Docstoc

2008 – 2009

Document Sample
2008 – 2009 Powered By Docstoc
					2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1




                                              FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
                                                  Differentiated Accountability




                                    School Improvement Plan (SIP)
                                             Form SIP-1

                                                Proposed for 2010-2011



                                      2010 – 2011 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
June 2010                                                                         1
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
  2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


  PART I: SCHOOL INFORMATION

  School Name: Elliott Point                                                                                           District Name: Okaloosa
  Principal: Janet Stein                                                                                               Superintendent: Dr. Alexis Tibbetts
  SAC Chair: Shantone Davenport                                                                                        Date of School Board Approval: 10/25/10


  Student Achievement Data:
  The following links will open in a separate browser window. Longitudinal data will be displayed in the print view of the SIP.

  School Grades Trend Data (Use this data to complete Sections 1-4 of the reading and mathematics goals and Sections 1 and 2 of the writing and science goals.)
  Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data (Use this data to complete Sections 5A-5D of the reading and mathematics goals and Section 3A-3D 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)/                            Number of Years        Number of Years as        Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT (Proficiency, Learning
                                                        Certification(s)                      at Current School      an Administrator          Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP information along with the associated school year)
Principal      Janet Stein                              Bachelors degree from Mills            8 years               13 years                  Trends for students:
                                                        College in Psychology, Masters                               (8 years elementary
                                                        degree from Florida State                                    school, 3 years             Read Year     Grade     Prof    Gains    L 25%
                                                        University in Learning                                       middle school, and 2        2009-10       A         79%     74%      67%
                                                        Disabilities, 44 credits beyond                              years as a Curriculum       2008-09       A         83%     71%      65%
                                                        masters in Curriculum and                                    Specialist)                 2007-08       A         83%     82%      77%
                                                        Instruction from the University of                                                       2006-07       A         76%     76%      68%
                                                        West Florida. Certification in                                                           2005-06       A         84%     71%      68%
                                                        Elementary Education, Specific                                                           2004-05       A         83%     70%      68%
                                                        Learning Disabilities,
                                                                                                                                                 2003-04       A         76%     71%      59%
                                                        Emotionally Handicapped,
                                                                                                                                                 2002-03       A         76%     76%      76%
                                                        Psychology, Educational
                                                        Leadership, and School Principal.
                                                                                                                                                 Math Year     Grade     Prof    Gains     L 25%

  June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2
  Rule 6A-1.099811
  Revised May 28, 2010
  2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                                     2009-10      A         79%    62%     62%
                                                                                                                     2008-09      A         84%    65%     58%
                                                                                                                     2007-08      A         86%    70%     72%
                                                                                                                     2006-07      A         89%    65%     72%
                                                                                                                     2005-06      A         82%    80%
                                                                                                                     2004-05      A         80%    77%
                                                                                                                     2003-04      A         62%    70%
                                                                                                                     2002-03      A         67%    78%

                                                                                                                     Write Year    Grade    Prof
                                                                                                                     2009-10       A        76%
                                                                                                                     2008-09       A        93%
                                                                                                                     2007-08       A        86%
                                                                                                                     2006-07       A        87%
                                                                                                                     2005-06       A        83%
                                                                                                                     2004-05       A        80%
                                                                                                                     2003-04       A        72%
                                                                                                                     2002-03       A        86%

                                                                                                                     AYP
                                                                                                                     09-10     08-09       07-08   06-07   05-06   04-05   03-04   02-03
                                                                                                                     N         N           Y       N       Y       Y       N       N
Assistant
Principal




  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                 Name                         Degree(s)/              Number of         Number of Years as      Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT
   Area                                              Certification(s)            Years at                 an             (Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP
                                                                              Current School     Instructional Coach     information along with the associated school year)
Reading        Sharon E. Goree                 M.Ed. for K-8th grade          1+ 2 months        6 + 2 months            Trends for students:
                                               Highly Qualified                                                          High Standards Grade Prof. L. Gains Low.25% AYP
                                               Reading Endorsed                                                          2005- 93%          A     yes     72%       79%     yes
                                               ESOL Endorsed                                                             2006- 91%          A     yes     80%       79%     yes
                                                                                                                         2007- 92%          A     yes     81%       79%     yes
                                                                                                                         2008- 95%          A     yes     77%       77%     yes
  June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                3
  Rule 6A-1.099811
  Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                                 2009- 94%         A      yes      81%      84%        yes
                                                                                                                 2010- 79%         A      yes      73%       67%        no
Writing       Sharon E. Goree                 M.Ed. for K-8th grade       1+ 2 months        6 + 2 months        Writing scores have consistently surpassed the state average.
                                              Highly Qualified                                                   2005- 98%
                                              Reading Endorsed                                                   2006- 93%
                                              ESOL Endorsed                                                      2007- 90%
                                                                                                                 2008- 77%
                                                                                                                 2009- 84%
                                                                                                                 2010- 86%

 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.   Interview qualified candidates from all areas of the country      Janet Stein                         ongoing
 2.   Provide mentors for all new teachers                              Janet Stein                         ongoing
 3.   Maintain a website that attracts prospective teacher candidates   Cynthia Bandfield                   ongoing
 4.




 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




 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                  4
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


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 First-Year   % of Teachers       % of Teachers        % of Teachers       % of Teachers     % Highly        % Reading         % National        %
of Instructional    Teachers          with 1-5 Years of   with 6-14 Years of   with 15+ Years of   with Advanced     Qualified       Endorsed          Board Certified   ESOL Endorsed
Staff                                 Experience          Experience           Experience          Degrees           Teachers        Teachers          Teachers          Teachers


      39               1% (1)             18% (7)             33% (13)             38% (15)          28% (11)         100% (39)          5% (2)           13% (5)           35% (14)




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

                   Lee Barkley                                 Denise Richardson                   Mrs. Barkley is an experienced Project         Coaching on student management in
                                                                                                   CHILD teacher and will be providing            the classroom, appropriate
                                                                                                   support to Mrs. Richardson, who is a new       station activities and individualized
                                                                                                   Project CHILD teacher.                         behavior plans.
      Amanda Carlson, Connie Wood                         Rachael McGill, Brenda Peters            Both Amanda Carlson and Connie Wood            Coaching in best practices. Specific
                                                                                                   have years of experience in kindergarten.      coaching in the implementation of the
                                                                                                   Ms. McGill and Ms. Peters are relatively       Daily Five/ CAFÉ menu.
                                                                                                   new to kindergarten.                           Implementation of an assessment plan
                                                                                                                                                  including summative, interim and
                                                                                                                                                  formative assessments. Implementation
                                                                                                                                                  of RtI /PLC meetings
                   Sharon Goree                        Joni Shaw, Steve Tesseniar, Dayna           Ms. Goree, our Literacy Coach, will be         Targeted coaching in the
                                                    Kimberly, Grace George, Diana Shingler,        working extensively with 3rd-5th grade         implementation of the Daily Five and
                                                    Jackie Henry, Virginia Taff, Susie Gornto,     faculty. The percent proficient of our         the CAFÉ menu. Use of reflection logs,
                                                           Kathy Garner, Sally Barnes              entering 4th grade class has decreased from    and assessment notebooks.
June 2010                                                                                                                                                                          5
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                               previous years. Extensive Tier 2 activities   Implementation of an assessment plan
                                                                               are needed to bring this group to             including summative, interim and
                                                                               proficiency. In addition all intermediate     formative assessments. Implementation
                                                                               grades are implementing a new reading         of RtI /PLC meetings.
                                                                               model. Support, modeling and coaching is
                                                                               needed for successful implementation.

Additional Requirements
Coordination and Integration-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 personnel and materials are used throughout the day to meet the needs of students living in poverty. Title I funds also allow
for after school tutoring and summer programs to help students meet county and state standards in core subjects.
Title I, Part C: Migrant N/A

Title I, Part D: We use the mentoring and volunteer program as a support system for neglected, delinquent and at-risk students. We also offer an
after school tutoring program for our at-risk students.
Title II

Title III: Funds are used to supplement and enhance the programs for English Language Learners (English/Spanish dictionaries, bilingual books).
Funds can also be used for planning, faculty development, improvement of academic programs and for multiple usage of instructional facilities
(Daycare, Boy Scouts, etc.).
Title X- Homeless: When a student is identified as homeless several events are put into place. They are: enrollment requirements are suspended,
transportation is provided, free breakfast and lunch is offered, summer camp is available at no cost and the district provides both personal and
school items throughout the year. Various program opportunities are available to these students.

Supplemental Academic Instruction:

Violence Prevention Programs: A bullying prevention program is presented to fourth and fifth grade students once a month by a district
representative. A behavior class for “frequent flyers” using behavior management videos. A PBS school wide program is used with the SWISS
data program. All grades must submit a PBS plan.


June 2010                                                                                                                                                   6
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Nutrition Programs: A monthly nutrition program for grades K-5 is offered by the University of Florida to promote healthy living.

Housing Programs:
NA
Head Start
N/A
Adult Education
N/A
Career and Technical Education
N/A
Job Training
N/A
Other
N/A

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

                                                              School-Based RtI Team
Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team: Principal Janet Stein, Guidance Counselor Linda Gillette, Literacy Coach Sharon Goree, Title I
Teacher Sue Gibson, Staffing Specialist Amy Rivard, School Psychologist Karen Loisel, ESE Teachers Allyson Stoltz and Kim Day, and classroom
teachers (as needed).

Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). How does it work with other school
teams to organize/coordinate RtI efforts? Grade levels meet weekly to review formative assessments, share best practices, improve tier one
strategies, and develop tier two strategies. Grade Level PLCS are considered an extension of the RtI Leadership Team and include all grade level
teachers, as well as the principal, Literacy Coach, title one and ESE teachers on an as needed basis. Once or twice a month the school based RtI
Leadership Team meets to review all Tier two interventions implemented by the grade level PLCs. The team also meets weekly to discuss students’ who
have already been through the tier 2 process and are beginning tier 3. They review the results of assessments (DEA, FAIR, FCAT, SAT 10) as well as
teacher generated summative, interim and formative assessment. It is the responsibility of the team to ensure that instruction is data driven and
prescriptive. By working with grade level PLCs, plans and strategies can be implemented for all students that demonstrate a need.
Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan. Describe
how the RtI Problem-solving process is used in developing and implementing the SIP? The Rtl Leadership team will have access to the most
current school data pertaining to student performance. Because of their participation with grade level PLCs they can provide information that will be
necessary when implementing an effective SIP. To problem solve developing and implementing the SIP, the team will meet to discuss data, identify

June 2010                                                                                                                                    7
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
weak areas, develop a plan for implementing strategies, and evaluate the outcomes.

                                                                  RtI Implementation
Describe the data source(s) and the data management system(s) used to summarize data at each tier for reading, mathematics, science, writing,
and behavior.
Data sources: DEA, FAIR, FCAT, SAT 10, results as well as Software (ILS) data, district/classroom summative, interim and formative assessments.
Progress monitoring Probes are created from the DEA website, Fast Facts and teacher made items.
Data management systems: PAWS, AS400, and SWIS (School Wide Information System)
Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.
  Professional development was provided in September 2010. Such will continue during grade level PLCs and faculty meetings (as needed) during the
course of the year. The RtI team will address additional professional development needs during the RtI meetings. Classroom teachers in grades 3-5 will
 be involved in coaching on a weekly basis. The Literacy Coach will work with teachers to improve Tier 1 interventions and develop/ implement tier 2
 interventions. Teachers and the Literacy Coach will make all instructional decisions based on student data. Appropriate assessment will be determined
                                                                in weekly PLC meetings.



Literacy Leadership Team (LLT)


                                                     School-Based Literacy Leadership Team
Identify the school-based Literacy Leadership Team (LLT). The LLT at EPES is comprised of curriculum, teaching and administrative staff.
Classroom teachers Connie Wood (K), Jennifer Bafundo, Denise Reichal, (1st), Melissa Sterman (2nd), Jackie Henry (3rd), Lee Barkley (4th), Steve
Tesseniar (5th) and ESE teachers Natoya Scott and Kim Day all bring with them exceptional leadership skills and a profound ability to diagnose reading
problems and implement remediation practices. Sharon Goree, the Literacy Coach, has a deep knowledge of the meta-cognitive process of reading
comprehension. Title One Coordinator/Reading Recovery Teacher, Sue Gibson has a Master’s degree in Reading and has demonstrated ability in
working with students to enhance proficiency levels. Linda Gillette is the Guidance Counselor. Her ability to understand all aspects of student
development positively impacts student learning. Principal Janet Stein is a successful and experienced instructional leader. She facilitates the LLT.
Describe how the school-based LLT functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). The LLT at EPES meets during regularly scheduled
meetings throughout the school year. Yearly goals are established and a protocol (Du Four’s Learning by Doing) has been put into place. Agenda’s are
set and notes are taken, providing a “task assignment” section in order to keep track of what is expected prior to each meeting.



June 2010                                                                                                                                      8
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1

What will be the major initiatives of the LLT this year? LLT initiatives for the 2010-2011 school year are: (1) Building-wide implementation of the
Daily Five, a research-based structure to help students develop daily habits of reading and writing; (2) Building-wide implementation of CAFÉ, a
research-based system for developing habits of proficient readers; (3) Support teachers as they organize formative and summative assessment data to
inform instruction, create flexible groups of students, and help students retrieve and use the reading strategies they have learned; (4) guide decisions
related to RtI and professional learning communities; (5) implement an effective use of formative assessments to inform instruction.




NCLB Public School Choice

Notification of School in Need of Improvement (SINI) Status
 Attach a copy of the Notification of SINI Status to Parents

Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification
 Attach a copy of the CWT Notification to Parents

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification
 Attach a copy of the SES Notification to Parents


*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.
Our preschool VPK teacher met with the kindergarten teachers to gather information on the skills that are necessary for the academic and social
readiness of kindergarten. Other preschools in our area visit in the spring and tour the facilities. The preschool children are able to visit the
kindergarten classrooms, the cafeteria, the media center and the playground. The preschool teachers are given a list of skills that students need to
acquire prior to entering kindergarten.
June 2010                                                                                                                                         9
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1




*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.




*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?




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?



June 2010                                                                                                                                        10
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


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 High School Feedback Report.




PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goals
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.


                                            Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process

   Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved proficiency (FCAT Level 3)?
   Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
June 2010                                                                                                                                      11
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
 Based on a comparison of 2009 FCAT data and 2010 FCAT data, what was the percent increase or decrease of students maintaining proficiency
   (FCAT Levels 3, 4, 5)?
 What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the percentage of students maintaining proficiency (FCAT Level 3) or moving above proficiency
   (FCAT Levels 4 or 5) on the 2011 FCAT?
 For students scoring FCAT Levels 1 or 2, what strategies will be implemented to provide remediation and increase achievement to proficiency
   (FCAT Level 3)?
 For students scoring FCAT Level 3, what strategies will be implemented to maintain proficiency and/or increase achievement to above proficiency
   (FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
 For students scoring FCAT Levels 4 or 5, what strategies will be implemented to maintain above proficiency and provide enrichment?
 What percentage of students made learning gains?
 What was the percent increase or decrease of students making learning gains?
 What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the percentage of students making learning gains?
 What strategies will be implemented to increase and maintain proficiency for these students?
 What additional supplemental interventions/remediation will be provided for students not achieving learning gains?
 What percentage of students in the lowest 25% made learning gains?
 What was the percent increase or decrease in the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?
 What are the anticipated barriers to increasing learning gains in the lowest 25%?
 What additional supplemental interventions/remediation will be provided for students in the lowest 25% not achieving learning gains?
 Which student subgroups did not meet AYP targets?
 What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the number of subgroups making AYP?
 What strategies will be used to ensure students make AYP?
 What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed a decrease in proficiency?
 How will the Instructional Focus Calendar be created to address area(s) of improvement (clusters/strands)?
 How will focus lessons be developed and revised to increase proficiency for these clusters/strands?
 In addition to the baseline and mid-year assessment, how often will interim or mini-assessments be administered?
 How often will teachers and the leadership team (principal, assistant principal, instructional coaches) meet to analyze data, problem solve, and
   redirect the instructional focus based on the academic needs of students?
 How often will data chats be held at each of the following levels: teacher/student; teacher/administration?
 How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to strengthen Response to Intervention (RtI) Tier 1 instruction and
   differentiation?
 How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 2 supplemental intervention?
 How will the Problem-solving Model and ongoing progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 3 intensive intervention?

* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
June 2010                                                                                                                                    12
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                   READING GOALS                                                                                Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
  Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                Anticipated Barrier                     Strategy                   Person or Position       Process Used to Determine             Evaluation Tool
      “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                          Responsible for              Effectiveness of
                improvement for the following group:                                                                                                       Monitoring                     Strategy

1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT                                         1.1.                            1.1.                                 1.1.                    1.1.                                   1.1
                                                                                Students reading text at        OCSD’s Balanced Literacy             Principal, Mrs. Janet    All students in 1st-5th grade will be DEA Results
Level 3) in reading                                                             incorrect levels for both       Model, that differentiates           Stein                   assessed weekly, using common
                                                                                independent and instructional   instruction, will be supported by    Literacy Coach, Ms.     cold reads, to measure their growth
                                                                                reading.                        The Daily Five, a research-based     Sharon Goree            in reading comprehension.
Reading Goal #1: Increase student reading                                                                       system for use in reading and        LLT Members, CRT’s
time, all throughout the day, using appropriate                                                                 writing. All components of                                   PLCs will meet weekly to review
                                                                                                                Balanced Literacy (Guided                                    formative assessment results and
text on their independent level.                                                                                Reading, Read-a-Loud, Familiar                               share best practice teaching
Data analysis shows that overall     2010 Current         2011                                                  Reading, & Word-Work) are                                    strategies.
34% (98 students) in Grades 3 – 5                                                                               integral tasks of the Daily Five.
                                     Level of             Expected
scored Level 3 on the 2010
administration of FCAT Reading.      Performance:         Level of                                              Students will be engaged in                                  Monthly evaluation of Student
In grade 3, 29% (28 students)        *                    Performance:                                          reading, throughout the day,                                 Reflection Logs and Teacher
scored Level 3. This demonstrates                         *                                                     during all content area classes,                             Assessment Notebooks and weekly
a decrease of 12% when compared      3rd Grade – 29%      The expected level
                                                                                                                on their independent level.                                  Administrative walkthroughs
to 2009 (41%).                       (28 students),       of performance for
In Grade 4, 40% (40 students)        4th Grade – 40%      the 2011 school                                       Reflection logs will be used in
scored Level 3. This demonstrates    (40 students), and   year is 37% (106                                      all classrooms to record
an increase of 12% when              5th Grade - 33%      students), which is                                   students’ extended responses as
compared to 2009 (28%).              (30 students)        an increase of 3%                                     well as their literature
In Grade 5, 33% (30 students)        scored Level 3 on    (8students).                                          connections.
scored Level 3, which was also the   FCAT Reading
percentage of students who scored                                                                               Assessment notebooks will be
level 3 in 2009 (33%).                                                                                          used in all classes to help with
                                                                                                                differentiation in teacher –
                                                                                                                student conferencing and small
                                                                                                                group instruction.

                                                                                                                DRA/Lexile Levels will be
                                                                                                                determined for both an
                                                                                                                independent as well as
                                                                                                                instructional level for each
                                                                                                                student.

                                                                                                                Teach students to use the “Five
                                                                                                                Finger Rule”/”I PICK books”
                                                                                                                using the Daily Five
                                                                                                                “I Chart format.”

                                                                                                                “netTrecker” and “A-Z Reading”
                                                                                                                will be used to find leveled text
                                                                                                                in all subject areas

                                                                                                                Continue to develop classroom
                                                                                                                libraries that are leveled using a
 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                           13
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                       research-based system.

                                                                                                       Specific Grade levels will
                                                                                                       participate in a lesson study
                                                                                                       .
                                                                       1.2.                            1.2.                                1.2.                    1.2.                                  1.2.
                                                                       Student deficiencies in           Increased direct instruction of   Principal, Mrs. Janet    Implementation of a continuous       DEA results
                                                                       mastery of reference &          this skill. Explicit teaching and   Stein                   cycle of instruction: assessment, re-
                                                                       research skills.                use of reference/research           Literacy Coach, Ms.     teaching, reinforcement and/or
                                                                                                       materials across all content        Sharon Goree, CRT’s,    enrichment to insure that teaching
                                                                                                       areas. Provide opportunities for    LLT Members             is aligned to identified needs of
                                                                                                       authentic practice in the use of                            students.
                                                                                                       new knowledge gained.
                                                                                                       PLCs will develop formative                                 PLCs will analyze monthly
                                                                                                       assessments to measure student                              formative assessments and share
                                                                                                       growth in the use of reference                              best practice strategies for teaching
                                                                                                       materials and features of                                   to areas of student need.
                                                                                                       informational text.




                                                                       1.3                             1.3.                                1.3.                    1.3.                                    1.3.




 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to      Anticipated Barrier                      Strategy                   Person or Position Process Used to Determine                    Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                Responsible for     Effectiveness of Strategy
               improvement for the following group:                                                                                             Monitoring
2. Students achieving above proficiency                                2.1.                            2.1.                                2.1.                    2.1.                              2.1.
                                                                       Regression of those students    One advanced kindergarten class     Principal, Mrs. Janet   Classroom walkthroughs, analysis DEA
(FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in reading                                       who are academically            (c. Wood), one advanced multi-      Stein                   of assessment results and student
Reading Goal #2: Earlier identification of gifted/talented             advanced and live in poverty.   age classroom in 1st/2nd (A.        Literacy Coach, Ms.     artifacts.
                                                                                                       Whitehead), one advanced            Sharon Goree
students who live in poverty.



 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                14
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Data analysis shows that overall 2010 Current          2011 Expected                                 multi-age classroom in 3rd/4th (J.    LLT Members, Connie      Monthly evaluation of Student
39% (113 students) in Grades 3 – 5 Level of            Level of                                      Henry), and two “advanced” 5th        Wood, Anna Whitehead,    Reflection Logs and Teacher
scored Level 4 or 5 on the 2010    Performance:*       Performance:*                                 grade classrooms (J. Shaw & S.        Jackie Henry, Steve      Assessment Notebooks and weekly
administration of FCAT Reading. Grade 3 – 38%          The expected level
                                                                                                     Tesseniar) will provide extended      Tesseniar, Joni Shaw     Administrative walkthroughs
In grade 3, 38% (37 students)      (37 students),      of performance for                            reading/writing instruction
scored Level 4 or 5. This          Grade 4 – 39%       the 2011 school                               during the Daily Five Literacy
demonstrates a 2% increase when (39 students), and     year is 42% (121                              Block.                                                         PLCs will meet weekly to review
compared to 2009.                  Grade 5 – 41%       students) which is                            Students will participate in an                                formative assessment results and
In Grade 4, 39% (39 students)      (37 students)       an increase of 3%                             authentic interdisciplinary                                    share best practice teaching
scored Level 4 or 5. This          scored Level 4 or   (9 students).                                 project each semester.                                         strategies.
demonstrates a 4% decrease when 5 on FCAT                                                            Thematic units of study will
compared to 2009.                  Reading.                                                          include high levels of critical
In Grade 5, 41% (37 students)                                                                        thinking skills, computer
scored Level 4 or 5, which was a                                                                     simulations, novel studies that
3% increase when compared to                                                                         incorporate book talks and
2009.                                                                                                reader’s theater.
                                                                            2.2.                     2.2.                                  2.2.                     2.2.                               2.2.

                                                                            2.3                      2.3                                   2.3                      2.3                                2.3

  Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to          Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                   Person or Position Process Used to Determine                     Evaluation Tool
      “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
                                                                                                                                             Responsible for        Effectiveness of
                improvement for the following group:
                                                                                                                                               Monitoring               Strategy
3. Percentage of students making Learning Gains in 3.1.                                              3.1.                                  3.1.                     3.1.                               3.1.
                                                           Traditionally as the children             Monitor the implementation of         Principal, Mrs. Janet    Embedded coaching daily in         DEA.
reading                                                    move up in grades teachers                assessment notebooks and              Stein, Literacy Coach,   classrooms. Reflection Logs and
Reading Goal #3: Increase teacher knowledge regarding individualize less and teach a                 reflection logs in 3rd, 4th and 5th   Ms. Sharon Goree,        Teacher Assessment Notebooks
                                                           set curriculum. One to one                grade.                                CRT’s,
the continuous cycle of instruction as an integral part of and small group work                                                            LLT Members
Balanced Literacy/Daily Five/CAFÉ                          decreases. The expectation to              PLCs in grade level and at RtI                                PLCs will meet weekly to review
In 2010, 74% (141 students) in     2010 Current       2011 Expected complete grade level work         leadership committee provide                                  formative assessment results and
grades 4 and 5 made learning gains Level of           Level of          increases and the gap between tier 2 and tier 3 support with                                share best practice teaching
in Reading. This was an increase Performance:* Performance:* students is more profound                extra tutoring and small group                                strategies.
of 3% when compared to 2009.        th                                  with more levels and          instruction during and after
                                   4 grade learning The expected
                                                                        complexities.                 school                                                        Monthly evaluation of Student
                                   gains for 2010 level for learning
                                                                                                                                                                    Reflection Logs, Teacher
                                   were 79%           gains for the
                                                                                                                                                                    Assessment Notebooks and weekly
                                   (81 students).     2011 school year
                                                                                                                                                                    Administrative walkthroughs
                                   5th grade learning is 80% (153
                                   gains for 2010 students), which
                                   were 67%           is an increase of
                                   (60 students).     6% (12 students).




 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                               15
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                         3.2.                         3.2.                                 3.2.                   3.2.                                    3.2.

                                                                         3.3.                         3.3.                                 3.3.                   3..3.                                   3.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to        Anticipated Barrier                  Strategy                   Person or Position Process Used to Determine                     Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
                                                                                                                                             Responsible for        Effectiveness of
               improvement for the following group:
                                                                                                                                               Monitoring               Strategy
5.   Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making                         4.1.                         4.1.                               4.1.                     4.1.                                   4.1.
                                                                         Teacher understanding of      Administer DRA2 to all K-2nd       Principal, Mrs. Janet   All students in 1st-5th grade students DEA
     learning gains in reading                                           student needs and planning   grades students, and 3rd-5th grade Stein                    will be assessed weekly, using
Reading Goal #4: Develop common formative                                appropriate differentiated   students as needed.                Literacy Coach, Ms.      common cold reads, to measure
                                                                         instruction within their                                        Sharon Goree, CRT’s,     their growth in reading
assessments in PLC’s and expand the use of these to                      classrooms.                  Common formative assessments LLT Members                    comprehension.
inform classroom instruction.                                                                         will be administered throughout
In 2010, 67% (48 students) of the 2010 Current        2011 Expected                                   the year, each followed by time RtI Leadership Team         PLCs will meet weekly to review
lowest 25% made learning gains in Level of            Level of                                        and guidance in analyzing                                   assessment results, share best
Reading. This was a 2% increase Performance:*         Performance:*                                   student results to determine their                          practice, create additional formative
when compared to 2009.                                                                                individual instructional needs.                             prompts and implement strategies
                                  67% (48             The expected
                                                                                                                                                                  based on results.
                                  students) scoring   level of
                                                                                                      Students who do not make
                                  in the lowest       performance for
                                                                                                      adequate progress on formative                              RtI documentation generated by
                                  quartile made       the 2011 Reading
                                                                                                      assessments will be provided in-                            grade level PLCs and the RtI
                                  learning gains in   FCAT is 75%
                                                                                                      class support which may include                             Leadership Team
                                  Reading             (54 students)
                                                                                                      a change in curriculum or Title
                                                      which is an 8%
                                                                                                      One services, individualized or
                                                      increase (6
                                                                                                      small group instruction.                                    Monthly evaluation of Student
                                                      students).
                                                                                                                                                                  Reflection Logs and teacher
                                                                                                       Title One, classroom teachers                              assessment notebooks and weekly
                                                                                                      and assistants will provide                                 Administrative walkthroughs
                                                                                                      specific Reading instruction
                                                                                                      based on the recommendations
                                                                                                                                                                  READ 180 Lexile scores
                                                                                                      of the PLC.

                                                                                                       The teaching of phonemic
                                                                                                                                                                  Grade Level plans for scope and
                                                                                                      awareness and phonics skills will
                                                                                                                                                                  sequence of word work
                                                                                                      be systematic, diagnostic
                                                                                                      /prescriptive and research based.
                                                                                                                                                                  PLC recommendations for Tier 1
                                                                                                      Grade level PLCs make
                                                                                                                                                                  and Tier 2
                                                                                                      recommendations based on
                                                                                                      formative assessment.

                                                                                                      Implement the READ 180
                                                                                                      software into classrooms and
                                                                                                      use, as needed, for afterschool
                                                                                                      lessons.

                                                                                                      Implement a school-wide
                                                                                                      Tutoring Buddy program that
                                                                                                      teams 4th/5th grade students with
                                                                                                      primary-grade struggling

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                               16
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                  readers.


                                                                         4.2.                     4.2.                  4.2.               4.2.                         4.2.

                                                                         4.3                      4.3.                  4.3.               4.3.                         4.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to        Anticipated Barrier              Strategy    Person or Position Process Used to Determine      Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
                                                                                                                          Responsible for        Effectiveness of
            improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
                                                                                                                            Monitoring               Strategy
5A. Student subgroups             Reading Goal #5A:                      5A.1.                    5A.1.                 5A.1.              5A.1.                        5A.1.
                                                                         White:
not making Adequate               Ethnicity                              Black:
Yearly Progress (AYP) in          (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
                                                                         Hispanic:
                                  American Indian)
reading                                                                  Asian:
                                                                         American Indian:
Reading Goal #5A:

                                  2010 Current       2011 Expected
 N/A                              Level of           Level of
                                  Performance:*      Performance:*
                                  White:           White:
                                  Black:           Black:
                                  Hispanic:        Hispanic:
                                  Asian:           Asian:
                                  American Indian: American Indian:
                                                                         5A.2.                    5A.2.                 5A.2.              5A.2.                        5A.2.
                                                                         5A.3.                    5A.3.                 5A.3.              5A.3.                        5A.3.
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to        Anticipated Barrier              Strategy    Person or Position Process Used to Determine      Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
                                                                                                                          Responsible for        Effectiveness of
             improvement for the following subgroup:
                                                                                                                            Monitoring               Strategy
5B. Student subgroups    Reading Goal #5B:                               5B.1.                    5B.1.                 5B.1.              5B.1.                        5B.1.
not making Adequate      English Language
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Learners (ELL)
reading
Reading Goal #5B:

                                  2010 Current       2011 Expected
N/A                               Level of           Level of
                                  Performance:*      Performance:*
                                  Enter numerical    Enter numerical
                                  data for current   data for expected
                                  level of           level of
                                  performance in     performance in

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                             17
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                  this box.           this box.



                                                                           5B.2.                            5B.2.                                 5B.2.                   5B.2.                               5B.2.
                                                                           5B.3.                            5B.3.                                 5B.3.                   5B.3.                               5B.3.
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to          Anticipated Barrier                       Strategy                   Person or Position Process Used to Determine                  Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
                                                                                                                                                    Responsible for        Effectiveness of
             improvement for the following subgroup:
                                                                                                                                                      Monitoring               Strategy
5C. Student subgroups Reading Goal #5C:                                    5C.1.                            5C.1.                               5C.1.                     5C.1.                               5C.1.
                                                                           Grouping students by             Small group instruction provided Mrs. Janet Stein-            The use of weekly common cold       DEA
not making Adequate      Students with Disabilities                        instructional level instead of   at student’s instructional level as Principal, LLT members,   reads to measure student progress
Yearly Progress (AYP) in (SWD)                                             skill weaknesses.                well as student’s skill             ESE teachers              in reading comprehension skills
reading                                                                                                     weaknesses in phonemic
                                                                                                            awareness, phonics, fluency,                                  The use of DRA and Reading
Reading Goal #5C: To                                                                                        vocabulary, and comprehension.                                Running Records to measure and
increase CRT                                                                                                                                                              monitor fluency and phonics
understanding regarding the                                                                                 The use of data to drive small                                growth.
                                                                                                            group instruction in specific skill
difference between skill                                                                                    weaknesses including oral                                     PLCs will meet weekly to review
group versus strategy                                                                                       reading fluency at the                                        formative assessment results and
grouping for guided reading                                                                                 intermediate levels.                                          share best practice teaching
instruction.                                                                                                                                                              strategies. Lesson Studies will
                                                                                                                                                                          focus how to group children by
                                                                                                                                                                          skill areas.
 58% (40 students) did make AYP 2010 Current          2011 Expected
in Reading.                     Level of              Level of                                                                                                            IEP documentation
                                Performance:*         Performance:*
                                  58% (40 students)   The expected level
                                  did make            of performance for
                                  Adequate Yearly     2011 is 79%
                                  Progress in         (55 students),
                                  Reading.            which is an
                                                      increase of 11%
                                                      (15 students).
                                                                           5C.2.                            5C.2.                                 5C.2.                   5C.2.                               5C.2.

                                                                           5C.3.                            5C.3.                                 5C.3.                   5C.3.                               5C.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to               Anticipated Barrier                   Strategy                    Person or Position       Process Used to Determine               Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                        Responsible for              Effectiveness of
             improvement for the following subgroup:                                                                                                    Monitoring                     Strategy
5D. Student subgroups Reading Goal #5D:                                    5D.1.                            5D.1.                             5D.1.                       5D.1.                           5D.1.
                                                                            Limited real-life experiences   Use quality trade books to        Mrs. Janet Stein,            Monthly evaluation of Student  DEA
not making Adequate      Economically                                      from which to draw personal      read/discuss, with a focus placed Principal, Mrs. Sue         Reflection Logs and Teacher
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Disadvantaged                                     perspective, make                on 3 types of connections. The Gibson, Title One              Assessment Notebooks and weekly
reading                                                                    connections, and connect to      reading/writing connection will Coordinator and Ms.           Administrative walkthroughs.
                                                                           vocabulary.                      be encouraged through the use of Sharon Goree, Literacy
Reading Goal #5D:

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                          18
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Improve CRT                                                                    Student Reflection Logs.         Coach
                                                                               Implement the 6 step process             PLCs will meet weekly to review
understanding of how to use
                                                                               described in Building Academic           formative assessment results and
research -based strategies                                                     Vocabulary.                              share best practice teaching
for teaching vocabulary.                                                       Continue AR Stars program to             strategies.
70% (136 students) did make   2010 Current       2011 Expected                 encourage independent reading
AYP in Reading                Level of           Level of                      at home.
                              Performance:*      Performance:*                 Include a “reading at home”
                                                                               section as a part of Parent
                              70% (136           The expected level
                                                                               Reading Night.
                              students) did make of performance for
                              Adequate Yearly 2011 is79% (152                  Embed “Essential Skills” as a
                              Progress in        students), which is           part of the Daily Five, “Working
                              Reading.           an increase of 9%             with Words”
                                                 (17 students).




                                                                       5D.2.   5D.2.                          5D.2.     5D.2.                              5D.2.

                                                                       5D.3.   5D.3.                          5D.3.     5D.3.                              5D.3.

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                         19
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1



                  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                                                                                          Target Dates and Schedules
                                                   PD Facilitator                 PD Participants
     and/or PLC Focus                 Grade                                                                       (e.g. , Early Release) and                                               Person or Position Responsible for
                                                      and/or            (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                                   Level/Subject                                                                Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                         Monitoring
                                                    PLC Leader                     school-wide)
                                                                                                                           meetings)
     The Daily Five as a
                                                                                                                                                                                               Principal, Mrs. Janet Stein
structured set of literacy tasks                     J. Stein                                                                                 Follow-up to occur every other week in PLC
                                                                                                             Monthly, during ER days on the                                                 Title One Coordinator, Mrs. Sue
 designed to teach students to     K-5, Balanced     S. Goree                  All CRTs at EPES                                                               meetings.
                                                                                                              first Thursday of each month.                                                              Gibson
    work independently as            Literacy      LLT members
                                                                                                                                                                                           Literacy Coach, Ms. Sharon Goree
     readers and writers.

  The CAFÉ as a research-                                                                                                                                                                      Principal, Mrs. Janet Stein
                                                     J. Stein                                                                                 Follow-up to occur every other week in PLC
 based system for integrating                                                                                Monthly, during ER days on the                                                 Title One Coordinator, Mrs. Sue
                                   K-5, Balanced     S. Goree                  All CRTs at EPES                                                               meetings.
assessment into daily reading                                                                                 first Thursday of each month.                                                              Gibson
                                     Literacy      LLT members
   & classroom discussion.                                                                                                                                                                 Literacy Coach, Ms. Sharon Goree




 Reading Budget
 Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials.
 Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
 Strategy                                              Description of Resources                                    Funding Source                                        Available Amount
 Daily five/ CAFE                                      Easel/chart paper/ book bins                                Title I                                                                                        1,694.53
 Daily five/ CAFÉ                                      Easel/chart paper/book bins                                 Textbook                                                                                       2,502.03
 Vocabulary                                            Powerful Vocabulary                                         Textbook                                                                                         986.24
 Implement Reading textbook                            Textbooks                                                   Textbook                                                                                       3,955.62
 Classroom libraries                                   Books                                                       Title I                                                                                          671.71
 Classroom libraries                                   Books                                                       Textbook                                                                                       1,080.63
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Subtotal: 10,890.76
 Technology
 Strategy                                              Description of Resources                                    Funding Source                                        Available Amount
 READ 180                                              Support                                                     Title I                                                                                        2,100.00


 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                             20
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                                                                           Subtotal: 2,100.00
Professional Development
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source                             Available Amount
Daily Five/CAFÉ workshop ER-Orlando        Workshop                                      Staff Development                                                            1,200.00
Café membership                            Online membership                             Staff development                                                              690.00
Café supplies                              Bins/books                                    Staff development                                                            2,307.94
                                                                                                                                                           Subtotal: 4,197.94
Other
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source                             Available Amount
Small group                                Americorps                                    Title I                                                                     3,000.00
                                                                                                                                                          Subtotal: 3000.00
                                                                                                                                                      Grand Total: 20,188.70
End of Reading Goals

Mathematics Goals
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.

                                                    Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
   Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved proficiency (FCAT Level 3)?
   Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
   Based on a comparison of 2009 FCAT data and 2010 FCAT data, what was the percent increase or decrease of students maintaining proficiency (FCAT Levels 3, 4, 5)?
   What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the percentage of students maintaining proficiency (FCAT Level 3) or moving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5) on the
    2011 FCAT?
   For students scoring FCAT Levels 1 or 2, what strategies will be implemented to provide remediation and increase achievement to proficiency (FCAT Level 3)?
   For students scoring FCAT Level 3, what strategies will be implemented to maintain proficiency and/or increase achievement to above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
   For students scoring FCAT Levels 4 or 5, what strategies will be implemented to maintain above proficiency and provide enrichment?
   What percentage of students made learning gains?
   What was the percent increase or decrease of students making learning gains?
   What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the percentage of students making learning gains?
   What strategies will be implemented to increase and maintain proficiency for these students?
   What additional supplemental interventions/remediation will be provided for students not achieving learning gains?
   What percentage of students in the lowest 25% made learning gains?
   What was the percent increase or decrease in the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?

June 2010                                                                                                                                                                 21
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
     What are the anticipated barriers to increasing learning gains in the lowest 25%?
     What additional supplemental interventions/remediation will be provided for students in the lowest 25% not achieving learning gains?
     Which student subgroups did not meet AYP targets?
     What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the number of subgroups making AYP?
     What strategies will be used to ensure students make AYP?
     What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed a decrease in proficiency?
     How will the Instructional Focus Calendar be created to address area(s) of improvement (clusters/strands)?
     How will focus lessons be developed and revised to increase proficiency for these clusters/strands?
     In addition to the baseline and mid-year assessment, how often will interim or mini-assessments be administered?
     How often will teachers and the leadership team (principal, assistant principal, instructional coaches) meet to analyze data, problem solve, and redirect the instructional focus
      based on the academic needs of students?
     How often will data chats be held at each of the following levels: teacher/student; teacher/administration?
     How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to strengthen Response to Intervention (RtI) Tier 1 instruction and differentiation?
     How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 2 supplemental intervention?
     How will the Problem-solving Model and ongoing progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 3 intensive intervention?




 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g. 70% (35)).
             MATHEMATICS GOALS                                                                        Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to            Anticipated Barrier                Strategy                      Person or Position          Process Used to Determine          Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                    Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
               improvement for the following group:                                                                                                 Monitoring                        Strategy
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in 1.1.                                              1.1.                                1.1                         1.1                              1.1.
                                                      Lack of familiarity with new                    Professional development in         Principal,                  Formative Assessment probes from DEA
mathematics                                           standards and testing format.                   standards, Go Math, and STEM        Members on Math             the STEM promise pilot items
Mathematics Goal #1: CRTs will implement the newly                                                    strategies                          Leadership Committee,
                                                      Lack of familiarity with new                                                        and Literacy Coach          Weekly grades
adopted Go Math series in partnership with the NGSSS. series, Go Math                                 Fifty percent of instruction will
Data analysis shows that overall    2010 Current     2011 Expected                                    be on moderate to high                                          Administrative Walkthroughs
33% (96 students) in Grades 3 – 5   Level of         Level of                                         complexity items
scored Level 3 on the 2010          Performance:*    Performance:*                                                                                                    STEM observation checklist tool
administration of FCAT Math.                                                                          All teachers will use the newly
                                     3rd Grade – 40% The expected
In grade 3, 40% (39 students)                                                                         adopted Go Math series.                                         RtI documentation
                                    (39 students),   level of
scored at Level 3. This                                                                               The computer lab will be used to
                                    4th Grade – 34% performance for
demonstrates an increase of 8%                                                                        improve math performance with                                   Lesson Plans
                                    (35 students),   the 2011 school
when compared to 2009 (32%).                                                                          the new Go Math software.
                                    and 5th Grade – year is 37% (107
In grade 4, 34% (35 students)                                                                                                                                         Computer Lab data
                                    24% (22          students) which
scored at Level 3. This
                                    students) scored is an increase of
demonstrates a decrease of 13%
                                    Level 3 on the 4% (12 students).
when compared to 2009 (47%).
                                    Math FCAT.
In grade 5, 24% (22 students)
scored at Level 3. This
demonstrates a decrease of 4%                                            1.2.                         1.2.                                1.2.                        1.2.                               1.2.

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                    22
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
when compared to 2009 (28%).
                                                                           1.3.                         1.3.                              1.3.                        1.3.                               1.3


  Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to             Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                     Person or Position          Process Used to Determine          Evaluation Tool
      “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                   Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
                improvement for the following group:                                                                                                Monitoring                        Strategy
2. Students achieving above proficiency                                    2.1                          2.1.                              2.1.                     2.1.                             2.1.
                                                                            Lack of time to focus on     Establishment of advanced        Principal,               Formative Assessment probes from DEA
(FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in mathematics                                       advanced students and        classes from kindergarten thru    Literacy Coach,          the STEM promise pilot items
Mathematics Goal #2: Mathematics instruction will be                       enrichment                   fifth grade                       Members on Math
                                                                                                        Kindergarten self contained       Leadership Committee, Weekly grades
differentiated to meet the individualized needs of                                                      1 /2 combination                  Connie Wood, Anna
advanced students.                                                                                      3 /4 combination                  Whitehead, Jackie        Administrative Walkthroughs
Data analysis shows that overall 2010 Current         2011 Expected                                     2 5th grade advanced classes      Henry, Janette Webb, Jen
40% (115students) in Grades 3 – 5 Level of            Level of                                                                            Netro                    STEM observation checklist tool
scored Level 4 or 5 on the 2010     Performance:* Performance:*                                         Implement Sunshine Math in
administration of FCAT Math                                                                             grades 3-5 with parent                                        RtI documentation
                                    Grade 3 - 42% The expected
In grade 3, 41% (40 students)                                                                           volunteers
                                    (40 students,)    level of
scored at Levels 4 and 5. This                                                                                                                                        Lesson Plans
                                    Grade 4 – 36% performance for
demonstrates a decrease of 8%
                                    (37 students),    the 2011 school
when compared to 2009 (49%).                                                                                                                                          Computer Lab data
                                    and               year is 43% (124
In grade 4, 36% (37students)
                                    Grade 5 – 42% students) which
scored at Levels 4 and 5, which
                                    (38 students)     is an increase of
was also the percentage of students
                                    scored Level 4 or 3% (9 students).
who scored Level 4 or 5 in 2009
                                    5 on the Math
(36%).
                                    FCAT.
In grade 5, 42% (38 students)
scored at Levels 4 and 5. This                                          2.2.                            2.2.                              2.2.                        2.2.                               2.2.
demonstrates an increase of 6%
when compared to 2009 (36%).                                            2. 3                            2.3                               2.3                         2.3                                2.3



  Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to             Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                     Person or Position          Process Used to Determine          Evaluation Tool
      “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                   Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
                improvement for the following group:                                                                                                Monitoring                        Strategy
3. Percentage of students making Learning Gains in 3.1.                          3.1.                                                     3.1.                        3.1.                              3.1.DEA
                                                    Large amount of time spent 50 % of assessment will include                            Principal, Math              Formative Assessment probes
mathematics                                        on procedures rather than     problem solving at moderate to                           Leadership Committee        from the STEM promise pilot items
Mathematics Goal #3: Students will learn and       mathematical concepts         high complexity levels                                   members
                                                                                                                                                                      Weekly grades
understand mathematical concepts prior to learning Elliott Point does not have a Daily instruction will include a
mathematical procedures.                           Math Coach                    “problem of the day” at                                                              Administrative Walkthroughs
In 2010, 62% (119 students) in     2010 Current       2011 Expected                                     moderate to high complexity
Grades 4 and 5 made learning       Level of           Level of                                          levels                                                        STEM observation checklist tool
gains in Math. This was a 2%       Performance:*      Performance:*
decrease from 2009.                4th grade learning The expected level                                Test items will be used for                                   RtI documentation
                                   gains for 2010     for learning gains                                practice and assessment (Focus/
                                   were 57%           for the 2011                                      Broward County/ Go Math)                                      Lesson Plans

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                    23
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                    (58 students).       school year is 71%
                                    5th grade learning   (136 students)                                    The mathematics classroom                                       Computer Lab data
                                    gains for 2010       which is an                                       observation tool from the
                                    were 68%             increase of 9%                                    STEM training will be shared
                                    (61 students).       (17 students).                                    with teachers and utilized for
                                                                                                           staff development

                                                                                                           Grade level PLC’s will provide
                                                                                                           Tier 2 and Tier 3 support with
                                                                                                           extra tutoring and small group
                                                                                                           instruction

                                                                                                           Specific Grade levels will
                                                                                                           participate in a lesson study


                                                                              3.2.                         3.2.                                3.2.                        3.2.                               3.2.

                                                                              3.3.                         3.3.                                3.3.                        3..3.                              3.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                 Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                       Person or Position          Process Used to Determine          Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                         Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
               improvement for the following group:                                                                                                      Monitoring                        Strategy
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making                                4.1.                         4.1.                                4.1                   4.1.                             4.1.
                                                                              Lack of data to determine     Daily written responses that       .Principal, Literacy  Formative Assessment probes from DEA
learning gains in mathematics                                                 individual students’         include writing to explain will     Coach, CRTs, and Math the STEM promise pilot items
Mathematics Goal #4: Student levels of understanding                          mathematical level of        occur as an integral part of        Leadership Committee
                                                                              conceptual thinking          learning and formative                                    Weekly grades
mathematical concepts will be identified and used to                                                       assessment
develop lesson plans.                                                                                                                                                      Administrative Walkthroughs
In 2010, 62% (44 students) of the   2010 Current         2011 Expected                                     Students will develop a deeper
lowest 25% made learning gains in   Level of             Level of                                          understanding of math by                                        STEM observation checklist tool
Math. This is a 4% increase when    Performance:*        Performance:*                                     working collaboratively in
compared to 2009.                   62% (44 students)    The expected level                                groups learning to justify                                      RtI documentation
                                    scoring in the       of performance for                                answers, actively engaging in
                                    lowest quartile      the 2011 Math                                     authentic tasks, questioning,                                   Lesson Plans
                                    made learning        FCAT is 71% (50                                   and sharing alternative solutions
                                    gains in Math.       students) which is                                                                                                Computer Lab data
                                                         an increase of 9%                                 Teachers will practice
                                                         (6 students).                                     “Re-voicing”, a technique used
                                                                                                           which repeats and expands upon
                                                                                                           a student’s understanding

                                                                                                           In addition to traditional
                                                                                                           assessment, CRTs will gather
                                                                                                           student progress monitoring data
                                                                                                           through a variety of assessment
                                                                                                           techniques (open ended
                                                                                                           questions, calendar math,
                                                                                                           performance tasks, DEA probes,

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                         24
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                       journals and observations.) The
                                                                                                       formative assessments will be
                                                                                                       used with RtI and PLC model .
                                                                         5.2.                          4.2                               4.2.                        4.2.                               4.2.
                                                                         Time during school day for    An average of 80 minutes of
                                                                         individualizing instruction   mathematics instruction is
                                                                                                       scheduled daily for all students.
                                                                                                       Instruction will include whole
                                                                                                       group teaching, differentiated
                                                                                                       small group instruction and math
                                                                                                       stations.
                                                                                                       Accelerated Math and “ Facts in
                                                                                                       a Flash” will be provided as a
                                                                                                       station activity for students in
                                                                                                       Third and Fourth grades.
                                                                                                       The RtI and PLC model will be
                                                                                                       followed for all math students
                                                                                                       working below grade level.
                                                                                                       Tutoring will be available both
                                                                                                       during and after school


                                                                         4.3.                          4.3.                              4. 3.                       4.3.                               4.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to             Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                     Person or Position          Process Used to Determine           Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                   Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
            improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):                                                                                            Monitoring                        Strategy
5A. Student subgroups             Mathematics Goal #5A:                  5A.1.                         5A.1.                             5A.1.                       5A.1.                              5A.1.
                                                                         White:
not making Adequate               Ethnicity                              Black:
Yearly Progress (AYP) in          (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
                                                                         Hispanic:
                                  American Indian)
mathematics                                                              Asian:
                                                                         American Indian:
Mathematics Goal #5A:
                                  2010 Current       2011 Expected
N/A                               Level of           Level of
                                  Performance:*      Performance:*
                                  Enter numerical    Enter numerical
                                  data for current   data for expected
                                  level of           level of
                                  performance in     performance in
                                  this box.          this box.
                                  White:           White:
                                  Black:           Black:
                                  Hispanic:        Hispanic:
                                  Asian:           Asian:
                                  American Indian: American Indian:
                                                                         5A.2.                         5A.2.                             5A.2.                       5A.2.                              5A.2.
                                                                         5A.3.                         5A.3.                             5A.3.                       5A.3.                              5A.3.

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                    25
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                Person or Position         Process Used to Determine             Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                 Responsible for                Effectiveness of
             improvement for the following subgroup:                                                                                             Monitoring                       Strategy
5B. Student subgroups    Mathematics Goal #5B:                              5B.1.                         5B.1.                            5B.1.                     5B.1.                             5B.1.
not making Adequate      English Language
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Learners (ELL)
mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5B:
                                  2010 Current        2011 Expected
                                  Level of            Level of
    NA                            Performance:*       Performance:*
                                  Enter numerical     Enter numerical
                                  data for current    data for expected
                                  level of            level of
                                  performance in      performance in
                                  this box.           this box.
                                                                            5B.2.                         5B.2.                            5B.2.                     5B.2.                             5B.2.
                                                                            5B.3                          5B.3.                            5B.3.                     5B.3.                             5B.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                Person or Position         Process Used to Determine             Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                 Responsible for                Effectiveness of
             improvement for the following subgroup:                                                                                             Monitoring                       Strategy

5C. Student subgroups Mathematics Goal #5C: 5C.1.                                                         5C.1.                            5C.1.                     5C.1.                            5C.1.
not making Adequate                                       instructional practice
                         Students with Disabilities Dailynot consistently include
                                                    does
                                                                                                          Daily instruction will include
                                                                                                          fact fluency work
                                                                                                                                           Mrs. Janet Stein-
                                                                                                                                           Principal, Math
                                                                                                                                                                     Formative Assessment probes from DEA
                                                                                                                                                                     the STEM promise pilot items
Yearly Progress (AYP) in (SWD)                      the development of basic                                                               Leadership Committee,
mathematics                                         numeracy to automaticity                              “Fast Facts” software will be    Literacy Coach, and the   Weekly grades
                                                                                                          used to assist in math fluency   ESE staff
Mathematics Goal #5C:                                                                                                                                                Walkthroughs
Students will be fluent in                                                                                PLCs and the RtI Leadership
“math facts” appropriate for                                                                              Team will administer student                               STEM observation checklist tool
                                                                                                          probes in order to identify
their grade level.                                                                                        children who need additional                               RtI documentation
In 2010, 58% (40 students) did    2010 Current        2011 Expected                                       time to develop grade level
make AYP in Math.                 Level of            Level of                                            numeracy.                                                  Lesson Plans
                                  Performance:*       Performance:*
                                  58% (40 students)   The expected level                                                                                             Computer Lab data
                                  did make            of performance for
                                  Adequate Yearly     2011 is 80% (55
                                  Progress in Math.   students), which is
                                                      an increase of
                                                      22% (15 students).
                                                                            5C.2.                         5C.2.                            5C.2.                     5C.2.                             5C.2.

                                                                            5C.3.                         5C.3.                            5C.3.                     5C.3.                             5C.3.

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                   26
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                Anticipated Barrier                  Strategy                    Person or Position      Process Used to Determine           Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                        Responsible for             Effectiveness of
             improvement for the following subgroup:                                                                                                    Monitoring                    Strategy
5D. Student subgroups Mathematics Goal #5D:                                 5D.1.                           5D.1                            5D.1.                         5D.1.                          5D.1.
                                                                            Lack of relevance in math       Teachers will increase time for
not making Adequate      Economically                                       instruction to students daily   hands-on learning through the
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Disadvantaged                                      lives                           use of manipulative materials.
mathematics
                                                                                                            Teachers will work from
Mathematics Goal #5D:                                                                                       concrete to representational to
Math will connect to                                                                                        abstract
student lives and be
                                                                                                            Parent Publix Math Night will
relevant to students.                                                                                       be a featured Parent Education
                                                                                                            Team event during the Spring of
In 2010, 68% (123 students) did     2010 Current      2011 Expected                                         2011.
make AYP in Math.                   Level of          Level of
                                    Performance:*     Performance:*                                         Literature, with a focus on math
                                    68% (123           The expected level                                   skills, will be used to support the
                                    students) did make of performance for                                   teaching of skills and concepts
                                    Adequate Yearly 2011 is 80% (145
                                    Progress in Math. students), which is                                   Mathematical problem solving,
                                                       an increase of                                       critical thinking strategies ,
                                                       12% (22 students).                                   reading ,and writing will all be
                                                                                                            integrated into Science through
                                                                                                            the use of AIMS experiments,
                                                                                                            projects graphs charts and Math
                                                                                                            Response Journals.

                                                                                                            Teachers will use meaningful
                                                                                                            and relevant content in word
                                                                                                            problems.

                                                                                                            Students will develop their own
                                                                                                            word problems using content
                                                                                                            that is meaningful to them
                                                                            5D.2.                           5D.2.                           5D.2.                         5D.2.                          5D.2.

                                                                            5D.3.                           5D.3.                                 5D.3.                   5D.3.                          5D.3.


                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                                                                                          Target Dates and Schedules
                                                     PD Facilitator              PD Participants
     and/or PLC Focus                Grade                                                                       (e.g. , Early Release) and                                                  Person or Position Responsible for
                                                        and/or         (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                                  Level/Subject                                                                Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                            Monitoring
                                                      PLC Leader                   school-wide)
                                                                                                                          meetings)
                                  Mathematics        J. Stein & J.                                             Monthly on ER days, the first Grade-level PLCs create common formative           Principal, Mrs. Janet Stein,
                                                                         All K-5th CRTs who teach math
    Webb’s Depth of                  K-5th           Webb, both                                                   Thursday of each month.         assessments, administer these during      and Math Leadership Team members
Knowledge as It Applies to                              STEM                                                                                    designated times, and then bring results to

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                     27
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
    Mathematical                         Conference                                                                          bi-monthly PLC meetings.
  Teaching/Learning                       attendees

NGSSS in Math: What                    J. Stein & J.
  Do They Mean?                         Webb, both
                                          STEM                                                                                                                       Principal, Mrs. Janet Stein,
                        Mathematics                                                     Monthly on ER days, the first Follow-up to occur every other week in PLC
                                        Conference      All K-5th CRTs who teach math                                                                            and Math Leadership Team members
                           K-5th                                                         Thursday of each month.                       meetings
                                       attendees &
                                      Math Leadership
                                      Team members




Mathematics Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                         Funding Source                                     Available Amount
Implement Math textbook                    Textbook                                         Textbook                                                                                31,293.64
Manipulatives                              Manipulatives                                    Title X                                                                                  1,169.37
                                                                                                                                                                        Subtotal: 32,463.01
Technology
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                         Funding Source                                     Available Amount
New textbook software                                                                                                                          Included in textbook adoption


                                                                                                                                                                                    Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                         Funding Source                                     Available Amount
FTC conference                             Conference                                       Staff development                                                                         1,211.46


                                                                                                                                                                          Subtotal: 1,211.46
Other
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                         Funding Source                                     Available Amount
Small group                                AmeriCorps                                       Title I                                                                                   3,000.00
                                                                                                                                                                       Subtotal: 3,000.00
                                                                                                                                                                   Grand Total: 36,674.47

June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                 28
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
End of Mathematics Goals

Science Goals
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.

                                                      Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
   Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved proficiency (FCAT Level 3)?
   Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
   What are the anticipated barriers to students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) or above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5) on the 2011 FCAT?
   What benchmarks/strands, by grade level, showed non-proficiency?
   How will the Instructional Focus Calendar be created to address areas of improvement (benchmark(s)/strand(s))?
   How will focus lessons be developed and revised to increase and maintain proficiency for these benchmarks/strands?
   In addition to the baseline and mid-year assessment, how often will interim or mini-assessments be administered?
   How often will teachers and the leadership team (principal, assistant principal, instructional coaches) meet to analyze data, problem solve, and redirect the instructional focus
    based on the academic needs of students?
   How often will data chats be held at each of the following levels: teacher/student; teacher/administration?
   How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to strengthen Response to Intervention (RtI) Tier 1 instruction and differentiation?
   How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 2 supplemental intervention?
   How will the Problem-solving Model and ongoing progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 3 intensive intervention?




June 2010                                                                                                                                                                        29
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
                   SCIENCE GOALS                                                                             Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to              Anticipated Barrier                    Strategy                   Person or Position       Process Used to Determine          Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                       Responsible for              Effectiveness of
               improvement for the following group:                                                                                                    Monitoring                     Strategy
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in 1.1.                               1.1.                                                      1.1.                    1.1.                            1.1.
                                                        Lack of accountability for     Implement district quarterly                              Principal, CRTs and     Quarterly exam results          DEA
science                                                 teaching science in K-5th      assessments                                               Science Leadership      Lesson plans
Science Goal #1: Students will become proficient in all grade.                                                                                   Committee members.      Administrative Walkthroughs
                                                                                       5th grade will remain                                                             Formative Assessments
benchmarks for their grade level                        Need for increase in rigor and departmentalized for Science
Data analysis shows that 32% (29    2010 Current        2011 Expected        relevance in all grade levels
students) in Grade 5 scored Level   Level of            Level of                                             Fourth and Fifth grade will use
3 on the 2010 administration of     Performance:*       Performance:*                                        e-communications in review of
FCAT Science. This demonstrates     32% (29 students)   The expected level                                   Science content
a decrease of 6% when compared      in Grade 5scored    of performance for
to 2009 (38%).                      Level 3 on the      the 2011 school                                      Discovery Education .com and
                                    Science FCAT.       year is 40% (36                                      resources will be used in
                                                        students) which is                                   classrooms
                                                        an increase of 8%
                                                        (7 students).                                        The intermediate grades will use
                                                                                                             the DEA probes for assessment
                                                                                                             and remediation in Science
                                                                                                             A list of vocabulary words will
                                                                                                             be distributed to k-4 teachers to
                                                                                                             introduce in lessons.

                                                                                                             Fifth grade science teachers will
                                                                                                             participate in a lesson study


                                                                                                           The DEA video clips will be
                                                                                                           used in classrooms
                                                                             1.2.                          1.2.                                  1.2.                    1.2.                            1.2.
                                                                             Lack of space for science lab Hands on experiments and              Principal, Literacy     Lesson plans/                   DEA
                                                                                                           demonstrations will be part of        Coach, Science          Requested science experiment
                                                                                                           every science unit. Teachers will     Leadership Committee    supply orders
                                                                                                           include an experiment                 members and Reading
                                                                                                            (bi-monthly) in their lesson         Assistants.
                                                                                                           plans and an assistant under the
                                                                                                           supervision of the Reading
                                                                                                           Coach will bring the needed
                                                                                                           materials to the teachers’
                                                                                                           classrooms.
                                                                             1.3.                          1.3.                                  1.3.                    1.3.                            1.3.
                                                                             Students do not know          A 5th grade science fair will be      Principal, CRTs         Science night agenda            DEA

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                    30
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                           scientific process              held prior to the FCAT                                          Lesson plans
                                                                                                           assessment

                                                                                                            Fifth grade science teachers will
                                                                                                           participate in a lesson study



 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to             Anticipated Barrier                   Strategy                       Person or Position         Process Used to Determine           Evaluation Tool
     “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                         Responsible for                Effectiveness of
               improvement for the following group:                                                                                                      Monitoring                       Strategy
2. Students achieving above proficiency                                    2.1.                            2.1.                                 2.1                        2.1.                               2.1.
                                                                           Advanced students do not get    5th grade will have two advanced     5th grade Science          AS400 Grade book lesson plans      DEA
(FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in science                                           support needed due to time      science classes that will work at    teachers, Principal,       walkthroughs
Science Goal #2:Advanced students will have an                             constraints                     the 4/5 level in science             Literacy Coach
individualized curriculum that meets their instructional                                                   A primary and intermediate
needs                                                                                                      Robotics club will be started
Data analysis shows that 19% (17   2010 Current       2011 Expected                                        during the first semester
students) scored Level 4 or 5 on   Level of           Level of
the 2010 administration of FCAT    Performance:*      Performance:*
Science. This demonstrates a 10%                      The expected level
                                   19% (17
increase when compared to 2009                        of performance for
                                   students) in
                                   Grade 5 scored     the 2011 school
                                   Level 4 or 5 on    year is 27%
                                   the Science        (24 students)
                                   FCAT.              which is an
                                                      increase of 8% (7
                                                      students).
                                                                           2.2.                            2.2.                                 2.2.                       2.2.                               2.2.
                                                                           Lack of understanding and       Explicit and targeted teaching of    Principal, Literacy        Student scores on formative        DEA
                                                                           use of features of              text features as a comprehension     Coach, CRTs, Reading       assessment. Formative assessments,
                                                                           informational text across all   strategy on the CAFÉ Menu            Assistants and Science     Chapter Test, Walkthroughs,
                                                                           subject areas.                  during Daily Five.                   Leadership team.

                                                                           2.3                             2.3                                  2.3                        2.3                                2.3


               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                                                                                           Target Dates and Schedules
                                                     PD Facilitator               PD Participants
     and/or PLC Focus             Grade                                                                           (e.g. , Early Release) and                                                          Person or Position Responsible for
                                                        and/or          (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                               Level/Subject                                                                    Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                                    Monitoring
                                                      PLC Leader                   school-wide)
                                                                                                                           meetings)




 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                         31
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Integrating the Daily Five
      into Science:
 Three Ways to Read a
Book & Informational Text
                                                   5th Grade
                               th               Science CRTs &                                     Monthly: The first Thursday of Classroom walkthroughs, Student Reflection
                             K-5        Science                    K-5th CRTs who teach Science                                                                                        J. Stein, Principal
                                                    Science                                         each month during ER days           Logs & Assessment Notebooks
                                                                                                                                                                                   S. Goree, Literacy Coach
                                                Leadership Team




                                                  J. Stein & J.
                                                                                                                                   Grade-level PLCs create common formative
    Webb’s Depth of                               Webb, both                                                                                                                      Principal, Mrs. Janet Stein,
                                   th                                                              Monthly on ER days, the first      assessments, administer these during
Knowledge as It Applies to   K-5 Science             STEM               th                                                                                                        & Science Leadership Team
                                                                  All K-5 CRTs who teach science    Thursday of each month.         designated times, then bring results to bi-
        Science                                   Conference                                                                                                                               members
                                                                                                                                            monthly PLC meetings.
   Teaching/Learning                               attendees




 Science Budget
 Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials.
 Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
 Strategy                                            Description of Resources                           Funding Source                                        Available Amount
 Implement Science textbook                          Textbooks                                          Textbook                                                                                         485.36
                                                     materials                                          Internal                                                                                      171.11
                                                                                                                                                                                            Subtotal: 656.47
 Technology
 Strategy                                            Description of Resources                           Funding Source                                        Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                                                                     Subtotal:
 Professional Development
 Strategy                                            Description of Resources                           Funding Source                                        Available Amount



 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                 32
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                                                                                                                   Subtotal:
 Other
 Strategy                                              Description of Resources                       Funding Source                            Available Amount


                                                                                                                                                                        Grand Total: 656.47
 End of Science Goals

 Writing Goals
 Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
 question on the template.

                                                                  Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
     Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (Levels 3.0 and higher)?
     What are the anticipated barriers to students achieving AYP on the 2011 FCAT?
     Which student subgroups did not achieve AYP targets on the 2010 FCAT?
     What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the number of subgroups achieving AYP on the 2011 FCAT?
     What strategies will be used to ensure students achieve AYP on the 2011 Writing FCAT?
     What types of writing (narrative, expository, persuasive) by grade level, showed a decrease in writing scores?
     How will the Instructional Focus Calendar be created to address areas of improvement for writing skills (focus, organization, support and conventions)?
     How will focus lessons be developed and revised to increase and maintain writing scores?
     In addition to the baseline and mid-year assessment, how often will interim or mini-assessments be administered?
     How often will teachers and the leadership team (principal, assistant principal, instructional coaches) meet to analyze data, problem solve, and redirect the instructional focus
      based on the academic needs of students?
     How often will data chats be held at each of the following levels: teacher/student; teacher/administration?
     How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to strengthen Response to Intervention (RtI) Tier 1 instruction and differentiation?
     How will the Problem-solving Model and progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 2 supplemental intervention?
     How will the Problem-solving Model and ongoing progress monitoring be utilized to identify students in need of RtI Tier 3 intensive intervention?



 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
                   WRITING GOALS                                                              Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to    Anticipated Barrier          Strategy          Person or Position   Process Used to Determine       Evaluation Tool
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement                                                   Responsible for          Effectiveness of
                       for the following group:                                                                           Monitoring                 Strategy

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                33
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
1. Students achieving Adequate Yearly Progress                            1.1.                            1.1.                             1.1.                     1.1.                                  1.1.
                                                                          Inconsistency in the amount Work on Writing” will occur in        Mrs. Janet Stein,       Classroom walkthroughs, analysis District writing prompts
(FCAT Level 3.0-3.9) in writing                                           of focused writing instruction, The Daily Five. Additionally,    Principal, Mrs. Sue      of monthly EP Writes results, PLCs and Student Writing
Writing Goal #1: All CRTs will use the OCSD Quarterly                     using common scoped and Writing Workshop will be held            Gibson, Title One        will exchange of a minimum of         Folders
                                                                          sequenced rubrics for grades daily in K-2nd grades for 30-45     Coordinator and Ms.      20% of student writing for scoring,
Pacing Guides for writing instruction and maintain a                      K-3.                            minutes and a minimum of 45      Sharon Goree, Literacy   followed by collegial discussion on
Student Writing Folder that includes quarterly writing                                                    minutes in 3rd & 4th grades.     Coach                    best practice in writing instruction.
samples that reflect the Pacing Guides.                                                                                                                             CRTs will submit student writing
Data analysis shows that                                                                               Anchor papers and mentor texts                               scores to the Literacy Coach no
90% (87 students) scored 2010 Current Level     2011 Expected Level                                    will be used in all grades to                                longer than 2 weeks after an EP
3.0 or higher on the        of Performance:*    of Performance:*                                       model scoring and to teach craft                             Writes prompt.
administration of FCAT                                                                                 techniques.                                                  Student writing scores will be
                                                The expected level of                                                                                               recorded on a spreadsheet and
Writing. This demonstrates                      performance for the
a 3% decrease when          90% (87 students)                                                          Students will be taught their                                reviewed by PLCs to provide
                                                2011 school year is
compared to 2009 (93%). scored 3.0 or higher                                                           grade-level rubric, and together,                            support where needed.
                                                93% (90 students),
Additionally, in 2009 the on the 2010 FCAT      which is an increase of                                teachers and students will use
number of students scoring Writing.             3% (3 students).                                       this rubric to score papers.
a 4.0 or higher was 74%. In
2010, the number of                             74% of students will                                   PLCs will exchange student
students scoring a 4.0 or                       score a level 4.0 or                                   papers to score in order to
higher was only 50%,                            above which is an                                      establish more scoring
representing a decrease of                      increase of 24% (20                                    consistency.
24%.                                            students)
                                                                                                       Use quality trade books to read
                                                                                                       and discuss, with focus placed
                                                                                                       on author’s craft.

                                                                                                       The reading/writing connection
                                                                                                       will be encouraged through the
                                                                                                       use of literature response
                                                                                                       journals.
                                                                                                       Students will learn a variety of
                                                                                                       strategies to generate ideas for
                                                                                                       writing.
                                                                                                       There will be an equal number of
                                                                                                       expository and narrative prompts
                                                                                                       required of all students




                                                                          1.2                          1.2                                 1.2.                     1.2.                             1.2..
 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                               34
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to             Anticipated Barrier           Strategy      Person or Position
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement                                                         Responsible for         Process Used to Determine
                                                                                                                                                                                     Evaluation Tool
                       for the following group:                                                                                 Monitoring             Effectiveness of Strategy

2A. Student              Writing Goal #2A:
subgroups not            Ethnicity
making Adequate          (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
                         American Indian)
Yearly Progress
(AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2A:
                         2010 Current Level
                         of Performance:*       2011 Expected Level
  NA                                            of Performance:*
                         Enter numerical data   Enter numerical data
                         for current level of   for expected level of
                         performance in this    performance in this
                         box.                   box.
                         White:                 White:
                         Black:                 Black:
                         Hispanic:              Hispanic:
                         Asian:                 Asian:
                         American               American
                         Indian:                Indian:
                                                                         2A.2                          2A.2               2A.2                    2A.2                             2A.2
                                                                         2A.3.                         2A.3.              2A.3.                   2A.3.                            2A.3.
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to          Anticipated Barrier              Strategy      Person or Position       Process Used to Determine            Evaluation Tool
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement                                                         Responsible for              Effectiveness of
                    for the following subgroup:                                                                                 Monitoring                     Strategy
2B. Student subgroups    Writing Goal #2B:                               2B.1.                         2B.1.              2B.1.                   2B.1.                            2B.1.
not making Adequate      English Language
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Learners (ELL)
writing
Writing Goal #2B:
                                  2010 Current       2011 Expected
                                  Level of           Level of
  NA                              Performance:*      Performance:*
                                  Enter numerical    Enter numerical
                                  data for current   data for expected
                                  level of           level of
                                  performance in     performance in
                                  this box.          this box.
                                                                         2B.2.                         2B.2.              2B.2.                   2B.2.                            2B.2.

                                                                         2B.3.                         2B.3.              2B.3.                   2B.3.                            2B.3.



 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                               35
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                Anticipated Barrier                Strategy                    Person or Position       Process Used to Determine           Evaluation Tool
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement                                                                               Responsible for              Effectiveness of
                    for the following subgroup:                                                                                                       Monitoring                     Strategy
2C. Student subgroups Writing Goal #2C:             2C.1.                                                 2C.1.                                 2C.1.                   2C.1.                           2C.1.
not making Adequate      Students with Disabilities
Yearly Progress (AYP) in (SWD)
writing
Writing Goal #2C:
                                  2010 Current        2011 Expected
                                  Level of            Level of
  NA                              Performance:*       Performance:*
                                  Enter numerical     Enter numerical
                                  data for current    data for expected
                                  level of            level of
                                  performance in      performance in
                                  this box.           this box.


                                                                            2C.2.                         2C.2.                                 2C.2.                   2C.2.                           2C.2.

                                                                            2C.3.                         2C.3.                                 2C.3.                   2C.3.                           2C.3.

 Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to                Anticipated Barrier                Strategy                    Person or Position       Process Used to Determine           Evaluation Tool
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement                                                                               Responsible for              Effectiveness of
                    for the following subgroup:                                                                                                       Monitoring                     Strategy
2D. Student subgroups Writing Goal #2D:                                     2D1.                           2D1.                                 2D1. CRT,               2D1.                           2D1.
                                                                             Lack of regularly scheduled Explicit teaching that includes                                Monthly review of Student
not making Adequate      Economically                                       student writing conferences in modeling on “the role of the                                 Conference Notebook during PLC
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Disadvantaged                                      order to differentiate         writer” for Writer’s                                         scoring of
writing                                                                     instruction during Daily Five/ Conferences”.
                                                                            Writer’s Workshop.
Writing Goal #2D:                                                                                          Additional one-to-one
Implement Student Writing                                                                                  conferences with teachers or a
Conferences as a part of                                                                                   “Writing Buddy” who is more
                                                                                                           proficient in writing.
“Work on Writing” during
the Daily Five.                                                                                           Students will be taught a variety
In 2010, 86% (83 students) made   2010 Current        2011 Expected                                       of strategies to generate ideas for
AYP in Writing.                   Level of            Level of                                            writing, emphasizing different
                                  Performance:*       Performance:*                                       graphic organizers.
                                  86% (83 students)   The expected level
                                  did make            of performance for                                  Students will be taught how to
                                  Adequate Yearly     2011 is 90% (87                                     plan and balance time effectively
                                  Progress in         students), which is                                 in preparation for the timed FL
                                  Writing.            an increase of 4%                                   Writes assessment.
                                                      (4 students).
                                                                                                          Students in 4th grade will write to
                                                                                                          a prompt at least twice a month

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                    36
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                            (including EP Writes), beginning
                                                                                            the first month of school. Fourth
                                                                                            grade students will write to
                                                                                            prompts weekly beginning in
                                                                                            January.

                                                                                            Students will be taught
                                                                                            additional writing strategies that
                                                                                            include:
                                                                                                      Backwards design
                                                                                                      Using an exemplar to
                                                                                                       develop a writing
                                                                                                       plan
                                                                                                      Using a “Score 3”
                                                                                                       exemplar, write to
                                                                                                       make it a “Score 5”
                                                                                                      Use an exemplar plan
                                                                                                       and write to the plan
                                                              2D.2.                         2D.2.                              2D.2.                   2D.2.                           2D.2.

                                                              2D.3.                         2D.3.                               2D.3.                  2D.3.                           2D.3.



              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                                                                                   Target Dates and Schedules
                                            PD Facilitator               PD Participants
    and/or PLC Focus          Grade                                                                      (e.g. , Early Release) and                                            Person or Position Responsible for
                                               and/or          (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                           Level/Subject                                                               Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                      Monitoring
                                             PLC Leader                    school-wide)
                                                                                                                  meetings)
   Using established
rubrics to build writing                                                                                                        Classroom walkthroughs,                                  Principal
                                            Janet Stein        New CRTs and grade-level
     proficiency in            K-5                                                                   Monthly, following EP assessment of writing samples, data                    Title One Coordinator
                                           Sharon Goree            writing teachers
  preparation for FL                                                                                   Writes prompt.                     chats                                       Literacy Coach
     Writes rubric




Writing Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                        Description of Resources                                  Funding Source                                        Available Amount
June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                  37
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                           Handwriting                                    Textbook                                                                 1,359.67


                                                                                                                                                         Subtotal: 1,359.67
Technology
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source                           Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                                  Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source                           Available Amount
Du Fours Learning Communities              conference                                     Staff development                        2000.00


                                                                                                                                                                  Subtotal:
Other
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source                           Available Amount


                                                                                                                                                      Grand Total: 3,359.67
End of Writing Goals

Attendance Goal(s)
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.

                                                    Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
   What was the attendance rate for 2009-2010?
   How many students had excessive absences (10 or more) during the 2009-2010 school year?
   What are the anticipated barriers to decreasing the number of students with excessive absences?
   What strategies and interventions will be utilized to decrease the number of students with excessive absences for 2010-2011?
   How many students are excessively tardy (10 or more) during the 2009-2010 school years?
   What are the anticipated barriers to decreasing the number of students who are excessively tardy?
   What strategies and interventions will be utilized to decrease the number students who are excessively tardy for 2010-2011?



June 2010                                                                                                                                                              38
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1




 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
              ATTENDANCE GOAL(S)                                                                             Problem-solving Process to Increase Attendance
 Based on the analysis of attendance data, and reference to “Guiding            Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                  Person or Position        Process Used to Determine        Evaluation Tool
   Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:                                                                             Responsible for               Effectiveness of
                                                                                                                                               Monitoring                      Strategy
1. Attendance                                                              1.1.                       1.1.                               1.1.                     1.1.                            1.1.
                                                                           Parental involvement       Quarterly attendance awards for     Janet Stein, Principal; Weekly attendance reports        Comparison of 2010 and
Attendance Goal #1:
                                                                                                      perfect attendance modeled after   Linda Gillette, Guidance                                 2011 attendance rates to
Even though Elliott Point 2010 Current            2011 Expected                                       the SHARP program, newsletter      Counselor; Joyce Valdez,                                 determine strategy success
has a transient population, Attendance Rate:*     Attendance Rate:*                                   reminders to parents about         Attendance Secretary;
the school has maintained                                                                             attendance policy, telephone       classroom teachers of
a stable attendance rate. The current 2010        The expected 2011
                                                                                                      calls home to absent students,     designated students
The fluxuation is caused attendance rate was      attendance rate is 97%
                                                                                                      conferences with parents of
                            95% (553 students).   (606 students).
by a weakened job market                                                                              students with attendance issues,
and the lack of affordable 2010 Current           2011 Expected                                       district-generated letters to
housing in the community. Number of Students      Number of Students                                  parents of students with
                            with Excessive        with Excessive
                            Absences                                                                  attendance issues
                                                  Absences
                             (10 or more)         (10 or more)

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                            39
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                       The current number of
                                             The expected number
                       students with
                                             of students with
                       excessive absences
                                             excessive absences is
                       was 32% (186
                                             25% (175 students).
                       students).
                       2010 Current          2011 Expected
                       Number of             Number of
                       Students with         Students with
                       Excessive Tardies     Excessive Tardies
                       (10 or more)           (10 or more)
                       The current number of The expected number
                       students with         of students with
                       excessive tardies was excessive tardies is
                       20% (118 students). 16% (10 students).
                                                                     1.2.                       1.2.                             1.2.                      1.2.                            1.2.

                                                                     1.3.                       1.3.                             1.3.                      1.3.                            1.3.




             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                                                                                        Target Dates and Schedules
                                                PD Facilitator               PD Participants
   and/or PLC Focus            Grade                                                                         (e.g. , Early Release) and                                            Person or Position Responsible for
                                                   and/or          (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                            Level/Subject                                                                  Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                      Monitoring
                                                 PLC Leader                   school-wide)
                                                                                                                      meetings)




Attendance Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)

June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                      40
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source            Available Amount
                                           Tardy slips                                    Administrative supplies                                     296.22
                                           Call out system                                Parent Involvement                                        1,079.75
                                                                                                                                          Subtotal: 1,375.97
Technology
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source            Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                   Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source            Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                   Subtotal:
Other
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                       Funding Source            Available Amount


                                                                                                                                       Grand Total: 1,375.97
End of Attendance Goals

Suspension Goal(s)
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.


                                                    Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
   What was the total number of in-school suspensions for 2009-2010?
   What was the total number of out-of school suspensions for 2009-2010?
   What was the total number of students suspended in school in 2009-2010?
   What was the total number of students suspended out of school in 2009-2010?
   What are the anticipated barriers to decreasing the number of suspensions?
   What are the anticipated barriers to decreasing the number of students suspended?
   What strategies and interventions will be utilized to decrease the number of suspensions for 2010-2011?

June 2010                                                                                                                                               41
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
      What strategies and interventions will be utilized to decrease the number of students suspended for 2010-2011?




 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35).
               SUSPENSION GOAL(S)                                                                           Problem-solving Process to Decrease Suspension
 Based on the analysis of suspension data, and reference to “Guiding         Anticipated Barrier                 Strategy                  Person or Position       Process Used to Determine        Evaluation Tool
   Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:                                                                            Responsible for              Effectiveness of
                                                                                                                                              Monitoring                     Strategy
1. Suspension                                                           1.1.                         1.1.                               1.1.                     1.1.                           1.1.
                                                                        Teachers do not always       Implementation of PBS plan -       Janet Stein, principal   SWISS data                      Suspension Rates
Suspension Goal #1:
                                                                        follow PBS plan for major    School wide                        Linda Gillette, guidance
To decrease the number of 2010 Total Number 2011 Expected               and minor behaviors.         Implementation of classroom        Behavior committee
students being referred to of                     Number of                                          PBS plans
in-school and out-of-      In –School             In- School            Students learn different
school suspension for      Suspensions            Suspensions           behaviors at home that are not Administrative Leadership Team
behavioral concerns by     There were 17 In-      The expected number   working for the students in reviews SWIS data monthly and
20% for the 2010 – 2011 school suspensions for of In-school             the school setting             makes recommendations
school year.               the 2009 – 2010 school suspensions for the                                  Individualized behavior plans
                          year.                 2010 – 2011 school

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                          42
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                             year is 14.                                        IEPs with FBA and behavior
                      2010 Total Number      2011 Expected                                      goals
                      of Students            Number of Students                                 RTi for behavior problems
                      Suspended              Suspended                                          Collaboration and partnership
                      In-School              In -School                                         with parents
                      There were 15 students The expected number
                      assigned to In-school of students being
                      suspension for the     assigned to In-school
                      2009 – 2010 school     suspension for the
                      year.                  2010 – 2011 school
                                             year is 12.
                      2010 Number of Out- 2011 Expected
                      of-School           Number of
                      Suspensions         Out-of-School
                                          Suspensions
                      There were 20 out-of- The expected number
                      school suspensions for of external suspensions
                      the 2009 – 2010 school for the 2010 – 2011
                      year.                  school year is 16.
                      2010 Total Number      2011 Expected
                      of Students            Number of Students
                      Suspended              Suspended
                      Out- of- School        Out- of-School
                      There were 14 students The expected number
                      given out-of-school    of students being given
                      suspension during the out-of-school
                      2009 – 2010 school     suspension for the
                      year.                  2010 – 2011 school
                                             year is 11.
                                                                       1.2.                     1.2.                             1.2.                      1.2.                            1.2.
                                                                       1.3.                     1.3.                             1.3.                      1.3.                            1.3.




            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                                                                                         Target Dates and Schedules
                                                PD Facilitator               PD Participants
  and/or PLC Focus             Grade                                                                         (e.g. , Early Release) and                                            Person or Position Responsible for
                                                   and/or          (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                            Level/Subject                                                                  Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                      Monitoring
                                                 PLC Leader                    school-wide)
                                                                                                                      meetings)




June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                      43
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1

Suspension Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                    Description of Resources                        Funding Source               Available Amount
                                            SWIS                                            Discretionary                                               250.00


                                                                                                                                               Subtotal: 250.00
Technology
Strategy                                    Description of Resources                        Funding Source               Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                      Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy                                    Description of Resources                        Funding Source               Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                      Subtotal:
Other
Strategy                                    Description of Resources                        Funding Source               Available Amount


                                                                                                                                            Grand Total: 250.00
End of Suspension Goals

Dropout Prevention Goal(s)
Note: Required for High School- F.S., Sec. 1003.53
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.

                                                     Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
   What is the current dropout rate? What strategies and interventions will be utilized to decrease the dropout rate?

June 2010                                                                                                                                                  44
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
      What is the current graduation rate? What strategies and interventions will be utilized to increase the graduation rate?
      What is the total number of students retained at each grade level? What strategies and interventions will be utilized to decrease the retention rate?
      What data warning systems are currently in place to identify students at risk of being retained and/or dropping out of school?
      What school-wide activities, strategies, and/or interventions are in place to support students who are at risk of being retained and/or dropping out?
      How will barriers be addressed to prevent students from experiencing course failure, lack of credit attainment, and behavioral issues impacting student achievement?

 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
     DROPOUT PREVENTION GOAL(S)                                                                                Problem-solving Process to Dropout Prevention
  Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to              Anticipated Barrier              Strategy                   Person or Position          Process Used to Determine           Evaluation Tool
      “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
                            improvement:                                                                                                         Monitoring                        Strategy
1. Dropout Prevention                                                      1.1.                         1.1.                           1.1.                        1.1.                                1.1.

Dropout Prevention Goal #1:
*Please refer to the percentage of students who dropped
out during the 2009-2010 school year.

                               2010 Current         2011 Expected
                               Dropout Rate:*       Dropout Rate:*
Enter narrative for the goal
in this box.
                               Enter numerical      Enter numerical data
                               data for dropout     for expected dropout
                               rate in this box.    rate in this box.
                               2010 Current         2011 Expected
                               Graduation Rate:*    Graduation Rate:*
                               Enter numerical      Enter numerical data
                               data for             for expected
                               graduation rate in   graduation rate in
                               this box.            this box.
                                                                           1.2.                         1.2.                           1.2.                        1.2.                                1.2.
                                                                           1.3.                         1.3.                           1.3.                        1.3.                                1.3.


                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                                                                                            Target Dates and Schedules
                                                      PD Facilitator               PD Participants
     and/or PLC Focus                Grade                                                                         (e.g. , Early Release) and                                                  Person or Position Responsible for
                                                         and/or          (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                                  Level/Subject                                                                  Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                            Monitoring
                                                       PLC Leader                   school-wide)
                                                                                                                            meetings)




 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                  45
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


Dropout Prevention Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source       Available Amount



                                                                                                                                       Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source       Available Amount



                                                                                                                                       Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source       Available Amount



                                                                                                                                       Subtotal:
Other
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source       Available Amount


                                                                                                                                 Grand Total:
End of Dropout Prevention Goal(s)

Parent Involvement Goal(s)
Please refer to questions below to guide your responses when completing the goal chart. Specific responses are not required for each
question on the template.

                                                    Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
                                                        (Title I Parent Involvement Plan may be uploaded)

June 2010                                                                                                                                  46
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
      Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?
      How will the school correlate the parental involvement activities with student achievement?

 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
     PARENT INVOLVEMENT GOAL(S)                                                                                 Problem-solving Process to Parent Involvement
  Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to              Anticipated Barrier               Strategy                   Person or Position          Process Used to Determine         Evaluation Tool
      “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of                                                                                 Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
                            improvement:                                                                                                          Monitoring                        Strategy
1. Parent Involvement                                                        1.1. Language              1.1. Use interpreters from the     1.1 Principal, SAC chair, 1.1. Tracking of attendance and    1.1. Attendance records,
                                                                                                        school to assist in SAC and        classroom teachers,       bilingual books checked out and    Athena system, Connect-
Parent Involvement Goal #1:                                                                             Parent Education Team              media center personnel comparing it to previous years.       ED phone system and
All parents will be informed and involved in both school                                                meetings, parent conferences,      and ELL translator.                                          increased participation at
                                                                                                        office forms and other                                                                          school events of bilingual
events and activities.                                                                                  paperwork. Bilingual texts and                                                                  parents.
                                                                                                        Library books are provided to
There has been a steady increase in 2010 Current        2011 Expected                                   these families. . All school
the level of parent involvement.     level of Parent    level of Parent                                 announcements and newsletters
This upward trend is a reflection of Involvement:*      Involvement:*                                   are sent home in the native
the increased effort placed upon     32% (183) of all   40% (246) of all                                language, if needed. Phone calls
engaging parents and the             parents actively   parents will                                    are made to remind parents of
community in the educational         participated in    actively                                        meetings and school events in
process at the school site.          parent             participate in                                  both English and Spanish.
                                     involvement        parent
                                     activities which involvement
                                     included Title I   activities
                                     parent training,   including Title I
                                     SAC meetings,      parent training,
                                     Parent Information Parent Information
                                     Nights and other Nights, SAC
                                     school events      meetings and
                                     during the 2009- other school
                                     2010 school year. events during the
                                     Volunteers         2010-2011 school
                                     completed 4,022 year. Volunteer
                                     hours during the hours will increase
                                     school year        to 4,200 as they
                                     assisting students continue to assist
                                     with reading and students with
                                     math, supporting reading and math,
                                     the media center, support the media
                                     teaching art       center, teach art
                                     lessons, assisting lessons, assist
                                     classroom          classroom
                                     teachers,          teachers,
                                     chaperoning field chaperone field
                                     trips and          trips and perform
                                     numerous other numerous other
                                     tasks.             tasks.
                                                                             1.2. Parents do not feel   1.2. We offer opportunities for    1.2. Principal, cafeteria   1.2. Sign-in sheets, cafeteria   1.2. Attendance and

 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                    47
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                       comfortable at the school site. parents to visit the building in a manager, Parent                  records, newsletters, phone calls    cafeteria records, the
                                                                        friendly setting such as: Pastries Education Team chair            and completed activity packets       Connect-ED phone system
                                                                        for Parents, Open House, Honors and teachers.                                                           and students using the
                                                                        Assemblies, and lunch at                                                                                activities made by parents.
                                                                        Thanksgiving, Christmas,
                                                                        Mothers Day and Black History
                                                                        Month,. We also encourage our
                                                                        parents to be a part of the Parent
                                                                        Education Team and other parent
                                                                        involvement committees. The
                                                                        minority council is offered to all
                                                                        ethnicities to promote good
                                                                        citizenship and character
                                                                        building. Teachers will provide
                                                                        “make and take” activity packets
                                                                        to parents at various school
                                                                        events so that parents may
                                                                        complete them at home.
                                       1.3. Parents lack of training to 1.3. Title I parent training is       1.3. Title I teacher, math   1.3. Sign-in sheets for tracking     1.3. Individual student
                                       help with school work.           offered in reading in the fall. A and science teachers,            attendance, agendas, and student     forms for each event and
                                                                        primary and intermediate reading principal and Parent              record forms for each event.         attendance records.
                                                                        night is provided so parents can Education Team parents.
                                                                        learn valuable tools to support
                                                                        literacy at home. In addition, a
                                                                        READARAMA Pajama night is
                                                                        planned after the winter break. A
                                                                        math FCAT Night is offered
                                                                        through Publix for grades 3-5. A
                                                                        science night offering multi-
                                                                        grade level experiments is
                                                                        planned for the spring.
                                       1.4 Lack of parental             1.4 Parents are encouraged to         Guidance counselor,          Tracking of lunches by parents       Athena system, cafeteria
                                       involvement due to a high        check out books and materials media center personnel,              from year to year and the number     records, volunteers records
                                       poverty rate.                    from the media center. An S4 cafeteria manager and                 of books checked out, volunteer      and increased interest in
                                                                        Program is offered where parents Title I teacher, and              sign-in sheets kept in the office,   advertised programs and
                                                                        can come and eat breakfast or         classroom teachers.          and completed activity packets       resources.
                                                                        lunch with their child for free.
                                                                        We offer free school supplies
                                                                        and clothing on an-as-needed
                                                                        basis. Parents are encouraged to
                                                                        volunteer in their child’s class or
                                                                        in other areas so they can be
                                                                        aware of their child’s academic
                                                                        needs. Parents are also invited to
                                                                        be a part of the Parent Education
                                                                        Team so they can contribute to
                                                                        the school’s leadership. Grade
                                                                        level PLCs will coordinate a
                                                                        system for volunteers so that a
                                                                        grade level mom or homeroom
                                                                        parent will facilitate all activities

June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                           48
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
                                                                                            for the grade level. Parents are
                                                                                            made aware of all programs and
                                                                                            resources available to them
                                                                                            through pamphlets, other media
                                                                                            and meetings throughout the
                                                                                            year.




                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                                                                                   Target Dates and Schedules
                                         PD Facilitator                 PD Participants
   and/or PLC Focus         Grade                                                                       (e.g. , Early Release) and                                            Person or Position Responsible for
                                            and/or            (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                         Level/Subject                                                                Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                      Monitoring
                                          PLC Leader                     school-wide)
                                                                                                                 meetings)




Parent Involvement Budget

* Please ensure that items included in the Parental Involvement Policy/Plan (PIP) are outlined in the following budget section.
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                     Description of Resources                                    Funding Source                                        Available Amount
Parent visits                                Motivational Productions                                    Parent Involvement                                                                            494.00
Parent visits                                Pastries for Parents, Open House, Honors                    Internal funds                                                                               1651.73
                                             Assemblies, etc.
Parent training                              Reading and Science night                                   Internal funds                                                                                351.63
Poverty rate                                 School supplies                                             Donations                                                                                     200.00
Parent visits                                Emerald Coast Science Center                                Parent Involvement                                                                            425.00
                                                                                                                                                                                        Subtotal: 3,122.36
Technology
Strategy                                     Description of Resources                                    Funding Source                                        Available Amount



June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                 49
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
 2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Subtotal:
 Professional Development
 Strategy                                                Description of Resources                             Funding Source                                          Available Amount
 Office forms                                            Cum folders                                          Parent Involvement                                                                                  719.00



                                                                                                                                                                                                       Subtotal: 719.00
 Other
 Strategy                                                Description of Resources                             Funding Source                                          Available Amount


                                                                                                                                                                                              Grand Total: 3,841.36
 End of Parent Involvement Goal(s)

 Additional Goal(s)

 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
               ADDITIONAL GOAL(S)                                                                     Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
       Based on the analysis of school data, identify and define                Anticipated Barrier          Strategy                 Person or Position          Process Used to Determine            Evaluation Tool
                    areas in need of improvement:                                                                                      Responsible for                 Effectiveness of
                                                                                                                                         Monitoring                        Strategy
1. Additional Goal                                                       1.1.                         1.1.                     1.1.                        1.1.                                 1.1.
Additional Goal #1:
                                   2010 Current      2011 Expected
                                   Level :*          Level :*
Enter narrative for the goal in
this box.                          Enter numerical Enter numerical
                                   data for current data for expected
                                   goal in this box. goal in this box.




                                                                         1.2.                         1.2.                     1.2.                        1.2.                                 1.2.

                                                                         1.3.                         1.3.                     1.3.                        1.3.                                 1.3.



 June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                           50
 Rule 6A-1.099811
 Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


             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                                                                                 Target Dates and Schedules
                                         PD Facilitator               PD Participants
   and/or PLC Focus        Grade                                                                      (e.g. , Early Release) and                                            Person or Position Responsible for
                                            and/or          (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or                                       Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
                        Level/Subject                                                               Schedules (e.g., frequency of                                                      Monitoring
                                          PLC Leader                    school-wide)
                                                                                                               meetings)




Additional Goal(s) Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                     Description of Resources                                  Funding Source                                        Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                                                                  Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy                                     Description of Resources                                  Funding Source                                        Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                                                                  Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy                                     Description of Resources                                  Funding Source                                        Available Amount



                                                                                                                                                                                                  Subtotal:

June 2010                                                                                                                                                                                               51
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Other
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source    Available Amount



                                                                                                                                   Grand Total:
End of Additional Goal(s)




FINAL BUDGET (Insert rows as needed)
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source    Available Amount
Reading                                                                                                                                10,890.76
Math                                                                                                                                   32,463.01
Science                                                                                                                                   656.47
Writing                                                                                                                                 1,359.67
Suspension                                                                                                                              1,375.97
Drop Out                                                                                                                                  250.00
Parent Involvement                                                                                                                      3,122.36
                                                                                                                              Subtotal: 50,118.24
Technology
Strategy                                   Description of Resources                      Funding Source    Available Amount
Reading                                                                                                                                 2,100.00


                                                                                                                               Subtotal: 2,100.00

June 2010                                                                                                                                   52
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Professional Development
Strategy                                                Description of Resources   Funding Source   Available Amount
Reading                                                                                                                          4,197.94
Math                                                                                                                             1,211.46
Parent Involvement                                                                                                                 719.00
                                                                                                                        Subtotal:6,128.40
Other
Strategy                                                Description of Resources   Funding Source   Available Amount
Reading                                                                                                                          3,000.00
Math                                                                                                                             3,000.00
                                                                                                                       Subtotal: 6,000.00
                                                                                                                   Grand Total: 64,346.64




FCAT SSS Reading Mean Score

Gr                   Year
       02     03    04 05       06    07     08    09     10
3      297    305   313 310     311   311    320   318    314
4      309    316   314 332     330   304    318   333    328
5      300    303   315 322     317   320    314   311    321


Reading Mean Scale Score by Year

 02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10
 302 308 314 321 319 311 317 321 321

Grades 3-5 Scored Level 3-5 Reading SSS

  Gr   Year
       02     03    04    05    06    07    08    09    10
  3 65%       71%   69%   77%   76%   70%   74%   77%   67%
  4 58%       66%   65%   81%   78%   61%   74%   77%   79%
  5 62%       63%   75%   78%   75%   75%   81%   71%   74%
 Total 62%    67%   70%   78%   76%   69%   76%   75%   73%




June 2010                                                                                                                            53
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1


Grade 3 FCAT SSS Reading

    Level                 Year
             02    03       04    05     06    07     08     09    10
Level 1      24%   19%      17%   13%    18%   11%    10%    12%   16%
Level 1& 2   36%   29%      31%   23%    24%   30%    26%    22%   33%

  Grade 4 FCAT SSS Reading

   Level     Year
             02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
   Level 1 24% 16% 21% 8% 8% 19% 15% 7% 8%
   Level 1&2 41% 34% 36% 20% 22% 39% 26% 23% 22%


    Grade 5 FCAT SSS Reading

     Level     Year
               02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
     Level 1 17% 17% 9% 9% 12% 9% 10% 10% 8%
     Level 1&2 37% 38% 25% 22% 25% 25% 19% 29% 26%

  Third Grade Sub Groups Scoring level 1 or 2 SSS Reading

  SubGroup    Year
              02            03     04     05     06     07     08    09    10
  F & R Lunch 38%           46%    35%    31%    30%    29%    25%   28%   32%
  AFA         77%           48%    42%    33%    42%    50%    50%   45%   32%
  ESE/SLD     76%           63%    57%    45%    65%    38%    34%   41%   38%



Fourth Grade Sub Groups Scoring Level 1 or 2 SSS Reading

Sub Group          Year
                   02      03     04     05     06     07    08    09    10
F & R Lunch        54%     40%    44%    20%    35%    45%   25%   29%   26%
AFA                60%     60%    59%    32%    44%    56%   35%   41%   34%
ESE/SLD            85%     50%    63%    30%    58%    79%   39%   35%   46%

June 2010                                                                        54
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Fifth Grade Sub Groups Scoring Level 1 or 2 SS Reading


Sub Group Year
          02     03   04   05    06   07   08    09      10
F&R
Lunch     52%    55% 34% 32% 28% 34% 27% 38% 30%
AFA       83%    71% 71% 38% 32% 31% 1% 37% 33%
ESE/SLD 78%      80% 37% 56% 54% 15% 43% 79% 50%


No child Left Behind Grades 3-5 Reading Proficiency
              02 03 04 05 06 07 08                            09     10
F & R Lunch 52% 51% 64% 72% 69% 56% 72%                        72%    70%
AFA            28% 35% 57% 64% 63% 48% 67%                     60%    68%
ESE/SLD        20% 37% 57% 59% 43% 46% 56%                     57%    58%




June 2010                                                                   55
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
   FCAT SSS Math Mean Score

   Grade Year
         02 03        04    05    06    07    08    09    10
   3     304 304      311   332   331   343   346   345   340
   4     300 304      305   323   347   311   333   339   327
   5     333 335      329   338   344   342   335   336   342

   Math Mean Scale Score by Year

   02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
   312 314 315 331 340 332 338 340 336

   Grades 3-5 Scored Level 3-5 Math SSS

   Grade Year
         02     03    04    05    06     07    08    09     10
   3     60%    62%   62%   85%   74%    87%   91%   81%    81%
   4     55%    52%   54%   74%   85%    71%   81%   83%    70%
   5     66%    61%   50%   65%   66%    71%   70%   64%    66%
   Total 60%    58%   56%   75%   75%    76%   81%   76%    72%

   Grade 3 FCAT Math SSS

   Level     Year
             02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
   Level 1 14% 18% 21% 7% 7% 3% 2% 6% 2%
   Level 1&2 40% 38% 37% 14% 26% 13% 9% 19% 18%

   Grade 4 FCAT Math SSS

   Level     Year
             02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
   Level 1 21% 14% 15% 9% 3% 12% 4% 2% 11%
   Level 1&2 45% 48% 46% 26% 15% 29% 19% 17% 31%

   Grade 5 FCAT Math SSS

   Level     Year
June 2010 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10                              56
   Level 1 16%
Rule 6A-1.099811 21% 13% 6% 8% 10% 10% 8% 12%
   Level 1&2 28, 39%
Revised May 34% 2010 50% 35% 34% 29% 30% 36% 33%
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Third Grade Sub Groups Scoring level 1 or 2 SSS Math

F&R     02       03         04     05     06        07     08         09    10
Lunch 51%        53%        42%    17%    27%       16%    12%        26%   18%
AFA     92%      66%        58%    19%    50%       19%    28%        45%   25%
ESE/SLD 76%      61%        61%    27%    41%       29%    12%        34%   24%



Fourth Grade Sub Groups Scoring Level 1 or 2 SSS Math

Sub Groups     Year
               02      03    04     05    06    07        08     09     10
F & R Lunch    52%     63%   52%    23%   20%   44%       24%    20%    38%
AFA            67%     80%   64%    40%   33%   41%       26%    28%    38%
ESE/SLD        81%     70%   84%    56%   22%   75%       58%    36%    58%


Fifth Grade Sub Groups Scoring Level 1 or 2 SSS Math

Sub Groups    Year
              02      03     04    05     06    07    08        09    10
F & R Lunch   44%     55%    62%   44%    43%   45%   38%       53%   41%
AFA           67%     59%    71%   46%    52%   31%   53%       54%   52%
ESE/SLD       83%     69%    70%   56%    69%   23%   53%       85%   58%

No Child Left Behind Grades 3-5 Math Proficiency

Sub Groups Year
            02       03     04    05    06    07    08     09    10
F & R Lunch 51%      44%    51%   73%   72%   74%   78%    72%   68%
AFA         25%      29%    39%   57%   60%   70%   73%    60%   66%
ESE/SLD     20%      41%    38%   58%   59%   60%   66%    60%   58%




June 2010                                                                         57
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1

Florida Writes Average Score

Year
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
3.1 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.97
% of Students Scoring 3.0 or Above

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
76% 92% 81% 92% 93% 94% 92% 95% 89%
Florida Writes % 3. 5 or above

Year
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
68% 70% 50% 68% 78% 80% 78% 91% 51% (4&5)
Average Score

 N05 N06 N07 N08 N09 E05 E06 E07 E08 E09 N10
 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.3 3.7 3.8 4.1 3.97

Science Mean Scale Score
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
310 311 310 322 324 319 310 324

Percent of Students in each Third for 2005
       1                 2               3
      23%               49%             28%

Percent of Students in each Third for 2006
       1                 2               3
      28%               34%             38%

Levels for 2007
   1         2         3          4           5
  21%       20%       38%        16%         6%
June 2010                                            58
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
% in each Level for 2008
  1         2         3              4         5
 11%       38%       43%            8%        1%

% in each Level for 2009
  1   2   3   4  5
 22% 30% 38% 9% 0%


% in each Level 2010
  1   2   3   4   5
 17% 32% 32% 16% 3%



School Average Points Earned

Year
                    03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Phys Chem           8      9    8    8    7    7    7    10
Earth & Space       7      7    8    7    9    8    8    7
Life & Environ      9      9    8    8    8    9    8    9
Science Think       7      6    8    7    7    8    8    9
District Average Points Earned

Year
                        03     04   05   06   07   08   09    10
Phys Chem               8      9    9    8    7    8    7     10
Earth & Space           7      7    8    8    9    8    8     8
Life & Environ          9      10   9    8    8    9    9     9
Science Think           7      7    8    8    7    8    8     9


June 2010                                                          59
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010
2010-2011 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance

School Differentiated Accountability Status
Intervene                      Correct II                               Prevent II                      Correct I                          Prevent I X

X Attach 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. Please verify the statement above by selecting “Yes” or “No” below.


     Yes                                                                                         No

If No, describe measures being taken to comply with SAC requirement.




Describe projected use of SAC funds.                                                                                                              Amount
School SAC funds will be used for tutoring for children who are at risk                                                                           1,565.00




Describe the activities of the School Advisory Council for the upcoming year.

SAC will approve the SIP and the budget including the A+ funds. In addition the SAC team works closely with the Parent Education Team to facilitate parent involvement thru the
implementation of the parent involvement plan.




June 2010                                                                                                                                                                 60
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised May 28, 2010

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:10/9/2012
language:Unknown
pages:60