2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
School Improvement Plan (SIP)
Form SIP-1
Proposed for 2011-2012
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
1
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
2011 – 2012 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PART I: SCHOOL INFORMATION
School Name: Somerset Academy East Preparatory
District Name: Broward
Principal: Mary C. Stuart
Superintendent: James F. Notter
SAC Chair: Cara Mendez
Date of School Board Approval:
Student Achievement Data:
The following links will open in a separate browser window. .
School Grades Trend Data (Use this data to complete Sections 1-4 of the reading and mathematics goals and Sections 1 and 2 of the writing and science goals.)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data (Use this data to complete Sections 5A-5D of the reading and mathematics goals and Section 3A-3D of the writing goals.)
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data (Use this data to inform the problem-solving process when writing goals.)
Highly Qualified Administrators
List your school’s highly qualified administrators and briefly describe their certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an administrator, and their
prior performance record with increasing student achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT performance (Percentage data for Proficiency, Learning
Gains, Lowest 25%), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Position
Name
Degree(s)/
Certification(s)
Principal
Mary C. Stuart
Doctorate in Leadership,
Nova Southeastern
University; MS in
Elementary Education
from FIU;BA in Liberal
Studies from FIU;K6/ESOL
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Number of
Years at
Current School
3
Number of Years
as an
Administrator
7
Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT
(Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP information
along with the associated school year)
2010- 2011 Data
School Grade – A
AYP- No
High Standards in Rdg- 64%
High Standards Math- 73%
Lrng. Gains Rdg- 58%
Lrng Gains Math- 72%
2
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Endorsement/Educationa
l Leadership
Lowest 25% gains Rdg- 67%
Lowest 25% gains Math- 78%
2009-2010 Data
School Grade - C
AYP-No
High Standards Rdg-68%
High Standards Math-59%
Lrng. Gains Rdg- 59%
Lrng. Gains Math-61%
Lowest 25% gains Rdg - 60%
Lowest 25% gains math - 67%
2008-2009 Data
Previous School - Mater Performing Arts & Entertainment
Academy
School Grade- A
AYP - No
High Standards Rdg - 60%
High Standards Math - 88%
Learning gains rdg - 62%
Learning gains math - 82%
Lowest 25% gains rdg - 55%
Lowest 25% gains math - 76%
2007-2008 Data
Previous School-Doral Academy
School Grade - A
AYP - Yes
High Standards Rdg - 85%
High Standards Math - 87%
Learning gains rdg - 76%
Learning gains math - 72%
Lowest 25% gains rdg - 70%
Lowest 25% gains math - 73%
2006-2007 Data
Previous School - Doral Academy
School Grade - A
AYP - Yes
High Standards Rdg - 85%
High Standards Math - 85%
Learning gains rdg - 68%
Learning gains math - 56%
Lowest 25% gains rdg - 52%
Lowest 25% gains math - 58%
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
3
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
2005-2006 Data
Previous School - Doral Academy
School Grade - A
AYP - Yes
High Standards Rdg. - 88%
High Standars math - 83%
Learning gains rdg - 69%
Learning gains math - 69%
Lowest 25% gains rdg - 66%
Lowest 25% gains math - N/A
Assistant
Principal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Highly Qualified Instructional Coaches
List your school’s highly qualified instructional coaches and briefly describe their certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an instructional coach,
and their prior performance record with increasing student achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT performance (Percentage data for Proficiency,
Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Instructional coaches described in this section are only those who are fully released or part-time teachers in
reading, mathematics, or science and work only at the school site.
Subject
Area
Reading
Name
Cara Mendez
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Degree(s)/
Certification(s)
MS- Reading, Florida
Atlantic University;
BS- Elementary
Edu.,Florida Atlantic
University;/Elementary
Edu K-6;
Middle Grades Integrated
Curriculum;ESOL
Endorsement;Reading K12
Number of
Years at
Current School
3
Number of Years as
an
Instructional Coach
3
Prior Performance Record (include prior School Grades, FCAT
(Proficiency, Learning Gains, Lowest 25%), and AYP
information along with the associated school year)
2010- 2011 Data
School Grade – A
AYP- No
High Standards in Rdg- 64%
High Standards Math- 73%
Lrng. Gains Rdg- 58%
Lrng Gains Math- 72%
Lowest 25% gains Rdg- 67%
Lowest 25% gains Math- 78%
2009-2010 DataSchool Grade- C
AYP- No
Reading Mastery- 68%
Math Mastery- 59%
Learning Gains Rdg- 59%
Learning Gains Math- 61%
Lowest 25% Rdg- 60%
4
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Lowest 25% Math- 67%
2008-2009 DataPrevious School-Fox Trail
School Grade- A
AYP- Yes
Reading Mastery: 87%
Math Mastery: 91%
Learning Gains in Rdg: 75%
Learning Gains in Math: 72%
Lowest 25% Rdg: 64%
Lowest 25% Math: 63%
Highly Qualified Teachers
Describe the school-based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly qualified teachers to the school.
Description of Strategy
Person Responsible
Projected Completion Date
1.
In-house training based on participants' needs in Reading
Cara Mendez
Ongoing
2.
Sharing of Best Practices
Ongoing
3.
Planning Time
Grade Level Team Leaders
K-2: Amber Geary
3-6:Anna Riley
Dr. Mary Stuart
4.
Peer Buddy Support within Grade Levels
Grade Level Team Leaders
K-2: Amber Geary
3-6:Anna Riley
Ongoing
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Not Applicable
(If not, please explain why)
Ongoing
5
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Non-Highly Qualified Instructors
List all instructional staff and paraprofessionals who are teaching out-of-field and/or who are NOT highly qualified.
Name
Belinda Hollis
Certification
Elementary Education K-6
Teaching Assignment
1st Grade
Professional Development/Support to Become Highly Qualified
Working on obtaining ESOL Endorsement by taking courses
at Barry University
Staff Demographics
Please complete the following demographic information about the instructional staff in the school.
*When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
Total Number
of Instructional
Staff
% of First-Year
Teachers
% of Teachers
with 1-5 Years of
Experience
% of Teachers
with 6-14 Years of
Experience
% of Teachers
with 15+ Years of
Experience
% of Teachers
with Advanced
Degrees
% Highly
Qualified
Teachers
% Reading
Endorsed
Teachers
% National
Board Certified
Teachers
%
ESOL Endorsed
Teachers
14
0% (0)
92.9% (13)
7.1% (1)
0% (0)
21.4% (3)
100% (14)
0% (0)
0% (0)
7.1% (1)
Teacher Mentoring Program
Please describe the school’s teacher mentoring program by including the names of mentors, the name(s) of mentees, rationale for the pairing, and the planned
mentoring activities.
Mentor Name
Team Leader K-2:
Amber Geary
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Mentee Assigned
Holli Horton
Stacie DiNitto
Belinda Hollis
Shanna Gadaleta
Nina Watkins
Rationale for Pairing
Planned Mentoring Activities
Amber Geary is the team leader with
several years experience in the
classroom. She provided ongoing
support for the K-2 teachers.
* Weekly conferencing
* Evaluation of lesson plans
* Data chats
* Sharing of best practices
developed from PLC meetings
* Sharing of strategies and
6
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Team Leader 3-6:
Anna Riley
Mirsa Goldstein
Caroline Francis
Kristin Nunez
Rene Mondejar
Ana Riley is the team leader with several
years experience in the classroom. She
provided ongoing support for the 3-5
teachers.
Reading Resource:
Cara Mendez
Holli Horton
Stacie DiNitto
Belinda Hollis
Shanna Gadaleta
Amber Geary
Nina Watkins
Mirsa Goldstein
Caroline Francis
Kristin Nunez
Ana Riley
Rene Mondejar
Cara Mendez is a highly qualified teacher
with certification in Reading. She
provided ongoing in the area of Reading
to teachers K-5.
implementation of various focus
skills
*Informal observations
* Weekly conferencing
* Evaluation of lesson plans
* Data chats
* Sharing of best practices
developed from PLC meetings
* Sharing of strategies and
implementation of various focus
skills
*Informal observations
* Weekly conferencing
* Evaluation of lesson plans (Reading
Only)
* Data chats in Reading
* Sharing of best practices
developed from PLC meetings
* Sharing of strategies and
implementation of various focus
skills in Reading
*Informal observations
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- N/A
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
7
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Title III- N/A
Title X- Homeless- N/A
Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)- Free FCAT tutoring October- April
Violence Prevention Programs- Safety Patrols/ S.A.F.E with Miramar Police Department
Nutrition Programs- Health Education
Housing Programs- N/A
Head Start- N/A
Adult Education- N/A
Career and Technical Education- N/A
Job Training- N/A
Other
Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)
School-Based RtI Team
Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.
The Response to Intervention (RTI) Leadership team consists of the Principal (Mary Stuart), School Psychologist (Suzanne Spindler), Reading Teacher (Cara
Mendez), ESE Specialist (Alison Siegel), Speech Language Pathologist (Antony Moussignac), Case Manager, General Education Teacher, Reporter and Bilingual
School Psychologist.
Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions). How does it work with other school teams to
organize/coordinate RtI efforts?
The case manager meets with the assigned teacher regarding the student. Together, they brainstorm specific interventions, monitor progress, collect data, and observe
the student in a classroom setting. General education teacher relays student progress to the team. If necessary, the team meets with the general education teacher
following Tier 2 data collection to determine the next step. The team analyzes the data collected throughout the various tiers and makes further recommendations.
This is done as needed.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
8
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
In addition, the team meets bi-monthly to engage in the following activities:
Review progress monitoring data gathered at the grade level meetings by each teacher. Team will identify students who are meeting/exceeding benchmarks, at
moderate risk or at high risk for not meeting benchmarks. Based on the above information, the team will identify several strategies to better assist students' specific
needs.
Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan. Describe how the RtI Problemsolving process is used in developing and implementing the SIP?
The RtI team provides educational support for all students. The process is a standardized procedure that guides data collection, development of interventions, and
monitoring of student progress. RTI is a structured problem-solving process with follow-up so no student is left behind. The purpose of the RtI leadership team is to
increase student achievement through specific research-based interventions.
RtI 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.
Data sources include weekly assessments (Cold Reads), Mini-BATs, Behavior Frequency Charts, Rigby, IRI’s, Anecdotals, and Fluency Probes. Progress Monitoring
and Reporting Network (PMRN) will be used to record the data for FAIR/FLKRS and Echoes for Kindergarten. The Comprehensive English Language Learning
Assessment (CELLA) for our English Language Learners (ELLs). All students in grades 3+ will partake in the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).
Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.
Our highly-qualified specialist teachers will train the faculty in their area of expertise. Teachers will also be trained in proper conferencing techniques, data analysis,
and proper intervention techniques to be used in the classroom and the collection and monitoring of data through the three tiers. All teachers will receive refresher
training during the 2011-2012 school year.
Literacy Leadership Team (LLT)
School-Based Literacy Leadership Team
Identify the school-based Literacy Leadership Team (LLT).
Dr. Mary Stuart- Principal
Cara Mendez- Reading Leader
Ana Riley- 3-5 Team Leader
Amber Geary- Primary Team Leader
Alison Siegel- ESE Specialist
Describe how the school-based LLT functions (e.g., meeting processes and roles/functions).
The school-based Literacy Leadership Team (LLT) meets on a monthly basis to review monthly focus skills, best practices, classroom walkthroughs,and any
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
9
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
professional development regarding literacy. The team will also focus on progress by monitoring data gathered at each grade level meeting. The team will identify
students who are meeting/exceeding benchmarks at moderate risk or at high risk for not meeting benchmarks. Based on the above information, the team will identify
several strategies to better assist students' specific needs. During team meetings, the team will also desegregate data. The team will also collaborate regularly, problem
solve, share effective practices, evaluate implementation, make decisions, and practice new processes and skills. This team then disseminates the information via team
meetings and faculty meetings held monthly.
What will be the major initiatives of the LLT this year?
The LLT will meet with the principal and the SAC to help develop the SIP. The team provided data on: academic as well as social/emotiional areas that may be
addressed. The team will also help set clear expectations for instruction through quarterly guides and pacing guides. Another goal for the LLT is to develop and model
differentiated instruction by integrating reading across the curriculum while addressing all six areas of reading.
NCLB Public School Choice

Notification of School in Need of Improvement (SINI) Status
Upload a copy of the Notification of SINI Status to Parents in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page.

Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification
Upload a copy of the CWT Notification to Parents in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page.

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification
Upload a copy of the SES Notification to Parents in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page.
*Elementary Title I Schools Only: Pre-School Transition
Describe plans for assisting preschool children in transition from early childhood programs to local elementary school programs as applicable.
N/A
*Grades 6-12 Only Sec. 1003.413(b) F.S
For schools with Grades 6-12, describe the plan to ensure that teaching reading strategies is the responsibility of every teacher.
N/A
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
10
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
*High Schools Only
Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S., Sec. 1003.413(g)(j) F.S.
How does the school incorporate applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future?
N/A
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?
N/A
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.
N/A
PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS
Reading Goals
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
11
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70% (35)).
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
READING GOALS
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
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in 1.1. Specific areas of 1.1. Professional
need within the
development in the
reading
Reading Goal #1:
2011 Current
Level of
Our goal is to ensure that Performance:*
every child not only
43% (35 out of
meets and maintains at 82 students
tested)
least this level of
achievement, but
continuously improves to
a higher level. .
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
44% of our
students will
achieve
proficiency level
on the FCAT.
school must be
identified. This
can be difficult
due to the wide
range of
variables. Time
must also be
allotted to plan
and implement
workshops
meeting the
specific needs of
the
school.
areas of differentiated
instruction and
appropriate reading
strategies.
1.2. Determine leveled
the county, new reading groups
to the public
according to specific
school system
skill areas requiring
(i.e. those who
early data
have never taken analysis/quick
the FCAT) and
identification.
those who scored
a level one or two
need to be closely
1.2. Students new to
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1.1.Team Leaders; 1.1. Follow-up activities
1.1. BAT
Reading Teacher; from trainings will be
Assessment, MiniESE Specialist;
discussed
BATs, CWTs,
Principal
during team meetings and FCAT, Classroom
PLC's.
Assessments
1.2.Principal;
1.2. Through data
Reading Teacher; chats, progress
ESE Specialist; ELL monitoring charts, and
Contact; All
classroom assessments,
Teachers
student growth will be
continuously monitored.
1.2. BAT
Assessment, MiniBATs, CWTs,
FCAT, DAR Word
Lists, Fluency
Probes, Classroom
Assessments
12
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
monitored.
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:
2. Students achieving above proficiency
(FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in reading
Reading Goal #2:
2011 Current
Level of
The specific needs of our Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
1.3.
Anticipated Barrier
1.3.
Strategy
1.3.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
1.3.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2.1. Early identification 2.1. High Achiever
2.1.Principal;Readin 2.1.Through data
2.1. BAT
of qualifying students Classrooms through a
is essential to provide Multiaged setting
them with the
appropriate
education.
g Teacher; ESE
Specialist;
Classroom
Teachers
chats, progress
monitoring charts, and
classroom assessments,
student growth will be
continuously monitored
Assessment, MiniBATs, CWTs,
FCAT, Classroom
Assessments
2.2. Technology must
2.2. Provide students
2.2. Classroom
2.2. Through data
2.2. Rubrics
be updated and
maintained.
with research
opportunities and note
taking skills to expand
their reading
knowledge.
Incorporate
project-based learning
into activities.
Teachers; IT
technicians.
chats, progress
monitoring charts, and
classroom assessments,
student growth will be
continuously monitored.
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
level 4 and 5 students
21% (17 out of 82 22% of our
students tested) students will
must be addressed in
achieve FCAT
order to maintain and
levels 4 and 5 in
accelerate student
reading.
achievement. Our goal is
not to increase student
work but to expand the
depth of their knowledge.
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
3. Percentage of students making Learning Gains in 3.1. General Ed.
Teachers not having
reading
Reading Goal #3:
Our goal for all of our
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
3.1. Provide differentiated 3.1. Classroom
instruction to students Teachers; Reading
the knowledge of how in small groups
Teacher; ESE
to provide
according to skill levels, Specialist
differentiated
utilizing different
instruction and meet modalities according to
2.3
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
3.1. Through data
3.1. BAT
chats, progress
monitoring charts, and
classroom assessments,
student growth will be
continuously monitored.
Assessment, MiniBATs, CWTs,
FCAT, Classroom
Assessments,
Fluency Probes,
13
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
58% (29 out of 50 59% of our
students is to not allow
needs of all the
students tested) students will
them to stagnate or
learners.
make learning
become complacent with
gains in reading.
current levels, but to
consistently strive for
higher levels of
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:
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making
learning gains in reading
Reading Goal #4:
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
67% (20 out of 30 68% of our lowest
25% will make
learning gains in
reading .
Our students is to increase the
students tested).
Lowest 25% making learning
gains in reading through additional
support in the content area.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
students’ learning
styles. Provide teachers
with professional
development in this
area.
Classroom walkthroughs. Project Rubrics
Walkthrough
evaluation
3.2. General Ed.
3.2. Provide differentiated 3.2. Classroom
3.2. Through data chats,
3.2. BAT
teachers needing
additional assistance
with analyzing data
and making
instructional choices.
instruction
Teachers; Reading
to students in small
Teacher; ESE
groups according to skill Specialist
levels, utilizing different
modalities according to
students’ learning
styles. Provide teachers
with professional
development in this
area.
progress monitoring
charts, and classroom
assessments, student
growth will be
continuously monitored
Assessments, MiniBATs, FCAT,
Classroom
Assessments,
Fluency Probes,
Project Rubrics
3.3.
3.3.
3..3.
3.3.
Anticipated Barrier
3.3.
Strategy
4.1. Offer students who
need of
receive a level one and
instruction in
two on the FCAT will
addition to what receive tutoring to
they
reinforce necessary
receive in the
skills
classroom in
order to
meet reading
proficiency and
make learning
gains. Funding
for our FCAT
Tutoring Program,
4.1. Students are in
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
4.1.Principal;
4.1. Through data
4.1. BAT
Classroom
Teachers who are
tutoring; Reading
Teacher
chats, progress
monitoring charts, and
classroom assessments,
student growth will be
continuously monitored.
Assessment, MiniBATs, CWTs,
FCAT, Classroom
Assessments,
Fluency Probes,
DAR Word Lists
Pre/Post Test
14
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
however, could
be a potential
barrier.
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
5A. Student subgroups
not making Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) in
reading
Reading Goal #5A:
Ethnicity
(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
American Indian)
Reading Goal #5A:
The subgroups that did
not make AYP include
Black, and Hispanic. Our
goal is to increase their
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
White: 100%
(2/2)
Black: 65%
White: 100%
Black: 69%
Hispanic: 51%
4.2. Students are in need of
additional reading
instruction, therefore a
double dose of reading
will be provided
throughout the day.
Scheduling times for
double dose is
considered a barrier.
4.2. All students who receive a 4.2. Reading Resource,
level one and two on the FCAT Classroom teachers
will receive a double dose of
intensive reading instruction
throughout the day (other than
their 90 minute reading block).
4.2.Through data
chats, progress
monitoring charts, and
classroom assessments, student
growth will be continuously
monitored
4.2. BAT
Assessment, MiniBATs, CWTs,
FCAT, Classroom
Assessments,
Fluency Probes,
DAR Word Lists
Pre/Post Test
4.3
4.3.
4.3.
4.3.
Anticipated Barrier
4.3.
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5A.1.Students arrive to 5A.1. Provide
5A.1. Classroom
school with different
capabilities.
teachers
differentiated
instruction to ensure
that students receive a
variety of reading
strategies.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5A.1. Work samples will
5A.1. Classroom
be collected and
assignments, state
monitored for growth
and district
along with the analysis of assessments; BAT
state and district
Assessments, and
assessments.
Mini BATs
15
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
(33/51)
proficiency through
differentiated instruction. Hispanic: 45%
(15/33)
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:
5B. Student subgroups Reading Goal #5B:
not making Adequate
English Language
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Learners (ELL)
reading
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.3.
Anticipated Barrier
5A.3.
5A.3.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5A.3.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
5A.3.
5B.1.
5B.1.
5B.1.
5B.1.
5B.1.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.3.
Anticipated Barrier
5B.3.
5B.3.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5B.3.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
5B.3.
5C.1.
5C.1.
5C.1.
5C.1.
5C.2.
5C.2.
5C.2.
5C.2.
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
Reading Goal #5B:
N/A
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
Enter numerical
data for current
level of
performance in
this box.
Enter numerical
data for expected
level of
performance in
this box.
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:
5C.1.
5C. Student subgroups Reading Goal #5C:
not making Adequate
Students with Disabilities
Yearly Progress (AYP) in (SWD)
reading
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
Reading Goal #5C:
N/A
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
Enter numerical
data for current
level of
performance in
this box.
Enter numerical
data for expected
level of
performance in
this box.
5C.2.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
16
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
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
5D.1. Students lack
5D. Student subgroups Reading Goal #5D:
not making Adequate
Economically
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Disadvantaged
reading
5C.3.
Strategy
5C.3.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5D.1. Parents will be
5C.3.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5D.1. Reading
given pointers to work Teacher;
collaboratively with their Classroom
children in the
Teachers
completion of homework
assignments during SAC
Meeting.
5D.1. Increased
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.3.
5D.3.
5D.3.
5D.3.
5D.3.
additional
reinforcement at
home.
Reading Goal #5D:
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
5C.3.
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
Those students who are
economically
58% (38 out of 66 63%of the
students tested) students will be
disadvantaged did not
proficient in
make AYP. Our goal is to
reading.
raise this level of
performance by providing
reinforcement at home.
5D.1. Sign in sheet
participation in homework for meetings will be
assignments
used to determine
who received the
information and the
teachers will
monitor progress
and student
participation in
homework.
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
Differentiated
Instruction/ Centers
Small Group
Instruction
FCAT Focus Skills
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator
and/or
PLC Leader
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
school-wide)
meetings)
Team Leaders
Kindergartenand Reading School-Wide
Fifth Grade
Teacher
Once a month during
team meetings and
PLC's
Team Leaders
Kindergartenand Reading School-Wide
Fifth Grade
Teacher
Once a month during
faculty meetings and
PLC's
Kindergarten- Team Leaders School-Wide
August 15, 2010
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Sharing of Best
Practices;
Reporting follow-up
activities
Sharing of Best
Practices;
Reporting follow-up
activities
Sharing of Best Practices;
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Team Leaders and Reading
Teacher
Team Leaders and Reading
Teacher
Reading Teacher
17
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
and Interactive Word Fifth Grade
Walls
and Reading
Teacher
Pre-Planning
Follow-up after teacher
observations
Reading Budget (Insert rows as needed)
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities/materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy
Provide instruction to students in
small groups according to skill
levels, utilizing different modalities
according to students’ learning
styles.
Intensive Reading Intervention Practice
Books
Provide instruction to students in
small groups according to skill
levels, utilizing different modalities
according to students’ learning
styles.
Description of Resources
Accelerated Reader Program and Library
Books
Funding Source
Budget- AR Program
Implementation Grant- Books
Amount
$1,821
$27,040.76
Essential Skills in Reading: Modeled/
Guided/ Independent practice books grades
3-5.
Budget
$375
Implementation Grant
$1,000
Treasures Reading Series (additional
materials for new students)
Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy
Utilize technological resources to
reinforce reading skills taughtPromethean Boards, Laptops,
Laptop Carts, Computer Software,
Document Cameras, and Desktops
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Implementation Grant
Amount
$49,535
Updated Technology
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
Professional development in the
areas of center activities, word walls
and appropriate reading strategies.
Utilize technological resources to
reinforce reading skills taught –
Promethean flipcharts.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Description of Resources
Reading in the Content Area
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Promethean Board Training
N/A
N/A
18
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Professional development in the
areas of differentiated instruction
and appropriate reading strategies.
Differentiated Instruction
N/A
N/A
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
Offer students a Before School
Reading Program to reinforce
necessary skills.
Description of Resources
Funding Source
FCAT Reading Tutoring
Budget
Amount
$11,000
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Reading Goals
Mathematics Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
MATHEMATICS GOALS
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:
1. Students achieving proficiency (Level 3) in
mathematics
Mathematics Goal #1:
The results of the 2010- 2011 Current
2011 FCAT Mathematics Level of
Test indicates that 34% Performance:*
of students achieved level
3 proficiency. Our goal for 34% (28)
the 2011-2012 school
year is to increase level 3
student proficiency by 1
percentage point.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
35%
Anticipated Barrier
1.1.
Strategy
1.1.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
1.1.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
1.1
Evaluation Tool
1.1
Based on the 2011- Provide opportunities for Leadership Team
2012 administration hands-on mathematical RTI Team
of the FCAT Math test, operations using
General Ed.
number sense: base manipulatives that are Teacher
ten and fractions is
appropriate standard
the content area that specific and provide the
the students need
students with concrete
most help in.
items to understand
Students lack number concepts that are
sense and this
abstract.
impedes students
ability to successfully
complete operations.
District Benchmark
Assessments (the school FCAT
follow the districts testing
calendar)
Informal Assessments
Beginning and End of Year
assessments
Observations
Pre/Post Tests
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
19
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
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:
2. Students achieving above proficiency
(Levels 4 and 5) in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #2:
2011 Current
The results of the 2010- Level of
2011 FCAT Mathematics Performance:*
test indicates that 39% of 39% (32)
students achieved level 4
and 5 above proficiency.
Our goal for the 20112012 school year is to
increase level 4 and 5
student proficiency by 1
percentage point.
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
40%
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
2.1.
2.1.
2011 Current
The results of the 2010- Level of
2011 FCAT Mathematics Performance:*
Test indicates that 72%
of students made learning 72% (36)
gains. Our goal for the
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
73% (37)
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
2.1.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
2.1.
Evaluation Tool
2.1.
Based on the 2010- Provide opportunities for Leadership Team
2011 administration operations using
RTI Team
of the FCAT Math test, numbers and basic math General Ed.
number sense is the problems (depending on Teacher
area students need
grade level appropriate
most help in.
specific standards),
Students lack prior
through the use of daily
knowledge in number practice and
operations and this
manipulatives.
impedes student’s
ability to successfully
understand number
concepts.
District Benchmark
FCAT
Assessments (the school
follow the districts testing
calendar)
Informal Assessments
Beginning and End of Year
assessments
Observations
Pre/Post Tests
2.2.
2.2.
2.2.
2.2.
2.2.
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Anticipated Barrier
3. Percentage of students making learning gains in 3.1.
mathematics (excluding 9th grade; learning gains will
Based on the 2010not be available for this grade)
Mathematics Goal #3:
Strategy
2011 administration
of the FCAT Math
Test. Number: base
ten and fractions
seems to be the
content cluster
students need most
help in. Students
demonstrate lack of
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
3.1.
3.1.
3.1.
3.1.
The student will utilize
online interventions
through Carnegie
Cognitive Tutor 5 times
a week.
Increase the use of
manipulatives and
hands-on activities to
support math
understanding
Leadership Team
RTI Team
General Ed
Teacher
District Benchmark
Assessments (the school
follows the districts
testing calendar)
Carnegie Reports
Pre/Post Tests
FCAT
20
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
2011-2012 school year is
to increase student
learning gains to 73% or
more.
basic mathematical
skills.
3.2.
3.2.
3.2.
3.2.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.
3.3.
3..3.
3.3.
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:
4. Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making
learning gains in mathematics
Mathematics Goal #4:
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
On the 2010-2011 FCAT
mathematics test, 78% of
students made learning
78% (21)
gains. Our goal for the
2011-2012 school year is
to increase student
student learning gains to
79%.
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
79%
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the applicable subgroup(s):
5A. Student subgroups
notmaking Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) in
mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5A:
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Mathematics Goal #5A:
Ethnicity
(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
American Indian)
Anticipated Barrier
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
4.1.
4.1.
4.1.
4.1.
4.1.
Based on the 20092010 administration
of the FCAT math
test, students
demonstrate lack of
basic mathematical
concepts
Incorporate FCAT
Explorer practice into
the math curriculum.
Offer before school
tutoring in math.
Incorporate problem
solving and critical
thinking skills into the
math curriculum.
Leadership Team
RTI Team
General Ed.
Teacher
District Benchmark
Assessments (the school
follows the districts
testing calendar)
Carnegie Reports
Observations
Pre/Post Tests
FCAT
4.2.
4.2.
4.2.
4.2.
4.2.
4.3.
4.3.
4.3.
4.3.
4.3.
Anticipated Barrier
5A.1.
White: No Barriers evident
For the sub group of black
and Hispanic is lack of
background knowledge of
basic number concepts.
Strategy
5A.1.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5A.1.
Students will be
Leadership Team
provided with daily
RTI Team
practice through
General Ed.
differentiated instruction Teacher
using the software
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5A.1.
5A.1.
Data chats
Classroom walkthroughs
Teacher made tests
FCAT
Mini-BAT'S
BAT's
21
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
2012Expected
On the 2010-2011 FCAT 2011 Current
Level of
mathematics test, 67% of Level of
Performance:*
Performance:*
students in the Hispanic
White: 100 (2) White: 100
subgroup met AYP. Our
Black:71 (37)
Black: 74
goal for the 2010-2011
school year, is that 71% Hispanic: 67 (22) Hispanic: 71
Asian: NA
Asian: NA
of the subgroup of
American Indian: American Indian:
Hispanic students will
NA
NA
make AYP. On the 20102011 FCAT Mathematics
5A.2.
Test, 71% of the
subgroup of Black
5A.3.
students made AYP. Our
goal for the 2011-2012
school year, is that 74%
of the subgroup of Black
students will make AYP.
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:
5B. Student subgroups Mathematics Goal #5B:
not making Adequate
English Language
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Learners (ELL)
mathematics
Mathematics Goal #5B:
On the 2010-2011 FCAT
mathematics test, 53%
of students in the ELL
subgroup met AYP. Our
goal for the 2011-2012
school year, is that 58%
of the subgroup of ELL
students will make AYP.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
53% (9)
58%
program Carnegie
Cognitive Tutor.
Students will also
receive instruction
through small group
instruction within the
classroom setting.
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.2.
5A.3.
5A.3.
5A.3.
5A.3.
Anticipated Barrier
5B.1.
Strategy
5B.1.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5B.1.
5B.1.
5B.1.
Limited grade
Students will receive
appropriate
leveled vocabulary
vocabulary in the area support using lessons
of mathematics.
with audio and
animation.
Leadership Team
RTI Team
General Ed.
Teacher
Data chats
Classroom walkthroughs
Teacher made tests
FCAT
Mini-BAT'S
BAT's
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.2.
5B.3
5B.3.
5B.3.
5B.3.
5B.3.
22
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
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
5C. Student subgroups Mathematics Goal #5C: 5C.1.
not making Adequate
Students with Disabilities Lack of prerequisite
skills in the area of
Yearly Progress (AYP) in (SWD)
mathematics.
mathematics
2011 Current
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
5C.1.
5C.1.
Expand students' prior
knowledge with lessons
containing enrichment
activities, cross
curricular activities and
skill practice based on
information on IEP.
Leadership Team
General Ed.
Teacher
RTI Team
Grade level data chats and Pre/Post Test Data
classroom walk throughs. BAT's
FCAT
5C.2.
5C.2.
5C.2.
5C.2.
5C.2.
5C.3.
5C.3.
5C.3.
5C.3.
5C.3.
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
5C.1.
46%
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:
5D. Student subgroups Mathematics Goal #5D:
not making Adequate
Economically
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Disadvantaged
mathematics
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5C.1.
Mathematics Goal #5C:
On the 2010-2011 FCAT Level of
Performance:*
mathematics test, 40%
40%(2)
of students in the SWD
subgroup met AYP. Our
goal for the 2011-2012
school year, is that 46%
of the subgroup of SWD
students will make AYP.
Strategy
Anticipated Barrier
5D.1.Lack of resources and
assistance at home.
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
5D.1.Provide students with free 5D.1.
tutoring and provide parents
Leadership Team
with assistance through parent Classroom Teacher
meetings.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
5D.1.
Pre-post tests
BAT
Informal Assessment
Evaluation Tool
5D.1.
BAT
Pre-Post Test
FCAT
23
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Mathematics Goal #5D:
On the 2010-2010 FCAT 2011 Current
Mathematics Test, 68% of Level of
Performance:*
this subgroup met AYP.
68(45)
Our goal for the 20112012 school year, is that
72% of this subgroup will
meet AYP.
2012Expected
Level of
Performance:*
72%
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.2.
5D.3.
5D.3.
5D.3.
5D.3.
5D.3.
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
Training on Go Math
PD Facilitator
and/or
PLC Leader
Grade
Level/Subject
All Grades
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
school-wide)
meetings)
HRD
Mathematics
Early release and Planning
Walk-through and Data Meetings
Day
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Leadership and Team Leaders
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
Utilize all materials provided in our
adopted math series – as well as
supplemental materials on site to
provide differentiated instruction at
all levels.
Description of Resources
Houghton Mifflin Go Math
Funding Source
Implementation Grant
Amount
$4200.00
Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
24
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Utilize online programs that meet
the needs of the individual learner
Carnegie Cognitive Tutor
School Budget
$1794.00
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Mathematics Goals
Science Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
SCIENCE GOALS
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
1. Students achieving proficiency (FCAT Level 3) in 1.1.
Based
science
Science Goal #1:
Enter narrative for the goal in
this box.
On the 2011
administration of the
Science FCAT, 29% of
students achieved
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
29% ( 6)
31% ( 8 )
Strategy
1.1.
on our data Provide a variety of
analysis our
hands-on inquirystudents
based learning
demonstrated a lack opportunities for
of prior knowledge students to analyze,
and exposure to
draw appropriate
scientific thinking conclusions, and
and were not able apply key
to make real-world instructional
connections.
concepts, as well as
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1.1.
1.1.
1.1.
Leadership
Team
RTI Team
General Ed
Teacher
Science projects
weekly
Informal Assessments
Observations
District Benchmark
Assessments (the
school will follow the
testing calendar)
FCAT
Science
Investigations
Lab reports
25
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
proficiency. The
expected level of
performance for 2012
is 31% to achieve
proficiency.
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:
2. Students achieving above proficiency
(FCAT Levels 4 and 5) in science
Science Goal #2:
Enter narrative for the goal in
this box.
On the 2011
administration of the
Science FCAT, 38% of
students scored above
proficiency. The
expected level of
performance for 2012
is 5% above
proficiency.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
38% (8)
5% (5)
multimedia resources
through Safari
Montage to explore
how science connects
to the world around
them.
Anticipated Barrier
2.1.
Strategy
2.1
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
2.1.
Based on our data . Provide enrichment Leadership
analysis, our
activities for students Team
students
to design and develop RTI Team
demonstrated a lack science and
General Ed
of prior knowledge engineering projects Teacher
and exposure to
to increase scientific
scientific thinking thinking. Provide
and were not able after-school
to make real-world opportunities for
connections.
students to design
and develop science
and engineering
projects to increase
scientific thinking,
and the
development/discussion of inquiry-based
activities that allow
for testing of
hypotheses, data
analysis, explanation
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2.1
2.1.
Science labs
Teacher made tests
District Benchmark
Assessments (the
school will follow the
testing calendar)
Project requiring
scientific process
FCAT
Science
Investigations
Lab reports
.
observations
26
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
of variables, and
experimental design.
2.2.
2.2.
2.2.
2.2.
2.2.
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
Develop PLC's
specific to Science
Grade
Level/Subject
K-5
Focus on Scientific
Thinking
Tech Integration
PD Facilitator
and/or
PLC Leader
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
school-wide)
meetings)
Trainer/Prof
essional
General Ed. Teachers
Development
K-5
Team
Leaders
General Ed. Teachers
K-5
Science
Coach
General Ed. Teachers
Start September
2011-Monthly
PLC meeting minutes and
logs
Start September
2011-Monthly
Walkthroughs and
Observation by Team
observations
Leaders and PLC
Leader
Walkthroughs and
August 2011
observations
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Administrator
Administrator
Administrator
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
Provide instruction to students in
small groups according to skill
levels, utilizing different modalities
according to students’ learning
styles.
Description of Resources
Science Fusion K-5
Funding Source
Implementation Grant
Amount
$19,716.25
Subtotal:
Technology
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
27
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Strategy
Utilize science software to assist students
are their ability level. Set weekly goals
for students and monitor progress.
Description of Resources
Education City (Science Component)
Funding Source
Implementation Grant
Amount
$1,876
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
Focus on Scientific Thinking and
Technology Integration
Description of Resources
Team Leaders’ Workshops
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Science Goals
Writing Goals
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
WRITING GOALS
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:
1. Students achieving Adequate Yearly Progress
(FCAT Level 4.0 and higher) in writing
Writing Goal #1:
2011 Current Level 2012 Expected
of Performance:*
Level of
Performance:*
All of our students
were proficient in
81% (21/26)
writing. In order to
increase the number
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Anticipated Barrier
Strategy
1.1.
1.1.
Students have
difficulty organizing
their thoughts on
paper.
Graphic organizers
to assist with the
organization of
expository and
narrative prompts.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1.1. Kindergarten
1.1. Work samples will
1.1. Monthly school
through fifth
Grade
classroom
teachers
be collected and
monitored for growth
wide writing
prompts with
planning sheets,
and graphic
organizers
FCAT rubrics
82 % of our students
will achieve a level
4.0 or higher in
writing.
28
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
of 4.0 and higher
our goal is to
differentiate
instruction through
writing groups.
1.2.
1.2.
Students come to
school with a limited
vocabulary.
Enrich
the writing process by
expanding the students’
vocabulary through
interactive word walls.
1.3. Provide
differentiated instruction
to ensure that students
receive a variety of
strategies to
scaffold their writing
capabilities.
1.3.
Students arrive to
school with different
capabilities.
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:
2A. Student
subgroups not
making Adequate
Yearly Progress
(AYP) in writing
Writing Goal #2A:
Ethnicity
Anticipated Barrier
Strategy
1.2. Kindergarten
1.2. Work samples will
1.2. Monthly school
through fifth
Grade
classroom
teachers
be collected and
monitored for growth.
wide writing
prompts and FCAT
rubrics
1.3. Kindergarten
1.3. Work samples will
1.3. Monthly school
through fifth
Grade
classroom
teachers
be collected and
monitored for growth.
wide writing
prompts an FCAT
rubrics
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2A.1.
Maintain current AYP status.
2A.1.
2A.1.
Continue to differentiate, model Classroom teachers
and increase vocabulary
instruction.
2A.1.
Writing samples/
Rubrics
2A.1.
Writing FCAT / Classroom
Assessments and student
work samples
2A.2.
2A.2.
2A.2.
2A.2.
2A.2.
2A.3.
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
2A.3.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
2A.3.
2B.1.
2B.1.
Writing FCAT / Classroom
Assessments and student
work samples
(White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
American Indian)
Writing Goal #2A:
100% of our Fourth
Graders scored a 3
or above on FCAT.
Our goal is to
maintain this
percentage.
2011 Current Level 2012 Expected
of Performance:* Level of
Performance:*
White:100% (2/2) White: 100%
Black: 100%
Black: 100%
(14/14)
Hispanic: 100%
Hispanic: 100%
(8/8)
2A.3.
Based on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following subgroup:
2B. Student subgroups
Writing Goal #2B:
not making Adequate
English Language
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Learners (ELL)
writing
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
2A.3.
Anticipated Barrier
2B.1.
Maintain current AYP status.
Strategy
3B.1.
2B.1.
Continue to differentiate, model Classroom teachers
and increase vocabulary
instruction.
Writing samples/
Rubrics
Evaluation Tool
29
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Writing Goal #2B:
2011 Current
Level of
100% of our Fourth
Performance:*
Graders scored a 3 or
above on FCAT. Our goal 100% (2/2)
is to maintain this
percentage.
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
100%
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 subgroup:
Anticipated Barrier
2C.1.
2C. Student subgroups Writing Goal #2C:
not making Adequate
Students with Disabilities Maintain current AYP status.
Yearly Progress (AYP) in (SWD)
writing
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
2C.1.
2C.1.
Continue to differentiate, model Classroom teachers
and increase vocabulary
instruction.
2C.1.
Writing samples/
Rubrics
2C.1.
Writing FCAT / Classroom
Assessments and student
work samples
2C.2.
2C.2.
2C.2.
2C.2.
2C.2.
2C.3.
2C.3.
2C.3.
2C.3.
2C.3.
Writing Goal #2C:
2011 Current
Level of
Performance:*
100% of our Fourth
Graders scored a 3 or
100% (2/2)
above on FCAT. Our goal
is to maintain this
percentage.
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
100%
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:
2D. Student subgroups Writing Goal #2D:
not making Adequate
Economically
Yearly Progress (AYP) in Disadvantaged
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Anticipated Barrier
2D.1.
Maintain current AYP status.
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
2D.1.
2D.1.
Continue to differentiate, model Classroom teachers
and increase vocabulary
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
2D.1.
Writing samples/
Evaluation Tool
2D.1.
Writing FCAT / Classroom
Assessments and student
30
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
instruction.
writing
Rubrics
work samples
Writing Goal #2D:
2011 Current
Level of
100% of our Fourth
Performance:*
Graders scored a 3 or
above on FCAT. Our goal 100% (18/18)
is to maintain this
percentage.
2012 Expected
Level of
Performance:*
100%
2D.2.
2D.2.
2D.2.
2D.2.
2D.2.
2D.3.
2D.3.
2D.3.
2D.3.
2D.3.
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
Differentiated
Instruction in Writing
Grade
Level/Subject
K-5th
Grade
Teachers
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Facilitator
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
and/or
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
PLC Leader
school-wide)
meetings)
Team Leaders
and Reading School-Wide
Teacher
Team Leader Meetings
(monthly)
Sharing of Best
Practices;
Reporting follow-up
activities
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Team Leaders and Reading
Teacher
31
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy
Utilize technological resources to
reinforce reading skills taught –
Promethean flipcharts
Description of Resources
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Promethean flipcharts
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
Provide differentiated instruction to
ensure that students receive a
variety of strategies to scaffold their
writing capabilities.
Description of Resources
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Melissa Forney's Online Resources
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
Students will be instructed on the
revision and editing process in order
to facilitate self monitoring.
Description of Resources
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Monthly Writing Prompt
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Writing Goals
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
32
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Attendance Goal(s)
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-solving Process to Increase Attendance
ATTENDANCE GOAL(S)
Based on the analysis of attendance data, and reference to “Guiding
Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
Anticipated Barrier
1.1.
1. Attendance
Attendance Goal #1:
Strategy
1.1.
Students may have a Incentives are
pattern of absences
used to reward good
2011 Current
2012 Expected
and/or tardies.
attendance habits (i.e.
Attendance is vital Attendance Rate:* Attendance Rate:*
perfect attendance,
to student’s
97%(228).
98%
interventions, and/or
academic
administrator contacts
2012 Expected
performance. Our 2011 Current
Number of Students Number of Students
families to offer
goal for this year is
with Excessive
with Excessive
assistance).
to increase the
Absences
Absences
number of students (10 or more)
(10 or more)
who attend school
9%
(15)
6% (10)
on a regular basis
from 97% to 98%.
2011 Current
Number of
Students with
Excessive Tardies
(10 or more)
2012 Expected
Number of
Students with
Excessive Tardies
(10 or more)
17% (29)
15% (20
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
1.1.
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
1.1.
Daily Attendance
IMT;
Classroom Teacher
Leadership
Evaluation Tool
1.1.
Attendance Report
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
33
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
TERMS Symposium
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Facilitator
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
and/or
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
PLC Leader
school-wide)
meetings)
Grade
Level/Subject
IMT
Harriett
Walters
Information Management
Technician
August 2011
Printed report on absences and
tardies
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
IMT
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
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
34
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Suspension Goal(s)
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-solving Process to Decrease Suspension
SUSPENSION GOAL(S)
Based on the analysis of suspension data, and reference to “Guiding
Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:
1. Suspension
Suspension Goal #1:
By May 2012, the
number of
suspensions will
decrease
significantly.
2011Total Number of 2012 Expected
In –School
Number of
Suspensions
In- School
Suspensions
1
Anticipated Barrier
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1.1.
1.1.
1.1.
1.1.
1.1.
Students in need of
an individualized
behavior plan.
Positive behavior plans
will be implemented.
(certificates, special
activities).
Classroom
teachers; ESE
Specialist;
Principal
County discipline matrix
Daily or weekly
behavior logs.
Behavior
contract.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
0
2011Total Number of 2012 Expected
Students Suspended Number of Students
In-School
Suspended
In -School
0
0
2011Number of Out- 2012 Expected
of-School
Number of
Suspensions
Out-of-School
Suspensions
2
0
2011Total Number of 2012 Expected
Students Suspended Number of Students
Out- of- School
Suspended
Out- of-School
0
0
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
County
discipline
matrix
Grade
Level/Subject
K-5
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Facilitator
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
and/or
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
PLC Leader
school-wide)
meetings)
Principal
Classroom teachers
Pre-planning and monthly County discipline
matrix; behavior logs, etc.
faculty meetings
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
All classroom teachers
35
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
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
Dropout Prevention Goal(s)
Note: Required for High School- F.S., Sec. 1003.53
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
36
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-solving Process to Dropout Prevention
DROPOUT PREVENTION GOAL(S)
Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:
1. Dropout Prevention
Anticipated Barrier
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
1.1.
N/A
1.1.
N/A
1.1.
N/A
1.1.
N/A
1.1.
N/A
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.2.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
1.3.
Dropout Prevention Goal #1:
*Please refer to the percentage of students who dropped
out during the 2010-2011 school year.
N/A
2011 Current
Dropout Rate:*
2012 Expected
Dropout Rate:*
Enter numerical
data for dropout
rate in this box.
2011 Current
Graduation Rate:*
Enter numerical
data for
graduation rate in
this box.
Enter numerical data
for expected dropout
rate in this box.
2012 Expected
Graduation Rate:*
Enter numerical data
for expected
graduation rate in
this box.
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
N/A
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Facilitator
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
and/or
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
PLC Leader
school-wide)
meetings)
Grade
Level/Subject
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
N/A
Dropout Prevention Budget (Insert rows as needed)
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
37
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Dropout Prevention Goal(s)
Parent Involvement Goal(s)
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
38
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Problem-solving Process to Parent Involvement
PARENT INVOLVEMENT GOAL(S)
Based on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:
1. Parent Involvement
Parent Involvement Goal #1:
*Please refer to the percentage of parents who
participated in school activities, duplicated or
unduplicated.
During the 2010-2011
school year, parent
participation was 100%.
Our goal for the 20102011 school year is to
maintain parent
participation at 100%.
2011 Current
level of Parent
Involvement:*
Anticipated Barrier
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
1.1. Not all parents can
1.1. Academic family
1.1. Principal, SAC
Participate due to individual nights will be advertised Chair, Teachers
family working schedules.
using a variety of
methods including, but
not limited to: flyers,
agendas, e-mail,
school/teacher
websites, morning
announcements, and
phone
links at various times to
accommodate all
families.
2012 Expected
level of Parent
Involvement:*
100% (233) 100%
groups
have different
interest levels.
1.2. Principal, SAC
provide activities that
Chair, Teachers
appeal to all age-groups
to ensure participation.
Evaluation Tool
1.1. Teachers/Volunteers
1.1. Documentation
will provide a sign-in sheet of the number of
at each academic family
attendees at
night.
academic family
nights.
1.2. Documentation
will provide a sign-in sheet of the number of
at each academic family
attendees at
night.
academic family
nights.
1.3. Provide written
1.3. Community
1.3. Teachers/Volunteers
1.3. Documentation
1.3. Lack of
participation in
letters, flyers and
Involvement,
will provide a sign-in sheet of the number of
school wide
brochures in English and Teachers, Principal at each academic family
attendees at
activities by
home language
night.
academic family
parents of English
nights.
Language
Learners due to
language barrier.
1.2. Different age
1.2. It is imperative to
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
1.2. Teachers/Volunteers
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
How to involve
Volunteers
Volunteer training –
opportunities for
Grade
Level/Subject
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Facilitator
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
and/or
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
PLC Leader
school-wide)
meetings)
Cara Mendez
Kindergarten
– Volunteer
School - Wide
–Fifth Grade
Liaison
Parent
Cara MendezSchool - Wide
Volunteers
Volunteer
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
Employee Pre-Planning
Proof of
volunteer hours
Principal/ Volunteer
Liaison
Monthly during SAC
Meetings
Proof of Volunteer hours
Principal/ Volunteer
Liaison
39
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
parent volunteering.
Liaison
Parent Involvement Budget
* Please ensure that items included in the Parental Involvement Policy/Plan (PIP) are outlined in the following budget section.
Include only school-based funded activities/materials and exclude district funded activities /materials.
Evidence-based Program(s)/Materials(s)
Strategy
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy
Utilize Parent Link to communicate
school wide activities.
Description of Resources
Parent Link is a free communication
tool which allows the principal to send
recordings via the telephone.
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
N/A
Funding Source
N/A
Amount
N/A
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Parent Involvement Goal(s)
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
40
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Additional Goal(s)
* When using percentages, include the number of students the percentage represents next to the percentage (e.g. 70% (35)).
Problem-Solving Process to Increase Student Achievement
ADDITIONAL GOAL(S)
Based on the analysis of school data, identify and define
areas in need of improvement:
Anticipated Barrier
1. Additional Goal
Additional Goal #1:
2011 Current
Level :*
N/A
Strategy
Person or Position
Responsible for
Monitoring
Process Used to Determine
Effectiveness of
Strategy
Evaluation Tool
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 Expected
Level :*
Enter numerical Enter numerical
data for current data for expected
goal in this box. goal in this box.
Professional Development (PD) aligned with Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD Activity
PD Content /Topic
and/or PLC Focus
Grade
Level/Subject
PD Facilitator
and/or
PLC Leader
Please note that each Strategy does not require a professional development or PLC activity.
Target Dates and Schedules
PD Participants
(e.g. , Early Release) and
(e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring
Schedules (e.g., frequency of
school-wide)
meetings)
Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring
N/A
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
41
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
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
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Technology
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Professional Development
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Other
Strategy
N/A
Description of Resources
Funding Source
Amount
Subtotal:
Total:
End of Additional Goal(s)
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
42
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
FINAL BUDGET (Insert rows as needed)
Please provide the total budget from each section.
Reading Budget
Total:
Mathematics Budget
Total:
Science Budget
Total:
Writing Budget
Total:
Attendance Budget
Total:
Suspension Budget
Total:
Dropout Prevention Budget
Total:
Parent Involvement Budget
Total:
Additional Goals
Total:
Grand Total:
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
43
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
Differentiated Accountability
School-level Differentiated Accountability (DA) Compliance
Please choose the school’s DA Status. (To activate the checkbox: 1. double click the desired box; 2.when the menu pops up, select “checked” under “Default
Value” header; 3. Select “OK”, this will place an “x” in the box.)
School Differentiated Accountability Status
Intervene
Correct II
Prevent II
Correct I
X Prevent I
N/A

Upload a copy of the Differentiated Accountability Checklist in the designated upload link on the “Upload” page
School Advisory Council
School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance
The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of
teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative of
the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school. Please verify the statement above by selecting “Yes” or “No” below.
X Yes
No
If No, describe measures being taken to comply with SAC requirement.
Describe the activities of the School Advisory Council for the upcoming year.
The primary objectives of the SAC shall be to help identify needs and recommend programs of action for the school. Through a community-wide commitment, the team will foster
a positive learning environment, which sets high expectations and meets the diverse needs of the student body. SAC shall be a link between the school and the local community.
The community consists of parents, business people, other community representatives, professional educators, and other school staff. The SAC shall be a resource to the school and
principal. SAC goals shall include: (a)to facilitate the development of the School Improvement Plan (SIP), (b) to monitor the implementation of the SIP, (c) to evaluate the SIP, (d)
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
44
2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP)-Form SIP-1
to provide assistance in the preparation of the school's annual budget, and (e) to make recommendations as to the alignment of instructional staffing and instructional materials to
support the SIP.
Describe projected use of SAC funds.
Parent nights held monthly to discuss how parents can help their child with specific strategies.
April 2011
Rule 6A-1.099811
Revised April 29, 2011
Amount
N/A
45