City-data.com school rating (using weighted 2010 test average as compared to other schools in Florida) from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) is 16.
Discuss this school with others on our active Florida forum
Show street view
No street view available for this location
Other nearby schools ratings:
| Westchase Elementary School (10.1 miles): | 95 |
| Maniscalco Elementary School (9.1 miles): | 74 |
| Brooker Elementary School (11.4 miles): | 61 |
| Highland Lakes Elementary School (18.7 miles): | 50 |
| Witter Elementary School (3.5 miles): | 40 |
| Modesta Robbins Partnership School (16.9 miles): | 30 |
| Sheehy Elementary School (1.5 miles): | 18 |
| Learey Technical Center School: | 16 |
Learey Technical Center School rating compared to average state, county and city schools ratings:
| Florida: | 45 |
| Hillsborough County: | 42 |
| Tampa: | 41 |
| Learey Technical Center School: | 16 |
1
mary bailey
Nov 28, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
is this a good school for emt training?And how large or small are the classes? and is there any age over 21 that is un acceptable
2
Tanya Primus
Jan 28, 2013 @ 8:08 am
Does your school offer the 30hr. introductory child care course. Thank you
Review, comment, or add new information about this topic:
Discuss this school with others on our active Florida forum
District Number: 29
School number: 2381
School type: Adult
District Name: HILLSBOROUGH
Grade range: ADULT
Fax Number (verify independently before using): (813) 231-1855
Principal: Annmarie Courtney
The function/setting of the school: Area Vocational-Technical Center
The main educational program offered at the school: Vocational/Technical
Congressional District (The assigned Congressional District for the area in which the school is located.): 11
House District (The assigned Florida House of Representatives District for the area in which the school is located.): 59
Senate District: 18
2009-2010 School Grades
Meeting High Standards in Reading
| Here: | 54% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 72% |
Meeting High Standards in Math
| Here: | 48% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 75% |
Meeting High Standards in Writing
| Here: | 92% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 87% |
Meeting High Standards in Science
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 34% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 52% |
Making Reading Gains
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 61% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 63% |
Making Math Gains
| Here: | 65% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 68% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading
| Here: | 71% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 59% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Math
| Here: | 65% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 65% |
Points Earned (Sum of Previous 9 Columns)
| Here: | 490 |
| State average from 133 schools: | 541 |
Percent Tested
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2009: YES| Here: | 100% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 100% |
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2010: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2009: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2010: YES
Grade in 2010: C
Grade in 2009: C
Grade in 2008: C
Grade in 2007: C
Grade in 2006: C
Grade in 2005: C
Grade in 2004: C
Grade in 2003: C
Grade in 2002: C
Grade in 2001: C
Grade in 2000: C
Grade in 119999: C
Charter: NO
Free or Reduced Lunch Rate
| Here: | 65% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 52% |
Minority Rate
Region: 2| Here: | 73% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 43% |
Title I: YES
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for school year 2009-2010
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: TOTAL
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 880 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 880 (100%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 251
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 48% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 775
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 44% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 769
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: WHITE
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 238 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 238 (100%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 62
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 69% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 219
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 64% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 216
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: BLACK
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 490 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 490 (100%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 144
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 37% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 428
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 32% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 424
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: HISPANIC
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 89 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 89 (100%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 27
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 79
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 74
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 79
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 75
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: ASIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 33 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 33 (100%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 8
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 30
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 29
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 30
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 29
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: AMERICAN INDIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 1
Number of Students Tested in Math: 1
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 1
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 1
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 1
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 571 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 571 (100%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 94% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 42% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 487
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 38% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 485
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 69 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 69 (100%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 22
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 56
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 56
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 56
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 56
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2009-2010 - Subgroup: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 117 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 117 (100%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 77% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: No
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 19% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 98
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 23% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 98
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
2008-2009 School Grades
Meeting High Standards in Reading
| Here: | 57% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 72% |
Meeting High Standards in Math
| Here: | 45% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 74% |
Meeting High Standards in Writing
| Here: | 91% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 91% |
Meeting High Standards in Science
| Here: | 30% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 51% |
Making Reading Gains
| Here: | 58% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 67% |
Making Math Gains
| Here: | 57% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 70% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 65% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 65% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Math
| Here: | 62% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 68% |
Points Earned (Sum of Previous 9 Columns)
| Here: | 465 |
| State average from 133 schools: | 557 |
Percent Tested
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2008: YES| Here: | 99% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 100% |
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2009: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2008: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2009: YES
Grade in 2009: C
Grade in 2008: C
Grade in 2007: C
Grade in 2006: C
Grade in 2005: C
Grade in 2004: C
Grade in 2003: C
Grade in 2002: C
Grade in 2001: C
Grade in 2000: C
Grade in 1999: C
Charter: NO
Free or Reduced Lunch Rate
| Here: | 62% |
| State average from 132 schools: | 48% |
Minority Rate
Region: 2| Here: | 74% |
| State average from 133 schools: | 42% |
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for school year 2008-2009
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: TOTAL
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 849 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 849 (99%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 230
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 52% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 724
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 41% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 717
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: WHITE
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 221 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 221 (98%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 69
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 71% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 197
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 61% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 196
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: BLACK
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 465 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 466 (99%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 124
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 42% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 394
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 28% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 391
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: HISPANIC
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 89 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 88 (98%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 21
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 73
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 68
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 71
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 65
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: ASIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 26
Number of Students Tested in Math: 26
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 4
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 25
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 25
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 25
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 25
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: AMERICAN INDIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 1
Number of Students Tested in Math: 1
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 527 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 527 (99%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 125
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 44% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 441
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 33% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 438
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 77 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 76 (98%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 17
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 52
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 51
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 50
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 48
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2008-2009 - Subgroup: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 126 (96%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 126 (96%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 37
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 25% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 104
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 21% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 103
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
2007-2008 School Grades
Meeting High Standards in Reading
| Here: | 54% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 70% |
Meeting High Standards in Math
| Here: | 46% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 72% |
Meeting High Standards in Writing
| Here: | 83% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 85% |
Meeting High Standards in Science
| Here: | 29% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 48% |
Making Reading Gains
| Here: | 60% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 64% |
Making Math Gains
| Here: | 61% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 70% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading
| Here: | 72% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 61% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Math
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 61% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 69% |
Points Earned (Sum of Previous 9 Columns)
| Here: | 466 |
| State average from 131 schools: | 540 |
Percent Tested
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2007: YES| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 99% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 99% |
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2008: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2007: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2008: YES
Grade in 2008: C
Grade in 2007: C
Grade in 2006: C
Grade in 2005: C
Grade in 2004: C
Grade in 2003: C
Grade in 2002: C
Grade in 2001: C
Grade in 2000: C
Grade in 1999: C
Charter: NO
Free or Reduced Lunch Rate
| Here: | 60% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 47% |
Minority Rate
| Here: | 74% |
| State average from 131 schools: | 44% |
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for school year 2007-2008
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: TOTAL
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 768 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 768 (99%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 90% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 48% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 646
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 40% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 647
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: WHITE
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 200 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 200 (99%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 91% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 62% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 178
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 61% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 178
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: BLACK
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 423 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 424 (99%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 88% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: No
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 42% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 353
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 31% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 356
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: HISPANIC
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 94 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 93 (99%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 93% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 85
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 74
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 84
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 73
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: ASIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 15
Number of Students Tested in Math: 15
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 3
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 15
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 13
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 15
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 12
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: AMERICAN INDIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 1
Number of Students Tested in Math: 1
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 1
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 1
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 1
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 459 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 460 (99%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 88% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 45% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 375
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 34% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 375
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 76 (100%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 75 (99%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 20
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 67
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 54
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 66
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 52
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2007-2008 - Subgroup: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 115 (97%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 115 (97%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 24
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 98
Reading Growth Model - Number with Scores: 94
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 97
Math Growth Model - Number with Scores: 92
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
2006-2007 School Grades
Meeting High Standards in Reading
| Here: | 50% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 72% |
Meeting High Standards in Math
| Here: | 47% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 62% |
Meeting High Standards in Writing
| Here: | 85% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 84% |
Meeting High Standards in Science
| Here: | 40% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 42% |
Making Reading Gains
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 54% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 66% |
Making Math Gains
| Here: | 59% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 66% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading
| Here: | 62% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 65% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Math
| Here: | 53% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 66% |
Points Earned Sum of Previous 9 Columns
| Here: | 450 |
| State average from 11 schools: | 516 |
Percent Tested
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2006: YES| Here: | 99% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 99% |
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2006: NO
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains - 2007: YES
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Students Making Learning Gains in Math - 2007: YES
Grade in 2007: C
Grade in 2006: C
Grade in 2005: C
Grade in 2004: C
Grade in 2003: C
Grade in 2002: C
Grade in 2001: C
Grade in 2000: C
Grade in 1999: C
Charter: NO
Free or Reduced Lunch Rate
| Here: | 54% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 56% |
Minority Rate
| Here: | 70% |
| State average from 11 schools: | 58% |
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for school year 2006-2007
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: TOTAL
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 820 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 822 (99%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 90% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 44% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 41% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: WHITE
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 240 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 241 (100%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 94% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 61% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: Yes
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 60% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math: Yes
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: BLACK
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 440 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 440 (98%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 88% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: No
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 37% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 32% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: HISPANIC
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 91 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 92 (99%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 25
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 82
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 82
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: ASIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 16
Number of Students Tested in Math: 16
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 4
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 16
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 16
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: AMERICAN INDIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 1
Number of Students Tested in Math: 1
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 1
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 1
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 446 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 446 (98%)
Writing Performance Percent Proficient
| Here: | 83% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance Improved performance in Writing by 1%: No
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 37% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 31% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 91 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 91 (99%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 26
Reading Proficiency Number with Scores: 79
Math Proficiency Number with Scores: 78
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2006-2007 - Subgroup: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 118 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 118 (98%)
Writing Performance Number with Scores: 35
Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 20% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
51% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency Percent Proficient
| Here: | 17% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
56% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2007 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
2005-2006 School Grades
Meeting High Standards in Reading
| Here: | 49% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 66% |
Meeting High Standards in Math
| Here: | 46% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 61% |
Meeting High Standards in Writing
| Here: | 84% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 75% |
Making Reading Gains
| Here: | 60% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 64% |
Making Math Gains
| Here: | 58% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 69% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading
| Here: | 64% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 64% |
Points Earned Sum of Previous 6 Columns
| Here: | 361 |
| State average from 10 schools: | 399 |
Percent Tested
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains: YES| Here: | 99% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 99% |
Grade in 2006: C
Grade in 2005: C
Grade in 2004: C
Grade in 2003: C
Grade in 2002: C
Grade in 2001: C
Grade in 2000: C
Grade in 1999: C
Charter: NO
Free or Reduced Lunch Rate
| Here: | 54% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 57% |
Minority Rate
| Here: | 70% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 57% |
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for school year 2005-2006
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: TOTAL
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 916 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 916 (99%)
Writing Performance - Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 94% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance - Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 45% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 44% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: Yes
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 41% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 50% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: WHITE
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 279 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 279 (99%)
Writing Performance - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 98% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 57% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 44% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: Yes
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 57% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 50% scoring at or above grade level in Math: Yes
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: BLACK
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 482 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 482 (99%)
Writing Performance - Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 93% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance - Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 41% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 44% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 34% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 50% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: HISPANIC
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 100 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 100 (99%)
Writing Performance - Number with Scores: 24
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 29% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 26% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: ASIAN
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 20
Number of Students Tested in Math: 20
Writing Performance - Number with Scores: 6
Reading Proficiency - Number with Scores: 20
Math Proficiency - Number with Scores: 20
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: AMERICAN INDIAN
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 496 (98%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 495 (98%)
Writing Performance - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 90% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance - Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 35% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 44% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 32% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 50% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 111 (99%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 111 (99%)
Writing Performance - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 81% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Performance - Improved performance in Writing by 1%: Yes
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 17% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 20% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
AYP 2005-2006 - Subgroup: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Number of Students Tested in Reading: 132 (97%)
Number of Students Tested in Math: 132 (97%)
Writing Performance - Number with Scores: 25
Reading Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 31% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 44% scoring at or above grade level in Reading: No
Math Proficiency - Percent Proficient
| Here: | 24% |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59% |
- 50% scoring at or above grade level in Math: No
School-Wide Measures 2006 School Grade: C
School-Wide Measures Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Status: NO
2004-2005 School Grades
Meeting High Standards in Reading
| Here: | 43% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 65% |
Meeting High Standards in Math
| Here: | 43% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 58% |
Meeting High Standards in Writing
| Here: | 72% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 80% |
Making Reading Gains
| Here: | 59% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 60% |
Making Math Gains
| Here: | 63% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 63% |
of Lowest 25% Making Learning Gains in Reading
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 69% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 57% |
Points Earned Sum of Previous 6 Columns
| Here: | 349 |
| State average from 10 schools: | 382 |
Percent Tested
50% or More of Lowest 25% of Readers Making Learning Gains: Yes%| Here: | 98% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 99% |
Grade in 2005: C
Grade in 2004: C
Grade in 2003: C
Grade in 2002: C
Grade in 2001: C
Grade in 2000: C
Grade in 1999: C
Charter: NO
Free or Reduced Lunch Rate
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 52% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 62% |
Minority Rate
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 67% |
| State average from 10 schools: | 56% |
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) 2010 - 2011 Results
2010 - 2011 FCAT Reading Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1556 |
| State average: | 1716 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 283 |
| State average: | 312 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 31% |
| State average: | 19% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| Here: | 24% |
| State average: | 16% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 31% |
| State average: | 31% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| Here: | 12% |
| State average: | 25% |
% in each Achievement Level 5
| Here: | 2% |
| State average: | 9% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 45% |
| State average: | 65% |
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17
| Here: | 12 |
| State average: | 14 |
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17
| Here: | 6 |
| State average: | 7 |
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2
| Here: | 3 |
| State average: | 4 |
2010 - 2011 FCAT Reading Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1734 |
| State average: | 1810 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 303 |
| State average: | 317 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 18% |
| State average: | 17% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| Here: | 25% |
| State average: | 18% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| Here: | 38% |
| State average: | 33% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 17% |
| State average: | 23% |
% in each Achievement Level 5
| Here: | 2% |
| State average: | 9% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 57% |
| State average: | 65% |
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17
| Here: | 16 |
| State average: | 16 |
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17
| Here: | 6 |
| State average: | 6 |
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2
| Here: | 3 |
| State average: | 4 |
2010 - 2011 FCAT Reading Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1818 |
| State average: | 1876 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 296 |
| State average: | 308 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 24% |
| State average: | 20% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| Here: | 40% |
| State average: | 28% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 27% |
| State average: | 33% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| Here: | 7% |
| State average: | 16% |
% in each Achievement Level 5
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1% |
| State average: | 3% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 36% |
| State average: | 52% |
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 4 |
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17
| Here: | 15 |
| State average: | 16 |
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 6 |
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2
| Here: | 6 |
| State average: | 6 |
2010 - 2011 FCAT Science Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 289 |
| State average: | 307 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 34% |
| State average: | 27% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| Here: | 38% |
| State average: | 31% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| Here: | 25% |
| State average: | 31% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| Here: | 3% |
| State average: | 8% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 28% |
| State average: | 41% |
Mean Points Earned Physical and Chemical max 14
| Here: | 8 |
| State average: | 9 |
Mean Points Earned Earth and Space max 12
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 7 |
| State average: | 7 |
Mean Points Earned Life and Environmental max 13
| Here: | 7 |
| State average: | 8 |
Mean Points Earned Scientific Thinking max 12
| Here: | 6 |
| State average: | 7 |
2010 - 2011 FCAT Math Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1569 |
| State average: | 1696 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 286 |
| State average: | 315 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 43% |
| State average: | 25% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| Here: | 23% |
| State average: | 20% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| Here: | 23% |
| State average: | 29% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| Here: | 9% |
| State average: | 18% |
% in each Achievement Level 5
| Here: | 2% |
| State average: | 8% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 35% |
| State average: | 55% |
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8
| Here: | 3 |
| State average: | 4 |
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 6 |
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 5 |
| State average: | 6 |
2010 - 2011 FCAT Math Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1709 |
| State average: | 1786 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 286 |
| State average: | 306 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 35% |
| State average: | 23% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 24% |
| State average: | 20% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 31% |
| State average: | 31% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| Here: | 8% |
| State average: | 19% |
% in each Achievement Level 5
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1% |
| State average: | 7% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 41% |
| State average: | 57% |
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7
| Here: | 3 |
| State average: | 4 |
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 5 |
2010 - 2011 FCAT Math Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1848 |
| State average: | 1892 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
| Here: | 308 |
| State average: | 320 |
% in each Achievement Level 1
| Here: | 21% |
| State average: | 15% |
% in each Achievement Level 2
| Here: | 26% |
| State average: | 21% |
% in each Achievement Level 3
| Here: | 39% |
| State average: | 38% |
% in each Achievement Level 4
| Here: | 9% |
| State average: | 17% |
% in each Achievement Level 5
| Here: | 5% |
| State average: | 10% |
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above
| Here: | 53% |
| State average: | 64% |
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 6 |
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 6 |
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7
| Here: | 5 |
| State average: | 6 |
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6
| Here: | 6 |
| State average: | 7 |
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7
| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 5 |
2009 - 2010 FCAT Reading Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1642 |
| State average: | 1707 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 22%| Here: | 299 |
| State average: | 310 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 20%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 41%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 15%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 2%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 58%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17: 13
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17: 7
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2: 3
2009 - 2010 FCAT Reading Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1696 |
| State average: | 1800 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 23%| Here: | 296 |
| State average: | 315 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 27%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 36%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 12%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 2%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 50%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17: 13
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17: 6
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2: 3
2009 - 2010 FCAT Reading Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1834 |
| State average: | 1864 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 23%| Here: | 299 |
| State average: | 311 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 36%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 32%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 8%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 1%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 41%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9: 5
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17: 13
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17: 8
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2: 2
2009 - 2010 FCAT Science Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 38%| Here: | 281 |
| State average: | 299 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 37%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 21%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 3%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 25%
Mean Points Earned Physical and Chemical max 14: 6
Mean Points Earned Earth and Space max 12: 5
Mean Points Earned Life and Environmental max 13: 6
Mean Points Earned Scientific Thinking max 12: 7
2009 - 2010 FCAT Math Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1576 |
| State average: | 1679 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 39%| Here: | 287 |
| State average: | 311 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 27%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 26%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 6%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 2%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 34%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 4
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8: 4
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7: 5
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6: 4
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7: 5
2009 - 2010 FCAT Math Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1683 |
| State average: | 1799 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 38%| Here: | 280 |
| State average: | 309 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 25%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 31%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 5%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 1%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 36%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 4
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8: 4
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7: 3
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6: 4
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7: 5
2009 - 2010 FCAT Math Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1824 |
| State average: | 1876 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 24%| Here: | 302 |
| State average: | 316 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 26%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 38%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 8%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 4%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 50%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 6
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8: 5
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7: 5
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6: 5
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7: 5
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) 2009 - 2010 Writing Results
2009 - 2010 FCAT Writing Grade 8 Test Results:
Number of Students - Combined: 251
Mean Writing Score 100-500 - Combined
Unscore - Combined: 1| Here: | 4 |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59 |
Percent Earning Each Score Point 3 - Combined: 1%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 3.5 - Combined: 11%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 4 - Combined: 13%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 4.5 - Combined: 35%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 5 - Combined: 19%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 5.5 - Combined: 14%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 6 - Combined: 4%
Percent 3.5 or Above - Combined: 2%
Percent 4.0 or Above - Combined: 86%
2008 - 209 FCAT Reading Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1596 |
| State average: | 1696 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 25%| Here: | 291 |
| State average: | 309 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 30%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 31%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 12%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 3%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 46%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9: 6
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17: 11
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17: 6
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2: 3
2008 - 209 FCAT Reading Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1728 |
| State average: | 1775 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 19%| Here: | 302 |
| State average: | 311 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 22%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 44%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 13%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 1%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 58%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9: 6
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17: 10
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17: 7
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2: 4
2008 - 209 FCAT Reading Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1797 |
| State average: | 1857 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 28%| Here: | 291 |
| State average: | 304 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 37%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 27%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 6%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 1%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 35%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 17: 11
Mean Points Earned Comparisons max 17: 7
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 2: 6
2008 - 209 FCAT Science Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 39%| Here: | 282 |
| State average: | 299 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 35%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 22%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 3%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 25%
Mean Points Earned Physical and Chemical max 14: 6
Mean Points Earned Earth and Space max 12: 5
Mean Points Earned Life and Environmental max 13: 7
Mean Points Earned Scientific Thinking max 12: 6
2008 - 209 FCAT Math Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1566 |
| State average: | 1670 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 44%| Here: | 285 |
| State average: | 309 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 27%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 19%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 8%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 2%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 28%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 3
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8: 3
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7: 6
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6: 3
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7: 5
2008 - 209 FCAT Math Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| Here: | 1714 |
| State average: | 1801 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 33%| Here: | 287 |
| State average: | 309 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 30%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 27%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 9%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 2%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 38%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 4
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8: 4
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7: 4
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6: 4
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7: 5
2008 - 209 FCAT Math Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1836 |
| State average: | 1882 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 24%| Here: | 305 |
| State average: | 317 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 24%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 38%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 9%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 4%
Mean Points Earned Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 51%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 6
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 8: 5
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 7: 4
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking 6: 5
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis 7: 5
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) 2008 - 2009 Norm-Referenced Test
2008 - 2009 FCAT Reading Grade 6 Test Results:
Number of Students
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 285 |
| State average: | 190 |
Mean Scale Score
| Here: | 657 |
| State average from 2604 schools: | 671 |
Median NPR
| Here: | 50 |
| State average: | 63 |
Literary (max 18)
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 12 |
| State average: | 13 |
Informational (max 18)
| Here: | 11 |
| State average: | 12 |
Functional (max 18)
| Here: | 12 |
| State average: | 13 |
Initial Understanding (max 12)
| Here: | 7 |
| State average: | 8 |
Interpretation (max 20)
| Here: | 13 |
| State average: | 14 |
Critical Analysis (max 12)
| Here: | 8 |
| State average: | 9 |
Strategies (max 10)
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 6 |
| State average: | 7 |
2008 - 2009 FCAT Reading Grade 7 Test Results:
Number of Students
| Here: | 247 |
| State average: | 201 |
Mean Scale Score
| Here: | 671 |
| State average from 2487 schools: | 682 |
Median NPR
| Here: | 58 |
| State average: | 66 |
Literary (max 18)
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 14 |
| State average: | 14 |
Informational (max 18)
| Here: | 12 |
| State average: | 12 |
Functional (max 18)
| Here: | 11 |
| State average: | 12 |
Initial Understanding (max 12)
| Here: | 9 |
| State average: | 9 |
Interpretation (max 20)
| Here: | 13 |
| State average: | 14 |
Critical Analysis (max 12)
| Here: | 8 |
| State average: | 9 |
Strategies (max 10)
| Here: | 6 |
| State average: | 6 |
2008 - 2009 FCAT Reading Grade 8 Test Results:
Number of Students
| Here: | 246 |
| State average: | 192 |
Mean Scale Score
| Here: | 676 |
| State average from 2497 schools: | 687 |
Median NPR
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 54 |
| State average: | 63 |
Literary (max 18)
| Here: | 12 |
| State average: | 12 |
Informational (max 18)
| Here: | 12 |
| State average: | 12 |
Functional (max 18)
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 13 |
| State average: | 13 |
Initial Understanding (max 12)
| Here: | 7 |
| State average: | 7 |
Interpretation (max 20)
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 13 |
| State average: | 14 |
Critical Analysis (max 12)
| Here: | 9 |
| State average: | 10 |
Strategies (max 10)
| Here: | 7 |
| State average: | 7 |
2008 - 2009 FCAT Writing Grade 8 Test Results:
Number of Students - Combined: 250
Mean Writing Score 100-500 - Combined
% in each Achievement Level 1 - Combined: 43%| Here: | 258 |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59 |
% in each Achievement Level 2 - Combined: 33%
% in each Achievement Level 3 - Combined: 19%
% in each Achievement Level 4 - Combined: 5%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above - Combined: 24%
Mean Points Earned Focus max 10 - Combined: 5
Mean Points Earned Organization max 8 - Combined: 6
Mean Points Earned Support max 8 - Combined: 5
Mean Points Earned Conventions max 18 - Combined: 9
Mean Essay Score by Prompt - Combined
Percent Earning Each Score Point 1.5 - Combined: 2%| Here: | 4 |
| State average: | 59 |
Percent Earning Each Score Point 2.5 - Combined: 3%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 3 - Combined: 5%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 3.5 - Combined: 14%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 4 - Combined: 16%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 4.5 - Combined: 33%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 5 - Combined: 15%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 5.5 - Combined: 10%
Percent 4.0 or Above - Combined: 75%
2006 - 207 FCAT Reading Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score 0-3000
| Here: | 1577 |
| State average from 878 schools: | 1661 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 29%| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 287 |
| State average: | 302 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 25%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 32%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 11%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 2%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 46%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 10: 6
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 20: 11
Mean Points Earned Comparisons 8: 4
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 7: 3
Percent Matched to 2006: 87%
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2007
| Here: | 1586 |
| State average: | 1663 |
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2006
Mean DSS Change for Matched Students Reading 2007 - 2006: 52| Here: | 1533 |
| State average: | 1592 |
2006 - 207 FCAT Reading Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score 0-3000
| Here: | 1647 |
| State average from 808 schools: | 1746 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 27%| Here: | 286 |
| State average: | 305 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 32%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 30%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 11%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 41%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 7: 4
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 22: 13
Mean Points Earned Comparisons 9: 6
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 7: 4
Percent Matched to 2006: 87%
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2007
| Here: | 1658 |
| State average: | 1743 |
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2006
Mean DSS Change for Matched Students Reading 2007 - 2006: 68| Here: | 1591 |
| State average: | 1668 |
2006 - 207 FCAT Reading Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score 0-3000
| Here: | 1793 |
| State average from 819 schools: | 1810 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 25%| Here: | 290 |
| State average: | 294 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 35%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 33%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 6%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 40%
Mean Points Earned Words Phrases max 7: 4
Mean Points Earned Main Idea Purpose max 24: 14
Mean Points Earned Comparisons 7: 4
Mean Points Earned Reference Research max 13: 6
Percent Matched to 2006: 86%
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2007
| Here: | 1825 |
| State average: | 1807 |
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2006
Mean DSS Change for Matched Students Reading 2007 - 2006: 94| Here: | 1731 |
| State average: | 1738 |
2006 - 207 FCAT Science Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 36%| Here: | 287 |
| State average: | 290 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 31%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 30%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 4%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 33%
Mean Points Earned Physical and Chemical max 14: 6
Mean Points Earned Earth and Space max 12: 7
Mean Points Earned Life and Environmental max 13: 7
Mean Points Earned Scientific Thinking max 12: 6
2006 - 207 FCAT Math Grade 6 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score 0-3000
| Here: | 1517 |
| State average from 873 schools: | 1641 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 52%| Here: | 274 |
| State average: | 302 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 19%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 23%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 5%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 1%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 29%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 9: 3
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking max 8: 3
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis max 9: 4
Percent Matched to 2006: 88%
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2007
| Here: | 1538 |
| State average: | 1645 |
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2006
Mean DSS Change for Matched Students Math 2007 - 2006: -24| Here: | 1562 |
| State average: | 1620 |
2006 - 207 FCAT Math Grade 7 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score 0-3000
| Here: | 1693 |
| State average from 804 schools: | 1777 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 39%| Here: | 282 |
| State average: | 303 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 25%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 29%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 7%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 1%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 36%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 9: 3
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 8: 3
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking max 9: 4
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis max 9: 4
Percent Matched to 2006: 86%
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2007
| Here: | 1704 |
| State average: | 1774 |
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2006
Mean DSS Change for Matched Students Math 2007 - 2006: 107| Here: | 1597 |
| State average: | 1645 |
2006 - 207 FCAT Math Grade 8 Test Results:
Mean Developmental Scale Score 0-3000
| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 1824 |
| State average from 815 schools: | 1851 |
Mean Scale Score 100-500
% in each Achievement Level 1: 26%| Here: | 302 |
| State average: | 309 |
% in each Achievement Level 2: 18%
% in each Achievement Level 3: 35%
% in each Achievement Level 4: 14%
% in each Achievement Level 5: 7%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above: 56%
Mean Points Earned Number Sense max 12: 6
Mean Points Earned Measurement max 12: 6
Mean Points Earned Geometry max 12: 5
Mean Points Earned Algebraic Thinking max 12: 4
Mean Points Earned Data Analysis max 12: 5
Percent Matched to 2006: 86%
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2007
| Here: | 1852 |
| State average: | 1845 |
Mean Developmental Scale Score 2006
Mean DSS Change for Matched Students Math 2007 - 2006: 121| Here: | 1731 |
| State average: | 1755 |
2006 - 2007 FCAT Reading Grade 6 Test Results:
Number of Students: 293
Mean Scale Score
Median NPR: 54| LEAREY TECHNICAL CENTER: | 661 |
| State average from 874 schools: | 671 |
Literary (max 18): 13
Informational (max 18): 11
Functional (max 18): 11
Initial Understanding (max 12): 8
Interpretation (max 20): 13
Critical Analysis (max 12): 8
Strategies (max 10): 7
2006 - 2007 FCAT Reading Grade 7 Test Results:
Number of Students: 277
Mean Scale Score
Median NPR: 51| Here: | 664 |
| State average from 796 schools: | 675 |
Literary (max 18): 13
Informational (max 18): 9
Functional (max 18): 11
Initial Understanding (max 12): 8
Interpretation (max 20): 13
Critical Analysis (max 12): 7
Strategies (max 10): 5
2006 - 2007 FCAT Reading Grade 8 Test Results:
Number of Students: 258
Mean Scale Score
Median NPR: 62| Here: | 685 |
| State average from 810 schools: | 685 |
Literary (max 18): 14
Informational (max 18): 11
Functional (max 18): 13
Initial Understanding (max 10): 7
Interpretation (max 20): 14
Critical Analysis (max 14): 9
Strategies (max 10): 8
2006 - 2007 FCAT Math Grade 6 Test Results:
Number of Students: 293
Mean Scale Score
Median NPR: 49| Here: | 653 |
| State average from 874 schools: | 669 |
Number Sense (max 10): 5
Operations (max 12): 7
Patterns, Relationships, Algebra (max 7): 3
Data, Statistics, Probability (max 8): 5
Geometry and Measurement (max 11): 6
2006 - 2007 FCAT Math Grade 7 Test Results:
Number of Students: 277
Mean Scale Score
Median NPR: 59| Here: | 672 |
| State average from 796 schools: | 685 |
Number Sense (max 9): 4
Operations (max 9): 4
Patterns, Relationships, Algebra (max 9): 5
Data, Statistics, Probability (max 9): 5
Geometry and Measurement (max 12): 6
2006 - 2007 FCAT Math Grade 8 Test Results:
Number of Students: 258
Mean Scale Score
Median NPR: 66| Here: | 694 |
| State average from 810 schools: | 698 |
Number Sense (max 9): 6
Operations (max 9): 5
Patterns, Relationships, Algebra (max 9): 5
Data, Statistics, Probability (max 9): 5
Geometry and Measurement (max 12): 7
2006 - 2007 FCAT Writing Grade 8 Test Results:
Number of Students - Combined: 253
Mean Writing Score 100-500 - Combined
% in each Achievement Level 1 - Combined: 40%| Here: | 259 |
| State average from 27 schools: | 59 |
% in each Achievement Level 2 - Combined: 33%
% in each Achievement Level 3 - Combined: 19%
% in each Achievement Level 4 - Combined: 6%
% in each Achievement Level 5 - Combined: 1%
Percent in Achievement Levels 3 and Above - Combined: 27%
Mean Points Earned Focus max 11 - Combined: 7
Mean Points Earned Organization max 7 - Combined: 4
Mean Points Earned Support max 9 - Combined: 5
Mean Points Earned Conventions max 17 - Combined: 9
Type of Writing - Combined: Combined
Mean Essay Score by Prompt - Combined
Percent Earning Each Score Point 1 - Combined: 2%| Here: | 3 |
| State average: | 59 |
Percent Earning Each Score Point 1.5 - Combined: 2%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 2 - Combined: 3%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 2.5 - Combined: 2%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 3 - Combined: 17%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 3.5 - Combined: 18%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 4 - Combined: 38%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 4.5 - Combined: 9%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 5 - Combined: 6%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 5.5 - Combined: 1%
Percent Earning Each Score Point 6 - Combined: 1%
Percent 3.5 or Above - Combined: 73%
Percent 4.0 or Above - Combined: 55%
City-data.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk.
Website © 2024 Advameg, Inc.