VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision:
Janie Howard Wilson Elementary will differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all our students.
JHW will create a safe a caring environment where students will be successful academically and socially. Students will learn life-long skills through the use of technology and a basic curriculum, focusing on science.
Mission:
The mission of Janie Howard Wilson Elementary is to provide a caring environment while fostering increased student achievement. Learning is for all students…no excuses!
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Brief History and Background of the School
Janie Howard Wilson Elementary became a conversion charter school in 2004, along with four other Lake Wales’ schools. Our school’s focus is environmental studies and a school-wide recycling program was started last year. We have approximately 500 PreK-fifth graders. The facility includes the Media Center, a reading, math, writing, and Title 1 resource room for professional development activities, two computer labs, two science labs, an instructional television studio, and one Kindergarten-Support resource classroom. A butterfly garden, rock waterfall and several landscaped beds enhance the appearance of the school as well as create additional outdoor learning environments.
The school has also adopted a Ridge Scrub preserve unique to Florida, located adjacent to the school. A partnership with Cemex gives our Wildlife Team the chance to observe, explore, and complete research at their hands-on environmental area in Lake Wales.
Historically, JHW has had a high percentage of teacher (staff) mobility each year. However, in the last 3 years, this has dropped dramatically.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
JHW was one of six schools in our district to improve two letter grades this year…from a “C” to an “A”! We also met 100% of the AYP criteria for our subgroups. There were only two schools in Polk County to improve 2 letter grades and make AYP…and we were one of the two. We were the only Lake Wales Charter School to improve in all areas of FCAT! We will continue working to improve our proficiency levels in reading, math, writing, and science through the programs we set in place last school year.
For the first time in many years, all classroom teachers were at JHW last year. There is only one new ESE Resource Teacher and one new ESOL paraprofessional for the 09-10 school year.
All classroom teachers, resource teachers, and administrators have been trained in Learning Focus Strategies (LFS). These strategies will continue to be used in the classrooms.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
In anticipation of the continuing economic crisis, our projected enrollment will decrease by about 30 students for 09-10. Because of this, I had to release our art teacher. She worked with students on measurement, geometric shapes and other math related skills in art.
Loss of funding will mean that some materials may not be purchased that we previously used in the area of reading, math, science, and writing. One of our self-contained ESE classes desperately needs a full time paraprofessional. At this time, we are sharing one paraprofessional between our 2 self-contained ESE classes.
Student Demographics
Student Demographics
0809: White – 41.6%; Black 30.2%; Hispanic – 20.2%; Asian - .2%; Indian - .2%; Multi- 7.6%; SWD – 10.5%; ELL – 9.0%; Economically Disadvantaged – 87.6%; End-of-Year Enrollment – 524 students
Student Attendance Rates
Student Attendance Rates
08-09 – 93.4%;07-08 – 93.4%; 06-07 – 93.4%
Student Mobility
Student Mobility
Defined by the district as 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.
08-09 – 30.9%; 07-08 – 36.1%
Student Suspension Rates
Student Suspension Rates
08-09: K; – 10.4%1st – 3.8%; 2nd – 7.4%; 3rd – 8.6%; 4th -0%; 5th – 0%
07-08: K; – 15.8%1st – 9.6%; 2nd – %; 3rd – 27.1%; 4th -0%; 5th – 0%
06-07: K; – 21.8%1st – 9.0%; 2nd – 10.3%; 3rd – 3.5%; 4th -1.2%; 5th – 1.1%
Student Retention Rates
Student Retention Rates
08-09: K; – 10.4%1st – 3.8%; 2nd – 7.4%; 3rd – 8.6%; 4th -0%; 5th – 0%
07-08: K; – 15.8%1st – 9.6%; 2nd – 4%; 3rd – 27.1%; 4th -0%; 5th – 0%
06-07: K; – 21.8%1st – 9.0%; 2nd – 10.3%; 3rd – 3.5%; 4th -1.2%; 5th – 1.1%
Class Size
Class Size
07-08: K-3rd - 16.1% and 4th-5th – 18.7%; 06-07 - K-3rd 17.4% and 4th-5th – 21.3%
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
McLaughlin Middle – 08/09 DA – Correct 1; 08/09 Grade – B; 08/09 AYP – 90%; Non AYP Subgroups – Black-reading, Total, White, Black in math; 07/08 DA – Prevent 1; 07/08 Grade – C; 07/08 AYP – 85%; Non AYP Subgroups – Econ. Dis. in reading, Total, White, Black, Hispanic, Econ. Dis. in math
Bok Academy – 08/09 DA – NA; 08/09 Grade – A; 08/09 AYP – 82%; Non AYP Subgroups – Total, White, Black, Hispanic, Econ. Dis. in math, Black and Hispanic in reading; 07/08 DA – NA; 07/08 Grade – NA; 07/08 AYP – NA; Non AYP Subgroups – NA
Lake Wales High – 08/09 DA – Correct 11; 08/09 Grade – D; 08/09 AYP – 69%; Non AYP Subgroups – Total, White, Black, Hispanic, Econ. Dis. in reading, Total, Black; 07/08 DA – NA; 07/08 Grade – C; 07/08 AYP – 69%; Non AYP Subgroups – Total, White, Black, Hispanic, Econ. Dis. in reading, Total
Partnerships and Grants
JHW has a long history with community partnerships and has earned the Five Star School status nine out of the last ten years. The community partners include Cemex, Florida’s Natural, Sorensen Automotive, Home Depot, and Wal-Mart. Additionally, the residential adult communities of Tower Wood and Lake Ashton support JHW financially and supply a large number of volunteers and mentors. We have a wealth of business and career people in the Lake Wales area visiting our school for The Great American Teach In and other times to share with students.
Each year our JHW teachers write grants such as Lake Ashton Teacher Grants and grants through Polk Education Foundation. These grants cover supplies, materials, and technology equipment.
We have a privately funded Kindergarten Support Program that provides a full time teacher and paraprofessional to work with the most at-risk kindergarten students. This grant has been provided since 2004 to our school.
For the last 2 years, we have had the AmeriCorps Tutoring Program at our school.
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
|
Beverly Lynne
|
BS in Education: University of Tennessee;
MA in Education: University of South Florida;
Educational Leadership Certification: University of South Florida;
Principal Certification: State of Florida
|
3
|
14
|
Principal
Janie Howard Wilson Elem.
2008-09: School Grade-A; 75% reading mastery, 73% math mastery, 88% writing mastery, 47% science mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2007-08: School Grade-C; 72% reading mastery, 68% math mastery, 86% writing mastery, 37% science mastery; Met 92% of AYP; Black & SWD students did not meet AYP in math; SWD students did not meet AYP in reading
2006-07: School Grade-C; 66% reading mastery, 65% math mastery, 91% writing mastery, 17% science mastery; Met 95% of AYP; SWD did not meet AYP in math &reading
Hillcrest Elementary
2005-06: School Grade-B; 68% reading mastery, 69% math mastery, 78% writing mastery; Met 95% of AYP; Black subgroup did not meet AYP in reading
2004-05: School Grade-B; 68% reading mastery, 64% math mastery, 72% writing mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2003-04: School Grade-B; 63% reading mastery, 61% math mastery, 81% writing mastery; Met 90% of AYP; SWD did not meet AYP in reading & math
2002-03: School Grade-B; 54% reading mastery, 52% math mastery, 87% writing mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2001-02: School Grade-D; 50% reading mastery, 33% math mastery, 55% writing mastery
2000-01: School Grade-C; 50% reading mastery, 33% math mastery, 91% writing mastery
Assistant Principal
Hillcrest Elementary
1999-00: School Grade-C; 36% reading mastery, 39% math mastery, 89% writing mastery
1998-99: School Grade-D
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Steven Whitaker
|
BS in Elementary Education: University of Florida; Masters in Educational Leadership: Nova Southeastern University
|
3
|
3
|
Janie Howard Wilson Elem.
2008-09: School Grade-A; 75% reading mastery, 73% math mastery, 88% writing mastery, 47% science mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2007-08: School Grade-C; 72% reading mastery, 68% math mastery, 86% writing mastery, 37% science mastery; Met 92% of AYP; Black & SWD students did not meet AYP in math; SWD students did not meet AYP in reading
2006-07: School Grade-C; 66% reading mastery, 65% math mastery, 91% writing mastery, 17% science mastery; Met 95% of AYP; SWD did not meet AYP in math &reading
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
| Subject Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as a Coach | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Reading
|
Deloris O'Hern
|
BS in Elementary Education Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
ESOL endorsement
|
20
|
6
|
Janie Howard Wilson Elem.
2008-09: School Grade-A; 75% reading mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2007-08: School Grade-C; 72% reading mastery; Met 92% of AYP; SWD students did not meet AYP in reading
2006-07: School Grade-C; 66% reading mastery; Met 95% of AYP; SWD did not meet AYP in reading
|
|
Math
|
Donna Borders
|
A.A. degree from Polk Community College
B.S. degree from Florida Southern College
|
31
|
4
|
Janie Howard Wilson Elem.
2008-09: School Grade-A; 73% math mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2007-08: School Grade-C; 68% math mastery; Met 92% of AYP; Black and SWD students did not meet AYP in math; 2006-07: School Grade-C; 65% math mastery; Met 95% of AYP; SWD did not meet AYP in math
|
|
Writing
|
Amy Caraway-Harris
|
A.A. Degree from Polk Community College
B.S. Degree in Elementary Education from Warner Southern University
|
12
|
4
|
Janie Howard Wilson Elem.
2008-09: School Grade-A; 88% writing mastery; Met 100% of AYP
2007-08: School Grade-C; 86% writing mastery; Met 92% of AYP; Black and SWD students did not meet AYP in math; SWD students did not meet AYP in reading
2006-07: School Grade-C; 91% writing master,; Met 95% of AYP; SWD did not meet AYP in math & reading
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
1. Host interns and practicum students from local universities and will make an effort to place them into vacant positions.
|
Administrators
|
Ongoing
|
|
|
2. Weekly professional development in reading, math, writing or technology
|
Resource Teachers
|
Ongoing
|
|
|
3. Give the opportunity to attend professional development given by PCSB/LWCS.
|
LWCS Superintendent
|
Ongoing
|
|
|
4. AIF will conduct monthly mentoring opportunities
|
Deloris O’Hern
|
Ongoing
|
|
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 |
| 34 | 5 | 65 | 18 | 12 | 12 | 100 | 0 | 3 | 45 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Deloris O’Hern(Academic Intervention Facilitator)
|
Tricia Nettleton
|
Mrs. O’Hern was our previous Reading Coach and modeled research-based strategies to our staff, provided professional development on reading strategies, and was trained to work as a Mentor for beginning teachers. She also served as an intervention teacher at our school working with our striving students many of whom were later placed in our ESE classes.
|
Deloris O’Hern(Academic Intervention Facilitator)
|
|
Elizabeth Anderson and April Barnhardt
|
Tricia Nettleton
|
Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Barnhardt are both regular classroom teachers in 4th and 5th grade respectfully.
They both infuse technology into their curriculum including the use of Promeathean Boards for instruction. They are both highly qualified and have shown improvement in reading and math achievement with their students.
|
Elizabeth Anderson and April Barnhardt
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services to Janie Howard Wilson 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
Migrant students enrolled in Janie Howard Wilson Elementary will be assisted by the school and by the District Migrant Education Program (MEP). Students will be prioritized by the MEP for supplemental services based on need and migrant status. MEP Teacher Advocates, assigned to schools with high percentages of migrant students, monitor the progress of these high need students and provide or coordinate supplemental academic support. Migrant Home-School Liaisons identify and recruit migrant students and their families for the MEP. They provide support to both students and parents in locating services necessary to ensure the academic success of these students whose education has been interrupted by numerous moves.
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D, provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned school. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at schools to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement.
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 Janie Howard Wilson Elementary are used to purchase PD360.
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.
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)
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
This school is a location for a summer feeding program for the community.
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
Head Start is/is not located on our campus. Resources are provided to the program to assist in the transition of students from pre-k to kindergarten. Head Start teachers may participate in professional learning opportunities offered to school staff, and they are involved in Professional Learning Community activities with kindergarten teachers. Parents of Head Start students are invited to participate in parent workshops and activities provided by the school.
