Planning for School Improvement

Golden Gate High School

School Year
 Back to School List

Data Analysis - Needs Assessment

PatternELAMathScienceSocial Studies
What trends emerge across grade levels, subgroups, and core content areas?
Overall, lowest 25% dropped in proficiency by over 10 points. There was a slight decrease in 9th grade proficiency and 10th grade ESE proficiency. There was a 23 point gain in our 10th grade ELL proficiency. ELA 9th Grade overall proficiency: -1% ELA 9th Grade learning gains: -6% ELA 9th Grade Low 25 learning gains: -9% ELA 9th Grade ESE achievement: +8% ELA 9th Grade ESE learning gains: +2% ELA 9th Grade ELL achievement: -1% ELA 9th Grade ELL learning gains: -1% ELA 10th Grade overall proficiency: +7% ELA 10th Grade learning gains: +2% ELA 10th Grade Low 25 learning gains: -16% ELA 10th Grade ESE achievement: +5% ELA 10th Grade ESE learning gains: -5% ELA 10th Grade ELL achievement: +14% ELA 10th Grade ELL learning gains: +23%
Algebra has made gains in all areas and subgroups by at least 4%. Geometry proficiency has dropped in all categories except for 9th grade ESE and there was over a 30 point drop in each category for 10th graders. Overall, there was a 25 point drop in the Lowest 25%. Geometry is 2% above the state average. Algebra overall proficiency: -1% Algebra learning gains: +22% Algebra Low 25 learning gains: +12% Algebra ESE achievement: +5% Algebra ESE learning gains: +4% Algebra ELL achievement: -5% Algebra ELL learning gains: +12% Geometry overall proficiency: -10% Geometry learning gains: Geometry Low 25 learning gains: Geometry ESE achievement: -18% Geometry ESE learning gains: Geometry ELL achievement: -5% Geometry ELL learning gains:
34% of both the ESE and ELL students were proficient. The ELL students made a 34% gain on proficiency while the ESE had a 34 point drop. Overall the proficiency went down by 34 points. Biology overall proficiency: -34% Biology ELL proficiency: +34% Biology ESE proficiency: -34%
U.S. History EOC scores were our highest in 4+ years with proficiency at 69%. ELL dropped to 27% - our lowest level in four years. Conversely, ESE students had its highest scores in the last four years. US History overall proficiency: 0% US History ELL proficiency: -6% US History ESE proficiency: +7%
Which data component showed the most improvement? What new actions did your school take in this area?
ELA: 10th grade ELL proficiency increased by 14 points and learning gains increased by 23 points. To achieve this was strategic placement of ELL tutor support and sheltered ELA teacher hired half way through the year who is bilingual. Math: Algebra 1 increased overall learning gains by 22 points and overall ESE proficiency increased 5 points. To achieve this a daily fluency component was added to each lesson, standards mastery check assessment system to determine immediate interventions. Science: ELL students increased 34 points on proficiency. Dedicated ELL tutor with teacher who we changed halfway through the year to meet the needs of the student. Social Studies: ELL & ESE teacher responsibilities were split among two teachers (due to increased resources) which located a more concerted effort to assist in inclusion classrooms.
Which data component showed the lowest performance? Explain the contributing factor(s) to last year's low performance and discuss any trends.
ELA: 3% of 9th grade ELL students were proficient on the PM3and only 49% made a learning gain. There is a language proficiency gap especially with formal language used on a standardized test. Math: 26% of ESE students in geometry made a level 3 or higher. Minimal success of additional school-wide intervention plan. Science: 34% of ESE students were at a level 3 or higher. This was a 34 point drop from the prior year. This group only had one year of science and English prior to taking the EOC. Social Studies: 27% of ELL students were proficient. There was a larger number of ELL students were less than two years in the country for this grade level.
Which data component showed the greatest decline from the prior year? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this decline.
ELA: 10th Grade Low 25 had a 16 point drop in learning gains. Math: Geometry's 10th grade low 25 dropped 76 points in learning gains & overall Geometry's ESE dropped 18 points. There was a lack of student motivation and attendance. There was a significant number of sophomores and juniors taking this course that were historically low performing. Minimal success of additional school-wide intervention plan. Science: The ESE subgroup dropped 34 points and overall proficiency dropped 34 points. This group only had one year of science and English prior to taking the EOC. Social Science: The ELL subgroup dropped 21 points over previous year. A larger number of NES students at this grade level contributed to this drop.
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: 9th Grade 50% (state 53%); 10th Grade 57% (53%) - only 11% of 9th Grade ELL students were proficient per PM3. Math: Algebra performed 15 points below the state average. Although this was below the state average, algebra made learning gains across the board and in ESE proficiency. Science: Biology proficiency was 60% (66%). We saw a significant drop in proficiency scores from our 10th Grade ESE and ELL subgroups. This group only had one year of science and English prior to taking the EOC. Social Studies: U.S. History proficiency was 69%; two points above the state average.
Rank your highest priorities (maximum of 5) for school improvement in the upcoming school year.
1. Emphasis on DP (Processing New Content) along with Hattie's high impact strategies through targeted PD. 2. Increase our staff and student feedback & recognition. 3. Provide focused support in ELA and Math - particularly the lowest 25% and our bubble Level 2 students. 4. Strategic use of ELL tutors. 5. Continue to improve the MTSS process

SIP - Areas of Focus

At Golden Gate High School, our vision is to graduate all students with the life skills and academic knowledge necessary for college and career readiness.
At Golden Gate High School, our mission is to establish academic excellence in all students by growing positive, responsible, citizens through challenging curricula within a safe learning environment.
By the end of 2025-26 school year, overall, ELA learning gains of the lowest 25% will increase by at least 10% (from 60% to 70%) compared to SY25 PM3.
(View Marzano Model)
As a result of teachers processing new content for each student, the percentage of students in our low 25% making a gain in the area of ELA will increase from 60% to 70% by June 2026, measure by the Florida Assessment of Student Thinking (F.A.S.T.).
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Plan for and conduct professional learning, with a focus on Helping Students Process New Content, during in-service week and through monthly Micro-PDs.
Person Responsible:
Mr. Mulholland, principal, Ms. Kolstedt, APC, Ms. Gildyard, AP, Mr. Durik, AP, and Ms. Lee, APD
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Staff will be monitored for their engagement and understanding during PD as well as monitored for implementation of strategies via classroom observations.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
ELA Grades 9 & 10 teachers will work collaboratively during common planning periods, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days (3 times a year) to plan for instruction that utilizes the strategies focused on Helping Students Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
ELA Teachers, Dawn Hennessey, Reading Coach, and Brittney Lozada, Reading Resource teacher
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Monitoring of common planning, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Teachers will implement the strategies learned in professional development opportunities that focus on Helping Students to Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Classroom observations, instructional rounds, and classroom walkthroughs
Action #4
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
During PLCs and Professional Planning Days, the team will review data and share best practices.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff, Ms. Gildyard, AP, Mr. Mulholland, principal, Ms. Hennessey, Reading Coach, Ms. Lozada, Reading Resource Teacher
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Common Assessments, PM data
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
By the end of 2025-26 school year, overall, Geometry learning gains of the lowest 25% will increase by at least 30% (from 1.6% to 31.6%) compared to SY25 EOC.
(View Marzano Model)
As a result of teachers processing new content for each student, the percentage of students in our low 25% making a gain in the area of Geometry will increase from 1.6% to 31.6% by June 2026, measure by the EOC.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Plan for and conduct professional learning, with a focus on Helping Students Process New Content, during in-service week and through monthly Micro-PDs.
Person Responsible:
Mr. Mulholland, principal, Ms. Kolstedt, APC, Ms. Gildyard, AP, Mr. Durik, AP, and Ms. Lee, APD
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Staff will be monitored for their engagement and understanding during PD as well as monitored for implementation of strategies via classroom observations.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Algebra and Geometry teachers will work collaboratively during common planning periods, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days (3 times a year) to plan for instruction that utilizes the strategies focused on Helping Students Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
Algebra and Geometry teachers, Kathryn Donohue, Math Coach
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Monitoring of common planning, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Teachers will implement the strategies learned in professional development opportunities that focus on Helping Students to Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Classroom observations, instructional rounds, and classroom walkthroughs
Action #4
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
During PLCs and Professional Planning Days, the team will review data and share best practices.
Person Responsible:
Ms. Donohue, Math Coach, Ms. Kolstedt, APC
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Quarter Benchmark Assessments, EOC, Classroom Observations, Common Formative Assessments
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
By the end of 2025-26 school year, overall, U.S. History will increase EOC proficiency by 1% (from 69% to 70%) compared to SY25 EOC.
(View Marzano Model)
As a result of teachers processing new content for each student, the percentage of students increasing proficiency in the area of U.S. History will increase from 69% to 70% by June 2026, measure by the EOC.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Plan for and conduct professional learning, with a focus on Helping Students Process New Content, during in-service week and through monthly Micro-PDs.
Person Responsible:
Mr. Mulholland, principal, Ms. Kolstedt, APC, Ms. Gildyard, AP, Mr. Durik, AP, and Ms. Lee, APD
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Staff will be monitored for their engagement and understanding during PD as well as monitored for implementation of strategies via classroom observations.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
U.S. History teachers will work collaboratively during common planning periods, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days (3 times a year) to plan for instruction that utilizes the strategies focused on Helping Students Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
U.S. History teacher, Mr. Durik, AP
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Monitoring of common planning, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Teachers will implement the strategies learned in professional development opportunities that focus on Helping Students to Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Classroom observations, instructional rounds, and classroom walkthroughs
Action #4
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
During PLCs and Professional Planning Days, the team will review data and share best practices.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff, Mr. Durik, AP, Mr. Mulholland, principal
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Common Assessments, QBA data
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
By the end of 2025-26 school year, overall, Biology will increase EOC proficiency by 5% (from 60% to 65%) compared to SY25 EOC.
(View Marzano Model)
As a result of teachers processing new content for each student, the percentage of students increasing proficiency in the area of Biology will increase from 60% to 65% by June 2026, measure by the EOC.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Plan for and conduct professional learning, with a focus on Helping Students Process New Content, during in-service week and through monthly Micro-PDs.
Person Responsible:
Mr. Mulholland, principal, Ms. Kolstedt, APC, Ms. Gildyard, AP, Mr. Durik, AP, and Ms. Lee, APD
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Staff will be monitored for their engagement and understanding during PD as well as monitored for implementation of strategies via classroom observations.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Biology teachers will work collaboratively during common planning periods, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days (3 times a year) to plan for instruction that utilizes the strategies focused on Helping Students Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
Biology Teachers, Principal
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Monitoring of common planning, PLCs, and Professional Planning Days
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Teachers will implement the strategies learned in professional development opportunities that focus on Helping Students to Process New Content.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Classroom observations, instructional rounds, and classroom walkthroughs
Action #4
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
During PLCs and Professional Planning Days, the team will review data and share best practices.
Person Responsible:
All Instructional Staff, Mr. Mulholland, principal
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Common Assessments, QBA data
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click 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 click the Submit button to the right!
By the end of the 2025-26 school year, our overall attendance rate will increase from 94.07% (SY25) to 95.25%.
(View Marzano Model)
As a result of greater monitoring of students with seven (7) or more absences and implementing various intervention strategies, our overall attendance rate will increase to 95.25% for SY26.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Quarterly recognition events for students who have no more than 2 days of absences.
Person Responsible:
Attendance & Discipline Administration Team
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
FOCUS data reports
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Weekly promotional and informational Golden Tips news are communicated to parents via social media in order to increase parent and community involvement, engagement, and support.
Person Responsible:
Ms. Gildyard, AP
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Smore/Blackboard Reports
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Leadership team meets weekly to discuss community and student needs and create action plans to provide support to those students and families in need of additional support from various outside agencies.
Person Responsible:
Administration, Guidance, LMHP, ESE Specialists
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Student Success Tracker Spreadsheet
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click 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))
• Collier County Public Schools implement a systematic and strategic approach to service delivery through the District Strategic Plan and the K–12 Comprehensive Reading Plan. The goals and objectives of each program and department are aligned with these overarching district plans. • Title I (Parts A, C, D), UniSIG, Title II (Part A), and Title IV are managed within the same department. These programs share administrative staff to ensure efficient oversight, coordination, budgeting, staffing, and monitoring. Informal communication and monthly administrative meetings support ongoing collaboration and alignment of efforts. • Leadership staff from Title I (Parts A, C, D), Title II, Title III, Title IV, Head Start/VPK, and Title IX programs meet monthly to coordinate services and participate in joint professional development aimed at improving program effectiveness. • Teaching & Learning (T&L) department meetings include program coordinators from IDEA, Perkins, Head Start, and Career and Technical Education, fostering cross-program collaboration. • The Title IX and Title I (Parts A and C) Coordinators work together to identify and support homeless children, assisting with registration and providing necessary services. Title I and the District jointly fund the Homeless Liaison, who supports homeless students across all schools. • Title I (Parts A and C) and Title III funds are coordinated to provide supplemental instructional support and resources to at-risk students.

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 2025-2026 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 2024−2025 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 2024−2025 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.

School Advisory Council (SAC)

NameGroupEthnicityMigrant StatusDistrict EmployeeRoleStart of TermEnd of Term
No Council member found!
GroupNumber%
Community/Business00.0
Non-instructional Staff00.0
Parent00.0
Principal00.0
Students (required for HS; optional for MS)00.0
Teachers00.0
The number of non-employees must be at least 51% of the total SAC membership.
NOTE: The Principal is included in the district employee count.
GroupNumberPercent
District Employee 00.0
Non-District Employee 00.0
SAC membership must be representative (within 15%) of the ethnic, racial and socio-economic community served by the school. NOTE: The principal is NOT included in the demographic composition breakdown.
EthnicityNumber% SAC% Students
 00.00.0
Black00.015.7
Hispanic00.070.5
Others00.05.1
White00.08.7
Date

Existing Uploads

No Bylaws files have been uploaded yet.