PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
Note: The following links will open in a separate browser window.
School Grades Trend Data
(Use this data to complete Sections 1-4 of the reading and mathematics goals and Section 1 of the writing and science goals.)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data
(Use this data to complete Section 5 of the reading and mathematics goals and Section 3 of the writing goals.)
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data
(Use this data to inform the problem solving process when writing goals.)
HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS
List your school’s highly qualified administrators and briefly describe their certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an administrator, and their prior performance record with increasing student achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT performance (Percentage data for Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
| Position | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as an Administrator | Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT (High Standards, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP information along with the associated school year) |
|
Principal
|
Chester Gregory
|
MS Educational Leadership
|
4
|
21
|
2009-2010 Grade PENDING Rdg.54% MA.84% AYP No, 2008-09 Grade C Rdg 52% MA 82% AYP NO 2007-08 Grade A Rdg. 54% MA 83% AYP NO Belleview High School
2006-2007 Grade B
Rdg. 43% MA 75% Wr 86% AYP NO
2005-06 Grade B Rdg. 47% MA 80% Wr 50% AYP NO
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Gary Merians
|
MS Educational Leadership
|
21
|
5
|
2009-2010 Grade PENDING,Rdg.54% MA 84% AYP NO,2008-09 Grade C Rdg. 52% MA 82& AYP NO 2007-08 Rdg. 54% MA 83% AYP NO 2006-07 Grade C Rdg. 48% MA 78% AYP NO 2005-2006 Grade B Rdg. 47% MA 78% AYP NO
|
|
Assis Principal
|
Jamie Pittman
|
MS Educational Leadership
|
1
|
7
|
Previously at county office in curriculum and instruction. County math scores increased at all levels. Previous Assistant Principal at Horizen Academy at Marion Oaks. School acheieved a C grade.
|
|
Assis Principal
|
George Mike Collins
|
MS Educational Leadership
|
1
|
4
|
school grade of B for the 2006-2007 school year. Math scores exceeded district scores for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.
|
HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
List your school’s highly qualified instructional coaches and briefly describe their certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an instructional coach, and their prior performance record with increasing student achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT performance (Percentage data for Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Instructional coaches described in this section are only those who are fully released or part-time teachers in reading, mathematics, or science and work only at the school site.
| Subject Area | Name | Degree(s)/ Certification(s) | # of Years at Current School | # of Years as an Instructional Coach | Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT (Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP information along with the associated school year) |
|
Reading
|
Casey Callahan
|
B.A. in Political Science
M.Ed. in Educational Leadership
Certified in; Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum,
Educational Leadership,
Reading,
ESOL
|
2
|
2
|
2009-2010 Grade PENDING,Rdg.54% AYP-No
|
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
Describe the school-based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly qualified teachers to the school.
| | Description of Strategy | Person Responsible | Projected Completion Date | Not Applicable (If not, please explain why) |
| 1 |
1. Teachers seeking employment apply on-line to the Marion County Public School Personnel Office. The Personnel Office posts available positions. The teachers apply for the positions in which they have an interest and qualifications. Then school level principals select a group of highly qualified persons to interview.
|
Personnel Office
School level Principal
|
As positions become available
|
|
| 2 |
2. The interview process includes the principal, an assistant principal, and a member of the department where the vacancy occurs.
|
Principal
Assistant Principal
Department personnel
|
As positions become available
|
|
| 3 |
3. In an effort to retain highly qualified teachers, selected new and beginning teachers are paired with an experienced staff member.
|
Principal Staff member
|
Filled positions
|
|
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
List all instructional staff and paraprofessionals who are teaching out-of-field and/or who are NOT highly qualified.
| Name | Certification | Teaching Assignment | Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified |
|
Eileen Marie Lord
|
Temporary
|
French
|
Encouraging to take certification test. Completing PEC program.
|
|
Laura Cortez Foster
|
Temporary
|
E.S.E. Teacher
|
Completing Course Work for certification
|
Staff Demographics
Please complete the following demographic information about the instructional staff in the school who are teaching at least one academic course.
*When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
| 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 Teachers | % Reading Endorsed Teachers | % National Board Certified Teachers | % ESOL Endorsed Teachers |
| 126 | 2.4%(3) | 35.7%(45) | 26.2%(33) | 35.7%(45) | 42.1%(53) | 71.4%(90) | 10.3%(13) | 6.3%(8) | 21.4%(27) |
Teacher Mentoring Program
Please describe the school’s teacher mentoring program by including the names of mentors, the name(s) of mentees, rationale for the pairing, and the planned mentoring activities.
| Mentor Name | Mentee Assigned | Rationale for Pairing | Planned Mentoring Activities |
|
Debbie Paschke
|
Eileen Lord
|
Mrs. Paschke has been the Department Chair at Forest for the past 2 years. She has taught Spanish for 20 years at the high school and college level. She is Nationally Board Certified in World Languages other than English. She has taught at Forest since 2006-2007 and has been teaching AP Spanish since 2007-2008.
|
Participate in Professional Enhancement Program. Regular meetings with Peer Teacher.
|
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Coordination and Integration
Note: For Title I schools only
Please describe how federal, state, and local services and programs will be coordinated and integrated in the school. Include other Title programs, Migrant and Homeless, Supplemental Academic Instruction funds, as well as violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult education, career and technical education, and/or job training, as applicable.
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)
Literacy Leadership Team (LLT)
NCLB Public School Choice
*Elementary Title I Schools Only: Pre-School Transition
Describe plans for assisting preschool children in transition from early childhood programs to local elementary school programs as applicable.
*Grades 6-12 Only
Sec. 1003.413(b) F.S.
For schools with Grades 6-12, describe the plan to ensure that teaching reading strategies is the responsibility of every teacher.
Reading will continue to be a high priority. Every teacher at Forest High School must have reading as a goal in their Individual Professional Development Plan. The goal must be measurable and part of their final evaluation. In addition, all content teachers will be encouraged to take CAR-PD (Content Area Reading-Professional Development). The reading specialist with Career & Technical Education (CTE), will be working with CTE teachers to help them improve their skills as a reading teacher. Teachers of the arts, PE, Drivers Education, and other classes that are not textbook driven will use “Read-Alouds” that will benefit their students. Content enhancements will be introduced in our Learning Communities meetings.
*High Schools Only
Note: Required for High School - Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S., Sec. 1003.413(g)(j) F.S.
How does the school incorporate applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future?
Forest High School has 13 applied programs ranging from Health Assisting and Drafting to Criminal Justice, Culinary Arts and Junior ROTC. Through such programs we are able to offer students of all ability levels the opportunity to explore various career paths, according to their interests. These programs enable teachers to show students how the topics they are covering in their core subjects apply to their future career choices. Each Career & Technical Education (i.e., applied) program consists of at least four courses, allowing students to follow a chosen career path for up to four years, to deepen their understanding and skills in that area. Students who have taken at least three years of one program will be provided the opportunity to take an industry certification exam in the area of their studies. (For example, Drafting students will take the AutoDesk Certified Associate (AutoCAD)
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?
Beginning at the end of the eighth grade, students begin using the Choices program to determine the career(s) best suited to their interests and abilities and select high school elective courses based on those interests and abilities. Once at the high school, students meet with their guidance counselor through their English or Math classes to begin planning their high school courses using FACTS.org. Each year, the counselors meet individually with each student to discuss their course selections based on interests and career path, test scores, and graduation requirements. Counselors assist students in realistically evaluating their academic strengths and weaknesses as it relates to their career choice.
Postsecondary Transition
Note: Required for High School - Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.
Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the School Feedback Report
An analysis of the High School Feedback Report for 2008 graduates shows that FHS graduates perform very well at the post-secondary level as compared to the state percentages. We will continue to prepare our students for post-secondary opportunities by continuing to offer a variety of AP and dual enrollment course options, increasing those offerings when appropriate. In 2010-11, we will focus on increasing our students’ participation in these acceleration opportunities, especially in the area of dual enrollment in the Career & Technical area, for which qualifications are less stringent, allowing a great number of students to participate. During the 2009-10 school year, in an effort to increase CPT participation, all juniors were scheduled to take the CPT in our Career Center during the school day. In addition, seniors who were identified as needing math remediation (at the college level) were enrolled in the Math for College Readiness course in 2009-10.
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goals
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in reading
Reading Goal #1:
|
79% of students will acheive profieciency in reading.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
54% (659)acheived level 3 or higher
|
Our expected goal is to make AYP by safe harbour or growth model.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Limited Vocabulary
|
Through the students reading class Max Thompson techniques are used. Previewing and Acceleration are used to increase background knowledge for success in the content area classes.
|
Reading teacher/content teacher.
Administration monitors data
|
Benchmark information will be evaluated by the teacher as well as testing coordinator/reading specialist
|
Classroom tests
Common end of course exam/
FAIR Test/Benchmark/ FCAs
|
| 2 |
Quality reading Instruction across the curriculum.
|
CAR-PD - Content Area Reading Development
|
Administrative Team
|
Administrative Classroom Observations
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teqacher and student input
|
| 3 |
Attendance
|
Student Assistance team/RTI meetings. Social work Assistant monitoring and interaction.
|
Assitant Principal of attendance, Social Work assistant
|
Monitoring of student attendance and acheivment records.
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
| 4 |
Limited background knowledge
|
Through the students reading class Max Thompson techniques are used. Previewing and Acceleration are used to increase background knowledge for success in the content area classes.
|
Reading teacher/content teacher.
Administration monitors data
|
Benchmark information will be evaluated by the teacher as well as testing coordinator/reading specialist
|
Classroom tests
Common end of course exam/
FAIR Test/Benchmark/ FCAs
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Students achieving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in reading
Reading Goal #2:
|
Students acheiving proficiency levels 4 and 5 will maintain their level or increase by 2%.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
23% (276)
|
Our expected goal is to maintain at least 23% of students at level 4 or 5.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Up to this point teachers of higher level curriculum have not been equipped/trained in Reading Strategies.
|
1.A school-wide reading calendar will be followed and specific strategy support will be given to all teachers in the form of monthly reading/data meetings.
2.Teachers will participate in a school-wide initiative (Max Thompson/Learning Focused) to help focus attention on the set of skills being tested.
|
Administration, Department Chairs, Max Thompson Trainer, Testing Coordinator
|
Benchmark and Focus Calendar Assessments given at specific times focusing on specific skills. Data and focus meetings will be used to anaylze the outcomes of these assesments and create a plan of action for skills that need improvement.
|
Benchmark, FCA's, FCAT, teacher evaluations, AP exams
|
| 2 |
Students that score in the upper levels still might not have the needed skills to adequately comphrehend and complete increasingly harder material.
|
1.A school-wide reading calendar will be followed and specific strategy support will be given to all teachers in the form of monthly reading/data meetings.
2.Teachers will participate in a school-wide initiative (Max Thompson/Learning Focused) to help focus attention on the set of skills being tested.
|
Administration, Department Chairs, Max Thompson Trainer, Testing Coordinator
|
Benchmark and Focus Calendar Assessments given at specific times focusing on specific skills. Data and focus meetings will be used to anaylze the outcomes of these assesments and create a plan of action for skills that need improvement
|
Benchmark, FCA's, FCAT, teacher evaluations, AP exams
|
| 3 |
Possible lack of adequate teacher implementation of reading strategies after training.
|
Ongoing support in 1. Max Thompson strategies.
2. Fidelity checklist.
3. Additional Staff Development.
|
Administration
|
Data Analysis, Fidelity Checklist, Administrative walkthroughs, conferencing, peer teachers
|
Completed checklist, Benchmark test, FCA's, FCAT
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
3. Percentage of students making Learning Gains in reading
Reading Goal #3:
|
All students will make learning gains in reading. At least 55% of students will make a year's worth of growth.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
52 % (635)according to the School Accountability Report.
|
55% of students will make learning gains in reading.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Limited background of students (Background knowledge, vocabulary)
|
1. Reading teams
2. Acceleration
3. Learning Focused strategies in all classes
|
Administration, Team Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Data analysis of Benchmark, FCA's, student work/tests
|
Benchmark, FCA's, teacher/administrator evaluations and portfolios
|
| 2 |
Collaboration time between teachers in the same and different content areas.
|
1.Planned Professional development activities
2.Shared drive on computer to post effective strategies
|
Administration, Team Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Teacher feedback, Data analysis of Benchmark, FCA's, student work/tests edback,
|
Benchmark, FCA's, teacher/administrator evaluations and portfolios
|
| 3 |
Dissemination of data for use in planning and differentiating instruction
|
1.Planned Professional development activities
2.Shared drive on computer to post effective strategies
3. Learning Focused strategies in all classes
|
Administration, Team Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Blackboard, Teacher feedback, Data and Focus meetings, Data analysis of Benchmark, FCA's, student work/tests,Teacher feedback
|
Benchmark, FCA's, teacher/administrator evaluations and portfolios
|
| 4 |
Collaboration time for Reading Teams
|
1.Planned Professional development activities
2.Shared drive on computer to post effective strategies
3. Learning Focused strategies in all classes
4. Dedicated time and budget for these teachers to have uninterrupted time to work together
|
Administration, Team Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Data analysis of Benchmark, FCA's, student work/tests, feedback from Deans
|
Benchmark, FCA's, teacher/administrator evaluations and portfolios
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in reading
Reading Goal #4:
|
The Lowest 25% of students will make learning gains in Reading of at least one years growth.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
41% (School Grade report) 126(AYP)
|
45% AYP will be acheived by Safe Harbor or Growth Model
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Attendance
|
1. Assigned Social Worker Assistant
2.Part of Reading team with assigned Dean
|
Social Worker Asst, Reading Team of Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Attendance will be monitored by social worker
and Assistant Principal of Discipline.
|
SMS Attendance report
|
| 2 |
Background Knowledge and Vocabulary
|
1. Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
|
Administration, classroom teacher
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, student work, etc
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teqacher and student input
|
| 3 |
Lack of essential reading skills and strategies
|
1. Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. School-wide Learning Focused Strategies
|
Administration, classroom teacher
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, student work, etc
|
Teacher evaluations,Various benchmark and reading tests
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
| 4 |
Lack of student support system outside of school
|
1.Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. School-wide Learning Focused Strategies
Social Worker assistant
|
classroom teacher
|
Teacher evaluation.
Pre/Post survey of students involved
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teqacher and student input
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
|
|
5A. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5A:
|
Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress in Reading will make gains in 2010-2011.All sub groups will make at least 50% on grade level
|
Reading Goal #5A: Ethnicity
(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
White 57%(471), Black 27%(51), Hispanic 39%(58), scored at or above grade level according to the AYP report.
|
Our expected level of performance is to make AYP by Safe Harbor or Growth Model.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team meetings and Child /Study Team meetings.
Social Worker Assistant to overcome outside barriers.
|
Various teams, Assistant Principal of discipline and Social Workers
|
Monitor student attendance and acheivment at RTI meetings. Attendance reports
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
| 2 |
Background knowledge and vocabulary
|
1. Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
|
Administration, classroom teacher
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, student work, etc
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
| 3 |
Language Barriers
|
Students placed in ESOL classroom.
|
ESOL teacher, ESOL counselor, ESOL parapro, AP of Instruction
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, CELLA, student work, etc
|
Assessment using CELLA, FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
|
|
5B. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5B:
|
Not Applicable
|
Reading Goal #5B: English Language Learners (ELL)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
|
|
5C. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5C:
|
Students with disabilities not making Adequate Yearly Progress in Reading will make gains in 2010-2011. Sub group will score at least 50% on grade level.
|
Reading Goal #5C: Students with Disabilities (SWD)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
18% (24) scored at or above grade level
|
Expected goal is to make AYP by Safe Harbor or Growth model
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Background Knowledge and Vocabulary
|
1. Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. ParaPro with Reading background
|
Administration, classroom teacher
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, student work, etc
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teqacher and student input
|
| 2 |
Lack of essential reading skills and strategies
|
1. Intensive reading class
2. Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. School-wide Learning Focused Strategies
5. ParaPro with Reading background
|
Administration, classroom teacher
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, student work, etc
|
Teacher evaluations,Various benchmark and reading tests
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
| 3 |
Lack of student support system outside of school
|
1.Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. School-wide Learning Focused Strategies
Social Worker assistant
|
classroom teacher
|
Teacher evaluation.
Pre/Post survey of students involved
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teqacher and student input
|
| 4 |
Attendance
|
1. Assigned Social Worker Assistant
2.Part of Reading team with assigned Dean
|
Social Worker Asst, Reading Team of Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Attendance will be monitored by social worker
and Assistant Principal of Discipline.
|
SMS Attendance report
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
|
|
5D. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5D:
|
50% of students in this subgroup will achieve AYP.
|
Writing Goal #5D: Economically Disadvantaged
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
34% (417) performed at or above grade level according to the AYP report
|
Students will make AYP through Growth Model or Safe Harbor.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Attendance
|
1. Assigned Social Worker Assistant
2.Part of Reading team with assigned Dean
|
Social Worker Asst, Reading Team of Teachers, Testing Coordinator
|
Attendance will be monitored by social worker
and Assistant Principal of Discipline.
|
SMS Attendance report
|
| 2 |
Lack of essential reading skills and strategies
|
1. Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. School-wide Learning Focused Strategies
|
Administration, classroom teacher
|
Anaylsis of data from Benchmark, FCA's, FAIR, student work, etc
|
Teacher evaluations,Various benchmark and reading tests
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teacher and student input
|
| 3 |
Mobility
|
Assigned Social Worker Assistant
|
Social Worker Asst, Guidance
|
Attendance will be monitored by social worker
and Assistant Principal of Discipline.
|
SMS Attendance report
|
| 4 |
Lack of student support system outside of school
|
1.Intensive reading class
2.Part of a reading team of teachers
3. Acceleration program
4. School-wide Learning Focused Strategies
Social Worker assistant
|
classroom teacher
|
Teacher evaluation.
Pre/Post survey of students involved
|
Assessment using FAIR Test;FCA's Reading Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, teqacher and student input
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
Max Thompson
/Learning Focused
|
9-12
|
Leslie Roskovich/Erin Conner
|
School-wide
|
Early Release
|
Monthly meetings face to face and Blackboard
|
Administrative observations
|
|
Reading Teams
|
9 & 10
|
Erin Conner, other administrators
|
9th and 10th grade Reading, Integrated Science, World History, English, select ESE teachers, *social worker, Deans, guidance counselors, testing coordinator,administrators
|
Early release days, monthly before school meetings
|
monthly data meetings
|
Erin Conner
|
|
Blackboard/Data and Focus meetings
|
9-12
|
Erin Conner, Loretta Young, Gary Merians
|
School-wide
|
Monthly online
|
Monthly Data Meetings
|
Erin Conner, Loretta Young, AP. Gary Merians
|
|
| |
|
Reading Budget:
|
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Reading Goals |
|
Mathematics Goals
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #1:
|
To acheive AYP, 79% of students will score at the proficient level or higher.All sub groups will show growth toward AYP.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
79% (959) met proficiency according to the School Accountability Report
|
Our expected goal is to make AYP through Safe Harbor or Growth Model.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Visual Learning/Converting Abstract concepts in Concrete Images
|
ALGEBLOCKS Three-Dimensional Manipulatives
|
Administrative Team/Algebra Teachers
|
Student Assessments/Student Feedback
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 2 |
Availability and flexibility of time to effectively remediate students
|
Support students services across the continuum ranging from consult , support facilitation, co-teach, resource, self contained rooms, and after school tutoring
|
Administrative team
|
Student/Staff feedback. Attendance records.
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 3 |
Mobility/Home issues
|
Social Worker Assistant working with students to overcome outside barriers
|
Administrative Team
|
Student/Famliy Feedback, Child Study Team meetings, Attendance reports
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 4 |
Poor Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings and Child Study Team meetings, establishing peer and adult mentors, Social Worker Assistant working with studetns to overcome outside barriers
|
Administration Team/Social Worker
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input.
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Students achieving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #2:
|
Students scoring level 4 and 5 will maintain their level and show growth.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
45% (557) students were above proficient in Math according to the FCAT report.
|
We will continue to acheive AYP by having at least 80% of students acheive proficiency in Math.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Lack of motivation of capabable students to take honors and higher level math courses
|
1. Learning Focused Teaching Stratgies
2. Vertical Teaming
3. Teacher/guidance support and mentoring
|
Teachers, Guidance Counselors, Administration
|
Teacher/Student meetings, Counselor/student meetings, data from teacher
|
Number of students enrolled in upper level and AP math courses, FCAT, FCA's Benchmark, AP test
|
| 2 |
Inexperienced upper level mathematics teachers
|
1. Learning Focused Teaching Strategies
2. Vertical teaming
3. Peer Mentoring
4. Curriculum Mapping Projects
|
Administrative Team
|
Administrative Classroom Observation , team meeting participation, curriculum mapping review, Data review
|
Student Learning Maps,Administrative checklist, FCA's. Bemchmark, FCAT, AP scores and AP participation, Dual Enrollment participation, CPT
|
| 3 |
Quality Research Based Instruction
|
Learning Focused Teaching Strategies
|
Administrative Team
|
Administrative Classroom Observation , Data review
|
Student Learning Maps, FCA's. Bemchmark, FCAT, AP scores , CPT , Administrative checklist
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
3. Percentage of students making Learning Gains in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #3:
|
Students will make learning gains in math.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
77% (945) made learning gains
|
At least 77% of students will acheive learning gains. This will accomplish AYP.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Visual Learning/Converting Abstract concepts in Concrete Images
|
ALGEBLOCKS Three-Dimensional Manipulatives
|
Administrative Team/Algebra Teachers
|
Student Assessments/Student Feedback
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 2 |
Availability and flexibility of time to effectively remediate students
|
Support students services across the continuum ranging from consult , support facilitation, co-teach, resource, self contained rooms, and after school tutoring
|
Administrative team
|
Student/Staff feedback. Attendance records.
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 3 |
Poor Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings and Child Study Team meetings, establishing peer and adult mentors, Social Worker Assistant working with studetns to overcome outside barriers
|
Administration Team/Social Worker
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input.
|
| 4 |
Mobility/Home issues
|
Social Worker Assistant working with students to overcome outside barriers
|
Administrative Team
|
Student/Famliy Feedback, Child Study Team meetings, Attendance reports
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #4:
|
Students in the lowest 25% will increase learning gains to 70%.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
64% (195) School Grade Report
|
At least 70% of the lowest 25% will make learning gains.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Poor Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings and Child Study Team meetings, establishing peer and adult mentors, Social Worker Assistant working with studetns to overcome outside barriers, ESE student team, RTI committee
|
Administration Team/Social Worker, ESE Team
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input.
|
| 2 |
Visual Learning/Converting Abstract concepts in Concrete Images
|
ALGEBLOCKS Three-Dimensional Manipulatives
|
Administrative Team/Algebra Teachers
|
Student Assessments/Student Feedback
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 3 |
Availability and flexibility of time to effectively remediate students
|
Support students services across the continuum ranging from consult , support facilitation, co-teach, resource, self contained rooms, and after school tutoring , ESE student team, RTI committee
|
Administration Team/Social Worker, ESE Team
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input.
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
|
|
5A. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5A:
|
All subgroups will increase level of performance by 10% respectively
|
Mathematics Goal #5A: Ethnicity
(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
Black 59% (110) Hispanic 69% (100) Econmically Disadvantaged 67% (338) Students with Disabilities 38% (51) AYP Report
|
Expected goal is to make AYP by Safe Harbor or Growth Model.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Visual Learning/Converting Abstract concepts in Concrete Images
|
ALGEBLOCKS Three-Dimensional Manipulatives
|
Administrative Team/Algebra Teachers
|
Student Assessments/Student Feedback
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 2 |
Availability and flexibility of time to effectively remediate students
|
Support students services across the continuum ranging from consult , support facilitation, co-teach, resource, self contained rooms, and after school tutoring
|
Administrative team
|
Student/Staff feedback. Attendance records.
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 3 |
Poor Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings and Child Study Team meetings, establishing peer and adult mentors, Social Worker Assistant working with studetns to overcome outside barriers
|
Administration Team/Social Worker
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input.
|
| 4 |
Mobility/Home issues
|
Social Worker Assistant working with students to overcome outside barriers
|
Administrative Team
|
Student/Famliy Feedback, Child Study Team meetings, Attendance reports
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
|
|
5B. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5B:
|
Not Applicable
|
Mathematics Goal #5B: English Language Learners (ELL)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
Not Applicable
|
Not Applicable
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Not Applicable
|
Not Applicable
|
Not Applicable
|
Not Applicable
|
Not Applicable
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
|
|
5C. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5C:
|
At least 50% of Students with Disabilities will make learning gains.
|
Mathematics Goal #5C: Students with Disabilities (SWD)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
18% (30) according to AYP report
|
Expect to make AYP by Safe Harbor or Growth Model
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Poor Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings and Child Study Team meetings, establishing peer and adult mentors, Social Worker Assistant working with studetns to overcome outside barriers, ESE team
|
Administration Team/Social Worker , ESE Teams
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records , ESE team meetings
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input.
|
| 2 |
Availability and flexibility of time to effectively remediate students
|
Support students services across the continuum ranging from consult , support facilitation, co-teach, resource, self contained rooms, and after school tutoring ,ESE Team
|
Administrative team , ESE Team
|
Student/Staff feedback. Attendance records, monitoring data
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input , Team evaluations
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
|
|
5D. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5D:
|
Economically Disadvantaged students will demonstrate profiency. At least 76% will score at grad level or higher.
|
Writing Goal #5D: Economically Disadvantaged
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
67% (338) according to AYP Report
|
Expected goal is to makeAYP by Safe Harbor or Growth model.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Visual Learning/Converting Abstract concepts in Concrete Images
|
ALGEBLOCKS Three-Dimensional Manipulatives
|
Administrative Team/Algebra Teachers
|
Student Assessments/Student Feedback
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 2 |
Availability and flexibility of time to effectively remediate students
|
Support students services across the continuum ranging from consult , support facilitation, co-teach, resource, self contained rooms, and after school tutoring
|
Administrative team
|
Student/Staff feedback. Attendance records.
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
| 3 |
Poor Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings and Child Study Team meetings, establishing peer and adult mentors, Social Worker Assistant working with studetns to overcome outside barriers
|
Administration Team/Social Worker
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and achievement during Student Data meetings nad Student Assessment Team meetings, Attnedance records
|
Assessment using FAIR Test; FCA's, Reading and Math scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and student input
|
| 4 |
Mobility/Home issues
|
Social Worker Assistant working with students to overcome outside barriers
|
Administrative Team
|
Student/Famliy Feedback, Child Study Team meetings, Attendance reports
|
Assessment using FCA's, Reading and Math Scores from Spring 2011 FCAT, Teacher and Student input
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Max Thompson/Learning Focused
|
9-12
|
Leslie Roskovich/Erin Conner
|
School-wide
|
Early Release,
|
Monthly meetings face to face and Blackboard
|
Administrative observations
|
|
Blackboard/Data and Focus meetings
|
9-12
|
Erin Conner, Loretta Young, Gary Merians
|
School-wide
|
Monthly online
|
Monthly Data Meetings
|
Erin Conner, Loretta Young, AP. Gary Merians
|
|
Algeblocks
|
9-12
|
MCPS Staff Development
|
J. Broedell
|
Monthly Data meeting
|
Administrative Observation
|
Jaime Pittman
|
|
| |
| Mathematics Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Mathematics Goals |
|
Science Goals
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in science
Science Goal #1:
|
Student scored above the State average on the Science portion of the 2010 FCAT. Overall proficiency levels will improve on Sceince Test.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
39% of 11th graders tested scored proficient with a 3 or above
|
An increase of 5% to 54% is expected.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Lack of communication and collaboration between upper level and 9th/10th grade science classes
|
Vertical Teaming
|
Administration and AP Coordinator
|
Collaboration of teams, adminstrative observation
|
Science FCAT, AP enrollment, FCA's, Benchmark, teacher tests
|
| 2 |
Research Based Instruction
|
Max Thompson/Learning Focused Teaching Strategies
|
Administrative Teams, Max Thompson Certified Trainer
|
Administrative Checklist/classroom observations
|
Science FCAT, FCA's, Benchmark, teacher tests
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Students achieving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in science
Science Goal #2:
|
The number of students scoring at level 4 or 5 will increase .
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
Less than 1% (24) scored at level 4 or 5
|
At least 5% of 11th grade students tested will score a level 4 or 5.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Reading instruction across the curriculum
|
Scheduled CAR-PD Science classes
|
Administrative Team
|
Administrative observation
|
Assesment using FAIR, FCA, FCAT
|
| 2 |
Enrollment in upper level honors, AP science courses
|
Encourage students to take more challenging science courses
|
Guidance counselors, teachers of science
|
Master
Schedule
|
FCAT assesmen
|
| 3 |
Quality Research Based instruction
|
Learning Ffocused teaching strategies
|
Administrative Team
|
Administrative classroom observations
|
Assesment using exams, FCA, FCAT, Teacher and student input
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Max Thompson/Learning Focused
|
9-12
|
Leslie Roskovich/Erin Conner/ MCPS Staff Develpment
|
School-wide
|
Early Release
|
Monthly meetings face to face and Blackboard
|
Administrative observations
|
|
Blackboard/Data and Focus meetings
|
9-12
|
Erin Conner, Loretta Young, Gary Merians
|
School-wide
|
Monthly online
|
Monthly Data Meetings
|
Erin Conner, Loretta Young, AP. Gary Merians
|
|
Advanced Placement(AP)training
|
9-12
|
Conferences and training seminars
|
AP Science teacher
|
traings as they are presented by the State, Summer trainings
|
Completion and certification in subject areas
|
Gary Merians- Assistant Principal
|
|
| |
| Science Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| AP Training |
Funds pay for teachers to attend conference and training |
Staff Development |
$520.00 |
| Subtotal: $520.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $520.00 |
|
| End of Science Goals |
|
Writing Goals
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
1. Students achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (FCAT Level 3.0 and higher) in writing
Writing Goal #1:
|
We will maintain high levels of proficiency in writing with at least 83% level 3 or higher.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
83%(464) scored a level three or higher.
|
We will meet AYP proficency.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Lack of regular practice in content area classes.
|
1.All teachers must have a writing goal on their IPDP
2. Teachers will give regular writing prompts/practice in their respective content areas with a rubric for reference
|
Teacher, Administrative team
|
Teachers will provide evidence of writing requirements from their class
|
District Writing Assessments, FCAT Writing, in class writing assessments
|
| 2 |
Research Based Instruction
|
Max Thompson/Learning Focused Strategies
|
Administrative Team, Max Thompson Certified Trainer
|
Administrative Checklist, data review from writing activities
|
District Writing Assessments, FCAT Writing, in class writing assignmensts
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2A:
|
All subgroups will improve writing score meeting high standards by at least 1%.
|
Writing Goal #2A: Ethnicity
(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
met AYP
|
Will meet AYP
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
a
|
a
|
a
|
a
|
a
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2B:
|
All sub groups met AYP
|
Writing Goal #2B: English Language Learners (ELL)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
N/A
|
Will meet AYP
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2C:
|
All sub groups met AYP
|
Writing Goal #2C: Students with Disabilities (SWD)
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
Sub group met AYP
|
Will meet AYP
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group:
|
|
2. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2D:
|
All sub groups met AYP
|
Writing Goal #2D: Economically Disadvantaged
|
|
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
|
|
Sub group met AYP
|
Sub groupwill meet AYP
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Max Thompson/Learning Focused
|
9-12
|
Leslie Roskovich/Erin Conner
|
School-wide
|
Early Release
|
Monthly meetings face to face and Blackboard
|
Administrative observations
|
|
| |
| Writing Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Writing Goals |
|
Attendance Goal(s)
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of attendance data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
|
|
1. Attendance
Attendance Goal #1:
|
Forest High School will increase the average daily attendance by 1% over 2009-2010 school year.
|
|
2010 Current Attendance Rate:*
|
2011 Expected Attendance Rate:*
|
|
The average daily attendance was 93.7%
|
An increase of 1% will raise the average daily attendance to 94.7%.
|
|
2010 Current Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)
|
2011 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)
|
|
468 (20%)of students were absent unexcused 10 or more times.
|
A reduction of 10% based on current enrollment will be 414 (18%)with 10 or more unexcused absences from school.
|
|
2010 Current Number of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)
|
2011 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)
|
|
279 (12%) students were tardy to school 10 or more times in 2009-2010.
|
A reduction of 10% based on current enrollment will be 251 (10.9%) with 10 or more tardy to school.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Student Attendance due to outside factors.
|
Student Assistance Team Meetings, Social Workers Assistant working with students to overcome outside barriers.
|
Assistant Principal of Attedance and Discipline.
|
Monitoring of Student attendance and acheivment. Student Assistance Team discussions.
|
Attendance Reports on SMS.
|
| 2 |
Student Behavior
|
Problem solving between Guidance and Discipline
|
RtI Team
|
Teacher student feedback
|
Discipline/ Attendance Records from SMS.
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
RtI Process
|
9-12
|
RtI Team
|
School Wide
|
Faculty Meetings
In-service opportuniies (monthly)
|
RtI data
|
RtI Team/ Gudiance and discipline AP.
|
|
| |
| Attendance Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Attendance Goal(s) |
|
Suspension Goal(s)
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of suspension data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
|
|
1. Suspension
Suspension Goal #1:
|
We will reduce suspension by 10 %.
|
|
2010 Total Number of In –School Suspensions
|
2011 Expected Number of In- School Suspensions
|
|
37
|
33 based on similar enrollment
|
|
2010 Total Number of Students Suspended In School
|
2011 Expected Number of Students Suspended In School
|
|
32
|
29 based on similar enrollment
|
|
2010 Number of Out-of-School Suspensions
|
2011 Expected Number of Out-of-School Suspensions
|
|
644
|
Based on 2010 enrollment numbers, approximately 612
|
|
2010 Total Number of Students Suspended Out of School
|
2011 Expected Number of Students Suspended Out of School
|
|
244
|
215 based on similar enrollment
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Alternative discipline consequences
|
Establish Saturday School as an alternative to suspension.
|
assistant principal
|
Monthly Data reports
|
SMS reports
|
| 2 |
Classroom Management by Teachers
|
Best practices shared by Discipline Staff
|
Assistant Principal of Discipline.
|
Teacher Feedback/discipline referals
|
Discipline Reports from SMS
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
RTI Procedures
|
9-12
|
RTI Team
|
School Wide
|
Monthly/ RTI team-bi-weekly
|
RTI Data and problem solving
|
RTI team
|
|
| |
| Suspension Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Saturday School in leau of suspension |
Funds to pay adult to run Saturday School twice a month or as needed. |
Possible SAC Grant |
$900.00 |
| Subtotal: $900.00 |
| Grand Total: $900.00 |
|
| End of Suspension Goal(s) |
|
Dropout Prevention Goal(s)
Note: Required for High School - F.S., Sec. 1003.53
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
|
|
1. Dropout Prevention
Dropout Prevention Goal #1:
*Please refer to the percentage of students who dropped out during the 2009-2010 school year.
|
We will reduce drop out rate by .5%. Graduation rate will increase by 2%.
|
|
2010 Current Dropout Rate:*
|
2011 Expected Dropout Rate:*
|
|
1.5% (35) students
|
1% (23) students
|
|
2010 Current Graduation Rate:*
|
2011 Expected Graduation Rate:*
|
|
83.4% (391) 2008-2009. Awaiting 2010 Data
|
85.4% (399) 2008-2009 Awaiting 2010 data.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Loss of credit because of failing class
|
Credit recovery through PLATO lab
|
Principal/ lab coordinator
|
Data of students successfully completing courses through PLATA.
|
PLATO data
|
| 2 |
Attendance
|
Student Assistance Team and Child Study Team meetings. Social Worker assistant working with At Risk students
|
Assistant Principal of Discipline/ Attendance. Social Worker and Social Worker Assistant
|
Monitore student attendnace and acheivment Data and attendance records.
|
Attendnace Reports from SMS.
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Max Thompson learning focused strategies
|
9-12
|
Administrative Team
|
School wide and department focused
|
Monthly Department meetings Early Release and in-service trainings.
|
Administrative Classroom Observations
|
Administrative Team
|
|
RtI Process
|
9-12
|
RtI Team
|
School wide
|
Faculty and DATA Meetings Monthly
|
RtI DATA
|
RtI Team
|
|
| |
| Dropout Prevention Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Dropout Prevention Goal(s) |
|
Parent Involvement Goal(s)
|
|
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
|
Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
|
|
1. Parent Involvement
Parent Involvement Goal #1:
*Please refer to the percentage of parents who participated in school activities, duplicated or unduplicated.
|
Parent participation through volunteering as well as attendance at school functions will increase by 10 %.
|
|
2010 Current Level of Parent Involvement:*
|
2011 Expected Level of Parent Involvement:*
|
|
24% (552) of students had at least one parent participate in school activities.
|
34% (782) of students will have at least one parent participate in school activities.
|
|
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
|
| | Anticipated Barrier | Strategy | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring | Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy | Evaluation Tool |
| 1 |
Communication with parents
|
Alert Now phone calls reminding parents of activities will be used.
|
Mike Collins
|
Compare previous years participationat events such as open house.
|
Sign in sheets from teachers at open house
|
| 2 |
Parental awareness of academic progress
|
Encourage Parent Portal use.
|
Chester Gregory
Guidance Department
|
Baseline data.
Goal of 75% sign up for Parent Portal
|
Reports from Parent Portal technology.
|
|
| |
|
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
|
| PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus | Grade Level/Subject | PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader | PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or school-wide) | Target Dates and Schedules(e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings) | Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring | Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring |
|
Train appropriate staff on use and enrollment in Parent Portal
|
9-12
|
Chester Gregory/ Denise Vitale
|
Appropriate Clerical Staff
|
Training through county trainings completed by September 1.
|
Monitor enrollment data.
|
Denise Vitale, Chester Gregory
|
|
| |
| Parent Involvement Budget: |
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Other |
| Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Grand Total: $0.00 |
|
| End of Parent Involvement Goal(s) |
|
Additional Goal(s)
No Additional Goal was submitted for this school
FINAL BUDGET
| Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s) |
| Goal |
Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Attendance |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Suspension |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Technology |
| Goal |
Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Attendance |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Suspension |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $0.00 |
| Professional Development |
| Goal |
Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Science |
AP Training |
Funds pay for teachers to attend conference and training |
Staff Development |
$520.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Attendance |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Suspension |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $520.00 |
| Other |
| Goal |
Strategy |
Description of Resources |
Funding Source |
Available Amount |
| Reading |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Mathematics |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Writing |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Attendance |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$0.00 |
| Suspension |
Saturday School in leau of suspension |
Funds to pay adult to run Saturday School twice a month or as needed. |
Possible SAC Grant |
$900.00 |
| Parental Involvement |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal: $900.00 |
| Grand Total: $1,420.00 |
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
Advertise the need in school newsletter as the FHS SAC is open to anyone who has an interest in participating.
Principal will invite parent involvement to better reflect the populaton of FHS.
Present members of the SAC will invite participation.
| Projected use of SAC Funds | Amount |
|
Provide for mini-grants for classroom enhancement materials
|
$3,000.00
|
|
Approve funds at the request of the Principal for special projects or staff development
|
$5,000.00
|
Describe the activities of the School Advisory Council for the upcoming year
The SAC committee will continue to serve as a liaison to the community. Monthly meetings will be held with the Forest High School administration. These meetings provide the committee with ongoing information on the current activities and initiatives taking place at the school.
The SAC committee provides input to the administration and regular feedback from the community.
The SAC committee approves Mini-Grant opportunities for teachers to provide enhancement materials for teachers.
AYP DATA
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
SCHOOL GRADE DATA
Marion School District
FOREST HIGH SCHOOL
2008-2009
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
52%
|
82%
|
75%
|
49%
|
258
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 4.0 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 |
50% |
77% |
|
|
127 |
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? |
46% (NO) |
63% (YES) |
|
|
109
|
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.
|
| FCAT Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
494 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade* |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Marion School District
FOREST HIGH SCHOOL
2007-2008
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
54%
|
83%
|
85%
|
43%
|
265
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 4.0 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.
|
| % of Students Making Learning Gains |
56% |
82% |
|
|
138 |
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? |
45% (NO) |
73% (YES) |
|
|
118
|
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.
|
| FCAT Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
531 |
|
| Percent Tested = 98% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade* |
|
|
|
|
A |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |
Marion School District
FOREST HIGH SCHOOL
2006-2007
|
| |
Reading
|
Math
|
Writing
|
Science
|
Grade
Points
Earned |
|
| % Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above) |
48%
|
78%
|
84%
|
52%
|
262
|
Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 4.0 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 |
49% |
73% |
|
|
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? |
39% (NO) |
59% (YES) |
|
|
98
|
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.
|
| FCAT Points Earned |
|
|
|
|
492 |
|
| Percent Tested = 97% |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of eligible students tested |
| School Grade* |
|
|
|
|
C |
Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested |