VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

VISION: The Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary staff unites with parents and community to provide an atmosphere of mutual acceptance where students will grow regardless of background in achieving success and evolve into leaders of tomorrow.

MISSION: Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary prepares students with the academic skills, habits of mind, and character traits necessary to perform on or above grade level and to succeed in rigorous academia in middle school, high school, postsecondary options, and life beyond.


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

During the late 1800 and early 1900’s, the elementary grades in Fort Meade were part of a grade one through twelve school located on East Broadway. Dr. O.B. Lewis was a local physician and a school trustee, who was instrumental in establishing a new school adjacent to the existing school. The school was initially identified as Fort Meade Primary School, Number II. Dr. Lewis, a two-term mayor of Fort Meade and a charter member of the First Baptist Church, arranged for the donation of several acres of land by the church for the purpose of constructing the Fort Meade Grammar School. Later that year the school was dedicated to Dr. O.B. Lewis and renamed Lewis Elementary School.

The school’s first woman principal, Mrs. Lola Peeples, was appointed in 1943. She served in this capacity two years. Afterwards, Mrs. Dorothy Gabriel was appointed principal and she remained until 1968. It was during this time that grades four and five were moved from the high school and Polk County Schools were racially integrated. A music room, library, and two wings consisting of eight classrooms were added in an attempt to house all elementary age students at the Lewis facility.

The Anna Woodbury School was built in 1953 and originally served Fort Meade’s black students, grades one through eight, with ninth grade being added at a later date. The school was named in honor of Mrs. Anna Woodbury, the daughter of Bert and Lulu Thomas. The initial building consisted of three classrooms, an office area, and storage space. Because there was no lunchroom, students brought their lunches or went home for an hour to eat. Later students were permitted to eat lunch at an old cafeteria located across the highway.

Additions were made to the school in 1962-1963 to accommodate the growing population. There were now nine classrooms, a cafeteria, custodian’s room, storage room, principal’s office, and a patio area. The large field for physical education classes included a lighted softball diamond, a basketball court, and playground equipment. By this time the staff had increased to eleven teachers, a principal, four lunchroom workers, and a custodian/bus driver. There were 296 students enrolled in grades one through nine, 26 of whom were transported from the rural areas of Fort Meade. Tenth through twelfth grade students attended Union Academy in Bartow.

In 1968 the name of the school was changed to Fort Meade Middle School and served sixth and seventh grade students in an integrated setting. The school continued as Fort Meade Middle School until 1998 when the Polk County School Board approved moving sixth and seventh grades to the Fort Meade High School campus in efforts of offering a broader curriculum to these students. Plans were made then to renovate the buildings and add an additional wing. The former Anna Woodbury School was to become the new campus for fourth and fifth grade students who were currently attending Riverside Elementary School across town. The school was once again bestowed with the name of one of its beloved original teachers when it became Anna Woodbury Elementary School in August of 2000.

Anna Woodbury Elementary School began its first year as the smallest public elementary school in Polk County with 225 students under the direction of Principal Darlene Butler. The school’s mascot was the All-Star. In the fall of the 2002-2003 school year, Lewis Elementary and Anna Woodbury Elementary Schools became one school. While situated on two separate sites, both campuses share a principal and two assistant principals. The administration, staff, parents, and School Advisory Council at Lewis Anna Woodbury have established very high academic standards for all students.
Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary is a Title I school; therefore, we have an instructional focus on reading. Our certified reading coach meets with the teams, models lessons, disaggregates data, gives teachers a reading instructional timeline, and carefully monitors the students’ progress with FAIR. The progress of students is monitored with data analysis during weekly grade level meetings and staff meetings, FAIR results, Acaletics results, Harcourt results, and beginning, middle, and end of the year assessments. A minimum of ninety minutes is devoted to the reading block at all grade levels. All classroom teachers are required to pull small groups, implement literacy centers, provide enrichment, and identify and remediate students in need of intensive intervention with flexible groups. Additional reading instruction is afforded to students with deficient needs as determined by the FCAT through the Spell, Read program. This program is an intensive reading program that provides an extra hour a day in addition to the 90-minute reading block for our Tier 1 students and struggling readers in third grade. Lewis Anna Woodbury has an ESOL teacher who provides extra instructional help to our 150+ ESOL students.

An Inclusion and Resource Model is used for most of the ESE students. Five certified ESE full-time instructors and two highly qualified paraprofessionals work in the classrooms with the ESE students and with flexible groups of non-ESE students. For students with a higher level of need, a self-contained unit is housed on both campuses. Speech and language students are served by a highly qualified speech-language pathologist twice a week.

Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary has a Pre-K program on site that currently serves 18 students. The students are exposed to a language rich developmental program with a variety of centers and activities. Cooperative learning and group work is central to the attainment of the Sunshine State Standards for Pre-K. The students are exposed to the High-scope Curriculum, Peacemaking Skills for Little Children, and Skill-Streaming. The two instructors are certified CDA Pre-K teachers.


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary earned a school record high of 547 accountability points on the 2009 FCAT and demonstrating increases in each of the eight accountability areas, which raised the school grade to an “A” from a “C”. Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary enters the 2009-2010 school year with a renewed confidence to maintain a school grade of “A” and achieve Adequate Yearly Progress. In addition, our school’s FCAT writing scores were above the district’s.


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Due to the district’s staffing reorganization, Lewis Anna Woodbury lost two para educators, one media specialist and guidance counselor. Both sites share the media specialist and guidance counselor who will travel between sites each day. Also, the reading coach position was lost due to the sunset of the grant. Based upon our scores, the school is looking forward to receiving a reading academic coach. Also, after the 8th Day Count, our school lost three teaching units because of student count. As a result, Students and teachers from the grade levels were transitioned to meet class size mandate. One month later two veteran 4th grade teachers' transfer requests were honored resulting in our school having to go through the process of advertising and hiring to fill these positions which took a great part of the first 9-week grading period. Again, one veteran 5th grade teacher's transfer request was honored. This too, has a great impact on our students' learning. One ESE teacher decided to retire on November 30. As a result, these assigned students and staff were transitioned to meet the IEP mandates.


Student Demographics

Lewis Anna Woodbury is a Title I school located in Fort Meade, Florida which is in the southernmost part of Polk County. This school serves a multi-ethnic population: Pre-K-3rd : 40.98% are White, 14.51% are Black, 46.78% are Hispanic, 3.73% are Multi-Racial, 19% Students with Disabilities (SWD), 25.69% are students classified as English language Learners (ELL), 75.49% account for Economically Disadvantaged Students with a total population of 510 students. The Anna Woodbury Campus houses 4th and 5th grades with approximately 204 students. The multi-ethnic population for this campus: 45.10% are White, 12.25% are Black, 38.73% are Hispanic, 0.49% are Asian, 0.49% are Indian, 2.94% are multi-Racial, 9.31% Students with Disabilities (SWD), Economically disadvantaged students account for 71.57% of the population.


Student Attendance Rates

A three year review of student attendance rates for each of our campuses are: Lewis: 06-07: 94.62%, 07-08: 95.17%, 08-09: 94.97%. Anna Woodbury: 06-07: 94.66%, 07-08: 94.91%, 08-09: 95.25%.


Student Mobility

Year 07-08: PreK-3 Students enrolled after day 15 or withdrawn after day 15 and before: 152 students, 548 students enrolled on or after day 16 with a mobility rate of 27.74 percent. Grades 4 and 5 students enrolled after day 15 or withdrawn after day 15 and before: 39 students, 198 students enrolled on or after day 16 with a mobility rate of 19.70 percent.

Year 08-09: PreK-3 Students enrolled after day 15 or withdrawn after day 15 and before: 149 students, 576 students enrolled on or after day 16 with a mobility rate of 25.87 percent. Grades 4 and 5 students enrolled after day 15 or withdrawn after day 15 and before: 42 students, 220 students enrolled on or after day 16 with a mobility rate of 19.09 percent.


Student Suspension Rates

2006-2007: Grades K-3-Out of School Days: 51, Action 22; In-School Suspension Days-98, Action 93. Grades 4 and 5: Out of School Days: 101, Action 50; In-School Suspension Days-91, Action 71.

2007-2008: Grades K-3-Out of School Days: 83, Action 28; In-School Suspension Days-34, Action 23. Grades 4 and 5: Out of School Days: 57, Action 34; In-School Suspension Days-13, Action 13.

2008-2009: Grades K-3-Out of School Days: 45, Action 25; In-School Suspension Days-83, Action 51. Grades 4 and 5: Out of School Days: 77, Action 33; In-School Suspension Days-4, Action 4.


Student Retention Rates

2006-2007: K-11 students retained, 127 students enrolled with a retention rate of 8.66%. First Grade: 25-Retained, 123 students enrolled with a retention rate of 20.33%. Second Grade: 11 students retained, 128 students enrolled with a retention rate of 8.59%. Third Grade: 6 students retained, 103 students enrolled with a retention rate of 5.83%. Fourth Grade: 4 students retained, 90 students enrolled with a retention rate of 4.44%. Fifth Grade: 4 students retained, 112 students enrolled with a retention rate of 3.57%.

2007-2008: K-2 students retained, 107 students enrolled with a retention rate of 1.87%. First Grade: 4-Retained, 139 students enrolled with a retention rate of 2.88%. Second Grade: 0 students retained, 102 students enrolled with a retention rate of 0.00%. Third Grade: 10 students retained, 110 students enrolled with a retention rate of 9.09%. Fourth Grade: 2 students retained, 93 students enrolled with a retention rate of 2.15%. Fifth Grade: 0 students retained, 88 students enrolled with a retention rate of 0.00%.
2007-2008: K-7 students retained, 129 students enrolled with a retention rate of 5.43%. First Grade: 4-Retained, 112 students enrolled with a retention rate of 3.57%. Second Grade: 9 students retained, 133 students enrolled with a retention rate of 6.77%. Third Grade: 12 students retained, 118 students enrolled with a retention rate of 10.17%. Fourth Grade: 1 students retained, 110 students enrolled with a retention rate of .91%. Fifth Grade: 1 students retained, 98 students enrolled with a retention rate of 1.06%.


Class Size

A point has been made to reduce class sizes in all grade levels. Our school average for the past two years were as follow: Grades PK-3 2006-07: 17.11, 2007-08: 16.35. Grades 4-5 2006-07: 19, 2007-08 19.44.


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary is the only elementary school in Fort Meade, Florida. Our students feed into Fort Meade Middle/Senior High School.


Partnerships and Grants

Lewis Anna Woodbury has several business and community partners that support the interests of our students. For instance, Mosaic, a phosphate company, has adopted our school and donates money each year for instructional needs and student supplies. US Agri-Chem has also been instrumental in designing and building a Butterfly garden/outdoor learning center and a reading garden. Mosiac has restored our Pre-K playground and Butterfly Garden.


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 Mr. Thaddeus L. Davis BA-Elementary Education, University of South Florida; Master of Science-Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University; Principal Certification-State of Florida 3 3 Principal of Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary-2008-2009:
Grade: A-Reading-70%-students reading at or above grade level, 62% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 63% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math -76% of students at or above grade level in math; 62% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 77% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing -91% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-46% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP: 90% of criteria satisfied. Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged and English Language Learners (ELL) did not make AYP in Math. Only Whites made AYP in Math. English Language Learners (ELL) did not make AYP in Reading. Whites, Hispanic, and Economic Disadvantaged made AYP in Reading.
2007-2008: Grade: C-69% of students reading at or above grade level, 52% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading, 46% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math-75% of students at or above grade level, 52% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 44% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing-81% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-38% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP: 95% of criteria satisfied. Hispanic, English Language Learners (ELL) did not make AYP in Reading. All subgroups met AYP in math.
2006-2007: AP of Lawton Chiles Middle Academy: Grade: A. Reading-85% of students reading at or above grade level, 67% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 67% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math-84% of students at or above grade level in math, 79% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 72% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing-99% of students met stated standards in writing. Science-75% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP: 100% of criteria satisfied.
Assis Principal Ms. Dana Bakos BA-English Literature-University of Central Florida, Masters-Reading, Masters-Educational Leadership, University of South Florida 1 1 AP: Lewis Elementary 2008-2009:

Grade: A-Reading-70%-students reading at or above grade level, 62% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 63% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math -76% of students at or above grade level in math; 62% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 77% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing -91% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-46% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP: 90% of criteria satisfied. Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged and English Language Learners (ELL) did not make AYP in Math. Only Whites made AYP in Math. English Language Learners (ELL) did not make AYP in Reading. Whites, Hispanic, and Economic Disadvantaged made AYP in Reading.

2007-2008: Reading Coach-Westwood Middle School: Grade: B-Reading-52%-students reading at or above grade level, 61% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 66% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math -57% of students at or above grade level in math; 71% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 71% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing -90% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-28% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP-72% of criteria satisfied. Black, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities did not make AYP in Reading or Math.

2006-2007: Reading Coach at Loughman Oaks Elementary.

Grade: B-Reading-64%-students reading at or above grade level, 74% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 70% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math -59% of students at or above grade level in math; 68% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 68% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing -83% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-30% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP-92% of criteria satisfied. Black students did not make AYP in Reading and Black and Hispanic students did not make AYP in Math.

Assis Principal Mrs. Princess Foster BS-Elementary Education, University of South Florida; Master of Science-Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern Reading Coach-Griffin Elementary 2003-2009:

2008-2009 Grade: A-Reading-69%-students reading at or above grade level, 64% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 76% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math -75% of students at or above grade level in math; 73% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 72% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing -100% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-38% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP: 97% of criteria satisfied. Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in Math.

2007-2008: Grade: A-75% of students reading at or above grade level, 63% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading, 53% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math-75% of students at or above grade level, 74% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 83% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing-95% of students are meeting state standards in writing. Science-37% of students at or above grade level in Science. AYP: 95% of criteria satisfied. Black students did not make AYP in Reading and Math.

2006-2007: Grade B: Reading-68% of students reading at or above grade level, 55% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading, 81% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading. Math-68% of students at or above grade level in math, 65% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 67% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math. Writing-94% of students met state standards in writing. Science-23% of students at or above grade level in Science. All subgroups made AYP.

* 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 *
Reading Lou Ann Bigsby Bachelor- Education K-6,
M.Ed.- Reading and Early Childhood
3 She has worked at the district for the last 6-8 years in the capacity of a Teacher Resource Specialist Trainer. She has trained school based administrators and teachers working with programs focused on FCAT and AYP that had a direct impact on student learning across the district.

* 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 Principal
Principal On-going
1. Attend all job fairs offered by Polk County to attract/recruit high quality, highly qualified teachers to high-need academic areas Principal Spring-2010
3. Partnering new teachers with veteran staff Assistant Principal Ongoing


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional 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
547222645151000059


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
Dawn Beynon Kathy Mizell Paired with Veteran teacher The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence based strategies for each subject area. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning. The AIF and LFS Facilitators are modeling lessons using reading, writing, and summarization strategies.
Linda Thomas Ashley Castillo Paired with Veteran teacher The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence based strategies for each subject area. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning. The AIF and LFS Facilitators are modeling lessons using reading, writing, and summarization strategies.
Laura Coffee Aisha Rice Paired with Veteran teacher The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence based strategies for each subject area. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning. The AIF and LFS Facilitators are modeling lessons using reading, writing, and summarization strategies.
Heather O’Cain Elaine Jackson Paired with Veteran teacher The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence based strategies for each subject area. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning. The AIF and LFS Facilitators are modeling lessons using reading, writing, and summarization strategies.
Daniel Reffo
Mary Wellden 		Nathaniel Fountain Teacher new to school The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss specific concerns that the mentee has at that time.
Beverly Pawley Tina Barbee Teacher new to school The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence based strategies for each subject area. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning. The AIF and LFS Facilitators are modeling lessons using reading, writing, and summarization strategies.
Rosa Nunez
Deborah Gifford 		Cassandra Avellanedo Paired with Veteran Teacher The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence based strategies for each subject area. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning. The AIF and LFS Facilitators are modeling lessons using reading, writing, and summarization strategies.



ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration


Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A

Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services for Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary. The Title I funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title I, Part A, support provides after-school and summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resource teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for parents.


Title I, Part C- Migrant

Migrant students enrolled in Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary will be assisted by the school and by the District Migrant Education Program (MEP). Students will be prioritized by the MEP for supplemental services based on need and migrant status. MEP Teacher Advocates, assigned to schools with high percentages of migrant students, monitor the progress of these high need students and provide or coordinate supplemental academic support. Migrant Home-School Liaisons identify and recruit migrant students and their families for the MEP. They provide support to both students and parents in locating services necessary to ensure the academic success of these students whose education has been interrupted by numerous moves.


Title I, Part D

Title I, Part D, provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned school. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at schools to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement.


Title II

Professional development resources are available to Title I schools through Title II funds. In addition, School Technology Services provide technical support, technology training, and licenses for software programs and web-based access via Title II-D funds. All of the classrooms at Lewis Anna Woodbury have been provided with Smart Boards, Document Cameras, Projectors, and relevant software. Grades 3 and 4 have light speed sound system installed.


Title III

Title III provides supplemental resources for English Language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in Title I schools, as well as professional learning opportunities for school staff. Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary provides Parent Resource Centers on both campuses that houses materials that can be borrowed and used at home to increase student achievement, parent involvement, and to encourage the love of reading. The centers are open each day after school until 4:00 p.m. and Tuesday evenings from 6:00-8:00 p.m.


Title X- Homeless

The Hearth program, funded through Title X, provides support for identified homeless students. Title I provides support for this program, and many activities implemented by the Hearth program are carried out in cooperation with the Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded through Title I, Part C.


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

SAI funds will be coordinated with Title I funds to provide before-school and after-school tutoring for all Level 1 and 2 students.


Violence Prevention Programs

Title IV provides violence and drug prevention programs in schools in order to promote a safe school environment. Examples of violence prevention programs include anti-bullying, gang awareness, gun awareness, etc.


Nutrition Programs

Lewis Anna Woodbury Elementary is a location for a summer feeding program for the community.


Housing Programs

N/A


Head Start

Head Start is not located on our campus. Resources are provided to the program to assist in the transition of students from pre-k to kindergarten. Head Start teachers may participate in professional learning opportunities offered to school staff, and they are involved in Professional Learning Community activities with kindergarten teachers. Parents of Head Start students are invited to participate in parent workshops and activities provided by the school.


Adult Education

N/A


Career and Technical Education

N/A


Job Training

N/A


Other

N/A


Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)


School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Principal/Assistant Principals: provide a common vision for the use of data-based decision-making, ensures that the school staff is implementing RtI, ensures implementation of intervention support and documentation, provide adequate professional development to support RtI implementation, and communicates with parents regarding school-based RtI plans and activities.

Guidance Counselor: provides services to individual students that range from program design to assessment and intervention. Our school’s social worker connects schools and families to community agencies within the community. This connection helps promote the academic behavior, emotional and social success of each student within the school setting.

School Psychologist: assists in the development of intervention plans through the use of data collection, interpretation and analysis. Our school’s psychologist promotes the importance of fidelity and documentation when implementing the Response to Intervention process and provides professional development and technical assistance. Once this process is implemented correctly, then the decision making process is utilized for educational decisions for students.

Speech/Language Pathologist: Educates the team in the role language plays in curriculum, assessment, and instruction; assists in the selection of screening; and helps identify systemic patterns of student need with respect to language skills.

Exceptional Student Education Teachers: participates in collecting student data, integrates core instructional activities into Tier 3 instruction, and collaborates with general education teachers through inclusion.

Title I Facilitator/ ESOL Teacher
Academic Coach: Provides guidance on K-12 reading plan; facilitates and supports data collection activities; provides professional development and technical assistance to teachers and staff; provides support for assessment and implementation monitoring for children to be considered “At-risk” or students who may have bilingual needs.

Primary/Intermediate Instructors-provides quality information regarding core instruction, participates in student data collection, and delivers Tiers 1, 2, & 3 instructions and interventions.



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

The Leadership Team meetings will meet once a week to review grade level and classroom level progress monitoring data to ensure the success of all students. The team will study data to identify students who are meeting/exceeding benchmarks, at moderate risk or high risk for not meeting benchmarks. Professional development and resources will be determined by the results of this data. In addition, the team will collaborate, evaluate implementation, share best practices, and facilitate the process of building consensus, increasing infrastructure, and making decisions about implementation. The Leadership Team will focus meetings around one question: How do we maximize our efforts to bring out the best in our school, our teachers, and in our students?


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

The principal and members of the RtI Leadership Team presented information to the School Advisory Council (SAC) throughout the year that provided data on the growth of our students to include the Tier 1, 2, and 3 targets. Our RtI Leadership Team has met with our Senior Director of Elementary Education, parents, and staff to again input and to address the academic and social/emotional areas. As a result our SIP identifies the immediate professional development and resources that we deemed necessary and appropriate to meet state and federal mandates.




RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

In August and September, baseline data is established from the results of 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 Fifth Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year’s FCAT scores, baseline data from Acaletics and Harcourt pre-test, and Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR).Progress Monitoring data is gathered mid-year and toward the end of the year. Data is discussed and analyzed at least monthly at the PS/RtI Leadership Team Meetings. Ongoing assessment progress monitoring is conducted three times during the year using the following instruments: FAIR, Write Score, and Acaletics. Also we will generate reports using the PMRN, Odyssey Quarterly Benchmark Assessments (QBA), Fidelity Checks and classroom walk-through observations, probes, Fluency checks, etc. to ensure a high level of implementation to meet/succeed district, state, and federal goals.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

Administration will provide professional development during teachers’ common planning time and small group sessions 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?


Reading: Strengths: 70% of students reading at or above grade level. Weaknesses: 62% of students made a year’s worth of progress in reading. 63% of struggling students made a year’s worth of progress in reading. The English Language Learners students need improvement in Reading.

Math: Strengths: 76% of students at or above grade level. Weaknesses: 62% of students made a year’s worth of progress in math. 77% of struggling students make a year’s worth of progress in math. Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners need improvement in Math.

Writing: Strengths: 91% of students are meeting state standards in writing.

Science: Strengths: 46% of students are at or above grade level in Science.


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. Also, our school has developed Instructional Focus Calendars for Math and Science using the district’s math and science curriculum maps to implemented this year.


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

Reading: Summarizing, vocabulary, main idea, and reference and research. Teachers will follow the Monthly Focus Calendar to pace the instruction of other reading comprehension skills.

Math: Memorization of math facts and implementation of Monthly Focus Calendar to pace the instruction of other math skills.


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

The master schedule has been designed to meet students’ needs by grouping students for math; grades 4/5 are departmentalized, administration has hired a diverse staff, and students’ test data assist in determining instructional strategies that are implemented to ensure success of each student. Once FCAT/SAT scores were released, the administration determined student learning gains by teacher and adjusted the master schedule to prevent low-performing teachers from teaching the same class again. An analysis of learning gains allowed the strongest teachers to be paired with the weakest students.


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

N/A


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?

N/A




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 - 10. 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.


FAIR, Harcourt Trophies, Voyager, 100 Book Challenge, Compass Odyssey, Reading Assistant, AR, Acaletics, and Fast ForWord will be 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.


As a result of progress monitoring and teacher/team observations, students who consistently demonstrate academic difficulty will receive supplemental and intensive instructions/interventions. Students not making mastery will be offered before and after-school assistance via teacher and SES, as well as assistance during the regular day from Academic Intervention Facilitator and tutors.


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

Multiple opportunities for researched based extended learning activities including: extended time for math and /or reading, extended day, summer school, accelerating and previewing, 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 charts, Acaletics, Fast ForWord and FAIR.


Enrichment


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

Students who exceed mastery level are placed in advanced leveled classes. These classes are embedded with enriched activities that review and extends students’ academic abilities in higher order skills.


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

Once FCAT/SAT scores are released, administration analyze data to determine which students are placed in the advanced classes.




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)
Kindergarten teachers, Academic Coach, Title I Facilitator, ESE teachers, ESOL teacher. (All Subjects) Edna McNair-Grade Chair Weekly Thursdays during common planning time Analyze the effectiveness of Reading Focus Calendar, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
First Grade teachers, Academic Coach, Title I Facilitator, ESE teachers, ESOL teacher. (All Subjects) Linda Thomas-Grade Chair Weekly Thursdays during common planning time Analyze the effectiveness of Reading Focus Calendar, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
Second Grade Teachers, Academic Coach, Title I Facilitator, ESE teachers, ESOL teacher. (All Subjects) Laura Coffee-Grade Chair Weekly Thursdays during common planning time Analyze the effectiveness of Reading Focus Calendar, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
Third Grade Teachers, Academic Coach, Title I Facilitator, ESE teachers, ESOL teacher. (All Subjects) Elisa Ochoa-Grade Chair Weekly Thursdays during common planning time Analyze the effectiveness of Reading Focus Calendar, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
Fourth Grade Teachers, Academic Coach, Title I Facilitator, ESE teachers, ESOL teacher. (All Subjects) Jason Springer-Grade Chair Weekly Thursdays during common planning time Analyze the effectiveness of Reading/Math/Science/Social Studies Focus Calendar, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
Fifth Grade Teachers, Academic Coach, Title I Facilitator, ESE teachers, ESOL teacher. (All Subjects) Beth Mills-Grade Chair Weekly Thursdays during common planning time Analyze the effectiveness of Reading Focus Calendar, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
Each Content Area Team Daniel Reffo-Physical Education Teacher Monthly Last Wednesday of the month after school. Lesson study centered on planning with and utilizing the Learning Focus Strategies delivery model.
Each grade level team Thaddeus Davis, Principal, Dana Bakos, Assistant Principal Monthly K-1: First Thursday of the month after school: 2-3 Second Thursday of the month after school; 4-5 Third Thursday after school. Data analysis of common assessments and implementation of SIP and mini-assessment results.


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition

Lewis Anna Woodbury has a 5 year old PreK program. PreK CDATs are included in all professional development and training offered by the school. Local PreK programs are invited to observe classrooms and come for orientation walk-throughs with their students each spring. Our Pre-K teacher coordinates with our kindergarten teachers to facilitate a smooth transition from Pre-K to Kindergarten. In Pre-K, students are taught appropriate academics in the area of Language arts and math. Pre-K students are also taught school-wide procedures for managing student behavior. This combination of academic and school-wide procedures prepares our students for a smooth transition to Kindergarten. School Readiness students are assessed by the teacher with an Ages and Stages instrument that coincides with their chronological age as well as the Child Observation Record form. The curriculum used is based on High Scope, Beyond Centers and Circle Time; both of which are age appropriate to our students. The funding is received through District School Readiness, Operational Budget and Federal Funds through District Child Find.

Pre-School parents have the opportunity to attend all school-wide functions. Daily communication is conducted between teacher and parent through a daily letter home. Monthly newsletters are sent to parents reviewing the past month’s activities and informing parents of the upcoming month.

New Kindergarten students can enroll all summer long and the school secretary sets up several night enrollment dates to accommodate working parents. Kindergarten students are assessed at the beginning of each school year using the FLKRS assessment tool. The disaggregated data from the FLKRS assessment helps the kindergarten teachers determine students’ acquisition of specific skills and knowledge. The quality and effectiveness of the programs are evaluated as data from the FLKRS becomes available.

Parents and students also have the opportunity to meet their child’s teacher at Orientation before school starts. Weekly newsletters are sent by the teachers for effective parent communication. FAIR is given to all kindergarten students three times a year by the FAIR Assessment Team coordinated by the Reading Coach. These assessments help teachers identify specific strengths and weaknesses.


Postsecondary Transition

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



 

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

 

Other Goals

No Other Goals were submitted for this school

 

FINAL BUDGET



Differentiated Accountability


School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance



Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 10:31:12 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
No data submitted



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


SAC will meet once a month beginning in the month of September to assist in the implementation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. In addition, our SAC members determine school improvement priorities based on a review of school progress and needs and decide on the expenditure of SAC funds to meet our school improvement goals. The budget for the 2009-2010 school year will be approved at the September 8, 2009.

We will know that we have successfully implemented our School Improvement Plan by demonstrating the following:
(1) At our regular scheduled SAC meetings (10 per year), we will address our data and our School Improvement Plan and where we are with it at that time of the year. Various teachers/speakers will present to and discuss various goals with the SAC members.
(2) Grade chairs will meet periodically with their area teachers to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of the goal(s) and strategies planned.
(3) At the last SAC meeting of 2009-2010, we will evaluate all goals and strategies with our SAC and our teachers. Decisions will be made to continue a strategy, complete a strategy, or revise a strategy, after looking at student outcomes related to these specific goals and strategies.
(4) Administrators will do regularly scheduled walk-throughs as documented in our shared Walk Through binder.


SAC Members

Members
1)  Thaddeus L. Davis,   Principal
2)  Clinton P. Cornelius,   SAC Chair
3)  Ana Salinas,   Teacher
4)  Edna McNair,   Teacher
5)  Katherine Belcher,   Teacher
6)  Maria Hernandez,   Parent
7)  Maria Razo,   Parent
8)  Laura Hodge,   Parent
9)  Priscilla Perry,   Parent
10)  Donna Silvers,   Parent
11)  Maria E. Rodriguez,   Parent
12)  Harvey Engle,   Parent
13)  Irmalinda Jaimes,   Parent
14)  Rafeek Khan,   Parent
15)  Cathy Lazorka,   Parent
16)  Doug Marciante,   Parent
17)  Sandra Renteria,   Parent
18)  David Delp,   Parent
19)  Benjamin Speight,   Community Member
20)  Lorenzo McCutchen, Jr.,   Community Member
21)  Nancy Rodriguez,   School Support Personnel
22)  Dana Bakos,   Assistant Principal
 

AYP DATA

No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
LEWIS ANNA WOODBURY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 70%  76%  91%  46%  283   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 62%  62%      124  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)  77% (YES)      140  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         547   
    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
    LEWIS ANNA WOODBURY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 69%  75%  81%  38%  263   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 52%  52%      104  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? 46% (NO)  44% (NO)      90  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         457   
    Percent Tested = 99%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         C  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    LEWIS ANNA WOODBURY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 73%  71%  96%  30%  270   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 77%  60%      137  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? 70% (YES)  65% (YES)      135  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         542   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested