VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

Vision:

In accomplishing our mission, students at Floral Avenue Elementary will:
• Be punctual, attend school regularly, and come prepared
homework and supplies.
• Follow school rules.
• Work cooperatively with other students.

The curriculum and instruction of the school will:
• Provide rigorous, relevant learning activities based on the
Sunshine State Standards.
• Challenge students and nurture creative thinking.
• Provide academic continuity across the grade levels.
• Provide extra assistance for students in need of additional
academic support.

Student success will be fostered in a climate in which:
• All adults promote an enriching, comfortable, challenging
learning environment.
• Staff members work as a team to continually improve
instruction.
• Business partners, volunteers and families work cooperatively
for the benefit of all students.

Mission:

The Mission Statement of Floral Avenue Elementary is to provide a supportive learning environment for all children to ensure that they become productive, responsible citizens in an ever-changing world.

Belief Statements:

Stakeholders of Floral Avenue Elementary believe:
• All children can achieve their academic potential through a
balanced curriculum.
• Professional development will provide teachers with
opportunities to constantly improve their teaching abilities,
resulting in high achievement for all students.
• A safe and secure environment is essential for effective
teaching and learning.
• Family and community involvement enhances student achievement.


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

Floral Avenue Elementary School is situated in Bartow, which is the county seat. The school was first established in 1955. The campus has a unique style, with a butterfly garden surrounded by six free-standing buildings. Eleven portable classrooms add additional instructional space to the school. This year due to rezoning for a new elementary school in our area, our projected enrollment will decrease by approximately 100 students.


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

After earning 530 accountability points on the 2009 FCAT and demonstrating increases in five of the eight accountability areas, which raised the school grade from a “B” to an “A,” Floral Avenue Elementary School enters the next school year with renewed confidence to meet 100% of the AYP targets. One of Floral Avenue’s strengths has been in writing. Students have consistently scored higher than the district and state averages on the FCAT Writes for the past six years. In addition to its improved FCAT scores, Floral Avenue Elementary School has increased the attendance rate from 94.15% in 2007-2008 to 94.49% in 2008-2009. The school also reduced its out of school suspension rate from 52 incidents to 35 incidents and decreased bus referrals from 57 to 15. This accomplishment led the school to be named a model school for “Positive Behavior Support” for its progressive approach to student discipline.


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Due to changes in projected membership caused by rezoning for a new school opening in our area, our school had to displace 4 highly qualified teachers and two highly qualified paraprofessionals. It is also likely that we will lose an ESOL paraprofessional due to a decreasing Hispanic population caused by rezoning. Our Title I budget, due to decreases in projected membership, has decreased by $48,000 which will have a negative impact on our ability to provide extra funding for intervention materials and tutoring funds.


Student Demographics

Floral Avenue Elementary School serves a diverse school population that consisted of 614 students from a predominantly economically disadvantaged community. 50% of students are White, 19% are Black, 26% are Hispanic, 4% are Asian, and 4% are multi-racial. Economically disadvantaged students account for 76% of the population. Additionally, 19% of students are Students with Disabilities (SWD), 13% are classified as English Language Learners
(ELL).


Student Attendance Rates

The attendance rates for Floral Avenue Elementary as compared to the district are as follows:
Floral Avenue Elementary Polk County
2006-2007 94.33% 94.10%
2007-2008 94.15% 94.32%
2008-2009 94.49% 94.56%


Student Mobility

The mobility rate of the school is 24.87% for 2008-2009 which is a decrease from 2007-2008 when it was 27.07%. This mobility comes predominantly from our economically disadvantaged population.


Student Suspension Rates

2005-2006: In-school 73, Out-of-school 66
2006-2007: In-school 38, Out-of-school 33
2007-2008: In-school 40, Out-of-school 52
2008-2009: In-school 50, Out-of-school 35
The suspension rates have decreased over the past four years.


Student Retention Rates

The retention rate for 2008-2009 was 4%. Four kindergarten students were retained (4%). Three first grade students were retained (2.65%). One second grade student was retained (1%). Thirteen students were retained in third grade (15%). No students in fourth or fifth grade were retained.


