Improvement Plan - Colorado Department of Education

Transcription

N
Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2014-15
Organization Code: 0910 District Name: EAGLE COUNTY RE 50 School Code: 5742 School Name: HOMESTAKE PEAK SCHOOL Official 2014 SPF: 3 Year
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2013-14. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows
the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations. Most of the data are pulled from the official School Performance Framework (SPF). This summary should accompany your
improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
2013-14 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % Proficient and Advanced (%P+A) in
reading, writing, math and science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile (from
2009-10 baseline) by using 1-year or 3-years of data
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
72.05%
71.35%
-
61.40%
75.33%
-
M
70.11%
51.63%
-
57.55%
53.64%
-
W
54.84%
58.34%
-
41.15%
64.93%
-
Median Adequate Growth Percentile
(AGP)
Median Growth Percentile
Academic Growth
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading,
writing and math and growth on ACCESS/CELApro for
English language proficiency.
Expectation: If school met adequate growth, MGP is
at or above 45.
If school did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or
above 55.
For English language proficiency growth, there is no
adequate growth for 2012-13. The expectation is an
MGP at or above 50.
2013-14 School Results
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 6.0 -- Last Updated: June, 17 2014)
Overall Rating for
Academic Achievement:
Meets
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
Median Growth Percentile (MGP)
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
38
24
-
50
54
-
M
53
62
-
34
41
-
W
47
46
-
45
53
-
ELP
26
56
-
51
45
-
School Code: 5742
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for
Academic Growth:
Approaching
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
School Name: HOMESTAKE PEAK SCHOOL
1
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Median Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth Gaps
2013-14 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math
by disaggregated groups.
Expectation: If disaggregated groups met
adequate growth, MGP is at or above 45.
If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate
growth, MGP is at or above 55.
See your School Performance Framework
for listing of median adequate growth
expectations for your school’s
disaggregated groups, including
free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities, English
Language Learners (ELLs) and students
below proficient.
Graduation Rate
Expectation: At 80% or above on the best of 4year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness
Expectation: At 80% or above on the
disaggregated group’s best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year
or 7-year graduation rate.
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below state average overall.
Mean Colorado ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above state average (baseline
of 2009-10).
2013-14 School Results
for listing of median growth by each
disaggregated group.
Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate
At 80% or above
- using a - year grad rate
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:
Approaching
Framework for the ratings for each student
disaggregated group at each content area at
each level.
-
At 80% or above for each
disaggregated group
for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year and 7year graduation rates for disaggregated
groups, including free/reduced lunch
eligible, minority students, students with
disabilities, and ELLs.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
School Code: 5742
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating
for
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness: -
2
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Summary of School Plan
Timeline
Program
October 15, 2014
The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.
January 15, 2015
The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.
April 15, 2015
The UIP is due to CDE for public posting on April 15, 2015 through Tracker. Some program level reviews will occur at this same time. For
required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
State Accountability
Plan type is assigned based on the school’s
overall School Performance Framework score
for the official year (achievement, growth,
growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce
readiness).
Improvement
The school is approaching or has not met state expectations for attainment on the SPF
performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement an Improvement Plan. The
plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2015 to be posted on SchoolView.org.
Title I Focus School
Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate
(regardless of plan type), and/or (2)
Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type
with either (or both) a) low-achieving
disaggregated student groups (i.e., minority,
ELL, IEP and FRL) or b) low disaggregated
graduation rate. This is a three-year
designation.
Not identified as a Title I Focus
School
This school is not identified as a Focus School and does not need to meet those additional
requirements.
Tiered Intervention Grant
(TIG)
Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified
as 5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I
eligible schools, eligible to implement one of
four reform models as defined by the USDE.
Not awarded a TIG grant
This school does not receive a TIG grant and does not need to meet those additional
requirements.
Diagnostic Review Grant
Title I competitive grant that includes a
diagnostic review and/or improvement planning
support.
Not awarded a current
Diagnostic Review and
Planning Grant
This school has not received a current Diagnostic Review and Planning grant and does
not need to meet those additional requirements.
Plan Type Assignment
ESEA and Grant Accountability
School Code: 5742
3
School Improvement Support
(SIS) Grant
Title I competitive grant that support
implementation of major improvement
strategies and action steps identified in the
school’s action plan.
Not a current SIS Grantee
This school has not received a current SIS grant and does not need to meet those
additional requirements.
Colorado Graduation
Pathways Program (CGP)
The program supports the development of
sustainable, replicable models for dropout
prevention and recovery that improve interim
indicators (attendance, behavior and course
completion), reduce the dropout rate and
increase the graduation rate for all students
participating in the program.
Not a CGP Funded School
This school does not receive funding from the CGP Program and does not need to meet
these additional program requirements.
School Code: 5742
4
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Additional Information about the School
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History
Related Grant Awards
Has the school received a grant that supports the
school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant
awarded?
N/A
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST or
Expedited Review? If so, when?
N/A
External Evaluator
Has the school partnered with an external evaluator
to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the
year and the name of the provider/tool used.
N/A
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
x State Accreditation
 Title I Focus School
 Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
 Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
Robert Young
Email
Robert.young@eagleschools.net
Phone
970-328-2940
Mailing Address
PO Box 680 Avon, Colorado 81631
Name and Title
Matthew Abramowitz
Email
Matthew.abramowitz@eagleschools.net
Phone
970-328-2940
Mailing Address
PO Box 680 Avon, Colorado 81631
School Code: 5742
5
School Code: 5742
6
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “Evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that
describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions
proposed in Section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section
includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations; describing progress toward
targets for the prior school year; describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends; identifying trends and priority
performance challenges (negative trends); describing how performance challenges were prioritized; identifying the root causes of performance
challenges; describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used; and describing stakeholder involvement in the
analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in the Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.
Data Narrative for School
Directions: In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including (1) a description of the school and the process for data analysis, (2) a review of current
performance, (3) trend analysis, (4) priority performance challenges and (5) root cause analysis. A description of the expected narrative sections are included below. The narrative should not take
more than five pages. Two worksheets (#1 Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been provided to organize the data referenced in the narrative.
Data Narrative for School
Description of School
Setting and Process for
Data Analysis: Provide a
very brief description of the
school to set the context for
readers (e.g.,
demographics). Include the
general process for
developing the UIP and
participants (e.g., SAC).
Review Current Performance:
Review the SPF and local data.
Document any areas where the
school did not at least meet
state/federal expectations.
Consider the previous year’s
progress toward the school’s
targets. Identify the overall
magnitude of the school’s
performance challenges.
Trend Analysis: Provide a description
of the trend analysis that includes at
least three years of data (state and local
data). Trend statements should be
provided in the four performance
indicator areas and by disaggregated
groups. Trend statements should
include the direction of the trend and a
comparison (e.g., state expectations,
state average) to indicate why the trend
is notable.
Priority Performance
Challenges: Identify notable
trends (or a combination of trends)
that are the highest priority to
address (priority performance
challenges). No more than 3-5 are
recommended. Provide a
rationale for why these challenges
have been selected and address
the magnitude of the school’s
overall performance challenges.
Root Cause Analysis: Identify at least
one root cause for every priority
performance challenge. Root causes
should address adult actions, be under the
control of the school, and address the
priority performance challenge(s). Provide
evidence that the root cause was verified
through the use of additional data. A
description of the selection process for the
corresponding major improvement
strategies is encouraged.
Narrative:
Homestake Peak School is a PreK-8. Our staff is comprised of 40 full time certified staff members and 12 classified staff members. Our student enrollment is comprised of 561 students. We have
269 females and 280 males. Our grade level numbers are as follows: PK: 22, K: 56, 1, 52, 2: 48, 3: 46, 4: 41, 5: 44, 6: 92, 7: 87, 8: 73. Our student population is comprised of 252 White, 9 Black,
294 Hispanic, 4 Asian, 1 Native American, and 1 Multi-racial students. The number of students eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch is 280 or 49%. The number of English Language Learners is
190 or 36%. The number of students who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is 77 or 12%.
As an Expeditionary Learning School, we value a well-balanced curriculum requiring all students’ opportunities in math, English, social studies, science, art, music, technology and physical
School Code: 5742
7
education. Our in-house professional development for teachers is rooted in a culture that supports the concept of a professional learning community to continuously improve instructional practices
and student achievement. We have structured our resources to provide teachers with 1 hour per week of professional development. Our schedule provides core teachers with common time to
plan curriculum, daily lessons, and to analyze student assessment data and also to create appropriate interventions. In the upper school we have 4 teacher interdisciplinary teams to provide
students with consistent language and expectations. Teachers are responsible for single grade and single subject instruction.
Staff Input:
Step 1:
The general process for developing the UIP has included a careful analysis of our School Performance Framework and has taken place throughout both the 2013-14 and into the 2014-15 school
year. On 8/8/13 our Instructional Leadership Team participated in a data walk and data dialogue and we analyzed our SPF data. Then on 8/28/13 our teachers participated in a data analysis of
our SPF. Teachers identified areas of strengths, challenges, proposals and questions. We also met on 9/13/13, 10/7/13, 11/4/13, 12/9/13 & 1/13/14 to work on Section 3: Data Analysis and Root
Cause Identification. We also met on 2/10/14 and 3/19/14 to define our priority performance challenges. Our final meeting of 2013-14 took place on 4/7/14. At that time we articulated our literacy
and math instructional improvement strategies. On June 9 and 10 our leadership team worked to create our EL Work Plan Goals (see pages 37-42). Our Instructional Leadership Team analyzed
our 2014-15 SPF. We also discussed how this data aligned with our EL Work Plan Goals.
On October 7 our SAC met for the first time to evaluate progress with our HPS Instructional Improvement Strategies for both Literacy and Math (see pages 29-36). On November 4 our SAC met
once again to conduct in data analysis of our UIP pages 9-13. On December 2 our SAC met to conduct a self-assessment of our 4 instructional improvement strategies. We also established next
steps for implementation of the tactics that are included to implement these strategies.
Step 2:
As the principal of HPS, I spend countless hours examining HPS academic achievement and growth data. I have had to grapple with two very distinct sets of historical data from both Meadow
Mountain Elementary School and Minturn Middle School. I have populated much of this data into the HPS UIP and have created two separate categories entitled “lower school” and “upper
school”. I have chosen to do this because although we are one school in name, our multi-year data trend comes from two separate schools.
Parent/Community Input (School Accountability Committee)
Our group is responsible for making recommendations concerning priorities for spending school funds, making recommendations concerning the preparation of the school’s ‘Improvement’ plan,
and meeting at least quarterly to discuss implementation of the school’s plan and other progress pertinent to the school’s accreditation contract with the local school board. The Educator
Evaluation and Support Bill of 2010 (S.B. 10-191) also authorizes School Accountability Committees to provide input and recommendations to the District Advisory Committees and district
administration concerning principal development plans and principal evaluations.
Our School Accountability Committee meets on a monthly basis. During the 2013-14 school year we met on 9/16/13, 10/7/13, 11/4/13, 12/9/13, 1/13/14, 2/10/14, 3/19/14, & 4/7/14. During the
2014-15 school year we will meet on 10/7/14, 11/4/14, 12/2/14, 1/13/15, 2/3/15, 3/3/15, 4/7/15, 5/5/15.
This committee is comprised of the following representatives.
Parent Representative – Sarah Ast
School Code: 5742
8
Parent Representative – Shana Horner
Parent Representative – Tessa Kirchner
Principal – Bobby Young
Assistant Principal – Matt Abramowitz
Master Teacher (Upper School) – Tracy Teetaert
Master Teacher (Lower School) – Soledad Whittington
Mentor Teacher – Cheri Williams
Mentor Teacher – Kelly Casber
Mentor Teacher – Kim Biniecki
Mentor Teacher – Kari Schein
Teacher (Special Education) – Erin Gallimore
Teacher (Special Education) – Candace Donald
Academic Achievement: 5 Year Trend - CSAP/TCAP 2009-2014
Lower School –
Reading - Up 4% over past 4 years
Writing – Down 9% over past 4 years
Math – Down 1% over past 4 years
Science – Down 18% over past 4 years
Upper School Reading – Down 2% over past 4 years
Writing – Up 2% over past 4 years
Math – Down 9% over past 4 years
Science – Down 2% over past 4 years
Lower School
2010
2011
2012
Reading
56
51
55
Math
59
64
61
Writing
51
42
47
School Code: 5742
Science
50
52
49
9
2013
2014
Upper School
60
61
Reading
58
54
Math
42
40
Writing
32
25
Science
2010
2011
80
74
66
62
66
66
66
60
2012
2013
2014
77
78
70
51
57
53
66
68
60
45
64
78
School Code: 5742
10
Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2013-14 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the
main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.
Academic Achievement (Status)
Performance in 2013-14? Was the target
met? How close was the school to meeting
the target?
Targets for 2013-14 school year
Performance Indicators
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
Lower School
R: State 72%
W: State 55%
M: State 70%
S: NA
Lower School
R: 61% - No – missed by 11%
W: 41% - No – missed by 14%
M: 58% - No – missed by 12%
S:NA
Upper School
R: State 71%
W: State 58%
M: State 52%
S: NA
________________________________
Upper School
R: 75% - Yes – plus 4%
W: 65% - Yes – plus 7%
M: 54% - Yes – plus 2%
S: NA
____________________________________
Academic Achievement Gaps
% PA for each demographic group
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
82
58
48
80
78
77
59
62
60
74
71
91
65
89
89
93
79
79
87
87
87
38
38
62
63
48
43
43
45
45
45
W
H
95
X
Lower School – 44 of the 127 students tested
are ELL’s (36%). These students need 3-5
years to develop BICS and 5-7 years to
develop CALPS. We also believe that our
instructional strategies have not been
differentiated for ELL’s.
Upper School – 53 of the 221 students tested
are listed as ELL’s (24%). However, unlike our
lower school ELL’s, these students have had
the necessary 5-7 years of ELA support that
they need to perform well on a standardized
test in English. For example, our ELL’s
received ratings of “Exceeds” for AYG in both
reading and writing.
Lower School –
2013 - We received ratings of “approaching” in
all three categories. For English Language
Proficiency our rating was “meets”. We need
to continue to increase growth in our ELL’s.
2014 – We received ratings of “meets” in
reading; “does not meet” in math;
“approaching” in writing. For English
Language Proficiency our rating was “meets”.
In the category of mathematics we received
School Code: 5742
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
11
ELL
Academic Growth
Academic Growth Gaps
the target?
X
35
35
60
59
X
43
43
43
43
43
“does not meet” for all demographics. For
writing we received “approaching” for all
demographic groups. The English Learner
group received “meets” target but the “minority
students” and “students needing to catch up”
received ratings of “approaching”. The Free &
Reduced group rating was “does not meet”.
Lower School
R: State MAGP 41
W: State MAGP 54
M: State MAGP 47
Lower School
R: 44% - yes – plus 3%
W: 43% - No – missed by 11%
Upper School
R: State MAGP 57
W: State MAGP 41
M: State MAGP 58
Upper School
R: 57% - Yes
W: 58% - Yes – plus 17%
Lower School
R: State MAGP = 55
W: State MAGP = 62
Lower School
R: No - 46% for ELL’s – missed by 9%
W: No - 48% for ELL’s – missed by 14%
School Code: 5742
met or not met.
Upper School – We met the target in math by
2%. We need to work to increase the level of
growth in math because on 53% were P/A.
Within the math category 4 of 5 demographic
groups received the rating of “approaching”.
The students with disabilities received “does
not meet”
Upper School ELL’s - Need to work to increase
the level of growth in math. Students with
disabilities received a rating of “Does not Meet”
in all categories.
12
the target?
M: State MAGP = 64
M: No - 44% for ELL’s – missed by 20%
Upper School
R: State MAGP = 49
W: State MAGP = 64
M: State MAGP = 79
Upper School
R: Yes - 65% for ELL’s – plus 16%
W: Yes - 73% for ELL’s – plus 9%
M: No - 38% for ELL’s – missed by 41%
Upper School
R: State MAGP = 80
W: State MAGP = 87
M: State MAGP = 95
Upper School
R: No – 32% for Sped – missed by 48%
W: No – 37% for Sped – missed by 40%
M: No – 28% for Sped – missed by 67%
met or not met.
Postsecondary & Workforce
Readiness
School Code: 5742
13
Worksheet #2: Data Analysis
Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data in preparation for writing the required data narrative. Planning teams
should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data and then prioritize the performance challenges (based on notable trends) that
the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance
challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority
performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore,
schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges.
Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed.
Description of Notable Trends
(4-7years of past data)
Challenges
Our historical approach to English Language Development
has been through an early exit transitional bilingual program.
This means that our K-1 NEP students were receiving their
literacy instruction exclusively in Spanish. This was in place
of English Language Development. Our native English
speakers were receiving their literacy instruction in English.
What this program created was two separate groups.
Reading
3 (63, 61, 41, 35, 62, 82, 55)
Stable, decreasing, increasing, decreasing
4 (67, 48, 60, 44, 58, 58, 59)
Stable, decreasing, increasing, stable
5 (36, 61, 72, 70, 71, 48, 62)
Decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing
Academic Achievement
(Status)
Root Causes
For the past three years nonwhites (making up 50% of the
5th and 6th grade population)
are 30% lower in achievement
than whites in reading, writing,
and math.
Spanish speakers received literacy instruction in Spanish.
They did not receive literacy instruction in English until they
arrived in second grade.
English speakers received literacy instruction in English.
6 (72, 75, 77, 79, 79, 80, 61)
Stable, increasing, decreasing
We believe that the transitional bilingual program contributed
to a pervasive achievement gap between these two groups.
For example, here’s the 2013-14 summary of 3rd grade TCAP
scores. Note: This cohort of ELL’s did not receive English
literacy instruction in grades K-1.
7 (65, 83, 81, 68, 79, 78, 74)
8 (85, 73, 78, 79, 71, 77, 71)
Increasing, decreasing, stable, decreasing
School Code: 5742
14
Writing
3 (35, 41, 38, 25, 43, 50, 43)
3rd Grade
Reading
Writing
Math
Decreasing, decreasing, increasing
White
71
62
81
4 (43, 38, 53, 37, 34, 46, 22)
Hispanic
40
25
50
Stable, decreasing, increasing
A closer examination shows that achievement gap has been
consistent for the past 7 years of data collection. See UIP
page 21-23 for historical trends and demographic
breakdowns.
5 (36, 71, 64, 63, 49, 36, 48)
Decreasing, increasing, decreasing
6 (59, 69, 62, 66, 60, 60, 65)
Stable, increasing, stable
7 (56, 78, 72, 62, 76, 73, 65)
Stable, Increasing, Stable
8 (69, 57, 67, 60, 58, 70, 63)
8th Grade
Reading
Writing
Math
White
81
83
76
Hispanic
41
33
26
Stable, decreasing, increasing
Math
3 (54, 68, 56, 64,70, 65, 61)
Stable, increasing, stable
4 (53, 59, 70, 44, 58, 62, 51)
Stable, increasing, decreasing, increasing
5 (50, 61, 56, 77, 54, 48, 48)
6 (57, 67, 66, 70, 57, 57, 44)
Stable, increasing, stable,
7 (27, 70, 60, 59, 53, 59, 56)
Decreasing, increasing, stable
Both achievement and growth
in both 7th and 8th grade math
have declined over the last two
years.
7th – 77% to 59%
8th – 70%-53%
School Code: 5742
Research (See Thomas & Collier – Creating Dual Language
Schools for a Transformed World – 2014) shows that
Transitional Bilingual Programs are certainly less effective
than 2 way Dual Language Programs for closing the
achievement gap between Native English Speakers and
English Language Learners. Our SAC believes that it would
be of benefit for our school to adopt a 2 way dual language
program. We have created a curriculum alignment plan and
we are currently working to staff our building to support a K-1
dual language program beginning in the fall of 2015. This
program will then increase by 1 grade level per year.
2015-K-1
2016 K-2
2017 K-3
2018 K-4
15
2019 K-5
8 (61, 58, 69, 62, 41, 53, 56)
Science
5 (18, 46, 52, 53, 39, 34, 25)
Decreasing, increasing,
Decreasing
The teaching of science has
taken a major dive in recent
years. Teachers have been
provided literacy and math
resources yet the teaching of
science has not received
adequate attention.
In Spite of the fact that science scores have been in decline
in 5th grade our 8th graders showed the best performance in 5
years (78% of our 8th graders were Proficient/Advanced on
the CMAS Science).
8 (00, 00, 55, 59, 42, 63, 78)
41Stable, Increasing, Decreasing, Increasing
Cohorts of Students from 2008-2014
Reading
8 – 63, 48, 72, 79, 79, 77, 71
Stable, Decreasing, Increasing
7 – 61, 60, 70, 79, 78, 74
Stable, Increasing
6 – 41, 44, 71, 80, 61
Stable, Increasing,
Increasing
5 – 35, 58, 48, 62
Decreasing,
Increasing, Decreasing
4 – 62, 58, 62
Increasing, Decreasing
3 – 82, 59
Increasing
Writing
These cohorts of students have
shown growth over time. That
said, they priority improvement
strategy involves getting our K2 students ready to perform on
the 3rd grade PARCC
assessment. While examining
ECS 3rd through 10th grade data
we noted a trend. The 3rd
grade scores are great
predictors of our 10th grade
scores. This means that if a
student performs on grade level
in 3rd grade they will have a
great chance of keeping up with
yearly growth goals and will
likely be on grade level in 10th
grade.
It’s imperative that we do a
better job of preparing our K-2
students for the rigors of
standardized assessments. We
also have to work to grow the
English Language Learners in
their English Language
Development.
School Code: 5742
16
8 – 35, 38, 64, 66, 76, 70
Decreasing, Increasing
7 – 41, 53, 63, 60, 73
Deceasing, Increasing,
Increasing
6 – 38, 37, 49, 60
Stable, Increasing
5 – 25, 34, 36
Stable, Increasing
4 – 43, 46
Stable, Increasing
3 – 50
Math
8 – 54, 59, 56, 70, 53, 53
Stable, Increasing, Decreasing
7 – 68, 70, 77, 57, 59
Stable, Increasing, Decreasing
6 – 56, 44, 54, 57
Stable, Decreasing,
Increasing
5 – 64, 58, 48
Math scores have been
decreasing. ECS has to work
to ensure that mathematical
instructional resources are in
alignment with mathematical
assessments. I believe that the
data shows that this is way out
of whack. I also sat in on the
ECS DAC meeting where High
School Principals begged for
support (I.e., resources,
staffing, professional
development, etc…). If we
don’t get this right at the K-5
level then there is little hope
that we will close the gap in HS.
Stable, Decreasing
4 – 70, 62
Stable, Decreasing
School Code: 5742
17
3 – 62
Science
We have shown high levels of
growth in 8th grade science.
8 – 52, 63, 78
Stable, Increasing
Lower School –
4 year Trend Data on Median Student Growth %
2009/10 – Reading 74%, Writing, 64% Math 65%
2011/12 – Reading 64%, Writing 50%, Math 47%
2012/13 – Reading 44%, Writing 43%, Math 40%, ELP 56%
For the past four years students
in grades 3 through 5 have
shown a decline in the average
median growth in all content
areas.
Reading – 74%-44%
Writing – 64%-43%
I also noted that in 2009/10 there were 81 students tested in
grades 3-5 and 26 (32%) of the 81 students tested were
ELL’s. In 2012-13 there were 127 students tested in grades
3-5 and 44 (35%) of the 127 students tested were ELL’s.
Upper School
4 year Trend Data on Median Student Growth %
I also noted that in 2009/10 school year there were 167
students tested in grades 6-8 of which 46 (28%) of the
students were ELL’s. In 2012-13 there were 221 students
tested in grades 6-8 of which 53 (24%) of the students were
School Code: 5742
2009/10
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Kinder
18 per
class
35 S
2T
22 per
class
44 S
2T
22 per
class
44 S
2T
22 per
class
44 S
2T
1st Grade
18 per
class
53 S
3T
24 per
class
48 S
2T
24 per
class
49 S
2T
23 per
class
46 S
2T
2nd Grade
14 per
class
27 S
2T
19 per
class
37 S
2T
24 per
class
47 S
2T
24 per
class
48 S
2T
3rd Grade
16 per
class
32 S
2T
17 per
class
33 S
2T
22 per
class
44 S
2T
24 per
class
47 S
2T
4th Grade
14 per
class
28 S
2T
28 per
class
56 S
2T
24 per
class
48 S
2T
21 per
class
43 S
2T
Math – 65%-40%
2009/10 was an exceptional year for growth in the areas of
reading, writing and math. That level of growth has fallen.
Reading from 74% to 44%
Writing from 64% to 43%
Math from 65% to 40%
Academic Growth
Class Sizes (Does it Matter?)
2010 – 18 students per class
18
ELL’s.
5th Grade
25 per
class
25 S
1T
21 per
class
42 S
2T
19 per
class
57 S
3T
25 per
class
50 S
2T
Growth Differences By Race
Lower School
Reading W 53 H 61
Academic Growth Gaps
White
Hispanic
Reading
53
61
Writing
52
42
Math
38
29
Math W 38 H 29
Writing W 52 H 42
Hispanic students are experiencing more growth in reading
than are white students.
Hispanics are experiencing less growth in writing and math
than white students.
Upper School
Reading W 59 H 47
Math W 38 H 32
Writing W 51 H 55
Hispanic students are experiencing less growth in reading
and math than white students.
Hispanic students are experiencing more growth in writing
than white students.
Lower School Data
Trends for Median Growth Percentile (10) (11) (12) (13)
School Code: 5742
19
Reading
FRL - 70, 54, 46, 39
ELL – 70, 58, 63, 46
Math
FRL - 64, 49, 29, 37
ELL – 71, 49, 32, 44
Writing
FRL - 62, 35, 46, 37
ELL - 66, 35, 46, 48
Upper School Data
Trends for Median Growth Percentile (10) (11) (12) (13)
Reading
FRL - 62, ___, 47, 55
ELL - 62, ___, 59, 65
Math
FRL 57, ___, 34, 37
ELL 56, ___, 35, 38
Writing
FRL 53, ___, 57, 59
ELL 59, ___, 62, 73
Growth Differences by Language for 2011-12
Lower School
Reading EP 52 ELL 63
Math EP 26 ELL 32
Writing EP 51 ELL 46
ELL’s are experiencing more growth in reading and math but
less growth in writing than white students.
Upper School
Reading EP 52 ELL 59
Math EP 38 ELL 35
Writing EP 51 ELL 62
School Code: 5742
20
ELL’s are experiencing more growth in reading and writing
and less growth in math than are white students.
Postsecondary & Workforce
Readiness
1.) How did Homestake Peak students perform relative to Eagle County Re 50 and the State of Colorado?
Grade Level
Homestake Peak
Eagle County
State of Colorado
Reading
3
4
82 58
72 67
73 68
5
48
74
70
6
80
79
73
7
78
74
68
8
77
71
67
Writing
3
4
50 46
50 51
51 53
5
36
58
57
6
60
64
58
7
72
68
62
8
70
61
58
Math
3
65
69
72
4
62
69
72
5
48
64
65
6
58
65
62
7
59
59
55
8
53
54
51
Science
5
8
34 63
52 57
48 52
2.) List and describe the historic trend from 2008-2013?
Lower School Targets
Reading – 72%
Writing – 54%
Green = 72% or better
Yellow = 71-62%
Red = 61% or less
Yellow = 53-44%
Upper School Targets
Reading – 72%
Writing – 58%
Green = 72-63%
Yellow = 62-53%
Red = 52% or less
Green = 58-49%
Yellow = 48-39%
School Code: 5742
21
Math – 71%
Science – 48%
Year
Grade
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Red = 43% or less
Yellow = 70-61%
Red = 60 or less
Yellow = 47-38%
Red = 38 or less
Reading %PA
3
4
5
63 67 36
61 48 61
41 60 72
35 44 70
62 58 71
82 58 48
55 59 62
Red = 38% or less
Green = 53 or better
Yellow = 52-43%
Red = 42% or less
Green = 48-39%
Yellow = 38-29%
Red = 30% or less
Math – 53%
Science – 48%
6
72
73
77
79
79
80
61
7
65
83
81
68
79
78
74
8
85
73
78
79
71
77
71
Writing %PA
3
4
5
35 43 36
41 38 71
38 53 64
25 37 63
43 34 49
50 46 36
43 22 48
6
59
69
62
66
60
60
48
7
56
78
72
62
76
73
65
8
69
57
67
60
58
70
63
Math %PA
3
4
5
54 53 50
68 59 61
56 70 56
64 44 77
70 58 54
65 62 48
61 51 48
6
57
67
66
70
57
57
44
7
27
70
60
59
53
59
56
8
61
58
69
62
41
53
56
Science %PA
5
8
18
46
52
53
39 42
34 63
3.) Compare and contrast the male and female academic performance scores.
2013
Homestake Peak
Grade
Male
Female
Reading
3
4
78 46
88 67
5
33
58
6
83
75
7
74
82
8
68
85
Reading
3
4
46 50
65 66
5
45
77
6
48
72
7
76
69
8
Writing
3
4
39 25
x
61
5
17
50
6
58
64
7
70
76
8
68
72
Math
3
4
63 41
x
79
5
39
54
6
67
39
7
54
65
8
58
49
Writing
3
4
38 20
50 24
5
31
65
6
38
57
7
67
62
8
52
77
Math
3
4
58 60
65 45
5
41
55
6
48
42
7
67
38
8
52
61
Science
5
8
33 65
35 62
2014
Homestake Peak
Grade
Male
Female
School Code: 5742
Science
5
8
22
4.) Compare and contrast the demographic subgroups (I.e., White, Hispanic, IEP’s, ELL’s).
2013
Homestake Peak
Grade
White
Hispanic
ELL’s
IEP’s
Reading
3
4
95 91
67 38
x
36
x
x
5
65
38
35
x
6
89
62
60
15
7
89
63
59
15
8
93
48
56
15
Writing
3
4
61 77
x
21
x
23
x
x
5
53
27
25
x
6
71
38
40
7
7
74
60
52
7
8
79
52
51
7
Math
3
78
x
x
x
4
86
45
47
x
5
65
38
35
x
6
65
38
35
11
7
71
28
40
11
8
71
16
28
11
Reading
3
4
71 84
40 31
37 x
x
x
5
82
50
46
x
6
86
44
40
18
7
88
53
50
x
8
88
41
44
x
Writing
3
4
62 40
25 0
26 x
x
x
5
77
26
35
x
6
67
35
30
18
7
85
38
35
x
8
83
33
30
x
Math
3
81
50
47
x
4
72
31
x
x
5
77
29
29
x
6
72
23
21
18
7
78
24
31
x
8
76
26
30
x
Science
5
8
59 79
19 32
10 x
x
11
2014
Homestake Peak
Grade
White
Hispanic
ELL’s
IEP’s
Science
5
25
8
78
5.) What concerns do you have after reviewing these results? (See below)
6.) What are the three most important messages to communicate based on these results?
2013
Grade 3- Concerns: Scores are higher across the board, Outscoring. (67% percent of Hispanic are P or higher on 5 of those are ELL Natives) Males writing- 39%
were P. Math on par with writing, above district and state and math was slightly lower than district and state. Writing trend low, Math is low, below par.
Reading- reversing itself the last 2 years for an upward trend.
Grade 4- White population is strong across the board, outscoring large. Male population is not doing well in R,W, M. Females scored 79 and 41 (79 is higher
than both ECSD and CO) motivation?
Grade 5- Gender- Females out performing males, especially in Writing 50 to 17 in writing. Trends- Cohort ELLS are considerably below state and district for
that Cohort of students. Consistently low- 3rd, 4th, 5th. Abnormally high number of Unsatisfactory in Reading and Math 20-24%.
Grade 6- There are some gender gap issues in this grade level in Math and Reading. This is worthy of more research. The gap between whites and Hispanics is
prevalent in all areas. Is this a language issue? How does this correlate with the gender gap? Are the girls lower? Etc. Overall, Math data is low. It is below the
state and the district.
Grade 7- Success: overall tested pretty well, (2012-13) 80 students 62 and 63% P and A; Male and Female- Males are below in Math, in Reading Males are 74%
School Code: 5742
23
P and A and females are 82 %) more advanced females. ELL- Math needs support about 20% lower. Trend – 7th grade is low this year across the board.
Grade 8- Success: performing at or above state and district scores, improved in all subjects in 2012-13; significant gaps in white and Hispanic gaps (M 77 percent
difference between W and H); Male and Female difference in Math and Reading (20 percent female difference in Reading, Male out performing Females 16
percent)
School Code: 5742
24
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section addresses the “Plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, identify annual performance targets and the interim measures.
This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form on the next page. Then move into action planning, which should be captured
in the Action Planning Form.
School Target Setting Form
Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority
performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas).
Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce
readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected
to prioritized performance challenges. Consider last year’s targets (see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target,
identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.
School Target Setting Form
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Challenges
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
TCAP/CSAP,
CoAlt/CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
Annual Performance Targets
2013-14 Fed/State Exp.
72%
71%
2014-15
65%
72%
Interim Measures for
2014-15
DRA2, LBD Benchmark,
CFA’s, DIBELS
Major Improvement
Strategy
Develop teachers’ content
knowledge in English
Language Arts (Engage
NY Units)
Use data teams to track
individual student
achievement (DIBELS,
NWEA)
R
Differentiate results to
customize student
instruction (mClass Burst,
ELO)
School Code: 5742
25
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
70%
52%
63%
58%
M-Comps, CFA’s
knowledge in
Mathematical Numeracy
(k-6 Engage NY Units) (78 RCD ESCD)
Implement Mathematical
Pedagogy (ie. Talk Moves,
8 Math Practices,
Questioning)
M
individual student
achievement (MCOMP
NWEA, Engage New York
Assessments, District
CFAs)
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
55%
58%
46%
69%
CFA Writing Prompts
NY Units)
individual student
NWEA)
W
customize student
ELO)
School Code: 5742
26
S
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
48%
48%
38%
64%
CFA’s, Explore Test
38
24
50
54
DRA2, LBD Benchmark, CFA’s
NY Units)
individual student
NWEA)
R
customize student
ELO)
Academic
Growth
Median
Growth
Percentile
(TCAP/CSAP
& ACCESS)
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
53
62
34
41
M-Comps, CFA’s
knowledge in
(k-6 Engage NY Units) (78 RCD ESCD)
Implement Mathematical
Pedagogy (ie. Talk Moves,
8 Math Practices,
Questioning)
M
individual student
achievement (MCOMP
NWEA, Engage New York
Assessments, District
CFAs)
School Code: 5742
27
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
47
46
45
53
CFA Writing Prompts
NY Units)
individual student
NWEA)
W
customize student
ELO)
Gap between W & H
Gr 3-8
Hispanic/English
Language Learners
26
61
51
45
NY Units)
WIDA
individual student
NWEA)
ELP
customize student
ELO)
Academic
Growth Gaps
Median
Growth
Percentile
R
55
49
51
65
DRA2, LBD Benchmark, CFA’s
M
64
79
49
78
M-Comps, CFA’s
School Code: 5742
RCD, SCC/Academic
Vocab, Reading
28
Intervention (Read Plan,
ELO), Math Integration
(Coaching)
62
64
53
43
W
CFA Writing Prompts
RCD, SCC/Academic
Vocab, Reading
Intervention (Read Plan,
ELO)
Graduation Rate
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness
Disaggregated Grad
Rate
Dropout Rate
Mean CO ACT
Action Planning Forms for 2014-15 & 2015-16
Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2014-15 and 2015-16 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root
cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps
necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that
will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Additional rows for action steps may be added. While the template provides space for three major improvement strategies,
additional major improvement strategies may also be added. To keep the work manageable, however, it is recommended that schools focus on no more than 3 to 5 major improvement
strategies.
School Code: 5742
29
Major Improvement Strategy #1: Instructional Expertise in the area of literacy as a strategy for instructional improvement
Instructional expertise in the area of literacy as a strategy for instructional improvement
• Develop teachers’ content knowledge in English Language Arts (Engage NY Units)
• Use data teams to track individual student achievement (DIBELS, NWEA)
• Differentiate results to customize student instruction (mClass Burst, ELO)
Key Personnel: Soledad Whittington, Cheri Wright Willliams
Organize to Implement
What are the tactics you will engage in to accomplish your instructional improvement strategy?
What do teachers need to know and be able to do?
- Preschool and Kinder teachers need to gain an understanding about Teaching Strategies Gold – Selected Domains of School Readiness. We need to ensure that our
preschool and kinder teachers are communicating with one another regarding student readiness indicators.
- K-3 teachers need to know how to administer the DIBELS assessments. They also need to enter the results into a database. They will also need to become skilled
with the mClass Burst Reading Interventions.
- K-5 teachers need to be exposed to more knowledge and skill with co-teaching and co-planning.
- K-5 teachers need knowledge of phonics and phonemic awareness (I.e., All 5 components)
- Teachers will need PD with the curricular modules for both literacy and numeracy. Need some more consistency/alignment.
- Teachers need to ‘unpack’ the standards (I.e., grade level, above, below)
- Teachers need to craft and analyze quality assessments (Toolbox of assessment for learning strategies).
- Teachers will need cross curricular support (I.e., expeditions/case studies)
- Professional Development with a strong literacy focus (I.e., literacy workshop, ELO/interventions)
- Co-teaching – How can we utilize mentors, masters, ESL teachers to support second language learners?
- Teachers need to be able to differentiate instruction for NEP, LEP students.
- Teachers need knowledge of WIDA and language levels.
- Teachers need knowledge of co-teaching with sheltered English (I.e., ESL strategies, early literacy strategies).
- Teachers need more ESL support in the upper school.
- FAP – Formative Assessment Process
- Interventions – co-teaching doesn’t take the place of interventions
- Lesson Plans – make teachers accountable for them.
Who needs to learn what (and when)? (capacity)
- Preschool and Kinder teachers will need to meet in May to begin transition planning. It would also be wise to include Special Education and ESL teachers in on this
meeting.
- K-3 teachers are participating in the March/April online trainings. These teachers will administer DIBELS in May and will enter that data. They will also need to begin
learning more about the mClass Burst Reading Interventions.
School Code: 5742
30
-
Jessica Martinez will be back to present at cluster on May 7. Our K-8 teachers need to know more about co-teaching and we especially need their support for
funneling extra staffing support to K-5. K-5 teachers need copies of the co-teaching book and they also need to participate in at least 2 days of training to be
coordinated by Jessica Martinez.
K-8 teachers need more PD with the Curricular Modules.
Kinder – Cheri, Holly, Luzma, Elena (Co-teaching, Core Knowledge Modules, mClass Burst Interventions)
Grade 1 – Nicole, Jonna, Luzma, Elena (Co-teaching, Core Knowledge Modules, mClass Burst Interventions)
Grade 2 – Jen, Tracy, Soledad, Theresa (Co-teaching, Core Knowledge Modules, mClass Burst Interventions)
Grade 3 – Kelly, Kari, Melissa (Co-teaching, EL Modules, mClass Burst Interventions, Kari will need DIBELS training)
Grade 4 – Karen, Kylee, Deb (Co-teaching, EL Modules)
Grade 5 – Sara, Andrea, Tracy (Co-teaching, EL Modules)
Grade 6 – Tasha, Autumn, Candace, Becky (Science Units, EL Modules as a focus for cluster)
Grade 7 – Genny, Katie, Kate, Susan (EL modules as a focus for cluster)
Grade 8 – Rachel, Anne, Marilyn, Kim (EL modules as a focus for cluster)
Jon Mann mentioned that there would be a huge advantage if we used the modules (I.e., aligning the assessment to the targets). Note: The modules are an ELA
block and not an expedition. Jon recommended using the modules to create case studies. Then, in 2015-16 explore the expeditions that have already been written.
Professional Learning Communities – Each grade level team is bringing on new team members. This would be a great time to revisit the concept of PLC’s (I.e.,
meeting norms, agendas, roles & responsibilities, team leaders, etc…)
ELO – we need to provide a greater level of support to teachers around progress monitoring of student data
Co-teaching – the initiative is going well for bringing ESL teachers into the mix. Next step, special education teachers need co-teaching training.
What systems and structures are in place for instructional improvement to occur?
- Cluster time is currently in place but will need to become reorganized to account for individualized grade level needs. Cluster time will become embedded into the daily
schedule and will take place during teachers’ regularly scheduled planning times. These cluster meetings will be organized as K-1; 2-3; 4-5 and will include
admin/master/mentor support. The upper school teachers have late start on Wednesday’s. This time may be utilized for 6-8 cluster.
- Data Teams – K-5 teachers have a great deal of experience with the FAP. That said, cluster follow up time needs to be a data teams focus on literacy and numeracy.
- ILT – K-5 teachers are supported by admin, master, & 2 mentor teachers.
- Co-teaching – will be put into place to ensure that there is sufficient in-class support for high quality universal instruction and tier 2 interventions. The lower school
schedule has been drafted to ensure ample time for both co-teaching and co-planning (See 2014-15 lower school schedule).
- Student Centered Coaching – We got off to a good start in 2013-14. Next steps will include taking a closer look at Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s).
What evidence will you use to determine where you are in your strategy?
- Goal-tracking sheet will help to provide organization and progress monitoring.
- Data – DIBELS assessment results can be posted in room 223 as constant reminders for our teams to use in progress monitoring. This data can be used at MaAd,
ILT, Cluster meetings. Our upper school may choose to implement NWEA testing (I.e., Fall, Winter, Spring). Growth on RTI plans. Growth in language levels.
Formative Assessments, WIDA.
Determine Goals/Benchmarks/Timelines, Assign Responsibilities, Establish Process to Monitor Progress
School Code: 5742
31
Teaching Strategies Gold – School Readiness Indicators
- Preschool and kinder teachers will need PD and time to meet to analyze data and discuss individual student needs
DIBELS & mClass Burst Interventions
- K-3 Teachers will need to administer the DIBELS assessment in May. They will also need more PD with the mClass Burst Reading Interventions.
- Co-teachers will also need to be provided with training.
Engage NY Curricular Units
- K-2 teachers will be provided with PD at M&E. They can also be provided with additional training and support via our EL Work Plan.
Co-teaching
- K-5 teachers will need PD (I.e., Book Study, Cherry Creek visitations, etc…)
- K-5 teachers will need ongoing support from ILT
Train educators and school leaders
Teaching Strategies Gold – School Readiness
- We need Shelly Smith to provide us with PD
DIBELS & mClass Burst Reading Interventions
- MaAd team members need to take the Online trainings in June. K-3 teachers will receive a refresher training at M&E. New teachers will receive the full training. All K3 teachers will receive mClass training in October.
- We can chat with Heather Eberts to find out more about the level of PD that will be provided by ECSD. At present, lower school teachers have been invited to a June 4
PD session.
Co-teaching
- MaAd team will continue to work with Jessica Martinez to ensure that PD is provided. Our K-2 teachers had an opportunity to go down to Cherry Creek for a site visit in April.
Monitor and sustain progress -- What evidence will you use to determine where you are in your strategy?
Establish quality control/feedback loop structures to evaluate the impact of actions
• Identify metrics for success
•
Monitor progress using one or more internal routines and establish process to prioritize and solve implementation-related problems
•
Complete annual review of implementation progress to ensure on track to meet goals
School Code: 5742
32
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Instructional Expertise in the area of mathematics as a strategy for instructional improvement
Instructional expertise in the area of mathematics as a strategy for instructional improvement
• Develop teachers’ content knowledge in Mathematical Numeracy (k-6 Engage NY Units) (7-8 RCD ESCD)
• Implement Mathematical Pedagogy (ie. Talk Moves, 8 Math Practices, Questioning)
• Use data teams to track individual student achievement (MCOMP NWEA, Engage New York Assessments, District CFAs)
Key Personnel: Kelly Casber, Kim Biniecki
Organize to Implement
What are the tactics you will engage in to accomplish your instructional improvement strategy?
What do teachers need to know and be able to do?
- Have knowledge of Math strands within the standards (Counting and Cardinality, Operations and Alegbraic Thinking, Number and Operations Base 10, Number and
Operations Fractions, Measurement and Data, Geometry, Expressions and Equations, Number System, Ratios and Proportional Relationships, Statistics and
Probability)
- The progression of each strand from K-8 (k-5, 3-5, 6-8, 5-8 etc.) Vertical understanding of years before and years to come
- Teachers will need PD with the curricular modules for numeracy. (Engage New York)
- Teachers need to ‘unpack’ the standards, especially determining skill and content depth of student knowledge (I.e., grade level, above, below)
- Increase Applicable and Accurate Mathematical Vocabulary
- Professional Development around Mathematical Practices and Talk Moves
- Teachers need to craft and analyze quality assessments (Toolbox of assessment for learning strategies).
- Teachers will need cross curricular support (I.e., expeditions/case studies)
- Analyzing the “high priority” lessons within the Engage NY modules.
- Professional Development with a strong numeracy focus (I.e. EL Workshop 1.0 and 2.0; 5Es, ELO and Interventions)
- How can we utilize mentors, masters, ESL teachers to support second language learners?
- Teachers need to be able to differentiate instruction for NEP, LEP students.
- Teachers need knowledge of co-teaching with sheltered English (I.e., utilize ESL strategies, early literacy strategies).
- FAP – Formative Assessment Process
- Interventions – ELO
- Lesson Plans – make teachers accountable for them.
- Implement Number Talks (K-5)
Who needs to learn what (and when)? (capacity)
School Code: 5742
33
-
Preschool and Kinder teachers will need to meet in May to begin transition planning. It would also be wise to include Special Education and ESL teachers in on this
meeting.
Mathematical Readiness Test-??
K-8 teachers are participating in Math content and pedagogy trainings.
Karen Madden, Kim Biniecki and Kelly Casber will be presenting Math PD throughout the year, including, but not limited to clusters and/or teacher work days and/or
outside of teacher contact time .
Kim and Kelly will attend summer Math Institutes, site visits and EPD and EPLC
K-8 teachers need more PD with the NY Curricular Modules.
K-5 PD on Number Talks including demonstrations
3-8 PARRC assessments tasks- district CFAs modeled after PARCC assesments
Kinder – Cheri, Holly, Luzma, Elena (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices)
Grade 1 – Nicole, Jonna, Luzma, Elena (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices)
- Grade 2 – Jen, Tracy, Soledad, Theresa (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard
Progressions)
-
Grade 3 – Kelly, Kari, Melissa (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard Progressions)
-
Grade 4 – Karen, Kylee, Deb (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard Progressions)
-
-
Grade 6 – Tasha, Autumn, Candace, Becky (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard
Progressions)
Grade 7 – Genny, Katie, Kate, Susan (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard
Progressions)
Grade 8 – Rachel, Anne, Marilyn, Kim (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard
Progressions)
Think about 2015-16- Turning Math NY Modules into Case Studies
-
ELO – we need to provide a greater level of support to teachers around progress monitoring of student data
-
Need for an assessment tool for Math Interventions and ELO
-
Grade 5 – Sara, Andrea, Tracy (Identifying key lessons within the NY modules, accurate vocabulary, number talk, Talk Moves, Math Practices, Standard Progressions)
What systems and structures are in place for instructional improvement to occur?
- Cluster time is currently in place but will need to become reorganized to account for individualized grade level needs. Cluster time will become embedded into the daily
schedule and will take place during teachers’ regularly scheduled planning times. These cluster meetings will be organized as K-1; 2-3; 4-5 and will include
admin/master/mentor support. The upper school teachers have late start on Wednesday’s. This time may be utilized for 6-8 cluster.
- Data Teams – K-5 teachers have a great deal of experience with the FAP. That said, cluster follow up time needs to be a data teams focus on literacy and numeracy.
School Code: 5742
34
-
ILT – K-8 teachers are supported by admin, master, & 2 mentor teachers.
Student Centered Coaching – We got off to a good start in 2013-14. Next steps will include taking a closer look at Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s).
K-8 will participate in non-contract time PD sessions
What evidence will you use to determine where you are in your strategy?
- Goal-tracking sheet will help to provide organization and progress monitoring.
- Data – NY Module assessment results can be posted in room 223 as constant reminders for our teams to use in progress monitoring. This data can be used at MaAd,
ILT, Cluster meetings. Our upper school may choose to implement NWEA testing (I.e., Fall, Winter, Spring). Growth on RTI plans. Growth in language levels.
Formative Assessments.
- Look into Renaissance Learning- Star Math as a progress monitoring tool
- Data collection using classroom walkthroughs (Talk Moves Teachers, Talk Moves with students, Questioning, Accurate Mathematical Vocabulary and Math practices
are understood and used by both teachers and students.)
Determine Goals/Benchmarks/Timelines, Assign Responsibilities, Establish Process to Monitor Progress
Teaching Strategies Gold – School Readiness Indicators (Does this pertain to Math also? Or what is the Math counterpart?
- Preschool and kinder teachers will need PD and time to meet to analyze data and discuss individual student needs
- K-3 Teachers will need to administer the MCOMP assessment in August, January and May.
- K-6, 7 & 8? teachers will be provided with PD at M&E. They can also be provided with additional training and support via our EL Work Plan.
- K-8 teachers will need PD (I.e., Book Study, etc…)
- K-8 teachers will need ongoing support from ILT
- Trainers will be participating in on-site observations for research purposes.
- Book Study Titles:
- Number Talks
- Math Matters
- The University of Arizona Math Progressions
- PARCC Performance Level Descriptors
Train educators and school leaders
Teaching Strategies Gold – School Readiness ????? Math counterpart?
- We need Shelly Smith to provide us with PD
Math readiness
- Teacher Leaders and Math Participants will need to take the LMT assessment in August and May.
Engage NY Curricular Units k-6
- We can chat with Heather Eberts to find out more about the level of PD that will be provided by ECSD.
School Code: 5742
35
Pedagogy and Content
- Teachers Leaders will lead ___________ sessions/hours during multiple PD sessions.
Monitor and sustain progress -- What evidence will you use to determine where you are in your strategy?
Establish quality control/feedback loop structures to evaluate the impact of actions
• Identify metrics for success
•
Monitor progress using one or more internal routines and establish process to prioritize and solve implementation-related problems
•
Complete annual review of implementation progress to ensure on track to meet goals
School Code: 5742
36
Major Improvement Strategy #3: All students will use formative assessment data to engage in and take responsibility for their own learning.
Root Cause(s) Addressed: __________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation
 Title I Focus School  Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
1. I can explain how the curriculum
modules utilize assessment for learning
practices to engage students and
increase achievement.
1a. I can unpack the modules
(standards, LTs, criteria for success,
assessments).
Timeline
2014-15
2015-16
Key
Personnel*
Tracy
Teetaert,
Bobby Young
2. I can effectively communicate
learning targets and criteria for success
to ensure that student are aware of
where they are in terms of proficiency to
a specific target.
3. I can design or select assessments
for learning that accurately match the
type of learning target being assessed.
4. I can explicitly model for students
how to progress monitor their mastery
of targets using various tools (i.e.,
journals, tracking charts, learning logs,
Resources
Implementation Benchmarks
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
EL Support
Onsite:
(1-5) Provide professional
development for staff during
PLC times (1x a month)
(1-5) Coaching of school
coaches on these LTs
Leadership Team
participation
Offsite:
Assessment in Daily
Instruction (Denver)
Primary Cohort
(year-long)
Refining Learning
Expeditions Cohort (Denver)
1-5. Common interim
assessment every 4-8 weeks
to measure student
achievement (POSSIBLE:
NWEA, module assessment,
AIMS, DIBELS, STAR)
1. Coaching logs
documenting focus on
module implementation
(updated weekly)
1. PLC agenda focused on
module implementation
1. Walkthrough focused on
evidence of module
implementation
2. Teacher lesson plans
collected (frequency?)
2. FAP walkthrough tool
(frequency?)
School Code: 5742
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not begun)
In progress
In progress
Completed
In progress
Completed
37
ISNs).
5. I can effectively provide quality oral
and/or written descriptive feedback as a
means of formative assessment.
6. I can immediately, consistently, and
effectively analyze and use assessment
data to drive instruction. This means I
use assessment data to deliberately
differentiate to support student learning.
7. I can fully prepare students and
families for student-led conferences
through ongoing analysis of data
aligned to learning targets.
Leadership Cohort
(Denver)
PLC’s Support
(1-5). Weekly embedded
PLCs with a focus on module
learning
(1-5). Coaching from mentors
focused on examining
assessment for learning
practices within the modules
(1-5). Meetings 1 x every 4
weeks with SPED/ESL
focused on aligned IEP and
WIDA data with assessment
for learning practices
(working collaboratively to
monitor identified student
progess)
3. PPR and PLC agendas
3. STA criteria to give
feedback to teachers
3. Assessment plans
In progress
4. Show and share at least 2
self-assessment
tools/student-tracking tools
Completed
5. PPR--academic feedback
and PLC weekly rotation
5. Walkthrough tools for
oral/written feedback
In progress
6. PLCs
6. Data teams process Step 4
7. SLC attendance
7. Portfolios with formative
assessment data included
(1-5). Co-teaching: focusing
on assessment for learning
practices
(1-5) Weekly ILT meetings
focused on examining
implementation of the
modules
(1-5). Weekly MaAd meetings
focused on implementation of
student learning outcomes
through student-centered
School Code: 5742
38
coaching cycles
7. POSSIBLE STRUCTURES
TO SUPPORT FAMILIES:
-Back to School Night
-School Newsletter, Class
Newsletter
-Student Led Conference
BBK with families
POSSIBLE STRUCTURES
TO SUPPORT STAFF:
-New staff training
-Agreements/Consistency
tool (to be developed by CCC
or ILT)
-1x a month Whole Staff
Crew
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for
certain grants.
School Code: 5742
39
Major Improvement Strategy #4: All members of the HPSEL community build habits of perseverance, excellence, accountability, and kindness, where students and
adults think, care, and act in service of others.
Root Cause(s) Addressed: __________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation
 Title I Focus School
 Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to
Implement the Major Improvement
Strategy
1. I can explicitly teach and model the
PEAK traits to support student
academic growth and character
development.
Timeline
2014-15
2015-16
Key
Personnel*
Matt
Abramowitz,
Kari Schein
2. I can use the structure of Crew to
support character development, literacy,
math, portfolio work, and service to the
community.
3. I can support students in tracking,
reflecting on, and sharing their progress
towards mastery of PEAK traits.
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
1. Culture and Climate/ILT:
Develop the PEAK
definitions--relational and
performance indicators within
the PEAK.
1. Weekly PLC--devoted to
unpacking and providing
feedback on PEAK definitions
Implementation
Benchmarks
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not
begun)
1. PEAK Matrix updated
(completed in September by
CCC)
1. HPS PEAK Trait Reflection
tracker (2x quarterly)
1. Teacher trackers of
student PEAK traits (TBD)
1. PLC agendas focused on
PEAK roll-out
1. Teacher self-reflection of
PEAK traits (monthly,
monitored by MaAd)
focus on Crew structures and
purposes
2. Culture and Climate:
2. Weekly PLC agenda
Support develop of how to
integrate PEAK traits in Crew, 2. CCC Crew
maps/documentation of
literacy, math activities
PEAK implementation
2. CCC develop Crew
Support consistent
Agreements tool (consistent
development of portfolios
structures for Crew across Kthrough CREW time
8)
Support development of ways 2. CCC to collect student
to provide service to the
portfolios monthly to “spotSchool Code: 5742
40
community throught CREW
time (hallway clean-up,
grounds clean-up, lunch
tables, etc.)
tracking and progress on
PEAK traits
3. ILT--Determine the “report
out” of PEAK traits(i.e.,
celebrations quarterly, report
cards, portfolios, SLCs in the
Fall and Spring)
3. Monday Staff Crew
meetings and Celebrations of
Learning: recognize staff for
PEAK traits
Quarterly recognition for the
PEAK traits
Culture and Climate
Committee meets on
Wednesdays after school
every other week(1 hour)
Onsite Support:
(1-3) Provide professional
development for staff during
PLC times (1x a month)
(1-5) Coaching of school
coaches on these LTs
check”
2. CCC to name service
structures like “Adopt-AHallway”
2. CCC to develop duty
rotation document (4th grade
assigned to cafeteria, 7th to
the Lost and Found)
2. Student perception survey
of CREW (Fall,Winter,
Spring)
2. Staff perception survey of
CREW (Fall, Winter, Spring)
2. Learning walks by CCC
and ILT for Crew
implementation
3. Weekly PLC agenda
focused on tracking of PEAK
3. ILT checking portfolios
once a month
3. Student report cards (spot
check--pull random sampling
1 month to see progress of
input of PEAK grades)
3. Staff Recognition board,
named in monthly newsletter
(will be rolled out by CCC)
3. Student Recognition board,
student named in monthly
newsletter (will be rolled out
by CCC)
School Code: 5742
41
Culture and Climate
Committee participation
Offsite PD:
Assessment in Daily
Instruction (Denver)
Primary Cohort
(year-long)
Leadership Cohort
(Denver)
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.
Section V: Appendices
Some schools will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements:
• Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability (Required)
• Tiered Intervention Grantee (TIG) (Required)
School Code: 5742
42
Homestake Peak School of Expeditionary Learning – Progress Monitoring - Kindergarten-1
Tier
Universal
Assessment
Screening tools at grade level:
• DRA2, EDL2, AIMSweb Early Numeracy
Measures, DIBELS NEXT, MComp (1st)
Tier 1
Progresss Monitoring tools at grade level:
• ORF (3passages-report the median)
Tiers 2-3
Monitor all students’ progress using tools at
students’ instructional level:
• DRA2 Progress Monitoring Probes
Monitor Tier 2 (tools at grade level):
• ORF (3 passages-report the median)
• DIBELS NEXT
Frequency
Three times per year:
Late fall (8/19-9/12 –data
uploaded by 9/26), winter
(12/01-12/18-data
uploaded by 12/19),
spring (4/27-5/15-data
uploaded by 5/19)
Every six weeks
Every four weeks
Every four weeks
Every two weeks
Staff
Classroom teachers and
interventionists
interventionists
interventionists
Monitor Tier 3 (tools at instructional level)
SPED Teachers
Homestake Peak School of Expeditionary Learning – Progress Monitoring Plan 2-3
Tier
Universal
Assessment
• DRA2, EDL2, ORF, MComp, DIBELS NEXT
Frequency
Three times per year: fall,
winter (12/01-12/18 –data
uploaded by 12/19), spring
(4/27-5/15- data uploaded by
5/19)
Every six weeks
Tier 1
Progresss Monitoring tools at grade level:
• ORF (3passages-report the median)
Tiers 2-3
Every four weeks
• ORF (3 passages-report the median)
• DIBELS NEXT
Every four weeks
Every two weeks
Staff
interventionists
interventionists
interventionists
SPED Teachers
Homestake Peak School of Expeditionary Learning – Progress Monitoring Plan Grade 5
Tier
Universal
Benchmar
k
Assessment
• DRA2 Benchmark, AIMS ORF, MComp,
STAR Renaissance
Tier 1
Progress Monitoring tools at grade level:
• DRA2 Probes- for all students
• AIMS ORF Tier 1- (3 passages-report the
median)
• STAR Renaissance
Frequency
Three times per year: fall,
winter (12/01-12/18 –data
uploaded by 12/19), spring
(4/27-5/15- data uploaded by
5/19)
- At least every six
weeks
weeks
weeks
AIMS ORF: Monthly/Quarterly for
ELO Reading Intervention
Winter Screening: Takes place
during the week of 12-15-14
Staff
interventionists
Sara, Andrea, Tracy, Pam,
Brian
interventionists
-
-
STAR Reading:
Week of 11-10-14
(Tests will be in ELA
classes)
Week of 12-15-14
STAR Math:
Week of 11-17-14
(Tests will be in Math
classes)
Week of 12-15-14
Winter/Spring- Progress
Monitoring
- STAR Reading and
STAR Math:
Week of 2-9-15
Week of 4-6-15
Spring Screening
Window Week of
5-11 to 5-22-15 Due
to Adventure Trips
Tiers 2-3
- Every four weeks
• AIMS ORF (3 passages-report the median)
Every four weeks
interventionists
Every two weeks
Quarter 2: Bi-Weekly rotation
Dates for Reading:
(Monday) October 27, 14
(ELA class) Week of November
10, 14
(Monday) December 1, 14
Benchmark- Week of 12-15-14
(ELA Class)
Dates for Math:
(Monday) November 3, 14
(Math class) Week of November
17, 14
(Math Class)
Winter- Progress Monitoring
- STAR Reading:
Week of 1-20-15
Week of 3-2-15
Week of 3-24-15
Week of 4-27-15
-
STAR Math:
Week of 1-20-15
MeaWeek of 3-2-15
Week of 3-24-15
SPED Teachers
Week of 4-27-15
Homestake Peak School of Expeditionary Learning – Progress Monitoring Plan Grades 6-8
Tier
Universal
Benchmark
Assessment
• Review TCAP Data (This data will be used to create
ELO Blocks)
• STAR Universal Screener- Reading (This data will be
used to create ELO Blocks)
• STAR Universal Screener- Math (This data will be
used to create ELO Blocks)
• ELO Reading Intervention Block- AIMS ORF
Oral Reading Fluency
• Cold Writes- see grade level genres and pre and post
dates
Frequency
STAR Universal Screener Three
times per year:
Fall (September and October)
Winter (Week of 12-15-14) data
uploaded by 12/19)
Spring (4/27-5/15- data uploaded
by 5/19)
AIMS ORF: Monthly/Quarterly for
ELO Reading Intervention
Cold Writes- see attached
schedule for grade levels (Writing
teachers administer and assess)
All staff
Staff
Tier 1
Progress Monitoring tools at grade level: All Students
• Core ELA and Math classes will be progress
monitored in core classes.
-
-
Tiers 2-3
Monitor all students’ progress using tools at students’
instructional level:
STAR Reading: (ELO Reading Intervention)
Bi-Weekly (Steve, Kate, Ashley)
STAR Math: (ELO Math Intervention)
Bi-Weekly (Becky, Susan, Kim)
STAR Reading: (SPED)
Bi-Weekly (Brian, Candace)
STAR Math: (SPED)
Bi-Weekly (Brian, Candace)
STAR Reading:
Week of 11-10-14
(Tests will be in ELA
classes)
Week of 12-15-14
STAR Math:
Week of 11-17-14
(Tests will be in Math
classes)
Week of 12-15-14
Quarter 2: Bi-Weekly rotation
Dates for Reading:
(Monday) October 27, 14
(ELA class) Week of November
10, 14
(ELA Class)
Dates for Math:
(Monday) November 3, 14
(Math class) Week of November
17, 14
(Math Class)
Core ELA and Core Math
teachers
Steve, Becky
Genny, Susan
Ashley, Kim
ELO Classroom teachers and
interventionists
SPED Teachers
6
7
Narrative
Argument
Informative
Argument
Narrative (text)
Informative
8/25-8/29
10/21-10/25
01/06-01/09
10/13-10/17
12/15-12/18
3/16-3/20
4/06-4/10
5/04-5/08
5/18-5/22
Informative
Argument
Narrative
Informative
Argument
Narrative (text)
8/25-8/29
10/21-10/25
01/06-01/09
10/13-10/17
12/15-12/18
3/16-3/20
4/06-4/10
5/04-5/08
5/18-5/22
Informative
Argument
Narrative
Informative
Argument
Narrative (text)
8/25-8/29
10/21-10/25
1/06-1/09
10/13-10/17
12/15-12/18
3/16-3/20
4/06-4/10
5/04-5/08
5/18-5/22
8
Section V: Supporting Addenda Forms (Homestake Peak School)
For Schools Operating a Title I Schoolwide Program (Optional)
Schools that participate in Title I may use this form to document Title I program requirements for operating a schoolwide program. As a part of the improvement planning process, schools are
strongly encouraged to weave appropriate requirements into earlier sections of the UIP. This form provides a way to ensure all components of the program are met through (1) descriptions of the
requirements or (2) a cross-walk of the Title I program elements in the UIP. The Title I schoolwide program requirements are listed in NCLB Sec. 1114(b)(1)(A-J).
Description of Title I Schoolwide
Program Requirements
Comprehensive Needs Assessment:
What are the comprehensive needs that
justify activities supported with Title I funds?
Recommended
Location in UIP
Section III: Data
Narrative and
Section IV: Action
Plan
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
Please see UIP for specific information regarding our school’s comprehensive needs:
Worksheet #1 – pp. 11-13
Worksheet #2 – pp. 14-20
Demographic data – p. 23
Reform Strategies:
What are the major reform strategies to be
implemented that strengthen core academic
programs, increase the amount and quality of
learning, and provide an enriched and
accelerated curriculum?
Section IV:
Action Plan
Please see UIP for specific information about our instructional improvement strategies.
Instructional Expertise in the area of Literacy – pp. 30-32
Instructional Expertise in the area of Mathematics – pp. 33-36
Instructional Expertise in the area of Formative Assessment – pp. 37-39
Instructional Expertise in the area of PEAK Community Traits (Culture & Character) – pp. 40-42
Professional Development:
How are student and staff needs used to
identify the high quality professional
development?
Section III: Data
Narrative and
Section IV: Action
Plan
Community Involvement:
Section III: Data
Schoolwide Title I Addendum for CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.0 -- Last updated: June 17, 2014)
1
How are staff, parents and other members of
the community collaborating to influence
program design?
Narrative and
Section IV: Action
Plan
2
Description of Title I Schoolwide
Program Requirements
Teacher Recruitment and Retention:
What process is in place to ensure that only
highly qualified staff are recruited and
retained for schoolwide programs?
Data Analysis:
How are teachers involved with assessment
and data analysis to improve overall student
achievement and classroom instruction?
Recommended
Location in UIP
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
Section III: Data
Narrative and
Section IV: Action
Plan
At HPS we ensure that 100% of our core instructional staff have HQ status in the area in which they teach.
Section III: Data
Narrative and
Section IV: Action
Plan
See additional attachments: Data Analysis Progress Monitoring Expectations for HPS
K-1;
2-3;
4-5;
6-8
Timely Intervention:
How will students be identified for and
provided early interventions in a timely
manner?
Section IV: Action
Plan
See additional attachments: Data Analysis Progress Monitoring Expectations for HPS
K-1;
2-3;
4-5;
6-8
Parent Involvement:
How will the capacity for parent involvement
be increased? How will parent involvement
allow students served to become proficient or
advanced on state assessments?
Section IV: Action
Plan
Parent Involvement Activities: SY 2014-15
Parent Teacher Association Meetings (8/14, 9/16, 10/14, 11/14, 12/16, 1/23, 2/24, 3/13, 4/21, 5/20)
School Accountability Committee Meetings (10/7, 11/4, 12/2, 1/13, 2/3, 3/3, 4/7, 5/5)
August 15, 2014 – Parent Registration Day
August 19-20 – Lower School Student Testing Days (Students are tested; Parents meet with administrators)
Family Literacy & Math Night – 10/16
Parent Teacher Conferences – 10/21 & 10/23
3
Holiday Concert – 12/16
Parent Night – Power Hours Afterschool Programming – 1/14, 3/24
Kinder Open House – 3/11
Student Led Conferences – 3/31 & 4/2
Transition Plan:
How does the school assist in the transition
of preschool students from early childhood
programs to elementary school programs?
Section IV:
Action Plan
Teaching Strategies Gold Training – Took place for all kinder teachers on 3/23
Elementary Testing Days – August 19 & 20
Kinder Open House 3/11
Parent Teacher Student Conferences – 10/21 & 10/23
Coordination with Other Services:
How are Title I funds used in coordination
with other ESEA, state and local funds?
Section IV:
Action Plan,
Resource
Column
We dedicate 1 FTE towards the hiring of a reading interventionist to serve our lower school students.
4

Improvement Plan - Colorado Department of Education

Transcription

Similar documents

P L Peak Risk Ad Launches Co djustment S orporate Reb Solutions

Dr. Michael Cherry

Popular peaks

LCB Course Development Instructional Design Planning Template

bolton s largest play centre bolton s largest play centre bolton s

Beyond Metformin: CDE “Oral AHA Boot Camp”

Peak Protection

Welcome Brochure

Online Math Activities and Reference Sources

ELL Instructional Assistant/Intake Specialist