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
N/A
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
|
K-5 grade teachers, Academic Intervention Facilitator, ESE and ESOL teachers.
|
Deloris O’Hern,
Academic Intervention Facilitator
|
Monthly
|
4th Wednesday during common planning time
|
Research based strategies in reading, classroom literacy centers,mini-lessons and analyzing test data with grouping.
|
|
K-5 grade teachers, Math Resource Teacher, ESE teacher, and ESOL teacher
|
Donna Borders, Math Resource Teacher
|
Monthly
|
3rd Wednesday during common planning time
|
Research based strategies in math, review math curriculum maps
Analyze test data, mini-assessments, and tutorials
|
|
K-5 Grade Teacher, Writing Resource Teacher, ESE Teacher, ESOL Teacher
|
Amy Caraway Harris, Writing Resource Teacher
|
Monthly
|
2nd Wednesday during common planning time
|
Implementing the writing curriculum maps, utilizing research based strategies and programs in writing along with mini lessons, provide enrichment activities for writing, and analyze mini assessments.
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Our school houses a Pre-K unit on campus and students are often involved in school activities, i.e., eating in the school cafeteria, going to the Media Center for books and story time, and participating in a variety of school assemblies.
In April, we host a Kindergarten Round-Up program, where staff members go into the community and distribute notes to future Kindergarten students’ parents to attend the Kindergarten Registration and Orientation program night. Fliers are sent to local pre-schools informing the parents of the Kindergarten Orientation and Registration Program. During the meeting, staff members address the parents and tell them the skills needed by their child to be ready for Kindergarten, and show them strategies to prepare their child for the fall.
Kindergarten teachers in the Lake Wales Charter System have designed an assessment of Kindergarten readiness skills for all of the kindergartners entering school. This early assessment is also used in the spring with our preschoolers to identify those students who still need extra help. Those students who are identified as not being ready are recommended to attend our K-Week program prior to the start of the school year. School rules, procedures, and parent involvement are targeted, as well as readiness lessons for students. Teachers model reading aloud, homework procedures, and behavior strategies for the parents. Our Kindergarten Teachers, K Support Teacher and Paraprofessional, Gail Crum, director of K Support, and some of our First Grade Teachers are responsible for this intervention. Four year old children are also solicited to participate in the Volunteer Pre-K programs conducted during the summer.
Additionally, we have a Kindergarten Support program, funded by a private grant, in which a highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional work with those students who have been identified as at-risk through teacher recommendation, DIBELS screenings, and the ESI-K assessment. This program is a pull-out program designed to provide additional support to these students to better prepare them for the rigors of the kindergarten classroom. Parents and teachers will provide feedback through a survey conducted at the end of the year. We also use data from all the assessments to evaluate our effectiveness with the K Support. We are completing the fourth year for the longitudinal study of the first group of kindergartners this year for the donor to follow the progress of these students.
Lake Wales Charter System has another grant that our families are involved in: Family Literacy. The Family Literacy Program involves the entire family for parenting skills, dinner, GED help, homework help, and baby-sitting.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Black Subgroup scored 60% proficiency in 2008-09.
|
By Spring 2010, 64% of Black students will be at AL 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
The school will implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress.
2.Intervention groups will be implemented to address students’ needs
3. Differentiated instruction during the reading block including small group instruction to meet students’ weaknesses.
|
Principal and AIF Coach
2.Principal and AIF Coach
3.Principal and AIF Coach
|
1.Analyze the FAIR data to determine the strengths and weakness es of students
2. Progressing monitoring using the FAIR assessments completed every 20 days.
3. Ongoing progress monitoring using authentic assessments.
|
1. FAIR assessment reports on the PMRN
2.FAIR Progress Monitoring Tools
3. Teacher made authentic assessments.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Hispanic Subgroup scored 64% proficiency in 2008-09.
|
By Spring 2010, 67.6% of Hispanic students will be at AL 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Instructional Focus calendar for Reading and Language Arts.
2. ESOL Para-professional and teachers will be trained by the AIF Coach with strategies such as using graphic organizers, visual clues, signal words to use to address the Hispanic students’ needs.
3. Pair Hispanic students that exhibit poor language arts skills with a bilingual student to support instruction.
|
1. Instructional Focus calendar for Reading and Language Arts.
2. ESOL Para-professional and teachers will be trained by the AIF Coach with strategies such as using graphic organizers, visual clues, signal words to use to address the Hispanic students’ needs.
3. Pair Hispanic students that exhibit poor language arts skills with a bilingual student to support instruction.
|
1. Classroom walkthroughs will be conducted to monitor implementation.
2. Progress monitoring using authentic assessment.
3. Targeted assessment using FAIR progress monitoring or teacher made assessments every 20 days
|
1. Effectiveness will be determined by the FAIR assessments.
2.FAIR Progress Monitoring Tools
3.FAIR assessments
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By spring 2010, 64% of Black students will be at AL 3 or above in Reading as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report
|
Comprehension Strategies, such as graphic organizers, visual clues and signal words to enhance instruction in reading.
|
Academic Intervention
Facilitator
|
Sept. 2009
|
Lesson Plans
Classroom visits
|
Principal
AIF
|
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 |
| 100 Book Challenge |
IDEA ARRA |
$3,500.00 |
| Total: $3,500.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Promethean Board |
IDEA ARRA |
$1,100.00 |
| READ 180 support and supplies |
FTE |
$1,500.00 |
| Ticket to Read site license |
IDEA ARRA |
$3,500.00 |
| Imagination Station |
FTE |
$3,500.00 |
| Total: $9,600.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading AIF |
District Title 1 |
$70,000.00 |
| Total: $70,000.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Accelerated Reader support, books, STAR |
FTE |
$5,000.00 |
| Total: $5,000.00 |
| Final Total: $88,100.00 |
|
| End of Reading Goal |
|
Mathematics Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Black Subgroup scored 59% proficiency in 2008-09.
|
By Spring 2010, 63.1% of Black students will be at AL 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Homework Help Time
2.Small group instruction will take place in grades 3-5 with the Math Resource Teacher and special area teachers working together with the classroom teacher.
3. Math Facts Competion between grade levels (3-5).
(K-2 ) monthly math test given by teachers.
|
1. Math Resource Teacher, Program Facilitator, Guidance Counselor, Academic Intervention Facilitator
2. Principal, Assistant Principal, Math Resource Teacher
3. Math Resource Teacher
|
1. Teachers will see improvement in math understanding and on Scott Foresman Assessments
2. Teachers will see improvement in math understanding and on Scott Foresman Assessments
3. Math Resource Teacher will see improvement on the monthly facts test and teachers will see improvement on Scott Foresman assessments
|
1. Progress of students on Scott Foresman assessments.
2. Progress of students on Scott Foresman assessments.
3. Progress of students on Monthly Facts Test and on Scott Foresman assessments.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010 63.1% of Black students will be at AL 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report
|
SSS Next Generation Math Standards
|
Math Resource Teacher
|
Sept. 2009
|
Lesson Plans, Monthly Professional Learning Community, Walk-Through
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Math Resource Teacher
|
|
By Spring 2010 63.1% of Black students will be at AL 3 or above in Math as evidenced by Safe Harbor of the AYP Report
|
SSS Next Generation Math Standards
|
Math Resource Teacher
|
Sept. 2009
|
Lesson Plans, Monthly Professional Learning Community, Walk-Through
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, Math Resource Teacher
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Acaletics for Grades 3-5 |
Title 1 |
$12,000.00 |
| Total: $12,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Math Facts in a Flash |
FTE |
$1,500.00 |
| Promethean Board |
IDEA ARRA |
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $3,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Math Resource Teacher |
Title 1 |
$72,418.00 |
| Total: $72,418.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $87,418.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
47% of 5th Grade FTE 2 and 3 Students scored at a 47% proficiency rate in 2008-09.
|
By Spring 2010, 50% of 5th Grade students will be at AL 3 or above in Science as evidenced by School Grades Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Utilize a Primary and Secondary Science Labs to provide hands-on learning experiences in small groups, 35-45 minutes, twice a week.
2. Lab instructors will set up their rooms to encourage student collaboration in small groups.
3. Students will be required to keep detailed science logs of the experiments that they complete in the science lab.
|
1. Principal & Science Lab instructors
|
1. The lab schedule will be implemented with fidelity and monitored by the Principal.
2. Instructors will monitor student progress to assess the success of student grouping with groups changing at least once every nine weeks.
3. Instructors will review and evaluate student lab notebooks at the completion of each lab along with having periodic notebook quizzes.
|
1. Harcourt assessments
2. Lab notebook checks and behavior monitoring.
3. Lab notebook checks.
|
| 2 |
1. Provide 5th grade students with daily science inquiry questions to familiarize students with FCAT style questions.
2. Inspire students to find science in daily life using conversation starter cards to help students learn about science in the world around.
3. Utilize “personal touch tanks” for each lab group to encourage observation and critical thinking skills
|
1. Classroom teachers & Lab instructors
2. Lab instructors
3. Lab instructors
|
1. Weekly checks with running record of point tabulation on star chart.
2. Weekly bulletin board postings
3. Weekly writing
|
1. Weekly checks
2. Teacher made assessment
3. Teacher made assessment
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, 50% of 5th Grade students will be at AL 3 or above in Science as evidenced by School Grades Report.
|
Scientific method, SSS Science
|
Science Resource
|
March 2010
|
Notebooks, lab manuals
|
Science Resource
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Promethean Board for Primary Lab |
IDEA ARRA |
$1,100.00 |
| Total: $1,100.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Intermediate Science Resource Teacher |
FTE |
$45,000.00 |
| Primary Science Resource |
Title 1 |
$50,173.00 |
| Total: $95,173.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $96,273.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
88% of 4th Grade FTE 2 and 3 Students scored at proficiency rate in 2008-09.
|
By Spring 2010, 90% of 4th Grade students will be at AL 3.5 or above in Writing as evidenced by School Grades Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Students will use writing process daily; all writing will be recorded in a journal, notebook, or work folder for monitoring of growth across time.
2. Title One BME Writing Tests will be administered to assess students’ growth across time.
|
. Principal, Assistant Principal, Writing Resource Teacher
|
. School wide student portfolios, student academic cards, and rubric will be used to monitor progress.
|
Progress of students assessments.
|
| 2 |
1. Teachers will continue to implement a school-wide writing curriculum (Kathy Robinson) for Grades K-5 aligned with the SSS writing.
2. Tier 1: Teachers will utilize a grade level monthly focus writing calendar based on Curriculum Maps along with Kathy Robinson Writing Curriculum and Melissa Forney ideas.
1. Tier 1: The classroom teachers will assess and identify struggling students who need additional instruction and support to master Sunshine State Standards in writing through Demand Writing Prompts and BMME Tests. Small group instruction will be based upon the Demand Prompts and BMME Tests.
2. Tier 2: After school tutoring known as “Super Hero Writing” for:
* 4th Graders September-October & January-February
* 2nd Graders November-December
* 3rd Graders April-May
5. Tier 3: Additional intervention tutoring for 4th Grade in January through out school day (reteaching and differentiated instruction) .
|
. Principal, Assistant Principal, Writing Resource Teacher
|
1. School wide student portfolios, student academic cards, and rubric will be used to monitor progress.
1. Teachers will see improvement in writing in the areas of; Focus, Organization, Support, and Conventions.
2. Teachers will see improvement in writing in the areas of; Focus, Organization, Support, and Conventions
3. .
Student writing samples will be reviewed and scored monthly by teacher. Percent of students making adequate progress toward goal will be determined.
Teachers will see improvement in writing in the areas of; Focus, Organization, Support, and Conventions
.
|
1.Progress of students assessments.
1. Focused walk- throughs
2. Focused walk- throughs
3. Scored writing samples will be used to determine progress between BME Tests and each grade level (Demand Prompts).
Focused walk- throughs.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By Spring 2010, 89% of 4th Grade students will be at AL 3.5 or above in Writing as evidenced by School Grades Report.
|
Narrative, expository writing; vocabulary
|
Writing Resource Teacher
|
May 2010
|
Walkthroughs, monitoring prompt writing
|
Writing Resource Teacher
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Melissa Forney Workshop |
FTE |
$3,000.00 |
| Writing Resource Teacher |
Title 1 |
$55,547.00 |
| Razzle Dazzle Books |
FTE |
$50.00 |
| Total: $58,597.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Promethean Boards |
IDEA ARRA |
$2,100.00 |
| Total: $2,100.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $60,697.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Conduct a Title I Open House Meeting to encourage parent participation.
|
Increase parental involvement by 5% during the 2009-2010 school year.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Inform parents using Connect-Ed phone system
2. Notices/stickers in student agendas
|
Program Facilitator
|
Parent follow up through phone communications; sign in sheets
|
Sign in sheets; parent survey
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Once per month meet with teachers to discuss ways to improve parent involvement
|
Ideas will be taken from PIRC online
|
Title I Program Facilitator
|
First Wednesday of each month
|
Parent sign in; volunteers; mentors
|
Title I Program Facilitator; Kindergarten Support Staff
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Title 1 Program Facilitator |
Title 1 |
$55,045.00 |
| Total: $55,045.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Agendas |
Title 1 |
$2,500.00 |
| Prizes for student attendance at Family Nights |
PTO |
$2,000.00 |
| Supplies and food for Family Nights |
PTO |
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $7,000.00 |
| Final Total: $62,045.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
Discipline Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
During the 2008-2009 school year, an average of 9.6% of all students were absent or tardy for various reasons (out of school suspensions, health-related issues, family issues, etc.) each day. Students that were absent 21 days or more from school comprised 12% of the total population. Additionally, 86% of the students that were continually absent were free and reduced lunch students.
|
By June 2011, seek to reduce the volume of students suspended out of school by 20%.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Tier 1: Implement positive behavior rewards system for each classroom and school-wide.
2. Tier 2: Implement mini-referral system within the classroom/home in order to prevent minor disruptions from becoming major disruptions (RPS – Request for Parent Support).
3. Tier 3: Form disciplinary committee to review monthly discipline reports and to specifically target areas/students in need of improvement using a variety of mentoring programs.
|
1. Discipline committee
2. Teachers, with parental support as needed, and guidance counselor, and Assistant Principal
3. Discipline Committee
|
1. Teacher feedback/input
2. Teacher, guidance and administration feedback/input, along with monthly reports
3. Collected and analyzed data from Genesis
|
1. Survey teachers regarding behavior and absences during monthly faculty meetings
2. Using Genesis, count frequency of days of suspension with students in Tier 2 intervention
3. Using Genesis, count frequency of days of suspension with students in Tier 3 intervention
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Discipline Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
100 Book Challenge |
IDEA ARRA |
$3,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Acaletics for Grades 3-5 |
Title 1 |
$12,000.00 |
| Writing |
Melissa Forney Workshop |
FTE |
$3,000.00 |
| Writing |
Writing Resource Teacher |
Title 1 |
$55,547.00 |
| Writing |
Razzle Dazzle Books |
FTE |
$50.00 |
| Total: $74,097.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Promethean Board |
IDEA ARRA |
$1,100.00 |
| Reading |
READ 180 support and supplies |
FTE |
$1,500.00 |
| Reading |
Ticket to Read site license |
IDEA ARRA |
$3,500.00 |
| Reading |
Imagination Station |
FTE |
$3,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Math Facts in a Flash |
FTE |
$1,500.00 |
| Mathematics |
Promethean Board |
IDEA ARRA |
$1,500.00 |
| Writing |
Promethean Boards |
IDEA ARRA |
$2,100.00 |
| Science |
Promethean Board for Primary Lab |
IDEA ARRA |
$1,100.00 |
| Total: $15,800.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Reading AIF |
District Title 1 |
$70,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Math Resource Teacher |
Title 1 |
$72,418.00 |
| Science |
Intermediate Science Resource Teacher |
FTE |
$45,000.00 |
| Science |
Primary Science Resource |
Title 1 |
$50,173.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Title 1 Program Facilitator |
Title 1 |
$55,045.00 |
| Total: $292,636.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Accelerated Reader support, books, STAR |
FTE |
$5,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Agendas |
Title 1 |
$2,500.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Prizes for student attendance at Family Nights |
PTO |
$2,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Supplies and food for Family Nights |
PTO |
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $12,000.00 |
| Final Total: $394,533.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 7:10:32 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 |
|
Technology hardware
|
7500
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Beverly Lynne,
Principal
|
|
2)
Michael Sanchez,
Teacher
|
|
3)
Angela Ryans,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Ofelia Chavez,
Parent
|
|
5)
Bethany Taylor,
Parent
|
|
6)
Rhonda Talmadge,
Parent
|
|
7)
Carlie Cosce,
Parent
|
|
8)
Shelley Schlenker,
Parent
|
|
9)
Candace Craft,
Parent
|
|
10)
Pauline Burch,
Community Member
|
|
11)
Peggy Harris,
Community Member
|
|
12)
Marvela Castanon,
Community Member
|
|
13)
Deming Cowles,
Community Member
|
|
14)
Gwen Hayes,
School Support Personnel
|
|
15)
Epifania Martinez,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk JANIE HOWARD WILSON SCHOOL 1401 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 265 Math: 265
|
2008-2009 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? |
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
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
71 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
35 |
29 |
NA |
38 |
30 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
76 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
82 |
Y |
79 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
29 |
18 |
NA |
27 |
21 |
NA |
83 |
NA |
79 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
60 |
N |
59 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
44 |
40 |
N |
58 |
41 |
Y |
68 |
Y |
68 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
98 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
64 |
N |
71 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
43 |
36 |
Y |
40 |
29 |
NA |
70 |
NA |
80 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
69 |
Y |
68 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
36 |
31 |
NA |
39 |
32 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
97 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk JANIE HOWARD WILSON SCHOOL 1401 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 277 Math: 277
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
65 |
Y |
62 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
40 |
35 |
NA |
41 |
38 |
NA |
64 |
NA |
64 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
71 |
Y |
73 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
28 |
29 |
NA |
34 |
27 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
69 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
56 |
N |
42 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
53 |
44 |
Y |
52 |
58 |
N |
53 |
NA |
49 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
57 |
N |
60 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
45 |
43 |
N |
41 |
40 |
N |
61 |
Y |
70 |
Y |
| 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 |
64 |
Y |
61 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
44 |
36 |
NA |
45 |
39 |
Y |
63 |
NA |
63 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
32 |
N |
39 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
64 |
68 |
N |
67 |
61 |
N |
|
NA |
|
NA |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk JANIE HOWARD WILSON SCHOOL 1401 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 249 Math: 249
|
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
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
60 |
Y |
59 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
50 |
45 |
NA |
38 |
41 |
NA |
61 |
NA |
63 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
72 |
Y |
66 |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
39 |
35 |
NA |
26 |
34 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
47 |
N |
48 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
64 |
55 |
Y |
54 |
52 |
N |
49 |
NA |
58 |
Y |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
55 |
Y |
59 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
48 |
NA |
42 |
41 |
NA |
57 |
NA |
58 |
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 |
56 |
Y |
55 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
51 |
51 |
NA |
41 |
45 |
N |
57 |
NA |
61 |
Y |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
36 |
N |
33 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
70 |
NA |
50 |
67 |
NA |
41 |
N |
41 |
N |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District JANIE HOWARD WILSON SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
75%
|
73%
|
88%
|
47%
|
283
|
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 |
67% |
75% |
|
|
142 |
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? |
66% (YES) |
64% (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 |
|
|
|
|
555 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District JANIE HOWARD WILSON SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
72%
|
68%
|
86%
|
37%
|
263
|
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 |
59% |
61% |
|
|
120 |
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? |
46% (NO) |
64% (YES) |
|
|
110
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
493 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District JANIE HOWARD WILSON SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
66%
|
65%
|
91%
|
17%
|
239
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
57% |
62% |
|
|
119 |
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? |
50% (YES) |
62% (YES) |
|
|
112
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
470 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |