Brevard County Public Schools
School Improvement Plan
2013-2014
Name of School:
Area:
Christa McAuliffe
Area 1
Principal:
Area Superintendent:
Carol Roddenberry
Dr. Mark Mullins
SAC Chairperson:
Michelle Braun
Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli
Mission Statement:
The Christa McAuliffe Elementary Community will empower students by challenging them to achieve their personal best in all areas of
education and to utilize McAuliffe Life Skills to become life long learners. Each morning our students recite the Christa McAuliffe
Pledge: “I believe in me, I will do my best each day. I believe that if I work hard I will succeed. I can learn. I will learn. I am worth it.”
Vision Statement:
Our vision for the Christa McAuliffe Elementary community is to attain excellence by encouraging responsible, independent, life long
learners.
Page 1
Brevard County Public Schools
School Improvement Plan
2013-2014
RATIONAL – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process
Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement)
One place to start – three year trend history (optional)
Christa McAuliffe Elementary School has earned an A for 10 years until last year when it dropped to a B and this year when we
dropped to a C. However, with the changing of the percentage of students needing to earn a level three or above increasing each year
we have not earned AYP status. Last year the subgroups (Total, Blacks, Hispanic, Economic Disadvantaged, and Students with
Disabilities) did not meet the learning gains needed to earn a yes in these cells for reading or math. This year, due to the changes in
calculating school grades and measuring performance on the FCAT, our student FCAT scores and school grade have decreased.
In analyzing the INDV report, possible factors contributing to this fact could be the higher percentage of transient students, an influx of
students from the Charter Schools and the changes in the FCAT test scoring,
Our school’s demographics have changed considerably in the past 3 years. Our minority rate and free and reduced rates have
increased. Our stability rate has decreased. During 2012-13 28% of our third graders, 35% of out fourth graders, 21% of our fifth
graders and 27% of our sixth graders were new to our school. After attending Dr. Max Thompson’s training this summer our team has
realized that we need to reevaluate our instructional strategies to ensure we are meeting the needs of all of our students on a consistent
and pervasive basis. Dr. Thompson’s research shows that the higher the percentage of free and reduced students the fewer instructional
options we have to reach maximum student achievement levels.
This year 3rd – 6th grade will each have a non classroom teacher assigned to their grade level to share and disaggregate test data. This
will ensure that all district and state assessment data is carefully analyzed and will be used to form S.M.A.R.T. groups and drive
instruction in the differentiated groups.
Our FCAT Test scores for the 2012-13 school year dropped from the previous year for the percent of students meeting High Standards
in reading and math. Third grade and sixth grade decreased in reading and math, 4th grade decreased in math and 5th grade decreased in
math and science.. 4th grade writing scores showed growth when comparing the 3.5 and above scores in 2011-12 to the 2012-13
scores. However, the students making learning gains in reading and math and the students in our lowest 25% increased.
For the past three years our testing data from state (FCAT, ETC.) and district tests indicate a need for us to focus on raising the scores
of our level 3 and above students. Our students making learning gains and our lowest 25% of students have remained the same or
increased over the past two years in reading and math. Our task this year is to work on raising the number of students who meet the
higher levels of achievement while continuing to raise our lowest 25%. We will do this by closer monitoring of our GSP program and
our higher level S.M.A.R.T. time classes. One of the tools we will use is the use of our Walk Through Classroom tool on the
administrator’s IPADs to more closely monitor the teachers’ use of best teaching practices and their use of the High Yield Strategies as
outlined in our SIP plan. We will also adopt the practices learned this summer at Max Thompson’s training by using the information in
his book, “Monitoring for Achievement”.
2010 – 2011 (FCAT)
Grade level data
Third grade
Reading
Math
4th grade
Reading
2011 – 2012 ( FCAT)
74%
88%
74%
Page 2
2012-2013 (FCAT)
71%
62%
69%
50%
55%
60%
Math
78%
61%
Writing
95% ( school grade)
67% 3.0>
60%
73%3.0> 44% 3.5>
88% ( AYP%)
5th grade
6th grade
Reading
70%
55%
56%
Math
56%
48%
45%
Science
71% ( School grade )
57%
47%
Reading
73%
64%
62%
Math
70%
64%
60%
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
% meeting High Standards in Reading
74%
63%
61%
% meeting High Standards Math
73%
61%
55%
S% meeting High Standards Writing
88%
67%
45%
% meeting High Standards Science
58%
57%
46%
% making Reading Gains
66%
67%
69%
% making Math Gains
70%
70%
70%
% of lowest 25% Making Learning gains in Reading
58%
65%
79%
% of lowest 25% Making Learning gains in Math
57%
65%
65%
Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?)
FCAT, FAIR, and District assessment data for the past three years indicates that we need to change our instructional strategies to
those that are proven to be most effective through research. Over the past three years we have provided professional development
for B.E.S.T., differentiated instruction and Thinking Maps. We have been doing our book studies on Marzano’s “Classroom
Strategies That Work” and Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion”. Last year’ we focused on implementing the use of graphic
organizers and summarizing across all content areas in K-6th. We began the school year with a teacher survey on their
implementation of the five high Yield strategies in Max Thompson’s book, “Moving Schools: Lessons from Exemplary Leaders” .
The qualitative data from our teachers’ survey indicated that 64% of our teachers were comfortable with summarizing and 67% were
comfortable with graphic organizers. This year our goal is to ensure that these strategies are being used with fidelity in every
classroom and across all the curriculum content areas. Our focus this year will be to continue to focus on these in addition to higher
Page 3
order thinking questions.. Last years’ end of the year survey and walk through data indicated that 100% of our teachers were using
these strategies but not on a consistent and pervasive basis. Although all teachers are making progress in these areas we want to
continue in these areas. These strategies will continue to be “look fors” and “Ask Abouts”during classroom walk throughs and
classroom observations. With the change from NGSSS to CCSS now is the optimal time for implementation. Our expectation is that
the continued and more frequent use of these strategies as we move into the implementation of the Common Core State Standards
will raise our student achievement levels in all curriculum areas. Teachers will follow the district and state timeline and administer
assessments for reading, math, science, writing and social studies. Weekly formative assessments will also be given to all students to
accurately monitor student progress. Data from all assessments will indicate achievement toward our goal of student achievement.
We currently teach the district core curriculum. We differentiate instruction in reading and math groups by providing small group
strategy-based instruction. We individualize instruction in reading, math, and other subject areas as identified by the needs of
students in each grade level by providing evidence-based intervention, enrichment or additional practice as needed during SMART
Time. SMART Time is a 30-40 minute block of instructional time outside of the 90-minute reading block. Each grade level is
assigned a designated SMART Time.
The teachers at McAuliffe work collaboratively using teacher editions, pacing guides and other support materials to plan for daily
instruction. Grade level PLC meetings allow teachers time to collaborate. McAuliffe started RTI meetings three years ago and
teachers have learned to compare students’ data from their classrooms to those of their peers at school, within district, or state-wide.
Through the RTI meetings teachers have learned to differentiate instruction, locate applicable resources, implement appropriate
strategies and progress monitor at appropriate intervals. Our goal is to have teachers implement research and evidence based
instructional strategies consistently and pervasively across all content areas:, Summarization strategies and graphic organizers across
all grade levels in all curriculum areas. Having weekly PLC meetings, additional planning on shortened days once a month and
having vertical team planning after school once a month will provide necessary time for professional discourse and collaboration.
Continued discussions on Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion” will be ongoing . Information from Dr. Max Thompson’s books
“Moving Schools: Lessons From Exemplary Leaders” and “Monitoring for Achievement”, will be discussed during PLCs and tied
in with the other strategies. Classroom observations and walkthroughs will ensure that these strategies are being used throughout all
grade levels to implement the CCSS in grade K-2 and to transition from NGSSS to CCSS in 3rd – 6th.
Administrators willactively be involved in working with teachers to develop and implement their PGPs which will be based on data
from INDV, FCAT,FAIR, and district tests that is available in A3. They will study the data from the Instructor reports and student
reports to determine their area of focus. Teachers will then reflect on their personal/professional understanding of the above
mentioned strategies to determine which practices/strategies will be their focus for the goal of improving student achievement. This
will be reflected in the PGP.
Our focus is to move our student achievement forward using research based teaching strategies. This year our school administrators
and teacher leaders’ “Look Fors and Ask Fors” will be the consistent and pervasive use of those strategies across all content areas in
the classrooms. These strategies are: Summarizing, Higher Order Thinking, Advanced Organizers (including Thinking Maps). The
use of these teaching strategies will also help teachers and students bridge the gap as we move from the NGSSS to CCSS.
Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)
“To teach and test the skills that our students need, we must first redefine excellent instruction. It is not a checklist of teacher
behaviors and a model lesson that covers content standards. It is working with colleagues to ensure that all students master the
skills they need to succeed as lifelong learners, workers, and citizens.” (Tony Wagner – 2008)
In Rigor is NOT a Four-Letter Word, Barbara Blackburn defined rigor as “creating an environment in which each student is
expected to learn at high levels, each student is supported so that he or she can learn at high levels, and each student demonstrates
learning at high levels.” (Blackburn, 2008).
Page 4
“Essential questions reside at the top of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, 1954). They require students to EVALUATE (make a
thoughtful choice between options, with the choice based upon clearly stated criteria), to SYNTHESIZE (invent a new or different
version) or to ANALYZE (develop a thorough and complex understanding through skillful questioning).” (From Now On, 1996)
One of the most significant factors that impacts student achievement is that teachers commit to implementing a guaranteed and
viable curriculum to ensure no matter who teaches a given class, the curriculum will address certain essential content. For learning
to be effective, clear targets in terms of information and skills must be established. (Marzano, 2003).
Research has shown (McREL study) that there are nine categories of instructional strategies that affect student achievement. These
categories are identifying similarities and differences; summarizing and note taking; reinforcing effort and providing recognition;
homework and practice; nonlinguistic representations; cooperative learning; setting objectives and providing feedback; generating
and testing hypotheses; and questions, cues, and advance organizers (Marzano, 1998). “The use of formative assessments, or other
diagnostic efforts within classrooms, provides information that should help facilitate improved pedagogical practices and
instructional outcomes” (Karee E. Dunn & Sean W. Mulvenon, 2009). By utilizing formative assessments and higher level
questioning, students will gain the foundation knowledge to be successful in the 21st century workplace.
Marzano has organized academic goals into one single category “challenging goals and effective feedback”. Our goal is to assist
teachers in utilizing teaching methods, providing learning experiences and materials that will facilitate enduring understanding.
Research proves that designing and using "good" questions should be part of the instructional repertoire.
Max Thompson’s Learning Concepts, Inc. is dedicated to promoting comprehensive, continual school
improvement and increasing achievement for all students (Thompson & Thompson, 2000). The acceptance of this
statement by school leaders has created a groundswell of support of the strategies that appear to have an extended life
past what might be termed an educational fad. His research shows that the evidence based strategies promote student achievement.
These include: Extended Thinking Strategies, Summarizing, Vocabulary in Context, Advance Organizers and Non-Verbal
Representations.
As part of our implementation plan for CCSS, we will incorporate the nine research-based strategies from Classroom Instruction
that Works by Robert Marzano and the high yield strategies from Max Thompson, book “Moving Schools: Lessons from
Exemplary Leaders”. Through Marzano training, the work of William Sanders is cited as establishing the clear implication of the
critical difference an effective classroom teacher can make with any level student. With this research in mind, Christa McAuliffe
will be focusing on ensuring that our teachers are including those effective strategies during planning for student achievement as
well as executing the strategies within the classroom. Using these strategies will guide classroom practice and maximize the
possibility of enhancing student achievement for all students Following the techniques presented in Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a
Champion” will ensure that teachers are using the most effective teaching strategies for the delivery of curriculum.
For the past several years we have provided professional development on differentiated instruction, and Thinking Maps. Last year
we did book studies on Marzano’s, “ Classroom Instruction that Works” , Doug Lemov’s, “Teach Like a Champion”, B.E.S.T. and
provided professional development on differentiated instruction. This summer the leadership team and I attended Max
Thompson’s overview of learning focused schools. Max Thompson ‘s implementation of these research based strategies provided
strategies for increasing student achievement. This year our focus will be ensuring teachers are implementing these best practices,
particularly summarizing , advanced graphic organizers and higher order thinking strategies in the classroom across all curriculum
content areas.
The new Instructional Appraisal System will be discussed and analyzed to align with teachers’ growth and overall student
achievement. After teachers have been given the opportunity to reflect on past and current instructional practices, individual
teacher conferences for PGP’s will be held with administrators and teacher leaders to discuss what they see as instructional
strengths and weaknesses through the analysis of data ( A3, FAIR, FCAT, district assessments, etc.). The PGPs will be aligned
with our School Improvement Plan.
Page 5
CONTENT AREA:
Reading
Language
Arts
Math
Social
Studies
Writing
Science
Arts/PE
Other:
Parental
Involvement
Drop-out Programs
School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)
All teachers at Christa McAuliffe Elementary will use standards based instruction focusing on
use of strong essential questions which will lead to rigor and improved student achievement
in all curriculum areas.
Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)
Barrier
Action Steps
Person Responsible
Timetable
1.
Lack
of
consistency in
All teachers will
post the essential
questions
in
classrooms
and
refer to them during
instruction.
2. Continue to
utilize with fidelity
strategies from
Classroom
Instruction that
Works by Robert
Marzano, Teach
Like a Champion
by Doug Lemov,
and Moving
Schoosl: Lessons
from Exemplary
Leaders, by Max
Thompson, and
BEST trainings,
which tie into the
highly effective
teaching practices
needed to
implement CCSS
and NGSSS. Our
main focus will be
on Advanced
Graphic Organizers
and summarization
Throughout the
All classroom teachers
August – May 2013 2014
All instructional staff
August – May 20132014
2. Lack of full
implementation
Scheduling times
through out the
day
(
administrators
and Leadership
teams)
Budget
In-Process
Measure
Administrative,
district and peer
mentor observations
Administrative
observations
Administrative
walk- throughs using
a data collection tool
“ Classroom Walk –
Through” software
designed to monitor
the use of our SIP
Instructional
Strategies
Peer observations
Page 6
school and
curriculum areas
this year.
August – May 20132014
Teacher
observations
classroom
throughs
Guidance counselor
Classroom teachers
Principal
Reading and Math
Coaches
AP
August – May 20132014
Meeting notes
5. Conduct K-6th
Individual Problem
Solving Team
(IPST) meetings as
needed to refer
students who have
received
interventions but
are not making
adequate progress
for further
evaluation and
determine who
may qualify for
GSP or
enrichment.
IPST Team
August - May 20132014
Meeting notes
Referral paperwork
6. Discuss grade
level formative
assessments in
grade level PLCs
to ensure
All teachers
Principal
Leadership team
Launch teams
AP
Literacy coach
3. Provide SMART
Time instruction,
including the use of
summarization and
Graphic Organizers
including Thinking
Maps,
and
extended thinking
question
with
fidelity to provide
differentiated
enrichment
and
intervention
instruction for all
students K-6th
4. Conduct bimonthly K-6th
MTSS meetings to
discuss and
document student
progress and
response to
interventions.
All instructional staff
5.
Lack
of
knowledge
of
Response
to
Intervention
resources/strateg
ies.
6.
Lack
consistency
3.
Lack
consistency
of
4.
Lack
of
knowledge
of
Response
to
Intervention
resources/strateg
ies.
of
and
walk
SMART time data
IPST
notes
August – May 20132014
and
Classroom
throughs
Teacher
observations
Page 7
MTSS
walk
consistency across
each grade level
and to modify
assessments to test
higher order
thinking skills as
required by CCSS.
Title 1 math
science teacher
and
PLC meeting notes
Teachers will be
required to bring
updated data
notebooks to PLCs
7.
Lack
consistency
of
Data Notebooks
will be kept by all
students
August – May 20132014
teachers
Administrative
observations
Administrative Walk
Throughs and follow
up discussions
8.
Lack
knowledge
of
“Look fors” and
All instructional staff
“Ask Abouts” will
be shared with
instructional staff
August – May 20132014
Data
will
be
collected
during
walkthroughs,
formal and informal
observations
Essential questions,
Advanced graphic
organizers,
summarization and
Higher order
questions ,
standards based
instruction
9.
Lack
knowledge
of
“Look Fors” in
teachers’ lesson
plans will be:
Peer observations
Administrators and
Leadership
Team
will share with
instructional staff
Administrators
Peer mentors
August – May 20132014
Essential questions
for the lesson
Administrators and
Peer Mentors will
take the standards in
hand when doing the
walks throughs to
insure
standards
based instruction is
being done in the
classrooms.
Administrators will
look at lesson plans
during
walk
throughs.
High order
questions
Administrators will
randomly ask for
teachers’
lesson
plans
Graphic organizer
and summarization
Use the essential
questions rubric
Page 8
activities related to
the lesson
August – May 20132014
Focus on regular
timely feedback
with teacher
regarding student
achievement on
district assessments
All instructional staff
Of
Training on Higher
Order Questioning
by Rick Dillon on
our October 4th
PDD day and
follow up on PDD
Wednesdays
All instructional staff
October 4, 2013
12.
Lack of
consistency and
knowledge
On going training
on DATA analysis,
CCSS across the
curriculum and
INDV file
All instructional staff
13. Lack
knowledge
Reading coach and
district resource
teachers will model
lessons for math,
reading and writing
All teachers
August 20, 2013
Neyda Francis shared
the INDV file with
all teachers.
Review data at PLC
meetings twice a
month from August –
May 2013-14
August – May 201314
Lack
knowledge
11. Lack
knowledge
or
of
Meeting notes.PLC
and Kid Talk, Data
notebooks
Administrative
observations
and
walk through notes
provided
to
all
teachers
Sign
in
sheets,
evaluation forms and
final projects
Sign in sheets, use of
information
in
teachers’
data
notebooks
Observation notes,
in-service
records
and discussion notes.
District
resource
teachers have been
scheduled for PDD,
walk throughs and
PLC meetings
EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection
Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices
throughout the school)
Essential questions for both reading and math will be posted and referred to throughout the lesson in every classroom. These will be the
“Look Fors” during administrative walk throughs, using the essential question rubric designed by the McAuliffe Leadership team based on
the Max Thompson’s rubric.
Teacher surveys will be developed and distributed assessing teachers’ working knowledge of Essential Questions. (pre, and post surveys).
According to our first survey done September 19, 2013, 11% of our classroom teachers indicated they had an understanding of essential
Page 9
questions. Our expectation is that 90% of our classroom teachers will indicate on the post survey that they have an understanding of
essential questions and how to use them to drive instruction.
Classroom Walk through data from the first month of school indicated that 22% of our classroom teachers had essential questions posted
in their classrooms. However, none of them were referring to them during instruction at that time. It is expected that by May of 2014,
90% of the classroom teachers will have essential questions posted for reading and math. Observation data and the essential questions
rubric will indicate that they are referred to during instruction. Lesson plans will be checked randomly to ensure that essential questions,
higher order thinking questions, advanced graphic organizers and the use of summarization are being incorporated into those plans.
Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures of student achievement)
Scores on all state and district assessments (FAIR,; FCAT2.0; district math, science, social studies, and writing tests; BELAA) as well as
grade level formative assessments, will increase due to teachers consistently and pervasively using evidenced based strategies (advanced
graphic organizers, summarization, and higher order thinking) and standards based instruction across the curriculum. Students who score
level 3 or above on FCAT 2.0 will increase by at least 8% in reading and 6% in math. Students who make learning gains will also
increase by 8% in all areas and in all subgroups.
Walk through indicators will show that the students are able to verbalize to observers the essential questions and how they assist their
learning.
MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI (Identify the MTSS leadership team and its role in development and
implementation of the SIP along with data sources, data management and how staff is trained in MTSS)
The MTSS leadership team consists of the principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, staffing specialist, reading coach, and
classroom teachers. The MTSS Leadership Team meets one time per week, with additional meetings added as necessary. The
primary focus of the meetings: How do we develop and maintain a problem solving system to bring out the best in our school, our
teachers, and ultimately our students? The team reviews data to help make instructional decisions and identifies professional
development needs based on commonalities in data. The team works collaboratively to problem solve, share best practices, evaluate
implementation, and make decisions. The team shares information with other staff members during faculty and/or professional
learning communities.
PARENT INVOLVEMENT:
396 parents responded to the District Title 1 Parent Survey in 2012-13 compared to 133 the previous year. We will continue to increase
the number of responses by doing the following
Distribute paper copies of the District Title 1 Parent Survey to all parents. Have a copy of our school’s Parent Involvement Plan in the
office. See uploaded PIP on our school web site.
Page 10
Early Warning Systems (Formerly Attendance, Suspension, and Graduation Rate)
1.
Elementary School Indicators
The following data shall be considered by elementary schools.
Students who miss 10 percent or more of available instructional time 48 FAMILIES (2012-13) 20 GAOL FOR (2013-14)
b. Students retained, pursuant to s. 1008.25(4)(c), F.S. 3.2% OF OUR STUDENTS IN K-6TH WERE RETAINED
c. Students who are not proficient in reading by third grade 6.3% WERE NOT PROFICIENT IN READING BY THIRD GRADE
d. Students who receive two or more behavior referrals 30
e. Students who receive one or more behavior referrals that lead to suspension, as defined in s.1003.01(5), F.S.10 10
a.
STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS: Students will be asked mid year and at the end of the school year
how they felt data notebooks and the use of the evidence based strategies ( summarization,
advanced graphic organizers and higher order thinking questions) helped them with their
learning. These results will be shared with our school community.
APPENDIX C
(TITLE 1 SCHOOLS ONLY)
Highly Effective Teachers
Describe the school based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain high quality, highly effective teachers to the school.
Descriptions of Strategy
Person Responsible
Page 11
Projected Completion Date
1.
Regular meetings of new teachers with principal
Principal
Ongoing
2.
Partner new teachers with veteran mentor teachers
Principal and Assistant Principal
Ongoing
3.
Place junior and senior UCF interns in classrooms with
teachers who are CET certified
Provide quality professional development
Principal, UCF coordinator
Ongoing
Principal, Reading Coach,
Math/Science Coach, Assistant
Principal
Ongoing
4.
Non-Highly Effective Instructors
Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching out-of-field and/or who are not highly effective. *When
using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).
Number of staff and paraprofessionals that are teaching outof-field/and who are not highly effective
Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support
the staff in becoming highly effective
none
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS
FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % 3 +
NOTE: DATA ON DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE
READING
TOTAL POPULATION
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
ED
ELL
EWD
2011
74%
77%
73%
66%
69%
na
45%
2012
63%
67%
49%
66%
55%
50%
41%
2013
61%
66%
52%
64%
56%
56%
54%
FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA
( DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT)
READING
LEVEL 1
LEVELS 3 and Above
LEVELS 4 & 5
LEARNING GAINS (LG)
LOWEST 25% (LG)
WRITING (3.5 +)
SCIENCE (% 3 +)
2011
13%
84%
14%
66%
58%
88%
59%
2012
15%
61%
32%
67%
65%
67%
57%
FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS
%3+
NOTE: DATA ON
DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE
MATH
TOTAL POPULATION
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
ED
ELL
EWD
2011
73%
75%
65%
78%
70%
NA
45%
2012
61%
66%
40%
70%
56%
61%
35%
2013
55%
62%
38%
58%
48%
40%
47%
FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA
(DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT)
2013
16%
61%
30%
69%
70%
45%
47%
Page 12
MATH
LEVEL 1
LEVELS 3 and Above
LEVELS 4 & 5
LEARNING GAINS
LOWEST 25% (LG)
WRITING (3.5 +)
SCIENCE (% 3 +)
2011
10%
83%
37%
70%
57%
88%
58%
2012
19%
61%
29%
70%
65%
67%
57%
2013
20%
55%
25%
70%
65%
45%
47%
End of Course Testing (EOC)
ALGEBRA
LEVEL 3
LEVELS 4 & 5
GEOMETRY
LEVEL 3
LEVELS 4 & 5
2011
NA
NA
2011
NA
NA
2012
2013
BIOLOGY
LEVEL 3
LEVELS 4 & 5
2012
NA
NA
2013
US HISTORY
LEVEL 3
LEVELS 4 & 5
2011
NA
NA
2011
NA
NA
2012
NA
NA
2012
NA
NA
2013
2013
Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) NOTE: DATA ON THE FAA REPORT
READING
LEVELS 1, 2,3
LEVELS 4,5,6
LEVELS 7,8,9
Proficient LVS 4-9
2011
na
NA
NA
NA
2012
2013
MATH
LEVELS 1, 2,3
LEVELS 4,5,6
LEVELS 7,8,9
Proficient LVS 4-9
2011
na
NA
NA
NA
2012
2013
WRITING
LEVELS 1, 2,3
LEVELS 4,5,6
LEVELS 7,8,9
Proficient LVS 4-9
2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
2012
2013
SCIENCE
LEVELS 1, 2,3
LEVELS 4,5,6
LEVELS 7,8,9
Proficient LVS 4-9
2011
NA
NA
NA
NA
2012
2013
COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CELLA)
LISTENING/SPEAKING
KG
1
2
3
4
2011
5
6
7
8
9
10
WRITING
KG
1
2
3
4
5
2011
2012
68%
56%
100%
0
50%
2013
30%
90%
100%
38%
67%
READING
KG
1
2
3
4
80%
60%
na
NA
NA
NA
75%
83%
5
6
7
8
9
10
2012
45%
44%
58%
0
50%
60%
2013
0%
40%
57%
25%
33%
63%
Page 13
2011
2012
57%
56%
92%
0%
50%
2013
0%
40%
100%
13%
33%
80%
20%
50%
33%
CELLA NOTE: REPORT % PROFICIENT BY GRADE
LEVEL (DATA ON THE CELLA REPORT)
6
7
8
9
10
Subgroup
ALL STDS
AME
INDIAN
60%
0%
Percent
Tested
Reading
R- %
Scoring
Satisfactor
y 2012
R-%
Scoring
Satisfactor
y 2013
HP
Qualifyin
g in
Reading
Target
AMO
Readin
g
100%
63%
61%
n
Improving,
Reading
Maintainin
g or
Declining,
Reading
Declining
, Reading
Percen
t
Tested
Math
n
no
yes
yes
99%
no
no
100%
Met
Target R
Safe
Harbor,
Reading
71
n
NA
ASIAN
NA
B/AA
100%
49%
52%
n
69%
no
no
yes
HISPANIC
100%
66%
64%
n
62%
yes
NA
NA
na
na
100%
WHITE
100%
67%
66%
n
74%
no
no
no
yes
yes
99%
ELL
100%
50%
51%
n
63%
no
no
yes
no
no
100%
SWD
100%
41%
30%
n
48%
no
no
n
yes
yes
99%
FRL
100%
55%
56%
n
64%
no
no
yes
no
no
100%
Declining,
Math
LG Pts
for Low
25%
Reading
LG Pts
for
Low
25%
Math
yes
79
65
Math
Subgroup
ALL STDS
AME
INDIAN
ASIAN
M-%
Scoring
Satisfactor
y 2012
M%
Scoring
Satisfactor
y 2013
HP
Qualifying
in Math
Target
AMO
Math
Met
Target
Math
Safe
Harbor,
Math
Improving
, Math
Maintainin
g or
Declining,
Math
61%
55%
N
67%
no
no
no
yes
na
na
Page 14
B/AA
40%
38%
N
58%
no
no
no
yes
yes
HISPANIC
70%
58%
N
70%
no
no
no
yes
yes
WHITE
66%
62%
N
69%
no
no
no
yes
yes
ELL
61%
34%
N
71%
no
no
no
yes
yes
SWD
35%
24%
N
44%
no
no
no
yes
yes
FRL
56%
49%
N
63%
no
no
no
yes
yes
Other
ALL STDS
AME
INDIAN
Graduatio
n Rate,
2010
Graduatio
n Rate,
2011
Writing %
Satisfactor
y
Target
AMO
Reading,
2014
Target
AMO
Math,
2014
Target
AMO
Reading
, 2015
Target
AMO
Math,
2015
Target
AMO
Reading,
2016
Target
AMO
Math, 2016
Target
AMO
Reading,
2017
Target
AMO
Math,
2017
na
ASIAN
na
B/AA
52%
72%
62%
75%
66%
78%
70%
82%
75%
HISPANIC
50%
66%
73%
69%
76%
73%
79%
77%
82%
WHITE
39%
77%
72%
79%
75%
82%
78%
85%
82%
ELL
44%
66%
74%
70%
77%
74%
80%
78%
83%
SWD
28%
54%
50%
59%
55%
64%
61%
69%
67%
FRL
41%
68%
66%
71%
70%
75%
74%
79%
78%
School Grade
Year
School Grade Number of
Pts. Earned
School Gr. Change to
Current Yr.
School Letter
Grade
2011
2012
2013
584
515
490
0
-1
-1
A
B
C
Page 15