Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2012-13 Organization Code: 1520 District Name: DURANGO 9-R School Code: 0225 School Name: ANIMAS VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPF Year: 2012 Accountable by: 3 Year Section I: Summary Information about the School Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2011-12. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations as shared through the School Performance Framework (SPF) data. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability Performance Indicators
Academic Achievement (Status)
2011-12 Federal and State Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and science Expectation: %P+A is at or above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3-years of data
2011-12 School Results
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
72.05%
-
-
80.12%
-
-
M
70.11%
-
-
79.48%
-
-
W
54.84%
-
-
71.97%
-
-
S
45.36%
-
-
65.29%
-
-
Median SGP
Median Adequate SGP
Median Student Growth Percentile Academic Growth
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading, writing and math and growth in CELApro for English language proficiency Expectation: If district met adequate growth: then median SGP is at or above 45. If district did not meet adequate growth: then median SGP is at or above 55.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
22
-
-
60
-
-
M
43
-
-
56
-
-
W
31
-
-
54
-
-
ELP
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for Academic Achievement:
Meets * Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each content area at each level.
Overall Rating for Academic Growth:
Meets * Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each content area at each level.
1
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Median Student Growth Percentile Academic Growth Gaps
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math by disaggregated groups. Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 45. If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 55.
Graduation Rate Expectation: at 80% or above on the most recent 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Post Secondary/ Workforce Readiness
Disaggregated Graduation Rate Expectation: at 80% or above on the disaggregated group’s most recent 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Dropout Rate Expectation: At or below State average overall.
Mean ACT Composite Score Expectation: At or above State average
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
2011-12 Federal and State Expectations See your school’s performance frameworks for listing of median adequate growth expectations for your district’s disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners and students below proficient.
At 80% or above
2011-12 School Results
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps: See your school’s performance frameworks for listing of median growth by each disaggregated group.
Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate - using a - year grad rate
Meets * Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each student disaggregated group at each content area at each level.
-
At 80% or above for each disaggregated group
See your school’s performance frameworks for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6year and 7-year graduation rates for disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Overall Rating for Post Secondary Readiness: -
2
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan Program
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
State Accountability
Performance
Based on preliminary results, the school meets or exceeds state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2013 to be uploaded on SchoolView.org, unless other programs require an earlier submission. Refer to the UIP website for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the UIP Handbook to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school’s plan at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp. Once the plan type for the school has been finalized, this report will be repopulated in December 2012.
Title I Formula Grant
Program's resources are allocated based upon the poverty rates of students enrolled in schools and districts and are designed to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.
Title I Schoolwide
In addition to the general requirements, all schools operating a Title I Schoolwide program must complete the Schoolwide addendum. Schools identified under another program (e.g., state accountability) will need to submit a plan for review by CDE by January 15, 2013. All other Title I schools will submit their plan to CDE for posting on SchoolView.org by April 15, 2013. CDE may require a review of the school’s UIP during a monitoring site visit or during a desk review.
Title I Focus School
Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate (regardless of plan type), and/or (2) Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type with either (or both) (a) low-achieving disaggregated student groups (i.e., minority, ELL, IEP and FRL) or (b) low disaggregated graduation rate. This is a three-year designation.
Not identified as a Title I Focus School
This school has not been identified as a Title I Focus school and does not need to meet the additional requirements.
Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified as 5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I eligible schools to implement one of four reform models as defined by the USDE.
Not a TIG Awardee
This school does not receive a TIG grant and does not need to meet those additional requirements.
Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or Title I School Improvement Grant
Competitive Title I grant to support school improvement through a diagnostic review (i.e., facilitated data analysis, SST) or an implementation focus (i.e., Best First Instruction, Leadership, Climate and Culture).
Not a Title I School Improvement Grant Awardee
Preliminary Recommended Plan Type
Plan assigned based on school’s overall school performance framework score (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness)
ESEA and Grant Accountability
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
This school does not receive a School Improvement grant and does not need to meet those additional requirements.
3
Section II: Improvement Plan Information Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.
Additional Information about the School Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History Related Grant Awards
Has the school received a grant that supports the school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant awarded?
School Support Team or Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
External Evaluator
Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.
Improvement Plan Information The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply): State Accountability Title IA (Targeted Assistance or Schoolwide) Title I Focus School
Implementation Support Partnership Grant (ISP) or Title I School Improvement Grant
Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
Other: ___________________________________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed) 1
Name and Title
Lisa S. Schuba, Principal
Email
[email protected]
Phone
970-247-0274 Ext. 3401
Mailing Address
373 Hermosa Meadows Road Durango, CO 81301
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
4
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions proposed in section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations, describing progress toward targets for the prior school year, describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends, identifying trends and priority performance challenges (negative trends), describing how performance challenges were prioritized, identifying the root causes of performance challenges, describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used, and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.
Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2011-12 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.
Performance Indicators
Performance in 2011-12? Was the target met? How close was school in meeting the target?
3rd-5th
Academic Achievement (Status)
Academic Growth
Academic Growth Gaps
Reading: 86% of Animas Valley Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP Math: 84% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP. Writing: 81% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP. Science: 78% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP. By the end of the 2012-13 school year, our median student growth percentile for writing will be the 60th percentile or above.
By the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Animas will increase our math and writing growth expectations for students designated with disabilities. Our goal will be the same as the district stretch goal of 60th percentile or above.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Brief reflection on why previous targets were met or not met. Achievement Targets Reading: No, 8% away. District Goal: 82% AVE Actual: 78%. Fifth Grade did meet district stretch goal. Math: No, 8% away. District Goal: 81% AVE Actual: 76%. Third Grade surpassed the district stretch goal by 4%---great! Writing: No, 10% away. District Goal: 72% AVE Actual: 71%. Fifth Grade surpassed the district stretch goal by 10% --- great! Science: No, 9% away. District Goal: 72% AVE Actual 69%. However, 20% above the state! Academic Growth Targets No, the total growth in 4th and 5th Grade writing was 56. Individually, Fifth Grade did meet this goal with a 63 (exceeding) state expectations. Academic Growth Gap Targets The number of students in this sub-population was too low and unable to measure based on the 1-year and 3-year Framework report, as well as the AVE growth summary report. Reflections: Set high 2012 achievement goals, even above district goals, based on a very strong 2011 spike in achievement scores without close consideration of the longitudinal trends.
5
Worksheet #2: Data Analysis Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data in preparation for writing the required data narrative. Planning teams should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data and then prioritize the performance challenges (based on notable trends) that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore, schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed.
Performance Indicators
Description of Notable Trends (3 years of past state and local data)
Academic Achievement (Status)
Reading Reading -3rd Reading -4th Reading -5th Writing - 3rd Writing - 4th Writing - 5th Math - 3rd Math - 4th Math - 5th
Academic Growth
Grade Math - 4 Math –5 Reading - 4 Reading - 5 Writing – 4 Writing - 5
07 85 74 88 84 71 78 95 86 91
08 76 84 86 56 76 72 80 89 78
2010 MGP 68 55 58 60 47 48
09 78 77 83 65 75 78 73 82 80
10 83 72 81 66 69 69 88 86 73
2011 MGP 52 70 54 82 47 63
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
11 78 81 89 62 86 83 69 89 84
Priority Performance Challenges
Root Causes
12 74 78 82 64 66 82 85 73 69
2012 MGP 44 53 45 66 49 63
6
Academic Growth Gaps
Grade Math –Min Math – FR Read – Min Read – FR Writing –Min Writing – FR
2010 MGP -/64 53/64 -/60 61/58 -/50 32/54
2011 MGP -/60 -/64 -/68 -/73 -/55 -/57
2012 MGP -/46 34/52 -/54 47/55 -/52 51/60
Data Narrative for School Directions: Building on the data organized in Worksheet #1 and Worksheet #2, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including review of prior years’ targets, trends, priority performance challenges and root cause analysis. The narrative should address each aspect of the descriptions below. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Description of School Setting and Process for Data Analysis: Provide a very brief description of the school to set the context for readers (e.g., demographics). Include the general process for developing the UIP and participants (e.g., SAC).
Review Current Performance: Review the SPF and document any areas where the school did not meet state/ federal expectations. Consider the previous year’s progress toward the school’s targets. Identify the overall magnitude of the school’s performance challenges.
Trend Analysis: Provide a description of the trend analysis that includes at least three years of data (state and local data). Trend statements should be provided in the four indicator areas and by disaggregated groups. Trend statements should include the direction of the trend and a comparison to state expectations or trends to indicate why the trend is notable.
Priority Performance Challenges: Identify notable trends (or a combination of trends) that are the highest priority to address (priority performance challenges). No more than 3-4 are recommended. Provide a rationale for why these challenges have been selected and takes into consideration the magnitude of the school’s over-all performance challenges.
Root Cause Analysis Identify at least one root cause for every priority performance challenge. Root causes should address adult actions, be under the control of the school, and address the priority performance challenge(s). Provide evidence that the root cause was verified through the use of additional data.
Animas Valley Elementary School is located 8 miles north of Durango in a scenic valley surrounded by the natural beauty of mountains, red cliffs and pine trees. We are a medium-sized rural school (250 students) in the “Candidacy Stage” of becoming an authorized International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Programme (PYP) World School. Our vision is to create learners who develop the tools and mindset to continually seek and understand themselves and the world. Learners will demonstrate confidence, show compassion, and value diversity. All will leave our school with the ability to transfer and apply concepts because they are motivated to question and discover solutions.
TREND ANALYSIS AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES: What DATA did we use to identify trends?
STATE FRAMEWORK REPORTS: The district and school performance framework reports provide a snapshot of the district or school's level of attainment on academic achievement, growth, growth gaps and postsecondary readiness. For districts, the evaluation of overall performance on these indicators leads to an accreditation designation. For schools, the evaluation of overall performance on these indicators leads to the assignment of the type of improvement plan schools will implement. State “School Growth Summary” also breaks the growth down by grade level.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
7
STATE TCAP (Transitional Colorado Achievement Program): A “summative” assessment that charts student academic achievement and growth each year and overtime. Alpine Achievement database allows staff to look at longitudinal graphs and view disaggregated report, which breaks the data down by student population, i.e. how girls perform versus boys, etc.
DISTRICT 9R BODY OF EVIDENCE (BOA) REPORTS: A quick glance of student growth and proficiency in DIBELS Next (reading fluency/comprehension) and TCAP.
DISTRICT 9R ITEM MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS REPORTS (MAPS): Interactive spreadsheets that provide information on specific types of test items and standards missed by students. It also shows whether students are missing more multiple choice type questions versus constructed response questions.
DISTRICT 9R FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS: A range of assessment procedures employed by teachers during the learning process in order to modify teaching and learning activities to improve student attainment. It typically involves qualitative feedback for both student and teacher that focuses on the details of content and performance. It is commonly contrasted with summative assessments which seeks to monitor educational outcomes for external accountability.
SCHOOL SITE ASSESSMENTS: School formative and summative assessments which include, but are not limited to, Everyday Math (EDM) unit tests, mid-year and endof year EDM test, writing samples, IB unit planner assessments, Daily Language Instruction quizzes, Data Team smart goals that include pre- and post tests, etc.
What are the positive and negative trends in our school’s performance for each indicator area? (Use the 3-year frameworks and TCAP data) There are always reasons to celebrate when Animas Valley receives our much-awaited TCAP results. Our assessment theme continues to be “Rock the Test” and enthusiasm is high, as students are driven to apply all of the skills and knowledge they have acquired since kindergarten. Over the course of the past four years, here are some of our highlights: Governor’s Distinguished Improvement Award, Colorado Department of Education (2012). Only school in Southwestern Colorado to receive this designation based upon student academic achievement growth measures. Healthy School Champion, Colorado Department of Education and The Legacy Foundation (2011, 2012, 2013). Awarded to schools that demonstrate exemplary coordinated school health efforts that include best practices in the area of health services and education, counseling, bully-proofing, nutrition services & education, physical education & activity, family & community involvement, and staff wellness. Awarded $6,500 over three years. ZAPP Award, Durango School Board of Education (Fall 2010). “Zealous Appreciation of Positive Performance” award celebrating 2010 CSAP test results. Animas Valley was the only 9-R school that exceeded state expectations in academic growth in reading and math based on the 1-Year Performance Frameworks. High-Performing School Award, Colorado Department of Education (2009-2010). Only school in the district to be recognized as a “high-performing” school based on student growth in mathematics. CSAP results indicated Animas Valley exceeded state expectations for student academic progress over three consecutive years. CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
8
Positive 3-Year TCAP Achievement Trends: AVE out performed the district and the state over the past three years in 11 out of 12 categories. Our 2010 Fifth Grade science score was the only one to fall short. 3-Year Trend % Of 3-5th Graders Proficient & Advanced 2010
2011
2012
Animas Valley
79%
82%
78%
District 9-R
76%
78%
75%
Colorado WRITING
72%
69%
74%
Animas Valley
68%
77%
71%
District 9-R
58%
63%
59%
Colorado MATH
52%
56%
53%
Animas Valley
82%
81%
76%
District 9-R
74%
75%
73%
Colorado SCIENCE
69%
69%
69%
Animas Valley
48%
83%
69%
District 9-R
59%
63%
60%
Colorado
47%
47%
49%
READING
Negative 3-Year Achievement Trends:
Reading scores has remained fairly stable Math achievement has been slowly dropping Writing scores continue to fluctuate instead of making a clear upward trend Science has shown significant growth since 2010
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
9
Does this differ for any disaggregated student groups (e.g., by grade level or gender)? Use TCAP
Our Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible students are not making the same amount of growth as other students in the area of math Two out of the past three years, boys significantly outperformed the girls in the area of science: 2012 boys scored 82% P & A while girls performed 59% P&A and 2010 boys scored 54% P& A as compared with girls at 42% P&A Fifth Grade math scores had a surprising drop this year (69% P&A0, but growth data for this population of students met expectations at 53 median percentile.
In which areas did we not at least meet minimum state and federal expectations? Our 3-year framework report shows our growth gap population is “Approaching” state expectations in these areas: Math: Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible (48 Median Growth Percentile) Math: Students needing Catching Up (49 Median Growth Percentile) Writing: Students needing Catching Up (47 Median Growth Percentile) Our 1-year framework report shows our growth gap population is “Does Not Meet” state expectations in these areas: Math: Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible (34 Median Growth Percentile)
What does it mean for a student to be “Catching Up?” Catching Up indicates that a student previously scoring at the Unsatisfactory or Partially Proficient achievement level demonstrated enough growth in the past year to reach Proficient or Advanced within three years or by 10th grade (to be on track to "catch up" to the state's proficiency goal).
What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? Still need to add this one…
How did we engage stakeholders in this analysis? Our staff, parents, students and community volunteers collaborate throughout the year to analyze school formative and summative data, because test results are ALL of our scores! Animas Valley believes that TCAP is a continuation of what teachers do all year long by integrating Colorado Academic Standards in classroom instruction and unit design. In reality, teachers are preparing students for TCAP from the time students start in kindergarten until they graduate from fifth grade. Each August, staff zealously analyzes our state summative data during professional development days and early-release Professional Learning Community (PLC) sessions. Our School Accountability Committee (SAC) members are an integral part of the accountability process. SAC is responsible for ensuring that school budgets, spending, safety and academic performance all align with our CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
10
unified improvement goals and strategies. Throughout the year, data analysis is conducted based on standards, student work, common assessment results, monitoring student progress, and improving student achievement. Stakeholder collaboration is done in a respectful and open environment where all members feel valued and where excuses, outside of our control, are not an option. Animas Valley knows that effective schools believe all children can learn and achieve!
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION OF CAUSE: ROOT CAUSE: The deepest underlying cause(s) of a problem or situation that, if resolved, would result in elimination or substantial reduction, of the symptom. If action is required the cause should be within one’s ability to control, and not a purely external factor such as poverty that is way out of ones ability to control. ELEMINATE EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN OUR CONTROL - Over what do we believe we have control? - What factors are beyond our influence? - Would others agree? Are we thinking to broadly/narrowly or accurately?
Why do we think our school’s performance is what it is? - Our school demographics and population continues to evolve and change over the course of the past three years, and our instructional practices, program design, organization, intervention materials, and staffing model haven’t completely met the complexities of this new challenge. We celebrate our growing diversity, but know that our instruction and curriculum must be research based, selected based on student prioritized need, aligned with state standards, and be implemented with parity and consistency. - Last year, our entire school was immersed in implementing the new standards, practices and structures that meet the requirements of becoming an International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (PYP) school. Departmentalization of subjects like science and social studies was discontinued, and teachers worked feverishly to create and write at least four unit planners (8-week units of study). Some key Colorado Academic Standards were not being taught and/or assessed due to the implementation lag of the unit planners. What evidence do we have for our conclusions? AVE Demographical Changes:
2010
2011
2012
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible Special Education Students English Language Learners (ELL) IB Implementation Lag: PLC time was heavily tilted to IB implementation and inquiry-based learning professional development. All six IB unit planners were not completed until the 2012-2013 academic school year. Teachers have now had a chance to reflect on every unit and re-aligned them to the new standards.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
11
Animas Valley Student Proficiency Data: 100
100
90
90
80
80
70
Grade 3 - Reading
60
Grade 4 - Reading
50
Grade 5 - Reading
70
Grade 4 - Writing
50
40
40
30
30
20
Grade 3 - Writing
60
Grade 5 - Writing
20 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
100
Grade 5 - Science
90 100
80
90
70
Grade 3 - Math
60
Grade 4 - Math
50
Grade 5 - Math
40
80 70 60
Grade 5 - Science
50 40
30
30
20
20 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
12
Animas Valley Growth Data: Math
Reading
Writing
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
13
Section IV: Action Plan(s) This section addresses the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, you will identify your annual performance targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form below. Then you will move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form. School Target Setting Form Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas). Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and postsecondary and workforce readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met – in each area where a priority performance challenge was identified; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges. Consider last year’s targets (see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.
School Target Setting Form Performance Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP,
CoAlt/CSAPA Academic Achievement , Lectura, Escritura (Status)
Academic Growth
Median Student Growth Percentile
Annual Performance Targets
Priority Performance Challenges
2012-13
2013-14
R
85% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
87% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
M
84% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
87% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
W
78% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
84% of Animas Valley 3rd-5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
S
78% of Animas Valley 5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
84% of Animas Valley 5th Grade students will score Proficient or Advanced on 2012 TCAP
R
Animas Valley 4th and 5th Grade students will “Meet” or “Exceed” state expectations based upon the 2013 School Growth Summary.
Animas Valley 4th and 5th Grade students will “Meet” or “Exceed” state expectations based upon the 2014 School Growth Summary.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Interim Measures for 2012-13
Major Improvement Strategy
14
(TCAP/CSAP & CELApro) M
Animas Valley 4th and 5th Grade students will “Meet” or “Exceed” state expectations based upon the 2013 School Growth Summary.
Animas Valley 4th and 5th Grade students will “Meet” or “Exceed” state expectations based upon the 2014 School Growth Summary.
W
Animas Valley 4th and 5th Grade students will “Meet” or “Exceed” state expectations based upon the 2013 School Growth Summary.
Animas Valley 4th and 5th Grade students will “Meet” or “Exceed” state expectations based upon the 2014 School Growth Summary.
ELP
Academic Growth Gaps
Median Student Growth Percentile
R M W
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
15
Action Planning Form for 2012-13 and 2013-14 Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2012-13 and 2013-14 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may add other major strategies, as needed.
Major Improvement Strategy #1: Deliver high quality instruction in the Colorado Academic Standards that engages all learners. Root Cause(s) Addressed: Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Provide training in the new Colorado Academic Standards to gain a deeper understanding of what students must be able to do as a result of mastery. Teach the aligned district curriculum using pacing guides at all grades and all content areas. Monitor the delivery of the guaranteed and viable curriculum. Provide training and support to teachers in delivering quality, research-based strategies. Provide instructional feedback to support teacher development through informal visits at least three times each semester.
Title I School wide or Targeted Assistance plan requirements Title I Focus School Plan requirements Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or School Improvement Grant
Timeline
Resources
(2012-13 and 2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
2012-13
District Staff
& 2013-14
Principal
2013-14
Classroom Teachers
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
General Fund
Teachers will regularly use the Colorado Academic Standards in planning for instruction.
N/A
Classroom feedback will continue to show increased alignment of observed lessons.
N/A
Increased use of effective instructional strategies observed during visits
N/A
On-going classroom visits with follow-up coaching conversations
School Administrators
2012-13 Sem 2
School Administrators
2013-14
District Staff
2012-13 &
School Administrators
2013-14
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Implementation Benchmarks
Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
16
Implement the new state model evaluation with at least five staff members during the 2012-13 school year with full implementation with all staff during the 2013-14 school year. Provide training in the tool and rubric to all staff prior to the end of the 2012-13 school year. Begin to develop structures for teachers to observe teachers using the same quality criteria and develop professional dialogue among teachers around best practice.
2012-13 &
School Administrators
2013-14
Select Teachers (12-13)
2013-14
Use weekly early release PLC time to analyze student achievement data, review practice, and provide training to ensure maximum growth of students.
2012-13 &
Integrate Colorado academic health standards into the International Baccalaureate unit planners.
2012-13 &
N/A
Completion of three evaluations using the model state system.
Peer Observers
N/A
Establishment of coaching form for use by trained staff.
Leadership Team
School & District Funds as needed
Evidence of data team work and intervention adjustments.
Staff
No cost, just time
Spring 2013
2013-14
2013-14
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
17
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Closely track student performance on mastery and intervene when students demonstrate difficulties or lack of mastery. Root Cause(s) Addressed: Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy
Title I School wide or Targeted Assistance plan requirements Title I Focus School Plan requirements Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or School Improvement Grant
Timeline
Resources
Implementation Benchmarks
(2012-13 and 2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Participate in Data Team training to create structures to closely analyze student learning and identify learning challenges in students.
August 2012
Ex Director of Student Achievement
Review current RTI structures in schools to ensure that process seeks student mastery and achievement.
By December 2012
School administrator
N/A
Effective process in place to monitor student progress
Engage teachers in the development of common formative assessment tasks at all grade levels and in all content areas. These tasks will provide schools and teachers a chance to track progress of students immediately following instruction and allow the district to track overall progress of students across grade levels and content areas. Develop structures within schools to intervene with students when learning deficits are identified with progress monitoring strategies in place to adjust programming conducted no less than every two weeks. Provide staff to intervene with students when data shows difficulty with mastery of grade level content or lack of progress on modified instruction.
2012-13
Ex. Director of Student Achievement
District-wide General Fund
School Administrators
$240,0000
Completion of assessment items covering no less than 90% of evidence outcomes at all grades and in all content areas.
School Administrators
School & Title I Funding
Leadership Team
(Title I - ________)
Rigorous progress monitoring in place
2012-13
School administrator
Title I Funding (Title I $_________)
Effective intervention schedule
Progress monitor students with Individualized Education
2013-14
District administration
General Fund
Effective data to support
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Title I & II Funding (Title I - $ 19,174;
Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
Regular monitoring of data team work
Title II - $18,400)
2012-13
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
18
Plans (IEP’s) to ensure progress toward mastery and develop a “no-excuse” culture of progress for all students. Continue to implement and refine school-wide coordinated school health initiatives to meet the needs of the “whole child.” The health of young people is strongly linked to their academic success, and the academic success of youth is strongly linked with their health. Thus, helping students stay healthy is a fundamental part of the mission of Animas Valley
2012-13 & 2013-14
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
SJ BOCES
Federal SPED Funds
progress of students
Wellness Team, Staff, students, parents and the community
District, school and grade funding
Coordinated School health actions steps
19
Major Improvement Strategy #3: ____________________________________________ Root Cause(s) Addressed: Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Title I Schoolwide or Targeted Assistance plan requirements Title I Focus School Plan requirements Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or School Improvement Grant Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline (2012-13 and 2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Resources (Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
Section V: Appendices Some districts/consortia will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements: Title I Schoolwide Program (Required) Title I Targeted Assistance Program (Required) Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability (Required)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
20
Section V: Supporting Addenda Forms For Schools Operating a Title I Schoolwide Program Schools that participate in Title I must use this form to document Title I program requirements for operating a schoolwide program. As a part of the improvement planning process, schools are strongly encouraged to weave appropriate requirements into earlier sections of the UIP. This form provides a way to ensure all components of the program are met through (1) assurances, (2) descriptions of the requirements or (3) a cross-walk of the Title I program elements in the UIP.
Description of Title I Schoolwide Program Requirements
Assurance
Recommended Location in UIP
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
How are parents and school staff involved in the development of the improvement plan?
Section III: Data Narrative (p. 7)
What are the comprehensive needs that justify the activities supported with Title I funds?
Section III. Data Narrative (p. 7) and Section IV. Action Plan (p. 10)
Note: This section should be fully described in the UIP data narrative and aligned with Title I activities listed in the action plan. Just provide the page numbers here for reference.
What are the major reform strategies to be implemented that strengthen core academic programs, increase the amount and quality of learning, and provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum?
Section IV: Action Plan (p. 10)
Note: This requirement should be fully described in the UIP action plan. The school may add additional “major improvement strategies” as needed. Just provide the page numbers here for reference.
All core content teachers are highly qualified.
Yes
No
How are highly qualified teachers recruited and retained?
Description of Title I Schoolwide
Section IV: Action Plan (p. 10)
Assurance
Recommended
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in 21
Program Requirements
Location in UIP
How are student and staff needs used to identify the high quality professional development?
The school’s Parent Involvement Policy (including the Parent Compact) is attached.
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
Section IV: Action Plan (p. 10) and Section III: Data Narrative (p. 7)
Yes
No
How does the school assist in the transition of preschool students from early childhood programs to local elementary school programs?
Section IV: Action Plan (p. 10)
How will the UIP (including the Title I requirements) be annually evaluated for effectiveness and include the participation of parents?
Section IV: Action Plan (p. 10)
How are Title I funds used in coordination with other ESEA funds, as well as state and local funds?
Section IV: Action Plan (p. 10), Resource Column
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Note: This requirement should be fully addressed in the UIP action plan. Provide details in the resource column. Just provide the page numbers here for reference.
22
