VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

Vision:

The vision of Dr. N.E. Roberts Elementary School is for family, community and staff to build the foundation necessary to create productive citizens.

Mission:

The mission of Dr. N.E. Roberts Elementary School is to work together, encouraging each other to become lifelong learners who are able to solve problems in the real world while striving to increase their daily performance.


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School

Dr. N.E. Roberts Elementary sits on 22 acres of land in northwest Lakeland located in Polk County. The school opened August, 2002. The school has 7 buildings and 1 portable. The school employs 51 instructional staff, 4 basic paraprofessionals, 9 Exceptional Educational paraprofessionals (ESE), 5 custodians, 1 ESOL paraprofessional, 2 LPN, 2 secretaries, and 2 administrators.

Several teachers have been awarded grants such as the Teacher-to-Teacher and Developer Grants through Polk Education Foundation. Dr. N.E. Roberts Elementary provides many programs to meet the needs of all students. Family Resource Center, TV production, Extended Learning Program, and Kaplan Spell Read are those currently offered to students. Many Exceptional Student Education programs are also available to those students needing specialized services.

Among those are ID-Intellectual Disabilities EMH/TMH/PI Educable Mentally Handicapped/Trainable Mentally Handicapped/Physically Impaired ( EMH/TMH/PI, Educable Mentally Handicapped/Trainable Mentally Handicapped/Physically Impaired), Pre-Kindergarten, VE-Varying Exceptionalities, PMH (Profoundly Mentally Handicapped, and Autistic


Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Dr. N. E. Roberts increased math learning gains of the lowest twenty-five percent. Third grade has continued to increase the points on Main Idea for reading from the 2006-2009 school years. Their strength is Data Analysis. Fourth grade students continue to gain points in reading in the area of Words and Phrases.


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Dr. N. E. Roberts’ weaknesses are in reading for fourth grade in the area of Comparison, Main Idea, and Author’s Purpose. Writing percentage dropped in fourth grade from a 93%t last year to 83% this year (09). Fourth grade dropped in writing on the Narrative prompt from 4.2 last year to 3.8 this year (09).

Fifth grade’s reading need is the area of Reference and Research. They have become stagnant in Words and Phrases in reading.


Student Demographics

Dr. N. E. Roberts serves a multi-ethnic school population that consists of 698 students housed in 7 buildings and 1 portable. The population is somewhat diverse in that 57% of the students are Caucasian, 24% are African American, 14% are Hispanic, and 5.03% make up the remainder. In addition, 66% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunches, 14% of the students are involved in the Exceptional Student Education program, while 7% participate in the English Speakers of Other Languages program.


Student Attendance Rates

Dr. N. E. Roberts attendance rate in 2006-2007 was 93.57%. In 2007-2008 the attendance rate was 94.71%. In 2008-2009 the attendance rate was 94.33. The difference in percent in attendance from last year (2007-2008) to this year (2008-2009) was -.38%. This was less than a half percent. Our attendance rate was very close to that of the district percentage of 94.56%, a difference of -.23%


Student Mobility

The mobility rate of the school for 2008-2009 was 24.84 %. The mobility rate for the 2007-2008 school year was 28.94%. There was a decrease in mobility rate of 4.10% between the two years. Mobility comes mainly from economically disadvantaged students.


Student Suspension Rates

The school’s suspension rate.

2006-2007; Out of school 165 In school 8

2007-2008; Out of school 123 In school 8

2008-2009; Out of school 134 In school 12.


Student Retention Rates

The school’s retention rate.

2006-2007 we had 59 students out of 996 or .05% were retained in K-5.

2007-2008 we had 20 students out of 715 or .03% were retained in K-5.

2008-2009 we had 13 students out of 698 or .01% were retained in K-5.


Class Size

The class size for our school is as follows:

2006-2007 in grades K-3 (Primary) was 18.27 students
2007-2008 it was 16.12 students.
2006-2007 for grades 4-8 (Intermediate) was 21.35 students.
2007-2008 was 15.6 students.
Our school is in compliance with the state mandated classroom reduction rule.


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

We are an elementary school and this does not apply to us.


Partnerships and Grants

Community partners play an active role in supporting the school by their generous donations. Wal-Mart, Publix, Barnes & Noble, Needlework Guild, Kiwanis North Lakeland, Sonny’s, Twistee Treat, CiCis Pizza, Chuck E Cheese, Chic-Fil-A, Mimi's Cafe, Pizza Hut, IHOP, McDonalds, and General Mills are among those who provide a variety of incentives for teachers and students throughout the school year. They support Dr. N.E. Roberts through their generosity of food, clothing and supplies for the needy families of the school community. Many members of the community support the school by volunteering their time to help with the following activities: Family Nights, Young Authors’ Conference, Santa Breakfast, Book Fair, Spring Fling, Kindergarten Roundup, Spring Dance, field trips, PTO, SAC, and helping in classrooms and the school.


STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Note: The following links will open in a separate browser window.

School Grades Trend Data

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

PositionNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as an AdministratorPrior Performance Record *
Principal Tonia Howe Bachelor of Science degree from Indiana University in Elementary Education; M.A. degree in Elementary Education from the University of South Florida; M.Ed. in Education Leadership from the University of South Florida 7 13 2006-2007:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 72%, 64% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 68% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading.

Math Mastery: 70% of students at or above grade level in math, 60% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, and 58% of struggling students making a year’s of progress in math.

Black students did not make AYP in reading or math

2007-2008:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 69% at or above grade level; 52% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 45% of struggling students making a year’s worth progress in reading.

Math: 73% at or above grade level in math; 62% making a year’s progress in math; 60% of struggling students making a year’s progress in math.

Black and Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in reading or math.

2008-2009:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 73% of students reading at or above grade level in reading; 56% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 48% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading.

Math: 73% of students at or above grade level in math; 58% making a year’s worth of progress in math; 71% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math.

Economically Disadvantaged students made AYP in Reading and Math through Safe
Harbor.
Assis Principal Patricia Noble Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education from Brewton-Parker College located in Mt. Vernon, Georgia; Master of Science in Educational Leadership from Nova Southeastern University 3 6 2006-2007:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 72%, 64% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 68% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading.

Math Mastery: 70% of students at or above grade level in math, 60% of students making a year’s worth of progress in math, and 58% of struggling students making a year’s of progress in math.

Black students did not make AYP in reading or math

2007-2008:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 69% at or above grade level; 52% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 45% of struggling students making a year’s worth progress in reading.

Math: 73% at or above grade level in math; 62% making a year’s progress in math; 60% of struggling students making a year’s progress in math.

Black and Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in reading or math.

2008-2009:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 73% of students reading at or above grade level in reading; 56% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 48% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading.

Math: 73% of students at or above grade level in math; 58% making a year’s worth of progress in math; 71% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math.

Economically Disadvantaged students made AYP in Reading and Math through Safe Harbor

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)

HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

Subject AreaNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as a CoachPrior Performance Record *
Reading Kathryn Weber Bachelors Degree from West Virginia University. Certifications: Elementary Education 1-6, English To Speakers of Other Languages, and Exceptional Student Education. 7 5 2006-2007:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 72%, 64% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 68% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading.
Black students did not make AYP in reading.
2007-2008:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 69% at or above grade level; 52% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 45% of struggling students making a year’s worth progress in reading.
Black and Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in reading.
2008-2009:
Grade B, Reading Mastery: 73% of students reading at or above grade level in reading; 56% making a year’s worth of progress in reading; 48% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in reading.
Economically Disadvantaged students made AYP in Reading through Safe Harbor.
Math Pamela Champion Bachelors Degree from University Of South Florida.
Certifications:
Elementary Education 1-6, Educational Media Specialist, English To Speakers of Other Languages. 		7 2 2007-2008:

Math: 73% at or above grade level in math; 62% making a year’s progress in math; 60% of struggling students making a year’s progress in math.

Economically Disadvantaged students made AYP in Math through Safe Harbor

2008-2009:

Math: 73% of students at or above grade level in math; 58% making a year’s worth of progress in math; 71% of struggling students making a year’s worth of progress in math.

Black and Economically Disadvantaged students did not make AYP in math.

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)


HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Description of StrategyPerson ResponsibleProjected Completion DateNot Applicable (If not, please explain why)
1. Annual Job Fair

2. Partnering teachers with veteran staff

3. Monthly meetings with resource staff

Tonia Howe

Patricia Noble


Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Pam Champion
Ongoing


Ongoing


Ongoing


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
All staff are highly qualified N/A N/A N/A


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
5122621241000539


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
5th Grade Teacher Pam Champion, Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Grade Level Chair Jana Hennis Change of grade level The mentors are meeting weekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence –based strategies for reading, math, science and writing the mentors will provide feedback, coaching and planning assistance.
5th Grade Teacher Pam Champion, Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Grade Level Chair Jana Hennis Change of grade level The mentors are meeting weekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence –based strategies for reading, math, science and writing the mentors will provide feedback, coaching and planning assistance.
4th Grade Teacher Pam Champion, Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Grade Level Chair Carissa Lloyd 2nd year teacher The mentors are meeting weekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence –based strategies for reading, math and writing.
2nd Grade Teacher Pam Champion, Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Grade Level Chair Debbie Taylor Needs additional support The mentors are meeting weekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence –based strategies for reading and math. She scored lower than the district and school in both areas
2nd Grade Teacher Pam Champion, Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Grade Level Chair Debbie Taylor 1st year teacher The mentors are meeting weekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence –based strategies for reading
4th Grade Teacher Pam Champion, Becki Martin, Kathy Weber, Grade Level Chair Carissa Lloyd Change of grade level The mentors are meeting weekly in a professional learning community to discuss evidence –based strategies for reading, math, and writing.



ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration


Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A

Services are provided to ensure students requiring additional remediation are assisted through after-school programs such as Extended Learning Program (ELP).


Title I, Part C- Migrant


Title I, Part D


Title II


Title III

Services are provided through the district for education materials and ELL district support services to improve the education of English Language Learners.


Title X- Homeless


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

SAI funds are used for Kaplan Spell Read for grades K-5. This is an intervention reading program for struggling readers.


Violence Prevention Programs

The school guidance counselor schedules weekly classroom visits to discuss bullying and non-violence strategies to students in K-5. Classroom teachers have access to brochures, bully reporting forms, etc…


Nutrition Programs


Housing Programs


Head Start


Adult Education


Career and Technical Education


Job Training


Other


Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)


School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Principal, Assistant Principal, Guidance Counselor, One intermediate and one primary teacher, ESE facilitator, Learning Focused facilitator, Academic Intervention facilitator,


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

The PS/RtI Leadership Team will focus meetings on how to improve school/teacher effectiveness and student achievement using the Problem Solving Model.
The PS/RtI Leadership Team will meet at least once per month (or more frequently as needed) to engage in the following activities:

Review school-wide, grade level, and teacher data to problem solve needed interventions on a systemic level and identify students meeting/exceeding benchmarks as well as those at moderate or high risk for not meeting benchmarks. This will be done at least three times per year or more frequently if new data is available.

Help referring teachers design feasible strategies and interventions for struggling students by collaborating regularly, problem solving, sharing effective practices, evaluating implementation, assist in making decisions for school, teacher, student improvement.

Facilitate the process of building consensus, increasing infrastructure, and making decisions about implementation.

Focus on improving student achievement outcomes with evidence based interventions implemented with fidelity and frequent progress monitoring.

Intervention teams also foster a sense of collegiality and mutual support among educators, promote the use of evidence-based interventions, and support teachers in carrying out intervention plans.


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

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




RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Baseline data is gathered through August and September. FAIR data is processed through the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). Kindergarten and First Grade data is gathered from the SBAR. First and Second Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year SAT 10. Third through Tenth Grade instructional data is gathered from the previous year’s FCAT scores.

Progress Monitoring data is gathered mid-year and toward the end of the year. FAIR data is processed twice more through the PMRN. Kindergarten and First Grade data is gathered for the SBAR every nine weeks. Other Progress Monitoring data is collected as needed for classroom or student progress. This information may be obtained by probes, Quick Reads, Fluency checks, etc.

Diagnostic Assessment data is gathered through the FAIR, ERDA, and DAR

End of Year data is gathered through FAIR, SAT 10, FCAT, and SBAR.
Data is discussed and analyzed at least monthly at the PS/RtI Leadership Team Meetings.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

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



School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

Plan

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data


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


Strengths: Consistently increased math learning gains of lowest twenty-five percent. 3rd grade continues to increase points earned in Main Idea in reading from the 2006-2009 testing years. 3rd grade strength in math is the data analysis. 4th grade has continued to increase points earned in the area of Words and Phrases for reading.
5th grades strength is in the Life and Environment strand of science

Weaknesses: Writing in 4th grade dropped from 93% to 83% making a level 3.5 or above. 4th grade dropped in writing to a narrative prompt from 4.2 to 3.8.
Black students have not made AYP in reading or math from 2006 to 2009 testing year. Economically Disadvantaged students made AYP through Safe Harbor in reading and writing.


Instructional Calendar Development


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

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


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

Reading: Main Idea/Author’s Purpose was the weakest strand in reading for 3rd -5th grades and will be given priority focus.

Math: In grades 3-5, Algebraic Thinking is our weakest area in math and will be given priority focus.

Reading: In grades 3-5, Referencing and Research is our weakest area in reading and will be given priority focus.

Writing: In grade 4, Writing to a Narrative prompt is the weakest area in writing and will be given priority focus.

Science: In grade 5, Physical and Chemical Sciences, Earth and Space Sciences, and Scientific Thinking are the weakest areas in science and will be given priority focus.


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

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


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

Students have the opportunity in 5th grade to participate in E-Team which covers an array of subjects related to real world issues. A daily focus of the school is for teachers and students to ask each other, “why are we learning this?” to ensure that instruction is always relevant. Teachers are also provided reading materials and “bell ringers” that are based on current events.


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

Does not apply to elementary schools




DO

Direct the Instructional Focus


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


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


How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

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


How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

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




CHECK

Assessment


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


FAIR, Fast Forward, Harcourt Trophies, 100 Book Challenge, Compass Odyssey, and AR will be sources of ongoing formative assessments and data.


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

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


Maintenance


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

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


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

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


Monitoring


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

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




ACT

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions


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


Resources from the state adopted textbooks which are designed for intensive instruction will be utilized. Computerized programs or instructional software (Compass, Odyssey), in addition to Internet instructional Web sites such as FCAT Explorer will also be utilized. Teachers will utilize instructional strategies or best practices discussed in Professional Learning Communities to provide different methods of providing instruction to students in non-mastered areas. Resources and strategies provided at professional development workshops will also be utilized. Students consistently demonstrating non-mastery may be required to participate in tutorial sessions before or after school.


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

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


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

Common areas of concern in the areas of instructional delivery, classroom management, etc., as evidenced by administrators’ observations, teacher surveys, and student performance/data analysis, will determine the need for professional development sessions. Also, for our school The Learning Focused Implementation Tool will be administered at the start of the 2009 – 2010 school year to help identify areas of need for professional development.


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

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


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

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


Enrichment


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

Students who typically exceed mastery levels participate in the school’s gifted program.


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

FCAT results, in addition to student progress in a specific academic area, as well as assessment results that demonstrate consistent proficiency/mastery are used to determine placement in higher level academics. Teacher recommendation is also taken into consideration.

Parent conferences are held with the recommending teacher, guidance counselor, and a member of the leadership or administrative team. The parents are counseled on the expectations for the student participating in higher level academics, as well as their continued parental involvement.




Professional Learning Communities

PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.)PLC LeaderFrequency of PLC MeetingsSchedule (when)Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis)
Each Grade Level Team Grade Level Chair Weekly Every Tuesday Analyze effectiveness of lesson plans, triple III groups, intervention strategies, and assessments to determine any necessary revisions
Action Plan Leadership Team Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading AIF, LFS Facilitator, ESE Facilitator, Math Tutor/Instructional Coach Weekly Every Tuesday Analyze student assessment data, discuss curriculum focus, pacing of lesson plans, and analyze subgroup data to make sure of increased learning gains, determine staff professional development needs based on data analysis in reading, math, science, and writing.
ESE Team ESE Facilitator Weekly Every Tuesday Monitoring of learning gains of ESE students in Reading, Math, Writing, and Science.
IEP monitoring and updating to meet DOE requirements for specialized services


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition

Kindergarten round-up is scheduled for April of each year for parents to meet the teachers and get acquainted with the school. The parents are able to view a display for dress code guidelines and school supplies. Parents are also given a list of skills needed to successfully begin kindergarten. A wealth of information is provided to parents so they will be better equipped to prepare their children for kindergarten. The materials and activities are possible through community donations and PTO resources.

The Florida Kindergarten Readiness Skills (FLKRS) includes a subset of the Early Childhood Observation System (ECHOS) and the first two measures of the Florida Assessment for Instructional Reading (FAIR) for kindergarten. The two measures are: Letter Naming Fluency and Initial Sound Fluency.

Data collected from this screener will be used to plan daily academic and social/emotional instruction for all students and for groups of students or individual students who may need intervention beyond core instruction. Core kindergarten academic and behavioral instruction will include daily explicit instruction, modeling, guided practice and independent practice of all academic and/or social emotional skills identified by screening data.


Postsecondary Transition

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



 

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

 

Other Goals

No Other Goals were submitted for this school

 

FINAL BUDGET



Differentiated Accountability


School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance



Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/9/2009 12:54:46 PM)



School Advisory Council



School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance

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

Yes. Agree with the above statement.



Projected use of SAC FundsAmount
Printer Toner Cartridges 2500
Ink Jet cartridges, projector batteries, headphones, etc. 1000



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


The School Advisory Council is instrumental in planning and working with staff members to provide a quality education for the students of Dr. N.E. Roberts Elementary School. The council meets once every six weeks to review, learn about, monitor and support programs / strategies that improve achievement in our students. They're instrumental in the development and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan. Budget requests are reviewed and approved via our School Advisory Council.

The roles and responsibilities of the School Advisor Council are as follows:

Members:

•Determines School Improvement Priorities
•Publicize the School Improvement Plan
•Support School Improvement Plan Implementation
•Evaluate the School Improvement Plan
•Assist in decision making process and approval of expenditures of SAC Funds and School Recognition Funds, as well as review the school budget.

Chair:

•Schedules SAC meetings
•Sets Agenda with principal
•Sends meeting notice, including agenda two weeks prior to meeting
•Facilitates meeting
•Determines strategy for making plans available

Principal –Is a SAC member:

•Keeps up to date with legislation governing School Advisory Council
•Facilitates election process stated in by-laws
•Provides testing, behavior, discipline and attendance data to the SAC
•Seeks input from staff and the SAC on School Improvement Plan, School budget, SAC Funds, and School Recognition Funds
•Leads revision, implementation, and evaluation of the School Improvement Plan

SAC Guidelines:

•The principal is a member of the School Advisory Council (SAC).
•High Schools and Vocational/Technical schools shall have voting student members.
•Middle and elementary schools may have student members.
•All members, with the exception of the business and community members, will be elected by the constituents they represent.
•Each SAC shall maintain a record (minutes) of all decisions, activities, and meetings, including attendance and voting records.
•A majority of the member of each SAC must be persons who are not employed by the district.

•Each SAC shall be representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
•A majority of the membership is a quorum. A quorum must be present before a vote may be taken by the SAC.
•SAC members are required to have at least three days advance notice in writing of any matter to be voted on.
•SAC meetings are scheduled when parents, students, and community members can attend.


SAC Members

Members
1)  Tonia Howe,   Principal
2)  Amy Post,   SAC Chair
3)  Laura Cronin,   Teacher
4)  Pam Champion,   Teacher
5)  Kathy Weber,   Teacher
6)  Tanisha McLachlan,   Teacher
7)  Brandi Blanchard,   Teacher
8)  Demetria Patterson,   Teacher
9)  Brittany Carr,   Teacher
10)  Dennis Post,   Parent
11)  Elizabeth Candelaria,   Parent
12)  Bari Fulton,   Parent
13)  Traci Terry,   Parent
14)  Tim Bridges,   Parent
15)  Bruce Black,   Parent
16)  Melissa Luciano,   Parent
17)  Conroy Broomfield,   Parent
18)  Cameron Taylor,   Parent
19)  Tammy Squires,   Parent
20)  Angela Wright,   Parent
21)  Sheliah Stills,   School Support Personnel
22)  Patricia Noble,   Assistant Principal
 

AYP DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk DR. NE ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1851
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 331
Math: 331   		2008-2009
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  67  Y  68  Y    94  Y      NA  37  33  NA 34  32  NA 66  NA  67  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  74  Y  72  Y    93  Y      NA  30  26  NA 32  28  NA 70  NA  68  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  48  N  51  N      NA      NA  50  52  N 46  49  N 52  N  62  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  100  Y  100  Y  61  N  64  N      Y      NA  46  39  Y 43  36  Y 62  NA  64  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        

2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk DR. NE ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1851
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 346
Math: 346   		2007-2008
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? NO   
This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.
Group Reading
Tested 95% of the students? 		Math
Tested 95% of the students? 		58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? 62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? Improved performance in Writing by 1%? Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? Percent of Students below grade level in Reading Safe
Harbor
Reading		 Percent of Students below grade level in Math Safe
Harbor
Math		 % of students on track to be proficient in reading Growth model reading % of students on track to be proficient in math Growth model math
  2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N
TOTAL4  100  Y  100  Y  63  Y  66  Y  93     Y      NA  34  37  NA 35  34  NA 61  NA  64  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  70  Y  68  Y  94     Y      NA  30  30  NA 33  32  NA 67  NA  64  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y  50  N  54  N      NA      NA  55  50  N 52  46  Y 45  N  62  NA 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  100  Y  100  Y  54  N  57  N  92     Y      NA  40  46  N 42  43  N 55  N  58  N 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk DR. NE ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1851
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 463
Math: 463   		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  100  Y  99  Y  66  Y  65  Y    93  Y      NA  30  33  NA 27  35  NA 63  NA  64  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  70  Y  67  Y    94  Y      NA  26  28  NA 27  33  NA 67  NA  65  NA 
BLACK  99  Y  98  Y  45  N  48  N      NA      NA  59  55  N 41  52  N 44  N  54  N 
HISPANIC  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ASIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
AMERICAN INDIAN    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED  100  Y  99  Y  60  Y  58  Y    92  Y      NA  36  39  NA 33  42  NA 57  NA  59  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  99  Y  99  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
DR. NE ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 73%  73%  83%  38%  267   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
% of Students Making Learning Gains 56%  58%      114  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 48% (NO)  71% (YES)      119  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         500   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    DR. NE ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 69%  73%  93%  45%  280   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%  62%      114  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 45% (NO)  60% (YES)      105  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         499   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    DR. NE ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 72%  70%  93%  31%  266   Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
    % of Students Making Learning Gains 64%  60%      124  3 ways to make gains:
  • Improve FCAT Levels
  • Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5
  • Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2
    		•
    Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School? 68% (YES)  58% (YES)      126  Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
    Points Earned         516   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested