VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision/Mission/Belief Statement
Vision:
Dundee Elementary School’s mission is to ensure a rigorous and relevant academic program to meet the needs of all students through a partnership among students, parents, and staff who are focused on results and increasing student achievement in a safe environment promoting lifelong learning.
Mission:
Dundee Elementary School is committed to working together as a team to help each student have success and be a STAR STUDENT. Success is built around each child's individual accomplishments. Additionally, Dundee Elementary School is committed to working together as a learning community to build each child's success by developing their special talents, intellectual achievements, and responsible behavior.
Belief Statements:
We believe that Dundee Elementary students can and will have success in all academic areas.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
School Profile/Demographics:
Dundee Elementary built in 1976, is a Pre-K – 5 school in the rural community of Dundee, Florida with a population of approximately 3,000. Dundee is located in the Central Eastern part of Polk County, Florida. It is the only elementary school in the town and is a traditional school with an enrollment of 535 students. Five hundred and eight students are in kindergarten through grade 5 and 17 students are served in the Pre-K program. The population is 44.1% white, 20.0% black, 28.4% Hispanic, 1.5% Indian (Eastern), 4.9% Multiracial, and 1.1% Asian. Approximately 40% of students are bussed, bringing some students from as far away as 10 miles. The curriculum is built around reading, writing, and mathematics. Technology, music, art, media, and physical education are provided to enrich the curriculum.
The staff consists of 29 classroom teachers, 7 ESE teachers, 11 support teachers, and 14 paraprofessionals who provide the daily educational program. There are 2 Administrators (Principal and Assistant Principal).
The school has a playground for kindergarten, 2 computer labs, a media center, 1 portable for Pre-K, 1 portable for OT/PT offices, 1 portable for ESE 3-5, 1 portable for Kaplan Spell Read ESE, 1 portable for speech,
Three programs impacting Dundee Elementary are its Federal Title I School-wide Program, Exceptional Student Education Program, and Reading First Program. The Reading First Program is a district grant that is distributed among the Reading First schools. Eighty-five percent of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Additional Title I funds are provided each year to support reading, writing, mathematics, teacher training, and parent involvement.
During the 2008-2009 school year 9.9% of the students are ESE students in one or more classes including self-contained, resource, Physically/Orthopedically Impaired, Emotionally Handicapped, Educable and Trainable Mentally Handicapped, Specific Learning Disabled, Speech/Language, Gifted, Developmental Primary, and Pre-K Varying Exceptionalities. We have a stability rate of 91.9%. 12.3% of the students are Limited English Proficient (ELL).
Based on 2008 FCAT data, 28% of the 3rd grade students in Reading scored within Achievement Level (AL) 1. 13% of the 3rd grade students in Math scored within AL 1. 20% of the 3rd graders in Reading scored AL 2 and 25% scored AL 2 in Math. Of the 4th graders, 27% scored AL 1 in Reading and 17% scored AL 1 in Math. Nineteen percent scored AL 2 in Reading and 17% scored AL 2 in Math. 34% of the 5th graders scored AL 1 in Reading and 31% scored AL 1 in Math. 15% scored AL 2 in Reading and 24% scored AL 2 in Math.
There are local daycare facilities that feed into Dundee Elementary School’s Pre-K program and kindergarten classes. Dundee Elementary feeds into Dundee Ridge Middle School, which feeds into Lake Wales High School or Haines City High School. This depends on the address of each student.
Community partners, like Lake Region Rotary Club, are involved through the School Advisory Council (SAC). They help determine School Improvement Priorities, publicizes the School Improvement Plan, help support School Improvement Plan implementation, evaluate the School Improvement Plan, and assist in decision making process and approval of expenditures of District Lottery Funds and School Recognition Funds, as well as review School Budget.
The average class size is 18.7 students per teacher in grades K-3. The average class size for grades 4-5 is 20.3 students per class. The district average is 23 students per teacher. The school had 9.5% of the student population absent 21+ days. The district average is 7.8 students absent 21+ days. The state class size average is 23.7 students per teacher. The state average for 21+ days absent is 6.8 students. Four students were retained in grades 3-5 out of a total of 219 students.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Dundee Elementary will have a new staff member as an Academic Intervention Facilitator in Math this year. This person will work with staff members modeling effective strategies and helping with lesson planning.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
As of right now our enrollment is down below 500.
Dundee Elementary fell to a Correct I school last year because our AYP percentage was a 77%. We were holding as a Correct I school.
Student Demographics
Five hundred and eight students are in kindergarten through grade 5 and 17 students are served in the Pre-K program. The population is 44.1% white, 20.0% black, 28.4% Hispanic, 1.5% Indian (Eastern), 4.9% Multiracial, and 1.1% Asian. Approximately 40% of students are bussed, bringing some students from as far away as 10 miles. The curriculum is built around reading, writing, and mathematics. Technology, music, art, media, and physical education are provided to enrich the curriculum.
During the 2008-2009 school year 9.9% of the students are ESE students in one or more classes including self-contained, resource, Physically/Orthopedically Impaired, Emotionally Handicapped, Educable and Trainable Mentally Handicapped, Specific Learning Disabled, Speech/Language, Gifted, Developmental Primary, and Pre-K Varying Exceptionalities. We have a stability rate of 91.9%. 12.3% of the students are Limited English Proficient (ELL).
Student Attendance Rates
08-09 94.78%
07-08 94.64%
06-07 94.12%
Student Mobility
Students enrolled after day 15 or withdrew after day 15 and before end of year:
08-09 207
07-08 211
Students enrolled on or after day 16:
08-09 631
07-08 641
Mobility %
08-09 32.60%
07-08 32.92%
Student Suspension Rates
OSS days OSS actions ISS days ISS actions
08-09 59 19 242 122
07-08 52 21 155 97
06-07 194 50 438 227
Student Retention Rates
Grade Retained Enrollment %
1 5 88 5.68%
2 5 92 5.43%
3 14 87 16.09%
4 0 81 0.00%
5 0 68 0.00%
KG 5 110 4.55%
Class Size
07-08 Pre-K-3rd grade 14.39 4th-5th grade 16.12
08-09 Pre-K-3rd grade 16.12 4th-5th grade 15.56
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Dundee Elementary has a Pre-K program that feeds into our school. There is one para-professional who works with approximately 10 students in our regular education pre-K, and one teacher and para-professional who work with students in our ESE pre-K unit. The community of Dundee has a number of day care facilities that have children attend Dundee Elementary starting in Kindergarten.
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships:
Dundee Elementary school is partnered with Bob Evans restaurant. Bob Evans provides breakfast for School personnel and parents for School Advisory Council (SAC) meetings as well as our monthly volunteer breakfast.
We are also partnered with Webb’s Candies. Webb’s Candies provides toys for our low income students at Christmas time. Dundee Elementary is also partnered with Top Cuts Lawn Care. The owner serves on our School Advisory Council (SAC).
Grants:
• Shining star grant for the amount of $4,400.00. The grant was acquired to purchase MP3 players for students to help reinforce and teach reading skills.
• School to School grant for the amount of $800.00. The grant was acquired to develop a school garden using worms to fertilize the garden.
• Progress Energy grant for the amount of $1,000. The grant was acquired to purchase SRA science kits for 5th grade to help reinforce science skills.
• Title II grant for the amount of$2286. The grant was acquired to pay for substitutes to allow teachers to gain professional development in Learning Focused Strategies and to complete grade level planning.
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
|
Constance Jones
|
Master of Arts in Educational Leadership
Master of Arts in Elementary Education
|
6
|
6
|
Dundee Elementary has maintained a C in those six years.
AYP/FCAT information
2003 – 93% AYP, Reading Mastery 57%, Math mastery 53%, Writing mastery 74%
2004 – 90% AYP, Reading Mastery 61%, Math Mastery 55%, Writing Mastery 81%
2005 – 87% AYP, Reading Mastery 62%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 82%
2006 – 92% AYP, Reading Mastery 51%, math Mastery 59%, Writing Mastery 91%
2007 – 97% AYP Reading Mastery 58%, Math Mastery 64%, Writing Mastery 90%
2008 – 77% AYP, Reading Mastery 56%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 96%
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Diane Brukardt
|
B.S. Elementary Ed
Masters in Educational Leadership
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
Dundee Elementary has maintained a C in those six years.
AYP/FCAT information
2003 – 93% AYP, Reading Mastery 57%, Math mastery 53%, Writing mastery 74%
2004 – 90% AYP, Reading Mastery 61%, Math Mastery 55%, Writing Mastery 81%
2005 – 87% AYP, Reading Mastery 62%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 82%
2006 – 92% AYP, Reading Mastery 51%, math Mastery 59%, Writing Mastery 91%
2007 – 97% AYP Reading Mastery 58%, Math Mastery 64%, Writing Mastery 90%
2008 – 77% AYP, Reading Mastery 56%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 96%
|
* 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 * |
|
Learning Focused Solutions Coach
|
pamela Ward
|
Bachelors of Arts Elementary Education
|
6
|
1
|
Dundee Elementary earned a C as a school letter grade.
AYP/FCAT information
2003 – 93% AYP, Reading Mastery 57%, Math mastery 53%, Writing mastery 74%
2004 – 90% AYP, Reading Mastery 61%, Math Mastery 55%, Writing Mastery 81%
2005 – 87% AYP, Reading Mastery 62%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 82%
2006 – 92% AYP, Reading Mastery 51%, math Mastery 59%, Writing Mastery 91%
2007 – 97% AYP Reading Mastery 58%, Math Mastery 64%, Writing Mastery 90%
2008 – 77% AYP, Reading Mastery 56%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 96%
|
Math
Academic Intervention Facilitator
|
Jessica Short
|
Masters in Reading K-12
|
3
|
1
|
Dundee Elementary earned a C as a school letter grade.
AYP/FCAT information
2003 – 93% AYP, Reading Mastery 57%, Math mastery 53%, Writing mastery 74%
2004 – 90% AYP, Reading Mastery 61%, Math Mastery 55%, Writing Mastery 81%
2005 – 87% AYP, Reading Mastery 62%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 82%
2006 – 92% AYP, Reading Mastery 51%, math Mastery 59%, Writing Mastery 91%
2007 – 97% AYP Reading Mastery 58%, Math Mastery 64%, Writing Mastery 90%
2008 – 77% AYP, Reading Mastery 56%, Math Mastery 54%, Writing Mastery 96%
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
1. Teachers will continue Professional Development
|
Administration
|
June 2010
|
|
|
2. Inservice Yearly on Subject-Specific Training
|
Administration
|
June 2010
|
|
|
3. Intensive Curriculum In-service Training
|
Administration
|
June 2010
|
|
|
4.LFS Training
|
Administration and LFS Coach
|
June 2010
|
|
|
5.PBS Training
|
Administration and Jessica Short
|
June 2010
|
|
|
6. Kagan Cooperative Learning Training
|
Administration
Jessica Short
Pamela Ward
|
June 2010
|
|
|
7.Response to Intervention
|
Administration
Jessie Speight
|
June 2010
|
|
|
8.Peer Mentoring
|
Administration
|
June 2010
|
|
|
9. Grade Chairs work with new teachers
|
Administraion
|
June 2010
|
|
|
10.Job Fairs
|
Administration
|
June 2010
|
|
|
11. Soliciting referrals from current employees/Administrators
|
Administration
|
June 2010
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
| No data submitted |
|
Staff Demographics
| Total Number of Instructional Staff | % of First-Year Teachers | % of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience | % of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience | % of Teachers with Advanced Degrees | % Highly Qualified | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed |
| 32 | 3 | 34 | 19 | 50 | 22 | 100 | 1 | 0 | 72 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Jessica Short
|
Danielle Manely
|
Jessica was our Reading Coach last year and is our AIF support personnel this year. She was in charge of mentoring new teachers last year.
|
Working with Danielle on classroom management, county requirements, and other areas as needed.
Jessica will meet with Danielle on a monthly basis.
|
|
Jessica Short/Pam Ward
|
Struggling classroom teachers
|
Pam Ward is our LFS coach and Jessica Short is our AIF. These ladies will provide a knowledge base and support for continued implementation of the Polk County Curriculum maps, LFS strategies, and/or classroom management
|
Weekly meetings with grade levels to help with lesson planning, classroom modeling of lessons or management, Leadership Team walkthroughs giving feedback
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services to Dundee Elementary. The Title I funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title I, Part A, support provides after-school and summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resource teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for parents.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Migrant students enrolled in Dundee Elementary will be assisted by the school and by the District Migrant Education Program (MEP). Students will be prioritized by the MEP for supplemental services based on need and migrant status. MEP Teacher Advocates, assigned to schools with high percentages of migrant students, monitor the progress of these high need students and provide or coordinate supplemental academic support. Migrant Home-School Liaisons identify and recruit migrant students and their families for the MEP. They provide support to both students and parents in locating services necessary to ensure the academic success of these students whose education has been interrupted by numerous moves.
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D, provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned school. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at schools to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement.
Title II
Professional development resources are available to Title I schools through Title II funds. In addition, School Technology Services provide technical support, technology training, and licenses for software programs and web-based access via Title II-D funds. Funds available to Dundee Elementary are used to purchase Learning Focused Strategies Materials and resources.
Title III
Title III provides supplemental resources for English language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in Title I schools, as well as professional learning opportunities for school staff.
Title X- Homeless
The Hearth program, funded through Title X, provides support for identified homeless students. Title I provides support for this program, and many activities implemented by the Hearth program are carried out in cooperation with the Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded through Title I, Part C.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
There are two SAI teachers at Dundee elementary. SAI funds provide one unit for 3rd grade struggling readers. The second unit is provided for fourth and fifth grade ESE students. These two units enhance student achievement by reinforcing phonics and fluency with the students to aid in their reading comprehension.
Violence Prevention Programs
Title IV provided violence and drug prevention programs in schools in order to promote a safe school environment. Examples of violence prevention programs include anti-bullying, gang awareness, gun awareness, etc.
Nutrition Programs
N/A
Housing Programs
N/A
Head Start
We do not have Head Start on our campus.
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
N/A
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
Vertical teams
One member from each grade level and special area teachers
|
Pamela Ward
|
Once a month
|
Tuesdays after school
|
Analyze grade appropriate work
|
|
Individual grade levels
|
Grade chair
|
Once a week
|
Planning time
|
Analyze the effectiveness of their lesson plans and determine if any revisions need to be made.
|
All teachers
Grade levels
|
Administration
|
Once a week
|
Thursdays during planning time in small groups
|
Learning Focused Strategies
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
Dundee Elementary has both a regular and an ESE Pre-K program on campus. Additionally, kindergarten Readiness Workshops are held in the spring to assist parents in preparing their children for kindergarten. Dundee Elementary conducts a Kindergarten Round-up every April to register new students. During this Round-up, incoming students are provided with math manipulatives, reading workbooks, and other items to prepare students for school success. FLKRS is administered within the first 30 days of school to analyze the various skill levels of each student.
Dundee Elementary invites the Migrant School in Dundee to visit several times a year. We articulate with community preschool programs in Dundee to help them better prepare their students for Kindergarten.
Our school site offered the VPK program during the summer.
Administration, Reading Coach, ESOL paras, and resource teachers are all responsible for implementing strategies.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Total Reading Proficiency decreased 1% from the previous year (53% to 52%). Only the Hispanic subgroup achieved AYP through safe harbor. 55% of students in the lowest 25% made learning gains.
|
In grades 3 – 5, 60% of all students, 60% of students in the white sub group, 50% of students in the black sub group, 70% of students in the Hispanic sub group, and 60% of students in the Economically Disadvantaged sub group will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test. As evidenced by the AYP Report and School Report Card which will qualify each sub group and total group for safe harbor.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. The school will implement the new FAIR assessments to monitor student progress and then create flexible groups of students based on the results.
|
1.Administration and Jessica Short
|
1. Review FAIR data reports to track student progress and flexible grouping
|
. Printout of FAIR assessments.
|
| 2 |
2. Develop and implement an Instructional Focus Calendar for Reading in which teachers will give mini lessons and assessments.
|
2.Administration and Jessica Short
|
2. Administration will be aware of the IFC’s upcoming focus and monitor implementation by the teachers and the students’ scores to track progress.
|
2. Effectiveness will be determined through FAIR assessments and progress monitoring of the mini assessments
|
| 3 |
3. Incorporate and monitor LFS strategies K-5.
|
3. Administration and Pamela Ward
|
3. Administration will monitor LFS through lesson plans and daily walkthroughs
|
3. Administration will use a check list for LFS through lesson plans and daily walkthroughs.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 3-5, 58% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
In grades 3-5, 70% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Reading Test as evidenced by the AYP Report and School Report Card.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Lowest 25% students will receive intervention instruction.
|
. Administration AIF, and leadership team.
|
Administration and classroom teachers will monitor intervention instruction and track progress of students. Adjustments of flexible groups will be made based on the results.
|
. Observation and progress monitoring reports.
|
| 2 |
2. Students will be grouped based on his/her instructional level.
|
2. Administration and leadership team.
|
. Administration and classroom teachers will monitor student progress through ongoing assessments and track progress of students. Adjustments of flexible groups will be made based on the results.
|
2. Observation and progress monitoring reports.
|
| 3 |
3. Continue utilizing AR program school wide tracking total number of points earned by grade level and displaying the results on bulletin board.
|
3. Administration and Leadership team
|
3. Administrations and Classroom teachers will monitor through weekly AR points and track progress of students. Adjustments of flexible groups will be made based on the results.
|
3. AR reports
|
| 4 |
4. Implement County instructional focus Calendar.
|
4. Administration and Leadership team.
|
4. Administration will monitor through lesson plans and classroom walkthroughs.
|
4. Observation and checklist.
|
| 5 |
5. Continue to implement County Curriculum Maps
|
5. Administration and Leadership team.
|
5. Administration will monitor through lesson plans and classroom walkthroughs.
|
5. Observation and checklist.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 3 – 5, 57% of the students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.
|
Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar
|
Administration and Jessica Short
|
August 2009
|
Lesson Plans and classroom visits
|
Administration and Jessica Short
|
|
In grades 3-5, 64% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
Students will be grouped based on his/her instructional level.
|
Administration Pamela Ward, Jessica Short, Jessica Palomaki
|
August 2009
|
Lesson plans and classroom walkthroughs, progress monitoring, FAIR Assessments, Compass Lab Reports
|
Administration, Classroom Teachers, Pamela Ward, Jessica Short, Jessica Palomaki
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS supplies |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Accelerated Reading Program |
School Budget |
$795.36 |
| Total: $795.36 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| PD 360 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Resource personnel |
Title I |
$50,000.00 |
| Total: $50,000.00 |
| Final Total: $51,795.36 |
|
| 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 |
|
In grades 3-5 49% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test
|
In grades 3-5 60% of all students , 60% of the students in the white sub group, 50% of the students in the black sub group, 60% of the students in the Hispanic sub group, and 52% of students in the Ecomonically disadvantaged sub group will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test as evidenced on the AYP Report and School Grade which will qualify each subgroup and total group for safe harbor.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Teachers will Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts through the use of Professional Learning Communities
|
1. administration and leadership team
|
1. Focused walkthroughs by administration and leadership team, AIF teacher will assist teachers with lesson plans and establishing math centers
|
1. Reports generated from walkthroughs, compass lab results, student work samples, ongoing assessments
|
| 2 |
2.Teachers will Include distributed practice throughout lesson plans to ensure all students understand the concepts.
|
2.administration and leadership team
|
2. Focused walkthroughs by administration and leadership team
|
. Direct observation of teaching and of lesson plans
|
| 3 |
3. Use the Acaletics math program to assess students and place in flexible groups for instruction.
|
3. Administration and leadership team
|
.Focused walkthroughs by administration, leadership team, and AIF teache
|
3. Ongoing program reports
|
| 4 |
4. Teachers will use Count Down to FCAT strategies booklet with their students to help prepare them for the FCAT test.
|
4. Administration and leadership team
|
Focused walkthroughs by administration, leadership team, and AIF teacher
|
Weekly student results of preformance on the material.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 3-5 49% of students showed learning gains on the FCAT math test
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of the students will show learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based teaching strategies including LFS.
|
1. administration and leadership team
AIF teacher
|
1. Focused walkthroughs by administration and leadership team
|
1.Direct observation of teaching and lesson plans
|
| 2 |
2. Continue to implement weekly timed multiplication tests.
|
2.Administration, AIF teacher, and leadership team
|
2. Weekly reports of timed tests will be sent to administration.
|
2. Multiplication timed test reports will be tracked for each student to note progress.
|
| 3 |
3. Teachers will begin RTI process with students who are struggling to work on grade level
|
3. Gudiance, administration and leadership team
|
3. RTI meetings and tracking of students’ progress
|
3. Ongoing student work
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on the 2009 FCAT Mathematics data, 51% of the bottom 25% of students made learning gains
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of the students in the bottom 25% will show learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Mathematics test
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Identify and closely monitor the progress of the lowest 25% consistently; revise instruction and intervention groups as indicated by student progress
|
. administration and leadership team
AIF teacher
|
. Data from ongoing assessments will be closely monitored on a weekly bases.
|
1. Reports generated by ongoing assessments
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of the students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Tes
|
Effective Implementation of Distributed Practice throughout math lessons
|
AIF teacher
|
August 2009
|
Modeling of lessons and focused walkthroughs
|
Administration and leadership team
AIF teacher
|
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of the students will show learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.
|
Teachers will effectively implement the Acaletics math program
|
Administration
Leadership team
AIF teacher
|
August 2009
|
Focused observation from walkthroughs
|
Administration and leadership team
AIF teacher
|
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of the students will show learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test
|
Incorporate literacy within math instruction by using the books from the Summer Teacher Institute
|
AIF, teachers who attended the Summer Teacher Institute
|
August 2009
|
Documentation in teachers’ lesson plans
Observation through walk throughs
|
Administration, AIF, and leadership team
|
|
In grades 3-5, 60% of the students in the bottom 25% will show learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Mathematics tes
|
Plan differentiated instruction using evidence-based instruction
|
AIF teacher
|
AIF teacher
|
Facilitate lesson planning with each grade level
|
AIF teacher
administration
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Acaletics math program
|
Title I |
$25,000.00 |
| Total: $25,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Compass Lab |
District office |
$0.00 |
| FCAT Explorer |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| PD 360 |
District Ofice |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $25,000.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Based on 2009 FCAT Science data, 27% of the students in 5th grade achieved level three and above
|
Given intense instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 39% of students in 5th grade will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Utilize hands-on laboratory experiments twice a week with resource teacher
|
1. Jessica Palomaki, classroom teachers, administration
Leadership team
|
1. The created lab schedule will be implemented with fidelity and monitored by administration
|
1. Improvement on compass reports and ongoing progress monitoring
|
| 2 |
2.All 5th grade teachers will implement the SRA science kits
|
2. Administration
Leadership team
Jessica Palomaki
Classroom teachers
|
2. Grade level teams and administration will review weekly SRA results
|
2. Steady improvement on the SRA weekly assessments
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Given intense instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 39% of students in 5th grade will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
|
Effective implementation of researched based reading strategies in the content area
|
Jessica Short
|
August 2009
|
Direct observation
Lesson plans
|
Jessica Short
Administration
Leadership Team
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| SRA science kits |
Progress Energy Grant |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| FCAT Explorer |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Lesson modeling in the classroom |
Title I resource teacher |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $1,000.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
On the 2009 96% of students in fourth grade achieved a level 3.5 and above on the FCAT Writing Assessment
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Assessment 97% of the students in fourth grade will achieve a 4 or above as evidenced on the AYP Report and the School Grade.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Continue the use of Just Write by Kathy Robinson writing model in fourth grade daily
|
1. Administration
Leadership team
|
1. Direct observation and lesson plans
|
1. Direct observation
|
| 2 |
2. Weekly FCAT style writing prompts will be assigned to students in fourth grade
|
2. Administration and leadership team
|
2. Monitoring of student writing prompts on a weekly basis
|
2. rubric
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Assessment 98% of the students in fourth grade will achieve a 3.5 or above.
|
Kathy Robinson Writing program
|
Jessica Short
|
August 2009
|
Observation
Walk throughs
Student essays
|
Administration
and Leadership Team
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Supplies to continue to effectively implement program such as paper, copy paper, pencils, and erasers |
Title I operating |
$300.00 |
| Total: $300.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart Board |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Professional Development
PD 360
|
District Office |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $300.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
52% of students in grades 3-5 achieved mastery on the 2009 FCAT Reading Test
|
60% of all students, 60% of students in the white sub group, 50% of students in the black sub group, 70% of students in the Hispanic sub group, and 60% of students in the Economically Disadvantaged sub group in grades 3-5,will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Using Connect Ed program we will Encourage all families to participate in family activities including orientation, open house, parent teacher conferences, FCAT nights etc. to increase their knowledge base of how to effectively help their child achieve success on the FCAT and/or SAT 10 test.
|
1.Jessica Palomaki
Administration
Leadership team
|
1.Monitor parent involvement numbers
|
1.sign in sheets
2. FCAT and/or SAT 10 results
3. Kaplan, Odyssey, AR, progress monitoring assessment results.
4. Parent survey results
5. conferences with parents
|
| 2 |
2. Muffins for mom breakfast will be held in September
|
. Administration and Jessica Palomaki
|
2.Monitor parent involvement numbers
|
2.sign in sheets
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
49% of students in grades 3-5 achieved mastery on the 2009 FCAT Mathematics Test
|
60% of students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Mathematics test
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Encourage parents to allow their children to attend before school tutoring in the skills lab
|
1.Administration
Network Manager
|
1.Monitor student data
|
1. sign in sheets
2. Kaplan reports, progress monitoring assessments, and teacher made tests will be used for evaluation.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
The 2009 school climate survey indicated that 23% of parents feel they do not understand how their child is progressing in school.
|
80% of parents will understand how their child is progressing in school.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Increase teacher communication with parents to at least biweekly through student agendas and/or newsletters
|
1. Administration and Leadership team
|
.Collect ongoing feedback from parents and teachers through parent surveys, and direct conversations with parents.
|
1.Parent and teacher responses on school climate survey
2. Minutes from talks with administratio
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
57% of students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test
|
Encourage all families to participate in family activities including orientation, open house, parent teacher conferences, FCAT nights…
|
Title I Program Facilitator
|
August 2009
|
Sign in sheets
|
Jessica Palomaki
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Student agendas |
Title I |
$4,672.25 |
| Total: $4,672.25 |
| 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 |
| Professional development PD 360 |
District Office |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Title I program facilitator |
Title I budget |
$50,000.00 |
| Total: $50,000.00 |
| Final Total: $54,672.25 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
LFS supplies |
Title I |
$1,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Acaletics math program
|
Title I |
$25,000.00 |
| Writing |
Supplies to continue to effectively implement program such as paper, copy paper, pencils, and erasers |
Title I operating |
$300.00 |
| Science |
SRA science kits |
Progress Energy Grant |
$1,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Student agendas |
Title I |
$4,672.25 |
| Total: $31,972.25 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Accelerated Reading Program |
School Budget |
$795.36 |
| Mathematics |
Compass Lab |
District office |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
FCAT Explorer |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Smart Board |
District |
$0.00 |
| Science |
FCAT Explorer |
District |
$0.00 |
| Total: $795.36 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
PD 360 |
District |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
PD 360 |
District Ofice |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Professional Development
PD 360
|
District Office |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Lesson modeling in the classroom |
Title I resource teacher |
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Professional development PD 360 |
District Office |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Resource personnel |
Title I |
$50,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Title I program facilitator |
Title I budget |
$50,000.00 |
| Total: $100,000.00 |
| Final Total: $132,767.61 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/9/2009 8:58:55 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
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
| No data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
SAC Members
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DUNDEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1781 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 240 Math: 240
|
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
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
52 |
N |
49 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
47 |
48 |
N |
40 |
51 |
N |
60 |
N |
51 |
N |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
54 |
N |
51 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
42 |
46 |
N |
38 |
49 |
N |
59 |
N |
52 |
N |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
41 |
N |
38 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
60 |
59 |
N |
47 |
62 |
N |
53 |
N |
40 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
62 |
N |
52 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
49 |
38 |
Y |
37 |
48 |
N |
73 |
NA |
57 |
N |
| 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 |
48 |
N |
47 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
50 |
52 |
N |
42 |
53 |
N |
59 |
N |
49 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DUNDEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1781 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 248 Math: 248
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
53 |
N |
60 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
53 |
47 |
Y |
46 |
40 |
Y |
59 |
NA |
68 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
58 |
Y |
62 |
Y |
94
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
47 |
42 |
NA |
47 |
38 |
NA |
59 |
NA |
67 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
40 |
N |
53 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
67 |
60 |
Y |
40 |
47 |
N |
58 |
NA |
68 |
Y |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
51 |
N |
63 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
55 |
49 |
Y |
50 |
37 |
NA |
55 |
NA |
67 |
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 |
50 |
N |
58 |
N |
94
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
55 |
50 |
N |
46 |
42 |
N |
57 |
N |
66 |
Y |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
|
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 DUNDEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1781 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 238 Math: 238
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
47 |
N |
54 |
N |
91
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
50 |
51 |
N |
50 |
46 |
N |
46 |
N |
58 |
Y |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
53 |
Y |
53 |
N |
94
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
49 |
44 |
NA |
45 |
47 |
N |
50 |
NA |
56 |
Y |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
33 |
N |
60 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
70 |
NA |
61 |
40 |
NA |
28 |
N |
56 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
45 |
N |
50 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
55 |
58 |
N |
54 |
50 |
N |
52 |
Y |
61 |
Y |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
45 |
N |
54 |
N |
88
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
55 |
52 |
N |
54 |
46 |
Y |
45 |
N |
57 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District DUNDEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
56%
|
54%
|
96%
|
27%
|
233
|
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 |
58% |
49% |
|
|
107 |
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? |
55% (YES) |
51% (YES) |
|
|
106
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
446 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District DUNDEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
58%
|
64%
|
90%
|
21%
|
233
|
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 |
61% |
68% |
|
|
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? |
54% (YES) |
68% (YES) |
|
|
122
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
484 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District DUNDEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
51%
|
59%
|
91%
|
25%
|
226
|
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% |
65% |
|
|
117 |
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? |
51% (YES) |
80% (YES) |
|
|
131
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
474 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |