FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM 2009 – …osi.dadeschools.net/sip/09-10/pdf/1401.pdf · Community Blood Centers of South Florida, The Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign,

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM2009 – 2010 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

School Name: CHARLES R DREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

District Name: Dade

Principal: Cathy M. Williams

SAC Chair: Patrick Jones

Superintendent: Alberto M. Carvalho

Date of School Board Approval: Pending

Last Modified on: 08-24-2009

Dr.Eric J.Smith, Commissioner

Florida Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dr.Frances Haithcock, ChancellorK-12 Public Schools

Florida Department of Education325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

VISION and MISSION STATEMENTS

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL PROFILE/DEMOGRAPHICS

The vision of Charles R. Drew Elementary is to create an oasis for learning, a place where everyone is an awesome achiever.

The mission of Charles R. Drew Elementary is to recognize that each child is an individual; that all children are creative; and that all children strive to succeed.

Brief History and Background of the School

Charles R. Drew Elementary is an urban school located at 1775 NW 60th Street, Miami, Florida. It sits on approximately 6.5 acres in the heart of Liberty City and opened in 1964. The school serves students in grades Pre-K through 5th grade. The campus consists of a main building with 37 self contained classrooms, a full service clinic, six portable classrooms, three of which house the Miami-Dade County Head Start/Early Head Start Program for three and four year olds. Located in the center of the main building is a beautiful butterfly garden with a variety of plants and flowers. Additional instructional space is located in the Frederick A Morley Expressive Arts Center, which is shared with Charles R. Drew Middle School. This building provides our students with state-of-the-art equipment in photography, graphic design, art, and music. Currently, there are no plans for renovation projects.

Unique School Strengths for Next Year

Results from the 2009 FCAT show that Charles R. Drew Elementary is moving towards the goal of returning the school’s letter grade back to an “A”. After earning 38 accountability points on the 2009 FCAT, the school’s letter grade improved from a “C” to a “B”.

In Mathematics, 67% of the students in grade 3-5 and 82% of the lowest 25% showed learning gains. In Science, 42% of the fifth grade students performed at an achievement level of 3 or higher on the FCAT Science Test. This is an increase of 10 percentage points.

In addition to improving our letter grade, Charles R. Drew Elementary also increased the level of parental and community involvement. Comparison of the 2007-2008 to the 2008-2009 attendance rosters shows an increase of parents attending school sponsored workshop and visiting our Parent Center. Last year, only 66 parents attended workshops; this year 918 attended workshops. Last year, only 54 parents visited our Parent Center; this year 308 parents visited the Parent Center. For community involvement, last year we established the following partnerships with community agencies and businesses: Community Blood Centers of South Florida, The Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign, Juguetelandia by Valsan, and Switchboard of Miami. These agencies and businesses provided informational workshops and resources to students, parents, and staff.

This school year, in an effort to enhance and increase enrollment within our Expressive Arts Magnet Program. The school will change the focus of the program to include the use of technology. Teachers will use art technology to focus on reading, mathematics, science and digital learning. Our main focus will be the technique of photography which encompasses the sciences, fine arts, and entertainment. Students in grades 2-5 will be introduced to art technology as an integration of traditional art and how reading, mathematics, and science are an important component to the art program. We will also introduce the history of photography and the importance of photography in art, music, mathematics, science, and entertainment to fourth and fifth grade students.

Unique School Weaknesses for Next Year

Despite last year’s increase in parental involvement, Charles R. Drew Elementary knows there is still room for improvement and recognizes the positive impact parental involvement has on student achievement and student attendance. Poor student attendance and a lack of parental involvement are two challenges adversely impacted student achievement. Poor student attendance and punctuality causes a lack of exposure to rigorous instruction of the Sunshine State Standards. A lack of parental involvement creates poor communication and collaboration among school and home, which can hinder student achievement and require additional class-time to reinforce skills.

In addition, an analysis of performance data indicates our school has not attained AYP in Reading and/or Mathematics for the past three years for the following subgroups: Total, Black, and ED. This can be contributed to teachers not using a variety of data analysis tools to assist with the delivery of data driven instruction. Therefore, inappropriate instructional activities were planned which did not meet the needs of students and contributed to an increase in the number of students scoring Levels 1 and 2 on the FCAT.

Student Demographics

Charles R. Drew Elementary’s student population closely mirrors the surrounding community. The 295 students consist of 98% Black and 2% Hispanic. Economically Disadvantaged students account for 98% of the population. Additionally, 6% of students are Students with Disabilities (SWD), 1% are classified as English Language Learners (ELL), and 8% of students are gifted. Over the years, our school’s student demographics has been consistently the same.

Student Attendance Rates

Over the last three years, Charles R. Drew Elementary has increased their student attendance rate. Last year’s student attendance rate increased by 0.54%. This increase exceeded the district’s increase of 0.06% and the region’s increase of 0.18%. Charles R. Drew Elementary, 2006-2007: 94.70%; 2007-2008: 95.18%; and 2008-2009: 95.72%. M-DCPS, 2006-2007: 94.96%; 2007-2008: 95.45%; and 2008-2009: 95.51%. Region, 2006-2007: 94.79%; 2007-2008: 95.33%; and 2008-2009: 95.51%.

Longitudinal attendance data taken from the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and the 2008-2009 school years indicate that the average attendance rate of all schools in the Miami Northwestern feeder pattern is 94%. This is one percentage point lower than the districts average of 95%.

These results can be contributed to implementing a school wide attendance program, which includes conducting home visits. In addition, our Attendance Review Committee has identified students with attendance problems and informed parents of truancy policies and encouraged both parents and students to become more responsible for actions that contribute to future success.

Lastly, our Health Connect Staff has provided parents with information on certain medical conditions such as asthma, allergies, and colds to eliminate the negative impact these conditions can have on student attendance.

Student Mobility

The mobility rate of Charles R. Drew Elementary is 34%. This mobility comes predominantly from our Economically Disadvantaged population. As a result, the school has lose FTE, instructional staff, and support services.

Student Suspension Rates

2006-2007: In-school 24, Out-of-School 33; 2007-2008: In-school 1, Out-of-School 34; 2008-2009: In-school 2, Out-of-School 31. The suspension rates have decreased over the last three years due to the school’s focus on Character Education.

This school year, Charles R. Drew Elementary will implement the Student-of-the-Month program. The program will recognize model behavior and foster the development of positive character attributes such as respect, responsibility, cooperation, citizenship, fairness, honesty, integrity, kindness, and pursuit of excellence. Each month, the guidance counselor and classroom teachers will introduce lessons that focus on a specific positive character attributes. Students who demonstrate the “Character of the Month” will be recognized during morning announcements. The objectives of the program are to reduce disruptive behaviors, suspensions, and increase a sense of social responsibility and create a safe, nurturing learning environment.

Student Retention Rates

The retention rate decreased 2.1 percentage points from 5.2% to 3.1%. Currently, the District’s Elementary Schools retention rate is 3.6%. Only one student received mid-year promotion. The student received the required minimum raw score on the Grade 3 Mid-Year Promotion (GTMYP), a standardized, norm-referenced achievement test that utilizes a multiple choice format.

The guidance counselor meets with administrators, support personnel, teachers, and parents on a regular basis to address the individual needs of students, especially those who have retained, to ensure the academic success of all students.

Class Size

Reducing class sizes at all grade levels is important to reducing discipline problems and strengthening the one-on-one relationship between students and teachers. The average class size is Kindergarten: 13.67 students; First grade: 20 students; Second grade: 17 students; Third grade 19.67 students; Fourth grade: 20.75 students; and Fifth grade: 19 students. The average class size for PK-3rd grade is 17.01 students and 17.39 students for grades 4-5. The average class size in inclusion classrooms is 19.25 students.

Academic Performance of Feeder Pattern

The below information displays the academic performance of schools within the Miami Northwestern Feeder Pattern:

School Name; Diff. Acct.; School Grades for the last five years Charles R. Drew Elementary; Correct I; 09-10: B; 07-08: C; 06-07: C; 05-06: C; 04-05: A Earlington Heights Elementary; Prevent II; 09-10: D; 07-08: D; 06-07: C; 05-06: C; 04-05: B Lillie C. Evans Elementary; Unclassified; 09-10: A; 07-08: B; 06-07: A; 05-06: B; 04-05: B Holmess Elementary; Intervene; 09-10: C; 07-08: F; 06-07: D; 05-06: C; 04-05: F Martin L. King, Jr. Elementary; Correct II; 09-10: C; 07-08: F; 06-07: D; 05-06: C; 04-05: F Liberty City Elementary; Correct I; 09-10: A; 07-08: F; 06-07: C; 05-06: C; 04-05: C Olinda Elementary; Prevent II; 09-10: B; 07-08: C; 06-07: C; 05-06: C; 04-05: A Orchard Villa Elementary; Correct II; 09-10: D; 07-08: C; 06-07: C; 05-06: C; 04-05: B Poinciana Park Elementary; Prevent I; 09-10: A; 07-08: C; 06-07: A; 05-06: B; 04-05: B Brownsville Middle; Correct I; 09-10: C; 07-08: C; 06-07: F; 05-06: C; 04-05: C Charles R. Drew Middle; Correct II; 09-10: D; 07-08: D; 06-07: D; 05-06: C; 04-05: D Miami Northwestern Senior High; Correct II; 09-10: F; 07-08: D; 06-07: F; 05-06: D; 04-05: D

Partnerships and Grants

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Charles R. Drew Elementary will continue its strong partnership with Health Connect. The school has a full-service clinic which is comprised of a nurse, social worker, and a Health Screening Technician. The nurse addresses students’ health needs and provides health screening and education. The staff also has emergency access to health care providers. The social worker provides support services to assist parents and the school with intervention programs for families through private or municipal agencies.

The school also established partnerships with community agencies, such as Switchboard of Miami and United Way’s Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign, which offered parental workshops on Parenting Skills, Economic Benefits Programs, Budget & Debt Management, Family Literacy – Reading, Mathematics & Science, and Educational Resources.

Charles R. Drew Elementary also collaborated with surrounding youth service institutions, African Heritage Cultural Arts Center, Belafonte Tacolcy Center, and James E. Scott Community Association (JESCA), which offer services to children, youth, and families. These institutions primary objective is to cultivate youth leadership through after-school enrichment, sports development, neighborhood partnership programs, and technology.

Charles R. Drew Elementary collaborates with district programs and services, community agencies and the business community in order to integrate educational services to all students. This collaboration includes: Head Start, Miami-Dade District Pre-K and Early Intervention, Exceptional Student Education, Staff Development Department, Miami-Dade County Health Department, ESOL/LEP Programs, Neglected/Delinquent, Homeless Agencies, the Parent Academy, the Parent Information and Resource Center (PERC), the PTS/PSTA, These collaborative efforts will eliminate gaps in service for the ELL students, children with disabilities, N & D children, and homeless children. An avenue will be provided for sharing information about available services, and for helping to eliminate duplication and fragmentation within the programs. Title I personnel will, on an on-going basis, work with the appropriate staff to increase program effectiveness of the instructional program. Representatives from these agencies will meet as necessary to coordinate various services for families and children to increase student achievement.

Note: The following links will open in a separate browser window.

School Grades Trend Data

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Trend Data

HIGHLY QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATORS

Position Name Degree(s)/ Certification(s)

# of Years at Current School

# of Years as an

AdministratorPrior Performance Record *

Principal Cathy M. Williams

Bachelor of Science – Business Management, University of Florida; Master of Science – Mathematics Education, Florida State University; Principal

1 6

Principal of Charles R. Drew Elementary in 2008-2009: Grade: B, Reading Mastery: 56%, Math Mastery: 67%, Science Mastery: 42%, AYP: 87%, Black and ED did not make AYP in reading. ED did not make AYP in math.

Principal of Frances S. Tucker Elementary in 2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading Mastery: 58%, Math Mastery: 72%, Science Mastery: 46%, AYP: 77%, Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading. Black and SWD did not make AYP.

AP of Key Biscayne K-8 Center in 2006-2007: Grade A: Reading Mastery: 90%, Math Mastery: 90%, Science Mastery: 63%, AYP: 100%. All subgroups made AYP.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

Certification – State of Florida 2005-2006:

Grade A: Reading Mastery: 90%, Math Mastery: 89%, AYP: 100%. All subgroups made AYP.

2004-2005: Grade: A: Reading Mastery: 86%, Math Mastery: 90%, AYP 100%. All subgroups made AYP

Assis Principal Mercy Aguilar

Bachelor of Science – Special Education, Florida International University; Master of Science – Special Education, Florida International University, Minor in ESOL; Certification - Educational Leadership, State of Florida

2 9

AP of Charles R. Drew Elementary 2008-2009: Grade: B, Reading Mastery: 56%, Math Mastery: 67%, Science Mastery: 42%, AYP: 87%, Black and ED did not make AYP in reading. ED did not make AYP in math.

2007-2008: Grade: C, Reading Mastery: 60%, Math Mastery: 66%, Science Mastery: 32%, AYP: 90%. In reading, Black and ED did not made AYP. Only Black made AYP in math.

AP of Seminole Elementary in 2006-2007: Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 90%, Math Mastery: 83%, Science Mastery: 51%, AYP 97%. ELL did not make AYP in Reading. All subgroups made it in Math.

2005-2006: Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 89%, Math Mastery: 89%, AYP 100%. All subgroups made AYP.

2004-2005: Grade: A, Reading Mastery: 89%, Math Mastery: 84%, AYP 100%, All subgroups made AYP.

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)

Subject Area Name Degree(s)/ Certification(s)

# of Years at Current School

# of Years as a Coach

Prior Performance Record *

Reading Brenda Wallace

Bachelor of Sceince – Elementary Education, Norfolk State University; Master of Science - Elementary Education, Florida International University; Certifications – Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and Reading, State of Florida

1 12

Reading Coach at Charles R. Drew Elementary 2008-2009: Grade: B, Reading Mastery 56%, Learning Gains: 62%, Lowest 25% Gains: 55%. Black and ED did not make AYP in reading.

Reading Coach at Frances S. Tucker Elementary 2007-2008: Grade: B, Reading Mastery 58%, Learning Gains: 63%, Lowest 25% Gains: 67%. Black, Hispanic, ED, ELL, and SWD did not make AYP in reading.

Reading Coach at Rainbow Park Elementary 2006-2007: Grade: D, Reading Mastery: 49%, Learning Gains: 61%, Lowest 25%Gains: 55%. Black and ED did not make AYP.

2005-2006: Grade: B, Reading Mastery: 68%, Learning Gains: 66%, Lowest 25% Gains: 77%. All subgroups made AYP in reading.

2004-2005: Grade: B, Reading Mastery: 67%, Learning Gains: 68%, Lowest 25% Gains: 58%. All subgroups made AYP in reading.

* Note: Prior Performance Record (including prior School Grades and AYP information along with the associated school year)

Description of StrategyPerson

Responsible

Projected Completion

Date

Not Applicable (If not, please explain why)

1. Principal holds regular meetings with new teachers. Principal On-going

2. New teachers are paired with veteran staffAssistant Principal On-going

3. Solicit referrals from current employees, Regional Centers, and district Principal On-going

Non-Highly Qualified Instructors

Staff Demographics

Teacher Mentoring Program

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

Note: For Title I schools only

Name Certification Teaching Assignment

Professional Development/Support

to Become Highly Qualified

n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

% Reading Endorsed Teachers

% National Board

Certified Teachers

% ESOL Endorsed

31 0 41.94 32.26 25.81 25.81 100 3.23 9.23 32.26

Mentor NameMentee

AssignedRationale

for PairingPlanned Mentoring

Activities

Stacey Dean Gloria Pierce

Ms. Dean was selected as a mentor based on data from the End-Of-Year DIBELS, 85% of Ms. Dean’s students demonstrated reading proficiency (11 out of 13 students). Ms. Pierce was selected as a mentee based on data from the Teacher Gain Analysis. Only 50% of her students showed learning gains on the 2009 FCAT Reading Test.

The mentor and mentee will meet biweekly in a professional learning community to discuss evident-based strategies for each domain. The mentor is given release time to observe the mentee. Time is given for feedback, coaching, and planning.

Title I, Part A

Charles R. Drew Elementary has programs that coordinate with District, State, and Federal programs. Title I funds will be used in conjunction with district’s funds to hire a Reading Coach and paraprofessionals for interventions. In addition, funds used will provide professional development that strengthens teachers’ capacity in Reading, Mathematics, Writing, and Science. Furthermore, these funds will be used to provide low performing students with intervention strategies that will assist them in meeting high educational standards.

Charles R. Drew Elementary will also use community donations to provide students with incentives for attendance, model behavior, and academic achievement. As part of our Character Education curriculum, staff members will promote model behavior which means students are expected to be present at school every day, arrive on time, and demonstrate appropriate behavior, and a readiness to learn. Incentives and positive reinforcement will motive students to master high standards and demonstrate model behavior.

Services are provided to ensure students requiring additional remediation are assisted through after-school programs or summer school. The district coordinates with Title II and Title III in ensuring staff development needs are provided. Support services are provided to secondary students. Curriculum Coaches Develop, lead, and evaluate school core content standards/ programs; identify and analyze existing literature on scientifically based curriculum/behavior assessment and intervention approaches. They identify systematic patterns of student need while working with district personnel to identify appropriate, evidence-based intervention strategies; assists with whole school screening programs that provide early intervening services for children to be considered “at risk;” assist in the design and implementation for progress monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; participate in the design and delivery of professional development; and provide support for assessment and implementation monitoring. Other components that are integrated into the school-wide program include an extensive Parental Program; Title CHESS (as appropriate); Supplemental Educational Services; and special support services to special needs

populations such as homeless, migrant, and neglected and delinquent students.

Title I, Part C- Migrant

Migrant Liaison provides services and support to students and parents. The liaison coordinates with Title I and other programs to ensure students needs are met.

The school provides services and support to migrant students and parents. The District Migrant liaison coordinates with Title I and other programs and conducts a comprehensive needs assessment of migrant students to ensure that the unique needs of migrant students are met.

Title I, Part D

District receives funds to support the Educational Alternative Outreach program. Services are coordinated with district Drop-out Prevention programs.

Title II

The District uses supplemental funds for improving basic education as follows: • training to certify qualified mentors for the New Teacher (MINT) Program • training for add-on endorsement programs, such as Reading, Gifted, ESOL • training and substitute release time for Professional Development Liaisons (PDL) at each school focusing on Professional Learning Community (PLC) development and facilitation, as well as Lesson Study Group implementation and protocols

Title III

Title III funds are used to supplement and enhance the programs for English Language Learners (ELL) and immigrant students by providing funds to implement and/or provide: • Parent Outreach activities (K-12) • Professional development of best practices for ESOL and content area teachers • Reading and supplementary instructional materials (K-12)

The above services will be provided should funds become available for the 2009-2010 school year and should the FLDOE approve the application.

Title X- Homeless

The Homeless Assistance Program: • seeks to ensure a successful educational experience for homeless children by collaborating with parents, schools, and the community • implements Project Upstart, Homeless Children & Youth Program to assist schools with the identification, enrollment, attendance, and transportation of homeless students • through the Homeless Liaison provide training for school registrars on the procedures for enrolling homeless students and for school counselors on the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act – ensuring homeless children and youth are not to be stigmatized or separated, segregated, or isolated on their status as homeless-and are provided with all entitlements • through the Project Upstart provides homeless sensitivity and awareness campaign throughout all the schools-each school is provided a video and curriculum manual a contest is sponsored by the homeless trust- a community organization.

In addition, District Homeless Social Workers provide resources (clothing, school supplies, social services referrals) for students identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act to eliminate barriers for a free and appropriate education.

Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

This school will receive funding from Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI) as part of its Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) allocation.

SAI funds will be coordinated with Title I funds to provide summer school for Level 1 readers. SAI funds will be used to expand the summer program to all Level 2 students.

Violence Prevention Programs

The Violence Prevention Program consists of: • addressing violence and drug prevention and intervention services for students through curriculum implemented by classroom teachers, elementary counselors, and TRUST specialists • training and technical assistance for elementary, middle, and senior high teachers, administrators, counselors, TRUST Specialists, and Safe School Specialists • the Safe School Specialists providing training and follow-up activities to all school staff in the areas of violence prevention, stress management, and crisis management

In addition, the district receives funds for programs (Red Ribbon Week, Mentors at Middle Schools, etc) that support prevention of violence in and around the school. These programs prevent the use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and foster a safe, drug free learning environment supporting student achievement.

The school offers a non-violence and anti-drug program to students through Red Ribbon Activities, the D.A.R.E. curriculum, anti-bully campaign, and individual and group counseling.

Nutrition Programs

1) The school adheres to and implements the nutrition requirements stated in the District Wellness Policy. 2) Nutrition education, as per state statute, is taught through physical education. 3) The School Food Service Program, school breakfast, school lunch, and after care snacks, follows the Healthy Food and Beverage Guidelines as adopted in the District's Wellness Policy.

Housing Programs

n/a

Head Start

Head Start programs are co-located in several Title I schools and/or communities. Joint activities, including professional development and transition processes are shared. Through affiliating agreements, the Summer VPK program is provided at Head Start sites.

Adult Education

n/a

Career and Technical Education

By promoting Career Pathways and Programs of Study students will become academy program completers and have a better understanding and appreciation of the postsecondary opportunities to acquire the skills necessary to take advance of those opportunities.

Articulation agreements allow students to earn college and postsecondary technical credits in high school provides more opportunities for students to complete 2 and 4 year postsecondary degrees.

Students will gain an understanding of business and industry workforce requirements by acquiring Ready to Work and Industry certifications.

Readiness for postsecondary will strengthen with the integration of academic and career technical components and a coherent sequence of courses.

Job Training

n/a

Other

Parental

Involve parents in the planning and implementation of the Title I Program and extend an open invitation to our school’s parent resource center in order to inform parents regarding available programs, their rights under No Child Left Behind and other referral services.

Increase parental engagement/involvement through developing (with on-going parental input) our Title I School-Parent Compact (for each student); our school’s Title I Parental Involvement Policy; scheduling the Title I Orientation Meeting (Open House); and other documents/activities necessary in order to comply with dissemination and reporting requirements.

Conduct informal parent surveys to determine specific needs of our parents, and schedule workshops, Parent Academy Courses, etc., with flexible times to accommodate our parents’ schedule as part of our goal to empower parents and build their capacity for involvement.

Complete Title I Administration Parental Involvement Monthly School Reports (FM-6914 Rev. 06-08) and the Title I Parental Involvement Monthly Activities Report (FM-6913 03-07), and submit to Title I Administration by the 5th of each month as documentation of compliance with NCLB Section 1118. Confidential “as-needed services” will be provided to any students in the school in “homeless situations” as applicable.

Additional academic and support services will be provided to students and families of the Migrant population as applicable.

School Improvement Grant Fund/School Improvement Grant Initiative

The school receives funding under the School Improvement Grant Fund/School Improvement Grant Initiative in order to increase the achievement of the lowest performing subgroups through comprehensive, ongoing data analysis, curriculum and instruction alignment, and specific interventions such as extended day remedial tutorial instruction, Differentiated instruction/intervention, classroom libraries, Project CRISS, and Learning 100. Additionally, Title I School Improvement Grant/Fund support funding and assistance to schools in Differentiated Accountability based on need.

Charles R. Drew Elementary is a recipient of a federally funded grant called I Choose. The grant was developed as a district wide initiative designed to assist in achieving the Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ District’s Strategic Plan goal to expand the availability of and access to high quality public school choice options for all parents in Miami-Dade County. Voluntary Public School Choice grant funds are used to evaluate programs, inform parents of educational options, and reculture teaching practices to establish quality school environments.

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI)

Identify the school-based RtI Leadership Team.

Describe how the school-based RtI Leadership Team functions (e.g. meeting processes and roles/functions).

Describe the role of the school-based RtI Leadership Team in the development and implementation of the school improvement plan

School-based RtI Team

Principal: The principal will provide a common vision for the use of data-based decision-making, ensure that the school-based team is implementing RtI, conduct assessment of RtI skills of school staff, ensure implementation of intervention support and documentation, ensure adequate professional development to support RtI implementation, and communicate with parents regarding school-based RtI plans and activities.

Selected General Education Teachers (Primary and Intermediate): General education teachers will provide information about core instruction, participate in student data collection, deliver Tier 1 instruction/intervention, collaborate with other staff to implement Tier 2 interventions, and integrate Tier 1 materials/instruction with Tier 2/3 activities.

Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Teachers: ESE teachers will participate in student data collection, integrate core instructional activities/materials into Tier 3 instruction, and collaborate with general education teachers through such activities as co-teaching.

Reading Instructional Specialist: The Reading Instructional Specialist will provide guidance on K-12 reading plan; facilitate and support data collection activities; assist in data analysis; provide professional development and technical assistance to teachers regarding data-based instructional planning; support the implementation of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 intervention plans.

School Psychologist: The school psychologist will participate in collection, interpretation, and analysis of data; facilitate development of intervention plans; provide support for intervention fidelity and documentation; provide professional development and technical assistance for problem-solving activities including data collection, data analysis, intervention planning, and program evaluation; facilitate data-based decision making activities.

Technology Specialist: The technology specialist will develop or broker technology necessary to manage and display data; provide professional development and technical support to teachers and staff regarding data management and display.

Speech Language Pathologist: The speech language pathologist will educate the team in the role language plays in curriculum, assessment, and instruction, as a basis for appropriate program design; assist in the selection of screening measures; and help identify systemic patterns of student needs with respect to language skills.

Student Service Personnel: The student service personnel will provide quality services and expertise on issues ranging from program design to assessment and intervention with individual students. In addition to providing interventions, school social workers continue to link child-serving and community agencies to the schools and families to support the child’s academic, emotional, behavioral, and social success.

The Leadership Team will:

1. Monitor academic and behavior data evaluating progress by addressing the following important questions: • What will all students learn? (curriculum-based standards) • How will we determine if the students have mastered concepts/standards? (common assessments) • How will we respond when students have not mastered concepts/standards? (intervention services) • How will we respond when students have mastered or already know concepts/standards? (enrichment activities)

2. Gather and analyze data to determine professional development for faculty as indicated by student intervention and achievement needs.

3. Hold regular team meetings.

4. Maintain communication with staff for input and feedback, as well as updating them on procedures and progress.

5. Support a process and structure within the school to design, implement, and evaluate both daily instruction and specific interventions.

6. Provide clear indicators of student needs and student progress, assisting in examining the validity and effectiveness of program delivery.

7. Assist with monitoring and responding to the needs of subgroups within the expectations for adequate yearly progress.

School Wide Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model

1. The Leadership Team will monitor and adjust the school’s academic and behavioral goals through data gathering and data analysis.

2. The Leadership Team will monitor the fidelity of the delivery of instruction and intervention.

3. The Leadership Team will provide levels of support and interventions to students based on data.

Describe the data management system used to summarize tiered data.

Describe the plan to train staff on RtI.

RtI Implementation

1. Data will be used to guide instructional decisions and system procedures for all students to:

• adjust the delivery of curriculum and instruction to meet the specific needs of students • adjust the delivery of behavior management system • adjust the allocation of school-based resources • drive decisions regarding targeted professional development • create student growth trajectories in order to identify and develop interventions

2. Managed data will include: • Academic • FAIR assessment • Interim assessment/Baseline • State/Local Math and Science assessments • FCAT • Student grades • School site specific assessments

Behavior • Student Case management System • Detentions • Suspensions/expulsions • Referrals by student behavior, staff behavior, and administrative context • Office referrals per day per month • Team climate surveys • Attendance • Referrals to special education programs

The district professional development and support will include:

• training all administrators in the RtI problem solving, data analysis process; • providing support for school staff to understand basic RtI principles and procedures; and • providing a network of ongoing support for RtI organized through feeder patterns.

Data Disaggregation 2008-2009 FCAT Data

What strengths and weaknesses were identified in the 2009 data by grade level, subject area, and clusters/strands?

Plan

Strengths: In science, the school continues to increase the number of students performing on grade. The percentage of students scoring a Level 3 or above increased by 10 percentage points, from 32% to 42%. In mathematics, the percentage of students making learning gains, including the lowest 25% increased. For learning gains in mathematics, the percentage points increased by 4 points, from 62% to 66%, and the lowest 25% increased by 16 percentage points, from 66% to 82%.

Weaknesses: In reading, for grades 3 and 4, the percentage of students scoring a Level 3 or above decreased. In grade 3, words/phrases 67% In grade 5, students continue to have difficulty in words/phrases, scoring only 50%. For math, in grades 3-4, the lowest content area is measurement. For grade 5, data analysis is the lowest content area for math.

For reading, in grade 3, the average correct for words/phrases was 67%, main idea was 58%, and comparisons was 67%, and reference/research was 67%. In grade 4, the average correct for words/phrases was 71%, main idea was 48%, and comparisons was 47%, and reference/research was 50%. In grade 5, the average correct for words/phrases was 50%, main idea was 62%, and comparisons was 60%, and reference/research was 67%.

For mathematics, in grade 3, the average correct for number sense was 58%, measurement was 50%, geometry was 57%,

Instructional Calendar Development

What is the process for developing, implementing, and monitoring an Instructional Focus Calendar for reading, writing, mathematics, and science?

Which instructional Benchmarks will be given priority focus, based on need, for each content area (reading, writing, mathematics, and science)?

What is the process to ensure instruction is based on individual students’ needs, as opposed to the master schedule?

How does the school incorporate applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future?

algebraic thinking was 67%, and data analysis was 71%. In grade 4, the average correct for number sense was 64%, measurement was 63%, geometry was 71%, algebraic thinking was 57%, and data analysis was 71%. In grade 5, the average correct for number sense was 62%, measurement was 55%, geometry was 62%, algebraic thinking was 55%, and data analysis was 50%.

In science, the average correct for physical/chemical was 58%, earth/space was 55%, life/environmental was 62%, and scientific thinking was 54%.

In writing, 93% of the fourth graders scored 3.0 or higher, 65% scored 3.5 or higher, and 45% scored 4.0 or higher.

The Instructional Focus Calendars (IFCs) were created in June 2009. The IFC will be updated in October 2009 as determined by disaggregated data results from the September Baseline Assessments, and again in January 2010 as determined by the disaggregated data results from the December Midyear Assessments.

The 2009 FCAT results were utilized to develop the IFCs. Data results from the September Baseline Assessments and the December Midyear Assessments will also be used.

Teachers will be responsible for determining the instructional focus of whole group lessons and small group/differentiated instruction.

The administration will ensure the IFCs are implemented by the teachers through classroom visits and formal observations.

Benchmarks were selected based on students’ strengths and weaknesses, which were measured by progress on class work assignments, monthly assessments, interim assessments, and data results.

The duration of instruction for each benchmark was determined by the amount of time allocated in the IFC to ensure that students are exposed to all benchmarks prior to FCAT testing. Within the amount of time allotted in the IFC, teachers will provide instruction on each benchmark, allow the students an opportunity to practice, assess the students’ knowledge, and then re-teach the benchmark as indicated by student progress, either in a whole group or small group setting.

Administration will implement a continuous cycle of making classroom visitations, evaluating lesson plans, monitoring teacher data, and conducting meetings with teachers to ensure that the IFC is being utilized and implemented effectively. Coaches will also be assigned to teachers who are demonstrating signs of struggling with IFC implementation.

Those teachers who are struggling with implementing the IFC will be provided additional opportunities to attend professional development sessions, have a mentor assigned to them, and participate in the process of observing other teachers who are successful. The subject area coaches and /or grade-level chairperson will provide additional assistance to the teacher. The teacher will participate in Professional Learning Communities and utilize the support of their colleagues during weekly grade/department meetings.

Reading: In grades 3-4, Main Idea/Purpose was the least proficient strand. In grade 5, Words/Phrases was the least proficient strand. These strands will be the priority focus for those grades.

Writing: Implementation of a school-wide writing program that focuses on vocabulary development and process writing skills.

Mathematics: In grade 3, Measurement was the least proficient strand; for 4th grade, Algebraic Thinking, and in 5th grade, Data Analysis. These strands will be the priority focus for those grades.

Science: Earth/Space & Scientific Thinking were the least proficient and will be given priority focus.

Based on the 2009 FCAT scores, the administration will develop a master schedule to ensure low-performing teachers are not teaching the same classes again. In addition, an analysis of learning gains allows for the placement of the strongest teachers to be paired with the weakest students. The master schedule will also include in-school time for intervention services for low-performing students.

Charles R. Drew Elementary is an Expressive Arts Magnet. Our IFC integrates the use of art technology as a focus for improving reading, mathematics, writing, and science skills. In addition, our Physical Education, Music, and Spanish teachers integrate reading strategies within their daily lessons.

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?

All special area classes (Art, Music, P.E., and Spanish) incorporate the use of technology and job skills within their lesson plans.

Gifted, AEP, ESE, and magnet teachers’ lesson plans address the individual strengths and weaknesses of students within their programs.

In addition, fifth grade students participate in articulation activities that introduce them to the middle school curriculum to ensure they select courses that are relevant and consistent to their future goals.

Direct the Instructional Focus

How are lesson plans and instructional delivery aligned across grade levels and subject areas?

How are instructional focus lessons developed and delivered?

How will instructional focus lessons be revised and monitored?

DO

Grade level teachers will meet weekly to determine the areas of students’ strengths and weaknesses as demonstrated by class work assignments, bi-weekly and monthly assessment results. Lesson plans will be created for differentiated instruction, which provides lessons for all levels of students, below mastery, at mastery, and above mastery.

In addition, teachers will meet weekly for grade level meetings and will meet monthly during Professional Learning Communities to share best practices and resources.

Based on results from previous assessments, the least proficient benchmarks and standards will be incorporated into instructional focus lessons. The instructional coaches for each subject area will provide the lessons to the teachers.

The focus lessons selected by the instructional coaches are aligned to the benchmarks and standards for each subject area and cover those benchmarks that are annually assessed on the FCAT.

The 5 to 10–minute focus lessons will be taught at the beginning of each class period.

At the departmental grade-levels (grades 4 and 5), reading, mathematics, and science teachers will teach the focus lesson that correlates with their subject area. In the future, depending on need, special area teachers may also teach focus lessons.

Bi-weekly assessments will be developed to assess the mastery of the focus lessons. Results from the bi-weekly assessments will determine if the focus lessons need to be revised and/or re-taught.

Teachers and administrators will ensure the effectiveness of the focus lessons by analyzing data results from focus lessons as they are re-assessed intermittently throughout the year. Proficiency of skills and benchmarks should also be evident in skills and benchmarks that are taught as part of the whole group instruction.

Assessment

Describe the types of ongoing formative assessments to be used during the school year to measure student progress in core, supplemental, and intensive instruction/intervention.

How are assessments used to identify students reaching mastery and those not reaching mastery?

CHECK

Bi-weekly assessments based on the focus lessons will be administered.

Ten questions per benchmark will be utilized for assessment purposes.

The assessments will be administrated on a bi-weekly basis.

Mastery will be set at 80%. Mastery is set at higher than the traditional score of 70% to ensure students proficiency of each benchmark.

Maintenance

How is ongoing assessment and maintenance of Benchmark mastery for each grade level and content area built into the Instructional Focus Calendar?

Describe the process and schedule for teams to review progress monitoring data (summative and mini assessments) to identify the required instructional modifications that are needed to increase student achievement.

Monitoring

Describe the Principal’s and Leadership Team’s roles as instructional leaders and how they will be continuously involved in the teaching and learning process.

The assessment results will be used to determine the instructional focus of whole group lessons. An Item-Analysis of the assessment will be utilized to re-teach the questions that students missed most frequently.

Teachers will differentiate their instruction as indicated by assessment results to provide intensive instruction to those students earning less than 50%, additional instruction and practice opportunities for those students earning 51-79%, and enrichment/advanced instruction to students earning 80-100%.

Students at and above level will receive opportunities to enhance or enrich current skills by participating in project activities, hands-on activities, supplemental lessons, and after-school clubs (Reading & Science/Math Club) which will reinforce the skills and maintain their level of mastery/proficiency.

Teachers will meet weekly in grade-level/department meetings. The meetings will alternate each week as follows: one week the teachers will meet by grade level and the following week they will meet by content area. This rotation will continue throughout the school year.

The meetings will be facilitated by the subject area coach, the grade-level chairperson, and/or department chairperson. A teacher will be designated to record notes from the meetings, and the notes will be submitted along with the weekly attendance roster to the administrative staff. Members of the administrative staff will attend meetings on a rotating basis.

The Principal and Leadership Team will meet with teachers either during weekly meetings, or one-on-one to discuss assessment results and student progress. During these meetings, lesson plans, data binders, and student portfolios will be utilized to provide evidence of instruction, assessment, and differentiation to address individual student needs. Progress Monitoring logs will also be utilized to document the process of teaching, assessing, re-teaching, and re-assessing. Special attention will be given to special needs populations, such as migrants, homeless, neglected and delinquent students.

The instructional coaches will assist teachers with providing instruction on the focus lessons either by modeling whole group instruction or assisting the teacher in providing small group instruction. The instructional coach will also help with the process of grading, recording, and charting student scores.

Supplemental and Intensive Instruction/Interventions

Identify the core, supplemental, and intensive instruction and interventions.

How are supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions and tutorials structured to re-teach non-mastered target areas?

How does the school identify staff’s professional development needs to improve their instructional strategies?

ACT

Resources from the state adopted textbooks which are designed for intensive instruction will be utilized. Computerized programs or instructional software (e.g. SuccessMaker), in addition to Internet Instructional Web sites, such as FCAT Explorer, Riverdeep, and Ticket-to-Read will also be utilized.

For supplementary materials, teachers will use the CARS (Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Strategies) & STARS (Strategies To Achieve Reading Success) Series for reading, On-Target for mathematics, and Foss Kits for science.

Teachers will utilize instructional strategies or best practices discussed in Professional Learning Communities to provide different methods of providing instruction to students in non-mastery areas. Resources and strategies provided at professional development workshops will also be utilized. Students consistently demonstrating non-mastery may be required to participate in tutorial sessions before or after school.

Common areas of concern in the areas of instructional delivery, classroom management, etc., as evidenced by administrator’s

Teacher Mentoring Program

NCLB Public School Choice

Note: For Title I schools only

Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status Show Attached Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification Show Attached Public School Choice with Transportation (CWT) Notification Notification of (School in Need of Improvement) SINI Status Show Attached Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification

Pre-School Transition

Which students will be targeted for supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions?

How will the effectiveness of the interventions be measured throughout the year?

Enrichment

Describe alternative instructional delivery methods to support acceleration and enrichment activities.

Describe how students are identified for enrichment strategies.

observations, teacher surveys, and student performance/data analysis, will determine the need for professional development sessions.

As a result of progress monitoring (class work assignments and assessment results) and observations (classroom teacher, instructional coach, administrators, counselor, etc.) students who consistently demonstrate academic difficulty will receive supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions.

Students not making mastery will be offered after-school assistance via SES, as well as assistance during the regular school day from instructional coaches, and personnel hired to provide tutorial services.

All personnel providing services to a student not making mastery will meet to discuss their evidence and/or documentation of strategies and interventions that have previously been utilized. Factors hindering implementation of a strategy (attendance, behavior, etc.) will be addressed and resolved. Strategies that are unsuccessful will be discontinued and replaced with alternative interventions. Focus assessments through Ticket-to-Read and Riverdeep will also be utilized to determine the effectiveness of supplemental instruction.

Students who typically exceed mastery levels participate in the schools’ gifted. Students also selected to participate in after-school clubs, such as Reading and Science/Math Clubs.

FCAT results, along with student progress in a specific content, as well as assessment results that demonstrate consistent proficiency/mastery are used to determine placement in academic programs. Teacher recommendation is also taken into consideration.

Parent conferences are held with the recommending teacher, instructional coach, guidance counselor, and a member of the leadership or administrative team. The parents are counseled on the expectations for the student in the academic program, as well as their continued parental involvement.

PLC Organization (grade level, subject, etc.) PLC Leader

Frequency of PLC Meetings Schedule (when)

Primary Focus of PLC (include Lesson Study and Data Analysis)

5th grade Language Arts/Reading Teachers

Brenda Wallace, Reading Coach Weekly

Thursdays during common planning time

Analyze the effectiveness of the Reading FCIM calendars, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.

4th grade Language Arts/Reading Teachers

Brenda Wallace, Reading Coach Weekly

Thursdays during common planning time

Analyze the effectiveness of the Reading FCIM calendars, mini-lessons, mini-assessments, maintenance, tutorials, and enrichments to determine any necessary revisions.

Title I Administration assists the school by providing supplemental funds beyond the State of Florida funded Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten Program (VPK). Funds are used to provide extended support through a full time highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional. This will assist with providing young children with a variety of meaningful learning experiences, in environments that give them opportunities to create knowledge through initiatives shared with supportive adults. In selected

Postsecondary Transition

Note: Required for High School- Sec. 1008.37(4), F.S.

school communities, the Title I Program further provides assistance for preschool transition through the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program. HIPPY provides in-home training for parents to become more involved in the educational process of their three- and four-year old children.

At Charles R. Drew Elementary, all incoming Kindergarten students are assessed for school readiness by using the Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener (FLKRS). The FLKRS is made up of two separate measures: the Early Childhood Observation System (ECHOS), and the Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading – K (FAIR-K). The ECHOS measures benchmarks in seven domains. It provides a simple, uniform method for observing and measuring the progress of young readers. FAIR measures the growth and development of early literacy skills.

Data from FAIR and FLKRS will be used to plan instruction for all students and for groups of students or individual students who may need intervention beyond core instruction. FAIR will be re-administered mid-year and at the end of the year in order to determine student learning gains in order to determine the need for changes to the instructional/intervention programs.

n/a

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Reading Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?

What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?

Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?

Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?

Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?

Based on the Needs Assessment, Identify Area(s) for Improvement

Objective Linked to Area of Improvement

1. In grade 3-5, 56% of students scored Level 3 or above on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test. This represents a decrease of 4% percentage points compared to 60% who achieved mastery in 2008.

The lowest content cluster in grade 3 is main idea/purpose, in grade 4 comparisons, and grade 5 words and phrases.

In grades 3-5, 62% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test. This represents an increase of 11% percentage points compared to 51% who achieved learning gains in 2008.

In grades 3-5, 55% of the lowest 25% made learning gains in reading. This represents the same percentage as in 2008.

1. Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 72% of the students in grades 3-5 will score Level 3 or above for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Action StepPerson Responsible for Monitoring the Action Step

Process Used to Determine Effectiveness of Action Step

Evaluation Tool

1 1. Provide on-going professional development activities to ensure the effective use of research-based reading practices and infused across the curriculum.

1. Administrators and Reading Coach

1. Administrators and the Reading Coach will conduct focused walkthroughs to observe the frequency and effectiveness of professional development activities and the infusion of reading strategies throughout the curriculum.

1. Administrators and the Reading Coach will conduct focused walkthroughs to observe the frequency and effectiveness of professional development activities and the infusion of reading strategies throughout the curriculum.

2 2. Development an Instructional Focus Calendar (IFC) for Reading and Language Arts classes

2. Administration and Reading Coach

2. During classroom walkthroughs, administrators will monitor the implementation of the IFC’s focus.

2. Effectiveness will be determined through FAIR assessments.

3 3. Conduct monthly reading assessments aligned to the IFC


3. Review data from the Reading Monthly Assessments to monitor the implementation of the IFC, and revise, if necessary, based on students’ mastery.

3. Printout of Reading Monthly Assessments.



2. Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 64% of Black students scored at or above Level 3.

This represents a decrease of 4% for Blacks, compared to 55% in 2008.

2. Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 72% of the Black students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 2. Student Data Chats will be conducted with all students following FAIR assessments


2. During walkthroughs, administrators will review log for Student Data Chats.

2. Administration will randomly ask students how they performed on their most recent assessment to determine if data chats are successful.



3. Based on the 2009 FCAT Reading data, 63% of ED students scored at or above Level 3.

This represents a decrease of 4% for ED, compared to 54% in 2008.

3. Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 72% of the ED students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 3. Special Area teachers (Art, Music, Spanish, & P.E.) will integrate reading benchmarks in lesson plans and instructional delivery.


3. During walkthroughs, administrators will focus their attention to the frequency of explicitly teaching to the reading benchmarks in art, music, Spanish, and P.E.

3. FAIR assessments will be disaggregated by special area teachers to determine the effectiveness of reading benchmark instruction in Art, Music, Spanish, and P.E.

Professional Development Aligned with Objective:

For Schools with Grades 6-12, Describe the Plan to Ensure the Responsibility of Teaching Reading for Every

Teacher

Objective Addressed Content/Topic Facilitator Target Date

Strategy for Follow-

up/ Monitoring

Person Responsible

for Monitoring

In grades 3-5, 72% of the students will achieve mastery for reading on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar

Reading Coach

August 2009

Lesson Plans Classroom Visits

Administrators and Reading Coach

In grades 3-5, 72% of students will achieve learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.

Administrating FAIR Reading Coach

September 2009



In grades, 3-5, 72% of Black and ED students will score at or above a Level 3 on the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Differentiated Instruction for Reading

Reading Coach

September 2009



n/a

Budget:

Evidence-based Program(s)/Material(s)

Description of Resources Funding Source Available Amount

CARS (Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Strategies) & STARS (Strategies To Achieve Reading Success) Series

EESAC Funds $3,500.00

Total: $3,500.00

Technology


Smart Boards I Choose - Magnet $2,108.47

Total: $2,108.47

Professional Development


Development of Reading and Language Arts Instructional Focus Calendar – Stipends for Summer Development

I Choose – Magnet $4,000.00

Temporary Coverage for Professional Development Title I & District Funds $500.00

Total: $4,500.00

Other


Paraprofessional District Funds $25,603.00

Hourly Teachers Title I $7,200.00

Total: $32,803.00

Final Total: $42,911.47

End of Reading Goal

Mathematics Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or decrease? What is the percent change?

What clusters/strands, by grade level, showed decrease in proficiency?

Did all student subgroups meet AYP targets? If not, which subgroups did not meet the targets?

Did 50% or more of the lowest 25% make learning gains? What is the percent of the lowest 25% of students making learning gains?

Did 50% or more of the total number tested make learning gains? What is the percent of students making learning gains?



1. In grades 3-5, 67% students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents an increase of 1% compared to 66% who achieved mastery in 2008.

The lowest content cluster in grade 3 is measurements, in grade 4, algebraic thinking, and grade 5 data analysis.

In grades 3-5, 55% of the lowest 25% made learning gains in reading. This represents the same percentage as in 2008.

1. Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74% of students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. The school will implement bi-weekly and monthly assessments to monitor student progress.

1. Administrators 1. Review data from bi-weekly and monthly assessments to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.

1. Printout of bi-weekly and monthly assessments

2 2. Implement Instructional Focus Calendar (IFC) for Mathematics

2. Administration 2. Administrators will be aware of the IFC’s upcoming focus and monitor implementation through classroom walkthroughs.

2. Effectiveness will be determined through bi-weekly and monthly assessments.

3 3. Implement instructional software, such as SuccessMaker, FCAT Explorer, and Riverdeep.

3. Administration 3. Review of student usage printouts to ensure teachers are incorporating within their instruction.

3. Progress on bi-weekly and monthly assessments.



2. In grades 3-5, 63% of Economically Disadvantaged (ED) students achieved mastery on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents an increase of 3% compared to 60% of ED students who achieved mastery in 2008.

2. Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 74% of ED students in grades 3-5 will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 2. Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce mathematics concepts

2. Administrators 2. Grade-level chairs will assist teachers in the creation of centers and stations, and administration will ensure activities are implemented.

2. Progress on bi-weekly and monthly assessments



3. In grades 3-5, 66% of students achieved learning gains on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test. This represents an increase of 4% compared to 62% who achieved learning gains in 2008.

3. Given the instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, 77% of the students in grades 3-5 will achieve learning gains on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Reading Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 3. Implement supplementary mathematics programs, such as On-Target,

3. Administrators 3. Review data from bi-weekly and monthly assessments to monitor the effectiveness of the On-Target material.

3. Classroom walkthrough to determine frequency of usage



Strategy for Follow-up/ Monitoring

Person Responsible

for Monitoring

In grades 3-5, 74% of students will achieve mastery on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Mathematics Test

1. Effective Implementation of the Instructional Focus Calendar

Principal August 2009

Modeling of Lessons Classroom Visits

Administrators

In grades 3-5, 75% or more of the bottom quartile will make learning gains on the 2010 FCAT Mathematics Test.

2. Implementation of Instructional Software

Technology Leader

September 2009

Monitor Student Usage Reports

Administrators

In grades, 3-5, 72% of ED students will score at or above a Level 3 on the 2010 FCAT Mathematics Test.

3. Differentiated Instruction for Mathematics

Principal September 2009


Administrators

Budget:



On-Target Supplemental Material Title I $3,500.00

Total: $3,500.00

Technology


Smart Boards I Choose - Magnet $2,108.47

Total: $2,108.47




Total: $500.00

Other


No Data No Data $0.00

Total: $0.00


End of Mathematics Goal

Science Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?

What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?



1. Based on 2009, FCAT Science data, 42% of the fifth grade students scored Level 3 or above.

This represents an increase of 10% compared to 32% who scored Level 3 or above in 2008.

1. Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 50% of students will score at Level 3 or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Once a week, utilize hands-on laboratory experiments using the 5E model, science stations.

1. Administrators 1. The created lab schedule will be implemented with fidelity and monitored by administrators.

1. Improvement on monthly science assessments



Based on the 2009 FCAT Science data, 42% of the fifth grade students scored a Level 3 or above. Earth/Space and Scientific Thinking (54%) were the lowest content clusters.

2. Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 50% of students will score at Level 3 or above on the 2010 FCAT Science Test.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Provide real-world science experiences and engaging activities.

1. Administrators 1. Teachers will implement labs outlined in the District’s Science Pacing Guides

1. Improvement on monthly science assessments

2 2. Develop an Instructional Focus Calendar (IFC) for Science classes.

2. Administration 2. Administration will be aware of the IFC’s upcoming focus and monitor implementation through classroom walkthroughs.

2. Improvement of on monthly science assessments.

3 3. Establish a Science Club for selected fifth grade students. Students will complete hands-on lab activities weekly and use a common lab report format to document hands-on investigations.

3. Science Club Sponsors and Administration

3. Science Club Sponsors will review results from monthly assessments to determine progress toward benchmark (75% on common assessment).

3. Common assessments tied to Florida Science Standards administered monthly.




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 50% of students will score at Level 3 or above on the 2010 Science FCAT Test.

1. Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model Training

DOE Specialist

August 2009

Common planning minutes will be reviewed to ensure data trends are discussed and lesson plans are developed.

Administrators

Given instruction based on the Sunshine State Standards, 50% of students will score at Level 3 or above on the 2010 Science FCAT Test.

2. Effective Instruction in Science using 5 E Model

District Science Specialist

September 2009

Administrators will attend the training and ensure strategies are implemented

Administrators

Budget:



NASA SEMAA Curriculum Federal Grant $500.00

Total: $500.00

Technology


Software - Leap Frog District Funds - Advanced Academics $500.00

Total: $500.00



Temporary Coverage for Professional Development Titel I & District Funds $500.00

Total: $500.00

Other


Academic Excellence Program (AEP) Teacher District Funds - Advanced Academics $3,479.00

Total: $3,479.00


End of Science Goal

Writing Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on School Grade Data:

Did the total percent proficient increase or was the percent proficient maintained?

What clusters/strands showed decrease in proficiency?



On the 2009 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 46% of the fourth grade students scored a 4.0 or above in writing.

This represents the same percentage as in 2008.

1. Given instruction on the Sunshine State Standards, on the 2010 administration of the FCAT Writing Test, 46% of the fourth grade students will score a 4.0 or above.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Development of daily writing intervention sessions for all fourth grades


1. The Reading Coach will develop writing intervention lessons for the fourth grade. Groups will be based on writing skills and revised based on monthly writing assessments.

1. Improvement on monthly writing assessments

2 2. The Reading Coach will model writing lessons and provide both teachers and students with training effective writing strategies.

2. Reading Coach 2. Administration will be aware of the strategies and monitor implementation through classroom walkthroughs.

2. Improvement on monthly writing assessments.

3 3. The revision and editing process will be explicitly taught and seen in student writing drafts.


3. Administration will monitor revision and editing process by reviewing students’ drafts.

3. Progress between the Pretest Prompt and Mid-year Prompt.




Person Responsible

for Monitoring


1. Effective Writing Strategies

Reading Coach

September 2009

Monitor students’ writing portfolios and monthly writing assessments

Administrators


2. Writing Across the Curriculum & Rubric Scoring

Reading Coach

September 2009

Monitor student work Classroom visits Administrators

Budget:




Total: $0.00

Technology



Total: $0.00




Total: $500.00

Other


Writing Supplies District $500.00

Total: $500.00


End of Science Goal

Parent Involvement Goal

Needs Assessment: Based on information from School Grade and Adequate Yearly Progress Data:

Were parent involvement activities and strategies targeted to areas of academic need?

Based on information from surveys, evaluations, agendas, or sign-ins:

Was the percent of parent participation in school activities maintained or increased from the prior year?

Generally, what strategies or activities can be employed to increase parent involvement?



Implement monthly Parent Workshops to empower parents with skills needed to assist students with Home Learning Activities in Reading, Mathematics, Writing, and Science.

By June 2010, the school will increase the number of parents attending workshops by 1%. From 918 attended workshops in 2008 to 921 parents attending this year.



Evaluation Tool

1 1. Offer meetings before and after school

1. Principal 1. Review parent telephone logs

1. Parent Attendance Rosters



Increase parent contacts. By June 2010, the school will increase the number of parent contacts by 1%. From 308 parents visiting the Parent Center in 2008, to 312 parents visiting this year.



Evaluation Tool

1 2. Maintain parental logs and activity reports. Assistant Principal and CIS

2. Principal 2. Tally Parental Involvement Monthly School and Activity Reports

2. Title I Administration Parental Involvement Monthly Activity Report



Increase parental participation in decision-making groups, such as Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA), and Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC).

school will increase PTA membership and increase the number of parents attending EESAC meetings by 1%.Froman average of one parent to at least two parents per meeting.



Evaluation Tool

1 3. Using Connect-ED messaging system and providing written notification to parents of meetings and monthly workshops.

3. Principal 3. Maintain activity notebook with fliers and attendance rosters

3. EESAC Attendance Roster




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

By June 2010, the school will increase the number of parent contacts by 1%.

Title I in Action: A Practioners Perspective!

Principals

On-going throughout the 2009-2010 school year.

Effectiveness will be determined by the completion of parent surveys.

Selected school staff identified by the Principal; Office of Community Services and the Office of Program Evaluation.

In grade 5, 50% of fifth grade students will score at Level 3 or above on the 2010 Science FCAT Test.

Math & Science Family Night

Selected Teachers and Administrators October 2009

Monitor monthly assessments and feedback from parents and teachers.

Administrators and CIS

In grades 3-5, 72% of students will achieve mastery of the 2010 FCAT Reading Test.

Family Literacy Night

Reading Coach, Media Specialist, and Administrators

November 2009



In grades 3-5, 74% of students will achieve mastery of the 2010 FCAT Mathematics Test.

FCAT/SAT Parent Night

Selected Teachers, Reading Coach, and Administrators

December 2009



Budget:



Parental Workshops/Conferences Title I $280.00

Math & Science Family Nights Title I $280.00

Total: $560.00

Technology


Literacy Family Night - Instructional Software (Ticket-to-Read, SuccessMaker, FCAT Explorer)

Title I $280.00

Total: $280.00




Total: $0.00

Other


SAT/FCAT Family Night Title I $280.00

Total: $280.00


End of Parent Involvement Goal

Other Goals

Decrease Suspenison Rate Goal:



During the 2008-2009 school year, 31 students were given an outdoor suspension. This represents a decrease of 3 students from 2007-2008.

By June 2010, the school will decrease the number of students receiving outdoor suspension by 5%.



Evaluation Tool

1

1. Provide teachers with professional development on Effective Classroom Management

1. Administrators and Guidance Counselor

1. On a monthly basis, collect and analyze suspension data

1. Frequency count of outdoor suspension days of students

22. Implement daily or weekly progress reports on at-risk students.

2. Guidance Counselor 2. Improvement of academics and/or behavior of students

2. Weekly or Daily Progress Reports

33. Provide individual and group counseling sessions to at-risk students.

3. Guidance Counselor 3. Improvement of academics and/or behavior of students

3. Weekly or Daily Progress Reports




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

During the 2008-2009 school year, 31 students were given outdoor suspension. This represents a decrease of 3 students from 2007-2008.

Effective Classroom Management

Guidance Counselor

October 2009

Classroom Visits Review of Suspension data

Administrators & Guidance Counselor

Budget:




Total: $0.00

Technology



Total: $0.00




Total: $0.00

Other



Total: $0.00

Final Total: $0.00

End of Decrease Suspenison Rate Goal

Improve School Readiness of Primary Students Goal:



Based on Beginning of the Year DIBELS data, over 50% of the kindergarten students scored Intensive or Strategic.

Improving School Readiness of primary students



Evaluation Tool

11. Provide professional development in Reading Differentiated Instruction

1. Reading Coach

1. Review FAIR data reports to ensure teachers are assessing students according to the created schedule.

1. Printout of FAIR assessments

2

2. Tier 2: Provide supplementary instruction/intervention for students not responding to core instruction.

2. Reading Coach

2. Student progress is assessed using FAIR OPM every 20 days for students receiving Tier 2 supplemental instruction.

2. FAIR OPM data will be used to determine progress from Benchmark 1 towards Benchmark 2 and from Benchmark 2 towards Benchmark 3.




Person Responsible

for Monitoring

Based on Beginning of the Year DIBELS data, over 50% of the kindergarten students scored Intensive or Strategic.

Reading Differentiated Instruction

Reading Coach

September 2009

Classroom Visits Review of FAIR data

Administrators & Reading Coach

Budget:




Total: $0.00

Technology



Total: $0.00




Total: $0.00

Other



Total: $0.00

Final Total: $0.00

End of Improve School Readiness of Primary Students Goal

FINAL BUDGET

Differentiated Accountability

School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance

Show Attached school’s Differentiated Accountability Checklist of Compliance

School Advisory Council


Goal Description of Resources Funding Source Available Amount

Reading

CARS (Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Strategies) & STARS (Strategies To Achieve Reading Success) Series

EESAC Funds $3,500.00

Mathematics On-Target Supplemental Material Title I $3,500.00

Science NASA SEMAA Curriculum Federal Grant $500.00

Parental Involvement Parental Workshops/Conferences Title I $280.00

Parental Involvement Math & Science Family Nights Title I $280.00

Total: $8,060.00

Technology


Reading Smart Boards I Choose - Magnet $2,108.47

Mathematics Smart Boards I Choose - Magnet $2,108.47

Science Software - Leap Frog District Funds - Advanced Academics $500.00

Parental InvolvementLiteracy Family Night - Instructional Software (Ticket-to-Read, SuccessMaker, FCAT Explorer)

Title I $280.00

Total: $4,996.94



Reading

Development of Reading and Language Arts Instructional Focus Calendar – Stipends for Summer Development

I Choose – Magnet $4,000.00

Reading Temporary Coverage for Professional Development Title I & District Funds $500.00

Mathematics Temporary Coverage for Professional Development Title I & District Funds $500.00

Writing Temporary Coverage for Professional Development Title I & District Funds $500.00

Science Temporary Coverage for Professional Development Titel I & District Funds $500.00

Total: $6,000.00

Other


Reading Paraprofessional District Funds $25,603.00

Reading Hourly Teachers Title I $7,200.00

Writing Writing Supplies District $500.00

Science Academic Excellence Program (AEP) Teacher District Funds - Advanced Academics $3,479.00

Parental Involvement SAT/FCAT Family Night Title I $280.00

Total: $37,062.00


Intervenenmlkj Correct IInmlkj Prevent IInmlkj Correct Inmlkji Prevent Inmlkj NAnmlkj

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.

Measures Being Taken to Comply with SAC Requirement

No. Disagree with the above statement.

Projected use of SAC Funds Amount

Student of the Month T-Shirts 1500

Instructional Software & Hardware 2000

Describe the Activities of the School Advisory Council for the Upcoming Year

SAC Members

Members

1) Cathy M. Williams, Principal

2) Patrick Jones, SAC Chair

3) Kiana Reaves, Student

4) Leanne Carol, Teacher

5) Veronica de los Rios, Teacher

6) Jia Tyson, Teacher

7) Wendol Philord, Teacher

8) Gregory Monk, Parent

9) Zelda Calvin, Parent

10) Brandon Humphrey, Parent

11) Denise Jackson, Parent

12) Juanita Buggs, Community Member

13) Alberta Godfrey, Community Member

14) April Jefferson, School Support Personnel

15) Craig Uptgrow, Union Steward

AYP DATA

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Dade CHARLES R DREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1401

Number of students enrolled in the grades tested:

Click here to see Number of students in each groupRead: 218Math: 218

2008-2009 School Grade1:

B Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

NO

This section shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP (Parts a and c2). This section shows the improvement for each group used to determine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2).

This section shows the percent of students "on track" to be proficient used to determine AYP via the growth model.

GroupReadingTested 95% of the students?

MathTested 95% of the students?

65% scoring at or above grade level in Reading?

68% scoring at or above grade level in Math?

Improved performance in Writing by 1%?

Increased Graduation Rate3by 1%?

Percent of Students below grade level in Reading

SafeHarborReading

Percent of Students below grade level in Math

SafeHarborMath

% of students on track to be proficient in reading

Growth model reading

% of students on track to be proficient in math

Growth model math

2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2008 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N 2009 Y/N

TOTAL4 100 Y 100 Y 52 N 64 N 90 94 Y NA 45 48 N 39 36 N 57 N 66 N

WHITE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BLACK 100 Y 100 Y 51 N 64 N 90 94 Y NA 45 49 N 40 36 Y 57 N 65 NA

HISPANIC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ASIAN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AMERICAN INDIAN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 100 Y 100 Y 50 N 63 N 89 93 Y NA 46 50 N 40 37 N 55 N 65 N

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA





C Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

NO










SafeHarborReading


SafeHarborMath




Growth model math


TOTAL4 100 Y 100 Y 55 N 61 N 90 Y NA 46 45 N 45 39 Y 56 N 61 NA


BLACK 100 Y 100 Y 55 N 60 N 90 Y NA 46 45 N 45 40 Y 56 N 60 NA




ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 100 Y 100 Y 54 N 60 N 89 N NA 47 46 N 45 40 N 54 N 61 N


STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 100 Y 100 Y NA NA NA NA NA NA





C Did the School make Adequate Yearly Progress?

NO










SafeHarborReading


SafeHarborMath




Growth model math


TOTAL4 100 Y 100 Y 54 Y 55 N 88 Y NA 52 52 NA 44 45 N 55 NA 56 Y


BLACK 100 Y 100 Y 54 Y 55 N 87 Y NA 53 52 NA 44 45 N 54 NA 56 Y




ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 100 Y 100 Y 53 Y 55 N 87 Y NA 51 53 NA 44 45 N 53 NA 55 N


STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 98 Y 98 Y NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dade School DistrictCHARLES R DREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL2008-2009

Reading

Math

Writing

Science

GradePointsEarned

% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level 3 and Above)

56% 67% 68% 42% 233

Writing and Science: Takes into account the % scoring 3.5 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3 and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.

% of Students Making Learning Gains

62% 66% 128

3 ways to make gains:● Improve FCAT Levels● Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5● Improve more than one year within Level

1 or 2Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?

55% (YES) 82% (YES) 137

Adequate Progress based on gains of lowest 25% of students in reading and math. Yes, if 50% or more make gains in both reading and math.

Points Earned 498 Percent Tested = 100% Percent of eligible students tested

School Grade B Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


Reading

Math

Writing

Science

GradePointsEarned


60% 66% 68% 32% 226



51% 62% 113

3 ways to make gains:● Improve FCAT Levels● Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5● Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2

Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?

55% (YES) 66% (YES) 121



School Grade C Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested


Reading

Math

Writing

Science

GradePointsEarned


59% 60% 78% 23% 220



50% 55% 105

3 ways to make gains:● Improve FCAT Levels● Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5● Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2

Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in the School?

44% (NO) 72% (YES) 116



School Grade C Grade based on total points, adequate progress, and % of students tested

Documents

FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM 2009 – …osi.dadeschools.net/sip/09-10/pdf/1401.pdf · Community Blood Centers of South Florida, The Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign,