Measure 1.Teachers have not been exposed to common core academic vocabulary 1. (A) Teachers will be exposed to common core academic vocabulary during scheduled professional development. Common Core Training Team October 2012 $0 Professional Development Roster 1. (B) Teachers will be provided printable common core academic words to be placed on interactive word walls within their classroom. Administration September 2012 $10 Visible in all classrooms 1. (C) Teachers will include common core academic language during instructional delivery. $0 1. (D) Teachers will include common core academic vocabulary on formative and summative assessments. All content area teachers. October 2012 Scheduled content area assessments $0 Administrative walk-throughs Evidenced by formative and summative assessments 2. Teachers may not have been trained on how to include Webb’s Depth of 2. (A) Teachers will be exposed to Webb’s Depth of Knowledge leveled questioning CCSS Training Team October 2012 $0 Professional Development Roster
Knowledge leveled questioning during instructional delivery. 2. (B) Teachers will be provided a Webb’s Depth of Knowledge poster to be displayed in the classroom. Administration September 2012 $25 Visible in every classroom 2. (C) Teachers will be provided a copy of Brevard’s Quality Questioning Guide: Connecting NGSSS to CCSS (this includes Webb’s DOK) Literacy Coach September 2012 $50 Teacher can produce personal copy of Quality Questioning 2. (D) Teachers will include Webb’s DOK leveled questioning during instructional delivery. All content area teachers October 2012 $0 Booklet Administrative walk-throughs 3.Teachers may not have been trained using Thinking Maps 3. Teachers will be trained in using Thinking Maps to help with Writing across the curriculum. All content area teachers Beginning October 2012 $0 Student work using Thinking Maps 4. Four Teacher Leaders and an Assistant Principal will be trained on Focus Learning. 4. Teacher leaders will share with all content area teachers the information they received at training. All content area teachers November 2012 $3000.00 Agendas, PO’s from training, agendas of meetings sharing information. EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices throughout the school)
enrollment Student subgroups by ethnicity NOT making satisfactory progress in reading : White: Black: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: Enter numerical data for current level of performance NOT MAKING PROGRESS 37% (119) Expected AMO NOT MAKING PROGRESS 33% (106) Actual Performance Enter numerical data for expected level of performance 67% (231) WILL Make Satisfactory Performance. NOT MAKING PROGRESS 63%(41) Expected AMO NOT MAKING PROGRESS 52% (33)Actual Performance 43% (53) WILL make Satisfactory Performance NOT MAKING PROGRESS 37% (18) Expected AMO NOT MAKING PROGRESS 45% (22) Actual Performance 67% (43) WILL make Satisfactory Performance NA NA NA NA English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Reading Barrier(s): Strategy(s): 1. NA NA Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Reading Barrier(s): Students adjusting to the inclusion classroom may be a 71% (107) 57% (93)
2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Reading: Language sophistication of complex text (double-meaning words, text structure) Partner with mentor students Frequent formative assessment -- “What does it say?” “What does it mean?” Achieve 3000 GSP 2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Writing: Structure of language, speaking and syntax Use Thinking Maps and other graphic organizers. Practice in Spelling GSP Mathematics Goal(s): 1. 2012 Current Level of Performance (Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage reflects) 2013 Expected Level of Performance (Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage reflects) Strategy(s): 1.Teachers will follow through with individual student data sheets that will determine mastery of benchmarks. Incorporate common core standards FCAT 2.0 Students scoring at Achievement Level 3 Barrier(s): Vocabulary on FCAT 2.0 Strategy(s): High academic vocabulary 28% (112) 30% (139) Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Mathematics
Barrier(s): Strategy(s): 1. Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%: Baseline Data 2010-11: 60% of the students tested in 2010-11 had a satisfactory performance. Based on Enrollment 63% (245) ` on Enrollment 67% (315) Student subgroups by ethnicity : Black: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: 37% (119) 66% (46) 55% (27) NA NA 28% (97) 49% (60) 27% (17) English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics NA Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics 75% (114) 56% (92) Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics 53% (139) 38% (128) Mathematics Professional Development PD Content/Topic/Focus Target Dates/Schedule Strategy(s) for follow-up/monitoring Math Department Data Workshop 9/13/12 Teachers will follow through with individual student data sheets that will determine mastery of concepts Students will take ownership of their progress through individual student-teacher conferences using data sheets. Students will be given formative/summative monthly common benchmark assessments by course in standardized test format, effective September 2012. These assessment will be created collaboratively by common course math teachers
Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Algebra APPENDIX B (SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY) Algebra 1 EOC Goal 2012 Current Level of Performance (Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage reflects) 2013 Expected Level of Performance (Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage reflects) Barrier(s): Students lack experience with assessment. Strategy(s): More practice with computer-based assignments. Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Algebra: 68% (61) 75% (56) (decrease in enrollment) Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Algebra: 12% (10) 18% (13) Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%: Baseline Data 2010-11 Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra. White: