FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM
2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

School Name: AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

District Name: Polk

Principal: Badonna M. Dardis

SAC Chair: David Bessinger

Superintendent: Dr. Gail McKinzie

Date of School Board Approval:

Last Modified on: 10-19-2009

Dr.Eric J.Smith, Commissioner
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dr.Frances Haithcock, Chancellor
K-12 Public Schools
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

Vision:
Auburndale Central Elementary, with the support of staff, parents and community, will provide all students with instruction that meets the standards for rigor and relevance in a safe and orderly environment.

Mission:
The mission of Auburndale Central Elementary School is to ensure that all students reach the pinnacle of their academic and social success within a responsive, nurturing, learning environment that is staffed by administrators, instructors, and support staff who are prepared to meet the needs of diverse learners using research-based text and ELL materials for mathematics, reading, writing and science and the high-yield strategies of Learning Focused.

Belief Statement:
• All teachers, through the application of research-based strategies, will lead all students to learn.
• Every student and staff member deserves the right to work in a safe and orderly environment.
• Students must accept responsibility for their learning as evidenced by target and goal setting.

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS

Brief History and Background of the School

Auburndale Central Elementary is a Title 1, Corrective II school with a grade of “D”. It is one of the 3 elementary schools in Polk County that is located in the city of Auburndale. The school was constructed in the 1940s with original buildings used by the U.S. Army. The school houses 425 students in Pre-Kindergarten – 5th grade.

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

The Hispanic community was actively involved in parental involvement activities. School-based extracurricular activities were well received by students and parents. Auburndale Central had an increase in the students meeting high standards in science.

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Student and parental involvement among all subgroups, communication between school and parents needs to be improved. Auburndale Central Elementary had a decrease in students meeting high standards in reading, math, and writing scores.

Student Demographics

Student population mirrors the community; 48.8% White, 18.4% Black, 27% Hispanic, 5.4% Multiracial, and .5% other. Ninety percent (89.66%) of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunch; 7.4% are SWD; 18.2% are LEP students.

Student Attendance Rates

Auburndale Central Elementary has maintained a stable attendance rate for the past three years: 2006-2007: 94.61%; 2007-2008: 94.12%, 2008-2009: 94.32%. Auburndale Central’s attendance mirrors that of the district: 2006-2007: 94.10%; 2007-2008: 94.32%, 2008-2009: 94.56%.

Student Mobility

The mobility rate of the school is 35.01%. This mobility comes predominantly from our migrant population.

Student Suspension Rates

2006-2007: In-school suspension 0, Out-of-school 95; 2007-2008: In-school 4, Out-of-school 95; 2008-2009: In-school Suspension 12, Out-of-school 101. The suspension rates have increased over the past three years.

Student Retention Rates

The retention rate increased six percentage points from four percent during the previous year to ten percent for the 2008-2009 school year.

Class Size

Population by grade level is Head Start 31; Kindergarten 67,1st grade 64, 2nd grade 73, 3rd grade 78, 4th grade 49, and 5th grade 60. The average class size in general education classrooms is: Head Start: 9 students; Kindergarten: 18 students; 1st: 16 students; 2nd Grade: 17 students; 3rd Grade: 19 students; 4th Grade: 17 students; 5th Grade: 20 students.

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Auburndale Central Elementary’s Head Start program feeds into Auburndale Central Elementary. At this time we do not have a pre-school program on-site. Auburndale Central Elementary is a Title 1, Corrective II school with a grade of “D”. For the past three years, Auburndale Central Elementary has decreased from a “B” to a “C” to a “D”. Auburndale Central Elementary did not make adequate yearly progress. AYP status fell from 90% to 79%.

Partnerships and Grants

Serving Auburndale Central in a variety of ways are the following business partners: Bright House Network, City of Auburndale, Cutrale Citrus Juices, Chamber Main Street, Lowes, the Hampton's Retirement Community, Winn Dixie, Tracy McGrady Foundation, Garden Grove Assembly of God, Auburndale Police Department, Winter Haven Hospital, Toys for Tots, Macy's of Winter Haven, Cocoa-Cola, Mimi’s Café, Auburndale Pizza Company, and Gateway Assembly of God, NGA, inc. They provide mentoring services, gifts for needy families during the holidays, student and staff incentives, and donations for parental involvement activities. We are especially optimistic about the difference that participation in the Promoting Academic Success of Boys of Color Grant initiative funded by the Kellogg Corporation in partnership with UNC at Chapel Hill will make at our school and at the other 7 Polk County Schools that are also participating.

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	Badonna M. Dardis	Master’s Educational Leadership, Principal Certification K-12 BA in Varying Exceptionalities/Gifted		5	2008-2009: School Grade A, 64% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 59% of students scoring at or above grade level in math. 47% of students scoring at or above grade level in science, 89% of students meeting state standards in writing, 87% of AYP criteria met. 2007-2008: School Grade B, 62% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 57% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 44% of students scoring at or above grade level in science, 87% of students meeting state standards in writing, 87%of AYP criteria met. 2006-2007: School Grade C, 61% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 54% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 35% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 85% of students meeting state standards in writing.
Assis Principal	Antionette Kirby	Master’s Early Childhood Education/ Certifications in Primary Education, Elementary Education, Educational Leadership K-12, ESOL			2008-2009: School Grade A, 64 % of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 73 % of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 83% of students scored at or above grade level in writing, 56 % of students scoring at or above grade level in science, and 95% of AYP criteria met 2007-2008: School Grade B, 63 % of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 63 % of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 95 % of students scored at or above grade level in writing, 26 % of students scoring at or above grade level in science and 92% of AYP criteria met 2006-2007: School Grade A, 72 % of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 67 % of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 100% of students scored at or above grade level in writing, , 45 % of students scoring at or above grade level in science and 100% of AYP criteria met.

* 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	Amanda Cantrell	BA Elementary Education, MA Reading K-12/ Elementary Education K-6, Reading K-12, ESOL			2008-2009: School Grade C, 68 % of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 68 % of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 94% of students scored at or above grade level in writing, 49 % of students scoring at or above grade level in science, and 90% of AYP criteria met 2007-2008: School Grade C, 75 % of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 75 % of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 77 % of students scored at or above grade level in writing, 32 % of students scoring at or above grade level in science and 97% of AYP criteria met 2006-2007: School Grade A, 72% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading, 71% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 87% of students scored at or above grade level in writing, , 26% of students scoring at or above grade level in science and 95% of AYP criteria met.
Mathematics	Patricia Pike	Bachelor’s Science Elementary Ed K – 6 Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum ESE K – 12 Biology 6 – 12	4		2008-2009 School Grade: D, FCAT 50% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading. 54% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 24% of students meeting High Standards in Science, 81% meeting High Standards in Writing 79% of AYP criteria met. 2007-2008 School Grade C FCAT 56% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading. 54% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 35% of students meeting High Standards in Science, 68% meeting High Standards in Writing 90% of AYP criteria met. 2006-2007 School Grade: B, FCAT 53% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading. 52% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 18% of students meeting High Standards in Science, 92% meeting High Standards in Writing 95% of AYP criteria met
Science	Shelley Reinacher	BA Elementary Education National Board Certification – MC-Generalist ESOL Endorsement			2008-2009 School Grade A 36% of students at or above grade level in Science, 69% of students reading at or above grade level, 73% of students making a year’s worth of progress in reading, 64% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading, 70% of students at or above grade level in math, 79% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 77% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math, 58 % of students are at or above grade level in writing 100% of AYP criteria met.
LFS Trainer	Sharon Telfer	Early Childhood/ Elem Ed K-6 ESOL Endorsement	3	3	2008-2009 School Grade:D, FCAT 50% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading. 54% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 24% of students meeting High Standards in Science, 81% meeting High Standards in Writing 79% of AYP criteria met. 2007-2008 School Grade C FCAT 56% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading. 54% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 35% of students meeting High Standards in Science, 68% meeting High Standards in Writing 90% of AYP criteria met.2006-2007 School Grade: B, FCAT 53% of students scoring at or above grade level in reading.52% of students scoring at or above grade level in math, 18% of students meeting High Standards in Science, 92% meeting High Standards in Writing 95% of AYP criteria met.

* 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. Regular meeting of new teachers with Principal	Principal	On-going
2. Partnering new teacher with mentor (veteran staff)	Principal	On-going
3. Work with College Campus Job Fairs and recruiting at Universities, work with District personnel to higher highly qualified staff	Principal/Assistant Principal	June 2010
4. Soliciting referrals from current employees and recruiting interns for campus and then hiring highly qualified interns when course completion/graduation when appropriate.	Principal	N/A	Discuss during faculty meetings staffing needs with when school has needs for hiring new staff

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
35	3	46	34	17	29	100	83	6	54

Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor Name	Mentee Assigned	Rationale for Pairing	Planned Mentoring Activities
Willie Saenz	Chimere Washington	Strong Classroom Management Skills; Consistent Learning Gains in Reading and Math	Data, Classroom Management, Standards-Based Instruction. The mentor and mentee are meeting biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence-based strategies for each domain (Tuesdays and Thursdays). The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for the feedback, coaching and planning. Also, the Reading , Maht and Science Coaches are modeling lessons using reading, writing, math and science strategies to teach core academic concepts.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A

Services are provided to ensure students requiring additional remediation are assisted through after-school programs. The district coordinates with Title II and Title III in ensuring staff development
needs are provided.

Title I, Part C- Migrant

Migrant Liaison provide services and support to students and parents. The liaison coordinates with Title I and other programs to ensure student needs are met.

Title I, Part D

District receives funds to support the Educational Alternative Outreach program. Services are coordinated with district Drop-out Prevention programs.

Title II

District receives supplemental funds for improving basic education programs through the purchase of small
equipment to supplement education programs. New technology in classrooms will increase the instructional strategies provided to students and new instructional software will enhance literacy and math skills of struggling students. Funds at Auburndale Central Elementary school are used to purchase Learning Focused materials and provide professional development for Learning Focus.

Title III

Services are provided through the district for education materials and ELL district support services to improve the education of immigrant and English Language Learners.

Title X- Homeless

District Homeless Social Worker provides resources (clothing, school supplies, social services referrals) for students identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act to eliminate barriers for a free and appropriate
education.

Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

SAI funds will be coordinated with Title I funds to provide summer school for Level 1 readers. SAI funds will be used to expand the summer program to all Level 2 students.

Violence Prevention Programs

The school offers a non-violence and anti-drug program to students that incorporates field trips, community service, drug tests, and counseling.

Nutrition Programs

Housing Programs

Head Start

Adult Education

Career and Technical Education

Job Training

Other

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Badonna M. Dardis: The Principal provides a common vision for the use of data-based decision–making, models the Problem Solving Process; supervises the development of a strong infrastructure for implementation of PS/RtI; ensures that the school-based team is implementing PS/RtI; conducts assessment of PS/RtI skills of school staff; ensures implementation of intervention support and documentation; ensures and participates in adequate professional learning to support PS/RtI implementation; develops a culture of expectation with the school staff for the implementation of PS/RtI schoolwide; ensures resources are assigned to those areas in most need; and communicates with parents regarding school-based PS/RtI plans and activities.
Antionette Kirby: Assists Principal in providing a common vision for the use of data-based decision-making, assists in the development of a strong infrastructure of resources for the implementation of PS/RtI, further assists the principal in the assessment of PS/RtI skills, implementation of intervention support and documentation, professional learning, and communication with parents concerning PS/RtI plans and activities.
Rhonda Strange and Catherine Ellis – Provide information about core instruction; participate in student data collection; deliver Tier 1 instruction/intervention; collaborate with other staff to implement Tier 2/3 interventions; and integrate Tier 1 materials/instruction with Tier 2/3 activities.
Tonette Morris-Freeman and Willie Saenz: Participate in student data collection, integrate core instructional activities/materials/ instruction in tiered interventions; collaborate with general education teachers.
Amanda Black, Patricia Pike and Shelley Reinacher: Develop, lead, and evaluate school core content standards/programs; they identify and analyze existing literature on scientifically based curriculum/behavior assessment and intervention approaches. They identify systematic patterns of student needs while working with district personnel to identify appropriate, evidence-based intervention strategies; assisting with whole school screening programs that provide early intervening services for children to be considered “at risk,” assisting in the design and implementation for progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis, participate in the design and delivery of professional development; and provide support for assessment and implementation monitoring.
Gail Sedberry: Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; provides professional development and technical evaluation; assists in facilitation data-based decision making activities.
Antionette Kirby (PBS): Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; assists with professional development for behavior concerns; assists in facilitation data-based decision making activities.
Lesley Laing: Educates the team in the role language plays in curriculum assessment, and instruction, as a basis for appropriate program design; assists in the selection of screening measures; and helps identify systematic patterns of student need with respect to language skills.
Barbara Riley: Provides quality services and expertise on issues ranging from program design to assessment and intervention with individual students. Communicates with child-serving community agencies to support the students’ academic, emotional, behavioral, and social success.
Wayne Gourley: Develops or brokers technology necessary to manage and display data, provides professional development and technical support to teachers and staff regarding data management and graphic display.

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

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

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

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

RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

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

Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

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

School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data

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

Strengths: In reading, third and fourth grade students answered 55% and 71% of word/phrases questions correctly, respectively. In reading, fifth grade students answered 66% of reference/research questions correctly.
Weaknesses: Across all grade levels cluster/strand in reading was main idea/purpose. Across all grade levels, the lowest clusters/strands in math were number sense, measurement, and algebraic thinking. Across all grade levels, science overall is a weakness.

Instructional Calendar Development

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

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

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

Reading: Main Idea/Purpose was the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.
Writing: Organization was the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.
Mathematics: Number Sense, Measurement, Algebraic Thinking were the least proficient strands and will be given priority focus.
Science: Scientific Thinking was the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.

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

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

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

The school implements activating strategies at the beginning of each unit to emphasize the relevance of content. Writing across the curriculum will be utilized to help students to see the relationships between subjects. Connecting content with students’ prior knowledge and building background knowledge will help students see the connections between the content learned and how it applies to the real-world.

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

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, Fast Forward, Acaletics, Harcourt Trophies, Voyager, 100 Book Challenge, Compass Odyssey, Reading Assistant, AR 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 weekly 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.

Reading Core Instruction: 90 minute core instructin using Trophies/supplementing Fast Forward
Reading intensive instruction: 30 minute iii using K-1 SRA, 3-5 Voyager
Math Core Instruction: 60 minutes core instruction using Scott Foresman/supplementing math party
Math intensive: 30 minute iii using Acaletics
Writing: Write from the Beginning with summarization across the curriculum/point summarizing

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. Resources from the state adopted textbooks which are designed for intensive instruction will be utilized. Computerized programs or instructional software (e.g. Odyssey), in addition to Internet instructional Web sites such as FCAT Explorer will also be utilized. Teachers will utilize instructional strategies or best practices discussed in Professional Learning Communities to provide different methods of providing instruction to students in non-mastered areas. Resources and strategies provided at professional development workshops will also be utilized. Students consistently demonstrating non-mastery may be required to participate in tutorial sessions before, during, or after school. Students will receive 30 minutes of acceleration and/or enrichment in math and in reading daily.

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

Common areas of concern in the areas of instructional delivery, classroom management, etc., as evidenced by
administrators’ observations, teacher surveys, and student performance/data analysis, will determine the need
for professional development sessions. The Learning Focused Implementation Tool will be administered at the start of the 2009 – 2010 school year to help identify areas of need for professional development.

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

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

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

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

Enrichment

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

Students who typically exceed mastery levels participate in 30 minutes of enrichment in math and/or reading on a daily basis.

Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

Students will be identified based on FAIR results, FCAT scores, progress monitoring data, and teacher recommendations.

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)
Each grade level team	Mrs. Dardis, Principal and/or Mrs. Kirby, Assistant Principal, and/or Mrs. Telfer LFS Coach, and/or Amanda Black – Reading AIF, Patricia Pike – Math AIF and/or Shelley Reinacher – Science AIF	Twice a week	Tuesdays and Thursdays during common planning time	Analyze the effectiveness of the Reading, Math, Science, and Writing FCIM calendars, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, Learning Focused Strategies effectiveness and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.
Each vertical team	Mrs. Dardis, Principal	Monthly	Second Monday of each month.	Cross grade level articulation in the content areas

NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only

Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status
Show Attached Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 9:13:56 AM)
Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification
Show Attached Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 9:14:06 AM)
Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status
Show Attached Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 9:11:56 AM)

Pre-School Transition

• Parents of in-coming Kindergarten students are invited to participate in our annual Kindergarten round-up.
• Orientation is provided at round-up by a tour of the school and an opportunity for the child to participate in a Kindergarten classroom. We allocate funds each year in our operating budget and Title I to cover Auburndale Central Elementary 2009-2010 the expenses associated with Kindergarten Round-up.
• Literature and Scholastic books are given to the parents to promote the importance of reading and to share Kindergarten GLEs.
• Assessment portion of the Kindergarten round-up includes a Kindergarten readiness skill that’s administered to each student.
• A copy of the assessment is provided to the parent with specific instructions on activities to improve readiness skill.
• Auburndale Central has four Pre-Kindergarten Head Start classrooms housing 18 students each under the supervision of a CDAT and Paraeducator.
• Once the preschool student completes the transition to a Kindergarten student, the FKLRS and F.A.I.R are administered
• Data collected is used to differentiate instruction and design activities to fill gaps or provide enrichment in school readiness and socialization
• The Guidance Counselor dedicates time and materials to assist the Kindergarten students and parents to make a successful transition into Kindergarten
• Students from the on campus Head start program are given the opportunity to experience a day of kindergarten at Auburndale Central.
• All four Head start classrooms eat breakfast and lunch in our main cafeteria in order to prepare them for kindergarten at Auburndale Central.
• Parents of both preschool and school-aged children are identified and encouraged to make use of the materials in the Parent Resource Room.
• If the percentage of students who are ready to start school according to the FKLRS data continue to increase, then our preschool plan will be effective
• The personnel involved in this program include: Guidance Counselor, AIF Reading and Math coaches, LFS Coach, Title 1 Teacher Tutor, Para Educators, Principal, Assistant Principal, and Kindergarten teachers.
• Pre-kindergarten students and their parents participate in school wide programs that provide them with literature and information to make the transition into kindergarten a smooth process.
• Parent feedback is another tool used in evaluating the effectiveness of the Round Up and other parent activities.

Postsecondary Transition

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

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Reading Goal

Needs Assessment:

Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?

What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?

Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?

Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?

Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
In grades 3-5, 47% of students achieved a 3.0 and above on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.			By Spring of 2010, 72% of Total students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above 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 new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.	1. Principal, Assistant Principal and the Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator.	1. Review FAIR data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.	1. Printout of FAIR assessments.
2	2. Include and Focus on Learning Focused Strategies with the emphasis on higher order questions, graphic organizers, summarizing and cooperative learning groups in lesson plans.	2. Principal, Assistant Principal and the Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator, and Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator.	2. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walkthroughs and will be submitted weekly on the in-house intranet.	2. Classroom walkthrough log and focused walkthroughs to determine frequency Learning Focused Strategies with the emphasis on higher order questions, graphic organizers, summarizing and cooperative learning groups.
3	3. Follow the district wide instructional Focus Calendar and Curriculum Maps for Reading.	3. Principal, Assistant Principal and the Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator.	3. Administration will be aware of the IFC’s upcoming focus along with the current curriculum maps and monitor implementation of both through classroom walkthroughs.	3. Effectiveness will be determined through FAIR assessments. and administration observations.
4	4. Student Achievement Chats will be conducted with all students following FAIR assessments.	4. Principal, Assistant Principal and the Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator.	4. Administrators will review log for Student Achievement Chats during walkthroughs.	4. Administrators will randomly ask students how they performed on their most recent assessment to determine if data chats are successful

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 52% of white Students in grades 3-5, scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 58% of all white students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all white students. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block	Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator	Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	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	Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator	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 is calculated.	FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	Tier 3: Plan Targeted 30 minute intervention for students not responding to 90 minute 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.	RtI Team, Administration	Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or FCIM mini-asessments data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention. Adequate progress is determined by comparing student’s trendline to aimline.	FAIR OPM data 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 Reading data, 38% of Hispanic Students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 42% of all Hispanic students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all Hispanic students. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block	Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator	Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	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.	Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator	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 is calculated.	FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
3	Tier 3: Plan Targeted 30 minute intervention for students not responding to 90 minute 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.	RtI Team, Administration	Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days and/or FCIM mini-assessments data biweekly for all students receiving Tier 3 targeted intervention. Adequate progress is determined by comparing student’s trend line to aim line.	FAIR OPM data 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 Reading data, 44% of Economically Disadvantaged Students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 49% of all Economically Disadvantaged students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing FAIR (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading) assessment data for all Economically Disadvanataged students. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/ interventions within 90-minute reading block.	Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator	Student progress is assessed using FAIR Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) every 20 days. Percent of students making adequate progress toward benchmark is calculated.	FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.
2	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.	Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator	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 is calculated.	FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
By Spring of 2010, 72% of Total students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by the AYP Report.	Effective implementation of Learning Focused Strategies. Calendar for PD and Polk County Curriculum Maps.	Administration, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator, Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator	August - December	Lesson Plans Classroom Visits	Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator, Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator
By Spring of 2010, 58% of all white students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.	“Think –pair-Share” “Collaborative Pairs” and Distributed Summarization throughout lessons.	Administration, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator and Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator	August	Lesson Plans Classroom Visits	Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator, and Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator
By Spring of 2010, 42% of all Hispanic students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.	“Think –pair-Share” “Collaborative Pairs” and Distributed Summarization throughout lessons.	Administration, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator and Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator	August	Lesson Plans Classroom Visits	Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator, and Learning Focused Strategies Facilitator

For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Fast Forward	District Funds	$0.00
SRA	Title I	$2,000.00
Voyager	District Funds	$0.00
Thinking Maps – Teacher Trainer	Title I Professional Development	$1,889.00
Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	Title I	$1,140.00
Total: $5,029.00
Technology
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Book Sets on Tape	Title I-Supplies	$2,000.00
Listening Centers	Title I-Supplies	$800.00
Radius Digital Learning System (k-5)	Title I – Computer Hardware	$3,500.00
Total: $6,300.00
Professional Development
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Fast Forward	District Funds	$0.00
Voyager	District Funds	$0.00
SRA	District Funds	$0.00
Learning Focused Strategies	District Funds	$0.00
Thinking Maps	N/A	$0.00
Failure is Not an Option	Title 1 – Professional Development	$643.90
Total: $643.90
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Reading Centers	Operational Budget	$1,500.00
Make and Take activities for parent connections/ parent nights	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$500.00
Supplies for centers (ink, paper, folders, laminating film, etc.)	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$500.00
Total: $2,500.00
Final Total: $14,472.90

End of Reading Goal

Mathematics Goal

Needs Assessment:

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
In grades 3-5, 44% of students achieved a 3.0 and above on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.			By Spring of 2010, 74% of Total students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics 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	Utilize the FCIM to identify students in the core curriculum needing intervention and enrichment.	Principal, Assistant Principal Mathematics Academic Intervention Facilitator	Review student grouping charts frequently and ensure groups are redesigned to target the need of students based on assessment.	Progress of all students on assessments.
2	Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts.	Principal, Assistant Principal Mathematics Academic Intervention Facilitator	Math Coach will assist teachers in the creation of centers and stations, and administration will ensure activities are implemented.	Progress 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 Mathematics data, 49% of white Students in grades 3-5,scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 55% of all white students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing common assessment data for all white students. Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/interventi ons within the mathematics blocks.	Mathematics Academic Intervention Faciliator	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 6 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
2	Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of common assessment data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice. Supplemental instruction is provided in addition to core instruction.	Mathematics Academic Intervention Faciliator	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 4 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
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 instruction.	RtI Team Administration	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data bi-weekly to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Mathematics data,44% of Hispanic Students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 48% of all Hispanic students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing common assessment data for all Hispanic students.Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/interventi ons within the mathematics blocks.	Mathematics Academic Intervention Faciliator	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 6 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
2	Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of common assessment data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice. Supplemental instruction is provided in addition to core instruction.	Mathematics Academic Intervention Faciliator	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 4 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
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 instruction.	RtI Team Administration	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data bi-weekly to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Mathematics data,42% of Economically Disadvantaged Students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 47% of all Economically Disadvantaged students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Determine core instructional needs by reviewing common assessment data for all economically disadvantaged students.Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction/interventi ons within the mathematics blocks.	Mathematics Academic Intervention Faciliator	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 6 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
2	Tier 2: Plan supplemental instruction/ intervention for students not responding to core instruction. Focus of instruction is determined by review of common assessment data and will include explicit instruction, modeled instruction, guided practice and independent practice. Supplemental instruction is provided in addition to core instruction.	Mathematics Academic Intervention Faciliator	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data every 4 weeks to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.
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 instruction.	RtI Team Administration	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data bi-weekly to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Next Generation Math Standards administered weekly.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
By Spring of 2010, 74% of Total students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by the AYP Report.	Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar and curriculum maps	AIF Math	August 2009	Modeling of Lessons Classroom Visits	Principal, AIF Math
By Spring of 2010, 55% of all white students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.	Implementation of the Acaletics program by Differentiating Instruction.	Acaletics Consultant, Math AIF	September 2009	Lesson Plans Classroom Visits	Principal, Assistant Principal, Math AIF
By Spring of 2010, 48% of all Hispanic students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.	Implementation of the Acaletics program by Differentiating Instruction	Acaletics Consultant, Math AIF	September 2009	Lesson Plans Classroom Visits	Principal, Assistant Principal, Math AIF
By Spring of 2010, 47% of all Economically Disadvantaged students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Mathematics as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.	Effective Use of Manipulatives and Hands-On Activities	AIF Math	On-going	Observation of center use and documentation in lesson plans	Principal, AIF Math

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Acaletics/Professional Development included in cost of package	Title I – Classroom books/supplies	$23,000.00
Thinking Maps	N/A	$0.00
Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	N/A	$0.00
Total: $23,000.00
Technology
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Compass Learning	District Funds	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Professional Development
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Temporary Coverage for Professional Development – Math Thinking Maps Training	Title II	$4,000.00
Total: $4,000.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Final Total: $27,000.00

End of Mathematics Goal

Science Goal

Needs Assessment:

Based on School Grade Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?

What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on 2009, FCAT Science data, 36% of students achieved level three and above.			Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 45% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	K-5 teachers will incorporate the Scientific Method throughout the year by completing science fair projects (K-2nd class, 3rd group, 4th-5th individual), as well as embedding process skills throughout additional activities/experiments in the classroom.	Principal, AP and AIF Science	The Science AIF will assist teachers with implementation of science fair projects as well as provide scientific method lessons to be used in their classroom. The Science AIF will also provide scientific method and process skills instruction in the science lab.	Science Fair Project Completion. Improvement on the science mini –assessments and lab experiences.
2	Emphasize the FCAT vocabulary words in Science. Use strategies such as Thinking Maps and science word walls with these terms.	Principal, AP and AIF Science	Teachers will implement daily science vocabulary lessons focused on the sequence of instruction from Polk County Science Curriculum Maps. The Science AIF will provide teachers with science word wall lessons and vocabulary lessons as well as provide model lessons.	Improvement on the science mini - assessments.
3	Throughout the year, the Science AIF will use the science lab to extend classroom instruction through hands-on inquiry investigations. These investigations will focus on annually assessed FCAT Science benchmarks.	Principal and Assistant Principal	The Science AIF will schedule science lab activities with each grade level throughout the year.	Improvement on science lab experiences for all grade levels.
4	All students will complete hands-on activities weekly and science lessons daily tied to Polk County Curriculum Maps and Florida Science Standards.	Teachers and Science AIF	Grade-level teams will review results of common assessment data 3 times a year to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).	Common assessments tied to Polk County Curriculum Maps and Florida Science Standards administered weekly.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 45% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.	LFS(Learning Focused Strategies) Training/Activities	District Specialist	October 2009	Planning and Classroom Instruction will be reviewed to ensure LFS Strategies are being implemented.	Principal LFS Coach Science AIF

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Hands-On Materials for Science Lab Experiments at all grade levels: Life Science Earth Science Physical Science Lab Supplies(not consumable)	Title 1 – Classroom Supplies	$2,100.00
Consumables for Science Lab Experiments at all grade levels: Consumables	Title 1 – Classroom Supplies	$500.00
Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	N/A	$0.00
Total: $2,600.00
Technology
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
2 - Smart Technologies Senteo Classroom Set	Title 1 – Computer Hardware	$2,698.00
Total: $2,698.00
Professional Development
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
LFS Training/Activities and Flipcharts	Title 1 - Supplies	$300.00
Total: $300.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Final Total: $5,598.00

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
On the 2009 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 68% of the students in 4th grade scored level 3.5 or above in writing.			On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 90% of 4th Grade students will be at an Essay score of 4.0 or above in Writing as evidenced by the School Grade report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Provide ongoing professional development and follow-up in how to teach writing and integrating writing in the content areas. Teachers will implement the Florida Scoring Rubric and the Write from the Beginning writing curriculum.	Principal, Assistant Principal, and Classroom Teachers	Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once every 9 weeks by comparing writing trend data to expected rate of growth (aimline).	Florida Write and progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.
2	Teachers will follow Writing Curriculum Maps developed by the Polk County School District and implement Learning Focused Strategies.	Principal, Assistant Principal, and Classroom Teachers	Administration will monitor lesson plans and student learning maps to ensure that teachers are utilizing curriculum maps and Learning Focused Strategies.	Florida Write and progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.
3	Students will use the writing process daily; all writing will be dated, and recorded in a journal, notebook, or work folder for monitoring of growth across time.	Principal, Assistant Principal, and Classroom Teachers	Florida Writes, on-going assessments, and journals will be used to determine the effectiveness of the Write from the Beginning writing curriculum.	Florida Write and progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
On the 2009 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 68% of the students in 4th grade scored level 3.5 or above in writing.			On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 90% of 4th Grade students will be at an Essay score of 4.0 or above in Writing as evidenced by the School Grade report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Tier 1: Provide ongoing professional development and follow-up in how to teach writing and integrating writing in the content areas. Teachers will implement the Florida Scoring Rubric and the Write from the Beginning writing curriculum.	Principal, Assistant Principal, and Classroom Teachers	Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once every 9 weeks by comparing writing trend data to expected rate of growth (aimline).	Florida Write and progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.
2	Tier 1: Teachers will follow Writing Curriculum Maps developed by the Polk County School District and implement Learning Focused Strategies.	Principal, Assistant Principal, and Classroom Teachers	Administration will monitor lesson plans and student learning maps to ensure that teachers are utilizing curriculum maps and Learning Focused Strategies.	Florida Write and progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.
3	Tier 1: Students will use the writing process daily; all writing will be dated, and recorded in a journal, notebook, or work folder for monitoring of growth across time.	Principal, Assistant Principal, and Classroom Teachers	Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined once every 9 weeks by comparing writing trend data to expected rate of growth (aimline).	Florida Write and progress between the pretest prompt and mid-year prompt.

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, 90% of 4th Grade students will be at an Essay score of 4.0 or above in Writing as evidenced by the School Grade report.	Using Thinking Maps to implement “Write From the Beginning”	Write From the Beginning Trainer – initial Catherine Ellis – three workshops following initial	August 2009	Writing samples scored by writing rubrics. Lesson Plans	Principal, Assistant Principal

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Write from the Beginning Teacher training manuals/program	Title 1 Staff Development	$4,257.00
Summarization in Any Subject	Title I Professional development	$0.00
Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	N/A	$0.00
Total: $4,257.00
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
Write from the Beginning Consultant	Title 1 – Professional Development	$1,500.00
Summarization in Any Subject	Title 1 – Professional Development	$600.00
Total: $2,100.00
Other
Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
No Data	No Data	$0.00
Total: $0.00
Final Total: $6,357.00

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
As indicated by the Title I Parent Survey, 79 % of parents indicated that teachers communication with them on a regular basis.			By the Spring of 2010, 85% of Auburndale Central Elementary parents in grades K-5 will receive timely and useful communication as evidence by the Title I Parent Survey.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	We will send home our monthly newsletters as well as make them available on the school website.	Assistant Principal	The Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.	Title I Parent Survey
2	We will send home a weekly communication folder on Fridays and teachers will send home daily notes in students’ agendas.	Principal, Assistant Principal, Classroom Teachers	The Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.	Title I Parent Survey
3	Teachers will be conducting 3 data chats with parents and students during report card pick up and ASPs will be signed if it pertains to that child’s need.	Principal, Assistant Principal, Classroom Teachers	The Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.	Title I Parent Survey

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
As indicated by parent involvement event sign-in sheets, 30% of parents attended parental involvement events.			By the Spring of 2010, 60 % of Auburndale Central Elementary students in grades K-5 will be represented by one or more parents at a school conference and/or program as evidence by the Title I Parent Survey.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

1	Orientation and Open House will be held to inform parents of the various ways that they can become involved at the school as well as the opportunity to visit their child’s classroom.	Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, and Grade Level Teachers	Sign in sheets, evaluation forms, and the Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.	Sign in sheets, evaluation forms, and Title I Parent Survey.
2	We will provide monthly Tuesday Night Live interactive parental sessions to be organized by various Professional Learning Communities and child care will be provided from October to May in order to train parents on how to work with their children in the content areas.	Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, and Grade Level Teachers	Sign in sheets, evaluation forms, and the Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.	Sign in sheets, evaluation forms, and Title I Parent Survey.
3	At the beginning of each semester we will have parental involvement activities Resources for Parents for primary students before school.	Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, and Grade Level Teachers	Sign in sheets, evaluation forms, and the Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.	Sign in sheets, evaluation forms, and Title I Parent Survey.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
As indicated by the Title I Parent Survey, 65 % of parents indicated that they received materials to help them work with their child at home.			By the Spring of 2010, 85% of Auburndale Central Elementary parents in grades K-5 will have access to resources and materials that they can utilize at home with their child as evidence by the Title I Parent Survey.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

A Parent Resource Room is a service available for parents to come to the school and receive information and materials on how to help their child be successful at school.

Title I Facilitator

Check out sheets, evaluation forms, and the Title I Parent Survey will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the event.

Check out sheets, evaluation forms, and Title I Parent Survey.

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement			Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 38% of Hispanic Students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 42% of all Hispanic students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

We will provide monthly Tuesday Night Live interactive parental sessions to be organized by various Professional Learning Communities and child care will be provided from October to May in order to train parents on how to work with their children in the content areas.

Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, and Grade Level Teachers

Student progress is
assessed using FAIR
Ongoing Progress
Monitoring (OPM)
every 20 days.
Percent of students
making adequate
progress toward
benchmark is
calculated.

FAIR OPM data
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 Reading data, 44% of Economically Disadvantaged Students in grades 3-5 scored at or above Level 3.			By Spring of 2010, 49% of all Economically Disadvantaged students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
	Action Step	Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step	Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step	Evaluation Tool

Principal, Assistant Principal, Title I Facilitator, and Grade Level Teachers

Student progress is
assessed using FAIR
Ongoing Progress
Monitoring (OPM)
every 20 days.
Percent of students
making adequate
progress toward
benchmark is
calculated.

FAIR OPM data
will be used to
determine progress
from Benchmark 1
towards Benchmark 2
and from Benchmark
2 towards Benchmark
3.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

Objective Addressed	Content/Topic	Facilitator	Target Date	Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring	Person Responsible for Monitoring
By the Spring of 2010, 60 % of Auburndale Central Elementary students in grades K-5 will be represented by one or more parents at a school conference and/or program as evidence by the Title I Parent Survey.	Effective two-way communication	Title I facilitator, Principal, Assistant Principal, Grade Level Teams	Second Tuesday of each month	Title one end of year survey	Title 1 Liason
By the Spring of 2010, 85% of Auburndale Central Elementary parents in grades K-5 will have access to resources and materials that they can utilize at home with their child as evidence by the Title I Parent Survey.	Make academic resources and materials available for parent check-out.	Title 1 facilitator, Assistant Principal	October 2009	Monitor through check-out logs	Title 1 Facilitator

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
Tuesday Night Lives every second Tuesday of each month that include Hispanic Heritage month, African American History month, FCAT month	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$1,500.00
Agendas	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$2,159.85
Total: $3,659.85
Final Total: $3,659.85

End of Parent Involvement Goal

Other Goals

No Other Goals were submitted for this school

FINAL BUDGET

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)
Goal	Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Reading	Fast Forward	District Funds	$0.00
Reading	SRA	Title I	$2,000.00
Reading	Voyager	District Funds	$0.00
Reading	Thinking Maps – Teacher Trainer	Title I Professional Development	$1,889.00
Reading	Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	Title I	$1,140.00
Mathematics	Acaletics/Professional Development included in cost of package	Title I – Classroom books/supplies	$23,000.00
Mathematics	Thinking Maps	N/A	$0.00
Mathematics	Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	N/A	$0.00
Writing	Write from the Beginning Teacher training manuals/program	Title 1 Staff Development	$4,257.00
Writing	Summarization in Any Subject	Title I Professional development	$0.00
Writing	Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	N/A	$0.00
Science	Hands-On Materials for Science Lab Experiments at all grade levels: Life Science Earth Science Physical Science Lab Supplies(not consumable)	Title 1 – Classroom Supplies	$2,100.00
Science	Consumables for Science Lab Experiments at all grade levels: Consumables	Title 1 – Classroom Supplies	$500.00
Science	Learning Focused Strategies, What Moves You, Professional Development Series	N/A	$0.00
Total: $34,886.00
Technology
Goal	Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Reading	Book Sets on Tape	Title I-Supplies	$2,000.00
Reading	Listening Centers	Title I-Supplies	$800.00
Reading	Radius Digital Learning System (k-5)	Title I – Computer Hardware	$3,500.00
Mathematics	Compass Learning	District Funds	$0.00
Science	2 - Smart Technologies Senteo Classroom Set	Title 1 – Computer Hardware	$2,698.00
Total: $8,998.00
Professional Development
Goal	Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Reading	Fast Forward	District Funds	$0.00
Reading	Voyager	District Funds	$0.00
Reading	SRA	District Funds	$0.00
Reading	Learning Focused Strategies	District Funds	$0.00
Reading	Thinking Maps	N/A	$0.00
Reading	Failure is Not an Option	Title 1 – Professional Development	$643.90
Mathematics	Temporary Coverage for Professional Development – Math Thinking Maps Training	Title II	$4,000.00
Writing	Write from the Beginning Consultant	Title 1 – Professional Development	$1,500.00
Writing	Summarization in Any Subject	Title 1 – Professional Development	$600.00
Science	LFS Training/Activities and Flipcharts	Title 1 - Supplies	$300.00
Total: $7,043.90
Other
Goal	Description of Resources	Funding Source	Available Amount
Reading	Reading Centers	Operational Budget	$1,500.00
Reading	Make and Take activities for parent connections/ parent nights	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$500.00
Reading	Supplies for centers (ink, paper, folders, laminating film, etc.)	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$500.00
Parental Involvement	Tuesday Night Lives every second Tuesday of each month that include Hispanic Heritage month, African American History month, FCAT month	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$1,500.00
Parental Involvement	Agendas	Title 1 – Parent Involvement	$2,159.85
Total: $6,159.85
Final Total: $57,087.75

Differentiated Accountability

School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance

Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 9:08:27 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 Funds	Amount
No data submitted

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

The School Advisory Council (SAC) has an important function for the success of Auburndale Central Elementary. Listed below are some of the functions of the SAC.
• Reach out to community to obtain more partners
• Sponsor drives to increase parent involvement
• Assist the school to create and analyze school climate surveys for parents and students

SAC Members

Members
1) Badonna M. Dardis, Principal
2) David Bessinger, SAC Chair
3) Patricia Pike, Teacher
4) Lynne Herzog, Teacher
5) Oscar Loya, Teacher
6) Elizabeth Kersey, Parent
7) Angela Algarin, Parent
8) Shayla Deloach, Parent
9) Katrina Eggleton, Parent
10) Ruby Olvera, Parent
11) Kenneth Rowland, Parent
12) Debbie Rannow, Parent
13) LaDonna Gleason, Parent
14) Isabel Escobedo, Parent
15) June Martin, Parent
16) Robin Smith, Parent
17) Chris Thompson, Community Member
18) Gary Henson, Community Member
19) Willie Saenz, School Support Personnel
20) Christen Browning, School Support Personnel
21) Rosemary Martinez, School Support Personnel
22) Antionette Kirby, Assistant Principal

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2

Polk AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0851

Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:

Read: 175
Math: 175

2008-2009
School Grade¹:

Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c²).

This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b²).

This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.

Group

Reading
Tested 95% of the students?

Math
Tested 95% of the students?

65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading?

68% scoring at or above grade level in Math?

Improved performance in Writing by 1%?

Increased Graduation Rate³by 1%?

Percent of Students below grade level in Reading

Safe
Harbor
Reading

Percent of Students below grade level in Math

Safe
Harbor
Math

% of students on track to be proficient in reading

Growth model reading

% of students on track to be proficient in math

Growth model math

2009

Y/N

2009

Y/N

2009

Y/N

2009

Y/N

2008

2009

Y/N

2007

2008

Y/N

2008

2009

Y/N

2008

2009

Y/N

2009

Y/N

2009

Y/N

TOTAL⁴

100

WHITE

100

BLACK

100

HISPANIC

100

ASIAN

AMERICAN INDIAN

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

100

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2

Polk AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0851

Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:

Read: 157
Math: 157

2007-2008
School Grade¹:

Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

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

WHITE

100

BLACK

100

HISPANIC

100

ASIAN

AMERICAN INDIAN

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

100

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2

Polk AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0851

Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:

Read: 147
Math: 147

2006-2007
School Grade¹:

Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c²).

This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b²).

This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.

Group

Reading
Tested 95% of the students?

Math
Tested 95% of the students?

51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading?

56% scoring at or above grade level in Math?

Improved performance in Writing by 1%?

Increased Graduation Rate³by 1%?

Percent of Students below grade level in Reading

Safe
Harbor
Reading

Percent of Students below grade level in Math

Safe
Harbor
Math

% of students on track to be proficient in reading

Growth model reading

% of students on track to be proficient in math

Growth model math

2007

Y/N

2007

Y/N

2007

Y/N

2007

Y/N

2006

2007

Y/N

2005

2006

Y/N

2006

2007

Y/N

2006

2007

Y/N

2007

Y/N

2007

Y/N

TOTAL⁴

100

WHITE

100

BLACK

100

HISPANIC

100

ASIAN

AMERICAN INDIAN

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

100

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
	Reading	Math	Writing	Science	Grade Points Earned
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)	50%	46%	68%	35%	199	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	47%	54%			101	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?	57% (YES)	73% (YES)			130	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					430
Percent Tested = 100%						Percent of eligible students tested
School Grade					D	Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

Polk School District AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
	Reading	Math	Writing	Science	Grade Points Earned
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)	56%	54%	81%	24%	215	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	56%	65%			121	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?	43% (NO)	70% (YES)			113	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					449
Percent Tested = 100%						Percent of eligible students tested
School Grade					C	Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

Polk School District AUBURNDALE CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
	Reading	Math	Writing	Science	Grade Points Earned
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)	53%	52%	92%	18%	215	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	66%	71%			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?	73% (YES)	80% (YES)			153	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					505
Percent Tested = 100%						Percent of eligible students tested
School Grade					B	Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS

Brief History and Background of the School

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Student Demographics

Student Attendance Rates

Student Mobility

Student Suspension Rates

Student Retention Rates

Class Size

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Partnerships and Grants

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

Staff Demographics

Teacher Mentoring Program

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

Title I, Part A

Title I, Part C- Migrant

Title I, Part D

Title II

Title III

Title X- Homeless

Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

Violence Prevention Programs

Nutrition Programs

Housing Programs

Head Start

Adult Education

Career and Technical Education

Job Training

Other

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Professional Learning Communities

NCLB Public School Choice

Pre-School Transition

Postsecondary Transition

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Reading Goal

Mathematics Goal

Science Goal

Writing Goal

Parent Involvement Goal

Other Goals

FINAL BUDGET

Differentiated Accountability

School Advisory Council

School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance

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

SAC Members

AYP DATA

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM
2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN