VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
The vision for Lake Gibson High School is to have learning for all students as the chief priority. All decisions of the school will have learning as the primary focus. The curriculum and instructional practices will incorporate various learning activities to accommodate different learning styles. The school will function as a learning organization and promote opportunities for all stakeholders - students, teachers, administrators, parents and community - by working together as a community of learners. In the safe and physically comfortable environment, academic challenges will stimulate individual student performance. In the future, Lake Gibson High School will continue its great tradition of leading students towards a successful adult life by instilling in them a sense of purpose and a love of learning.
The mission of Lake Gibson High School is to challenge all students to (believe and) achieve their fullest potential and to prepare them to make informed life decisions. Simply put: Believe, Achieve, Succeed.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Lake Gibson High School campus is located on a landscaped 30-acre site in the suburban-rural north area of Lakeland. Campus doors opened in 1977 under principal James Booth. A growing community has led to a variety of additions since its doors first opened. The campus currently supports 5 buildings that serve the academic focus, 17 portable classrooms, an Agricultural Science land lab, 5 structures for athletic support, 2 practice fields, and 3 parking lots. Both students and staff have a strong sense of pride in the facilities.
Lake Gibson Senior High reviews data collected from and about students, parents, and staff members to evaluate the school’s needs for improvement and areas of success. Parents, students, and staff members complete the county supported Annual Survey of Attitudes each spring and the results are returned at the end of the school year. Parents and community members are invited to share concerns and participate in decision-making through involvement/membership in the School Advisory Council (SAC), individual meetings, letters, and emails. Students are encouraged to participate in decision-making through involvement in Student Council and serving as student representatives on the School Advisory Council and the Student Concerns Committee. Students, represented by Student Government, meet with the principal to share areas of student concerns, ideas for improvement, and volunteering services to existing programs. Staff members collaborate in decision-making through service on the School Advisory Council (representatives are elected by the staff), the Student Concerns committee, the Safety Committee and the district’s spring survey.
Mr. Ralph Gilchrest III currently serves as the principal of Lake Gibson Senior High School.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Lake Gibson Senior High School has a variety of unique strengths that will promote school success. Lake Gibson Senior High School offers its students a wide range of technological options to help increase achievement. The school is also offering more Advanced Placement coursework than ever before.
Lake Gibson Senior High School’s Freshman Academy is providing rewards for academic success in the form of “Brave Bucks”. Students can use these “Brave Bucks” to purchase rewards at specific times throughout the year.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
A major weakness is a growing population of students attending on affidavit due to their families being homeless. Lake Gibson Senior High School must provide a quality education for these students as well as the general population.
Student Demographics
2008 – 2009
White 63.51%
Black 19.22%
Hispanic 13.70%
Asian 1.3%
Indian .38%
Multi 1.89%
SWD 219
ELL 71
F/R Lunch 815
EOY Enrollment 1847
Student Attendance Rates
2007-2008
Attendance Rate 94.12
2008-2009
Attendance Rate 93.81
Student Mobility
2007-2008
Students enrolled after day, 15 or withdrawn after day 15 and before EOY = 636
Students enrolled on or after day 16 = 2438
"Mobility" percent = 26.09
2008-2009
Students enrolled after day, 15 or withdrawn after day 15 and before EOY = 489
Students enrolled on or after day 16 = 2153
"Mobility" percent = 22.71
Student Suspension Rates
2006-2007
OSS Days (1512) OSS Actions (372) ISS Days (26) ISS Actions (14)
2007-2008
OSS Days (2743) OSS Actions (1655) ISS Days (65) ISS Actions (36)
2008-2009
OSS Days (1951) OSS Actions (786) ISS(826) Days ISS Actions (1643)
Student Retention Rates
2006-2007
9th Grade, 2 Retained, 556 Enrolled, .36 Retention %age
10th Grade, 0 Retained, 528 Enrolled, 0.00 Retention %age
11th Grade, 46 Retained, 478 Enrolled, 9.62 Retention %age
12th Grade, 20 Retained, 414 Enrolled, 4.83 Retention %age
2007-2008
9th Grade, 2 Retained, 601 Enrolled, .33 Retention %age
10th Grade, 19 Retained, 527 Enrolled, 3.61 Retention %age
11th Grade, 32 Retained, 483 Enrolled, 6.63 Retention %age
12th Grade, 13 Retained, 436 Enrolled, 2.98 Retention %age
2008-2009
9th Grade, 18 Retained, 482 Enrolled, 3.73 Retention %age
10th Grade, 37 Retained, 517 Enrolled, 7.16 Retention %age
11th Grade, 33 Retained, 419 Enrolled, 7.88 Retention %age
12th Grade, 18 Retained, 429 Enrolled, 4.20 Retention %age
Class Size
The class size at Lake Gibson Senior High School during the 2006-2007 year was 23.75. The class size at Lake Gibson Senior High School during the 2007-2008 school year was 24.44.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Crystal Lake Middle School (Correct II)
School Grade C
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 74
Kathleen Middle School (Correct I)
School Grade B
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 87
Lake Gibson Middle School (Correct II)
School Grade B
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 72
Lawton Chiles Middle Academy
School Grade A
AYP Yes
AYP % 100
Rochelle School of the Arts
School Grade A
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 97
Sleepy Hill Middle School (Correct II)
School Grade C
AYP 2009 No
AYP % 72
Partnerships and Grants
Academy of Business & Technology
Grants-AIM, AT&T Succeed
Partnerships-City of Lakeland, Fed EX, Mid Florida Credit Union
Finance Academy
Grants- Citi Group Scholarship
Partnerships – City of Lakeland, Mid Florida Credit Union, Wachovia Bank, Junior Achievement
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
Note: The following links will open in a separate browser window.
School Grades Trend Data
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data
HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS
| Position | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as an Administrator | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Principal
|
Mr. Ralph Gilchrest
|
Masters Educational Leadership
|
17
|
25
|
2006-2007 “B” 2007-2008 “B” 2008-2009 “C”
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Debbie Donahay
|
Masters Educational Leadership
|
22
|
14
|
2006-2007 “B” 2007-2008 “B” 2008-2009 “C”
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Tami Dawson
|
Masters Educational Leadership
|
7
|
7
|
2006-2007 “B” 2007-2008 “B” 2008-2009 “C”
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
| Subject Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as a Coach | Prior Performance Record * |
|
Academic Intervention Facilitator
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
B.S. English Education
Eng 6-12
Math 5-9
ESOL and Reading Endorsements
|
5
|
2
|
2007-2008 “B” 2008-2009 “B”
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
PEC Process
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
End of 2010
|
|
|
District Highly Qualified List
|
Ralph Gilchrest
|
Ongoing
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Dan Morse
|
MG Integrated Cur. 5-9
Eng 6-12
|
English
|
Reading Endorsement
|
|
Jamie Hamilton
|
MG Integrated Cur. 5-9
|
Social Studies
|
Reading Endorsement, ACE
|
|
Sara Whitaker
|
MG Integrated Cur. 5-9
Social Science 6-12
|
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement
|
|
Michelle Manchester
|
Eng 6-12
|
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement
|
|
Lisa Reynolds
|
MG Integrated Cur. 5-9
Eng 6-12
|
Reading
|
Reading Endorsement, ACE
|
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 |
| 108 | 2.7 | 35.1 | 31.4 | 38.8 | 28.7 | 95.3 | 13.8 | 7.4 | 48.1 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned 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 Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
|
Cross-Curricular
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
Twice a month
|
Bi Montly
|
Instructional Strategies
|
|
Grade Level
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
Once a month
|
Monthly
|
Cross Curricular
|
|
Subject Area
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
Once a month
|
Monthly
|
Content Specific
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
We will offer students a variety of rigorous and relevant courses that are designed to help students prepare for the future. Courses include: Career Education, Technical Education, dual enrollment and Advanced Placement. Students are also offered actual work experience through internships.
For incoming 9th grade students, we are providing a “freshmen academy” where students will have accommodations made for them as they adjust to the postsecondary level. These accommodations include increased parental involvement, the “Braves Bucks” reward system for academic achievement, and before and after school time with teachers for remediation and makeup work sessions.
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Words/ Phrases
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Words & Phrases +2%
By Spring of 2010, 50% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
PLC
|
School-based RtI team
|
Inservices
|
Data Analysis
|
| 2 |
CIM
|
School-based RtI team
|
Focus Assessments
|
Walkthroughs, FCAT
|
| 3 |
RTI
|
School-based RtI team
|
Process Monitoring
|
Data Analysis
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Main Idea
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Main Idea +9.5%
By Spring of 2010, 50% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
PLC
|
School-based RtI team
|
Inservice
|
Data Analysis
|
| 2 |
CIM
|
School-based RtI team
|
Focus Assessments
|
Walkthroughs, FCAT
|
| 3 |
RTI
|
School-based RtI team
|
Process Monitoring
|
Data Analysis
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Cause & Effect
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Cause & Effect +10%
By Spring of 2010, 50% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
PLC
|
School-based RtI team
|
Inservices
|
Data Analysis
|
| 2 |
CIM
|
School-based RtI team
|
Focus Assessments
|
Walkthroughs, FCAT
|
| 3 |
RTI
|
School-based RtI team
|
Process Monitoring
|
Data Analysis
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Reference & Research
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Reference & Research -12%
By Spring of 2010, 50% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Reading as evidenced by the FCAT Reading Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Reading learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4, & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2)
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
PLC
|
School-based RtI team
|
Inservices
|
Data Analysis
|
| 2 |
CIM
|
School-based RtI team
|
Focus Assessments
|
Walkthroughs, FCAT
|
| 3 |
RTI
|
School-based RtI team
|
Process Monitoring
|
Data Analysis
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improving Reading Scores
|
Reading across the curriculum
LFS
PLC
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
2009-2010
|
Data Journal
CIM
In service Mechanisms
|
Ralph Gilchrest
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
Based on student needs as determined by the data, a focus calendar was developed by the teachers. All teachers address those skills during the monthly period. In addition, Intensive Reading classes will use department wide focus lessons and assessments.
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Reading Goal |
|
Mathematics Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Number Sense
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Number Sense -8%
By Spring of 2010, 75% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 74% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive Math classes for 9th and tenth grade students
|
School-Based RtI team
|
Aggregate scores on mathematics section of FCAT showing learning gains as calculated by the Department of Education
|
Progress monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Measurement
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Measurement -2.5%
By Spring of 2010, 75% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive Math classes for 9th and tenth grade students
|
School-based RtI team
|
1. Aggregate scores on mathematics section of FCAT showing learning gains as calculated by the Department of Education
|
Progress Monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Geometry
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
-1%
By Spring of 2010, 75% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive Math classes for 9th and tenth grade students
|
School-based RtI team
|
Aggregate scores on mathematics section of FCAT showing learning gains as calculated by the Department of Education
|
Progress Monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Algebraic Thinking
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Algebraic Thinking +4%
By Spring of 2010, 75% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive Math classes for 9th and tenth grade students
|
School Based RtI Team
|
Aggregate scores on mathematics section of FCAT showing learning gains as calculated by the Department of Education
|
Progress Monitoring
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Data Analysis
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Data Analysis & Prob +7%
By Spring of 2010, 75% of 9th and 10th grade students will be at Achievement Level 3 or above in Math as evidenced by the FCAT Assessment.
By Spring of 2010, 80% of all students per grade level will make Math learning gains as evidenced by FCAT learning gains (3 ways: increase Achievement Level, maintain Achievement Levels 3,4 & 5, DSS increase for Achievement Level 1 & 2).
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive Math classes for 9th and tenth grade students
|
School Based RtI Team
|
Aggregate scores on mathematics section of FCAT showing learning gains as calculated by the Department of Education
|
Progress Monitoring
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improving Math Scores
|
Data Analysis using the IDEAS database
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
2009-2010
|
Lecture, Small Group Activities, On-Going Coaching
|
Ralph Gilchrest
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Physical & Chemical
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Physical & Chemical -5%
By Spring of 2010, 45% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science as evidenced by the School Grade report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Integrate science related classes.
|
School Based RtI Team
|
The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Earth & Space
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Earth & Space +4%
By Spring of 2010, 45% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science as evidenced by the School Grade report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Integrate science related classes.
|
School Based RtI Team
|
The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Life and Environment
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Life & Environment
+1%
By Spring of 2010, 45% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science as evidenced by the School Grade report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Integrate science related classes.
|
School Based RtI Team
|
The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
Teacher made pre & post tests
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Scientific Thinking
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
Scientific Thinking -4%
By Spring of 2010, 45% of 11th grade students will be at Achievement Level three or above in Science as evidenced by the School Grade report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Integrate science related classes.
|
School Based RtI Team
|
The aggregate scores on the science section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
Teacher made pre & post tests
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improving Science Scores
|
Data Analysis using the IDEAS database
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
2009-2010
|
Lecture, Small Group Activities, On-Going Coaching
|
Ralph Gilchrest
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Persuasive Compositions
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
By Spring of 2010, 85% of 10th grade students will be at an Essay score of 3.5 or above in Writing as evidenced by the School Grade report
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Intensive Reading classes for 9th and 10th grade students
|
The School-Based RtI team
|
The aggregate scores on the writing section of the FCAT will determine success of our school efforts.
|
CIM
Write Score
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Improve Writing Scores
|
Data Analysis using the IDEAS database
|
Jennifer Dibble
|
2009-2010
|
Lecture, Small Group Activities, On-Going Coaching
|
Ralph Gilchrest
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Parent Involvement
|
The percentage of parents/guardians participating in school related activities, events, and functions during the year will increase 10% or more.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. School newsletter
|
School-based Rtl Team
|
School Effectiveness Questionnaire and Climate Survey
|
Sign-in sheet tallies; contact records
|
| 2 |
Promote School Website
|
School-based Rtl Team
|
School Effectiveness Questionnaire and Climate Survey
|
Sign-in sheet tallies; contact records
|
| 3 |
Connect Ed Phone messages
|
School-based Rtl Team
|
School Effectiveness Questionnaire and Climate Survey
|
Sign-in sheet tallies; contact records
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
ESOL Parent Involvement
|
Lake Gibson Senior High School will increase communication and offer more opportunities for non-English speaking parents to access information regarding their students.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Spanish Language Links on School Website
|
School-based RtI team
|
School Effectiveness Questionnaire and Climate Survey
|
School contact logs and records
|
| 2 |
Answering machine at LGHS dedicated to ESOL parents
|
School-based RtI team
|
School Effectiveness Questionnaire and Climate Survey
|
School contact logs and records
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
Drop out prevention & Increase graduation rate Goal: |
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Drop out prevention & Graduation rate
|
Overall Comparison
2008-2009
2007-2008 – 83.9%
2008-2009 -
By the Fall of 2010, the graduation rate will increase by 3% as evidenced by the state’s calculated Graduation Rate Report.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Senior Conferences
|
School-based RtI team
|
1. The graduation rate will determine the success of our school efforts. All students at-risk of not graduating in four years will be monitored through the guidance department.
|
Graduation rate report
|
| 2 |
NovaNET credit recovery
classes
|
School-based RtI team
|
The graduation rate will determine the success of our school efforts. All students at-risk of not graduating in four years will be monitored through the guidance department.
|
Graduation rate report
|
| 3 |
Senior retakers are encouraged to take the ACT multiple times with a required minimum concordant score to replace the FCAT graduation requirement
|
School-based RtI team
|
The graduation rate will determine the success of our school efforts. All students at-risk of not graduating in four years will be monitored through the guidance department.
|
Graduation rate report
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Drop out prevention & Increase graduation rate Goal |
|
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/10/2009 2:46:39 PM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The school advisory council works collaboratively with the principal and staff to develop the annual School Improvement Plan. The council will be meeting the third Tuesday morning of each month at the high school and is comprised of the principal and an appropriately balanced team of people with parents, teachers, students, administrators, support staff, business and community members that mirrors the ethnic, racial and economic makeup of the school community.
SAC Members
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk LAKE GIBSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1762 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 997 Math: 995
|
2008-2009 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? |
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 |
38 |
N |
68 |
Y |
89
|
91 |
Y |
73 |
77 |
Y |
63 |
62 |
N |
32 |
32 |
NA |
38 |
N |
70 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
43 |
N |
75 |
Y |
90
|
92 |
Y |
78 |
80 |
Y |
57 |
57 |
N |
25 |
25 |
NA |
44 |
N |
77 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
26 |
N |
52 |
N |
88
|
93 |
Y |
62 |
72 |
Y |
75 |
74 |
N |
46 |
48 |
N |
25 |
N |
50 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
31 |
N |
58 |
N |
90
|
84 |
N |
64 |
66 |
Y |
75 |
69 |
N |
42 |
42 |
N |
30 |
N |
60 |
N |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
31 |
N |
62 |
N |
85
|
89 |
Y |
62 |
63 |
N |
72 |
69 |
N |
40 |
38 |
N |
32 |
N |
63 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
20 |
N |
30 |
N |
59
|
58 |
N |
51 |
41 |
N |
88 |
80 |
N |
69 |
70 |
N |
|
NA |
29 |
N |
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk LAKE GIBSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1762 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 1140 Math: 1140
|
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 |
37 |
N |
68 |
Y |
94
|
89 |
N |
73 |
73 |
N |
65 |
63 |
NA |
34 |
32 |
NA |
41 |
NA |
81 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
43 |
N |
75 |
Y |
|
90 |
Y |
79 |
78 |
N |
58 |
57 |
NA |
27 |
25 |
NA |
47 |
NA |
85 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
25 |
N |
54 |
N |
89
|
88 |
N |
63 |
62 |
N |
82 |
75 |
NA |
55 |
46 |
NA |
29 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
25 |
N |
58 |
N |
85
|
90 |
Y |
55 |
64 |
Y |
76 |
75 |
NA |
39 |
42 |
NA |
31 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
| 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 |
28 |
N |
60 |
N |
90
|
85 |
N |
64 |
62 |
N |
74 |
72 |
NA |
42 |
40 |
NA |
32 |
NA |
75 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
97 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
12 |
N |
31 |
N |
67
|
59 |
N |
39 |
51 |
Y |
93 |
88 |
NA |
77 |
69 |
NA |
13 |
NA |
57 |
NA |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk LAKE GIBSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1762 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 1092 Math: 1092
|
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 |
35 |
N |
66 |
Y |
84
|
94 |
Y |
79 |
73 |
N |
68 |
65 |
NA |
38 |
34 |
NA |
47 |
NA |
79 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
42 |
N |
73 |
Y |
89
|
|
Y |
82 |
79 |
N |
62 |
58 |
NA |
30 |
27 |
NA |
52 |
NA |
83 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
18 |
N |
45 |
N |
71
|
89 |
Y |
71 |
63 |
N |
87 |
82 |
NA |
63 |
55 |
NA |
32 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
24 |
N |
61 |
Y |
69
|
85 |
Y |
74 |
55 |
N |
74 |
76 |
NA |
54 |
39 |
NA |
40 |
NA |
73 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
70 |
54 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
50 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
26 |
N |
58 |
Y |
71
|
90 |
Y |
66 |
64 |
N |
79 |
74 |
NA |
51 |
42 |
NA |
42 |
NA |
71 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
50 |
33 |
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
7 |
N |
23 |
N |
47
|
67 |
Y |
42 |
39 |
N |
92 |
93 |
NA |
77 |
77 |
NA |
28 |
NA |
55 |
NA |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District LAKE GIBSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
41%
|
74%
|
80%
|
37%
|
232
|
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 |
50% |
78% |
|
|
128 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
49% (NO) |
71% (YES) |
|
|
120
|
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.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
47% |
58% |
|
|
0 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
480 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District LAKE GIBSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
41%
|
73%
|
79%
|
42%
|
235
|
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 |
50% |
82% |
|
|
132 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
46% (NO) |
75% (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.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
50% |
62% |
|
|
10 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
498 |
|
| 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 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
40%
|
73%
|
89%
|
34%
|
236
|
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 |
52% |
77% |
|
|
129 |
3 ways to make gains:Improve FCAT LevelsMaintain Level 3, 4, or 5Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2 |
| Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? |
53% (YES) |
70% (YES) |
|
|
123
|
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.
|
| % of 11th and 12th graders meeting the graduation requirement on the FCAT retake |
53% |
57% |
|
|
10 |
If 50% of 11th and 12th graders meet the graduation requirement on the retake in both reading and math, ten bonus points are awarded |
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
498 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |