Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan For Schools For 2011-12

Colorados Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2011-12 Organization Code: 0180 District Name: Adams- Arapahoe
28J School Code: 1458 School Name: Aurora Central High School (H) Plan type based on: 1 year
Section I: Summary Information about the School

Directions: This section summarizes your schools performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2010-11. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the schools data in blue text. This data shows the schools performance in meeting minimum federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and state accountability expectations School Performance Framework (SPF) data. Columns highlighted in yellow indicate the SPF results (1-year or 3-year) that are applied to the school for accountability purposes. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability Performance Indicators Measures/ Metrics 10-11 Federal and State Expectations 1-year CSAP, CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura Academic Achievement (Status)
Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and science Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3-years of data
10-11 School Results 1-year 35.3% 11.2% 16.1% 15.4% 3-years 38.2% 12.4% 15.6% 17.2%
Meets Expectations?
3-years 72.2% 30.5% 49.6% 50.0%
Reading Math Writing Science
73.3% 33.5% 50.0% 50.0%
Overall Rating for Academic Achievement: Does Not Meet

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Description: % PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAPA and Lectura in Reading and Math for each group Expectation: Targets set by state* Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing and math
Overall number of targets for School: 39 Reading Math Writing

Median Adequate SGP Median SGP
% of targets met by School: 66.7% Median SGP: 57 Median SGP: 49 Median SGP: 57
Reading Math
NO NO
Median Student Growth Percentile Academic Growth
76 99 96
45/55 45/55 45/55
Expectation: If school met adequate growth, then
Overall Rating for Academic Growth: Meets

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.
median SGP is at or above 45 If school did not meet adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 55
* To see annual AYP targets, go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp ** To see your schools detailed AYP report (includes school results by content area, disaggregated group and school level), access the report in the Automated Data Exchange AYP System.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.1 -- Last updated: August 9, 2011)
Performance Indicators
Measures/ Metrics Median Student Growth Percentile
10-11 Federal and State Expectations
10-11 School Results
Meets Expectations?
Academic Growth Gaps
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math by disaggregated groups. Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 45. If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 55.
See your schools performance frameworks for listing of median adequate growth expectations for your schools disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners and students below proficient.
See your schools performance frameworks for listing of median growth by each disaggregated group.
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps: Meets
Graduation Rate Post Secondary Readiness
Best of 4-year through 7-year Grad Rate
Expectation: 80% on the most recent 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate
80%
using a 6 year grad rate 52.3 (6year) 51.0 (6 years)
Dropout Rate
1-year 3.6% 1-year 20.0
3-years 3.9% 3-years 20.1
1-year 10.5% 1-year 15.3
3-years 10.8 3-years 14.6
Expectation: At or below State average
Overall Rating for Post Secondary Readiness: Does Not Meets
Mean ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above State average
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan Program State Accountability Recommended Plan Type ESEA Accountability School Improvement or Corrective Action (Title I)
Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for at least two consecutive years** Plan assigned based on schools overall school performance framework score (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness)
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for completing improvement plan
Available Nov 2011
Once the plan type for the school has been finalized, this report will be re-populated in November 2011. Specific directions will be included at that time. For required elements in the improvement plans, go to: http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
Available Nov 2011
Once the improvement status for the school has been finalized, this report will be re-populated in November. Specific directions will be included then. For required elements in the improvement plans, go to: http://www.cde.state.co.us/Accountability/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
2
Section II: Improvement Plan Information

Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.
Additional Information about the School Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History Title I Program Related Grant Awards School Support Team or Expedited Review External Evaluator
Does the school receive Title I funds? If yes, indicate the type of Title I program Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach. Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded? Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When? Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.
Targeted Assistance
School wide Restart Closure
Turnaround Transformation
Improvement Plan Information The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply): State Accountability Title IA Tiered Intervention Grant School Improvement Grant School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed) 1 Name and Title Email Phone Mailing Address 2 Lynn Fair Principal Aurora Central High School elfair@aps.k12.co.us 303- 340 -1600 x27003 Aurora Central High School 11700 East 11th Avenue Aurora, Colorado 80010
Other: ________________
Name and Title Email Phone
Richard Patterson Ph.D Director, Student Achievement and Pathway Development Aurora Public Schools Educational rrpatterson@aps.k12.co.us
303.340.0859 x28331 Fax 303.326.1966
3
Mailing Address
Services Center 2 15751 E 1st Avenue Aurora, CO 80011
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification This section corresponds with the evaluate portion of the continuous improvement cycle. In the text box at the end of this section, provide a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. 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 (with more than one data source) and what data were used, and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook. Worksheet: Progress Monitoring of Prior Years Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2010-11 school year (last years plan). This information should be considered as a part of the data analysis narrative and in setting or modifying targets (section IV) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. You may add rows, as necessary.
Targets for 2010-11 school year

(Targets set in last years plan)
Target met? How close was school in meeting the target?
Academic Achievement (Status)
Reading: 35 % proficient Writing 30 % proficient Math 30% proficient
35.3% Reading MET 16.1 %Writing DID NOT MEET 11.2 % DID NOT MEET
Targets for 2010-11 school year

(Targets set in last years plan)
Target met? How close was school in meeting the target? Reading Growth 9th 56th %tile - MET 10th 59th %tile - MET Writing Growth 9th 53rd%tile DID NOT MEET 10th 60th %tile - MET Math 9th 48th %tile DID NOT MEET 10th 48st % tile DID NOT MEET Actual CSAP Growth 2011 Did not meet prediction Sub-group Reading N.A n/a Asian 56%tile Hispanic 50%tile Black 50%tile White F/RL IEP ELL 70%tile 42%tile 39% 43%tile
Academic Growth
Reading Growth 9th 53rd %tile 10th 51st %tile Writing Growth 9th 55th %tile 10th 51st %tile Math 9th 56th %tile 10th 51st %tile Predicted CSAP Growth on SIP 2010 Sub-group N.A Asian Hispanic Black White F/RL IEP ELL Reading 57%tile 56%tile 50%tile 50%tile 70%tile 42%tile 39% 43%tile Writing 40%tile 45%tile 35%tile 30%tile 53%tile 47%tile 45%tile 50%tile Math 53%tile 54%tile 35%tile 33%tile 59%tile 49%tile 43%tile 49%tile
Writing n/a 45%tile 35%tile 30%tile 53%tile 47%tile 45%tile 50%tile
Math n/a 54%tile 35%tile 33%tile 59%tile 49%tile 43%tile 49%tile
Post Secondary Readiness
Graduation: 58.4% Drop-out: 8.2 Mean ACT 17.3
Graduation: 41.1 (4 year) DID NOT MEET Drop- out: 10.2 DID NOT MEET MEAN ACT 15.3 DID NOT MEET
Worksheet: Data Analysis
Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data for 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. Prioritize the performance challenges that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan will be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges are recommended. 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. Consider observations recorded in the last years targets worksheet. Provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as necessary.
Description of Trends (3 years of past data) Academic Achievement Reading The overall % of students P/A has decreased by 3.2% over 3 yrs The % of students P/A has decreased by 5.18 % over 3 yrs in grade 9 The % of students P/A has decreased by 2.64% over 3 yrs in grade 10. The overall % of Black students P/A decreased 4.83% over 3 yrs The overall % of Hispanic students P/A decreased 2.29 % over 3yrs The overall % of White students P/A increased 7.64% over 3 yrs The overall % of F/RL students decreased 4.27% over 3 yrs The overall % of ELL students decreased 5.12% over 3 yrs The overall % of IEP students decreased 1.04% over 3 yrs District Interim Reading The % of 9th grade students who were P/A in Q2 , 2009 -10 increased 2.8 % in Q2 , 2010-2011 The % of 10th grade students who were P/A in Q2, 2009 -10 increased 2.2 % in Q2, 2010-2011
Priority Performance Challenges Priority Performance Challenge Reading Proficiency has decreased 4% over 3 years and remains significantly lower than the District and State. For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts.
Root Causes
We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. We do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. We do not have a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students.
Academic Achievement (Status)
Description of Trends (3 years of past data) Academic Achievement Writing The overall % of students P/A has increased slightly 0.3% over 3 yrs. The % of students P/A has increased slightly by 0.2 % over 3 yrs in grade 9 The % of students P/A has increased slightly 0.3% over 3 yrs in grade 10. The overall % of Black students P/A declined 2.24% over 3 yrs The overall % of Hispanic students P/A increased 2.22 % over 3yrs The overall % of White students P/A decreased 2.24% over 3 yrs The overall % of F/RL students increased 0.37% over 3 yrs The overall % of ELL students increased 0.95% over 3 yrs The overall % of IEP students increased 0.85 % over 3 yrs District Interim Writing The % of 9th grade students who were P/A in Q2 , 2009 -10 increased 2.8 % in Q2 , 2010-2011 The % of 10th grade students who were P/A in Q2, 2009 -10 increased 2.2 % in Q2, 2010-2011 Academic Achievement Math The overall % of students P/A has increased by 0.31% over 3 yrs The % of students P/A has increased at 9th grade by 3.17% over 3 yrs. The % of students P/A has increased at 10th grade by 3.92% over 3 yrs. The % of female students performing at P/A has increased 1.14% over 3 yrs. The % of male students performing at P/A has decreased 0.46% over 3 yrs. The % of white students performing at P/A has increased 9% over 3 yrs. The % of black students performing at P/A has decreased 3.5% over 3 yrs. The % of Hispanic students performing at P/A has increased 1.3% over 3 yrs. The % of IEP students performing at P/A has stayed at 0% over 3 yrs. The % of F/RL students performing at P/A has increased 1.10% over 3 yrs. The % of ELL students performing at P/A has increased 1.75% over 3 yrs. As students advance grade levels, the % P/A declines. (cohort data)
Priority Performance Challenges Priority Performance Challenge Writing Proficiency has increased slightly over 3 years and remains significantly lower than the District and State. For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts.
Root Causes
We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. We do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. We do not have a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students
Priority Performance Challenge Math For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts. Proficiency has increased
slightly at 0.31% over 3 years but remains significantly lower than District & State
Students with IEPs have shown 0% proficiency over 3 yrs.
8
Description of Trends (3 years of past data) Math District Interim data: The % of students P/A on 2nd Q interims of 09-10 decreased at 9th grade by 8.7% on the 2nd Q interims of 10-11. The % of students P/A on 2nd Q interims of 09-10 decreased at 10th grade by 4.5% on the 2nd Q interims of 10-11. Academic Growth Reading The overall median growth percentile increased from 56th to 57th. The overall median growth percentile for IEP students decreased from 54th to 43rd. The overall median growth percentile for ELL students increased from 58th to 59th The overall median growth percentile for F/RL students increased from 56th to 57th The overall median growth percentile for minority students increased from 56th to 57th . The overall median growth percentile for students needing to catch-up decreased from 22.9 to16.2 The overall median growth percentile for students needing to keepup decreased from 87 to 77 Academic Growth Writing The overall median growth percentile increased from 49th to 57th The overall median growth percentile for IEP students increased from 46th to 53rd The overall median growth percentile for ELL students increased from 50th to 58th The overall median growth percentile for F/RL students increased from 50th to 57th The overall median growth percentile for minority students increased from 48th to 57th. The overall median growth percentile for students needing to catch-up decreased from 9.2 to 7.2 The overall median growth percentile for students needing to keepup increased from 63 to 66.
Priority Performance Challenges
Root Causes
Priority Performance Challenge Academic Growth Reading The overall median growth percentile for all students who are catching-up is at 16%. The overall median growth for IEP students is significantly below all other sub groups.
We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. We do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. We do not have a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students
Academic Growth
Description of Trends (3 years of past data) Academic Growth Math The overall median growth percentile decreased from 56th to 49th over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile at 10th grade decreased from 51st to 49th over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile for IEP students decreased from 57th to 47th over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile for ELL students decreased from 58th to 49th over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile for FR/L students decreased from 56th to 49th over 3 yrs. The overall median growth percentile for students needing to catch-up decreased from 3 to 2 over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile for 9th grade students needing to catch-up decreased from 4 to 3 over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile for 10th grade students needing to catch-up increased from 1 to 2 over 3 yrs. The median growth percentile for students needing to keep up remained the same. Academic Growth Gap Reading Overall all subgroups have increased in growth over 3 years with the exception of IEP students. The growth gap between IEP and non IEP students has decreased by 16 percentiles over 3 yrs. The growth gap has decreased for Minority, ELL, F/RL and gender. Academic Growth Gap Writing Overall all subgroups have increased in growth over 3 years. The growth gap between IEP and non IEP students has decreased by 16 percentiles over 3 yrs. The growth gap has decreased for Minority, ELL, F/RL and gender
Priority Performance Challenges
Root Causes
Priority Performance Challenge Academic Growth Math growth percentile at 9th grade decreased from 59 to 49 over he median We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in The overall median growth order to differentiate instruction that percentile for students who are results in increased achievement catching-up is at 2%. especially for ELL and IEP students. The overall median growth percentile has decreased with the largest decrease at 9th grade. We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. We do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. We do not have a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students
Academic Growth Gap Reading Challenges The overall median growth for IEP students is significantly below all other sub groups.
10
Description of Trends (3 years of past data) Academic Growth Gaps Math The growth gap decreased for F/RL students because of a decline for non F/RL students which is greater than the decline for minority and F/RL students. The growth gap increased for minority, IEP, ELL, and male students.
Priority Performance Challenges Academic Growth Gap Math Challenges The growth gap has increased for minority, IEP, ELL and F/R L students. The growth gap has decreased for ELL students because of a decrease for ELL students that was greater than non ELL students. Post Secondary and Work Readiness Priority Performance Challenge Graduation Rate - Students are demonstrating early course failures at grade 9 and 10 that significantly reduce the percent that graduate within 4 years or at all. Drop Out - Students are demonstrating early course failures at grade 9 and 10 that significantly reduce the percent that remain in school. Completion Rate - Students are demonstrating early course failures at grade 9 and 10 that significantly reduce the percent that complete high school.
Root Causes We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. We do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. We do not have a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students There is a lack of and consistent use of interventions in the areas of: decline in course grades; freshman course failure; intervention/credit recovery options; on-time graduation
Post Secondary and Work Readiness The graduation rate decreased 9.11% over 3 years. The drop-out rate decreased 1.05% over 3 years. The completion rate decreased 8.89% over 3 years. ACT scores increased by 1.474 in composite scores, increased 1.479 in reading scores, and increased 1.70 in math scores over 3 years.
Post Secondary Readiness
11
Data Narrative for School
Directions: Describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including review of prior years targets, trends, priority performance challenges and root cause analysis. This analysis should be tightly linked to section IV; targets and action planning should be aimed at addressing the priority performance challenges and root causes identified in this section. The narrative should not take more than five pages.
Data Narrative for School

Trend Analysis and Performance Challenges: What data did we use to identify trends? What are the positive and negative trends in our schools performance for each indicator area? Does this differ for any disaggregated student groups (e.g., by grade level or gender)? In which areas did we not at least meet minimum state and federal expectations? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? How/why did we determine these to be our priorities? How did we engage stakeholders in this analysis? Root Cause Analysis: Why do we think our schools performance is what it is? How did we determine that? Verification of Root Cause: What evidence do we have for our conclusions?
Trend Analysis and Performance Challenges: Aurora Central High School is a comprehensive high school located in Northwest Aurora with 2069 students. Demographics include: 68% Hispanic, 15% Black or African American, 8% Asian, 6% White, 3% other. Trend analysis points us to a large ELA population: 70% of students are NEP, LEP or FEP. ACHS has 163 Beginning ELLs, 108 Early Intermediate ELLs, 196 Intermediate ELLs, 345 Proficient ELLs and 638 Advanced Proficient ELLs on CELAPro. In APS only Advanced/proficient ELLs are re-designated. ACHS has a growing Asian and Black population that is also ELL. ACHS continues to decrease in non-ELL Black and White students. Additionally, 281 (13.5%) students have IEPs. Of that number, 163 students are identified as both ELA /IEP. Additionally, over 211 (10%) are refugee and ELL students. At ACHS 82% of students qualify for free/reduced lunch. Additionally, there are over 100 (5%) students identified as homeless. ACHS restructured into small learning communities beginning a pilot in the 2010-11 school -year. The small learning communities included: 9th grade Academy and the Health Science Academy which was funded through $3.8 million district grant with Anschutz Medical Center. Beginning in 2011 -12 school year, additional small schools were instituted including College Academy, 10th grade Academy and the Newcomer Academy (ELL and Refugee). Additionally, ACHS has pathways and certificate programs in Business and Health Sciences and is an accredited Community College of Aurora Satellite Campus. Currently, 64 credit hours are offered for dual credit. In 2011-12, two CISCO courses for college credit were funded through a grant from the Morgridge Foundation as part of ACHSs Business certification program. Students come to ACHS from four middle schools. According to the District School Transition Report from 2010 CSAP data report 45% of the students entering 9th grade are proficient and advanced in reading; 29% partially proficient and 31% unsatisfactory. Students entering 9th grade were 26.4% proficient and advanced in math; 32.5 %partially proficient and 39.7% unsatisfactory. The overall increase in CSAP proficiency for three years is 1.7%. ACHS reading growth was at the 57th percentile and exceeded both the District (55th percentile) and State (50th percentile). ACHS writing growth was at the 57th percentile and exceeded the District (50th percentile) and the State (50th percentile). Minority, F/RL, ELL students had median growth percentiles at or above the State (50th percentile). Growth data in reading and writing in 2009 was at the 56th percentile. Then in 2010 an implementation dip occurred (42ndpercentile ) as twenty-seven reading intervention classes were eliminated and all ELL students (494 students) were placed in an OCR mandated ELD program in addition to an English class. In 2011 reading and writing growth scores significantly increased, both at the 57th percentile. Math growth data remained near the 50th percentile over three years.
12
The School Unified Improvement Planning Team consisted of representatives from the School and District Administration, which included Instructional Directors, Instructional Consultants and Coaches in Literacy and Math as well as Aurora Central High School Principal and Assistant Principals. Additionally, Instructional Leadership Team and Department Chairs were members of the School Unified Improvement Planning Team and had a significant role in identifying root causes. As the root causes were developed all staff was included for input. The team analyzed three years of data which included: CSAP, CSAP Growth, ACT CELAPro, Teacher Climate Surveys and Student Climate Surveys. Additional data reviewed included: graduation, dropout rates and daily attendance. The team also used outside school audits over the last three years in Special Education, Math, RMC quality school review and Office of Civil Rights compliance review. A study by John Hopkins University in 2009 addressed drop-out prevention and focused interventions for 9th grade course failures as a way to target students most likely to experience a drop-out outcome. Walkthrough data from District Instructional Coaches and Directors was gathered and supported the findings from the audits. General findings from the data are presented below.
Academic Achievement: Aurora Central High School (ACHS) has increased 1.7% over three years in overall CSAP proficiency while the District increased 3.5 % the State 1.5 %. Despite gains in Reading, Writing, Math and overall proficiency remains significantly below District and State levels across ethnic groups, White students (n=93) are outperforming other ethnic groups. Black students (n=159) perform significantly below all other ethnic groups. ACHSs largest ethnic student group Hispanics (n=751) outperform all other ethnic groups except White School CSAP Proficiency Performance Aggregate (2009 2011) Academic Year Subject 2009 Overall 9th and 10th 2010 Overall 9th and 10th 2011 Overall 9th and 10th School CSAP Reading Proficiency Performance (2009 2011) Academic Year Subject 2009 Reading 9th and 10th 2010 Reading 9th and 10th 2011 Reading 9th and 10th
Count 3982 3794 3671
%P/A 20% 17% 19%
Count 1040 1000 925
%P/A 39.23% 32.40% 35.14%
13
School CSAP Writing Proficiency Performance (2009 2011) Academic Year Subject 2009 Writing 9th and 10th 2010 Writing 9th and 10th 2011 Writing 9th and 10th School CSAP Math Proficiency Performance (2009 2011) Academic Year Subject 2009 Math 9th and 10th 2010 Math 9th and 10th 2011 Math 9th and 10th
Count 1040 1000 925
%P/A 15.48% 11.80% 15.78%
Count 1040 1000 925
%P/A 10.87% 12.32% 11.14%
Academic Growth: ACHS (57th) exceeds the District (55th) and State (50th) median growth percentile for overall Reading. ACHS (49th) is slightly below the District (52nd) and State (50th) median growth percentile for overall Math. ACHS (57th) exceeds the District (53th) and State (50th) median growth percentile for overall Writing Minority Students, ELL students and F/RL students had median growth percentiles at or above the 50th percentile. Students with IEPs have low growth in reading and are not catching up at a sufficient rate. CSAP Median Growth Percentiles: Reading Total grade 9 grade 10 2009 56 56 58 2010 School 42 39 45 2011 57 56 59 2009 56 60 52 2010 District 44 47 41 2011 55 56 54
14
minority/non F/RL/Non IEP/Non ELL/Non Girls/Boys Writing Total grade 9 grade 10 minority/non F/RL/Non IEP/Non ELL/Non Girls/Boys Math Total grade 9 grade 10 minority/non F/RL/Non IEP/Non ELL/Non Girls/Boys
56/56 56/58 54/57 58/50 59/53 2009 49 48 50 48/56 50/47 46/50 50/47 48/50 2009 56 59 51 57/52 56/57 57/56 58/52 54/58
41/44 41/42 39/42 43/39 43/40 2010 School 47 47 46 47/56 47/46 45/47 50/44 45/50 2010 School 49 54 44 48/59 49/51 43/50 49/51 46/51
57/57 57/59 43/59 59/53 61/56 2011 57 53 60 57/56 57/56 53/57 58/52 58/55 2011 49 48 49 48/52 49/43 47/49 49/48 49/49
57/54 58/54 54/57 60/53 59/53 2009 48 47 50 48/48 48/49 43/49 50/47 48/48 2009 55 58 52 55/56 55/56 55/55 55/55 54/56
45/43 45/43 39/45 47/43 47/42 2010 District 50 52 47 50/49 50/49 44/50 52/47 50/50 2010 District 49 53 46 49/49 50/48 53/49 52/47 46/53
56/50 56/54 48/56 61/48 57/53 2011 53 53 53 53/51 53/51 48/53 58/47 52/53 2011 48 55 48 52/49 53/50 54/52 54/49 50/53
15
Post Secondary and Workforce Readiness: The graduation rate has decreased 9.11% over 3 years. 2009 50.24% The drop-out rate decreased 1.05% over 3 years. 2009 11.54% The completion rate decreased 8.89% over 3 years. 2009 51.36% 2010 51.73% 2011 41.47% 2010 10.30% 2011 10.49% 2010 49.02% 2011 41.13%
ACT scores increased by 1.474 in composite scores, increased 1.479 in reading scores, and increased 1.70 in math scores over 3 years. 2009 14.57 2010 14.333 2011 14.887
16
Local and Immediate School-wide Data

School Climate Data ALL School Climate Survey Fall 2011 Compared to Annual Survey Spring 2011 Decision-making / Planning: 20. I am able to influence the decisions made by my school ACHS: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 56%] [Neutral 16% ] [ Agree, Strongly Agree 28% ] District Survey for ACHS 2010 -11: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 64.8% ] [Neutral 13.3%] [ Agree, Strongly Agree 21.9%] 30. Employees are empowered to help solve problems ACHS: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 51%] [ Neutral 16%] [Agree, Strongly Agree 34%] District Survey for ACHS 2010-11: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 66.7%] [ Neutral 8.6%] [Agree, Strongly Agree 24.8%] Trust and Teamwork 18. I trust people who make school decisions that affect me. ACHS: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 48%] [Neutral 16% ] [Agree, Strongly Agree 36%] District Survey for ACHS 2010- 11 [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 61.9%] [Neutral 12.4% ] [Agree, Strongly Agree 25.7%] 21. There is a an atmosphere of trust /respect between building administrators and staff in the building ACHS: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 49%] [ Neutral 17% ] [Agree, Strongly Agree 34%] District Survey for ACHS 2010- 11 [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 62.9%] [ Neutral 13.3% ] [Agree, Strongly Agree 23.8%] 41. There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at my site ACHS: [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 42%] [ Neutral 16% ] [Agree, Strongly Agree 42%] District Survey for ACHS 2010 -11 [Strongly Disagree, Disagree 61.5%] [ Neutral 15.4%] [Agree, Strongly Agree 23.1%] n=86
17
Classroom Walkthrough Data

ACHS CLASSROOM MONITORING March 2011 and October 2011 significant increase Assessment aligns with standards, learning goals and success criteria.
1. March 2011- 36 core content classrooms 56% significant evidence, 36 % limited evidence, 11% no evidence 2. October 2011- 34 core content classrooms 53% significant evidence, 29% limited evidence, 12% - no evidence 1. March 2011- 36 core content classrooms 25% significant evidence, 53 % limited evidence, 22% no evidence 2. October 2011- 34 core content classrooms 35% significant evidence, 29% limited evidence, 9% - no evidence 1. March 2011- 36 core content classrooms 16% significant evidence, 56 % limited evidence, 14% no evidence 2. October 2011- 34 core content classrooms 38% significant evidence, 44% limited evidence, 15% - no evidence 1. March 2011- 36 core content classrooms 28% significant evidence, 39 % limited evidence, 33% no evidence 2. October 2011- 34 core content classrooms 53% significant evidence, 41% limited evidence, 6% - no evidence 1. March 2011- 36 core content classrooms 47% significant evidence, 39 % limited evidence, 11% no evidence 2. October 2011- 34 core content classrooms 38% significant evidence, 47% limited evidence, 15% - no evidence
18
Learning goals and success criteria are effectively communicated and represented in rubrics for students.
Proficient / grade level anchors and models are evident in the classroom to support current learning.
Small group instruction occurs daily based on current formative data for RtI
Students engage in meaningful talk with each other and the teacher.
Root Cause- Proficiency Using quantitative data noted above and qualitative data collected from multiple sources we developed a complete and accurate picture of current reality. Qualitative data was collected through classroom observations, interviews with students and teachers, student and teacher surveys, and data teams. It was concluded that three root causes are evident. (1) We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. (2) We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. Additionally, we do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration that leads to high expectations for all students. More specifically there is a lack of understanding of rigor, best practices and literacy across content areas as well as a belief that students can achieve at high levels. (3) We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise instruction that is necessary to show accelerated growth. Verification of this root cause was found in the quality school reviews conducted by the RMC Research Corporation in 2010-11 in Math along with a compliance review by the Office for Civil Rights (2009) and the BUENO Center ELL/ Refugee Review in 2010-11 and an audit of the special education program completed by the District Management Council (DMC) in 2010- 2011. These reviews included classroom observations, administrator and teacher interviews/surveys, student and parent focus groups and document review. The external reviews indicated challenges remain in: providing differentiated instruction and instructional interventions; providing comprehensive and aligned ELL and special education programs, curriculum and professional learning; having consistent high expectations for student performance; and providing equitable support, monitoring, and evaluation of instruction.
Root Cause - Academic Growth Gaps: Using quantitative data noted above and qualitative data collected from multiple sources we developed a complete and accurate picture of current reality. Qualitative data was collected through classroom observations, interviews with student and teacher, student and teacher surveys and data teams. It was concluded that there are several root causes: we do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students; we have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth; and we do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration that leads to high expectations for all students. More specifically, there is a lack of understanding of literacy across content areas; a lack of understanding of differentiation of instruction for IEP and ELL students; and a lack of common understandings of best practices for ELL and IEP students across all content areas.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.1 -- Last updated: August 9, 2011) 19
Verification of this root cause was found in the quality school reviews conducted by the RMC Research Corporation in 2010-11 in Math along with a compliance review by the Office for Civil Rights (2009) and the BUENO Center ELL/ Refugee Review in 2010-11 and an audit of the special education program completed by the District Management Council (DMC) in 2010- 2011. These reviews included classroom observations, administrator and teacher interviews/surveys, student and parent focus groups and document review. The external reviews indicated challenges remain in: providing differentiated instruction and instructional interventions; providing comprehensive and aligned ELL and special education programs, curriculum and professional learning; having consistent high expectations for student performance; and providing equitable support, monitoring, and evaluation of instruction.
Root Cause Academic Growth: Using quantitative data noted above and qualitative data collected from multiple sources we developed a complete and accurate picture of current reality. Qualitative data was collected through classroom observations, interviews with student and teacher, student and teacher surveys and data teams. It was concluded that we have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerated growth especially for ELL and IEP students and we have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth Verification of this root cause was found in the quality school reviews conducted by the RMC Research Corporation in 2010-11 in Math along with a compliance review by the Office for Civil Rights (2009) and the BUENO Center ELL/ Refugee Review in 2010-11 and an audit of the special education program completed by the District Management Council (DMC) in 2010- 2011. These reviews included classroom observations, administrator and teacher interviews/surveys, student and parent focus groups and document review. The external reviews indicated challenges remain in: providing differentiated instruction and instructional interventions; providing comprehensive and aligned ELL and special education programs, curriculum and professional learning; having consistent high expectations for student performance; and providing equitable support, monitoring, and evaluation of instruction.
Root Cause Dropout/Graduation Rates: Using quantitative data noted above and qualitative data collected from multiple sources we developed a complete and accurate picture of current reality. Qualitative data was collected through classroom observations, interviews with student and teacher, student and teacher surveys and data teams. Several root causes were identified: we do not provide precise instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement; we have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise instruction that is necessary to show accelerated growth, and we do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. We do not have a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students; core classroom instruction does not provide specific targeted instruction to support students with a variety of needs especially ELL and IEP students; there is a lack of and consistent use of interventions in the areas of: decline in course grades; freshman course failure; intervention/credit recovery options; on-time graduation
Verification of this root cause was found in both the quality school reviews conducted by RMC Research Corporation in 2009-10 and in a study by the Johns Hopkins University completed in 2009. The RMC reviews included classroom observations, administrator and teacher interviews/surveys, student and parent focus groups and document review. The Johns Hopkins study analyzed student level data which indicated that the 2006-07 dropouts in the Aurora Public Schools were displaying academic warning signals several years previous to the dropout outcome. While not perfect predictors of a dropout outcome, these indicators (noted in the root cause) distinguished dropouts from graduates rather dramatically. The findings from both sources suggest that consistent and focused intervention around 9th grade course failure (and preferably, prevention of 9th grade course failure) is a way to target students most likely to experience a dropout outcome and would also yield beneficial effects in improved readiness for post-secondary education for any false positives thus identified. Changes That Will Make A Difference: What works best appears to be similar across subject, age, and context. Six signposts towards excellence in education: 1. Teachers are among the most powerful influences in learning. 2. Teachers need to be directive, influential, caring, and actively engaged in the passion of teaching and learning. 3. Teachers need to be aware of what each and every student is thinking and knowing to construct meaning and meaningful experiences in light of this knowledge, and have proficient knowledge and understanding of their content to provide meaningful and appropriate feedback such that each student moves progressively through the curriculum levels. 4. Teachers need to know the learning intentions and success criteria of their lessons, know how well they are attaining these criteria for all students, and know where to go next in light of the gap between students current knowledge and understanding the success criteria of: Where are you going?, How are you going?, and Where to next?. 5. Teachers need to move from single idea to multiple ideas, and to relate and then extend these ideas such that learners construction and reconstruct knowledge and ideas. It is not the knowledge or ideas, but the learners construction of this knowledge and these ideas that is critical. 6. School leaders and teachers need to create school, staffroom, and classroom environments where error is welcomed as a learning opportunity, where discarding incorrect knowledge and understandings is welcomed, and where participants can feel safe to learn, re-learn, and explore knowledge and understandings. In these six signposts, the word teachers is deliberate; as a major theme is when teachers meet to discuss, evaluate, and plan their teaching in light of the feedback evidence about the success or otherwise of their teaching strategies and conceptions about progress and appropriate challenge. This is not critical reflection, but critical reflection in light of evidence about their teaching. Visible Learning, John Hattie We found five characteristics that were common to all 90/90/90 schools. These characteristics were: A focus on academic achievement, Clear curriculum choices, Frequent assessment of student progress with multiple opportunities for improvement, An emphasis on non-fiction writing, and collaborative scoring of student work.
These schools used consistent practices in instruction and assessment (pg 7). The fundamental finding from the landmark research conducted by Kati Haycock and the education Trust (1998, 2001) is that teaching quality is the most dominant factor in determining student success. o Effective teaching and leadership make a difference (pg 8). o The keys to improved academic achievement are professional practices of teachers and leaders (pg 9). o Schools devoted time for teacher collaboration. From High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond, Doug B. Reeves o o Spillane (2004) shows that sustained engagement with an idea is critical for deep conceptual change(pg 86). Teachers need refined and focused knowledge all the time (pg 87). If schools combinedaily, relational learningthey will soon realize that all learning that counts involves learning in context, that is, continuous improvement within the settings where we work (pg 86). From Breakthrough, Fullan, Hill, Crevola o o o Precise Instruction o The work of Black and Wiliam (1998a; 1998b) and Stiggins (2004), attests to the power and prominence of assessment for learning as a core precision-based component reform (pg 19). o Precision means to be uniquely accurate, that is, precise to the learning needs of the individual (pg 18). o Schools need to get assessment for learning out of the basement, clean it up, and creatively recombine it with personalization and continuous professional learning (pg 18). From Breakthrough, Fullan, Hill, Crevola Most of these schools conducted weekly assessments of student progress (pg 4). Successful schools included an intensive focus on student data from multiple sources, and specifically focused on cohort data (pg 11). o use assessment data to make real-time decisions and restructure their teaching accordingly (pg 12). From High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond, Doug B. Reeves o o In order for a school to be a place that provides high levels of learning for all students regardless of student background, the staff must articulate through their behaviors and beliefs that all students can learn, all students will learn because of what we do. Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division, Anthony Muhammad Collaborative Cultures vs. Teacher Isolation The research in support of the benefits of collaboration is exhaustive, as is the research that links collaborative cultures to improving schools. On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities, DuFour, DuFour, Editors
22
Section IV: Action Plan(s) This section addresses the plan portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, you will identify your annual performance targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Goals Form below. Then you will move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form. School Target Setting Form
Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas). For federal accountability, annual targets for AYP have already been determined by the state and may be viewed on the CDE website at: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp. Safe Harbor and Matched Safe Harbor goals may be used instead of performance targets. For state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and postsecondary and workforce readiness. 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. Finally, list the major improvement strategies that will enable the school to meet each target. The major improvement strategies will be detailed in the Action Planning Form at the end of this section.
School Target Setting Form Performance Indicators Measures/ Metrics Priority Performance Challenges Proficiency has decreased 4% over 3 years and remains significantly lower than the District and State. For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts. For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts. Annual Performance Targets 2011-12 39% P/A CSAP 2012-13 49% P/A CSAP Interim Measures for 201112 Current status: 34% 2011 CSAP District Interim Assessments grades 9 -10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). Winter MAP assessment M 15% P/A CSAP 25% P/A CSAP District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). Major Improvement Strategies The development of expertise in precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. Provide systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. Develop a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of
23
R CSAP, Academic Achievement CSAPA (Status)
Proficiency has increased slightly at 0.31% over 3 years but remains significantly lower than District & State
Students with IEPs have shown 0% proficiency over 3 yrs For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts. 20% P/A CSAP 30% P/A CSAP
Winter MAP assessment
student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. Develop a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students.
District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).
Proficiency has increased slightly at 0.30% over 3 years but remains significantly lower than District & State
Students with IEPs have shown a slight increase over 3 yrs Both Black and White population has decreased in proficiency. Black and White populations have decreased in size and increased in ELL. 20% P/A CSAP For all disaggregated groups (minority, F/RL, ELL, IEP) proficiency is lower than their counter parts and is significantly below District & State Science proficiency has decreased 0.65% over 3 years. 30% P/A CSAP District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).
The development of expertise in precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. Provide systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. Develop a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. Develop a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students.
24
Participation Rate -95% MET Achievement for disaggregated groups NOT MET Safe Harbor School 22.15% MET Black 23.51% MET Hispanic 22% MET White 17.07% MET ELL 23.55% MET F/RL 22.32% MET IEP 60.28% NOT MET Participation Rate -95% MET Achievement for disaggregated groups NOT MET
Participation Rate -95% Safe Harbor School 19.9% Black 21.16% Hispanic 19.8% White 15.36% ELL 21.2% F/RL 20.09% IEP 54.25% Participation Rate -95%
Participation Rate -95% Safe Harbor School 17.9% Black 19.04% Hispanic 17.8% White 13.82% ELL 19.08% F/RL 18.08% IEP 48.82% Participation Rate -95%
The development of expertise in precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. Provide systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. Develop a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. Develop a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students.
AYP
(Overall and for each disaggregat ed groups)
Safe Harbor School 45.58% NOT MET M Black 54.32% NOT MET Hispanic 46% NOT MET White 27.93% NOT MET ELL 46.40% NOT MET F/RL 46.75% NOT MET IEP 73.64% NOT MET
Safe Harbor School 41.02% Black 46.89% Hispanic 41.4% White 25.14% ELL 41.76% F/RL 42.07% IEP 66.28% 11 12 Catch-up students move from 16%tile-
Safe Harbor School 36.92% Black 42.2% Hispanic 37.26% White 22.63% ELL 37.58% F/RL 37.86% IEP 59.65% 12 13 Catch up students move from 26%tile -
Academic Growth
Median Student Growth Percentile
The overall median growth percentile for all students who are catching-up is at 16%tile
District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September,
The development of expertise in precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results
25
26%tile The overall median growth for IEP students is significantly below all other sub groups.
36%tile
IEP - increase from 43%tile to 53%tile 11- 12 49th %tile to 59th %tile in median student growth
December, May). . Winter MAP assessment CELA subcategory score EDGE quarterly Reading assessment Interim assessments administer 3 times Fall/ Winter/ Spring. Winter MAP assessment
in increased achievement Provide systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth especially for ELL and IEP students. Develop a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. Develop a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students.
IEP increase from 53%tile to 63%tile 12 13 59th percentile to 69th percentile in median student growth 12 13 Increase from 67%tile to 77% tile
The overall median growth percentile for students who are catching-up is at 2%. The overall median growth percentile has decreased with the largest decrease at 9th grade.
The overall median growth percentile for writing is 57th percentile. W The overall median growth percentile for students who are catching-up is at 7%. The overall median growth for IEP students is significantly below all other sub groups
11- 12 Increase from 57%tile to 67%tile
District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). . CELA subcategory score District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). . Winter MAP assessment CELA subcategory score Reading EDGE quarterly Reading assessment The development of expertise in precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement Provide systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth
26
Median Student Growth Percentile
11 12 IEP students will perform at the 55th percentile in median student growth
12 13 Continue to perform 65th percentile in median student growth
The growth gap has increased for minority, IEP, ELL and F/R L students. The growth gap has decreased for ELL students.
11 12 Minority, IEP, F/RL and ELL students will perform at the 55th percentile in median student growth 11 12 IEP students will perform at the 55th percentile in median student growth
12 13 Minority, IEP, F/RL and ELL students will perform at the 65th percentile in median student growth 12 13 Continue to perform 65th percentile in median student growth
Interim assessments administer 3 times Fall/ Winter/ Spring. Winter MAP assessment
especially for ELL and IEP students. Develop a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. Develop a belief system that leads to high expectations for all students.
The overall median growth percentile for writing is 57th percentile. The overall median growth percentile for students who are catching-up is at 7%.
District Interim Assessments grades 9-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). . CELA subcategory score
Graduation Rate
Graduation Rate - Students are demonstrating early course failures at grade 9 and 10 that significantly reduce the percent that graduate within 4 yrs or at all. Drop Out - Students are demonstrating early course failures at grade 9 and 10 that significantly reduce the percent that remain in school. Completion Rate - Students are demonstrating early course failures at grade 9 and 10 that significantly reduce the percent that complete high school.
The on-time 2011 Graduation Rate will increase to 80% The 2011 Dropout Rate will decrease to 3.6%.
The on-time 2012 Graduation rate will increase to 80%. The 2012 Dropout Rate will decrease to 3.6%.
Quarterly reports on course grade failures and students on-track to graduate (early warning system).
Develop a continuum of student supports and pathways to graduation.
Post Secondary & Workforce Readiness Dropout Rate
Quarterly reports on course grade failures and students on-track to graduate, truancy reports (early warning system).
Increase choice offerings, access to postsecondary options and workforce readiness by implementing multiple academic and career pathways in all schools. Monitor and respond to decline in attendance and performance of 9th and 10th grade students weekly.
27
Mean ACT
The mean ACT composite score (15.3) is below the District score (16.9) and the State score (19.9).
The 2011 mean ACT Composite score will increase to 16.0.
The 2012 mean ACT Composite score will increase to 16.7.
Plan, Explore, and practice ACT assessments given each October.
Increase the precision and rigor of instruction and expectations of grade level content instruction for all groups of students including ELL and IEP students.
28
Action Planning Form
Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may add other major strategies, as needed.
Major Improvement Strategy #1: Provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. Root Cause(s) Addressed: We do not provide precise and rigorous instruction based on analysis of data in order to differentiate instruction that results in increased achievement especially for ELL and IEP students. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant Title I school-wide or targeted assistance plan requirements School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Resources Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
Timeline
Key Personnel*
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
completed, in progress, not begun)
Assess: CCL/Data teams, ILT, Administration and core department s will: Collect relevant clear learning targets on a regular basis Monitor through observation, conversation and student product Organize data around learning targets Analyze monitoring to identify strengths Monitor through daily, weekly and monthly walkthroughs Evaluate:
January 2012May 2013
Administration- School and District ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants Teacher Coaches in Math/ Literacy ELA Teacher Leader Equity Team
Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants School and District General Fund On-going work
Weekly leadership walkthroughs will show an increase in teachers indentifying clear learning target Weekly leadership walkthroughs will show an increase in teacher monitoring through observation, student product and conversation
In progress
In progress
January 2012-
Teacher Coaches
Weekly support through Teacher
Weekly teacher planning will show an increase in
In progress
29
Analyze monitoring data to identify strengths, next steps and student progress
May 2013
Plan: Flexibly group students by learning needs identified in monitoring data Content area planning that is backward planning , standards based and differentiated for ELL/ IEP January 2012May 2013
Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader Teacher Coaches Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader Equity Team Teacher Coaches Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader Teacher Coaches Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader Equity Team Teacher Coaches Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader
Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants School and District General Fund On-going work
analyzing data to identify strengths , next steps and student progress (School-wide CCL/Data Teams) Monthly monitoring notes will show an increase in analyzing data to identify strengths, next steps and student progress
In progress
Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants School and District General Fund On-going work
Teaching: Provide timely feedback, exemplars, and models for learning Provide differentiated instruction for ELL and IEP students January 2012May 2013
Observation of teacher planning (weekly) and m core content planning (monthly) for precise and rigorous instruction will show an increase in student achievement Weekly teacher planning will show an increase in analyzing data to identify strengths , next steps and student progress (School-wide CCL/Data Teams) Observation of teacher planning (weekly) and m core content planning (monthly) for precise and rigorous instruction will show an increase in student achievement
In progress
In progress
Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants School and District General Fund
In progress
30
Teacher Coaches Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader Equity Team
On-going work
Weekly teacher planning will show an increase in analyzing data to identify strengths , next steps and student progress (School-wide CCL/Data Teams) Monthly observation of best instructional practices teacher to teachers for CCL /Data teams
In progress
In progress
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, although completion is recommended. Status of Action Step may be required for certain grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention Grant).
31
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Provide systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increase academic achievement and accelerate growth. Root Cause(s) Addressed: We have not provided systematic and differentiated professional learning around precise and rigorous instruction that is necessary to increased academic achievement and accelerate growth. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant Title I school-wide or targeted assistance plan requirements School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Resources Implementation Benchmarks Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
Timeline
Key Personnel*
Provide differentiated professional learning with a focus on precise and rigorous instruction o Weekly CCL/Data Teams o Monthly core content planning meetings extended time o Weekly content planning o Bi-weekly ILT meetings o Equity Team meetings and schoolwide training on culturally responsive classrooms o Connecting Meaning (ELL Strategies) Three Day training for all teachers o ELAchieve Training for all English and ELD teachers o EDGE (ESS reading program)training for SPED teachers o Active Physics quarterly training for 9th grade math and science teachers o CCL/Data Team Leader monthly
January 2012 to May 2013
Teacher Coaches Math/ Literacy Administration ILT members ELA/ESS Consultants ELA Teacher Leader Data Team Leaders
Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants in addition to on-going training
In progress CCL/Data team agendas, notes and data will show a focus on precise and rigorous teaching and increased student growth and achievement Weekly administrative monitoring of precise and rigorous instruction which is focused on application of professional learning Quarterly goal setting all school, all content
32
meetings District teacher coaches and consultants will monitor the work and development of teachers Increase time for teachers to collaborate on analyzing student work, data and growth to increase student achievement January 2012 to May 2013 January 2012 to May 2013 District teacher coaches and consultants Teachers Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants in addition to on-going training Weekly records of support from District Coaches and Consultants Weekly agendas from CCL/Data Teams will show focus on data and student work Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and ELA/ ESS Consultants in addition to on-going training Weekly records of support from District Coaches and Consultants Weekly CCL/Data Team records Monthly agendas and records from committees including: ILT, Equity Team, and PBiS Faculty Meeting agendas and notes Use the following structures to support professional learning: o vertical and horizontal planning, o on-going data driven conversations that include collaborative scoring of student work which is used as evidence of student and teacher learning, o observation followed by reflective dialogue, o Time to implement and practice new January 2012 to May 2013 District Teacher Coaches and Consultants ELA Teacher Leader ILT members CCL/Data Teams Weekly support through Teacher Coaches and Consultants Weekly records will show structures used to support professional learning Weekly meeting records will show dialogue and reflection Weekly records among classroom teachers (CCL/Data Teams) will
33
In Progress
Differentiate professional learning based on personal instructional needs and across curricula: whole group, small group( content level, CCL/Data Teams), individuals
ILT members Data Team Leaders Equity Team members PBiS members
In Progress
In Progress
learning in a collaborative community.
show collaboration in the development of instructional practice January 2012 to May 2013 ILT members Teachers Bi-weekly ILT meetings ILT classroom walkthroughs Classroom data analysis by ILT will show instructional understandings of all teachers and next steps in professional learning Weekly observations of ILT classrooms show the development of demonstration classroom practices In Progress
ILT will coordinate data analysis of best instructional practices and focus of building wide professional learning Add model classrooms from ILT as a learning/ modeling strategy
January 2012 to May 2013
ILT members
Weekly support of District Teacher Coaches and Consultants Building Administrative Team
In Progress
34
Major Improvement Strategy #3: Provide for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. Root Cause(s) Addressed: We do not have a school culture that provides for shared responsibility of student learning through positive, open and consistent communication and collaboration. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant Title I school-wide or targeted assistance plan requirements School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Timeline Key Personnel*
Resources
Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed,

in progress, not begun)
Quarterly and yearly climate surveys of teachers and students TELL Survey School wide video/book study-
Fall 2011 to May 2013
ILT Teachers
Climate Survey Student survey TELL Survey Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division by Anthony Muhammad - copies for all staff Pacific Education Group 2 day all faculty seminar ($4000) Equity Consultant provided by District Culturally relevant demonstration classrooms Courageous Conversations by Glenn Singleton
50% or above positive responses to questions relating to culture and climate 50% or above positive responses to questions relating to culture and climate 100% participation
In progress
Administration Teachers
In progress
Equity and Engagement Training
Equity Team Administration Teachers
Completed
Monthly consultation 2 identified teachers -Fall 2011 Book study for Equity Team 14 participants Measured by classroom
On- going
In progress
Completed
35
walkthroughs Culturally Relevant Teaching by Darlene Sampson Monthly support by Equity and Engagement team for all staff at Faculty Meeting Optional monthly professional development for equity and engagement Re-institution of Building Council elected by staff Minutes of ILT, AEA representative meetings, Building Council, PBiS, Equity Team are made public to all staff Fall 2011 to May 2013 Fall 2011 to May 2013 Administration Elected Teachers Members of ILT, AEA representatives, PBiS, Equity Team Building Council members Administration Members of: ILT AEA representative meetings, Building Council, PBiS Administration Metro Organization of People (MOP) Equity and Engagement English Language Acquisition Department Monthly meetings agenda and notes Monthly meetings agenda and notes Exit slips Ongoing Ongoing
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Parent Engagement
Spring 2011May 2013
Administration Teachers Parents Students Metro Organization of People (MOP)
Monthly parent meetings (Parent Teacher Student Accountability Meeting) MOP survey of selected parents MOP sets up core group of parents to meet regarding school/community concerns Semi-annual community/parent meetings
Ongoing
36
9th/10th grade Academies set own quarterly teacher/student/parent meetings Parent/Teacher Conferences Parent Portal Parent ESL Classes Quarterly parent coffees (informational meetings) held in homes of MOP parents Principal to lead
37
Major Improvement Strategy #4: Consistent use of interventions and supports in the areas of: freshman course failure; intervention/credit recovery options; on-time graduation Root Cause(s) Addressed: Students who are not on-track to graduate are not identified in a timely way and there is a lack of and consistent use of interventions and supports in the areas of: decline in course grades; freshman course failure and intervention courses /credit recovery options. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): School Plan under State Accountability Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant Title I school-wide or targeted assistance plan requirements School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
Key Personnel*
Resources
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,

Develop and implement a continuum of support for 9th through 12th grade students to include: Restructure to focused small learning communities:: o 9th grade Academy o 10th grade Academy o Health Science Academy o College Academy o Newcomer Academy Freshman Seminar teachers (Goodwill) E2020 credit recovery Summer School
Fall 2011 May 2013
Administration School counselors District Truancy Specialist School Drop-out prevention personnel at 9th and 10th grade Colorado Graduation Pathway Grant intervention specialist Freshman Seminar teachers (Goodwill)
Goodwill Industries provides Monthly meetings of key two teachers stakeholders. Colorado Graduation Pathway Grant $80, 000 District Truancy Specialist Grant Building PPA Gear-UP Grant Colorado Youth for Change (2 teacher salaries to Rebound and Futures) Daily Attendance Data Quarterly grade Pass/ Fail Data focus on 9th grade failure data CSAP/ACT Data Parent Contact Data Discipline/Referral data Drop-out data
On-going
38
5th Block (extended year) Tutorials Drop-out prevention coordinators for 9th and 10th grade CO Graduation Pathway Intervention Specialist District Truancy Specialists (2) Gear-Up Coordinators (2) Colorado Youth at Risk Two On-site Coordinator and Mentors (120) PBiS Colorado Youth for Change- Drop-out recovery Pathway and certification programs ICAP- Individual Career and Academic Planning Naviance/ College in Colorado. org
E2020 credit recovery (5 staff members) Gear-UP Coordinators Colorado Youth at Risk Two On-site Coordinator and Mentors (120)
Quarterly credit summary data Credit recovery datacredits earned Tutorial attendance data Overage/under credit data
PBiS coordinator and committee Colorado Youth for Change ( 2 teacher salaries to Rebound and Futures) Teachers
Develop and implement transition plan from 8th grade through 9th grade Creation of 9th grade Academy (3 small
Summer 2011 Administration May 2013 School counselors
Colorado Graduation Pathway Grant
Monthly meetings of key stakeholders.
39
learning academies) Proficiency data monitoring in 9th grade Looping with core content teachers from 9th to 10th grade Link Crew team building Early warning system for drop-out recovery GIS Specialist to work with 8th grade student and counselors High school visits 5th Block /Summer School Counselor Visitations to Middle Schools
Administrative Budget Link Crew Members 12th grade students GIS Specialists Teachers 10th Summer School Budget Staffing Budget
Pass/ Fail Data focus on 9th grade failure data CSAP Data Parent Contact Data Discipline/Referral data
Drop-out Recovery Coordinator Quarterly credit summary data Credit recovery data Tutorial attendance data
40
Section V: Appendices
Schools may add additional documentation to meet their unique needs. In particular, optional forms are available to supplement the improvement plan for schools to ensure that the requirements for the following have been fully met: Title I Schoolwide Program Title I Targeted Assistance Program Title I Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability Competitive School Grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention Grant, Closing The Achievement Gap)
41

Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan For Schools For 2011-12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan For Schools For 2011-12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan For Schools For 2011-12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colorados Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2011-12 Organization Code: 0180 District Name: Adams- Arapahoe

Section I: Summary Information about the School

3-years 72.2% 30.5% 49.6% 50.0%

Reading Math Writing Science

73.3% 33.5% 50.0% 50.0%

Overall Rating for Academic Achievement: Does Not Meet

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Overall number of targets for School: 39 Reading Math Writing

Median Student Growth Percentile Academic Growth

45/55 45/55 45/55

Expectation: If school met adequate growth, then

Overall Rating for Academic Growth: Meets

Measures/ Metrics Median Student Growth Percentile

10-11 Federal and State Expectations

10-11 School Results

Academic Growth Gaps

Overall Rating for Growth Gaps: Meets

Graduation Rate Post Secondary Readiness

Best of 4-year through 7-year Grad Rate

using a 6 year grad rate 52.3 (6year) 51.0 (6 years)

1-year 3.6% 1-year 20.0

3-years 3.9% 3-years 20.1

1-year 10.5% 1-year 15.3

3-years 10.8 3-years 14.6

Expectation: At or below State average

Overall Rating for Post Secondary Readiness: Does Not Meets

Mean ACT Composite Score

Expectation: At or above State average

Identification for School

Directions for completing improvement plan

Available Nov 2011

Available Nov 2011

Section II: Improvement Plan Information

School wide Restart Closure

Name and Title Email Phone

Services Center 2 15751 E 1st Avenue Aurora, CO 80011

Targets for 2010-11 school year

Target met? How close was school in meeting the target?

Academic Achievement (Status)

Reading: 35 % proficient Writing 30 % proficient Math 30% proficient

Targets for 2010-11 school year

Academic Growth Gaps

Writing n/a 45%tile 35%tile 30%tile 53%tile 47%tile 45%tile 50%tile

Math n/a 54%tile 35%tile 33%tile 59%tile 49%tile 43%tile 49%tile

Post Secondary Readiness

Graduation: 58.4% Drop-out: 8.2 Mean ACT 17.3

Worksheet: Data Analysis

Academic Achievement (Status)

Priority Performance Challenges

Priority Performance Challenges

Academic Growth Gaps

Post Secondary Readiness

Data Narrative for School

Data Narrative for School

Count 3982 3794 3671

%P/A 20% 17% 19%

Count 1040 1000 925

%P/A 39.23% 32.40% 35.14%

Count 1040 1000 925