FLORIDA DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAM
2012-2013
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

School Name: MIAMI LAKES EDUCATIONAL CENTER

District Name: Dade

Principal: James V. Parker

SAC Chair: Jose Fernandez

Superintendent: Alberto M.
Carvalho

Date of School Board Approval: Pending
Approval

Last Modified on: 11/1/2012

Gerard Robinson, Commissioner
Florida
Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee,
Florida 32399

Dr. Mike Grego, Chancellor
K-12 Public
Schools
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines
Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

PART I: CURRENT SCHOOL STATUS

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

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

School Grades Trend Data

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)/Statewide
Assessment Trend Data

High School Feedback
Report

K-12 Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan

ADMINISTRATORS

List your school’s administrators and briefly describe their
certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an
administrator, and their prior performance record with increasing student
achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT/Statewide
assessment performance (percentage data for achievement levels, learning gains,
Lowest 25%), and Ambitious but achievable annual measurable objective (AMO)
progress.

Position

Name

Degree(s)/ Certification(s)

# of Years at Current School

# of Years as an Administrator

Prior Performance Record (include prior
School Grades, FCAT/Statewide Assessment Achievement Levels, Learning
Gains, Lowest 25%), and AMO Progress along with the associated school
year)

Principal

James V.
Parker

Bachelor of Science, 1977 Salisbury
State College, Maryland; Masters,1990 Florida International University,
Florida; Local Directors Certification; Florida International University,
Florida, Executive Development Program Leadership; Miami-Dade County
Public Schools Executive Training Program; and Miami-Dade Public Schools
Leo-T Program.

8

18

Principal of Miami Lakes
Educational Center from 2004-2012

School Grade: Pending (2012) A
(2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending (2012) 59 (2011)
62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 85(2010)
87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58 (2011) 62(2010) 61(2009)
62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010) 84(2009) 83(2008)
Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010) 54(2009) 62(2008)
Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009) 82(2008)

Assis Principal

Dr. Ana
Maria Lopez-Ochoa

Nova
Southeastern University, Florida, Doctor of Education, 2002. Nova
Southeastern University, Florida. Certificate in Educational Leadership,
2002.
Florida International University Florida. Masters (MS) in
Guidance & Counseling, 1984 Florida International University, Florida.
Bachelor in mathematics 1974

7

21

Vice Principal of Miami
Lakes Educational Center from 2009-2012
Assistant Principal of Miami
Lakes Educational Center from 2004-2009
Administrative Director –
Instructional Supervision from 1999 -2004
School Grade: Pending (2012)
A (2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending (2012) 59 (2011)
62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 85(2010)
87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58 (2011) 62(2010) 61(2009)
62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010) 84(2009) 83(2008)
Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010) 54(2009) 62(2008)
Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009)
82(2008)

Assis Principal

Dr.
Beverly Carter-Rémy

Bethune-Cookman
University.
Bachelor of Science in
Elementary, Nova
Southeastern
University.
Master of Science Degree
in Reading Education.
Nova
Southeastern University.
Doctor of Education in
Educational
Leadership.

2

16

Vice Principal of Miami
Lakes Educational Center 2011-2012

Assistant Principal of Lindsay
Hopkins Technical Education Center from 2006-2011

School Grade:
Pending (2012) A (2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending
(2012) 59 (2011) 62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012)
87(2011) 85(2010) 87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58 (2011)
62(2010) 61(2009) 62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010)
84(2009) 83(2008) Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010) 54(2009)
62(2008) Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009)
82(2008)

Assis Principal

Juan R.
Gonzales

Florida International University,
Florida. Bachelors in Elementary Education, 1992 St Thomas University,
Florida. Masters in Guidance and Counseling, 1997.
Nova Southeastern,
Florida. Certification in Educational Leadership ,2000

11

11

Assistant Principal of
Miami Lakes Educational Center from 2004-2012
School Grade: Pending
(2012) A (2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending (2012) 59
(2011) 62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012) 87(2011)
85(2010) 87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58 (2011) 62(2010)
61(2009) 62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010) 84(2009)
83(2008) Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010) 54(2009) 62(2008)
Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009)
82(2008)

Assis Principal

Thomas
W. Jenkins

Florida International University,
Florida. Masters (MS) Vocational Industrial Education, 1999 Florida
Atlantic University, Florida. Bachelor of Arts in Art ,1982 Broward
Community College, FL. Associate of Arts in Commercial Art ,1980

10

13

Assistant Principal of
Miami Lakes Educational Center from 2004-2012

School Grade: Pending
(2012) A (2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending (2012) 59
(2011) 62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012) 87(2011)
85(2010) 87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58 (2011) 62(2010)
61(2009) 62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010) 84(2009)
83(2008) Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010) 54(2009) 62(2008)
Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009)
82(2008)

Assis Principal

Michael
Tandlich

Florida International University,
Florida .Bachelors of Science in Physical Education, 1979 Nova
Southeastern University, Florida. Masters in Educational Leadership, Jan
1999.

4

7

Senior Assistant
Principal of Miami Lakes Educational Center from 2008-2012
Assistant
Principal of Lawton Chiles Middle school from 2005-2008

School
Grade: Pending (2012) A (2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R.
Pending (2012) 59 (2011) 62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending
(2012) 87(2011) 85(2010) 87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58
(2011) 62(2010) 61(2009) 62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011)
81(2010) 84(2009) 83(2008) Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010)
54(2009) 62(2008) Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009)
82(2008)

Assis Principal

Tammy R.
Thomas

Bachelor of Science.
Political
Science, Clark Atlanta
University. Master of
Science.
Science Education,
Florida State University.
Educational
Specialist
Leadership. Nova Southeastern
University. English
for
Speakers of Other Languages
(ESOL) Endorsement.
Certification
in Elementary
Education (Grades 1-6)

2

7

Assistant Principal of
Miami Lakes Educational Center from 2011-2012

Assistant Principal
of Doral Middle School 2011-2007

School Grade: Pending (2012)
(2011) A (2010) A (2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending (2012) 59(2011)
78(2010) 73(2009) 71(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 58(2010)
78(2009) 75(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58(2011) 71(2010) 68(2009)
71(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010) 80(2009) 80(2008)
Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 71(2010) 76(2009) 74(2008)
Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78(2011) 84(2010) 78(2009) 79(2008)

Assis Principal

Ana M.
Varona

Florida International University,
Florida Bachelors in Education, 2001. Certification in Specific learning
Disabilities (K-12) Florida International University, Florida Master’s
Degree, 2003. Certification in Specific Learning Disabilities
(K-12).

3

4

Assistant Principal of
Miami Lakes Educational Center from 2009-2012
Temporary Adult Assistant
Principal of Southwest Senior Adult from 2008-2009

Teacher at
Southwest Miami Senior High School from 2002-2008

School Grade:
Pending (2012) A (2011) A (2010) A(2009) A(2008) High Stds R. Pending
(2012) 59 (2011) 62(2010) 57(2009) 53(2008) High Stds.M. Pending (2012)
87(2011) 85(2010) 87(2009) 85(2008) Lrng Gains-R. Pending (2012) 58 (2011)
62(2010) 61(2009) 62(2008) Lrng Gains-M. Pending (2012) 87(2011) 81(2010)
84(2009) 83(2008) Gains-R.25% Pending (2012) 56(2011) 55(2010) 54(2009)
62(2008) Gains-M.-25% Pending (2012) 78 (2011) 74(2010) 79(2009)
82(2008)

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

List your school’s instructional coaches and briefly describe their
certification(s), number of years at the current school, number of years as an
instructional coach, and their prior performance record with increasing student
achievement at each school. Include history of school grades, FCAT/Statewide
assessment performance (Percentage data for achievement levels, learning gains,
Lowest 25%), and AMO progress. Instructional coaches described in this section
are only those who are fully released or part-time teachers in reading,
mathematics, or science and work only at the school site.

Subject Area

Name

Degree(s)/ Certification(s)

# of Years at Current School

# of Years as an Instructional Coach

Prior Performance Record (include prior
School Grades, FCAT/Statewide Assessment Achievement Levels, Learning
Gains, Lowest 25%), and AMO progress along with the associated school
year)

N/A

EFFECTIVE AND HIGHLY EFFECTIVE TEACHERS

Describe the school-based strategies that will be used to recruit and retain
high quality, effective teachers to the school.

Description of Strategy

Person Responsible

Projected Completion Date

Not Applicable (If not, please explain
why)

1

Regular meetings with new
teachers

Principal, Vice Principal,
Assistant Principals, Academy Leaders, and Department Heads

June,
2013

2

Provide opportunities for
leadership within the academies

Principal, Vice Principal,
Assistant Principals

June,
2013

3

Provide opportunities for
Professional Development

PD
Liaison

June,2013

4

Partnering new teachers with
veteran staff

Vice Principal, Assistant
Principals

June,2013

Non-Highly Effective Instructors

Provide the number of instructional staff and paraprofessionals that are
teaching out-of-field and/or who received less than an effective rating
(instructional staff only).
*When using percentages, include the number of
teachers the percentage represents (e.g., 70% [35]).

Number of staff and paraprofessional
that are teaching out-of-field/ and who are not highly effective.

Provide the strategies that are being
implemented to support the staff in becoming highly effective

1

Instructor is currently
finishing his Reading Endorsement.

Staff Demographics

Please complete the following demographic information about the instructional
staff in the school.

*When using percentages, include the number of teachers the percentage
represents (e.g., 70% (35)).

Total Number of Instructional Staff

% of First-Year Teachers

% of Teachers with 1-5 Years of Experience

% of Teachers with 6-14 Years of Experience

% of Teachers with 15+ Years of Experience

% of Teachers with Advanced Degrees

% Highly Effective Teachers

% Reading Endorsed Teachers

% National Board Certified Teachers

% ESOL Endorsed Teachers

75

0.0%(0)

6.7%(5)

42.7%(32)

48.0%(36)

41.3%(31)

98.7%(74)

8.0%(6)

8.0%(6)

9.3%(7)

Teacher Mentoring Program/Plan

Please describe the school’s teacher mentoring program/plan by including the
names of mentors, the name(s) of mentees, rationale for the pairing, and the
planned mentoring activities.

Mentor Name

Mentee Assigned

Rationale for Pairing

Planned Mentoring Activities

N/A

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Coordination and Integration

Note: For Title I schools only

Please describe how federal, state, and local services and programs will be
coordinated and integrated in the school. Include other Title programs, Migrant
and Homeless, Supplemental Academic Instruction funds, as well as violence
prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult
education, career and technical education, and/or job training, as
applicable.

Title I, Part A

The focus of the Title I program at Miami Lakes Educational
Center is to provide services to ensure students requiring additional
remediation are assisted through after-school or summer school programs. The
district coordinates with Title II and Title III in ensuring staff development
needs are provided. Support services are provided to secondary students to aid
in mastering the materials in the State academic content standards. Miami Lakes
Educational Center provides instructional literacy assistance to students while
also providing technical assistance to teachers in implementing the reading plan
at the school level. A high-quality and comprehensive educational program is in
place to meet the rigorous and challenging State academic standards. Title I
coordinated programs ensure the effective utilization and fidelity of
research-based reading materials, the effective implementation of differentiated
instruction, and the analysis and utilization of student assessment data to
drive instruction for the lower-achieving students. Other components that are
integrated into the school-wide program includes a Parental Program and special
support services to special needs populations such as homeless, migrant, and
neglected and delinquent students.

Miami Lakes Educational Center works
with different agencies to meet the needs of our students. These agencies are as
follows: The Alliance for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning
(GLBTQ) youth provides groups for our sexual minority students on a weekly
basis. The school partners with Jewish Community Services to provide all our
incoming ninth graders with a comprehensive dating and violence program.
Additionally, Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), a national
organization educating other on drug prevention, provides information and
presentations to our school. The school also partners with the American Lung
Association (TATU).

MLEC receives assistance from several agencies to
provide services for students and their families. Bruce Heinken Fund is an
organization that assists needy students in acquiring eyeglasses. The Children’s
Trust Fund is a referral network for parents that provide resources in such
areas as medical, financial social, after school and special needs.

Title I, Part C- Migrant

N/A

Title I, Part D

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

Title II

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

Title III

N/A

Title X- Homeless

Miami Lakes Educational Center will provide:
• The Homeless
Assistance Program seeks to ensure a successful educational experience for
homeless children by collaborating with parents, schools, and the community.

• All schools are eligible to receive services and will do so upon
identification and classification of a student as homeless.
• Project
Upstart, Homeless Children & Youth Program assists schools with the
identification, enrollment, attendance, and transportation of homeless students.

• The Homeless Liaison provides training for school registrars on the
procedures for enrolling homeless students and for
school counselors on the
McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act-ensuring homeless children and youth are
not to be stigmatized or separated, segregated, or isolated on their status as
homeless-and are provided with all entitlements.
• Project Upstart provides
a homeless sensitivity, awareness campaign to all the schools - each school is
provided a video and curriculum manual, and a contest is sponsored by the
homeless trust-a community organization.
• Project Upstart provides tutoring
and counseling to twelve homeless shelters in the community.
• Project
Upstart will be proposing a 2011 summer academic enrichment camp for students in
several homeless shelters in the community, pending funding.
• The District
Homeless Student Liaison continues to participate in community organization
meetings and task forces as it relates to homeless children and youth.
•
Each school will identify a school based homeless coordinator to be trained on
the McKinney-Vento Law ensuring appropriate services are provided to the
homeless students.

Supplemental Academic Instruction (SAI)

Violence Prevention Programs

Miami Lakes Educational Center has partnered with the Jewish
Community Services / Dating and Violence Program and the Miami Coalition for
Christian and Jews (MCCJ) Heritage Panel to teach students how to improve their
communication skills and prevent violence. The MCCJ Heritage Panel is a human
relations program designed to explore diversity among Americans of different
races, ethnicities and religions. MCCJ Heritage Panel teaches a process as well
as a program to foster those values which support the importance of
understanding and appreciating individual differences. Select staff members were
trained on how to facilitate student panelists. These panelists act as student
advocates to eliminate discrimination.

Nutrition Programs

•Miami Lakes Educational Center adheres to and implements the
nutrition requirements stated in the District Wellness policy.
• Nutrition
education, as per state statute, is taught through physical education.
• The
School Food Service Program, school breakfast, school lunch, and after care
snacks, follows the Healthy Food and Beverage Guidelines as adopted in the
District’s Wellness Policy

Housing Programs

N/A

Head Start

N/A

Adult Education

High School completion courses are available to all eligible
Miami Lakes Educational Center students in the evening based on the senior high
school’s recommendation. Courses are taken for credit recovery, promotion,
remediation, or grade forgiveness purposes.

Career and Technical Education

By promoting career pathways and programs of study students may
earn Occupational Completion Points (OCPs) and have a better understanding and
appreciation of the postsecondary opportunities available and a plan for how to
acquire the skills necessary to take advantage of those opportunities.
Articulation agreements allow students to earn university, college and
postsecondary technical credits in high school, providing more opportunities for
students to complete 2 and 4 year postsecondary degrees. Students will gain
expertise by participating in career and technical curriculum that enables them
to obtain industry-recognized credentials (CAPE). Readiness for postsecondary
will continue to strengthen with the integration of academic and career
technical components and a coherent sequence of courses.

Job Training

By promoting Career Pathways and Programs of Study students are
eligible to receive Occupational Completion Points (OCP) and have a better
understanding and appreciation of the postsecondary opportunities available and
a plan for how to acquire the skills necessary to take advantage of those
opportunities.

Articulation Agreements allow students to earn
university, college and postsecondary technical credits in high school providing
more opportunities for students to complete 2 and 4 year postsecondary degrees.

Other

Parental Involvement Program Description

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

Increase parental engagement/involvement
through: developing (with on-going parental input) our Title I School-Parent
Compact for all students; continuing the Title I Parental Involvement Policy;
scheduling the Title I Orientation Meeting (Open House); and other
documents/activities necessary to comply with dissemination and reporting
requirements.

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

Complete Title
I Administration Parental Involvement Monthly School Reports (FM-6914 Rv. 06-08)
and the Title I Parental Involvement Monthly Activities Report (FM-6913 03-07),
and submit to Title I Administration by the 5th of each month as documentation
of compliance with NCLB Section 1118.

School Improvement Grant Fund/
School Improvement Grant Initiative

Miami Lakes Educational Center
receives funding under the School Improvement Grant Fund/School Improvement
Grant Initiative in order to increase the achievement of the lowest performing
subgroups through comprehensive, ongoing data analysis, curriculum and
instruction alignment, and specific interventions such as extended day remedial
tutorial instruction, differentiated instruction/intervention, classroom
libraries, evidenced-based strategies, and web-based programs. Additionally,
Title I School Improvement Grant/Fund support funding and assistance to schools
in Differentiated Accountability based on need.

The Voluntary Public
School Choice Program (I Choose!) a federally funded grant, is a district wide
initiative designed to assist in achieving the Miami-Dade County Public Schools’
District’s Strategic Plan goal to expand the availability of access to high
quality public school choice options for all parents in Miami-Dade County.
Voluntary Public School Choice grant funds are used to evaluate programs, inform
parents of educational options, and re-culture teaching practices to establish
quality school environments.

Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)/Response to Instruction/Intervention
(RtI)

School-based MTSS/RtI
Team

Identify the school-based MTSS leadership team.

•
Administrators
• Teachers (Department and Academy)
• TRUST Counselor
•
Special Education Personnel
• School Guidance Counselors
• School
Psychologist
• School Social Worker
• Members of Advisory Group
•
Community Stakeholder

Describe how the school-based MTSS Leadership Team functions (e.g., meeting
processes and roles/functions). How does it work with other school teams to
organize/coordinate MTSS efforts?

Monthly meetings are held to discuss instructional decisions
necessary based on input from the monthly Academy and Department data
discussions. Progress is monitored through various student achievement
indicators. The team identifies professional development and resources necessary
in order to meet identified goals. The MTSS/RtI Leadership Team recognizes
needed implementations. Therefore, the MTSS/RtI Leadership team, in turn, meets
as necessary to carry out these functions.

Data will be used to guide
instructional decisions and system procedures for all students to:
• Adjust
the delivery of curriculum and instruction to meet the specific needs of
students by developing and implementing the guidelines addressed in the School
Improvement Plan (SIP)
• Adjust the delivery of behavior management
system
• Create student growth trajectories in order to identify and develop
interventions
• Adjust the allocation of school-based resources
• Drive
decisions regarding targeted professional development

Describe the role of the school-based MTSS Leadership Team in the development
and implementation of the school improvement plan. Describe how the RtI
Problem-solving process is used in developing and implementing the SIP?

The MTSS/RtI Leadership Team makes recommendations to the
School Advisory Council for the development and implementation of the School
Improvement Plan. Members of the RtI Leadership Team met with the School
Advisory Council and principal to help develop the SIP. The team provided data
on: Tier 1, 2, and 3 goals; academic and social areas that need to be addressed,
and set clear goals for instruction as evidenced on the School Improvement Plan.

MTSS
Implementation

Describe the data source(s) and the data management system(s) used to
summarize data at each tier for reading, mathematics, science, writing, and
behavior.

Academic
• FCAT
• Interim Assessments
• FAIR
Assessment
• Student Grades

Behavior
• Student Case Management
System
• Detentions, Suspensions/Expulsions
• Referrals by Student
Behavior
• Climate Surveys
• Attendance

Describe the plan to train staff on MTSS.

The district professional development and support will
include:
1. training for all administrators in the MTSS/RtI problem solving,
data analysis process;
2. providing support for school staff to understand
basic MTSS/RtI principles and procedures; and
3. providing a network of
ongoing support for MTSS/RtI organized through feeder
patterns.

Describe the plan to support MTSS.

The district professional development and support will
include:
1. training for all administrators in the MTSS/RtI problem solving,
data analysis process;
2. providing support for school staff to understand
basic MTSS/RtI principles and procedures; and
3. providing a network of
ongoing support for MTSS/RtI organized through feeder
patterns.

Literacy Leadership Team (LLT)

School-Based Literacy
Leadership Team

Identify the school-based Literacy Leadership Team (LLT).

James V. Parker, Principal Site-based administrator
Dr. Ana
Lopez-Ochoa, Vice Principal Site-based administrator
Michael Tandlich, Senior
Assistant Principal Site-based administrator
Tammy R. Thomas, Assistant
Principal Site-based administrator
Erica Evans, Cambridge Academy
Career/Technical Education (CTE) Academy Leader
Matais Oxidine, Communication
Entertainment Academy Career/Technical Education (CTE) Academy Leader
Glenda
Algaze, Health Academy Career/Technical Education (CTE) Academy Leader
Marlon
Vernon, Information Technology Academy Career/Technical Education (CTE) Academy
Leader
John Moffi, Social Studies Department Chair
Michael Sanchez,
Science Department Chair
Neyda Borges, Reading and Language Arts Department
Chair
Jose Fernandez, Math Department Chair
Luz Escobar, Special Education
Department Chair
Charles Green, Media Specialist Department Chair
Ana
Tigerino, Student Services Department Chair
Beatriz Ambas, Test
Chair
Helena Castro Activities Director

Describe how the school-based LLT functions (e.g., meeting processes and
roles/functions).

1. Monitor academic and behavior data evaluating progress by
addressing the following important questions:
• What will all students learn?
(curriculum based on standards)
• How will we determine if the students have
learned? (common assessments)
• How will we respond when students have not
learned? ( Response to intervention problem solving process and monitoring
progress of interventions)
• How will we respond when students have learned
or already know? (enrichment opportunities)
2. Gather and analyze data to
determine professional development for faculty as indicated by student
intervention and achievement needs.
3. Hold regular team meetings.
4.
Maintain communication with staff for input and feedback, and updating them on
procedures and progress.
5. Support a process and structure within the school
to design, implement, and evaluate daily instruction and specific
interventions.
6. Provide clear indicators of student need and student
progress, assisting in examining the validity and effectiveness of program
delivery.
7. Assist with monitoring and responding to the needs of subgroups
within the expectations for adequate yearly progress.

What will be the major initiatives of the LLT this year?

Mathematics Initiatives

1. Suggestions for improving
non-mastery target areas include:
• Align instruction with the district
pacing guide to allow for testing on common material.
• Promote after school
tutoring, E2020 tutoring, or Saturday FCAT tutoring for low-achieving
students.
• Use inquiry based instruction, discovery learning, cooperative
group instruction, technology, manipulative and other strategies with all
subgroups to increase achievement to high level.

Reading
Initiatives

1. Suggestions for improving non-mastery target areas
include:
• Promote common research-based reading strategies including
Reciprocal Teaching and graphic organizers across all grade levels and
disciplines.
• Provide in depth, explicit instruction in word analysis skills
aimed at the lower 25% of students by developing focused Bell Ringer
activities.
• Explore supplemental materials and online technologies to
enhance high-order reasoning strategies that include activities to synthesize
and evaluate the information from multiple sources.
• Promote recreational
reading to increase time spent with print.
• Use of multiple books and
sources to provide wide experiences with print genres, and create regular
opportunities across academic and career/ technical (CTE) curriculum for
content-focused reading and writing.

Public School Choice

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Notification
View uploaded file (Uploaded on 10/12/2012)

*Elementary Title I Schools Only: Pre-School Transition

Describe plans for assisting preschool children in transition from early
childhood programs to local elementary school programs as applicable.

N/A

*Grades 6-12 Only

Sec. 1003.413(b) F.S.

For schools with Grades 6-12, describe the plan to ensure that teaching
reading strategies is the responsibility of every teacher.

The Literacy Leadership Team (LLT) is based on a cross section
of the faculty and administrative team that represents highly qualified
professionals who are interested in serving to improve literacy instruction
across the curriculum. Reading strategies will be implemented in all academic
and CTE classrooms with the assistance of the Literacy Leadership Team (LLT).
Common reading strategies will be supported throughout the school. Progress
monitoring will occur quarterly through the Interim Assessments.

The LLT
is charged with cultivating the vision for increased school-wide literacy across
all content areas by being active participants in all Literacy Leadership Team
meetings and activities.

*High Schools Only

Note: Required for High School - Sec. 1003.413(g)(j)
F.S.

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

Miami Lakes Educational Center (MLEC) has a unique history in
Miami-Dade County Public Schools; it was designed to house academies and career
based technical programs. Students apply to MLEC, indicating their technical
pathway of choice. Upon admission to MLEC students are placed into their
selected Career Technical Academy. To support students’ efforts, Career
Technical Educators (CTE) and core academic teachers provide an
interdisciplinary curriculum within the academy holding the students greatest
interest, resulting in core academic instruction related to their grade level
class with an emphasis on their future careers. MLEC has six career-technical
academies: Cambridge, Entrepreneurship, Health,Communications/Entertainment,
Trade/Industry and Information Technology. This model will create a highly
qualified future workforce by offering state-of-the-art academic, career, and
technical education to all our students.

How does the school incorporate students’ academic and career planning, as
well as promote student course selections, so that students’ course of study is
personally meaningful?

The ACT Online Prep Program allowed students the opportunity to
receive individualized preparation and feedback in preparation for the ACT and
post secondary endeavors. Every student received an individual password and
instructions to access the ACT Online Prep Program from home and /or school.

The Student Services Team provides MLEC students and parents with
information on post-secondary institutions, transition and readiness. The
counselors attend all annual State University System, College Board, ACT and
district meetings to keep up with current issues. Information on post secondary
schools, scholarships, state and federal financial aid, and college transition
is disseminated via individual student and parent conferences, classroom
presentations, phone contact, parent nights, student academy meetings, I.E.P.
conferences (as requested), and through our schools web site.

Students
at MLEC start from their CTE classes in 9th grade organizing their personal
portfolios and resumes and are taught how to keep track of important documents
and information. Students must plan, organize, and understand how to seek
guidance, form formal and informal study groups, and set priorities. Cambridge
and Informational Technology (IT) academies will initiate an Introduction to
Technology course while the remaining academies will utilize introduction to
Career Pathway courses. As students progress through to senior year, each is
asked to present a mandatory CAPSTONE project which is the culmination and
planned presentation of “all” key concepts they have learned throughout high
school, specifically their chosen career pathway which helps lead into post
secondary education.

In the 2011-2012 all graduates from Miami Lakes
Educational Center (MLEC) will complete elective courses correlating to their
career pathway. These courses assist them in preparing for industry
certification exams and transitioning into post secondary education.

In the 2011-2012 school year, Miami Lakes Educational Center will
continue to offer its Advanced International Certificate of Education (AICE) and
advanced placement (AP) courses, as well as numerous dual enrollment courses
available. MLEC recognizes the importance of college readiness exams such as the
PSAT, SAT, and ACT. All tenth graders will comply with the district’s mandate to
take the PSAT. Student scores will be provided by winter break and given
explanations how to interpret scores and instructed how to access “My College
Road” provided by College Board. Additionally, the ASVAB is available.
Furthermore, students are urged to take the SAT and ACT junior and/or senior
year. Waivers are available.

In 2011-2012 MLEC will continue to
encourage students to take AP, AICE, and/or dual enrollment classes. In
addition, the counselors will continue to conduct classroom visits, to share
information and requirements for post secondary institutions as well as
scholarship information available through Florida Bright Futures and any other
scholarships available.

Postsecondary Transition

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

Describe strategies for improving student readiness for the public
postsecondary level based on annual analysis of the High School Feedback
Report

Analysis of college readiness is based on the latest data
available – from the High School Feedback Report. The percent of graduates who
were eligible for the FL Gold Seal Vocational award exceeds both the district
and state percentage (2.48%) The percent of graduates who completed at least one
AP, AICE or Dual Enrollment course is 42.9% which is above both district and
state averages. The percent of graduates with standard high school diploma who
took the SAT/ ACT / CPT and scored at or above college-level cut scores is 60.6%
in math, 81.8% in reading, and 85.5% in writing. The reading and writing scores
exceed both district and state averages. Finally the percent of graduates
enrolled in a Florida public postsecondary institution was 56.7% which exceeds
both district and state averages. Miami Lakes Educational Center has identified
the following as school-wide priorities. As new federal and state guidelines are
introduced under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), secondary
students and staff must adapt to an increasing rigorous curriculum that stresses
career- and college-readiness.
• Increase participation in public
postsecondary readiness in reading, writing, and mathematics skills; the school
offers elective courses for College Placement Test (CPT) preparation.
•
Teachers will be given the opportunity to modify methods of instruction to suit
the changing postsecondary requirements of student’s college readiness.
• A
more concerted effort needs to be made to assure all instructional personnel
will become well versed and knowledgeable in the integration of traditional
academic subjects with the career-technical curriculum.
• Arrange for CTE
students to prepare for and take industry certification exams through their
career and technical classes.
• MLEC will recognize the importance of
college readiness exams by increasing the percentage of students participating
in the ACT. MLEC will continue to be a test center and provide numerous
administrations of the ACT exam.

MLEC met seven out of eight of the
Perkins Secondary Performance Targets:
MLEC met the Reading Attainment
Performance Target of 50%, obtaining 63.21%;
MLEC met the Math Attainment
Performance Target of 69.53%, obtaining 86.48%;
MLEC met the Technical
Skills Performance Target (including CAPE and Industry Certification exams), and
of 86.38%, obtaining 95.82%;
MLEC met the Completion Performance Target of
89.53%, obtaining 98.74;
MLEC met the Graduation Rate Performance Target of
90.74%, obtaining 96.58%;
MLEC approached, though did not meet, the
Placement Performance Target of 85.50%, obtaining 81.34%;
MLEC met the
Non-Traditional Enrollement Performance Target of 19.69%, obtaining 24.18%; and

MLEC met the Non-Traditional Completion Target of 94.40%, obtaining 98.15%.

MLEC Post-Secondary met four out of six of the Perkins Secondary
Performance Targets:
MLEC Post-Secondary met the Technical Skills
Performance Target of 74%, obtaining 81.55%;
MLEC Post-Secondary approached,
though did not meet, the Completion Performance Target of 44%, obtaining 36.84%;

MLEC Post-Secondary met the Retention Performance Target of 53%, obtaining
55.19%;
MLEC Post-Secondary did not meet, the Placement Performance Target
of 83%, obtaining 68.87;
MLEC Post-Secondary met the Non-Traditional
Enrollment Performance Target of 9%, obtaining 11.79%;
MLEC Post-Secondary
met the Non-Traditional Completion Performance Target of 19.23%, obtaining
25.74%.

PART II: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Reading Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1a. FCAT2.0: Students
scoring at Achievement Level 3 in reading.

Reading Goal #1a:

The results of the
2012 FCAT 2.0 Reading Test indicate that 29% of students achieved
Level 3 proficiency.

Our goal for the 2012-2013 school year
is to increase Level 3 proficiency to 33%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

29% (222)

33% (249)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT 2.0
Reading Test was Reporting Category 4- Informational Text/Research
Process.
Students need to synthesize texts and determine the
validity and reliability of information.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 4:
Provide high-order reasoning strategies that
include activities to synthesize and evaluate the validity and
reliability of information from multiple sources to draw conclusions
about a variety of text structures and explain their impact on
meaning in text.

The Literacy
Leadership Team (LLT) along with administrators will be responsible
for the monitoring of the implementation of the identified
strategies.

Review
formative biweekly Assessment Data reports to ensure progress is
being made and adjust instruction as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT 2.0 Reading Assessment

2

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT 2.0
Reading Test was Reporting Category 2- Reading
Application.
Students need to determine the main idea or
essential message through inferring, paraphrasing and summarizing.
Students also need to identify cause-effect relationships in
text.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 2:
Provide opportunities for students to identify
and interpret stated and implied main idea. Use graphic organizers
to identify cause-effect relationships to interpret
information.

Administration,
LLT

Review
formative biweekly Assessment Data reports to ensure progress is
being made and adjust instruction as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT 2.0 Reading Assessment

3

4

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1b. Florida Alternate
Assessment:
Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in
reading.

Reading Goal #1b:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2a. FCAT 2.0: Students
scoring at or above Achievement Level 4 in reading.

Reading Goal #2a:

The results of the
2012 FCAT 2.0 Reading Test indicate that 38% of students achieved
Levels 4 and 5 proficiency.

Our goal for the 2012-2013 school
year is to increase Levels 4 and 5 student proficiency to
39%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

38% (284)

39% (295)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area that
showed minimal growth and would require students to maintain or
improve as noted on the 2011 administration of the FCAT 2.0 Reading
test was Reporting Category 4 – Informational text/Research
Process.
Students struggle with organizational skills necessary
to organize text information and features.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 4: Provide high-order reasoning strategies that
include activities to synthesize and evaluate the validity and
reliability of information from multiple sources to draw conclusions
about a variety of text structures and explain their impact on
meaning in text.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT 2.0 Reading
Assessment

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2b. Florida Alternate
Assessment:
Students scoring at or above Achievement Level 7 in
reading.

Reading Goal #2b:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

3a. FCAT 2.0: Percentage
of students making learning gains in reading.

Reading Goal #3a:

The results of the
2012 FCAT 2.0 Reading Test indicate that 75% of students made
learning gains.

Our goal for the 2012-2013 school year is to
increase the percentage of students making learning gains by 5
percentage points to 80%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

75% (555)

80% (592)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 was Reporting Category 4- Informational Text/Research
Process.
Students need to synthesize texts and determine the
validity and reliability of information.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 4: Provide high-order reasoning strategies that
include activities to synthesize and evaluate the validity and
reliability of information from multiple sources to draw conclusions
about a variety of text structures and explain their impact on
meaning in text.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT 2.0 Reading
Assessment

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

3b. Florida Alternate
Assessment:
Percentage of students making Learning Gains in
reading.

Reading Goal #3b:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

4. FCAT 2.0: Percentage
of students in Lowest 25% making learning gains in reading.

Reading Goal #4:

The results of the
2012 FCAT Reading 2.0 Test indicate that 78% of students in the
Lowest 25% subgroup made learning gains.

Our goal for the
2012-2013 school year is to increase the percentage of students in
the lowest 25% making learning gains by 5 percentage points to
83%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

78% (155)

83%(165)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 was Reporting Category 2- Reading Application.
Students need
to determine the main idea or essential message through inferring,
paraphrasing and summarizing. Students also need to identify
cause-effect relationships in text

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 2: Provide opportunities for students to identify
and interpret stated and implied main idea. Use graphic organizers
to identify cause-effect relationships to interpret
information.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT Reading 2.0
Assessment

Based on Ambitious but
Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), AMO-2, Reading and
Math Performance Target

5A. Ambitious but Achievable
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six year school will reduce
their achievement gap by 50%.

Reading
Goal # 5A :Our goal from 2011-2017 is to reduce the percent of non-proficient students by 50%, using 2010-2011 as the baseline year.

Baseline data
2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5B. Student subgroups
by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not
making satisfactory progress in reading.

Reading Goal #5B:

Our goal is to
increase the proficiency of the White subgroup to 83%, Black
subgroup to 67%, Hispanic subgroup to 72% and Asian subgoup to 100%
points.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

White: 72% (21)

Black:62%(110)
Hispanic: 68% (362)
Asian: 93%(14)

American Indian: N/A

White: 83%(24)

Black:67%(119)
Hispanic:72%(384)
Asian: 100% (15)

American Indian: N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 was Reporting Category 2- Reading Application.
Students need
to determine the main idea or essential message through inferring,
paraphrasing and summarizing. Students also need to identify
cause-effect relationships in text.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 2: Provide opportunities for students to identify
and interpret stated and implied main idea. Use graphic organizers
to identify cause-effect relationships to interpret
information.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT Reading 2.0 Assessment

2

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 Test was Reporting Category1: Vocabulary – Identify and
understands the meaning of conceptually advanced prefixes, suffixes,
and root words.

Provide
students with need more practice with prefixes, suffixes, root
words, synonyms, and antonyms,
Teachers should emphasize
strategies for deriving word relationships from context, as well as
provide additional instruction on word meanings.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT Reading 2.0
Assessment

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5C. English Language
Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in reading.

Reading Goal #5C:

Our goal for the
2012-2013 school year is to increase proficiency to 41%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

24% (7)

41% (11)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 Test was Reporting Category1: Vocabulary – Identify and
understands the meaning of conceptually advanced prefixes, suffixes,
and root words.

Provide
students with need more practice with prefixes, suffixes, root
words, synonyms, and antonyms,
Teachers should emphasize
strategies for deriving word relationships from context, as well as
provide additional instruction on word meanings.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT 2.0 Reading Assessment

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5D. Students with
Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in
reading.

Reading Goal #5D:

The results of the
FCAT Reading 2.0 test indicate that the SWD subgroup is making
satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

37% (24)

38% (24)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 was Reporting Category 2- Reading Application.
Students need
to determine the main idea or essential message through inferring,
paraphrasing and summarizing. Students also need to identify
cause-effect relationships in text.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 2: Provide opportunities for students to identify
and interpret stated and implied main idea. Use graphic organizers
to identify cause-effect relationships to interpret
information.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT Reading 2.0 Assessment

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5E. Economically
Disadvantaged students not making satisfactory progress in
reading.

Reading Goal #5E:

The results of the
FCAT Reading 2.0 test indicate that the ED subgroup is making
satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

65% (364)

68% (381)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the FCAT Reading
2.0 was Reporting Category 2- Reading Application.
Students need
to determine the main idea or essential message through inferring,
paraphrasing and summarizing. Students also need to identify
cause-effect relationships in text.

The
following instructional strategies will be utilized to support
Report Category 2: Provide opportunities for students to identify
and interpret stated and implied main idea. Use graphic organizers
to identify cause-effect relationships to interpret
information.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, LLT

Review
formative assessment data reports ensure progress is being made and
adjust intervention as needed.

Formative:

Baseline and Interim Assessments

Summative:
Results
from the 2013 FCAT Reading 2.0
Assessment

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Reading
Across the Curriculum

9-12

DeVry
University

9-12
Instructors

November
6, 2012

Student
work folder, classroom walkthroughs

Administration

Reading Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Tutoring

Part-time hourly funding

Small Learning Community Grant

$1,000.00

Subtotal:
$1,000.00

Grand
Total: $1,000.00

End of Reading Goals

Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA)
Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents next to the
percentage (e.g., 70% (35)).

Students
speak in English and understand spoken English at grade level in a
manner similar to non-ELL students.

1. Students scoring
proficient in listening/speaking.

CELLA Goal #1:

The results of the
2012 CELLA Listening/Speaking assessment indicate that 64% of
students achieved proficiency.

2012 Current Percent of
Students Proficient in listening/speaking:

64%
(29)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency, as noted on the 2012 administration of the CELLA
Listening/Speaking Assessment, was paraphrasing and retelling.

The students had difficulty in understanding text when asked
to read, retell or paraphrase what they read.

The students
will use brief excerpts or passages from text and paraphrase what
they have read, accounting for the vocabulary words and concepts
that are important to the excerpt.

LLT/ESOL
Instructor

Student Work
Folders
Teacher Made Assessments

2013 CELLA
Listening/Speaking Assessment

Students
read in English at grade level text in a manner similar to non-ELL
students.

2. Students scoring
proficient in reading.

CELLA Goal #2:

The results of the
2012 CELLA Reading assessment indicate that 51% of students achieved
proficiency.

2012 Current Percent of
Students Proficient in reading:

51%
(23)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency, as noted on the 2012 administration of the CELLA Reading
Assessment was comprehending text on grade level.

The
students had difficulty in understanding text when asked to read,
grade level text independently.

The students
will use the Reciprocal Teaching steps (predicting, questioning,
clarifying and summarizing) to comprehend grade level text.

LLT/ESOL
Instructor

Student Work
Folders
Teacher Made Assessments

2013 CELLA
Reading Assessment

Students
write in English at grade level in a manner similar to non-ELL
students.

3. Students scoring
proficient in writing.

CELLA Goal #3:

The results of the
2012 CELLA Writing assessment indicate that 38% of students achieved
proficiency.

2012 Current Percent of
Students Proficient in writing:

38%
(17)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency, as noted on the 2012 administration of the CELLA Writing
Assessment was the writing process

The students had
difficulty in understanding the necessary steps to respond to a
writing prompt.

The students
will write in the following steps: planning, drafting, revising,
editing, and publishing according to their individual writing level;
additionally, they will share and respond to other pieces of
writing.

LLT/ESOL
Instructor

Student Writing
Journals
Teacher Made Assessments

2013 CELLA
Writing Assessment

CELLA Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of CELLA Goals

Florida Alternate Assessment High School Mathematics Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents next to the
percentage (e.g., 70% (35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1. Florida Alternate
Assessment: Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in
mathematics.

Mathematics Goal
#1:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level
of Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2. Florida Alternate
Assessment: Students scoring at or above Level 7 in
mathematics.

Mathematics Goal
#2:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level
of Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

3. Florida Alternate
Assessment: Percent of students making learning gains in
mathematics.

Mathematics Goal
#3:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level
of Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

High School Mathematics AMO Goals

Based on Ambitious but
Achievable Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), AMO-2, Reading and
Math Performance Target

5A. Ambitious but Achievable
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). In six year school will reduce
their achievement gap by 50%.

Mathematics Goal # 5A
:Our goal is to reduce the percentage of non-proficient by half by 2016-2017, using 2010-2011 as the baseline year.

Baseline data
2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5B. Student subgroups by
ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) not
making satisfactory progress in mathematics.

Mathematics Goal #5B:

The results of the
2012 Algebra 1 EOC Test indicate that all subgroups are making
satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

White:
N/A
Black:64%(22)
Hispanic:72%(81)
Asian: N/A
American
Indian: N/A

White:
N/A
Black:68%(23)
Hispanic:75%(85)
Asian: N/A
American
Indian: N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The lowest
scores were in:
Body of Knowledge-Algebra Standard: 2
(Polynomials).
Students have difficulty with dividing polynomials
by monomials and polynomials with various techniques, including
synthetic division.

Design
effective strategies for integrating technology using inquiry based
activities to improve connections between multiple representations
of equations.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Algebra 1 EOC
Test

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5C. English Language
Learners (ELL) not making satisfactory progress in
mathematics.

Mathematics Goal #5C:

The results of the
2012 Algebra 1 EOC Test indicate that ELL subgroup is making
satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

53%(6)

56%(6)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The lowest
scores were in:
Body of Knowledge-Algebra Standard: 2
(Polynomials).
Students have difficulty with dividing polynomials
by monomials and polynomials with various techniques, including
synthetic division.

Design
effective strategies for integrating technology using inquiry based
activities to improve connections between multiple representations
of equations.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Algebra 1 EOC
Test

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

5D. Students with
Disabilities (SWD) not making satisfactory progress in
mathematics.

Mathematics Goal #5D:

The results of the
2012 Algebra 1 EOC Test indicate that the SWD subgroup is making
satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

77%(8)

79%(8)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The lowest
scores were in:
Body of Knowledge-Algebra Standard: 2
(Polynomials).
Students have difficulty with dividing polynomials
by monomials and polynomials with various techniques, including
synthetic division.

Design
effective strategies for integrating technology using inquiry based
activities to improve connections between multiple representations
of equations.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Algebra 1 EOC
Test

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following subgroup:

E. Economically
Disadvantaged students not making satisfactory progress in
mathematics.

Mathematics Goal E:

The results of the
2012 Algebra 1 EOC Test indicate that ED subgroup is making
satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

72%(89)

75%(92)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The lowest
scores were in:
Body of Knowledge-Algebra Standard: 2
(Polynomials).
Students have difficulty with dividing polynomials
by monomials and polynomials with various techniques, including
synthetic division.

Design
effective strategies for integrating technology using inquiry based
activities to improve connections between multiple representations
of equations.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Algebra 1 EOC
Test

End of High School Mathematics
Goals

Algebra End-of-Course (EOC) Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1. Students scoring at
Achievement Level 3 in Algebra.

Algebra Goal #1:

The results of the
2012 Algebra 1 EOC Test indicate that 53% of the students achieved
levels in the middle and upper 3rd.

Our goal for the 2012-13
school year is to continue making satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

53% (83)

54% (84)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The results
of the 2012 Algebra I EOC exam revealed that the lowest scores were
in:
Body of Knowledge-Algebra Standard:2 (Polynomials)

Students have difficulty with multiple representations
(graphical to symbolic).

Develop
departmental guidelines for all students learning notebooks designed
to increase student achievement.

Principal,
Assistant Principal, Department Chairperson, MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:

District Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Algebra 1 EOC Test

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2. Students scoring at
or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Algebra.

Algebra Goal #2:

The results of the
2012 Algebra 1 EOC Test indicate that 7% of the students achieved
levels in the middle and upper 3rd.

Our goal for the 2012-13
school year is to continue making satisfactory progress.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

7% (11)

7% (11)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The lowest
scores were in:
Body of Knowledge-Algebra Standard: 2
(Polynomials).
Students have difficulty with dividing polynomials
by monomials and polynomials with various techniques, including
synthetic division.

Design
effective strategies for integrating technology using inquiry based
activities to improve connections between multiple representations
of equations.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Algebra 1 EOC
Test

End of Algebra EOC
Goals

Geometry End-of-Course (EOC) Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1. Students scoring at
Achievement Level 3 in Geometry.

Geometry Goal #1:

The results of the
2012 Geometry EOC Test indicate that 37% of the students achieved
proficiency levels.

Our goal for the 2012-13 school year is
to increase student proficiency by 2 percentage points to
39%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

37% (139)

39% (146)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 EOC Geometry exam was
Two-Dimensional Geometry. Students have difficulties with using
methods of direct to indirect proof and determining whether a short
proof is logically valid.

