VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision:
The vision of our school is that our students, parents, staff and community will be involved and accountable to prepare our students for the future. We will all work together to instill a positive attitude toward life-long learning and a vision for the future that ensures all children, including all sub groups, will increase their academic success.
Mission:
Learning for all, whatever it takes!
Belief Statements:
We believe our purpose is to ensure that all children build a strong academic foundation, develop the desire to learn, and grow in self-confidence and compassion through a challenging curriculum which nurtures each student's abilities and aspirations in partnership with parents and family. An environment will exist that promotes self-discipline and active learning with application of skills taught to real-world situations. Self-esteem, self-respect and respect for others will be developed in our children as they are given opportunities to enhance their individual talents. In partnership with parents and family, our staff will assure that each child establishes a strong academic foundation, develops a desire to learn, and grows in self confidence and respect for others by providing a challenging curriculum that nurtures the abilities and desires of all our children, including all sub groups. In addition, our parents and staff will recognize their responsibility as a positive role model in the success of our children.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Brief History and Background of the School
Kathleen Elementary School is located in the Northwest corner of the district and is in a rural area. This school year marks the 60th anniversary. We are a Pre-Kindergarten through 5th grade school with all of our children leaving 5th grade and entering Kathleen Middle School or Sleepy Hill Middle School. Kathleen Elementary is working diligently to maintain the class size ratio of 18:1 in primary grades and 22:1 in intermediate according to state guidelines. Numerous improvements have been made to the campus including a new building which opened in 2006. Technology improvements continue to be made and KES is currently a wireless campus. Many classrooms are equipped with audio systems, interactive whiteboards, and projection machines. Due to parents, staff and community members our playground was improved last year. We continue to have support from our families and community to improve our school so that our students will achieve to their highest potential.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Due to the collaboration and implementation of our school improvement plan, our student achievement increased in many areas as documented on our school grade and AYP report. We earned 591 points receiving an A. This is an increase from 513 points last year. Our team is proud that we made AYP in twenty of the twenty-two areas on our AYP report and especially proud that we made AYP in the three areas we targeted on last year’s SIP. We are excited about our 60th Anniversary Celebration this year and will work collaboratively school wide to publish a book with our school’s history. Our school advisory council in conjunction with our leadership committee has carefully mapped out the school year producing a school calendar that is printed in our student agenda with our parent compact. Daily planning is built into the master schedule and our committees are responsible for planning and carrying out the events that have been mapped out on our school calendar. With the need for careful data analysis to track each of our subgroups’ progress and RtI, mandatory data meetings with AIF personnel and administration is built into the schedules of the teachers each week.
Due to the number of new teachers to our school, we have hired an additional resource teacher. This teacher will also work with teachers to incorporate Science with more fidelity into the daily schedules of all grade levels.
We will continue to implement Learning Focused Strategies school-wide. We are going to increase our LFS academic focus to include Writing and Reading in conjunction with the curriculum areas already utilizing the strategies in science and math. Going along with the LFS philosophies, we are going to continue to utilize our vertical teams for professional learning communities to support and sustain new implementations.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Unique School Challenges for Next Year
Due to declining enrollment and budget constraints we were allocated two less teaching units during last school year and an additional two teaching units allocated to our school this upcoming year. There are two areas our school did not make AYP in. These are two areas that in prior years we did not have enough students in that subgroup to count for AYP. This year we will plan for increasing the achievement of our African American students in both reading and math. The challenge we are facing is that a large number of our African American students do not have transportation to participate in our after school tutoring program. Last year we surveyed students asking if transportation were provided would they attend. Only three students indicated that they would attend our after school tutoring program if transportation were provided. Our plan for addressing these challenges will be addressed further later in this plan.
Another challenge is the high mobility rate of our students. We have large fluctuations beginning in October lasting through our second FTE in February. This makes it challenging to track and monitor the growth of the targeted students.
With new staff members and staff members with less than three years experience, a new resource position is being created to support and sustain their growth at our school. Historically, when a new teacher is not provided adequate scaffolding, we are unable to retain them and they seek employment elsewhere.
Student Demographics
Student Demographics
Our student membership is 556 students with a staff of seventy-nine. 78.4% percent of our students are on free or reduced lunch. We have a 20% black student population, 18% Hispanic population, 60% White population, 1% Asian, and .5% Multiracial. Most of the minority students are bussed in from the inner city area of Lakeland. Our Limited English Proficient students make up 10.1% of our population. Kathleen Elementary is a full inclusion school with an ESE population of 9.7%.
Student Attendance Rates
Student Attendance Rates
Kathleen Elementary school monitored attendance more closely this past year improving from 90.4% in 2007-2008 to 94.11% in 2008-2009 compared to the district average of 94.56%.
Student Mobility
Student Mobility
Since DOE has not provided a definition of Mobility, we will define it as 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 is 29.77 a decrease from the 0708 school year of 33.82. This mobility comes predominantly from our low socio-economic population based on analysis of student withdrawals.
Student Suspension Rates
Student Suspension Rates
2006-2007: In-school 19, Out-of-school 46; 2007-2008: In-school 14, Out-of-school 54; 2008-2009: In-school
14, Out-of-school 65. The in school suspension rates have decreased over the past three years.
Student Retention Rates
Student Retention Rates
The retention rate in 2006-2007 was 7%; the rate in 2007-2008 was 2%; and the rate in 2008-2009 was 4%. The retention rate decreased five percentage points from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 and increased two percentage points in the last year.
Class Size
Class Size
A point has been made to reduce class sizes in all subject areas and across grade levels to maximize student learning, reduce discipline problems and strengthen the one-on-one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size in our preK-3 classrooms was 17.59 and 18.77 in 4th and 5th grades this past year.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
N/A
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships and Grants
The school will continue its strong partnership with partnership with Florida Southern College, Southeastern University and the University of South Florida. Through this partnership, we have interns for field studies as well as interns on campus for final internships.
For nine years, we have been designated a Title I school. We have seen significant gains in test scores through good practices, additional support, and effective, on-going professional development. We continue to work on increasing parent participation.
Over the past several years, we have earned district recognition for high volunteer hours.
Seven years ago, we were awarded a Reading First grant and continue to implement best practices in reading instruction. During the past year our school received a matching grant for $4,000 from the Polk Education Foundation supported by our PTO. We received a Shining Star grant through our technology department for $5,000 to support the Cougar News Network. A team created and was awarded a developer grant to further support technology and innovative ideas, their work will be showcased at the IDEA Expo. We have been honored with silver school status and have been recognized as a model school for our Positive Behavior Support.
Community Business Partners include Mimi's Cafe who provide the school with student of the month recognition as well as support other efforts such as the walk-a-thon. In addition Mid-Florida Bank does a yearly reading event and provides books to all kindergarten students, funds are given back to the school each time families or staff use their Mid-Florida debit card. Monthly family nights at Chuck E. Cheese and Cici’s Pizza provide additional community support to our school. We have nominated the First Methodist Church for the food baskets program they have provided to our families and for their membership on our SAC committee. The North Lakeland Rotary Club provides us with belts, underwear, socks and shoes for our students that need it.
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
|
Lana Tatom
|
Educational Specialist, NOVA Southeastern University
Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and Administration; Masters of Arts ~ Eastern Michigan University
Elementary Education/Computer Applications in the Classroom; Bachelor of Science ~ Eastern Michigan University
Major: Math Minor: Science Group; Florida Certification
Educational Leadership All Levels
Elementary Education K-6
Mathematics 5-9
School Principal All Levels; Michigan Certification
K-5 all subjects
K-8 self contained
6-8 Math and Science
|
2
|
5
|
Principal of KES in
2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
70%, Math mastery: 79%,
Science Mastery: 56%. AYP:
95% of the criteria met, this was the first year that there were enough African American students to count as a subgroup and they did not make AYP in reading or math.
2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 68%, Math Mastery
67%, Science Mastery 26%.
AYP 92% of the criteria met, Hispanic students did not make AYP in reading or math. Economically disadvantaged students did not make AYP in math.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Sheila Gregory
|
Educational Leadership from University of South Florida; Bachelor’s Degree in Science for Elementary Education
CERTIFICATIONS: Currently certified in Educational Leadership; Elementary Education, 1-6; ESOL; Reading Endorsement
|
2
|
4
|
Assistant Principal of KES in
2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
70%, Math mastery: 79%,
Science Mastery: 56%. AYP:
95% of the criteria met, this was the first year that there were enough African American students to count as a subgroup and they did not make AYP in reading or math.
2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 68%, Math Mastery
67%, Science Mastery 26%.
AYP 92% of the criteria met, Hispanic students did not make AYP in reading or math. Economically disadvantaged students did not make 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 Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as a Coach | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Writing & Title I Program Facilitator
|
Ellen Jones
|
Master of Elementary Education, University of South Florida
Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education, University of South Florida
|
38
|
2
|
2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
70%, Math mastery: 79%,
Science Mastery: 56%. AYP:
95% of the criteria met, this was the first year that there were enough African American students to count as a subgroup and they did not make AYP in reading or math.
2007-2008:
Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 68%, Math Mastery
67%, Science Mastery 26%.
AYP 92% of the criteria met, Hispanic students did not make AYP in reading or math. Economically disadvantaged students did not make AYP in math.
|
|
Reading
|
Jennifer Rouse
|
Master of Education Degree in Collaborative Teaching and Learning – Florida Southern College; National Board Certification – Middle Childhood Generalist; Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education – University of South Florida; ESOL Certification; Elementary Education Grades K-6 Certification; Technology Level I & Level II Certification
|
10
|
4
|
2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
70%, Math mastery: 79%,
Science Mastery: 56%. AYP:
95% of the criteria met, this was the first year that there were enough African American students to count as a subgroup and they did not make AYP in reading or math.
2007-2008:
Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 68%, Math Mastery
67%, Science Mastery 26%.
AYP 92% of the criteria met, Hispanic students did not make AYP in reading or math. Economically disadvantaged students did not make AYP in math.
|
|
Teacher Trainer
|
Amy Weingarth
|
Master of Education Degree in Educational Leadership from the University of South Florida National Board Certification – Middle Childhood Generalist; Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education – University of South Florida; ESOL Certification; Elementary Education Grades K-6 Certification; Technology Level I & Level II Certification
|
5
|
1
|
2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
70%, Math mastery: 79%,
Science Mastery: 56%. AYP:
95% of the criteria met, this was the first year that there were enough African American students to count as a subgroup and they did not make AYP in reading or math.
