Planning for School Improvement

Lake Park Elementary School

School Year
 Back to School List

Data Analysis - Needs Assessment

PatternELAMathScienceSocial Studies
What trends emerge across grade levels, subgroups, and core content areas?
SWD subgroup shows inconsistent growth especially in the primary grades compared to 5th where every SWD maintained or increased their proficiency level on ELA & Math PM3. ELL subgroup showed a lot more consistent growth in primary grade levels and gain in 5th grade all ELL students maintained or increased proficiency levels on ELA & Math PM3. Discrepancy between ELA gains in 4th (60%) & 5th (79%). Mirrored in Low 25% gains: 4th 57% & 5th 83%. Need to build better alignment between grade level instructional approach and response strategies. Both SWD & Low 25% students, who come in at a level 2 have the lowest percentage of making a gain, especially compared to students who come in at a level 3. SWD that started on PM1 5 or more scale score points lower than previous year PM3, typically did not make their gain score. 5th ESE Cohort increased 10%-27% from FY24 to FY25. 4th Grade Cohort decreased 2% from FY24 to FY25. 3th Grade Math ESE Cohort decreased 58%-31% from FY24 to FY25. 1st Grade iReady Cohort decreased 95%-60% from FY24 to FY25. 2nd Grade iReady Cohort decreased 88%-71% from FY24 to FY25.
Math low 25 gains: 3 out of the 4 teachers showed 80-92% gains. The other teacher: 17%. This was our lowest reporting category (62%), which could have been our highest. It is also where we saw the greatest category decline from FY24 to FY25 (-13). Proficiency: 3 out of the 4 teachers showed 89-97% Proficiency. Other teacher: 72% Inconsistency across 3rd: Example 67% ELA & 81% in Math = Departmentalizing in Grade 3 SWD that started on PM1 ( 4th: 10 & 5th: 18) or more scale score points lower than previous year PM3, typically did not make their gain score. 5th Grade Math ESE Cohort increased 30%-55% from FY24 to FY25. 4th Grade Math ESE Cohort decreased 3% from FY24 to FY25. 3th Grade Math ESE Cohort decreased 58%-44% from FY24 to FY25. 2nd Grade ESE Cohort decreased 53-37% 1st Grade ESE Cohort increased 38%-62%.
SWD subgroup decreased from 50% to 27% and mostly ended up as level 2, which is lower than their performance on ELA and Math. There is a need to strengthen the previous grade level science instructions, especially grades 2 & 4. ELL increased from 33% to 40% proficiency
Which data component showed the most improvement? What new actions did your school take in this area?
ELA Gains for Low 25% (59 to 67%) 5th grade recovered points that were left on the table in FY24 with students who significantly underperformed in the previous year. Students were held to high standards with a lot of student accountability and ownership for their own learning. High trust classroom environments were created, along with high student engagement and standard experts. Strong cohesive relationship between ESE inclusion teacher and classroom teachers.
Which data component showed the lowest performance? Explain the contributing factor(s) to last year's low performance and discuss any trends.
Math Gains for the Low 25% (74 to 62%) Major discrepancies in both proficiency and gains in one specific 4th grade classroom compared to the other 3 teachers. Teacher trend data shows more success with students who are already proficient in making a learning gain over students who are in the Low 25% and/or ESE.
Which data component showed the greatest decline from the prior year? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this decline.
Math Gains for the Low 25% (74 to 62%) (Same as above)
Which data component had the greatest gap when compared to the state average? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this gap and any trends. State data can be found here.
Above the state average in all areas. Math Grade 3 was the area where we had the smallest positive gap at only +20.
Rank your highest priorities (maximum of 5) for school improvement in the upcoming school year.
• Intentional planning, reflective in both lesson plans and collaborative planning, for students in the low 25%. • Consistent collaborative planning for Math in departmentalized grade levels with Admin support. • Create a system for ongoing Math data tracking to better monitor and gauge student performance and needs. • Reexamine DI structure and resources being used to support students in the low 25%.

SIP - Areas of Focus

Success for every students, every day!
To create a collaborative learning community that inspires success through high quality data driven instruction, purposeful learning, and amazingly positive experiences for all stakeholders.
As a result of teachers engaging students in practice activities that help them to deepen knowledge and increase accuracy, the percentage of students in our low 25% who will make a gain in the area of ELA, will increase from 67% to 75% by June 2026, measured by the Florida Assessment of Student Thinking (F.A.S.T.).
(View Marzano Model)
Helping Students Practice Skills, Strategies, and Processes During the ELA block, instructional staff will guide students through targeted practice activities designed to deepen understanding and improve accuracy of critical content. Through intentional modeling, exposure to tasks in varied contexts, and strategic questioning, students will refine their knowledge and skills. Effective monitoring, structured group interactions, and diverse response methods will further support the development of fluency and accuracy.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Students will be engaged in targeted practice opportunities through structured group activities where each student is held accountable for their own learning by drawing conclusions and providing evidence of their thinking.
Person Responsible:
ELA Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Weekly lesson plans include accountability measures and success criteria to demonstrate targeted student practice opportunities, as well as structured grouping strategies. Posted student work will also serve as evidence of student thinking and engagement during lessons, holding each student accountable for their own learning. Use of exit tickets and WIG data tracking to help students monitor and reflect on their own progress.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Planned scaffolds will be implemented both as a part of weekly collaborative planning discussions and documented in lessons plans. Instructional staff will use effective monitoring strategies to help make instructional adjustments both on the spot and when planning for future lessons.
Person Responsible:
ELA Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Teachers will record planned scaffolding strategies in lesson plans, along with discussing the effectiveness of past strategies and the development of new strategies during weekly collaborative planning. The Literacy Coach will review and provide feedback during weekly meetings.
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Instructional staff will use effective questioning to ensure students engage in planned opportunities for productive struggle along with creating an environment of high accountability where instructional staff supports student thinking not just rescuing answers.
Person Responsible:
ELA Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Teachers will use targeted probing and preplanned questions to rescue student thinking and not answers, observed during lesson observation and weekly classroom walkthroughs. Weekly collaborative planning time will be used to develop and plan for targeted opportunities during each lesson. The Literacy Coach will review and provide feedback during weekly meeting.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
As a result of teachers engaging students in practice activities that help them to deepen knowledge and increase accuracy, the percentage of students in our low 25% who will make a gain in the area of MATH, will increase from 62% to 70% by June 2026, measured by the Florida Assessment of Student Thinking (F.A.S.T.).
(View Marzano Model)
Helping Students Practice Skills, Strategies, and Processes During the MATH block, instructional staff will guide students through targeted practice activities designed to deepen understanding and improve accuracy of critical content. Through intentional modeling, exposure to tasks in varied contexts, and strategic questioning, students will refine their knowledge and skills. Effective monitoring, structured group interactions, and diverse response methods will further support the development of fluency and accuracy.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Students will be engaged in targeted practice opportunities through structured group activities where each student is held accountable for their own learning by drawing conclusions and providing evidence of their thinking.
Person Responsible:
MATH Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Weekly lesson plans include accountability measures and success criteria to demonstrate targeted student practice opportunities, as well as structured grouping strategies. Posted student work will also serve as evidence of student thinking and engagement during lessons, holding each student accountable for their own learning. Use of exit tickets and WIG data tracking to help students monitor and reflect on their own progress.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Planned scaffolds will be implemented both as a part of weekly collaborative planning discussions and documented in lessons plans. Instructional staff will use effective monitoring strategies to help make instructional adjustments both on the spot and when planning for future lessons.
Person Responsible:
MATH Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Teachers will record planned scaffolding strategies in lesson plans, along with discussing the effectiveness of past strategies and the development of new strategies during weekly collaborative planning. Admin will review and provide feedback during weekly meetings.
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Instructional staff will use effective questioning to ensure students engage in planned opportunities for productive struggle along with creating an environment of high accountability where instructional staff supports student thinking not just rescuing answers.
Person Responsible:
MATH Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Teachers will use targeted probing and preplanned questions to rescue student thinking and not answers, observed during lesson observation and weekly classroom walkthroughs. Weekly collaborative planning time will be used to develop and plan for targeted opportunities during each lesson. Admin will review and provide feedback during weekly meeting.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
As a result of teachers engaging students in practice activities that help them to deepen knowledge and increase accuracy, the percentage of SWD who will meet proficiency in the area of Science, will increase from 27% to 45% by June 2026, measured by the Statewide Science Assessment.
(View Marzano Model)
Helping Students Practice Skills, Strategies, and Processes During the Science block, instructional staff will guide students through targeted practice activities designed to deepen understanding and improve accuracy of critical content. Through intentional modeling, exposure to tasks in varied contexts, and strategic questioning, students will refine their knowledge and skills. Effective monitoring, structured group interactions, and diverse response methods will further support the development of fluency and accuracy.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Students will be engaged in targeted practice opportunities through structured group activities where each student is held accountable for their own learning by drawing conclusions and providing evidence of their thinking.
Person Responsible:
Science Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Weekly lesson plans include accountability measures and success criteria to demonstrate targeted student practice opportunities, as well as structured grouping strategies. Posted student work will also serve as evidence of student thinking and engagement during lessons, holding each student accountable for their own learning. Use of exit tickets and data tracking to help students monitor and reflect on their own progress.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Planned scaffolds will be implemented both as a part of weekly collaborative planning discussions and documented in lessons plans. Instructional staff will use effective monitoring strategies to help make instructional adjustments both on the spot and when planning for future lessons.
Person Responsible:
Science Teachers & Instructional Support Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Teachers will record planned scaffolding strategies in lesson plans, along with discussing the effectiveness of past strategies and the development of new strategies during weekly collaborative planning. Admin will review and provide feedback during weekly meetings.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
No response.
(View Marzano Model)
No response.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
No response.
(View Marzano Model)
No response.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!
Increase the number of schoolwide leadership events held on campus and planned by Action Teams, from three to five by June 2026.
(View Marzano Model)
Promote a high-trust school culture where every person's voice is heard and their potential is affirmed through the creation and implementation of a Lighthouse & Action Teams.
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Lighthouse and Action teams will meet monthly to facilitate leadership, culture and academic goals.
Person Responsible:
Lighthouse Team and Instructional Staff
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Schoolwide calendar of meetings, along with submission of agendas and minutes will be used to monitor progress towards team goals.
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Action teams will report back to the Lighthouse team following each meeting to ensure participation and progress towards execution of schoolwide leadership events.
Person Responsible:
Lighthouse Coordinators
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Lighthouse meetings will be used to discuss, support and monitor implementation plans as each action team works to create a schoolwide leadership event. Following Lighthouse meetings, information will be communicated to the rest of the staff to keep open communication.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then click the Submit button to the right!

Schoolwide Program Plan (SWP) Requirements

This section must be completed if the school is implementing a Title I, Part A SWP and opts to use the SIP to satisfy the requirements of the SWP plan, as outlined in the ESSA, Public Law No. 114-95, § 1114(b). This section is not required for non-Title I schools.

Budget Document Uploads

No files uploaded
1.

Provide the methods for dissemination of this SIP, UniSIG budget and SWP to stakeholders (e.g., students, families, school staff and leadership and local businesses and organizations). Please articulate a plan or protocol for how this SIP and progress will be shared and disseminated and to the extent practicable, provided in a language a parent can understand. (ESSA 1114(b)(4))

List the school's webpage* where the SIP is made publicly available.
* A webpage is not sufficient as the sole method of dissemination.
No response.
2.

Describe how the school plans to build positive relationships with parents, families and other community stakeholders to fulfill the school’s mission, support the needs of students and keep parents informed of their child’s progress.

List the school's webpage* where the school's Family Engagement Plan is made publicly available. (ESSA 1116(b-g))
* A webpage is not sufficient as the sole method of dissemination.
No response.
3.

Describe how the school plans to strengthen the academic program in the school, increase the amount and quality of learning time and help provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum. Include the Area of Focus if addressed in Part II of the SIP. (ESSA 1114(b)(7)ii))
No response.
4.

If appropriate and applicable, describe how this plan is developed in coordination and integration with other Federal, State, and local services, resources and programs, such as programs supported under ESSA, violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start programs, adult education programs, career and technical education programs, and schools implementing CSI or TSI activities under section 1111(d). (ESSA 1114(b)(5))
No response.

CSI, TSI and ATSI Resource Review

Describe the process to review school improvement funding allocations and ensure resources are allocated based on needs. This section must be completed if the school is identified as ATSI, TSI or CSI in addition to completing an Area(s) of Focus identifying interventions and activities within the SIP (ESSA 1111(d)(1)(B)(4) and (d)(2)(C).

No response.

Reading Achievement Initiative for Scholastic Excellence (RAISE)

For the 2025-2026 school year, the criteria includes schools with students in grades three through five where 50 percent or more of its students, in any grade level, score below a level 3 on the most recent statewide English Language Arts (ELA) assessment; or progress monitoring data collected from the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system pursuant to s. 1008.25(9), F.S., shows that 50 percent or more of the students are not on track to pass the statewide, standardized grade 3 ELA assessment for any grade level kindergarten through grade 3; and at least 10 students must be present for both the second and third full-time equivalent (FTE) survey periods and must be enrolled at the time of the statewide, standardized testing.

Include a description of your Area of Focus (Instructional Practice specifically relating to Reading/ELA) for each grade below, how it affects student learning in literacy, and a rationale that explains how it was identified as a critical need from the data reviewed. Data that should be used to determine the critical need should include, at a minimum:

  • The percentage of students below Level 3 on the 2024−2025 statewide, standardized ELA assessment. Identification criteria must include each grade that has 50 percent or more students scoring below Level 3 in grades 3-5 on the statewide, standardized ELA assessment.
  • The percentage of students in kindergarten through grade 3, based on 2024−2025 coordinated screening and progress monitoring system data, who are not on track to score Level 3 or above on the statewide, standardized ELA assessment.
  • Other forms of data that should be considered: formative, progress monitoring and diagnostic assessment data.
1.

Grades K-2: Instructional Practice specifically relating to Reading/ELA

No reponse.
2.

Grades 3-5: Instructional Practice specifically related to Reading/ELA

No reponse.

School Advisory Council (SAC)

NameGroupEthnicityMigrant StatusDistrict EmployeeRoleStart of TermEnd of Term
Katie Maya Principal White Non-Migrant Yes Principal 7/1/2022 6/1/2026
Paula Bryant Teachers Black Non-Migrant Yes Vice Chair 9/17/2024 11/30/2027
Kim Black Non-instructional Staff White Non-Migrant Yes SAC Chair 9/13/2022 11/30/2025
Dan Barone Community/Business White Non-Migrant No Member 9/17/2024 11/30/2027
Jessia Cohen Parent White Non-Migrant No Member 9/17/2024 11/30/2027
Zara Shoham Parent Others Non-Migrant No Secretary 9/17/2024 11/30/2027
Allison Bringardner Parent White Non-Migrant No Member 9/17/2024 11/30/2027
Crystal Wilson Parent Black Non-Migrant No Member 9/16/2025 11/30/2028
Melanie Hilton Parent Others Non-Migrant No Member 9/16/2025 11/30/2028
Brandyn Carter Parent White Non-Migrant No Member 9/16/2025 11/30/2028
Kristine Kenniston-Tetlak Parent White Non-Migrant No Member 9/16/2025 11/30/2028
Jasmin Zientek Parent Hispanic Non-Migrant Yes Member 9/16/2025 11/30/2028
GroupNumber%
Community/Business18.3
Non-instructional Staff18.3
Parent866.7
Principal18.3
Students (required for HS; optional for MS)00.0
Teachers18.3
The number of non-employees must be at least 51% of the total SAC membership.
NOTE: The Principal is included in the district employee count.
GroupNumberPercent
District Employee 433.3
Non-District Employee 866.7
SAC membership must be representative (within 15%) of the ethnic, racial and socio-economic community served by the school. NOTE: The principal is NOT included in the demographic composition breakdown.
EthnicityNumber% SAC% Students
 00.00.0
Black218.28.3
Hispanic19.123.5
Others218.29.2
White654.559.0
Date

Existing Uploads

No Bylaws files have been uploaded yet.