[-] text size [+]

Longleaf Elementary School

 

School Information

School Name: Longleaf Elementary
School Address: 4290 N. Wickham Road, Melbourne, FL 32935
School Phone: 321.242.4700
School Fax: 321.242.4708
Principal: Mrs. Marilyn Sylvester
Principal email: sylvester.marilyn@brevardschools.org
Web Address: http://www.longleaf.brevard.k12.fl.us/

Demographics

Number of Students:  743
Number Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch:   15.03%
Percent of Limited English Proficient:  2.15%
Percent of Special Education:  Gifted 8.47%; other programs 13.99%
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

- White: 81%
- Black: 3%
- Hispanic: 77%
- Asian/Pacific Island: 3%
- Other: 6%

 

Student Achievement Data:

The data from the Florida Department of Education shows that Longleaf Elementary is making significant progress towards the goal of all students meeting high learning standards.  Brevard Public Schools consistently scores above the state average in FCAT results, so we compare our scores to the district averages.  The trends show that our students consistently score above the district average.  Longleaf has been ranked as an A+ school by the state of Florida ten years in a row and has maintained NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress for the past nine years.

Percent of Students Passing Statewide Assessment (Longleaf / Brevard Public Schools)

Grade: 3
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Math
96/81
98/83
97/82
91/81
Reading
94/78
94/81
94/79
86/79

 

Grade: 4
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Math
98/77
94/79
90/80
98/80
Reading
97/78
98/80
94/84
95/80
Writing
90/81
89/78
90/86
100/94

 

Grade: 5
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Math
92/70
93/71
92/70
84/69
Reading
98/82
96/78
95/80
91/79
Science
78/64
90/61
85/62
78/64

 

Grade: 6
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Math
88/68
94/74
95/73
93/76
Reading
98/78
94/80
94/82
95/81

 

Please comment on any aspect of the data that you believe is particularly significant.

Longleaf began the process of establishing working Professional Learning Communities in the fall of 2005.  The entire faculty began forming study groups and using data to guide not only instruction at the classroom level, but professional development and school-wide curriculum objectives as well. 

In 2006-07 we made some significant changes.  Based on the work done the previous spring and our FCAT results, we established school-wide goals.  Every faculty member was involved in professional development towards these goals.  Articulation meetings turned into a more interactive and collaborative time.  At this point, however, these meetings were still driven by goals of the administration and reading coach.

  • Data-driven intervention in reading:  professional development, collaborative planning and additional planning time was used to meet this goal. 94% of our students in the bottom quartile showed annual learning gains as compared with 2005-06 when only 71% of our students in the bottom quartile showed annual learning gains.  The percentage increase in students scoring at or above grade level went up by 4% in 3rd & 5th grades, 7% in 4th grade and 12% in 6th grade.
  • Science inquiry:  professional development and collaborative planning to create a science classroom (lab) for school-wide use was used to meet this goal.  Although the percentage of students passing the Science FCAT only increased by 2%, the average scale score rose from 352 in 2005-06 to 368 in 2006-07, one of the highest scale scores in the district.

In 2007-08 Professional Learning Communities became much more focused.  The principal and reading coach were still highly involved in each meeting, but goals were being set by PLC teams.  As we disaggregated our data, it was clear to us that those areas each team focused on showed the most improvement, while the areas that weren’t regular PLC topics stagnated or dropped slightly.  One outstanding example of this is our fifth grade team.  Their PLC meetings were very productive with every team member actively involved in the process.  The focus for much of the year was on technical writing and science instruction.  Students scoring at or above grade level on FCAT Science went from 78% in 06-07 to 90% in 07-08.  This brought our Science FCAT scores to the top in our district and 7th in the State of Florida.


By 2008-09 PLC teams were working well together.  Teams established data driven goals for their students quickly.  Professional development needs were determined and provided for individual PLC groups.  The reading coach was still involved in meetings, but mainly as a resource and staff developer.  State and district initiatives, however, drove the school-wide focus towards staff development in and initial implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI).  The process of finding ways to implement RtI took significant time and focus away from the goals PLC teams had established at the beginning of the year.  Mid-year reflections guided the administration to refocus and start with smaller steps towards implementation of RtI and PLC teams were able to get back to focus on their own data driven goals.  The importance of stepping back to build a more collaborative approach was never more evident.  We see the lost time reflected in the stagnation, and in some cases a decline, of FCAT scores.  Longleaf remained a high performing school, but did not see the improvements in student achievement we had seen in the previous two years.

2009-10 brought new challenges to our Professional Learning Communities.  Budget cuts reduced the already limited resource teacher staff and downsized the reading coach position to one day per week.  PLC teams were still establishing data driven goals but without the resource of continuous, specialized professional development to support them.  Teams without significant changes were able to maintain student achievement, but teams that had a lot of change in team members or support staff for inclusion saw declines in student achievement.  The biggest success story is that of the fourth grade team, who had worked together for several years and were already very autonomous with their PLC meetings.  This group was able to work together to overcome the limited resources, rely on their shared expertise, and show growth or gains in all subject areas. This was significant because it showed our faculty that the power of a professional learning community to affect change isn’t just tied to resources, it’s fueled by true collaboration.

 

Please present additional information that indicates your efforts to build a professional learning community have had a positive impact on students and/or teachers.

1. Positive Impact on Teachers:

- Teachers are working more collaboratively; sharing the load. The planning burden has been lifted from the shoulders of a few and dispersed among many.
-Schools in our area have formed a professional learning community to address issues facing fifth grade and student achievement in science.  Teams meet once a month after hours to share strategies and brainstorm solutions with each other. 
-School climate is more upbeat than in previous years. Teachers are now empowered to choose topics that are meaningful to them personally and have a “stage” to share their exemplary practices with their colleagues. 
- Newer teachers now have a more formal support system through the PLC time.  Sometimes as a new teacher you don’t know what information you are missing. The dialogue opened through PLCs has made our newer teachers seem like veterans.
- Professional development tied directly to goals of the team can be tailored to PLC teams and built into their schedule. The best part is that many of our teachers are providing the professional development to their teammates as well as sharing with other grade levels.
- RtI requires monthly data meetings.  Already formed PLC teams provide teachers the opportunity to look at grade level trends and share planning strategies for intervention.  Teachers are making more effective, data-driven instructional decisions now because they aren’t doing it alone, at home, without colleagues to collaborate with.

2. Positive Impact on Students:

- More focused, data-driven instruction provides students with powerful, differentiated instruction.
- The collaborative culture being developed has brought the instruction a child gets in a given grade level more equitable.  The knowledge of a few has been shared with and implemented by many.
- Collaborative planning has also been used to create learning experiences with students without excessive planning for teachers. An example is our 5th grade team planned a science blitz for the month before FCAT Science testing.  Each teacher took an area of science and planned interactive lessons and labs to do with students.  Less planning for the teacher was limited yet the students got a variety of detailed lessons and the excitement of “guest speakers”.

 

Please elaborate strategies you have found to be effective in the following areas:

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

We use a variety of assessments, both formal and informal, to evaluate students throughout the year.  Time is built into PLC meetings once a month to review all data and make instructional decisions.  PLC, vertical team and other professional development goals also come out of this disaggregation of data.

- Some assessments that we rely on are: Scholastic Reading Inventory, FAIR, District Benchmark Assessments (in all content areas), Running Records, Classroom performance observations, FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), Diagnostic testing (PASI, PSI, & DAR), and teacher needs surveys
- Each teacher is provided with a data notebook to keep records in throughout the year.
- Online reporting systems make data available from current and previous years for all students.
- Edline online grade reporting system provides a constant school-home connection.

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

Teachers collaborate to share materials, strategies and sometimes students to provide the best intervention systems in reading, writing and math.  The following strategies have been implemented:

Inclusion/co-teach model for students with Specific Learning Disabilities in grades K-6.  This has been extremely successful for those students. Additional planning time is given to these teams for data/intervention planning.
Bobcat Tutor mentoring program pairs students in 1st and 2nd grade with a volunteer that is trained to work one-on-one with student needing more confidence in their ability to read and write effectively.
Intervention blocks have been implemented in all grade levels. Teachers at each grade level team to provide targeted intervention to those students who have an area of concern.
Academic Support Program provides afterschool support to students who have been identified through PLC and RtI teams as needing significant intervention.  Support is provided for grades 3-6 in Reading and Math and grades 5-6 in Science.  Classroom teachers collaborate with the afterschool teacher to share intervention strategies.
Literacy Leadership Team includes representatives from administration, primary, intermediate, ESE and activity teachers.  This team has been instrumental in providing the resources and structures needed to make the ideas of the faculty become reality.

3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

Vertical Teams (established at the end of 2005-06) provided us with our first, true Professional Learning Communities.  This process has made the gains in student achievement possible. The Literacy Leadership Team and a part-time Reading Coach are critical in the implementation process.

- Literacy Leadership Team guides these meetings by taking the data gathered from testing information and teacher input and uses it to create our goals.
- Agendas are driven completely by the needs from the above data and teacher ownership is evident.
- By holding meetings once a month, our faculty is able to share common goals. 

Professional Learning Communities replaced our weekly articulation meetings at the
beginning of  2007-08.

- Grade level teams work with administration and the reading coach to establish their personal SMART goals for the year based on data and desire to learn more.
- Professional development at each grade level has focused around their goals, and weekly “meetings” are entirely teacher led.  Support is provided by Literacy Coach and administration as requested.
- Quarterly “review” meetings to share accomplishments, review new data and set new goals & timelines.

The Literacy Leadership Team then took those goals & school-wide data to determine School-wide goals for literacy. Additional school-wide training through vertical teams and professional development opportunities has taken place to support the implementation of Response to Intervention and Differentiated Instruction across the curriculum.

 

List awards and recognitions your school has achieved

- State of Florida A+ School – 2000 & 2002-2010
- Achieved Adequate Yearly Progress – 2003-2010
- Golden School Award – 1999-2010
- State of Florida Five Star School Award – 1999-2010
- Florida Department of Education STAR Award (Schools Taking Action for Reform) – 2010
- EVA Award (Excellence in Visual Arts) – 2006-13
- Excellence in Physical Education Award – 2007-11
- Florida Region 3 Reading Leadership Team of the Year Award – 2008
- Florida School Leaders Promising Practices School (www.floridaschoolleaders.org) – 2008