VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS


PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS


Brief History and Background of the School


Unique School Strengths for Next Year


Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year


Student Demographics


Student Attendance Rates


Student Mobility


Student Suspension Rates


Student Retention Rates


Class Size


Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern


Partnerships and Grants


STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

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

School Grades Trend Data

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

PositionNameDegree(s)/ Certification(s)# of Years at Current School# of Years as an AdministratorPrior Performance Record *
No data submitted

* 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 *
No data submitted

* 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)
No data submitted


Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

NameCertificationTeaching AssignmentProfessional 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
0000000000


Teacher Mentoring Program

Mentor NameMentee AssignedRationale for PairingPlanned Mentoring Activities
No data submitted



ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration


Note: For Title I schools only

Title I, Part A


Title I, Part C- Migrant


Title I, Part D


Title II


Title III


Title X- Homeless


Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)


Violence Prevention Programs


Nutrition Programs


Housing Programs


Head Start


Adult Education


Career and Technical Education


Job Training


Other


Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)


School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.


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


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




RtI Implementation

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.


Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.



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?



Instructional Calendar Development


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


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


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


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


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?




DO

Direct the Instructional Focus


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



How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?


How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?




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.



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


Maintenance


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


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.


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.




ACT

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions


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



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


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


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


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


Enrichment


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


Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.




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)
No data submitted


NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only


Pre-School Transition


Postsecondary Transition

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



 

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

 

Other Goals

No Other Goals were submitted for this school

 

FINAL BUDGET



Differentiated Accountability


School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance



No Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance



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 FundsAmount
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 BERKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1951
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 289
Math: 289   		2008-2009
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? YES   
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  76  Y  84  Y      Y      NA  19  24  NA 15  16  NA 74  NA  74  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  78  Y  84  Y      Y      NA  17  22  NA 14  16  NA 76  NA  73  NA 
BLACK    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
HISPANIC    NA    NA    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  67  Y  78  Y      Y      NA  30  33  NA 25  22  NA 65  NA  70  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        

2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk BERKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1951
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 284
Math: 284   		2007-2008
School Grade1:		 A   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? YES   
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  81  Y  85  Y      Y      NA  28  19  NA 20  15  NA 74  NA  81  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  83  Y  86  Y      Y      NA  25  17  NA 18  14  NA 77  NA  82  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
HISPANIC    NA    NA    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  70  Y  75  Y      Y      NA  41  30  NA 29  25  NA 66  NA  77  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        

2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Polk BERKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1951
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
 Read: 261
Math: 261   		2006-2007
School Grade1:		 B   Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? YES   
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  72  Y  80  Y      Y      NA  20  32  NA 26  20  NA 71  NA  80  NA 
WHITE  100  Y  100  Y  75  Y  82  Y      Y      NA  17  27  NA 22  18  NA 74  NA  78  NA 
BLACK  100  Y  100  Y    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
HISPANIC    NA    NA    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  59  Y  71  Y      Y      NA  36  45  NA 37  29  NA 63  NA  78  NA 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    NA    NA    NA    NA      NA      NA      NA     NA        


SCHOOL GRADE DATA

Polk School District
BERKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2008-2009
  Reading
  		 Math
  		 Writing
  		 Science
  		 Grade
Points
Earned		  
% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 79%  86%  96%  43%  304   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 54%  61%      115  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)  56% (YES)      101  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         520   
    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
    BERKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2007-2008
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 84%  88%  92%  55%  319   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 69%  72%      141  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? 65% (YES)  74% (YES)      139  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         599   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         A  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


    Polk School District
    BERKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    2006-2007
      Reading
          		 Math
          		 Writing
          		 Science
          		 Grade
    Points
    Earned    		  
    % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) 75%  83%  92%  54%  304   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 66%  76%      142  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)  79% (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         573   
    Percent Tested = 100%           Percent of eligible students tested
    School Grade         B  Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested