VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision: Kathleen Senior High School is committed to providing academic excellence while celebrating cultural diversity of its students and community. We strive to provide and ensure the best possible educational experience for students by involving parents, teachers, students and community members in decision making and goal development activities. We further believe that all students are able to learn and will be successful while students at Kathleen Senior High School.
Mission: At Kathleen High School, our students, staff, family and community will work together to be caring, knowledgeable, and productive citizens and we will strive as a team to achieve the highest standards of excellence in character and learning for all, whatever it takes.
The Kathleen High School
Educator’s Covenant
This is my school; I open it wide to educate all students who step inside! I will practice a high level of respect for others and will demonstrate and maintain high expectations of myself, my students and colleagues.
This is my calling and I will not rest until every student at Kathleen High School receives my best!
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Kathleen Senior High School is one of four public high schools in Lakeland, Florida. Kathleen High School was founded in 1928 and opened it doors in 1929 as a “strawberry school.” The current site of KHS was established in 1961 and has seen tremendous growth over the years. The student population is drawn from diverse areas in and around Lakeland including urban, suburban and rural areas. Our feeder schools include Sleepy Hill Middle School, Kathleen Middle School, Rochelle School of the Arts, Southwest Middle School, and Lawton Chiles Middle Academy The vast majority of our students are from Sleepy Hill Middle School and Kathleen Middle School.
In addition to the traditional curriculum available, we also offer courses in vocational areas including Culinary Arts, Child Development, Agriculture (animal, mechanical and horticulture sciences), Drafting, Auto Mechanics, Business (Distrotek), Aerospace (CFAA), and Criminal Justice. KHS currently offers AP courses in Social Studies, Foreign Language, Math, English, Social Studies, Art, and Music Theory.
There are many opportunities for students to become involved at KHS. Co-curricular offerings include Band, Chorus, Yearbook, and Drama. Extracurricular offerings, such as service clubs, National Honor Society, student government, athletics and special interest clubs are available to interested students as well.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Kathleen Senior High School has a variety of unique strengths that will promote school success. Kathleen Senior High School offers its students a wide range of career academy options to help increase achievement. The school is also offering more Advanced Placement coursework than ever before.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
A major weakness is a growing population of students attending without parental support. These students are living on their own and required to work full time to support themselves. Kathleen Senior High School must provide a quality education for these students as well as the general population.
Student Demographics
Student Demographics
2008 – 2009
White 48.1%
Black 29.4%
Hispanic 18.6%
Asian 1.5%
Indian .38%
Multi 2.1%
SWD 213
ELL 54
F/R Lunch 491
EOY Enrollment 1789
Student Attendance Rates
Student Attendance Rates
2006-2007 Attendance Rate 91.64
2007-2008 Attendance Rate 91.80
2008-2009 Attendance Rate 92.87
Student Mobility
Student Mobility
2006-2007 37.02
2007-2008 38.05%
2008-2009 35.27
Student Suspension Rates
Student Suspension Rates
1181 Kathleen Senior High
OSS Days 2456 OSS Actions
1212 ISS Days
31 ISS Actions 32
Student Retention Rates
Student Retention Rates
Grade Retained Enrollment Percent
1181 Kathleen Senior High 12 13 321 4.05
Class Size
Class Size
District Number School Number District Name School Name 2006-07 2007-08 Compliance 2006-07 2007-08 Compliance 2006-07 2007-08 Compliance
53 1181 POLK KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 0 0 0 0 23.45 22.55
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Kathleen Middle School (Correct I)
School Grade B
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 87
Rochelle School of the Arts
School Grade A
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 97
Sleepy Hill Middle School (Correct II)
School Grade C
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 72
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships and Grants
AVID (First time college bound students)
HELIOS grant (transitional grant for middle school and high school partnership)
Perkins grants for career academies (CFAA and Distrotek Academies)NASA
NASA (CFAA Academy)
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
|
Cecil McClellan Jr.
