accountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.orgaccountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.org/school...

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2012-2013

Name of School: Area:

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement: To teach all students how to think critically in order to become problem solvers. (BIG people)Students will learn how to solve problems. (Little people)

Vision Statement: South Lake Elementary School will provide every student with strategies to solve problems.

South Lake Elementary North

Dr. Nancy Nichols Dr. Ronald Bobay

Ronda Rochon

Brevard County Public SchoolsSchool Improvement Plan

2012-2013RATIONALE – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement)

QuantitativeFCAT 2.0The table below shows data from the last three years, indicating that reading and math scores have dropped each year, with a significant drop in 2011-2012. The substantive drop in 2011-2012 may be attributed to the change in FCAT 2.0 cut scores. FCAT Results (2009-2012)

Even though the scores of the lowest 25% declined in reading and math, the most struggling students continue to show respectable gains. Review of Level 3 and above students’ scores shows a 38% drop in reading and a 22% drop in math. The greatest concern is the considerable drop in reading. A review of the FCAT 2.0 Content Areas indicates that 42% of students do not understand Informational Text and Research Process. Furthermore, 39% of students showed deficiencies in Reading Application. As a first step to assist students, the leadership team concludes that standards-based essential questions need to guide instruction.

FAIRFAIR Reading Comprehension results show a decline in the number of students scoring at the 51st percentile from 2009 to 2012.

In 2009-2010, 88% of 3rd grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. In 2011-2012, 22% of 3rd grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. This indicates a 66% decline.

In 2009-2010, 76% of 4th grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. In 2011-

Year Reading (3+) Math (3+) Science (3+) Lowest 25% Reading (ALG)

Lowest 25% Math (ALG)

2011-2012 48% 62% 47% 61% 68%2010-2011 86% 84% 57% 71% 74%2009-2010 87% 86% 80% 72% 61%

2012, 50% of 4th grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. This indicates a 26% decline.

In 2009-2010, 75% of 5th grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. In 2011-2012, 47% of 5th grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. This indicates a 28% decline.

In 2009-2010, 67% of 6th grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. In 2011-2012, 53% of 6th grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. This indicates a 14% decline.

Tracking the same students over a three year period (2009-2012) is indicative of the same substantial decline of FAIR results. For example: In 2009-2010, 88% of 3rd grade students scored at or above the 51st percentile. By 2011-2012, this same group of students had dropped to only 47% being at or above the 51st percentile.

School-Based Summative AssessmentSchool-based summative assessment data from the 2011-2012 school year reflects the same scoring trends found in FCAT 2.0 results. An analysis of specific content areas on the school-based summative assessment shows that students are missing a greater percentage of higher-order questions. A comparison of results between the FCAT 2.0 and the school-based summative assessment shows a significantly close correlation between the results of these assessments. The school-based leadership team concluded that the school-based summative assessment is an accurate predictor of FCAT 2.0 success.

All of the quantitative sources suggest that critical thinking needs to be taught explicitly to result in enhanced learning for all students. In an effort to accomplish this objective, teachers will implement the daily use of standards-based essential questions. In turn, these questions support critical thinking, thus addressing the need for understanding of higher-order questions. QualitativeQualitative input gathered from a focus group of teacher leaders indicates that implementation of the direct instruction model improved instructional delivery but failed to facilitate critical thinking. Careful review and analysis of data by South Lake’s PLC again underscored the need to include standards-based essential questions as an emphasis for all instruction. Furthermore, classroom walkthroughs revealed rigorous instruction was deficient. One way to increase rigorous instruction is by effectively using standards-based essential questions.

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?)

The school culture includes school-wide formative assessments, use of the FCAT Test Item Specifications in grades 3-6, and a focus on student learning as part of the school belief system. Implementing the direct instruction model as a school-wide instructional model has been a multi-year objective of the School Improvement Plan. The focus of the direct instruction model is to improve delivery of instruction and increase student engagement, resulting in increased student performance. Use of the direct instruction model has improved the delivery of instruction, but has not provided a strong emphasis on critical thinking.

Quantitative historical data provides evidence that the lowest 25% are making adequate progress. Qualitative data attributes this progress to the use of the direct instruction model for students. The expectation is that the addition of standards-based essential questions to guide instruction on critical thinking will assist struggling students and higher performing students to understand more complex questions. Furthermore, the use of summary writing, focusing on standards-based essential questions, will provide evidence that students can synthesize and internalize information for future use.

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)Essential Questions represent enduring questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no response. By connecting material to a significant theme…essential questions can add relevance and focus to a unit of study. Essential Questions can be used to guide curricular decisions and can provide the backbone for assessments (Facing History and Ourselves, 2012). Research supports the use of strategies such as “modeling, coaching, and scaffolding, as well as collaborative problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1991).” Furthermore, Marzano (2001) stated that exemplary schools use advanced organizers along with summarizing to boost critical thinking. Thus, one means to teach students to think critically is through the use of essential questions, graphic organizers, and summary writing. As with reading, writing is a means of finding, organizing, and expressing knowledge (Lander & Applebee, 1987). The National Commission on Writing stated: Writing is not simply a way for students to demonstrate what they know. It is the way to help them understand what they know (2003, April).

The instructional focus needs to be based on essential questions to strengthen student achievement in the content areas of Reading Application and Information Text and Research Process as noted by the results on the 2012 FCAT 2.0. A focus on essential questions guiding instruction in critical thinking supports the use of math strategies to help students solve real-world and multi-step problems. Likewise, emphasizing essential questions and critical thinking in science will assist students to apply learned content vocabulary to scientific concepts. To strengthen these deficiencies, summary writing based on essential questions in reading, math, and science will be the bridge between critical thinking and understanding more complex cognitive questions. Students’ critical thinking is honed through instructionally-planned classroom opportunities for reflection and discussion about what is read, written, and studied (Florida’s Vision for Grades K-5 Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking and Language Education, 2012).

CONTENT AREA: Reading Math Writing Science Parental

InvolvementDrop-out Programs

Language Arts

Social Studies

Arts/PE Other:

School Based Objective: (Action statement: What will we do to improve programmatic and/or instructional effectiveness?)All teachers at South Lake Elementary School will use essential questions to promote higher order thinking.

Strategies: (Small number of action oriented staff performance objectives)

Barrier Action Steps Person Responsible

Timetable Budget In-ProcessMeasure

1. Teachers lack knowledge in using essential questions.

1. Professional development to provide teachers with strategies for writing an essential question and effectively using it for teaching critical thinking.

Administration, Title I, and other teacher leaders will be responsible for providing instructional strategies for writing essential questions.

Ongoing throughout the school year

N/A Classroom walk-throughs will verify the use of essential questions in each content area.

2. School-wide uncertainty exists regarding how to use the essential questions to promote critical thinking and summary writing in all content areas.

2. Develop a format for summary writing measured with a rubric to assess the use of essential questions for critical thinking.

Administration, Title I teachers, and our PLC will be responsible for developing a format for summary writing and a rubric to assess critical thinking.

August-September 2012

N/A Periodic checks of summary writing using the essential question as a topic sentence. Summary samples will measure progress and ensure fidelity to the rubric.

NON-NEGOTIABLES

1. Use of essential questions

2.Use of

rubrics

3.Critical thinking strategies used daily

4. Daily summative writing

5. Adherence to the Academic Implementation Calendar

6. Reading Block is protected

7. Student Data Notebooks

EVALUATION – Outcome Measures and Reflection

Qualitative and Quantitative Professional Practice Outcomes: (Measures the level of implementation of the professional practices throughout the school)

Evidence-based research, presented by Dr. Max Thompson, suggests that for a school that wishes to be high performing, it is necessary for students to be able to think critically. One way to provide evidence of critical thinking is through summary writing based on the use of essential questions.

Reflecting on teacher instruction from previous years, students were infrequently asked to write about what they learned or read. One of the ways teachers will assess critical thinking is through independent summary writing based on essential questions. Students will be taught to synthesize meaning from content to write a summary. One of the barriers to achieving this goal is that teachers lack a process for teaching critical thinking. Therefore, a format needs to be created for teachers providing a strategy that uses the essential question as the “starter”/topic sentence for summary writing. Qualitative: At the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, a needs assessment was used to identify the teachers’ understanding of essential questions. The needs assessment indicated 48% of the teachers were unsure of what constitutes an effective essential question. Additionally, 72%

of teachers did not know how to write an effective essential question. Finally, 96% of teachers indicated professional development training on the use of standards-based essential questions would be beneficial. Based on the needs assessment, professional development will be implemented to meet teacher needs. At the end of the year, a survey will be used to determine if teacher needs were met. Lesson plans and classroom observations with feedback to teachers will provide evidence of effective utilization of essential questions to guide instruction by May 2013. Quantitative: To measure the effective utilization of essential questions, samples of students’ summary writing will be collected four times throughout the year. Through professional development, 100% of teachers will have knowledge of how to write and incorporate essential questions into daily summary writing as demonstrated by independent student samples.

Qualitative and Quantitative Student Achievement Expectations: (Measures of student achievement)

Reflecting on previous years’ student FCAT performance and in preparing for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, it has become apparent that students lack the ability to think critically in order to be successful. In an effort to prepare students to meet the demands of higher expectations, students will learn to use the essential question to assist with critical thinking. A student must analyze information from text and instruction according to the essential question to synthesize thoughts in order to write a summary response.Qualitative: A beginning of the year student survey was used to determine students’ perceptions toward essential questions and summary writing. Student responses to the survey indicated that on the first day of school, only 34% of students knew what essential questions and summary writing were. Only 21% of students stated that they knew how to use an essential question and graphic organizer to help organize their thoughts. Over three-quarters of students agreed that essential questions along with graphic organizers would help them to write a summary. One-half of the students reported having difficulty restating the essential question as well as stating the purpose for learning. An end of the year student survey will be used to determine change in students’ perception of how essential questions increase learning. Quantitative: To measure the effectiveness of essential questions and summary writing, the School Leadership Team will collect and evaluate samples of students’ summary writing four times a year. Using the school created summary scoring rubric (rubric levels 1-6), 80% of students will demonstrate proficiency (level 3 or higher per school rubric) on the use of essential questions in summary writing by May 2013.

APPENDIX A

(ALL SCHOOLS)Reading Goal

1. Students use essential questions and text-based evidence to think critically about what they have read in order to understand text-related information.

2012 Current Level of

Performance(Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage reflects ie.

28%=129 students)

2013 Expected Level of

Performance(Enter percentage

information and the number of students that percentage reflects ie. 31%=1134 students)

Anticipated Barrier(s):1. Lack of knowledge and strategies to utilize essential questions.

Strategy(s):1. Professional development will provide instruction in developing standards-based

essential questions.

FCAT 2.0Students scoring at Achievement Level 3

Barrier(s): Students lack strategies to answer essential questions.

Strategy(s):1. Teachers will provide instruction on using an essential question and a

graphic organizer to write a summary answering the essential question.

27% (53 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):

1.

25% (1 out of 4 students)

FCAT 2.0Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Reading

Barrier(s): Students are not challenged by current instruction

Strategy(s):1. Teachers will use essential questions to elicit information from high

quality fiction and non-fiction complex text.

18% (36 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment:Students scoring at or above Level 7 in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

75%(3 out of 4 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment:Percentage of students making learning Gains in Reading

Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

50%(1 out of 2

students; other 2 students did not have prior year scores)

FCAT 2.0 61%

Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in Reading

Barrier(s): Students lack critical thinking skills to answer essential questions.

Strategy(s):1. Students will be taught the process for gathering, organizing, and

applying information to answer essential questions.

(31 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment:Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in ReadingBarrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

50%(1 out of 2

students; other 2 students did not have prior year scores)

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%:

Baseline data 2010-11:

Student subgroups by ethnicity NOT making satisfactory progress in reading :

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

Asian:

American Indian:

Enter numerical data for current level of performance

53% (53 students of 100)



N/A

N/A

Enter numerical data for expected level of

performance

75% (75 Students)

57% (29 Students)

57% (11 Students)

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in ReadingBarrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

N/A N/A

Students with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in ReadingBarrier(s): Students have a difficult time answering essential questions.

Strategy(s):1. Students will be taught to use graphic organizers to help organize

information and answer essential questions.


43%(16 Students)

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in ReadingBarrier(s): Students lack strategies to answer essential questions.

Strategy(s):1. Teachers will provide instruction on using an essential question and a

graphic organizer to write a summary answering the essential question.


63%(106 Students)

Reading Professional DevelopmentPD Content/Topic/Focus Target

Dates/ScheduleStrategy(s) for follow-up/monitoring

Provide professional development to support teachers with strategies for writing essential questions.

Faculty meetings and building inservice days throughout the year.

Lesson planning and classroom walkthroughs will provide evidence on the use of essential questions across all content areas

Provide professional development using essential questions to format summary writing.

October and ongoing throughout the year.

Collect summary writing samples to monitor progress

Provide professional development on the use of a school-created rubric to assess responses to essential questions.

October 2012 Student’s summaries

CELLA GOAL Anticipated Barrier

Strategy Person/Process/

Monitoring2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Listening/ Speaking:

Few opportunities to engage

in group work

Problem solving as a group to increase speaking and

listening skills

Guidance Counselor

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Reading:

Content vocabulary for reading, science and

math

Simplify vocabulary to better understand content words

Classroom Teachers

2012 Current Percent of Students Proficient in Writing:

Juxtaposition of grammar

Hone in on standard English conventions

Classroom Teachers

Mathematics Goal(s):1. Students will use essential questions to

synthesize mathematical concepts.


Performance(Enter

percentage information and the number of students that percentage

reflects)


Performance(Enter percentage information and the number of students that percentage

reflects)

Anticipated Barrier(s):1. Lack of knowledge and strategies in the effective

use of essential questions.Strategy(s):

1. Professional development will provide strategies for effectively using essential questions.

FCAT 2.0Students scoring at Achievement Level 3

1. Barrier(s): Students do not know their math facts.2. Students do not know strategies to solve higher order questions.

Strategy(s):1. Daily repetition to internalize math facts.2. Instruction will focus on math problem solving strategies to

sequence, organize, and solve multi-step math questions. A further focus will include distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information within the question.

37%(73 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in MathematicsBarrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

33%(1 student)

FCAT 2.0

66%

50%

50%

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Mathematics1. Barrier(s): Students are not able to identify the relevant from

the irrelevant information in real-world word problems. 2. They do not know how to work multi-step problems to completion.

Strategy(s):1.&2. Teachers will instruct students how to put word problems into graphic organizers, separating relevant from irrelevant information, to give them a visual aid and a purpose for solving the problem.

22%(44 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment:Students scoring at or above Level 7 in MathematicsBarrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

66%(2 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment:Percentage of students making learning Gains in MathematicsBarrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

50%(1 out of 2 students)

FCAT 2.0Percentage of students in lowest 25% making learning gains in MathematicsBarrier(s): Students have difficulty reading and comprehending word problems.Strategy(s):

1. Teach students math UNRAAVEL, an acronym to assist with problem solving.

68%(29 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment:Percentage of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in MathematicsBarrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%:

Baseline Data 2010-11:

Student subgroups by ethnicity NOT making satisfactory progress in math :

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

Asian:

American Indian:



76% ( 15 students of 20)

N/A

N/A

77% (77 Students)

65% (33 Students)

75% (15 Students)

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics

N/A N/AStudents with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics


53% (21 Students)

Economically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Mathematics


71% (121 Students)

Mathematics Professional DevelopmentPD Content/Topic/Focus Target

Dates/ScheduleStrategy(s) for follow-up/monitoring

Provide training in the use of the UNRAAVEL Math strategy to think critically in order to determine relevant from irrelevant information.

October 2012 Teachers share UNRAAVEL experiences to demonstrate various uses of strategies.

Provide training to create an effective essential question in order to arrange a graphic organizer to solve multi-step real world problems.

October 2012 All teachers will provide samples of essential questions and math graphic organizers to show the organization, sequencing, and solution of multi-step problems.

Writing 2012 Current Level of Performance

(Enter percentage information and the number of students

that percentage reflects)



reflects)Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

FCAT: Students scoring at Achievement level 3.0 and higher in writing

93% (34 students)Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at 4 or higher in writing

100% (1 student)

Science Goal(s)(Elementary and Middle)1. Effective essential

questions will guide students to apply learned content vocabulary to scientific concepts.

2012 Current Level of Performance





reflects)

1. Barrier(s): Lack of content vocabulary knowledge interferes with the comprehension of concepts.

2. Instruction not aligned with FCAT 2.0 Test Item Specifications and district pacing guide.

Strategy(s):1. Use essential questions, graphic

organizers, and mind maps to visually and sequentially organize thinking to understand content and concepts.

2. Adhere to the FCAT 2.0 Science Test Item Specifications.

FCAT 2.0 Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Science:

24% (12 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in Science

N/A

FCAT 2.0 Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Science:

22% (11 students)

Florida Alternate Assessment: N/A

Students scoring at or above Level 7 in Reading

Science Goal(s)(High School)

1.

2012 Current Level of Performance





reflects)Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

Florida Alternate Assessment: Students scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 in ScienceFlorida Alternate Assessment:Students scoring at or above Level 7 in ScienceStudent subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra.

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

Asian:

American Indian:

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in AlgebraStudents with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in AlgebraEconomically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

APPENDIX B

(SECONDARY SCHOOLS ONLY)

Algebra 1 EOC Goal 2012 Current Level of Performance


2013 Expected Level of Performance




Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Algebra:

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Algebra:

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%: Baseline Data 2010-11

Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Algebra.

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in AlgebraStudents with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in AlgebraEconomically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Algebra

Geometry EOC Goal 2012 Current Level of Performance(Enter

percentage information and the number of students


2013 Expected Level of Performance



Barrier(s):

Strategy(s):1.

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Geometry:

Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Geometry:

Ambitious but Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six years school will reduce their Achievement Gap by 50%: Baseline Data 2010-11

Student subgroups by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not making satisfactory progress in Geometry.

White:

Black:

Hispanic:

English Language Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in GeometryStudents with Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in GeometryEconomically Disadvantaged Students not making satisfactory progress in Geometry

Biology EOC Goal


Performance(Enter

percentage information

and the number of

students that percentage

reflects)


Performance(Enter


and the number of


reflects)Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Biology:Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Biology:

Civics EOC 2012 Current Level of

Performance(Enter


and the number of


reflects)


Performance(Enter


and the number of


reflects)Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in Civics:Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Civics:

U.S. History EOC


Performance(Enter


and the number of

students that


Performance(Enter


and the number of

students that

percentage reflects)

percentage reflects)

Students scoring at Achievement level 3 in U. S. History:Students scoring at or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in U. S. History:

Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) Goal(s)

Anticipated Barrier

Strategy Person/Process/Monitoring

Based on the analysis of school data, identify and define areas in need of improvement:

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Career and Technical Education (CTE) Goal(s)

Anticipated Barrier



Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Additional Goal(s) Anticipated Barrier



Goal 1:

Goal 2:

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 Projected Completion Date

1. Provide professional development for classroom management (the number one documented downfall for beginning teachers at South Lake).

Principal October-December 2012

2. Provide school based mentors for new teachers.

Assistant Principal September 2012

3. Create leadership opportunities for new School-based leadership team September-May 2013

teachers.

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 out-of-field/and who are not highly

effective

Provide the strategies that are being implemented to support the staff in becoming

highly effective

1 staff member (out-of-field for ESOL) Staff member is currently taking classes to be ESOL certified

For the following areas, please write a brief narrative that includes the data for the year 2011-12 and a description of changes you intend to incorporate to improve the data for the year 2012-13.

MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS (MTSS)/RtI (Identify the MTSS leadership team and it 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 guidance counselor, school-based leadership team, staffing specialist, school psychologist, ESE teachers, administration and select staff. The problem solving process used by this team provides evidence-based interventions to accelerate the academic progress of tier 2 and 3 students, as well as to support positive behavior. The MTSS Leadership team carefully monitors the problem solving process to ensure fidelity across all three tiers so that the specific needs of students are met. Additionally, the MTSS Leadership team provides input regarding tier 1 students receiving core instruction. Classroom support is provided to tier 3 students through Immediate Intensive Intervention (iii). The most struggling students receive intervention through RTI. This year, tier 3 students will receive accelerated instruction (a preview of the next day’s lesson to include content and vocabulary) to scaffold their learning. The RTI district coach will provide professional development to all teachers and instructional assistants as needed.PARENT INVOLVEMENT: During the 2011-2012 school year parent involvement activities occurred monthly. Results of the District Parent Survey indicated that over 60% of parents participated in school decision making, feel valued, informed, and satisfied with the school. Satisfaction with parent involvement events was further evidenced by a skyrocketing increase in parent participation by over 50%. The school’s success with parent involvement is attributed to the school-wide stretch goal of working toward increasing parent involvement in the school and structuring activities those parents and their children enjoy.

A recurring parent request, identified by the District Parent Survey, was to establish a common day and time for parent involvement events. To meet the needs of our parents and school community a common day and time for parent involvement events was established. Progress toward meeting the goal of continued increased parent/family participation will be measured by the number of parents attending events.

Results of school-based satisfaction surveys will be used to determine the most popular school events. Events with the most parent participation will be continued while events with low participation will be replaced.ATTENDANCE: (Include current and expected attendance rates, excessive absences and tardies)In 2012, the yearly student average attendance rate for South Lake Elementary School was 94.97%. This data indicates South Lake was .51% below the district average of 95.48%.

Several strategies will be used to increase student attendance for the 2012-2013 school year. Absences will be carefully monitored for early detection for patterns of attendance problems. Multiple checks by the attendance clerk, the teacher, and the guidance counselor, will provide consistency. Notification will be sent electronically via Synervoice to inform parents each time a student is absent. Additionally, students will use Data Notebooks to track their own attendance. Data Notebooks are shared with parents during student-led conferences.SUSPENSION: The suspension rate for 2012-2013 is predicted to increase because of the influx of new students (over 200 students) due to redistricting. Careful monitoring of student behavior and the use of interventions by the classroom teacher will be used to minimize disruptions and suspensions. Classroom teachers are directed to maintain communication with parents regarding student misconduct. During the 2011-2012 school year, one student was expelled for possession of a weapon on campus. Students self-reflect on their daily behavior by recording behavior choices in their individual Data Notebooks to be shared with parents during student-led conferences. DROP-OUT (High Schools only):

POSTSECONDARY READINESS: (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? Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the High School Feedback Report.)

accountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.orgaccountabilityandtesting.brevardschools.org/school...

Documents