2012-2013 school improvement plan (sip)-form sip-1 · 2012-2013 school improvement plan (sip)-form...
TRANSCRIPT
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 (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 2
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 3
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%
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 4
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 5
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 6
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 7
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 8
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 9
*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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 10
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. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
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. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 11
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
NA NA 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:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy
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. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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.
Reading Goal #2B: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
NA NA
2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2.
2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 12
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
3A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students making learning gains in reading.
3A.1. Weak Vocabulary 3A.1. Continuing Elements of Reading Enrichment Vocabulary Series on a daily basis and implementation of Common Core complexity leveled texts
3A.1. Administration and the representative from the LLT
3A.1. Classroom observations, data charts, grade level meetings
3A.1. Review of vocabulary checks and assessments
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
3A.2. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
3A.2. Classroom observations, share ideas when meeting with teams
3A.2. Comprehension assessments, documentation in lesson plans, SMART Notebook, iPad and iMac software
3A.3. Lack of explicit and modeled comprehension instruction with fidelity
3A.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
3A.3. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
3A.3. Review of fluency and Comprehension benchmarks, classroom observations
3A.3. Fluency/comprehension assessments, Discovery Testing, higher level questioning, AR reports, documentation in lesson plans
3B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Percentage of students making learning gains in reading.
3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1.
Reading Goal #3B: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
NA NA 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2.
3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 13
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
4A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in reading.
4A.1. Weak Vocabulary 4A.1. Continuing Elements of Reading Enrichment Vocabulary Series on a daily basis and implementation of Common Core complexity leveled texts
4A.1. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
4A.1. Classroom observations, data charts, grade level meetings
4A.1. Review of vocabulary checks and assessments
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
4A.2. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
4A.2. Classroom observations, share ideas when meeting with teams
4A.2. Comprehension assessments, documentation in lesson plans, SMART Notebook, iPad and iMac software
4A.3. Lack of explicit and modeled comprehension instruction with fidelity
4A.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
4A.3. Administration and the Representative from the LLT
4A.3. Review of fluency and Comprehension benchmarks, classroom observations
4A.3. Fluency/comprehension assessments, Discovery Testing, higher level questioning, AR reports, documentation in lesson plans
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.
Reading Goal #4B: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
NA NA
4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2.
4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 14
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:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 15
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. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in reading.
5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1.
Reading Goal #5C: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
NA
NA
5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2.
5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3.
Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “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. Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in reading.
5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1.
Reading Goal #5D: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
NA
NA
5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2.
5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 16
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
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 17
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 18
Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA) Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).
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.
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy
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.
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 19
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 20
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: 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 CELLA Goals
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 21
Elementary School Mathematics Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).
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:
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 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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
On-going assessments
Classroom observations
1A.2. FCAT
Go Math FL series (beginning/middle/end) assessments
Chapter Tests, Mid- chapter check points
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.
1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 22
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. 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. .
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
On-going assessments
Classroom observations
2A.2. FCAT
Go Math FL series (beginning/middle/end) assessments
Chapter Tests, Mid- chapter check points
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2.
2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 23
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
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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.
Mathematics Goal #3B: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2.
3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 24
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
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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.
Mathematics Goal #4B: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2. 4B.2.
4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3. 4B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 25
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.
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:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 26
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. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics.
5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1.
Mathematics Goal #5C: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2.
5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3.
Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “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. Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics.
5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1. 5D.1.
Mathematics Goal #5D: NA
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2.
5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 27
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
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
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
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 28
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: 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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 29
Elementary and Middle School Science Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).
Elementary and Middle 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
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.
1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 30
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. 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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 31
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
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
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 32
Writing Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (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
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.
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
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
2012 Current Level of Performance:*
2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2.
1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 33
Writing 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
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
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: Total:
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 34
Attendance Goal(s)
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (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 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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 35
Attendance 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
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
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
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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 36
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 37
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
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
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: 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
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 38
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
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 (e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g.,
frequency of meetings) Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for
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:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 39
Parent Involvement Budget
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials. Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s) Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source 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)
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 40
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Goal(s)
STEM 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
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
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:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 41
STEM 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 STEM Goal(s)
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 42
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
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 (e.g. , Early Release) and Schedules (e.g.,
frequency of meetings) Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring Person or Position Responsible for
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:
Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of
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.
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 43
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
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 Additional Goal(s)
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 44
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:
2012-2013 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
June 2012 Rule 6A-1.099811 Revised April 29, 2011 45
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