2011-20
April 201Rule 6A-Revised A
012 School Imp
11 1.099811 April 29, 2011
provement Plan
FL
n (SIP)-Form S
LORIDA
Schoo
IP-1
DEPART
ol ImproFor
Proposed
TMENT O
ovementrm SIP-1
d for 2011-
OF EDUC
t Plan (S1
-2012
CATION
SIP)
11
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 2 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
2011 – 2012 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PART I: SCHOOL INFORMATION
School Name: Tavares Middle School District Name: Lake County
Principal: Ms. Trella Mott Superintendent: Dr Susan Moxley
SAC Chair: Ms Laura Chandler Date of School Board Approval:
Student Achievement Data: The following links will open in a separate browser window. . School Grades Trend Data (Use this data to complete Sections 1-4 of the reading and mathematics goals and Sections 1 and 2 of the writing and science goals.) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data (Use this data to complete Sections 5A-5D of the reading and mathematics goals and Section 3A-3D of the writing goals.) Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data (Use this data to inform the problem-solving process when writing goals.) Highly Qualified Administrators List your school’s highly qualified administrators and briefly describe their certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an administrator, and their prior performance record with increasing student achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT performance (Percentage data for Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Position Name Degree(s)/ Certification(s)
Number of Years at Current School
Number of Years as an Administrator
Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT (Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP information along with the associated school year)
Principal
Trella Mott Bachelor of Arts – Consumer Science, Florida State University. Master of Science – Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University. Certification:
3 14 2010-2011 Principal Tavares Middle School Grade A 66% Reading mastery 63% Mathematics mastery Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 70% White, 51% African American, 55% Hispanic, 58% Economically Disadvantaged and 36% students with disabilities
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 3 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Principal, State of Florida
made AYP in Reading. AYP: 66% White, 43% African American, 56% Hispanic, 53% Economically Disadvantaged and 38% students with disabilities made AYP in mathematics. 2009-2010 Principal Tavares Middle School Grade A 67% Reading mastery 62% Mathematics mastery Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 30% White, 33% African American, 35% Hispanic, 42% Economically Disadvantaged and 62% students with disabilities did not make AYP in Reading. AYP: 33% White, 66% African American, 42% Hispanic, 49% Economically Disadvantaged and 64% students with disabilities did not make AYP in mathematics. 2008-09 Assistant Principal – Leesburg HS Grade D 37% Reading Mastery 65% Math Mastery AYP: 73% SWD, 55% African Americans, and 45% Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in Math. 54% Whites, 85% SWD, 83% African Americans, and 74%Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in Reading. Ms Mott was charged with the 9th grade class which made gains in all categories. Additionally, the 9th grade had a 49% decrease in discipline. 2007-08 Assistant Principal Leesburg HS Grade D Significant gains over the previous year. 2007-08 Assistant Principal – Leesburg HS Grade D Significant gains over the previous year. 2006-07 Assistant Principal – Leesburg HS Grade D Significant gains over the previous year.
Assistant Principal
James Braucher
Bachelor of Arts, Business Administration, Mount Union College. Master of Science – Educational Leadership, Nova Southeastern University. Certification: Principal, State of Florida
3 11 2010-2011 Asst Principal Tavares Middle School Grade A 66% Reading mastery 63% Mathematics mastery Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 70% White, 51% African American, 55% Hispanic, 58% Economically Disadvantaged and 36% students with disabilities made AYP in Reading. AYP: 66% White, 43% African American, 56% Hispanic, 53%
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 4 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Economically Disadvantaged and 38% students with disabilities made AYP in mathematics. 2009-2010 Assistant Principal – Tavares Middle School Grade A 72% Reading mastery 66% Mathematics mastery 60% lowest quartile students made AYP in Reading 61% lowest quartile students made AYP in Mathematics Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 30% White, 33% African American, 35% Hispanic, 42% Economically Disadvantaged and 62% students with disabilities did not make AYP in Reading. AYP: 33% White, 66% African American, 42% Hispanic, 49% Economically Disadvantaged and 64% students with disabilities did not make AYP in mathematics. 2008-09 Assistant Principal – East Ridge HS Grade C 41% Reading Mastery 72% Math Mastery AYP: 62% SWD, 50% African Americans, 33% Hispanics, and 40%Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in Math. 50% Whites, 76% African Americans, 71% Economically Disadvantaged, 70%Hispanics, and 88% SWD did not make AYP n Reading. Mr Braucher was charged with the B&I Academy which made gains in reading and math. 2007-08 Assistant Principal – Clermont Middle School Grade A 2006-07 Assistant Principal – Mount Dora High School Grade C. Gains over the previous year.
Assistant Principal
Jessica Velez Bachelor of Science, English Education, Florida State University. Master of Science – Educational Leadership, University of Central Florida. Certification: Ed Leadership, State of Florida
2 4 2010-2011 Asst Principal Tavares Middle School Grade A 66% Reading mastery 63% Mathematics mastery Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 70% White, 51% African American, 55% Hispanic, 58% Economically Disadvantaged and 36% students with disabilities made AYP in Reading. AYP: 66% White, 43% African American, 56% Hispanic, 53% Economically Disadvantaged and 38% students with disabilities made AYP in mathematics. 2009-2010 Assistant Principal School – South Lake High School Grade pending 48% Reading mastery 76% Mathematics mastery
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 5 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
41% lowest quartile students made gains in reading but did not make AYP 60% lowest quartile students made AYP in Mathematics South Lake High school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 49% White, 66% African American, 66% Hispanic, 66% Economically Disadvantaged and 73% students with disabilities did not make AYP in Reading. AYP: 43% African American, 33% Hispanic, 37% Economically Disadvantaged and 56% students with disabilities did not make AYP in mathematics.
Assistant Principal
Charlotte Williams Bachelor of Arts, Special Education, University of Florida. Master of Science – Educational Leadership, Certification: Education leadership, State of Florida
3 4 2010-2011 Assistant Principal – Tavares Middle School Grade A 72% Reading mastery 66% Mathematics mastery 60% lowest quartile students made AYP in Reading 61% lowest quartile students made AYP in Mathematics Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 30% White, 33% African American, 35% Hispanic, 42% Economically Disadvantaged and 62% students with disabilities did not make AYP in Reading. AYP: 33% White, 66% African American, 42% Hispanic, 49% Economically Disadvantaged and 64% students with disabilities did not make AYP in mathematics. 2008-09 Assistant Principal – Leesburg HS Grade D 37% Reading Mastery 65% Math Mastery AYP: 73% SWD, 55% African Americans, and 45% Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in Math. 54% Whites, 85% SWD, 83% African Americans, and 74%Economically Disadvantaged did not make AYP in Reading. Ms Mott was charged with the 9th grade class which made gains in all categories. Additionally, the 9th grade had a 49% decrease in discipline.
Highly Qualified Instructional Coaches
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 6 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
List your school’s highly qualified instructional coaches and briefly describe their certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an instructional coach, and their prior performance record with increasing student achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT performance (Percentage data for Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Instructional coaches described in this section are only those who are fully released or part-time teachers in reading, mathematics, or science and work only at the school site.
Subject Area
Name Degree(s)/ Certification(s)
Number of Years at
Current School
Number of Years as an
Instructional Coach
Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT (Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP information along with the associated school year)
Reading
Maxine Mangus Bachelor Science in Language arts and Reading Certified K-12 Reading 6-12 LA ESOL
7 6 2010-2011 Grade A 66% Reading mastery 63% Mathematics mastery Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 70% White, 51% African American, 55% Hispanic, 58% Economically Disadvantaged and 36% students with disabilities made AYP in Reading. AYP: 66% White, 43% African American, 56% Hispanic, 53% Economically Disadvantaged and 38% students with disabilities made AYP in mathematics. 2009-2010 Grade A 72% Reading mastery 66% Mathematics mastery 60% lowest quartile students made AYP in Reading Tavares middle school did not meet federal adequate yearly progress under no child left behind. AYP: 30% White, 33% African American, 35% Hispanic, 42% Economically Disadvantaged and 62% students with disabilities did not make AYP in Reading. AYP: 33% White, 66% African American, 42% Hispanic, 49% Economically Disadvantaged and 64% students with disabilities did not make AYP in mathematics. 2008-2009 Grade A Reading-Level 3 and above 67% Learning Gains- 68% AYP Lowest 25%- 67% Math-Level 3 and above 65% Learning Gains- 73% AYP Lowest 25%- 78% 2007-2008 Grade A Reading-Level 3 and above 67% Learning Gains- 68% AYP Lowest 25%- 67% Math-Level 3 or above 65% Learning Gains- 73% AYP Lowest 25%- 79%
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 7 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Highly Qualified Teachers Describe the school-based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly qualified teachers to the school. Description of Strategy
Person Responsible Projected Completion Date Not Applicable (If not, please explain why)
1. 1. National Board Certified Teachers will mentor new and veteran teachers. Regular meetings are scheduled with newly hired teachers as a component of Tavares Middle School's on-going induction plan
Pat Rogers Sharon Lolley Diane Reid-Goolsby Leslie Lee Michelle Metheny
On-going
2. 2. Tavares Middle's strategies to recruit and retain highly qualified and high quality teachers includes, but is not limited to, on line advertising, District Applications, word-of-mouth, printed flyers, job fairs, and more.
Principal, all assistant principals, department chairs, grade level chairs, and other existing teachers.
On-going
3.
4.
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors List all instructional staff and paraprofessionals who are teaching out-of-field and/or who are NOT highly qualified. Name Certification Teaching Assignment Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 8 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Staff Demographics Please complete the following demographic information about the instructional staff in the school. *When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)). Total Number of Instructional Staff
% of First-Year Teachers
% of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience
% of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience
% of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience
% of Teachers with Advanced Degrees
% Highly Qualified Teachers
% Reading Endorsed Teachers
% National Board Certified Teachers
% ESOL Endorsed Teachers
61 1(1) 18 (11) 39 (23) 42 (26) 13 (8) 100 (61) 13 8 87
Teacher Mentoring Program Please describe the school’s teacher mentoring program by including the names of mentors, the name(s) of mentees, rationale for the pairing, and the planned mentoring activities. Mentor Name Mentee Assigned Rationale for Pairing Planned Mentoring Activities
Stanford Team: Ms Carter, Ms Wainright, Ms Hupalo,
Mr Keener This is a team assigned the same students with teachers in the same proximity
Weekly meetings and spontaneous needs
Ms Mangus, Instructional Coach Above same
Additional Requirements Coordination and Integration-Title I Schools Only Please describe how federal, state, and local services and programs will be coordinated and integrated in the school. Include other Title programs, Migrant and Homeless, Supplemental Academic Instruction funds, as well as violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult education, career and technical education, and/or job training, as applicable.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 9 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part C- Migrant
Title I, Part D
Title II
Title III
Title X- Homeless
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)
Violence Prevention Programs
Nutrition Programs
Housing Programs
Head Start
Adult Education
Career and Technical Education
Job Training
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School-Based RtI Team
Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team. Administrative Team - Trella Mott, Principal; James Braucher, Assistant Principal; Jessica Velez, Assistant Principal; Charlotte Williams, Assistant Principal:
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 10 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
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 through website, SAC, phone contact, and meetings.
Select General Education Teachers grades 6-8 (David Harris- math, Sharron Lolley - Language Arts, Lamica Caldwell - Science): 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) Specialist, Cori Bentancourt: 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.
Reading Coach (Instructional Specialist Coach), Maxine Mangus: Provides guidance on K-12 reading plan and specifically the 6-8 reading plan; facilitates and
supports data collection activities; assists in data analysis; provides professional development and technical assistance to teachers regarding data-based
instructional planning; supports the implementation of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 intervention plans.
Avid Leader, Kelly Cook: Develop, leads, and evaluates the Avid Program for struggling students.
School Psychologist, Ann Shutze: 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, (School based counselors), Joani Westmorland, Lisa Veazey, and Brenda Lettsome: Provide quality services and expertise on
issues ranging from program design to assessment and intervention with individual students and their needs. In addition to providing interventions
School social worker, Rachael Sadelmeyer, continues to link child-serving and community agencies to the schools and families to support the child's academic,
emotional, behavioral, and social success.
Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). How does it work with other school teams to organize/coordinate RtI efforts?
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 11 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
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
schools, our teachers, and in our students?
The team meets once a monthly 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. Data will be drawn from (1) Reading - FAIR testing (2) Math, Science, and Social Studies from baseline testing
(Edusoft).
Based on the above information, the team will:
Identify professional development and resources.
Collaborate regularly, problem solve, share effective practices, evaluate implementation, make decisions, and practice new processes and skills.
Facilitate the process of building consensus, increasing infrastructure, and making decisions about implementation Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan. Describe how the RtI Problem-solving process is used in developing and implementing the SIP? The RtI Leadership Team will meet once each month to develop and upgrade the SIP reporting to the School Advisory Council (SAC) at each SAC meeting. The
RtI team provides data and recommendations on:
Student achievement including tier 1, 2, and 3 targets.
Meeting focus points include:
Academic and social/emotional areas that need to be addressed.
Setting clear expectations for instruction (Rigor, Relevance, Relationship, Differentiated Instruction, Instructional Focus Calendar, Edusoft, Learn 360,
eSembler, Data Documentation) PLC’s).
Facilitate the development of a systemic approach to teaching (Gradual Release, Essential Questions, Activating Strategies, Teaching Strategies, Extending,
Refining, and Summarizing).
Aligning processes and procedures. RtI Implementation
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 12 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Describe the data source(s) and the data management system(s) used to summarize data at each tier for reading, mathematics, science, writing, and behavior. Baseline data:
Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN) = Reading – FAIR testing in September and December and April. Math & Science & Social Studies -
county-wide Edusoft testing of Benchmarks in September, December and April. Writing – Writing pretest scored via the FCAT rubric and entered into Edusoft.
These will be used as monitoring of student needs / progress as well as predictors of FCAT success. They are additionally used as a tool for student placement
for the following year.
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) administered in February and March.
Additionally Progress Monitoring:
My Access – a computer writing program - with students for grades 7 and 8 in the TMS writing lab every week. The data is analyzed by the teachers weekly
and the school makes reports in December and April.
Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR), a county/state wide diagnostic and progress monitoring initiative.
ExamView – a complimentary program with the county adopted textbooks allowing teachers to produce chapter/unit assessments based upon the S.S.S. The
data from these tests are transferred to Edusoft allowing analysis of student progress on a chapter-by-chapter basis.
End of year: FCAT, FAIR, Lake Benchmark Test in Math, Science, and Social Studies.
Frequency of Data Days: Target: September, December and April for data analysis. Reading Coach and Achievement Liaison will implement and data compare
to previous testing results. Describe the plan to train staff on RtI. Professional development will be provided during regularly scheduled teachers’ common planning time with small sessions occurring weekly throughout the
year, once per month during early release Wednesday, on teacher work days, during PLC meetings once per month during early release Wednesday, and
during Faculty Meetings.
• Professional Development sessions will take place starting in September. RtI: Challenges to Implementation Data-based Decision-making, and Supporting
and Evaluating Interventions. • RtI: Problem Solving Model: Building Consensus, Implementing, and Sustaining Problem-Solving/RtI Portfolio training •
eSembler training, Edusoft training • ExamView training• FAIR – overview training • Data Collection of student S.S.S. achievement at the classroom level •
Differentiated Instruction – Materials, Resources, Focus Lessons, Methods, Implementation Technology equipment training • “IFC’s” – Instructional Focus
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 13 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Calendars • P D Moments – 3-5 minute vignettes during faculty meetings highlighting best teaching practices such as word wall usage, vocabulary exercises,
lesson plans, ‘Student Driven Learning Objectives’ usage, etc.
Literacy Leadership Team (LLT)
School-Based Literacy Leadership Team
Identify the school-based Literacy Leadership Team (LLT). Principal, Trella Mott Literacy - Instructional Coach, Maxine Mangus LA Teacher, Linda Wooten Reading Teacher, Mariela Brink Media Specialist, Leslie Lee Reading Teacher, Felicia Thibodeau ESE Specialist, Cori Bentancourt Reading Teacher, Joan Rintelmann EBD Teacher, Jennifer Davis Describe how the school-based LLT functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). Literacy team meets on a monthly basis. Team functions under the leadership of the Principal. Minutes are taken during the meetings and are shared with membership. Updates are given to the school at large. What will be the major initiatives of the LLT this year? Plan to implement a current events read and write in social studies classes. Planning literacy week activities. Update Get Caught Reading campaign. Work to ensure that students participate in the Superintendent's Reading Challenge. Campus wide usage of MyOn Reader
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 14 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
NCLB Public School Choice
Notification of School in Need of Improvement (SINI) Status Upload a copy of the Notification of SINI Status to Parents in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page.
Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification
Upload a copy of the CWT Notification to Parents in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page.
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification Upload a copy of the SES Notification to Parents in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page.
*Elementary Title I Schools Only: Pre-School Transition Describe plans for assisting preschool children in transition from early childhood programs to local elementary school programs as applicable. *Grades 6-12 Only Sec. 1003.413(b) F.S For schools with Grades 6-12, describe the plan to ensure that teaching reading strategies is the responsibility of every teacher. Staff has been trained in CRISS strategies and there will be a refresher on October 24, 2011.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 15 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
*High Schools Only Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S., Sec. 1003.413(g)(j) F.S. How does the school incorporate applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future? How does the school incorporate students’ academic and career planning, as well as promote student course selections, so that students’ course of study is personally meaningful? Postsecondary Transition Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S. Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the High School Feedback Report.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 16 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS Reading Goals * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
READING GOALS Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in reading
Reading Goal #1:
1.1. 7th and 8th grade students do not have a dedicated reading class.
1.1. Stress reading and vocabulary in all content area classes. Progress monitoring MyOn Reader Use of CRISS strategies WICR – AVID strategies CAR-PD
1.1. Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
1.1. FAIR Teacher Observation FCAT Content area baseline assessments PLC's MyOn Reader reports
1.1. FCAT TEAM FAIR Lesson Study
Students will either increase a level and/or make annual learning gains.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
32%(315)of students are currently level 3 in reading.
40%(395) of students expected to achieve proficiency level (FCAT level 3) in reading.
1.2. School environment is not print rich 1.3 Lack of support
materials
1.2. Word Walls 1.2. CWT trainer, Trella Mott, Jim Braucher, Charlotte Williams and Jessica Velez.
1.2. Classroom observation Gr Level Admin
1.2. CWT
1.4 Lack of student
knowledge or personal testing data
1.4Data chats FAIR training for teachers
1.4Advisory teacher Literacy coach, Maxine Mangus
1.4Improved testing scores 1.4 FCAT Lake Benchmark Assessments (LBA’s) End of course exams (EOC’s)
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 17 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
FAIR
1.5 How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
1.5Focus discussion in reading/LA PLC group.
1.5PLC's A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez RTI Team
1.5CWT PLC minutes
1.5FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2. Students achieving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in reading
Reading Goal #2:
2.1.Lack of challenging enrichment activities, rigor.
2.1.Upper level differentiated instruction. Data chats. 6th grade advanced reading courses MyOn Reader
2.1.Classroom teachers. Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus. Gr level Administrator.
2.1.FAIR FCAT TEAM Common Assessments Teacher observations
2.1.FCAT TEAM FAIR Lesson Study End of course exams My On Reader
45% (445) make annual learning gains.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
34%(339) students are currently achieving above proficiency in reading.
45%(445) students are expected to achieve above proficiency in reading.
2.2.Lack of dedicated reading classes in 7th and 8th grade.
2.2.Employ more reading strategies in content area classes CAR-PD N6-CAR-PD
2.2.Classroom teachers TEAM Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
2.2.FAIR FCAT TEAM Common Assessments Teacher observations
2.2.FCAT TEAM FAIR Lesson Study End of course exams
2.3Lack of upper level lexile books in the media center.
2.3Add upper level lexile books to media center and classroom libraries.
2.3Media Specialist, Leslie Lee Classroom teachers
2.3Media checkout report for upper level lexile books. FAIR FCAT
2.3FCAT TEAM FAIR Lesson Study
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 18 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
TEAM Common Assessments Teacher observations
End of course exams
2.4How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
2.4Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group. Small group/differentiated instruction
2.4PLC's A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez
2.4 TEAM PLC minutes
2.4FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
3. Percentage of students making Learning Gains in reading
Reading Goal #3:
3.1. Student Behavior/disruptions
3.1.PBS New in-school suspension plan Homework lab
3.1. PBS school coordinator, Doris Weizenecker PBS AP, Braucher
3.1. TEAM reduction in percentage of discipline referrals teacher observation
3.1. AS400 discipline report TEAM
70%(694) of all students will make learning gains in reading
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
62%(613) of students made learning gains in reading.
70%(692) of students are expected to make learning gains on this year's FCAT.
3.2.Poor attendance
3.2.Use caucus period for Achievement Liaison/Guidance meetings discussing attendance.
3.2. Guidance counselors
3.2.Attendance report 3.2.Attendance report
3.3.No dedicated reading course for 7th and 8th graders.
3.3.Literature circles in LA classes Black board activities during advisory period
3.3Advisory teachers.
3..3.FCAT 3.3.FCAT
3.4How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
3.4Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group. Small group
3.4PLC leaders A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez
3.4PLC minutes TEAM
3.4FCAT Common assessments TEAM
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 19 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
3.5Test data ambiguity for students and staff.
3.5FAIR training for staff. Data chat training for staff. Data chats with students FCAT star training Edusoft training
3.5Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus Advisory teachers Principal Mott
3.5CWT Staff feedback Edusoft reports FAIR reports
3.5FCAT FAIR LBA's Common Assessments
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in reading
Reading Goal #4:
4.1. Lack of attendance
4.1. Guidance Counselors will monitor attendance and make parent contact.
4.1. Guidance Counselors by Gr Level
4.1. FCAT FAIR
4.1. FCAT FAIR
70%(169) will make learning gains
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
61%(151) in the lowest quartile made learning gains in reading.
70%(169) of students in lowest 25% is expected to make learning gains in reading.
4.2.Classroom disruptions
4.2.PBS 4.2PBS Coordinator, Doris Weizenecker. PBS AP, Braucher
4.2.Decrease in discipline referrals FCAT
4.2.AS400 Discipline report FCAT
4.3Taught same curriculum regardless of individual need.
4.3.Scaffold and tiered instruction. Differentiated instruction.
4.3.Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
4.3.FAIR Rd 180 CWT
4.3.FAIR FCAT CWT
4.4Test data ambiguity for students and staff.
4.4FAIR training for staff. Data chat training for staff.
4.4Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus Advisory teachers
4.4CWT Staff feedback
4.4FCAT FAIR
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 20 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Data chats with students FCAT star training Edusoft training
A.P. for curriculum, Jim Braucher
Edusoft reports FAIR reports
LBA's Common Assessments
4.5How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
4.5Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group.
4.5PLC leader A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez RTI Team
4.5PLC minutes TEAM
4.5FCAT FAIR
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5A. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5A:
Reading Goal #5A: Ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian)
5A.1. Lack of attendance
5A.1.Use caucus period for Parent / Guidance meetings discussing attendance. PBS Advisory lessons about attendance
5A.1. Advisory teachers and guidance counselors data chats
5A.1. Esembler AS400
5A.1. FCAT
The goal for subgroups as it pertains to AYP is for all groups to increase the percentage of students achieving AYP. white - 79%(543) black - 65%(70) Hispanic - 69%(90)
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
The following subgroups did not make AYP in reading: white - 30%(207) black - 59%(55) Hispanic - 28%(36)
The expected level of performance for the following subgroups are: white - 79%(543) black - 65%(70) Hispanic - 69%(90)
5A.2.Behavior/disruptions
5A.2.PBS Advisory Lesson on appropriate behavior New in-school suspension plan Homework lab
5A.2.PBS school coordinator, Doris Weizenecker PBS AP, Braucher
5A.2TEAM reduction in percentage of discipline referrals teacher observation
5A.2.AS400 discipline report TEAM
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 21 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
5A.3.Students unable to connect with text WICR strategies
5A.3.Learning styles inventory Data chats
5A.3.Advisory teachers Classroom teachers
5A.3.Teacher observation Common assessments with in the FCIM.
5A.3.Common assessments FCAT TEAM
5.A.4Test data ambiguity for students and staff.
5A.4FAIR training for staff. Data chat training for staff. Data chats with students FCAT star training Edusoft training
5A.4Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus Advisory teachers Principal Mott
5A.4CWT Staff feedback Edusoft reports FAIR reports
5A.4FCAT FAIR LBA's Common Assessments
5A.5How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
5A.5Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group.
5A.5PLC Leaders A.P. PLC's, Jessica Velez
5A.5CWT PLC minutes
5A.5FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5B. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5B:
Reading Goal #5B: English Language Learners (ELL)
5B.1.
5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1.
Enter narrative for the goal in this box.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box.
Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2.
5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 22 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5C. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5C:
Reading Goal #5C: Students with Disabilities (SWD)
5C.1. Lack of collaboration between general education teachers and inclusion team
5C.1.Inclusion training Reorganization of inclusion teams to subject area teams
5C.1.ESE Specialist Administration
5C.1.FCAT TEAM Lesson plans PLC minutes
5C.1.FCAT FAIR
44%(54) of students with disabilities are expected to make AYP this year in reading.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
63%(77) of students with disabilities did not make AYP in reading.
44%(54) of students with disabilities are expected to make AYP this year in reading.
5C.2. Lack of attendance
5C.2 Guidance Counselors will monitor attendance and make parent contact.
5C.2. Guidance Counselors
5C.2.FCAT FAIR
5C.2.FCAT FAIR
5C.3. Behavior/disruptions
5C.3.PBS New in-school suspension plan Homework lab
5C.3.PBS school coordinator, Doris Weizenecker PBS AP, Braucher
5C.3.TEAM reduction in percentage of discipline referrals teacher observation
5C.3.AS400 discipline report CWT
5C.4.How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
5C.4.Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group.
5C.4.PLC leader A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez
5C.4TEAM PLC minutes
5C.4.FCAT Common assessments CWT
5C.5.Test data ambiguity for students and staff.
5C.5.FAIR training for staff. Data chat training for staff.
5C.5.Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus Advisory teachers
5C.5.TEAM Staff feedback Edusoft reports
5C.5.FCAT FAIR LBA's
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 23 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Data chats with students FCAT star training Edusoft training LEAPS lessons
Principal Mott
FAIR reports
Common Assessments
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5D. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading
Reading Goal #5D:
Reading Goal #5D: Economically Disadvantaged
5D.1.Homeless students
5D.1.Identify and monitor students
5D.1.Guidance counselors
5D.1.Guidance report attendance report
5D.1.AS400 attendance report Guidance homeless report
Economically disadvantaged students will reach 63%(323) as it pertains to AYP.
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
42%(215) of ed students did not make AYP.
63%(323)ed students are expected to make AYP in reading.
5D.2.Lack of attendance
5D.2.Achievement Liaison and Guidance Counselors will monitor attendance and make parent contact.
5D.2.Guidance Counselors
5D.2.FCAT FAIR
5D.2.FCAT FAIR
5D.3. Test data ambiguity for students and staff.
5D.3.FAIR training for staff. Data chat training for staff. Data chats with students FCAT star training Edusoft training
5D.3.Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus Advisory teachers Principal Mott
5D.3.TEAM Staff feedback Edusoft reports FAIR reports
5D.3.FCAT FAIR LBA's Common Assessments
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 24 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
FAIR training 6-8
Literacy coach, Maxine Mangus
All subjects 6-8 once PLC meetings FAIR assessments
Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
FAIR test administrators
training
LA 6-8 Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
LA teachers Testing Coordinator, Kelly Cook
once Progress monitoring of FAIR assessment
Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
FCAT star training 6-8 all subjects
Test Coordinator
all instructional staff grades 6-8 once TEAM Administrative team
Edusoft training
6-8 all core subjects
ILS, Jane Chapuis Edusoft Contact Zohar Cain
All core subjects instructional staff grades 6-8
on going through out the school year
PLC minutes TEAM
Administrative team
Esembler 6-8 all subjects
ILS, Jane Chapuis
all instructional staff grades 6-8 once Lesson plan review Administrative team
Lesson Study Training 6-8 all subjects Linda Connor all instructional staff grades
6-8 once PLC Minutes Administrative team
MyON Reader 6-8 all subjects MyOn trainer Reading team once Lesson plan review Administrative team
Reading Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
5D.4How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
5D.4Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group.
5D.4PLC leaders A.P. of PLC, Jessica Velez
TREAM PLC minutes
5D.4FCAT Common assessments TEAM
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 25 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Strategy
Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Reading Goals Mathematics Goals * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g. 70% (35)).
MATHEMATICS GOALS Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Students achieving proficiency (Level 3) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #1:
Lack of Rigor in Instruction
Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher
Principal Mott
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 26 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Increase students scoring level 3 to level 4
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors
FCAT Class evaluation TEAM
37%(363) of school population achieved level 3 in mathematics
45%(442) of school population will achieve level 4.
Students not mastering common assessments to be grouped in classroom for intervention & enrichment during advisory.
Differentiated instruction learning centers PLC's to develop lessons Tiered lessons Continue and Refine CRISS strategies PENDA Learning
Department Chair Dave Harris Classroom teachers PLC AP, Velez
PLC's Retesting the common assessments Teacher observations
Mini assessments FCAT LBA's PLC review TEAM
Student lack of tracking individual progress
Data chat training for staff. Data chats with students Edusoft training PENDA training
Classroom Teacher Advisory teachers PENDA Implemation Manager Principal Mott
Staff feedback PENDA reports Edusoft reports
FCAT PENDA LBA's Common Assessments TEAM
apply RtI process to continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Dept. Head, Dave Harris PLC AP, Velez Math lead teachers RTI Team
CWT PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Lack of reading and writing in math
AVID trained personnel share AVID strategies
Principal Mott
CWT
Common Assessments
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 27 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
classroom with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year Implementation of Cornell Notes
Classroom Teacher Math Depart. Chair – Dave Harris
Staff feedback
TEAM MyOn Reader
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2. Students achieving above proficiency (Levels 4 and 5) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #2:
Lack of emphasis in lesson plans of higher order thinking questions.
A PLC session will be devoted to focusing on higher order questioning. Lead math teachers will coach other teachers during lesson study discussions.
Math Dept. Chair, Dave Harris Lead math teachers Principal Mott AP Velez, PLC
Teachers incorporate new strategies in lesson plans Results of Common assessments
Advanced math course lesson plans LBA's Common Assessments TEAM
Increase the percentage of students scoring levels 4 and 5 by integrating an increased number of higher order thinking questions, rigor, inquiry based teaching and math process standards into advanced math courses.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
24% (234)students achieved above proficiency in mathematics.
35% (344)of school population will achieve FCAT level 5. Lack of Rigor in
Instruction Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
Principal Mott Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors AVID AP Velez
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft FCAT Class evaluation TEAM
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Chair Dave Harris Math lead teachers PLC's
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Lack of reading and writing in math classroom
AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other
Principal Mott Classroom Teacher
TEAM Staff feedback
Common Assessments
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 28 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year Implementation of Cornell Notes
Math Depart. Chair – Dave Harris
TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
3. Percentage of students making learning gains in mathematics (excluding 9th grade; learning gains will not be available for this grade)
Mathematics Goal #3:
Lack of mathematical fundamental skills.
Use math centers with level 1 students. Computer assisted instruction Tiered assignments to meet the needs of individual assignments.
Principal Mott Math Chair Dave Harris Classroom teachers PLC's
PENDA Common Assessments
Common assessment data TEAM LBA's PENDA TEAM
Increase the percentage of students making learning gains by 15%.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012Expected Level of Performance:*
69% (682) of students made learning gains in mathematics.
74%(732) of students are expected to make learning gains in mathematics.
Lack of Rigor in Instruction
Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
Principal Mott Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft FCAT Class evaluation TEAM
Increased rigor of FCAT 2.0 benchmarks.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Dept. Chair Dave Harris Math lead teachers PLC's
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Chair Head, Dave Harris Math lead teachers
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 29 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
instruction. PLC's
TEAM
Lack of reading and writing in math classroom
AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year Implementation of Cornell Notes
Principal Mott Classroom Teacher Math Depart. Chair – Dave Harris
TEAM Staff feedback
Common Assessments TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #4:
Lack of mathematical fundamental skills.
Use math centers with level all students. Computer assisted instruction Tiered assignments to meet the needs of individual assignments.
Principal Mott Math Dept. Head, Dave Harris Classroom teachers PLC's
PENDA Common Assessments
FCAT Common assessment data TEAM LBA's PENDA
40% of students in lowest 25% are expected to make learning gains in mathematics.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
27%(46)students in lowest 25% made learning gains in mathematics.
40%(74)students in lowest 25% are expected to make learning gains in mathematics.
Lack of Rigor in Instruction
Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
Principal Mott Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors AVID AP Velez
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft FCAT Class evaluation
Increased rigor of FCAT 2.0 benchmarks.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Dept. Chair, Dave Harris Math lead teachers
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 30 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
PLC's
TEAM
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Dept. Chair, Dave Harris Math lead teachers PLC's RTI Team
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Lack of reading and writing in math classroom
AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year Implementation of Cornell Notes
A.P Curriculum, Braucher Classroom Teacher Math Depart. Chair – Dave Harris AVID AP Velez
CWT Staff feedback
Common Assessments
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5A. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5A:
Mathematics Goal #5A: Ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian)
Black, Hispanic Student Attendance
Counselors and advisory teachers will monitor attendance and make parent contact. School Messenger utilizing email, texting, and phone messages
Guidance Counselors, Brenda Lettsome Lisa Veazey Joni Westmorland Advisory teachers
TEAM Advisory Lessons Guest Entry Emphasis teacher observation
AS400 attendance report TEAM Esembler
The goal for subgroups as it pertains to AYP is for all groups to increase the percentage of students achieving AYP enabling the school to make AYP.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
The following subgroups did not make AYP in mathematics: white - 33%(224) black - 66%(77) Hispanic - 42%(52)
The expected level of performance for the following subgroups are: white - 71%(482) black - 41%(48) Hispanic - 63%(78) Behavior/disruptions PBS
New in-school
PBS school coordinator, Doris Weizenecker
TEAM reduction in percentage of
AS400 discipline report
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 31 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
suspension plan Math afterschool lab
Math Dept. Head, Dave Harris
discipline referrals teacher observation
TEAM
Taught same curriculum regardless of individual need.
Scaffold and tiered instruction. Differentiated instruction.
Dept. Head, Dave Harris
TEAM PLC
FCAT LBA's PLC minutes
Lack of Rigor in Instruction
Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
A.P. Curriculum, Braucher. Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors AVID AP Velez
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft FCAT Class evaluation EOC LBA’s
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Dept. Head, Dave Harris Math lead teachers PLC's RTI Team
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5B. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5B:
Mathematics Goal #5B: English Language Learners (ELL) N.A.
5B.1.
5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1.
Enter narrative for the goal in
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 32 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
this box.
Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box.
Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box.
5B.2.
5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2.
5B.3
5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3.
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5C. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5C:
Mathematics Goal #5C: Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Collaboration between general education teachers and inclusion team
Inclusion training Reorganization of inclusion teams to subject area teams PLC Meetings
ESE Specialist Administration
FCAT TEAM Lesson plans PLC minutes
FCAT EOC LBA’s
43%(56) students are expected to make AYP in mathematics
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
64%(84) students with disabilities did not make AYP.
43%(56) students are expected to make AYP in mathematics. Lack of Rigor in
Instruction Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
A.P curriculum, Braucher. Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors AVID Coordinator, Cook Avid AP, Velez
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft FCAT Class evaluation
Behavior/disruptions PBS New in-school suspension plan Homework lab
PBS school coordinator, Doris Weizenecker
TEAM reduction in percentage of discipline referrals teacher observation
AS400 discipline report TEAM EOC
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 33 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
Math Dept. Head, Dave Harris Math lead teachers PLC's RTI Team
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM EOC
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5D. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5D:
Mathematics Goal #5D: Economically Disadvantaged
Homeless students Identify and monitor students
Guidance counselors, Brenda Lettsome Lisa Veazey Joni Westmorland
Guidance report attendance report
AS400 attendance report Guidance homeless report
56%(285) ed students are expected to make AYP in mathematics
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
49%(249) ed students did not make AYP in mathematics.
56%(285) ed students are expected to make AYP in mathematics. Lack of Rigor in
Instruction Develop focus lessons that go in-depth and concentrate on higher order –thinking problems. AVID trained personnel will share AVID strategies with other instructors to implement in classroom instruction throughout the school year
A.P curriculum, Braucher. Classroom teacher Trained AVID instructors AP AVID, Velez
Chart assessments and incorporate in data folder to discuss in PLC’s
Mini assessments and LBA's graded through Edusoft FCAT Class evaluation EOC
classroom follows RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in math PLC group.
PLC leaders A.P. of PLC, Jessica Velez
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 34 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
CRISS 6-8 all core
subjects
Staff development trainer
All core subject instructional staff grades 6-8
Review October TEAM Administrative team
FCAT star training 6-8 all
subjects
Achievement Liaison, Kelly Cook
all instructional staff grades 6-8 September 9, 2011 TEAM Administrative team
Edusoft training
6-8 all core subjects
ILS, Jane Chapuis Achievement Liaison, Kelly Cook
All core subjects instructional staff grades 6-8
ongoing throughout the school year
PLC minutes TEAM
Administrative team
Board Configuration training 6-8 all
subjects
Academy teacher, Katie Latta
all instructional staff grades 6-8 August 2011 TEAM Administrative staff
Word Walls 6-8 all subjects
LA teacher, Linda Wooten all instructional staff August 2011 TEAM Administrative team
PENDA 6-8 Math and Science
PENDA Implementation Manager
Math and Science instructors, 6-8 September 2011
PENDA reports TEAM
Dept. Chair, Dave Harris Administrative team
Differentiated Instruction 6-8 subjects
Fl. Inclusion Network Trainer
6-8 all instructional staff September 2011 TEAM RtI Team
Administrative team RtI
TEAM Training 6-8 subject area LCSB all subject instructional staff ongoing
TEAM PLC minutes
Administrative team PLC leaders
Esembler 6-8 all subjects
ILS, Jane Chapuis
all instructional staff grades 6-8 ongoing Lesson plan review Administrative team
Mathematics Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 35 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Mathematics Goals Science Goals * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
SCIENCE GOALS Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in science
Science Goal #1: Increase the number of level 1 & 2 students who will achieve level 3 by 10%
Students are tested on material for which they received instruction 1-2 years prior.
Benchmark Assessments using Edusoft PENDA
All Science Teachers Principal Mott
TEAM mini assessment with IFC PLC Collaboration
FCAT PENDA LBA's
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 36 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
41%(127) students are expected to achieve level 3 in science
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
IFC
Science Dept. Chair, Lamica Caldwell A.P. for Curriculum, Jim Braucher
PENDA reports Edusoft reports
31%(96) students achieved level 3 in science.
41%(127) students are expected to achieve level 3 in science.
Students experiencing difficulty with the content.
AVID strategies CRISS Strategies Labs
AVID Teachers All teachers
AVID PLC PLC minutes Lab write up
FCAT LBA’s TEAM Lab documentation form
Teacher implementation of various learning strategies.
PLC Professional Development Lesson Study PENDA training AVID training CRISS training Edusoft training
All Science Teachers AVID teachers PLC Facilitator Science Dept. Chair, Lamica Caldwell Principal Mott A.P. of Curriculum, Braucher A.P. of PLC’s, Velez
PLC minutes PENDA Edusoft LBA's
PENDA Common Assessments LBA's FCAT TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2. Students achieving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in science
Science Goal #2:
Lack of rigor. Progress monitoring and RTI while continuing core instruction
Upper level differentiated instruction. Data chats. Review of previous
All Science teachers. Dept. Chair, Lamica Caldwell
FKitty FCAT TEAM
FCAT TEAM Lesson Study
20%(62)students are
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 37 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Word Walls 6-8 all subjects
LA teacher, Linda Wooten all instructional staff ongoing TEAM Administrative team
CRISS 6-8 all core
subjects
Staff development trainer
All core subject instructional staff grades 6-8
ongoing TEAM Administrative team
FAIR training 6-8
Literacy coach, Maxine Mangus
All subjects 6-8 ongoing PLC meetings FAIR assessments
Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
AVID Training all avid core subjects
Avid Coordinator, Kelly Cook
all avid staff grades 7-8 ongoing TEAM Administrative team
Edusoft training Zoe Cain 6-8 all core subjects
ILS, Jane Chapuis Avid Coordinator, Kelly Cook
All core subjects instructional staff grades 7-8 ongoing
PLC minutes TEAM
Administrative team
AVID TEAM Training 7-8 all core avid subjects Mott, Prin AVID Teachers July 2011 TEAM & Avid PLC’s Administrative staff
PENDA 6-8 Math and Science
PENDA Implementation Manager, Janet Belzano
Math and Science instructors, 6-8 ongoing
PENDA reports TEAM
Dept. Chair, Lamica Caldwell Administrative team
Differentiated Instruction 6-8 subjects
Fl. Inclusion Network Trainer
6-8 all instructional staff ongoing TEAM RtI
Administrative team RtI
expected to achieve above proficiency in science.
14%(43)students achieved above proficiency in science.
20%(62)students are expected to achieve above proficiency in science..
year’s content incorporated into Advisory lessons. Labs
Science PLC PLC AP, Velez A.P. of Curriculum, Braucher
Common Assessments Teachers Observing Teachers LBA’s
EOC exams
2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2.
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 38 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
TEAM Training
6-8 subject area LCSB Trainer all subject instructional staff ongoing
TEAM PLC minutes
Administrative team PLC leaders
Science Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Science Goals Writing Goals
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 39 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)). WRITING GOALS Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Students achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (FCAT Level 4.0 and higher) in writing
Writing Goal #1:
Students not doing authentic writing in all content area classes.
Incorporate authentic writing in all content area lesson plans. DBQ’s
Dept. Chair, Sharon Lolley PLC groups grade level administrator.
TEAM Lesson Plans PLC minutes
FCAT for 8th graders common assessments
96%(301) students are expected to make AYP in writing.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
88%(268) students achieved AYP in writing.
96%(301) students are expected to make AYP in writing.
1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2A. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2A:
Writing Goal #2A: Ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian)
Students not doing authentic writing in all content area classes.
Incorporate authentic writing in all content area lesson plans. DBQ implementation
Dept. Chair, Sharon Lolley PLC groups grade level administrator.
TEAM Lesson Plans PLC minutes
FCAT for 8th graders common assessments
The goal for subgroups as it pertains to AYP is 96%.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
The following subgroups did not make AYP in reading: white - 5%(11) black - 9%(3) Hispanic - 5%(2)
The expected level of performance for the following subgroups are: white - 96%(207) black - 92%(29) Hispanic - 96%(32) How the classroom
could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group. Small group instruction
PLC's A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 40 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2B. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2B:
Writing Goal #2B: English Language Learners (ELL)
2010 Current Level of Performance:*
2011 Expected Level of Performance:*
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2C. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2C:
Writing Goal #2C: Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Students not doing authentic writing in all content area classes.
Incorporate authentic writing in all content area lesson plans.
Dept. Chair, Sharon Lolley PLC groups grade level administrator.
TEAM Lesson Plans PLC minutes
FCAT for 8th graders common assessments
The goal for subgroups as it pertains to AYP is 86%.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
15%(7) students did not make AYP in writing.
86%(40) students with disabilities are expected to make AYP in writing.
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Focus discussion in Reading/LA PLC group.
PLC's A.P. of PLC's, Jessica Velez
TEAM PLC minutes
FCAT Common assessments TEAM
2C.3. 2C.3. 2C.3. 2C.3. 2C.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 41 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
FAIR training 6-8
Literacy coach, Maxine Mangus
All subjects 6-8 September, 2011 PLC meetings FAIR assessments
Literacy Coach, Maxine Mangus
FCAT star training 6-8 all subjects
Test Coordinator, Kelly Cook
all instructional staff grades 6-8 September, 2011 TEAM TEAM
Edusoft training 6-8 all core subjects
Edusoft Contact,
All core subjects instructional staff grades 6-8
on going through out the school year
PLC minutes TEAM
TEAM
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2D. Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2D:
Writing Goal #2D: Economically Disadvantaged
Students not doing authentic writing in all content area classes.
Incorporate authentic writing in all content area lesson plans. DBQ’s
Dept. Chair, Sharon Lolley PLC groups grade level administrator. Principal Mott
TEAM Lesson Plans PLC minutes
FCAT for 8th graders common assessments
94%(127) ed students are expected to make AYP in writing.
2011 Current Level of Performance:*
2012 Expected Level of Performance:*
7%(10) ed students did not make AYP in writing.
94%(127) ed students are expected to make AYP in writing.
How the classroom could follow the RtI process while continuing core instruction.
Incorporate authentic writing in all content area lesson plans.
Dept. Chair, Sharon Lolley PLC groups grade level administrator.
TEAM Lesson Plans PLC minutes
FCAT for 8th graders common assessments
2D.3.
2D.3. 2D.3. 2D.3. 2D.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 42 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Zohar Cain
Esembler 6-8 all subjects TMS TechCon all instructional staff grades
6-8 On going Lesson plan review Administrative team
Writing Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal:
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 43 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Total:
End of Writing Goals Attendance Goal(s) * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
ATTENDANCE GOAL(S) Problem-solving Process to Increase Attendance
Based on the analysis of attendance data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Attendance Attendance Goal #1: Increase the attendance rate by 2% and tardies by 4%
Monthly attendance checks have not been an emphasis for classroom teachers.
Advisory teacher/advocate will do weekly attendance checks for all advisory students. – Student Data Chats
Advisory teacher/advocate
Esembler Student data folders
Esembler AS400
Increase the attendance rate by 2% and tardies by 4% Decrease number of student absences by 2%.
2011 Current Attendance Rate:*
2012 Expected Attendance Rate:*
95.3%(961)students 97%(970)student expected for average daily attendance
2011 Current Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)
2012 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)
9.5%(95) students with excessive absences of 20 or more
5%(50)or less of students are expected to have excessive absences of 20 or more.
2011 Current Number of Students with Excessive Tardies
2012 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Tardies
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 44 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Effective Response to Stud Attendance all All Admin School Wide - PBS Every Month Fac Mtgs
Small Group Fac Mtgs Student Discipline Data Mr Braucher AP Ms Weizenecker – Coordinator
Attendance Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
(10 or more)
(10 or more)
9%(90) 3.9% (40)
Student’s lack of enthusiasm for school due to adult disconnect.
PBS model will encourage positive students and school staff behavior.
PBS coach, Doris WeizeneckerMr Braucher, AP
Esembler Student data folder
Esembler AS400
Student tardies PBS model rewards and consequences. (proven to work in a test model of 8th grade students at TMS during the 2010 spring quarter)
PBS coach, Doris Weizenecker & Mr Braucher, AP Classroom teacher
Esembler Student data folder. Students with minimal tardies qualify for rewards. Students with excessive tardies qualify for heavy consequences
Esembler AS400
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 45 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Attendance Goals Suspension Goal(s) * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
SUSPENSION GOAL(S) Problem-solving Process to Decrease Suspension
Based on the analysis of suspension data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Suspension Suspension Goal #1: Reduce OS suspensions by 20% and reduce IS suspensions by 20%
1.1. Changing the mind -et of the student body.
1.1. Behavioral lessons in the Advisory Mod (please see Caucus and Advisory Mod – Additional Goal) Conntinuation of the PBS Model known as patriot Pride at TMS.
1.1. Administration and PBS Team
1.1. Discipline data
1.1. AS400 FIDO Reduce OS suspensions
by 20% and reduce IS suspensions by 20% Reevaluate suspension procedures and identify reasons for the
2011 Total Number of In –School Suspensions
2012 Expected Number of In- School Suspensions
379 250
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 46 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Effective Positive Response to Behavior Problems
all All Admin School Wide - PBS Every Month Fac Mtgs Small Group Fac Mtgs Student Discipline Data
Mr Braucher AP Ms Weizenecker – Coordinator
Suspension Budget (Insert rows as needed)
suspensions. Target those areas.
2011 Total Number of Students Suspended In-School
2012 Expected Number of Students Suspended In -School
LEAPS lessons
216 100
2011 Number of Out-of-School Suspensions
2012 Expected Number of Out-of-School Suspensions
362 250
2011 Total Number of Students Suspended Out- of- School
2012 Expected Number of Students Suspended Out- of-School
210 100 1.2.perception of ISS 1.2.Change Iss to OSI
(opportunity for self improvement) and provide a structure to the daily lesson, activities, lunch, and procedures. Utilize OSI as a long term intervention for repeat students prior to OSS.
1.2. Administration
1.2. Discipline data
1.2. AS 400
1.3.
1.3. Incorporation of tier 1& 2 PBS in coming year LEAPS lessons
1.3. 1.3. 1.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 47 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Suspension Goals Dropout Prevention Goal(s) Note: Required for High School- F.S., Sec. 1003.53 * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
DROPOUT PREVENTION GOAL(S) Problem-solving Process to Dropout Prevention
Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 48 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Dropout Prevention Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal:
1. Dropout Prevention
Dropout Prevention Goal #1: *Please refer to the percentage of students who dropped out during the 2010-2011 school year.
1.1.
1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1.
Enter narrative for the goal in this box.
2011 Current Dropout Rate:*
2012 Expected Dropout Rate:*
Enter numerical data for dropout rate in this box.
Enter numerical data for expected dropout rate in this box.
2011 Current Graduation Rate:*
2012 Expected Graduation Rate:*
Enter numerical data for graduation rate in this box.
Enter numerical data for expected graduation rate in this box.
1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2.
1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 49 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Dropout Prevention Goal(s) Parent Involvement Goal(s) * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
PARENT INVOLVEMENT GOAL(S) Problem-solving Process to Parent Involvement
Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 50 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Effective Parent Telephone Contacts all All Admin School Wide - PBS Monthly Fac Mtgs
Small Group Fac Mtgs Student Discipline Data Mr Braucher AP Ms Weizenecker – Coordinator
1. Parent Involvement
Parent Involvement Goal #1: Increase parental involvement by 50% in all aspects of the educational process. There were approximately 150 parents involved in 2011.
1.1. Reaching the parents of the student body and involving them in daily activities as well as their students academics.
1.1 Increase parent involvement through the web page. Utilize the Advisory Mod for additional parent contact on positive social and academic behavior. Utilize PBS strategy of Positive Calls Home. Saturday Recovery School requiring parents to attend the sessions with the parents. Personal calls and contacts with parents asking them to become involved at TMS Utilize School Messenger, a new call out program that can reach the entire student body parent numbers, emails, and text contacts in minutes.
1.1. WebMaster Administration PBS Team and Administration Ms Mott Administration AP Mr Braucher
1.1 Web Page hits on the parent section. Records of parent/advocate contact Log of calls home Attendance records Log of contacts by administration Log of usage against parent involvement in any given call-out
1.1. Web hits documentation Advocate log Contact log AS400 Increased numbers as recorded by clubs, organizations, volunteers, community members, etc Number of calls made
The Spring 2011 Climate Survey indicated that surveyed parents desire improved communication, more parent involvement and increased discipline on disruptive students. .
2011 Current level of Parent Involvement:*
2012 Expected level of Parent Involvement:*
Parent participation for 2010-2011 school year was 15% (150)
Increase parent participation to 30% (300) for the 2012 year
1.2.
1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2.
1.3.
1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 51 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Parent Involvement Budget * Please ensure that items included in the Parental Involvement Policy/Plan (PIP) are outlined in the following budget section. Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Total:
End of Parent Involvement Goal(s)
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 52 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Additional Goal(s) * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator and/or
PLC Leader
PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)
Target Dates and Schedules (e.g. , Early Release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Avid Curriculum
6-7 Ms Cook
Ms Velez-Smith, Asst Prin Ms Cook, Avid Coordinator / Teacher Ms Caldwell – Teacher Mr Harris – Teacher Ms Moore – Teacher Ms Richardson - Teacher
Fall 2011 Ms Velez-Smith Asst Prin Ms Cook – Avid Coordinator
ADDITIONAL GOAL(S) Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
Based on the analysis of school data, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1. Additional Goal Additional Goal #1:
1.1. Students that are on the verge but not yet over the top
1.1. AVID
1.1. Ms Mott, Principal
1.1. Avid Evaluation
1.1. EOC, Benchmark test, MyOn Reader, and FCAT results
Make AYP TMS has missed AYP by the slimmest of margins two years in a row. We will make AYP in 2012
2011 Current Level :*
2012 Expected Level :*
72% of the student body met AYP in 2011
80% of the AYP requirement will be met
1.2. Students on the verge of little academic growth
1.2.
1.2. 1.2. 1.2.
1.3.
1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 53 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Advisory – Utilize time in advisory to accommodate students struggling in one or more subject
All Mr Braucher AP Faculty and staff 2012 school year Struggling student academic
improvement All Administrators
Additional Goal(s) Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount AVID AVID Program COUNTY ?
Subtotal: Technology Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 54 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Subtotal: Total:
End of Additional Goal(s) FINAL BUDGET (Insert rows as needed) Please provide the total budget from each section. Reading Budget
Total: Mathematics Budget
Total: Science Budget
Total: Writing Budget
Total: Attendance Budget
Total: Suspension Budget
Total: Dropout Prevention Budget
Total: Parent Involvement Budget
Total: Additional Goals
Total:
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 55 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
Grand Total:
Differentiated Accountability School-level Differentiated Accountability (DA) Compliance Please choose the school’s DA Status. (To activate the checkbox: 1. double click the desired box; 2.when the menu pops up, select “checked” under “Default Value” header; 3. Select “OK”, this will place an “x” in the box.) School Differentiated Accountability Status
Intervene Correct II Prevent II Correct I Prevent I N/A
Upload a copy of the Differentiated Accountability Checklist in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page School Advisory Council School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school. Please verify the statement above by selecting “Yes” or “No” below. Yes No If No, describe measures being taken to comply with SAC requirement.
Describe the activities of the School Advisory Council for the upcoming year.
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
April 2011 56 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011
To review, advise, and approve the SIP as well as regular reviews of the SIP and its target goals To advise, recommend, and vote on school based issues To attend the CSAC and report to the school based SAC
Describe projected use of SAC funds. Amount No Funds Available -0-
Top Related