Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools 2017-2018
Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools2017-2018FAU Lab Schools Instructional EvaluationSystemFAU Lab SchoolsSuperintendent, Dr. Joel D. HerbstContact: Gracie DiazA.D. Henderson University School /Rule 6A-5.030Form IEST-2016Effective Date: August 4, 2017FAU High Schoolgdiaz15@fau.edu0
Table of Contents1. Performance of Students2. Instructional Practice3. Other Indicators of Performance4. Summative Evaluation Score5. Additional Requirements6. District Evaluation Procedures7. District Self-Monitoring**Modifications to an approved evaluation system may be made by the district at anytime. A revised evaluation system shall be submitted for approval, in accordance withRule 6A-5.030(3), F.A.C. The entire template shall be sent for the approval process.1
1.Performance of StudentsThe purpose of Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools’ Performance Evaluation System is toincrease student academic performance by improving the quality of instructional, administrative,and supervisory service (1012.34 (1)(a), F.S. Accordingly, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) LabSchools is committed to a cycle of continuous improvement to ensure the instructional evaluationsystem reflects state-approved models, emerging best practices, and legislative and policy changes.FAU Lab Schools’ system is based on the Marzano Causal Evaluation System, Florida Departmentof Education approved evaluation model. At the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, teacherswere provided the opportunity to share input and suggestions during grade level discussions andfaculty presentations and meetings about the evaluation model and procedures. Grade level teamleaders and the UFF teacher representative also met with administration and provided input andsuggestions. The evaluation procedures were redesigned using input by all grade levels andteachers. As a result of the extensive input, the instructional evaluation had several enhancementsfor 2017-2018: Instructional Practice weight changed from 49% to 64% of Final Evaluation scoreStudent Growth Measure changed from 50% to 35% of Final Evaluation scoreGrowth Plan continues to be 1% of Final Evaluation scoreEliminates the State Value-Added ModelMitigates proficiency model which lacks a baseline assessment to determine growth,provides only minimum expectations for student performance, and does not account forhighest and lowest student performance levelsIncludes use of learning gains and growth models in a majority of the subjects and grades inorder to provide teachers with targets that are more attainable and to account for varyingstudent levelsAligns the performance measures among all grades and subjectsIncreases student growth commensurate with our students’ abilities and expectationsAll instructional employee’s annual evaluations will consist of three parts: 35% StudentPerformance Score, 64% Instructional Practice Score and 1% Deliberate Practice (ProfessionalGrowth Plan). For all instructional employees, these parts will be weighted as indicated and willbe combined to designate an overall performance rating.In 2017-2018, the State’s Value-Added Model (VAM) has been replaced with learning gains andgrowth models, where applicable. Whenever possible, the district calculations will parallel staterules, policies and procedures for determining student achievement results in the student growthcalculation. All instructional personnel (including new teacher hires) will include studentperformance data.For classroom teachers (throughout this document the term “teachers” excludes substitutes),assessment alignments in Table 1 will be used to determine the Student Performance component.This component will count for 35% of the teacher’s overall evaluation score. Table 1 also servesas a tool for organizing and weighting student achievement scores for teachers with multiple2
classes/courses. The weighting will be reflective on the percentage of students in each course inrelationship to the total number of students assigned to the teacher. Student results used inevaluation of instructional personnel are based on students assigned to the teacher being evaluated.Table 1 also reflects the unique design of FAU Lab Schools’ high school program. FAU LabSchools has a traditional K-8 program with an accelerated high school component. Students in theninth grade participate in accelerated coursework and are fully dual-enrolled at Florida AtlanticUniversity for grades 10-12. Students return to the high school campus to take requiredassessments for graduation and may meet other EOC assessment requirements through dualenrollment coursework as noted on Table 1.Annual evaluations of instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers will include studentgrowth from statewide assessments for students assigned to the instructional personnel. Thismeasure will count for 35% of the overall evaluation score.For all instructional personnel, the student growth calculation will include three years of studentdata, including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year. If lessthan the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available willbe used.Table 1: Student Performance MeasuresStudent Performance Measure:All instructional personnel will include student performance data for at least three years, includingthe current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If lessthan the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are availablemust be used.TeachingAssignment/Grade(s)Kindergarten (K)First Grade (1)Second Grade (2)Third Grade (3)Fourth Grade (4)Performance Measure(s) forEvaluation PurposesSTAR Reading AssessmentSTAR Reading and MathAssessmentsSTAR Reading and MathAssessmentsGrowth measured from end ofyear 2nd grade STAR Reading andMath scores to 3rd grade FSAELA and Math combinedPercentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on ELA andMath assessments combinedPercentage Associatedwith Final SummativeEvaluation35%35%35%35%35%3
Fifth Grade (5)M/J Math Courses (6-8)Science (8)English/LanguageArts/Reading Courses (6-8)Percentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on ELA andMath assessments combinedPercentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on FSA MathassessmentPercent proficient for assignedstudents on the FCAT Science 8thGrade assessment.Percentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on FSA ELAassessment35%35%35%35%35%CivicsEnglish 1English 2English 3English 4Algebra 1; Algebra 1Honors; Algebra 1BGeometry; GeometryHonorsBiology 1; Biology 1HonorsHS Science (Chemistry,Physics, etc.)United States HistoryOther Classroom Teachers(K-9), including physicaleducation, M/J science (67), M/J social studies (6-8),World History,Psychology, all electivesand specials, foreignlanguages, and ESEsupport facilitatorsCivics EOCPercentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on FSA ELAassessmentPercentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on FSA ELAassessmentDual Enrollment at FAU andtaught by FAU FacultyDual Enrollment at FAU andtaught by FAU FacultyPercentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on Algebra 1EOCPercentage of Learning Gains forassigned students on GeometryEOC35%35%N/AN/A35%35%35%Biology EOCDual Enrollment at FAU andtaught by FAU FacultyDual Enrollment at FAU andtaught by FAU FacultyN/AN/A35%Percentage of Learning Gains fora teacher’s assigned students onthe FSA ELA and Mathassessments combined.4
Other Non-classroominstructional personnel(school counselors, readingcoach, ESE specialist, andinstructional facilitators)District Non-ClassroomInstructional PersonnelPercentage of learning gains forall students on the FSA ELA andMath assessments combined.35%Percentage of learning gains forall students on the FSA ELA andMath assessments combined.35%2017-2018 Business Rules for Determining a Student Performance Score FAU Lab Schools has an instructional evaluation system that weights student performanceas 35% of the summative evaluation calculation.Teachers must have at least ten (10) students to count in any grade/model. If less than 10students, the school score will be used.If a teacher has core and elective classes, only the students in their core classes will befactored into the calculation. Students in the electives will not count unless the teacher isassigned a majority of elective courses.A Survey 2 and 3 match for grades (K-8) will be used to ensure only the student resultsused for a teacher’s student performance calculation have been with a teacher during bothsurvey periods. Due to the block schedule, students assigned to a high school teacherduring Survey 2 or Survey 3 will be used for their student performance calculation.For the models using learning gains, the FDOE methodology defined in s. 1008.34 F. S.and Rule 6A-1.09981 will be used.Table 2: Student Performance Ratings Score ConversionPerformance RatingPoint ValueHighly Effective470-78.9% with at least 100 Scale Scorepoint increase or Post Scale Score of atleast 850Effective351-69.9% with at least 100 Scale Scorepoint increase or Post Scale Score of atleast 850NeedsImprovement/Developing2Grade KSTAR Early Literacy AssessmentStudent Performance Scoring Rubric 79% with at least 100 Scale Score pointincrease or Post Scale Score of at least8505
