VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision-
Every student at Don Woods Opportunity Center will transition back to their home school equipped with social skills and study habits necessary to be successful, productive students.
Mission-
The mission at DWOC is to provide a safe and orderly learning environment and enable our students to successfully function in mainstream schools and society, so their goals and career dreams may be achieved.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Bill Duncan Opportunity Center- Formerly the Polk County Opportunity Center, Bill Duncan Opportunity Center was renamed after the well-respected “Father of discipline in Polk County Schools,” upon his retirement in 1992. In 2005, it became Bill Duncan Excel Center as established by the Excel and ResCare Company as an alternative behavioral management school which followed the Excel ResCare Alternative School plan.
Don Woods Opportunity Center- Formerly the Polk County Opportunity Center, Don Woods Opportunity Center was named after a longtime Polk County Schools educator, Donald E. Woods. In 2005, it became Don Woods Excel Center as established by the Excel and ResCare Company as an alternative behavioral management school which followed the Excel ResCare Alternative School plan.
In 2009, the 250 student maximum facilities were re-staffed with Polk County Schools’ personnel, including a principal who serves as instructional leader for Bill Duncan and Don Woods Opportunity Centers. Both schools are fully staffed each with one assistant principal, two deans, one guidance counselor, one school psychologist, one social worker, sixteen teachers, one network manager, two secretaries, six paraprofessionals, and three custodians. Our teachers are among Polk County Schools’ highly qualified.
Bill Duncan Opportunity is located on the same campus as Traviss Career Center and serves students in grades 6 through 12 from all area middle and high schools in the southwest and northwest area of Polk County. It is located in Lakeland, Florida. Don Woods Opportunity is located in Dundee Florida and serves students in grades 6 through 12 from all area middle and high schools in the northeast and southeast area of Polk County.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Both Centers are fully staffed by employees of Polk County Schools. This is a major change from the past four years of both Centers being operated by a private company.
Due to the nature/ reason for our Centers’ existence, our teachers have been given Professional Development and are equipped with the following essential skills that assist in helping the students become successful: Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Training, Skill Streaming Training, LFS Training, and New Century Software Curriculum. These Professional Development activities will be going throughout the school year.
In order for teachers to teach, there must be a safe and orderly environment. Therefore, teachers are trained in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention techniques. This program teaches teachers how to identify a crisis, de-escalate it, and resolve the crisis. The Skill Streaming Program teaches pro-social skills to students as replacements to negative behaviors. These programs are in place in order to give students the skills necessary to become success socially and make academics the focus and primary reason for coming to school.
Using the District curriculum maps, LFS professional development sessions on PD360 and New Century Software Curriculum, the administrative team makes sure that all teachers understand the essential skills necessary for students at each grade level. The understanding of curriculum maps is key because students coming to our centers have had fragmented academic experiences. The majority of the students have spent time in the detention center or juvenile programs. The curriculum maps allow the teachers to understand the essential skills necessary for the students at each grade level. LFS strategies assist students with “catching up” with their peers. New Century Software prescribes each student that is lagging academically with his/her own academic prescription, thus filling in all skill gaps and bringing them up to grade level. New Century Software also accommodates the student that is advanced by prescribing enrichment activities.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
The student population is very mobile due to their length of stay at our Center. The students are referred from their home school to our Centers due to a serious breach of the Code of Student Conduct. The length of stay could range from a majority of a semester to one year expulsion. Only an average of 20% of the students remains at the Centers for a full year.
Student Demographics
Bill Duncan Opportunity Center serves as a multi-ethnic school population that consists of 342 students from a predominantly economically disadvantaged community. 25% of the students are white, 39% of the students are African American, 33% of the students are Hispanic, less than 1% of the students are Asian and Indian, 2% of the students are multi-racial, 17% of the students have disabilities, 8% of the students have English as a second language, 86% of the students are on the free and reduced lunch program.
Don Woods Opportunity Center serves as a multi-ethnic school population that consists of 418 students from a predominantly economically disadvantaged community. 35% of the students are white, 45% of the students are African American, 18% of the students are Hispanic, less than 1% of the students are Asian and Indian, 2% of the students are multi-racial, 13% of the students have disabilities, 5% of the students have English as a second language, 85% of the students are on the free and reduced lunch program.
Student Attendance Rates
The attendance rate for Bill Duncan and Don Woods Opportunity Centers has remained above 80% for the last three years. The majority of the averages are above 90%.
BDOC DWOC
0607 99.84 81.75
0708 95.49 94.99
0809 91.71 90.56
Student Mobility
The mobility rate of Bill Duncan Opportunity Center for 2007-08 is 96% and for 2008-09 it is 97% and for Don Woods Opportunity Center during 2007-08 it is 92% and for 2008-09 it is 95%. The students are only enrolled at these Centers for a majority of a semester unless expelled. Students that are expelled remain at the Centers for one or more years. The enrollment or withdrawal of a student at any time during the school year not including the first 15 days of school divided by the total number of students who attended the school during that year after the 15th day.
Student Suspension Rates
The disciplinary actions for 200809 are as follows: Bill Duncan Opportunity Center had 810 days of out of school suspension days and 5 days of in school suspension. Don Woods Opportunity Center had 231 days of out of school suspension and 9 days of in school suspension.
Student Retention Rates
The retention rate for both Centers is very high. The 2008-09 retention rates for Bill Duncan Opportunity Center are: 6th grade 62%, 7th 45%, 8th 45%, 9th 38%, 10th 15%, 11th 0%, and 12th 50%.
The 2008-09 retention rates for Don Woods Opportunity Center are: 6th grade 30%, 7th 38%, 8th 20%, 9th 35%, 10th 36%, 11th 20%, and 12th 100% (the one student that was enrolled in 12th grade was retained).
Class Size
A point has been made to reduce class sizes for both Centers in all subject areas and across grade levels to maintain discipline issues and strengthen the one on one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size for Bill Duncan Opportunity Center is 20 students to 1 teacher. The average class size for Don Woods Opportunity Center is 15 students to 1 teacher.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Bill Duncan and Don Woods Opportunity Centers receive students from all Middle and High Schools in Polk County. The achievement level in relation to AYP and school grade range from “A” schools with all subgroups making AYP to “CA”- Corrective Action schools with no subgroups making AYP.
Partnerships and Grants
Many community leaders have become involved with our site and offer many different opportunities for our students. The Girl Scouts are working with the female students through “The Get Real” mentoring program and weekly visits. Job Corps also partners with our school targeting high school students. Polk Works, the local work force development agency is a partner in the career fair that is presented each year. This agency provides a link to the world of work and career preparation for all 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
|
Wanda Brokenburr
|
She is certified in the following fields: Educational Leadership, Specific Learning Disabilities, Early Childhood, Elementary Education, and ESOL.
|
1
|
6
|
For the past two years one of Mrs. Brokenburr’s area of responsibilities included observing, monitoring, and evaluating the mathematics department. In math, the percentage of students meeting high standards along with the percent of students making learning gains has continued to increase over the last two years. The school’s grade increased from a “C” to a “B”.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Kenton Tom Kaiser
|
Mr. Kaiser has a degree in Educational Leadership and a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science.
|
1
|
1
|
This is Mr. Kaiser’s 15th year with Polk County Schools.
|
* 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
|
Earnestin Smith
|
ESE K-12, Reading Endorsed
|
1
|
1
|
Each year her student had significant learning gains in reading
|
* 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 meeting of new teachers with the Principal
|
Principal
|
ongoing
|
|
|
2. Professional development using PD 360, tailored to meet the needs of our new teachers.
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Academic Deans
|
ongoing
|
|
|
3. Mentor and mentee partnerships
|
Assistant Principal
|
ongoing
|
|
|
4. Job Fairs and recruiting at Universities
|
Principal, Assistant Principal
|
ongoing
|
|
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 |
| 27 | 1 | 53 | 28 | 19 | 2 | 100 | 2 | 1 | 95 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Linda Peterson
|
Charlene Wilson
|
Excellent rapport with each other, years of experience and knowledge of Mentor
|
Initial meeting, curriculum and student behavioral needs, set a professional goal, review midyear, reflection
|
|
Linda Peterson
|
Charlene Wilson
|
Excellent rapport with each other, years of experience and knowledge of Mentor
|
Monthly meetings highlighting topics/issues of concern
|
|
Linda Peterson
|
Charlene Wilson
|
Excellent rapport with each other, years of experience and knowledge of Mentor
|
On-site orientation which would include training with our grade book program, Pinnacle, classroom management strategies, assistance with using PD360.
|
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) |
|
Middle school and high school reading and social studies teachers, Principal, Assistant Principal, and ESE Teachers
|
BDOC
Earnestine Smith, Reading Department Head and Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions
DWOC
Aralethea Hayes, Reading Department Head and James Smith, Social Studies Major and Dean
|
Weekly
|
Tuesdays during common planning time
*Special Note-
This meeting date will change to:
Friday of second week of each month at BDOC due to Principal’s mtg. with high school teachers and third Friday of third week of each month at DWOC for same reason.
|
Analyze the effectiveness of the Reading FCIM calendars, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
|
|
Middle school and high school math and elective teachers, Principal, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions, and ESE Teachers
|
BDOC and DWOC
Linda Peterson, Mary Newsome, Academic Deans and Tom Kaiser, Assistant Principal
|
Weekly
|
Wednesdays during common planning time
|
Analyze the effectiveness of the Math FCIM calendars, mini-lessons, mini-assessments,
Maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
|
|
Middle school and high school science and language arts teachers, Principal, Assistant, Principal, Academic Dean
|
BDOC and DWOC
Wanda Brokenburr, Principal
|
Monthly
|
Second Monday of every month during common planning time at BDOC
Third Monday of every month during common planning time at DWOC
|
Lesson Study centered on planning with and utilizing the research-based lesson delivery model. Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini-assessments results.
|
|
High School Teachers and Principal
|
Wanda Brokenburr, Principal
|
Monthly
|
Second Tuesday of every month during common planning time at BDOC
Third Tuesday of every month during common planning time at DWOC
|
Lesson Study centered on planning with and utilizing the research-based lesson delivery model. Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini-assessments results.
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
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 |
BDOC
In grades 6-12, 24% of the students were proficient in reading as determined by the FCAT.
DWOC
In grades 6-12, 12% of the students were proficient in reading as determined by the FCAT.
|
BDOC
By Spring, 34% of the total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
DWOC
By Spring, 22% of the total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP 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 implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress
|
1.Principal, AIF
|
1. Review FAIR data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.
|
1. Printout of FAIR assessments.
|
| 2 |
2. Follow the instructional focus calendar for reading and language arts classes.
|
2. Principal, AIF
|
2. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk through and will be submitted weekly to
|
2. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk throughs and will be submitted weekly to the Academic Team.
|
| 3 |
3. Include vocabulary strategies and summarizing strategies across the content areas.
4. Implement the
K-12 Reading Plan with fidelity.
|
3. Principal, AIF
|
3. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk throughs and will be submitted weekly to the Academic Team.
|
3. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk throughs and will be submitted weekly to the Academic Team.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
BDOC
By Spring, 34% of total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
DWOC
By Spring, 22% of the total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Tying It All Together-
Curriculum Maps, Instructional Calendars, and Lesson Planning
(This information will be delivered through facilitation and PD360 Series of Increasing Student Performance and Achievement).
|
Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions; Linda Peterson and Mary Newsome, Academic Deans
|
9/13/09- June 2010
|
Lesson Plans checks, classroom walk throughs, and PLC reflection / debriefing time
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
BDOC
By Spring, 34% of total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
DWOC
By Spring, 22% of the total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Vocabulary Strategies
|
Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions
|
Start 9/17/09 – June 2010
|
Classroom walk throughs and student vocabulary notebooks
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
BDOC
By Spring, 34% of total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
DWOC
By Spring, 22% of the total students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Summarizing Strategies
|
Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions
|
Start 10/1/09 – June 2010
|
Classroom walk throughs and student vocabulary notebooks
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
On a weekly basis, the Sr. Academic Intervention Facilitator will review strategies from “Reading Across the Content Area” book to build the knowledge base of all teachers and give them the necessary strategies to instruct the students within the critical area of vocabulary building (using vocabulary from all contents). Instructional calendars will be used across all content areas. Summarizing strategies will be taught to teachers by the Sr. Academic Intervention Facilitator to ensure that students are connecting to teacher instructions.
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| 10 -Monitoring For Achievement FlipchartFrom Learning-Focused Solutions, Inc. |
School's Budget |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Teachers will participate in professional development activities after school,(after contract hours). |
School's Budget |
$4,000.00 |
| Total: $4,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $4,200.00 |
|
| 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 |
BDOC and DWOC
In grades 6-12, 9% of the students were proficient in math as determined by the FCAT.
|
By Spring, 19% of total students will be at level 3 or above in Mathematics evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Follow curriculum map for math (especially important because of New Generation Standards)
|
1. Principal, AIF
|
1.Classroom walk throughs, lesson plan checks
|
1.Walk through notes
|
| 2 |
2. Use the FCIM to identify students in the core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment.
|
2. Principal, AIF
|
2. Review student process frequently and ensure groups are redesigned to target the needs of students based on assessments.
|
2. Progress of all students on assessments.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
BDOC and DWOC
By Spring, 19% of total students will be at level 3 or above in Mathematics evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Curriculum maps
|
Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions
|
Week of 9/14/09
|
Walk throughs, lesson plan checks
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
BDOC and DWOC
By Spring, 19% of total students will be at level 3 or above in Mathematics evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Mini Lessons
|
Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions
|
Week of 9/21/09
|
Lesson plan checks, work samples from mini lesson , assessment scores from mini lessons
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$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 |
BDOC
2009,In grade 8, 14% of the students were proficient in science as determined by the FCAT.
DWOC
2009,In grades 8, 3% of the students were proficient in science as determined by the FCAT.
|
BDOC
By Spring, 24% of the 8th grade students will be at level 3 or above in Science as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
DWOC
By Spring, 13% of the 8th grade students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP 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 implement the Science assessments to monitor student progress
|
1. Principal, Academic Dean
|
1. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk through and will be submitted weekly to the Academic Team.
|
1.Science Assessments
|
| 2 |
2. Follow the instructional focus calendar for science.
|
2.Principal, Academic Dean
|
2. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk through and will be submitted weekly to the Academic Team.
|
2.Lesson Plans
|
| 3 |
3. Include vocabulary strategies and summarizing strategies across the content areas.
|
3. Principal, Academic Dean
|
3. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walk through and will be submitted weekly to the Academic Team.
|
3. Lesson Plans
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
BDOC
By Spring, 24% of the 8th grade students will be at level 3 or above in Science as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
DWOC
By Spring, 13% of the 8th grade students will be at level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Vocabulary Strategies and Summarizing Strategies
|
Brenda Kearse, Sr. Coordinator of Academic Interventions
|
10/2009-6/2010
|
Lesson Plans and Student Science Notebooks
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$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 |
BDOC and DWOC
By Spring, 75% of 8th and 10th graders will be at level 3.5 or above in Writing as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Language Arts Curriculum maps, Student Writing Portfolios which includes baseline data and writing samples throughout the school year. Samples will also include samples from across the curriculum areas.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Professional Development – “Writing for a 5 or 6” will be facilitated by LaSabra Patterson
|
1.Administration and Academic Team
|
1.Lesson plan checks, reviewing writing portfolios, posted writing samples
|
1.Writing portfolios that include baseline writing sample, 2 midyear samples, and end of the year samples. Writing portfolio should also include samples from across the content areas.
|
| 2 |
2.Understanding what should be include in the writing portfolio for each student.
|
2. Administration and Academic Team
|
Lesson plan checks, reviewing writing portfolios, posted writing samples
|
2. Writing portfolios that include baseline writing sample, 2 midyear samples, and end of the year samples. Writing portfolio should also include samples from across the content areas.
|
| 3 |
3.Follow up throughout the school year for writing samples across all content areas that will be included in portfolio.
|
3. Administration and Academic Team
|
3. Lesson plan checks, reviewing writing portfolios, posted writing samples
|
3. Writing portfolios that include baseline writing sample, 2 midyear samples, and end of the year samples. Writing portfolio should also include samples from across the content areas.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
BDOC and DWOC
By Spring, 75% of 8th and 10th graders will be at level 3.5 or above in Writing as evidenced by the 2010 AYP Report.
|
Professional Development – “Writing for a 5 or 6” will be facilitated by LaSabra Patterson
|
LaSabra Patterson
|
10/2009
|
Lesson plan checks, reviewing writing portfolios, posted writing samples seen during classroom walk throughs
|
Administration and Academic Team
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$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 |
|
No prior needs assessment information is available. However due to the nature of our Centers, an alternative to the home site due to serious breaches to the Code of Student Conduct, there needs to be a high level of satisfaction in the way that information is presented on flyers and informational material that is sent home. Additionally, an emphasis will be placed on effective methods of communication between home and school.
|
During the 2009-2010 school year, teachers and parents will communicate effectively as determined by:
1. Using Connect-Ed phone tree software at least one a month to inform parents of important school information and activities,
2.100% of the parents will sign the Point Sheets at least twice a month.
3. Teachers will document 100% of the phone calls placed to parents and by documenting 100% of the notes or letter written to parents.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Use ConnectEd phone tree software to call families to inform them of: Open House Night, Report Card and Interim Days, announcements, instructional and activities events going on in the classrooms.
|
1.Principal
|
1.ConnectEd Log
|
1.Observation and documentation on ConnectEd Log
|
| 2 |
2.Information delivered to students via their Social Studies Class- Reminders that point sheets must be maintained and in their possession daily. Remind them that the sheets must be signed by a parent, collected by the teacher, and reviewed for release.
|
2.Administration Team, Academic Team, and Teachers
|
2.Collection of Point Sheets.
|
2. Observation and documentation of Point Sheets.
|
| 3 |
3.Teachers will maintain documentation logs.
|
3. Teachers
|
3. Collection of documentation logs.
|
3.Observation and documentation of logs
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
No prior needs assessment information is available. However due to the nature of our Centers, alternative to the home site due to serious breaches to the Code of Student Conduct, there needs to be a high level of satisfaction in the way that information is presented on flyers and informational material that is sent home. Additionally, an emphasis will be placed on effective methods of communication between home and school.
|
Community Involvement-
(Use PD 360)
Teachers will view the following modules:
Introduction /Why Schools Are Isolated (6:06)
Levels of Parental Involvement (6:15)
Parents as Decision Makers (12:31)
Dealing with Criticism (8:28)
|
Wanda Brokenburr
|
10/2009
|
Use PD 360 school monitoring log.
|
Wanda Brokenburr
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
|
$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 |
| Reading |
10 -Monitoring For Achievement FlipchartFrom Learning-Focused Solutions, Inc. |
School's Budget |
$200.00 |
| Mathematics |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Science |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Science |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Teachers will participate in professional development activities after school,(after contract hours). |
School's Budget |
$4,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Science |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $4,000.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Science |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
N/A |
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $4,200.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 10:27:29 PM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Wanda Brokenburr,
Principal
|
|
2)
Sylvester McArthur,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
David Vangundy,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Shane Jordan,
Business Member
|
|
5)
Shaundra Williams,
Parent
|
|
6)
Monti Sommer,
Community Member
|
|
7)
Monika Lodermeier,
Community Member
|
|
8)
LaSabra Patterson,
Assistant Principal
|
|
9)
Tom Kaiser,
Assistant Principal
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DON E WOODS OPPORTUNITY CENTER 0421 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 241 Math: 239
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
82 |
N |
81 |
N |
12 |
N |
9 |
N |
76
|
68 |
N |
|
|
N |
80 |
88 |
NA |
82 |
91 |
NA |
13 |
NA |
10 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
76 |
N |
76 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| BLACK
|
86 |
N |
83 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
83 |
N |
82 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
83 |
N |
82 |
N |
13 |
N |
9 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
86 |
87 |
NA |
87 |
91 |
NA |
13 |
NA |
8 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
68 |
N |
68 |
N |
|
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 DON E WOODS OPPORTUNITY CENTER 0421 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 188 Math: 188
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
84 |
N |
83 |
N |
20 |
N |
18 |
N |
76
|
76 |
N |
7 |
|
N |
|
80 |
NA |
91 |
82 |
NA |
19 |
NA |
23 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
81 |
N |
79 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| BLACK
|
84 |
N |
85 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
86 |
N |
84 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
85 |
N |
84 |
N |
14 |
N |
13 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
86 |
NA |
91 |
87 |
NA |
18 |
NA |
|
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 DON E WOODS OPPORTUNITY CENTER 0421 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 201 Math: 200
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
P
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
91 |
N |
88 |
N |
|
N |
9 |
N |
93
|
76 |
N |
8 |
7 |
N |
77 |
|
NA |
65 |
91 |
NA |
|
NA |
30 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
90 |
N |
84 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
17 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| BLACK
|
94 |
N |
94 |
N |
|
NA |
|
N |
|
|
NA |
10 |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
64 |
|
NA |
|
|
|
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
89 |
N |
86 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
92 |
N |
91 |
N |
|
N |
9 |
N |
|
|
NA |
10 |
8 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
70 |
91 |
NA |
|
NA |
23 |
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
School District 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
0%
|
0%
|
%
|
%
|
|
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 |
0% |
0% |
|
|
|
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? |
% (0) |
% (0) |
|
|
0
|
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.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
% |
% |
|
|
|
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
| Percent Tested = 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
|
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
School District 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
0%
|
0%
|
%
|
%
|
|
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 |
0% |
0% |
|
|
|
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? |
% (0) |
% (0) |
|
|
0
|
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.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
% |
% |
|
|
|
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
| Percent Tested = 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
|
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
School District 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
0%
|
0%
|
%
|
%
|
|
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 |
0% |
0% |
|
|
|
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? |
% (0) |
% (0) |
|
|
0
|
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.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
% |
% |
|
|
|
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
| Percent Tested = 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
|
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |