Planning for School Improvement

Corkscrew Elementary School

School Year

Data Analysis - Needs Assessment

PatternELAMathScienceSocial Studies
What trends emerge across grade levels, subgroups, and core content areas?
- 4th & 5th grade made growth from PM1 to PM3 - 5th Grade had overall increased achievement from FY23 to FY24 - 4th & 5th grade ESE subgroups increase achievement levels from FY23 to FY24.
- 3rd & 4th Grade ESE increase proficiency from FY23 to FY24 - ELL subgroups decreased achievement levels from FY23-FY24
- Increased achievement levels from FY23 to FY24. - ESE subgroup increased achievement by 9% from FY23 to FY24.
N/A
Which data component showed the most improvement? What new actions did your school take in this area?
ELA: 4th Grade made 69% learning gains compared to the district at 60% as a result of continuously adjusting instruction to meet the immediate needs of our students during our DI Time. Increase in our L25% making a learning gain from FY22 to FY24 by 4%. Math: 4th Grade ESE scored 58% proficient as compared to the district at 48%. 4th Grade dedicated two days a week for math intervention. Science: Increase in student achievement by 3% from FY23 to FY24 due to having three experienced teachers to teach 5th grade science. Teachers incorporated hands-on student centered activities at least three times a week. Students also participated in Star Galaxy Challenge to review previous taught content.
Which data component showed the lowest performance? Explain the contributing factor(s) to last year's low performance and discuss any trends.
ELA: 3rd Grade ESE from FY23 to FY24 but within the cohort they decreased by 10%. ELL students from 4th to 5th grade made a significant decrease from FY23 to FY24. Math: Staying stagnate in learning gains in Math. 5th Grade students making learning gains compared to the district. Science: 5th Grade ELL on PM3 in FY24 scored at 18% proficient which is 10% below the district.
Which data component showed the greatest decline from the prior year? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this decline.
ELA: 3rd Grade ESE went from 48% in FY23 to 38% in FY24. Math: 2nd Grade ELL went from 46% in FY23 to 20% in FY24. The second grade team had two long term guest teachers and one classroom had three different teachers from August-November.
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.
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.
3rd, 4th, and 5th grades were above the state average in ELA, Math, and Science. The smallest gap between the state and CES is 5th grade ELA. Due to a lack of consistent 5th grade team, teachers weren't given class groups that best fit their strengths. We are adjusting this for FY25.
Rank your highest priorities (maximum of 5) for school improvement in the upcoming school year.
1) Increase Learning Gains in Math 2) Increase Learning Gains in ELA 3) Increase achievement levels for ELL students 4) Student-Centered Instruction focused on student individual needs (small group instruction & collaboration)

SIP - Areas of Focus

To foster a learning community where students will engage in experiences that develop self-confidence and a love of learning resulting in respectful and responsible citizens.
To create a collaborative learning community that inspires success through high quality data-driven instruction, purposeful learning, and amazingly positive experiences for all stakeholders.
In ELA learning gains, CES will go from 65% to 68% (3% increase) on the 2025 state assessment (PM3) as compared to 2024 state assessment.
(View Marzano Model)
Helping Students Process New Content
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Ongoing professional development focusing on small group instruction through data analysis.
Person Responsible:
Leadership Team; Teacher Leaders
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Weekly FTEM observations; Teacher Learning Walks focused on predominant teaching strategies within our classrooms
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Teachers utilizing structured small group activities to help process new content.
Person Responsible:
Classroom Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Collaborative Planning: 5 Commitments to CES are focused on how we are teaching the benchmarks to meet the needs of our students. Teams work together to create weekly commitments on what instructional strategies will be used to embed small group structures during their instruction.
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Monthly Grade Level PLC's focusing on assessment and intervention data
Person Responsible:
Leadership Team; Classroom & Inclusion Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Monthly grade level PLC's meet to discuss intervention data and Tiered interventions to make adjustments to instructional grouping focused on reteaching/extending the lesson on previously taught benchmarks.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
In Math Learning Gains, CES will go from 71% to 75% (4% increase) on 2025 state assessment (PM3) as compared to 2024 state assessment.
(View Marzano Model)
Helping Students Process New Content
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Ongoing Professional Development on small group instruction
Person Responsible:
Kelly Zwack; Rachel Callahan; Classroom Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Weekly FTEM observations; Teacher Learning Walks focused on predominant teaching strategies within our classrooms
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Use of manipulatives during daily math instruction
Person Responsible:
Classroom Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Collaborative Planning: 5 Commitments to CES are focused on how we are teaching the benchmarks to meet the needs of our students. Teams work together to create weekly commitments on what instructional strategies will be used to embed manipulatives into their daily instruction.
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Student incentives for independent practice on ALEKS and Redbird to reinforce previous taught content.
Person Responsible:
Classroom Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Weekly WIG e-mails tracking how many students have gotten into Principal's Club for meeting their grade level Math WIG. Classroom trackers demonstrate the progress students are making towards entering Principal's Club.
Action #4
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Math Intervention occurs twice a week during scheduled TEAM time intervention indicated on the master schedule.
Person Responsible:
Classroom Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Monthly grade level PLC's meet to discuss unit assessment data to make instructional groups focused on reteaching/extending the lesson on previously taught math content.
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich the Submit button to the right!
CES science achievement will increase from 69% to 75% (6% increase) on the 2025 state assessment as compared to 2024 state assessment.
(View Marzano Model)
Helping Students Process New Content
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Weekly Collaborative Planning with a emphasis of hands-on learning experiments occurring during instruction twice a week.
Person Responsible:
Science Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Teacher PowerPoints and collaborative planning notes to indicate the hands-on learning opportunities. Classroom walkthroughs to view implementation
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Daily spiral review of previously taught content based on previous assessment data after each benchmark assessment.
Person Responsible:
Science Teachers
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Classroom walkthroughs to view implementation
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich 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 clich 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 clich the Submit button to the right!
Due to increased staff turnover, through support, communication, and recognition we will go from 91% to 93% of our current staff returning for the 25-26 school year.
(View Marzano Model)
Promoting teacher leadership and collaboration
Action #1
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Monthly team building at professional development sessions with strategic grouping to interact with all staff members of various teams.
Person Responsible:
Kelly Zwack; Rachel Callahan
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
PD presentations; monthly agendas; informal feedback tracked to give feedback to all staff
Action #2
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Ongoing opportunities to provided feedback trough monthly action team and team leader meetings.
Person Responsible:
Kelly Zwack; Rachel Callahan
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Plus/Delta Board opportunity at every PL; Surveys given twice a year to the staff
Action #3
Action Steps to implement evidence-based strategy:
Opportunities for staff to interact regularly as planned by the Sharpen the Saw action team.
Person Responsible:
Sharpen the Saw Action Team
Progress Monitoring Evidence:
Quarterly event turnout from staff
Budget
Funding SourceFunctionObjectProjectBudget NarrativeFTEAmount
No data to display, enter information below then clich 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 2024-2025 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 2023−2024 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 2023−2024 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.