VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Lake Shipp Elementary School, located in the southwest corner of Winter Haven, Florida, is a Pre-K through 5th grade traditional elementary school. It was established in 1956 with eight buildings, most of them on long wings with outdoor sidewalks. Two additional classroom buildings and a media center have been built since the 1980’s. Three portables are set up on the east end of the PE field for ESE classrooms. Recently, twelve of the oldest classrooms were completely remodeled with a new brick exterior changing the front facade of the school and making it more structurally sound. The interiors were also updated; four classrooms were enlarged and upgraded including handicapped accessible restrooms. In addition, over three acres west of the school have been purchased by the district for school growth and facilities.
The school is on the outskirts of the town and serves students in Winter Haven, Eloise, and Eagle Lake. Most of the students reside within four miles of the school with an additional pocket zone of students from northeast Winter Haven. Many of our kindergarten students come to us with Pre-K experiences from a variety of local centers. Approximately, thirty percent have not been enrolled in a Pre-K or pre-school program. After completing grade five, the majority of our students move up to Westwood Middle School or Denison Middle
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
On the FCAT, Lake Shipp Elementary had sixty-six percent of students reading at or above grade level. Sixty-three percent of the students made a year’s worth of progress in reading, while sixty-six percent of struggling students made a year’s worth of progress. In math, fifty-six percent of struggling students made a year’s worth of progress. Eighty-five percent of the students met the state standards in writing.
The state of Florida determined the school grade as B for the 2008-2009 school year. This plan will implement strategies to continue the process of successful strategies for academic progress. To address the improvement needs for adequate yearly progress and the state grade, our highly qualified staff is committed to professional development activities that include reading and math strategies, differentiating the teaching of the Sunshine State Standards for our students, and implementing curriculum maps and Learning Focused Strategies.
Lake Shipp Elementary has an instructional focus on reading. Our certified teachers meet with professional teams, model and plan lessons, disaggregates data, gives proper reading instructional timelines, and carefully monitors the students’ progress. The progress of students is monitored with data analysis during weekly grade level meetings, monthly staff meetings, test results, and beginning, middle, and end of the year assessments. This information is used to determine students in need of intensive intervention. A minimum of ninety minutes is devoted to the morning reading block at all grade levels. All classroom teachers are required to pull small groups, implement literacy centers, provide enrichment, and identify and remediate students in need of intensive intervention with flexible groups.
Additional reading instruction is afforded to students with deficient needs as determined by the FCAT through the Spell Read program. Twenty students, mostly third graders, are served in this program of intensive reading instruction. The students participate in daily sixty minute sessions of highly sequenced and structured reading instruction with an emphasis on phonics.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
On the 2009 FCAT, seventy percent of the students were at grade level or above in Math. Fifty-nine percent made a year’s progress, while fifty six percent of struggling students made a year’s worth of progress. The state of Florida determined the school grade as B for the 2008-2009 school year. Lake Shipp Elementary did not meet the federal requirements of Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind. This plan will implement strategies to continue the process of successful strategies for improvement in academic progress. To address the improvement needs for adequate yearly progress and the state grade, our highly qualified staff is committed to professional development activities that include reading and math strategies, differentiating the teaching of the Sunshine State Standards for our students, and implementing curriculum maps and Learning Focused Strategies.
Student Demographics
Lake Shipp Elementary currently has 584 students enrolled. Most of these students are zoned for the school with a small increase in numbers due to AYP transfers. The student body is diversely mixed. The ethnic breakdown for the site reveals that forty-six percent of the students are Caucasian, thirty percent are African-American, eighteen percent are Hispanic, less than one percent is Asian, less than one percent is American Indian, and five percent are multi-racial. The gender breakdown is fifty-two percent male and forty-eight percent female. There is an ESE department that serves five percent of the students. The ESE students have a variety of special needs including, but not limited to, speech and language, specific learning disabilities, and educable mentally handicapped.
Lake Shipp Elementary has seventy-nine percent of students on free or reduced lunches, qualifying it for Title I services. The district has sixty-six percent on free or reduced lunches and the state has fifty-two percent respectively.
A self-contained resource model is used for most of the ESE students with a high level of service needs in the primary grades. In addition, a certified ESE full-time instructor and one highly qualified paraprofessional works in the classrooms with the ESE students and with flexible groups of non-ESE students for intermediate grades in a resource/inclusion model. An additional ESE Kaplan Spell Read unit serves twenty K-5 students for immediate intensive intervention in addition to their classroom instruction. Furthermore, our gifted students are served within a part time enrichment program off site for one day per week. Speech and language students are served by a highly qualified speech-language pathologist two days per week.
Lake Shipp Elementary has a Pre-K program on site that currently serves 10 students. The students are exposed to a language rich developmental program with a variety of centers and activities. Cooperative learning and group work is central to the attainment of the Sunshine State Standards for Pre-K. The students are exposed to the High-scope Curriculum, Peacemaking Skills for Little Children, and Skill-Streaming. The instructor is a certified CDA Pre-K teachers.
Student Attendance Rates
The most recent attendance information shows the attendance rate for 2008-2009 was 94.88%. It was 94.57% in 2007-2008 and 94.41% in 2006-2007. The district attendance rates were 94.56% in 2008-2009, 94.32% in 2007-2008, and 94.1% in 2006-2007.
Student Mobility
The current mobility rate of students at Lake Shipp Elementary 2008-2009 is 30.67%. This mobility increase comes predominantly from economic needs within the students’ homes. The 2007-2008 mobility rate was 28.16%. 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 will determine the mobility rate.
Student Suspension Rates
Recent disciplinary events with students in violation of the Code of Conduct resulted in 52 Out-of-School Suspension and 19 In-School Suspension actions. In 2007-2008, there were 43 Out-of-School Suspension and 16 In-School Suspension actions. In 2006-2007, there were 32 Out-of-School Suspension and 9 In-School Suspension actions.
Student Retention Rates
The 2008-2009 retention rate for students at Lake Shipp Elementary was 2.8% (16 of 565 students). The retention rate for 2007-2008 was 2.6% (16 of 601 students) and in 2006-2007 the retention rate was 8.7% (45 of 517 students).
Class Size
The 2008-2009 teacher pupil ratio was an average of one to eighteen in the primary grades and one to twenty-two in the intermediate grades. The student numbers in 2007-2008 was sixteen in primary and twenty-one in intermediate grades. The 2006-2007 school year hosted sixteen in primary grades and nineteen in intermediate grades.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
NA
Partnerships and Grants
Parents and community members are actively involved with the School Advisory Council, School Volunteers, and PTA. The School Advisory Council determines the goals of the school and the spending of state lottery funds in its role of a governing board. Additionally, the PTA works together to raise funds each year to enhance the educational programs and to offset the costs for special projects to improve our school. During recent school years, the PTA contributed to the PE and Music programs and held special activities for students. They also created opportunities for students to have positive experiences at school.
Community partners also contribute to the activities of the school. Local merchants donate school supplies, books, and they volunteer their time. They also contribute to funding special projects and programs for the students. Donations of clothing vouchers and food are generously shared from our partners to assist students in need throughout the year.
Lake Shipp Elementary has an outstanding record of volunteer service. It has earned the Golden School Award for over 25 years of volunteer service. The Golden School Award is given annually by the Florida Department of Education. Golden Schools acquire a total number of volunteer hours that equals twice the number of students enrolled in the school. This award honors the number of volunteer hours from the community and parents.
Students and families are involved in a variety of activities including a music outreach program with performances at local events and nursing homes and exhibits at local art contests and fairs. They also participate in the school and district science fairs, strings, and local track events. Families are involved at school through special performances, parent conferences, Book Fair Family Night, and parent meetings for FCAT information.
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
|
Vicki K. Stangle
|
Principal Certification-State of Florida;
Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership from Saint Leo University; Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education from University of Central Florida
|
4
|
9
|
Principal of Lake Shipp Elementary from 2004-2005 to current school year.
2008-09 Grade B B 66 70
2007-08 Grade B and AYP B 69 71
2006-07 Grade A and AYP A 71 66
2005-06 Grade A and AYP A 73 64
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Donna Camp
|
Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership from Florida Southern College; Teacher Certification from Florida Southern College; Bachelor’s Degree in Organizational Management from Warner Southern College.
|
9
|
3
|
Assistant Principal of Lake Shipp Elementary from 2005-2006 to current school year.
2008-09 Grade B B 66 70
2007-08 Grade B and AYP B 69 71
2006-07 Grade A and AYP A 71 66
|
* 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 * |
|
AIF-Reading
|
J. Murphy
|
BA in Elementary Education and MA in Reading
|
|
1
|
Reading Coach at local high school 2008-2009. Previous performance as an elementary classroom teacher.
|
|
LFS Resource (Math and Science)
|
C. Morris
|
BA in Elementary Education
|
35
|
4
|
Resource teacher in math
for the last three years.
2008-09 Grade B
2007-08 Grade B and AYP
2006-07 Grade A and AYP
|
* 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. Mentoring
|
AIF
|
5/1/10
|
|
|
2. Professional development
|
AP
|
ongoing
|
|
|
3. Team meetings
|
Grade Chair
|
ongoing
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
| No data submitted |
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 44 | 0 | 23 | 32 | 4 | 2 | 100 | 2 | 1 | 73 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
AIF
|
New Teachers
|
Guidance and assistance for new teachers
|
Conferences, modeling, curriculum assistance.
|
|
AIF
|
Struggling Teachers
|
Need for instructional growth.
|
Conferences, modeling, curriculum assistance.
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services to Lake Shipp Elementary. The Title I funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title I, Part A, support provides after-school and summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resource teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for parents.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
NA-Migrant students are not enrolled in Lake Shipp Elementary.
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D, provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned school. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at schools to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement.
Title II
Professional development resources are available to Title I schools through Title II funds. In addition, School Technology Services provide technical support, technology training, and licenses for software programs and web-based access via Title II-D funds. Funds available to Lake Shipp Elementary are used to purchase Smart Boards and document cameras.
Title III
Title III provides supplemental resources for English Language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in Title I schools, as well as professional learning opportunities for school staff.
Title X- Homeless
The Hearth program, funded through Title X, provides support for identified homeless students. Title I provides support for this program, and many activities implemented by the Hearth program are carried out in cooperation with the Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded through Title I, Part C.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Two SAI units of Spell Read provided to Lake Shipp Elementary enhance student achievement by providing direct intensive instruction for struggling readers in third grade and for K-5 ESE students.
Violence Prevention Programs
Title IV provides violence and drug prevention programs in schools in order to promote a safe school environment. Examples of violence prevention programs include anti-bullying, gang awareness, gun awareness, etc.
Nutrition Programs
This school is a location for a summer feeding program for the community.
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
Head Start is not located on our campus.
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
N/A
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
|
Grade Level Teams KG-5th
|
Grade Chair and LFS Coach
|
Monthly
|
Planning time
|
Lesson development,
LFS vocabulary strategies, FAIR results, and Data Analysis.
|
|
Grade Level Teams KG-5th
|
Grade Chair and LFS Coach
|
Monthly
|
Planning time
|
District Curriculum Maps and Focused Mini-Lessons
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Lake Shipp Elementary has a Pre-K program on site that currently serves 10 students. The students are exposed to a language rich developmental program with a variety of centers and activities to prepare them for the elementary academic program. Cooperative learning and group work is central to the attainment of the Sunshine State Standards for Pre-K and is monitored by administration and district personnel.
Kindergarten Round-Up is provided to Pre-K students and new families to introduce them to the Kindergarten program at Lake Shipp Elementary.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
N/A
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In 2009, 63% of Lake Shipp Elementary students were proficient on FCAT Reading.
In 2009, 58%of students in the black subgroup were proficient on FCAT.
In 2009, 61% of students in the Hispanic subgroup were proficient on FCAT.
In 2009, 59% of students in the economically disadvantaged subgroup were proficient on FCAT.
|
Seventy-two percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. K-5 students will have a minimum of 90 minute reading block. Teachers will address the five components of effective reading instruction daily (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) using LFS strategies. The primary focus will be on using the EATS lesson plan, distributed summarizing, and vocabulary strategies being monitored throughout the year.
2.FAIR test will be administered to all KG-5th grade students during the year for progress monitoring.
|
1. Reading AIF, Teachers,
Resource Teacher, and Administration
2. Reading AIF, Resource Teacher, and Administration
|
1.Grade Level meetings to:
-review Fair data
-review lesson plans
-review PLC conference logs
-monitor ongoing progress data
2. Grade level or individual meetings to:
-review Fair data
-conference logs
-monitor ongoing progress data
|
1. FAIR,
coach reports, teacher observations, and FCAT results
2. FAIR,
coach reports, teacher observations, and FCAT results.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Seventy-two percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
Reading
-FAIR
-Vocabulary
-EATS
-Mini-Lessons
|
AIF and LFS Resource
|
ongoing
|
Lesson plans, assessment results, and observations.
|
Administration, LFS Resource, and 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 |
| LFS Materials |
Title I |
$2,000.00 |
| Total: $2,000.00 |
| 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 |
Title I |
$12,000.00 |
| Total: $12,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $14,000.00 |
|
| End of Reading Goal |
|
Mathematics Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
In 2009, 67% of Lake Shipp Elementary students were proficient on FCAT Math.
In 2009, 53%of students in the black subgroup were proficient on FCAT.
In 2009, 60% of students in the economically disadvantaged subgroup were proficient on FCAT.
|
Seventy-four percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. K-5 students will have a minimum of 60 minute math block. Teachers will use curriculum maps and the instructional calendar to address the SSS using LFS strategies. The primary focus will be on using the EATS lesson plan, distributed summarizing, and vocabulary strategies being monitored throughout the year.
|
1. Resource Teacher, and Administration
|
1.Grade Level meetings to:
-review lesson plans
-review PLC conference logs
-monitor ongoing progress data
|
1. Ongoing test data, coach reports, teacher observations, and FCAT results.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Seventy-four percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
Acquisition Lessons, Distributive Summarizing, and
Vocabulary Strategies
|
AIF and LFS Resource
|
ongoing
|
Lesson plans, assessment results, and observations.
|
Administration, LFS Resource, and AIF.
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS Materials |
Title I |
$2,000.00 |
| Total: $2,000.00 |
| 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 and BBY |
Title I |
$8,000.00 |
| Total: $8,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
|
|
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $10,000.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In 2009, 39% of Lake Shipp Elementary students were proficient on FCAT Science.
|
Fifty percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Teachers will provide students with the opportunity to participate in SSS and skills utilizing a variety of materials and supplies. Teacher will provide hands-on activities, vocabulary, science process skills, curriculum maps, and opportunities to read in this content area.
|
1. Resource Teacher and Administration
|
1.Grade Level meetings to:
-review classroom data
-review lesson plans
-monitor ongoing progress data
|
1.Ongoing test data,
coach reports, teacher observations, and FCAT results(5th grade).
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Fifty percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
Vocabulary Strategies
|
AIF and LFS Resource
|
ongoing
|
Lesson plans, assessment results, and observations.
|
Administration, LFS Resource, and AIF.
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science materials and reading material. |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SmartBoard |
Flex/Tech |
$1,200.00 |
| Total: $1,200.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $2,200.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In 2009, 87% of Lake Shipp Elementary students were proficient on FCAT Writing.
|
Ninety percent of students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Teachers will implement appropriate grade level writing strategies for students including: thinking aloud, graphic organizers, brainstorming, modeling, revising, editing, conferencing, mechanics, and conventions.
2. Teachers will provide small group and/or individual instruction in writing for struggling students.
|
1. Resource Teacher, and Administration
2. Resource Teacher, and Administration
|
1.Grade Level meetings to:
-review classroom data
-review lesson plans
-monitor ongoing progress data
2. Grade Level meetings to:
-review classroom data
-review lesson plans
-monitor ongoing progress data
|
1.Ongoing test data,
coach reports, teacher observations, and FCAT results(4th grade).
2.Ongoing test data,
coach reports, teacher observations, and FCAT results(4th grade).
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Ninety percent of 4th grade students will achieve a level three or above on the 2010 FCAT.
|
Vocabulary strategies to enhance sentence structures and fluency.
|
AIF and LFS Resource
|
ongoing
|
Lesson plans, assessment results, and observations.
|
Administration, LFS Resource, and AIF.
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Writing materials and supplies |
Title I |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Final Total: $200.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Parent Involvement will increase by 5% as measured by attendance records.
|
Increase Parent Involvement to enhance student performance with family participation in school events including conferences, volunteer hours, and PTA meetings.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Coordination of VIP, Open House, Annual Parent Night, SAC meetings, Book Fair, additional parent activities, and monthly parent newsletters.
2. Information updated and posted on the school website. Also, online FCAT technology for tips and FCAT Explorer.
|
1.Title I Resource and Administration
2. Network Manager and Administration
|
1. Feedback survey
2. Feedback survey
|
1. Parent Surveys and Teacher Surveys
2. Parent Surveys and Teacher Surveys
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Increase parental involvement.
|
Methods to share information with parents to enhance communication, conferences, online connections, and events on campus.
|
Title I Resource, SAC, Network Manager, and Administration
|
ongoing
|
Parent evaluation forms, ASP forms, conference records, office sign-in sheets, and agendas.
|
Title I Resource and Administration.
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parent Materials |
Title I |
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $2,500.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $2,500.00 |
|
| 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 |
LFS Materials |
Title I |
$2,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS Materials |
Title I |
$2,000.00 |
| Science |
Science materials and reading material. |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Parent Materials |
Title I |
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $7,500.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science |
SmartBoard |
Flex/Tech |
$1,200.00 |
| Total: $1,200.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
LFS |
Title I |
$12,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS and BBY |
Title I |
$8,000.00 |
| Total: $20,000.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Mathematics |
|
|
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Writing materials and supplies |
Title I |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Final Total: $28,900.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
No Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
|
If funds are available, it will be used for student materials and tutoring.
|
2000
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
Evaluate the School Improvement Plan, determine use of lottery funds and school budget, and monitor facilities and staff needs.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Vicki Stangle,
Principal
|
|
2)
Efrem Wilkerson,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Linda Hayes,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Druecilla Cook,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Yvonne Kelsey,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Mary Nelson,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Karen Akins,
Parent
|
|
8)
Diana Brensinger,
Parent
|
|
9)
Dale Teaney,
Parent
|
|
10)
Rose Kelsey,
Community Member
|
|
11)
Jerry Esquivel,
Community Member
|
|
12)
Kathy Decker,
Community Member
|
|
13)
Joy Westbrook,
Community Member
|
|
14)
Beth Esquivel,
Community Member
|
|
15)
Barbara Ladler,
School Support Personnel
|
|
16)
Donna Camp,
Assistant Principal
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District LAKE SHIPP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
66%
|
70%
|
87%
|
39%
|
262
|
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% |
59% |
|
|
122 |
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? |
66% (YES) |
56% (YES) |
|
|
122
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
506 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District LAKE SHIPP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
69%
|
71%
|
85%
|
39%
|
264
|
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 |
65% |
68% |
|
|
133 |
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? |
60% (YES) |
64% (YES) |
|
|
124
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
521 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District LAKE SHIPP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
71%
|
66%
|
94%
|
34%
|
265
|
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 |
76% |
63% |
|
|
139 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
72% (YES) |
61% (YES) |
|
|
133
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
537 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |