Excuses!!
Commit it! Be it! Coach it!
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Brief History and Background of the School
EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY is a pre-K–5 school in the small town of Haines City, Florida. It is a traditional curriculum school with approximately 900 students. Eastside was established in 1928. The original 1928 building under went a total remodel/renovation in 2008-2009. Additionally, five classrooms built in the 1950’s were demolished and a two story sixteen classroom building was built on that site.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Brief History and Background of the School
EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY is a pre-K–5 school in the small town of Haines City, Florida. It is a traditional curriculum school with approximately 900 students. Eastside was established in 1928. The original 1928 building under went a total remodel/renovation in 2008-2009. Additionally, five classrooms built in the 1950’s were demolished and a two story sixteen classroom building was built on that site.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
While not unique, our greatest weakness is lack of parent involvement.
Student Demographics
Eastside Elementary serves a multi-ethnic school population that consists of approximately 900 students from a predominately economically disadvantaged community. 67% of the students are Hispanic, 16% are Black, 14% are White, and 3% are American Indian, Asian, or multi-racial. Economically disadvantaged students account for 97% of the population. Additionally, 7% of students are Students with Disabilities (SWD), 41% are classified as English Language Learners (ELL).
Student Attendance Rates
Student attendance rate for 2006-07 was 94.01%.
Student attendance rate for 2007-08 was 93.71%.
Student attendance rate for 2008-09 was 95.09%.
Student Mobility
Student mobility for 2007-08 was 37.54%.
Student mobility for 2008-09 was 26.78%.
Student Suspension Rates
In 2008-09, Eastside had 237 OSS days, 104 OSS Actions,37 ISS days, and 97 ISS Actions.
Student Retention Rates
For the school year 2009-2008, Eastside Elementary’s student retention rates for each grade were: Kindergarten-9.6%,
First grade-7.4%, Second grade-2.6%, Third grade-6.3%, Fourth grade-0%, and Fifth grade-0%.
Class Size
The average teacher to student ratio for 2006-2007 in grades PK-3 was 1:16.11 and grades 4-5 was 19.99.
The average teacher to student ratio for 2007-2008 in grades PK-3 was 1:16.35 and grades 4-5 was 17.61.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
N/A
Partnerships and Grants
Eastside Elementary partners with Haines City First Presbyterian Church to provide after school tutoring to selected in need students.
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
|
Sharon Hartwig
|
B.S. degree in Elementary Education, Florida Southern College, Masters and Specialist degree in Administration and Supervision K-12, Rollins, currently working to obtain a Doctorate in Organizational Leadership, Nova Southeast: Principal and Teacher Certification-State of Florida
|
9
|
25
|
2008-09 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 70%
Math 75%
Writing 94%
Science 31%
2007-08 Grade B-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 65%
Math 68%
Writing 93%
Science 32%
2006-07 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 66%
Math 71%
Writing 84%
Science 22%
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Johna Jozwiak
|
B.S. degree in Arts and Science,
West Virginia University Masters degree in Education Leadership, NOVA Southeastern, currently working to obtain a Doctorate in Organizational Leadership, North Central University; Teacher Certification-State of Florida
|
4
|
4
|
2008-09 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 70%
Math 75%
Writing 94%
Science 31%
2007-08 Grade B-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 65%
Math 68%
Writing 93%
Science 32%
2006-07 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 66%
Math 71%
Writing 84%
Science 22%
|
* 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
|
Dani Peebles
|
B.A. degree in Early Childhood, Tennessee Tech, Teacher Certification, ESOL Endorsement-State of Florida
|
9
|
4
|
2008-09 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 70%
Math 75%
Writing 94%
Science 31%
2007-08 Grade B-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 65%
Math 68%
Writing 93%
Science 32%
2006-07 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 66%
Math 71%
Writing 84%
Science 22%
|
|
Writing
|
Sean Williams
|
B.S. degree in Elementary Education, Florida Southern College, Masters degree in Education Leadership, NOVA Southeastern Teacher Certification, ESOL Endorsement-State of Florida
|
6
|
2
|
2008-09 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 70%
Math 75%
Writing 94%
Science 31%
2007-08 Grade B-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 65%
Math 68%
Writing 93%
Science 32%
2006-07 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 66%
Math 71%
Writing 84%
Science 22%
|
|
Math
|
Becky Pierce
|
.S. degree in Early Childhood Education, Trevecca Nazarene University, Masters degree in Education Leadership, Grand Canyon University, Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Certification, ESOL Endorsement, Educational Leadership-State of Florida
|
6
|
4
|
2008-09 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 70%
Math 75%
Writing 94%
Science 31%
2007-08 Grade B-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 65%
Math 68%
Writing 93%
Science 32%
2006-07 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 66%
Math 71%
Writing 84%
Science 22%
|
|
Learning Focus Strategies (LFS)
|
Lucinda Nicks
|
B.S. degree in Elementary Education, University of South Florida, Teacher certification in
Elementary Education - ESOL Endorsement
|
9
|
4
|
2008-09 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 70%
Math 75%
Writing 94%
Science 31%
2007-08 Grade B-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 65%
Math 68%
Writing 93%
Science 32%
2006-07 Grade A-100% AYP
Students meeting High Standards in:
Reading 66%
Math 71%
Writing 84%
Science 22%
|
* 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 administration
|
Principal, Sharon Hartwig
|
On-going throughout the year
|
|
|
2. Partnering new teachers with veteran teachers
|
Assistant Principal, Johna Jozwiak
|
On-going throughout the year
|
|
|
3. Attend District Job Fairs
|
Principal, Sharon Hartwig and Assistant Principal, Johna Jozwiak
|
Spring 2010
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
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 |
| 50 | 2 | 48 | 30 | 20 | 10 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 82 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
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 are used to provided services to Tier 2 and Tier 3 students.
Violence Prevention Programs
The district provides training in anti-bullying.
Nutrition Programs
The district provides materials and training on nutrition.
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
The district provides Head Start programs is selected locations.
Adult Education
The district provides opportunities for adults take GED classes as well as ESOL classes
Career and Technical Education
The district provides both career and technical educational opportunities.
Job Training
The district provides opportunities for job training through the career, technical and adult education efforts
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) |
|
Each grade level team
|
Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach, Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
|
Weekly
|
Each team will meet Wednesdays during common planning time.
|
1. Analyze the effectiveness of the FCIM calendars, focus lessons, focus assessments, tutorials, and enrichments to determine necessary revisions.
2. Lesson Study centered on planning with and utilizing the research-based lesson delivery model.
3. Share Best Practices and resources.
|
|
Vertical teams comprised of cross grade level personnel and all other staff.
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal
|
Monthly
|
Each team will meet during the vertical team daily schedule.
|
1. Share Best Practices and resources.
2. AYP Sub-group data analysis of focus assessments and progress monitoring assessments.
3. Building collaborative school culture.
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
In the spring of each year, a “Kindergarten Round-Up” is held by the school. This program is designed to make parents and other community members aware of the requirements for enrollment and to pre-register students entering school in the fall.
Eastside Kindergarten Round-Up allows parents and children to:
• Register for school
• Visit kindergarten classrooms
• Learn about the things that parents can do to prepare their children for kindergarten
• Receive necessary information
At the August orientation:
• Parents meet the teacher
• Tour the school
• Receive supply lists and other information
Also in the spring of each year, the students and teachers from Pre-K programs in our area are invited to attend an orientation. The students and teachers spend the morning with a Kindergarten class where they participate in several activities that our Kindergarten staff has prepared. The students also take a tour of the Eastside campus with a stop in the cafeteria for snacks.
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 |
1. In grades 3-5, 66% of
students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Reading Test
2. In grades 3-5, 72% of
students achieved
learning gains on the
2009 administration of
the FCAT Reading
Test.
|
1. By Spring 2010, 72% of Total students will be at AL 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
2. By Spring 2010, 75% of Total students will make Learning Gains in Reading 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. The school will
utilize the new
FAIR assessments and Kaplan Assessments to monitor student
progress.
2. Learning Focus strategies (LFS) will be embedded in lesson plans.
3. Develop and implement an
Instructional Focus
Calendar (IFC) for
Reading.
|
1. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF)
2. Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
3. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), and classroom teachers
|
1. Review FAIR and PMA data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.
2. Lesson plans will be
reviewed during
classroom
walkthroughs and will
be submitted weekly to
Assistant Principal.
3. Administration will
be aware of the IFC’s
upcoming focus and
monitor implementation
through classroom
walkthroughs.
|
1. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring assessments: FAIR , PMA Assessments results will be reviewed, analyzed, and disaggregated.
2. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of LFS.
3. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring assessments: FAIR , PMA Assessments results will be reviewed analyzed, and disaggregated.
|
| 2 |
1. Student
Achievement Chats
will be conducted
with all students
following FAIR and Kaplan Assessments. Achievement targets will be set with each student.
2. A 30-45 minutes of Immediate Intensive Intervention (iii) Reading will be implemented daily to provide remedial, enrichment, and/or extension activities.
3. Inferencing will be explicitly taught as a comprehension skill.
|
1. Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
2. Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
3. Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
|
1. Administrators will review Student Target worksheets during walkthroughs.
2. Administration will
monitor implementation
through classroom
walkthroughs.
3. Lesson plans will be
reviewed during
classroom
walkthroughs and will
be submitted weekly to
Assistant Principal.
|
1. Administrators will
randomly ask students
how they performed
on their most recent
assessment to
determine if data
chats are successful.
2. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of iii groups.
3. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring assessments: FAIR , PMA Assessments. Additionally, classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of teaching Inferencing as a comprehension skill.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, 72% of Total students will be at AL 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
Effective implementation of LFS
|
Lucinda Nicks- LFS Coach
|
August, 2009
throughout the year
|
Lessons Plan
Classroom walk-throughs
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS coach
|
|
By Spring 2010, 75% of all students will make Learning Gains in Reading as evidenced by the School Grade Report.
|
Effective implementation of iii Reading
|
Dani Peebles-Reading Coach (AIF)
|
August-September 2009
|
Lessons Plan
Classroom walk-throughs
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF)
|
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 |
| LFS facilitator |
Title I |
$18,173.00 |
|
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $18,173.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $18,173.00 |
|
| 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 |
1. In grades 3-5, 70% of
students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Mathematics Test.
2. In grades 3-5, 80% of
students achieved
learning gains on the
2009 administration of
the FCAT Mathematics
Test.
|
1. By Spring 2010, 74% of Total students will be at AL 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the AYP Report.
2. By Spring 2010, 85% of Total students will make Learning Gains in Math 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. The school will
utilize the PMA Assessments
to monitor student
progress.
2. Extended Thinking Strategies
(Error Analysis, Justify Answer/Construct Support, Compare/Contrast) will be embedded in lesson plans.
3. Develop and implement an
Instructional Focus
Calendar (IFC) for
Math.
|
1. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Becky Pierce-Math Coach
2. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Becky Pierce-Math Coach
3. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal, Becky Pierce-Math Coach and classroom teachers
|
1. Review PMA data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.
2. Lesson plans will be
reviewed during
classroom
walkthroughs and will
be submitted weekly to
Assistant Principal.
3. Administration will
be aware of the IFC’s
upcoming focus and
monitor implementation
through classroom
walkthroughs.
|
1. Effectiveness will be determined through PMA assessments. Assessments results will be reviewed, analyzed, and disaggregated.
2. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of Extended Thinking Strategies.
3. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring assessments: Kaplan. Assessments results will be reviewed analyzed, and disaggregated.
|
| 2 |
1. Student
Achievement Chats
will be conducted
with all students
following Kaplan Assessments. Achievement targets will be set with each student.
2. A 30-45 minutes of Immediate Intensive Intervention (iii) Math will be implemented daily to provide remedial, enrichment, and/or extension activities.
3. Eight Problem Solving Strategies will be explicitly taught.
|
1. Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
2. Leadership Team consisting of:
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Dani Peebles- Reading Coach (AIF), Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach, Sean Williams-Writing Coach, Becky Pierce-Math Coach, Carol Ross-Title I Program Facilitator
3. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Becky Pierce-Math Coach
|
1. Administrators will review Student Target worksheets during walkthroughs.
2. Administration will
monitor implementation
through classroom
walkthroughs.
3. Review PMA data reports to monitor progression of student achievement.
|
1. Administrators will
randomly ask students
how they performed
on their most recent
assessment to
determine if data
chats are successful.
2. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of iii groups.
3. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring assessments: PMA Assessments results will be reviewed analyzed, and disaggregated.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, 74% of Total students will be at AL 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
Effective teaching of Extended Thinking Strategies
(Error Analysis, Justify Answer/Construct Support, Compare/Contrast)
|
Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach and Becky Pierce-Math Coach
|
August-December 2009
|
Lessons Plan
Classroom walk-throughs
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal, Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach and Becky Pierce-Math Coach
|
|
By Spring 2010, 85% of Total students will make Learning Gains in Math as evidenced by the School Grade Report.
|
Effective teaching of Eight Problem Solving Strategies
|
Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach and Becky Pierce-Math Coach
|
August-December 2009
|
Lessons Plan
Classroom walk-throughs
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal, Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach and Becky Pierce-Math Coach
|
|
| |
| 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 |
| LFS Facilitator |
Title I |
$18,173.00 |
| Total: $18,173.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Math Coach |
Title I |
$57,108.00 |
| Total: $57,108.00 |
| Final Total: $75,281.00 |
|
| 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 31% of students achieved level three and above.
|
By Spring, 2010, 40% of the students will be at AL 3.0 or above in Science as evidenced by the FCAT Summary Trend Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Real world science experiences and hands-on experiments will be embedded in lesson plans.
2. Summary point writing will be utilized to check for understanding on concepts.
3. Assessment prompt questions will be embedded in lesson plan.
|
1. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach
2. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach
3. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach
|
1. Lesson plans will be
reviewed during
classroom
walkthroughs and will
be submitted weekly to
Assistant Principal.
2. Lesson plans will be
reviewed during
classroom
walkthroughs and will
be submitted weekly to
Assistant Principal.
3. Lesson plans will be
reviewed during
classroom
walkthroughs and will
be submitted weekly to
Assistant Principal.
|
1. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of Real world science experiences and hands-on experiments.
2. Effectiveness will be determined through PMA assessments. Assessments results will be reviewed analyzed, and disaggregated.
3. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine implementation of Assessment prompt questions.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring, 2010, 40% of the students will be at AL 3.0 or above in Science as evidenced by the FCAT Summary Trend Report.
|
Effective teaching of Summary Point Writing
|
Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach
|
August-December 2009
|
Lessons Plan
Classroom walk-throughs
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal, Lucinda Nicks-LFS Coach
|
|
| |
| 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 |
| LFS Facilitator |
Title I |
$18,173.00 |
| Total: $18,173.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $18,173.00 |
|
| 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, 96% of the students in 4th grade scored level 3.0 or above in writing.
|
By Spring 2010, 90% or higher of Total students will score 3.0 or higher on the essay in Writing as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Students will use the writing process daily; all writing will be dated, and a portfolio will be created and maintained to monitor growth across time.
2. The revision and editing process will be explicitly taught and seen in student writing drafts.
|
1. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Sean Williams- Writing Coach
2. Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal,
Sean Williams- Writing Coach
|
1. Administration will
monitor implementation
through classroom
walkthroughs and review of student portfolios.
2. Administration will monitor revision and editing process by reviewing student drafts.
|
1. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring writing prompts assessments given periodically during the year beginning in August, 2009.
2. Effectiveness will be determined through progress monitoring writing prompts assessments given periodically during the year beginning in August, 2009.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, 90% or higher of Total students will score 3.0 or higher on the essay in Writing as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
Effective utilization of student portfolios.
|
Sean Williams-Writing Coach
|
August, 2009
throughout the year
|
Lessons Plan
Classroom walk-throughs
|
Sharon Hartwig-Principal, Johna Jozwiak-Assistant Principal, Sean Williams-Writing Coach
|
|
| |
| 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 |
| Writing Facilitator |
Title I |
$52,570.00 |
| Total: $52,570.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $52,570.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
School staff survey indicated lack of communication with ESOL parents.
|
Parent Involvement Facilitator (PIF) will be better equipped to communicate with ESOL parents.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.PIF will participate in 13 weeks of basic Spanish language instruction
|
1.Principal, AP
|
1.Successful completion of classes
|
1.Certificate from instructor
2.PIF will use learned skills to communicate with ESOL parents.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Parent Involvement Facilitator (PIF) will be better
|
PIFs communicating in Spanish with ESOL parents.
|
Spanish Instructor provided by Title I.
|
Fall, 2009
|
Ability of PIF to communicate with ESOL parents.
|
Ability of PIF to communicate with ESOL parents.
|
|
| |
| 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 |
| Parent Involvement Facilitator |
Title I |
$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 |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$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 |
| Reading |
LFS facilitator |
Title I |
$18,173.00 |
| Reading |
|
|
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS Facilitator |
Title I |
$18,173.00 |
| Writing |
Writing Facilitator |
Title I |
$52,570.00 |
| Science |
LFS Facilitator |
Title I |
$18,173.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Parent Involvement Facilitator |
Title I |
$0.00 |
| Total: $107,089.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Mathematics |
Math Coach |
Title I |
$57,108.00 |
| Total: $57,108.00 |
| Final Total: $164,197.00 |
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.
No. Disagree with the above statement.
Measures Being Taken to Comply with SAC Requirement
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
SAC Members
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0361 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 401 Math: 401
|
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
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
42 |
34 |
NA |
37 |
30 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
63 |
N |
74 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
37 |
NA |
|
26 |
NA |
74 |
Y |
78 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
65 |
Y |
71 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
43 |
35 |
NA |
35 |
29 |
NA |
74 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
43 |
34 |
NA |
37 |
30 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
63 |
N |
68 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
53 |
37 |
Y |
41 |
32 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0361 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 471 Math: 471
|
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
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
58 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
91
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
43 |
42 |
NA |
37 |
37 |
NA |
60 |
NA |
69 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
64 |
Y |
60 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
33 |
36 |
NA |
33 |
40 |
N |
54 |
NA |
68 |
Y |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
57 |
N |
65 |
Y |
94
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
46 |
43 |
N |
37 |
35 |
NA |
61 |
Y |
70 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
57 |
N |
63 |
Y |
91
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
45 |
43 |
N |
38 |
37 |
NA |
60 |
Y |
68 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
47 |
N |
59 |
N |
93
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
61 |
53 |
Y |
45 |
41 |
N |
55 |
NA |
69 |
Y |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
95 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0361 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 476 Math: 476
|
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
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
57 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
88
|
91 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
47 |
44 |
NA |
54 |
37 |
NA |
54 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
67 |
Y |
67 |
Y |
87
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
34 |
28 |
NA |
51 |
33 |
NA |
60 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
56 |
Y |
54 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
41 |
NA |
61 |
46 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
54 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
87
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
53 |
50 |
NA |
54 |
37 |
NA |
51 |
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 |
55 |
Y |
62 |
Y |
88
|
91 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
51 |
46 |
NA |
56 |
38 |
NA |
51 |
NA |
74 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
39 |
N |
55 |
N |
89
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
79 |
68 |
Y |
66 |
45 |
Y |
40 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
97 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
70%
|
75%
|
94%
|
31%
|
270
|
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 |
72% |
80% |
|
|
152 |
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? |
83% (YES) |
88% (YES) |
|
|
171
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
593 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
65%
|
68%
|
93%
|
32%
|
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 |
63% |
67% |
|
|
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? |
67% (YES) |
64% (YES) |
|
|
131
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
519 |
|
| 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 EASTSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
66%
|
71%
|
84%
|
22%
|
243
|
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 |
64% |
83% |
|
|
147 |
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) |
92% (YES) |
|
|
144
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
534 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |