School Year

Data Analysis - Needs Assessment

PatternELAMathScienceSocial Studies
What trends emerge across grade levels, subgroups, and core content areas?
Growth in all groups PM1 to PM3. Decline for Grade 9 23 vs 24(-6%). Decline for Grade 10 ESE 23 vs 24 (-2%).
Alg.: Growth in all groups 23 vs 24. +17% overall!! Geo.: Growth in all groups 23 vs 24. +39% ELL!!
Bio.: No change overall 23 vs 24 (). ELL & ESE slight decline.
Slight increase overall 23 vs 24 (+2). ESE +7 ELL+23
Which data component showed the most improvement? What new actions did your school take in this area?
Grade 9 ELA PM1 to PM3 (+16% & +19%): Individual student data self-tracking & chats on strand performance on PMs and remediation with Reading Program. ELL Subgroup: Students scheduled with specific teachers in ELA (Rodriguez/Schumacher/Smith-Webbe). We also made it a point of focus from the very beginning of the school year with targeted professional development.
Which data component showed the lowest performance? Explain the contributing factor(s) to last year's low performance and discuss any trends.
Grade 9 ELA Proficiency (-11% Comparative Gains): Significant increase in ELL population. We continually met with teachers on strategies. We will focus on providing more training for non-ELA classes as well.
Which data component showed the greatest decline from the prior year? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this decline.
Grade 9 ELA Proficiency (-6% 23 vs 24):
Which data component had the greatest gap when compared to the state average? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this gap and any trends. State data can be found here.
ELA 9 (+7) / ELA 10 (+12); ALG (-8) / GEO (+12); BIO (+6); US Hist (+14) ALG 1 at grade level was furthest behind state. We improved 17% overall. Two new/young teachers.
Rank your highest priorities (maximum of 5) for school improvement in the upcoming school year.
1. Improving instructional strategies for meeting accommodations for ESE & ELL students. 2. Reading, writing, speaking in the content areas. 3. Small group targeted instruction (Helping Students Process New Content). 4. Increased use of questions beyond the base level (Helping Students Elaborate). 5. Engagement for “all students”.

SIP - Areas of Focus

To graduate students with college and career readiness skills. The comprehensive range of core and elective courses along with our extensive extracurricular activities assists students to become independent, self-sufficient like long learners who contribute responsible to a global community.
To provide a safe learning environment in which all students have the opportunity to receive the highest quality education to facilitate future academic and career success.
increase overall ELA proficiency from 66% to 69% by PM3.
(View Marzano Model)
Using questions to help students elaborate on content.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
-Focus on better DOK, critical thinking questions during PLCs; open-ended
Person Responsible:
Classroom teachers, PLC groups, Admin, Literacy Coach
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
- Lesson plans - PLC meeting notes - Quarterly Project Based Learning -Monitored during FTEM obsevations
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
-Having students discuss and use written response to demonstrate deeper understanding and critical thinking.
Person Responsible:
Classroom teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
-Lesson Plans -FTEM Observations
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
Increase math proficiency by 3%, 62%-69%
(View Marzano Model)
Helping students process new content
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Lesson planning to include strategies to group students to process new content.
Person Responsible:
Algebra and Geometry Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Gradebook grades, QB's, and EOC.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Vocabulary ELL strategies in the classroom
Person Responsible:
Classroom teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Increase proficiency from Bench mark 1 to bench mark 2
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
Increase of Biology proficiency by 3%, 77%-80%
(View Marzano Model)
Using questions to help students elaborate on content.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Focus on better DOK, critical thinking questions during PLCs; open-ended
Person Responsible:
Classroom Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Lesson plans - PLC meeting notes - Quarterly Project Based Learning -Monitored during FTEM observations
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
-Having students discuss and use written response to demonstrate deeper understanding and critical thinking.
Person Responsible:
Classroom teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
-Lesson Plans -FTEM Observations
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
No response.
(View Marzano Model)
No response.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
No response.
(View Marzano Model)
No response.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
We will increase the number of passing grades from quarter to quarter by 3% in all courses.
(View Marzano Model)
Providing Feedback and Celebrating Progress
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Bi-weekly D & F report emailed/notified to all parents
Person Responsible:
Stanley Bryant
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
D & F Report
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Quarterly meetings with admin for students who failed a course
Person Responsible:
Kimberly Lonergan
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Quarterly grade report
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Parent meeting with student, counselor, and teachers for multiple failing grades
Person Responsible:
Student, teachers, counselors, parents
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Quarterly grade report
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!

Schoolwide Program Plan (SWP) Requirements

This section must be completed if the school is implementing a Title I, Part A SWP and opts to use the SIP to satisfy the requirements of the SWP plan, as outlined in the ESSA, Public Law No. 114-95, § 1114(b). This section is not required for non-Title I schools.

Budget Document Uploads

No files uploaded
1.

Provide the methods for dissemination of this SIP, UniSIG budget and SWP to stakeholders (e.g., students, families, school staff and leadership and local businesses and organizations). Please articulate a plan or protocol for how this SIP and progress will be shared and disseminated and to the extent practicable, provided in a language a parent can understand. (ESSA 1114(b)(4))

List the school's webpage* where the SIP is made publicly available.
* A webpage is not sufficient as the sole method of dissemination.

No response.

2.

Describe how the school plans to build positive relationships with parents, families and other community stakeholders to fulfill the school’s mission, support the needs of students and keep parents informed of their child’s progress.

List the school's webpage* where the school's Family Engagement Plan is made publicly available. (ESSA 1116(b-g))
* A webpage is not sufficient as the sole method of dissemination.

No response.

3.

Describe how the school plans to strengthen the academic program in the school, increase the amount and quality of learning time and help provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum. Include the Area of Focus if addressed in Part II of the SIP. (ESSA 1114(b)(7)ii))

No response.

4.

If appropriate and applicable, describe how this plan is developed in coordination and integration with other Federal, State, and local services, resources and programs, such as programs supported under ESSA, violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start programs, adult education programs, career and technical education programs, and schools implementing CSI or TSI activities under section 1111(d). (ESSA 1114(b)(5))

No response.

CSI, TSI and ATSI Resource Review

Describe the process to review school improvement funding allocations and ensure resources are allocated based on needs. This section must be completed if the school is identified as ATSI, TSI or CSI in addition to completing an Area(s) of Focus identifying interventions and activities within the SIP (ESSA 1111(d)(1)(B)(4) and (d)(2)(C).

No response.

Reading Achievement Initiative for Scholastic Excellence (RAISE)

For the 2024-2025 school year, the criteria includes schools with students in grades three through five where 50 percent or more of its students, in any grade level, score below a level 3 on the most recent statewide English Language Arts (ELA) assessment; or progress monitoring data collected from the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system pursuant to s. 1008.25(9), F.S., shows that 50 percent or more of the students are not on track to pass the statewide, standardized grade 3 ELA assessment for any grade level kindergarten through grade 3; and at least 10 students must be present for both the second and third full-time equivalent (FTE) survey periods and must be enrolled at the time of the statewide, standardized testing.

Include a description of your Area of Focus (Instructional Practice specifically relating to Reading/ELA) for each grade below, how it affects student learning in literacy, and a rationale that explains how it was identified as a critical need from the data reviewed. Data that should be used to determine the critical need should include, at a minimum:

  • The percentage of students below Level 3 on the 2023−2024 statewide, standardized ELA assessment. Identification criteria must include each grade that has 50 percent or more students scoring below Level 3 in grades 3-5 on the statewide, standardized ELA assessment.
  • The percentage of students in kindergarten through grade 3, based on 2023−2024 coordinated screening and progress monitoring system data, who are not on track to score Level 3 or above on the statewide, standardized ELA assessment.
  • Other forms of data that should be considered: formative, progress monitoring and diagnostic assessment data.
1.

Grades K-2: Instructional Practice specifically relating to Reading/ELA

No reponse.
2.

Grades 3-5: Instructional Practice specifically related to Reading/ELA

No reponse.