FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM 2009 – …osi.dadeschools.net/sip/09-10/pdf/3021.pdf · Reading, Math, Science and Writing test. According to the 2008 -2009 FCAT Reading

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

School Name: JESSE J. MCCRARY, JR. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

District Name: Dade

Principal: Andy Jean M. Pierre -Louis

SAC Chair: Pamela Cox

Superintendent: Alberto Carvalho

Date of School Board Approval: Pending School Board Approval

Last Modified on: 09-16-2009

Dr.Eric J.Smith, Commissioner

Florida Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dr.Frances Haithcock, ChancellorK-12 Public Schools

Florida Department of Education325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS

The vision of Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School is to deliver a relevant and rigorous academic curriculum designed to provide academic excellence for our diverse population.

Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School seeks to provide the highest quality education so that all of our students are empowered to live productive and fulfilling lives as lifelong learners and responsible citizens.

Brief History and Background of the School

Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School is a historically designed building; The school is located at 514 N.W. 77TH St. Miami Florida. It was established in 1924, and is situated on 8.71 acres in Northwest Miami Dade County. Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School sits within a community of families, and is an inner-city school located in Little Haiti, a predominantly African American & Haitian community. Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary serves predominantly lower socio-economic families, and faces the myriad challenges shared by many urban elementary schools in the state.

It is a pre-kindergarten through fifth grade configuration with a membership of approximately 515 students. The school’s architectural design is made up of a 2-story frame with 8 portables and an open courtyard in the center of the building. The lower level includes the main office, main computer lab, Library, primary classrooms, art room, and cafeteria. The upper level includes the intermediate classes, one primary, educational resource rooms, and an additional computer lab. All classrooms have at least five student computer stations.

The beautification of the Media Center was accomplished through our partnership with the Miami Heat Organization in 2006. The school’s interior and exterior were repainted in 2005.

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

The school’s Leadership Team is comprised of Principal, Assistant Principal, Reading Coaches, Math and Science Coach, School Psychologist, ST2 Specialist and Counselor. This team will initially meet twice a month and then eventually once a month as needed. Areas of school-wide literacy concerns are discussed and possible solutions examined. Decisions regarding additional materials are reviewed, instructional focus is examined and necessary changes are made. In addition, best practices are studied and professional development is discussed for implementation.

Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School’s YMCA program has just received a grant that provides for extended learning opportunities for third grade students.

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

There are opportunities for improvement in the area of student achievement as evidenced by the results of the 2009 FCAT Reading, Math, Science and Writing test. According to the 2008-2009 FCAT Reading Assessment, fifth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 40 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2009, a decrease of 12 percent. According to the 2009 FCAT Mathematics Assessment, fifth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 30 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2009, a decrease of two percent. According to the 2009 FCAT Writing, there was a decrease of 9 percent of students scoring at 3.5 and higher when compared to the previous year’s results. According to the 2009 FCAT Science Assessment, fifth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 26 percent in 2008 to 8 percent in 2009, a decrease of 18 percent.

In order to address these challenges, a Comprehensive Intervention Reading Program (CIRP) and The Voyager Passport Program will be used for students who are reading one or more years below grade level and who are struggling with a broad range of reading skills. This program is monitored by the administration and the reading coaches. There is also a strong educational technology component which is intended for additional support in reading, math, and science. The Successmaker technology program will be used with fidelity and consistency throughout the year. This is offered before, during, and after school, and is monitored by the administration and reading and math coaches. The Accelerated Reader Program will continue to be utilized to motivate independent reading and assist in monitoring progress of reading levels.. This will be monitored by the Media Specialist and classroom teachers, with support from the administration and reading coaches.

The administration has departmentalized third- fifth grade and provided common planning for all grades levels. This schedule provides teachers an opportunity to collaborate with colleagues and to assist them in the development of Professional Learning Communities (PLC). In addition, following the Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model (FCIM), the school’s Leadership Team has developed a structured instructional focus calendar in reading, math, writing, and science that addresses the needs of the students as evidenced by the 2009 FCAT results. The leadership team will follow the FCIM’s throughout the 2009-2010 school year in an effort to monitor student achievement and to revise instruction when necessary in order to meet the ongoing instructional needs of students. A strong component of the progress monitoring will include monthly assessment to determine the progress of students.

Student Demographics

Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School serves a multi-ethnic school population that consists approximately of 523 students The student population mirrors the community in which the school is located. There are approximately 85 % Black, 14% Hispanic, 0% percent White, and 1% other. Ninety seven percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, 22 percent are English Language Learners (ELL) students and eight percent are Special Education (SPED).

Student Attendance Rates

Our school’s average attendance rate for students was 93.89% in 2008-2009, 93.35% in 2007-2008, 93.82% in 2006-2007, and 92.92% in 2005-2006 . The attendance rate showed an increase from the previous year.

Student Mobility

The mobility rate of the school is 46%. This mobility comes predominantly from our nomadic student population. In 2006-2007 our mobility rate was 53%.

Student Suspension Rates

2008-2009: In school 2, Out of school; 20;2007-2008: In-school 1, Out-of-school 30; 2006-2007: In-school 0, out of school 5; 2005-2006: In-school 2, out of school 11. The suspension rates have increased over the past four years.

Student Retention Rates

The retention rate was 9% in 2008-2009, 6% in 2007-2008, 5.7% in 2006-2007, and 7.4% in 2005-2006.

Class Size

Great effort has been made to reduce class sizes in all subject areas and across grade levels to reduce discipline problems and strengthen the one-on-one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size in general education classrooms is: 4-5th grades: 20.92 students. PreK-3- 17.65. The teacher to student ratio in general education classrooms is: 1:18 for primary and 1:22 for intermediate. The average class size in inclusion classrooms is: 16.

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

Jesse J. McCrary Elementary School is located in the Miami Edison Senior High School. There are eleven schools in the feeder pattern. There are two schools designated as “A”, three schools designated as “B”, one school is designated as “C”, one school designated as “D” and two schools designated as “F”. Jesse McCrary is one of the schools designated as an ”F”. Nine of the schools have not met AYP and one school has met AYP. One of the elementary schools in the feeder pattern is not designated with a grade or classified with an AYP status because of the grade configuration.

Partnerships and Grants

Our school will continue its strong partnership with the Miami Heat, which provides funding for after school tutorials, and a number of additional resources including supplies, and academic materials to enhance the curriculum in reading and math, grades 3-5. Additionally, each year the students are invited to the American Airlines Arena for a fun-filled day of entertainment and the students are introduced to the players.

Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School collaborates with district programs and services, community agencies and the business community in order to integrate educational services to all students. This collaboration includes: Miami-Dade District Pre-K and Early Intervention, Exceptional Student Education, Miami-Dade County Health Department, ESOL/LEP Programs, Homeless Agencies, the Parent Academy, the PTS/PSTA, and through compacts with local municipalities as well as Metro Dade County. These collaborative efforts will eliminate gaps in service for the ELL students, children with disabilities, migrant children, N & D children, homeless children, and migrant children. An avenue will be provided for sharing information about available services, and for helping to eliminate duplication and fragmentation within the programs. Title I personnel will, on an on-going basis, work with the appropriate staff to increase program effectiveness of the instructional program. Representatives from these agencies will meet as necessary to coordinate various services for families and children to increase student achievement.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Additionally, the school receives funding under the School Improvement Grant Fund/School Improvement Grant Initiative in order to increase the achievement of the lowest performing subgroups through comprehensive, ongoing data analysis, curriculum and instruction alignment, and specific interventions such as Differentiated instruction/intervention, classroom libraries, Project CRISS, Successmaker, and Voyager Passport.

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

School Grades Trend Data

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

Position Name Degree(s)/ Certification(s)

# of Years at Current School

# of Years as an

AdministratorPrior Performance Record *

Principal Andy Pierre-Louis

BA in Elementary Education BA in Business Administration/Hospitality and Management

MA in Educational Leadership

7.5

Principal of DevonAire K-8 2008-2009: Grade: A Reading Mastery: 83% Math mastery: 80%, Science Mastery: 52%. Writing Mastery 87% Did not make AYP in Reading- subgroup SPED

Principal of Perrine Elementary 2007-2008: Grade: A Reading Mastery: 88% Math Mastery: 84%, Science Mastery: 54%. Writing Mastery 94% Met AYP

Principal of Perrine Elementary 2006-2007: Grade A – Reading Mastery: 76% Math Mastery: 74%, Science Mastery: 44%. Writing Mastery: 82 % Met AYP

Principal of Perrine Elementary 2005-2006: Grade A Reading Mastery:72% Math Mastery: 72%. Writing Mastery: 74% Met AYP

Assis Principal Maria Calvet-Cuba

Bachelors of Science in Elementary Education Masters of Science Degree in Exceptional Student Education Certification in Educational Leadership

8

Assistant Principal of Hibiscus Elementary School 2008-2009: Grade B Reading Mastery: 68% Math Mastery: 67% Writing Mastery: 98% Science Mastery: 30% Did not meet AYP 2007-2008: Grade A Reading Mastery: 64% Writing Mastery 97% Math Mastery:70% Science Mastery 41% Met AYP. Assistant Principal at Scott Lake Elementary School 2006-2007: Grade: B Reading Mastery: 63% Writing Mastery: 87% Math Mastery:55% Science Mastery: 27% SWD students did not meet AYP 2005-2006: Grade C Reading Mastery: 63% Writing Mastery: 80% Math Mastery: 60 Met AYP 2004-2005: Grade A Reading Mastery: 72% Math Mastery:61% Writing Mastery 81% Met AYP Elementary School 2008-2009: Grade B Reading Mastery: 68% Math Mastery: 67% Writing Mastery: 98% Science Mastery: 30% Did not meet AYP 2007-2008: Grade A Reading Mastery: 64%

HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

Writing Mastery 97% Math Mastery:70% Science Mastery 41% Met AYP. Assistant Principal at Scott Lake Elementary School 2006-2007: Grade: B Reading Mastery: 63% Writing Mastery: 87% Math Mastery:55% Science Mastery: 27% SWD students did not meet AYP 2005-2006: Grade C Reading Mastery: 63% Writing Mastery: 80% Math Mastery: 60 Met AYP 2004-2005: Grade A Reading Mastery: 72% Math Mastery:61% Writing Mastery 81% Met AYP

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)

Subject Area Name Degree(s)/ Certification(s)

# of Years at Current School

# of Years as a Coach

Prior Performance Record *

Science Jose Porras

Professional Educator’s: Elementary Ed. 1-6 Masters in ESOL

5

2008-2009 Devon Aire K-8 Center Math and Science Coach Math Mastery: 85% Science Mastery: 50% Did not meet AYP

2007-2008 Perrine Elementary School Math and Science Coach Math Mastery:81% Science Mastery: 51% Met AYP

2006-2007 Perrine Elementary School Math and Science Coach Math Mastery:76% Science Mastery:48% Met AYP

Title 1 Reading Coach Joi Holmes

Professional Educator’s: English/Language Arts K-12 Reading Endorsed

1 1

2008-2009: Little River Elementary Grade F. Reading Mastery: 37%, Learning Gains: 51%, Lowest 25% Gains: 51%. All Subgroups made AYP in reading. 2007-2008: Grade F. Reading Mastery: 13%, Learning Gains: 38%, Lowest 25% Gains: 55%. No subgroup made AYP in reading.

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)

Description of StrategyPerson

Responsible

Projected Completion

Date

Not Applicable (If not, please explain why)

1. Regular meetings of new teachers with Principal Principal On-going

2. Partnering new teachers with veteran staffAssistant Principal On-going

Name Certification Teaching Assignment

Professional Development/Support

to Become Highly Qualified

Alina Brady Elem Ed 1st Grade

Ms. Brady is currently finishing the ESOL courses and is registered for the courses necessary. The anticipated completion date is June 2010.

Lorna Sibble Elem Ed 2nd Grade

Ms. Sibble is currently finishing the ESOL courses necessary and is registered for the courses

Staff Demographics

Teacher Mentoring Program

necessary. The anticipated completion date is June 2010.

Andrea Sutton Reading 3rd Grade

Ms. Sutton is currently finishing the ESOL courses necessary and is registered for the courses necessary. The anticipated completion date is June 2010.

Total Number of

Instructional Staff

% of First-Year Teachers

% of Teachers with 1-5 Years of

Experience

% of Teachers with 6-14 Years of

Experience

% of Teachers with 15+ Years of

Experience

% of Teachers

with Advanced Degrees

% Highly Qualified

% Reading Endorsed Teachers

% National Board

Certified Teachers

% ESOL Endorsed

44 5 21 7 11 19 26 2 0 15

Mentor NameMentee

AssignedRationale

for PairingPlanned Mentoring

Activities

Jose PorrasHillivi Cunningham (Science)

Ms. Cunningham was new to the grade level in 2008-2009. Ms. Cunningham’s students have shown below average performance levels in science achievement. As the Science Coach, Mr. Porras has a track record of increasing student achievement.

The Mentor and Mentee will meet weekly to discuss evidence based strategies. The Mentor is given release time to observe the Mentee. Time is given for feedback and planning. Also, the Science Coach will model lessons using Inquiry based strategies to teach scientific concepts.

Joi HolmesDenise Stewart (Reading)

Ms. Stewart’s students have shown below average performance levels in reading achievement. As the Reading Coach, Ms. Holmes has guided the school in increasing the lowest 25th percentile.

The Mentor and Mentee will meet weekly to discuss evidence based strategies. The Mentor is given release time to observe the Mentee. Time is given for feedback and planning. Also, the Reading Coach will model lessons using higher level thinking strategies.

Joi HolmesPamela Cox (Reading)

Ms. Cox’s students have shown below average performance levels in reading achievement. As the Reading Coach, Ms. Holmes has guided the school in increasing the lowest 25th percentile.

The Mentor and Mentee will meet weekly to discuss evidence based strategies. The Mentor is given release time to observe the Mentee. Time is given for feedback and planning. Also, the Reading Coach will model lessons using higher level thinking strategies.

Ana BarettoCarla Christian (Reading)

Ms. Christian is new to the grade level. As the Reading Coach, Ms. Baretto has guided her previous school in increasing student achievement in reading, as

The Mentor and Mentee will meet weekly to discuss evidence based strategies. The Mentor is given release time to observe the Mentee. Time is given for feedback and planning. Also, the

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

Note: For Title I schools only

evidenced by the increase in the percentage of students scoring at or above state mastery level.

Reading Coach will model lessons using higher level thinking strategies

Title I, Part A

Services are provided to ensure students requiring additional remediation are assisted through after-school Programs and pull-outs during the school day. The district coordinates with Title II and Title III in ensuring staff development needs are provided. Services are provided to ensure students requiring additional remediation are assisted through before, after-school programs and Saturday School. Curriculum Coaches Develop, lead, and evaluate school core content standards/ programs; identify and analyze existing literature on scientifically based curriculum/behavior assessment and intervention approaches. They identify systematic patterns of student need while working with district personnel to identify appropriate, evidence-based intervention strategies; assists with whole school screening programs that provide early intervening services for children to be considered “at risk;” assist in the design and implementation for progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; participate in the design and delivery of professional development; and provide support for assessment and implementation monitoring. Other components that are integrated into the school-wide program include an extensive Parental Program; Supplemental Educational Services; and special support services to special needs populations such as homeless, migrant, and neglected and delinquent students.

Title I, Part C- Migrant

We currently do not have a migrant population.

Title I, Part D

District receives funds to support the Educational Alternative Outreach program.

Title II

The District uses supplemental funds for improving basic education as follows: • training to certify qualified mentors for the New Teacher (MINT) Program • training for add-on endorsement programs, such as Reading, Gifted, ESOL • training and substitute release time for Professional Development Liaisons (PDL) at each school focusing on Professional Learning Community (PLC) development and facilitation, as well as Lesson Study Group implementation and protocols

Title III

Services are provided through the district for educational materials and ELL district support services to improve the education of immigrant and English Language Learners.

Title X- Homeless

District Homeless Social Worker and school counselors will provide resources (clothing, school supplies, social services referrals) for students identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act to eliminate barriers for a free and appropriate education.

Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

This school will receive funding from Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) as part of its Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) allocation.

Violence Prevention Programs

The school offers a non-violence and anti-drug program to students that incorporate field trips, community outreach assemblies, and counseling.

Nutrition Programs

1) The school adheres to and implements the nutrition requirements stated in the District Wellness Policy. 2) Nutrition education, as per state statute, is taught through physical education. 3) The School Food Service Program, school breakfast, school lunch, and after care snacks, follows the Healthy Food and Beverage Guidelines as adopted in the District's Wellness Policy.

Housing Programs

N/A

Head Start

Head Start programs are co-located in several Title I schools and/or communities. Joint activities, including professional development and transition processes are shared. Through affiliating agreements, the Summer VPK program is provided at Head Start sites.

Adult Education

N/A

Career and Technical Education

Students will be introduced to yearly career fairs in order to prepare and enhance their learning and introduce various career fields of interest to the students.

Job Training

There are no job training programs currently available at the elementary level.

Other

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

Parental Jessie J. McCrary Jr. Elementary School will involve parents in the planning and implementation of the Title I Program and extend an open invitation to our school’s parent resource center in order to inform parents regarding available programs, their rights under No Child Left Behind and other referral services. Increase parental engagement/involvement through developing (with on-going parental input) our Title I School-Parent Compact (for each student); our school’s Title I Parental Involvement Policy; scheduling the Title I Orientation Meeting (Open House); and other documents/activities necessary in order to comply with dissemination and reporting requirements. Conduct informal parent surveys to determine specific needs of our parents, and schedule workshops, Parent Academy Courses, etc., with flexible times to accommodate our parents’ schedule as part of our goal to empower parents and build their capacity for involvement. Complete Title I Administration Parental Involvement Monthly School Reports and the Title I Parental Involvement Monthly Activities Report, and submit to Title I Administration by the 5th of each month as documentation of compliance with NCLB Section 1118. Confidential “as-needed services” will be provided to any students in the school in “homeless situations” as applicable. Additional academic and support services will be provided to students and families of the Migrant population as applicable. School Improve Grant Fund/School Improvement Grant Initiative The school receives funding under the School Improvement Grant Fund/School Improvement Grant Initiative in order to increase the achievement of the lowest performing subgroups through comprehensive, ongoing data analysis, curriculum and instruction alignment, and specific interventions such as extended day remedial tutorial instruction, Differentiated instruction/intervention and classroom libraries. Additionally, Title I School Improvement Grant/Fund support funding and assistance to schools in Differentiated Accountability based on need. The Voluntary Public School Choice Program (I Choose!) a federally funded grant, is a district wide initiative designed to assist in achieving the Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ District’s Strategic Plan goal to expand the availability of and access to high quality public school choice options for all parents in Miami-Dade County. Voluntary Public School Choice grant funds are used to evaluate programs, inform parents of educational options, and reculture teaching practices to establish quality school environments.

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

School-based RtI Team

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team. Principal: Provides a common vision for the use of data-based decision-making, ensures that the school-based team is implementing RtI, conducts assessment of RtI skills of school staff, ensures implementation of intervention support and documentation, ensures adequate professional development to support RtI implementation, and communicates with parents regarding school-based RtI plans and activities. Assistant Principal: Assists principal in ensuring the school-based team is implemented RtI, conducts assessment of RtI skills of school staff, ensures implementation of intervention support and documentation, ensures adequate professional development to support RtI implementation, and communicates with parents regarding school-based RtI plans and activities. Grade Level Chair-General Education Teachers: Provides information about core instruction, participates in student data collection, delivers Tier 1 instruction/intervention, collaborates with other staff to implement Tier 2 interventions, and integrates Tier 1 materials/instruction with Tier 2/3 activities. Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Teachers: Participates in student data collection, integrates core instructional activities/materials into Tier 3 instruction, and collaborates with general education teachers through such activities as co-teaching. Instructional Coach(es) Reading/Math/Science: Develops, leads, and evaluates school core content standards/ programs; identifies and analyzes existing literature on scientifically based curriculum/behavior assessment and intervention approaches. Identifies systematic patterns of student need while working with district personnel to identify appropriate, evidence-based intervention strategies; assists with whole school screening programs that provide early intervening services for children to be considered “at risk;” assists in the design and implementation for progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; participates in the design and delivery of professional development; and provides support for assessment and

School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

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

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

implementation monitoring. School Counselor: Participates in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitates development of intervention plans; provides support for intervention fidelity and documentation; provides professional development and technical assistance for problem-solving activities including data collection, data analysis, intervention planning, and program evaluation; facilitates data-based decision making activities. Speech Language Pathologist: Educates the team in the role language plays in curriculum, assessment, and instruction, as a basis for appropriate program design; assists in the selection of screening measures; and helps identify systemic patterns of student need with respect to language skills Student Services Personnel: Provides quality services and expertise on issues ranging from program design to assessment and intervention with individual students. In addition to providing interventions, school social workers continue to link child-serving and community agencies to the schools and families to support the child's academic, emotional, behavioral, and social success.

The Leadership Team will focus meetings around one question: How do we develop and maintain a problem solving system to bring out the best in our school, our teachers, and in our students? The team meets once every two weeks to engage in the following activities: Review universal screening data and link to instructional decisions; review progress monitoring data at the grade level and classroom level to identify students who are meeting/exceeding benchmarks, at moderate risk or at high risk for not meeting benchmarks. Based on the above information, the team will identify professional development and resources. The team will also collaborate regularly, problem solve, share effective practices, evaluate implementation, make decisions, and practice new processes and skills. The team will also facilitate the process of building consensus, increasing infrastructure, and making decisions about implementation.

The RtI Leadership Team meets with the Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC) and principal to help develop the SIP. The team provides data on: Tier 1, 2, and 3 targets; academic and social/emotional areas that need to be addressed; help set clear expectations for instruction (Rigor, Relevance, Relationship); facilitate the development of a systemic approach to teaching (Gradual Release, Essential Questions, Activating Strategies, Teaching Strategies, Extending, Refining, and Summarizing); and align processes and procedures.

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

RtI Implementation

Baseline data: Interim Assessments, Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN), FAIR, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), STAR Progress Monitoring: PMRN, Interim Assessments, Monthly Assessments Midyear: Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR), Interim Assessments, Monthly Assessments End of year: FAIR, FCAT, Interim Assessments Frequency of Data Days: twice a month for data analysis

Professional development will be provided during teachers’ common planning time and small sessions will occur throughout the year. Two PD sessions entitled: “RtI: Problem Solving Model: Building Consensus Implementing and Sustaining Problem-Solving/RtI” and “RtI: Challenges to Implementation Data-based Decision-making, and Supporting and Evaluating Interventions” will take place in mid-August, October, and as needed. The RtI team will also evaluate additional staff PD needs during the RtI Leadership Team meetings.

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data

What strengths and weaknesses were identified in the 2009 data by grade level, subject area, and clusters/strands?

Plan

Strengths: According to the 2009 FCAT Reading Assessment, the 5th grade students performed on the same level with the District in Reference/Research. Fifth grade students performing at Level 5 increased from one percent in 2008 to three percent in 2009. The strongest content cluster in fifth grade was Reference/Research at 67percent Level 1 students in fourth grade decreased from 49 percent in 2008 to 42 percent in 2009, a decrease of 7percent. The strongest content cluster in fourth grade was Words/Phrases at 57 percent. According to the 2009 FCAT Mathematics Assessment, fourth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) increased from 40 percent in 2008 to 48 percent in 2009, an increase of eight percent. Level 1 students in fourth grade decreased from 37 percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 2009, a decrease of 13 percent. Third grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) increased from 32 percent in 2008 to 34 percent in 2009, an

Instructional Calendar Development

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

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

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

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

How does the school incorporate students’ academic and career planning, as well as promote student course selections, so that students’ course of study is personally meaningful?

increase of 2 percent. Level 1 students in third grade decreased from 54 percent in 2008 to 50 percent in 2009, a decrease of 4 percent. The strongest content c cluster in third grade was Comparisons at 55 percent.

Weaknesses: According to the 2009 FCAT Reading Assessment, fifth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 40 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2009, a decrease of 12 percent. Level 1 students in fifth grade increased from 36 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2009, an increase of 15 percent. The weakest cluster in third grade was Reference/Research, at 33 percent and words/phrases at 44 percent. The weakest cluster in fourth grade was Comparisons at 41 percent. The weakest cluster in fifth grade was Words/Phrases at 33 percent.

According to the 2009 FCAT Mathematics Assessment, third grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 53 percent in 2008 to 52 percent in 2009, a decrease of one percent. Level 1 students in third grade increased from 27 percent in 2008 to 30 percent in 2009, an increase of three percent. The weakest strands were Number Sense, Measurement, and Algebraic Thinking, all at 50 percent. The weakest strand in fourth grade was Number Sense, at 45 percent. Fifth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 30 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in 2009, a decrease of two percent. The weakest strand was Data Analysis, at 33 percent.

According to the 2009 FCAT Science Assessment, the percentage of fifth grade students performing at high standards (Levels 3-5) decreased from 26 percent in 2008 to 8 percent in 2009, a decrease of 18 percent. The weakest strands were Earth and Space and Scientific Thinking, both at 38 percent.

According to the 2009 FCAT Writing Assessment, the percentage of fourth grade students performing at high standards (Level 3.5 or above) decreased from 80 percent in 2008 to 71 percent, a decrease of 13 percent. Instructional Calendar Development

Instructional Focus Calendars (IFC) were developed in July 2009. The IFC will be updated in September as determined by disaggregated data results from the Baseline Benchmark Assessment, and again after the Fall 2010 Interim assessment and after the Winter 2010 Interim assessment. .

According to the disaggregated data results from the 2009 FCAT Reading Assessment, the priority focus for fourth grade will be Reference/Research, and Words/Phrases. The priority focus for fifth grade will be Comparisons. According to the disaggregated data results from the 2009 FCAT Mathematics Assessment, the priority focus for fourth grade will be Number Sense, Measurement and Algebraic Thinking. The priority focus for fifth grade will be Number Sense. The priority focus for fifth grade science will be Earth and Space Sciences and Scientific Thinking. Data results from the Monthly assessments and Pre-Tests and Interim Tests will also be utilized.

Teachers will be given responsibility for analyzing data for small group differentiated instruction. The Leadership Team will meet and discuss the instructional implications.

A daily focus of the school is for teachers and students to ask each other, “why are we learning this?” to ensure that instruction is always relevant. Teachers are also provided reading materials and “bell ringers” that are based on current events.

A daily focus of the school is for teachers and students to ask “Why are we learning this?” to insure that instruction is always relevant. Teachers are also provided reading materials based on student interests and current events.

Direct the Instructional Focus

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

DO

How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

Each week grade level and subject area teachers will meet to determine the areas of students’ strengths and weaknesses as demonstrated by class work assignments and assessment results. Lesson plans will be created based on the districts instructional flow calendars and will reflect the differentiated instruction model, which provides lessons for all levels of students, below mastery, at mastery, and above mastery.

Teachers will continuously assess their students both informally and formally to obtain their levels, and will maintain ongoing monitoring in order to cater lesson plans to meet each student’s individual needs. Teachers will collaborate each weekly during grade level meetings and will meet monthly during Professional Learning Communities to share best practices and resources.

Ongoing progress monitoring will be implemented. Teachers will create progress folders for each of their students. They will meet with students regularly to discuss progress and assessments. Student mastery on the mini-assessments based on the focus lessons will determine if the focus lessons need to be revised and/or re-taught.

Assessment

Describe the types of ongoing formative assessments to be used during the school year to measure student progress in core, supplemental, and intensive instruction/intervention.

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

Maintenance

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

Describe the process and schedule for teams to review progress monitoring data (summative and mini assessments) to identify the required instructional modifications that are needed to increase student achievement.

Monitoring

Describe the Principal’s and Leadership Team’s roles as instructional leaders and how they will be continuously involved in the teaching and learning process.

CHECK

Benchmark mini-assessments based on the focus calendar will be administered on a monthly basis. These assessments will consist of five to seven questions per benchmark.

Mastery will be set at 70% and the results will be used to determine the instructional focus of whole group lessons. An item analysis of the assessment will be utilized to re-teach the questions that students missed most frequently. Teachers will differentiate their instruction as indicated by assessment results to provide intensive instruction to those students earning less than 50%, additional instruction and practice opportunities for those students earning between 50-70% and enrichment/advanced instruction to students earning 80-100%.

Students at and above mastery level will receive opportunities to enhance or enrich current skills by participating in project activities, hands-on activities, or other supplemental lessons which will reinforce the skill and maintain the level of mastery/proficiency.

Teachers will meet weekly. The meeting will be facilitated by the coaches and administration. A teacher will be designated to record notes from the meeting and the notes will be submitted along with the weekly agenda.

The Leadership Team will meet with teachers during weekly meetings to discuss assessment results and student progress. During these meetings, lesson plans, data binders, and student portfolios will be utilized to provide evidence of instruction, assessment, and differentiation to address individual student needs. Progress Monitoring logs will also be utilized to document the process of teaching, assessing, re-teaching, and re- assessing. The instructional coaches will assist teachers with providing instruction on the focus lessons either by modeling whole group instruction or assisting the teacher in providing small group instruction. The instructional coaches will also help with the process of grading, recording, and charting student scores.

Professional Learning Communities

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions

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

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

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

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

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

Enrichment

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

Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

ACT

Harcourt Math, Houghton Mifflin Reading, and Scott’s Foresman Science are the core instructional programs utilized. For Reading, Voyager and Strategies To Improve Reading Success are used to address struggling Readers. In Math, On-Target Math and Strategies To Improve Math Success are used to address the needs of struggling Mathematicians.

Resources from the state adopted textbooks which are designed for intensive instruction will be utilized. Computerized programs or instructional software (e.g. Success Maker), in addition to Internet instructional Web sites such as FCAT Explorer will also be utilized. Teachers will utilize instructional strategies or best practices discussed in Professional Learning Communities to provide different methods of providing instruction to students in non-mastered areas. Resources and strategies provided at professional development workshops will also be utilized. Students consistently demonstrating non-mastery will be required to participate in tutorial sessions before, after school or Saturday school.

Common areas of concern in the areas of instructional delivery, classroom management, etc., as evidenced by administrators’ observations, teacher surveys, and student performance/data analysis, will determine the need for professional development sessions.

As a result of progress monitoring (class work assignments and assessment results) and observations (classroom teacher, instructional coach, administrators, counselors, etc.) students who consistently demonstrate academic difficulty will receive supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions. Students not making mastery will be offered after-school assistance via SES, as well as assistance during the regular school day from instructional coaches, and personnel hired to provide tutorial services.

All personnel providing services to a student not making mastery will meet to discuss their evidence and/or documentation of strategies and interventions that have previously been utilized. Factors hindering implementation of a strategy (attendance, behavior, etc.) will be addressed and resolved. Strategies that are unsuccessful will be discontinued and replaced with alternative interventions. Focus assessments through FCAT Explorer and Riverdeep will also be utilized to determine the effectiveness of supplemental instruction. In addition, monthly bi-weekly school based and District Interim assessments will be used.

Students who typically exceed mastery levels participate in the school’s gifted program and Academic Excellence Program (AEP).

FCAT results, in addition to student progress in a specific course, as well as assessment results that demonstrate consistent proficiency/mastery are used to determine placement in higher level courses and academic programs. Teacher recommendation is also taken into consideration. Parent conferences are held with the recommending teacher, instructional coach, guidance counselor, and a member of the leadership or administrative team. The parents are counseled on the expectations for the student in the higher level course, as well as their continued parental involvement.

PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) PLC Leader

Frequency of PLC Meetings Schedule (when)

Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis)

K-5th Teachers SPED teachers and ELL teachers

Jose Porass, Science Coach Cisely Scott, Math Coach, Ana Baretto, Reading Coach Joi Holmes,

Bi-weekly During the 2nd and 3rd Wednesday of every month

Will provide mini-seminars, and enrichments to enhance the teachers effectiveness and overall knowledge of best practices in content areas.

NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only

Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status Show Attached Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status (Uploaded on 8/21/2009 6:06:54 PM) Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification Show Attached Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification (Uploaded on 8/21/2009 6:07:15 PM) Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status Show Attached Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification (Uploaded on 8/21/2009 6:07:36 PM)

Pre-School Transition

Postsecondary Transition

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

Reading Coach

2nd-5th Grade Reading

Ana Baretto, Reading Coach Joi Holmes, Reading Coach


Common planning lessons and share best practices will be initiated.

2nd-5th Grade Math

Cisely Scott, Math Coach Bi-weekly

During the 2nd and 3rd Wednesday of every month


Pre-K-1st All Subjects

Ana Baretto, Reading Coach Sicely Scott, Math Coach



Title I Administration assists the school by providing supplemental funds beyond the State of Florida funded Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten Program (VPK). Funds are used to provide extended support through a full time highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional. This will assist with providing young children with a variety of meaningful learning experiences, in environments that give them opportunities to create knowledge through initiatives shared with supportive adults

The ESSAC recommends the utilization of the guidance counselor, community involvement specialist, registrar, social worker, office staff, and the administration to render services to our early childhood students and their families throughout the school year.

Low performing students are identified early through the administration of the Early Childhood Observation System (ECHOS) and certified teachers will work with students using strategies and developmentally appropriate academics after the specific weaknesses have been identified.

N/A

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Reading Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?

What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?

Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?

Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?

Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement

Objective Linked to Area of Improvement

In grades 3-5, 37 % of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT. This represents a decrease of three percentage points as compared to 41 % who achieved mastery in 2008. The weakest content cluster was: Grade 3- Words and Phrases which decreased by 6 percentage point from 50% in 2008 to 44% in 2009; Grade 4- Main Idea and Author’s Purpose which decreased by 7 percentage point from 50% to 43; and in Grade 5- words and Phrases which decreased from 50% to 43% and Main Idea and Author’s which decrease by 9 percentage point from, 56% to 43%.

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards 72% of the students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Action StepPerson Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step

Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step

Evaluation Tool

1 1. Review the FAIR data in order to group students appropriately and to identify students’ deficiencies in order to provide appropriate instruction/ intervention.

1. Administration Reading Coaches

1. Ensure teachers are grouping students for instruction based on the results of the FAIR assessment.

1. FAIR results, Interim Assessments, Bi-weekly assessments

2 2 .Include higher-order questions and Reciprocal Teaching Strategies in lesson plans to target Main Idea and Author’s Purpose across all grade levels.

2. Administration Reading Coaches

2. Lesson plans will be reviewed during classroom walkthroughs to observe evidence of reciprocal strategies.

2. Classroom walkthrough log and focused walkthroughs to ensure that teachers are using recommended strategies.

3 3.Develop an Instructional Focus Calendar for Reading and Language Arts classes that incorporate differentiated instruction through center activities for the words and phrases content clusters

3. Administration Reading Coaches.

3. Administration will be aware of the IFC’s and monitor the implementation of the Differentiated Instruction, and centers through classroom walkthroughs and review of teacher lesson plans.

3. Effectiveness will be determined through District Interims and school-based assessments. i.e. benchmark assessment



Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 34% of Economically Disadvantaged scored at or above Level 3. This represents a decrease of 2 percentage points as compared to 36% which scored at or above Level 3 in 2008. The content cluster focus will be on word and phrases.

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards,72% of the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 Implement the Accelerated Reader Program across grade levels to encourage independent reading and

Administration, Reading Coaches, Media Specialist

Student progress will be monitored through monthly reports, bi-weekly frequency of benchmark

Effectiveness will be determined through frequency of AR books checked out from the media

vocabulary development, incorporating, Elements of Reading Vocabulary

assessment. center.



Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 30 percent of the Black subgroup scored at or above Level 3 on Words and Phrases. This represents a decrease of 3 percentage points as compared to 33% of the Black subgroup who scored at or above Level 3 in 2008.

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 72% of the Black subgroup will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT.



Evaluation Tool

1 Extended learning opportunities will be provided before, during and after school utilizing SuccessMaker.

Administration, Reading Coaches and Media Specialist.

Effectiveness will be determined through District Interims and school-based assessments.

Monthly Reports, monitoring instruction and learning and attendance rosters.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every

Teacher

Objective Addressed Content/Topic Facilitator Target Date

Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring

Person Responsible

for Monitoring

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 72% of the students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar.

Reading Coaches August 2009

Modeling of lessons, classroom walkthroughs, and documentation in lesson plans

Administration Reading Coaches

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards,72% of the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup will achieve mastery on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Effective Implementation of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies


Modeling of lessons, classroom walkthroughs, and documentation in lesson plans.



Elements of Reading Vocabulary, SuccessMaker


Classroom walkthroughs and review of lesson plans to ensure alignment with learning objectives and student needs



FAIR administration Reading Coaches August 2009 Computer Reports



Differentiated Instruction and Guided Reading with data driven centers.

Differentiated Instruction and Guided Reading with data driven centers.

August 2009

Modeling and review lessons, classroom walkthroughs, and review lesson plans to ensure alignment with the Sunshine State Standards.


N/A

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)

Description of Resources Funding Source Available Amount

No Data No Data $0.00

Total: $0.00

Technology


Successmaker District $10,000.00

Total: $10,000.00

Professional Development



Total: $0.00

Other



Substitute Coverage $1,200.00

Total: $1,200.00

Final Total: $11,200.00

End of Reading Goal

Mathematics Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?

What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?

Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?

Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?

Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?



In grades 3-5, 48% of students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents a change in percentage point when compared to 48% that achieved mastery in 2008. The weakest content clusters were: Grade 3: Number Sense and Measurement. Algebraic Thinking and Data analysis showed no improvement over the 2008 scores. Grade 4: Number sense, which showed a slight improvement of 5% from 31% in 2008 to 45% in 2009. Grade 5: Measurement and Geometry showed no growth over the previous year’s score of 36% and 46% respectively.

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74% of students in grade 3-5 will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Create differentiated instructional groups focusing on Number Sense in grades 3 and 4 and Measurement in grade 5.

1. Administration Mathematics Coach, and Grade Level Chairs

1. District Interims and school-based assessments.

1. Walkthroughs by administration will be used to ensure all math teachers differentiating instruction to meet student needs.

2 2. Utilize the SPI/Interim Assessments to identify and provide students in the core curriculum with appropriate interventions and enrichment opportunities.

2. Administration Mathematics Coach, and Leadership Team


2. Review student grouping charts frequently to ensure ongoing groups are redesigned to target the need of students based on benchmark assessments.

3 3. Math Coach will provide students with focused activities that will prepare them to engage in more abstract reasoning, planning, analysis, judgment, and creative thought (high cognitive

3. Administration Mathematics Coach, and Grade Level Chairs


3. Walkthroughs by administration and coaches will be used to ensure all math teachers are engaging students in abstract reasoning, planning, analysis, judgment, and creative thoughts

complexity level) in mathematics

activities.



In grades 3-5, 41% of the Black subgroup achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents a decrease of 1% when compared to 42% who achieved mastery in 2008. The content focus cluster will be on measurement.

In grades 3-5, 41% of the Black subgroup achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents a decrease of 1% when compared to 42% who achieved mastery in 2008. The content focus cluster will be on measurement.



Evaluation Tool

1 Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts with emphasis on measurement.

Administration Mathematics Coach, and Grade Level Chairs

District Interims and school-based assessments.

Lesson plan; focused walkthroughs



In grades 3-5, 46% of Economically Disadvantage students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents an increase of 1% compared to 45% who achieved mastery in 2008. The content cluster focus will be Data Analysis.

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74 percent of Economically Disadvantage subgroup will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics.



Evaluation Tool

1 Provide students with center based activities involving collecting classroom data (including data collected through observations, surveys, and experiments) to create graphs and charts.

Administration, Mathematics Coach Administration, Mathematics Coach

District Interims and school-based assessments.

Students will maintain a data book as a record of collected Review of student’s work samples, lesson plans and focused walkthroughs.




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74% of students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.

Effective implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar

Mathematics Coach

August, 2009

Walkthroughs, and review of instructional focus calendar, lesson plans and benchmark assessments.

Administration and Math Coach

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74 percent of the Black subgroup of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics

Effective use of manipulatives and hands-on activities

Mathematics Coach

August, 2009

Focused walkthroughs and lesson plan reviews

Administration and Math Coach

Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74 percent of Economically Disadvantage students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics.

Differentiated Instruction

Mathematics Coach

August, 2009 Focused walkthroughs Administration

and Math Coach

Budget:




Total: $0.00

Technology



Total: $0.00




Total: $0.00

Other


Substitute Coverage Title 1 $1,200.00

Total: $1,200.00


End of Mathematics Goal

Science Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?

What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?



Based on the 2009 FCAT Science Assessment 8% of students in grade 5 scored at proficiency level. This represents a decrease of 18 percentile points when compared to 26 % of students who scored at proficiency level on the 2008 FCAT Science Assessment. The areas of need include: Physical /Chemical and Earth/ Space Science and Scientific Thinking.

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards (SSS), 50% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment..



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Utilize The Instructional Focus Calendar to address and review the annually assessed benchmarks.

1. Administrator Science Coach.

1. Interim Assessments 1.Classroom Walk-throughs

2 2. . Ensure that on a weekly instruction includes teacher-demonstrated as well as student-centered hands on laboratory/ experiment activities.


2. Interim Assessments 2. Lesson Plans, student work and lab logs.

3 3 Provide real world science experiences and engaging activities incorporating Gizmos technology and research based projects.


3. Interim Assessments 3 Lesson plans, Gizmos usage report and student work




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards (SSS), 50% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.

Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar/Pacing Guides.

Science Coach

August 2009

Modeling of lessons, classroom walkthroughs, documentation in lesson plans, and monthly benchmark assessments.

Administration Science Coach

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards (SSS), 50% of students will score at level three or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Assessment.

Effective Implementation of the FCAT Science Explorer Computer Program

Science Coach

August 2009

Modeling of lessons, classroom walkthroughs, and monitoring FCAT Explorer Reports.

Administration Science Coach

Budget:




Total: $0.00

Technology


Explore Learning Gizmos District $1,500.00

Total: $1,500.00




Total: $0.00

Other


Substitute Coverage Title 1 $800.00

Materials for the Science Labs Title 1 $650.00

Total: $1,450.00


End of Science Goal

Writing Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?

What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?



Based on the 2009 FCAT Writing Assessment performance data, 59% of the students tested met high standards in writing which is a decrease of 13 percentile points when compared to 72 % on the 2008 FCAT Writing Assessment.

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards (SSS), 73% of students in grade 4 will score 4.0 on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Assessment.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Integrate journal writing across the curriculum in Grades K-5 and Write Traits in grade 2-4 in order to increase students’ writing Proficiency.

1. Administration and Reading Coaches

1. FCAT Writing + District Baseline Assessment, School-based writing prompts, and Write traits Reports

1.Writing Focus calendar, review of lesson plans and focused walkthroughs

2 2. Student writing data will be analyzed and weaknesses will be targeted for additional instruction through differentiated instruction.

2. Administration Reading and Coaches

2. Evidence of improved student progress will be evident on writing assessments.

2. Monthly writing samples, writing notebooks

3 3. Integrate the use of student friendly rubrics

3 Administration and Reading Coaches

3. Evidence of improved student progress will be evident on writing assessments.

3. Lesson Plans, classroom walkthroughs, review of student work




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards (SSS), 73% of students in grade 4 will score 4.0 on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Assessment

Teaching the Use of the FCAT writing rubric. Building student vocabulary

Reading Coach

September-October 2009

Monitor student writing portfolios, notebooks or journals. The students will use red pens to make revisions and edit so that their self correcting behavior can be easily monitored. Teachers will keep a record of weekly writing assessments in both narrative and expository, with a greater emphasis on narrative writing, and will use data to determine student weaknesses

Administration, Reading Coach

Budget:



Write Traits Title I $3,000.00

Total: $3,000.00

Technology



Total: $0.00




Total: $0.00

Other


Writing Tablets Title I $95.00

Total: $95.00


End of Science Goal

Parent Involvement Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?

Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:

Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?

Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?



Based on the 2008-2009 school year 10 parent compacts were collected. This reflects a need to increase the number of parent compacts collected during the 2009 school year, the Community Involvement Specialist will collect 100 parent compacts .

The school will collect 100 parent compacts by June 2010.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Offer parent workshops for parents before, during, and after school on using

1. Leadership Team, CIS

1. Parent Attendance sign-in sheets

1. Maintain parental telephone logs and activity reports.

the parent portal, Importance of reading at home and Family Reading, Math and Science Nights.

2 2. Use of Connect Ed messaging system

2. Principal 2. Title I Administration Parental Involvement Monthly School Report.

2. Collect Participation data through parent survey

3 3. Use of the CIS to collect parent compacts.

3. Community Involvement Specialist,

3. Title I Administration Parental Involvement Monthly Activities Report.

3. Tally Parental Involvement Monthly School and Activity Reports.


Objective Addressed Content/Topic Facilitator Target

Date


Person Responsible

for Monitoring

The school will increase the number of parent contacts by 1% by June 2010.

Title I in Action: A Practitioners Perspective!

Principal, Community Involvement Specialist

Ongoing throughout the 2009-2010 school year.

Effectiveness will be determined by the completion of parent surveys.

Selected school staff identified by the Principal; Office of Community Services and the Office of Program Evaluation

Budget:



Monthly Family workshops Title 1 $1,000.00

1% of the Title I Part A School-wide allocation and District parental set-aside. Title 1 Part A $20,000.00

Total: $21,000.00

Technology



Total: $0.00




Total: $0.00

Other



Total: $0.00


End of Parent Involvement Goal

Other GoalsNo Other Goals were submitted for this school

FINAL BUDGET

Differentiated Accountability

School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance

Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance (Uploaded on 9/11/2009 2:40:54 PM)

School Advisory Council


Goal Description of Resources Funding Source Available Amount

Writing Write Traits Title I $3,000.00

Parental Involvement Monthly Family workshops Title 1 $1,000.00

Parental Involvement1% of the Title I Part A School-wide allocation and District parental set-aside.

Title 1 Part A $20,000.00

Total: $24,000.00

Technology


Reading Successmaker District $10,000.00

Science Explore Learning Gizmos District $1,500.00

Total: $11,500.00



No Data No Data No Data $0.00

Total: $0.00

Other


Reading


Substitute Coverage $1,200.00

Mathematics Substitute Coverage Title 1 $1,200.00

Writing Writing Tablets Title I $95.00

Science Substitute Coverage Title 1 $800.00

Science Materials for the Science Labs Title 1 $650.00

Total: $3,945.00


Intervenenmlkj Correct IInmlkji Prevent IInmlkj Correct Inmlkj Prevent Inmlkj NAnmlkj

School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance

The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school.

Yes. Agree with the above statement.

Projected use of SAC Funds Amount

Positive Behavior Support Training and Incentives 1200

Professional Development Workshops & Training 5000

Student Uniform additions 1450

Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year

SAC Members

The School Advisory Council (SAC) has an important function for the success of Jesse J. McCrary Elementary School. Listed below are some of the functions of the SAC. • Reach out to community to obtain more partners • Organize FCAT Family Night Event • Sponsor drives to increase parent involvement • Assist the school to create and analyze school climate surveys for parents and students

Members

1) Andy Jean M. Pierre-Louis, Principal

2) Jada Franks, Student

3) Abbie Mitchell, Teacher

4) Ruth Pierre, Teacher

5) Pamela Cox (Chair), Teacher

6) Hillivi J Cunningham, Teacher

7) Indraine Hassad, Teacher

8) Andrea Sutton, Teacher

9) Aisha Jackson, Parent

10) Jean Jude, Parent

11) Yanick Edmond, Parent

12) Rubinette Etienne, Parent

13) Antoinette Pierre, Parent

14) Sandra Price, Parent

15) Nannette Negron, Parent

16) Maria Mendosa, Parent

17) Jeune Miraculeuse, Parent

18) Jean-Claude Destine, School Support Personnel

19) Gwelda Lemon, School Support Personnel

20) Linda Brown , Union Steward

AYP DATA

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Dade JESSE J. MCCRARY, JR. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3021

Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:

Click here to see Number of students in each groupRead: 240Math: 240

2008-2009 School Grade1:

F Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

NO

This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2).

This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.

GroupReadingTested 95% of the students?

MathTested 95% of the students?

65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading?

68% scoring at or above grade level in Math?

Improved performance in Writing by 1%?

Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%?

Percent of Students below grade level in Reading

SafeHarborReading

Percent of Students below grade level in Math

SafeHarborMath

% of students on track to be proficient in reading

Growth model reading

% of students on track to be proficient in math

Growth model math

2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N

TOTAL4 100 Y 100 Y 34 N 45 N 87 N NA 65 66 N 56 55 N 46 N 48 N

WHITE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BLACK 100 Y 100 Y 30 N 41 N 85 N NA 67 70 N 58 59 N 44 N 43 N

HISPANIC 100 Y 100 Y NA NA NA NA NA NA

ASIAN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMERICAN INDIAN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 100 Y 100 Y 34 N 46 N 87 N NA 64 66 N 55 54 N 46 N 48 N

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 100 Y 100 Y 30 N 45 N NA NA 78 70 Y 66 55 Y 53 NA 53 NA

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA





D Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

NO










SafeHarborReading


SafeHarborMath




Growth model math


TOTAL4 100 Y 100 Y 35 N 44 N 94 Y NA 58 65 NA 56 56 NA 39 NA 52 NA


BLACK 100 Y 100 Y 33 N 42 N 94 Y NA 56 67 NA 54 58 NA 36 NA 49 NA

HISPANIC 100 Y 100 Y NA NA NA NA NA NA



ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 100 Y 100 Y 36 N 45 N 94 Y NA 58 64 NA 55 55 NA 40 NA 53 NA

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 100 Y 100 Y 22 N 34 N NA NA 65 78 NA 66 66 NA 33 NA 48 NA






C Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

NO










SafeHarborReading


SafeHarborMath




Growth model math


TOTAL4 100 Y 100 Y 42 N 44 N 84 94 Y NA 63 56 Y 60 56 N 43 NA 56 Y


BLACK 100 Y 100 Y 44 N 46 N 87 94 Y NA 63 54 Y 62 54 Y 44 NA 58 NA

HISPANIC 100 Y 100 Y 36 N 36 N NA NA 71 NA 46 64 N 43 N 50 N



ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 100 Y 100 Y 42 N 45 N 84 94 Y NA 63 57 N 59 55 N 44 N 57 Y

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 100 Y 100 Y 35 N 34 N NA NA 77 65 Y 66 66 N 39 NA 46 N


Dade School DistrictLITTLE RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL2008-2009

Reading

Math

Writing

Science

GradePointsEarned

% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)

37% 48% 73% 8% 166

Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.

% of Students Making Learning Gains

51% 54% 105

3 ways to make gains:● Improve FCAT Levels● Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5● Improve more than one year within Level

1 or 2Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?

51% (YES) 70% (YES) 121

Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.

Points Earned 392 Percent Tested = 100% Percent of eligible students tested

School Grade F Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


Reading

Math

Writing

Science

GradePointsEarned


41% 48% 84% 26% 199



49% 52% 101

3 ways to make gains:● Improve FCAT Levels● Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5● Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2

Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?

45% (NO) 67% (YES) 112



School Grade D Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


Reading

Math

Writing

Science

GradePointsEarned


45% 47% 85% 15% 192



59% 65% 124

3 ways to make gains:● Improve FCAT Levels● Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5● Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2

Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?

61% (YES) 76% (YES) 137



School Grade C Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

Documents

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM 2009 – …osi.dadeschools.net/sip/09-10/pdf/3021.pdf · Reading, Math, Science and Writing test. According to the 2008 -2009 FCAT Reading