KCC Southeast outlines math, science and literacy steps after two years of low scores

KCC Southeast principal Karen, speaking at a Hillsborough County School Board workshop on Oct. 7, said new leadership and structured monitoring are central to a school improvement plan intended to raise student achievement after two years of poor performance.

The presentation, required under Florida Statute 1002.33 for charter schools on district-required improvement (DRF) lists, outlined five priority areas: strengthen tier‑1 math instruction to push grades 3–8 to above 50 percent proficiency, apply the 5E model to science lessons, provide small‑group instruction for the lowest quartile in math, continue work on ELA including an intensive reading program, and standardize lesson planning and cross‑campus mentoring. "We are starting over," Karen said, adding that several staff from the school’s South Campus were brought in to help drive change.

The board’s charter office director, Angela Wherry Crooks, opened the session by noting the statutory requirement that charter leaders present improvement plans to their sponsor and that the presentations are informational: "you will not be voting to approve or deny items," she said.

Why it matters: KCC Southeast’s math scores fell sharply last year, and the school’s overall progress affects accountability and the district’s charter oversight. The school’s contract runs through 2027, making this year critical for showing measurable improvement.

Details of the plan and implementation: Karen said the school has begun monthly monitoring and has put the online practice tool IXL in place schoolwide, both for in‑school time and at home, with incentives planned to increase use. She identified specific drops in math achievement (examples shown on a slide as declines such as from 34% to 24% and from 41% to 33% in certain grades) and said the school will use IXL data to set individualized goals. For science, Karen described professional development and classroom walkthroughs tied to the 5E instructional model (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate). For ELA the school added Read 180 for intensive readers and purchased teacher manuals to support K–2 instruction.

Board questions focused on implementation fidelity and resources. Dr. Hahn asked how the new monitoring differed from last year and pressed whether the school was relying on the same curriculum and tools while expecting different outcomes: "You're using the same curriculum, the same monitoring. And is that curriculum, based on authentic instruction?" he asked. Karen said the difference is leadership and follow‑through: monitoring is now more intentional and teachers are being supported to use the tools consistently.

Member Gray pressed on the school’s low fund balance, saying the school had about $103,000 and noting that 30 percent of the student body are English‑language learners (ELLs): "How are you going to pay for [the] curriculum materials and human resources with that fund balance?" Karen replied the school recently replaced three air conditioners at roughly $100,000 and expects some landlord reimbursement, and that the charter office and other partners are providing support.

Member Combs requested a detailed expenditure breakdown after board members noted the school had previously reported much larger fund balances in earlier years. Karen agreed to provide that information to the board.

Board guidance and next steps: Board members repeatedly recommended that the school make the improvement plan more data‑driven and granular — breaking targets into grade‑level measurable gains and showing how progress monitoring (PM1, etc.) will translate into monthly or quarterly milestones. The charter office said it will monitor the schools throughout the year and meet after each state progress monitoring window.

Ending: Karen said K–2 PM1 results are already higher than last year at the same snapshot and that staff and culture shifts are underway. The presentation was informational; no board action or vote occurred.