VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Vision:
Loughman Oaks Elementary will ensure rigorous, relevant learning experiences that result in high achievement for our students.
Mission:
Each student will experience a community atmosphere with high expectations and enthusiasm in a positive and respectful learning environment that will expand their knowledge through the exploration of community-based activities and real-life experiences.
Belief Statements:
We believe that each child has the right to learn in a safe learning environment that respects diversity
We believe each student has the right to be treated fairly
We believe a school community with high expectations will lead to high performance in class
We believe that all children can learn
We believe that when you set high expectations, children will achieve them
We believe that every child has the ability to succeed and that we as teachers must meet their needs in a variety of ways in order to ensure that success
We believe that everyone – teachers, students, and parents – must take responsibility for their part in the learning process
Motto:
Loughman Oaks Elementary – where today’s learners are tomorrow’s leaders
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Loughman Oaks Elementary is located in a rural area in Polk County, about 3 miles from the Osceola county line. Due to our location, we have no students who walk to school. All students are transported to and from school in a school bus, daycare/after-school care van or family vehicle. A unique aspect of Loughman Oaks Elementary is the rural setting of the school. However, the area surrounding the school is exploding in growth as it provides relatively affordable housing to families who work primarily in the service industry in Kissimmee/Orlando area.
Students who attend Loughman Oaks, move to Boone Middle and Daniel Jenkins Technology Magnet Middle, Lake Alfred Addair Middle, Dundee Ridge Middle School and Ridge Community High for further education. There are 3 charter schools and 2 magnet schools in close proximity. The school anticipates about 800 students this year. This year Loughman Oaks Elementary has 12 portable classrooms on campus which house Pre-K and grade 2 classrooms.
The school is about 17 years old and is lacking in technology and other upgrades. This year, due to additional district support, the school is receiving smart board packages for each grade 5 classroom and received additional computers to support the Accelerated Reader program and its implementation last year. Additionally, the PTA and the district technology department shared in the cost of the purchase of AR licenses. The school has just begun its ITV program and is focused on increasing student participation in the media center and book circulation. Circulation increased significantly last year and the media budget was increased considerably to increase the collection. The school is partnering with the district office for matching funds to improve and increase the amount of available technology for the classrooms. Additionally, we have three model technology teachers on campus. We have also established a science lab with a science teacher to provide support to the science instruction that is being provided in the classrooms.
Students attend specials/fine arts in a rotation. All grades attend science, music, art and PE. Grade 4 also receives ITV and grade 5 receives strings instruction. Loughman Oaks Elementary is an ESE flow school. It has the following self-contained units including: ASD, InD, and VE. There are also 4 VE resource teachers and 2 pre-K ESE classes. We have implemented an inclusion model for a majority of the ESE students and have provided ESE training for the entire faculty. Both ESOL and ESE students are clustered in classes to ensure sufficient support is being provided.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Unique School Strengths for Next Year – Grade 4 writing scores increased 20% between 2008-09 and 2007-08. Additionally, there have been significant changes in staff assignments, teacher leadership and student assignments. All changes have been made based upon student achievement and teacher performance data. Walk throughs are occurring daily with the leadership team with the goal that each classroom is visited 3-4 times per week. Feedback is periodically provided in the form of a reflection sheet. In addition, vertical teams will meet quarterly to discuss curriculum articulation.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year – Grade 4 and grade 5 scores continue to be below acceptable standards and will be a huge focus this year for the faculty. Additionally, after close analysis of FCAT data, it was determined that many proficient students, maintained their proficiency but dropped in developmental scaled score. It was also determined that the lowest 25% did not make necessary gains.
Student Demographics
Student Demographics -- White 42.25%, Black 18.41%, Hispanic 34.99%, Asian .49%, Indian .37%, Multiracial 10.06%, Students with disabilities 18.77%, ELL 19.75%, Free/reduced 79.26%
Student Attendance Rates
Student Attendance Rates – 92.74% (2008-09, 92.83% (2007-08), and 93.09% (2006-07) as compared to the district average of 94.56%
Student Mobility
Student Mobility defined as “The enrollment or withdrawal of a student at anytime during the school year (not including the first 15 days of school) divided by the number of students who attended the school during that year after the 15th day”. For 2007-08 the rate was 53.51 and for 2008-09 the rate was 49.68%. It is one of the highest in the district.
Student Suspension Rates
Student Suspension Rates OSS= 127 days on 68 events ISS=49 days on 54 events
Student Retention Rates
Student Retention Rates KG = 2%, gr. 1, 2, 4, 5 = >1%, gr. 3 = 10%
Class Size
Class Size
Classes average 17 students in K-5 classes.
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
n/a
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships and Grants – Loughman Oaks received a $1,000 grant last spring as well as $3,100 from High Vista Community church. These funds were pooled to purchase additional technology. The same church is also coordinating volunteers and is expecting at least 30 members to volunteer regularly at school. The Kiwanis Club of Four Corners also provides tremendous support for our school through the “stuff the bus” initiative for school supplies. Home Depot has agreed to provide the needed shrubs for the school grounds. The Kiwanis group is very involved and has provided dictionaries for most classrooms and for grade 2 and 3 children to take home and well as $1,000 of school supplies. The Kiwanis group will host a Christmas dinner with the help of Radio Disney and will provide Christmas presents to local families who cannot afford to purchase presents for their children. This dinner is provided on campus
. Kiwanis also provides support for Parent support group meetings for families of students with disabilities. In addition, the school hosts ESOL classes for teachers needing the ESOL endorsement. Kid-care provides before- and after-school care for children at Loughman Oaks. A local boy scout troop uses our campus for their after school meetings
Loughman Oaks Elementary’s business partners include Badcock Furniture, CEMEX, The Heart of Florida Hospital, and Home Depot. The school is seeking support for staff/student incentives, technology, library books and accelerated reader licenses. The neighboring development is currently designing a new entrance for the school that will substantially improve the landscaping and look of the school. The school is also hoping for the implementation of an academic afterschool program through the approval of 21st Century funding and cooperation with the Board of County Commissioners.
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
|
Jodi Lamb
|
BA – English Education, MA – Library Science, Ph.D. – curriculum and instruction
Certification: Media K-12 , English 6-12, School principal K-12
|
2
|
10
|
School went from a C in 2007-08 to a B in 2008-09 and the percentage meeting AYP criteria grew from 64% to 90 %.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Jennifer Erb-Hancock
|
BA – Elementary Education
MA – Educational Leadership
Certification: Elementary Education and Educational leadership
|
1
|
5
|
School grade raised from C to B. In addition, writing scores improved 20%.
|
* 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 * |
|
Math
|
Chabre Timmons
|
Elementary Education and Educational Leadership
|
6
|
1
|
School went from a C in 2008 to a B in 2009 and the percentage meeting AYP criteria grew from 64% to 90%
|
|
Reading
|
Jennifer Meyer
|
Elementary education with a reading endorsement
|
9
|
2
|
School went from a C in 2008 to a B in 2009 and the percentage meeting AYP criteria grew from 64% to 90%
|
|
Learning Focused Strategies
|
Ashley Condo
|
Music Education, Elementary Education and Educational Leadership
|
5
|
1
|
School went from a C in 2008 to a B in 2009 and the percentage meeting AYP criteria grew from 64% to 90%
|
* 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) |
|
collaborative planning
|
leadership team
|
6/2010
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
none
|
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 |
| 61 | 0 | 68 | 21 | 11 | 26 | 100 | 5 | 0 | 38 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
AIF
|
struggling teachers
|
assist with strengthening reading instruction
|
coaching, mentoring, collaborative planning
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Provides salaries for instructional coaches
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part D
Provides salaries to instructional coaches
Title II
Provides the Academic Intervention Facilitator for reading
Title III
ESOL back packs are provided for parents of ESOL children. These backpacks give them strategies to help their children be successful in school
Title X- Homeless
A visiting teacher makes home visits to ensure that the families' basic needs are taken care of and transportation is provided for those who do not live along assigned bus routes
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Provides Spell Pat Read teacher
Violence Prevention Programs
Nutrition Programs
Housing Programs
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model
Professional Learning Communities
| PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) | PLC Leader | Frequency of PLC Meetings | Schedule (when) | Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis) |
KG PLC
Grade 1 PLC
Grade 2 PLC
Grade 3 PLC
Grade 4 PLC
Grade 5 PLC
ESE PLC
|
Connie Nitsch
Alecia Ransom
Victoria Castor
Therese LaCroix
Beverly Turner
Melissa Howell
Wanda Aponte
|
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
|
During Block
During Block
During Block
During Block
During Block
During Block
During Block
|
Lesson development and student data
Lesson development and student data
Lesson Development and student data
Lesson Development and student data
Lesson Development and student data
Lesson Development and student data
Lesson Development and student data
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
The Polk School Readiness Program is funded through The Florida Partnership for School Readiness and is designed as a dropout prevention program for economically disadvantaged 3 and 4 year old children.
The Polk School Readiness Program works in partnership with both public and private child care providers, so families can choose the service plan that meets their needs. Services are provided at both private child care centers and public school facilities. Loughman Oaks Elementary has one regular Pre-K unit and two ESE Pre-K units for the 2009 school year. Each Pre-K ESE classroom is staffed with a lead teacher and a paraprofessional. The teacher and para meet with parents to discuss student progress. The ESE units meet with the parents to develop appropriate IEPs for the children and then use the documents to guide the strategies and techniques being employed. Loughman Oaks Elementary encourages parental involvement of our Pre-K parents by establishing direct and open communication between the school and home. Pre-K teachers use the student planners for daily communication, just as is used in the K-5 classrooms. The parents are encouraged to become registered school volunteers. Kindergarten Readiness Workshops are held in the spring to assist parents in preparing their children for kindergarten. Loughman Oaks 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. Kindergarten teachers use the FLKRS assessment and provides feedback to the pre-K teachers about the preparedness of the students who have participated in the pre-K program and have transitioned in to the Kindergarten program.
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 |
|
main idea/purpose
|
Increase the average score in subsection by 5
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
use focus skill lessons
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT scores
|
| 2 |
emphasize main idea during remediation
|
Lamb/ Hancock
|
Lesson plan analysis
|
FAIR scores
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
comparisons
|
increase average score in subsection by 4
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
use focus skill lessons
|
Lamb/Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT results
|
| 2 |
emphasize comparisons during remediation
|
Lamb/Hancock
|
lesson plan analysis
|
FAIR scores
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
main idea
|
LFS / FAIR
|
Condo/Meyer
|
ongoing
|
weekly planning meetings
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
|
comparisons
|
LFS / FAIR
|
Condo / Meyer
|
ongoing
|
weekly planning meetings
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
n/a
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| smart board packages |
donations |
$6,000.00 |
| Total: $6,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS training modules |
Title 1 -- district owned |
$0.00 |
| FAIR assessments |
state provided |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $6,000.00 |
|
| End of Reading Goal |
|
Mathematics Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?
What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?
Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?
Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Number sense
|
improve the average score for the strand by 3
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Add 30 minutes of math instruction daily
|
Lamb/Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT results and progress monitoring tool
|
| 2 |
Train teachers in LFS math
|
Condo / Timmons
|
Lesson plan analysis
|
FCAT and progress monitoring tools through IDEAS
|
| 3 |
Increase use of smart boards
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Data Analysis
|
Improve the average score for the strand by 3
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Add 30 minutes of math instruction daily
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT results and progress monitoring tool
|
| 2 |
Train teachers in LFS math strategies
|
Condo / Timmons
|
Lesson plan analysis
|
FCAT and progress monitoring tool
|
| 3 |
Increased use of smart boards
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT results
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Measurement
|
Improve the average score in strand by 3
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Add 30 minutes of math instruction daily
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT and progress monitoring
|
| 2 |
Train teachers in LFS math strategies
|
Condo / Timmons
|
Lesson plan analysis
|
FCAT and progress monitoring tool
|
| 3 |
Increased use of smart boards
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT results
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Number sense, Data analysis, measurement
|
LFS for math training and coaching will be provided to staff
|
national LFS trainer
|
10-2009
|
Walk throughs and lesson plan analysis
|
Timmons / Condo/ Lamb/ Hancock
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Scott-Foresman core materials |
district provided |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart board packages |
Donations (included in reading goal) |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS for math |
Title 1 or private grant |
$2,500.00 |
| Total: $2,500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $2,500.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Earth and Space
|
Improve average score for this strand by 3 points
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Increase daily science instruction for 5th grade by 60 minutes via departmentalization
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT
|
| 2 |
Ensure LFS strategies are being used during science instruction
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Lesson plan analysis
|
FCAT
|
| 3 |
Increased used of smart boards
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Life and Environment
|
Improve average score by 3 points for this strand
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Increase daily science instruction for 5th grade by 60 minutes daily via departmentalization
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk Throughs
|
FCAT
|
| 2 |
Ensure LFS strategies are being used during science instruction
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Lesson plan analysis
|
FCAT
|
| 3 |
Increased use of smart boards
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
Walk throughs
|
FCAT
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Earth and Space and Life and Environment
|
LFS coaching
|
Condo
|
Ongoing
|
Walk throughs and weekly planning meetings
|
Lamb / Hancock
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Harcourt Science series |
District provided |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Smart Board packages |
Donations and district technology funds |
$20,000.00 |
| Total: $20,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| LFS |
Title 1 (included in math goal |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science Resource teacher |
Title 1 |
$50,000.00 |
| Total: $50,000.00 |
| Final Total: $70,000.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Expository responses are not as successful as narrative
|
increase overall efficiency by 1% as measured by FCAT writes
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Implement Write Reflections program school wide
|
Hancock
|
Walk throughs and on-going progess monitoring of writing samples
|
FCAT writes and weekly prompt scores
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Writng scores
|
Write Reflections
|
Terry Stanley
|
8/21 - 9?22/09
|
Walk throughs and writing samples
|
Hancock
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Write Reflections |
Title 1 (already owned) |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Write Reflections |
Title 1 |
$1,500.00 |
| Total: $1,500.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $1,500.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
Increase parent involvement
|
Increase involvement by 5% as measured by sign ins
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Incorporate student performances into family academic nights
|
Lamb / DiBrango
|
Monitor sign in sheets
|
Parent satisfaction survey
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
| No data submitted |
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Orlando Science Center |
Internal |
$600.00 |
| Total: $600.00 |
| Final Total: $600.00 |
|
| 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 |
| Mathematics |
Scott-Foresman core materials |
district provided |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Write Reflections |
Title 1 (already owned) |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Harcourt Science series |
District provided |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
smart board packages |
donations |
$6,000.00 |
| Mathematics |
Smart board packages |
Donations (included in reading goal) |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Smart Board packages |
Donations and district technology funds |
$20,000.00 |
| Total: $26,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
LFS training modules |
Title 1 -- district owned |
$0.00 |
| Reading |
FAIR assessments |
state provided |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
LFS for math |
Title 1 or private grant |
$2,500.00 |
| Writing |
Write Reflections |
Title 1 |
$1,500.00 |
| Science |
LFS |
Title 1 (included in math goal |
$0.00 |
| Total: $4,000.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science |
Science Resource teacher |
Title 1 |
$50,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Orlando Science Center |
Internal |
$600.00 |
| Total: $50,600.00 |
| Final Total: $80,600.00 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/9/2009 10:38:17 AM)
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.
Yes. Agree with the above statement.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
|
no monies available
|
0
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
Monitor and give feedback on school activities related to the school improvement plan
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Evia Loye Stateler,
SAC Chair
|
|
2)
Chabre Timmons,
Teacher
|
|
3)
Wanda Aponte,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Jennifer Whitmire,
Parent
|
|
5)
Norma Gomez,
Parent
|
|
6)
Richard Osso,
Community Member
|
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District LOUGHMAN OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
63%
|
62%
|
95%
|
21%
|
241
|
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% |
61% |
|
|
122 |
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? |
60% (YES) |
73% (YES) |
|
|
133
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
496 |
|
| 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 LOUGHMAN OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
59%
|
57%
|
73%
|
27%
|
216
|
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 |
60% |
52% |
|
|
112 |
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? |
64% (YES) |
63% (YES) |
|
|
127
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
455 |
|
| 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 LOUGHMAN OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
64%
|
59%
|
83%
|
30%
|
236
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
74% |
68% |
|
|
142 |
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? |
70% (YES) |
68% (YES) |
|
|
138
|
Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.
|
| Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
516 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
B |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |