VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

VISION: All stakeholders involved in the educational process of Kathleen Middle School will work cooperatively to provide a high quality education for the school’s diverse community of learners ensuring that all students reach their personal, educational, and occupational potential. The focus will be on mastery learning and reteaching to ensure student success, setting high expectations for academic excellence, aligning the curriculum to the Sunshine State Standards, accommodating differentiated instruction in the classroom, and involving families in the education of their children.

MISSION: The mission of Kathleen Middle School is to ensure that all students are given the opportunity to achieve their academic and social potential and to empower them to understand and apply the process of making wise decisions regarding their personal, educational, and occupational future.


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

Kathleen Middle School is located in Kathleen, which is a rural area in North West Polk County. Students are bused to the school from several areas, including rural, migrant, and the inner city of Lakeland.

Kathleen Middle School is 81 years old. The initial school was established in 1928 as the only school in the area. It was first called a "Strawberry School" because the community consisted mainly of farms with strawberry fields. It housed all grades to meet the needs of the students of Kathleen. Later the school housed grades 7-12 until Kathleen High School was built in 1962. Grades 10-12 were then sent to the new school leaving the original building a grade 7-9 Junior High School. In 1992, Grade 6 was brought in from the elementary level making a school consisting of grades 6-9. In 1993, grade 9 was sent to the high school, leaving a middle school with grades 6-8. The school has gone through many changes to modernize the facility while at the same time preserving the same outside appearance as in the early years. During the 2004-2005 school years, new construction began at the school. A new ten classroom building was built to alleviate the numerous and antiquated portables on our campus. The school now consists of a main two-story building, seven wings, cafeteria, gym, agriculture facility, track, basketball courts, and several smaller buildings.


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Kathleen Middle School maintained a “B” on our school grade and 87% AYP this school year. There was an increase in four out of the eight accountability areas of the School Grade and substantial reading gains.


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Due to budget cuts and a drop in enrollment, KMS will receive less funding for resources and teaching units.


Student Demographics

Kathleen Middle School has a diverse student population. The student enrollment at the end of the 2008-09 school year was approximately 694 serving grades sixth through eighth. The student body consists of 61.24% non-Hispanic Whites, 17.15% African Americans, 18.30% Hispanic, 0.58% Asian, 0.43% Indian, and 2.31% multicultural. 15.854% of the student population is designated E.S.E. excluding Gifted students. 2.16% is classified as ELL. 70.32% of the student population receives free/reduced breakfast and lunch.


Student Attendance Rates

Kathleen Middle School’s attendance rate decreased from last year, but increased from the previous year.
2008-09: 93.87%
2007-08: 94.24%
2006-07: 90.30%


Student Mobility

Our district’s definition for mobility is, “The enrollment or withdrawal of a student at any time during the school year not including the first 15 days of school, divided by the total number of students who attended the school during that year after the 15th day.” The mobility rate of KMS in 2007-08 was 34.96%, but decreased to 32.47% in 2008-09.


Student Suspension Rates

The numbers of both OSS days and ISS days have consistently decreased the last three years. Data is as follows: Year 2008-09 - OSS Days 1156, OSS Actions 467, ISS Days 1224, ISS Actions 588; Year 2007-08 - OSS Days 1270, OSS Actions 518, ISS Days 1526, ISS Actions 673; Year 2006-07 - OSS Days 1345, OSS Actions 457, ISS Days 1775, ISS Actions 735



Student Retention Rates

The retention rates have decreased in all grade levels. Data is as follows: Year 2008-09 - Grade Level 6, Number Retained 0, EOY Enrollment 245, % Retained 0; Grade Level 7, Number Retained 0, Enrollment EOY 214, % Retained 0; Grade Level 8, Number Retained 0, EOY Enrollment 235, % Retained 0.
Year 2007-08 - Grade Level 6, Number Retained 4, EOY Enrollment 242, 1.65% Retained; Grade Level 7, Number Retained 8, EOY Enrollment 235, % Retained 3.40; Grade Level 8, Number Retained 3, EOY Enrollment 248, % Retained1.21. Year 2006-07 - Grade Level 6, Number Retained 2, EOY Enrollment 256, % Retained 0.78; Grade Level 7, Number Retained 0, EOY Enrollment 240, % Retained 0:00, Grade Level 8, Number Retained 23, EOY Enrollment 278, % Retained 8.27.


Class Size

A point has been made to reduce class sizes in all academic areas to reduce discipline problems, but with budget cuts and 90-minute blocks, this is not always possible. The average class size for 2006-07 was 17.79, but increased to 18.34 in 2007-08.


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

The academic feeder patterns are as follows: Year 2008-09 - Sleepy Hill Elementary, C 90% AYP PI; Churchwell Elementary, C 79% AYP CII; Griffin Elementary, A 97% AYP CI; Kathleen Elementary, A 95% AYP PI; N.E. Roberts Elementary B 95% AYP PI; Socrum Elementary, C 90% AYP PI; Winston Elementary, C 74% AYP CII; Kathleen High, D 62% AYP CII. Year 2007-08 - Sleepy Hill Elementary, C 85% AYP, Churchwell Elementary, C 90% AYP PI; Griffin Elementary, A 95% AYP PI; Kathleen Elementary, B 92% AYP; N.E. Roberts Elementary, B 92% AYP;
Socrum Elementary, C 97% AYP PI; Winston Elementary, A 92% AYP CI; Kathleen High C 64% AYP.


Partnerships and Grants

Kathleen Middle School has north side Publix, Beef O’Brady’s, and Kathleen Baptist Church as school community partners. Donations and community involvement services are provided by these partners. KMS received the AVID and FASA grants which will provide relationships, relevance, and rigor to help increase student achievement.


STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Note: The following links will open in a separate browser window.

School Grades Trend Data

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

PositionNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as an AdministratorPrior Performance Record *
Principal Mr. Brett Butler Bachelor’s Degree in Business Education
(6-12),
Master’s of Science in Educational Leadership, Certification in School Principal (all levels), Agriculture (6-12), Business Education (6-12)
2 10 Principal of KMS in 2008-2009:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 63%, Math Mastery: 48%, Science Mastery: 33%, AYP: 87%, Hispanics did not make AYP in Reading and the Black students were the only subgroup that made AYP in Math.
2007-2008: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 56%, Math Mastery: 51%, Science Mastery: 27%, AYP: 87%, White and SWD did not make AYP in Reading, while White, Black, and SWD did not make AYP in Math.
AP of Westwood Middle in 2006-2007: Grade B, Reading Mastery 56%, Math Mastery 53%, Science Mastery 30%, AYP: 90%, ED and SWD did not make AYP in Reading, while ELL and SWD did not make AYP in Math.
2005-2006: Grade B, Reading Mastery 52%, Math Mastery 44%, AYP: 82%, Black, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading, while Black, Hispanic, ED, and SWD did not make AYP in Math.
2004-2005: Grade C, Reading Mastery 42%, Math Mastery 43%, AYP: 67%, Black, Hispanic, ED, and SWD did not make AYP in Reading while Black, Hispanic, ED, and SWD did not make AYP in Math.
Assis Principal Mr. James A. Moore Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education
(K-12),
Master's Degree in Supervision and
Administration (K-12),
Certification in Elementary Education
(K-6),
Health Education (6-12), Physical Education
(K-12), and
ESOL Endorsed
17 11 APC of KMS in 2008-2009:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 63%, Math Mastery: 48%, Science Mastery: 33%, AYP: 87%, Hispanics did not make AYP in Reading and the Black students were the only subgroup that made AYP in Math.
2007-2008: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 56%, Math Mastery: 51%, Science Mastery: 27%, AYP: 87%, White and SWD did not make AYP in Reading, while White, Black, and SWD did not make AYP in Math.
2006-2007: Grade C, Reading Mastery: 50%, Math Mastery: 46%, Science Mastery: 35%, AYP: 72%, Whites made AYP in Math, but no subgroup made AYP in Reading.
2005-2006: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 52%, Math Mastery: 48%, AYP: 79%, Whites and Hispanics made AYP in Reading, just the Hispanics made AYP in Math.
2004-2005: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 44%, Math Mastery: 43%, AYP: 77%, Whites and Hispanics made AYP in both Reading and Math.
2003-2004: Grade C, Reading Mastery: 47%, Math Mastery: 43%, AYP: 67%, Whites and ED made AYP in Reading, while just Whites made AYP in Math.
Assis Principal Mr. Rodney Scott Bachelor of Arts Degree in History,
Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership and Supervision,
Certification in Social Studies (6 – 12),
History (6 –12),
Educational Leadership (K – 12)
12 9 AP of KMS in 2008-2009:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 63%, Math Mastery: 48%, Science Mastery: 33%, AYP: 87%, Hispanics did not make AYP in Reading and the Black students were the only subgroup that made AYP in Math.
2007-2008: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 56%, Math Mastery: 51%, Science Mastery: 27%, AYP: 87%, White and SWD did not make AYP in Reading, while White, Black, and SWD did not make AYP in Math.
2006-2007: Grade C, Reading Mastery: 50%, Math Mastery: 46%, Science Mastery: 35%, AYP: 72%, Whites made AYP in Math, but no subgroup made AYP in Reading.
2005-2006: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 52%, Math Mastery: 48%, AYP: 79%, Whites and Hispanics made AYP in Reading, just the Hispanics made AYP in Math.
2004-2005: Grade B, Reading Mastery: 44%, Math Mastery: 43%, AYP: 77%, Whites and Hispanics made AYP in both Reading and Math.
2003-2004: Grade C, Reading Mastery: 47%, Math Mastery: 43%, AYP: 67%, Whites and ED made AYP in Reading, while just Whites made AYP in Math.

* 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 Kathy Logue Bachelor of Science in Education (K-6),
Reading (K-12),
Math (5-9),
Early Childhood,
Elem. Ed. (K-6),
Reading, and
ESOL Endorsed
1 5 Kathleen Middle:
2008-2009: Grade B, AYP: 87%, Reading Mastery: 63%, Learning Gains: 66%, Lowest 25% Gains: 71%. All but the Hispanic students made AYP in Reading.
Churchwell Elementary:
2007-2008: Grade C, AYP:90%, Reading Mastery 72%, Learning Gains, 64%, Lowest 25% Gains 63%, All subgroups made AYP
2006-2007: Grade A, AYP: 100%, Reading Mastery 74%, Learning Gains, 78%, Lowest 25% Gains 71%, All subgroups made AYP
2005-2006: Grade B, AYP: 97%, Reading Mastery 75%, Learning Gains, 57%, Lowest 25% Gains 69%, All subgroups made AYP
2004-2005: Grade B, AYP: 97%, Reading Mastery 68%, Learning Gains, 60%, Lowest 25% Gains 58%, SWD did not make AYP.
Math Rosy Doster Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education, Master’s of Education in Math Education,
Certification in Elementary Education (1-6), Math (6-12), Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (5-9), and ESOL Endorsed
17 4 Kathleen Middle: 2008-2009: Grade B, AYP: 87%, Math Mastery: 48%, Learning Gains: 57%, Lowest 25% Gains: 64%.
Only the Black students made AYP in Math.
Science Mastery: 33%
2007-2008: Grade B, AYP: 87%, Math Mastery: 51%, Learning Gains: 67%, Lowest 25% Gains: 73% White, Black, and SWD students did not make AYP in Math.
Science Mastery: 27%
2006-2007: Grade C, AYP:72%, Math Mastery: 46%, Learning Gains: 62%, Lowest 25% Gains: 68%. Only the White students made AYP in Math. Science Mastery: 35%
2005-2006: Grade B, AYP: 79%, Math Mastery: 48%, Learning Gains: 65%. Only the Hispanic students made AYP in Math

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)


HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Description of StrategyPerson ResponsibleProjected Completion DateNot Applicable (If not, please explain why)
1. Regular meeting of new teachers with Principal, Reading Resource Teacher, Learning Communities, and Grade levels. Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Resource Teacher On-going
2. Partnering new teachers with veteran staff Assistant Principal On-going
3. College campus Job Fairs and
e-recruiting at Universities
Principal April 2010


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
Jamie Bamberger Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum AVID New Teacher Program
Erin Ambrose Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum Math New Teacher Program
Nadia Lewis K-12 Physical Education Dean Working on MA in Educational Leadership


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
3954123232610015533


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
Kathy Logue New Teachers New Teacher Program with Reading Resource Teacher The mentor and mentee will meet weekly to discuss evidenced-based strategies. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning.
Rosy Doster (Math)
Kathy Logue
Struggling Teachers Modeling with Best Practices The mentor and mentee will meet monthly to discuss evidenced-based strategies. Time is given for feedback, coaching and planning.



ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration


Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A

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


Title I, Part C- Migrant

N/A


Title I, Part D

N/A


Title II

Title II funds will be used in conjunction with Title I funds to provide substitutes for training and planning, buy manuals, and train teachers in the Learning-Focused Solutions (LFS) model that is proven to engage and accelerate students in order to increase student achievement.


Title III

N/A


Title X- Homeless

N/A


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

N/A


Violence Prevention Programs

A Violence Prevention program (SAVE) is provided by the district, along with Prevention, which includes education on substance abuse, eating disorders, sexual diseases, and pregnancy. These programs are presented by county deputies and nurses.


Nutrition Programs

N/A


Housing Programs

N/A


Head Start

N/A


Adult Education

N/A


Career and Technical Education

State funds provide a career exploration and education planning EPEP course in 7th grade social studies and in 8th grade through guidance.


Job Training

N/A


Other

N/A


Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)


School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Administrators and Deans: Provide a common vision for the use of data-based decision making and problem solving, ensure implementation of intervention support and documentation, and communicate with parents regarding RtI plans and activities
Mathematics Academic Intervention Facilitator and Reading Resource Teacher: Facilitate the Instructional Focused Calendars, model best practices, monitor data, and provide help with lesson plans and resources
Program Facilitator: Facilitates Title I progress monitoring, documentation, and reports
Guidance Counselors: Provide counseling and knowledge of student records
ESE Facilitator: Participates in ESE data analysis and provides a liaison between ESE students, parents, and staff
School Psychologist: Participates in data analysis/interpretation and problem solving


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

The RtI team will meet monthly to engage in the following activities: review progress monitoring data, target students who need intervention, use data to identify professional development and resources, collaborate, problem solve interventions and solutions, and monitor the implementation of the curriculum maps and Instructional Focus Calendars (IFCs).


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

The RtI Leadership Team and SAC give input toward the development of the SIP and changes when new information arises as the SIP is a living document, constantly changing. The RtI Leadership Team and SAC will also be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the SIP as new data is constantly collected.




RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

The 2009 FCAT scores, FAIR OPM, and Title I OGA will provide the baseline data for RtI. Progress Monitoring data will come from FAIR OPM, Progress Checks, FOCUS Mini-Assessments, Classroom tests, STAR Reader and Math, the SINI Midyear Report, and other OGA, along with grades, attendance, and behavior/referrals. This data will provide reasons to adjust instruction and retest.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

The RtI Problem Solving Overview will be provided in August/September. Professional development will be provided during preschool and common planning periods throughout the year to educate and train the staff in the RtI problem solving methods.



School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data


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


Reading Weaknesses: 6th grade: Reference/Research and Comparisons, 7th grade: Words and Phrases, and Comparisons , 8th grade: Reference/Research, Comparisons, and Main Idea/Author’s Purpose
Math Weaknesses: 6th grade: Number Sense, Measurement, 7th grade: Geometry, 8th grade: All, but Number Sense
Science Weaknesses: Earth and Space Science and Scientific Thinking
Writing Weaknesses: Organization and Sentence Structure


Instructional Calendar Development


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

The district has created Reading Curriculum Maps, Course Timelines, and a monthly Focus Calendar which will serve as the basis for our school’s Reading Instructional Focus Calendar (IFC). FAIR OPM and OGA weaknesses will also be a priority. Our Math and Science IFCs will outline the FCAT benchmark weaknesses for core instruction as bellwork for both academic and elective subjects using real-world applications. Quarterly Author’s Backpack Writing Portfolio Curriculum will serve as the basis for the Writing IFC. Openings will be left in the IFCs to add the continued weaknesses that keep reoccurring despite interventions. The Reading Resource Teacher and Math AIF will assist the Reading and Math teachers in the implementation of the Reading and Math IFC. The Administration will monitor the implementation of these IFCs through lesson plan analysis and Administrative Walkthroughs.


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

Reading: Reference/Research and Comparisons will be given the most focus as they were the most deficient.
Math: Geometry and Measurement will be given the most focus as they were most deficient.
Science: Scientific Thinking will be given the most focus as it is taught in all three grade levels and is assessed the most on the Science FCAT.
Writing: Organization and Sentence Structure will be given the most focus as they are the most deficient.


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

Once FCAT scores were released, the administration determined student learning gains by teacher and adjusted the master schedule to allow for some changes in teaching assignments. Inexperienced and low-performing teachers will receive help from the Mathematics AIF and Reading Resource Teacher. Instruction will be continuously adjusted as new data is collected and reviewed by the RtI Team and grade level/department meetings.


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

The school offers students elective courses in Art, Band, Chorus, Agriculture, PE, and Consumer Science. Many of these electives provide career education and will also follow the IFCs with real-world application.


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?

State funds provide a career exploration and educational planning EPEP course in 7th grade Social Studies and in 8th grade through guidance.




DO

Direct the Instructional Focus


How are lesson plans and instructional delivery aligned across grade levels and subject areas?


Aligned curriculum maps, timelines, and LFS strategies will be used in all core areas. The district-wide Monthly Reading Comprehension Focus will be used as the basis of the reading mini-lessons. Grade level teachers will meet monthly to determine the areas of students’ strengths and weaknesses as demonstrated by class work assignments and assessment results. Teachers will also meet monthly for grade level meetings and professional learning communities to share best practices, resources, and lesson plan collaboration.


How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

District curriculum maps will be followed in all content areas. The focused lessons for all subject areas are aligned to the benchmarks which are assessed on the FCAT. Reading, Math, Language Arts, and Science teachers will teach the focus lessons at the beginning of each class period using LFS strategies. Elective and Social Studies teachers may also teach focus lessons when applicable.


How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

Progress monitoring through Title I Ongoing Assessments, FAIR OPM, Quarterly Author’s Backpack Portfolio Monitoring/ Audits, and other Progress Checks will determine revisions based on benchmark strengths and weaknesses. The administration will ensure the effectiveness of focus lessons through data and lesson plan analysis and Administrative Walkthroughs.




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.


The Title I Ongoing Assessments, FAIR OPM, Author’s Backpack Portfolio Audits, READ 180, Fast ForWord, Voyager, Compass Odyssey, STAR Reader and Math, classroom formative assessments, and Florida Achieves Mini Assessments will be used to measure student progress. Three-to-five questions will be used per benchmark. Monthly assessments will be administered.


How are assessments used to identify students reaching mastery and those not reaching mastery?

Mastery will be set at 80% to ensure student proficiency of each benchmark. An item analysis will be used to help determine which benchmarks to reteach. Skill groups will be formed based on the results.


Maintenance


How is ongoing assessment and maintenance of Benchmark mastery for each grade level and content area built into the Instructional Focus Calendar?

Students at or above mastery level will participate in extended thinking activities to maintain proficiency, while spiraled review and 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.

Teachers will meet monthly by both grade levels and departments. Notes will be taken by department heads and submitted to the administration. Members of the administrative staff will attend meetings on a rotating
basis. Instructional recommendations will be made to include both interventions as well as enrichment strategies.


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 Principal and RtI Leadership Team will be continuously involved in the teaching and learning progress through data and lesson plan analysis, Administrative Walkthroughs, and conferencing. The Reading Resource Teacher and Mathematics Academic Intervention Facilitator will provide modeling, coaching, and feedback.




ACT

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions


Identify the core, supplemental, and intensive instruction and interventions.


Core instruction will be whole group. Supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions will be given through skill groups and differentiated instruction. Resources from the state adopted textbooks, computerized programs or instructional software, internet instructions websites, and Learning Focused Solutions Strategies will be used.


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

Research-based strategies and best practices will be discussed in the monthly Professional Learning Community meetings. The Extended Learning Program (ELP), Academic Assistance, and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) will provide tutorial sessions to help reteach non-mastered target areas.


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

The areas of need are identified by data and lesson plan analysis, Administrative Walkthroughs, and the results from the Learning Focused Implementation Tool that will be administered at the beginning of the 2009-10 school year. Teachers will be able to receive online differentiated PD through the PD 360 website.


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

Students scoring a Level 1 or 2, with an ASP, or who consistently demonstrate academic difficulty with the Core instruction will be targeted.


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

Documentation of ongoing progress monitoring, data analysis, grades, attendance, and behavior will be discussed at monthly grade level and Professional Learning Community RtI meetings. New interventions will be discussed, parents will be notified, and additional help/instruction will be provided, including ELP.


Enrichment


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

Hands-on, exploration/discovery, and extended-thinking activities, rich with vocabulary development and higher-level thinking will be utilized to support acceleration and enrichment. Electives, which are both career-oriented and artistic, are also offered.


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

FCAT results, teacher recommendation, student choice, and parent input are all used for enrichment placement. Parent conferences will be held when needed.




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)
School-Wide Principal Twice Monthly Two Wednesdays per month Data Analysis, RtI, PD, LFS, and school info
Professional Learning Communities Reading-Gilda Dyal
Math-Renee Holleman
Science-Annette Stewart
Language Arts-Teresa Johnson
Social Studies-Lori Feagle
ESE-Robin Ruthven
Electives-Emily Wheelock-Moses
Monthly Reading- 2nd Monday
Math- 2nd Tuesday
Science- 2nd Thursday
Language Arts- 2nd Wednesday
Social Studies- 3rd Tuesday
ESE- 3rd Wednesday
Electives- 3rd Thursday
Progress Monitoring, Modeling, and Sharing of Best Practices
Grade Level Teams Principal, APC, and Dean Every 4.5 weeks Days vary RtI documentation and discussion


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.



 

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

 

Other Goals

No Other Goals were submitted for this school

 

FINAL BUDGET



Differentiated Accountability


School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance



Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/9/2009 11:41:53 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 FundsAmount
No data submitted



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


The duties of the Kathleen Middle School Advisory Council (SAC) shall include: assisting with the preparation and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan, assisting with preparation of the annual budget and plan, and approving the expenditures of the state awarded Lottery Funds. The School Improvement Plan will be presented to the SAC at the first meeting in September 2009. The SAC will meet at least four times during the 2009-10 school year to review the school’s progress and implementation of the SIP.


SAC Members

Members
1)  Brett Butler,   Principal
2)  Tracy Kimbrough,   SAC Chair
3)  Valerie Jackson,   Teacher
4)  Consuela Bonney,   Teacher
5)  Kristin Milinazzo,   Parent
6)  Laurie Mathers,   Parent
7)  Arlisa Jones,   Parent
8)  Debbie Lewis,   Parent
9)  Lissette Gonzalez,   Parent
10)  Sara Kocab,   School Support Personnel
11)  Julia Mento,   School Support Personnel
 

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk KATHLEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL 1191
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 697
Math: 697   		2008-2009
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? 		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  57  N  44  N      Y      NA  50  43  Y 54  56  N 54  NA  45  N 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  60  N  45  N      Y      NA  48  40  Y 51  55  N 54  NA  46  N 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  52  N  35  N  90   94  Y      NA  58  48  Y 76  65  Y 53  NA  36  NA 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y  53  N  49  N    92  Y      NA  50  47  N 52  51  N 55  N  48  N 
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  43  N  94   94  Y      NA  54  45  Y 60  57  N 52  NA  44  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA  76   88  Y      NA      NA     NA        

2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk KATHLEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL 1191
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 710
Math: 710   		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  99  Y  99  Y  50  N  46  N  94     Y      NA  57  50  Y 61  54  Y 48  NA  56  NA 
WHITE  99  Y  99  Y  52  N  49  N      Y      NA  52  48  N 56  51  N 51  N  57  N 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  42  N  24  N  90   90  Y      NA  70  58  Y 79  76  N 44  NA  41  N 
HISPANIC  99  Y  99  Y  50  N  48  N  90     Y      NA  58  50  Y 61  52  Y 39  NA  62  NA 
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  46  N  40  N  93   94  Y      NA  60  54  Y 69  60  Y 45  NA  53  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  99  Y  99  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y  21  N  21  N  72   76  Y      NA  84  79  N 87  79  N 30  N  45  N 

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk KATHLEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL 1191
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 773
Math: 773   		2006-2007
School Grade1:		 C   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2005 2006 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N
TOTAL4  99  Y  99  Y  43  N  39  N  91   94  Y      NA  56  57  N 59  61  N 42  N  53  N 
WHITE  99  Y  99  Y  48  N  44  N  93     Y      NA  51  52  N 52  56  N 43  N  57  Y 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  30  N  21  N  83   90  Y      NA  75  70  N 79  79  N 36  N  41  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y  42  N  39  N    90  Y      NA  58  58  N 67  61  N 45  N  47  N 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  99  Y  99  Y  40  N  31  N  91   93  Y      NA  61  60  N 66  69  N 41  N  48  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y  16  N  13  N  67   72  Y      NA  89  84  N 87  87  N 36  N  45  N 


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
KATHLEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 63%  48%  93%  33%  237   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
% of Students Making Learning Gains 66%  57%      123  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? 71% (YES)  64% (YES)      135  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         495   
    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
    KATHLEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 56%  51%  94%  27%  228   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 64%  67%      131  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? 69% (YES)  73% (YES)      142  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         501   
    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
    KATHLEEN MIDDLE SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 50%  46%  84%  35%  215   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
    % of Students Making Learning Gains 58%  62%      120  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? 64% (YES)  68% (YES)      132  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         467   
    Percent Tested = 99%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         C  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested