1. education
2. school

DRAFT
Doull Draft 10/20
Cover Sheet for Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Organization Code: 0880
District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1
School Code: 0227 School Name: DOULL ELEM
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: CDE has pre-populated the school’s 2009-10 data in blue text which was used to determine whether or not the school met the 2010-11 accountability expectations. The school’s report
(pp.1-2 of this template) is available through CEDAR. More detailed reports on the school’s results are available on SchoolView (www.schoolview.org). The tables below reference data from the School
Performance Framework and AYP. The state and federal expectations are provided as a reference and are the minimum requirements a school must meet for accountability purposes.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
CSAP, CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and
science
Expectation: % P+A is above the 50th percentile
by using 1-year or 3-years of data
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Description: % PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAPA and
Lectura in Reading and Math for each group
Expectation: Targets set by state*
‘09-10 Federal and State Expectations
Academic
Growth
Expectation: If school met adequate growth,
then median SGP is at or above 45
If school did not meet adequate growth,
then median SGP is at or above 55
Meets
Expectations?
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
Reading
71.6%
72.0%
44.4%
38.4%
Does Not Meet
Math
70.9%
70.1%
41.2%
40.1%
Does Not Meet
Writing
53.5%
54.8%
32.8%
27.8%
Approaching
Science
47.5%
45.4%
10.7%
10.2%
Does Not Meet
Overall number of targets for School:
Available in final report in November
Median Student Growth Percentile
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing
and math
‘09-10 School
Results
% of targets met by
School: Available in
Nov**
Reading
Not ava
Math
Not ava
Median Adequate SGP
Median SGP
Reading
56
45/55
Median SGP: 66
Exceeds
Math
70
45/55
Median SGP: 55
Meets
Writing
73
45/55
Median SGP: 56
Meets
* To see annual AYP targets , go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/prof.asp#table
** To see y our school’s detailed AYP report (includes school results by content area, dis aggregated group and school level), go to: www.schoolv iew.org/SchoolPerformance/index .asp
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
1
DRAFT
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Median Student Growth Percentile
See your school’s performance frameworks
for listing of median adequate growth
expectations for your school’s disaggregated
groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible,
minority students, students with disabilities,
English Language Learners and students
below proficient.
Graduation Rate
80% or above
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.
Academic
Growth Gaps
Expectation: 80% or above
Post
Secondary
Readiness
’09-10 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
Expectation: At or below State average
Mean ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above State average
5.09%
3-years
5.74%
1-year
19
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median
growth by each disaggregated
group.
N/A
1-year
Dropout Rate
’09-10 School Results
3-years
20
1-year
N/A
1-year
N/A
Meets
Expectations?
Overall Rating for
Growth Gaps:
Meets
N/A
3-years
N/A
N/A
3-years
N/A
N/A
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Program
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for completing improvement plan
State Accountability
Recommended Plan Type
Plan assigned based on school’s
overall school performance
framework score (achievement,
growth, growth gaps, postsecondary
and workforce readiness)
Not available
until Nov 2010
Once the plan type for the school has been finalized, this report will be re-populated in
November 2010. Specific directions will be included at that time. For required elements in
the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
Title I school missed same AYP
target(s) for at least two consecutive
years**
Not available
until Nov 2010
Once the improvement status for the school has been finalized, this report will be repopulated in November. Specific directions will be included then. For required elements in
the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
2
DRAFT
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
Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach.


Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded?
NA
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school par ticipated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
NA
External Evaluator
Has the school partnered with an ex ternal evaluator to provide comprehensive
evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.
NA
Related Grant Awards
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
 State Accountability
 Title IA
 Tiered Intervention Grant  School Improvement Grant
School Contact Information
1
2
Turnaround
Transfor mation
 Restart
 Closure
 Other: ________________
(Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
Name and Title
Dan Villescas Principal
Email
Dan-Villescas@dpsk12.org
Phone
720-424-8002
Mailing Address
2520 S. Utica Street Denver, CO 80219
Name and Title
Jodie Carrigan Principal Intern
Email
Jodie_Carrigan@dpsk12.org
Phone
720-424-8003
Mailing Address
2520 S. Utica Street Denver, CO 80219
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
3
DRAFT
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. Provide a narrative that examines
the data for your school – especially in any areas where the school was identified for accountability purposes. To help you
construct this narrative, this section has been broken down into four steps: (1) Gather and organize relevant data, (2) Analyze
trends in the data and identify priority needs, (3) Determine the root causes of those identified needs, and (4) Create the
narrative.
Step One: Gather and Organize Relevant Data
The planning team must gather data from a variety of sources to inform the planning process. For this process, schools are
required to pull specific performance reports and are expected to supplement their analysis with local data to help explain the
performance data. The team will need to include three years of data to conduct a trend analysis in step two.
• Required reports. At a minimum, the school is expected to reference the key data sources posted on SchoolView
(www.schoolview.org/SchoolPerformance/ index.asp), including: (1) School Performance Framework Report, (2) Growth Summary Report, (3) AYP
Summaries (including detailed reports in reading and math for each subpopulation of students), and (4) Post Secondary Readiness data.
• Suggested data sources. Furthermore, it is assumed that more detailed data is available at the school/district level to provide additional context and
deepen the analysis. Some recommended sources may include:
Student Learning
• Local outcome and
interim assessments
• Student work samples
• Classroom
assessments ( type and
frequency)
Local Demographic Data
School Processes Data
• School locale and size of student population
• Comprehensive evaluations of the school (e.g., SST)
• Student characteristics, including poverty,
language proficiency, IEP, migrant,
race/ethnicity
• Curriculum and instructional materials
• Student mobility rates
• Staff characteristics (e.g., experience,
attendance, turnover)
• List of schools and feeder patterns
• Student attendance
• Discipline referrals and suspension rates
• Instruction (time and consistency among grade levels)
• Academic interventions available to students
• Schedules and class sizes
• Family/community involvement policies/practices
• Professional development structure
• Services and/or programs (Title I, special ed, ESL)
Perception Data
• Teaching and learning
conditions surveys (e.g., TELL
Colorado)
• Any perception survey data
(e.g., parents, students,
teachers, community, school
leaders)
• Self-assessment tools (district
and/or school level)
• Extended day or summer programs
Step Two: Analyze Trends in the Data and Identify Priority Needs
Using at least three years of data, the team should begin by identifying positive and negative trends in each of the key performance indicators (i.e., academic
achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, post secondary readiness). The summary provided in Part I of this template (pp. 1-2) will provide some
clues on content areas, grade levels and disaggregated groups where the school needs to focus its attention. Local data (suggestions provided above) should
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
4
DRAFT
also be included – especially in grade levels and subject areas not included in state testing. Next, the team should share observations of its strengths on which it
can build, and identify areas of need. Finally, those needs should be prioritized. At least one priority need must be identified for every performance indicator for
which school performance did not at least meet state and/or federal expectations. These efforts should be documented in the Data Analysis Worksheet below.
Step Three: Root Cause Analysis
This step is focused on examining the underlying cause of the priority needs identified in step two. A cause is a “root cause” if: (1) the problem would not have
occurred if the cause had not been present, (2) the problem will not reoccur if the cause is dissolved and (3) correction of the cause will not lead to the same or
similar problems (Preuss, 2003). Finally, the school should have control over the proposed solution – or the means to implement the solution. Remember to
verify the root cause with multiple data sources. These efforts should be documented in the Data Analysis Worksheet below.
Data Analysis Worksheet
Directions: This char t will help you record and organize your observations about your school level data for the required data analysis narrative. You are encouraged to conduct a
more comprehensive analysis by examining all of the per formance indicators. – at a minimum, you must address the perfor mance indicators for the targets that were not met for
accountability purposes. U ltimately, your analysis will guide the major improvement strategies you choose in section IV. You may add rows, as necessary.
Performance
Indicators
Description of Significant Trends
(3 years of past data)
Priority Needs
Reading and Writing
Reading: 2008 – 32% A/P, 2009- 33%, 2010 –
37% (all three years well below Colorado average
Academic
Achievement (Status)
Root Causes
•
Our guided reading instruction is not
consistent across grade levels
•
Our planning and pacing curriculum guides
need to be analyzed at grade levels to make
sure the order of lessons and big ideas are in
an appropriate order to best meet the needs of
our students
•
Collaboration among grade levels is necessary
to increase common language and skills
across classrooms and vertical planning is
also necessary to increase our scores
Consistent instructional time devoted to
reading
Lectura: 2008 – 59%, 2009 – 53%, 2010 – 79%
Writing: 2008 – 21%, 2009 – 18%, 2010 – 23%
Escritura: 2008 – 64%, 2009 - - 56%, 2010 – 83%
•
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
5
DRAFT
Math: 2008 – 41%, 2009 – 36%, 2010 - 39%
Reading
Writing
Academic Growth
Math
Academic Growth
Gaps
In Reading, the gaps that exist are between our
Hispanic and White students. Our number
Asian/Pacific Ilander and Black are statistically
insigificant with having a total of four students in
these two categories. In Reading, in 2009
Hispanic students achieved a A/P score of 32%
and White students achieved an A/P score of 50%.
In 2010, our Hispanic students scored 30% A/P(2%) and our White students scored a 30% (-20%)
The same drop in White student scores continues
in both Writing and in Math.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Math
Exceeded goal
•
Implementation of district’s Core Matters
provided common practices and “stations” to
allow students to practice literacy skills
Did not meet goal,
however under the
decision tree did
meet the goal
•
Though AYP goals not met, studetns at Doull
made significant overall growth. Median SGP
was 55.
•
Explicitly teach academic language to all
studetns at Doull.
•
Median SGP was 56 indicating individual
student growth at Doull is happening
•
Increase our rigor in guide d reading
instruction
•
Increase collaboration between grade level
and vertical teams
•
Explicitly teach academic language to all
studetns at Doull.
Did not meet goal,
however under the
decision tree did
meet the goal
Attention needs to
be given to the
dramatic change in
achievement scores
for our White/Anglo
students. They are
being outperformed
by their Hispanic
peers (9 points in
2010) and declined
significantly.
White students are
performing lower
than their Hispanic
peers. (-7% in
2010/Math and -
6
DRAFT
11% in Writing). In
addition their scores
have had an overall
drop from 09-10
-17% in Math and
6% in Writing.
Post Secondary
Readiness
n/a
n/a
n/a
----------------------------------------------
Preuss, P. G. (2003). School Leader's Guide to Root Cause Analysis: Using Data to Dissolve Problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
7
DRAFT
Step 4: Create the Data Narrative
Directions: Blend the work that you have done in the previous three steps: (1) Gather and organize relevant data, (2) Analyze trends in the data and identify priority needs, and (3) Determine the
root causes of those identified needs. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Consider the questions below as you write your narrative.
Data Narrative for School
Trend Analysis and Priority Needs: On which performance indicators is our school trending positively? On
which performance indicators is our school trending negatively? Does this differ for any disaggregated student
groups, e.g., by grade level or gender? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school?
Root Cause Analysis: Why
do we think our school’s
performance is what it is?
Verification of Root Cause: What
evidence do you have for your
conclusions?
Doull Elementary School is a TNLI school in Southwest Denver, which provides academic instruction in both Spanish and
English. Doull Elementary serves students from ECE-5th grade. Currently Doull has two full day ECE programs and two halfday ECE programs. Doull also provides two full day Kindergartens and two half-day Kindergarten programs. An Intensive
Kindergarten and Multi-Intensive Center Program (serving primary students) are also based at Doull. To meet the needs of our
struggling students we have a fulltime and halftime interventionist this year. These two teachers work daily with small groups
giving students a double dip in reading instruction. The school environment at Doull is also very important which is why we
have been part of the Colorado Department of Education’s Positive Behavior Supports Program for the past five years. Doull
also offers an after school tutoring program from Dream Catchers free of charge to families as a Title I SES provider.
Educating the whole child is important at Doull, we currently offer PE, Music and Technology. We also have several other
afterschool programs, including choir, band, and technology classes.
STUDENT POPULATION:
Doull Elementary currently started the 2010-2011 school year with 494 students. We have experienced a decrease in our
enrollment this year. The student population at Doull Elementary includes 79.6% Hispanic, 17.6% White, 1.2% Black, 1.0%
Asian, and 0.6% American Indian. Second language learners at Doull make up approximately 62% of the population and
???% of these students are receiving instruction in Spanish. All teachers at Doull are ELA-E and/or ELA-S endorsed. The
special education support staff at Doull serves 16.4% of the students who are currently on an IEP. We also house two centerbased programs the IK (Integrated Kindergarten) and the MI (Multi-intensive currently grades 1 and 2). Additionally, Doull is
classified as a Hard-to-Serve school because of the 90.89% of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
8
DRAFT
Doull FRL
Doull Attendance
The parent, student and teacher satisfaction at Doull continues to increase with a gain this year of 4% . The School
Satisfaction Survey indicates 93% satisfaction overall from parents and 89% satisfaction from students overall. We have
focused on PBS, bully proofing, and creating a positive school environment over the past two years. Our average daily
attendance showed an increase in the 2009-2010 school year and is an area we continually seek to improve.
The student CSAP data shows a consistent yearly increase across content areas. In Reading in 2009 Doull had 33%
proficient or above, in 2010 we increased to 37% proficient or above. In Lectura, Doull rose from 53% proficient to
79% proficient in 2010. In Math we increased to 39% from 36% proficient in 2009. In Writing we went from 18%
proficient to 23% proficient in 2010. On Escritura in 2009 we had 56% proficient and we rose to 83% proficient in
2010. On the Science CSAP we only gained one percentage and have only 10% of 5th graders proficient in 2010.
Our Median Student Growth Percentile in Reading exceeded expectations, and in Math and Writing we met SGP
expectations for the Federal and State expectations. However, on our Academic Achievement Status we did not meet
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
9
DRAFT
expectations in Reading, Math and Science, in Writing we are approaching. This rating indicates that our students are
not currently performing at the 15th percentile for the state of Colorado.
In digging deeper into our data we found that our ELL increased from 12% proficient in 2009 to 29% proficient in 2010.
Conversely, our non ELL population decreased from 41% proficient to 35% proficient. Our Hispanic students
increased 7% in their proficiency (going from 32% proficient to 39%) while our White students dropped 20% in their
proficiency (going from 50% to 30% proficient). We also experienced a 45% drop within our non-free/reduced
population and a 9% gain among our free/reduced demographic.
ROOT CAUSE: Low Reading Achievement and Growth
In looking closely at the data from teachers around reading we identified strengths and areas of weakness. Although
we did increase our reading scores we realize that our students are nowhere near where they should be. Things we
currently have in place are CORE Matters, using the curriculum planning guides, interventions, RTI building wide
process.
We identified the following as root causes:
1. Our guided reading instruction is not consistent across grade levels
2. Our planning and pacing curriculum guides need to be analyzed at grade levels to make sure the order of
lessons and big ideas are in an appropriate order to best meet the needs of our students
3. Collaboration among grade levels is necessary to increase common language and skills across classrooms and
vertical planning is also necessary to increase our scores
4. Consistent instructional time devoted to reading
5. Lowest struggling students spending the least amount of time with classroom teacher
6. The need to increasing academic language with all of our students
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
10
DRAFT
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section focuses on the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First you will identify your annual targets and the interim measures. This will be
documented in the School Goals Worksheet. Then you will move into the action plans, where you will use the action planning
worksheet.
School Goals Worksheet
Directions: Complete the worksheet for the priority needs identified in section III; although, all schools are encouraged to set targets for all performance
indicators. Annual targets for AYP have already been determined by the state and may be viewed on the CDE website at:
www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/prof.asp# table. Safe Harbor and Matched Safe Harbor goals may be used instead of performance targets. For
state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and post
secondary readiness. Once annual targets are established, then the school must identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the
annual targets at least twice during the school year. Make sure to include interim targets for disaggregated groups that were identified as needing
additional attention in section III (data analysis and root cause analysis). Finally, list the major strategies that will enable the school to meet those targets.
The major improvement strategies will be detailed in the action planning worksheet below.
Example of an Annual Target for a Title I Elementary School
Measures/ Metrics
AYP
R
2010-11 Target
88.46% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above
OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
2011-12 Target
94.23% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR
will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.
11
DRAFT
School Goals Worksheet (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Annual Targets
Measures/
Metrics
CSAP,
CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
AYP
(Overall and
for each
disaggregated
groups)
2010-11
2011-12
R
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring nonproficient.
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring non-proficient.
M
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring nonproficient.
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring non-proficient.
W
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring nonproficient.
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring non-proficient.
S
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring nonproficient.
94.23% of all students and by each
disaggregated group will be PP and
above OR will show a 10% reduction in
percent of students scoring non-proficient.
R
66 overall
M 55 overall
Academic
Growth
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
R
Academic
Median
R
Interim Measures for
2010-11
Major Improvement
Strategies
66 overall
55 overall
M
W
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
12
DRAFT
Growth Gaps
Post
Secondary &
Workforce
Readiness
Student
Growth
Percentile
M
W
Graduation Rate
Dropout Rate
Mean ACT
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
13
DRAFT
Action Planning Worksheet
Directions: Based on your data analysis in section III, prioritize the root causes that you will address through your action plans and then identify a major improvement strategy(s). For each major
improvement strategy (e.g., differentiate reading instruction in grades 3-5) 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, provide details on key action steps (e.g., re-evaluating supplemental reading materials, providing new professional development and coaching to school staff)
necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include a description of the action steps, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions and
implementation benchmarks. Implementation benchmarks provide the school with checkpoints to ensure that activities are being implemented as expected. If the school is identified for
improvement/corrective action/restructuring under Title I (see pre-populated report on p. 2), action steps should include family/community engagement strategies and professional development
(including mentoring) as they are specifically required by ESEA. 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: _Our guided reading instruction will be consistent across grade levels
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
Our guided reading instruction is not consistent across grade levels.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):

School Plan under State Accountability X Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements
 School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
Key Personnel*
Provide professional development for staff in a
balanced literacy program
On going
Principal, Intern,
Facilitator, TEC,
classroom teachers
Provide literacy interventions for students
identified as high risk
On going
Intern, SPED,
Interventionists
Learning Lab opportunities/training
On going
Facilitator, District
Consultant, TEC
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
Voyager intervention
materials, LLI, materials
* Not required for state or federal requirements. Completion of the “Key Personnel” column is optional for schools.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
14
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Writing ____________________________________________ 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 IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements
 School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
Key Personnel
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
Major Improvement Strategy #3: Core matters implementation____________________________________________
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 IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements
 School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Key Personnel
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
15
DRAFT
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
16
DRAFT
Title I Accountability Provision #1: Parent Involvement/Communication
School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.
 School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Address the
Key Personnel
Resources
Timeline
Implementation Benchmarks
Accountability Provision
(optional)
(federal, state, and/or local)
Family nights have been scheduled in
collaboration with Community Resources Inc.
August – May
Principal, Intern, Community
Resources Inc. staff
Survey’s will be sent out to gather infor mation
as to what parents/families would like to have
for parent resource presentations
Monthly newsletters from the school to infor m
parents of upcoming school events
November – May
Principal, Intern
Monthly
Principal, Intern, teachers
Use of Title I monies and grant
funding through Community
Resources Inc
Title 1 monies and administrative
monies
Parent par ticipation in the event
Parent par ticipation and feedback
Title I Accountability Provision #2: Teacher/Paraprofessional Qualifications
School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.
 School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Address the
Key Personnel
Resources
Timeline
Implementation Benchmarks
Accountability Provision
(optional)
(federal, state, and/or local)
Certificated and paraprofessional staff have
been approved through Human Resources. All
paraprofessionals have either passed the
required Work Keys test or have attended the
minimum amount of required college hours
On going
Principal and Human Resources
Human Resources staff
Title I Accountability Provision #3: Transition from Early Childhood Programs
School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.
 School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Address the
Key Personnel
Resources
Timeline
Implementation Benchmarks
Accountability Provision
(optional)
(federal, state, and/or local)
To be developed
Title I Accountability Provision #4: Coordination and Integration of Federal, State, and Local Services and Programs
School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
17
DRAFT

Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.
To be monitored by instructional
superintendent and Title 1 department
On going

School Improvement Grant
Inst. Sup., Principal and Title
1 department
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
TBD
Monitoring
18