VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

Vision:
• Garden Grove Elementary School will dedicate its leadership and resources to creating a positive learning environment based on research and high-yield strategies.
• Flexible grouping will allow instruction at student’s appropriate level.
• Supporting a climate of high expectations for all, parents and teachers will expect students to meet grade level expectations for promotion.
• The school will work to align the Sunshine State Standards with Mastery Based Lessons aimed at student achievement of the Performance Standards.
• The school will provide adequate time to develop a firm foundation in reading, writing, and mathematics as well as incorporating opportunities to develop higher-level thinking skills and problem- solving abilities.
• The curriculum design will provide opportunities to integrate fine arts activities.
• There will be opportunities for students to make choices and decisions in their learning.
• Technology will be integrated to provide meaningful skills instruction, remediation, and training in the skills needed to access global information and learning experiences.
• Teachers will use innovative teaching practices and alternative assessment methods to address the creativity, learning modalities, and multiple intelligences of their individual students.
• Teachers and students will use cooperative learning strategies, conflict resolution, and Stop and Think Strategies to develop academic, social, and communication skills within and across grade levels.
• In a safe and orderly environment, the school will work to develop respectful students who are engaged in developing positive character traits that lead to the ability to make good choices and respect for rules.
• The school will work cooperatively with the community to provide the appropriate resources and guidance for each student’s physical, mental, and emotional well being.
• In a continuous learning environment, the staff will act as professionals committed to taking pride in their work as well as supporting and recognizing the achievements and efforts of their peers.

Mission: Believing all children can learn, we work together in a safe, caring environment, guiding each individual toward lifelong learning and responsible, productive citizenship.



Belief Statements: The staff at Garden Grove Elementary believes that all children can learn. It has shown its belief in this statement through teaching strategies. Garden Grove groups its children on their instructional level for reading and provides differentiated assignments in all areas. We constantly monitor all children’s progress to be sure they are receiving instruction on their level.


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

Brief History and Background of the School
Garden Grove Elementary is located in southeast Winter Haven on Cypress Gardens Road several miles from beautiful Cypress Gardens. The school was built in 1975 and since then has added eight new classrooms and ten portables. There has been continued growth surrounding Cypress Gardens including several new subdivisions and two large apartment buildings. Many of these children attend our school.


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

After raising our school grade from a B the previous year to an A this year, we have a very enthusiastic staff. We will only have two new teachers to train on our school-wide strategies. We will be starting the second year of implementing our writing program in which we began revamping last year. Our Out-of School Suspension and In-School Suspension data has declined. Perhaps this was the result of the implementation of PBS (Positive Behavior Support). The principal and assistant principal will be starting their second year as administrators.


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

We have had two years of not making AYP, so it is a must for us to make it this school year. Our school is currently at 59.24 percent free and reduced lunch. This is borderline to Title One without receiving the Title One funds to help with extra tutoring and resources.


Student Demographics

The following is the percentages of the students at Garden Grove:
White: 52.05, Black: 23.55, Hispanic: 14.10, Asian: 2.96, Indian: 0.42, Multicultural.: 6.91, SWD:7.33, ELL: 1.83, F/R: 59.24, EOY Enrollment: 709


Student Attendance Rates

Garden Grove’s 2008-2009 attendance rate increased from 95.73% in 2007-2008 to 95.76%. The average attendance rate at Garden Grove for the past three years is 95.75% as compared to 94.3% for the district.


Student Mobility

Polk’s definition of Mobility is as follows: “The enrollment or withdrawal of a student at any time during the school year not including the first 15 days of school divided by the total number of students who attended the school during that year after the 15th day”.
Garden Grove’s mobility rate decreased from 23.56% in 2007-2008 to 21.59% in 2008-2009.


Student Suspension Rates

2006-2007- 112 days Out-of-school suspension and 71 days in-school suspension
2007-2008 107 days Out of school suspension and 53 days in-school suspension
2008-2009- 56 days Out-of-school suspension and 48 days In-school suspension
The suspension rates have decreased over the past three years.


Student Retention Rates

The following are the retention rates for grades K-5 2008-2009:
K- 3.54
1- 8.47
2- 3.20
3- 8.44
4- 0.87
5- 0.00


Class Size

The class size averages are as follows:
K- 3 K-3 K-3 4-5 4-5 4-5
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
18.22 17.48 17.46 20.72 18.52 19.5


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

NA


Partnerships and Grants

We are very fortunate to have strong business partnerships with Publix and Giovanni’s NY Pizza. Both businesses are very generous in supplying our school with school supplies, discounted rates on food items, as well as other needed items.


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 *
No data submitted

* 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 *
No data submitted

* 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)
No data submitted


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
0000000000


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
No data submitted



ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration


Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A


Title I, Part C- Migrant


Title I, Part D


Title II


Title III


Title X- Homeless


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)


Violence Prevention Programs


Nutrition Programs


Housing Programs


Head Start


Adult Education


Career and Technical Education


Job Training


Other


Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)


School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Principal, Assistant Principal, Guidance Counselor, Two ESE teachers, Two classroom teachers, School Psychologist, Speech Language Pathologist


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

Rtl Leadership Team meets every Monday to discuss the needs and develop interventions for specific student. In addition, they 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, and student improvement.


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

The RTI Leadership Team collaborated with the principal to help develop the SIP.




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 using the previous year SAT 10. Third through Fifth Grade instructional data is gathered using 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 is gathered for the SBAR every nine weeks. Other Progress Monitoring data is collected for classroom or student progress. This information may be obtained by probes, Quick Reads, Fluency checks, etc.
End of Year data is gathered using FAIR, SAT 10, FCAT, and SBAR.
Data is discussed and analyzed at least monthly at PS/RtI Leadership Team Meetings.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

Professional learning will be provided during the teacher’s common planning time 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?


Grade 3: In reading the students scored 78% at levels 3-5 and 75% in math. The weakness in reading was in main idea/purpose and in math, the largest weaknesses were in number sense, measurement, and algebraic thinking. Our 3rd grade scored above the district in both reading and math.
Grade 4: In reading the students scored 72% at levels 3-5 and 84% in math. The weaknesses in reading were in main idea/purpose and comparisons. Our 4th grade scored above the district in reading and math.
Grade 5: In reading the students scored 68% at levels 3-5 and 62% in math. There is a substantial decrease in math scores between 4th and 5th grade. This is an area of concern. Our 5th grade students scored above the county in reading and math. In science our 5th grade students scored 47% at levels 3-5. This is also above the district average.


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 AP. Monthly grade level 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: LA.3.1.7.3- LA.4.1.7.3 Determine explicit ideas and information in grade-level text, included but not limited to main idea, relevant supporting details, strongly implied message and inference, and chronological order of events.
Writing: LA.5.1.7.3- Paraphrasing, summarizing, and identifying relevant details; including elaboration.
Mathematics: MA.4.A.4.3: Recognize and write algebraic expressions for functions with two operations.
MA.2.G.3.4: Estimate, select and appropriate tool, measure, and/or compute lengths to solve problems.
MA.5.A.4.1: Use the properties of equality to solve numerical and real world situations.
Science: Big Idea #1- The Practice of Science and Big Idea #2- The Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge.


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 will be used. Grade levels 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?

A daily focus of the school is for teachers and students to ask each other, “Why are we learning this?” to ensure that instruction is always relevant. Teachers are also provided reading materials that are based on current events.


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?

Garden Grove does not have student selected courses. Career awareness activities include speakers and field trips.




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 Learning Focus “EATS” model for planning and delivery of core curriculum which includes essential questions, activating strategies, high-yield teaching strategies, summarizing and the reteaching as necessary. The district-wide Monthly Reading Comprehension Focus will be used as the basis of the reading mini-lessons.Aligned and prioritized curriculum maps and time lines are used in all core areas. Teachers implement the Learning Focus “EATS” model for planning and delivery of core curriculum which includes essential questions, activating strategies, high-yield teaching strategies, summarizing and the reteaching 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 Learning Focus “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 effectiveness of the lessons. Professional Learning Communities will reflect on feedback from administrative walk-throughs, as well as student product in order to refine instruction.




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,Harcourt Trophies,Compass Odyssey, Reading Assistant,and AR will be a source 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 spiral 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.


Trophies Harcourt, SRA, Spell/Read, and tutoring


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, 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.


Enrichment


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

To increase the level of Differentiated instruction using Odyssey to challenge able and gifted learners, project-based learning module to enrich students and increase rigorous assignments and raise the level of critical thinking states.


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

On-going progress reports, FCAT scores, teacher created assessments, student Odyssey reports, and referrals to school psychologist.




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)
Grades K-5 Writing

Grades K-5 LFS








L. Neidringhaus

LFS team

2X a month
Weekly
After school and during block time

To ensure that all teachers are trained in the school-wide writing program. We will concentrate on adding elaboration into our writing to raise writing scores. A baseline, midyear, and end of the year assessment will be given. Grade levels will meet weekly to share writing focus for that week.

Begin to train staff on LFS strategies
Grades K-5 LFS LFS team Weekly After school and during block time Begin to train staff on LFS strategies


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition

Kindergarten Round-Up is held each year with kindergarten teachers playing an important role in the process by providing exciting activities for participants.
FLKRS, a readiness to start school assessment will be administered during the first 30 days of school. Students will be given the FAIR assessment after the first six days of school. This assessment will identify student’ areas of weakness.



Postsecondary Transition

Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.



 

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

 

Other Goals

No Other Goals were submitted for this school

 

FINAL BUDGET



Differentiated Accountability


School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance



Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 6:51:12 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.

No. Disagree with the above statement.

Measures Being Taken to Comply with SAC Requirement

We are actively recruiting new members to represent all ethnic subgroups.



Projected use of SAC FundsAmount
No data submitted



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


Review school improvement plan.
Review school FCAT and AYP data.


SAC Members

Members
1)  Debbie Compton,   Principal
2)  Rick Neidringhaus,   SAC Chair
3)  Laura Neidringhaus,   Teacher
4)  Justin Hollingshead,   Business Member
5)  Eddie Turvin,   Business Member
6)  Mari Small,   Parent
7)  Guerline Bloin,   Parent
8)  Melissa LeBron,   Parent
9)  Mary Douglas,   Parent
10)  Barbara Dawson,   Parent
11)  Tania Kocher,   Parent
12)  Laura Audringhan,   Parent
13)  Regina Johnson,   School Support Personnel
14)  Elisa Gamez,   School Support Personnel
15)  Darlene Czerwinski,   School Support Personnel
16)  Patti Starr,   Assistant Principal
 

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk GARDEN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1711
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 363
Math: 363   		2008-2009
School Grade1:		 A   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  76  Y  77  Y  86   90  Y      NA  31  24  NA 30  23  NA 81  NA  74  NA 
WHITE  99  Y  100  Y  84  Y  83  Y  86   92  Y      NA  24  16  NA 25  17  NA 86  NA  78  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  46  N  55  N      NA      NA  45  54  N 47  45  N 62  N  58  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     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  64  N  66  N  85   88  Y      NA  38  36  N 36  34  N 73  Y  65  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    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 GARDEN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1711
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 373
Math: 373   		2007-2008
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  69  Y  70  Y  94   86  N      NA  22  31  NA 24  30  NA 67  NA  66  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  76  Y  75  Y    86  N      NA  18  24  NA 19  25  NA 71  NA  68  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  55  N  53  N      NA      NA  35  45  NA 37  47  NA 51  NA  52  NA 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     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  62  Y  64  Y  91   85  N      NA  28  38  NA 33  36  NA 60  NA  62  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk GARDEN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1711
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 335
Math: 335   		2006-2007
School Grade1:		 A   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? YES   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2005 2006 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  78  Y  76  Y  92   94  Y      NA  22  22  NA 25  24  NA 70  NA  71  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  82  Y  81  Y  90     Y      NA  15  19  NA 17  19  NA 69  NA  71  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  65  Y  63  Y      NA      NA  39  36  NA 47  37  NA 66  NA  67  NA 
HISPANIC  98  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     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  72  Y  67  Y    91  Y      NA  32  28  NA 35  33  NA 67  NA  67  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  98  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
GARDEN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 81%  81%  78%  51%  291   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 70%  70%      140  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? 63% (YES)  72% (YES)      135  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         566   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    GARDEN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 78%  77%  77%  49%  281   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
    % of Students Making Learning Gains 66%  52%      118  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? 57% (YES)  53% (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         509   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    GARDEN GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 86%  83%  86%  40%  295   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%  69%      136  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? 54% (YES)  67% (YES)      121  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         552   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested