VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision:
All students will experience success in attaining educational goals, exhibit universally acceptable social behavior, communicate effectively, participate in community experiences and become valued members of their community
Mission:
We establish a safe, secure environment to serve the unique needs of students with complex disabilities and their families. Those entrusted to us will be provided with a personalized life-enriching curriculum that includes skills for functional living and an improved quality of life. Our graduates will confidently and actively participate as valued members of their community.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Karen M. Siegel Academy is a segregated educational setting that serves students who are intellectually impaired and have additional disabilities. These multiple disabilities create a need for:
• Constant supervision to ensure physical safety of students as well as staff members
• Personal assistance with activities of daily living and self care
• Complex medical care and supervision
• Well defined procedures to deal with maladaptive behaviors
• Comprehensive, individualized, structured behavior programs applied to an array of behaviors on a continuous basis
• Different curriculum and substantial modifications to the learning environment
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Karen M. Siegel Academy is a facility designed and constructed to meet the environmental needs of students with significant disabilities. Many classrooms are equipped with ceiling mounted track systems that transverse the entire classroom to allow for virtually effortless lifts and transfers. These classrooms offer mini Snoezelen environments to stimulate the senses. The campus also includes sensory gardens, which are outdoor multi sensory environments designed to stimulate the primary senses of touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell. The entire campus is wheelchair accessible including the playground, restrooms, and common areas.
A fulltime Speech and Language Pathologist works closely with the instructional staff to develop communication systems and assistive technology for individual students and for small group instruction. A staff to student ratio of 1 to 3 is provided so that one on one and hand over hand instruction can be provided when needed. There are three licensed nurses on our campus fulltime to serve the unique medical and health needs of our student population. Two are licensed practical nurses and one is a Registered Nurse with a Masters degree.
For the 2009-10 school year KMSA has received a Academic Instructional Facilitator to assist with our reading/language Arts program.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Over Fifty percent of the student body is classified as Profoundly Intellectually Impaired, meaning the student functions below 2 years of age developmentally regardless of age. The remaining population is moderate to severely intellectually impaired which means the student’s IQ is at least three standard deviations below the mean. Most of the students have secondary conditions such as hearing impairment, visual impairment, physical impairment, and/or emotional impairments. We also educate a small group of students who have the above listed conditions and are considered to be medically complex. Therefore, the curriculum and instruction for our students is developmental and emphasizes communication, Independent Functioning, and Social Emotional development. The academic focus is usually at pre-literacy level and or functional. Instructional methodology requires much physical prompting for many students to engage in the curriculum. KMSA does not consider these facts to be a weakness. However, we are mandated by the State to evaluate our school based on the Florida Alternate Assessment results. Currently the FAA does not capture the learning gains of students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Our operational budget was decreased by 10% last year and we did not receive all of the allocate funds for second semester. However, due to the fact that all students have disabilities IDEA funds have be accessed to supplement our operational losses.
FAA results 2009
11% of the students were proficient in Reading
10% of the students were proficient in Math
There were not enough students in the science and writing area to calculate.
Student Demographics
An Individual Education Planning team, on a continuum of services basis, places students at KMSA. We serve a wide geographic area that includes Poinciana, Davenport, Haines City, Winter Haven, Wahneta, Lake Wales, and Eagle Lake. 42.16% of the students are white, 25% are black, 27.14 are Hispanic, 2.14 are Asian and 3.57 % are multi racial. Most students do not qualify as LEP due to their significant cognitive delays. 75% of our students are on free lunch and reduced lunch.
An Interesting fact to note 71% of our student population is male.
Student Attendance Rates
2008-09 school years was 86.28 Polk County’s rate for 2008-09 school year was 94.56
2008-07 school year was 87.95
2007-06 school year was 87.56
Student Mobility
KMSA mobility rate for the 2008-09 school year was 20.45% and in 2007-08 it was 20.45%.
Student Suspension Rates
08-09 3% OSS and 0% ISS
07-08 5% OSS and 0% ISS
Student Retention Rates
All students are exempt from mandatory retention based on Florida statute 1008.25.
Class Size
For the 2007-2008 school year: PreK-3 grades was 15, 4-8 grades was 9.87 and 9-12 was 10
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
KMSA has no feeder pattern.
Partnerships and Grants
Business partners include the Lions Club, Civitan, Polk Community College, Haines City Community Church, City of Winter Haven Parks and Recreation, Olive Garden of Winter Haven, City of Lake Alfred, Boy Scouts of America, Homer K. Addair FFA, Winter Haven High School FCCLA. Business partners that participate in the Career Experiences Program include Publix and Winter Haven Hospital.
Karen M. Siegel Academy has entered into a special project with The Vanguard School in Lake Wales Florida. Students from Vanguard are enrolled in a Leadership course while on our campus. These students are assigned to classrooms and work closely with our students and faculty.
The purpose of the program for the Vanguard students is to facilitate leadership, to develop an understanding of people with disabilities, and to encourage students to consider careers that provide services to people with disabilities. Also, the students at KMSA are provided with non-disabled peer role models.
We also partner with Bethune Academy, an Elementary school in Haines City, Florida. Within this partnership, Bethune Academy allows their Music Director and their science instructor to work with our staff and students in numerous exciting activities such as “Mad Science” and Music Therapy.
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
|
Donna Swindle
|
Masters degree in Exceptional Student Education
Certification I Principal K-12 Visual Disabilities
|
6
|
20
|
KMSA is an ungraded school and has not made AYP for two consecutive years. All students at KMSA take the Florida Alternate Assessment.
Was the AP at Frostproof Middle Senior High for 5 years all 5 years school grade was B.
|
* 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 * |
|
Special Education
|
Kenneth Hodges
|
Masters Degree
ESE, Elem
|
2
|
1
|
KMSA is an ungraded school and has not made AYP for two consecutive years. All students at KMSA take the Florida Alternate Assessment.
|
* 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. Administration participates and supports district sponsored recruitment process
|
Donna Swindle
|
on going
|
|
|
2. New Employee Orientation (NEO) - all teachers who are new to the district are required to attend NEO. NEO includes information on topics such as payroll, insurance, sexual harassment, blood borne pathogens, Outlook, certification, etc..
|
HR personnel
|
prior to employment
|
|
|
The school website is not only designed for parents and the community but to attract highly qualified applicants by highlighting the specialized services, supports, and activities at our school.
|
Kathy Nall
|
September 2010
|
|
|
New teachers are provided with mentor teachers for a minimum a year and a school based orientation is conducted within the first week.
|
Principal and the Curriculum specialist
|
September 2010
|
|
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 |
| 16 | 0 | 37 | 12 | 49 | 37 | 100 | 100 | 0.06 | 87 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Kathy Nall
|
John Higgins and Susan Plaplinger
|
Rationale for Pairing
Mrs. Nall is a school leader, has many years experience teach profoundly mentally impaired and is a curriculum specialist
|
Modeling in classroom/one on one conferencing/ help administer assessments both academic and behavioral, lesson plan development
|
|
Kenneth Hodges
|
Opal Harris
|
Mr. Hodges is a Academic Intervention Facilitator and has been a very successful teacher
of students with significant cognitive disabilities
|
Modeling in classroom/one on one conferencing/ help administer assessments both academic and behavioral, lesson plan development
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A funds school-wide services to Karen Siegel Academy. The Title 1 funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title 1, Part A, support provides after-school and summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resource teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for parents.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Migrant students enrolled in Karen Siegel Academy will be assisted by the school and by the District Migrant Education Program (MEP). Students will be prioritized by the MEP for supplemental services based on need and migrant status. MEP Teacher Advocates, assigned to schools with a high percentage of migrant students, monitor the progress of these high need students and provide or coordinate supplemental academic support. Migrant Home-School Liaisons identify and recruit migrant students and their families for the MEP. They provide support to both students and parents in locating services necessary to ensure the academic success of these students whose education has been interrupted by numerous moves.
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned school. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at school to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement.
Title II
Professional development resources are available to Title 1 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 11-D funds.
Title III
Title III provides supplemental resources for English Language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in Title 1 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 1 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 1, Part C.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI funds will be coordinated with Title 1 funds to provide summer school for students with Intellectual Disabilities.
Violence Prevention Programs
The school offers a non-violence and anti-drug program to students that incorporates field trips, Community service, and counseling
Nutrition Programs
NA
Housing Programs
NA
Head Start
NA
Adult Education
Students are served through their 22nd birthday. Students 18 years and older are placed in a transition program for students with disabilities.
Career and Technical Education
Students in grade 6 and below are enrolled in a career course
Job Training
Students 18 years and older are enrolled in a job skills program that will allow students the opportunity to learn how to create a resume, dress for success, and follow verbal and/or nonverbal directions and complete simple tasks without prompting.
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 clusters
|
Kenneth Hodges
|
every other week
|
before or after school
|
Developing lesson plans based on the access points and developing assessments based on the access points
|
|
Subject areas
|
Kenneth Hodges
|
as needed
|
before or after school
|
Developing lesson plans based on the access points and developing assessments based on the access points
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
An Individual Educational Planning team places preschool students at Karen Siegel Academy.
Preschool transition is embedded into our school program.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
All students and their families are provided assistance in the application process to appropriate agencies such as Agency for Persons with a Disability, Children’s Medical Services, Vocational Rehabilitation, Division Of Blind Services, Mental health Services and Department of Children and Families. This process is facilitated by our guidance counselor and Registered Nurse. We work closely with these agencies in an attempt to provide services between the home and school to coordinate their post school needs.
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 |
|
90% were not proficient in Reading based on the FAA
|
By the spring of 2010, 20% of students will score proficient in reading as evidenced by the FAA.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Implement the use of the following LFS strategies:
* activating prior knowledge
* using graphic organizers
* using summarizing methods and
* developing acquisition lesson plans
2. Select and provide a research based reading program for students with significant cognitive disabilities
|
1. Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
|
classroom walk-throughs, observations. Lesson plan sand portfolio reviews
|
lesson plan checklist, portfolio review checklist,
Observation form
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
90% were not proficient in Reading based on the FAA
|
By Spring of 2010,80% of our students will master 100% of their curriculum and Learning objectives of the IEP
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
2.IEP data will be collected 3x week and aggregated every 4 weeks to monitor progress
|
Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
|
Guidance counselor and Administration will review the aggregated IEP data on a random bases.
|
Portfolio reviews, IEP
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
20% of students will score proficient in Reading
|
All faculty will be trained on selected LFS
|
Principal, AIF
|
9/30/09
|
Sign-in sheet, Classroom walk-throughs, lesson plan reviews
|
Principal, Curriculum Specialist, AIF
|
|
20% of students will score proficient in Reading
|
Train teachers on the use of Reading Mastery materials and Hand Writing without Tears(As needed)
|
Principal, AIF
|
9/30/09
|
Sign-in sheet, Classroom walk-throughs, lesson plan reviews
|
Principal, Curriculum Specialist, AIF
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
Reading is the foundation for all academic and non-academic areas.
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Selected reading program
Adaptive Weekly Reader
Brigance Inventory
LFS materials
|
Title 1 |
$20,000.00 |
| Total: $20,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart Board |
Title 1/Flex |
$5,000.00 |
| Augmentative communication and assistive devices for individual students |
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $6,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading program
LFS materials
|
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Handwriting Without Tears books, manipulatives |
Title 1/Flex |
$600.00 |
| Total: $600.00 |
| Final Total: $27,600.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
89% of the students were not proficient in math based on the FAA
|
By the Spring of 2010, 19% of students will score proficient in Math as evidenced by the FAA.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Teachers will incorporate the curriculum learning maps into daily instruction.
2. Incorporate SRA Real World Math into our curriculum.
3. Incorporate TouchMath program into instructional program
|
1. Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist. District ESE personnel
2. Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
3. Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
|
1. lesson plan evaluations, portfolio reviews, classroom walk throughs
2. lesson plan evaluations, portfolio reviews, classroom walk throughs
3. lesson plan evaluations, portfolio reviews, classroom walk throughs
|
1. lesson plan evaluation form, portfolio review form
2. lesson plan evaluation form, portfolio review form
3. lesson plan evaluation form, portfolio review form
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
89% of the students were not proficient in math based on the FAA
|
By the Spring of 2010, 80% of all students will master 100% of their curriculum and learning objectives of their IEP
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
All students will be given the Communication profile assessment prior to development of the IEP
2. .IEP data will be collected 3x week and aggregated every 4 weeks to monitor progress
|
Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
|
Guidance counselor and Administration will review the aggregated IEP data on random bases.
|
portfolio reviews and
IEP
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
19% of students will score proficient in Math
|
All faculty will be trained on using the curriculum maps provided by the district
|
Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
|
8/30/09
|
Sign-in sheet, classroom walk-through, lesson plan review
|
Principal, Curriculum Specialist, AIF
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Student learning maps/Touch Math |
Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smartboards |
Title 1/Flex |
$0.00 |
| assistive and augmentative technology |
Title 1/Flex |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| TouchMath/ Curriculum maps |
Title 1/Flex |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $1,500.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
87% of the students were not proficient in the area of Science as evidenced by the FAA
|
By the spring of 2010 there will be a 10% increase in the students who score proficient in science as evidenced by the FAA
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Provide the access to and the training on curriculum maps.
2. Provide instructional materials and equipment in Science.
|
1.Principal, Curriculum Specialist, District Office
2. Principal, Curriculum Specialist, District Office
|
1. lesson plan evaluations, portfolio reviews, classroom walkthroughs
2. lesson plan evaluations, portfolio reviews, classroom walkthroughs
|
1. lesson plan, evaluation form, portfolio review form, classroom walk though checklist
2. lesson plan, evaluation form, portfolio review form, classroom walk though checklist
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
87% of the students were not proficient in the area of Science as evidenced by the FAA
|
80% of our students will make learning gains as evidenced by the mastery of their curriculum and learning goal.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. All students will be given the Communication profile assessment prior to development of the IEP
2.IEP data will be collected 3x week and aggregated every 4 weeks to monitor progress
|
Guidance Counselor and principal
|
Guidance counselor and Administration will review the aggregated IEP data on random bases.
|
IEP
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By the spring of 2010, 20% of students will score proficient in Science
|
All faculty will be trained on selected LFS and the use of Science Curriculum Maps
|
Principal, AIF
|
9/30/09
|
Sign-in sheet, Classroom walk-throughs, lesson plan reviews
|
Principal, Curriculum Specialist, AIF
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Instructional material and equipment |
Title 1/Flex |
$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 |
| 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: $2,000.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
95% of our students are not proficient in writing as evidenced on the FAA
|
By the Spring of 2010 there will a 1% increase in students scoring proficient in writing as evidenced by the FAA.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. To incorporate writing skill access points into the Language Arts Curriculum.
2. Students will be administered a pre and post writing test.
|
Principal, AIF, Curriculum Specialist
|
1. lesson plan review, classroom walkthroughs
2. lesson plan review, classroom walkthroughs
|
lesson plan checklist, portfolio review form
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
95% of our students are not proficient in writing as evidenced on the FAA
|
By the spring of 2010,80% of our students will make learning gains as evidenced by the mastery of their curriculum and learning goal.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. 1. All students will be given the Communication profile assessment prior to development of the IEP
2. .IEP data will be collected 3x week and aggregated every 4 weeks to monitor progress
|
Principal and guidance counselor
|
Guidance counselor and Administration will review the aggregated IEP data on random bases.
|
IEP
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By the spring of 2010, 20% of students will score proficient in Reading
|
All faculty will be trained on selected LFS
|
Principal, AIF
|
9/30/09
|
Sign-in sheet, Classroom walk-throughs, lesson plan reviews
|
Principal, Curriculum Specialist, AIF
|
|
By the spring of 2010, 20% of students will score proficient in Reading
|
Train teachers on Reading Mastery and Hand Writing without Tears
|
Principal, AIF
|
9/30/09
|
Sign-in sheet, Classroom walk-throughs, lesson plan reviews
|
Principal, Curriculum Specialist, AIF
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading Mastery, Handwriting without tears |
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Assistive and augmentative technology |
Title 1/ Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Handwriting Without Tears |
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $3,000.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Less than 10% of parents attended seminars on our academic programs
|
Increase the frequency of our parent meetings regarding academic programs and increase parent attendance by 10%
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Schedule 5 parent meetings
|
Principal, Guidance Counselor
|
review of sign in sheets and evaluation data
|
Title 1 parent survey
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Variety of agencies and organizations/ parent News Letter |
Title 1 |
$300.00 |
| Total: $300.00 |
| 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: $300.00 |
|
| 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 |
Selected reading program
Adaptive Weekly Reader
Brigance Inventory
LFS materials
|
Title 1 |
$20,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Student learning maps/Touch Math |
Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Writing |
Reading Mastery, Handwriting without tears |
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Science |
Instructional material and equipment |
Title 1/Flex |
$2,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Variety of agencies and organizations/ parent News Letter |
Title 1 |
$300.00 |
| Total: $24,300.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Smart Board |
Title 1/Flex |
$5,000.00 |
| Reading |
Augmentative communication and assistive devices for individual students |
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Smartboards |
Title 1/Flex |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
assistive and augmentative technology |
Title 1/Flex |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Assistive and augmentative technology |
Title 1/ Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $7,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Reading program
LFS materials
|
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
TouchMath/ Curriculum maps |
Title 1/Flex |
$500.00 |
| Writing |
Handwriting Without Tears |
Title 1/Flex |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $2,500.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Handwriting Without Tears books, manipulatives |
Title 1/Flex |
$600.00 |
| Total: $600.00 |
| Final Total: $34,400.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 1:08:00 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 |
|
Funds will be used to purchase instructional material and /or reinforcers for the students
|
600
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The School Advisory Council will meet quarterly.
They will assist in developing and reviewing school vision statement, goals and objectives, analyze the School Public Accountability Report data, vote on the expenditure of district discretionary lottery and school recognition funds, review all funds reported in the School Improvement Plan, support school improvement implementation and provide ongoing evaluations of school improvement progress.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Donna Swindle,
Principal
|
|
2)
Wesley Nall,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Angie Dawson,
Parent
|
|
4)
Janet Williams,
Parent
|
|
5)
Donna Urbina,
Parent
|
|
6)
Matilde Arrendondo,
Parent
|
|
7)
Carmen Deleon,
Parent
|
|
8)
David Riley,
Community Member
|
|
9)
Norma Hayes,
Community Member
|
|
10)
Kathy Nall,
School Support Personnel
|
|
11)
Doni Axson,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KAREN M. SIEGEL ACADEMY 0661 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 73 Math: 73
|
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
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
11 |
N |
10 |
N |
52
|
|
N |
|
|
NA |
55 |
89 |
N |
62 |
90 |
N |
21 |
N |
30 |
N |
| WHITE
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
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
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
13 |
N |
13 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
52 |
87 |
N |
57 |
87 |
N |
21 |
N |
30 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
11 |
N |
10 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
55 |
89 |
N |
62 |
90 |
N |
21 |
N |
30 |
N |
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KAREN M. SIEGEL ACADEMY 0661 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 63 Math: 63
|
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
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
45 |
N |
38 |
N |
|
52 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
55 |
NA |
|
62 |
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
| WHITE
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| BLACK
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
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
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
48 |
N |
43 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
52 |
NA |
|
57 |
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
45 |
N |
38 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
55 |
NA |
|
62 |
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 |