2007-2008:
Grade: B, Reading
Mastery 68%, Math Mastery
67%, Science Mastery 26%.
AYP 92% of the criteria met, Hispanic students did not make AYP in reading or math. Economically disadvantaged students did not make AYP in math.
|
|
Spell Read Pat Intensive Instruction
|
Brent Cronin
|
Master of Education Degree in Educational Leadership – University of South Florida; Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education – University of Western Kentucky; ESOL Certification; Elementary Education Grades K-6 Certification; Technology Level I & Level II Certification
|
1
|
|
2008-2009:
Grade: A, Reading Mastery:
70%, Math mastery: 79%,
Science Mastery: 56%. AYP:
95% of the criteria met, this was the first year that there were enough African American students to count as a subgroup and they did not make AYP in reading or math.
|
|
Math
|
Jacquelyn Caruthers
|
Bachelor of Arts in Exceptional Child Education from the University of South Florida
Certification in Exceptional Child Education K-12
Certification in Elementary Education 1-6
ESOL Certification Level I & II
Technology Ceritfication
|
2
|
1.5
|
Bachelor of Arts in Exceptional Child Education from the University of South Florida
Certification in Exceptional Child Education K-12
Certification in Elementary Education 1-6
ESOL Certification Level I & II
Technology Ceritfication
|
* 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) |
|
Recruiting & retaining high quality, highly qualified teachers: applicants are screened to ensure that they meet the HQ CQ criteria and placed on a list of approved candidates for hire
|
District Office Human Resource Department
|
On-going throughout the year
|
|
|
Selection of staff: administration puts together an interview team representing classroom teachers and support teachers; selects candidates to be interviewed; creates appropriate questions; and facilitates the interview & selection process.
|
Lana Tatom & Sheila Gregory
|
On-going throughout the year
|
|
|
Coaching Support: individual teacher mentoring from experienced, successful teachers; need based classroom modeling and team teaching provided; continuous instructional feedback provided; assistance by experienced teachers in lesson planning & maintaining a positive classroom learning environment; assistance in locating teaching resources, communicating with parents, establishing an organizational system for teacher paperwork, etc.
|
Jennifer Rouse, Amy Weingarth, & Ellen Jones
|
On-going throughout school year
|
|
|
Bi-weekly reflection meetings with beginning teachers. Teacher coaches will meet with beginning teachers to talk about successes they are having in the classroom with their students and their teaching. Discussions will also take place regarding teacher questions and concerns. Teacher needs will be assessed through these meetings and coaching will be targeted on such needs to address each area of concern.
|
Jennifer Rouse, Amy Weingarth
|
May 2010
|
|
|
Daily grade level planning meetings: Each grade level team will meet together for 30 minutes daily to plan lessons collaboratively. Each day of the week has a set content focus for planning. Through these consistent team planning sessions, beginning teachers will receive assistance in designing & implementing effective lessons.
|
Each grade level of teachers; Sheila Gregory
|
June 2010
|
|
|
Differentiated professional development: teachers will receive small group, intensive professional development throughout the year based upon their instructional needs.
|
Lana Tatom, Sheila Gregory, Jennifer Rouse, Amy Weingarth, & Ellen Jones
|
June 2010
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
| No data submitted |
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 39 | 15 | 33 | 33 | 15 | 25 | 100 | 2 | 7 | 66 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
New Teachers
|
Jennifer Rouse & Amy Weingarth
|
Academic Intervention Facilitator & Resource Teacher are both National Board teachers
|
Coaching support, biweekly reflection meetings, daily grade level planning, differentiated professional development
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services to Kathleen Elementary. The Title I funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title I, Part A, support provides after-school and summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resource teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for parents.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
N/A
Title I, Part D
N/A
Title II
Title II
Professional development resources are available to Title I schools through Title II funds. In addition, School Technology Services provide technical support, technology training, and licenses for software programs and web-based access via Title II-D funds. Funds available to Kathleen Elementary are used to purchase training. This past year five staff members attended a three day training at the Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta, GA bringing new ideas to implement in the SIP.
Title III
Title III
Title III provides supplemental resources for English Language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in Title I schools, as well as professional learning opportunities for school staff. Services are provided through the district for one ESOL paraprofessional to support ELL students at our school
Title X- Homeless
Title X- Homeless
The Hearth program, funded through Title X, provides support for identified homeless students. Title I provides support for this program, and many activities implemented by the Hearth program are carried out in cooperation with the Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded through Title I, Part C.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI unit(s) provided to MY SCHOOL enhance student achievement by paying for one Spell Read teacher who works with third and fourth grade students who are struggling in reading.
Violence Prevention Programs
Violence Prevention Programs
Title IV provides violence and drug prevention programs in schools in order to promote a safe school environment. Examples of violence prevention programs include anti-bullying, gang awareness, gun awareness, etc.
Nutrition Programs
N/A
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
Head Start is not located on our campus.
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
N/A
Other
N/A
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) |
|
Instructional Staff
|
Jennifer Rouse, Lana Tatom, Sheila Gregory
|
monthly
|
First Wednesday of each month
|
LFS Extended Thinking in curriculum areas
|
|
Instructional Staff
|
Lana Tatom
|
monthly
|
First Wednesday of each month
|
Book studies to increase collegiality
|
|
Instructional Staff
|
Jennifer Rouse, Lana Tatom, Sheila Gregory
|
weekly
|
Friday of each week
|
To go over data from FCIM
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Kathleen Elementary has several programs to assist preschool children in transition from early childhood programs to elementary programs. Every spring, there is a Kindergarten Round-Up at our school which allows parents and children to register for school, visit kindergarten classrooms, and receive information about things that parents can do to prepare their children for kindergarten. During the Round-Up, children are also assessed in their readiness for kindergarten using school created assessments which include recognizing shapes, colors, and simple objects as well as making a detailed drawing of themselves. This information allows us to determine readiness and appropriate placement. Another program is an informational evening program held every April, where kindergarten teachers invite parents of the students entering kindergarten in the fall. At this time, teachers share their expectations to give the parents an idea of what will be expected of their child and what each child should know prior to enrolling in kindergarten. These two transitional programs precede the August orientation prior to the start of the school year. At the August orientation, parents meet the teacher, tour the school and receive supply lists and other information. Parents are notified about the transitional programs by notices sent home with all elementary school students and flyers are put in all daycares. Additionally, the District Office provides notices to newspapers and radio stations. Kathleen Elementary also has a Pre-Kindergarten program where we are teaching and preparing our students to be ready for Kindergarten. Using data collected and observation made, our Title One Program Facilitator and administration determine the effectiveness and any changes needed to our program.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
N/A
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 |
Needs Assessment:
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? Increased from 68% to 70%
What is the percent change? A positive 2% change
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency? Main idea and author’s purpose
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? No
If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets? Our African American subgroup did not meet the reading target.
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? Yes
What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains? 77%
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? Yes
What is the percent of students making learning gains? 65%
The leadership team analyzed achievement results relating to attendance patterns, discipline patterns, and reviewed longitudinal data trends. Our findings showed there was no significant impact on student achievement based upon attendance and discipline trends. Data trends are used to set goals for the year.
Our area for improvement is our students in our African American subgroup. By Spring 2010, 50% of our African American students will be at AL 3 or above in reading as evidenced by the AYP report.
|
1. By Spring of 2010 72% of our total student population and subgroups will be at AL 3 or above in reading as evidenced by the AYP report.
2. By Spring 2010 50% of our African American students will be at AL 3 or above in reading as evidenced by the AYP report. Safe harbor 10%
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Minimal, 90 minute uninterrupted reading block that encompasses the 6 components of reading for all students.
2. Grade level curriculum map instructional calendars used by all teachers to address SSS
3. Teachers will provide FCAT related practice (FCAT Explorer, Odyssey Lab, & Weekly Reading magazines) for test taking skills and comprehension.
4. F.A.I.R. assessments will be administered by all K-5 teachers 3x a year. All 6 components of reading are encompassed within these assessments. Diagnostic assessments will be administered to at-risk students.
5. Utilize the Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator and Title One Resource Teacher according to guidelines.
6. Monthly school-wide LFS extending thinking skills focus for instruction.
7. Technology (the use of SmartBoards, document cameras, and Senteo software) will be utilized by all teachers.
8. Weekly Acceleration Clinics will be held for struggling readers. Students will preview vocabulary and work with advance graphic organizers related to reading.
9. Teachers will conduct monthly Structured Review Days with their students to provide a cumulative review of critical reading content.
10. Administrators will conduct on-going data talks with teachers to monitor student learning gains for the bottom 25%.
11.All teachers will be trained in and consistently implement LFS strategies: student learning maps, essential questions, activating strategies, teaching strategies such as distributed practice & distributed summarizing, graphic organizers, summarizing strategies, extending thinking skills, and structured review.
12. IRIs given to students based on need and teacher judgment.
13. SAT-10 will be given to first and second grade students.
14. Support Assisted Instructor (SAI) teacher will provide Kaplan Spell Read instruction for students with disabilities and our level 1 and level 2 students.
15. School staff will provide FCAT information/parent night on how to effectively work with their child at home to improve their reading performance.
13. Targeted students will received SES, DIP, ELP, and SRP.
|
1. Lana Tatom, Principal;
2. Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal;
3. Jennifer Rouse, Reading Academic Intervention Facilitator
4. Amy Weingarth, Title One Resource Teacher
|
1. Frequent mini-assessments to monitor students’ progress and provide remediation or acceleration in small group instructional settings.
2. Daily classroom walkthroughs by Leadership Team to determine effective and ineffective teaching patterns.
3. Monthly professional learning communities where vertical teams and grade levels to analyze student work.
4. Weekly grade level data talks to identify substantially deficient students to target with immediate, intensive, interventions.
|
1. Spring 2010 FCAT results (summative assessments)
2.Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) – fall, winter, spring; (formative assessments)
3. Academic Intervention Facilitator and administration will meet with teachers to analyze student results & guide instruction.
4. SSS 2010 Adequate Yearly Progress Report (summative assessment)
5. 2010 School Grade Report (summative assessment)
6. Monthly focus assessments for on-going progress monitoring.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
By Spring of 2010 72% of our total student population and subgroups will be at AL 3 or above in reading as evidenced by the AYP report.
By Spring 2010 50% of our African American students will be at AL 3 or above in reading as evidenced by the AYP report. Safe harbor 10%
|
1. Learning Focused Strategies Day 4
2. Guided Reading
3. Learning Focused extending thinking skills for reading
4. LFS Extending Thinking Skills for Reading
5. Reading in the Content Areas
6. Graphic Organizers in Reading Instruction
7. Professional Book Talks
8. LFS Extending Thinking Skills
9. LFS Extending Thinking Skills in Reading
10. LFS Extending Thinking Skills in Reading
11. LFS Extending Thinking Skills in Reading
12. LFS Extending Thinking Skills in Reading
|
ALL:
Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal & Jennifer Rouse, Academic Intervention Facilitator
|
1. 8/18/09
2. 9/2/09
3. 9/23/09; 9/24/09; 9/28/09; 9/30/09; 10/1/09; 10/2/09
4. 10/7/09
5. 10/12/09
6. 10/23/09
7. 12/2/09
8. 1/6/09
9. 1/11/09; 1/12/09; 1/13/09; 1/14/09; 1/15/09; 1/20/09
10. 1/19/09
11. 2/17/09
12. 2/24/09
|
ALL:
Teachers will create and implement a learning unit that incorporates all of the LFS components.
The Leadership Team will conduct frequent classroom observations to ensure implementation across the school.
Lesson plans will evidence use of effective reading strategies shared during all professional developments.
|
ALL:
Lana Tatom, Principal
Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Harcourt Trophies |
District |
$0.00 |
| Kaplan Spell Read |
ESE district funding |
$0.00 |
| FSBD |
TEXT |
$1,845.00 |
| Weekly Reader/National Geographic |
FLEX |
$4,747.50 |
| Total: $6,592.50 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Compass Odyssey |
District |
$0.00 |
| Accelerated Reader |
Title I/District |
$969.77 |
| Technology Package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Licensures |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Total: $1,719.77 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Total: $9,064.40 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| AIF-Jennifer Rouse |
District /Title I |
$41,541.00 |
| Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Suppl Instructional supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Total: $50,743.25 |
| Final Total: $68,119.92 |
|
| 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 |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? Increased from 67% to 79%
What is the percent change? A positive 12% change
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency? N/A
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? No
If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets? Our African American subgroup did not meet the reading target.
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? Yes
What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains? 83%
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? Yes
What is the percent of students making learning gains? 78%
The leadership team analyzed achievement results relating to attendance patterns, discipline patterns, and reviewed longitudinal data trends. Our findings showed there was no significant impact on student achievement based upon attendance and discipline trends. Data trends are used to set goals for the year.
1. By Spring of 2010 at least 74% of our total student population and subgroups will be at AL 3 or above in math as evidenced by the AYP report. 2. By Spring 2010 52% of our African American students will be at AL 3 or above in math as evidenced by the AYP report.
Safe harbor 10%
|
Our area of improvement is our students in our African American subgroup. By Spring of 2010 at least 60% of our total student population and subgroups will be at AL 3 or above in math as evidenced by the AYP report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Minimum 90 minute block of instruction in math using math curriculum that is aligned with SSS
2. Continue implementation of Shape, Time, Money Bait, Number Literacy and What’s My Place? What’s y Value? According to grade level curriculum maps. Teachers will include math terms on a word wall in order for students to master mathematical terminology and concepts
3. Provide parent workshops in math so that parents will know how to work with their children at home.
4. Classroom teachers will provide FCAT math practice activities.
5. Teachers will align their math curriculum to the SSS using curriculum maps and focus lessons to provide direct instruction.
6. Teachers will provide technology (Smart Board, Power Points, document cameras, Senteos) to develop higher level thinking skills and improve student achievement in math.
7. Continue to use Problem of the Day to enforce problem solving strategies
8. Graphic organizers will be used to increase student high level thinking
9. Weekly Acceleration Clinics will be held for struggling students. Students will preview vocabulary and work with advanced graphic organizers related to math.
10. Teachers will conduct monthly Structured Review Days with their students to provide accumulative review of critical math content.
11. All teachers will utilize LFS consistently by incorporating student learning maps, graphic organizers, summarizing through journaling, and unit and lesson essential questions during the instructional day.
12. Informal and formal classroom assessments are also used to monitor students’ progress.
13. Administrators will conduct ongoing data talks with teachers to monitor student learning gains of the bottom 25%.
14. LFS Math Assessment Prompts are used to monitor students’ progress.
15. FCAT tests are given to third, fourth, and fifth grade students in March.
16. SAT-10 is given to first and second grade students in March.
|
1.Lana Tatom, Principal
2. Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal
3. Jennifer Rouse, Academic Intervention Facilitator
4. Amy Weingarth, Title I Resource Teacher
5. Jackie Caruthers, Title I Math Resource Teacher
|
1. Frequent mini-assessments to monitor students’ progress and provide remediation or acceleration using small group instruction.
2. Daily classroom walk-throughs by leadership team to determine effective and ineffective teaching patterns. .
3. Monthly professional learning communities where vertical teams and grade levels analyze student work.
4. Weekly grade level data talks to guide classroom instruction.
5. Provide professional development and follow up support for teachers in instruction and modeling for best practices.
|
1. Spring 2010 FCAT results (Summative Assessments)
2. LFS Math Assessment Prompts
3. Classroom Based Ongoing Progress Monitoring
4. 2010 School Grade Report (Summative)
5. SSS Adequate Yearly Progress Report (Summative)
6. AIF, Resource, Administration will meet with teachers to analyze student results and guide instruction
|
|
| |
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 at least 74% of our total student population and subgroups will be at AL 3 or above in math as evidenced by the AYP report.
|
1. After analyzing student achievement data, all teachers will receive professional development according to their individual growth plan.
2. Resource teachers provide modeling and feedback through coaching as a follow up of math strategies implementation.
3. Calendar Bait professional development for new teachers
4. Math Graphic Organizers in Instruction
5. Extended Thinking Skills in Math
|
Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal
Amy Weingarth, Title I Resource Teacher
|
1. 9/23/09, 09/24/09, 9/28/09, 9/30/09, 10/01/09, 10/02/09,
1/11/09, 1/12/09, 1/13/09, 1/14/09, 1/15/09, 1/20/09,
2. Ongoing throughout the school year
3. August/September
4. 10/23/09
5. 1/6/09
|
Leadership team will conduct classroom observations to ensure that implementation across the school.
Lesson plans will evidence use of effective math strategies shared during professional development.
|
ALL:
Lana Tatom, Principal
Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Scott Foresman |
District/TT1 |
$0.00 |
| Calendar Math |
Previously purchased Title I |
$0.00 |
| FSBD |
TEXT |
$1,845.00 |
| Total: $1,845.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Compass Odyssey |
District |
$0.00 |
| Technology Package gr. 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Licensure |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Total: $750.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Total: $9,064.40 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Math Resource Teacher-Jackie Caruthers |
Title I |
$21,869.00 |
| Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Suppl Instructional Supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Total: $31,071.25 |
| Final Total: $42,730.65 |
|
| 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 School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained? Increased by 30%
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency? None
The leadership team analyzed achievement results relating to attendance patterns, discipline patterns, and reviewed longitudinal data trends. Our findings showed there was no significant impact on student achievement based upon attendance and discipline trends. Data trends are used to set goals for the year.
By Spring of 2010 at least 56% of our total student population will be at AL 3 or above in science as evidenced by the AYP report.
|
By Spring of 2010 at least 56% of our total student population will be at AL 3 or above in science as evidenced by the AYP report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Teachers will administer science assessments to identify areas of student need.
2. Integrate science instruction with technology applications, such as United Streaming, SmartBoard, and Power Point presentations, in the classroom and the computer laboratory to remediate, reinforce, and enrich the learning experience of the students.
|
ALL:
Lana Tatom, Principal
Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal
|
1. Teachers will follow the district curriculum maps and create student learning maps in each classroom.
2. Teachers will use non-fiction reading material with students at their instructional level to build
expository text comprehension.
3. Teachers will provide science instruction for at least 60 minutes per day school wide.
4. Instruction will include science vocabulary, graphic organizers, hands-on activities and high yield strategies
5. A school wide science fair will be incorporated into the Spring Curriculum to expose younger students to the scientific process.
|
1. 1. Our summative assessment is the 2009-2010 FCAT SSS Science test results.
2. 2. Our formative assessment is the Harcourt Science Assessments used by classroom teachers to determine students’ needs. 3. We will examine FCAT data to determine whether 31% or more of our students achieved a level 3.
3. 4. The administration will meet with teachers to analyze their students’ results and guide their instruction and teachers will share this information with parents.
4. 5. Our final evaluation will be based on the results of the spring FCAT SSS, Adequate Yearly Progress and our School Grade.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Extended Thinking skills
|
Reading in the Content area
|
Jennifer Rouse/Sheila Gregory
|
Nov. 4, 2009; March 3, 2010
|
Leadership walk-through forms; lesson plan analysis
|
Lana Tatom; Sheila Gregory, Amy Weingarth
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Harcourt |
District |
$0.00 |
| Newbridge Big Books |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Weekly Readers / National Geographic |
FLEX |
$4,747.50 |
| FSBD |
TEXT |
$1,845.00 |
| Total: $7,592.50 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Technology package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Licensure |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Total: $750.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Total: $9,064.40 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Suppl Instructional Supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Total: $9,202.25 |
| Final Total: $26,609.15 |
|
| 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 |
Needs Assessment:
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? Decrease on school grade maintained on AYP report.
What is the percent change? Decreased from 95% to 83% stayed at 94% on AYP report.
The leadership team analyzed achievement results relating to attendance patterns, discipline patterns, and reviewed longitudinal data trends. Our findings showed there was no significant impact on student achievement based upon attendance and discipline trends. Data trends are used to set goals for the year.
The 2008-2009 data analysis indicates we met Adequate Yearly Progress, with 94% of our fourth grade students making 3.0 or above. 83% scored 3.5 or highly for the school grade report. We must continue to meet or exceed this state requirement of writing proficiency for our students. There is a need to increase the number of students receiving a score of a 4, 5, or 6.
|
By Spring of 2010 at least 90% of our total tested student population will be at AL 3.5 or above in writing as evidenced by the school grade and AYP report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Teachers will follow the monthly writing plan that was created based upon student work analysis.
|
ALL:
Lana Tatom, Principal
Sheila Gregory, Assistant Principal
|
1. Daily 45 minute writing block.
2. Our Title I Program Facilitator will provide small group tutoring for fourth graders who are struggling in writing.
3. SMART Board technology to demonstrate revising and editing of writing.
4. Portfolios to include Title 1 Ongoing narrative and expository
assessment data. This data will be collected at the beginning, middle and end of the school year to track students’ progress.
5. ESE teachers, through the use of inclusion, will provide small group writing instruction and
remediation for our Students With Disabilities.
6. ESOL para will provide small group tutoring in writing for ELL students.
|
1. Title I Ongoing Assessments as a formative tool to target our struggling students.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Writing
|
Writing strategies
|
Melissa Forney
|
8/2009
|
Writing assessments
|
Ellen Jones
|
|
Writing
|
Writing Clinic
|
Writing Clinic
|
8/2009
|
Classroom walk through
|
Administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Primary Pizzazz, Razzle Dazzle, Writing Superstars |
Title I |
$903.25 |
| Total: $903.25 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Licensure |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Technology package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $750.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Melissa Forney training |
Title I |
$1,500.00 |
| LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Total: $10,564.40 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Title I Program Facilitator-Ellen Jones |
Title I |
$28,427.50 |
| Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Suppl Instructional Supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Total: $37,629.75 |
| Final Total: $49,847.40 |
|
| 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 |
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? Yes
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? Increased
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement? Provide food, hands on relevant activities, commercials on morning news show, passing out handouts to parents at dismissal time, communication in agendas and Wednesday folders
The leadership team analyzed achievement results relating to attendance patterns, discipline patterns, and reviewed longitudinal data trends. Our findings showed there was no significant impact on student achievement based upon attendance and discipline trends. Data trends are used to set goals for the year.
|
In order to increase student achievement we will provide parents a variety of opportunities to assist in the educational process of their children.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Planned Core Academic Activities
(Test taking skills, Young Author’s Night, Math Skills, Informing parents of grade level expectations, Science Fair, Music Appreciation, utilization of technology at home)
2. School wide encouragement of parents to join and serve on the PTO and SAC committees
3. Student Led Conferences will be scheduled each grading period to discuss student academic achievement.
|
1. Committee Chairs
2. Lana Tatom
3. Classroom Teachers
|
1. Parent attendance, survey, program evaluations
2. Parent Membership and participation, volunteer hours as recorded in genesis
3. Parent attendance
|
1. Sign-in sheets and Parent surveys completed
2. Sign-in sheets
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Increase parent involvement
|
Core Subject Areas
|
Teachers
|
Ongoing
|
Survey Data
|
Lana Tatom, Sheila Gregory, Ellen Jones
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Volunteer App. |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Compass Odyssey |
District |
$0.00 |
| Technology package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Copier Maintenance |
Title I |
$450.00 |
| Total: $450.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Grade level professional days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Total: $9,064.40 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Wednesday folders & agendas, Ink/Toner |
Lottery Funds |
$2,505.00 |
| Postage, postcards, newsletters |
Title I |
$300.00 |
| Title I Program Facilitator-Ellen Jones |
Title I |
$28,427.50 |
| Total: $31,232.50 |
| Final Total: $40,746.90 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Harcourt Trophies |
District |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Kaplan Spell Read |
ESE district funding |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
FSBD |
TEXT |
$1,845.00 |
| Reading |
Weekly Reader/National Geographic |
FLEX |
$4,747.50 |
| Mathematics |
Scott Foresman |
District/TT1 |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Calendar Math |
Previously purchased Title I |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
FSBD |
TEXT |
$1,845.00 |
| Writing |
Primary Pizzazz, Razzle Dazzle, Writing Superstars |
Title I |
$903.25 |
| Science |
Harcourt |
District |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Newbridge Big Books |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Science |
Weekly Readers / National Geographic |
FLEX |
$4,747.50 |
| Science |
FSBD |
TEXT |
$1,845.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Volunteer App. |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $16,933.25 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Compass Odyssey |
District |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Accelerated Reader |
Title I/District |
$969.77 |
| Reading |
Technology Package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Licensures |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Reading |
Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Mathematics |
Compass Odyssey |
District |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Technology Package gr. 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Licensure |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Mathematics |
Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Writing |
Licensure |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Writing |
Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Writing |
Technology package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Technology package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Licensure |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Science |
Ink / Toner |
10TEC |
$375.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Compass Odyssey |
District |
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Technology package gr 3 & 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Copier Maintenance |
Title I |
$450.00 |
| Total: $4,419.77 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Reading |
Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Mathematics |
LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Mathematics |
Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Writing |
Melissa Forney training |
Title I |
$1,500.00 |
| Writing |
LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Writing |
Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Science |
LFS Day 4 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Grade Level Professional Development Days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Science |
Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Parental Involvement |
Grade level professional days |
Title I |
$1,440.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Teacher Trainer – Amy Weingarth |
Title I |
$7,624.40 |
| Total: $46,822.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
AIF-Jennifer Rouse |
District /Title I |
$41,541.00 |
| Reading |
Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Reading |
Suppl Instructional supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Mathematics |
Math Resource Teacher-Jackie Caruthers |
Title I |
$21,869.00 |
| Mathematics |
Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Mathematics |
Suppl Instructional Supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Writing |
Title I Program Facilitator-Ellen Jones |
Title I |
$28,427.50 |
| Writing |
Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Writing |
Suppl Instructional Supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Science |
Instructional supplies |
OPER |
$6,540.50 |
| Science |
Suppl Instructional Supplies |
Title I |
$2,661.75 |
| Parental Involvement |
Wednesday folders & agendas, Ink/Toner |
Lottery Funds |
$2,505.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Postage, postcards, newsletters |
Title I |
$300.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Title I Program Facilitator-Ellen Jones |
Title I |
$28,427.50 |
| Total: $159,879.00 |
| Final Total: $228,054.02 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/9/2009 2:30:40 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 |
|
Student Agendas & Wednesday Folders for Parent Involvement
|
2800
|
|
Ink for Newsletters / Communication to Parents
|
1000
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The KES School Advisory Council reviews and determines if the School Improvement Model is being effectively implemented. This group is composed of twenty members consisting of the principal, teachers, support staff, parents, community members, and students. This group represents the population of the students that attend KES. The members determine school improvement priorities as well as support and evaluate the implementation of the plan. In addition this council, assists in the decision making process and approval of expenditures of district lottery funds, school recognition funds when received, and reviews the School Budget. Meetings are held monthly and are posted on our school calendar, school newsletter, and website. During the meetings teachers from each grade share student achievement data, monthly events are discussed and input is given by community members.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Lana Tatom,
Principal
|
|
2)
Kathy Brown,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Alex Cruz,
Student
|
|
4)
Kristopher Scott,
Student
|
|
5)
Sabrina Reyna,
Student
|
|
6)
Melanie Smith,
Teacher
|
|
7)
Shannon Lima-Jones,
Teacher
|
|
8)
Jennifer Campbell,
Teacher
|
|
9)
Rebecca Fitzgerald,
Teacher
|
|
10)
Joy Hall,
Teacher
|
|
11)
Priscilla Sosby,
Teacher
|
|
12)
Veronica Dunn,
Parent
|
|
13)
Margaret Cox,
Parent
|
|
14)
Myriam Reyna,
Parent
|
|
15)
Katherine Colon,
Parent
|
|
16)
Gwendolyn Wright,
Parent
|
|
17)
Thomas Hanna,
Community Member
|
|
18)
Cherie Kercher,
Community Member
|
|
19)
Arturo Bobet,
Community Member
|
|
20)
Amy Weingarth,
School Support Personnel
|
|
21)
Brent Cronin,
School Support Personnel
|
|
22)
Silvia Deleon,
School Support Personnel
|
|
23)
Ellen Jones,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KATHLEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1221 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 263 Math: 263
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
64 |
N |
73 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
37 |
36 |
N |
37 |
27 |
NA |
70 |
Y |
73 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
69 |
Y |
80 |
Y |
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
30 |
31 |
NA |
31 |
20 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
43 |
N |
50 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
57 |
NA |
|
50 |
NA |
56 |
N |
47 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
67 |
Y |
71 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
52 |
33 |
NA |
44 |
29 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
80 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
60 |
N |
67 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
41 |
40 |
N |
42 |
33 |
Y |
67 |
Y |
68 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KATHLEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1221 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 255 Math: 255
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
B
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
28 |
37 |
NA |
33 |
37 |
NA |
63 |
NA |
61 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
69 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
22 |
30 |
NA |
30 |
31 |
NA |
65 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
48 |
N |
56 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
35 |
52 |
N |
37 |
44 |
N |
54 |
N |
50 |
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 |
59 |
Y |
58 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
30 |
41 |
NA |
36 |
42 |
N |
59 |
NA |
58 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk KATHLEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1221 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 261 Math: 261
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
A
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
YES |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
72 |
Y |
67 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
29 |
27 |
NA |
40 |
33 |
NA |
69 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
78 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
25 |
22 |
NA |
38 |
30 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
65 |
Y |
63 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
43 |
35 |
NA |
40 |
37 |
NA |
65 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
64 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
34 |
30 |
NA |
43 |
36 |
NA |
65 |
NA |
72 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District KATHLEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
70%
|
79%
|
83%
|
56%
|
288
|
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 |
65% |
78% |
|
|
143 |
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? |
77% (YES) |
83% (YES) |
|
|
160
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
591 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District KATHLEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
68%
|
67%
|
95%
|
26%
|
256
|
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% |
63% |
|
|
127 |
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? |
65% (YES) |
65% (YES) |
|
|
130
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
513 |
|
| 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 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
77%
|
71%
|
100%
|
45%
|
293
|
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 |
68% |
66% |
|
|
134 |
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? |
82% (YES) |
74% (YES) |
|
|
156
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
583 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |