1. education
2. school

DRAFT
Cover Sheet for Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Organization Code: 0880
District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1
School Code: 0235 (M)
School Name: GRANT RANCH 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 School View (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
71.4%
71.4%
77.5%
72.3%
Meets
Math
52.5%
51.6%
63.7%
62.8%
Meets
Writing
57.8%
58.3%
60.4%
62.0%
Meets
Science
48.0%
48.7%
37.8%
36.3%
Approaching
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
29
45/55
Median SGP: 60
Exceeds
Math
66
45/55
Median SGP: 59
Meets
Writing
52
45/55
Median SGP: 62
Exceeds
* 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
Organization Code: 0880
District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1
School Code: 0235 (E)
School Name: GRANT RANCH 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%
66.0%
67.8%
Approaching
Math
70.9%
70.1%
72.4%
70.1%
Meets
Writing
53.5%
54.8%
50.5%
52.9%
Approaching
Science
47.5%
45.4%
48.0%
46.0%
Meets
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
34
45/55
Median SGP: 60
Exceeds
Math
54
45/55
Median SGP: 60
Exceeds
Writing
44
45/55
Median SGP: 62
Exceeds
* 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 .as
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
2
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
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
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
3
DRAFT
years**
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
4
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
Related Grant Awards
Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach.


Turnaround
Transfor mation
 Restart
 Closure
Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded?
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school par ticipated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
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.
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
X State Accountability
 Title IA
 Tiered Intervention Grant  School Improvement Grant
School Contact Information
1
2
 Other: ________________
(Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
Name and Title
Sandra Blomeyer
Email
sandra_blomeyer@dpsk12.org
Phone
720-424-6882
Mailing Address
5400 S. Jay Circle
Name and Title
BJ Jeffers
Email
Bonny_jeffers@dpsk12.org
Phone
720-424-6883
Mailing Address
5400 S. Jay Circle
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
5
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 School View
(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.
•
Suggest ed 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 Demographic Data
• Local outcome and interim
assessments
• School locale and size of student population
• Student characteristics, including poverty, language
proficiency, IEP, migrant, race/ ethnicity
• Student work samples
• Classroom assessments
(type and frequency)
• Student mobility rates
• Staff characteristics (e. g., experience, attendance,
turnover)
• List of schools and feeder patterns
• Student attendance
• Discipline referrals and suspension rates
School Processes Data
• Comprehensive evaluations of the school (e.g., SST)
• Curriculum and instructional materials
• Instruction (time and consistency among grade levels)
• Academic interventions available to students
• Schedules and class sizes
• Family/community involvement policies/practices
• Professional development structure
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)
• Services and/or programs (Title I, special ed, ESL)
• 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 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 Analysi s
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
6
DRAFT
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 Analysi s Worksheet
Directions: This chart 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 performance indicators. – at a minimum, you must address the performance indicators for the targets that were not met for accountability purposes.
Ultimately, your analysis will guide the major improvement strategies you choose in section IV. You may add rows, as necessary.
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement (Status)
Academic Growth
Description of Significant Trends
(3 years of past data)
Priority Needs
Root Causes
CSAP scores for reading would indicate inconsistent
performance for 3-8th grade students in reading. Proficiency
levels are 71% (2008), 64% (2009) and 71% (2010).
Consistent low
performance in grades 3,
4 & 8 in Standard #1.
(Summarizing text
passages.)
Teachers lack clear expectations for instruction in “summarization.”
Access to the appropriate resources necessary for teaching
“Summarization” across all grade levels and content areas is limited.
There is a decline in CSAP scores from 2008 to 2010 for
grades 3 through 6. Seventh grade scores declined from 2009
(74% ) to 2010 (60% ). Eighth grade scores also declined from
2008 (705) to 2009 (49% ).
Low performance scores
are consistent across all
grade levels in Standard
#3. (Writing Using
Conventions).
Writing instruction varies among grade levels. Individual teachers
supplement current curriculum with varying programs/resources.
Although third and fifth grades demonstrated significant growth
in their math scores from 2009 to 2010, fourth grade declined
by 5% . The overall Status is 1% gain for 3 years.
Fourth grade math
scores indicate
consistent low student
performance in Standard
#1 (Number Sense).
English Language Learners receive limited additional support in
mathematics. Insufficient time is allocated for differentiated
instruction in this area.
Current master schedule does not allocate enough times to meet
the demands of the district curriculum.
The CSAP reading scores for the special education student
focus group at the elementary level declined from 2009
(24.24% ) to 2010 (18.92% ). Students of the Reference group
increased their performance from 2009 (53.89% ) to 2010
(54.67% )
The performance gap
between the special
education and reference
groups grew by 6% (30%
to 36% ).
There is a disconnection with the goals and objectives of the
Individual Education Plans (IEP) and the Standards. There is a lack
of ongoing communication between regular teachers and special
education teachers concerning the instructional needs of student’s
available resources.
The math median growth percentile declined from 2009 (65% )
to 2010 (59% ).
Continue to improve the
student performance of
proficiency or higher to
increase academic
growth.
Math intervention groups were not implemented to provide students
the opportunity to become proficient.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
7
DRAFT
Academic Growth
Gaps
In 2009, 54% of the Grant Ranch elementary students made
adequate progress on the DRA2 while students from other
elementary schools identified in our cluster (M3) had 75%
progress on the DRA2’s. In 2010, 68% of Grant Ranch
elementary students made adequate progress on the DRA2’s
while students from the other elementary schools in our cluster
made 78% progress.
Student growth in
reading (based on the
DRA2 scores) is less
than growth made by
other schools in our
cluster.
CSAP scores indicate that the gap is widening for elementary
special education students in writing, moving from Medium
Gap (18% ) to Large Gap (30% ). The number in the group
increased by four students.
There is an increase in
the number of SPED
students that are
performing at the
“Unsatisfactory” or
“Partially Proficient”
levels.
The CSAP scores in grades 3 through 5 indicate a 19% gap in
writing between the Hispanic and Non Hispanic students. In
2010 the gap widened to 21% . The number of Hispanic
students increased by 10 (82 to 92).
No data is provided for ELL population in 2009 however a
Large gap of 28.71% is evident in 2010. (Some of these ELL
students are included with the Hispanic population).
Comparison of the Reading performance level of ELL students
at the middle school level vs. non ELL students determine the
movement from no gap in 2008 to a 32% gap in 2009 to a
36% gap in 2010.
N/A
Classroom assessments for special needs population are not as
frequent or rigorous because there has not been collaborative
communication between general and special education teachers.
Instruction provided for our most struggling students is being
delivered by the paraprofessionals and not the teachers.
There is not a thorough analysis of results to change curriculum or
teaching.
There is an increase in
the number of ELL
students that are
performing at the
“Unsatisfactory” or
“Partially Proficient”
levels
The Writing achievement level of Hispanic middle school
students is inconsistent. In 2008, the gap between Hispanic
and non Hispanic students was medium (20% ). In 2009, the
gap decreased to small (10% ), however, in 2010 the gap
widened to Medium (12% ).
Post Secondary
Readiness
Components of the Kindergarten curriculum have not been adjusted
to meet the developmental needs of the students.
Lack of identification of specific students to receive assistance with
fluency and comprehension.
Lack of identification of specific students to receive assistance with
fluency and comprehension.
NA
NA
----------------------------------------------
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)
8
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?
Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
Verification of Root Cause: What
evidence do you have for your
conclusions?
Gather and Organize Relevant Data
Develop a UIP Team
The process begins with promoting a data culture in the school. Data driven decision making enables educators to focus on essential pieces of information, identify priority areas, select realistic goals
and take action. This is a continuous cycle of school improvement that allows school leaders to define the problem and the goals, to develop hypotheses, to select and implement strategies and to
evaluate the attainment of these goals. In order for data to be successfully incorporated into the school improvement cycle, a broad base team that includes school representatives (School RtI
Leadership Team, Teacher Leadership Academy members, Principal, Assistant Principal and Counselor) and community representatives (Collaborative School Committee) was formed.
Collect and Organize Several Types of Data
During this stage of the process, the team identified the relevant data, gathered and organized for analysis. The four types of data collected to be used as indicators of school success and progress
are achievement, demographic, program and perception data.
1. Achievement Data
CBLA Report (Grades 1-8)
CSAP (Grades 3-8)
District Benchmark Assessments (Grades 2-8)
CSAP Assessment Framework Reports (Grade 3-8)
CSAP High Priority Assessment Frameworks (3-8)
CSAP Gains Report
School Growth Summary Report
Adequate Yearly Progress
Student Work Samples
Classroom Assessments
Fall Literacy 2010 Assessment Report
3.School Processes (Program)
Instruction:
Curriculum
Materials
Time on Task
Academic Interventions
Behavioral Interventions
2. Demographics Data
Student enrollment
Student movement patterns
Student characteristics:
% Free/Reduced Lunch
% ELL
% Special Education
% Minority
Attendance:
Staff
Students
Students:
Choice, NCLB
Discipline Referrals, Suspension Rates
4. Perception Data
TELL Survey
School Satisfaction Survey
GRS self assessment surveys
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
9
DRAFT
Master Schedule
Class size
Small Group Instruction
ELL and Special Education
IEP Time Mandates
Additional Support Time
Family Involvement
Scheduled Activities
Volunteer Opportunities
Extended Day Opportunities
Tutor Train
Clubs
Extracurricular
Kaleidoscope
II.
Analyze Trends in the Data and Identify Priority Needs
Academic Achievement:
CSAP Results
Reading
Math
Writing
% at or Above Proficiency/ 2008-2010 (3 yrs % growth)
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
73/54/58
65,59,68
82,64,72
74,74,76
61,74,69
70,58,82
69,51,69
67,71,66
77,67,79
62,76,68
50,64,52
59,57,63
42,42,41
59,41,48
64,61,59
66,59,53
53,74,60
70,49,63
Science
District Benchmarks
Reading #3
Math #3
Writing #3
8th
52,37,47
42,30,39
% of Students at or Above Proficiency 0809-0910
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
51,75
59,66
62,51
59,67
74,65
75,66
83,79
87,57
66,88
78,68
80,81
57,46
63, 75
52,58
55,73
55,52
77,80
77,69
70,76
60,76
41,73
DRA 2
1st
31/66
(data only available in 2010)
2nd
51/81
3rd
30/73
4th
46/81
Number of Students Reading at Grade Level as per ILP’S
5th
30/76
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
6th
16/43
7TH
14/31
8TH
3/24
10
DRAFT
AYP
All subsets=Yes
Growth Summary (see attached tables)
Academic Growth
Median Student Growth Percentile
Reading=60 Writing=62 Math=59
Academic Growth Gaps
Median Growth Percentile:4th & 5th Grades
Reading
Minority/Non
FRL/Non
IEP/Non
ELL/Non
Girls/Boys
Median Growth Percentile:6,7,8
Grades
Minority/Non
FRL/Non
IEP/Non
ELL/Non
Girls/Boys
65/56
57/62
58/62
76/58
62/57
Reading
67/52
66/58
55/63
69/57
66/55
Math
Writing
63/53
60/59
62/58
58/60
67/56
62/62
55/64
62/62
70/58
61/64
Math
57/62
57/59
63/59
56/59
56/64
Writing
64/61
69/60
49/63
73/61
62/63
Growth Summary
Grant Ranch students exceeded the Median Growth Percentile at the District and state levels. Both the elementary and middle school levels received “meets” for Progress over Time-Growth. Catch
up growth for elementary level is “approaching” for reading and writing and “meets” for mathematics, while middle level is “approaching” for reading, writing and math. Keep up growth for elementary
level is “meets” for reading, writing and mathematics. Keep up growth for middle level is “meets” for writing and mathematics and “approaching” for reading. Growth analysis indicates a low student
performance in the areas of summarization, the usage of conventions and number sense. CSAP scores show that the gap is widening for elementary special education students in writing from
medium to large, while the gap for Hispanic middle school students in writing grew from small to medium. The number of Free and Reduced students at the proficient level in reading and math
demonstrated a decline but an increase in writing.
Data results from the areas of achievement, demographics, school program and perception indicate that there are both positive and negative trends have been occurring at Grant Ranch over the past
3 years. Despite the fact that 7th grade reading scores declined in the 2009-2010 school year, there was an increase of the percentage of students at or above proficiency from the 2008 school year
to date. Fluctuation occurs in 3rd and 7th grade throughout the 3 year period but overall reading data clearly shows a slow increase in the numbers of students growing towards Proficiency. Asians
and Hispanics demonstrated tremendous growth in 8th grade reading, narrowing the gap by 24% . For mathematics, there were significant gains in 3rd, 5th and 8th grades and a decline in the number
of students proficient in 4th, 6th and 7th grades. The male counterparts are outperforming their female counterparts at the Middle School Math level. Eighth grade Hispanic students continue to narrow
the gap in Mathematics.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
11
DRAFT
Root Cause: Low Writing Achievement and Growth
With the performance gaps widening, it was necessary to identify, collect and analyze various forms of data. CSAP results, High Priority Frameworks, student work samples, master schedules,
instructional strategies and teacher perceptions were examined. Additional data such as Fall Benchmark and Acuity testing was distributed and analyzed. Discussions were centered around
instruction, curriculum, time allotted for intervention and small groups, teacher expertise, differentiated instruction, ELL and Special Education strategies in the areas of summarization, usage of
conventions, number sense, spelling, etc.
The analysis and discussion identified the following root causes:
1. Teachers lack clear expectations for instruction in “summarization.” Access to the appropriate resources necessary for teaching “summarization” across all
grade levels and content areas are limited.
2. Writing instruction varies among grade levels. Individual teachers supplement current curriculum with varying programs/resources.
3. English Language Learners receive limited additional support in mathematics. Insufficient time is allotted for differentiated instruction in this area.
4. There is a disconnection with the goals and objectives of the Individual Education Plans (IEP) and the Standards. There is a lack of ongoing communication
between regular and special education concerning the instructional needs of students and available resources.
5. Math intervention groups were not implemented to provide students the opportunity to become proficient.
6. Components of the Kindergarten curriculum have not been adjusted to meet the developmental needs of students.
7. Curriculum and assessments for special needs population are not as frequent or rigorous because there has not been collaborative communication between
general and regular education teachers.
8. There is not a thorough analysis of results to change curriculum or teaching.
9. Lack of identification of specific students to receive assistance with fluency and comprehension.
These root causes were further analyzed to determine their impact upon student performance. As a result of the analysis, the following ;
Teachers lack clear expectations for instruction in “summarization.”
Access to the appropriate resources necessary for teaching “summarization” across all grade levels and content areas are limited.
Writing instruction varies among grade levels. Individual teachers supplement current curriculum with varying programs/resources and
There is not a thorough analysis of results to change curriculum or teaching were utilized in developing the major improvement strategies.
Verification of Root Cause
Discussions of possible root causes continued with CSC members, weekly grade level data teams, special education teachers and content area teachers. For six weeks participants analyzed the
gathered data, created data statements and identified priority needs. The Five Whys Process was then implemented and utilized. The process was modeled and closely followed. Focused
conversation, collaboration, and consensus of the root causes were evident. These Root causes will continue to be discussed and will be verified with their implementation and examination of the
changes that occur.
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
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
12
DRAFT
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.
13
DRAFT
School Goals Worksheet (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Annual Targets
Measures/
Metrics
2010-11
By the end of the 2010-2011 school
year, 71% of the elementary level and
81% middle level students will score at
proficiency or above overall.
2011-12
By the end of the 2010-2011 school year,
79% of the elementary level and 87%
middle level students will score at
proficiency or above overall.
R
There will be a ten percentage point
increase at both levels in the per cent of
students proficient or above in Standard
One (Summarization).
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
CSAP,
CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
M
NA
By the end of 2010-2011 school year,
55% of the elementary level and 67% of
the middle level students will score at
proficiency or above overall.
W
There will be a ten percentage point
increase at both levels in the per cent of
students proficient or above in Standard
Three (Writing Conventions.)
S
AYP
R
NA
There will be a ten percentage point
increase at both levels in the per cent of
students proficient or above in Standard
One (Summarization).
NA
Interim Measures for
2010-11
Major Improvement
Strategies
AimsWeb reading
assessments will be
administered monthly.
Results are used to target the
percentage of students
meeting Standard One
related to summarization.
Interim assessments will be
administered in September,
December and May.
Running records will be
completed and monitored
throughout the school year.
Determine the instructional
expectations for teaching
reading across grade levels
with a focus upon Standard
One.
NA
By the end of 2010-2011, 59% of the
elementary students and 72% of the
middle students will score at proficient or
above on the CSAP.
There will be a ten percentage point
increase at both levels in the per cent of
students proficient or above in Standard
Three (Writing conventions.)
NA
“Summarizing Text
Passages” and acquire
access to the appropriate
resources to provide the
necessary instruction
NA
AimsWeb reading
assessments will be
administered monthly.
Results are used to target the
percentage of students
meeting standard three
related to writing
conventions.
Six school wide writing
samples will be administered
throughout the school year.
(September, November,
January, March, April, May)
to demonstrate evidence of
student growth in writing.
NA
Provide consistency in the
delivery of writing
instruction within and
across grade levels with
emphasis upon conventions
related to Standard Three.
NA
Not Available
(Overall
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
14
DRAFT
and for
each
disaggregat
ed groups)
M Not availab le
R
Academic
Growth
By the end of 2010-2011, the Median
Growth Percentile in Reading for
Elementary and Middle will be 65% .
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
M
NA
Elementary and Middle will be 68% .
By the end of 2010-2011, the median
growth percentile will meet expectations.
The gap for ELL students will reduce to
medium.
By the end of 2011-2012, the median
growth percentile will meet expectations.
The gap for ELL students will reduce to
small.
By the end of 2010-2011, the Median
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
NA
By the end of 2011-2012, the
Median Growth Percentile in Writing for
Elementary and Middle will be 75% .
W Growth Percentile in Writing for
Academic
Growth Gaps
By the end of 2011-2012, the Median
Growth Percentile in Reading for
Elementary and Middle will be 75% .
R
M
NA
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
AimsWeb reading
assessments will be
administered.
Grade levels are targeted on
the AimsWeb Written
Expression: Connect Word
Sequencing progress
Monitoring Tool.
Results are used to target the
percentage of students
meeting the targets of
Standard One related to
summarization.
NA
NA
Determine the instructional
expectations for teaching
reading across grade levels
with a focus upon Standard
One “Summarizing Text
Passages” and acquire
access to the appropriate
resources to provide the
necessary instruction.
NA
Six school wide writing
samples will be administered
throughout the school year.
(September, November,
January, March, April, May)
to demonstrate evidence of
student growth in writing.
Provide consistency in the
delivery of writing
instruction within and
across grade levels with
emphasis upon conventions
related to Standard Three.
Aims Web reading
assessments will be
administered monthly.
Results are used to target the
percentage of students
meeting the targets of
standard three related to
writing conventions.
Determine the instructional
expectations for teaching
reading across grade levels
with a focus upon Standard
One “Summarizing Text
Passages” and acquire
access to the appropriate
resources to provide the
necessary instruction
NA
NA
15
DRAFT
By the end of 2010-2011, the median
growth percentile for elementary will
meet expectations. The median growth
percentile for middle will exceed
W expectations.
The gap for ELL students will reduce to
medium.
Post
Secondary &
Workforce
Readiness
By the end of 2011-2012, the median
growth percentile will exceed
expectations. The gap for ELL students
will be reduced to small.
Six school wide writing
samples will be administered
throughout the school year.
(September, November,
January, March, April, May)
to demonstrate evidence of
student growth in writing
Develop and implement an
assessment system to
provide information that will
improve classroom
instruction and student
achievement especially in
the areas of Special
education students and
English Language Learners
Graduation Rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dropout Rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mean ACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
Action Pl anni ng 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
Determine the instructional expectations for teaching reading across grade levels with a focus upon Standard#1 “Summarizing Text Passages” and acquire access to the appropriate resources to
provide the necessary instruction.
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy:
Teachers lack clear expectations for instruction in summarization. Access to the appropriate resources necessary for teaching “summarization” across all grade levels and content areas is limited.
There is a lack of ongoing communication between regular and special education teachers concerning the instructional needs of students and the available resources.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that applies):
 School Plan under State Accountability
 Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan
 Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I school wide or targeted assistance plan requirements  School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
ECE-8 Teachers will meet in grade level/content area teams
to identify the instructional expectations (skills and concepts)
Timeline
Key Personnel*
August-October
Humanities Facilitator
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Grant Ranch School Budget
Implementation Benchmarks
The instructional expectations for reading at
16
DRAFT
necessary for teaching Standard One (Summarizing Text
Passages) at each particular grade level. Team members
with support from the Humanities Facilitator will establish
non-negotiables for reading instruction based upon best
practices as defined by Denver Public Schools’ “Best
Practices in K-5 Reading Instruction” and “Best Practices in
Grade 6-12 English Language Arts Instruction”, will determine
the sequence for delivery of instruction and will plan
accordingly for the remainder of the school year.
each grade level will be identified by
October 19, 2010.
Non-negotiables for reading instruction will
be established and agreed upon by
December 15, 2010.
Professional development for nonnegotiables in reading instruction will be
available beginning January 3, 2011.
Professional development will be provided for teachers to be
able to meet these agreed upon non-negotiables for reading
instruction.
Vertical, grade level and content area teams
including special education and ELL teachers will
meet to align identified instructional expectations
to ensure consistency across all grade levels.
Team Members with support from the Humanities
Facilitator will classify these instructional
expectations for each grade level as “Introduced,”
“Reviewed” or “Mastered” to assist teachers with
their planning and delivery of instruction.
Vertical grade level and content area teams including special
education and ELL teachers will meet to develop an action
plan for implementation of the identified instruction
expectations.
August-October
Humanities Facilitator
Grant Ranch School Budget
Vertical, grade level and content area teams
including special education and ELL
teachers will reach consensus concerning
the instructional expectations for reading K8.
August-November
Teachers
Grant Ranch School Budget
The yearlong plan for the sequence of
delivering reading instruction will be
finalized and ready for implementation by
November 5, 2010.
Ongoing lesson plans and classroom
observations will be used for evidence of
Backward Designing.
Ongoing
Teachers
Grant Ranch School
Adjustment Budget
The use of Backward Design for planning and delivering
instruction in writing will be incorporated into the action plan.
A list of selected resources and a schedule for progress
monitoring of student performance using summarization
strategies will be developed and included in the action plan.
Fall
More specific progress monitoring will begin
by November 5, 2010 with the
implementation of the yearlong plan.
The building administrators, Humanities
Facilitator and grade level data teams will
oversee the implementation of the progress
monitoring schedule.
* 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)
17
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #2:
Provide consistency in the delivery of writing instruction within and across grade levels with emphasis upon conventions related to Standard Three.
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy:
Writing instruction varies among grade levels. Individual teachers supplement current curriculum with varying programs/resources.
Paraprofessionals, not teachers, are providing the instruction for our most struggling students.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that applies):
 School Plan under State Accountability
 Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan
 Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I school wide or targeted assistance plan requirements  School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
ECE-8 Teachers and the Humanities Facilitator will meet in
grade level/content area teams to identify the writing
conventions that are specific to each grade level. Team
members with support from the Humanities Facilitator will
establish non-negotiables for writing instruction based upon
best practices as defined by Denver Public Schools’ “Best
Practices K-5 Writing I nstruction” and “Best Practices in 6-12
English Language Arts Instruction,” will determine the
sequence for delivery of instruction and will plan accordingly
for the remainder of the school year.
Timeline
August-October
Key Personnel
Humanities Facilitator
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Grant Ranch School Budget
Writing essays
Anchor papers
DPS Progress Indicators
The writing conventions at each grade level
will be identified by October 19, 2010.
Non-negotiables for reading instruction will
be established and agreed upon by
December 15, 2010.
Professional development for nonnegotiables in reading instruction will be
available beginning January 3, 2011.
Professional development will be provided for teachers to be
able to meet these agreed upon non-negotiables for reading
instruction.
Vertical, grade level and content area teams including special
education and ELL teachers will meet to align the identified
writing conventions to ensure consistency across all grade
levels.
Implementation Benchmarks
October
Humanities Facilitator
Grant Ranch School Budget
The alignment of writing conventions across
grade levels will be completed by October
20, 2010.
October
Humanities
Grant Ranch School Fall
Team members will complete the selection
process for the school wide programs for
Team Members with support from the Humanities Facilitator
will determine the “New Skills and “Overlapping Skills” for
each grade level that will be addressed.
Vertical, grade level and content area teams including special
education and ELL teachers will examine the instructional
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
18
DRAFT
programs (spelling, skills, etc.) that are currently being used
by staff members and research others that have been
recommended.
Facilitator
Adjustment Budget
writing conventions by October 30, 2010.
Grant Ranch School Fall
Adjustment Budget
The completion of the professional
development activities will occur before
November 15, 2010.
The implementation of the school wide
writing programs will be evident with lesson
plans, classroom observations, etc.
Teachers
Professional development for the implementation of the
selected school wide writing programs will be available.
October-November
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Professional
Development
Instructors
19
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #3:
Develop and implement an assessment system to provide information that will improve classroom instruction and student achievement especially in the areas of Special Education students and
English Language Learners.
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategies:
Regular classroom assessments for special needs population are not as frequent or rigorous as other assessments. There is not a thorough analysis of results to change curriculum or teaching
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that applies):
 School Plan under State Accountability
 Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan
 Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I school wide 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
Design and implement a comprehensive assessment plan
that provides information to all stakeholders.
September/October
Principal
Facilitator
Leadership Team
Teachers
Grant Ranch School
Budget
Assess learning, formulate classroom benchmarks that are
based upon standards and communicate the results to
appropriate stakeholders.
NovemberDecember
Principal
Facilitator
Leadership Team
Teachers
Grant Ranch School budget
November
Facilitator
Grant Ranch School Budget
ECE-8th grade staff members will complete
AimsWeb training by November 3, 2010.
Progress Monitoring groups will be created
in AimsWeb by November 6, 2010.
November
Facilitator
Teachers
Grant Ranch School Budget
Data from Curriculum Based Measurements
will be entered into AimsWeb by November
Introduce the specific steps of progress monitoring to all
ECE-8th grade staff members in a large group setting.
Support staff members in creating progress monitoring
groups on AimsWeb with a focus on writing conventions.
Engage staff members in the collaborative scoring of
Curriculum Based Measurements.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Teachers demonstrate the use of formative
and summative assessments aligned to
performance objectives and instruction.
ECE-8th grade staff members will complete
the Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)
training prior to the Thanksgiving Break.
Enable the staff to begin to build a common value for the
importance of systematically recording student performance.
Ensure that all staff members have access to AimsWeb to
modify and improve instruction.
A comprehensive assessment plan will be
implemented by January 15, 2011.
Multiple and various assessments and
evaluation strategies are used appropriately
and effectively.
20
DRAFT
Opportunity will be provided to enter the scoring results into
AimsWeb.
27, 2010.
Analyze test scores to identify gaps in curriculum or between
student groups for instructional decisions.
Data disaggregated by student sub groups
are reviewed to identify and address gaps in
achievement.
Data team will include regular, education, special education
and English Language Learners instructors who will collect
and analyze student performance data and communicate
results for all grade levels.
Create a schedule to support identifies students by progress
monitoring their performance.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Data team meeting will be held by
November.
Schedule for progress monitoring
identified students will be completed by
January 10, 2010.
of
21