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
When analyzing FY25 PM3 data and EOY iReady data, students in grades K-2 reflected the following:
FY25-Kindergarten- 65% scored below Level 3 on PM3, 87% at grade level equivalent on iReady
FY25-First Grade-57% scored below Level 3 on PM3, 44% at grade level equivalent on iReady
FY25-Second Grade-59% scored below Level 3 on PM3, 56% at grade level equivalent on iReady
This rationale for supporting instructional practice relating ELA is to ensure students are instructed using on grade-level content/text and are given opportunities to increase their learning gains to develop proficiency on grade level texts through reading, speaking, and writing. Additionally, students receiving explicit reading interventions need ongoing progress monitoring and adjustment of instruction to ensure the achievement gap closes and that learning gains are made at a pace so that students are able to read and comprehend on grade level to the demands of the B.E.S.T Standards.
2.
Grades 3-5: Instructional Practice specifically related to Reading/ELA
During the FY25 school year FAST PM3 data indicated a 6% increase in overall ELA proficiency, from 45% to 51% in grades 3-5.
Grade Level ELA Breakdown is reflected as follows:
FY25-Grade 3 57% Below Level 3
FY25-Grade 4 36% Below Level 3 (Not a RAISE area but still a focus as rising 3rd graders who were below 50% are now in 4th grade)
FY25-Grade 5 45% Below Level 3
This rationale for supporting instructional practice relating ELA is to ensure students are instructed using on grade-level content/text and are given opportunities to increase their learning gains to develop proficiency on grade level texts through reading, speaking and writing. Additionally, students receiving explicit reading interventions need ongoing progress monitoring and adjustment of instruction to ensure the achievement gap closes and that learning gains are made at a pace so that students are able to read and comprehend on grade level to the demands of the B.E.S.T Standards.
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
K-2 Grade Level Breakdown Measurable Goals Are As Follows:
Kindergarten: During FY26 school year, increase proficiency on the end of year PM3 by at least 15%, to increase from 35%-50%, and increase iReady diagnostic by 1%, from 87% to 88%.
First Grade: During FY26 school year increase proficiency on the end of year PM3 by at least 7%, to increase from 43% to 50%, and increase iReady diagnostic by 6% from 44% to 50%.
Second Grade: During FY26 school year, increase proficiency on the end of year PM3 by at least 9%, to increase from 41% to 50%, and increase iReady diagnostic by 2%, from 56% to 58%.
2.
Grades 3-5 Measurable Outcomes
PSE will increase its ELA proficiency in Grades 3-5 overall by at least 3%. This will result in a minimum of 54% of our students meeting proficiency in the area of ELA for the FY26 school year, as evidenced by performance on the FAST PM3.
Grade Level Breakdowns:
Grade 3: ELA Proficiency will increase by a minimum of 7%, from 43% to 50%.
Grade 4:ELA Proficiency will increase by a minimum of 1%, from 64% to 65%.
Grade 5:ELA Proficiency will increase by a minimum of 2%, from 48% to 50%.
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.
Areas of Focus will be monitored in multiple ways in order to ensure the desired outcome is met for the FY26 school year.
Collaborative ELA Planning with a focus on Using Questions to Help Students Elaborate on Content. Deliberate planning for differentiation for subgroups (including ESE, ELL, and advanced). Administrators will participate in collaborative planning.
On-going Progress Monitoring: End of Module Assessments through HMH Curriculum, Differentiated Standards-Based Monitoring through the iReady program, Monitoring of results of state progress monitoring assessments (PM1-PM3). During these times, leadership team members and teachers meet to analyze data and plan next steps that can result in instructional, structural, staffing, and student adjustments.
Data Analysis Chats and Data Tracking: Teachers, Students & Grade Level Teams participate in data chats; students will set personal reading goals in their leadership notebooks and utilize data trackers and progress monitoring scoreboards in grades K-5. Monthly MTSS meetings conducted to monitor individual student needs for and response to interventions.
FTEM ELA Observations: (Sara Johnessee & Rachel Moore) During ELA observations, monitoring of effective implementation of lesson plans, successful questioning to elicit elaboration on content, adjustments and use of high-yield engagement strategies, feedback delivered and shared with individual teachers.
2.
Person Responsible for Monitoring Outcome
Enter the name of the person responsible for monitoring this outcome.
Sara Johnessee
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 area of focus is collaborative planning. This strategy has been chosen due to numerous topics that can be covered in order to ensure alignment of instruction in response to student performance to promote academic achievement. During this school year, the FTEM element chosen for Parkside Elementary School is Using Questions to Help Students Elaborate on Content which will be a focus point during our collaborative planning meetings and professional learning. Collaborative Planning will be an opportunity to address high yield instructional strategies, engagement opportunities, identify areas to adjust instruction, and plan next steps for instructional delivery based on data analysis, teacher reflection and observational feedback. During this school year, Parkside will continue with the implementation of Leader In Me. This will allow us to continue with ongoing professional development opportunities, as well as measurable outcomes for all stakeholders around the areas of Leadership, Culture and Academics. Students will set personal reading goals in their leadership notebooks and utilize data trackers and progress monitoring scoreboards in grades K-5.
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?
This evidence-based strategy was chosen after reflecting on the FY25 reading proficiency data, specifically how subgroup performance contributed to overall results. While we saw an increase in overall proficiency in 3rd-5th grade combined, there was a decrease in 3rd grade. This is a historical trend at Parkside with proficiency rates rising and falling in 3rd-5th each year. When reflecting on data, observations, and input from teams, Parkside Elementary identified the area of collaborative planning as the area to focus on for the upcoming year. We will continue to improve our collaborative planning process this year, building on adjustments made to our framework during the FY 25 school year. During this time, staff will be able to plan for ways to improve questioning strategies to support elaboration on content, student grouping, and delivery of content specific to the subgroup cluster their classes contain. Teams will utilize district provided strategies, as well as collaborative structures, to increase student interaction with content through listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Continued Implementation of Leader In Me will create opportunities for students and teachers to implement best practices in goal setting and data tracking, as well as increase their personal accountability for results.
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
|
Literacy Leadership and Literacy Coaching: Weekly collaborative planning and implementation of differentiated instruction with a focus on how to help students elaborate on content with questioning strategies. Action step will be led by grade-level teachers and literacy coach.
|
ELA Teachers and Administration
|
2
|
Assessment: Weekly grade-level iReady Lesson Monitoring for pass rates, and monthly school-wide pass rate, usage, and lesson path adjustments with reteaching opportunities. Monthly MTSS meetings to monitor student success with interventions and to determine adjustments needed.
|
Literacy Coach and Administration
|
3
|
Professional Learning: Provide opportunities for job-embedded professional development in instructional practices related to ELA to teachers based on instructional growth plans, student needs, and classroom observation results.
|
Administration
|