VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS
Dundee Ridge Middle School is a school of excellence based on the dedication of staff members seeking to move all students to academic success.
Dundee Ridge Middle School is a school of excellence that values diverse cultures and individual uniqueness. We are committed to preparing all students for the challenges of tomorrow: by fostering a safe, self-motivating, creative and relevant learning environment enhanced by higher standards of achievement from a professional staff dedicated to continual growth and development.
PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS
Brief History and Background of the School
Brief History and Background of the School: Dundee Ridge Middle School was opened in the fall of 1999 and serves six major communities in rural, northeast Polk County. The facility is a ten-building school stretched on forty-two acres that was built in 1999. DRMS shares parking area with Polk County Parks department, therefore there are no fences or gates that secure the perimeter of the school. Each building houses a specific discipline or grade level. The student population at DRMS is approximately 825 students in all. The ethnic subgroups of the student population include: 47% Hispanic, 25% White, 26% black, and 2% other. The educational status subgroups of the student population include: 76% Regular Education, 15% Exceptional Student Education (disabilities including EMH, TMH, EH, and SLD) 4.4% Exceptional Student Education (Gifted) and 9.4% LEP. We are currently a Title I school. Our socio-economic status of 76% of our students receiving free/ reduced lunch qualifies us a Title 1 school.
Unique School Strengths for Next Year
Unique School Strengths for Next Year: Teacher retention was high for this school year. The school only has nine new teachers. Seven of the nine teachers taught last year at previous schools. In addition, in the 2009-2010 school year DRMS will be a full inclusion school for all grade levels with the exception of students who are in self-contained ESE classes. At the close of the 2008-2009 school year the school was rezoned. Our student population will be at 825 for the 2009-2010 school year.
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year
Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year: No common planning for subject area teachers. However, all teachers agreed to meet bi-weekly in Professional Learning Communities to talk about student achievement and exemplary teaching. Students are 95% bussed which inhibits after school activity.
Student Demographics
Student Demographics: White – 26.14%, Black – 27.44%, Hispanic- 41.33%, Asian - .86%, Indian- .86%, Multiracial- 3.36%, SWD – 113.81%, ELL – 7.85%, Free/reduced lunch – 79.64%. Total Enrollment – 1159.
Student Attendance Rates
Student Attendance Rates:2006-2007 – 92.01%; 2007-2008 – 94.39%; 2008-2009 - 93.88%
Student Mobility
Student Mobility:2007-2008 – 39.09%; 2008-2009 - 37.29%
Student Suspension Rates
Student Suspension Rates: 2006-2007 – ISS Actions/Days – 652/1539; OSS Actions/Days – 387/1193; 2007-2008 – ISS Actions/Days – 1171/2148; OSS Actions/Days – 596/1729; 2008-2009 – ISS Actions/Days – 997/1581; OSS Actions/Days – 513/1722
Student Retention Rates
Student Retention Rates: 2006-2007 – 6th gr.- 4.61%, 7th gr. – 6.27, 8th gr. – 0.80%; 2007-2008 – 6th gr. – 2.76%, 7th gr. – 1.87%, 8th gr. – 0.56%. 2008-2009 6th gr. – 0.79%; 7th gr. – 1.61%, 8th gr. – 0.74%
Class Size
Class Size: 2006- 2007 – school average class size – 20.35; 2007-2008 – 19.65
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern
Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern: Dundee Elem 2008-2009 school grade – C; AYP – No; Sandhill Elem school grade - A; AYP – Yes.
Partnerships and Grants
Partnerships and Grants: HELIOS grant, Progress Energy, and State Farm, Wachovia, and Heart of Florida
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
|
Kathryn Blackburn
|
BA-Elem,Ed
M.Ed
EdD
|
9
|
8
|
Kathryn was at DRMS last year and the school received a C. Only one area of AYP was made and the school was at 65%.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Stacy Gideons
|
BS – Phys Ed
M. Ed
|
8
|
3
|
Stacy was at DRMS last year. The school grade was a C and it received 65% criteria met for AYP
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Damien Jones
|
BA-Bus. Ed
M.Ed
|
1
|
1
|
Damien was at DRMS last year. The school grade was a C and it received 65% met criteria for AYP.
|
* 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 * |
|
Reading
|
LuBertha DePrimo
|
B.A. Music Therapy
M.E. in Reading
|
8
|
3
|
Lubertha was at DRMS last year. The school grade was a C and it received 65% met criteria for AYP.
|
|
Math
|
Shronda Jones
|
B.S. Acctg
M.Ed
|
9
|
3
|
Shronda was at DRMS last year. The school grade was a C and it received 65% met criteria for AYP
|
|
Lang.Arts
|
Kerri Collins
|
B.S. in Phys.Ed
|
5
|
3
|
Kerri was at DRMS last year. The school grade was a C and it received 65% met criteria for AYP
|
|
Multi-Teacher Trainer
|
Mary White
|
B.A. Art Ed
M.E. Curriculum
|
5
|
3
|
Mary was at DRMS last year. The school grade was a C and it received 65% met criteria for AYP
|
* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
| Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
|
1. Attend recruitment job fairs
|
Principal/APC
|
|
We have a full staff
|
|
2. Offer safe/orderly work environment
|
Administrative Staff
|
on-going
|
|
|
3. Flexible work conditions with administrative support
|
Principal
|
on-going
|
|
|
4. Maintain specific guidelines for policies/procedures
|
Principal
|
on-going
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Tracy Bostic
|
English 6-12
|
7th Lang. Arts
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Shalunda Coleman
|
Mid. Int. Curr.5-9
|
7th grade Math
|
ESOL PD Plan/State Cert. Plan
|
|
Alma Cruz
|
PE K-12
|
6-7 PE
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Clarise Framstead
|
ESE/M IC/K-6
|
VE –Self Cont.6-8
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Darnel Jones
|
English 6-12
|
8th grade LA
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Jessica Judkins
|
English 6-12
|
8th grade Reading
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Susan Kaye
|
MIC 5-9
|
7th grade Reading
|
ESOL PD Plan/Reading Endorsement
|
|
Aldena Lampkin
|
Reading 6-12
|
7th grade Reading
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Christina Rios
|
MIC/PE K-12
|
ESOL/7th PE
|
ESOL PD Plan
|
|
Deborah Williams
|
ESE/MIC/K-6
|
VE-Self Cont.6-8
|
Reading Endorsement Plan
|
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 |
| 46 | 4 | 63 | 15 | 13 | 26 | 91 | 15 | 0 | 80 |
Teacher Mentoring Program
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Lubertha DePrimo
|
New Teachers
|
New to school/district/curriculum
|
meetings/observation/modeling
|
|
Mary White
|
Struggling teachers
|
In need of additional support
|
meetings/observation/modeling
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, funds school-wide services to Dundee Ridge Middle School. The Title I funds provide supplemental instructional resources and interventions for students with academic achievement needs. Title I, Part A, support provides after school/summer instructional programs, supplemental instructional materials, resources teachers, technology for students, professional development for the staff, and resources for the parents.
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Migrant students enrolled in Dundee Ridge Middle School will be assisted by the school and by the District Migrant Education Program (MEP). Students will be prioritized by the MEP for supplemental services based on need and migrant status. MEP Teacher Advocates, assigned to schools with high percentages of migrant students, monitor the progress of these high need students and provide or coordinate supplemental academic support. Migrant Home – School Liaisons identify and recruit migrant students and their families for the MEP. They provide support to both students and parents in locating services necessary to ensure the academic success of these students whose education has been interrupted by numerous moves
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D
Title I, Part D, provides Transition Facilitators to assist students with transition from Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities back into their zoned schools. The Transition Facilitators communicate with the Guidance Counselors at schools to facilitate the transfer of records and appropriate placement
Title II
Title II
Professional development resources are available to Title I schools through Title II funds. In addition, School Technology Services provide technical support, technology training, and licenses for software programs and web-based access via Title II – D funds. Funds available to Dundee Ridge Middle School are used to purchase technology based professional development software
Title III
Title III
Title III provides supplemental resources for English Language Learners (ELL) and their teachers in Title I schools, as well as professional learning opportunities for school staff
Title X- Homeless
Title X- Homeless
The Hearth program, funded through Title X, provides support for identified homeless students. Title I provides support for this program, and many activities implemented by the Hearth program are carried out in coordination with the Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded through Title I, Part C.
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
SAI unit(s) provided to Dundee Ridge Middle School enhance student achievement by providing professional development and additional support to enhance exemplary teaching.
Violence Prevention Programs
Violence Prevention Programs
Title IV provides violence and drug prevention programs in schools in order to promote a safe school environment. Examples of violence prevention programs include anti-bullying, gang awareness, gun awareness, etc
Nutrition Programs
Nutrition Programs
This school is a location for a summer feeding program for the community
Housing Programs
NA
Head Start
Head Start
Head Start is not located on our campus. Resources are provided to the program to assist in the transition of students from Pre-K to Kindergarten. Head Start teachers may participate in professional learning opportunities offered to school staff, and they are involved in Professional Learning Community activities with kindergarten teachers
Adult Education
NA
Career and Technical Education
NA
Job Training
NA
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) |
|
Reading and Language Arts grades 6,7,8
|
Principal
|
bi-weekly
|
Lunch(30) plus period before or after=1 hour,20 min.
|
Focus will include plan for tracking AYP students,lesson plan analysis, AYP student data, and develop units
|
|
Math and Science grades 6,7,8
|
Principal
|
bi-weekly
|
Lunch(30) plus period before or after=1 hour,20 min.
|
Focus will include plan for tracking AYP students,lesson plan analysis, AYP student data, and develop units
|
|
Social Studies and Electives grades 6,7,8
|
Principal
|
bi-weekly
|
Lunch(30) plus period before or after=1 hour,20 min.
|
Focus will include plan for tracking AYP students,lesson plan analysis, AYP student data, and develop units
|
NCLB Public School Choice
Note: For Title I schools only
Pre-School Transition
NA
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
NA
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 |
In grades 6-8, 44% of
students achieved
mastery on the 2009
administration of the
FCAT Reading Test.
|
In grades 6-8 ,
72% of the
students will
achieve mastery
for reading on the
2010 FCAT
Reading Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. The school will
implement the new
FAIR assessments
to monitor student
progress.
2. Include vocabulary in context and summarizing in
lesson plans.
3. Develop an
Instructional Focus
Calendar for
Reading and
Language Arts
classes
LFS Lesson plan Template with LEQ appropriate placement for effective use.
|
1.Principal,Assist-ant Principal,AIF Reading Teacher
2. Principal, Assistant Principal and AIF Reading Teacher
3. AIF Reading Teacher and Literacy Team
Administration and Assistant Principal and LFS Coach
|
1. Review FAIR data
reports to ensure
teachers are assessing
students according to
the created schedule.
2. Administration will
be aware of the IFC’s
upcoming focus and
monitor implementation
through classroom
walkthroughs and inspection of lesson plans.
3. Scheduled walk through with correlation to IFC and lesson plan documentation.
Classroom walk-through and lesson plan inspection.
|
1. Printout of FAIR
assessments.
2. Classroom
walkthrough log and
focused walkthroughs
to determine
frequency of vocabulary in context and summarizing.
3.Effectiveness will be determined through FAIR assessments and benchmark tests.
Observation of student engagement.
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 59% of students achieved learning gains on 2009 administration of FCAT Reading Test.
|
In grades 6-8, 65% of students will achieve learning gains on 2010 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Professional Learning Communities by grade and subject will develop and implement tracking methods for AYP students.
2.Reading Teachers will conduct Read-A-Loud daily to infuse fluency and comprehension levels.
3.Reading teachers will using a schoolwide novel to practice and reinforce reference and research.
|
1.Principal and Assistant Principal
2.Principal, Assistant Principal, and AIF Reading Teacher.
3.Principal, Assistant Principal and AIF Reading Teacher.
|
1.Adminstrators will review progress of tracking methods developed by teachers.
2.Visiting classrooms, administrators will focus their attention on student engagement.
3. Monitoring of progress through lesson plan inspection and classroom walk-through.
|
1.Adminstrators will review grades and benchmark assessment data.
2.FAIR assessments will disaggregated data will be reviewed to determine effectiveness of reading benchmark instruction.
3. Review of assessment data from tests administered.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 6-8, 59% of students achieved learning gains on 2009 administration of FCAT Reading Test
|
Vocabulary in context in reading
|
Teacher Trainer,AIF Reading Teacher, Principal,LFS Coach
|
September 09, October 09 and on-going to support teacher success
|
Evidence in student artifacts, lesson plans, classroom observation
|
Principal, Assistant Principal, AIF Reading Teacher, and LFS Coach
|
|
In grades 6-8, 59% of students achieved learning gains on 2009 administration of FCAT Reading Test
|
Summarizing to increase comprehension in reading.
|
Teacher Trainer,AIF Reading
|
Teacher Trainer,AIF Reading Teacher,Princi-pal,LFS Coach
|
Evidence in student artifacts, lesson plans, and classroom observation.
|
Principal,Assistant Principal, AIF Reading Teacher and LFS Coach
|
For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every Teacher
On a daily basis AIF Reading teacher will review implementation of schoolwide high yield strategies effectiveness with respect to vocabulary in context and summarizing. Monitoring of teacher alignment with curriculum maps and correct use of LEQ. All teachers will use effective reading strategies in all classes. Teachers will use bell work twice a week to practice specific reading strategies. All teachers will teach vocabulary in context and summarizing in their discipline
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Day Book an extention and additional practice in higher order thinking. |
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Textbook/Flex fund
|
$5,419.00 |
| Total: $5,419.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Use computer based instruction for remediation and differentiation of instruction,Fast Forward, Odyssey Learning Lab |
NA |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Description of ResourcesDevelopment of reading, Instructional Focus Calendars-Stipends for Summer Development.Session in September and October for instructions in vocabulary in context and summarizing |
Funding SourceTitle 1,In House |
$516.00 |
| Total: $516.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $5,935.00 |
|
| 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 |
|
In grades 6-8 45% of total student achieved mastery on the 2009 math FCAT
|
By spring 2010 52% of students will be at or above level 3 in math as evidence by 2010 FCAT.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.Follow district curriculum maps,unit assessments, vocabulary building ,summarization, and homework.
2.Identify and monitor student progress.
3.Differientiate instruction based on student needs.
|
1.Principal
2.AIF-Math
3.APC
|
1.Administrative walk-through
2.Data analysis
3.bi-weekly meetings and creation of centers
|
1.
Reports generated by walk through
2.student artifacts
3.Benchmark assessment data
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
In grades 6-8, 19% of SWD student achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of math FCAT.
|
By Spring 2010 23% of SWD students will be at 3 or above in math as evidence by the 2010 FCAT.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1.curriculum maps,vocabulary strategy,summarization and homework.
2.monitoring student progress
3.Effective use of manipulatives and hands-on activities.
|
1.Principal
2.AIF-math
3.APC
|
1.walk- throughs
2.data analysis
3.bi-weekly Professional learning community meetings.
|
1.Reports generated from assessments.
2.student artifacts
3.benchmark assessments.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
In grades 6-8 45% of students will achieve mastery on the 2009 administration of the Math FCAT.
|
1.Block scheduling of intensive classes.
Effective use of manipulative. Use of vocabulary in context..
Session in September and October for instructions in vocabulary in context and comprehension and summarizing.
|
Math AIF Teacher,
Teacher Trainer, LFS Coach
|
8-09 to09-09 and on-going
|
Student artifacts and administrative observation
|
Administration, AIF Math Teacher and LFS Coach
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Math curriculum textbook |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Use of SMART boards to support instruction |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Summer sessions to create a timeline,lessons, and benchmark assessments |
Title 1 |
$887.00 |
| Total: $887.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $887.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goal |
|
Science Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Based on 2009 FCAT Science Data, 16% of 8th grade students achieved level three or above
|
Given the instruction based on the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards, 20% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Utilize hands on learning laboratories for all students in science classes.
2. Scheduled lessons in the science Exploratorium room, that are based on specific criteria related to district curriculum maps
|
1. Principal,
Assistant Principal,
Resource Teacher
|
1. Teachers will require students to maintain a science notebook and complete homework a minimum of twice a week.
2. The schedule for the science Exploratorium lab will be monitored for fidelity by the assistant principal for curriculum.
|
1. Data from each Write Score science test to determine student progress.
2. Mini assessment at the end of each science unit as well as the key concepts in science:eath/space/life/ and physical.
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Based on 2009 FCAT Science Data, 16% of 8th grade students achieved level three or above
|
Collaborative planning among grade level science teachers using Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and district curriculum maps.
Session in September and October for instructions in vocabulary in context and summarizing
|
Resource Teacher and Assistant Principal for Curriculum, Teacher Trainer
|
August 2009 and on-going
Sept.09 –October 09 and on-going
|
Monitor hands on learning labs to ensure effective instruction and student understanding. Assistant Principal will attend the training and ensure strategies are being implemented.
Evidence in student artifacts, lesson plans, and classroom observation.
|
Principal, Assistant Principal for Curriculum, Resource Teacher
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| WRITE SCORE assesssment and tool box |
Title 1 and Internal Account |
$6,342.00 |
| Total: $6,342.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Science Lab,discovery software |
Internal Accounts |
$1,000.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Development of Science, and Focus Calendars-Stipends for Summer Development |
Title 1 |
$905.00 |
| Total: $905.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $8,247.00 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Writing Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on School Grade Data:
Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?
What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
On the 2009 administration of the FCAT writing Exam, 94% of students in the 8th grade scored 3.5 or above in writing.
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 95% of 8th grade students will achieve 3.5 or above in writing
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Students will use the established writing plan for DRMS on a weekly basis in language arts classes
2. The students will be able to complete a timed essay and have writing samples available each nine weeks for observation by administration and support staff.
|
1 .Principal, APC,Resource Teacher
2.Principal,APC, Resource Teacher
|
1. 8th grade students will have timed writing practice tests each nine weeks.
2. A school wide writing sample folder will be maintained in all language arts classrooms to document writing progression leading up to FCAT
|
1.Write Score data
2.Student artifacts and classroom walk-through
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
On the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 95% of 8th grade students will achieve 3.5 or above.
|
Teaching the steps that include all the key components for a complete four paragraph essay
|
Resource Teacher
|
9-09-1-10
|
Student portfolio with student artifacts
|
Resource Teacher, Principal, APC.
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| WRITE SCORE Assessment tool |
Title 1 |
$4,173.12 |
| Total: $4,173.12 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Use of SMART Boards an software product |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Summer sessions to align timeline to Curr. Maps, develop lessons |
Title 1 |
$543.00 |
| Total: $543.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $4,716.12 |
|
| End of Science Goal |
|
Parent Involvement Goal
|
| Needs Assessment: |
Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:
Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?
Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:
Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?
Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
|
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Parent /Teacher Communication
|
By the end of the year, DRMS will increase teacher communication with parents by 10% ..
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Teachers will communicate with parents via school agenda.
2. Materials sent home in English and Spanish
3. Connect- Ed
|
1.Title 1 Facilitator, Principal,APC
|
1. Teacher/student communication of expectation.
2. Set-up procedure for on-going translation procedure.
3.Feedback from Parents
|
1. Records of Teacher/Parent contact logs
2. Resources and materials distributed to parents
3. Survey
|
| Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement |
Objective Linked to Area of Improvement |
|
Parent school participation and involvement
|
By the end of the school year, DRMS will increase the number of parents involved in all school activities by 3%
|
| |
Action Step |
Person Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step |
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step |
Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
1. Use of our on-site Family Resource Center with technology and literature available to facilitate learning.
2. Provide specific & ongoing workshops at least twice a year and at reasonable times for parents to attend
|
1.Title 1 Facilitator and Teacher Trainer
|
1.Announcement of center at all family/student gatherings such as Open House.
2. Schedule Session and communicate times and place to Parents.
|
1. Check in logs
2.Signature Logs
|
|
| |
Professional Development Aligned with Objective:
|
| Objective Addressed | Content/Topic | Facilitator | Target Date | Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring | Person Responsible for Monitoring |
|
By the end of the year, DRMS will increase teacher communication with parents by 10% .
|
Parent /TeacherKnight Out with the Parents Understanding FCAT scores and use of PIV Communication
Taming the FCAT Math/Reading/ Science strategies
|
Title 1 Facilitator and Teacher Trainer
|
October 09,April 10
Jan.010
|
Check student agenda,Parent feedback form
Parent e-mail strategy implemented at home.
|
Teacher Trainer and Title 1 Facilitator
|
|
| |
| Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parent Information Flyers |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Parent Resource Center |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal |
|
Other Goals
No Other Goals were submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Day Book an extention and additional practice in higher order thinking. |
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Textbook/Flex fund
|
$5,419.00 |
| Mathematics |
Math curriculum textbook |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
WRITE SCORE Assessment tool |
Title 1 |
$4,173.12 |
| Science |
WRITE SCORE assesssment and tool box |
Title 1 and Internal Account |
$6,342.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Parent Information Flyers |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $15,934.12 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Use computer based instruction for remediation and differentiation of instruction,Fast Forward, Odyssey Learning Lab |
NA |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
Use of SMART boards to support instruction |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
Use of SMART Boards an software product |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Science |
Science Lab,discovery software |
Internal Accounts |
$1,000.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
Parent Resource Center |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Total: $1,000.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
Description of ResourcesDevelopment of reading, Instructional Focus Calendars-Stipends for Summer Development.Session in September and October for instructions in vocabulary in context and summarizing |
Funding SourceTitle 1,In House |
$516.00 |
| Mathematics |
Summer sessions to create a timeline,lessons, and benchmark assessments |
Title 1 |
$887.00 |
| Writing |
Summer sessions to align timeline to Curr. Maps, develop lessons |
Title 1 |
$543.00 |
| Science |
Development of Science, and Focus Calendars-Stipends for Summer Development |
Title 1 |
$905.00 |
| Total: $2,851.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Total: $0.00 |
| Final Total: $19,785.12 |
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance
Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 10:21:50 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 data submitted |
|
Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year
The SAC will be reviewing the School Improvement Plan. They will helping to make the decisions to steer the school to move student achievement.
SAC Members
| Members |
|
1)
Kathryn Blackburn,
Principal
|
|
2)
Melanie Mendez,
SAC Chair
|
|
3)
Irma Castillo,
Teacher
|
|
4)
Anel Rivera,
Teacher
|
|
5)
Dan McClain,
Business Member
|
|
6)
Lori Booher,
Parent
|
|
7)
Valarie Kowlessar,
Parent
|
|
8)
Lula McKnight,
Parent
|
|
9)
Solomon Kowlessar,
Parent
|
|
10)
Rick Johnson,
Community Member
|
|
11)
Edward Bland,
Community Member
|
|
12)
Jerry Denny,
School Support Personnel
|
|
13)
Shronda Jones,
School Support Personnel
|
|
14)
Diana Chaidez,
School Support Personnel
|
|
15)
Maureen English,
School Support Personnel
|
|
16)
Susan Leath,
School Support Personnel
|
|
17)
Luz Osorio,
School Support Personnel
|
|
18)
Susan Westerman,
School Support Personnel
|
AYP DATA
| 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DUNDEE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1981 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 1157 Math: 1157
|
2008-2009 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
68% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2008 |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
2009 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
44 |
N |
40 |
N |
94
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
59 |
56 |
N |
60 |
60 |
N |
44 |
N |
46 |
N |
| WHITE
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
52 |
N |
47 |
N |
92
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
51 |
48 |
N |
53 |
53 |
N |
47 |
N |
50 |
N |
| BLACK
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
37 |
N |
37 |
N |
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
60 |
63 |
N |
62 |
63 |
N |
39 |
N |
46 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
98 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
43 |
N |
38 |
N |
93
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
63 |
57 |
N |
64 |
62 |
N |
44 |
N |
43 |
N |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
42 |
N |
40 |
N |
94
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
60 |
58 |
N |
61 |
60 |
N |
42 |
N |
46 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
97 |
Y |
97 |
Y |
18 |
N |
16 |
N |
87
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
84 |
82 |
N |
81 |
84 |
N |
25 |
N |
31 |
N |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
97 |
Y |
96 |
Y |
26 |
N |
19 |
N |
74
|
89 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
82 |
74 |
N |
82 |
81 |
N |
16 |
N |
21 |
N |
| 2007-2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DUNDEE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1981 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 1183 Math: 1183
|
2007-2008 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
58% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
62% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2007 |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
2008 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
41 |
N |
40 |
N |
89
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
60 |
59 |
N |
62 |
60 |
N |
42 |
N |
53 |
N |
| WHITE
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
49 |
N |
47 |
N |
90
|
92 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
49 |
51 |
N |
53 |
53 |
N |
46 |
N |
55 |
N |
| BLACK
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
40 |
N |
38 |
N |
93
|
|
Y |
|
|
NA |
63 |
60 |
N |
67 |
62 |
N |
43 |
N |
52 |
N |
| HISPANIC
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
37 |
N |
36 |
N |
87
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
66 |
63 |
N |
65 |
64 |
N |
39 |
N |
52 |
N |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
40 |
N |
39 |
N |
88
|
94 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
62 |
60 |
N |
64 |
61 |
N |
42 |
N |
53 |
N |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
99 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
16 |
N |
19 |
N |
70
|
87 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
92 |
84 |
N |
91 |
81 |
Y |
30 |
N |
45 |
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
96 |
Y |
96 |
Y |
18 |
N |
18 |
N |
74
|
74 |
N |
|
|
NA |
89 |
82 |
N |
90 |
82 |
N |
27 |
N |
34 |
N |
| 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 |
Polk DUNDEE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1981 |
Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:
|
Read: 1120 Math: 1120
|
2006-2007 School Grade1: |
C
|
Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress? |
NO |
|
| This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). |
This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). |
This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model. |
| Group |
Reading Tested 95% of the students? |
Math Tested 95% of the students? |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading? |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math? |
Improved performance in Writing by 1%? |
Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%? |
Percent of Students below grade level in Reading |
Safe Harbor Reading |
Percent of Students below grade level in Math |
Safe Harbor Math |
% of students on track to be proficient in reading |
Growth model reading |
% of students on track to be proficient in math |
Growth model math |
| |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2005 |
2006 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2006 |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
2007 |
Y/N |
| TOTAL4
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
40 |
N |
38 |
N |
89
|
89 |
N |
|
|
NA |
65 |
60 |
NA |
68 |
62 |
NA |
44 |
NA |
56 |
NA |
| WHITE
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
51 |
Y |
47 |
N |
93
|
90 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
57 |
49 |
NA |
59 |
53 |
NA |
44 |
NA |
59 |
NA |
| BLACK
|
100 |
Y |
100 |
Y |
37 |
N |
33 |
N |
88
|
93 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
75 |
63 |
NA |
80 |
67 |
NA |
46 |
NA |
55 |
NA |
| HISPANIC
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
34 |
N |
35 |
N |
87
|
87 |
N |
|
|
NA |
66 |
66 |
NA |
69 |
65 |
NA |
42 |
NA |
55 |
NA |
| ASIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| AMERICAN INDIAN
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
|
| ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
|
99 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
38 |
N |
36 |
N |
89
|
88 |
N |
|
|
NA |
67 |
62 |
NA |
71 |
64 |
NA |
43 |
NA |
55 |
NA |
| ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
|
100 |
Y |
99 |
Y |
8 |
N |
9 |
N |
|
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
88 |
92 |
NA |
89 |
91 |
NA |
38 |
NA |
43 |
NA |
| STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
|
98 |
Y |
98 |
Y |
11 |
N |
10 |
N |
69
|
74 |
Y |
|
|
NA |
87 |
89 |
NA |
88 |
90 |
NA |
30 |
NA |
45 |
NA |
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Polk School District DUNDEE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2008-2009
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
48%
|
45%
|
98%
|
20%
|
211
|
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 |
59% |
62% |
|
|
121 |
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? |
68% (YES) |
69% (YES) |
|
|
137
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
469 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District DUNDEE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2007-2008
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
47%
|
46%
|
96%
|
20%
|
209
|
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 |
59% |
66% |
|
|
125 |
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? |
72% (YES) |
70% (YES) |
|
|
142
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
476 |
|
| Percent Tested = 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Polk School District DUNDEE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2006-2007
|
| |
Reading |
Math |
Writing |
Science |
Grade Points Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
48%
|
46%
|
81%
|
15%
|
190
|
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% |
64% |
|
|
125 |
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? |
69% (YES) |
67% (YES) |
|
|
136
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
451 |
|
| Percent Tested = 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |