Polk County Public Schools Socrum Elementary School

[Pages:15]Polk County Public Schools

Socrum Elementary School

2018-19 School Improvement Plan

Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

Table of Contents

Purpose and Outline of the SIP

3

School Information

4

Needs Assessment

6

Planning for Improvement

9

Title I Requirements

13

Budget to Support Goals

15

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 2



Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

Socrum Elementary School

9400 OLD DADE CITY RD, Lakeland, FL 33810



School Demographics

School Type and Grades Served (per MSID File)

Elementary School PK-5

2018-19 Title I School Yes

2018-19 Economically Disadvantaged (FRL) Rate (As Reported on Survey 3)

98%

Primary Service Type (per MSID File)

K-12 General Education

Charter School No

2018-19 Minority Rate (Reported as Non-white

on Survey 2)

44%

School Grades History

Year Grade

2017-18 C

2016-17 C

2015-16 F

2014-15 D*

School Board Approval

This plan is pending approval by the Polk County School Board.

SIP Authority

Section 1001.42(18), Florida Statutes, requires district school boards to annually approve and require implementation of a school improvement plan (SIP) for each school in the district that has a school grade of D or F.

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. This template is required by State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.099811, Florida Administrative Code, for all noncharter schools with a current grade of D or F (see page 4). For schools receiving a grade of A, B, or C, the district may opt to require a SIP using a template of its choosing. This document was prepared by school and district leadership using the FDOE's school improvement planning web application located at .

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. 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.

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 3



Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

Part I: School Information

School Mission and Vision

Provide the school's mission statement

The mission is to prepare students for middle school by providing a safe and engaging environment focused on standard-based instruction, using high-yield strategies, and fostering positive relationships.

Provide the school's vision statement

All students will learn by improving in literacy, numeracy, inquiry and social skills through a collaborative effort of all stakeholders having a growth-mindset and shared belief of learning for all whatever it takes.

School Leadership Team

Membership Identify the name, email address and position title for each member of the school leadership team.:

Feacher, Kenyetta Rutledge, Kathryn Blake, Kayla DiMarco, Jessica MacBlane, Joette Ramos, Robin

Name

Principal Instructional Coach Teacher, K-12 Instructional Coach Instructional Media Instructional Coach

Title

Duties

Describe the roles and responsibilities of the members, including how they serve as instructional leaders and practice shared decision making

Kenyetta Feacher, Principal: Provide a vision and mission for the use of ensuring collaborative planning for instruction is consistent, use progress monitoring tool setting the school-wide level of student performance target of 50% for reading and 60% for math. The principal first role is to serve as an instructional leader. Using the progress-monitoring tool along with other data to retain professional development, financial allocations, resources for intervention, and support to increase student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Ensure the environment is safe and optimal for teaching and learning. Jessica DiMarco, Assistant Principal: Is an instructional leader. She drives the principal's mission and vision is implemented throughout the school. The assistant principal monitors the learning environment by addressing discipline, scheduling and in the learning environment to ensure the school is safe and it is an environment where students learning is not impeding by violation of the Code of Conduct. Works with key members to ensure the environment is conducive to optimal learning. School Counselor: Monitors and Intervene for student services using MTSS process, student-welfare, and teacher need for support, and family-based needs. Communicates with child-serving community agencies to support the students' academic emotional, behavior and social success. Ensures all students are receiving optimal service in order to be successful at school. Kathryn Rutledge, Reading Coach: Support teachers in modeling effective strategies in classroom instruction, collaboratively plans ELA, and supports with English language arts tools, resources, data collection, data analysis, and ensures teachers are delivering effective instruction as well as using

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 4



Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

data to support students. Coaching support for teachers to increase student learning gains and the number of students being proficient on Florida Standards in English language arts. To continue to incorporate moving toward complexity and rigor using Marzano's strategies. Robin Ramos, Math Coach: Support teachers in modeling effective strategies in classroom instruction, collaboratively plans math, and supports with math tools, resources, data collection, data analysis, and ensures teachers are delivering effective instruction as well as using data to support students. Coaching support for teachers to increase student learning gains and the number of students being proficient on Florida Standards in math. To continue to incorporate moving toward complexity and rigor using Marzano's strategies

?The team meets weekly to with an organizational and instructional focus. Student Success Team meet monthly to problem-solve using school-wide early warning systems. ?The team focus on evaluating effectiveness of existing academic and behavioral programs, student gains by grade level, teacher implementation of scientific based strategies, and make recommendations for implementation of new programs. ?School-based team to adjust, monitor and revise the SIP during the school year stay on track for meeting school-wide goals.

Early Warning Systems

Year 2017-18

The number of students by grade level that exhibit each early warning indicator:

Indicator

Attendance below 90 percent One or more suspensions Course failure in ELA or Math Level 1 on statewide assessment

Grade Level Total

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 17 8 15 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 1 10 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 9 16 7 40 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 36 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58

The number of students identified by the system as exhibiting two or more early warning indicators:

Indicator Students exhibiting two or more indicators

K123

4

Grade Level 5 678

9

10

11

12

Total

0 5 6 4 31 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62

The number of students identified as retainees:

Indicator

Retained Students: Current Year Retained Students: Previous Year(s)

Grade Level Total

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 2 7 4 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53

Date this data was collected Wednesday 7/25/2018

Year 2016-17 - As Reported

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 5



Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

The number of students by grade level that exhibit each early warning indicator:

Indicator

Attendance below 90 percent One or more suspensions Course failure in ELA or Math Level 1 on statewide assessment

Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total 17 16 13 11 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 9 13 8 9 49 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 5 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 30 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89

The number of students identified by the system as exhibiting two or more early warning indicators:

Indicator Students exhibiting two or more indicators

Grade Level Total

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0 0 12 16 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72

Year 2016-17 - Updated

The number of students by grade level that exhibit each early warning indicator:

Indicator

Attendance below 90 percent One or more suspensions Course failure in ELA or Math Level 1 on statewide assessment

Grade Level Total

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 16 13 11 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 9 13 8 9 49 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 5 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 30 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89

The number of students identified by the system as exhibiting two or more early warning indicators:

Indicator Students exhibiting two or more indicators

Grade Level Total

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0 0 12 16 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72

Part II: Needs Assessment/Analysis

Assessment & Analysis Consider the following reflection prompts as you examine any/all relevant school data sources, including those in CIMS in the pages that follow.

Which data component performed the lowest? Is this a trend?

Data performance that performed the lowest was ELA Proficiency and Math Bottom Quartile. This is a consistent trend for ELA of not being 50% or above in this area. Math Bottom Quartile cannot be identified as a trend this year. 3rd grade students in ELA going to 4th grade dropped 10% in proficiency; In addition grade 4 bottom quartile had the biggest gap in performance scoring 46% below the other two grade levels; Math Bottom Quartile was the lowest in 4th grade (30%) and lowest in 5th grade (28%).

Which data component showed the greatest decline from prior year?

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 6



Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

Math bottom quartile showed the biggest decline from the prior year. This component declined 17% from prior year.

Which data component had the biggest gap when compared to the state average?

ELA proficiency had the biggest gap when compared to the state average. It is over a 20% gap in the number of students scoring Level 3 and above.

Which data component showed the most improvement? Is this a trend?

The most improved was math proficiency. The trend shows each year math proficiency improved 11%. ELA bottom quartile gains show a steady increase using trend data.

Describe the actions or changes that led to the improvement in this area

The actions that led to improvement was the implementation of Tiered tasks, departmentalizing/teaming, the coaches consistently planning and feedback with teachers through formative assessments.

School Data Please note that the district and state averages shown here represent the averages for similar school types (elementary, middle, high school, or combination schools).

School Grade Component

ELA Achievement ELA Learning Gains ELA Lowest 25th Percentile Math Achievement Math Learning Gains Math Lowest 25th Percentile Science Achievement

School 41% 51% 59% 55% 69% 38% 42%

2018 District

50% 51% 45% 58% 56% 44% 53%

State 56% 55% 48% 62% 59% 47% 55%

School 41% 50% 50% 44% 48% 41% 37%

2017 District

51% 53% 50% 58% 57% 49% 46%

State 55% 57% 52% 61% 61% 51% 51%

EWS Indicators as Input Earlier in the Survey

Indicator

Attendance below 90 percent One or more suspensions Course failure in ELA or Math Level 1 on statewide assessment

K 0 (17) 0 (9) 0 (5) 0 (0)

Grade Level (prior year reported)

1

2

3

4

5

17 (16) 8 (13) 15 (11) 19 (9) 13 (15)

1 (13) 10 (8) 2 (9) 2 (49) 5 (24)

9 (4) 16 (0) 7 (12) 40 (0) 19 (0)

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (15) 36 (30) 22 (44)

Total

72 (81) 20 (112) 91 (21) 58 (89)

Grade Level Data NOTE: This data is raw data and includes ALL students who tested at the school. This is not school grade data.

Grade 03

Year

2018 2017

ELA

School District

39% 59%

51% 53%

SchoolDistrict Comparison

-12%

6%

State

57% 58%

SchoolState

Comparison

-18%

1%

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 7



Polk - 1901 - Socrum Elementary School - 2018-19 SIP Socrum Elementary School

Grade

Year

Same Grade Comparison

Cohort Comparison

04

2018

2017

Same Grade Comparison

Cohort Comparison

05

2018

2017

Same Grade Comparison

Cohort Comparison

ELA

School District

-20%

47% 28% 19% -12% 32% 32% 0% 4%

48% 51%

50% 44%

SchoolDistrict Comparison

-1% -23%

-18% -12%

State

56% 56%

55% 53%

Grade

Year

03

2018

2017

Same Grade Comparison

Cohort Comparison

04

2018

2017

Same Grade Comparison

Cohort Comparison

05

2018

2017

Same Grade Comparison

Cohort Comparison

MATH

School District

55% 58% -3%

56% 58%

69% 35% 34% 11% 41% 34% 7% 6%

57% 60%

56% 47%

SchoolDistrict Comparison

-1%

0%

State

62% 62%

12% -25%

62% 64%

-15% -13%

61% 57%

SchoolState

Comparison

-9% -28%

-23% -21%

SchoolState

Comparison -7% -4%

7% -29%

-20% -23%

Subgroup Data

Subgroups

ELA Ach.

WHT

45

BLK

29

HSP

35

SWD

13

FRL

38

ELL

21

2018 SCHOOL GRADE COMPONENTS BY SUBGROUPS

ELA LG

ELA LG L25%

Math Ach.

Math LG

Math LG L25%

Sci Ach.

SS Ach.

MS Accel.

54 71

64

72

36

53

46 44

35

62

44

21

48

44

64

36

39 50

22

45

32

53 67

51

68

39

37

47

46

63

Grad C & C Rate Accel 2016-17 2016-17

Subgroups

ELA Ach.

WHT

45

2017 SCHOOL GRADE COMPONENTS BY SUBGROUPS

ELA LG

ELA LG L25%

Math Ach.

Math LG

Math LG L25%

Sci Ach.

SS Ach.

MS Accel.

53 45

52

54

52

44

Grad C & C Rate Accel 2015-16 2015-16

Last Modified: 10/4/2018

Page 8



 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download