| School Name | Central Park ES (2641) | School Grade (2024 - 2025) | A |
| Title 1 School | No | School Improvement (SI) | No |
| School of Excellence | Yes | ESSA School | No |
|
RAISE
Reading Achievement Initiative for Scholastic Excellence |
No | ||
| SAC Documentation/SAC Upload Center |
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| CPE-Executive-Summary-2025.2026.pdf | Lori Turner | 7/1/2025 |
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| CPE-2025.26-Budget-Projection-of-Revenue.pdf | Lori Turner | 6/5/2025 |
|
Using the data below, describe all intervention strategies employed by the school to improve the academic performance of students identified by the early warning system. All students are initially screened in all content areas to determine preliminary abilities and levels for instruction. Explicit teacher modeling and direct teaching are part of daily instruction. Classroom instructional plans and implementation reflect the accommodations for those ESE children on IEP plans, children needing 504 accommodations, and those requiring ESOL strategies. Differentiated instruction is embedded in daily direct instruction, the gradual release model is implemented leading to differentiated learning centers and cooperative learning. Organizational supports are embedded in instruction including, but not limited to, graphic organizers and note taking. Small group instruction is also part of the instructional routine to further differentiate and address those students requiring remediation to ensure proficiency of grade level Standards. Data chats with administration and teachers, as well as data chats with teachers and students, assist in monitoring and planning for continued instructional differentiation. Starting at the end of the first quarter marking period, children that continue to exhibit difficulty with grade level Standards, as evidenced through their data, are placed on a Progress Monitoring Plan (PMP) in reading and/or mathematics. They are more frequently progress monitored, with double dose of instruction in small group settings. Those continuing to exhibit difficulties in student learning gains are considered for a higher level of support through the Response to Intervention model. Programs currently utilized in grades K-5 include: Benchmark Interventions (Tier 2), and Benchmark Interventions; Reading Horizons (Tier 3) Math Intensive Intervention (Tier 3). Additional early warning indicators including excessive absences and habitual tardiness are addressed by the classroom teacher with both parents and administration. |
|
|
| Measurable Outcome (SMART Goal) | Professional Development | Budget | Monitoring | Results (End of Year) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By June 2025, 80% of students in grades K-2 will demonstrate growth between the STAR FAST PM1 and FAST PM 3 in ELA. Baseline Data: 94% of students in K-2 demonstrated growth between PM 1 and PM3. | TIP's Checking for Understanding | $0.00 | iReady diagnostic I & II; Comprehensive Benchmark Unit Assessments; Benchmark Quick Check Assessments; Focus Walks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence-based Interventions/Strategies |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mid-Year Reflection |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Progress: Is desired progress being made to accomplish the intended outcome for the Area of Focus by the end of the school year? | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Evidence: Provide evidence of the implementation challenges the school encountered during the Fall semester. Describe the changes made to address these challenges. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Challenges encountered during the fall include an increased number of students lacking prerequisite foundational literacy skills. In comparison to previous years, students have demonstrated greater difficulty with concepts of print, decoding strategies, and the ability to express their thoughts and ideas coherently. To address these challenges, adjustments were made to both instructional structures and intervention tools. These changes included an increase in the number of small pull-out intervention groups and a shift in the resources used to remediate students. In the previous year, the literacy coach and specials teachers primarily supported Kindergarten students through small group instruction focused on letter–sound correspondence and sight word recognition to build automaticity. This year, intervention efforts have expanded beyond Kindergarten. Additional staff members have been trained to administer district-created screeners and to implement intervention materials targeting phonological awareness and phonics instruction. All students who scored at a Level 1 or Level 2 on PM1 were screened. Based on need and human resources, the most deficient students were placed into intervention groups aligned to their specific instructional needs. The Elementary Literacy Department has developed targeted intervention resources housed under the “Instructional Pathways” tab within the English Language Arts section for each grade level. Beginning with foundational skills, instructional gaps are being addressed through intensive, targeted intervention. Student progress is closely monitored, and as students demonstrate mastery of specific skills, they are regrouped to focus on the next area of need. Currently, most intervention groups have mastered CVC words and are progressing to instruction involving short vowel patterns, including di- and trigraphs, short vowels with consonant blends, and vowel teams. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Evidence-based Interventions/Strategies: What was each Intervention/Strategy’s identified strengths and weaknesses? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The strength of this intervention strategy lies in the increased number of students receiving targeted small group instruction to address learning gaps in phonological awareness and phonics. By forming small groups based on current data from the Elementary Literacy Department’s screeners, instruction is aligned to students’ specific skill needs, ensuring that supports are both timely and appropriate. A continuing challenge is that the number of students requiring intervention exceeds the available number of interventionists. As a result, decisions were necessary to prioritize which students would receive services. These decisions were guided by a focus on addressing the most foundational literacy skills first and progressing toward more complex skills as capacity allows. While students are grouped and regrouped frequently based on screening data, some students—such as those experiencing difficulty with multisyllabic word reading—are not currently receiving intervention, as instructional resources are being concentrated on students with more significant gaps in foundational phonics skills. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Actions: Describe any new actions that are needed to accomplish the intended outcome for the Area of Focus. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Along with forming more intervention groups, we also re-screened students after about 2 months of instruction. We used the second set of screeners (there are 4 sets provided by the district), we reevaluated student foundational needs and formed new groups based on these needs. The result of the new data indicated that students had mastered some of the more foundational skills and we have moved over to mid-level skills such as vowel teams, diphthongs, and variant vowels. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Additional Reflections (optional): Please add any additional reflections for this Area of Focus. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| While explicit phonics instruction remains essential, teaching phonics in isolation does not sufficiently prepare students for the comprehension demands of the PM3 assessment. To address this, each phonics skill is paired with short, AI-generated paragraphs that intentionally emphasize the targeted skill. This approach allows students to immediately apply newly learned phonics skills within the context of connected text, while simultaneously practicing comprehension strategies. An added benefit of this instructional design is that students are able to see the relevance and transferability of phonics instruction as they recognize patterns within authentic text. By integrating phonics and comprehension, instruction more closely mirrors assessment expectations and supports deeper literacy development. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Measurable Outcome (SMART Goal) | Professional Development | Budget | Monitoring | Results (End of Year) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By June 2026, 75% of students in grades 3-5 will demonstrate learning gains on FAST PM 3 in ELA. Baseline Data: 62% of students made learning gains as measured by the 2025 FAST PM 3 in ELA | Science of Reading | $0.00 | iReady diagnostic I & II; Comprehensive Benchmark Unit Assessments; Benchmark Quick Check Assessments; Focused Learning Walks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence-based Interventions/Strategies |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mid-Year Reflection |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Progress: Is desired progress being made to accomplish the intended outcome for the Area of Focus by the end of the school year? | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Evidence: Provide evidence of the implementation challenges the school encountered during the Fall semester. Describe the changes made to address these challenges. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Challenges identified include limited implementation of data-driven small group instruction, as well as insufficient opportunities for students to engage in meaningful academic discourse with the teacher and with peers. To address the need for purposeful small group instruction, teachers were asked to include designated small group instructional time for both reading and mathematics on their posted classroom schedules. Following the administration of PM1, teachers were provided with detailed data reports outlining each student’s distance from achieving a learning gain, along with a target scale score for PM2. This target represented approximately half of the points needed for each student to demonstrate a learning gain by PM3, based on their PM1 scale score. Teachers then engaged students in goal-setting conversations to increase ownership and accountability. As an incentive, a celebration was planned for students who met or exceeded their PM2 growth target. To increase opportunities for student discourse, teachers were encouraged to implement a variety of instructional strategies designed to promote active participation and discussion. These strategies included turn-and-talk, random student calling, and the use of whiteboards to facilitate whole-group and small-group engagement. Follow-up classroom walkthroughs during small group instructional time are currently being conducted by the support team to ensure small groups are consistently implemented and to better understand the types of instructional activities being provided within these groups. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Evidence-based Interventions/Strategies: What was each Intervention/Strategy’s identified strengths and weaknesses? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Small Group Instruction Positive outcomes of this strategy include the establishment of dedicated instructional time for teachers to work with small groups, supported by access to data that informs instructional decision-making. Teachers are now better equipped to flexibly group students based on instructional needs, as well as to identify students who require enrichment after demonstrating mastery of specific standards. Areas for continued improvement include the quality of small group implementation, specifically how students are grouped and the types of instructional activities planned for each group. These areas are being addressed through targeted classroom walkthroughs, followed by timely and actionable feedback to support instructional refinement. Student Discourse Positive outcomes indicate that teachers are implementing a broader range of strategies to increase student engagement in academic discourse. These strategies include the use of random student selection tools (e.g., popsicle sticks), structured turn-and-talk opportunities, and whiteboards to capture real-time evidence of student thinking and understanding. Opportunities for improvement remain in expanding student-to-student discourse. With the exception of isolated classrooms, there is limited evidence of student-led small group discussions in which students collaboratively reason, problem-solve, and build understanding together. Additionally, while teacher-to-student interactions are evident, there is less evidence of instructional practices that intentionally promote multiple student contributions and encourage students to build on the ideas of their peers. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Actions: Describe any new actions that are needed to accomplish the intended outcome for the Area of Focus. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Classroom Walkthroughs Frequent classroom walkthroughs during small group instructional time are necessary to ensure consistent implementation of instructional expectations. The support team will monitor adherence to posted schedules and analyze the quality and purpose of learning experiences provided during small group instruction. These walkthroughs will inform targeted feedback and support to strengthen instructional practices. Discourse Strategies Teachers will benefit from ongoing training and reminders related to effective discourse strategies. Similar to the expectation that lessons include a brief mini-lesson followed by immediate application, opportunities for student discourse should be intentionally planned and embedded multiple times throughout instruction. As students are provided with increased opportunities to verbalize their thinking, teachers gain valuable insight into student understanding and can more readily identify misconceptions. Addressing misconceptions promptly prevents the need for future reteaching and supports deeper learning. Models of Excellence As effective examples of small group instruction and student discourse are observed, it is important to intentionally share these practices with staff. Highlighting successful instructional approaches will encourage teachers to explore new strategies in their own classrooms. Additionally, identifying educators who consistently implement expectations with fidelity allows them to serve as instructional resources and models for colleagues seeking to strengthen their practice. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Additional Reflections (optional): Please add any additional reflections for this Area of Focus. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ongoing Data Analysis Teachers now have access to PM2 data itemized by standard for each student and for their classes as a whole. This data serves as a strong foundation and provides a clear instructional roadmap for the remainder of the school year. In addition to PM2 results, interim assessments—such as Benchmark Advance unit and weekly assessments, as well as mathematics topic assessments—provide timely data on recently taught content. Analyzing student performance on current standards enables teachers to promptly identify misconceptions and make informed instructional decisions. As a result, teachers can strategically form reteaching, enrichment, and intervention groups based on specific, up-to-date data aligned to current instruction, ensuring instructional adjustments are both targeted and responsive to student needs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Measurable Outcome (SMART Goal) | Professional Development | Budget | Monitoring | Results (End of Year) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By June 2026, 80% of students in grades 3-5 will demonstrate proficiency on FAST PM 3 in ELA. Baseline Data: 73% proficient as measured by 2025 FAST PM 3 | TIP's Checking for Understanding | $0.00 | iReady diagnostic I & II; Comprehensive Benchmark Unit Assessments; Benchmark Quick Check Assessments; Focus Walks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence-based Interventions/Strategies |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mid-Year Reflection |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Progress: Is desired progress being made to accomplish the intended outcome for the Area of Focus by the end of the school year? | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Evidence: Provide evidence of the implementation challenges the school encountered during the Fall semester. Describe the changes made to address these challenges. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| We have observed significant progress toward our proficiency goals. At PM1, 39% of students in grades 3–5 demonstrated proficiency, which increased to 61% at PM2. If this rate of growth continues, we project ending the year with approximately 83% proficiency in grades 3–5. Despite these gains, several challenges remain. A reduced budget has limited our ability to provide additional instructional supports and resources to accelerate student growth. Additionally, we are experiencing an increase in the number of students requiring enhanced academic and social-emotional support. This has led to a rise in guidance group participation, RtI referrals, and ESE evaluations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Evidence-based Interventions/Strategies: What was each Intervention/Strategy’s identified strengths and weaknesses? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Our greatest strength is our teaching staff. Teachers demonstrate strong instructional practice by clearly unpacking the concepts and skills embedded within the standards and effectively leveraging available instructional resources. The combined use of i-Ready, Benchmark Advance, and targeted interventions aligned to the Elementary Literacy Department’s screening and intervention tools has been implemented with fidelity. To better support students who are experiencing academic difficulty, continued growth is needed in the consistent use of small group instruction and in expanding opportunities for meaningful student discourse. Additionally, increasing teacher comfort with releasing responsibility to higher-performing students through strategies such as project-based learning, document-based questions, and enrichment activities will further support differentiated instruction and deeper learning outcomes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Actions: Describe any new actions that are needed to accomplish the intended outcome for the Area of Focus. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Extended Learning Opportunities (ELO) Camp An Extended Learning Opportunities (ELO) Camp is being implemented from January 27 through April 16, with a focus on both English Language Arts and Mathematics. Student participation was determined using multiple criteria, including teacher recommendations, PM2 performance data, and identification within the Lowest 30%. Instructional materials are designed using the gradual release model and target standards identified as areas of challenge based on PM2 data. Intervention Groups The support team is developing targeted small pull-out intervention groups to address mathematics needs for students identified within the Lowest 30%. These groups will utilize MDIS intervention materials to provide focused remediation aligned to student skill gaps. Incentive Initiatives Interim growth goals were established for PM2 using a color-coded system informed by last year’s PM3 data and this year’s PM1 data. A midway target was identified for each student and designated as “blue.” This initiative was promoted through the theme “Aiming for Blue on PM2,” culminating in a Blue Party featuring music, themed refreshments, and games to celebrate student progress. For PM3, individualized proficiency targets have been calculated for each student. To motivate continued growth, a “Glow Party” is planned to recognize all students who meet the proficiency benchmark. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| CPE-Literacy-Plan.pdf | Lori Turner | 9/3/2025 |
| Central-Park-ES-SIP-K12-CERP-Literacy-Leadership-Contact-Information.pdf | Lori Turner | 9/3/2025 |
PLC Meeting Schedule
|
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-2026-MTSS-Action-Plan-and-Current-SAM-Report.pdf | Douglas Satran | 9/16/2025 |
| Spring_25_Broward_Central-Park-Elementary-School_SAM_Dashboard.pdf | Farrah Kellingbeck | 3/31/2026 |
RtI Team Meeting Schedule
|
No files have been uploaded.
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| 2641_05282025_Central-Park-Elem-2641-SPBP--25-26-(2).docx | Chandra Evans | 6/5/2025 |
| SPBP-Feedback-Form-2025-2026.pdf | Chandra Evans | 6/9/2025 |
| Regular Attenders (0%-4.9% Absent) |
At Risk (5%-9.9% Absent) |
Chronic (10%-19.9% Absent) |
Severe Chronic (20% or more Absent) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School Year | Population | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % |
| Regular Attenders (0%-4.9% Absent) |
At Risk (5%-9.9% Absent) |
Chronic (10%-19.9% Absent) |
Severe Chronic (20% or more Absent) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School Year | Grade Level | Population | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % |
| Attendance Type | School Goal |
|---|
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| Central-Park-ES-Attendance-Plan-25-26.pdf | Lori Turner | 9/16/2025 |
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| Central-Park-ES-2025.ASCP.pdf | Lori Turner | 9/3/2025 |
No files have been uploaded.
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| CPE-School-BPIE-Assessment-24.25.pdf | Lori Turner | 6/5/2025 |
SAC Upload Center
|
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| CPE-2025-Staff-Survey.pdf | Lori Turner | 6/5/2025 |
| CPE-2025-Parent-Survey.pdf | Lori Turner | 6/5/2025 |
| CPE-2025-Student-Survey.pdf | Lori Turner | 6/5/2025 |
| File Name | File Uploaded By | Upload Date |
|---|---|---|
| FACE-SPACE-Bulletin-Board.pdf | Douglas Satran | 9/24/2025 |
| FACE-SPACE---September-2025.pdf | Douglas Satran | 10/1/2025 |