Increase
the use of Geometry’s Sketchpad and manipulatives to increase
retention of key concepts in two dimensional geometry.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Geometry EOC
Test

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2. Students scoring at
or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Geometry.

Geometry Goal #2:

The results of the
2012 Geometry EOC Test indicate that 34% of the students achieved
proficiency levels.

Our goal for the 2012-13 school year is
to increase student proficiency by 1 percentage points to
35%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

34% (128)

35% (131)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 EOC Geometry exam was
Two-Dimensional Geometry. Students have difficulties with geometric
proofs, including proofs of contradiction and proofs involving
coordinate geometry.

Assigned
students to cooperative student teams and require that the students
explain to their peers in both verbal and written form the process
used to arrive to a solution.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI Team

Review
assessment to adjust instruction as needed to ensure progress is
being made and students are making learning gains.

Formative:
District
Interim Assessment Reports, student authentic
work.

Summative:
Results from the 2013 Geometry EOC
Test

End of Geometry EOC
Goals

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Use
of Technology

9-12

Mrs.
Chaves

Course-alike
Learning Teams

November
6,2012

Evidence
of technology use in grade level planning sessions

Administrators

Mathematics Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Tutoring

Part-time hourly funding

Smaller Learning Community Grant

$1,000.00

Subtotal:
$1,000.00

Grand Total:
$1,000.00

End of Mathematics Goals

Florida Alternate Assessment High School Science Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents next to the
percentage (e.g., 70% (35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1. Florida Alternate
Assessment: Students scoring at Levels 4, 5, and 6 in
science.

Science Goal #1:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2. Florida Alternate
Assessment: Students scoring at or above Level 7 in science.

Science Goal #2:

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Biology End-of-Course (EOC) Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1. Students scoring at
Achievement Level 3 in Biology.

Biology Goal #1:

The results of the
2012 Biology EOC Exam indicate that 35 % of the students achieved
proficiency in the middle third.

Expected level of
performance for 2013 is 37 % proficiency for the middle
third.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

35% (125)

37%(129)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Areas of
deficiency as noted on the administration of the 2012 Biology EOC
exam was The Big Idea:
The Practice of Science. A concept woven
throughout all science ideas and topics.

Students need
additional exposure to instructional strategies and activities that
are linked to increased rigor through inquiry-based learning in Life
Science.

Students need support in developing and analyzing
independent projects and to incorporate inquiry-based virtual
science experiments.

Provide
activities for students to design and develop science and
engineering projects to increase their scientific thinking. Develop
and implement inquiry-based activities that allow for testing of
hypothesis, data analysis, and explanation of variable and
experimental design in Life Science which incorporates Mathematical
concepts and skills.

Utilize various reading and writing
strategies (Power Writing, use of probes and/or reading resource
material)

Students may demonstrate the Scientific methods by
participation in the Science Fair and/or other STEM competitions and
activities.

Administration,MTSS-RtI
Team

The MTSS-RtI
Team will review students work folders for evidence of the use of
inquiry based learning activities and monitor school base assessment
and Interims to ensure adequate intervention.

Formative –
District Baseline Data and school based assessment.

Summative
2013 – EOC Biology
Evaluation

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2. Students scoring at
or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in Biology.

Biology Goal #2:

The results of the
2012 Biology EOC Exam indicate that 46 % of the students achieved
proficiency in the upper third

Expected level of performance
for 2013 is 47 % proficiency for the upper third.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

46% (164)

47%(166)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Areas of
deficiency as noted on the administration of the 2012 Biology EOC
exam was The Big Idea:
Molecular and Cellular
Biology

Students need exposure to strategies that allow them
to conceptualize the unseen microscopic world and examine
relationships to structure and function.

Provide a
variety of hands-on inquiry-based (H.O.T. labs) learning
opportunities for students to analyze, draw appropriate conclusion,
and apply key instructional concepts as to the origin, development,
and classification of major life forms.

Utilize reading and
writing strategies (i.e. Power writing, use of reading
probes/resource material).

Administration,
MTSS-RtI Team

The
Administrative team will review student work folders for evidence of
the use of inquiry based learning activities and monitor school
based assessment and interims to ensure adequate progress and to
adjust instruction.

Formative
- District Base-line data and school based assessment, projects
entered at the Regional Science and Engineering
fair.

Summative - 2013 Biology
EOC

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

PLC
- Rigor through Inquiry-based learning – focus Biology (HOT
Labs)

9-12

Grade
level teachers

All
Science teachers

Early
Release–September and October, 2012.

Student
work folders, walk-throughs, and assessments.

Administration,
Chairperson

Use
of Hand-held interactive devices

9-12

Grade
level teachers

All
Science teachers

Early
Release– October and December, 2012. Professional Development
Day

Student
work folders, walk-throughs, and assessments.

Administration,
Chairperson

Technology
– develop and use file sharing web-site (Edumoto, Wiki, Group
Fusion, Drop bucket, etc)

9-12

Grade
level teachers

All
Science teachers

Early
Release–October and December, 2012. Professional Development
Day

E-mails,
comments left on site by students, teacher/parent e-mails, sample
page of site

Administration,
Chairperson

Hands
on Use of Physical Science equipment (Presented by MDC College
Professor)

9-12

Grade
level teachers

All
Science teachers

Early
Release–October and December, 2012. Professional Development
Day

Student
work folders, walk-throughs, and assessments.

Administration,
Chairperson

Science Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Creating of visual content review sheets and diagram
bank of visual cues for discussion – teacher produced for strategic
reviews

Teacher produced – visual diagrams – hard copy and
visual diagram bank

Smaller Learning Community Grant

$300.00

Subtotal:
$300.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Use of Hand-held interactive devises

In-House (teacher facilitated)/PD

Smaller Learning Community Grant

$100.00

Subtotal:
$100.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Hands on Use of Physical Science equipment

Presented by MDC College Physics Professor

Smaller Learning Community Grant

$50.00

Subtotal:
$50.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Student created Biology content review sheets

Biology content review sheets

Smaller Learning Community Grant

$300.00

Subtotal:
$300.00

Grand
Total: $750.00

End of Science Goals

Writing Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1a. FCAT 2.0: Students
scoring at Achievement Level 3.0 and higher in writing.

Writing Goal #1a:

The results of the
2012 FCAT 2.0 Writing Test indicate that 89% of students scored a
level 3 or higher.

Our goal for the 2012-2013 school year is
to increase the percentage of students scoring level 3 or higher by
1 percentage point to 90%.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

89% (363)

90% (367)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

The area of
deficiency as noted on the 2012 administration of the Writing FCAT
2.0 was in the elaboration of persuasive essays. Students need to
develop and demonstrate understanding of persuasive writing
techniques that is used for the purpose of influencing the
reader.

During
writing instruction, students will write essays that state a
position or claim, present detailed evidence, examples, and
reasoning to support effective arguments and emotional appeals, and
acknowledge and refute opposing arguments. Also, peer editing and
anchor papers will also be used throughout the lesson.

Principal,
Assistant Principal,Department Chairperson,MTSS-RtI and LLT
Teams

Administer
and score monthly students’ writing prompts to monitor students’
progress and to adjust focus.

Formative:
District
Baseline data and writing prompts.

Summative:
2013 FCAT
Writing Test.

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1b. Florida Alternate
Assessment: Students scoring at 4 or higher in writing.

Writing Goal #1b:

N/A

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level of
Performance:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Writing
Across the Curriculum

9
- 12

DeVry
University

9-12
Instructors

November
6, 2012

Student
work folders, classroom walkthroughs

Administration

Writing Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of Writing Goals

U.S. History End-of-Cource (EOC) Goals

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

1. Students scoring at
Achievement Level 3 in U.S. History.

U.S. History Goal
#1:

The U.S. History
baseline data revealed that 100% of the students are
non-proficient.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level
of Performance:

0%(1)

10%(32)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Students
have limited understanding and knowledge of the U.S.
Constitution.

Students
will engage in project based activities which emphasize an
understanding of democratic principles.

Activate prior
knowledge to engage students in understanding the U.S. Constitution
by utilizing Discovery Channel programs.

Administration,
MTSS-RtI

Data
analysis of assessments, comparing benchmarks to evaluations.

Bi-weekly
site generated assessments.

2013 US History EOC

Based on
the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to "Guiding
Questions", identify and define areas in need of improvement for the
following group:

2. Students scoring at
or above Achievement Levels 4 and 5 in U.S. History.

U.S. History Goal
#2:

The U.S. History
baseline data revealed that 100% of the students are
non-proficient.

2012 Current Level of
Performance:

2013 Expected Level
of Performance:

0%(1)

10%(32)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Students
have limited understanding and knowledge of the U.S.
Constitution.

Opportunities
will be provided for students to participate in a mock Congressional
hearing.

Administration,
MTSS-RtI

Students
will participate in District competitions.

Rubrics and
placement in mock hearing will determine
effectiveness.

Bi-weekly
site generated assessments

2013 US History EOC

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Discovery
Channel PD

11th
Grade

Discovery
Channel Staff

11th
Grade U.S. History teachers

November
6, 2012

Included
in Lesson Plans

Administration

U.S. History Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of U.S. History EOC Goals

Attendance Goal(s)

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based
on the analysis of attendance data, and reference to “Guiding
Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:

1. Attendance

Attendance Goal
#1:

Our goal for the
2012-2013 school year is to increase attendance to 96.93% by
minimizing absences

Our goal for this year is to decrease
the number of students with excessive absences (10 or more), and
excessive tardiness (10 or more) by 5%.

2012 Current
Attendance Rate:

2013 Expected
Attendance Rate:

96.43%
1414)

96.93%(1421)

2012 Current Number of
Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)

2013 Expected Number
of Students with Excessive Absences (10 or more)

309

294

2012 Current Number of
Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)

2013 Expected Number
of Students with Excessive Tardies (10 or more)

449

427

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Attendance
rate from previous year decreased due to truancy. The truancies were
associated student’s failure to submit notes from home and absences
related to personal/emotional and family conflicts.

Conduct
grade level/academy assemblies in order to address school/district
attendance policy.

Provide parents/students with information
on school procedures for submitting documentation in order to excuse
absences.

Students with excessive absences are refereed to
School Social Worker.

Implement and enforce an after school
detention program for students with excessive
tardiness.

Assistant
Principal

Weekly
updates to administration and to entire staff during monthly faculty
meetings and sign-in logs.

Use
monthly/daily attendance rosters to monitor attendance and evaluate
progress using COGNOS reports.

Attendance Review
Committee

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Truancy
Prevention

9-12
Attendance and Tardiness

Staff
from Attendance Services

All
teachers, counselors, and attendance clerk

November
6, 2012

A
Truancy Intervention Monitoring Program will be developed during the
PD. An assistant Principal will monitor the implementation of this
program.

Assistant
Principal and designee

Attendance Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of Attendance Goal(s)

Suspension Goal(s)

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based
on the analysis of suspension data, and reference to “Guiding
Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:

1. Suspension

Suspension Goal
#1:

Our goal for the
2012-2013 school year is to decrease the total number of suspensions
by 10%.

2012 Total Number of
In–School Suspensions

2013 Expected Number
of In-School Suspensions

0

0

2012 Total Number of
Students Suspended In-School

2013 Expected Number
of Students Suspended In-School

0

0

2012 Number of
Out-of-School Suspensions

2013 Expected Number
of Out-of-School Suspensions

22

20

2012 Total Number of
Students Suspended Out-of-School

2013 Expected Number
of Students Suspended Out-of-School

20

18

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

An area of
deficiency is the lack of indoor suspension due to satisfactory
conduct requirement for admission. Outdoor suspensions are based on
level of offence as per the Code of Student Conduct.

Students
will attend Academy Orientation meetings in order to review the Code
of Student Conduct.

Provide students with an agenda which
includes the Code of Student Conduct.

As an alternative to
indoor suspension, implement an after school detention program.

Administrative
Team MTSS-RtI

Monitor
Spot Success report by grade level and monitor COGNOS report on
student outdoor suspension rate. Discuss progress during
administrative meetings

COGNOS
Reports, Daily Attendance, and Monthly SCAM reports.

Spot
Success Report

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Student
Code of Conduct

9-12

Martha
Chavez

School
Wide

November
6, 2012

Workshop
to review classroom management strategies with teachers

Administration

Suspension Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of Suspension Goal(s)

Dropout Prevention Goal(s)

Note: Required for High School - F.S., Sec.
1003.53

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on
the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to “Guiding
Questions”, identify and define areas in need of improvement:

1. Dropout
Prevention

Dropout Prevention Goal
#1:

*Please refer to the
percentage of students who dropped out during the 2011-2012 school
year.

Our goal for the
2012-2013 school year is to decrease our dropout rate by 0.5
percentage points and to maintain our current graduation rate.

2012 Current Dropout
Rate:

2013 Expected Dropout
Rate:

0.13%
(2)

0%

2012 Current Graduation
Rate:

2013 Expected Graduation
Rate:

94.97%
(340)

94.97%
(340)

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

An area of
deficiency is not meeting high school graduation requirements.
Students may be unaware of programs which are available as an
alternative to dropping out of school.

Identify and
meet with At-Risk students and discuss the Student Progression Plan,
options and credit recovery programs, and other programs available
in an effort to enroll the student in alternative educational
options.

School
Counselor

Monitor
enrollment log of At-Risk students, referring students to
alternative programs.

Enrollment
Logs

Graduation Rate Report

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Graduation
Requirements

9-12

Guidance
Counselor

School
Wide

November
6, 2012

Monitor
Parent Sign-In Roster

Guidance
Counselor

Graduation
Requirements

9-12

Guidance
Counselor

School
Wide

November
6, 2012

Monitor
Parent Sign-In Roster

Guidance
Counselor

Dropout Prevention Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of Dropout Prevention Goal(s)

Parent Involvement Goal(s)

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based
on the analysis of parent involvement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:

1. Parent
Involvement

Parent Involvement Goal
#1:

*Please refer to the
percentage of parents who participated in school activities,
duplicated or unduplicated.

During the
2011-2012 school year, parent participation in school wide
activities was (3.2%). Our goal for the 2012-2013 school year is to
increase parental participation by 10% from 3.2% to 13%.

2012 Current Level
of Parent Involvement:

2013 Expected
Level of Parent Involvement:

3.2%

13%

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

1.1.
Lack of participation in school wide activities by parents.

1.1.
Provide
parents with advanced notification of school events and activities
via Connect Ed messages. Stager events and times to provide parents
with multiple opportunities to attend events.

Inform parents
of events using Connect Ed (phone and emails).

1.1.
Administration

1.1.
Utilize
Sign-In sheets, rosters and logs to determine the number of parents
attending school community events.

1.1.
School
Sign-In Sheets, rosters, telephone logs, and Connect
Ed

2

1.2.

Parent limited access to resources available through the Parent
Portal

1.2.
Provide
Professional Development in the Parent Resource Center on the use of
the Parent Portal

1.2.
Administration

1.2.
Utilize
Sign-In sheets, rosters and logs to determine the number of parents
attending school community events.

1.2.
School
Sign-In Sheets, rosters, and telephone logs.

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Effectiveness
of the on-line Parent Portal

9-12

Selected
School Staff

Parent
Academy/Portal Workshop

November
6, 2012

Effectiveness
will be determined by event attendance and staff feedback.

Administration

Parent Involvement Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of Parent Involvement Goal(s)

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Goal(s)

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on the
analysis of school data, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:

1. STEM

STEM Goal #1:

Increase the overall
participation of MLEC High School students at STEM activities at a
local and state level.

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Students will be
encouraged to join either a Career Technical Student Organization or
service organization or club, i.e., SECME.

Encourage
students through lessons, YouTube videos and classroom
demonstrations to justify the student’s
participation.

Students will be informed of the direct
connection between being involved in a CTSO, club and organization
and being accepted to a post-secondary school of their
choice.

CTSO Sponsor and
organization officers

Collect lesson
plans or agenda, advertisement(s) of CTSO, Clubs and service
organizations to verify that the students are being informed of this
opportunity.

Record the
total number of CTSOs, Clubs and service organizations members.

2

Students will be
encouraged to join a CTSO, Clubs and service organizations if funds
are available.

Fund raising-
breakfast sells, car washes and sponsorship via a related
professional organization, if available or relevant.

CTSO Sponsor and
organization officers

Track fund
raising activities submitted through the school treasurer.

Fund Raising
Logs

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Club
Organizational Meeting

9-12/all
clubs and CTSO’s

Activities
Director

School
wide Club, Service Organizations and CTSO Sponsors

After
school 1st quarter of the year.

Require
that each Career Technical Student Organization or service
organization or club submit their data per quarter of the school
year.

Activities
Director or Assistant Principal responsible for Career Technical
Student Organization or service organization or clubs.

STEM Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Advertisement of each organization

Signs for each CTSO/Club/organization

Fund Raising Activities

$500.00

Subtotal:
$500.00

Grand Total:
$500.00

End of STEM Goal(s)

Career and Technical Education (CTE) Goal(s)

* When using percentages,
include the number of students the percentage represents (e.g., 70%
(35)).

Based on the
analysis of school data, identify and define areas in need of
improvement:

1. CTE

CTE Goal #1:

Increase opportunities
for STEM applied learning by increasing opportunities for students
to participate in CTSO (HOSA) skill competitions by
5%.

Increase the number of CTE programs within the Academy of
Information Technology to meet the demands of the evolving IT
industry within our community.
Increase enrollment in all IT
career pathways within the Academy of Information
Technology.
Increase the number of students that sit and
successfully pass relative industry certification exams within the
Computer Systems Technology (Cisco) career pathway.
Research and
obtain the appropriate industry certification exam for students
within the Electronic Technology career pathway
Increase the
number of internship /externships as well as on-the-job training
(OJT) opportunities for 11th and 12th grade students within the
Academy of Information Technology in all career
pathways.

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

Identification of
individuals or industry partners who will be able to mentor
students.

Identification of CTE Academy instructors that will
mentor students.

Identifying and securing funding for the
procurement and training of qualified IT instructors.
Possible
funding limitations to visit stakeholders in middle schools and
career exploration activities.
Purchasing of exam vouchers
encourage student participation.
Secure funding for certification
preparatory materials and additional instruction due to rigor of
these examinations.
There is no current local certification
organization for Electronics.
Identification of industry partners
to accommodate students for relevant externships and OJT
opportunities has been a challenge.
Identifying and scheduling of
qualified students has been a challenge.

Meet with
students monthly to identify concerns about skill competitions and
increase mentors by involving partnerships with
industry.
Increase the percentage of CTE students who are
actively participating in CTE organization and research grant
opportunities

Seek other district funding opportunities and
identify which program(s) can be added.
Seek funding
opportunities through grants and EESAC.

Previously funded by
MDCPS, Dept. of Industrial Education.

Research and seek
national /international organizations for Electronic
certification.

Procure time for instructors and/or academy
team members to visit local Miami-Dade County partners, and IT
organizations to seek such opportunities.

Establish and offer
in-house internship opportunities through IT club and school-site
technician under the supervision of Information Technology Services
(ITS).

Academy
Leader
Advisory Board
CTE Academy Instructors

Review of student
applications submitted for competition.

Advisement during
application process by academy leader and CTE
instructors.

Communication with industry partners to identify
barriers.

Once funding is secured, seek and train qualified
personnel
Student interest, success and adoption of new
programs
Monitor and evaluate student interest through the number
of applications broken down by academy and career
pathway

Track student achievement based on scores (pass/fail)
on certification exams.

2013 CTE
students’ participation in CTE (HOSA) competitions

Outcomes
of 2013 CTE competitions

Program(s) offered in master
schedule with qualified teacher

Final number of students
accepted for the Academy of IT by pathway verified by school
registrar

Track student achievement based on scores
(pass/fail) on certification exams

Addition of certification
exam as verified through the CAPE academy

Report the
number of internships, externships and OJT
candidates

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC, subject, grade level, or
school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g., early release) and Schedules
(e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for Monitoring

Know
and apply core concepts, and principles of math, science, and the
arts, social studies integrated with the CTE classes

All
Grades 9-12

Martha
Chavez

Academy
members

Early
Release and Academy Meetings

Capstone
Project

Assistant
Principals

CTE Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand Total:
$0.00

End of CTE Goal(s)

Additional Goal(s)

N/A Goal:

Based
on the analysis of student achievement data, and reference to
“Guiding Questions”, identify and define areas in need of
improvement for the following group:

1.
N/A Goal

N/A
Goal #1:

N/A

2012
Current level:

2013
Expected level:

N/A

N/A

Problem-Solving
Process to Increase Student Achievement

Anticipated
Barrier

Strategy

Person or
Position Responsible for Monitoring

Process Used to
Determine Effectiveness of Strategy

Evaluation
Tool

1

N/A

Professional Development (PD) aligned with
Strategies through Professional Learning Community (PLC) or PD
Activity

Please note that each Strategy does not require
a professional development or PLC activity.

PD Content /Topic and/or PLC Focus

Grade Level/Subject

PD Facilitator and/or PLC Leader

PD Participants (e.g. , PLC,subject,
grade level, or school-wide)

Target Dates (e.g. , early release) and
Schedules (e.g., frequency of meetings)

Strategy for Follow-up/Monitoring

Person or Position Responsible for
Monitoring

No Data
Submitted

Budget:

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

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Technology

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Professional Development

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Other

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

No Data

No Data

No Data

$0.00

Subtotal:
$0.00

Grand
Total: $0.00

End of N/A Goal(s)

FINAL BUDGET

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

Goal

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Mathematics

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Science

Creating of
visual content review sheets and diagram bank of visual cues for
discussion – teacher produced for strategic reviews

Teacher
produced – visual diagrams – hard copy and visual diagram bank

Smaller
Learning Community Grant

$300.00

Writing

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

U.S.
History

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Attendance

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Suspension

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Dropout Prevention

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Parent
Involvement

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

STEM

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

CTE

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$300.00

Technology

Goal

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Mathematics

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Science

Use of
Hand-held interactive devises

In-House
(teacher facilitated)/PD

Smaller
Learning Community Grant

$100.00

Writing

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

U.S.
History

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Attendance

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Suspension

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Dropout Prevention

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Parent
Involvement

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

STEM

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

CTE

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$100.00

Professional Development

Goal

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Mathematics

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Science

Hands on Use
of Physical Science equipment

Presented by
MDC College Physics Professor

Smaller
Learning Community Grant

$50.00

Writing

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

U.S.
History

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Attendance

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Suspension

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Dropout Prevention

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Parent
Involvement

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

STEM

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

CTE

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$50.00

Other

Goal

Strategy

Description of Resources

Funding Source

Available Amount

Reading

Tutoring

Part-time hourly funding

Small Learning Community Grant

$1,000.00

Mathematics

Tutoring

Part-time
hourly funding

Smaller
Learning Community Grant

$1,000.00

Science

Student created Biology content
review sheets

Biology content review sheets

Smaller Learning Community Grant

$300.00

Writing

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

U.S. History

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Attendance

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Suspension

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Dropout
Prevention

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Parent Involvement

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

STEM

Advertisement
of each organization

Signs for each
CTSO/Club/organization

Fund Raising
Activities

$500.00

CTE

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00

Subtotal:
$2,800.00

Grand Total:
$3,250.00

Differentiated Accountability

School-level Differentiated Accountability Compliance

Priority

Focus

Prevent

NA

Are you a reward
school: Yes No

A reward school is any school that improves their letter grade or
any school graded A.

No Attachment (Uploaded on
10/12/2012)

School Advisory Council

School Advisory Council (SAC) Membership Compliance

The majority of the SAC members are not employed by the school district. The
SAC is composed of the principal and an appropriately balanced number of
teachers, education support employees, students (for middle and high school
only), parents, and other business and community citizens who are representative
of the ethnic, racial, and economic community served by the school. Please
verify the statement above by selecting "Yes" or "No" below.

Yes. Agree with the above statement.

Projected use of SAC
Funds

Amount

EESAC activities will support
implementation of SIP. The EESAC Committee will meet on a monthly basis to
address concerns raised by the Literary Leadership Team to provide support
and enhance student achievement.

$3,250.00

Describe the activities of the School Advisory Council for the upcoming
year

The Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC) at
Miami Lakes Educational Center provides an unbiased forum for professional and
community collaboration among all stakeholders in order to foster a learning
environment that supports the school's vision and mission. The EESAC is the sole
governing and decision-making body for the implementation of the School
Improvement Plan. The purpose of the EESAC is to work to insure improved student
achievement. In order to meet these goals, EESAC engages in the following
activities: prepares and evaluates the School Improvement Plan (SIP); assists in
the preparation of the school’s annual budget; assists in the preparation and
delivery of necessary and appropriate educational programs and services;
supports all stakeholders in their interests related to the improvement of
student achievement. Decisions on courses of action result from discussion of
issues and the arrival at group consensus as the primary function of EESAC
Members monthly meetings which are advertised and open to the public. During
these sessions, the progress of the SIP goals and available resources are
discussed and analyzed in order to facilitate school-wide success. All
recommendations or decisions made by the EESAC shall be consistent with the
FCIM, the Competency Based Curriculum (CBC), the State vocational/business
standards, pertinent Academy curricula, and the Next Generation Sunshine State
Standards strands and benchmarks, to ensure continuity, alignment, and
achievement. The EESAC convenes once a month. All issues and requests brought
before it for consideration must be justified as items necessary for enhancing
and improving the goals and objectives of the School Improvement Plan, and thus
the services provided to our students. The EESAC and the administration work
cooperatively in the funding of requested items, particularly when the requests
necessitate large expenditures of money, such as for technology and
instructional materials; other issues such as enhancements for student services
and school safety are considered; and, the EESAC is kept apprised of the
staffing allocation considerations as well. Everything that the EESAC considers
is tied to resource allocation for the purpose of enhancing student achievement.

AYP DATA

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data
2011-2012
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data
2010-2011
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Data
2009-2010

SCHOOL GRADE DATA

No Data Found

Dade School
District
MIAMI LAKES EDUCATIONAL CENTER
2010-2011

Reading

Math

Writing

Science

Grade
Points
Earned

% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level
3 and Above)

59%

87%

83%

47%

276

Writing and Science: Takes
into account the % scoring 4.0 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3
and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science
average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.

% of Students Making Learning
Gains

58%

87%

145

3 ways to make gains:

Improve FCAT Levels

Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5

Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2

Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in
the School?

56% (YES)

78% (YES)

134

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

FCAT Points Earned

565

Percent Tested = 100%

Percent of eligible students tested

School Grade*

A

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

Dade School
District
MIAMI LAKES EDUCATIONAL CENTER
2009-2010

Reading

Math

Writing

Science

Grade
Points
Earned

% Meeting High Standards (FCAT Level
3 and Above)

62%

85%

94%

36%

277

Writing and Science: Takes
into account the % scoring 4.0 and above on Writing and the % scoring 3
and above on Science. Sometimes the District writing and/or science
average is substituted for the writing and/or science component.

% of Students Making Learning
Gains

62%

81%

143

3 ways to make gains:

Improve FCAT Levels

Maintain Level 3, 4, or 5

Improve more than one year within Level 1 or 2

Adequate Progress of Lowest 25% in
the School?

55% (YES)

74% (YES)

129

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

FCAT Points Earned

549

Percent Tested = 100%

Percent of eligible students tested

School Grade*

A

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