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
Based on the 24-25 FAST assessment data, 57% of kindergarten students scored below the 40th percentile in ELA, and 52% of students scored below the 40th percentile in second grade (which is better than 23/24, as 61% scored below). K-2 grade levels all had below 50% of students proficient in ELA. 35% of Kindergarten students were proficient in ELA, 46% of first graders and 37% of second graders.
Professional development will be provided to instructional staff in alignment to teaching the critical content. Impact Cycles, led by both the reading coach and math coach will occur with teachers needing support based on FAST assessment data from 24/25.
Swoops will be performed weekly, providing critical feedback to teachers.
2.
Grades 3-5: Instructional Practice specifically related to Reading/ELA
58% of third grade students scored below the 40th percentile for the 24/25 school year. This is better than last year, as it was 65% of students scoring below the 40th percentile.
57% of fourth grade students scored below the 40th percentile for the 24/25 school year.
53% of fifth grade students scored below the 40th percentile for the 24/25 school year.
38% of third grade students were proficient in ELA.
33% of fourth grade students were proficient in ELA.
43% of fifth grade students were proficient in ELA.
Professional development will be provided to instructional staff in alignment to teaching the critical content. Impact Cycles, led by both the reading coach and math coach will occur with teachers needing support based on FAST assessment data from 24/25.
Swoops will be performed weekly, providing critical feedback to teachers. If TSA support is available, we will strategically place the support with teachers based on FAST assessment results.
State the specific measurable outcome the school plans to achieve for each grade below. This should be a data-based, objective outcome. Include prior year data and a measurable outcome for each of the following:
- Each grade K -3, using the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system, where 50 percent or more of the students are not on track to pass the statewide ELA assessment;
- Each grade 3-5 where 50 percent or more of its students scored below a Level 3 on the most recent statewide, standardized ELA assessment; and
- Grade 6 measurable outcomes may be included, as applicable.
1.
Grades K-2 Measurable Outcomes
The percentage of Kindergarten students scoring below the 40th percentile in ELA will decrease from 57% to 49% as measured by the May 2026 FAST assessment.
The percentage of second grade students scoring below the 40th percentile in ELA will decrease from 52% to 49% as measured by the May 2026 FAST assessment.
Kindergarten reading proficiency will increase from 35% to 40% by May, 2026.
First grade reading proficiency will increase from 46% to 51% by May, 2026.
Second grade reading proficiency will increase from 37% to 42% by May, 2026.
2.
Grades 3-5 Measurable Outcomes
The percentage of third grade students scoring below the 40th percentile in ELA will decrease from 58% to 49% as measured by the May 2026 FAST assessment.
The percentage of Fourth grade students scoring below the 40th percentile in ELA will decrease from 57% to 49% as measured by the May 2026 FAST assessment.
The percentage of Fifth grade students scoring below the 40th percentile in ELA will decrease from 53% to 49% as measured by the May 2026 FAST assessment.
Third grade reading proficiency will rise from 38% in ELA to 43% by May, 2026.
Fourth grade reading proficiency will rise from 33% to 40% by May, 2026.
Fifth grade reading proficiency will rise from 43% to 50% by May, 2026.
1.
Monitoring
Describe how the school’s Area(s) of Focus will be monitored for the desired outcomes. Include a description of how ongoing monitoring will impact student achievement outcomes.
Monitoring through data tracking of module assessments, iReady lessons passed, iReady diagnostic, and progress monitoring will be used to determine next level of supports. Data will be analyzed and discussed during weekly planning, monthly Professional Learning Communities (PLC), Monthly MTSS, and Quarterly teacher data chats. Weekly, administration will continue to swoop classrooms to ensure instruction, critical content and student tasks are focused on the benchmarks and at the rigor of the benchmark. Feedback will be provided to ensure students engagement and learning is aligned to curriculum expectations. Thorough feedback will be provided to teachers via iObservation/emails after swoops.
2.
Person Responsible for Monitoring Outcome
Enter the name of the person responsible for monitoring this outcome.
Dr, Jennifer Scrant/Didi Arpaia
1.
Description
Describe the evidence-based practices/programs being implemented to achieve the measurable outcomes in each grade and describe how the identified practices/programs will be monitored. The term "evidence-based" means demonstrating a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes as provided in 20 U.S.C. §7801(21)(A)(i). Florida’s definition limits evidence-based practices/programs to only those with strong, moderate or promising levels of evidence.
- Do the identified evidence-based practices/programs meet Florida’s definition of evidence-based (strong, moderate or promising)?
- Do the evidence-based practices/programs align with the district’s K-12 Comprehensive Evidence-based Reading Plan?
- Do the evidence-based practices/programs align to the B.E.S.T. ELA Standards?
The evidence-based strategy that is being implemented for the focus of reading is collaborative planning and focus on critical content. We use our collaborative planning to provide job-embedded professional development in understanding the benchmark, strategies to support, best practices, and alignment for lessons to the benchmark. Marzano instructional strategies are utilized in ELA instruction. Teachers adhere to district-provided curriculum maps and pacing guides, following the B.E.S.T. standards. District-adopted and approved instructional materials (HMH, Fundations, iReady, and SPIRE) are used for core instruction and intervention.
Following the planning of the benchmark, the implementation will be monitored with a focus on Identifying and teaching critical content.
2.
Rationale
Explain the rationale for selecting practices/programs. Describe the resources/criteria used for selecting the practices/programs.
- Do the evidence-based practices/programs address the identified need?
- Do the identified evidence-based practices/programs show proven record of effectiveness for the target population?
Beginning with the end in mind during collaborative planning will zone in on planning for all learners. Planning with a focus on alignment to the benchmark, scaffolding, and differentiating for the needs of our students will strengthen instruction, and support student achievement. Teachers utilize our district-adopted and approved instructional model (Marzano) as well as materials listed above. District and school-based literacy specialists/coaches support teachers in planning and implementation of effective instruction and intervention. Administration will ensure the effective implementation of the lesson plans by monitoring instruction.
Identifying and correctly teaching critical content will address the identified needs of improving student test scores.
List the action steps that will be taken to address the school’s Area(s) of Focus. To address the area of focus, identify 2 to 3 action steps and explain in detail for each of the categories below:
- Literacy Leadership
- Literacy Coaching
- Assessment
- Professional Learning
1
|
Prior to collaborative planning session: Teachers will prepare by reading texts sets and preparing areas to focus discussion on, misconceptions, complex vocabulary, higher order thinking questions, and collaborative structures for engaging students on grade level texts. Literacy Coach will work with grade level teams to identify key points of misconception, ensure all elements of effective literacy instruction are planned for and discussed including: foundational skills, vocabulary, text comprehension related to multiple standard sets, and integrated opportunities to increase embedded written opportunities for students to respond to text during the literacy block. Data Tracking through progress monitoring Student/class data will be tracked both in schoolwide common areas, through grade level recognition, and in individual leadership data binders. Within the school, data tracking will be compared with district performance during benchmark testing during the fall, winter, and early spring, with the opportunity to make building-wide structural and instructional adjustments based on student performance. Module tests will be analyzed and tracked to determine student understanding of standards within modules, additionally student performance will be analyzed through the use of common assessments and tracked by grade level to determine core areas in need of reteaching, small group, and individual student needs.
|
Maryann Caseres
|
3
|
|
|