51% with at least 100 Scale Score pointincrease or Post Scale Score of at least850Grade 1(STAR Reading and Math)Student Performance Scoring Rubric 79% with at least one year’s growth orend-of-year GE of a minimum of 2.5 witha positive gain from the beginning of theschool year70-78.9% with at least one year’s growthor end-of-year GE of a minimum of 2.5with a positive gain from the beginning ofthe school year51-69.9% with at least one year’s growthor end-of-year GE of a minimum of 2.5with a positive gain from the beginning ofthe school year 51% with at least one year’s growth orend-of-year GE of a minimum of 2.5 witha positive gain from the beginning of theschool yearUnsatisfactory1Performance RatingPoint ValueHighly satisfactory1For 1st Grade, one year’s growth is defined as a Grade Equivalent (GE) Score increase of 1.0or End-of-year GE Score of 2.5 or higher with a positive gain from beginning of year GEScoreGrade 2(STAR Reading and Math)Student Performance Scoring RubricPerformance RatingPoint Value6
79% with at least one year’s growth orend-of-year GE of a minimum of 3.5 witha positive gain from the beginning of theschool year70-78.9% with at least one year’s growthor end-of-year GE of a minimum of 3.5with a positive gain from the beginning ofthe school year51-69.9% with at least one year’s growthor end-of-year GE of a minimum of 3.5with a positive gain from the beginning ofthe school year 51% with at least one year’s growth orend-of-year GE of a minimum of 3.5 witha positive gain from the beginning of theschool yearHighly satisfactory1For 2nd Grade, one year’s growth is defined as a Grade Equivalent (GE) Score increase of 1.0or End-of-year GE Score of 3.5 or higher with a positive gain from beginning of year GE ScorePerformance RatingPoint ValueHighly Effective4Overall growth rate is 70-78.9%Effective3Overall growth rate is 1Grade 3(Growth Model from STAR to FSA)Student Performance Scoring RubricOverall growth rate of 79%Overall growth rate is 51%For 3rd Grade, one year’s growth is defined as an increase in “achievement level” or themaintaining of achievement levels 3, 4, or 5 from 2nd grade end of year STAR Scale Scores toFSA Scale Scores.Grades 4 and 5Performance RatingPoint Value7
(FSA ELA and Math Learning Gains)Student Performance Scoring RubricOverall learning gains of 79%Highly Effective4Overall learning gains of 70-78.9%Effective3Overall learning gains of 1Performance RatingPoint ValueHighly Effective4Overall learning gains of 70-78.9%Effective3Overall learning gains of 1Performance RatingPoint ValueHighly Effective4Overall learning gains of 70-78.9%Effective3Overall learning gains of 1Overall learning gains of 51%Grades 6-10(Language Arts/Reading)FSA ELAStudent Performance Scoring RubricOverall learning gains of 79%Overall learning gains of 51%Grades 6-9(Math, Algebra I & Geometry)FSA MathStudent Performance Scoring RubricOverall learning gains of 79%Overall learning gains of 51%8
Performance RatingPoint Value 79% Students score Level 4 and aboveHighly Effective470-78% Students score Level 4 or actory2Performance RatingPoint ValueOverall proficiency rate of 79%Highly Effective4Overall proficiency rate of factory2Performance RatingPoint ValueHighly Effective4Overall learning gains of 70-78.9% forassigned students on the FSA ELA andMath combined.Effective3Overall learning gains of 51-69.9% forassigned students on the FSA ELA andMath combined.NeedsImprovement/Developing2Overall learning gains of 51% forassigned students on the FSA ELA andMath combined.Unsatisfactory1Civics (Grade 7) and Biology (Grade 9)End Of Course Assessments51-69.9% Students score Level 4 or above 51% Students score Level 4 and aboveScience (Grade 8)FCAT 8th Grade ScienceOverall proficiency rate of 51-69.9%Overall proficiency rate of 51%All Other Classroom Instructional Staff(FSA ELA and Math Learning Gains)Student Performance Scoring RubricOverall learning gains of 79% forassigned students on the FSA ELA andMath combined.119
All Non-Classroom/DistrictInstructional Staff(FSA ELA and Math Learning Gains)Student Performance Scoring RubricOverall learning gains of 79% for allstudents on the FSA ELA and Mathcombined.Overall learning gains of 70-78.9% for allstudents on the FSA ELA and Mathcombined.Overall learning gains of 51-69.9% for allstudents on the FSA ELA and Mathcombined.Overall learning gains of 51% for allstudents on the FSA ELA and Mathcombined.Performance RatingPoint ValueHighly satisfactory12. Instructional PracticeThe primary purpose of the FAU Lab Schools’ performance-feedback process is to provide a soundbasis for teacher improvement and professional growth that will increase student learning. This isaccomplished through an evaluation of teacher effectiveness and subsequent discussions betweenthe teacher and a supervisor or other observers. The process assumes the competence of teachersand focuses on professional development in the context of student performance gains first, whiledocumenting competency on an annual basis. The entire model for teacher evaluations is basedaround the Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model common language of instruction.At the core of the professional development continuum are three key elements. One is the beliefthat, at all levels, the professional educator is engaged in a process of continuous improvementthrough deliberate practice seeking to provide better learning for current and future students. Thenature of the improvement experiences will vary, but they include self-reflection, feedback onperformance from peers, parents and administrators, improvement in student performance,professional development activities, and participation in school improvement efforts. The purposeof any performance appraisal process must be the support of continuous professional growth.Another critical key element is a focus on improvement in student performance. Teacherexpectations, their ability to motivate students, the quality of instruction, and the monitoring ofstudent growth of important academic and social outcomes are critical factors in student learning.Helping students learn essential skills and content, and develop the ability to continue learningthroughout their lives, is the core of educator professional development.10
The third key element includes the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs) revisedDecember 2010 and adopted by the State Board of Education. These standards and expectationsalong with the locally developed sample key indicators provide high expectations for allprofessionals based upon the study of effective teachers in Florida and the research on effectiveteaching practices. With the use of accomplished practices, the goal of teacher evaluation shiftsfrom minimum competencies to demonstrating highly effective instructional practices as the bestways for teachers to impact student learning.I. Core of Effective PracticesFAU Lab Schools has a comprehensive performance evaluation system for all instructionalpersonnel serves multiple functions and is designed to accomplish the following: establish the practices and expectations of the position or profession that are based onresearch and linked to student outcomes;evaluate individual performance relative to expectations by assessing the quality andeffectiveness of the services;provide feedback to the professional that recognizes effective performance, identifiesareas for improvement, and directs professional growth activities; andprovide support to supervisees and practitioners not meeting performance expectations.The FAU Lab Schools’ Performance Evaluation System is grounded in the work of Dr. RobertMarzano and is aligned with the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs – revised12/17/2010). The observation instruments and documentation tools included in the iObservationSystem (Learning Sciences International) and referenced in subsequent sections of this plan will beused by all parties performing observations of instructional personnel. Evidence and results fromiObservation System will inform the Instructional Practice Score.The evaluation model includes four domains: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors Domain 2: Preparing and Planning Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching Domain 4: Collegiality and ProfessionalismThe four domains include 60 elements: 41 elements in Domain 1, 8 elements in Domain 2, 5elements in Domain 3 and 6 elements in Domain 4. The specifics of each domain are listed inFigure 1. For a detailed discussion of these elements see Effective Supervision: Supporting the Artand Science of Teaching (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011). See Figure 1 for the MarzanoArt and Science of Teaching Framework Learning Map.All forms are available within the iObservation System and contain the same content as the formsbelow:Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors Long Form, Routine Segments11
Long Form, Content SegmentsLong Form, On the Spot SegmentsDomain 2: Planning and Preparing Long Form Planning (Pre) Conference Form A Planning (Pre) Conference Form B Reflection (Post) Conference Form ADomain 3: Planning and Preparing Long FormDomain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism Long Form12
Figure 1: Marzano Art and Science of Teaching Framework Learning Map13
14
Given that 41 of the 60 elements in the model are from Domain 1, the clear emphasis in theMarzano model is what occurs in the classroom—the strategies and behaviors teachers use toenhance student achievement. The emphasis on classroom practice is what differentiates theMarzano model from other teacher evaluation models. Teacher status and growth can be assessedin each component of the model in a manner that is consistent with the Florida DOE guidelines.The Research Base from Which the Model Was DevelopedThe Marzano Evaluation Model is based on a number of previous published works that include:What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2003), Classroom Instruction that Works (Marzano, Pickering,& Pollock, 2001), Classroom Management that Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Marzano, 2003),Classroom Assessment and Grading that Work (Marzano, 2006), The Art and Science of Teaching(Marzano, 2007), Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano,Frontier, & Livingston, 2011). The research that serves as a basis for each book was generatedfrom a synthesis research and theory. Therefore the model can be considered an aggregation of theresearch on those elements that have traditionally been shown to correlate with student academicachievement.Each of the works (cited above) from which the model was developed report substantial researchon the elements they address. For example, The Art and Science of Teaching include over 25 tableswhich represent the research on the various elements of Domain 1. These tables detail the findingsfrom meta-analytic studies and the average effect sizes computed in these studies. In all, over 5,000studies representing research over the last five decades and from which effect sizes were generatedare represented in the tables. The same can be said for the other titles listed above. As a result, onecan determine that the model was initially based on thousands of studies that span multiple decadesand these studies were chronicled and catalogued in books that have been widely disseminated inthe United States. Specifically, over 2,000,000 copies of the books cited above have beenpurchased and disseminated to K-12 educators across the United States.Below are the links to the contemporary research which support the adoption of the Marzanomodel.1. Research Base and Validation Studies on the Marzano Evaluation rch Base and Validation Studies Marzano Eva luation Model.pdf2. Meta‐Analytic Synthesis of Studies on Instructional Instructional Strategies Report 9 2 09.pdf3. Contemporary Reference porary%20References%202000‐ 2011‐1.pdf4. FEAPs Crosswalk to Marzano Model:http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/FEAPs Crosswalk Marzano.pdf15
Experimental/Control Studies. Perhaps one of the most unique aspects of the research on thismodel is that it has a growing number of experimental/control studies that have been conducted bypracticing teachers on the effectiveness of specific strategies in their classrooms. This is unusual inthe sense that these studies are designed to establish a direct causal link between elements of themodel and student achievement. Studies that use correlation analysis techniques (see next section)can establish a link between elements of a model and student achievement; however, causalitycannot be easily inferred. Other evaluation models currently used throughout the country only havecorrelational data regarding the relationship between system elements and student achievement. Todate over 300 experimental/control studies have been conducted. Those studies involved over14,000 students, 300 teachers, across 38 schools in 14 districts. The average effect size forstrategies addressed in the studies was .42 with some studies reporting effect sizes of 2.00 andhigher. An average effect size of .42 is associated with a 16 percentile point gain in studentachievement. Stated differently: on the average, when teachers use the classroom strategies andbehaviors in the Marzano Evaluation Model the typical gain in student achievement is 16 percentilepoints. However, great gains (i.e., those associated with an effect size of 2.00) can be realized ifspecific strategies are used in specific ways.Correlational Studies. As mentioned above, correlational studies are the most common approachto examining the validity of an evaluation model. Such studies have been conducted on variouselements of the Marzano Evaluation Model. For example, one such study was recently conductedin the state of Oklahoma as a part of their examination of elements related to student achievementin K-12 schools (see What Works in Oklahoma Schools: Phase I Report and What Works inOklahoma School: Phase II Report, by Marzano Research Laboratory, 2010 and 2011respectively). Those studies involved 59 schools, 117 teachers, and over 13,000 K-12 students.Collectively, these reports indicated positive relationships with various elements of the MarzanoEvaluation Model across the domains. Specific emphasis was placed on Domain 1 in the Phase IIreport. Using state mathematics and reading test data, 96% of the 82 correlations (i.e., 41correlations for mathematics and 41 for reading) were found to be positive with some as high as .40and greater. A .40 correlation translates to an effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference) of .87which is associated with a 31 percentile point gain in student achievement. These studies alsoaggregated data across the nine design questions in Domain 1. All correlations were positive forthis aggregated data. Seven of those correlations ranged from .33 to .40. These correlationstranslate into effect sizes of .70 and higher. High correlations such as these were also reported forthe total number of Domain 1 strategies teachers used in a school. Specifically, the number ofDomain 1 strategies teachers used in school had a .35 correlation with reading proficiency and a.26 correlation with mathematics proficiency.Technology Studies. Another unique aspect of the research conducted on the model is effects thathave been examined in the context of technology. For example, a two year study was conducted to16
determine (in part) the relationship between selected elements from Domain 1 and the effectivenessof interactive whiteboards in enhancing student achievement (see Final Report: A Second YearEvaluation Study of Promethean ActivClassroom by Haystead and Marzano, 2010). In all, 131experimental/control studies were conducted across the spectrum of grade levels. Selected elementsof Domain 1 were correlated with the effect sizes for use of the interactive white boards. Allcorrelations for Domain 1 elements were positive with some as high as .70. This implies that theeffectiveness of the interactive whiteboards as used in these 131 studies was greatly enhanced bythe use of Domain 1 strategies.Instructional Practice ScoringAn Instructional Practice score will be computed for all instructional personnel. Florida’sEvaluation Model, Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching Framework, will be used. ThisModel: Reflects teachers’ performance across all elements within the framework (Domains 1-4) Accounts for teachers’ experience levels (Categories A, B, C, and D) Assigns weight to the domain with greatest impact on student achievement (Domain 1) Acknowledges teachers’ focus on deliberate practice by measuring teacherimprovement over time on specific elements within the frameworkAn Instructional Practice score will consist of two elements: an Instructional Status score and aDeliberate Practice score.1. Instructional Practice Score (64%)a. Measures teachers’ proficiency against all 4 domains in the Marzano Modelb. Recognizes teachers’ use of research based strategies in the complete instructionalframework2. Deliberate Practice Score (1%)a. Measures progress against specifically targeted elements for improvementb. Recognizes teacher’s deliberate practicec. Supports annual growth in teacher practiced. Informs the development of the Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP)For evaluation purposes, teachers are assigned to one of four categories: Category A: First year of teaching Category B: Teachers in second or third year of teaching or new to the district Category C: Experienced teachers with at least 3 years of experience (4th year ofteaching) Category D: Teachers beyond their 3rd year of teaching and who are identified as astruggling teacher.Multiple observations (as reflected in Table 3) provide ongoing feedback to support teachers’professional growth and gather sufficient evidence to measure effectiveness as teacher’s transitionto the district. Multiple formal observations provide regular opportunities and support for teacher17
reflection and growth through the planning, observation and reflection conference process.Domain 1 cannot be documented and measured during one observation session.Therefore, observers will work with teachers to establish a clear focus for each observation. DesignQuestions previously addressed during a formal observation can be revisited at the request of theteacher or the observer in future observations. In subsequent years, the formal observation schedulefor Category A and B teachers would follow a similar pattern with each observation focusing ontwo to three Design Questions identified by the observer and the teacher during the preconference.Category A. All formal observations of Category A teachers will include a review of dataappropriate to the Design Question(s) focus for that observation. Appropriate data may include butare not limited to: Curriculum-based measuresGrade distributionsMastery checklistsStudent work samplesDiscipline dataInformal Observations will focus on the Deliberate Practice elements of each teacher as indicatedon the Deliberate Practice Plan (DPP). Feedback for first-year teachers includes pre- and postobservation conferences for all formal observations as well as other written feedback. In addition,new teachers are provided feedback from mentor or peer-to-peer observations.The mid-year evaluation for new teachers as outlined on Table 3 is incorporated as part of theteacher’s Instructional Practice and Student Growth score. The data points used for the mid-yearevaluation are determined by the principal based on the subject taught, teaching grade level, schoolimprovement goals and the teacher’s identified goals through their learning plan. The studentgrowth measure for mid-year evaluation purposes will include an appropriate grade and subjectlevel pre and post district assessment.Any observations (formal, informal and walkthroughs) completed by the administration may beused for evaluation purposes. Administration will be responsible for all formal observations.Obser
Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools 2017-2018 FAU Lab Schools Superintendent, Dr. Joel D. Herbst Contact: Gracie Diaz A.D. Henderson University School / FAU High School gdiaz15@fau.edu FAU Lab Schools Instructional Evaluation System Rule 6A-5.030 Form IEST-2016 Effective Date: August 4, 2017
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 (954) 77 1-0896 FAX: (954) 938-9353 E-MAIL: krnc @kmccpa.com INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Board of Directors and the Members of the Audit Committee Florida Atlantic University Foundation, Inc . Boca Raton, Florida We have audited the accompanying statements of financial position of Florida Atlantic University
Boardwalk Gifts and Souvenirs 1,000 8/31/2020 1,000 Atlantic City Atlantic NEW YORK STYLES BARBER SHOP NEW YORK STYLES BARBER SHOP 1,000 8/6/2020 1,000 Atlantic City Atlantic . El Tacuate Restaurant Don Samuel 1,000 8/13/2020 1,000 Atlantic City Atlantic
Biology Lab Notebook Table of Contents: 1. General Lab Template 2. Lab Report Grading Rubric 3. Sample Lab Report 4. Graphing Lab 5. Personal Experiment 6. Enzymes Lab 7. The Importance of Water 8. Cell Membranes - How Do Small Materials Enter Cells? 9. Osmosis - Elodea Lab 10. Respiration - Yeast Lab 11. Cell Division - Egg Lab 12.
Contents Chapter 1 Lab Algorithms, Errors, and Testing 1 Chapter 2 Lab Java Fundamentals 9 Chapter 3 Lab Selection Control Structures 21 Chapter 4 Lab Loops and Files 31 Chapter 5 Lab Methods 41 Chapter 6 Lab Classes and Objects 51 Chapter 7 Lab GUI Applications 61 Chapter 8 Lab Arrays 67 Chapter 9 Lab More Classes and Objects 75 Chapter 10 Lab Text Processing and Wrapper Classes 87
Each week you will have pre-lab assignments and post-lab assignments. The pre-lab assignments will be due at 8:00am the day of your scheduled lab period. All other lab-related assignments are due by 11:59 pm the day of your scheduled lab period. Pre-lab assignments cannot be completed late for any credit. For best performance, use only Firefox or
2016‐2017 FAU Lab School . Florida Atlantic University for grades 10-12. Students return to the high school campus to take required assessments for graduation and may meet other EOC assessment requirements through dual enrollment coursework as noted on Table 1.
Delta Omicron Omega (ORLANDO, FL - South Atlantic Region) Eta Eta Omega (FT. PIERCE, FL - South Atlantic Region) Eta Tau Omega (OCALA, FL - South Atlantic Region) Gamma Mu Omega (Daytona, FL - South Atlantic Region) Gamma Rho Omega (JACKSONVILLE, FL - South Atlantic Region) Gamma The
Text and illustrations 22 Walker Books Ltd. Trademarks Alex Rider Boy with Torch Logo 22 Stormbreaker Productions Ltd. MISSION 3: DESIGN YOUR OWN GADGET Circle a word from each column to make a name for your secret agent gadget, then write the name in the space below. A _ Draw your gadget here. Use the blueprints of Alex’s past gadgets on the next page for inspiration. Text and .
