1. education
2. school

School
Improvement
Planning
Manual
Assessment, Accountability,
Research and School Improvement Division
School Improvement Department
Revised July 2011
5100 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89146
CCSD Board of School Trustees
Deanna L. Wright
District A
Chris Garvey
District B
Dr. Linda E. Young
District C
Lorraine Alderman
District D
John Cole
District E
Carolyn Edwards
District F
Erin E. Cranor
District G
Dwight D. Jones, Superintendent
Pedro Martinez, Deputy Superintendent
Vision – Ready by Exit As taken from the Clark County School District Superintendent, Dwight D. Jones, May 2011 Phase I: Preliminary Reforms Report, “How do we ensure all students are academically successful? What will focus our efforts? This addresses those questions. One drive consumes us. That is to ensure all students experience success in school. By success we mean all students are ‘ready by exit.’ ‘Ready means prepared to step into college or other postsecondary opportunities and compete without remediation . . . Specific objectives follow. Within five years (by June 2016): • Graduation rate will reach 75 percent • Percentage who are ‘ready by exit’ from high school will increase each year • College remediation rates will decline yearly • Gaps in annual rates of academic growth for different ethnic and racial subgroups will narrow by half (based on state assessment) • Percentage taking Advanced Placement courses and scoring 3 or above will increase yearly at each high school • Percentage admitted to a postsecondary institution and successful in their first year will increase yearly • Percentage exiting Grade 5 who read on-­‐level on state assessment will reach 80 percent • Percentage exiting Grade 3 who read on-­‐level on state assessment will reach 80 percent • Percentage exiting Grade 1who read on-­‐level on a District-­‐developed test will reach 80 percent • Percentage exiting Grade 8 who are proficient in Algebra I will increase yearly (as measured by a standardized end-­‐of-­‐course exam that is adopted and used District-­‐wide) To achieve the mission and vision of the Clark County School district, we begin with the end in mind. That is ‘ready by exit.’ This means there is a pathway to opportunity and postsecondary success for all students (without remediation). To that end, we organize around five principles. Taken together, these five principles create greater ownership for the academic success of each student. When viewed as an organic whole, these elements work together so that the success of adults is defined in terms of the academic success of students. • Principle #1: Get the optics right. Transparent data drives learning and continuous improvement . • Principle #2: Grant greater autonomy in return for greater accountability for improved results. • Principle #3: Recognize that enhanced student success depends on greater educator effectiveness. • Principle #4: Align to what matters most and ensure that literacy remains the linchpin. • Principle #5: Recognize that choice and innovation are the engines driving needed school reform.” The Assessment, Accountability, Research and School Improvement (AARSI) Division School Improvement Planning (SIP) Manual is based on the aforementioned guiding principles and initiatives. Integral Components of Clark County School District School Improvement Planning
The Nevada Growth Model
The Nevada Growth Model of Achievement, implemented in August 2011, provides a common
understanding of how individual students and groups of students progress from year to year toward state
standards based on where each individual student begins. The model focuses attention on maximizing
student progress over time and reveals where, and among which students, the strongest growth is
happening and where it is not. The Nevada Growth Model of Achievement shines a spotlight on the State’s
most effective schools and districts—those that produce the highest sustained rates of growth in student
progress. These schools and districts may or may not be districts or schools with the highest test scores
every year.
Nevada adopted the model to answer three essential questions about student, school and district
performance:
What is the growth rate of a student, a school and a district?
What should be the growth rate for a student to reach a desired level of achievement within a
period of time?
What are the highest sustained growth rates that exist today and under what conditions could
they improve?
The Nevada Growth Model is a powerful tool to understand the progress of students based on where each
individual student begins. The Nevada Growth Model enables parents, schools, districts, and the state to
understand how individual students are progressing from year to year and provides a common measure to
show how much growth is needed for each student to reach state standards.
Nevada Common Core State Standards
On June 2, 2010, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State
School Officers released a set of state‐led education standards, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
The English‐language arts and mathematics standards for grades K‐12 were developed in collaboration with
a variety of stakeholders including content experts, states, teachers, school administrators and parents. The
standards establish clear and consistent goals for learning that will prepare America’s children for success in
college and work. The CCSS and related information can be found at http://www.corestandards.org.
The Nevada State Board of Education believes that the adoption of the draft Common Core State Standards
will significantly enhance the educational system of Nevada. Implementation of the CCSS will allow all
students to be instructed to a common set of standards adhering to common expectations and goals within
Nevada, as well as across state lines. Through collaborative efforts teachers, administrators and professional
development providers will gain information and share ideas regarding instructional best practice and
effective teaching. Working with other states within the SBAC will also allow Nevada the opportunity to gain
and share expertise through the development of common formative and summative assessment tools and
materials. All of these efforts will result in ensuring that Nevada’s students will complete high school
prepared for success in college and careers.
PREFACE
On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001. This law represents an education reform plan that contains the most sweeping changes to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. NCLB’s intent is to help
improve student achievement by setting standards, requiring frequent progress monitoring and holding
school districts accountable for school performance. NCLB contains four guiding principles:
Schools are expected to teach students using methods proven to be successful.
Schools and districts must demonstrate that all students are making academic progress.
Teachers and paraprofessionals must be highly qualified to work with students.
Parents are given more information and more choices concerning their child’s education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the minimum level of proficiency that school districts and schools
must achieve each year as determined by NCLB. To make AYP, a school and district must meet the
required attendance, graduation and participation rate, and the annual measurable objectives in English
Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics.
Nevada’s accountability legislation, NRS 385, defines the process for reporting achievement data for all
students in each school district, including the requirement to report each school district’s AYP status for
all subgroups in each assessed subject area. The School Improvement Plan (SIP) identifies which
subgroups require additional assistance and determines appropriate, targeted improvement efforts.
If any questions arise regarding School Improvement in the Clark County School District, ask SID.
INTRODUCTION
Webster’s defines the word school as “an institution where instruction is given”, and it defines the word
improvement as “a change or addition by which a thing is improved”. The purpose of this manual is to
assist administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, and students in making changes and/or additions
to their instructional institution that will result in overall improvement.
School improvement plans are one component of the accountability measures in place in Nevada. The
State’s blueprint for School Improvement is the Student Achievement Gap Elimination (SAGE) which
defines the process for Title I schools designated In Need of Improvement. SAGE uses the following
three-step cycle aligned with the CCSD SIP process:
Planning Phase: Inquiry process and master plan design;
Implementation/Monitoring Phase: Ongoing monitoring of SIP implementation and the impact
on student learning and achievement;
Evaluation Phase: Examines the effectiveness of the SIP and becomes the foundation for the
next year’s plan.
The Clark County School District (CCSD) Strategic Plan provides the framework for the District’s internal
accountability plan. The Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) and other District level reports, combined
with school level information, provide schools with longitudinal data to support a targeted, resultsoriented system in which all staff and students are held accountable for improving student achievement.
District goals and objectives have been developed in response to the Strategic Plan to provide a cohesive
structure for all students to meet or exceed District standards and benchmarks for academic
competency.
In order to facilitate with meeting these goals, this manual is divided into the following sections:
Section I
Section II
Section III
Understanding School Improvement
Writing School Improvement, Restructuring, and Turnaround Plans
Title I Budget Instructions
Glossary
Section I
Understanding
School Improvement
The Spectrum of School Improvement
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires states to implement an accountability system that evaluates
whether schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward the goals outlined in the legislation.
In compliance with NCLB, Nevada AYP classifications are made annually based on the percentage of
students tested, the percentage of students who score at or above the proficient level on annual
statewide tests, and school attendance or graduation rates.
When determining if a school has demonstrated Adequate Yearly Progress, performance on three
indicators is disaggregated among nine groups in the school. Under NCLB, performance is evaluated for
each population in the school with a large enough sample to be measured. In Nevada, populations with
at least 25 students are evaluated. The nine subgroups considered for AYP analyses are:
1. The School
2. American Indian/Alaskan Native
3. Asian
4. Hispanic/Latino
5. Black/African American
6. White/Caucasian
7. Students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
8. Students of Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
9. Students receiving Free or Reduced priced 5. Lunch (FRL)
10. Multi-Racial
11. Pacific Islander
If any one of the nine groups does not meet the criteria for the three AYP indicators, the school is
designated as not demonstrating Adequate Yearly Progress. The three AYP designation areas are:
1. English Language Arts (ELA) (participation and performance)
2. Mathematics (participation and performance)
3. Other Indicator
Elementary and middle school: Attendance
High school: Graduation rate or Attendance
AYP Targets
Under NCLB, each state established an AYP timeline to ensure that all students and students in each
subgroup would meet or exceed the state’s proficient level of academic achievement on the state
assessment. The goal is 100% proficiency by 2013-2014. AYP targets identify the percentage of students
in each school and subgroup that must achieve at the proficient level or above on that year’s
assessment. AYP is determined separately for ELA and mathematics. For each subject, the target
indicates the minimum percentage of students that must score at or above the “meets standard” level
of achievement on state standardized tests. In 2011-2012, the target for elementary and middle school
math is 77.2%. This means that 77.2% of the students in the school and 77.2% of each subgroup must
achieve at the meets or exceeds level (proficient or above) on state assessments. This table shows the
increases in the target since the baseline year until 2013-2014, when 100% of the students are expected
to be proficient on state assessments.
Watch List
The watch list identifies schools that are in their first year of not having demonstrated AYP. Schools are
designated as being on Watch for any of the three AYP designation areas in which they did not meet the
targeted goals.
“In Need of Improvement” (INOI)
Schools that have not demonstrated AYP for two consecutive years in any of the three AYP areas (ELA,
mathematics, or Other Indicator *OI+) are designated as “In Need of Improvement Year One (N1)”.
Schools that have not demonstrated AYP for three consecutive years are designated as “In Need of
Improvement Year Two (N2)” and so on. To be removed from this status, a school must demonstrate
AYP for two consecutive years in the area(s) identified as in need of improvement. NRS 385 identifies
the sanctions for schools at this level of improvement. The District is required to provide technical
assistance for all schools in need of improvement.
The following descriptors identify demonstrated changes in student achievement at individual school
sites over time (i.e., 3-5 years), based on performance on statewide Criterion Referenced Tests (CRT),
AYP profiles, and/or a growth analysis under such a model of accountability.
Growth –substantial improvement
Flat –little or no improvement
Inconsistent Achievement –inconsistent pattern of performance, with some increases as well as
decreases
Decline –substantial decline
Chronically Low Performance in Select AYP Subgroups –chronically low in only a few or less of the
identified subgroups within a school
Pervasive Chronically Low Performance –chronically low across most or all AYP subgroups
New Regulation to NAC 385 Regarding Schools in Need of Improvement Relative to Corrective Actions,
Consequences, Supports or Sanctions; Monitoring Implementation of Corrective Actions; and
Turnaround Restructuring Plan Requirements
Sec. 5. 1. Except as otherwise provided in section 6 of this regulation, if a public school that is not a Title
I school is designated as demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4
consecutive years, the board of trustees of the school district shall:
(a) Not later than 14 days before the beginning of the school year, provide notice of the
designation pursuant to NRS 385.3745.
(b) Not later than September 30, implement the proposal developed pursuant to section 3 of
this regulation.
(c) Develop a turnaround plan to improve the academic achievement of pupils enrolled in the
public school. The turnaround plan must, without limitation:
(1) Include a list of persons who are responsible for developing the turnaround plan;
(2) Be based on the needs of the public school, as identified in the comprehensive audit,
including, without limitation, the analysis of the results of the comprehensive audit and
any additional data that the board of trustees of the school district included in the
proposal submitted pursuant to section 3 of this regulation;
(3) Identify the concerns of the board of trustees of the school district relating to the
public school, which must be listed in order of priority, the reasons for those concerns
and any solutions to the concerns;
(4) Identify measurable goals and objectives for obtaining adequate yearly progress;
(5) Identify the action steps that the board of trustees of the school district will
implement to ensure that the public school obtains adequate yearly progress, including,
without limitation, timelines for the implementation and completion of the action steps,
the allocation and reallocation of resources, documentation of the implementation of
the action steps, the expected results of the action steps and the persons who are
responsible for carrying out the action steps; and
(6) In addition to the actions taken by the Department to monitor the implementation
of the turnaround plan pursuant to NRS 385.37605, identify the action steps that the
board of trustees of the school district will take to monitor and evaluate the turnaround
plan, including, without limitation, timelines for the implementation of action steps,
interim goals and objectives for the public school, the persons who are responsible for
monitoring and evaluating the turnaround plan, and documentation of the monitoring
and evaluating activities.
2. Not later than June 30 of the school year in which the public school is designated as demonstrating
need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of trustees of the
school district shall submit to the Department:
(a) The turnaround plan developed pursuant to subsection 1.
(b) An update of the proposal to implement one or more of the differentiated corrective actions,
consequences or sanctions, or any combination thereof, developed pursuant to section 3 of this
regulation, including, without limitation, a copy of the application submitted pursuant to section
13 of this regulation.
3. Within 45 days after the Department receives:
(a) The turnaround plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 2, the Department
shall review the turnaround plan and may:
(1) Approve the turnaround plan and provide notice to the board of trustees of the
school district that the turnaround plan was approved; or
(2) Return the turnaround plan to the board of trustees of the school district with its
recommendations for revision.
(b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 2, the Department
shall review the proposal and may:
(1) Approve the proposal and provide notice to the board of trustees of the school
district that the proposal was approved; or
(2) Return the proposal to the board of trustees of the school district with its
recommendations for revision.
4. If the Department returns:
(a) The turnaround plan pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 3, the board of trustees of the
school district shall, within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the turnaround plan,
revise and resubmit the turnaround plan to the Department.
(b) The updated proposal pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 3, the board of trustees shall,
within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the proposal, revise and resubmit the
proposal to the Department.
5. Within 20 days after the Department receives:
(a) The revised turnaround plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 4, the
Department shall review and approve the turnaround plan. If the board of trustees of the school
district failed to include in the revised turnaround plan the recommendations for revision of the
Department, the Department may include such revisions in the approved turnaround plan.
(b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 4, the Department
shall review and approve the proposal. If the board of trustees of the school district failed to
include in the updated proposal the recommendations for revision of the Department, the
Department may include such revisions in the approved proposal.
Sec. 7. 1. Except as otherwise provided in section 8 of this regulation, if a Title I school is designated as
demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of
trustees of a school district shall:
(a) Not later than 14 days before the beginning of the school year, provide notice of the
designation pursuant to NRS 385.3746.
(b) Not later than September 30, implement the proposal developed pursuant to section 3 of
this regulation.
(c) Develop a plan for restructuring the school. The plan for restructuring the school must,
without limitation:
(1) Include a list of persons who are responsible for developing the plan for
restructuring the school;
(2) Be based on the needs of the public school, as identified in the comprehensive audit,
including, without limitation, the analysis of the results of the comprehensive audit and
any additional data that the board of trustees included in the proposal submitted
pursuant to section 3 of this regulation;
(3) Identify the concerns of the board of trustees of the school district relating to the
public school, which must be listed in the order of priority, the reasons for those
concerns and any solutions to the concerns;
(4) Identify measurable goals and objectives for obtaining adequate yearly progress;
(5) Identify the action steps that the board of trustees of the school district will
implement to ensure that the public school obtains adequate yearly progress, including,
without limitation, timelines for the implementation and completion of the action steps,
the allocation and reallocation of resources, documentation of the implementation of
the action steps, the expected results of the action steps and the persons who are
responsible for carrying out the action steps; and
(6) In addition to the actions taken by the Department to monitor the implementation
of the plan for restructuring the school pursuant to NRS 385.37607, identify the action
steps that the board of trustees of the school district will take to monitor and evaluate
the plan for restructuring the school, including, without limitation, timelines for the
implementation of the action steps, interim goals and objectives for the public school,
the persons who are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the plan for
restructuring, and documentation of the monitoring and evaluating activities.
2. Not later than June 30 of the school year in which the school is designated as demonstrating need for
improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 for 4 consecutive years, the board of trustees of the school
district shall submit to the Department:
(a) The plan for restructuring the school developed pursuant to subsection 1.
(b) An update of the proposal to implement one or more of the differentiated corrective actions,
consequences or sanctions, or any combination thereof, developed pursuant to section 3 of this
regulation, including, without limitation, a copy of the application submitted pursuant to section
13 of this regulation.
3. Within 45 days after the Department receives:
(a) The plan for restructuring the school submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 2,
the Department shall review the plan for restructuring the school and may:
(1) Approve the plan for restructuring the school and provide notice to the board of
trustees of the school district that the plan for restructuring the school was approved; or
(2) Return the plan for restructuring the school to the board of trustees of the school
district with its recommendations for revision.
(b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 2, the Department
shall review the proposal and may:
(1) Approve the proposal and provide notice to the board of trustees of the school
district that the proposal was approved; or
(2) Return the proposal to the board of trustees of the school district with its
recommendations for revision.
4. If the Department returns:
(a) The plan for restructuring the school pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 3, the board of
trustees shall, within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the plan for restructuring the
school, revise and resubmit the plan for restructuring the school to the Department.
(b) The updated proposal pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 3, the board of trustees shall,
within 20 days after the board of trustees receives the proposal, revise and resubmit the
proposal to the Department.
5. Within 20 days after the Department receives:
(a) The revised plan for restructuring the school submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) of
subsection 4, the Department shall review and approve the plan for restructuring the school. If
the board of trustees of the school district failed to include in the revised plan for restructuring
the school the recommendations for revisions of the Department, the Department may include
such revisions in the approved plan for restructuring the school.
(b) The updated proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 4, the Department
shall review and approve the proposal. If the board of trustees of the school district failed to
include in the updated proposal the recommendations for revisions of the Department, the
Department may include such revisions in the approved proposal.
The Nevada Department of Education (NDE)
Conceptual Framework for a Differentiated System of Support
The Nevada Department of Education (NDE) has provided the following conceptual framework for
consideration as a differentiated system of support that will be required for schools that reach N4 or
greater in the needs improvement cycle. Sanctions and supports outlined under this system are
attached to the development and implementation of corrective actions as prescribed relative to
Restructuring and Turnaround Plan requirements for schools N4 and beyond. These proposed sanctions
and supports (i.e., consequences) fall into several different categories and vary in the degree of support
provided. This framework proposes a system in which schools are assigned to one of six categories
based upon student achievement trend data (e.g., 3-5 years of Criterion Referenced Test [CRT] results),
and/or AYP profiles, and/or a growth analysis under such a model of accountability.
Accordingly, the assignation of a given consequence could be applied in response to a school’s data in
the years preceding the identification as in need of improvement, year four or beyond. It should be
noted that while some funding is available under SB 389 to assist schools and districts in implementing
these requirements, and will be allocated as part of this framework, it is anticipated that this funding
will not be sufficient in and of itself to create the targeted outcomes to move a school out of needs
improvement status, and that districts will retain ongoing fiscal responsibility for improvement
initiatives as well.
Consequences (Supports and Sanctions)
Update Curriculum Audit - Schools assigned this consequence must revisit their findings from
conducting the Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools (NCCAT-S) in the previous
school year, in order to validate and/or modify the results from the original audit. This effort must take
place with assistance from individual(s) who are not employees of the school. The School Improvement
Plan (if the school is in year four of improvement) or Restructuring/Turnaround Plan (if the school is in
year five or beyond of improvement) must be adjusted in response to any new audit outcomes, if
appropriate.
Supplemental Targeted Technical Assistance - Schools assigned this consequence must receive
technical assistance that is supported by scientifically based research. One or more of the following
types of technical assistance must be received by the school: (1) Assistance in acquiring, analyzing,
and/or using data from the State’s assessment system, and other examples of student work, to identify
and develop solutions to problems; and/or (2) Assistance in identifying specific professional
development needs and solutions, and in coordinating access to professional development in
instructional strategies and methods that have been proven effective, through scientifically based
research, in addressing the specific instructional issues that caused the schools to be identified as in
needs of improvement status; and/or (3) Assistance in analyzing and revising the school’s budget so that
the school effectively allocates its resources to implement the Restructuring or Turnaround Plan. The
technical assistance a school receives must be above and beyond the support typically available to most
or all schools in the district.
Examples of Technical Assistance: Data Analysis, Webinars, Use of Technology, Resource Allocations, or
Assistance from an outside expert.
Supplemental Targeted Professional Development - Schools assigned this consequence must receive
professional development that adheres to the state’s established PD standards (e.g., embedded,
sustained, at the application level). Instructional staff and/or administrators at the school must
participate in such professional development in accordance with needs revealed through data analysis
derived through the NCCAT-S results and any other relevant data sources, if any. Content must directly
address the academic achievement problem(s) that caused the school to be identified as needing
improvement and afford maximum opportunity for mandated staff to participate in the professional
development. The professional development must be above and beyond the support typically available
to most or all schools in the district.
Examples of Professional Development: Participation in a Leadership Academy; participation in training
for appropriate school staff designed to increase knowledge of assessment data and how to use the
results of the assessment data to modify instruction to meet the instructional needs of the students;
participation in training on implementing a tiered intervention system at the school; training meant to
broaden the content or pedagogical knowledge among the school’s instructional staff.
Focused External Support - Schools assigned this consequence must be provided with focused support
from an external expert or group of experts, based on the school’s identified needs as derived through
the analysis of data from the NCCAT-S and other relevant data sources, if any.
Examples of Focused External Support: Content area specialists; provision of support for effective
instructional strategies; a coach or mentor.
School Support Team (SST) - Schools assigned this consequence must receive support from a team of
experts, led by a School Support Team Leader (SSTL), that are assigned to the school to address a variety
of specific issues based on the school’s identified needs as established through the NCCAT-S and other
relevant data sources, if any. Existing requirements with regard to SST membership remain in place
through Nevada Revised Statutes.
Example of SST (team of experts with designated leader): The team could consist of individuals with
content area expertise, and/or expertise in meeting the needs of students in targeted subgroups (e.g.,
IEP, LEP), or whole school reform.
Resource Acquisition - Schools assigned this consequence must do one or more of the following, in
alignment with needs identified through NCCAT-S and/or other data analysis efforts: (1) purchase
research-based program(s) proven effective for resolving issues at schools with similar demographics
and data-based needs; and/or (2) hire personnel to provide supplemental services for students; and/or
(3) purchase a system to collect and/or manage data to track student progress toward targeted
benchmarks; and/or purchase equipment.
Example of resource acquisition: Afterschool program; reading program; data system for progress
monitoring; technology solutions.
The Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools (NCCAT-S)
The Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools (NCCAT-S) is designed to assist schools,
districts, and the State in identifying the priority needs of a school in need of improvement and for
identifying the types of technical assistance a school will need in order to improve. The NCCAT-S is a
collection of 20 rubrics. Each rubric is comprised of one indicator and two to five elements. This audit
tool was developed by the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) in response to the 2009 Nevada
Legislature’s Senate Bill 389, which requires districts to conduct a comprehensive curriculum audit of
schools identified as In Need of Improvement (INOI) – Year 3, as a corrective action. It is also part of the
State’s system of support and corrective actions under the requirements of Section 1116 of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). Ultimately, the results of the NCCAT-S will be used to determine the types of
focused technical assistance and support that a school will need, and to guide the district in its
development of the school’s Restructuring or Turnaround Plan.
The NCCAT-S serves as the foundation for the work of turning around or restructuring schools. Using a
rubric format, the NCCAT-S describes characteristics of high-performing schools in the following
categories:
I. Curriculum and Instruction
II. Assessment and Accountability
III. Leadership
Research states that these are the most important focus points for turning around schools and rapidly
improving student performance. They are overlapping and inter-dependent. When a school is
functioning at high levels in all three categories, student achievement improves.
Indicators - Within each category are indicators. The entire audit tool contains a total of 20 indicators.
Curriculum and Instruction includes 9 indicators, Assessment and Accountability includes 4 indicators,
and Leadership includes 7 indicators. Collectively, these indicators characterize the essential
components that are typically in place for a school to be successful.
Elements - Under each indicator, there are elements that help to more clearly define the indicator.
Elements provide the audit team with descriptors that detail the nuances of an indicator. Additionally,
the degree to which an element is implemented will be scored on a rubric using the following scale:
4 = Exemplary
This element contributes to the school’s success, and provides a model for other
schools to emulate.
3 = Meets Expectation This element is fully functional and all required elements are evident.
2 = Area of Concern
This element is marginal. Performance in this area should be monitored for
change and may need to be addressed quickly.
1 = Area of Need
There is little to no evidence that this element is met or understood by the
school. This element should be identified as a priority and would need to be
addressed quickly.
As aforementioned, the NCCAT may be updated as an assigned consequence.
Section II
Writing
School Improvement,
Restructuring, and
Turnaround Plans
School Improvement Plans (SIP) and Restructuring / Turnaround Plans (RTP)
In the spring of 2011, the CCSD School Improvement Department redesigned a three-year reporting
template that complies with State and Federal requirements. The template provides schools with clear,
concise guidelines for effectively and efficiently implementing improvement initiatives, and it serves as
the foundation for:
School Improvement Plans,
Restructuring Plans (Title I schools N5 and above), and
Turnaround Plans (non-Title I schools N5 and above schools).
Sections of the Plan
The major sections of the plan are described and details are provided for writing, monitoring, and
evaluating each section. CCSD plans include:
o Membership of School Planning Team
o Year to Year Analysis
Vision for Learning
o School Vision/Mission Statement
Inquiry Process
o Comprehensive Needs Assessment
 Key Strengths
o Root Cause Analysis
 Priority Concerns
 Root Causes
 Solutions (tied to Action Plan)
Master Plan Design
o Action Steps and Monitoring Plan
 Goals and Measurable Objectives
Action Steps
 Action Plan
Resources
Timeline/Position
 Monitoring Plan
Evidence of Implementation
Timeline/Position
 Evaluation Plan
Evidence of Results
Completing the Plan
o Required Elements for ALL Schools
 Budget
o Required Elements for ALL Title I Schools ONLY
o Required Elements for NON-Title I Schools Identified as “Needs Improvement” or “Needs
Improvement Hold”
Restructuring and Turnaround Plans include an appendix to notate NDE and NCLB-mandated
consequences.
Focus Questions
It is recommended that the following focus questions be addressed throughout the course of the school
improvement planning cycle as the basis for monitoring progress, understanding the evidence, and
making midcourse corrections based on the current evidence.
What is working?
How is the plan guiding daily activities and instructional decisions?
How is the action plan being implemented in classrooms?
How do we know it is working?
What evidence is being analyzed to determine the implementation of the plan in all classrooms?
How is the progress toward goals being monitored and how often?
How will the plan be adjusted based on current data?
What data is being used to make mid-course adjustments to the plan?
What mid-course adjustments have been made based on the data?
Planning Team
The first decision in the school improvement process is the selection of the SIP team. This group is
responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the plan. Selection should be
distributed among building administrators, a variety of staff members, counselors, specialists, parents,
and all who are recognized as instructional leaders throughout the school. The principal should lead the
SIP team by modeling inquiry and team building, routinely re-visiting the status of the plan and the
progress made toward achieving SIP goals/objectives.
Title I schools require at least one parent on the team. This individual may be a district employee, but
may NOT work at the school site for which the plan is being written. Restructuring and Turnaround
plans require at least one district-level representative in charge of plan oversight.
Year to Year Analysis
Although CCSD’s planning template spans a three year period, data analysis occurs on a regular basis
and is reported yearly via the plan’s year to year analysis. Here, schools determine whether or not the
measurable objectives identified previously have been “Met”, “Not Met”, or have shown “Growth”
during the school year. Teams provide a summary of evidence to justify the selection of the
aforementioned descriptors, based on the ongoing collection of data from the site’s monitoring and
evaluation plans.
Vision for Learning
Mission or Vision Statements
Effective mission statements describe in a few words the purpose of the school, its academic focus, and
its benefit to the students in the present, while vision statements speak to the organization’s future.
While vision statements reflect where the school wants to go, mission statements tell how it will get
there.
Ultimately, such statements are about meeting the needs of students and are the basis for all aspects of
continuous improvement. The statement is shared, understood, believed, and practiced by school staff
and other stakeholders. It is important to revisit and revise an existing mission or vision statement or
create a new one that aligns with the current purpose of the school. This statement, proudly displayed
throughout the school, should unify and focus the efforts of the school community, serving as a
reminder to all stakeholders of what is important and valued.
Guiding Questions for Mission or Vision Statements
Schools with existing mission statements should consider the following questions:
How and when was our mission developed?
Does our existing mission statement reflect our current values and academic focus?
New schools or schools revising their mission statements should consider the following:
What do we value as a school?
What principles will guide us?
How do we intend to accomplish our mission?
How does our mission statement impact the day-to-day practices of the school?
Data Analysis Guide
Assessment is a huge topic that encompasses everything from NDE’s statewide criterion tests and
assessments to CCSD’s assessments. Understanding and using student assessment data is fundamental
to improving schools. The more information we have about students, the clearer picture we have about
achievement or where gaps may exist. Reflective data analysis enables schools to identify the priority
concerns that require action, determine the root causes of those concerns, and select appropriate
solutions to move the school toward increasing achievement.
Questions to consider: What data is available, what does it reveal, and what components of it are
relevant for making decisions related to school improvement planning? Ongoing analysis of data
provides insights for making mid-course corrections necessary to reach the determined goals. As school
improvement teams begin the planning process, it is important to involve the staff in the data analysis
process in order to know the status of the school on many levels.
The terms “formative” and “summative” assessments have become confusing in the past few years. In a
balanced assessment system, both formative and summative assessments are an integral part of
information gathering. Formative assessment is part of the instructional process. When incorporated
into classroom practice, it provides the information to adjust instruction and learning while they are
happening. Formative assessment is practice. Students should not be accountable for a grade.
Formative assessment gives students an opportunity to become involved as an assessor in their own
learning. Summative assessments are given periodically to determine at a particular point in time what
students know and do not know. Summative assessment is an accountability measure that is typically
used as a part of the grading process. It is a means to gauge at a certain point in time student learning
relative to content standards.
Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III Data
CCSD uses Tier I (quantitative system-wide), Tier II (quantitative school-wide), and Tier III (qualitative)
terminology to refer to the different levels of data available to the school to support student
achievement.
Tier I data include State and District achievement data such as Nevada’s Proficiency Examination
Program components. These include the NDE’s Nevada High School Proficiency Examination
(NHSPE) and CRT data, NDE AYP reports, the Accountability Report, CCSD’s Quality Assurance
Framework (QAF), CCSD Assessments, School Improvement Assessments, and other CCSD wide
assessments. The CCSD Parent, Student, Teacher Survey is considered Tier I Data.
Tier II data focus on school information related to student achievement. Examples include
demographic data, CCSD school–wide exams and scoring rubrics, grades, and measurable results
of instructional strategies, remediation programs, professional development, and curriculum
and program implementation.
Tier III are the qualitative analysis of student achievement, including the learning environment,
culture and student engagement, teacher and administrator observations, meeting logs and
notes, and parent involvement.
All three levels of data must be used in conjunction for school improvement teams to conduct the depth
of data analysis required to fully understand the school’s strengths and concerns.
SIP teams may use the various tools provided by the CCSD and the NDE to access and analyze data. AYP
reports, Measured Progress reports, Instructional Data Management System (IDMS) reports, P-Values,
the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), and a variety of other data reports are available for use. Most
are disaggregated by subgroups, grade levels, and classrooms providing a close look at performance
levels and differences. Identifying, collecting, analyzing, and using pertinent data helps the school tell its
story.
It is the responsibility of the school improvement planning team to facilitate the process of collecting the
necessary data, analyzing it, and answering key questions with input from the entire staff. Data use
provides direction and keeps the staff on course to school improvement and student success.
When analyzed properly, data:
Helps teams raise questions about student achievement
Creates a baseline for analyzing student performance
Provides an accurate picture of current school practices
Guides actions taken to improve or increase outcomes
The process of asking and answering key questions take the team from the overall picture of the school
relative to state and federal targets to the details of content area and Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
performance by subgroup. Depth of Knowledge replaced ability level reporting beginning with the 2010
AYP report. At the end of this data analysis the team will have a detailed picture of student performance
in order to identify key strengths and priority concerns to be addressed in the plan.
Some schools may find that there are many areas that need improvement. While it seems critical to
address all areas of concern, CCSD research results indicate that a lack of focus is a major obstacle to
effective school improvement planning. This in-depth data analysis, along with the Nevada
Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool – School (NCCAT-S) results, is the foundation for Improvement
Planning.
The Inquiry Process
The next step is the inquiry process. It uses the findings from the data analysis to determine priority
concerns and key strengths, linking them to the root causes, and identifying appropriate solutions to
increase achievement. The inquiry process is based on the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data. Inquiry is the
road map that determines which direction the Master Plan Design must take.
In order to improve student achievement, it is critical to know how and why strengths were achieved
and how and why weaknesses still exist. The planning team should question how the following have
affected strengths and weaknesses:
Adult actions
Instructional practices
Curriculum implementation
Intervention strategies
Data
This section of the guide will help planning teams:
Determine key strengths and priority concerns
Conduct root cause analysis to determine the sources of the priority concerns
Identify solutions aligned to root causes that form the basis for the action plan
All staff should be involved in the inquiry process. Planning team members can facilitate meetings to
determine key strengths and priority concerns, and identify the underlying root causes that inhibit
student achievement. All aspects of the school are examined and analyzed relative to the results of the
data in order to determine what is working and what is not.
There are multiple factors that impact student achievement. Some are within the control of the school
and others are not. The inquiry process should only address the issues that are in the school’s control.
The inquiry process is about determining which adult actions in the school impact learning. Along with
the NCCAT-S results, the team reviews the analyses of the Tier I, II, and III data gathered. This process
requires a thorough investigation of curriculum instruction, assessment, professional growth, school
climate, leadership, participation, and resources allocation.
ALL associated adult actions and school practices must be a part of this process as these are the factors
that are in the school’s control. Preparation for this process includes:
Collection of evidence needed to conduct an in-depth analysis of the school
Analysis of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data
Staff representatives from key areas who are committed to the school improvement process
Key Strengths
After completing the data analysis, the team identifies key strengths that increased student
achievement. These results will remain part of the continuous cycle of school improvement.
It is important to identify strengths/successes in student achievement relative to the practices that
contribute to these results. All conclusions must be evidence-based and every effort should be made to
determine whether the identified practices are directly or indirectly linked to student achievement.
Strengths should reflect the analyses of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data and make connections between
instructional strategies, levels of program implementation, interventions, etc. that led to student
achievement increases. Key strengths should evaluate growth in performance for all subgroups, address
progress made at ALL performance levels, and assess progress from prior years. This depth of analysis
will enable the school to make instructional decisions to benefit all students.
Consider the following areas when determining the school’s key strengths and connect the teaching
practices and program implementation associated with growth:
- Growth by subject area
- Subgroup growth
- Content clusters/DOK levels
- Instructional programs
- Fidelity of implementation
- Remediation efforts
- Collaborative planning
- Classroom instruction strategies
- Student engagement
- Academic focus
Examples of Key Strengths:
1. Students who were identified as “struggling” or “emerging” in reading, based on DIBELS scores,
were provided small group differentiated instruction during Tier I instruction and either Tier 2 or
Tier 3 instructional support. This resulted in an increase in the percent of students who scored
“on track” at every grade level. Specifically, the grade levels increased by the following
percentages: K = 23%, 1st Grade = 5%, 2nd Grade = 8%, 3rd Grade = 16%, 4th Grade = 17%, and 5th
Grade = 17%.
2. Increased use of writing prompts, consistent use of the writing rubric and opportunities for
teachers to participate in staff development resulted in increased academic performance on the
March 2011 NHSPE writing test in the following subgroups: school from 87.8% to 89.7% (+2.1),
Hispanic from 83.6% to 85.0% (+1.4), Black from 80.6% to 85.6% (+5.0), IEP from 44.9% to 58.0%
(+13.1), and FRL from 47.5% to 86.9% (+39.4). The increases in the program groups significantly
closed the achievement gap for these subgroups.
3. Using the same math basal with fidelity over a three year period yielded increased math
proficiency on the Nevada CRT assessment, when the same students were followed over time.
The fifth grade students showed 49% proficiency in 2009, 63% proficiency in 2010, and 66.7%
proficiency in 2011. The fourth grade students showed 55.9% proficiency in 2010 and 79%
proficiency in 2011.
Priority Concerns
The same process that is used to identify key strengths will also identify priority concerns. Subgroup and
content cluster performance gaps for students at all levels should be evaluated before prioritizing
concerns. Priority concerns should focus on significant gaps between subgroups, or gaps in instruction,
curriculum, and interventions supported by Tier I, II, and III data. After reviewing the data, the team
determines the most critical barriers to increased achievement and prioritizes them for further analysis.
Priority concerns are the basis for determining root causes and identifying solutions in the next part of
the inquiry process. This depth of analysis will enable the school to make instructional decisions that
benefit all students.
In addition to connecting Tier I, II, and III data to student performance, teaching practices, support
structures, and program implementation, etc. consider the following:
Subject area trends over time
Subgroups not meeting targets
Subgroup gap trends
Content clusters/ability level difficulties
Instructional program implementation
Status of remediation efforts
Level of collaborative planning
Classroom instructional strategies
Levels of student engagement
Academic focus
Examples of Priority Concerns:
1. Classroom observations, lesson plan review, grade level meeting logs, student assessment data,
FOSL data analysis, and corresponding CRT data reveal that struggling students did not make
sufficient gains in the area of reading, with significantly lower performance in Comprehend,
Interpret & Evaluate Information Text, resulting in an achievement gap for Black, Hispanic, IEP,
and LEP subgroups.
2. CRT data supported by classroom grades, CCSD Assessments, and level of engagement showed
an achievement gap between subgroups in the areas of Measurement and Geometry and
Problem Solving. IEP, White, LEP, and Hispanic students did not make sufficient gains in math.
3. CRT math results show a slight decline in grades 3 and 5. Hispanic and LEP subgroups showed
more significant performance declines than other subgroups, but all subgroups in grade 5
showed lower performance than grade 3. Strand/cluster data show 10-12% lower scores in DOK
level 3 in both 3rd and 5th grades. Item analysis data from CCSD Assessments show performance
on standards 2.3.4 (2.5.4), and 3.3.6 (3.5.6) were more than 5% lower than others.
Root Cause Analysis
The second part of the inquiry process focuses on root causes and solutions for the priority concerns.
This section begins with root causes analysis which is the single most important element in the planning
process as it correctly identifies the reasons behind the priority concerns. A well-written plan that is not
based on accurate reasons for identified concerns will not provide the staff with the necessary map to
identify appropriate solutions and create action plans designed to increase achievement.
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a method of problem solving designed to uncover the deepest root and
most basic reasons for identified concerns. RCA helps schools to correctly identify the true problems
rather than addressing symptoms. RCA is commonly used in the business world to solve a variety of
problems including issues with safety, quality control, and analysis of system failures. It is gaining ground
in education and is an especially effective process in school improvement because here are so many
variables in determining issues of student achievement.
The most challenging aspect of RCA is the ability of the staff and its administration to be open and
honest in a safe, collaborative environment. This climate will foster true examination of causes which
may be uncomfortable, including issues of climate, organization, and instructional quality. This is an
important step in reaching the root of the problem impacting student achievement and the
achievement gap between subgroups.
Root Cause Analysis in School Improvement
Root Cause Analysis in combination with priority concern identification is the most critical component in
school improvement it is the foundation for the Master Plan Design. Although time constraints are a
reality for school improvement teams, data analysis and the process of inquiry are well worth the time.
Rather than relying on assumptions, anecdotal information, and/or teacher perceptions that name
symptoms of problems, the true root causes must be identified.
The climate and culture in a school is critical to the staff’s ability to delve into deeper levels of analysis
like RCA. A school where staff members are supported and encouraged to take responsibility for success
and failure empowers all key stakeholders to take risks and work as a team to create effective solutions
to address student learning. Schools that have had a lack of student achievement for several years will
more than likely need to address school culture issues through some form of team building before they
can let go of the past and move forward with a fresh new approach.
The first step in this process is to identify priority concerns based on analysis of Tier I, II, and III data. It is
important that teams analyze multiple sources of data, data triangulation, to validate concerns. Data
triangulation is one methodology that can be used to determine the root cause of the problem. At a
minimum, planning teams should use at least three sources of data to identify each concern.
The most common graphic organizer to assist with root cause analysis is the fishbone diagram. The
following illustration demonstrates the process. Select a priority concern and list all factors and
suggested causes related to the problem. It is important in the group process to validate all responses.
1. Label each one either “S” if it is a student generated cause or “A” if it is an adult generated
cause. Cross out all the “S” causes.
2. Label each remaining adult cause “I” for In Our Control or “O” for Out of Our Control. Cross out
all the “O” factors.
3. Be sure that the remaining causes are supported by at least three data sources. The data may
tell a different story than what the team perceived and it may create another cause to add to
the fishbone.
4. Use the enhanced 5 Why Questions to determine which of the remaining causes are root causes.
If a question cannot be answered completely, then that factor is NOT the root cause, and should
be removed.
Identified Root Causes should be:
The deepest and most basic reason
Within the school’s control
Evidence based
Focused on the adult actions of the leaders and teachers
A blank fishbone diagram for school can be found on the following page.
The Enhanced 5 Why Questions:
1. What is the proof that this cause exists?
Is it concrete? Is it measurable? Are there more than two data elements that provide
evidence?
2. What is the proof that this cause could lead to the stated effect?
Am I merely asserting causation? (Ex. If a program is identified as the reason students are
not achieving, is there evidence that it is not aligned to tested and taught curriculum? Have
students spent the majority of the allotted instructional time using this program?)
3. What proof is there that this cause actually contributed to the problem?
Given that it exists and could lead to this problem, how do I know it was not actually
something else?
4. Is anything else needed, along with this cause, for the stated effect to occur?
Is it self-sufficient? Is something else needed? (Ex. Are Special Education student schedules
the only problem that prevents them from grade level curriculum exposure, or is there
another key factor, perhaps the level of experience of teacher to scaffold instruction to
meet the needs of all learners?)
5. Can anything else, besides this cause, lead to the stated effect?
Are there alternative explanations that fit better? What other risks are there?
Restructuring and Turnaround plans should include NCCAT-S results in the identification of root causes
and may include verbiage from the “Area of Need” and/or “Area of Concern” columns from the NCCAT-S
rubric to highlight specific causes.
Identifying Solutions
Once the root cause is identified, the team can identify the most appropriate solution to correct the
priority concern. Each proposed solution should describe the research-based instructional practices,
curriculum implementation, or targeted interventions that will be implemented in the plan. Solutions
should be determined through a collaborative process that may include district staff, outside experts, or
research organizations to ensure that the most effective solutions are identified. Solutions, grounded in
research and supported by the evidence, are discovered in the inquiry process, and focus on anticipated
changes in instruction and remediation in the classroom that will result in increased achievement.
Restructuring and Turnaround plans may choose to include verbiage from the “Meets Expectation” or
“Exemplary” columns of the NCCAT-S rubric as a foundation for appropriate solutions.
Many schools refer to the following School Improvement Flow Chart to determine whether or not their
priority concerns are aligning logically through root cause analysis to research-based solutions.
Guiding Questions for Developing Solutions
Is this solution grounded in research?
Will implementing the solution address the identified concern and root cause?
Will this solution, if properly implemented, result in increased achievement?
Will the staff support this solution?
Does the school have the power and resources to implement and sustain this solution?
How will intensive and sustained professional development be provided?
Is everyone who is part of the challenge also part of the solution?
Goals and Measurable Objectives
In this section of the plan, the team determines the goals and measurable objectives that set
achievement targets for the school and guide the rest of the planning process. Goals are the broad
statements about what is to be learned. Measurable objectives define the goals by outlining the specific
targets that are met through the Master Plan Design.
Creating Goals
Goals are determined by the results of the inquiry process completed in the previous section of the plan.
Teams should also have reviewed their previous SIP / RTP and determined whether or not previous goals
and measurable objectives were achieved. Based on this analysis, the team will either continue or revise
the goals and measurable objectives. It is critical that the goals address all of the priority concerns
identified in the inquiry process.
Use the information gathered from the inquiry process to identify a maximum of two goals. Goals
should address student achievement increases across multiple content clusters and Depth of Knowledge
(DOK) levels in order to meet or exceed the increasing proficiency targets for all subgroups and to close
the achievement gap. One goal may address multiple content areas if the team believes the action plan
is essentially the same. Examples of achievement goals follow.
Examples of Goals:
1. Teachers will utilize effective, research-based instructional strategies to improve instruction,
increase active student engagement, and to increase student achievement in ELA and math.
2.
With a change in the monitoring, feedback, and professional development structure to focus on
effective instructional strategies, Sample School will increase proficiency in English Language
Arts and mathematics.
Developing Measurable Objectives
Objectives clarify the goal statements by providing specific information to determine how achievement
of the goal can be recognized. Objectives are the foundation for action planning as they define who,
what, when, and how much. Well-written objectives define and clarify the goal statement, giving
direction to the staff about expected outcomes.
The CCSD template provides space for two objectives per goal. The first objective is required and the
second is optional. It is important to remember that the plan should be focused to address the most
critical needs of the students based on the results of the inquiry process. Examples of measurable
objectives are listed below.
Examples of Measurable Objectives:
1. Grades 3, 4 and 5 students will achieve the Mathematics target of 65.9% or attain Safe Harbor
(reduce non-proficient students by 10%) and students will achieve the Reading target of 63.8%
or attain Safe Harbor, as measured by the NDE CRT.
2. Grades 6, 7 and 8 students will achieve the Mathematics target of 65.9% or attain Safe Harbor
(reduce non-proficient students by 10%) and students will achieve the Reading target of 63.8%
or attain Safe Harbor, as measured by the NDE CRT.
3. Grade 11 students will achieve the Mathematics target of 71.3% or attain Safe Harbor (reduce
non-proficient students by 10%) and students will achieve the Reading target of 86.7% or attain
Safe Harbor, as measured by the NHSPE.
S.M.A.R.T. Language
The SMART acronym includes all of the required elements of well-written objectives.
Specific objectives include descriptions of individual grade levels and subjects. They address the
needs of subgroups and the most critical standards and skills that students must master.
Measurable objectives contain multiple criteria for measuring progress toward the goal and
include clear baseline data.
Achievable objectives are the most critical to student achievement and match the capacity of
the school with the selected goal, thereby increasing the likelihood that the goal will be met.
Achievable objectives differentiate expected performance between subgroups based on the
needs of the students and their current performance levels.
Relevant objectives are realistic and represent the most urgent critical needs in the school based
on the results of the inquiry process. Achieving these objectives would result in closing the
achievement gap for the targeted subgroups.
Timely objectives are grounded in appropriate time frames and allow for frequent measurement
of progress toward the goal.
The measurable objectives, tied to their respective goals, define the performance requirements of the
goal with SMART language
Who is involved? (Specific)
What is the desired outcome? (Specific)
How is progress measured? (Measurable)
What is the proficiency level? (Achievable & Relevant)
When will the outcome occur? (Timely)
Guiding Questions for Goals and Measurable Objectives
Will implementation of the goals and measurable objectives improve student achievement?
Are the goals and measurable objective specifically linked to the priority concerns and their
associated root causes and proposed solutions?
Are the goals and measurable objectives written in terms that can be measured?
Are student groups and performance standards clearly identified?
Are the goals and measurable objectives focused on student performance based on the team’s
analysis of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III data?
Is there a clear rationale for each goal that can be articulated by all members of the staff?
Master Plan Design
The Master Plan Design defines the implementation of the goals. The planning team has already
identified key strengths and priority concerns aligned to root causes and solutions to be addressed in
the current plan. In this section, the team creates action plans to achieve the goals and measurable
objectives. Each action step describes desired student learning outcomes, resources required, and staff
responsibilities. Each step includes a monitoring plan to ensure implementation. The last section of the
master plan design requires the team to design an evaluation plan to measure the result of each action
step.
*In Restructuring and Turnaround planning, district-level representatives play a greater role in the
development of the Master Plan, guiding school sites to targeted action steps and available technical
assistance based on NCCAT-S findings. Furthermore, supervising district-level administrators provide
another layer of oversight, assurance and accountability for monitoring and evaluation.
Developing an Action Plan
In this section of the master plan design, teams:
Build action steps describing desired outcomes
Identify the resources required to ensure effective instruction (programs, activities, materials,
and professional development)
Create a timeline for implementing each action step
Determine the position(s) responsible for completing each action step
For each goal and measurable objective(s), the team identifies a maximum of five action steps to
accomplish the goal. Each action step describes a learning outcome and associated strategies to ensure
that students achieve the goal. Each action step implements a solution developed in the inquiry process.
Action steps should identify different strategies to address the varying needs identified in the goal and
measurable objectives.
The Role of Professional Development
Job-embedded, purposeful, focused, research-based, and sustained professional development increases
student achievement. Data-driven professional development guided by the needs of the students will
increase student learning. Effective professional development translates into classroom practices that
positively impact student achievement.
Professional development needed to ensure effective instruction for each action step is identified in the
resources needed for implementation column. Professional development supports the knowledge
required to implement the instructional strategies, curriculum, programs, and interventions needed to
increase student achievement.
Creating the Monitoring Plan
In the monitoring section, teams:
Determine the evidence used to ensure the implementation of the action steps
Create a detailed and specific timeline for collecting and analyzing the data
Establish the position(s) responsible for ensuring completion of each action step
Monitoring the progress of each action step and paying close attention to the implementation of
standards-based curriculum, effective instructional strategies, student progress indicators, and
embedded professional development keeps everyone focused on results. Procedures for collecting and
analyzing data, assessing the effectiveness of the plan’s implementation, and evaluating student
progress on a daily, weekly, and/or monthly basis are essential to success. The monitoring process
should be shared by all stakeholders in the school. Staff members may participate through grade level or
department meetings, staff meetings, Structured Teacher Planning Time (STPT), or other collaborative
sessions centered on evaluating student work.
Consistent monitoring of the status of the plan relative to student achievement keeps the school on
course to reach the identified goals. The monitoring plan gives the school the formative data needed to
make mid-course corrections. A variety of Tier II and Tier III data, including CCSD Assessments, schoolwide tests and exams, student grades, and logs of STPT or other collaborative sessions should all be used
to determine if students are on the right course to reach the identified goals. It is important to
remember that significant improvement may take time, and successes along the way need to be
recognized and celebrated. However, it is equally important to know when plans are not working and
when mid-course corrections need to be made.
Designing an Evaluation Plan
In this section of the plan, the team identifies the evidence used to determine whether or not the action
steps have been successful. The evaluation phase requires teams to carefully consider the evidence that
demonstrates the progress the school and each subgroup has made toward achieving the goal. Outcome
data are summative and include evidence measuring the effects of instruction, remediation, and
program implementation to results. Formative data should be continuously analyzed during the year as
part of the monitoring process. It is critical to compile all student achievement data at the end of each
year in order to analyze the results.
In the evidence of results column, teams describe specific measures and strategies to analyze
performance of subgroups, effectiveness of instruction, curriculum implementation, content areas, and
DOK levels and compare the actual results with the anticipated outcomes. This in-depth look at the
learning environment, student achievement, and program implementation provides fundamental data
for corrections, modifications, and revisions to the plan for the upcoming year.
Evaluation occurs in two phases. In the first phase, teams review the existing school improvement plan
before the end of the school year with the staff that was responsible for its implementation. Although
formative and school-wide data are available for this phase, summative data such as CRT/HSPE results
are not yet available and many goals are measured on this assessment.
Phase two of the evaluation process takes place in August when the team reconvenes to make plans for
the coming school year. This evaluation review is actually the initial part of the inquiry process that
begins the planning cycle again.
For Restructuring and Turnaround plans, District-level representatives identify and insert specific
consequences into the Evaluation Plan for sites that are unable to successfully move toward expected
results.
Completing the Plan
This section of the school improvement plan includes additional questions required by NRS 385 to meet
the legislative requirements of No Child Left Behind. Responses to these questions should be embedded
in other parts of the plan.
Section A is required for all schools.
Section B is required ONLY for Title I schools.
Section C is required ONLY for non-Title I schools identified as “Needs Improvement” or “Needs
Improvement Hold” status.
Appendix A is required ONLY for Restructuring or Turnaround schools.
Guiding Questions for Master Planning
Does each action step implement an identified solution?
Are the action steps closely aligned to the root causes?
Does each action step include a significant strategy that will ensure the achievement of the
goal?
Does each action step clearly describe the expectations for student performance?
Does each action step focus on the strategies, curriculum, content, and performance levels that
students will be required to demonstrate?
Is the professional development required to implement and sustain the teaching strategy(ies) in
each action step identified in “Resources”?
Is professional development limited to 2-3 critical strategies that will impact student
achievement?
Do the action steps for each goal include strategies, programs, or structures and the expected
outcomes for students who need significant intervention?
Do the action steps in each goal include strategies, programs, or structures and the expected
outcomes for students who are performing above the targets?
Do the action steps for each goal identify strategies that will close the achievement gap?
Are all action steps focused and aligned to the most critical student learning strategies and
performance expectations required to achieve the goal and measurable objective(s)?
Does the timeline for implementation for each action step include dates that delineate
professional development and classroom implementation?
Are the position(s) responsible those closest to the implementation of the action step?
Has the responsibility for monitoring been distributed across a range of individuals most closely
associated with the implementation of the action step?
Does the monitoring plan provide the essential data to determine progress?
Is there a process for mid-course corrections?
Have the action and monitoring plan timelines been placed on a calendar to determine how
realistic and achievable they are?
Are the outcome data in the evaluation plan aligned to the data collected in the action plan?
Do the outcome data include student performance, curriculum implementation, and
instructional strategy information from Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III?
Is the selection of outcome data broad enough to determine the success of the implementation
of the plan?
Does each measure of success describe exactly how the outcome data will be analyzed to
determine progress toward the goal?
Is the measure of success focused on subgroup performance expectations?
Do the measures of success connect the relationship between program implementation,
instructional strategies, and remediation to student achievement outcomes?
Has the responsibility for analyzing and evaluating the data in the position(s) responsible column
been distributed across a range of individuals responsible for the implementation of the plan?
How will all staff be involved with analyzing the plan to determine what worked and what did
not?
SIP Template Directions
Template Instructions: Open the template attachment emailed by your Data Coordinator. Get the free
Adobe Reader 9 from: http://www.adobe.com/go/reader or see your ECS for assistance.
1. If your computer has ADOBE PROFESSIONAL this message will appear every time the document is
opened. Click cancel.
2. If fields are not distinct, use the “Highlight Fields” feature found at the top of the purple toolbar.
3. Begin entering information into template. Hover cursor over highlighted fields to see detailed
directions. Additional detail for these directions can be seen in Section II of the “School Improvement
Planning (SIP) Manual.”
For an electronic copy of the manual, follow these links on Interact:
District Link, Research and School Improvement, School Improvement Planning (SIP) Manual.
4. When completed, SAVE AS: School Name ES/MS/HS CCSD 2010-2013 Year# ZONE# SIP/RTP Date
For example: BOWLER, G. ES CCSD 2010-2013 Year2 ZONE1 SIP 10.01.11
Each time edits are completed, the template will request that you SAVE A COPY. Like a Word file, you
can either replace the former version of the file, or save it as a new version by changing the date so it
reflects the last time of edit.
5. Return completed document to your Data Coordinator as an email attachment or use the “Submit
Form” button. Forms cannot be submitted if required fields (outlined in red) are empty.
6. Editing notes: If the Comment & Markup toolbar is not present go to “Tools” menu: “Comment &
Markup.”
“Sticky Note” is the ONLY recommended tool for edits. If other tools are used within highlighted fields, they
may become part of the Adobe template and cannot be removed.
For technical assistance,
please contact the Office of School Improvement at (702) 799-1041
or your Data Coordinator.
Team membership should include the school
principal, and particularly for Restructuring and
Turnaround plans, must include at least one
district-level representative who is responsible
for plan oversight.
By law, Title I schools require at least one
parent on the team. This individual may be a
district employee, but may NOT work at the
school site for which the plan is being written.
In order to change the plan type,
(Improvement, Restructuring, or Turnaround)
use the arrows and then click inside the box
so that the field turns blue. Otherwise, the
selection will return to the original.
1.1 = Goal 1, Measurable Objective 1
1.2 = Goal 1, Measurable Objective 2
2.1 = Goal 2, Measurable Objective 1
2.2 = Goal 2, Measurable Objective 2
If there were no additional measurable
objectives for the year, select N/A.
Use the arrows to select whether each
measurable objective for the past school year
was MET, NOT MET, or showed GROWTH.
Once a selection is made, click inside the
box so that the field turns blue. Otherwise,
the selection will return to the original.
Provide a summary of evidence that
justifies the selection of MET, NOT MET, or
GROWTH for the appropriate goal,
measurable objective, and school year.
After analyzing all tiers of data (Tier I [system-wide], Tier II [schoolwide], and Tier III [qualitative]), identify 1 to 3 key strengths that
have increased student achievement and will remain a part of the
continuous cycle of school improvement.
Effective mission statements describe in a few words the purpose
of the school, its academic focus, and benefit to the students.
Prioritize concerns in student
achievement, instruction, remediation
strategies, program implementation,
and professional development. Identify
1 to 3 priority concerns, requiring
further analysis that will become the
basis for developing your plan.
Restructuring / Turnaround plans
should include NCCAT-S results and
may include verbiage from the “Area
of Need” and / or “Area of Concern”
columns from the NCCAT-S rubric to
highlight specific causes.
For each priority concern, identify a
maximum of two root causes that
impact or impede student
achievement. Root causes focus on
the adult actions in the school,
verified with evidence (data) to
support the cause. Continue
analyzing each cause until the root
of the concern is reached. Only by
understanding the root cause of the
concern can effective solutions for
increasing student achievement be
determined.
Restructuring / Turnaround plans
may choose to include verbiage
from the “Meets Expectation” or
“Exemplary” columns of the
NCCAT-S rubric as a foundation
for appropriate solutions.
After a root cause has been
identified, propose one researchbased solution for each root cause
that describes the instructional
practice(s) to be implemented in
the action plan. Solutions are
global and should not be confused
with “strategies” that belong in the
action steps.
)
For each goal, write 1 or 2 measurable
objective(s). Measurable objectives
should be specific, measurable,
achievable, relevant, and timely.
Based on the results of the inquiry
process, identify 1 or 2 goals to focus
the school improvement process. Goals
should address student achievement in
content, cognitive (Depth of
Knowledge) levels, instructional
strategies, or remediation. A goal may
address more than one content area if
the results of the inquiry process
indicate that the identified subgroup(s)
require instruction or remediation that
includes similar action steps in multiple
content areas, or that subgroup data is
not significantly different and
performance in cognitive levels
decreases from D1 to D3.
Action steps are
strategies that may be
student-focused in SIPs
or adult-focused in
Restructuring and
Turnaround plans.
Identify 1 to 5 action
steps to accomplish
each goal. Each action
step will implement a
solution developed in
the inquiry process.
Identify the
resources
required to
ensure effective
instruction
(programs,
activities,
materials, and
professional
development).
Determine the
position(s)
responsible
for DOING
the action
step.
Create a
timeline for
implementing
each action
step.
Determine the
data used to
measure the
implementation
of the action
step.
Establish the
position(s)
responsible for
determining if
mid-course
corrections are
necessary
following data
analysis.
Create a
detailed and
specific timeline
for collecting
and analyzing
the data.
For Restructuring
and Turnaround
plans, Districtlevel
representatives
identify and insert
specific
consequences for
sites that are
unable to
successfully move
toward expected
results.
Identify outcome
data and
measures to
determine whether
or not the goal(s)
and associated
measurable
objective(s) have
been met through
the specific
performance and
strategies outlined
by the action step.
Budget items may be linked to a
specific action step and/or
purpose.
List the amount available, as well
as the funding source.
This page is to be completed by
ALL schools.
Year 6/H:
and Beyond
Red denotes Title 1 required changes as of July 2001.
10. Describe how available federal, state, and local services are coordinated and integrated to maximize the impact and carry out the school-wide program.
9. Describe the activities to ensure that students who experience difficulty attaining proficiency receive effective and timely additional assistance.
8. Identify the measures that include teachers in decisions regarding the use of academic assessments.
7. Describe the school's plans for transitions between school programs. (ie: assisting preschool children from early childhood programs such as Head Start, Even
Start, Early Reading First, or a state-run preschool program, to elementary school, fifth grade students to middle school, eighth grade students to high school, etc.)
6. Describe the school's strategies to increase parent involvement.
5. Describe the school's strategies to attract Highly Qualified teachers to your school.
4. Describe the school’s plan to ensure High Quality and on-going Professional Development.
3. Describe the school's teacher mentoring program and instruction by Highly Qualified teachers.
2. Specify how Title I funds will be used to continue school-wide reform strategies.
1. Identify the AYP status of the school and describe the required services the school provides (comprehensive needs assessment).
Year 4/H:
Year 5/H:
Year 1/H:
Year 2/H:
Year 3/H:
AYP/W
Restructuring/Turnaround
Restructuring/Turnaround
School Choice
Supplemental Services
Corrective Action
Yr 1 Planning
Yr 1 Implementation
Section B: Required Elements for ALL Title 1 Schools ONLY
TEN COMPONENTS
This section is to be completed
by NON-TITLE I schools that are
INOI or INOI-Hold ONLY.
E = Take any other action to restructure the governance of the school if the
action is designed to improve the academic achievement of the pupils enrolled
in the school and has substantial promise of ensuring that the school makes
AYP. Under this option, NDE requires that the LEA changes the governance
structure of the school in a significant manner that either diminishes schoolbased management and decision-making or increases control, monitoring, and
oversight of the school’s operations and educational program by the LEA.
D = Nevada option D only applies to schools where the NDE is responsible for
restructuring as the LEA.
C = Request that NDE oversee the operation of the school, if agreed to be NDE.
B = Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a management company, with a
demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the public school.
A = Replace all or most of the staff who are relevant to failure of the school to
make AYP.
Options for Restructuring / Turnaround Schools:
The following 2-­‐ page checklist may be used to ensure that all parts of the plan are completely addressed before submission: Planning Checklist Planning Team The principal leads the SIP team process and models team building by forming and sustaining effective teams. The principal routinely re-­‐visits the status of the improvement plan at every staff meeting, celebrating gains and inviting input. Leadership is distributed among building administrators. Members of the team include staff from varied grades or content areas. Appropriate parent and district representatives are identified. Year to Year Analysis Selection of “met”, “not met”, or “growth” is made for each applicable measurable objective. Evidence is provided to justify selection of “met”, “not met”, or “growth.” Vision for Learning Vision or Mission Statement Is understood by all stakeholders. Forms the basis for all decision-­‐making. Inquiry Process Key Strengths Evaluate growth in performance for all subgroups. Address progress made at all performance levels. Assess progress from prior years. Priority Concerns Evaluate subgroup and content/cluster performance gaps for students at all levels before prioritizing concerns. All describe significant gaps in instructional strategies, programs, and interventions supported by Tier I, II, and III data. Root Causes All determined by providing data about adult actions relative to instructional strategies, programs, and interventions, or organizational issues within the school’s control. Solutions All describe targeted, research-­‐based instructional practices, strategies, interventions, and/or content related instruction that can be applied across content areas, course sequences, and grade levels to significantly increase achievement for all students. All aligned to priority concerns and root causes identified through the inquiry process. Goals and Measurable Objectives
Goals
Project growth in multiple content clusters and Depth of Knowledge levels to meet or exceed
increasing proficiency targets for all subgroups and close achievement gaps.
Measurable Objectives
Effectively include all components of SMART criteria.
Clarify goal statements with differentiated targets created in response to the inquiry process.
Master Plan Design
Action Steps
All embed progressive expectations for rigor and fidelity of implementation.
All describe the sequences to implement identified research-based solutions.
Action Plan
Resources include professional development to build capacity of staff and faculty to ensure deep
implementation for all action steps.
All timelines are sequential and specify day, date, or month for implementation.
All positions responsible are distributed across a spectrum of teachers and administrators that
demonstrates meaningful participation from key stakeholders.
All resources, timelines, and positions responsible are aligned, resulting in a comprehensive plan
that effectively targets increased student achievement.
Monitoring Plan
Identifies multiple sources of information (data) to evidence implementation of action step.
All timelines to monitor data collection are detailed and specify dates in terms of months, weeks or
day of the week.
Identifies positions responsible for collection of monitoring data and summarization of
implementation and results.
Evaluation Plan
Evidence demonstrates the level to which the strategies, interventions, programs, and professional
development identified in the plan succeed.
Completing the Plan
Questions for Schools
Answers provide specific instances of reflection and analysis that correspond with all plan
components.
Budget items are linked to specific action steps and/or purposes, as well as the available funding
sources.
Appendix A (for Restructuring / Turnaround schools)
Dates of Teacher, Parent, and Community notification are listed.
Section III
Title I Budget
Instructions
Title I Budget Instructions
Overview
A template of the Title I budget pages is attached as a supplement to each school’s plan. These pages
are to be completed only by Title I schools. When developing the Title I budget, the planning team will
need to be reconvened. As a Title I school, at least one parent who is not an employee of your school
must be included on the team. The team will review the current plan, determine if any mid-course
corrections are necessary, make revisions and develop the school’s Title I budget based on the solutions
and goals identified in the school’s plan.
Early Childhood Programs
An administrative set-aside has been established to fund early childhood programs for three-year-olds
(TOTS) and four-year-olds (Pre-K) at schools that have kindergarten. If a Title I Pre-K unit is currently
housed at the school, complete the appropriate box(es) on the first page.
Discussion Points for Use of Title I Funds
Describe how your Staffing funds will be used to support instruction in ELA, Math, and Science.
Justify how each intended position will be used. Be specific. Instructional Assistants must be
Highly Qualified, and under the direct supervision of a licensed teacher, if they are to provide
direct instruction to students.
Describe how your Professional Development funds will be used to support instruction in ELA,
Math, and Science. Justify how each intended training, consultant, or purchase will be used to
improve teaching practices and student achievement. Be specific.
Describe how your Parent Involvement funds will be used to support parental involvement at
your school. Justify how each intended training, consultant, or purchase will be used to
improve parent involvement and student achievement. Be specific.
Describe how your General Purchases and Services funds will be used to support instruction in
ELA, Math, and Science. Justify how each intended purchase will be used to support instruction
and student achievement. Be specific.
Describe how you will monitor and evaluate the effective use of your Title I funds. How will
you ensure that the school’s use of these funds is having the intended effect on instructional
practices, parental involvement, and student achievement?
Budget Narrative – Teacher Staffing
Pages 3-4 of the Title I Budget template identifies the number of teachers, their specific job
responsibilities, and to which plan goal(s) each Title I paid teaching position is related. For budgeting
purposes, use an average salary of $54,000 for nine-month teachers. These amounts include both salary
and fringe benefits.
Salaries will be adjusted from the average salary to the actual salary using salary-adjustment set-aside
funds. Keep in mind that no new part-time contracts will be allowed by the District. Complete the
columns with the staff responsibilities and explain how these positions support the priority concerns as
well as student achievement. All professional staff must have highly qualified teacher status.
Budget Narrative – Paraprofessional Staffing
On page 3 and 5, indicate the paraprofessional positions that will be paid with Title I funds. These are
also averages of salaries and fringe benefits and will be adjusted to actual salaries from the salaryadjustment set-aside. Describe the paraprofessionals’ specific job responsibilities. All instructional
paraprofessionals at Title I schools must meet the paraprofessional qualifications mandated by NCLB,
and all paraprofessionals must be directly supervised by and in close proximity to a licensed teacher. The
District only supports 6.0 and 7.0 positions. Any new hire must be placed in either of these areas. All
Title I paraprofessionals must be highly qualified.
Other Salaries
Pages 6-8 of the Title I Budget template is designated to indicate other non full-time salaries to be paid
with Title I funds. This includes extra-duty pay for teachers and paraprofessionals for instructional
activities that occur outside the regular school day, planning and collaboration activities, as well as
temporary instructional assistants who work less than four hours per day for budgeting purposes. The
average rate of pay for temporary instructional assistants is $15.00 per hour. This includes
“neighborhood moms” who assist at the school in non-instructional capacities. Describe the specific job
responsibilities and the related SIP goal(s) for any “other salaries” expenditure(s). If hours are being
added to an existing employee, the exact salary must be calculated.
Purchase of Supplies, Equipment, and Services
On pages 9-12, list any instructional supplies, books and periodicals, audiovisual supplies, computer
supplies, items of value, and/or major equipment, study trips, dues and fees (admission costs),
transportation for extended-day tutoring, field trips, mileage for Teacher Family Aide home visits,
printing, and/or technical services. For each item or service that will be purchased with Title I funds,
include a description, the vendor, the total cost of the item including shipping, and how the expense
supports achievement and priority needs. All purchases are supplementary to the regular educational
program.
Professional Development
Any school that is, or potentially will be, designated as In Need of Improvement must allocate at least
ten percent of its Title I funds for professional development activities. If the AYP status is not available,
the Title I office recommends planning for the ten percent requirement, then amending the budget in
the fall if the school is not designated as being In Need of Improvement. Professional development must
be focused, intense, ongoing, and directly related to plan goals.
Pages 13-16 of the Title I Budget template outline the school’s expenditures for professional
development activities. Expenditures may include:
Out-of-district consultants
Out-of-district travel including dues and fees for conferences and workshops that are directly
related to programs and strategies identified in the school’s plan
Tuition reimbursement for TESL endorsement will be given when the certificate has been received from
the State Department of Education.
Teachers and paraprofessionals receiving professional development outside their work day may be paid
with Title I funds. Extra-duty pay for teachers will be either $30 per hour plus fringe benefits. (Planning
time is paid at $22.00 an hour.) Training that is an extension of the contracted work day or work week is
paid at $30 an hour plus fringe benefits (budget at a total of $31 per hour). If Title I funds are used to
pay travel and/or conference expenses to attend a conference or workshop, the employee will not be
paid extra-duty pay for time spent at the training, even if the conference or workshop takes place
outside the employee’s work day. In addition, the employee will not receive extra-duty pay if the person
is earning university of Professional Development Education (PDE) credit for the training.
Other allowable expenses (such as printing and training materials) related to professional development
may be paid for with Title I funds. Instructional supplies and materials that will ultimately be used by
students cannot be purchased using professional development funds. On page 12, describe each item to
be purchased, delineate the total cost (including shipping) and explain how the item supports student
achievement. Substitute teachers can be hired to provide time for staff development during the school
day and to allow teachers to attend conferences and workshops. Title I does not pay for prep buy out if
a substitutes is scheduled, but does not arrive. If using substitutes, see substitute price range based on
the Zone or Division.
Parent Involvement – Additional School Funds/Title I One Percent Set Aside
On pages 17-19 of the Title I Budget template, designate how the school will allocate funds for parent
involvement activities. Include a description of the nature of the activity, explaining how the activity or
purchased items will improve parent involvement. Also include how much of the expenditure will be
paid from the school’ Title I allocation and how much will be paid from the school’s Title I set aside.
Each TOTS or Pre-K teacher will receive $200 for refreshments for parent meetings independent of the
school wide parent involvement activities. Expenditures will be reimbursed after purchase with proper
documentation. Schools may provide light snacks (not candy) for parent meetings. Food can only be
served at parent meetings when “training” occurs.
Budget Summary
Page 20 is a summary of the school’s Title I budget. Transfer the total amounts from pages 4, 5, 8, 12,
16, 18, and 19 to the appropriate boxes on page 20. Do not include in the total the amount from page
thirteen, Parent Involvement – One Percent Set Aside.
Plan Development
Complete the information on page 21 concerning plan development. Identify all team members by
printing their name and position in the appropriate column. Have each team member sign next to
his/her name. Remember, every planning team must have a parent representative. This parent cannot
be a staff member.
Budget Submission
A copy of the completed Title I budget should be submitted to Title I electronically through InterAct to
the Coordinator. The administrator and Title I will review the school’s budget and will contact the
building if they feel the budget needs revision. The final version of the school’s Title I budget will be
forwarded to the Title I office.
GLOSSARY
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)
AMO is the percent of students who must be proficient on assessments as required by the State. Not
only must the school as a whole meet the AMO, but each specified subgroup of students must also meet
the AMO. The goal of NCLB is to have all students be 100% proficient in language arts and math by 20132014.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
Elementary and middle schools must meet an average daily attendance rate of 90%.
AYP Designations
Through NRS 385 legislation, schools are designated as demonstrating:
Exemplary Achievement
High Achievement
Adequate Achievement
Watch
In Need of Improvement (i.e., N1, N1H, etc.)
Graduation Rate
Schools with 12th grade must meet the graduation rate of 85%. This is determined by dividing the
number of graduates by the number of graduates plus those who did not graduate from that class (or
dropped out over the course of their four years in high school). It is of note that students who receive a
certificate of achievement rather than a diploma will not be counted as graduates.
Other Academic Indicator
Schools must meet the “other academic indicator” in order to meet AYP. For high schools, this is
graduation rate, and for elementary and middle schools, this is an average daily attendance rate.
Participation
95% of all students, elementary grades 3-5, middle school grades 6-8 and high school grade 11, must
participate in state exams. This is determined both by school and by state-identified subgroups.
Subgroups of 25 or fewer are considered for Participation.
Quality Assurance Framework (QAF)
The QAF report includes six years of school data and is maintained for all CCSD schools. The data
includes school enrollment, attendance, AYP designation, CRT and NHSPE results, and CCSD Survey
results. Elementary schools currently have 49 data items and information, middle schools have 72 items
of data and high schools have 105 items of data. Beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, 24 more items
from the CCSD Parent, Student, Teacher Survey were added. The QAF is updated several times a year as
data and information becomes available.
P-Value (Standards) Report
The P-value report is the equivalent of an item analysis in that it tells how the school as a whole
performed on each question of the test. The report is organized by standard and DOK levels within
those questions. Each report displays the average percent of correct responses by item at the State,
District, Zone, and school level. The report layout for the NHSPE is different from the CRT because the
high school data only reflects Grade 10 first time test takers while the elementary and middle school
reports include three grade levels.
Although the P-value report is similar to an item analysis, it differs from a true item analysis in that it
does not provide any information about the percentages of incorrect responses, the accompanying test
questions and response choices. This report provides teams with concise information about the
standards tested in the previous year and shows the school’s strengths and concerns relative to
standards tested and DOK level performance.
Constructed response items in grades 4-8 of the CRT are scored from 0-3 points. For purposes of school
improvement analysis, these items have been converted to a 1 point scale to allow teams to compare
student performance on these two types of questions. The P-value report disaggregates results to the
individual standards tested at each grade level, and provides vital information to inform instructional
practices.
~ NOTES ~
~ NOTES ~
~ NOTES ~