|
Social Studies 6-12
Educational Leadership K-12
Athletic Coaching
|
6
|
12
|
2005-2006 D/AYP-No
2006-2007 D/AYP-No
2007-2008 C/AYP-No
2008-2009 D/AYP-No
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Ginger Rosenau
Tony Williams
Chad Smith
|
Specialist Educational Leadership K-12
Masters Varying Exceptionalities K-12
Health Ed 6-12
|
4
|
2
|
2008-2009 D/AYP-No
2008-2009 D/AYP-No
2008-2009 D/AYP-No
|
* 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
|
Mechelle Daugherty
|
English 6-12
Reading
|
3
|
3
|
2007-2008 C/AYP-No
2008-2009 D/AYP-No
|
|
Math
|
Sarah Raulerson
|
Math 6-12
Elementary Education
|
31
|
|
NA
|
|
Science
|
Robin Futch
|
Science 6-12
|
|
|
NA
|
* 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. The administration is working with the district to recruit professional and experienced teachers to work at Kathleen High School.
|
Administration Team
|
August 2009
|
|
2. Professional Development
Opportunities and both professional and administrative support.
|
Administration Team
|
June 2010
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Heather Benoit
|
English 6-12
|
English
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement classes available through district
|
|
Theresa Harwell
|
English 6-12
|
English
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement classes available through district
|
|
Charlotte Gardner
|
ESE K-12
MGIC
|
English
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement classes available through district
|
|
Susan Vigus
|
English 6-12
|
English
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement classes available through district
|
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 |
| 102 | 3 | 25 | 32 | 40 | 35 | 96 | 7 | 2 | 91 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Mechelle Daugherty
|
Marisol Cruz
Heather Benoit
|
Reading AIF/Departmental
Experience with Non-Experience
|
Monthly meetings to address the 17 required competencies.
|
|
Robin Futch
|
Natasha Arbelos
|
Science AIF/Departmental
Experience with Non-Experience
|
Monthly meetings to address the 17 required competencies.
|
|
Sarah Raulerson
|
Joseph Mezzina
|
Math AIF/Departmental
Experience with Non-Experience
|
Monthly meetings to address the 17 required competencies.
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part D
Title II
Title III
Title X- Homeless
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Violence Prevention Programs
Nutrition Programs
Housing Programs
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
Cross-curricular
subject and grade level
|
Keith Smith
|
Twice a month
|
Monthly
|
Instructional Strategies
|
|
Grade Level
|
Lia Maffett/Tiffany Brown
|
Once a month
|
Monthly
|
Cross Curricular
|
|
Subject Area
|
Sarah Raulerson, Mechelle Daugherty
Robin Futch
|
Once a month
|
Monthly
|
Content specific
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
We will offer students a variety of rigorous and relevant courses that are designed to help students prepare for the future. Courses include: Dual enrollment and Advanced Placement. Students are also offered actual work experience through internships.
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 |
|
Total number of students who are proficient
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Words & Phrases +5%
By Spring of 2010, 35% of 9th and 38% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
FAIR Assessment to monitor student progression
|
Academic Dean, Asst. Principal,Principal,Reading AIF, classroom teacher and Reading teacher
|
Review Data and Analyze for instructional purposes.
|
FAIR Assessment
|
| 2 |
Enroll disfluent (MAZE scores) students in Fast ForWord for 40 minute instruction
|
Reading AIF, classroom teacher and Reading teacher
|
Review Fast Forward Data and Analyze for Future Progression
|
MAZE Assessment; & Fast ForWord Report
|
| 3 |
Include Higher Level questions (PCSB LEQs posted, addressed, & referred to throughout the instruction)
|
Asst. Principal, Reading AIF
|
Classroom walk-throughs to observe posting of questions & review of lesson plans
|
Classroom Walk-through Logs
|
| 4 |
Teachers will check for understanding with all students by using a gradual release method in their lessons.
|
Reading AIF, Classroom Teachers
|
Gradual Release strategies will be documented in lesson plans and observed in classroom walkthroughs.
|
1. Lesson Plans
2. Classroom Walk-through Logs
|
| 5 |
Students will have the opportunity to recieve additional assistance in areas of weakness in reading through the learning lunches and Saturday Boost Camps.
|
Asst. Principal, Reading AIF, Classroom Teachers, Academic Dean
|
1.Interims and Report Cards
2. Exit Tickets in each session.
3. Performance on the FCAT/ACT/SAT
|
1. Standardized Assessments (FCAT, SAT, ACT)
2. Report Cards, Interim
3. Gradebook
|
| 6 |
Students who scored a 3 or higher on the previous years FCAT will maintain or improve their score by participating in higher order thinking activities such as WEBBS and FCIM strategies.
|
Reading AIF, Classroom Teacher, Asst. Principal
|
1. Daily assessments of FCIM stragies and higher order thinking questions.
|
1. FCAT
2. Classroom Assignments
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Each subgroup not making AYP
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Main Idea +9.5%
By Spring of 2010, 55% of 9th and 38 %10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.PLC
2.CIM
3.RTI
|
. School-based RtI team
|
1.Inservices
2.Focus Assessments
3.Process Monitoring
|
1.Data Analysis
2.Walkthroughs, FCAT
3.Data Analysis
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Maintain the 2009 of 50%
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Cause & Effect +10%
By Spring of 2010, 35% of 9th and 38% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.PLC
2.CIM
3.RTI
|
1. School-based RtI team
|
1.Inservices
2.Focus Assessments
3.Process Monitoring
|
1.Data Analysis
2.Walkthroughs, FCAT
3.Data Analysis
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
The percentage of total students making learning gains
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Reference & Research -12%
By Spring of 2010, 35% of 9th and 38% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.PLC
2.CIM
3.RTI
|
. School-based RtI team
|
1.Inservices
2.Focus Assessments
3.Process Monitoring
|
1.Data Analysis
2.Walkthroughs, FCAT
3.Data Analysis
|
|
| |
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, 35% of 9th and 38% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
Teachers and staff will work in professional learning communities to develop strategies to enhance instruction in the classroom. Strategies will include the following areas:
1.Higher order thinking skills
2. Direct Instruction
3. Graphic Organizers
Teachers and Staff will implement the strategies from the Florida Continuous Improvement Model.
Teachers will familiarize themselves and implement the
TIER 1 strategies of the Response to Intervention plan.
|
Literacy Leadership Team
|
2009-2010
|
Data Journal
CIM
In service Mechanisms
|
Administrative Team/RTI team
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Main Idea +9.5%
By Spring of 2010, 55% of 9th and 38 %10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
Teachers and staff will work in professional learning communities to develop strategies to enhance instruction in the classroom. Strategies will include the following areas:
1.Higher order thinking skills
2. Direct Instruction
3. Graphic Organizers
Teachers and Staff will implement the strategies from the Florida Continuous Improvement Model.
Teachers will familiarize themselves and implement the
TIER 1 strategies of the Response to Intervention plan.
|
Administration
|
2009-2010
|
1.Inservices
2.Focus Assessments
3.Process Monitoring
|
Administrative Team/RTI team
|
By Spring of 2010, 35% of 9th and 38% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for
|
Teachers and staff will work in professional learning communities to develop strategies to enhance instruction in the classroom. Strategies will include the following areas:
1.Higher order thinking skills
2. Direct Instruction
3. Graphic Organizers
Teachers and Staff will implement the strategies from the Florida Continuous Improvement Model.
Teachers will familiarize themselves and implement the
TIER 1 strategies of the Response to Intervention plan.
|
Administration/Literacy Team
|
2009-2010
|
1.Inservices
2. Focus Assessments
3. Progress Monitoring
|
Administrative Team/RTI Team
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
A year long professional learning community calendar has been developed with identified meetings. Reading strategies will be presented at learning communities and teachers will share classroom activities incorporating these. The lesson plan template has a specific area designated to the implementation of reading strategies.
Reading is incorporated by required 10 minute reads and FOCUS lessons in each content area. Documentation
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Edge Level B and C Reading Series |
Operating Budget |
$17,000.00 |
| Total: $17,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $17,000.00 |
|
| End of Reading Goal |
|
Mathematics Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
The percentage of math students scoring at or above grade level
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Number Sense -8%
By Spring of 2010, 65% of 9th and 61%10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Continue to review academic placement of grades 10 to 12 based upon 2009 FCAT scores and math history
2.Continue placement of 9th grade students will be based on 8th grade FCAT scores
3. Continue placement of 11th and 12th grade students into an Intensive Math class for those who have not passed FCAT
|
Raulerson
|
1. Spring 2010 FCAT student score, State developed progress monitoring report
2. Spring 2010 FCAT students score
3.Spring 2010 FCAT students score
|
1.Odyssey
2. Focus Assessments
3. Teacher Made Test
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Increase in the number of students making learning gains in math.
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Measurement -2.5%
By Spring of 2010, 65% of 9th 61%and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Use of IDEAS by math teachers to assess the area of need per student Teachers given time to gather Data provided on IDEAS during DATA day and various after school meeting prior to data day.
2.Use of Focus Calendar to teach and spiral review the five content strands tested on FCAT Math in all math classes in which students will be FCAT testing.
3. FCAT explorer program will be available for teachers to schedule classes for practice on FCAT math skills.
|
1. Raulerson
|
1. Data gathered by teachers from IDEAS, Spring 2010 FCAT student reports, and State Developed Progress Monitoring Reports
2.Spring 2010 FCAT Student Learning gain, and Focus calendar review grades
|
1. Odyssey
2. Focus Assessments
3. Teacher Made Test
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Improve the number of students in the Lowest 25% making Learning Gains.
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
-1%
By Spring of 2010, 65% of 9th and 61% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Placement of students in the 9th grade with an Achievement Level of 1 & 2 in an Intensive Math and Algebra I Class Block
2. Placement of 10th grade students in the appropriate Geometry course based on FCAT Achievement Level and final grade of Algebra I
3. Extended Learning Classes available for math based on teacher recommendation and FCAT scores
|
1. Raulerson
|
1. Spring 2010 FCAT Student Learning gain, Grades in Intensive Math and Algebra I course
2. Spring 2010 FCAT Student Learning gain, Grades in math course
3. Student math course grades and FCAT student report
|
1. Odyssey
2. Focus Assessments
3. Teacher Made Test
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Improve the percentage of subgroups scoring at or above grade level in math
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Algebraic Thinking +4%
By Spring of 2010, 65% of 9th and 61% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Implementation of technology in the classroom
2. Math Department members will meet monthly to collaborate on effective teaching strategies
3. Continue implementation of Inclusion in math classes
|
1. Raulerson
|
1. Student math course grades
2. Student math course grades and Lesson Plan Evaluations
3. Lesson Plans
|
1. Odyssey
2. Focus Assessments
3. Teacher Made Test
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Improve the percentage of subgroups scoring at or above grade level in math
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Algebraic Thinking +4%
By Spring of 2010, 65% of 9th and 61% 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Implementation of technology in the classroom
2. Math Department members will meet monthly to collaborate on effective teaching strategies
3. Continue implementation of Inclusion in math classes
|
. Raulerson
|
1. Student math course grades
2. Student math course grades and Lesson Plan Evaluations
3. Lesson Plans
|
1. Odyssey
2. Focus Assessments
3. Teacher Made Test
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improving Math Scores
|
Data Analysis using the IDEAS database
|
Raulerson
|
2009-2010
|
Lecture, Small Group Activities, On-Going Coaching
|
McClellan Principal
|
|
Technology Implementation
|
Use of Airliners and Gismos
|
Jacomet/
Raulerson
|
Ongoing
|
Lesson Plans
|
Williams AP
Raulerson AIF
|
|
Math Manipulative used in classroom
|
Hands-On Math Activities
|
Raulerson
|
December
|
Observations
|
Williams AP
Raulerson AIF
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Objective
Graphing calculators Description of Resources Funding Source
Operational Budget Available Amount
2500.00
Air Liners District
Gismos
|
Funding Source
Operational Budget
District
|
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $2,500.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $2,500.00 |
|
| 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 the 2009 FCAT Science Data, 21% of students scored a level 3 or above indicating on-grade level performance.
al
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Physical & Chemical -5%
By Spring of 2010, 32% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science 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 |
1. Integrate science related classes.
|
1. School Based RtI Team
|
1. The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
1. Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Earth & Space
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Earth & Space -3%
By Spring of 2010, 32% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science as evidenced by the
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Integrate science related classes
|
School Based RtI Team
|
. 1. The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts
|
1. Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Life and Environment
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Life & Environment
-2%
By Spring of 2010, 32% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science 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 |
1. Integrate science related classes
|
School Based RtI Team
|
1. 1. The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
2.
|
Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Scientific Thinking
|
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 32% of the students will score at Level 3 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 |
1. Integrate science related classes
|
School Based RtI Team
|
1. 1. The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
2.
|
1. Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement
Based on 2009 FCAT Science data, 21 % of students achieved level three or above.
|
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement
Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 32% of the students will score at Level 3 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 |
1.FOCUS lessons in grades 9-11 matched to the four main clusters will be given on a regular basis.
2.Consistantly use LFS strategies including Student Learning Maps and LFS formatted lessons across all areas.
3.Extend and refine student learning through practical applications of subject content through laboratory experiments.
|
1. Department Head,AIF Science
2. Principal, Assistant Principal, AIF for Science.
3. Teachers, Department Head, AIF Science
|
1. Documented lesson plans and classroom observations
2. Documented lesson plans and classroom observations using walk through method.
3.Observation of lab activities and higher number of teachers completing 18 lab experiments.
|
1. Student progress checked with screening pretest and post test.
2.Improvement on mini-science assessments and higher percentage in level three achievement level.
3.Higher percentage of students in Level 3 on FCAT science.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improving Science Scores
|
Data Analysis using the IDEAS database
|
Futch
|
2009-2010
|
Lecture, Small Group Activities, On-Going Coaching
|
McClellan
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
On the 2009 administration of the FCAT writing test 78% of the students in 10th grade scored level 3.5 or above in writing.
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test 82% of the 10th grade students will achieve a 3.5 or above
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Utilize Author’s Backpack Writing Portfolio frequently in English classes: all writing will be dated, and recorded in a portfolio for monitoring of growth across time. Folder will progress with student to the next year grade level.
2.Integrated Writing Across the Curriculum
|
. The School-Based RtI team
|
1. The aggregate scores on the writing section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts
|
1. CIM
2. Write Score
|
| 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 78% of the students in 10th grade scored at or above proficiency
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 82% of the 10th grade students will score at or above proficiency
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Students use the writing process weekly; all essays will be dated and recorded in a portfolio and assessed for continued improvement
2. The full process essay is reviewed and assessed for every 10th grade student
3.
|
1. The School-Based RtI team
|
1. The aggregate scores on the writing section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
1. CIM
2. Write Score
|
| 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 87% of Black students, 86% of Hispanic students, and % of Economically Disadvantaged tudents scored at or above proficiency
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test 88% of Black students, 87% or Hispanic students, and 89% of Economically Disadvantaged students will score at or above proficiency
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Students in the tenth grade academy, which is composed of a large number of students in the targeted subgroups, will utilize the Holt Reader, an interactive work text, interacting with reading through developing writing skills
2. Students in the tenth grade which is composed of a large number of students in the targeted subgroups will take the Write Score test several (3)times throughout the school year.
|
1. The School-Based RtI team
|
1. The aggregate scores on the writing section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
1. CIM
2. Write Score
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improve Writing Scores
|
Data Analysis using the IDEAS database
|
Brown
|
2009-2010
|
Lecture, Small Group Activities, On-Going Coaching
|
McClellan
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Tenth Grade
Write Score Testing
|
Operative |
$3,600.00 |
| Total: $3,600.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $3,600.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Based on our 2008 SACS Accredidation Report, parent involvement was a noted area needing improvement.
|
By the spring of 2010, teachers will increase communication with parents as evidenced by the Successful School Survey.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Teachers/Administration will identify those students in need of intervention in areas such as attendance, behavior,and academics.
|
Administration team, Teachers
|
Monitoring of Students using the 5-star student plan.
|
Improvement in goal areas as noted on the 5-star monitor logs.
|
| 2 |
Mentoring programs such as MAC and Leading Ladies will provide peer collaboration as well as business partnershiprelationships will provide after school mentoring programs providing character education.
|
Administration, teachers, business partners
|
Monitoringof students through afterschool projects and programs.
|
Classroom and Community performance
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Postage |
Operational Budget |
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $1,500.00 |
| Final Total: $1,500.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
Graduation Rate Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
Dropout prevention
Improve graduation rates
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
67%
By the Fall of 2010, the graduation rate will increase by 5% as evidenced by the state’s calculated Graduation Rate Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Senior Conferences
2. NovaNET credit Recovery
3. Senior retakers are encouraged to take the ACT multiple times with a required minimum concordant score to replace the FCAT graduation requirement
|
.School-based RtI team
|
1. The graduation rate will determine the success of our school efforts. All students at-risk of not graduating in four years will be monitored through the guidance department.
2.
|
1. NovaNET credit recovery software
2. Students meeting all graduation requirements
3.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Decrease the percentage of 9th grade students that are retained in 9th grade through a Freshman Academy |
Operating Budget
|
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $1,500.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $1,500.00 |
|
| End of Graduation Rate Goal |
|
School Attendance Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
School Attendance rate was at 92.87 percent for the 2008-2009 school year.
|
By the spring of 2010, the attendance rate will increase to 93.87% as evidenced by District data collection.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Monitoring of student attendance by teachers and Attendance Dean, with subsequent conferences with students and parents when excessive absences occur.
|
Attendance Dean, Teachers
|
Continual review of absence data of all students.
|
Pinnacle and Genesis Reports
|
| 2 |
Letters sent for excessive absences in three intervals, 10 days, unexcused, 15 days unexcused , and 20 days unexcused.
|
Dean of Students, Guidance Counselors
|
Continual review of absence data of all students.
|
Pinnacle and Genesis Reports
|
| 3 |
Referral to area Social Worker when all attempts to correct excessive absences have been followed.
|
Dean of Students, County Social Worker
|
Continual review of absence data of all students.
|
Pinnacle and Genesis Reports
|
| 4 |
Revocation of Driver’s License Notice sent to DMV by District each week for excessive absences.
|
District/State DMV
|
Continual review of absence data of all students.
|
Pinnacle and Genesis Reports
|
|
| |
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, the attendance rate will increase to 93.87% as evidenced by District data collection.
|
Pinnacle training for teachers
|
Dean of Students, Network Manager
|
December
|
Attendance data reviewed daily for completion and accuracy in codes recorded. Notice sent daily to teachers for missing attendance
|
Dean of Students
Technology Specialist
|
|
| |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Envelopes, Cost of Stamps |
Internal Accounts |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $1,000.00 |
|
| End of School Attendance Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Edge Level B and C Reading Series |
Operating Budget |
$17,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Objective
Graphing calculators Description of Resources Funding Source
Operational Budget Available Amount
2500.00
Air Liners District
Gismos
|
Funding Source
Operational Budget
District
|
$2,500.00 |
| Writing |
Tenth Grade
Write Score Testing
|
Operative |
$3,600.00 |
| Graduation Rate |
Decrease the percentage of 9th grade students that are retained in 9th grade through a Freshman Academy |
Operating Budget
|
$1,500.00 |
| School Attendance |
Envelopes, Cost of Stamps |
Internal Accounts |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $25,600.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parental Involvement |
Postage |
Operational Budget |
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $1,500.00 |
| Final Total: $27,100.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 10/12/2009 1:12:21 PM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
|
SAC Budget has not been received to date.
|
0
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The school advisory council works collaboratively with the principal and staff to develop the annual School Improvement Plan. The council will be meeting the first Tuesday of each month at the high school and is comprised of the principal and an appropriately balanced team of people with parents, teachers, students, administrators, support staff, business and community members that mirrors the ethnic, racial and economic makeup of the school community
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Cecil McClellan,
Principal
|
|
2)
Kevin Heflin,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Melissa Bobbitt,
Student
|
|
4)
Chelsea Wilson,
Student
|
|
5)
Sarah Raulerson,
Teacher
|
|
6)
Alan Darr,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Pamela Miller,
Parent
|
|
8)
Pete Coe ,
Parent
|
|
9)
Melissa Coe,
Parent
|
|
10)
Pete Cross,
Community Member
|
|
11)
Greg White,
Community Member
|
|
12)
Gow Fields ,
Community Member
|
|
13)
Ginger Rosenau,
Assistant Principal
|
|
14)
Tony Williams,
Assistant Principal
|
|
15)
Chad Smith,
Assistant Principal
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1181 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 985
Math: 982
|
2008-2009
School Grade1: |
D
|
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
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
26 |
N |
56 |
N |
91
|
91 |
Y |
64 |
67 |
Y |
74 |
74 |
NA |
42 |
44 |
NA |
27 |
NA |
59 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
96 |
Y |
96 |
Y |
32 |
N |
64 |
N |
93
|
94 |
Y |
68 |
69 |
Y |
66 |
68 |
NA |
34 |
36 |
NA |
32 |
NA |
66 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
12 |
N |
41 |
N |
90
|
91 |
Y |
66 |
63 |
N |
88 |
88 |
NA |
56 |
59 |
NA |
13 |
NA |
43 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
98 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
27 |
N |
56 |
N |
86
|
84 |
N |
46 |
70 |
Y |
79 |
73 |
NA |
50 |
44 |
NA |
28 |
NA |
61 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
97 |
Y |
96 |
Y |
23 |
N |
51 |
N |
88
|
88 |
N |
54 |
60 |
Y |
79 |
77 |
NA |
49 |
49 |
NA |
24 |
NA |
53 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
94 |
N |
93 |
N |
12 |
N |
24 |
N |
67
|
80 |
Y |
44 |
39 |
N |
85 |
88 |
NA |
74 |
76 |
NA |
12 |
NA |
23 |
NA |
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1181 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 917
Math: 917
|
2007-2008
School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading
Tested 95% of the students? |
Math
Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe
Harbor
Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe
Harbor
Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
26 |
N |
58 |
N |
87
|
91 |
Y |
65 |
64 |
N |
77 |
74 |
NA |
50 |
42 |
NA |
32 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
34 |
N |
66 |
Y |
89
|
93 |
Y |
72 |
68 |
N |
72 |
66 |
NA |
43 |
34 |
NA |
38 |
NA |
77 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
12 |
N |
44 |
N |
88
|
90 |
Y |
60 |
66 |
Y |
87 |
88 |
NA |
60 |
56 |
NA |
19 |
NA |
64 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
21 |
N |
50 |
N |
73
|
86 |
Y |
48 |
46 |
N |
83 |
79 |
NA |
55 |
50 |
NA |
31 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
21 |
N |
51 |
N |
84
|
88 |
Y |
52 |
54 |
Y |
82 |
79 |
NA |
55 |
49 |
NA |
28 |
NA |
70 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
98 |
Y |
95 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
94 |
N |
93 |
N |
15 |
N |
26 |
N |
69
|
67 |
N |
30 |
44 |
Y |
94 |
85 |
NA |
82 |
74 |
NA |
17 |
NA |
50 |
NA |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1181 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 939
Math: 938
|
2006-2007
School Grade1: |
D
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading
Tested 95% of the students? |
Math
Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe
Harbor
Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe
Harbor
Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
23 |
N |
50 |
N |
76
|
87 |
Y |
66 |
65 |
N |
80 |
77 |
NA |
53 |
50 |
NA |
36 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
28 |
N |
57 |
Y |
81
|
89 |
Y |
73 |
72 |
N |
74 |
72 |
NA |
44 |
43 |
NA |
43 |
NA |
70 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
13 |
N |
40 |
N |
70
|
88 |
Y |
53 |
60 |
Y |
92 |
87 |
NA |
72 |
60 |
NA |
25 |
NA |
65 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
96 |
Y |
95 |
Y |
17 |
N |
45 |
N |
71
|
73 |
Y |
62 |
48 |
NA |
81 |
83 |
NA |
53 |
55 |
NA |
30 |
NA |
66 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
75 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
98 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
18 |
N |
45 |
N |
72
|
84 |
Y |
51 |
52 |
Y |
83 |
82 |
NA |
59 |
55 |
NA |
33 |
NA |
66 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
95 |
Y |
96 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
13 |
53 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
93 |
N |
93 |
N |
6 |
N |
18 |
N |
41
|
69 |
Y |
17 |
30 |
Y |
|
94 |
NA |
89 |
82 |
NA |
32 |
NA |
50 |
NA |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District
KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
2008-2009
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
29%
|
63%
|
78%
|
21%
|
191
|
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 |
44% |
68% |
|
|
112 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
51% (YES) |
61% (YES) |
|
|
112
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
41% |
44% |
|
|
0 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
415 |
|
| Percent Tested = 96% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
D |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District
KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
2007-2008
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
29%
|
64%
|
81%
|
27%
|
201
|
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 |
46% |
76% |
|
|
122 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
48% (NO) |
75% (YES) |
|
|
123
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
45% |
47% |
|
|
0 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
446 |
|
| Percent Tested = 97% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District
KATHLEEN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
2006-2007
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
27%
|
58%
|
76%
|
21%
|
182
|
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 |
43% |
69% |
|
|
112 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
51% (YES) |
64% (YES) |
|
|
115
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
47% |
59% |
|
|
0 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
409 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
D |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |