VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

The mission of Jewett School of the Arts is to provide all participants in our learning community with the resources needed to become responsible, life-long learners committed to excellence in the academics and the arts.

Belief Statements:
Jewett School of the Arts believes…
• All students can learn and make learning gains
• All students make a positive contribution to their school, their family, and their community
• Fine Arts enhance the academics
• Teachers can utilize differentiated strategies to ensure a rigorous and relevant learning experience for every child


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

Brief History and Background of the School

Jewett School of the Arts (JSA) is located in an urban area in Northeast Polk County. It is a choice school for students in Kindergarten through Eighth Grades. A strong academic curriculum is enhanced by the Fine Arts Program, to enrich learning for all students. At JSA, expectations for achievement and behavior are high, with the entire staff focused on helping every child to become a lifelong learner. Additionally, students participate in local and state performances and exhibition opportunities, which enable them to showcase their artistic talents.

The school features a Fine Arts building that includes facilities for dance, drama, chorus, band, orchestra, a computerized keyboard lab, 2-D and 3-D art.


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

The school’s principal and assistant principal of curriculum are trained trainers for the Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR).

This year the school has incorporated a symphony orchestra as a middle school elective. The class has 25 students enrolled to date.

For the first time in our school’s history, 100% of the third grade students passed the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Due to the school’s success, Jewett School of the Arts will lose its Academic Intervention Facilitator (AIF), who assisted the school in the planning and delivery of professional learning opportunities, assessment training, and providing support in Learning Focused Strategies. The AIF also worked with and supported novice teachers through the PEC Program.


Student Demographics

Student Demographics

Jewett School of the Arts serves a multi-ethnic school population that consists of 728 students. The Hispanic population is 6.03%, while 32.07% are Black, 51.82% are White, 2.10% are Asian, 0.28% are Indian, and Multi-racial is 7.42%. Economically disadvantaged students account for 47.34% of the population. Additionally, 4.20% of students are Students with Disabilities (SWD), and 1.96% is classified as English Language Learners (ELL). The end of the year enrollment for the school was 714 students.


Student Attendance Rates

Student Attendance Rates

The Attendance Rate for Jewett School of the Arts was 97.05% for the 2008-2009 school year. The district average was 94.10%. Additionally, the school’s attendance rate for 2007-2008 was 96.87& and for 2006-2007 was 96.61%.


Student Mobility

Student Mobility

The mobility rate of the school for the 2008-2009 school year was 8.36%, as compared to 7.50% in 2007-2008. This mobility comes predominantly from families moving out of the area.


Student Suspension Rates

Student Suspension Rates

2006-2007: In-school 79 actions for 88 days, Out-of-school 87 actions for 193 days; 2007-2008: In-school 41 actions for 43 days, Out-of-school 88 actions for 200 days; 2008-2009: In-school 51 actions for 54 days, Out-of-school 69 actions for 145 days. Since 2006-2007 the numbers of both in-school and out-of-school suspensions have declined.


Student Retention Rates

Student Retention Rates

The retention rate has been maintained at 2% for the past three years. The district’s retention rate is currently 6%.


Class Size

Class Size

A point has been made to reduce class sizes in all subject areas and across grade levels to reduce discipline
problems and strengthen the one-on-one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size in general education classrooms : The teacher to student ratio in general education classrooms: Pre-K through 3rd grade is: 1:18; 4th & 5th grade is 1:22; 6th grade is 1:17 ; 7th grade is 1:22; 8th grade is 1:20. The average class size for Critical Thinking/Gifted is 1:14. The inclusion class size is in direct relation to the specific grade level. Average class size for Pre-K through 3rd grade: 2006-2007, 17.26, 2007-2008, 16.85, and 2008-2009, 16.44. Grades 4 – 8: 2006-2007, 19.93, 2007-2008, 19.85, and 2008-2009, 22.37


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Because we are a choice school, students from all over the county apply to attend JSA. Therefore, the feeder schools entering JSA could be from anywhere in the county.

Our students feed into the following schools: Lakeland Senior High (Harrison School of the Arts) which is a Correct I School, which made a grade of B in 2009; did not make AYP, meeting only 82% of the criteria. In 2008 they were a Prevent II School, making a grade of D, did not make AYP, meeting only 67% of the criteria. Auburndale Senior High is a Correct I School, which made a grade of C in 2009; did not make AYP, meeting only 87% of the criteria. In 2008 they made a C, did not make AYP, meeting only 67% of the criteria. Bartow Senior High (IB) is a Correct I School, which made a grade of B in 2009; meeting only 82% of the criteria, they did not make AYP. In 2008 they made a C and met only 74% of the criteria, again not making AYP. Winter Haven Senior High is a Correct II School, which made a grade of D in 2009; meeting only 72% of the criteria, they did not make AYP. In 2008 they made a C and met only 85% of the criteria, again not making AYP. Tenoroc High is a Prevent II School, which made a grade of D in 2009; meeting only 72% of the criteria, they did not make AYP. Lastly, Lake Region High is a Correct II School, which made a grade of C in 2009; meeting only 72% of the criteria, they did not make AYP.


Partnerships and Grants

Partnerships and Grants

PBS Grants applied for yearly


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

PositionNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as an AdministratorPrior Performance Record *
Principal Tracy Nelson Ed.D.-Organizational Leadership with a specialist degree in Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University; Master of
Science- Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University;
Certification- Elementary
Education;
Principal Certification-
State of Florida
5 5 Assistant Principal of Jewett School of the Arts 2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
81%, Math Mastery: 74%,
Science Mastery: 48%, Writing Mastery: 92%, AYP: 95%, Black and Economically Disadvantaged students did not make AYP in math.

2007-2008: Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 78%, Math Mastery: 73%, Science Mastery: 48%, Writing Mastery: 85%, AYP: 97%, Black students did not make AYP in math.

2006-2007: Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 80%, Math Mastery: 76%, Science Mastery: 47%, Writing Mastery: 95%, AYP: 100%, School made AYP

2005-2006: Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 77%, Math Mastery: 69%, Writing Mastery: 90%, AYP: 97%, Made Provisional AYP, Black students did not make AYP in math.

2004-2005: Grade: B, Reading Mastery: 68%, Math Mastery: 68%, Writing Mastery: 81%, AYP: 100%, School made AYP



Assis Principal Kathy Raub









Kathy Raub 		Master of
Science- Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University
1 1 First year as an AP and first year at this school
Assis Principal Alonzo Williams Jr. Ph.D. Educational Leadership, Walden University; Ed.S. Gifted Education, Nova Southeastern University; State Adopted Certification Program, Educational Leadership, USF; M.Ed. Elementary Education 7 1 First year as an AP

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)

HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

Subject AreaNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as a CoachPrior Performance Record *
NA NA NA NA

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)


HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Description of StrategyPerson ResponsibleProjected Completion DateNot Applicable (If not, please explain why)
1. Regular meetings of new teachers with school administrators Assistant Principal of Curriculum On-going
1. Partnering new teachers with veteran staff Assistant Principal of Curriculum On-going
1. Soliciting referrals from current employees Administrative Staff N/A Referrals given to office staff


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
Dawn Dilts Professional Educator’s: Elementary Education K-6 SAI Out of field ESOL
On track to complete ESOL classes to receive endorsement
Angela Nichols Professional Educator’s: Drama 6-12 2nd Grade Out of field ESOL
On track to complete ESOL classes to receive endorsement, Academic
Lauren Cerati Professional Educator’s: Pre-K and Primary Education Kindergarten Out of field ESOL
On track to complete ESOL classes to receive endorsement
Megan Lowry Professional Educator’s: Elementary Education K-6 4th Grade Out of field ESOL
On track to complete ESOL classes to receive endorsement
Christine Godwin Professional Educator’s: Elementary Education K-6 4th Grade Out of field ESOL
On track to complete ESOL classes to receive endorsement
Dianne Carpenter-Flood Professional Educator’s: Emotional Disturbance K-12 7th-8th Grade Inclusion Out of field ESOL
On track to complete ESOL classes to receive endorsement


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
602252533277010560


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
Cristina Hartfield (Drama) Jeremy Henry (Drama) Mr. Henry is a first year teacher. Mrs. Hartfield’s students have shown improvement in her Essential Performance Criteria as reflected by her beginning and end of the year assessments. The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss
evidence-based strategies for each domain. The mentor has 90 minutes per day to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning.
Also, the mentor is
modeling lessons using the Essential Performance Criteria as a guide as well as incorporating Kagan Structures and other best practices.



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-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Tracy Nelson, Principal: (Required Member) The Principal provides a common vision for the use of data-based decision –making, models the Problem Solving Process; supervises the development of a strong infrastructure for implementation of PS/RtI; ensures that the school-based team is implementing PS/RtI; conducts assessment of PS/RtI skills of school staff; ensures implementation of intervention support and documentation; ensures and participates in adequate professional learning to support PS/RtI implementation; develops a culture of expectation with the school staff for the implementation of PS/RtI schoolwide; ensures resources are assigned to those areas in most need; and communicates with parents regarding school-based PS/RtI plans and activities.
Kathy Raub and Alonzo Williams, Jr., Assistant Principals: Assists Principal in providing a common vision for the use of data-based decision-making, assists in the development of a strong infrastructure of resources for the implementation of PS/RtI, further assists the principal in the assessment of PS/RtI skills, implementation of intervention support and documentation, professional learning, and communication with parents concerning PS/RtI plans and activities.
Lauren Cerati (Primary), Christine Godwin (Intermediate), and John Cawthron (Middle School), Selected General Education Teachers: (Recommend at least one Primary Teacher and one Intermediate Teacher) – Provides information about core instruction; participates in student data collection; delivers Tier 1 instruction/intervention; collaborates with other staff to implement Tier 2/3 interventions; and integrates Tier 1 materials/instruction with Tier 2/3 activities.
Laura Hanson and Diane Carpenter-Flood, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Teachers: Participates in student data collection, integrates core instructional activities/materials/ instruction in tiered interventions; collaborates with general education teachers.
Kathy Raub (Assistant Principal) Academic Intervention Facilitator: Develops, leads, and evaluates school core content standards/programs; identifies and analyzes existing literature on scientifically based curriculum/behavior assessment and intervention approaches. Identifies systematic patterns of student need while working with district personnel to identify appropriate, evidence-based intervention strategies; assists with whole school screening programs that provide early intervening services for children to be considered “at risk,” assists in the design and implementation for progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis, participates in the design and delivery of professional development; and provides support for assessment and implementation monitoring.
Wendy Paulson, School Psychologist: Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; provides professional development and technical evaluation; assists in facilitation data-based decision making activities.
Cheri McElroy, PS/RtI Behavior Representative (PBS): Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; assists with professional development for behavior concerns; assists in facilitation data-based decision making activities.
Molly Lee, Speech Language Pathologist: Educates the team in the role language plays in curriculum assessment, and instruction, as a basis for appropriate program design; assists in the selection of screening measures; and helps identify systematic patterns of student need with respect to language skills.
Charma Tillinger and Mary Scanlon, Guidance Counselors: Provides quality services and expertise on issues ranging from program design to assessment and intervention with individual students. Communicates with child-serving community agencies to support the students’ academic, emotional, behavioral, and social success.
Sarah Voisard, Technology Specialist: Develops or brokers technology necessary to manage and display data, provides professional development and technical support to teachers and staff regarding data management and graphic display.


Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g. meeting processes and roles/functions).

Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g. meeting processes and roles/functions).

The PS/RtI Leadership Team will focus meetings on how to improve school/teacher effectiveness and student achievement using the Problem Solving Model.
The PS/RtI Leadership Team will meet at least once per month (or more frequently as needed) to engage in the following activities:
o Review school-wide, grade level, and teacher data to problem solve needed interventions on a systemic level and identify students meeting/exceeding benchmarks as well as those at moderate or high risk for not meeting benchmarks. This will be done at least three times per year or more frequently if new data is available.
o Help referring teachers design feasible strategies and interventions for struggling students by collaborating regularly, problem solving, sharing effective practices, evaluating implementation, assisting in making decisions for school, teacher, student improvement.
o Facilitate the process of building consensus, increasing infrastructure, and making decisions about implementation.
o Focus on improving student achievement outcomes with evidence based interventions implemented with fidelity and frequent progress monitoring.
o Intervention teams also foster a sense of collegiality and mutual support among educators, promote the use of evidence-based interventions, and support teachers in carrying out intervention plans.


Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan

Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan.

The PS/RtI Leadership Team met with the School Advisory Council (SAC) and principal to help develop the SIP. The team provided data on: Tier 1, 2, and 3 targets; academic and social/emotional areas that needed to be addressed; helped set clear expectations for instruction (Rigor, Relevance, Relationship); facilitated the development of a systemic approach to teaching (Gradual Release, Essential Questions, Activating Strategies, Teaching Strategies, Extending, Refining, and Summarizing); and aligned processes and procedures.




RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Baseline data is gathered through August and September. FAIR data is processed through the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). Kindergarten and First Grade data is gathered for the SBAR. First and Second Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year SAT 10. Third through Tenth Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year’s FCAT scores.
Progress Monitoring data is gathered mid-year and toward the end of the year. FAIR data is processed twice more through the PMRN. Kindergarten and First Grade data is gathered for the SBAR every nine weeks. Other Progress Monitoring data is collected as needed for classroom or student progress. This information may be obtained by probes, Quick Reads, Fluency checks, etc.
Diagnostic Assessment data is gathered through the FAIR, ERDA, and DAR
End of Year data is gathered through FAIR, SAT 10, FCAT, and SBAR.
Data is discussed and analyzed at least monthly at the PS/RtI Leadership Team Meetings.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

Professional learning will be provided during the teachers’ common planning time and sessions will occur throughout the year. The PS/RtI Overview will be provided in mid-August/September. The District has five other mini-modules that will be provided throughout the year.
The PS/RtI Leadership Team will evaluate additional staff Professional Learning needs during the monthly PS/RtI Leadership Team meetings.



School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data


What strengths and weaknesses were identified in the 2009 data by grade level, subject area, and clusters/strands?


Strengths: 81% of students met standards in reading and 92% of students met standards in writing. The number of students below grade level in reading, writing, and math has decreased from the previous year. Our strengths are: 4th grade reading in words/phrases, comparisons and reference and research, 5th grade reading in main idea/purpose and comparisons, 6th grade reading in main idea/purpose, comparisons, and reference and research, 7th reading in words/phrases, main idea/purpose, and comparisons, 8th grade reading in words/phrases, main idea/purpose, and reference and research. Our math strengths are: 3rd grade math in number sense, measurement, geometry, and data analysis, 4th grade math in number sense & measurement, 5th grade math in number sense, measurement, geometry, and algebraic thinking, 6th grade math in sense, geometry, algebraic thinking, and data analysis, 7th grade math in number sense, measurement, algebraic thinking, and data analysis., 8th grade math in number sense, geometry, algebraic thinking, and data analysis. Our science strengths are: 5th grade science in physical/chemical, life/environmental., and scientific thinking. 8th grade science in earth/space, life/environmental and scientific thinking. Our strengths in writing are: expository in 4th grade, and persuasive in 8th grade.

Weaknesses: Overall, math is our lowest content area. Even though the percentage of students on or above grade level increased by 1%, we realized that Black and Economically Disadvantaged subgroups did not meet the appropriate criteria.
Our weaknesses in reading are: 3rd grade in words/phrases, main idea/purpose, comparisons, and reference and research, 4th grade in words/phrases, 5th grade in words/phrases, and reference and research, 6th grade in words/phrases, 7th grade in reference and research, 8th grade in comparisons. Our weaknesses in math are: 3rd grade in algebraic thinking, 4th grade in geometry, algebraic thinking, and data analysis, 5th grade in data analysis, 6th grade in measurement, 7th grade in geometry, and 8th grade in measurement. Our weaknesses in science are: 5th grade in earth/space, 8th grade in physical/chemical. Our weaknesses in writing are: narrative in 4th grade white females and expository in 8th grade black males.


Instructional Calendar Development


What is the process for developing, implementing, and monitoring an Instructional Focus Calendar for reading, writing, mathematics, and science?

As an initial step towards implementing FCIM the school will focus on the area of reading. The district has created reading curriculum maps that are accompanied by a course timeline. The course timeline is the starting point for each school’s Instructional Focus Calendar. The district has also developed a timeline for Reading Comprehension Mini-Lessons which will serve as the school’s Reading Instructional Focus calendar. The implementation of the reading mini-lessons will be monitored by the AIF, school leadership team, and administration. Monthly PLC (grade level/department/team) meetings will be held to adjust the pacing of the mini-lessons.


Which instructional Benchmarks will be given priority focus, based on need, for each content area (reading, writing, mathematics, and science)?

Reading: The following were the least proficient strands as documented on FCAT Spring 2009. 3rd Grade: Words/Phrases, Main Idea/Purpose, Comparisons, and Reference/Research; 4th Grade: Main Idea/Purpose; 5th Grade: Words/Phrases and Reference/Research; 6th Grade: Words/Phrases; 7th Grade: Reference/Research, and 8th Grade: Comparisons.

Math: The following were the least proficient strands as documented on FCAT Spring 2009. 3rd Grade: Algebraic Thinking; 4th Grade: Geometry, Algebraic Thinking, and Data Analysis; 5th Grade: Data Analysis; 6th Grade: Measurement; 7th Grade: Geometry; and 8th Grade: Measurement.

Writing: The following were the least proficient forms of writing as documented on FCAT Spring 2009. 4th Grade: Narrative; and 8th Grade: Expository.

Science: The following were the least proficient strands as documented on FCAT Spring 2009. 5th Grade: Earth/Space; and 8th Grade: Physical/Chemical.

The aforementioned strands will be given priority focus during the 2009-2010 school year.


What is the process to ensure instruction is based on individual students’ needs, as opposed to the master schedule?

Disaggregation of FCAT data and monthly data PLCs (grade level/department/team) will use the data from FAIR and other progress monitoring tools to identify student needs and provide appropriated interventions.


How does the school incorporate applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future?

The school offers students elective courses in art, photography, dance, technical theatre, musical theatre, symphonic orchestra, piano, guitar, and career study. Many of these courses focus on job skills.

A daily focus of the school is for teachers and students to ask each other, “What is the Essential Question for this lesson?” to ensure that instruction is always relevant. Teachers are also provided reading materials and bell work that are based on current/relevant events.


How does the school incorporate students’ academic and career planning, as well as promote student course selections, so that students’ course of study is personally meaningful?

The school offers students elective courses in art, photography, dance, technical theatre, musical theatre, symphonic orchestra, piano, guitar, and career study. Many of these courses focus on job skills.

Every year, after FCAT testing, students and parents participate in course selection that exposes them to
next year’s curriculum to assist them in selecting their courses. The guidance counselors also assist in this process.




DO

Direct the Instructional Focus


How are lesson plans and instructional delivery aligned across grade levels and subject areas?


Aligned and prioritized curriculum maps and time lines are used in all core areas. Teachers implement the EATS model for planning and delivery of core curriculum which includes essential questions, activating strategies, high-yield teaching strategies, summarizing and then reteaching as necessary. The district-wide Monthly Reading Comprehension Focus will be used as the basis of the reading mini-lessons.


How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

Model instructional focus lessons were developed by master teachers and are posted within the district curriculum maps for all to use for core instruction. Collaborative PLCs will use the EATS model for creating additional acquisition lessons. Best practices, coaching and support for using Learning Focused Strategies will be provided by the principal, assistant principal, and leadership team. Reading comprehension mini-lessons have been written for grades 3 - 8. Each grade level/department/team will schedule the pacing of the mini lessons as well as the time of delivery during the monthly PLCs dealing with curriculum and instruction. The mini-lessons are organized by instructional day as well as strategy.


How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

Vertical teams and articulation centered on high quality student work and the results of mini-assessments will guide further revisions or refinements of the instructional focus lessons. Classroom walk-throughs will be used to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the lessons.




CHECK

Assessment


Describe the types of ongoing formative assessments to be used during the school year to measure student progress in core, supplemental, and intensive instruction/intervention.


Jewett School of the Arts will use teacher made assessments, FAIR, READ 180, Fast Forward, Harcourt Trophies, Voyager, 100 Book Challenge, Compass Odyssey, Reading Assistant, AR as sources of ongoing formative assessments and data.


How are assessments used to identify students reaching mastery and those not reaching mastery?

Achievement thresholds will be set for each grade level and subject area. Students not reaching the threshold will be targeted for additional support as well as monitoring. Formative benchmark assessments are consistently used: school-wide and in all core areas. They are given frequently and used for monitoring student progress, as well as for planning and instruction.


Maintenance


How is ongoing assessment and maintenance of Benchmark mastery for each grade level and content area built into the Instructional Focus Calendar?

Dates for ongoing assessments and spiraled review are built into the instructional focus calendar at the conclusion of each month’s comprehension focus. Additional learning opportunities will be offered to struggling students.


Describe the process and schedule for teams to review progress monitoring data (summative and mini assessments) to identify the required instructional modifications that are needed to increase student achievement.

PLCs (grade level/department/team) will meet monthly to review the most current progress monitoring data and in turn make instructional recommendations to include both interventions as well as enrichment strategies for subgroups of students, as well as individual students.


Monitoring


Describe the Principal’s and Leadership Team’s roles as instructional leaders and how they will be continuously involved in the teaching and learning process.

The administrators and the leadership team facilitate PLCs with staff members/teams which address data, student work, instruction and curriculum. The administrators and the leadership team schedule coaching and monitoring visits to classrooms on a regular basis.




ACT

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions


Identify the core, supplemental, and intensive instruction and interventions.


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI), FastForward, READ 180, Intervention materials associated with core textbooks, and the use of para-educators to assist teachers in working in small groups.


How are supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions and tutorials structured to re-teach non-mastered target areas?

Resources from the state adopted textbooks which are designed for intensive instruction will be utilized.
Computerized programs or instructional software, in addition to Internet instructional Web sites such as FCAT Explorer will also be utilized. Teachers will utilize instructional strategies or best practices discussed in Professional Learning Communities to provide different methods of providing instruction to students in non-mastered areas. Resources and strategies provided at professional development workshops will also be utilized. Students consistently demonstrating non-mastery may be required to participate in tutorial sessions before or after school.

Multiple opportunities for researched based extended learning activities including: extended time for math, reading, writing, and /or science, extended day, accelerating and previewing, Saturday School, as well as re-teaching.


How does the school identify staff’s professional development needs to improve their instructional strategies?

The Learning Focused Implementation Tool will be administered at the start of the 2009 – 2010 school year to help identify areas of need for professional development.


Which students will be targeted for supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions?

Any student scoring a Level 1 or 2; a student with an ASP; or a student who is struggling with the Core instruction.


How will the effectiveness of the interventions be measured throughout the year?

Ongoing progress monitoring, mini-assessments, formative assessments, student data chats, and FAIR. (Individual schools may have other specific tools that can be listed here.)


Enrichment


Describe alternative instructional delivery methods to support acceleration and enrichment activities.

Students who typically exceed mastery levels participate in the school’s gifted program. Students also
enroll in elective classes that include art, photography, dance, technical theatre, musical theatre, symphonic orchestra, piano, guitar, and career study


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

What assessments are used to determine which students are placed in higher level courses and
academic programs?
FCAT results, in addition to student progress in a specific course, as well as assessment results that
demonstrate consistent proficiency/mastery are used to determine placement in higher level courses and
academic programs. Teacher recommendation is also taken into consideration.
• Do students and parents have input in this process?
Parent conferences are held with the recommending teacher, instructional coach, guidance counselor, and a
member of the leadership or administrative team. The parents are counseled on the expectations for the
student in the higher level course, as well as their continued parental involvement.




Professional Learning Communities

PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.)PLC LeaderFrequency of PLC MeetingsSchedule (when)Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis)
Each grade level team Grade Facilitators Weekly During common planning times Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM min-assessment results.
Each content area team Department Heads Weekly During common planning times Lesson Study centered on planning with and utilizing the research-based LFS Strategies


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition


Parents are provided with information to assist them in the transition. Parents are also provided with information on what is expected during the school year for their kindergarten child. Communication is provided via our marquee, local newspaper, and notes to preschool parents and parents of presently attending students.

Jewett School of the Arts preschool teachers instruct students on how to write their names, how to use scissors, how to handle a book, identifying and naming the letters of the alphabet, how to hold a pencil to write, how to say their first and last names, and social interaction. These skills assist students in making the transition from preschool to elementary school.

Kindergarten teachers will assess students using FLKRS, FAIR, and Harcourt Assessments to determine student readiness rate and their instructional strategies to differentiate instruction. The evaluation and effectiveness of the plan will be determined by the FLKRS results and FAIR screenings.


Postsecondary Transition

Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.



 

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

 

Other Goals

 

FINAL BUDGET



Differentiated Accountability


School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance



Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 6:49:44 AM)



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 FundsAmount
Extended Learning 15000
PBS Incentives 200



Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year


The SAC meets monthly. The SAC is reponsible for assisting in setting school goals, monitoring the School Improvement Plan, monitoring desegregation efforts at the school, determining expenditures of School Improvement funds, assisting in preparing the school's budget, participating in planning and monitoring school buildings and grounds, reviewing and providing input on curriculum issues, evaluating school data to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Volunteers are solicited by written communication from the principal, and an election is held following standard district procedures. The elected membership is then submitted to the School Board for approval.

The School Advisory Council assist in funding training, the Extended Learning Program, and student incentives.

The SAC also assists in the preparation and evaluation on the School Improvement Plan. They assist in determining and prioritizing the needs of the school, developing strategies for improving the areas most important to the school, developing objectives specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time bound (SMART), deciding how to evaluate the progress of the plan, and assisting in preparing the school's annual budget.


SAC Members

Members
1)  Dr. Tracy Nelson,   Principal
2)  Terrie Sullivan,   SAC Chair
3)  Paulette Waldon-Major,   Teacher
4)  Mary Tanke,   Teacher
5)  Kevin Ounan,   Teacher
6)  Glynnis Green,   Parent
7)  Bessie Paige,   Parent
8)  Kelly Daley,   Parent
9)  Jane Waters,   Parent
10)  Chris Robertson,   Parent
11)  Daniel O’Neal,   Parent
12)  Crystal Millett,   Community Member
13)  Dr. Kenneth James,   Community Member
14)  Elah Frazier,   Community Member
15)  Lovett Johnson,   Community Member
16)  Patricia McKinnon,   School Support Personnel
17)  Kathy Raub,   Assistant Principal
18)  Dr. Alonzo Williams Jr.,   Assistant Principal
 

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk JEWETT SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 0712
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 489
Math: 489   		2008-2009
School Grade1:		 A   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  100  Y  100  Y  80  Y  72  Y      Y      NA  24  20  NA 29  28  NA 79  NA  68  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  88  Y  80  Y      Y      NA  16  12  NA 22  20  NA 85  NA  74  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  64  N  57  N      Y      NA  37  36  N 43  43  N 68  Y  55  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y    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  69  Y  64  N      Y      NA  31  31  NA 34  36  N 69  NA  61  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    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 JEWETT SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 0712
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 490
Math: 490   		2007-2008
School Grade1:		 A   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  76  Y  71  Y      Y      NA  24  24  NA 28  29  NA 70  NA  70  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  84  Y  78  Y      Y      NA  16  16  NA 17  22  NA 77  NA  75  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  63  Y  57  N      Y      NA  43  37  NA 45  43  N 61  NA  60  N 
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  69  Y  66  Y      Y      NA  32  31  NA 37  34  NA 65  NA  66  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 JEWETT SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 0712
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 477
Math: 477   		2006-2007
School Grade1:		 A   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? YES   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2005 2006 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  76  Y  72  Y      Y      NA  30  27  NA 35  28  NA 69  NA  74  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  84  Y  83  Y      Y      NA  21  17  NA 26  17  NA 74  NA  78  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  57  Y  55  N  92     Y      NA  49  50  NA 54  45  Y 58  NA  63  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  99  Y  68  Y  63  Y  93     Y      NA  37  35  NA 47  37  NA 68  NA  70  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
JEWETT SCHOOL OF THE ARTS
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 81%  74%  92%  48%  295   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%  67%      143  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 76% (YES)  65% (YES)      141  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         NA  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         579   
    Percent Tested = 99%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    JEWETT SCHOOL OF THE ARTS
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 78%  73%  85%  48%  284   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 67%  63%      130  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 63% (YES)  59% (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.
    % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake         NA  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         536   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    JEWETT SCHOOL OF THE ARTS
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 80%  76%  95%  47%  298   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
    % of Students Making Learning Gains 72%  74%      146  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 67% (YES)  74% (YES)      141  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         NA  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         585   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested