SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Transcription

1 Pam Stewart, Commissioner SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Lake Mary High School 655 LONGWOOD LAKE MARY RD Lake Mary, FL schoolinfopage.cfm?schoolnumber=0071 School Demographics School Type Title I Free and Reduced Lunch Rate High School No 40% Alternative/ESE Center Charter School Minority Rate No No 42% School Grades History PENDING B B A SIP Authority and Template Section (18), Florida Statutes (F.S.), requires district school boards to annually approve and require implementation of a school improvement plan (SIP) for each school in the district. The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) SIP template meets all statutory and rule requirements for traditional public schools and incorporates all components required for schools receiving Title I funds, as marked by citations to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of This template is required by State Board of Education Rule 6A , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), for all non-charter schools with a current grade of D or F, or with a grade of F within the prior two years. For all other schools, the district may use a template of its choosing. All districts must submit annual assurances that their plans meet statutory requirements. This document was prepared by school and district leadership using the FDOE's school improvement planning web application located at Sections marked N/A by the user and any performance data representing fewer than 10 students or educators have been excluded from this document.

2 Table of Contents Purpose and Outline of the SIP 3 Differentiated Accountability 4 Part I: Current School Status 5 Part II: Expected Improvements 15 Goals Summary 21 Goals Detail 21 Action Plan for Improvement 24 Part III: Coordination and Integration 30 Appendix 1: Professional Development Plan to Support Goals 31 Appendix 2: Budget to Support Goals 34 Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 2 of 36

3 Purpose and Outline of the SIP The SIP is intended to be the primary artifact used by every school with stakeholders to review data, set goals, create an action plan and monitor progress. A corollary at the district level is the District Improvement and Assistance Plan (DIAP), designed to help district leadership make the necessary connections between school and district goals in order to align resources. The Florida Department of Education encourages schools to use the SIP as a living document by continually updating, refining and using the plan to guide their work throughout the year. This printed version represents the SIP as of the Date Modified listed in the footer. Part I: Current School Status Part I summarizes school leadership, staff qualifications and strategies for recruiting, mentoring and retaining strong teachers. The school s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is described in detail to show how data is used by stakeholders to understand the needs of all students and allocate appropriate resources in proportion to those needs. The school also summarizes its efforts in a few specific areas, such as its use of increased learning time and strategies to support literacy, preschool transition and college and career readiness. Part II: Expected Improvements Part II outlines school performance data in the prior year and sets numeric targets for the coming year in ten areas: 1. Reading 2. Writing 3. Mathematics 4. Science 5. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 6. Career and Technical Education (CTE) 7. Social Studies 8. Early Warning Systems (EWS) 9. Parental Involvement 10. Other areas of concern to the school With this overview of the current state of the school in mind and the outcomes they hope to achieve, the planning team engages in an 8-Step Planning and Problem-Solving Process, through which they define and refine their goals (Step 1), identify and prioritize problems (barriers) keeping them from reaching those goals (Steps 2-3), design a plan to help them implement strategies to resolve those barriers (Steps 4-7), and determine how they will monitor progress toward each goal (Step 8). Part III: Coordination and Integration Part III is required for Title I schools and describes how federal, state and local funds are coordinated and integrated to ensure student needs are met. Appendix 1: Professional Development Plan to Support Goals Appendix 1 is the professional development plan, which outlines any training or support needed for stakeholders to meet the goals. Appendix 2: Budget to Support Goals Appendix 2 is the budget needed to implement the strategies identified in the plan. Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 3 of 36

4 Differentiated Accountability Florida s Differentiated Accountability (DA) system is a statewide network of strategic support, differentiated by need according to performance data, and provided to schools and districts in order to improve leadership capacity, teacher efficacy and student outcomes. DA field teams collaborate with district and school leadership to design, implement and refine school improvement plans, as well as provide instructional coaching, as needed. DA Regions Florida s DA network is divided into five geographical regions, each served by a field team led by a regional executive director (RED). DA Categories Traditional public schools are classified at the start of each school year, based upon the most recently released school grades (A-F), into one of the following categories: Not in DA currently A or B with no F in prior two years; all charter schools; all ungraded schools Monitoring Only currently A or B with at least one F in the prior two years Prevent currently C Focus currently D Year 1 declined to D, or first-time graded schools receiving a D Year 2 second consecutive D, or F followed by a D Year 3 or more third or more consecutive D, or F followed by second consecutive D Priority currently F Year 1 declined to F, or first-time graded schools receiving an F Year 2 or more second or more consecutive F DA Turnaround and Monitoring Statuses Additionally, schools in DA are subject to one or more of the following Turnaround and Monitoring Statuses: Former F currently A-D with at least one F in the prior two years. SIP is monitored by FDOE. Post-Priority Planning currently A-D with an F in the prior year. District is planning for possible turnaround. Planning Focus Year 2 and Priority Year 1. District is planning for possible turnaround. Implementing Focus Year 3 or more and Priority Year 2 or more. District is implementing the Turnaround Option Plan (TOP) DA Category and Statuses DA Category Region RED Not in DA N/A N/A Former F Post-Priority Planning Planning Implementing TOP No No No No Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 4 of 36

5 Current School Status School Information School-Level Information School Lake Mary High School Principal Michael Kotkin School Advisory Council chair Diane McElroy Names and position titles of the School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT) Name Mike Rice Colleen Windt Walt Morgan Vanessa Marshall Keith McAuley George Gordon Felicia Naidu Cindy Nelson Michael Kotkin Title Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Dean Dean School Administration Manager Principal District-Level Information District Seminole Superintendent Dr. Walt Griffin Date of school board approval of SIP 11/11/2013 School Advisory Council (SAC) This section meets the requirements of Section 1114(b)(1), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Membership of the SAC Erin Dehlinger, Faculty Member Kym Gaudreau, Faculty Member Michael Kotkin, Faculty Member Cindy Nelson, Faculty Member Mike Rice, Faculty Member Deborah Casillo, Faculty Member, Co-Chair Beatriz Andrekovich, Parent/Community Member Wendy Berghane, Parent/Community Member Pat Breeding, Parent/Community Member Maureen Canetti, Parent/Community Member Shoshana Cohen, Parent/Community Member Karen Durigan, Parent/Community Member Ellen Goldman, Parent/Community Member RT Hillery, Parent/Community Member Linda Izbicky, Parent/Community Member Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 5 of 36

6 Maxine Jones, Parent/Community Member Brenda Lanaris, Parent/Community Member Michelle Martini, Parent/Community Member Henry Matta, Parent/Community Member Tamara McKendrick, Parent/Community Member Louis Miscioscia, Parent/Community Member Peggy Mullen, Parent/Community Member Sophia Parpia, Parent/Community Member Tina Richardson, Parent/Community Member Cynthia Rothman, Parent/Community Member Cheryl Sherlock, Parent/Community Member Michelle Smith, Parent/Community Member Dianne McElroy, Parent/Community Member - Co-Chair Sierra Canetti, Student Body Member Sarah Gourlay, Student Body Member Fatema Jaffer, Student Body Member Jocelyn Ortiz, Student Body Member Frank Rapprich, Student Body Member Kristina Rapprich, Student Body Member Ashlyn Sanchez, Student Body Member Qurinus Joseph, Education Support Staff Involvement of the SAC in the development of the SIP The SAC has been informed from the very first meeting of the goals of Lake Mary High School for the School Year. In addition, in our September meeting, the School Improvement Plan was presented to them and they were provided with the opportunity to give feedback. Activities of the SAC for the upcoming school year Our SAC will meet regularly to discuss upcoming events, issues concerning the school, and to develop plans to lead the Academic Growth Program Initiative that they fund. Projected use of school improvement funds, including the amount allocated to each project The School Improvement Funds will be used to support the SAC Academic Growth Program Initiative. This program is designed to provide students in the Lower Quartile. Compliance with section , F.S., regarding the establishment duties of the SAC In Compliance If not in compliance, describe the measures being taken to comply with SAC requirements Highly Qualified Staff This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(C) and 1115(c)(1)(E), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Administrators # of administrators 7 # receiving effective rating or higher (not entered because basis is < 10) Administrator Information: Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 6 of 36

7 Michael Kotkin Principal Years as Administrator: 12 Years at Current School: 4 Credentials Bachelor of Science in Social Science Education / Minor in American History and Law Studies Masters of Education in Educational Leadership Performance Record Lake Mary High School was a B School during the School Year Lake Mary High School was a B School During the School Year Lake Mary High School was an A School During the School Year Mike Rice Asst Principal Years as Administrator: 3 Years at Current School: 4 Credentials Bachelors of Music Education Masters of Education in Educational Leadership Performance Record Lake Mary High School was a B School during the School Year Lake Mary High School was a B School During the School Year Lake Mary High School was an A School During the School Year Colleen Windt Asst Principal Years as Administrator: 2 Years at Current School: 2 Credentials Bachelors of Science - Biology Education Masters in Exercise Physiology Masters in Educational Leadership Performance Record Lake Mary High School was a B School during the School Year Sanford Middle School was a A School During the School Year Olympia High School was an A School During the School Year Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 7 of 36

8 Walt Morgan Asst Principal Years as Administrator: 17 Years at Current School: 18 Credentials Bachelor of Science in Biology Masters of Education in Secondary Science Education Specialist in Educational Admin/Supervision Performance Record Lake Mary High School was a B School during the School Year Lake Mary High School was a B School During the School Year Lake Mary High School was an A School During the School Year Keith McAuley Asst Principal Years as Administrator: 21 Years at Current School: 0 Credentials Bachelor of Arts Secondary Education Master of Education in Guidance Educational Specialist in Ed. Leadership Performance Record Lyman High School was a B School during the School Year Lyman High School was a B School during the School Year Lyman High School was a B School during the School Year Vanessa Marshall Asst Principal Years as Administrator: 10 Years at Current School: 0 Credentials Bachelor of Science in Health Information Management Master of Science in Educational Leadership Specialist in Educational Leadership Performance Record Prior to coming to Lake Mary High School, Mrs. Marshall was an Assistant Principal at Journey's Academy which does not receive a School Grade. Prior to Journey's, Mrs. Marshall was a District Level Administrator. Instructional Coaches # of instructional coaches 1 # receiving effective rating or higher (not entered because basis is < 10) Instructional Coach Information: Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 8 of 36

9 Tammy Stafford Full-time / School-based Areas Credentials Years as Coach: 3 Years at Current School: 1 Reading/Literacy, Data Bachelor of Science in Health Sciences Master of Education in Reading Education Doctor of Education in Education/Curriculum and Instruction Performance Record Lake Mary High School does not have a school grade yet for last year Classroom Teachers # of classroom teachers 151 # receiving effective rating or higher 0, 0% # Highly Qualified Teachers 95% # certified in-field 151, 100% # ESOL endorsed 15, 10% # reading endorsed 14, 9% # with advanced degrees 78, 52% # National Board Certified 14, 9% # first-year teachers 16, 11% # with 1-5 years of experience 40, 26% # with 6-14 years of experience 41, 27% # with 15 or more years of experience 54, 36% Education Paraprofessionals # of paraprofessionals 15 # Highly Qualified 15, 100% Other Instructional Personnel # of instructional personnel not captured in the sections above 0 # receiving effective rating or higher (not entered because basis is < 10) Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategies This section meets the requirements of Section 1114(b)(1)(E), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Strategies to recruit and retain highly qualified, certified-in-field, effective teachers to the school, including the person responsible Seminole County Public Schools is always looking for highly qualified, certified teachers to teach our students. The method of recruitment is defined based on the need. Seminole County Public Schools reputation of being an A school district brings to us thousands of highly qualified applicants. One of our recruitment strategies is our partnership with State and private colleges and universities. We Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 9 of 36

10 welcome university and college interns and field study students to our district not only from the State of Florida university system but also out of State. Annually our district participates in many university job fairs and minority and veteran job fairs. This year we have gone out of the United States and are bringing on board a few teachers from Spain to teach the dual language classes. The district supports all teachers but especially new teachers with mentoring programs. We also provide in-services and workshops. New teachers with zero years of experience are assigned a one on one mentor. This support is provided beyond the first year. Teacher Mentoring Program/Plan This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(D) and 1115(c)(1)(F), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Teacher mentoring program/plan, including the rationale for pairings and the planned mentoring activities Our school has a school-wide mentor who works with administration to coordinate all mentoring activities on our campus. This school-wide mentor was trained by our county s new teacher facilitator and given materials and agendas to support the new teachers during this calendar year. Before school began, our new teachers spent a day and a half with our school-wide mentor and were given a campus tour and oriented to important procedures and policies that will affect them as they begin the school year. Once school begins, these new teachers meet regularly with the mentor(s) who best fits their needs and follow an agenda of recommended topics that are appropriate for each teacher s given situation. Whether the new teacher is working with a school-wide mentor, peer teacher, or alternative certification mentor, he or she is working with an individual who has been trained by our county to support the teacher s various needs. Each of these mentor roles are fine-tuned each year based on the feedback from our new teachers the year before. In addition, all new teachers at Lake Mary High School go to a training once a week during Rams period. On a weekly basis, teachers are trained on everything from discipline to parent teacher conferences. They meet as a group and are given direction and support from Administrators, Guidance Counselors, and/or teachers. Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) / Response to Intervention (RtI) This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iv) and 1115(c)(1)(A)-(C), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Data-based problem-solving processes for the implementation and monitoring of MTSS and SIP structures to address effectiveness of core instruction, resource allocation (funding and staffing), teacher support systems, and small group and individual student needs The school has a core Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) problem solving team, comprised of members with expertise in academic and behavioral domains. The MTSS team utilizes the continuous problem solving process to identify students who are at-risk in academics and/or behavior and determines why the problem is occurring. The MTSS team designs and implements research-based interventions and regularly monitors student progress/response to interventions. The school utilizes the online MTSS module to document all interventions, meetings, and parent involvement in the process. Function and responsibility of each school-based leadership team member as related to MTSS and the SIP The general role of the problem-solving team is to focus on improving academic and behavioral outcomes for students. In order to accomplish this task, the problem solving team has certain responsibilities. The team meets continuously to review student performance data (academic and/or behavioral). When reviewing the data, it is important to identify any trends that may demonstrate an area of concern. Once an area is identified, the team develops a hypotheses as to why the problem is occurring. Once the focus has been narrowed, the team collaborates and develops action items based on available resources. The team meets regularly to assess progress and the adjustments that may be Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 10 of 36

11 necessary. It is the continuous problem solving, in relentless pursuit of successful outcomes for students. Effective leadership is a vital component for LMHS to be successful within the MTSS framework. Collaboration among administrators, content area specialist, data specialists, and other school and district staff represents an instructionally relevant team. Systems in place that the leadership team uses to monitor the fidelity of the school's MTSS and SIP The school has a core Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) problem solving team, comprised of members with expertise in academic and behavioral domains. The MTSS team utilizes the continuous problem solving process to identify students who are at-risk in academics and/or behavior and determines why the problem is occurring. The MTSS team designs and implements research-based interventions and regularly monitors student progress/response to interventions. The school utilizes the online MTSS module in EdInsight to document all interventions, meetings, and parent involvement in the process. The resources that are necessary to provide students with an opportunity to be successful are itemized in the SIP. Reading and Mathematics are content that cross all academic areas. Within PLC s, LMHS administration is able to delve deeper into Progress Monitor Assessments (PMA). The data that is revealed through PMA s is a critical component to determine next steps for teachers and students alike. The MTSS process is continuous and strives engage students in such a manner that positive academic and/or behavior goals are accomplished and sustained. Data source(s) and management system(s) used to access and analyze data to monitor the effectiveness of core, supplemental, and intensive supports in reading, mathematics, science, writing, and engagement LMHS uses common content assessments, standardized test (FCAT, EOC, etc.) performance scores. However, we delve deeper into assessments that monitor student progress through Discovery Education Assessments in Reading, Biology, and Mathematics. LMHS has a school-wide writing assessment in place. Plan to support understanding of MTSS and build capacity in data-based problem solving for staff and parents LMHS provides Professional Development to improve instructional decisions at every tier in order to maximize student outcomes. Parents will be involved throughout the problem-solving process. The parent is a member of their students MTSS process. During MTSS conferences, the team (which includes the parent) will engage in continuous problems solving to ensure that the student s success is achieved and maintained. Increased Learning Time/Extended Learning Opportunities This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II)-(III), 1114(b)(1)(I), and 1115(c)(1)(C)(i) and 1115(c)(2), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Research-based strategies the school uses to increase the amount and quality of learning time and help provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum: Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 11 of 36

12 Strategy: Weekend Program Minutes added to school year: 1,860 RAM Camp Strategy Purpose(s) Instruction in core academic subjects Enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education How is data collected and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of this strategy? Student learning gains on FCAT Reading Retakes, ACT, SAT, as compared to previous assessments. Who is responsible for monitoring implementation of this strategy? The implementation of RAM Camp is a collaborative effort with Guidance and Administration support. Strategy: Weekend Program Minutes added to school year: 840 PSAT Crash Course to prepare students in their quest to achieve National Merit Status Strategy Purpose(s) Instruction in core academic subjects How is data collected and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of this strategy? Once the PSAT Scores are released for the current years test, students are monitored for growth as a whole, then they are broken down into more specific areas of Critical Reading, Writing, and Math to monitor the programs strengths and weaknesses. Who is responsible for monitoring implementation of this strategy? Assistant Principal, Guidance Counselor, Teachers Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 12 of 36

13 Strategy: Summer Program Minutes added to school year: 1,135 AP Boost Camp - AP Biology and AP Human Geography Strategy Purpose(s) Instruction in core academic subjects Enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education Teacher collaboration, planning and professional development How is data collected and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of this strategy? AP Exam Scores will be collected at the end of the year and compared to previous years where the AP Boost Camp was not provided. In addition, we will compare students who attended the camp versus those who did not. Who is responsible for monitoring implementation of this strategy? Teacher of AP Classes, Administrator, SCPS Content Support Team Literacy Leadership Team (LLT) Names and position titles of the members of the school-based LLT Name Mike Rice Tammy Stafford Title Assistant Principal Instructional Coach How the school-based LLT functions The Literacy Leadership Team will be led by the Instructional Coach at Lake Mary High School. Meetings will be held monthly. Each department has a representative on the team and in each meeting, the team will discuss the progression of the Reading/Writing Plan. The team will also be asked to evaluate the growth of our school by continually dissecting the school data from Discovery Education Assessments, Writing Progress Monitors and other subject area assessments. Each team member will be responsible for disseminating this information back to their department and ensuring that the needs of each department are met on a monthly basis. Major initiatives of the LLT This year s major initiative of the Lake Mary High School Literacy Leadership Team will be to continue to incorporate Common Core Literacy Initiatives into every content area. We have developed a road-map that outlines the goals for each quarter that are visited often and are helping to guide on Professional Development plan for this year. Writing will continue to be a goal where the entire campus will respond to a prompt that will be graded by all teachers, regardless of their curricular area. Every Teacher Contributes to Reading Instruction How the school ensures every teacher contributes to the reading improvement of every student Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 13 of 36

14 Literacy is central to the life and success of any school. Our vision of literacy reaches beyond reading strategies to incorporate a broader approach that involves students in reading, speaking, writing and habits of thinking as they are practiced in specific disciplines of English language arts, history, math, science, and every content our students encounter. This emphasis on disciplinary knowledge paired with critical thinking skills allows the secondary teacher to give all students the opportunity to engage in sophisticated, challenging academic work. School leaders function as instructional leaders, helping the entire school community function as a community of practice, working in concert to study, develop, share, and learn from state-of-the-art methods for developing literacy skills and capacity. College and Career Readiness This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)-(cc), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). How the school incorporates applied and integrated courses to help students see the relationships between subjects and relevance to their future Teachers attend curriculum and career focused workshops and conferences to make their specific courses rigorous and relevant. Counselors work with students to help make the connection between their courses and post-secondary education and workforce readiness. Counselors provide opportunities and encourage student participation in PSAT, ACT, and ASVAB testing to further promote student awareness and preparation for their future endeavors. In addition, students who are enrolled in Career and Technical Education courses participate in Career and Professional Education (CAPE) Academies where they work in conjunction with another content area curriculum to develop and complete a cross-curricular project. How the school promotes academic and career planning, including advising on course selections, so that each student's course of study is personally meaningful Our Guidance Counselors meet regularly with students through a Credit Check process in which they analyze courses taken, set goals for future courses, and provide them with guidance on possible career paths. During our annual scheduling session in January, guidance counselors are available in the Media Center when their students register for classes. In addition, our guidance department offers a College Information Night, Financial Aid Night, Advanced Placement Information Night, 9th Grade Curriculum Night, and the Many Looks of College Night which all provide students with information on the many possibilities their future may hold. Strategies for improving student readiness for the public postsecondary level Based on information from the High School Feedback Report counselors work diligently with their students to help them choose course work appropriate to help them earn college ready test scores. We offer numerous programs throughout the year to inform students of their post-secondary options. LMHS offers a wide variety of academic and career education programs to prepare students for their life after high school. We also offer ongoing academic tutoring and test prep programs to help students achieve their post-secondary college goals. Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 14 of 36

15 Expected Improvements This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(A),(H), and (I), and 1115(c)(1)(A), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Area 1: Reading Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) - Students scoring at or above Achievement Level 3 on FCAT 2.0, or scoring at or above Level 4 on FAA Group 2013 Target % 2013 Actual % Target Met? 2014 Target % All Students 68% 65% No 72% American Indian Asian 92% 84% Yes 93% Black/African American 48% 34% No 53% Hispanic 60% 55% No 64% White 76% 75% No 78% English language learners 33% 8% No 40% Students with disabilities 48% 36% No 53% Economically disadvantaged 53% 45% No 58% Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0 (FCAT 2.0) 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Students scoring at Achievement Level % 25% Students scoring at or above Achievement Level % 43% Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 Students scoring at or above Level 7 Learning Gains 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % [data excluded for privacy reasons] [data excluded for privacy reasons] 2014 Target % 35% 23% Students making learning gains (FCAT 2.0 and FAA) Students in lowest 25% making learning gains (FCAT 2.0) 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % % 67% % 62% Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 15 of 36

16 Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA) Students scoring proficient in listening/speaking (students speak in English and understand spoken English at grade level in a manner similar to non- ELL students) Students scoring proficient in reading (students read grade-level text in English in a manner similar to non-ell students) Students scoring proficient in writing (students write in English at grade level in a manner similar to non-ell students) 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % 52 77% 80% 28 41% 44% 42 62% 65% Postsecondary Readiness On-time graduates scoring "college ready" on the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (P.E.R.T.) or any college placement test authorized under Rule 6A , F.A.C. Area 2: Writing 2012 Actual # 2012 Actual % [data excluded for privacy reasons] 2014 Target % 0% Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0 (FCAT 2.0) Students scoring at or above 3.5 Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) Students scoring at or above Level Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % % 66% [data excluded for privacy reasons] 75% Area 3: Mathematics High School Mathematics Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) - Students scoring at or above Achievement Level 3 on EOC assessments, or scoring at or above Level 4 on FAA Group 2013 Target % 2013 Actual % Target Met? 2014 Target % All Students 53% 70% Yes 58% American Indian Asian 95% 90% No 95% Black/African American 40% 48% Yes 46% Hispanic 49% 61% Yes 54% White 64% 77% Yes 68% English language learners 35% 41% Yes 42% Students with disabilities 45% 36% No 51% Economically disadvantaged 48% 55% Yes 53% Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 16 of 36

17 Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 Students scoring at or above Level 7 Learning Gains 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % [data excluded for privacy reasons] [data excluded for privacy reasons] 2014 Target % 33% 25% 2012 Actual # 2012 Actual % 2014 Target % Students making learning gains (EOC and FAA) % 68% Students in lowest 25% making learning gains (EOC) Postsecondary Readiness % 66% On-time graduates scoring "college ready" on the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (P.E.R.T.) or any college placement test authorized under Rule 6A , F.A.C Actual # 2012 Actual % 2014 Target % Algebra I End-of-Course (EOC) Assessment 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Students scoring at Achievement Level % 39% Students scoring at or above Achievement Level % 10% Geometry End-of-Course (EOC) Assessment 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Students scoring at Achievement Level % 37% Students scoring at or above Achievement Level % 32% Area 4: Science High School Science Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 Students scoring at or above Level Actual # 2013 Actual % [data excluded for privacy reasons] [data excluded for privacy reasons] 2014 Target % 47% 47% Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 17 of 36

18 Biology I End-of-Course (EOC) Assessment 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Students scoring at Achievement Level % 41% Students scoring at or above Achievement Level % 36% Area 5: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) All Levels # of STEM-related experiences provided for students (e.g. robotics competitions; field trips; science fairs) Participation in STEM-related experiences provided for students 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % 100% High Schools Students enrolling in one or more accelerated STEM-related courses Completion rate (%) for students enrolled in accelerated STEM-related courses Students taking one or more advanced placement exams for STEM-related courses CTE-STEM program concentrators Students taking CTE-STEM industry certification exams Passing rate (%) for students who take CTE- STEM industry certification exams 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % % 66% 81% 83% % 4% 75% 76% Area 6: Career and Technical Education (CTE) 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Students enrolling in one or more CTE courses % 49% Students who have completed one or more CTE courses who enroll in one or more accelerated courses Completion rate (%) for CTE students enrolled in accelerated courses Students taking CTE industry certification exams 52 3% 5% Passing rate (%) for students who take CTE industry certification exams CTE program concentrators CTE teachers holding appropriate industry certifications 75% 77% 4 80% 100% Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 18 of 36

19 Area 8: Early Warning Systems High School Indicators Students who miss 10 percent or more of available instructional time Students in ninth grade with one or more absences within the first 20 days Students in ninth grade who fail two or more courses in any subject 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % % 9% % 14% 93 15% 13% Students with grade point average less than % 9% Students who fail to progress on-time to tenth grade Students who receive two or more behavior referrals Students who receive one or more behavior referrals that leads to suspension, as defined in s (5), F.S. Graduation 21 17% 15% % 17% 199 8% 6% Students dropping out of school, as defined in s (9), F.S. Students graduating in 4 years, using criteria for the federal uniform graduation rate defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R (b) Academically at-risk students graduating in 4 years, as defined in Rule 6A , F.A.C. Students graduating in 5 years, using criteria defined at 34 C.F.R (b) 2012 Actual # 2012 Actual % 2014 Target % Area 9: Parent Involvement Title I Schools may use the Parent Involvement Plan to meet the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(F) and 1115(c)(1)(G), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). Parental involvement targets for the school Lake Mary High School utilizes the Skyward Family Access Portal with its families on a regular basis. It is important that we not only encourage parents to sign-up for this tool, but that we also encourage continual usage throughout the year. Specific Parental Involvement Targets Target 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Primary guardian logged into Skyward Parent Portal at least once during school year % 41% Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 19 of 36

20 Area 10: Additional Targets Additional targets for the school Specific Additional Targets Target 2013 Actual # 2013 Actual % 2014 Target % Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 20 of 36

21 Goals Summary G1. Teachers will implement effective teaching instruction aligned to standards that will integrate effective literacy practices into all classes. Goals Detail Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 21 of 36

22 G1. Teachers will implement effective teaching instruction aligned to standards that will integrate effective literacy practices into all classes. Targets Supported Reading (AMO's, FCAT2.0, FAA, Learning Gains, CELLA, Postsecondary Readiness) Writing Algebra 1 EOC Geometry EOC U.S. History EOC Science - Biology 1 EOC STEM STEM - All Levels STEM - High School EWS - Graduation Resources Available to Support the Goal PLC/Common Core Team Instructional Coach Common Core Standards Next Generation Sunshine State Standards Professional Development Budget for Department Retreats 14 Reading Endorsed Teachers Social Studies DBQ/Writing Trainer On Campus Wednesday Professional Development Opportunities School-Wide Writing Team Cross-Curricular Reading focus for Lower Quartile Students in Science and History Common Planning Time for Algebra, Geometry, English 9, English 10, Biology, & Reading Teachers Various Computer Programs that integrate Literacy Practices (USA Test Prep, Study Island, etc.) Targeted Barriers to Achieving the Goal Time for Teacher Collaboration outside of Common Plan and Wednesday PD Lack of Teacher knowledge across the board for Literacy Instruction Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 22 of 36

23 Plan to Monitor Progress Toward the Goal We will receive feedback from our Curriculum Leaders and Collaborative Improvement Team. Person or Persons Responsible Administrator who supervises Curriculum Leaders Target Dates or Schedule: Monthly Evidence of Completion: Adaptation of PD Calendar Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 23 of 36

24 Action Plan for Improvement Problem Solving Key G = Goal B = Barrier S = Strategy G1. Teachers will implement effective teaching instruction aligned to standards that will integrate effective literacy practices into all classes. G1.B1 Time for Teacher Collaboration outside of Common Plan and Wednesday PD G1.B1.S1 Develop a Professional Development Calendar that will allow for teachers to collaborate and learn strategies that will assist in literacy instruction. Action Step 1 Communicate the PD Calendar to all faculty members. Person or Persons Responsible PD Administrator Target Dates or Schedule Pre-Plan, Weekly Evidence of Completion s, Agenda's, PD Calendar for Semester Plan to Monitor Fidelity of Implementation of G1.B1.S1 PLC Meetings will be monitored weekly Person or Persons Responsible Administrators Target Dates or Schedule Weekly Evidence of Completion PLC Collaborative Summary Document Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 24 of 36

25 Plan to Monitor Effectiveness of G1.B1.S1 A survey will be created and sent to teachers to get their feedback on the PD Calendar. Person or Persons Responsible Administrators Target Dates or Schedule May 2014, monthly basis Evidence of Completion Results of Survey, Adaptation of Calendar G1.B1.S2 Design and implement ongoing support for teachers through structured Retreats. Action Step 1 Teachers will be given a full day of planning without students where they can discuss ways to integrate Literacy into their Curriculum. Person or Persons Responsible Teachers, Curriculum Leaders, Instructional Coach Target Dates or Schedule September 3, 2013 Evidence of Completion At the end of the planning day, a summary of the day's planning will be completed and submitted to their Assistant Principal. Facilitator: Curriculum Leader, Administrator, Instructional Coach Participants: PLC Members (Teachers) Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 25 of 36

26 Plan to Monitor Fidelity of Implementation of G1.B1.S2 An agenda will be created to structure the retreat and a summary will be completed to capture the days planning and the future steps. Person or Persons Responsible PLC Leader Target Dates or Schedule Day of Retreat Evidence of Completion Agenda, Retreat Summary Plan to Monitor Effectiveness of G1.B1.S2 Summaries of all Retreats will be analyzed. Person or Persons Responsible Administrators Target Dates or Schedule Ongoing Evidence of Completion Classroom Walk-through Data, Testing Data Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 26 of 36

27 G1.B2 Lack of Teacher knowledge across the board for Literacy Instruction G1.B2.S1 Train teachers on how to assign writing assignments that require students to support their writing with textual evidence. Action Step 1 Implement a training program to assist teachers with the integration of writing into their curriculum. Person or Persons Responsible Writing Team, Administration, SCPS Content Support Team Target Dates or Schedule Pre-Plan, Ongoing Evidence of Completion PD Calendar, Pre-Plan Calendar Facilitator: Writing Team, SCPS Content Support Team Participants: All Teachers Plan to Monitor Fidelity of Implementation of G1.B2.S1 Monitor PLC Meetings and Lesson Plans Person or Persons Responsible Administrators Target Dates or Schedule Ongoing Evidence of Completion PLC Collaborative Meeting Summary, Lesson Plans, Academic Notebook Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 27 of 36

28 Plan to Monitor Effectiveness of G1.B2.S1 Students will take multiple (4) school-wide writing assessments to measure their writing proficiency. Person or Persons Responsible Teachers & Administrators Target Dates or Schedule October 2013, November 2013, January 2014, & March 2014 Evidence of Completion Writing Prompts & Rubrics G1.B2.S2 Implement Literacy Instruction Models such as Collaborative Instructional Sequence (CIS) in Science, Data Based Questioning (DBQ) in Social Studies, and Literacy Design Collaboration (LDC) in English. Action Step 1 Monitor the effectiveness of the instructional model in the classroom Person or Persons Responsible Administrator, Instructional Coach, Teachers Target Dates or Schedule Ongoing Evidence of Completion Student Data, Walk-Through Data, PLC Minutes Plan to Monitor Fidelity of Implementation of G1.B2.S2 Walk-through while the Literacy Instructional Model is implemented in the classroom. Person or Persons Responsible Administration Target Dates or Schedule Quarterly Evidence of Completion PLC Meeting Agenda, Walk-through Data Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 28 of 36

29 Plan to Monitor Effectiveness of G1.B2.S2 Student growth data will be analyzed. Person or Persons Responsible Administrators Target Dates or Schedule September 2013, December 2013 & January 2014 Evidence of Completion Progress Monitor (PMA) Data, Unit Assessments at the completion of the model. Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 29 of 36

30 Coordination and Integration This section meets the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(J) and 1115(c)(1)(H), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b). How federal, state, and local funds, services, and programs are coordinated and integrated at the school Lake Mary High School will coordinate Supplemental Academic Instruction and Exceptional Student Education funds to provide additional academic tutorial and/or intervention time for students in need of remediation. These funding sources are coordinated to maximize the number of students and the amount of services available for academic interventions. In addition, the school district coordinates IDEA funds to provide our school additional paraprofessionals that facilitate small group instruction during the school day. The coordination and integration of these funds and services ensure students are provided the time and support needed to master the standards and improve academic achievement. Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 30 of 36

31 Appendix 1: Professional Development Plan to Support School Improvement Goals This section will satisfy the requirements of Sections 1114(b)(1)(D) and 1115(c)(1)(F), P.L , NCLB, codified at 20 U.S.C. 6314(b), by demonstrating high-quality and ongoing professional development for teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals and, if appropriate, for pupil services personnel, parents, and other staff is being offered to enable all children in the school to meet the State's student academic achievement standards. Professional development opportunities identified in the SIP as action steps to achieve the school's goals. G1. Teachers will implement effective teaching instruction aligned to standards that will integrate effective literacy practices into all classes. G1.B1 Time for Teacher Collaboration outside of Common Plan and Wednesday PD G1.B1.S1 Develop a Professional Development Calendar that will allow for teachers to collaborate and learn strategies that will assist in literacy instruction. PD Opportunity 1 A calendar of Professional Development activities will be created containing trainings on Literacy Instruction. Facilitator Instructional Coach, SCPS Content Support Team, LMHS Writing Team, Administrators Participants All Teachers Target Dates or Schedule July 25, 2013 Evidence of Completion Professional Development Calendar, Agenda's & Learning Logs from Teachers Involved, Classroom Walk-through Data, Students Test Scores in Reading & Writing, & Lesson Plans. Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 31 of 36

32 G1.B1.S2 Design and implement ongoing support for teachers through structured Retreats. PD Opportunity 1 Teachers will be given a full day of planning without students where they can discuss ways to integrate Literacy into their Curriculum. Facilitator Curriculum Leader, Administrator, Instructional Coach Participants PLC Members (Teachers) Target Dates or Schedule September 3, 2013 Evidence of Completion At the end of the planning day, a summary of the day's planning will be completed and submitted to their Assistant Principal. G1.B2 Lack of Teacher knowledge across the board for Literacy Instruction G1.B2.S1 Train teachers on how to assign writing assignments that require students to support their writing with textual evidence. PD Opportunity 1 Implement a training program to assist teachers with the integration of writing into their curriculum. Facilitator Writing Team, SCPS Content Support Team Participants All Teachers Target Dates or Schedule Pre-Plan, Ongoing Evidence of Completion PD Calendar, Pre-Plan Calendar Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 32 of 36

33 G1.B2.S2 Implement Literacy Instruction Models such as Collaborative Instructional Sequence (CIS) in Science, Data Based Questioning (DBQ) in Social Studies, and Literacy Design Collaboration (LDC) in English. PD Opportunity 1 Send Teachers to DBQ, CIS, & LDC Training. Facilitator Instructional Coach, SCPS Content Support Team Participants Science, English, Social Studies, & Reading Teachers Target Dates or Schedule Summer & Fall 2013 Evidence of Completion Agendas, Materials from Training, Sign-in Sheets Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 33 of 36

34 Appendix 2: Budget to Support School Improvement Goals Budget Summary by Goal Goal Description Total Total $0 Budget Summary by Funding Source and Resource Type Funding Source Evidence-Based Program Total $0 $0 Total $0 $0 Budget Details Budget items identified in the SIP as necessary to achieve the school's goals. G1. Teachers will implement effective teaching instruction aligned to standards that will integrate effective literacy practices into all classes. G1.B1 Time for Teacher Collaboration outside of Common Plan and Wednesday PD G1.B1.S1 Develop a Professional Development Calendar that will allow for teachers to collaborate and learn strategies that will assist in literacy instruction. Action Step 2 A calendar of Professional Development activities will be created containing trainings on Literacy Instruction. Resource Type Evidence-Based Program Resource Funding Source Amount Needed Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 34 of 36

35 G1.B1.S2 Design and implement ongoing support for teachers through structured Retreats. Action Step 1 Teachers will be given a full day of planning without students where they can discuss ways to integrate Literacy into their Curriculum. Resource Type Evidence-Based Program Resource Funding Source Amount Needed G1.B2 Lack of Teacher knowledge across the board for Literacy Instruction G1.B2.S1 Train teachers on how to assign writing assignments that require students to support their writing with textual evidence. Action Step 1 Implement a training program to assist teachers with the integration of writing into their curriculum. Resource Type Evidence-Based Program Resource Funding Source Amount Needed Last Modified: 12/11/ Page 35 of 36