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. 1A.1. FCIM will be implemented to ensure that the steps of Plan, Do, Check, Act are in place and being utilized through mini-assessments and data meetings. 1A.1. Principal; Assistant Principal 1A.1. Classroom Walk Throughs (CWT); Professional Learning Community meetings; Lesson 1A.1. CWT data; PLC meeting agendas; Benchmark Assessments Reading Goal #1A: By 2013, 50% of students will achieve a level 3 or above on the FCAT reading assessment. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected of Performance:* The results of the 2012 FCAT Reading Test indicate that we had 59 (17%) students in grades 3-6 who scored a level 3 on the FCAT 2.0 Reading. For the 2013 school year, we would like to see 50% of our students score an achievement level of level 3 in reading. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 1A.3. 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: By 2013, 50% of students will achieve a 4-6 on the FAA reading assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* The results of the 2012 FAA Reading Test indicate that we had 3 (26%) students in grades 3-6 who scored a level 4-6 Our goal for the 2013 FAA Reading Test is that we will have 50% of our students in grades 3-6 scoring a on the FAA Reading 6
on the FAA Reading. 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. Students need the exposure to Marzano's Instructional Strategies daily to sustain and increase comprehension skills. 2A.1. Provide students with comprehension questions that require literal, interpretive, and analytical thinking skills. Provide students the opportunity to enhance comprehension skills through authentic graphic organizers and read alouds to promote higher level interpretive skills. Infuse Common Core standards focusing on Text Complexity 2A.1. Leadership Team; District Personnel 2A.1. Class assignments Ongoing informal Teacher Assessments to determine mastery of comprehension CWTs focusing on instructional strategies CWT data analysis and feedback 2A.1. Teacher Assessments Basal Text Reading Goal #2A: By 2013, 15% of students will achieve a level 4 on the FCAT reading assessment. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected of Performance:* The results of the 2012 FCAT Reading Test indicate that we had 3 (26%) students in grades 3-6 who scored a level 4-6 on the FCAT Reading. For the 2013 school year we would like to have 15% of our students score a level 4 or above on the FCAT Reading. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at or Level 7 in reading. 2B.1. 2B.1. Reading Goal #2B: 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
By 2013, 45% of students will achieve a level 7 or above on the FAA reading assessment. The results of the 2012 FAA Reading Test indicate that we had 6 (37%) students in grades 3-6 who scored a level 7 or above on the FAA Reading. This year we would like to have 45% of our students score a level 7 or above on the FAA Reading test. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.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 3A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students making learning gains in reading. 5b.2. Lack of Standards-Based Instruction School-wide 5b.2. Modify master schedule to provide common planning and staggered intervention time for all grade levels. 5b. 2 Common planning will ensure the following: collaboration, unpacking standards, creation and utilization of up-to-date data binders, and fidelity of implementation of school-wide non-negotiables 5b.2 Establish non-negotiables and ensure fidelity to include PLCs, attendance at faculty meetings, accountability for behavior/class 5b.2. Administrative Team, instructional coaches, teacher leaders/grade level chairs, district personnel 5b.2. Classroom Walk Throughs; Lesson Plans; Meeting Agendas 5b.2. Ongoing Process monitoring; Success Maker data; Reading Goal #3A: By 2013, 35% of students making learning gains on the FCAT reading assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* The results of the 2012 FCAT Reading Test indicate that we had 26% of students in grades who made learning on the FCAT Reading. In 2013 we like to have 35% of our students make learning gains on the FCAT Reading.
Data Chats (Administrators with Teachers, Administrators with Students, Teachers with Students) Quarterly Monitoring 3A.3. 3A.3. SuccessMaker will be implemented school-wide to help students increase academic learning gains and fill learning gaps. 3A.3. Leadership Team, Teachers 3A.3. Data monitoring and charting, Disaggregation of data to determine intervention, Data chats (administrators with teachers, administrators with students, teachers with students.) 3A.3. 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: By 2013, 40% of students will make learning gains on the FAA reading assessment. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* The results of the 2012 FAA Reading Test indicate that we had 5 (33%) students who made learning on the FAA Reading. In 2013, we like to have 40% of our students make learning gains on the Reading portion of the FAA. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 4. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in reading. 4A.1. 4A.1. FCIM will be implemented to ensure that the steps of Plan, Do,
Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: Check, Act are in place and being utilized through mini-assessments and data meetings. Community meetings; Lesson Plans Assessments Reading Goal #5B: By 2013, 50% of our white students, 35% of our black students, and 50% of our Hispanic students will make satisfactory progress on the Reading portion of the FCAT. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* White: 58% Black: 75% Hispanic: 58% American Indian: White: 50% 35% Hispanic: 50% Asian: American Indian: 5B.2. 5B.2. Students need Oral Fluency, Comprehension and Vocabulary skills 5B.2. Closely monitor student developmental skills, determine core instructional needs, and students progress by implementing FAIR Differentiated instruction to effectively meet students' individual needs to increase comprehension and vocabulary skills for all learners Identify supplemental staff and materials to implement push-in or pull-out strategy Build vocabulary skills in grades K-5 through word walls, read alouds and using Elements of Vocabulary 5B.2. CWTs CWT data analysis and feedback Disaggregation of data to determine effectiveness intervention Analysis and Review FAIR data Ongoing informal Teacher Assessments in mastery of fluency, comprehension and vocabulary skills Leadership Team meetings Data Review chart Data Chats (Administrators with Teachers, Administrators with students, Teachers with Students) 5B.2. 5B.3. 5B.3. Students need additional reading instruction to supplement their standard reading program 5B.3. Provide push in and/or pull out services for the students An additional hour is added onto the school day and used for an intensive reading block. 5B.3. Review student performance data on Mini Benchmark assessments Review Performance data charts Data Chats (Administrators with Teachers, Teachers with Students) 5B.3. 5.B.4 5B 4. SuccessMaker will be implemented school-wide to help students increase academic learning gains and fill learning gaps. 5 B 4 Leadership Team, Teachers 5B4 Data monitoring and charting, Disaggregation of data to determine intervention, 5.B.4
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. Students to improve Oral Fluency, Comprehension (including comprehending complex text) and Vocabulary skills 5D.1. Closely monitor student developmental skills, determine core instructional needs, and students progress by implementing FAIR Differentiated instruction in comprehension skills Identify supplemental staff and materials to implement push-in or pull-out strategy Build vocabulary skills in grades K-5 through word walls, read alouds and using Elements of Vocabulary Infuse Common Core Standards to expose students to complex text The K-12 ESOL Plan will be utilized as a planning guide ELL students will be instructed daily by highly qualified teachers who are implementing interactive multimedia, multimodal strategies, extended learning opportunities and appropriate testing accommodations 5D.1. Leadership Team; Teachers; Coaches 5D.1. CWTs focusing on instructional strategies, instructional practices and the learner CWT data analysis Review FAIR data Bi-weekly Assessments Leadership Team meetings Tracking Mini Benchmark Assessments Data Review chart Data Chats (Administrators with Teachers, Administrators with students, Teachers with Students) 5D.1. Teacher Assessments Teacher observations Mini Benchmark Assessments FAIR Reading Goal #5D: By 2013, 35% of our SWD will make satisfactory progress on the FCAT reading assessment. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the 2012 FCAT, 78% of our SWD are not making satisfactory progress in reading. In 2013, we would like to see our SWD have at least 35% making satisfactory progress in reading. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3.
problem solving Provide higher questionings to improve critical thinking skills Data chart review and analysis Data Chats (Administrators with Teachers, Teachers with Students) 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: By 2013, 25% of our students will achieve a level 7 on the FAA math assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the 2012 FAA, we had 3(20%) of our students score level 7 in math. In 2013, we would like to have 25% of our students score level 7 in math. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.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 3A. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students making learning gains in mathematics. 3A.1. 3A.1. 3A.1. 3A.1. 3A.1. Mathematics Goal #3A: By 2013, 75% of our students will achieve learning on the FCAT math assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected of Performance:* Based on the 2012 FCAT, we had 61% of our students make learning In 2013, we would like to have 75% of our students make learning gains in math.
utilization of up-to-date data binders, and fidelity of implementation of school-wide non-negotiables 4A.1. Establish non-negotiables and ensure fidelity to include PLCs, attendance at faculty meetings, accountability for behavior/class work/home learning, differentiation/small groups/guided reading, high expectations for ALL students, active student learning and authentic student engagement, inclusion, and having the media center be the heart and soul of the school, to be monitored through frequent classroom walkthroughs by administrative team, instructional coaches and district personnel 4A.1. Success Maker lab will be utilized with fidelity at grades 3-6 as evidenced by teacher behaviors outlined by administrative team 4A.1. Teachers will review the Success Maker data wall on a monthly basis during common planning to identify all students’ responses to the instruction to determine which students need additional support and if Success Maker is being implemented with fidelity 4A.1. K-2 teachers will participate in ongoing training on CCSS, including administrative and instructional coaches’ support during common planning as well as district-provided opportunities 4A.1. 3-6 teachers will participate in ongoing training on NGSSS, including administrative and instructional coaches’ support during common planning make learning gains on the FCAT math. students make learning gains on FCAT math. 4A.2. 4A.2. he leadership team will review pertinent data to determine the 4A.2. Leadership Team; Teachers; Coaches 4A.2. Data Analysis Mid-Chapter Checkpoints 4A.2.
Students need to learn basic math skill for grade level and Common Core Standards trends, noting strengths and weaknesses by level and student Differentiated Instruction in benchmark areas in need of mastery Small group instruction, Graphic organizers, intensive intervention, Activate prior knowledge (KWL) Explain, model, practice, Mastery of basic math facts, Common Core used to fill the gaps CWTs focusing on instructional practices, instructional strategies and the learner Review and analysis of Math Data CWT data analysis, Data Analysis Progress monitoring 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.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 Mathematics Goal #5A: narrative for the goal in this box. 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. White: Black: 5B.1. FCIM will be implemented to ensure that the steps of Plan, Do,
Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: Check, Act are in place and being utilized through mini-assessments and data meetings. Community meetings; Lesson Plans Assessments Mathematics Goal #5B: By 2013, 50% of our students, 35% of our black students, and 50% of our Hispanic students will achieve satisfactory progress on the FCAT math assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* White: 55% Black: 74% Hispanic: 55% Asian: American Indian: White: 50% Black: 35% Hispanic: 50% American Indian: 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 5C. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. Mathematics Goal #5C: By 2013, 55% of our ELL students will achieve satisfactory on the FCAT math assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the 2012 FCAT, 57% of our ELL students did not make satisfactory progress on the FCAT math. In 2013, we would like to have 55% of our ELL students making satisfactory progress on the FCAT math. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.2. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 5C.3. 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: By 2013, 35% of our students with disabilities will achieve make satisfactory progress on the FCAT math assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the FCAT data from 2012, only 25% of our SWD made satisfactory progress on the FCAT. In 2013, we would like to see 35% of our SWD make satisfactory progress on the FCAT math. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.2. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.3. 5D.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 5E. Economically Disadvantaged students not making satisfactory progress in mathematics. 5E.1. 5E.1. 5E.1. 5E.1. 5E.1. Mathematics Goal #5E: By 2013, 40% of our ED students will make satisfactory progress on the FCAT math assessment. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* on the FCAT data from 2012, only 35% of our ED students made satisfactory progress on the FCAT. In 2013, we like to see 40% of our ED students make satisfactory progress on the FCAT math. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.2. 5E.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 and 5 in mathematics. 2A.1. 2A.1. 2A.1. 2A.1. 2A.1. Mathematics Goal #2A: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2A.3. 2B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at or Level 7 in mathematics. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. 2B.1. Mathematics Goal #2B: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.2. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3. 2B.3.
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. 3A.1. 3A.1. 3A.1. 3A.1. Mathematics Goal #3A: narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 3A.2. 3A.2. 3A.2. 3A.2. 3A.2. 3A.3. 3A.3. 3A.3. 3A.3. 3A.3. 3B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Percentage of students making learning in mathematics. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. Mathematics Goal #3B: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.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 4. FCAT 2.0: Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in mathematics. 4A.1. 4A.1.
Mathematics Goal #4: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 4A.2. 4A.2. 4A.2. 4A.2. 4A.2. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.3. 4A.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 Mathematics Goal #5A: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 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 Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics. 5B.1. White: Black: Hispanic: American Indian: 5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1. 5B.1. Mathematics Goal #5B: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. White: Black: Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. White: Black:
Hispanic: American Indian: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.2. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. 5B.3. Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following subgroup: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 5C. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in mathematics. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. 5C.1. Mathematics Goal #5C: narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 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: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. numerical data for expected level of performance in this box.
Algebra Goal #2: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 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 3A. In six years, school will reduce their achievement gap by 50%. Baseline data 2010-2011 Algebra 1 Goal #3A: narrative for the goal in this box. 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 3B. Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra 1. 3B.1. White: Black: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. Algebra 1 Goal #3B: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of Enter numerical data for expected level of
3A. In six years, school will reduce their achievement gap by 50%. Baseline data 2011-2012 Geometry Goal #3A: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 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 3B. Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry. 3B.1. White: Black: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. 3B.1. Geometry Goal #3B: narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* numerical data for current level of performance in this box. White: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. White: Black: Hispanic: Asian: American Indian: 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.2. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.3. 3B.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
3C. English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry. 3C.1. 3C.1. 3C.1. 3C.1. 3C.1. Geometry Goal #3C: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 3C.2. 3C.2. 3C.2. 3C.2. 3C.2. 3C.3. 3C.3. 3C.3. 3C.3. 3C.3. 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 3D. Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry. 3D.1. 3D.1. 3D.1. 3D.1. 3D.1. Geometry Goal #3D: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 3D.2. 3D.2. 3D.2. 3D.2. 3D.2. 3D.3. 3D.3. 3D.3. 3D.3. 3D.3. 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 3E. Economically Disadvantaged students not making satisfactory progress in Geometry. 3E.1. 3E.1.
Geometry Goal #3E: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 3E.2. 3E.2. 3E.2. 3E.2. 3E.2. 3E.3. 3E.3. 3E.3. 3E.3. 3E.3. End of Geometry EOC 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 Level/ Subject PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader PD Participants (e.g., PLC, subject, 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 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: Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount Subtotal: Total: End of Mathematics Goals Elementary and Middle School Science * 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. 1A.1. FCIM will be implemented to ensure that the steps of Plan, Do, Check, Act are in place and being utilized through mini-assessments and data meetings. Science Goal #1A: 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
By 2013, 30% of our students will achieve satisfactory on the FCAT Science assessment. on the FCAT data from 2012, only 17% of our students made satisfactory progress on the FCAT science. In 2013, we would like to see 30% of our students make satisfactory progress on the FCAT science. 1A.2 All students need a literacy rich environment, to improve in science vocabulary and to be proficient in science standards. 1A.2. Learning and mastery of concepts aligned to the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and benchmarks Interactive Word walls containing science words will be instituted Instructional Focus calendars will be used to guide instruction 1A.2. 1A.2. Daily CWTs focusing on instructional materials, instructional practices, instructional strategies and the learner, CWTs data analysis and feedback, Progress monitoring, Mini benchmark lessons, Teacher Observations Instructional Focus calendar review 1A.2. Baseline Assessment Science Mid-year assessment Bi-weekly Science Mini benchmark assessments, 1A.3. Lack of Instruction School-wide 1A.3. Modify master schedule to provide common planning and staggered intervention time for all grade levels. 1A.3. Common planning will ensure the following: collaboration, unpacking standards, creation and utilization of up-to-date data binders, and fidelity of implementation of school-wide non-negotiables 1A.3. Establish non-negotiables and ensure fidelity to include PLCs, attendance at faculty meetings, accountability for behavior/class work/home learning, differentiation/small groups/guided reading, high expectations for ALL 1A.3. Administrative Team, instructional coaches, teacher leaders/grade level chairs, district personnel 1A.3. . Classroom Walk Throughs; Lesson Plans; Meeting Agendas 1A.3.
1B. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in science. 1B.1. Science Goal #1B: By 2013, 80% of our students will achieve levels 4-6 on the FAA Science assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the FAA data from 2012, 1 out of 3 (33%) of our FAA students scored a level 5 in science. In 2013, we like to see 80% of our FAA students score at proficiency on the FAA science. 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 Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in science. 2A.1. 2A.1. 2A.1. 2A.1. 2A.1. Science Goal #2A: By 2013, 15% of our students will achieve a level 4 or level 5 on the FCAT Science assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the FCAT data from 2012, only 2% of our students scored level 4 or 5 on the Science FCAT. In 2013 we would like to see 15% of our students score above proficiency on the science FCAT. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2. 2A.2.
performance in this box. performance in this box. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to “Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 2. Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at or above Level 7 in science. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. Science Goal #2: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013Expected Level of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. End of Florida Alternate Assessment High School Science Goals Biology 1 End-of-Course (EOC) Goals (this section needs to be completed by all schools that have students taking the Biology I EOC) * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]). Biology 1 EOC Goals Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 1. Students scoring at Achievement Level 3 in Biology 1. 1.1. 1.1. Biology 1 Goal #1: 2012 Current of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:*
Enter narrative for the goal in this box. Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 2. Students scoring at or Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Biology 1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. Biology 1 Goal #2: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* numerical data for current level of performance in this box. numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. End of Biology 1 EOC 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
1A. FCAT: Students scoring at Achievement Level 3.0 and higher in writing. 1A.1. 1A.1. 1A.1. 1A.1. 1A.1. Writing Goal #1A: By 2013, 70% of our students will achieve a level 3 or higher on the FCAT Writes. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the FCAT data from 2012, 62% of our students scored at a level 3 or higher on FCAT Writes. In 2013, we would like to see 70% of our students score a level 3 or higher on the FCAT Writes. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.2. 1A.2. 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: By 2013, 100% of our students will achieve a level 4 or higher on the FAA Writing assessment. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* Based on the FAA data from 2012, there were no students (out of 1) who scored at a level 4 or higher. In 2013, we would like to see 2 (100%) students score a level 4 or higher on the FAA writing. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.2. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3. 1B.3.
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 Level/Subject PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, 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: End of Writing Goals
Civics End-of-Course (EOC) Goals (required in year 2014-2015) * When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]). Civics EOC Goals Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 1. Students scoring at Achievement 3 in Civics. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. Civics Goal #1: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected of Performance:* Enter numerical data for current level of performance in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. Based on the analysis of student achievement data and reference to “Guiding Questions,” identify and define areas in need of improvement for the following group: Anticipated Barrier Strategy Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Strategy Evaluation Tool 2. Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Civics. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. 2.1. Civics Goal #2: narrative for the goal in this box. 2012 Current Level of Performance:* 2013 Expected Level of Performance:* numerical data for current level of performance in this box. numerical data for expected level of performance in this box. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3. 2.3.
Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount Subtotal: Total: End of U.S. History Goals 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. 1.1. Attendance Goal #1: In 2013, we would like to raise our attendance rate to 95%. 2012 Current Attendance Rate:* 2013 Expected Attendance Rate:* In 2012, our attendance rate was 94.41 % In 2013, we like to raise our attendance rate to 95%. 2012 Current Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more) 2013 Expected Number of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more) In 2012, we had 236 students who had 10 or more absences. In 2013, we would like to have less than 100 students have 10 or more absences. 2012 Current Number of Students with Excessive 2013 Expected Number of Students with Excessive
2012 Total Number of Suspensions 2013 Expected Number of Out-of-School Suspensions In 2012, there were a total of 291 out of school suspensions. In 2013, we would like to have less than 150 out of school suspensions. 2012 Total Number of Students Suspended Out- of- School 2013 Expected Number of Students Suspended Out- of-School In 2012, there were a total of 289 students who were out of school suspended. In 2013, we would like to have less than 150 out of school suspensions. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 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 Grade Level/Subject PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, 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 PBS ALL Mr. Jones School-Wide Preplanning, monthly meetings Constant monitoring of BIP’s and PBS strategies. Mr. Ms. Kromann 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
Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount Subtotal: End of Dropout Prevention Goal(s) 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 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. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. Parent Involvement Goal #1: Enter narrative for the goal in this box. *Please refer to the percentage of parents who participated in school activities, duplicated or unduplicated. 2012 Current of Parent Involvement:* 2013 Expected Level of Parent Involvement:* Enter numerical data for current level of parent involvement in this box. Enter numerical data for expected level of parent involvement in this box. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.2. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3. 1.3.
Subtotal: Professional Development Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount Subtotal: Other Strategy Description of Resources Funding Source Amount Subtotal: Total: End of CTE Goal(s) Additional Goal(s) * When percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)). Additional Goal(s) Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement Based on the analysis of school data, identify and define 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. numerical data for expected goal in this box.