Class Size

A point has been made to reduce class sizes in all subject areas and across grade levels to reduce discipline problems and strengthen the one-on-one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size in general education classrooms is: PK – 3rd grade 16.62 students and 4th -5th grade 17.48 students.


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

The middle school in Floral Avenue Elementary’s feeder pattern, Bartow Middle School, has remained a C school for the past two years, met 72% of the AYP targets and is a Correct II school. The high school, Bartow Senior High, in Floral Avenue Elementary’s feeder pattern increased from a C grade to a B and increased percentage of AYP from 74% to 82%. The high school is a Correct I school.


Partnerships and Grants

The school will continue its strong partnership with NorthernStar Generation Services, which provides a number of additional resources, including mentors, supplies, and academic materials to enhance the curriculum. The school will also continue its partnership with Bartow Senior High, which provides students to tutor the elementary students.

The school will also continue to receive funds from the Title I grant which provides additional personnel, professional development, and curriculum materials.


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 Sheila Dyer
BA in Education
MA in Educational Leadership

Certification in: Elementary, Early Childhood, Specific Learning Disabilities, Emotionally Handicapped, Educational Leadership, ESOL endorsed
 		3.5 8 As an administrator, she worked with school improvement teams to bring about improved scores for students. School Grades for the 3 years at Floral Avenue Elementary are:
• 2006 - 2007 was an A
• 2007 - 2008 was a B
• 2008 - 2009 was an A.
AYP for the 3 years at Floral is:
• 2006-2007 met 100%
• 2007 – 2008 met 95%
• 2008 – 2009 met 90%.
FCAT Score highlights:
• From 2005 to 2009 the percentage of students meeting high expectations in reading increased from
59 % to 69%.
• From 2005 to 2009 the percentage of students meeting high expectations in math increased from 65% to 78%.
• FCAT Writing scores have been above district and state averages for the last 3 years.
Assis Principal Tammy Ruhl • BS in Elementary Education
• MA in Educational Leadership -
Certification in: Elementary, Early Childhood, English Speakers of Other Languages, Reading Endorsed, Highly Qualified, Educational Leadership
 		1 Mrs. Ruhl joined the Floral Avenue Elementary staff in July of 2009.
• Reading First Professional Development Coordinator serving Polk County Schools, 2006 - 2009
• Assisted school administrators and reading coaches in conducting continuous improvement in the area of reading
• Served as a coordinator for Floral Avenue Elementary 2007-2008, 2008-2009
• Bartow Elementary Reading Coach, 2005 – 2006 – School Grade: A
AYP: Met target
• Highland City Reading Resource Teacher, 2003 – 2005
School Grade both years: A

* 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 Sandra Raulerson Elementary,
Early Childhood,
Varying Exceptionalities
 		2 5 School Grades for the 2 years she has been at Floral Avenue Elementary:
• 2007 - 2008 was a B
• 2008 - 2009 was an A.
AYP for the 2 years she has been at Floral Avenue Elementary:
• 2007 – 2008 met 95%
• 2008 – 2009 met 90%.

* 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.School Website Della Walke, Teacher Revision by 9/1/09
2.Teachers assist with interviews for new staff Sheila Dyer, Principal On going
3.New teacher mentoring program Sheila Dyer, Principal On going
4.New teacher support group Sheila Dyer, Principal Weekly meetings in August & September. Monthly meetings the rest of the school year.
5.Professional Development Support Academic Intervention Facilitator & Title I Program Facilitator On going


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
Brandy Ammermann HQ, but out of field ESOL 3rd Taking ESOL professional development offered by the district and is current with her plan of study.
Cathy Atkins HQ, but out of field ESOL 1st Taking ESOL professional development offered by the district and is current with her plan of study.
Vicki Bent HQ, but out of field ESOL 2nd Taking ESOL professional development offered by the district and is current with her plan of study.
Lori Connolly HQ, but out of field ESOL 2nd Taking ESOL professional development offered by the district and is current with her plan of study.
Andrea Scroggin HQ, but out of field ESOL 2nd Taking ESOL professional development offered by the district and is current with her plan of study.
Brooksie Smith HQ, but out of field ESOL 4th Taking ESOL professional development offered by the district and is current with her plan of study.
Patricia Browning high school diploma ESE Pre-K paraprofessional Planning to take the Para-Pro Assessment in the fall of 2009
Jean McDonald LPN LPN Planning to take the Para-Pro Assessment in the fall of 2009


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
460261757201000087


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
Sandra Raulerson Struggling Teachers Academic Intervention Facilitator Modeling, Co-teaching, Professional Development, Weekly Collaboration
Tracey Coffey A teacher new to the grade level Uses the same intervention reading program Modeling, Observations, Weekly Collaboration
Kelly Roberts A teacher new to the grade level Teaches the same courses Modeling, Observations, Collaboration weekly
Sandra Raulerson New Teachers Academic Intervention Facilitator Modeling, Co-teaching, Professional Development, Weekly Collaboration



ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration


Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A

Floral Avenue integrates all federal, state and local services and programs into the individual school model. Federal mandates for meeting AYP targets and Title I requirements are a focus of the daily instructional program. Title I grant funds provide personnel, classroom materials, and professional learning.


Title I, Part C- Migrant

N/A


Title I, Part D

N/A


Title II

District managed Title II funds provide district wide professional learning on a variety of topics which is available to Floral Avenue Elementary teachers.


Title III

N/A


Title X- Homeless

District managed Title X funds provide uniforms, school supplies, and transportation for homeless students to remain in the same school no matter where they are living.


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

Low achieving students and retained students in 3rd grade receive an additional hour of reading instruction using the Kaplan Spell Read program in small groups for the entire school year.


Violence Prevention Programs

The guidance counselor provides classroom guidance lessons on violence prevention and makes arrangements for special assemblies.


Nutrition Programs

Classroom teachers provide instruction in nutrition programs with their health curriculum standards.


Housing Programs

N/A


Head Start

Head Start pre-kindergarten programs are available in our district. The local school gives parents information about where to access those services.


Adult Education

GED programs are available in locations throughout the district. Contact information for these programs are available at our school.


Career and Technical Education

N/A


Job Training

N/A


Other


Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)


School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

The Floral Avenue Elementary RtI team is composed of the following members:

Sheila Dyer, Principal
Tammy Ruhl, Assistant Principal
Kim Auclair, Primary Teacher
Brooksie Smith, Intermediate Teacher
Daria Wineland, Speech Pathologist
Sandra Raulerson, Academic Intervention Facilitator
Victoria Hunt, Guidance Counselor
Various ESE Teachers – Cathy Bickel, Jennifer Town, Dale MacArthur


The team is comprised of these members to ensure that all areas of our school community are represented: administration, primary classroom teachers, intermediate classroom teachers, exceptional student education teachers and experts in interventions (speech pathologist, guidance counselor, and academic intervention facilitator.


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 learning 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.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

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



School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data


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


Strengths
• 1st grade SAT/10 score in reading is 56%tile as compared to the district 52%tile and 61%tile in math as compared to the district 51%tile
• 78% met high standards in math
• 98% met high standards in writing
• All subgroups except students with disabilities met AYP targets in math
• All strands in reading across 3rd-5th grade either maintained or improved with the exception of 5th grade words and phrases as well as main idea and author’s purpose
• All strands in math across 3rd – 5th grade either maintained or improved with the exception of 3rd grade number sense and 5th grade data analysis
• Third grade students scoring level 3 or above in reading increased from 58% in 2007-2008 to 64% in 2008-2009
• Fourth grade students scoring level 3 or above in reading increased from 55% in 2007-2008 to 64% in 2008-2009
• Third grade students scoring level 3 or above in math increased from 80% in 2007-2008 to 81% in 2008-2009
• Fourth grade students scoring level 3 or above in math increased from 77% in 2007-2008 to 81% in 2008-2009
• Fifth grade students scoring level 3 or above in math increased 5% from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009
• Fifth grade students scoring level 3 or above in science increased 17% from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009




Weaknesses
• 2nd grade SAT/10 scores are 43%tile in reading as compared to the district 54%tile and 38%tile in math as compared to the district 54%tile
• 31% did not meet high standards in reading
• 67% did not meet high standards in science
• Only 62% made learning gains in reading
• Only 66% made learning gains in math
• Only 56% of the lowest 25% made learning gains in reading
• Only 68% of the lowest 25% made learning gains in math
• African American, ESOL, and students with disabilities did not meet AYP targets in reading
• Students with disabilities did not meet AYP targets in math
• 5th grade words and phrases as well as main idea and author’s purpose did not increase
• 3rd grade number sense and 5th grade data analysis did not increase
• Only 52% of fifth grade students scored level 3 or higher in math
• Only 54% of fifth grade students scored level 3 or higher in reading


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 in 3rd grade and will be given priority focus.
Comparisons was the least proficient strand in 4th grade and will be given priority focus
Words and Phrases was the least proficient strand in 5th grade and will be given priority focus
Writing: Narrative was the least proficient type of essay and will be given priority focus.
Mathematics: Number Sense was the least proficient strand and will be given priority focus.
Science: Earth Space Sciences and Scientific Thinking were the least proficient strands 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 appropriate interventions.


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

An underlying focus of the school is for teachers and students to determine, “Why are we learning this?” to ensure instruction is relevant to their future.


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?

Career study is integrated into the social studies curriculum




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, Fast Forward, AR, math assessment provided by the FLDOE and science assessment provided by the FLDOE 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.

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.


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.


Core: Harcourt Reading, Scott Foresman Math, Kathy Robinson Writing, Harcourt Social Studies and Science
Supplemental: Odyssey, Sing Spell, Read and Write
Intensive Instruction & Interventions: SRA Reading Mastery, Kaplan Spell Read, Six Minute Solutions, Voyager


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

Multiple opportunities for research 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 learning.


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, and FAIR.


Enrichment


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

Students who typically exceed mastery levels participate in the school’s gifted program or are provided enrichment classroom and/or computer activities. Other enrichment activities such as chess club and technology club are offered after school with these students given priority


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

FCAT results, in addition to student progress in a specific course, as well as assessment results that
demonstrate consistent proficiency/mastery are used to determine placement in higher level courses and
academic programs. Teacher recommendation is also taken into consideration.

Parent conferences are held with the recommending teacher, instructional coach, guidance counselor, and a
member of the leadership or administrative team. Parents are advised regarding expectations for students in higher level courses, as well as, expectations for continued parent involvement.




Professional Learning Communities

PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.)PLC LeaderFrequency of PLC MeetingsSchedule (when)Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis)
Grade Level Teams Grade Chairpersons Weekly Tuesdays after school or during collaborative planning Data Analysis, Acquisition Lesson Planning, Working on the Work
Vertical Teams Administrators Each semester After school Data analysis and Working on the Work
PS/RtI Administrators Quarterly After school Process of PS/RtI


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition

Floral Avenue partners with area preschools to ensure a smooth pre-kindergarten to kindergarten transition. A teacher liaison shares information with preschool representatives for curriculum alignment. Pamphlets are sent home with all students at the preschools, as well as with all Floral Avenue students. In addition, Floral Avenue hosts visits from area preschools and holds a spring kindergarten pre-registration/roundup. Title I funds are used to provide materials for kindergarten transition activities.
During the first few days of school, new kindergarten students take walking field trips to learn about the school and the school rules. During kindergarten family night, families are invited to visit their child's classroom and learn about classroom expectations and instructional curriculum. Classroom teachers administer state readiness test (FLKRS) within the first thirty days of school. In addition, students are given a teacher-created ongoing assessment three times per year, which evaluates their knowledge base and allows the teacher to plan instruction according to students’ needs.
The effectiveness of the transition plan will be evaluated by an increase in the number of kindergarten students who enter school at the readiness level as measured by the FLKRS.


Postsecondary Transition

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

N/A



 

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 8/31/2009 7:25:59 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


• Analyze School Grade and AYP reports
• Solicit input from peer groups regarding school improvement
• Vote on the expenditure of School Recognition Funds
• Review all funds reported in the School Improvement Plan
• Support school improvement implementation
• Publicize the School Improvement Plan effectively
• Provide ongoing evaluations of school improvement progress
• Review the impact of zoning changes as needed


SAC Members

Members
1)  Sheila Dyer,   Principal
2)  Victoria Hunt,   Teacher
3)  Linda Broome,   Teacher
4)  Vicki Bent,   Teacher
5)  Brooksie Smith,   Teacher
6)  Shemmar Thomas,   Parent
7)  Reyna Alcazar,   Parent
8)  Joeann Krawiec,   Parent
9)  Stacy Covington,   Parent
10)  Stacey Taylor,   Parent
11)  Jaime Meeks,   Parent
12)  Patty Zimmerman,   Parent
13)  Margaret Thompson,   Community Member
14)  Angela Foley,   School Support Personnel
15)  Tammy Ruhl,   Assistant Principal
 

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk FLORAL AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0961
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 283
Math: 283   		2008-2009
School Grade1:		 A   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  62  N  70  Y      Y      NA  42  38  N 27  30  NA 67  Y  73  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  68  Y  72  Y      Y      NA  37  32  NA 22  28  NA 70  NA  74  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  46  N  65  N      NA      NA  54  54  N 33  35  N 60  N  68  Y 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y  57  N  69  Y      NA      NA  44  43  N 31  31  NA 65  Y  73  NA 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  100  Y  100  Y  57  N  68  Y  94     Y      NA  45  43  N 30  32  NA 66  Y  73  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  100  Y  100  Y  47  N  64  N      NA      NA    53  NA   36  NA 53  N  69  Y 
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y  33  N  38  N      NA      NA  70  67  N 49  62  N 55  N  51  N 

2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk FLORAL AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0961
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 289
Math: 289   		2007-2008
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  58  Y  73  Y      Y      NA  38  42  NA 36  27  NA 60  NA  75  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  63  Y  78  Y      Y      NA  36  37  NA 31  22  NA 64  NA  77  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  46  N  67  Y      NA      NA  44  54  N 34  33  NA 43  N  72  NA 
HISPANIC  98  Y  98  Y  56  N  69  Y      NA      NA  44  44  N 54  31  NA 69  Y  76  NA 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  100  Y  100  Y  55  N  70  Y    94  Y      NA  42  45  N 40  30  NA 59  Y  75  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y  30  N  51  N      NA      NA  63  70  N 68  49  Y 44  N  60  NA 

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk FLORAL AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0961
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 271
Math: 271   		2006-2007
School Grade1:		 A   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? YES   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2005 2006 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N
TOTAL4  99  Y  99  Y  62  Y  64  Y      Y      NA  47  38  NA 42  36  NA 66  NA  74  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  64  Y  69  Y      Y      NA  45  36  NA 34  31  NA 69  NA  79  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  56  Y  66  Y      NA      NA  58  42  NA 54  34  NA 61  NA  72  NA 
HISPANIC  99  Y  99  Y  56  Y  46  N      NA      NA  39  43  NA 50  54  N 57  NA  62  Y 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  99  Y  99  Y  58  Y  60  Y      Y      NA  52  42  NA 48  40  NA 62  NA  72  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  99  Y  99  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  98  Y  98  Y  37  N  32  N      NA      NA  70  60  Y 69  68  N 54  NA  61  Y 


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
FLORAL AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 69%  78%  98%  33%  278   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%  66%      128  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? 56% (YES)  68% (YES)      124  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         530   
    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
    FLORAL AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 65%  78%  92%  16%  251   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 57%  72%      129  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? 68% (YES)  73% (YES)      141  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         521   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    FLORAL AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 68%  72%  91%  40%  271   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 79%  73%      152  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? 83% (YES)  85% (YES)      168  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         591   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested