2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1 · 2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1 June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 6 Additional Requirements

2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1

June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 1

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

School Improvement Plan (SIP)

Form SIP-1

Proposed for 2012-2013



2012-2013 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS School Information

School Name: McKeel Elementary Academy District Name: Polk

Principal: Michele Spurgeon Superintendent: Harold Maready

SAC Chair: Date of School Board Approval:

Student Achievement Data and Reference Materials:

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.) Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)/Statewide Assessment Trend Data (Use this data to inform the problem-solving process when writing goals.) High School Feedback Report K-12 Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan Administrators

List your school’s 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/statewide assessment performance (percentage data for achievement levels, learning gains, Lowest 25%), and ambitious but achievable annual measurable objective (AMO) progress.



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/statewide assessment Achievement Levels, learning gains, lowest 25%), and AMO progress, along with the associated school year)

Principal Michele Spurgeon

BS Elementary Education MS Educational Leadership Certified: Grades 1-6 Grades K-6 ESOL Endorsed Educational Leadership

6 6

2011 2012 School Grade A A AYP Yes Rdg Mastery 94% 88% Rdg Lrng Gains 75% 73% Rdg Lwst 25% Gains 87% 73% Math Mastery 91% 79% Math Lrng Gains 68% 67% Math Lowest 25% 77% 67% Writing 78% 88% Science Mastery 69% 65%

Assistant Principal Kelly Seeber

BS Elementary Education MS Educational Leadership Certified: Age 3-grade 3 Grades 1-6 ESOL Endorsed Educational Leadership

8 2

2011 2012 School Grade A A AYP Yes Rdg Mastery 94% 88% Rdg Lrng Gains 75% 73% Rdg Lwst 25% Gains 87% 73% Math Mastery 91% 79% Math Lrng Gains 68% 67% Math Lowest 25% 77% 67% Writing 78% 88% Science Mastery 69% 65%



Instructional Coaches

List your school’s 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/statewide assessment performance (percentage data for achievement levels, learning gains, Lowest 25%), and ambitious but achievable annual measurable objective (AMO) progress. 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/Statewide Assessment Achievement Levels, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AMO progress along with the associated school year)

Highly Effective Teachers

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

Description of Strategy Person Responsible Projected Completion Date

1. Common planning time for grade levels. Admin. On going

2. Horizontal & Vertical Planning to facilitate collaboration among grade levels

Admin. On going

3. Professional Development for Growth Admin On going



Non-Highly Effective Instructors

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

Number of staff and paraprofessional that are teaching out-of-field/ and who are not highly effective.

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

5% (1) Out-of-field Alpha

Teacher is attending classes to receive Gifted endorsement

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 Effective Teachers

ɶ Reading Endorsed Teachers

% National Board

Certified Teachers

% ESOL Endorsed Teachers

22 9% (2) 22% (5) 59% (13) 9% (2) 27% (6) 5% (1) 5% (1) 86% (19)

Teacher Mentoring Program/Plan

Please describe the school’s teacher mentoring program/plan 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



Additional Requirements

Coordination and Integration-Title I Schools Only Please describe how federal, state, and local services and programs will be coordinated and integrated in the school. Include other Title programs, Migrant and Homeless, Supplemental Academic Instruction funds, as well as violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult education, career and technical education, and/or job training, as applicable.

Title I, Part A Title I, 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



Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) /Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

School-Based MTSS/RtI Team Identify the school-based MTSS leadership team. Principal, Assistant Principal, Grade Level Team Leaders, Exceptional Student Education Teacher, Guidance Counselor, Technology Specialist Describe how the school-based MTSS leadership team functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). How does it work with other school teams to organize/coordinate MTSS efforts? The MTSS Leadership Team will focus meetings on how to improve school/teacher effectiveness and student achievement through the aggregation and analysis of data relating to student performance. The team will meet once a week initially; after data day the team will meet monthly to review progress on interventions and Tier 1 curriculum needs. The team will help referring teachers with strategies and interventions for struggling students by collaborating regularly, sharing effective practices, evaluating implementation, as well as assisting in making decisions for school, teacher, and student improvement. The MTSS team works with other school teams to share data and intervention strategies specific to subject areas such as the Literacy Leadership Team. Describe the role of the school-based MTSS leadership team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan (SIP). Describe how the RtI problem-solving process is used in developing and implementing the SIP? The MTSS leadership team assisted with the development and implementation of the school improvement plan by analyzing data, developing goals for student achievement and identifying strategies for meeting those goals.

MTSS Implementation Describe the data source(s) and the data management system(s) used to summarize data at each tier for reading, mathematics, science, writing, and behavior. Discovery Learning will be used at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. FCAT and SAT 10 data from the previous school years will be analyzed as well as beginning of the year learning inventories. Throughout the school year teachers will use continuous progress monitoring in order to identify at-risk students. Describe the plan to train staff on MTSS. Staff will be trained through bi-weekly in-service trainings after school. The ESE Facilitator will provide a staff training on the RtI process. The Facilitator will also meet with each grade level to provide more intensive instruction on the intervention process and to discuss teacher concerns. The guidance counselor will continue to meet with grade level teams monthly to analyze student progress and ongoing interventions. Describe the plan to support MTSS. The Principal and Assistant Principal will provide support to the MTSS by providing time for meetings, curriculum support and data support.



Literacy Leadership Team (LLT)

School-Based Literacy Leadership Team Identify the school-based Literacy Leadership Team (LLT). Michele Spurgeon (Principal), Kelly Seeber (Assistant Principal), Angela Massung (ESE Facilitator), Cassandra Castro (Technology/Gifted Teacher), Vanessa Bartlett (K Teacher), Kathy Gilbertsen (1st Grade Teacher), Joette Burse (2nd Grade Teacher), Ashley Long (3rd Grade Teacher), Charla Stephenson (4th Grade Teacher), Michelle Poppell (5th Grade Teacher) Describe how the school-based LLT functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). The LLT will meet monthly to discuss the language arts curriculum and the implementation of that curriculum. The LLT members will serve as liaisons to the rest of the staff, bringing information to grade level teams, as well as holding training throughout the year. What will be the major initiatives of the LLT this year? Provide professional development for staff Align curriculum with Common Core Standards (grades 2-5) Ensure assessments are administered ongoing and data is used to plan quality differentiated instruction Implementation of non-fiction reading strategies Public School Choice

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 (2)(b) F.S For schools with grades 6-12, how does the school ensure that every teacher contributes to the reading improvement of every student? *High Schools Only

Note: Required for High School-Sec. 1003.413(2)(g), (2)(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.



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

1A. FCAT 2.0: Students scoring at Achievement Level 3 in reading.

1A.1. Weak Vocabulary 1A.1. Continuing Elements of Reading Enrichment Vocabulary Series on a daily basis and implementation of Common Core complexity leveled texts

1A.1. Administration and the Representative from the LLT

1A.1. Classroom observations, data charts, grade level meetings

1A.1. Review of vocabulary checks and assessments

Reading Goal #1A: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students scoring proficiency at Level 3 on FCAT Reading as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.

2012 Current Level of Performance:*

2013 Expected Level of Performance:*

38% (70) of students scored at level 3

38% (70+)of students will score level 3 1A.2. Lack of student engagement 1A.2. Use cooperative learning

strategies on a daily basis Use technology (SMART board and Apple products) daily to engage students in literacy activities


1A.2. Classroom observations, share ideas when meeting with teams

1A.2. Comprehension assessments, documentation in lesson plans, SMART Notebook, iPad and iMac software

1A.3. Lack of explicit and modeled comprehension instruction with fidelity

1A.3. Utilizing Fluency passages in class and as homework Blooms Higher Level of Questioning Thinking Maps Modeled explicit comprehension skills and strategies through a daily shared reading lesson FCAT Stem Questions will be used to extend higher order thinking skills that correlate with each testedbenchmark


1A.3. Review of fluency and Comprehension benchmarks, classroom observations

1A.3. Fluency/comprehension assessments, Discovery Testing, higher level questioning, AR reports, documentation in lesson plans



1B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in reading.

1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1.

Reading Goal #1B: NA



NA NA 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.

1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.




Evaluation Tool

2A. FCAT 2.0: Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 in reading.

2A.1. Lack of higher order thinking skills

2A.1. Provide students with the implementation of extending thinking activities


2A.1. Classroom observations, discussion during grade level meetings

2A.1. Thinking Maps, S Documentation in Lesson Plans

Reading Goal #2A: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students scoring proficiency at Level 4 or above on FCAT Reading as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



50% (93) of students scored at levels 4 or 5

50+%(93+) of students will score at levels 4 or 5 2A.2.Developing materials and

strategies to address the needs of students above grade level in a heterogeneous classroom setting.

2A.2. Provide students with instruction in strategies using reading materials that matches their individual reading levels.

2A.2. Reading teachers and administration

2A.2. Baseline data including FCAT/SAT 10 will be compared to data generated through quarterly district and ongoing progress monitoring data.

2A.2. Standardized testing, Discovery testing, ongoing data in the classroom monitoring progress

2A.3. Developing common formative assessments that take in consideration both student’s skills and performance and age appropriateness

2A.3. The LLT team will develop common formative assessments that provide assessment of skills applied to higher reading levels.

2A.3. Classroom teachers and administration

2A.3. Baseline data including FCAT/SAT 10 will be compared to data generated through quarterly district and ongoing progress monitoring data.

2A.3. Standardized testing, Discovery testing, ongoing data in the classroom monitoring progress

2B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at or above Level 7 in reading.

2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1.




NA NA

2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2.

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






Evaluation Tool

3A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students making learning gains in reading.


3A.1. Administration and the representative from the LLT



Reading Goal #3A: By Spring 2013, 75% (139) of students will make learning gains on the FCAT reading test as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



73% (135) of students have made learning gains in reading.

75% (139) of students will make learning gains in reading. 3A.2. Lack of student engagement 3A.2. Use cooperative learning

strategies on a daily basis Use technology (SMART board and Apple products) daily to engage students in literacy activities









3B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Percentage of students making learning gains in reading.

3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1.




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

3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3.






Evaluation Tool

4A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in reading.





Reading Goal #4A: By Spring 2013, 74% or more of students in the lowest 25% will make learning gains on the FCAT as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



73% (33) of the lowest 25% of students are making learning gains in reading

74% (34) of the lowest 25% of students will make learning gains in reading

4A.2. Lack of student engagement 4A.2. Use cooperative learning strategies on a daily basis Use technology(SMART board and Apple products) daily to engage students in literacy activities









4B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in reading.

4B.1. 4B.1. 4B.1. 4B.1. 4B.1.




NA NA

4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2.

4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3.



Based on ambitious but achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), identify reading and mathematics

performance target for the following years

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

5A. In six years school will reduce their achievement gap by 50%.

Baseline data 2010-2011

79%

81%

*Percentages set by DOE

83%

84%

86%

88%

90%

Reading Goal #5A: Met the target for Annual Measureable Objectives

Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define

areas in need of improvement for the following subgroups:



Evaluation Tool

5B. Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in reading.

5B.1. Lack of background knowledge and vocabulary

5B.1. Build background knowledge and vocabulary

5B.1. Classroom Teachers Administration

5B.1. Student achievement Classroom Observations

5B.1. Discovery Learning AR reports FCAT

Reading Goal #5B: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students making learning gains on the FCAT Reading in grades 3-5 in each reported subgroup as evidenced on the 2013 FCAT report.



White: met target Black: met target Hispanic: 88% Asian: not reported American Indian: not reported

White: not reported Black: not reported Hispanic: 88+% Asian: not reported American Indian: not reported 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2.

5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3.




areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:



Evaluation Tool

5C. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in reading.

5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1.

Reading Goal #5C: NA



NA

NA

5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2.

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





Evaluation Tool

5D. Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in reading.

5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1.

Reading Goal #5D: NA



NA

NA

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

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







Evaluation Tool

5E. Economically Disadvantaged students not making satisfactory progress in reading.

5E.1.

5E.1. 5E.1. 5E.1. 5E.1.

Reading Goal #5E: Met target



Met target

Met target

5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2.

5E.3. 5E.3. 5E.3. 5E.3. 5E.3.

Reading Professional Development

Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activities 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 (e.g., early release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of

meetings) Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible

for Monitoring

Thinking Maps K-5 James Dean, Kelly

Seeber New teachers Summer Conference, In Services Thinking Maps documentation in lesson plans, observations, share best practices with other teachers

Administration

Common Core Standards Strategies and Resources K-5 Cassandra Castro,

Joette Burse All teachers Summer Conferences, In Services

Begin full implementation in lesson plans for grades K-2, document and make note in plans for grades 3-5, implementation of text features and reading complexity strategies, observations, share best practices with other teachers

Administration

Technology Break Out Sessions: iPad Resources for Reading and Student Motivation

K-5

Craig Black, John Massung, Meaghan Polomcean, Dennis Dill, Andrea Barr

All teachers Summer Conference, In Services Technology documentation in lesson plans, share best practices with other teachers, observations

Administration



Reading Budget (Insert rows as needed) Include only school 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 Reading Goals



Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA) Goals


CELLA Goals Problem-Solving Process to Increase Language Acquisition

Students speak in English and understand spoken English at grade level in a manner similar to non-ELL students.



Evaluation Tool

1. Students scoring proficient in listening/speaking.

1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1.

CELLA Goal #1: NA

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Listening/Speaking:

1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2.

1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.

Students read grade-level text in English in a manner similar to non-ELL students.



Evaluation Tool

2. Students scoring proficient in reading. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1.

CELLA Goal #2: NA

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Reading:

2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2.

2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3.



Students write in English at grade level in a manner

similar to non-ELL students. Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position

Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation Tool

3. Students scoring proficient in writing. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1.

CELLA Goal #3: NA

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Writing :

2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2.

2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3.



CELLA 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: Total:

End of CELLA Goals



Elementary School Mathematics Goals


Elementary 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:



Evaluation Tool

1A. FCAT 2.0: Students scoring at Achievement Level 3 in mathematics.

1A.1. Lack of fluency in basic fact results in simple errors and increased time devoted to basic numeric skills as opposed to problem solving

1A.1. Use ongoing review and practice to increase fluency of numeric skills.

1A.1. Classroom Teacher

Math Committee

Administration

1A.1. Discovery assessment Student achievement data

On-going assessments

Classroom observations

1A.1. FCAT

Go Math FL series (beginning/middle/end) assessments

Chapter Tests, Mid- chapter check points

Mathematics Goal #1A: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students scoring proficiency at Level 3 on FCAT Math as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



38% (70) 38% (70+)

1A.2. Difficulty justifying answers. 1A.2. Practice scaffolding use more in-depth questioning strategies.

1A.2. Classroom Teacher

Math Committee

Administration

1A.2. Discovery Assessment Student achievement data



1A.2. FCAT



1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3.

1B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in mathematics.

1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1.

Mathematics Goal #1B: N/A



1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.

1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.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:



Evaluation Tool

2A. FCAT 2.0: Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in mathematics.

2A.1. Lack of fluency in basic fact results in simple errors and increased time devoted to basic numeric skills as opposed to problem solving

2A.1. Use ongoing review and practice to increase fluency of numeric skills.

2A.1. Classroom teacher

Math Committee

Administration

2A.1. S SMAD scores; Discovery scores; FCAT scores will be used to assess the fluency level and its affect on overall math performance

2A.1. FCAT/SAT10 and Discovery

Mathematics Goal #2A: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students scoring proficiency at Level 4 or above on FCAT Math as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report. .



42% (78) 42+% (78+)

2A.2. Inability to solve more complex word problems.

2A.2. Increase exposure to more complex problems.

2A.2. Classroom teacher

Math committee Administration

2A.2. Student achievement data



2A.2. FCAT



2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3.

2B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at or above Level 7 in mathematics.

2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1.

Mathematics Goal #2B: NA



2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2.

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







Evaluation Tool

3A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students making learning gains in mathematics.

3A.1. Lack of higher order thinking style questions.

3A.1. Increase exposure to higher order thinking skills.

3A.1. Classroom Teachers Administration Math Team

3A.1. Formative assessment and observation

3A.1. FCAT Discovery Unit Tests Mathematics Goal

#3A: By Spring 2013, 69% of students will make learning gains on the FCAT math test as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



67% (124) 69% (128)

3A.2. Need for differentiation. 3A.2. Increase differentiation through small group activities.

3A.2. Classroom Teachers Administration Math Team

3A.2. Formative assessment and observation

3A.2. FCAT Discovery Unit Tests

3A.3. 3A.3. 3A.3. 3A.3. 3A.3.

3B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Percentage of students making learning gains in mathematics.

3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1.




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

3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3.







Evaluation Tool

4A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in mathematics.

4A.1. Lack of differentiation for this group of students.

4A.1. Provide researched based interventions for the students in this group with progress monitoring.

4A.1. Classroom Teachers Administration

4A.1. Student achievement data On-going assessments Classroom observations

4A.1. FCAT Chapter tests/Mid Chapter Checkpoints Discovery Evaluation

Mathematics Goal #4A: By Spring 2013, 69% or more of the students in the lowest 25% will make learning gains on the FCAT math test as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



67% (31) of the lowest 25% of students are making learning gains in math.

69% (32) of the lowest 25% of students will make learning gains in math. 4A.2. A lack of applicable real-

world problem solving. 4A.2. Provide researched based interventions for these students with progress monitoring.

4A.2. Classroom Teachers Administration

4A.2. Student achievement data On-going assessments Classroom observations

4A.2. FCAT Chapter tests/Mid Chapter Checkpoints Discovery Evaluation

4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3.

4B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in mathematics.

4B.1. 4B.1. 4B.1. 4B.1. 4B.1.




4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2.

4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3.



Based on ambitious but achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), identify reading and mathematics

performance target for the following years

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

5A. In six years school will reduce their achievement gap by 50%.

Baseline data 2010-2011

84%

79%

87%*

*percentages set by DOE

88%*

89%*

91%*

92%*

Mathematics Goal #5A: Students who are not proficient in math as measured by the FCAT will decrease by 50% within a six year target set by the state.


in need of improvement for the following subgroups:



Evaluation Tool

5B. Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics.

5B.1.

5B.1. All strategies listed for students achieving proficiency (FCAT level 3), percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in math applies to all students in subgroups.

5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1.

Mathematics Goal #5B: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students making learning gains on the FCAT Math in grades 3-5 in each reported subgroup reported as evidenced on the 2013 FCAT report.



White: 81% Black: 52% Hispanic: met target Asian: not reported American Indian: not reported

White: 81+% Black: 52+% Hispanic: not reported Asian: not reported American Indian: not reported 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2.

5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3.




reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:



Evaluation Tool

5C. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics.

5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1.

Mathematics Goal #5C: NA



5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2.

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


in need of improvement for the following subgroup:



Evaluation Tool

5D. Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics.

5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1.

Mathematics Goal #5D: NA



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

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




reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup:



Evaluation Tool

5E. Economically Disadvantaged students not making satisfactory progress in mathematics.

5E.1. 5E.1. All strategies listed for students achieving proficiency (FCAT level 3), percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in math applies to economically disadvantaged students.

5E.1. 5E.1. 5E.1.

Mathematics Goal #5E: In grades 3-5, 75% of economically disadvantaged students will score a Level 3or higher on the 2013 FCAT.



73%

75%

5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2.

5E.3. 5E.3. 5E.3. 5E.3. 5E.3.

End of Elementary School Mathematics Goals Mathematics Professional Development

Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activities Please note that each strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content/Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/ Subject


PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g., PLC, subject, grade level,

or school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules (e.g., frequency of

meetings) Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible

for Monitoring

Integration of Common Core to increase higher level thinking

All Kelly Seeber All Grade Level Meetings Common Core plans and assessments Administration

Common Core Implementation K-3 Juli Dixon,

Professor at UCF K-3 ½ day training May 2012 Lesson Plan documentation, share best practices within team and vertical meetings Administration



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) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount




Subtotal: Total:

End of Mathematics Goals



Elementary and Middle School Science Goals


Elementary and Middle Science Goals

Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement




Evaluation Tool

1A. FCAT 2.0: Students scoring at Achievement Level 3 in science.

1A.1. Lack of student background knowledge

1A.1. Intensive vocabulary strategies integrating science with other content areas. 4th and 5th grade students will participate in the Polk County Science Fair.

1A.1. Classroom Teacher Administration

1A.1. Student achievement data On-going assessments, chapter assessments, classroom observations

1A.1. FCAT Classroom observation tools Science Goal #1A:

The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students scoring proficiency at Level 3 on FCAT Science as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.



39% ( 25) 39+% (25+)

1A.2. Lack of effective instruction with fidelity

1A.2. Teachers will lead and instruct labs with an emphasis on the scientific processes

1A.2. Classroom teacher Administration

1A.2. Student achievement data Ongoing assessments, chapter assessments, and classroom observations

1A.2. FCAT Classroom observation tools

1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3.

1B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in science.

1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1.

Science Goal #1B: NA



1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.

1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.






Evaluation Tool

2A. FCAT 2.0: Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in science.

2A.1. Low reading comprehension skills

2A.1. Integration of scientific non-fiction texts will be integrated across the curriculum to simultaneously improve low reading skills and comprehension of scientific concepts.

2A.1. Classroom teachers Administration

2A.1. FCAT Discovery results Non-fiction based classroom assessments

2A.1. FCAT Discovery results Non-fiction based classroom assessments

Science Goal #2A: The school will maintain or increase the percentage of students scoring proficiency at Level 4 or above on FCAT Science as evidenced by the Spring 2013 FCAT report.


2013Expected Level of Performance:*

26% (17) 27% (18)

2A.2. Higher requirement of of more complex tasks, applications, synthesis, and evaluation of knowledge

2A.2. Provide real world science experience, engaging activities and experiments

2A.2. Classroom teachers Administration

2A.2. Rubric that focuses on higher complexity tasks

2A.2. Rubric that focuses on higher complexity tasks

2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3.

2B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at or above Level 7 in science.

2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1.

Science Goal #2B: NA


2013Expected Level of Performance:*

2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2.

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

End of Elementary and Middle School Science Goals



Science Professional Development

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


PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or

school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g.,

frequency of meetings) Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for

Monitoring

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: Total:

End of Science Goals



Writing Goals


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:



Evaluation Tool

1A. FCAT: Students scoring at Achievement Level 3.0 and higher in writing.

1A.1. Lack of adequate vocabulary

1A.1. Implement Melissa Forney Strategies

1A.1. Administration

1A.1. Review of writing samples

1A.1. On-going assessments (beginning, middle, end)

Writing Goal #1A: 90% (59) of students will maintain or increase a score of a Level 3.0 or higher on the Spring 2013 FCAT in the area of Writing.



88% (57)

90% (59)

1A.2. Inability to elaborate

1A.2. Provide weekly individual student conference time

1A.2. Classroom teachers

Administration

1A.2. Classroom Observation

1A.2. FCAT Testing

1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3.

1B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at 4 or higher in writing.

1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1. 1B.1.

Writing Goal #1B: NA



1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.

1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.



Writing Professional Development



Grade Level/Subject


PLC Leader


school-wide)



Monitoring

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: Total:



Attendance Goal(s)


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:



Evaluation Tool

1. Attendance 1.1. Parents/Guardians scheduling outside appointments and/or vacations which affect normal school hours/day.

1.1. Students with excessive, unexcused absences/tardies will receive a phone call and/or absence/tardy letter as a reminder of the school’s attendance policy. Parents will also be referred back to the Parent Contract signed at the beginning of the school year.

1.1. Classroom Teacher AP – Kelly Seeber

1.1. Review of Attendance Records

1.1. Attendance/Tardy Records (Genesis/School Tardy Log)

Attendance Goal #1: The attendance rate will increase to 90% (313) for 2012-2013 as evidenced by attendance records in Genesis. The number of students with excessive absences will reduce from 44 to 35 as evidenced by attendance records in Genesis. The number of students with excessive tardies will reduce from 20 to 17 as evidenced by school tardy log.

2012 Current Attendance Rate:*

2013 Expected Attendance Rate:*

87% (304) 90% (313) 2012 Current Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)

2013 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)

13% (44) 10% (35)

2012 Current Number of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)

2013 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)

6% (20) 5% (17)

1.2. Student Illness

1.2. Students will be taught & reminded to use good hygiene practices (i.e. proper hand washing)

1.2. Classroom Teacher Clinic Paraprofessional Administration

1.2. Review of Attendance Records

1.2. Attendance/Tardy Records

1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.



Attendance Professional Development



Grade Level/Subject


PLC Leader


school-wide)



Monitoring

Attendance Budget (Insert rows as needed)





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

1.1. Varying social issues (i.e. age, character, medical diagnosis, etc)

1.1. Positive behavior support RTI process for students needing intensive behavior intervention

1.1. Classroom Teacher ESE Facilitator Administration

1.1 Review & monitor discipline records

1.1. Referral System

Suspension Goal #1: The school will maintain or decrease the number of students suspended out-of-school as evidenced by Genesis reports.

2012 Total Number of In –School Suspensions

2013 Expected Number of In- School Suspensions

0 0 2012 Total Number of Students Suspended In-School

2013 Expected Number of Students Suspended In -School

0 0 2012 Total Number of Out-of-School Suspensions

2013 Expected Number of Out-of-School Suspensions

9 7 2012 Total Number of Students Suspended Out- of- School

2013 Expected Number of Students Suspended Out- of-School

5 5 1.2.

Inconsistencies in communication between teachers & parents

1.2. Teacher Log/Student Agenda to include date of contact with parent by teacher and notes regarding student goals

1.2. Administration ESE Facilitator

1.2. Monitoring of student interventions, parental contacts, student goals

1.2. Referrals to office, parental contacts, student agendas

1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.



Suspension Professional Development 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


PLC Leader


school-wide)



Monitoring

Suspension 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: Total:

End of Suspension Goals



Parent Involvement Goal(s) Upload Option-For schools completing the Parental Involvement Policy/Plan (PIP) please include a copy for this section. Online Template- For schools completing the PIP a link will be provided that will direct you to this plan.

* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).

Parent Involvement Professional Development



Grade Level/Subject


PLC Leader


school-wide)



Monitoring

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:


Monitoring


Strategy

Evaluation Tool

1. Parent Involvement

1.1. Parents lack of knowledge of grade level standards

1.1. Grade level parent night within the first three weeks of school Open House (October)

1.1. Teachers/ Administration

1.1. Sign in logs

1.1. Percent of parents who attend

Parent Involvement Goal #1: 70% of parents will participate in school events (Grade Level Parent Nights, Open House, Spring Family Night) during the 2012-2013 school year as evidenced by sign in sheets.

2012 Current Level of Parent Involvement:*

2013 Expected Level of Parent Involvement:*

65% current level of parent involvement

70% expected level of parent involvement

1.2.

1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2.

1.3.

1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.



Parent Involvement Budget





Subtotal: Total:

End of Parent Involvement Goal(s)



Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Goal(s)

STEM Professional Development



Grade Level/Subject


PLC Leader


school-wide)



Monitoring

STEM Goal(s) Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement

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


Monitoring


Strategy

Evaluation Tool

STEM Goal #1: NA

1.1.

1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1.

1.2.

1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2.

1.3.

1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.



STEM Budget (Insert rows as needed)





Subtotal: Total:

End of STEM Goal(s)



Additional Goal(s)

* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).

Additional Goals Professional Development



Grade Level/Subject


PLC Leader


school-wide)



Monitoring

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:


Monitoring


Strategy

Evaluation Tool

1. Additional Goal

1.1.

1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1.

Additional Goal #1: Enter narrative for the goal in this box.

2012 Current Level :*

2013 Expected Level :*

Enter numerical data for current goal in this box.

Enter numerical data for expected goal in this box.

1.2.

1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2.

1.3.

1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.



Additional Goal(s) Budget (Insert rows as needed)





Subtotal: Total:

End of Additional Goal(s)



Final Budget (Insert rows as needed) Please provide the total budget from each section. Reading Budget

Total: CELLA Budget

Total: Mathematics Budget

Total: Science Budget

Total: Writing Budget

Total: Civics Budget

Total: U.S. History Budget

Total: Attendance Budget

Total: Suspension Budget

Total: Dropout Prevention Budget

Total: Parent Involvement Budget

Total: STEM Budget

Total: CTE Budget

Total: Additional Goals

Total:



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 Priority Focus Prevent

Upload a copy of the Differentiated Accountability Checklist in the designated upload link on the Upload page School Advisory Council (SAC) 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 members 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 the measures being taken to comply with SAC requirements. The Schools of McKeel Academy Board of Trustees

Describe the activities of the SAC for the upcoming school year.

Describe the projected use of SAC funds. Amount

Documents

2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1 · 2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1 June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 6 Additional Requirements