accountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.orgaccountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.org/School... · Web viewIt’s more of a “this is where I am or my students are” and not

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2012-2013

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement: The Clearlake Team Provides an emotionally and physically safe learning environment where diversity is celebrated, where knowledge is actively constructed and experienced through world-based applications, and where students maximize opportunities to be personally successful as they envision a more peaceful world through contributions.

Vision Statement: CMS faculty and staff are committed to: Fueling learning with support and collaboration,

Igniting rigorous and relevant learning, and Launching Life-long learners.

Clearlake Middle School Central

Catherine Halbuer Sandra Demmon

Cheryl Carter and Heidi Traver

Page 1

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2012-2013RATIONAL – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement)

A three year analysis of FCAT results shows that the percentage of students that are proficient (Level 3 and above) in mathematics improve two of the last three years. There has been a gradual decline in the percentage of students at Level 3 or higher in Science over the past three years. There has also been a steady decline in the area of the percentage of the lowest 25% making learning gains in Math and the overall percent making learning gains in Math. On the 2012 FCAT 2.0, students at Clearlake making a Level 3 and above declined in Reading, Math, Science and Writing. However, the percent of students in the Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains improved 6% in Reading. Unfortunately there was a 20% decrease of the Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Math. The most staggering data is the 20% decrease in the area of Math for both the Lowest 25% and the percent at level 3 or higher. Historically, the percentage making Level 3 or higher in Math has been very high. This year Reading for the percent making Learning Gains and the Lowest 25% making learning gains in Reading was the highest areas of improvement. According to the recent AMO data, the subgroups of Black, White and Economically Disadvantaged met the Target AMO for Reading. The subgroup that did NOT have satisfactory performance in Reading was the Students With Disabilities. This subgroup had only 29% making satisfactory performance making 71% fall below the set standard. In addition this subgroup also performed poorly in Math with 25% meeting the performance target and 75% not making satisfactory performance. All applicable subgroups for Math did not meet the AMO targets.

% at Level 3 or

Higher in Reading

% at Level 3 or Higher

in Math

% Meeting the Writing

Standard

% at Level 3 or

Higher in Science

% Making Learning Gains in Reading

% Making Learning Gains in

Math

% of Lowest 25% Making

Learning Gains in Reading

% of Lowest 25% Making

Learning Gains in

Math

School

Year

11-12 62 55 78 47 62 53 65 47

10-11 65 75 85 49 51 66 59 67

09-10 64 73 87 50 56 72 60 74

Additional data from FAIR testing (2011-2012) indicates that the FSP (FCAT Success Probability) was in the 43 -53% range. This would suggest that students would not perform on grade level on the FCAT. Students should be scoring in the 80 - 85% range to meet the Level 3 or higher goal on FCAT. Therefore there is a correlation between FAIR and FCAT

The Algebra EOC results show us that 88% of our 7th graders and 77% of our 8th graders passed the Algebra EOC. Although 88% sounds like a decent number, it fails to indicate that only two 7th graders did not pass the

Page 2

EOC. This is a great accomplishment to only have two students not pass this rigorous test. In Geometry 81% of the students passed the EOC with a school average mean scale score of 58, with 50 considered the average score.

In review of the data, we have determined that students are to be challenged with higher level questioning in all content areas. In addition, students will be introduced to the Big 15 vocabulary words that are designed to help students identify common language on the new FCAT 2.0 as well as the upcoming Common Core test PARCC.

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?)

Last year collaborative and MESH (Math, English, Science and History) teams focused on the students in the lowest 25% in reading and math. One team made the decision to have its Language Arts and Social Studies teachers work collaboratively to support reading in the content area. This team had the highest learning gains in reading.

Collaborative teams struggled to find direction on how to help the lowest 25%. A guiding coalition was formed and met with the director of educational leadership and professional development. The coalition determined that the school should begin the training on professional learning communities. A presentation was made to the faculty at the end of the 2011-12 school year. We hope to offer this training during the current school year.

Teachers were encouraged to visit a colleague’s classroom and provide feedback as well as opportunities to model effective best practices. Teachers were also encouraged to observe various AVID and IB strategies they were considering implementing in their classrooms as we move toward a full school-wide implementation of AVID and IB. Videotaping classroom instruction for teachers to review best practice for self-reflection and self-improvement was also an area of focus. The videotaping did not occur. However, teachers express they needed assistance on delivering meaningful feedback.

Common assessments became more meaningful for teachers; however, sharing of the data with each other still needs to occur. Teachers review data but are reluctant to use it to drive instruction. It’s more of a “this is where I am or my students are” and not looked upon as a course of action to get the students where they need to be.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)

Teaching and learning must be interactive. Teachers need to know about their pupils' progress and difficulties with learning so that they can adapt their own work to meet pupils' needs - needs that are often unpredictable and that vary from one pupil to another. Teachers can find out what they need to know in a variety of ways, including observation and discussion in the classroom and the reading of pupils' written work (Black & William, 1998). While our collaborative PLC teams were beginning to make progress on this goal, our teams realized we needed more support. Assistance will be provided to teams so they can use the A3 system to record academic interventions. In addition, we have reached out to the District for support in helping our teachers make good use of their data and to have it drive their instruction. The District Math, Science, Social Studies, Reading and Language Arts Resource teachers have scheduled training sessions for each of these departments to help them disaggregate the data. Students have been given the District Baseline tests to determine a starting point for instruction. Teachers have the opportunity to meet as a department and discuss the data as well as develop a plan of attack to reach new goals with the children.Based on feedback from the end of the year teacher survey, collaborative teams were restructured to model the MESH team format. Elective teachers were assigned to teams. Each team was provided with a team list of students indicating the lowest 25%, ESE, ELL and FRL students. Teams also utilized the student desktop system to identify “yellow zone” students they can work with this year. In addition, some teachers have expressed that students are not held accountable for high standards. In an effort to have our students

Page 3

and teachers meet the high expectations of the new FCAT 2.0 and the upcoming PARCC, we have began to focus on higher level questioning in all content areas. In an effort to gather quick fact based formative assessments; teachers tend to ask lower-level questions of their students. Even though the need to understand certain facts and information is clear, an overreliance on factual questions has a price: It encourages passive learning, rewards short-term memory over the ability to synthesize information, discourages creativity, and reinforces in children the belief that facts are more important than their own thoughts or evaluations of ideas. (Cecil,1995) With this in mind, as well as the need for students to develop the “soft” Century 21 skills, it is necessary for them to practice answering higher level questions that require them to think and rationalize their answers as well as learn to respect the opinions of their peers. The top five soft skills many employers are looking for, according to a survey conducted by NACE (National Association of Colleges and Employers) in November 2011, include 1) ability to work as part of a team; 2) verbal communication; 3) the ability to make decisions and solve problems; 4) the ability to obtain and process information, and 5) the ability to plan, organize and prioritize work. Using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge teachers will be able to foster these skills and allow student use their skills and think strategically and to extend their thinking.

In addition to using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge teachers will incorporate the BIG 15 vocabulary words to help students understand the meaning of the word in each content area. These words are used as common vocabulary on the FCAT 2.0 and will continue to be the common vocabulary of the PARCC in 2014-15. By teaching students to understand the meaning of the words, they can carry that knowledge from one subject to the next as well as from one test to another. Having a deep understanding of the basic testing vocabulary will be a step in the direction of higher learning and higher expectations.

CONTENT AREA: X Reading X Math X Writing X Science Parental

InvolvementDrop-out Programs

X Language Arts

X Social Studies

Arts/PE Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)

At Clearlake, all content area teachers will incorporate the Common Core academic vocabulary and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) high quality, leveled questioning to influence students’ language, reading and understanding.

Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible

Timetable Budget In-Process

Measure

1.Teachers have not been exposed to common

1. (A) Teachers will be exposed to common core academic vocabulary

Common Core Training Team

October 2012 $0 Professional Development Roster

Page 4

core academic vocabulary

during scheduled professional development.

1. (B) Teachers will be provided large, printable common core academic words to be placed on interactive word walls within their classroom.

Administration

September 2012

$10

Visible in all classrooms

1. (C) Teachers will include common core academic language during instructional delivery.

$0

1. (D) Teachers will include common core academic vocabulary on formative and summative assessments.

All content area teachers.

October 2012

Scheduled content area assessments

$0 Administrative walk-throughs

Evidenced by formative and summative assessments

2. Teachers may not have been trained on how to include Webb’s Depth of Knowledge leveled questioning during instructional delivery.

2. (A) Teachers will be exposed to Webb’s Depth of Knowledge leveled questioning

CCSS Training Team

October 2012 $0 Professional Development Roster

2. (B) Teachers will be provided a Webb’s Depth of Knowledge poster to be displayed in the classroom.

Administration

September 2012

$25

Visible in every classroom

Page 5

2. (C) Teachers will be provided a copy of Brevard’s Quality Questioning Guide: Connecting NGSSS to CCSS (this includes Webb’s DOK)

Literacy Coach September 2012

$50

Teacher can produce personal copy of Quality Questioning

2. (D) Teachers will include Webb’s DOK leveled questioning during instructional delivery.

All content area teachers

October 2012 $0 Booklet

Administrative walk-throughs

3.Teachers may not have been trained using Thinking Maps

3. Teachers will be trained in using Thinking Maps to help with Writing across the curriculum.


Beginning October 2012

$0 Student work using Thinking Maps

4. Four Teacher Leaders and an Assistant Principal will be trained on Focus Learning.

4. Teacher leaders will share with all content area teachers the information they received at training.


November 2012 $3000.00 Agendas, PO’s from training, agendas of meetings sharing information.

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices throughout the school)

At Clearlake, each classroom will display the common core academic vocabulary, this may be done through interactive word walls or a way the classroom teacher deems best to fit the needs of his or her classroom environment. During instructional delivery, content area teachers will incorporate common core vocabulary so students become familiar with its usage and develop a strong understanding of its meaning. Also, content are teachers will expose students to lower and higher level quality questioning. Teachers will expose students to Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) leveled questioning. This type of high quality questioning will be incorporated during instructional delivery and on common, formative and summative assessments. Teachers will ensure that knowledge elicited from students on assessments is as complex as what students are expected to know and do as stated in the common core standards.

Page 6

At the end of the 2012-2013 school year, teachers will have become very savvy with incorporating the common core vocabulary during instructional delivery. Also, teachers will be highly competent when asking quality questions to elicit content knowledge from students. Teachers will have a clear understanding of the four levels of questioning. Teachers will have had much experience in creating leveled questions based on Webb’s DOK. The questioning level in which the teacher chose to use will have been based on the students’ experience with the content area focus.

Clearlake will determine how well the school-based objective was implemented via quantitative and qualitative data as well as administrative walk-throughs. Quantitative data will be drawn from common and DA assessments. Administration and teachers hope to see academic improvement over the course of the school year based on the baseline, mid-year and end-of-year data results of these two assessments. Qualitative data will be gathered from teacher input as to how they feel about how the school-based objective was implemented and carried-out over the course of the school year; does the teacher feel he or she implemented the school based objectives with fidelity. Administration will conduct walk-throughs to ensure teachers are implementing the school based-objectives as written in the school improvement plan.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures of student achievement)

After reviewing the three-year data trend in reading, math, writing and science, as evidenced by 2012 FCAT 2.0, Clearlake student data showed stagnation and decreased student achievement. Since the data did not validate the school improvement effort which was put forth during the 2011-2012 school year, the school improvement team, with input from the faculty, decided to head in a new direction with the 2012-2013 school improvement plan. Clearlake hopes to show much improvement in reading, math, writing and science based on its collaborative effort by providing students daily exposure to common core academic vocabulary and teachers implementing high quality leveled questioning based on Webb’s DOK. Clearlake will use common and DA assessment data to validate its school based objectives; and teacher input and administrative walk-throughs will provide qualitative data to support our plan.

APPENDIX A

(ALL SCHOOLS)

Reading Goal

1.

2012 Current Level of

Performance(Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage reflects ie.

28%=129 students)

2013 Expected Level of

Performance(Enter percentage

information and the number of students that percentage reflects ie. 31%=1134 students)

Anticipated Barrier(s):

1. Informational texts access may be limited for content area teachers.2. Teachers may not have experience with the close reading strategy.

Strategy(s):

1. Teachers will increase the use of informational text as related to content area.2. Students will be taught the close reading strategy to determine what the text says

explicitly and to make logical inferences across the content areas.

Page 7

FCAT 2.0

Students scoring at Achievement Level 3

Barrier(s): Increased vocabulary complexity

Strategy(s):

1. Students will be exposed to common core academic vocabulary

35% (137) 36% (167)

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

FCAT 2.0

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Reading

Barrier(s):

Increased vocabulary complexity

Strategy(s):

1. 1. Students will be exposed to common core academic vocabulary

25% (101) 26% (120)

Florida Alternate Assessment:

Students scoring at or above Level 7 in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

Page 8


Percentage of students making learning Gains in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

FCAT 2.0

Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.


Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%:

Baseline data 2010-11: 53% of students performed satisfactorily.

57% (226)Based on 2011-12

enrollment

61% (287)Based on 2012-13

enrollmentStudent subgroups by ethnicity NOT making satisfactory progress in reading :

White:

Enter numerical data for current level of performance

NOT MAKING PROGRESS

37% (119) Expected AMO NOT MAKING

PROGRESS

33% (106) Actual Performance

Enter numerical data for expected level of

performance

67% (231) WILL Make Satisfactory

Performance.

Page 9

Black:

Hispanic:

Asian:

American Indian:

NOT MAKING PROGRESS

63%(41) Expected AMO NOT MAKING

PROGRESS

52% (33)Actual Performance

43% (53) WILL make

Satisfactory Performance

NOT MAKING PROGRESS

37% (18) Expected AMO NOT MAKING

PROGRESS

45% (22) Actual Performance

67% (43) WILL make

Satisfactory Performance

NA NA

NA NA

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

NA NA

Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Reading

Barrier(s): Students adjusting to the inclusion classroom may be a barrier. Teachers also have not traditionally held these students to the same high standards as their non-disabled peers, encouraging a lack of rigor and presumed low expectations..

Strategy(s):

1. Curriculum guides and general education textbooks to all ESE teachers. 2. All ESE teachers assigned to a department3. All teachers in a department use the same formative and summative

assessments to gather data.

71% (107) 57% (93)

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Reading

Barrier(s): 68% of students were on the free/reduced school lunch plan last year. That number has increased to 72% this year. Studies show that students of low socioeconomics have a reduced vocabulary in comparison with their same age peers. In addition these students may need more individualized attention.

43%(113) 55% (186)

Page 10

Strategy(s):

1. Incorporation of Differentiated Instruction in academic classrooms, especially reading and language arts.

Reading Professional Development

PD Content/Topic/Focus Target Dates/Schedule

Strategy(s) for follow-up/monitoring

Common Core State Standards (including CC vocabulary)

October 12, 2012 Administrative Walk-throughs

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge October 12, 2012 Administrative Walk-throughs

Close Reading Training October 12, 2012 Administrative Walk-throughs

Coaching Academy October 20, 2012 Inservice Records

Thinking Maps October 23, 2012 Inservice Records and sample lessons

Focus Learning November 2012 Inservice Records, Purchase Orders, etc.

CELLA GOAL Anticipated Barrier

Strategy Person/Process/

Monitoring

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Listening/ Speaking:

Lack of practice Frequent practice in listening/speaking in class.

GSP

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Reading:

Language sophistication of

complex text (double-meaning

words, text structure)

Partner with mentor students

Frequent formative assessment -- “What does it say?” “What does it mean?”

Achieve 3000

GSP

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Writing:

Structure of language, speaking

and syntax

Use Thinking Maps and other graphic organizers.

Practice in Spelling

GSP

58% (7)

8% (1)

25% (3)

Page 11

Mathematics Goal(s):

1.

2012 Current Level of Performance

(Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage

reflects)

2013 Expected Level of

Performance

(Enter percentage information and the number of students

that percentage reflects)

Strategy(s):

1.Teachers will follow through with individual student data sheets that will determine mastery of benchmarks.

2. Incorporate common core standards

FCAT 2.0

Students scoring at Achievement Level 3

Barrier(s): Vocabulary on FCAT 2.0

Strategy(s):

1. High level academic vocabulary

28% (112) 30% (139)

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Mathematics

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

FCAT 2.0

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Mathematics

Barrier(s): Student cannot critically think through a multi-step word problem.

25% (101)

26% (120)

Page 12

Strategy(s):

1. More exposure to defining the mathematical process through writing


Students scoring at or above Level 7 in Mathematics

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.


Percentage of students making learning Gains in Mathematics

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

FCAT 2.0

Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in Mathematics

Barrier(s): Student does not understand the question asked

Strategy(s):

1. More practice with multi-step problems2. Test taking strategies

47% (46) 60% (59)


Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in Mathematics

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%:

Based on 2011-12 Enrollment

`

Based on 20112-13 Enrollment

Page 13

Baseline Data 2010-11: 60% of the students tested in 2010-11 had a satisfactory performance.

63% (245) 67% (315)

Student subgroups by ethnicity :

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

Asian:

American Indian:

37% (119)

66% (46)

55% (27)

NA

NA

28% (97)

49% (60)

27% (17)

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics

NA

Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics

75% (114) 56% (92)

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics

53% (139) 38% (128)

Mathematics Professional Development

PD Content/Topic/Focus Target Dates/Schedule

Strategy(s) for follow-up/monitoring

Math Department Data Workshop 9/13/12 1. Teachers will follow through with individual student data sheets that will determine mastery of concepts

2. Students will take ownership of their progress through individual student-teacher conferences using data sheets.

3. Students will be given formative/summative monthly common benchmark assessments by course in standardized test format, effective September 2012. These assessment will be created collaboratively by common course math teachers

4. Teachers will use data obtained from monthly common assessments to drive instruction.

Writing 2012 Current Level of Performance

(Enter percentage information and the number

2013 Expected Level of Performance


Page 14

of students that percentage reflects)


Barrier(s):

1. New FCAT 2.0 grading criteria was incorporated and not communicated effectively to teachers and students

2. Students did not elaborate or give strong support in their writing

3. Due to high teacher turnover rate, teachers did not use a common format when instructing students in essay writing

Strategy(s):

1. (A) Writing contact and LA department head will attend district writing contact meetings to gain knowledge about 2.0 grading criteria (Information will be shared with teachers)

1. (B) Teachers will be trained to use FCAT 2.0 rubrics

2.(A) LA Teachers will teach mini-lessons on elaboration, support, rubrics and how to make a paper a 4.0 or higher.

2.(B) LA teachers will share best practices for teaching elaboration and strong support at monthly department meetings or more often as needed

2.(C) Students will take three mock FCAT 2.0 writing assessments then revise these essays in class with LA teacher.

2.(D) LA teachers will host a writing boot camp to prepare students for FCAT 2.0 test

3.(A) LA teachers will use a common writing format when teaching essay writing.

FCAT: Students scoring at Achievement level 3.0 and higher in writing

77% (147) 79% (170)

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at 4 or higher in writing

24% (46) 30% (65)

Page 15

Science Goal(s)

(Elementary and Middle)

1.


(Enter percentage information and the

number of students that percentage reflects)



reflects)

Barrier(s): Science goals and thought processes are closely interlinked with the language (vocabulary) used to communicate science. Many students often feel threatened by the scientific language in their text books. It hinders their learning of science concepts. Our challenge is to overcome this language barrier so that students become better learners of science.

Strategy(s):

1. Hands-on First: Any vocabulary-building activity should relate to the students' PRIOR KNOWLEDGE in some way. Inquiry-based experiments, diagrams, demonstrations, and/or discrepant events will provide the direct experience essential for building meanings for completely new science vocabulary and concepts.

2. Word Walls: Incorporating the Science word and plain English translation- The Science Department will identify the critical vocabulary that is essential for understanding the unit. The critical vocabulary will be posted in each classroom along with a “plain English” translation and/or picture or diagram.

.

FCAT 2.0 Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Science: 35% (65) 40% (80)Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Science 13% (24) 17%( 36)FCAT 2.0 Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Science:


Students scoring at or above Level 7 in Reading

Science Goal(s)

(High School)

1.



reflects)



reflects)

Page 16

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Science


Students scoring at or above Level 7 in Science

Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra.

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

Asian:

American Indian:

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

APPENDIX B

(SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY)

Page 17

Algebra 1 EOC Goal 2012 Current Level of Performance






Barrier(s): Students lack experience with computer-based assessment.

Strategy(s):

1. More practice with computer-based assignments.

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Algebra: 68% (61) 75% (56)(decrease in enrollment)

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Algebra: 12% (10) 18% (13)

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%: Baseline Data 2010-11

Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra.

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

Page 18

Geometry EOC Goal 2012 Current Level of Performance(Enter

percentage information and the number of students that

percentage reflects)




Barrier(s): New assessment, this was the first exposure students had to this assessment

Strategy(s):

1. Review test item specifications

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Geometry:

(upper third of baseline test)81% (12) 88% (16)

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Geometry: NA

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%: Baseline Data 2010-11

Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry.

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry

Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Geometry

Page 19

Biology EOC Goal 2012 Current Level of Performance





reflects)

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Biology:

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Biology:

Civics EOC 2012 Current Level of Performance





reflects)

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Civics:

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Civics:

U.S. History EOC 2012 Current Level of Performance





reflects)

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in U. S. History:

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in U. S. History:

Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) Goal(s)

Anticipated Barrier

Strategy Person/Process/Monitoring

Based on the analysis of school data, identify and define areas in need of improvement:

Goal 1:

Page 20

Goal 2:

Career and Technical Education (CTE) Goal(s)

Anticipated Barrier



Goal 1: To increase student interest in career opportunities and programs by having a career event during the spring of 2013.

Goal 2: To increase the student’s awareness of course offerings at the local high schools during the 2012 – 2013 school year.

1. Time constraint and logistics with Guidance and Teachers to plan with local businesses.

2. The coordination between High School Guidance Department and the visitation/time constraints involved.

1. Hold a Career Day event with local business partners during the spring of 2013 to increase student’s awareness and career exposure.

2. By increasing Guidance participation into the Career Education Program with a presentations to discuss career cluster related coursework options at the high school level.

1. Career teachers and the Guidance department. We will have a visitor sign in sheet, pictures and videos.

2. Career Ed. Teachers and High School Guidance Counselors.

Additional Goal(s) Anticipated Barrier



Goal 1:

Goal 2:

APPENDIX C

(TITLE 1 SCHOOLS ONLY)

Page 21

Highly Effective Teachers

Describe the school based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly effective teachers to the school.

Descriptions of Strategy Person Responsible Projected Completion Date

1.2.3.

Non-Highly Effective Instructors

Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field and/or who are not highly effective. *When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).

Number of staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field/and who are not highly

effective

Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support the staff in becoming

highly effective

For the following areas, please write a brief narrative that includes the data for the year 2011-12 and a description of changes you intend to incorporate to improve the data for the year 2012-13.

MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI (Identify the MTSS leadership team and it role in development and implementation of the SIP along with data sources, data management and how staff is trained in MTSS)

The MTSS Leadership team is comprised of the following: An administrator, guidance counselor, literacy coach, reading teacher representative, grade level MESH members and an activity class representative. Members of the MTSS leadership team provided input into the development of the SIP through oral or written communication. When the MTSS team meets for an IPST, the SIP strategies will be addressed. If the SIP strategies are not meeting the student’s individual needs, an intervention will be put in place to improve the student’s behavior or classroom

Page 22

performance. The following data sources will be used to track student behavior or performance: FCAT 2.0, FAIR, A3, DSDS & AS400. Clearlake is coordinating training options with the district’s MTSS facilitator.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT:

After reviewing the parent survey from last year, it was reflected that the parent’s major concern was in the area of dress code. In an effort to alleviate this problem, we developed a plan to would allow us to provide students appropriate clothing during the school day in the event they are not meeting the dress code. This allows the parents to feel they are being heard, the students to be dressed appropriately, and learning not to be disrupted.

ATTENDANCE: (Include current and expected attendance rates, excessive absences and tardies)

For the first 20 days of school our attendance rate was 96.05%, this is compared to 96.54% last year. We expect our attendance rate to be at or above 95% for the entire school year. This was also the case last year and on average we met that challenge. In an effort to eliminate excessive absences we have instituted a plan for students that are absent for more than 5 days during the 9 weeks. In addition, we have an attendance referral system that informs our GSP when the child has reached 3 absences. At that time, she makes a phone call home and records the date, time and name of the person reached to inform them of the absences. In regard to tardiness, we are developing a plan that will eliminate the missed class time to obtain a tardy slip by allowing teachers to assign administrative detentions for students being late. At this time, we are working on a plan that will have 100% agreement on what our school definition of tardy before we institute this procedure. We are also working with the new District Attendance Officer to review our plan and provide suggestions.

SUSPENSION:

Last school year there were 294 suspension days for 143 students. This represents 30% of the student population. During the first 9 weeks of last year the rate was 8%. This years’ current rate for the first 9 weeks is also 8%. In an effort to reduce this number, the new Assistant Principal/Dean has been trained in Love and Logic and incorporates many of these techniques when addressing children. This has resulted in fewer suspensions and student ownership of their behavior. However, many of the students that are suspended tend to be repeat offenders of one rule or another. To diminish the number of suspensions, we have prepared a discipline ladder to provide multiple alternatives to suspension. Upon parent request, we can also have student’s participate in a positive work experience on campus in lieu of a suspension day. This has been very successful and the parents are very supportive. We have also instituted daily dean’s detentions to provide immediate feedback to students.

DROP-OUT (High Schools only):

POSTSECONDARY READINESS: (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? Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the High School Feedback Report.)

Page 23

This school year, Clearlake will offer a Career Day which will be organized by the CTE team and guidance department. Clearlake’s guidance department works closely with students to ensure course selections are meaningful; MESH teachers also provide input as to the student’s strength and weaknesses. In addition, each parent and student must attend a one-on-one meeting with a counselor to help track their high school plans for graduation and postsecondary ambitions.

Page 24

Documents

accountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.orgaccountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.org/School... · Web viewIt’s more of a “this is where I am or my students are” and not