VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
VISION: Fort Meade Middle Senior High School team will join the community and parents to assist all students in becoming academically and socially successful by preparing them with critical thinking and decision making skills.
MISSION: To create a community of empowerment for educating all students in an environment of accountability, respect, and trust to ensure the academic and social success of all students.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Fort Meade Middle Senior High School is located on a 100 acre site of land on Edgewood Drive in Fort Meade, Florida. It consists of twelve buildings on property bordered by the Peace River. The bounds are beautifully landscaped with irrigated lawns. The current Fort Meade High School was constructed in 1967, at which time students in grades eight through twelve were serviced. Over the years, many additions have been made to the original structure to accommodate the expansion of the school program. In 1998, the new middle school addition, serving students in grades six through eight was completed. The current combined high school and middle school facility is located on Edgewood Drive, just off U.S. Highway 17, in the heart of central Florida, Polk County. Fort Meade is considered to be the geographic center of the state.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Fort Meade Middle Senior High School earned a total of 478 accountability points on the 2009 FCAT which demonstrates increases on the eight accountability areas and we maintained a “C”. Fort Meade Middle Senior High School enters the 2009-2010 school year with a determination to increase our grade and achieve Adequate Yearly Progress. Also, our writing scores were above the district’s
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Because of budget cuts we have experienced loss of teaching units which affected our vocational department and put some limits there. We are a combination school therefore we have teachers who teach at both levels. When we lose a middle level teacher in an area it usually means the high school teacher must teach both levels; therefore generating scheduling issues. Based upon our scores, we are looking forward to receiving reading and math academic coaches.
With the turmoil of the unsure economy we continue to lose students to other schools with families moving trying to find employment. As a result, our student population continues to decline.
Student Demographics
Fort Meade Middle Senior High School serves students consisting of a total of 674 Caucasian, Hispanic, and Black students in an economically disadvantaged community. 46.39% White, 33.73% are Hispanic, 1.91% multi-racial, .1 % American Indian, .29% Asian, and 17.53% black. There are 19% Students with Disabilities (SWD), 5.60% English Language Learners (ELL), and nearly 64.51% free and reduced lunch.
Student Attendance Rates
Fort Meade Middle Senior High School had an increase in attendance for the last three school years. 2006-07 91.62% - 2007-08 92.00% 2008-09 92.57%
Student Mobility
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.
Students enrolled or withdrawn after the 15th day:
2007-08 206/766 students = 26.89%.
2008-09 168/751 students = 22.37%.
Student Suspension Rates
2006-07 Out of school days 1388: Action 466; In School Suspension Days 973, Action 480
2007-08 Out of school days 829: Action 306; In School Suspension Days 752, Action539
2008-09 Out of school days 553: Action182; In School Suspension Days 161, Action 334
Student Retention Rates
2008-09
Grade 6 - 5.38% Grade 10 - 03.33%
Grade 7 - 2.78% Grade 11 - 13.79%
Grade 8 - 9.71% Grade 12 - 01.96%
Grade 9 - 2.08%
Class Size
Our school averages for the past two years were as follows:
2006-07 – 15.28
2007-08 – 15.47
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Lewis Anna Woodbury is the only school that feeds into Fort Meade Middle Senior High School. Their 2009 school grade was an “A” and they met 90% of criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress. LAW is a Title I school.
Partnerships and Grants
A matching grant was acquired through the Polk Education Foundation and the community business partners which is providing resources for materials and supplies for tutoring that greatly enhance our curriculum.
A grant was secured through AT&T and Polk Education Foundation for the purpose of preparing students to take exams (FCAT, ACT, and SAT. This was achieved through an after school program. Academic materials and supplies were purchased to enhance this program.
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
|
Arthur A. Martinez
|
BA Leisure Services, Florida State; Master of Educational Leadership Nova University Principal Certification State of Florida
|
2
|
11
|
Principal of Fort Meade Middle Senior High School 2008-09:
Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 46%, Math mastery; 48%; Science mastery 30%;AYP 72%, F&R lunch, ELL and SWD did not make AYP in math. F&R lunch, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Vera Cannon
|
BA Elementary Education University of South Florida Master Educational Leadership University of South Florida Principal Certification State of Florida
|
13
|
16
|
AP of Fort Meade Middle Senior High School in 2008-2009:
Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 46%, Math mastery; 48%; Science mastery 30%;AYP 72%, F&R lunch, ELL and SWD did not make AYP in math. F&R lunch, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.
2007-2008
Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 41%, Math mastery; 51%; Science mastery 25%; AYP 67%; F&R lunch, ELL and SWD did not make AYP in math. F&R lunch, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Kyle Windham
|
BS Math Lee University Master Educational Leadership University of South Florida
|
1
|
2
|
AP of Fort Meade Middle Senior High School in 2008-2009:
Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 46%, Math mastery; 48%; Science mastery 30%;AYP 72%, F&R lunch, ELL and SWD did not make AYP in math. F&R lunch, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Reggie Polite
|
BS Physical Education Albany State Master Educational Leadership Nova University
|
5
|
5
|
2009:
Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 46%, Math mastery; 48%; Science mastery 30%;AYP 72%, F&R lunch, ELL and SWD did not make AYP in math. F&R lunch, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.
2007-2008
Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 41%, Math mastery; 51%; Science mastery 25%; AYP 67%; F&R lunch, ELL and SWD did not make AYP in math. F&R lunch, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
| Subject Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as a Coach | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Reading
|
Delora Conley
|
Professional Educator's:
English 9-12
Reading 9-12
French 9-12
|
12
|
3
|
2008-09:Grade C. Reading Mastery 46%, Learning Gains: 62% Lowest 25% Gains: 68%
No subgroup made AYP in reading.
2007-08: Grade C.
Reading Mastery 41%,
Learning Gains: 49%
Lowest 25% Gains: 55%
No subgroup made AYP in reading.
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
1.Principal will schedule routine meetings with new teachers. 2. Partner new teacher with experienced teacher.
|
1. Principal 2. Assistant Principal
|
1. Ongoing 2. 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 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
| No data submitted |
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
A summer program and after school tutoring are provided to students needing extra remediation.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Parents and students receive services and support through the migrant advocate. To assure student needs are met, the advocate coordinates with Title I and other programs. Fort Meade Middle Senior High School provides parents an annual meeting where school personnel explain the rights of parents. Additionally, meetings are offered at different times and the school provides a variety of services to make attendance convenient for parents.
Title I, Part D
Funds are received at the district to support the Educational Alternative Outreach program.
Title II
Supplemental funds are received at the district level to improve basic education programs. Implementing new technology in classrooms will increase instructional strategies to students and new instructional software will enhance literacy and math skills of struggling students.
Title III
The district provides services for education materials and ELL district support services to improve the education of immigrants and English Language Learners. Fort Meade Middle Senior High School houses materials that are available to parents that can be borrowed to be used at home to increased student achievement, parent involvement, and to encourage students’ love of reading.
Title X- Homeless
District persons work with closely with the school’s guidance counselors in providing resources for students identified as homeless.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
After school tutoring will be provided for all Level 1 and 2 students.
Violence Prevention Programs
The school participates in the district’s non-violence and anti-drug program that incorporates community services.
Nutrition Programs
Fort Meade Middle Senior High School provides a breakfast and lunch program for students daily.
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
N/A
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
N/A
Other
N/A
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) |
|
Helios
|
Arthur Martinez
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday After school
|
Data analysis Collaborative study of transition strategies
|
|
9th Grade Academy
|
Carmen Gobble
|
Weekly
|
Wednesday AM
|
Data analysis Common assessments and FCIM mini assessment results. Lesson plans. Parent/student conferences
|
|
PLC #1
|
Misty Beynon
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday after school
|
Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini assessments results
|
|
PLC #2
|
Erin Crosby
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday after school
|
Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini assessments results
|
|
PLC #3
|
Karen Gibson
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday after school
|
Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini assessments results
|
|
PLC #4
|
Phyllis Harris
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday after school
|
Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini assessments results
|
|
PLC #5
|
Debra Shirley
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday after school
|
Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini assessments results
|
|
PLC #6
|
Elspeth Belflower
|
Monthly
|
1st Tuesday after school
|
Data analysis of common assessments and FCIM mini assessments results
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
N/A
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
Many of the graduates from Fort Meade Middle Senior High School preparing for college have completed at least one level 3 course and/or participated in the dual enrollment program. Students at Fort Meade Middle Senior High School will be encouraged to participate in AP courses. We will invite teachers to share information about these courses and provide opportunities for students to meet with guidance counselors to acquire information about postsecondary plans. Information will be provided to students regarding requirements for eligibility for Bright Future. Teachers will need to meet to discuss graduation requirements, Bright Futures requirements, review students’ portfolios, and intervene as necessary.
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 |
|
46% of students achieved mastery (AL 3 and above) on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
By Spring 2010, the number of AL 3 or above students will increase 5% in Reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.The school will implement the FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.
2.Develop an Instructional Focus Calendar for Reading and Language Arts classes.
3.Include higher-order questions in lesson plans.
|
1.AP and AIF
2.AIF’s, Administration,
English Department Chair
3. Administration, AIF, Language Arts Chair
|
1.Examine FAIR data to determine students are being assessed in a timely manner.
2. Administration will be aware of the IFC’s upcoming focus and monitor implementation through classroom walkthroughs.
3. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walkthroughs and will be submitted weekly.
1. Review data, determine strategies to increase student effectiveness.
|
1.Printout of FAIR reports.
2. Effectiveness will be determined through FAIR assessments.
3. Classroom walkthrough log
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 10% of Students with Disabilities (SWD) scored at or above Level 3.
|
By Spring 2010, the number of Students with Disabilities at AL 3 or above will increase 5% in Reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Use IDEAS and FAIR to analyze student data
2. 90 Minute Reading Block in Middle School
3. Tier 1:
Determine core
instructional needs
by reviewing FAIR
(Florida
Assessment for
Instruction in
Reading)
assessment data
for all SWDs. Plan
differentiated
instruction using
evidence-based
instruction/
interventions within
90-minute block.
1. Tier 2: Plan
supplemental
instruction/
intervention for
students not
responding to core
instruction. Focus
of instruction is
determined by
review of FAIR data
and will include
explicit instruction,
modeled instruction,
guided practice and
independent
practice.
3. Tier 3: Plan
targeted
intervention for
students not
responding to core
plus supplemental
instruction using
problem-solving
process.
Interventions will be
matched to
individual student
needs, be
evidence-based,
and provided in
addition to core.
|
1. ESE teachers Administration AIF
2. Administration
AIF and teachers
AIF and teachers
AIF and teachers
|
1. Review data, determine strategies to increase student effectiveness.
2. Progress Monitoring
Of reading program
3. Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.
2. Student progress is
assessed using FAIR
OPM every 20 days for
all students receiving
Tier 2 supplemental
instruction. Percent of
students making
adequate progress
toward benchmark
3. Student progress is
assessed using FAIR
OPM every 20 days
and/or DIBELS data biweekly
for all students
receiving Tier 3
targeted intervention.
Adequate progress is
determined by
comparing student’s
trendline to aimline.
|
1. Updated 2010 IDEAS and FAIR report
2. FAIR
3. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2. FAIR OPM data
will be used to
determine progress
from Benchmark 1
towards Benchmark 2
and from Benchmark
2 towards Benchmark
3 3. FAIR OPM data
and DIBELS data
when appropriate will
be used to determine
progress from
Benchmark 1 towards
Benchmark 2 and
from Benchmark 2
towards Benchmark 3.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT data, 62% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
By Spring 2010, the lowest quartile will make a 5% learning gain in reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
. Offer tutoring sessions after school. One to focus on testing skills and one on to reinforce curriculum skills
|
1. AIF, administration, mentors, teachers, and tutors
|
Sign in logs, periodic grade checks
|
surveys, FAIR, Ongoing progress monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT data, 38% of Hispanic and ELL students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading test.
|
By Spring 2010, the Hispanic and ELL population will make a 5% learning gain in reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Offer tutoring sessions after school. One to focus on testing skills and one on to reinforce curriculum skills
|
. AIF, administration, mentors, teachers, and tutors
|
Sign in logs, periodic grade checks
|
surveys, FAIR, Ongoing progress monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT data 17% of the black students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
By Spring 2010, the Black population will make a 5% learning gain in reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
. Offer tutoring sessions after school. One to focus on testing skills and one on to reinforce curriculum skills
|
. AIF, administration, mentors
|
Sign in logs, periodic grade checks
|
surveys, FAIR, Ongoing progress monitoring
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, the number of AL 3 or above students will increase 5% in Reading.
|
Implementing the Instructional Focus Calendar successfully
|
AIF
|
August 2009
|
Visit classrooms
Lesson Plans
|
Administration
AIF
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
Every other week, the AIF will review an activity from the “lessons Learned” book to build the knowledge base of all teachers. Instructional Focus Calendars will also be used in social studies that will be aligned with the reading instructional focus. The faculty and staff will conduct a book study to learn reading comprehension strategies applicable in any subject.
Teachers are also encouraged to complete FOR-PD and CAR-PD. There are several teachers that completed FOR-PD over the summer and will complete CAR-PD during the year.
|
| |
| 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 |
| Kaplan SAT/ACT Gold Preparation Softward |
AT&T Success Grant |
$200.00 |
| Total: $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 |
| Portable interactive handheld tutor |
AT&T Success Grant |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Final Total: $700.00 |
|
| 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 |
48% of students achieved mastery (AL 3 and above) on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Math Test.
Based on the 2009
|
By Spring 2010, the number of AL 3 or above students will increase 5% in Math as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
.Use higher order questions in lesson plans.
2.Utilize the FCIM to identify students in the core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment.
|
Administration
2.Administration
|
Walkthroughs by administration
2.Review student grouping charts frequently and ensure groups are redesigned to target the need of students based on assessment
|
Walkthrough logs
2.Progress of all students on assessments.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
FCAT data, 64% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Math Test.
|
By Spring 2010, the lowest quartile will make a 5% learning gain in math.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Use the FCIM to identify students in the core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment.
2. Include higher-order questions in lesson plans.
|
1.Administration, AIF
2. Administration, AIF, Language Arts Chair
|
Walkthroughs by administration
2.Review student grouping charts frequently and ensure groups are redesigned to target the need of students based on assessment
1. Walkthroughs by administration
|
Walkthrough logs
2.Progress of all students on assessments.
1Walkthrough logs
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 11% of Students with Disabilities (SWD) scored at or above Level 3.
|
By Spring 2010, the number of Students with Disabilities at AL 3 or above will increase 5% in Math as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Increase use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts
|
. Administration, AIF
|
AIF will assist teachers creating centers and will ensure activities are implemented
|
Progress reports of students on assessments.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 35% of Hispanic and ELL students achieved mastery (AL 3 and above)
|
By Spring 2010, the Hispanic and
ELL population will make a 5% gain in math as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
. Offer tutoring sessions after school. One to focus on testing skills and one on to reinforce curriculum skills
|
AIF, administration, mentors
|
Sign in logs, periodic grade checks
|
surveys
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Math data, 24% of black students achieved mastery (AL 3 and above).
|
By Spring 2010, the Black population will make a 5% learning gain in math as evidenced by the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Offer tutoring sessions after school. One to focus on testing skills and one on to reinforce curriculum skills
|
. AIF, administration, mentors
|
Sign in logs, periodic grade checks
|
surveys
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, the number of AL 3 or above students will increase 5% in
|
Effective implementation of the instructional focus calendar
|
AIF
|
September 2009
|
Classroom visits
|
Administration/AIF
|
|
By Spring 2010, the number of Students with Disabilities at AL 3 or above will increase 5% in Math.
|
Effective Use of manipulatives and hands-on activities
|
AIF
|
October 2009
|
Observations of use of manipulatives in centers and documentation in lesson plans
|
Administration/AIF
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Kaplan SAT/ACT Gold Preparation Software |
AT&T Success Grant |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| 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 |
| Portable interactive handheld tutor |
At&T Grant |
$500.00 |
| Total: $500.00 |
| Final Total: $700.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on 2009 FCAT Science data, 30% of students achieved level three and above.
|
By Spring 2010, 11th grade and 8th grade students will increase 5% as evidenced by the FCAT assessment.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Provide complete hands-on lab activities weekly.
2. Provide common lab report format to document lab hands on investigations
|
1. Science department chair
Administration
2. Teacher
|
1. Create lab schedule and implement-administration will monitor
2. Design and implement document
|
1. Increase on mini Science assessments
2. Lab document
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, 11th grade and 8th grade students will increase 5% as evidenced by the FCAT assessment.
|
FCIM Training
|
Department Chair
|
By October 2009
|
Observation
|
Administration, department chair
|
|
| |
| 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 |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
96% of the students achieved mastery (3.5 and above) on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Writing Test
|
By Spring 2010, the number of 3.5 and above will increase 2%.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Students will use the writing process on a scheduled basis. A portfolio will be kept for each student.
2. The revision and editing process will be explicitly taught and seen in student writing drafts.
3. The rubric will be explicitly taught to students.
|
1. Teachers
Administration
2. Teachers
Administration
3. Teachers
Department Chair
|
1.Development for establishing portfolio.
Establish schedule for writing.
2. Teachers, Administrators, and AIF will monitor editing process by reviewing student drafts
3. Work within the portfolio will meet the guidelines of the rubric
|
1.Progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.
2. Portfolios - progress
3. Portfolio
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 98% of
|
Applying the state’s FCAT rubric to students’ writing
|
Language Arts Department Chair
|
October 2009
|
Regular coordination between 8th and 10th grade teachers
|
Administration/Language Arts Teachers
|
|
| |
| 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 |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
54% of students need to achieve mastery (AL 3 and above) on the FCAT Reading or Mathematics tests.
|
By the Spring 2010 the number of AL 3 or above students will increase 5% in Reading and Math.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Hold a parent information meeting. Give strategies for working with reading and math activities.
2. Demonstrate tested skills.
3. Encourage the parents to get the students to attend after school tutoring.
|
1. Administration
AIF Teachers
2. Administration
AIF Teachers
3. Administration
AIF Teachers
|
1. Sign in sheets at parent meeting
2. Sign in sheets at teachers meeting
3. Sign in sheets at tutoring
|
1. Parent feedback forms
2. Parent feedback forms
3. Student surveys at the end of tutoring sessions
|
|
| |
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 |
| 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 |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Mathematics |
Kaplan SAT/ACT Gold Preparation Software |
AT&T Success Grant |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Kaplan SAT/ACT Gold Preparation Softward |
AT&T Success Grant |
$200.00 |
| Total: $200.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Portable interactive handheld tutor |
AT&T Success Grant |
$500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Portable interactive handheld tutor |
At&T Grant |
$500.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Final Total: $1,400.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 5:48:06 PM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
School Advisory Councils (SACS) were created by the Florida Legislature to assure continuous progress of Florida’s eight educational goals in each school. The purpose of the council is to develop, monitor, and evaluate results of the School Improvement Plan and assist in preparing the school’s annual budget. The SAC operates within the policies of the School Board and the parameters established by the state legislature. The council membership reflects the ethnic, racial and economic community served by the school. Our SAC meets on a Wednesday at least eight times a year. Throughout the school year, the council revisits the School Improvement Plan, noting progress or discrepancies in strategies written. The council is kept up-to-date with new legislation or district policies that affect the school.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Arthur Martinez,
Principal
|
|
2)
Megan Graves,
Student
|
|
3)
Antwan Jenkins,
Student
|
|
4)
Diane Conley,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Rebecca Wiggins,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Howie Stoughton,
Business Member
|
|
7)
Beverly Graves,
Parent
|
|
8)
Sally McCumber,
Parent
|
|
9)
Lorenzo McCutchen,
Parent
|
|
10)
Priscilla Perry,
Parent
|
|
11)
Clinton P. Cornelius, Chair,
Community Member
|
|
12)
Lesha Hall,
Community Member
|
|
13)
Debra Sivadasan,
Community Member
|
|
14)
Ed Flood,
Community Member
|
|
15)
Eva Weaver,
School Support Personnel
|
|
16)
Dialis Mangual,
School Support Personnel
|
|
17)
Oralia Mendez,
School Support Personnel
|
|
18)
Vera Cannon,
Assistant Principal
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk FORT MEADE MIDDLE/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 0791 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 494 Math: 494
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
C
|
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
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
40 |
N |
42 |
N |
89
|
|
Y |
72 |
74 |
Y |
66 |
60 |
N |
56 |
58 |
N |
39 |
N |
43 |
N |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
48 |
N |
52 |
N |
93
|
|
Y |
86 |
74 |
N |
54 |
52 |
N |
44 |
48 |
N |
46 |
N |
52 |
N |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
17 |
N |
24 |
N |
81
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
85 |
83 |
N |
80 |
76 |
N |
15 |
N |
24 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
38 |
N |
35 |
N |
89
|
90 |
Y |
66 |
71 |
Y |
72 |
62 |
Y |
61 |
65 |
N |
38 |
NA |
37 |
N |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
34 |
N |
34 |
N |
87
|
94 |
Y |
63 |
69 |
Y |
74 |
66 |
Y |
63 |
66 |
N |
33 |
NA |
34 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
10 |
N |
11 |
N |
61
|
85 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
93 |
90 |
N |
84 |
89 |
N |
9 |
N |
14 |
N |
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk FORT MEADE MIDDLE/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 0791 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 501 Math: 501
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
C
|
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 |
99 |
Y |
34 |
N |
44 |
N |
|
89 |
N |
58 |
72 |
Y |
73 |
66 |
NA |
62 |
56 |
NA |
34 |
NA |
57 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
46 |
N |
56 |
N |
|
93 |
Y |
62 |
86 |
Y |
60 |
54 |
NA |
52 |
44 |
NA |
44 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
15 |
N |
20 |
N |
|
81 |
N |
|
|
NA |
91 |
85 |
NA |
82 |
80 |
NA |
20 |
NA |
51 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
28 |
N |
39 |
N |
91
|
89 |
N |
|
|
NA |
81 |
72 |
NA |
64 |
61 |
NA |
29 |
NA |
48 |
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 |
26 |
N |
37 |
N |
94
|
87 |
N |
54 |
63 |
Y |
79 |
74 |
NA |
69 |
63 |
NA |
28 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
7 |
N |
16 |
N |
88
|
61 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
93 |
NA |
86 |
84 |
NA |
12 |
NA |
43 |
NA |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk FORT MEADE MIDDLE/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 0791 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 522 Math: 522
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
27 |
N |
38 |
N |
86
|
|
Y |
70 |
58 |
N |
74 |
73 |
NA |
64 |
62 |
NA |
34 |
NA |
56 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
40 |
N |
48 |
N |
|
|
Y |
79 |
62 |
N |
65 |
60 |
NA |
56 |
52 |
NA |
38 |
NA |
56 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
9 |
N |
18 |
N |
79
|
|
Y |
71 |
50 |
NA |
86 |
91 |
NA |
80 |
82 |
NA |
27 |
NA |
55 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
19 |
N |
36 |
N |
78
|
91 |
Y |
47 |
59 |
NA |
81 |
81 |
NA |
63 |
64 |
NA |
35 |
NA |
58 |
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 |
21 |
N |
31 |
N |
79
|
94 |
Y |
64 |
54 |
N |
81 |
79 |
NA |
71 |
69 |
NA |
31 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
30 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
|
N |
14 |
N |
63
|
88 |
Y |
10 |
17 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
86 |
86 |
NA |
30 |
NA |
49 |
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 |