VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

Mission

The mission of Lake Gibson Middle School is to provide a safe, supportive learning environment where each student will have the opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to become a successful and responsible citizen.


Vision
Lake Gibson Middle School will work to promote success for all students by serving each student's individual needs within an environment that supports intellectual, emotional, social, and physical growth.
In order to provide the highest quality instruction, professional development will be an ongoing process geared to the needs of teachers to provide efficient and effective instruction to children in accordance with state-mandated standards.
We will actively involve faculty, students, families and the community in the process of creating a safe, supportive environment where students are motivated to learn and believe that success is attainable. Every individual will honor and respect the uniqueness of other individuals while developing a sense of responsibility toward themselves, their school, and their community.
Lake Gibson Middle School will be a school where students are encouraged to develop a love of learning and will leave middle school with the knowledge and tools necessary to confidently meet the challenges of high school and beyond.


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

Brief History and Background of the School
Lake Gibson Middle School has a proud and distinguished heritage. Built and dedicated in 1975 as Lake Gibson Junior High with grades 7,8, and 9; the school adopted the middle school concept and was renamed Lake Gibson Middle School in 1994 with grades 6, 7, and 8. In 1996, the school added a two-story building to house an additional 16 classrooms.
Lake Gibson Middle School’s population varies between 1100 – 1200 students. The school houses seven portable classrooms due to the continued growth of student population.
We enjoy a strong partnership with the community and currently, there are 40 businesses listed as providers of time, talent, goods, and monies to assist us in preparing our students for the demands of today’s workforce. Lake Gibson Middle School is the only middle school in our region awarded Five-Star School status every year since the program began.
We are located in a rural area of North Lakeland with a large feeder pattern. There are five elementary schools that feed a majority of our students into Lake Gibson Middle School.


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

With a very low staff turnover rate, Lake Gibson Middle enjoys the ability to begin the new school year with minimal training for standard operating procedures. This allows us more time for in-depth professional development in areas of need such as reading across the curriculum.


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

As one of only two non-Title I regular middle schools in the district, LGMS is the choice for students testing at levels 1 and 2 on FCAT. Whereas, we do not label this as a weakness it does provide for additional challenges as we attempt to ensure learning gains for greater numbers of low performing students.


Student Demographics

White 65.31% Black 16.3% Hispanic 13.95% Asian 1%
Indian .18% Multi 3.26%
SWD 133 SWD% 12.05
ELL 40 ELL% 3.62
F/R lunch% 57.88
Total Enrollment 1104


Student Attendance Rates

School year Attendance Rate
0809 1761 Lake Gibson Middle School 92.05
0708 1761 Lake Gibson Middle School 92.20
0607 1761 Lake Gibson Middle School 93.34


Student Mobility

Students enrolled after day 15, or withdrawn after day 15 and before EOY
0708 352 0809 334
Students enrolled on or after day 16
0708 1335 0809 1283
Mobility %
0708 26.37 0809 26.03


Student Suspension Rates

OSS Days 1521 OSS actions 509
ISS Days 363 ISS actions 311


Student Retention Rates

grade 6 3 students of 371 .81%
grade 7 2 students of 349 .57%
grade 8 3 students of 384 .78%


Class Size

0607 18.84
0708 20.62


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

# School DA09 Gr09 AYP % DA08 Gr08 AYP %
1451Edgar L. Padgett Elem CorrectI B NO 85 PreventI A NO 92
0201North Lakeland Elem CorrectII A NO 79 CorrectI A NO 92
1841R.Clem Churchwell CorrectII C NO 79 PreventI C NO 90
1881Wendell Watson Elem PreventI A NO 97 A NO 90
1901Socrum Elementary PreventI C NO 90 PreventI C NO 97


Partnerships and Grants


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 John Barber Masters Ed Leadership; EH K-12; Math 5-9; Psychology 6-12 17 20 0809 Grade B AYP no LGMS
0708 Grade B AYP no LGMS
0607 Grade B AYP no LGMS
Assis Principal Sandy Igo Masters Ed Leadership; Social Science 6-12 16 8 0809 Grade B AYP no LGMS
0708 Grade B AYP no LGMS
0607 Grade B AYP no LGMS
Assis Principal Mary Jo Costine Masters Ed Leadership; SLD K-12 14 4 0809 Grade B AYP no LGMS
0708 Grade B AYP no LGMS
0607 Grade B AYP no LGMS

* 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 *
AIF Math (part time) Trina Talley Math 6-12
Mid Grades Math 5-9
ESE 6-12
BA Mathematics
NA

* 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. Each beginning teacher is partnered with the AIF APC within 20 days of hire
2. AIF provides classroom assistance through modeling of best practices and offer of feedback regarding effective instructional strategies. AIF first year of employment
3. Core teachers attend bi-monthly trainings with department heads for professional development opportunities based on student achievement. Dept. Chairs ongoing


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
Jeni Dyer Elem Ed; ESOL; MGIC; ESE K-12 ESE Reading Taking Reading Endorsement classes
Danielle Steele Social Science 5-9 Intensive Reading Taking Reading Endorsement classes
Noelle Van Duinen English 5-9; ESOL Intensive Reading Taking Reading Endorsement classes


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
652403128129563235


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
N/A N/A N/A N/A



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 – John Barber
Assistant Principals – Sandy Igo and MaryJo Costine
General Ed Teachers – Donna Shattuck, Kelly Weiss, Tracy Chaves, Janice Chandler, Richard Nalette
ESE Facilitator – Gloria Leslie
AIF – Trina Talley
Guidance Counselor – Colinette McGriff
Dean – Deann Wojtylak
Network Manager – Dawn Templin


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.
o 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

Members of the PS/RtI Leadership Team met with members of 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). Sixth through Eighth 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. Other Progress Monitoring data is collected as needed for classroom or student progress. This information may be obtained by probes, Read 180 and Fast ForWord.
Diagnostic Assessment data is gathered through the FAIR, SRI, and DAR
End of Year data is gathered through FAIR and FCAT.
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?


With an overall increase of 6% for a total of 62% of our students scoring 3 or above in FCAT Reading, we are headed in the right direction. Our greatest strength in this area seems to with ensuring growth within the lowest performing population where 73% of those students made learning gains.

Still our gains were not enough to achieve AYP in any subgroup area. Students with disabilities and black students need the most growth while achieving 24% and 39% passing scores. Strands that reflected the poorest scoring were Main idea/Purpose and Comprehension.


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)?

In reading, all classes will stress Main idea/Purpose and Comprehension in lesson plan development


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?

The Sunshine State Standards are designed to teach application of skills that are relevant to everyday life. Critical Thinking classes are mandatory for every student. Elective classes are available in band, chorus, orchestra, consumer science, agriculture, yearbook, computers, art, and TV production.


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?

According to the Florida statute, a career and education planning EPEP course will be completed before the end of middle school. Operating within district guidelines we offer this course as a component of 7th and 8th grade Social Studies classes. The course includes career exploration and educational planning, and results in the completion of a personalized academic and career plan. Each student’s plan must be signed by the student, guidance counselor or academic advisor, and the student’s parent.




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 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 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, Fast ForWord, Compass Odyssey, and 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 instruction will be determined through use of the district curriculum maps. Supplemental and Intensive instruction will be determined following analysis of regular assessments and will be derived from available materials and applicable internet sites.
Students scoring 1 or 2 on FCAT reading will be scheduled into intensive 90 minute daily blocks of reading instruction.


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, 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 be developed by the PS/RtI Leadership team during its September and October meetings.


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

Students who successfully complete regular class assignments much more quickly than the allotted time and consistently perform well on formal and informal assessments will be targeted for enrichment strategies and activities.




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)
Core subject departments- LA, Math, Science, Social Studies Department Chair weekly common planning times Evaluate student academic achievement and determine necessary changes to delivery methods of instruction


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition

Not Applicable


Postsecondary Transition

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

Not applicable



 

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 9:55:12 AM)



School Advisory Council



School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance

The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.

Yes. Agree with the above statement.



Projected use of SAC FundsAmount
No data submitted



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


The SAC is an elected group made up of school/district personnel, parents, students, and community members with the majority of members not employed by the PCSB. The body meets each month to assist in developing and reviewing school vision goals and strategies. School needs are determined by analyzing School Grade reports, AYP reports, and staff and community needs analysis data.

The SAC creates a budget defining expenditures of Lottery Funds.

Finally, SAC assists in developing, approving, and publicizing the School Improvement Plan and is the sole body responsible for final decision making at the school relating to implementation.


SAC Members

Members
1)  John Barber,   Principal
2)  SAC final membership TBA after open house,   Community Member
3)  Sandy Igo,   Assistant Principal
 

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk LAKE GIBSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 1761
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 1109
Math: 1109   		2008-2009
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N
TOTAL4  99  Y  99  Y  57  N  49  N  94     Y      NA  44  43  N 46  51  N 56  N  51  N 
WHITE  99  Y  99  Y  62  N  52  N      Y      NA  38  38  N 40  48  N 61  N  55  N 
BLACK  99  Y  98  Y  39  N  33  N  94     Y      NA  62  61  N 69  67  N 40  N  32  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  99  Y  52  N  47  N  81     Y      NA  55  48  Y 54  53  N 49  NA  49  N 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  99  Y  99  Y  49  N  41  N  90     Y      NA  54  51  N 57  59  N 48  N  42  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  97  Y  97  Y  24  N  21  N  76   90  Y      NA  78  76  N 79  79  N 24  N  21  N 

2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk LAKE GIBSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 1761
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 1139
Math: 1139   		2007-2008
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N
TOTAL4  99  Y  99  Y  56  N  54  N    94  Y      NA  50  44  Y 50  46  N 52  NA  61  N 
WHITE  99  Y  99  Y  62  Y  60  N      Y      NA  43  38  NA 44  40  N 57  NA  66  Y 
BLACK  97  Y  98  Y  38  N  31  N  93   94  Y      NA  68  62  N 74  69  N 37  N  42  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  99  Y  45  N  46  N  92   81  N      NA  62  55  N 54  54  N 43  N  58  N 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  99  Y  99  Y  46  N  43  N  93   90  Y      NA  60  54  Y 62  57  N 45  NA  52  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  97  Y  98  Y  22  N  21  N  76   76  N      NA  87  78  N 86  79  N 33  N  28  N 

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk LAKE GIBSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 1761
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 1119
Math: 1119   		2006-2007
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? 		51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2005 2006 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N 2007 Y/N
TOTAL4  99  Y  99  Y  50  N  50  N      Y      NA  47  50  N 49  50  N 40  N  58  Y 
WHITE  99  Y  99  Y  57  Y  56  Y      Y      NA  41  43  NA 44  44  NA 40  NA  61  NA 
BLACK  97  Y  97  Y  32  N  26  N  85   93  Y      NA  70  68  N 67  74  N 36  N  48  N 
HISPANIC  99  Y  99  Y  38  N  46  N    92  Y      NA  57  62  N 57  54  N 40  N  61  Y 
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  98  Y  99  Y  40  N  38  N  90   93  Y      NA  55  60  N 57  62  N 37  N  55  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS  98  Y  99  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  98  Y  98  Y  13  N  14  N  72   76  Y      NA  89  87  N 89  86  N 33  N  39  N 


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
LAKE GIBSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 62%  53%  92%  44%  251   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
% of Students Making Learning Gains 64%  64%      128  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? 73% (YES)  64% (YES)      137  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         516   
    Percent Tested = 99%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    LAKE GIBSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 62%  59%  92%  34%  247   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
    % of Students Making Learning Gains 65%  67%      132  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 69% (YES)  67% (YES)      136  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         515   
    Percent Tested = 99%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    LAKE GIBSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 57%  57%  90%  48%  252   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 56%  65%      121  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         503   
    Percent Tested = 99%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested