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

PositionNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as an AdministratorPrior 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 AreaNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as a CoachPrior 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 StrategyPerson ResponsibleProjected Completion DateNot 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

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional 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
345651812121000345


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned 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-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Beverly Lynne (Principal), Steven Whitaker (Asst. Principal), Cille Anderson (Guidance Counselor), Tricia Nettleton(ESE Inclusion), Tina Stegman (ESE ), Delia Johnson(School Psychologist), Deloris O’Hern (Academic Instructional Facilitator), Liz Anderson (Classroom Teacher), Valerie Wellman (Classroom Teacher).
ALL MEMBERS WILL MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION SHARED IN PS/RtI LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETINGS.
Principal: (Required Member) The Principal provides a common vision for the use of data-based decision –making, models the Problem Solving Process; supervises the development of a strong infrastructure for implementation of PS/RtI; ensures that the school-based team is implementing PS/RtI; conducts assessment of PS/RtI skills of school staff; ensures implementation of intervention support and documentation; ensures and participates in adequate professional learning to support PS/RtI implementation; develops a culture of expectation with the school staff for the implementation of PS/RtI schoolwide; ensures resources are assigned to those areas in most need; and communicates with parents regarding school-based PS/RtI plans and activities.
Assistant Principal: Assists Principal in providing a common vision for the use of data-based decision-making, assists in the development of a strong infrastructure of resources for the implementation of PS/RtI, further assists the principal in the assessment of PS/RtI skills, implementation of intervention support and documentation, professional learning, and communication with parents concerning PS/RtI plans and activities.
Selected General Education Teachers: (Recommend at least one Primary Teacher and one Intermediate Teacher) – Provides information about core instruction; participates in student data collection; delivers Tier 1 instruction/intervention; collaborates with other staff to implement Tier 2/3 interventions; and integrates Tier 1 materials/instruction with Tier 2/3 activities.
Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Teachers: Participates in student data collection, integrates core instructional activities/materials/ instruction in tiered interventions; collaborates with general education teachers.
Academic Intervention Facilitator: Develops, leads, and evaluates school core content standards/programs; identifies and analyzes existing literature on scientifically based curriculum/behavior assessment and intervention approaches. Identifies systematic patterns of student need while working with district personnel to identify appropriate, evidence-based intervention strategies; assists with whole school screening programs that provide early intervening services for children to be considered “at risk,” assists in the design and implementation for progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis, participates in the design and delivery of professional development; and provides support for assessment and implementation monitoring.
School Psychologist: Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; provides professional development and technical evaluation; assists in facilitation data-based decision making activities.
PS/RtI Behavior Representative (PBS): Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; assists with professional development for behavior concerns; assists in facilitation data-based decision making activities.
Speech Language Pathologist: Educates the team in the role language plays in curriculum assessment, and instruction, as a basis for appropriate program design; assists in the selection of screening measures; and helps identify systematic patterns of student need with respect to language skills.
Guidance Counselor: Provides quality services and expertise on issues ranging from program design to assessment and intervention with individual students. Communicates with child-serving community agencies to support the students’ academic, emotional, behavioral, and social success.
Technology Specialist: Develops or brokers technology necessary to manage and display data, provides professional development and technical support to teachers and staff regarding data management and graphic display.


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

The PS/RtI Leadership Team will focus meetings on how to improve school/teacher effectiveness and student achievement using the Problem Solving Model.
The PS/RtI Leadership Team will meet at least once per month (or more frequently as needed) to engage in the following activities:
o Review school-wide, grade level, and teacher data to problem solve needed interventions on a systemic level and identify students meeting/exceeding benchmarks as well as those at moderate or high risk for not meeting benchmarks. This will be done at least three times per year or more frequently if new data is available.
o Help referring teachers design feasible strategies and interventions for struggling students by collaborating regularly, problem solving, sharing effective practices, evaluating implementation, assist in making decisions for school, teacher, student improvement.
o Facilitate the process of building consensus, increasing infrastructure, and making decisions about implementation.
o Focus on improving student achievement outcomes with evidence based interventions implemented with fidelity and frequent progress monitoring.
Intervention teams also foster a sense of collegiality and mutual support among educators, promote the use of evidence-based interventions, and support teachers in carrying out intervention plans.


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

The PS/RtI Leadership Team met with the School Advisory Council (SAC) and principal to help develop the SIP. The team provided data on: Tier 1, 2, and 3 targets; academic and social/emotional areas that needed to be addressed; helped set clear expectations for instruction (Rigor, Relevance, Relationship); facilitated the development of a systemic approach to teaching (Gradual Release, Essential Questions, Activating Strategies, Teaching Strategies, Extending, Refining, and Summarizing); and aligned processes and procedures.




RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Baseline data is gathered through August and September. FAIR data is processed through the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). Kindergarten and First Grade data is gathered for the SBAR. First and Second Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year SAT 10. Third through Tenth Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year’s FCAT scores.
Progress Monitoring data is gathered mid-year and toward the end of the year. FAIR data is processed twice more through the PMRN. Kindergarten and First Grade data is gathered for the SBAR every nine weeks. Other Progress Monitoring data is collected as needed for classroom or student progress. This information may be obtained by probes, Quick Reads, Fluency checks, etc.
Diagnostic Assessment data is gathered through the FAIR, ERDA, and DAR
End of Year data is gathered through FAIR, SAT 10, FCAT, and SBAR.
Data is discussed and analyzed at least monthly at the PS/RtI Leadership Team Meetings.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

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



School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data


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


Strengths were that all subgroups met the AYP requirements. 5th grade science proficiency increased by 10%. There was an 8% increase in reading learning gains and 14% increase in math learning gains. There was a 20% increase in the bottom 25% for reading gains.

Weaknesses were a 12% decrease in measurement strand in 3rd grade and an 8% decrease in the 5th grade geometry strand. In reading: 1% decrease in main idea/purpose in 3rd grade and a 13% decrease in reference/research due to the limited number of questions. In 4th grade there was an 11% decrease in main idea/purpose. In 5th grade, a 4% decrease in compare/contrasts.


Instructional Calendar Development


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

As an initial step towards implementing FCIM the school will focus on the area of reading. The district has created reading curriculum maps that are accompanied by a course timeline. The course timeline is the starting point for each school’s Instructional Focus Calendar. The district has also developed a timeline for Reading Comprehension Mini-Lessons which will serve as the school’s Reading Instructional Focus calendar. The implementation of the reading mini-lessons will be monitored by the AIF, school leadership team, and administration. Monthly PLC (grade level/department/team) meetings will be held to adjust the pacing of the mini-lessons.


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

Reading priority will be main idea/author’s purpose and geometry and measurement in math.


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

Disaggregation of FCAT data and monthly data PLCs (grade level/department/team) will use the data from FAIR and other progress monitoring tools to identify student needs and provide appropriated interventions.


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

Begin talking about expectations and goal setting in the primary grades.


How does the school incorporate students’ academic and career planning, as well as promote student course selections, so that students’ course of study is personally meaningful?

Administrators, guidance counselor, or teachers meet with students throughout the year to discuss student progress from benchmark assessments and align progress with year end goal setting and targets.




DO

Direct the Instructional Focus


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


Aligned and prioritized curriculum maps and time lines are used in all core areas. Teachers implement the EATS model for planning and delivery of core curriculum which includes essential questions, activating strategies, high-yield teaching strategies, summarizing and then re-teaching as necessary. The district-wide Monthly Reading Comprehension Focus will be used as the basis of the reading mini-lessons.


How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

Model instructional focus lessons were developed by master teachers and are posted within the district curriculum maps for all to use for core instruction. Collaborative PLCs will use the EATS model for creating additional acquisition lessons. Best practices, coaching and support for using Learning Focused Strategies will be provided by the principal, assistant principal, and leadership team. Reading comprehension mini-lessons have been written for grades 3 - 10. Each grade level/department/team will schedule the pacing of the mini lessons as well as the time of delivery during the monthly PLCs dealing with curriculum and instruction. The mini-lessons are organized by instructional day as well as strategy.


How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

Vertical teams and articulation centered on high quality student work and the results of mini-assessments will guide further revisions or refinements of the instructional focus lessons. Classroom walk-throughs will be used to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the lessons.




CHECK

Assessment


Describe the types of ongoing formative assessments to be used during the school year to measure student progress in core, supplemental, and intensive instruction/intervention.


FAIR, READ 180, Harcourt Trophies, Voyager, 100 Book Challenge, Compass Odyssey, Reading Assistant, AR will be sources of ongoing formative assessments and data.


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

Achievement thresholds will be set for each grade level and subject area. Students not reaching the threshold will be targeted for additional support as well as monitoring. Formative benchmark assessments are consistently used: school-wide and in all core areas. They are given frequently and used for monitoring student progress, as well as for planning and instruction.


Maintenance


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

Dates for ongoing assessments and spiraled review are built into the instructional focus calendar at the conclusion of each month’s comprehension focus. Additional learning opportunities will be offered to struggling students.


Describe the process and schedule for teams to review progress monitoring data (summative and mini assessments) to identify the required instructional modifications that are needed to increase student achievement.

PLCs (grade level/department/team) will meet monthly to review the most current progress monitoring data and in turn make instructional recommendations to include both interventions as well as enrichment strategies for subgroups of students, as well as individual students.


Monitoring


Describe the Principal’s and Leadership Team’s roles as instructional leaders and how they will be continuously involved in the teaching and learning process.

The administrators and the leadership team facilitate PLCs with staff members/teams which address data, student work, instruction and curriculum. The administrators and the leadership team schedule coaching and monitoring visits to classrooms on a regular basis.




ACT

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions


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


Core: Trophies/Harcourt Reading, Math/Scott Foresman
Supplemental: SRA, Kaplan Spell Read, Compass
Intensive: READ 180, Voyager


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

Multiple opportunities for researched based extended learning activities including: extended time for math and /or reading, extended day, summer school, accelerating and previewing, as well as re-teaching.


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

The Learning Focused Implementation Tool will be administered at the start of the 2009 – 2010 school year to help identify areas of need for professional development.


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

Any student scoring a Level 1 or 2; a student with an ASP; or a student who is struggling with the Core instruction.


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

Ongoing progress monitoring, mini-assessments, formative assessments, student data chats, and FAIR. (Individual schools may have other specific tools that can be listed here.)


Enrichment


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

Above level reading instruction will be provided for enrichment. Math enrichment will be provided for students scoring a Level 4 or 5 in math.


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

Students scoring a Level 4 or 5 in math and/or reading.




Professional Learning Communities

PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.)PLC LeaderFrequency of PLC MeetingsSchedule (when)Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis)
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

 

Other Goals

 

FINAL BUDGET



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 FundsAmount
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  100  71  70          NA  35  29  NA 38  30  NA 76  NA  76  NA 
WHITE  100  100  82  79          NA  29  18  NA 27  21  NA 83  NA  79  NA 
BLACK  99  99  60  59      NA      NA  44  40  N 58  41  Y 68  68  NA 
HISPANIC  98  100  64  71      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  100  69  68          NA  36  31  NA 39  32  NA 75  NA  75  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  97  100    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  100    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  100  65  62          NA  40  35  NA 41  38  NA 64  NA  64  NA 
WHITE  100  100  71  73          NA  28  29  NA 34  27  NA 71  NA  69  NA 
BLACK  100  100  56  42      NA      NA  53  44  Y 52  58  N 53  NA  49 
HISPANIC  99  98  57  60      NA      NA  45  43  N 41  40  N 61  70 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  100  100  64  61          NA  44  36  NA 45  39  Y 63  NA  63  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  97  97    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  99  99  32  39      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  100  60  59          NA  50  45  NA 38  41  NA 61  NA  63  NA 
WHITE  100  100  72  66          NA  39  35  NA 26  34  NA 71  NA  68  NA 
BLACK  100  100  47  48      NA      NA  64  55  Y 54  52  N 49  NA  58 
HISPANIC  100  99  55  59      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  100  56  55          NA  51  51  NA 41  45  N 57  NA  61 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  100  36  33      NA      NA    70  NA 50  67  NA 41  41 


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 Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
  • Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 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 Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
  • Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 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 Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
  • Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 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