2016 state review panel recommendation form...state review panelists: irene almond and alan dillon...

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 1

2016 State Review Panel Recommendation Form School/code & District/code: Aguilar Reorganized 6/1620

State Review Panelists: Irene Almond and Alan Dillon

Recommendation Meeting Date: May 25, 2016

Panel’s Recommendation:

The State Review Panel recommends management by a private or public entity for Aguilar Reorganized School

District, based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as well as a site visit conducted on April 26,

2016.

Evidence and Rationale:

The State Review Panel recommends management by a private or public entity for Aguilar School District, because

the district has been rated as Developing in the following areas: the leadership is adequate to implement change to

improve results; and, there is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the

assistance provided by an external partner. However, the district has also been rated as Not Effective in the following

areas: infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement; and, there is a likelihood of positive returns on state

investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and

staffing. The State Review Panel believes that these areas would be improved with the support of an outside

management entity.

The district has already started initial work at the secondary level (grades 7-12) within the district. These efforts are

also beginning to have a positive impact on the elementary school (i.e. READ Act interventionist, walkthroughs, etc.).

In addition to this having an outside manager help the district strengthen its infrastructure; other systems such as

development of curriculum (K-12 vertical alignment), student support (MTSS/RTI), instructional plan (including

technology), must be developed and implemented. Currently, the district does not have professionals within the

system who have knowledge about current pedagogy across all areas of instruction and instructional practices; the

district must develop its leadership and systems within both the elementary and secondary levels.

An outside management entity will be able help the district put structures in place for curriculum alignment; align and

integrate research-based instruction; develop and implement formative and summative assessments; develop and

implement tiered academic and behavioral supports; implement professional learning communities; develop a climate

of learning for all students; create and develop a professional development plan for all staff; and create systems that

will improve the district, such as establishing a mission, vision, and goals for the organization. The district will be in

partnership with Generation School’s beginning in June, 2016 to begin to develop and implement some of these

systems more fully.

The State Review Panel does not recommend Innovation status for either school or the district because the district

does not have adequate leadership in place to support this action successfully. Both the elementary and secondary

schools each have only .5 FTE administrators, neither of whom has the expertise to implement the academic

structures and systems that will lead to dramatic academic improvement. The secondary administrator is in her first

year as a principal. The district restarted the secondary school in June, 2015, allowing them to replace ineffective

teachers, adjust the bell schedule with a more academic focus, and create a teacher/administration position.


However, these changes did not impact the elementary school where local data shows declining academic

performance. The district does not have curriculum alignment; aligned and integrated research-based instruction;

developed and implemented formative and summative assessments; developed and implemented tiered academic

and behavioral supports; implemented professional learning communities; a developed climate of learning for all

students; a developed professional development plan for all staff; and created systems that would improve the

district, such as establishing a mission, vision, and goals for the organization. Schools within the district work in

isolation of one another and staff has little opportunity to collaborate and no established systems of communication.

The State Review Panel does not believe the current leadership at either the school or district level has the capacity to

utilize Innovation status in a way that will lead to greater student outcomes.

The State Review Panel does not recommend conversion to charter status due to the progress made by the district

to address academic achievement. Comparing 2014-15 to 2015-16 leadership structures, infrastructure, personnel,

and data, the district has begun to implement systems and structures to improve academic achievement. For

example, at the secondary level, they have established key programming changes including the addition of concurrent

enrollment courses with the local community college, and academic partnerships with neighboring districts to include

Spanish and FAA courses. Student enrollment in the elementary school increased from 59 to 77 and the high school

has increased from 35 to 53 since 2011. Additionally, the district has increased its extracurricular options for

students, including the re-introduction of athletics for both the elementary and secondary schools, as well as band.

The district is currently housed within one K-12 building and the superintendent acts as the school leader for the

elementary school, while providing ongoing support to the secondary school principal. Therefore, separation from

the district would not benefit either the elementary or secondary school. The district would also be heavily impacted

were either school to convert to a charter school. This could potentially lead to tremendous financial burden for the

district that would ultimately affect academic and extracurricular programming. Being the only school in a small, rural

community, it is unclear that the community would support a charter school or that a charter school in this

community could attract the stakeholders needed to ensure its success.

The State Review Panel does not recommend closure as an option for Aguilar School District. The State Review Panel

recognizes the positive impact that closure of the secondary school had on all stakeholders. As a result of this closure,

the school has been able to restructure, including the addition of a .5 FTE school leader, and the hiring of teachers

who are committed to the turnaround effort. The district’s elementary school is currently showing declines in

academic performance, and the current structure of the elementary classes (split grade) is inhibiting the impact on

student learning. Although closing the elementary school would help the district change personnel to better meet the

needs of multi-grade classrooms and would provide an opportunity to restructure classrooms, which do not appear to

be effective based on declining achievement data, the State Review Panel believes that a strong external management

entity can support these changes, while potentially avoiding closure of the elementary school.

The State Review Panel does not recommend district reorganization. The district restarted the secondary school in

June, 2015 which allowed them to replace ineffective teachers, adjust the bell schedule with a more academic focus,

and create a teacher/administration position. Aguilar Junior-Senior High School has displayed the following early

indicators of change by implementing a revised leadership structure (2015-16) that includes a secondary school

principal. Along with the addition of supplemental staff (FAA/Agriculture/Spanish), the school has also established

external partnerships such as those with La Veta School District and Trinidad State Junior College (concurrent classes

in psychology, math, and English), to make instructional programming more diverse. The school is also providing staff

with more targeted professional learning. Band and varsity sports in volleyball and basketball have been added and


the community is actively being invited to these events. The closure of the secondary school highlighted the

immediate need for change among staff and the community. The school closure made clear the seriousness of

situation the school/district is facing in regard to low academic performance and growth. The district is already

demonstrating some innovative work through their external partnership in the areas of leadership and instruction,

with a major focus on strengthening the infrastructure within the schools (i.e., establishing an MTSS/RTI process).

However, the changes made have not addressed other district schools (elementary). The district may consider closing

and restarting the elementary school in the future in order for the district to change personnel to better meet the

needs of multi-grade classrooms; this would provide an opportunity to restructure classrooms, which do not appear

to be effective.

State Review Panel District Site Visit Feedback Form 2015-16

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Site Visit Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: The State Review Panel (SRP, or the Panel) was created by the Accountability Act of 2009 to provide a critical evaluation of the state’s lowest-

performing schools and districts’ plans for dramatic action and provide recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. The

Panel’s work is informed by a review of documents (e.g., Unified Improvement Plan) and, in some cases, by a site visit. The site visit component was

added in 2013 to strengthen panelists’ understanding of the conditions in the schools and districts that are further along on the accountability clock. The

expectation is that the site visit will inform their recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education about potential actions at the

end of the accountability clock.

Prior to arriving on site, panelists conducted a document review aligned to the six key areas in the Accountability Act. The results of this review were

shared with all members of the site visit team and helped inform the team’s work during the visit. On site at the school/district, the site visit team used

evidence collected through classroom observations, focus groups, interviews, and document review to come to consensus on capacity levels in relation to

the six key areas. This report presents the school/district’s capacity levels in relation to the six key areas and a summary of evidence for each. Reviewer Name(s): Irene Almond and Alan Dillon Date: April 26, 2016

District Name/Code: Aguilar Reorganized 6/1620

SRP Site Visit Summary (complete using ratings from the following pages) Capacity Level:

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school/district improvement. Not Effective

3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance.

Developing

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Developing

5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.

Not Effective

6. There is necessity that the district remain in operation to serve students. Yes



Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based

on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or

system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective:



SRP Evaluation based on Site Visit

State Review Panel Criteria Claims & Evidence

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

1.1 Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership communicates a relentless commitment to the district turnaround.

Leadership makes data-driven changes to the academic program and organization to promote dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership conveys clear expectations for performance for all stakeholders, including district staff, school leadership, teachers, district accountability committee, parents and community members.

Leadership is beginning to drive achievement gains.

● District leaders (superintendent and secondary school principal), school leaders and the School Board (Board) reported that the school is focused on increasing math, writing and reading scores. Additionally, these stakeholders articulated that they want to increase enrollment at the school and have made concerted changes in an effort to draw students. For example, the elementary and high school now offer extracurricular activities, such as football, basketball and band. Stakeholders discussed that these activities have not only helped strengthen community support, but have also acted as incentives for students around academic performance; students who do not maintain academic standing are not eligible to participate.

● District partners reported that school leadership is beginning to make a commitment to district turnaround. This year, the principal and superintendent have begun to conduct walkthroughs, look at data (NWEA, DIBELS), and look at teacher performance (via student achievement). This was confirmed by a document review of the district’s Classroom Observation Form samples and 10/14/15 NWEA Projected Proficiency Summary Reports.

● School Leadership reported that lesson plans are being collected from teachers every Monday. Teachers now have a common lesson plan template, which is used district-wide. This was confirmed by a document review of the 2015-16 collection of Lesson Plan samples.

● The school board reported that its mission is to get out of Priority Improvement. A review of the superintendent’s board update from 8/9/2015 and work session report from 1/18/2016 denote district efforts to support leadership in obtaining grants to professionally develop all staff.

1.2 Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Leadership communicates clear and focused goals that are understood by all district and school personnel.

District and school staff understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains district-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals.

1.3 Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges, and to adjust implementation of the action plan.

Leadership communicates data trends and issues, ensures timely access to data, and models and facilitates data use.

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results and effective use of data.

Leadership first concentrates on a limited number of priorities to achieve early, visible wins.

There is regular progress monitoring of performance and implementation data and, as appropriate, results lead to elimination of tactics that do not work.

Benchmarks are used to assess progress toward goals; goals are adjusted as progress is made.

Data on progress toward goals drives organizational and instructional decision making



Leadership is beginning to establish goals to promote student performance; however, when asked about how the goals would be measured, stakeholders could not provide clear targets related to reading and writing.

● District and school leadership reported that the Performance Challenges are math and reading, while the School Board identified math as the focus. The Board also cited that a focus is increasing enrollment.

● District leaders and external partners reported that the school has focused on redesigning the school bell schedule to “recapture time” that was not being used effectively and efficiently. More common planning time has been added, in addition to professional development days and extended academic time. Time captured was a result of reducing non-academic extracurricular activities such as recess, lunch, and exploratory or enrichment classes. The district implemented the new schedule during the 2015-16 academic year. At the high school level, the schedule reduced from eight classes per day to six, with extended instructional time. Stakeholders reported that the redesigned bell schedule has increased reading blocks (90 minutes for elementary and 120 minutes for secondary), which was confirmed by a copy of the school schedule in the 2016-16 Aguilar Student and Parent Handbook.

● District and school leadership reported that partnerships with Trinidad State Junior College (TSJC) have been established to support and extend the opportunities for concurrent enrollment; at present, eight out of 30 students are taking courses concurrently with TSJC. This was confirmed with the TSJC and Aguilar concurrent contracts. Stakeholders also reported that a partnership has been established with La Veta and Walsenburg school districts to extend academic options for students by adding Future Farmers of America (FFA) and auto mechanics. Additionally, these district partnerships include a distance-learning component where the instructor teaches via video for three days and comes on



site one day per week. Through a partnership with La Veta district, Spanish has also been added; however, at this time it was reported to be only via video.

● School leadership reported an addition of the Friday Extended Day, which takes place 9 a.m.-11 a.m. every Friday. This time provides students at the secondary level (grades 7-12) an opportunity to complete missed work in either math or literacy; however, confirmation of implementation was only referenced by one ineligibility report.

● District and school leadership reported that district leadership is looking at how to align staff, allocate resources, and ensure that various funds such as Title funds, grants, and state resources are being used effectively; a strategic plan has not yet been developed. District leadership explained that this is something the district hopes to begin in June, 2016 as one component of their partnership with Generation Schools Network. Per the Independent Contractor Agreement, a retreat in June, 2016 is for the “establishment of a clear direction which will be made quickly at the school in terms of culture changes for all and planning for a ‘Big Win’ in the fall that will signal progress.”

● District and school leadership reported that a social worker had been hired to support students once a week around social and emotional well-being.

● District leaders (superintendent and secondary school principal) and external partners reported that their goal is to develop and implement a Multi-Tiered Student Support System/Response to Intervention System. This is something they are working on as an identified area of need, but has not yet been implemented.

Leadership does not consistently and systematically analyze data to identify and address high priority challenges, and to adjust implementation of the action plan.

● Document Review of the Unified Improvement Plan does not include detailed action steps, a specific timeline for achieving



implementation benchmarks, nor include key staff who will own each action. Some of the Major Improvement Strategies are outdated or do not align with the goals articulated by stakeholders during the site visit. Major Improvement Strategy #1, to “Develop and implement a transition plan for the District Management turnaround strategy that is aligned with Colorado’s accountability system” does not reference data usage in any area (Description of the Action Step, Resources, or Implementation Benchmarks). Major Improvement Strategy #2, to “Implement a K-12 curricular program that meets the specific needs of rural students and meets the expectations of Colorado’s latest content standards” does not reference data usage in any area (Description of the Action Step, Resources, or Implementation Benchmarks). Major Improvement Strategy #3, to “Recruit and support effective professional educators with specific experience and expertise in best practices related to dramatically improving student achievement in heavily impacted, rural communities” also does not reference data usage in any area (Description of the Action Step, Resources, or Implementation Benchmarks).

● School leadership and teachers reported, when asked how goals were set, that teachers verbally communicated their needs to leadership.

● The school board reported that the superintendent communicates on monthly school/district performance, informing their decision-making. (e.g., Singapore Math and Generation Schools). However, a review of superintendent board report from May 18, 2015 where the approval of the new math curriculum purchase occurred, does not show that a summary data analysis was included in the report.

● When asked how leadership is monitoring the action steps within the UIP, stakeholders stated that they are reviewing assessment data. District leadership and external partners, however, reported that data is not being monitoring consistently. The district is working with Generation Schools to develop a walkthrough document, which they will use to evaluate tactics/strategies.

● District leaders and external partners reported that their goal is to



develop and implement a Multi-Tiered Student Support System/Response to Intervention System. This is something they are working on as an identified area of need, but has not yet been implemented. However, specialists reported that the MTSS process is in place and that 14 new students have been identified during this academic year for special education services as a result of this process, increasing the number of special education students from eight to 22. Document review of an external Diagnostic Review Summary Report prepared by Generation Schools identified an “area of challenge” as being “the school does not yet have a system of tiered supports.”





2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school/district improvement. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [ ] Developing [X] Not Effective

Considerations:

2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

Leadership ensures ongoing development for emerging and current school leaders with a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

Leadership provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to deliver the curriculum, monitors instruction on a regular basis, and provides adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

The district provides adequate systems by which to capture and store data, report it to schools, and make it accessible for instructional staff to utilize.

The district is not yet leading intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program; however, the district is working to establish structures to support the sustainability of the organization. ● District leaders and external partners reported that Aguilar RE-6

received a Turnaround Leadership grant from the state of Colorado that will enable them to focus on leadership development. An outline of this work will begin in the summer and was generally articulated in the Generation Schools Independent Contractor Agreement signed on 4/22/2016.

● District and school leadership reported that a secondary school (7-12) principal position had been established for the 2015-15 academic year. This was confirmed by the district roster and during stakeholder interviews. District leadership also reported working to develop the principal to ensure long-term sustainability.

● District and School leadership, along with school specialists, reported that the principal and superintendent work closely together. School leadership reported that the principal meets with the superintendent every day for one hour in the morning for leadership guidance. Document review of the master schedule confirmed planning time for this meeting; however, the site visit team observed that the principal was overseeing assessments during the scheduled time, so could not confirm that these meetings are taking place regularly.

● Partners and district leadership both reported that they are creating a dashboard by which to capture data, which they plan to share with staff. The goal is to roll it out in June, 2016.

● The School Board reported that they attend CASB (Colorado Association of School Boards) Conference to obtain professional development around oversight of the district. When asked for specifics around the oversight they provide to the superintendent,

2.2: District leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective leaders, teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership has created and/or implemented an organizational and staffing structure that will drive dramatic student gains.

Leadership recruits and hires leaders, teachers, and staff members with commitment to, and competence in, the district’s philosophy, design, and instructional framework (e.g., trained and experienced with curriculum, certified/licensed to teach, qualified to teach subject area).

Leadership ensures the evaluation of all staff, and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership provides leaders, teachers, and staff members with active, intense, and sustained professional development (PD), including guidance on data analysis and instructional practice, aligned to school improvement efforts. o PD is informed by ongoing analysis of student performance,

instructional data, and educators’ learning needs. o PD requires leaders, teachers, and staff members to

demonstrate their learned competency in a tangible and assessable way.

o PD engages leaders, teachers, and staff members in active learning (e.g., leading instruction, discussing with colleagues, observing others, developing assessments), provides follow-up sessions/ongoing support for teachers’ continued learning.

o The quality of professional development delivery is regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.



2.3: District leadership ensures that the district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

District leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential district and school functions, and that roles and responsibilities of all individuals at the school are clear.

District leadership has established effective means of communicating with district and school staff.

District leadership ensures that all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state are met, including the submission of school improvement plans, financial statements, school audit, calendar, and student attendance.

District leadership effectively manages the budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.

District leadership effectively manages operations (e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

however, participants could not provide specific examples.

The district is working to recruit and develop effective teachers and staff who can drive student gains.

● District leadership reported that recruitment of teachers largely occurs by getting the names of candidates who have applied, but were not selected for openings in neighboring school districts (which are higher performing). District leadership explained that, “out of 10 interviewed, if they hire one, Aguilar will target the other 9.” District leadership also reported that sometimes they use “word of mouth” of professionals wanting to relocate to the area. In these instances, the superintendent informally get to know the potential candidate via telephone conversations; a current example is a teacher from Alaska with math/science/STEM experience who wants to relocate to the area.

● District and school leadership also referenced a formal interview processes, which includes teacher teams and a set of questions that they ask candidates.

● Document review shows classroom observation form samples providing some feedback given to teachers. The feedback is not specific, however. For example, on multiple forms, leadership wrote that “kids were engaged,” but did not provide further, concrete evidence. School leadership also reported conducting walkthroughs and looking for learning objectives. District leadership reported that the district will be moving walkthroughs from every two weeks, which they do currently, to daily during the next academic year, with help from Generation Schools.

District leadership does not have a clear understanding of the financial and operational systems.

● When asked about the budget, district leadership stated that the budget was $3 million and his fund balance as approximately $200,000. A document review of the financial statement, however,

2.4: Leaders provide effective instructional leadership.

District leaders ensure that schools implement a coherent, comprehensive, and aligned curriculum. o District leaders ensure that schools’ curriculum, instruction,

and assessments are aligned with state standards, with each other, & coordinated both within & across grade levels.

o District leaders ensure that instructional materials are selected and/or developed in accordance with a district-wide instructional framework and aligned with established curriculum standards.

o District leaders ensure the curriculum is periodically reviewed and revisions are made accordingly.

The district ensures that school leaders provide meaningful feedback on teachers’ instructional planning and practice. o The district ensures that leaders regularly provide

meaningful feedback on instructional planning. o The district ensures that leaders regularly observe

instruction and provide meaningful, timely feedback that helps teachers improve their practice.

District leaders provide conditions that support school-wide data cultures. o Staff, school leaders and teachers have easy access to varied,

current, and accurate student and instructional data. o Staff, school leaders, and teachers are provided time to

collect, enter, query, analyze, and represent student data and use tools that help them act on results.

o District leaders ensure that all staff, school leaders, and teachers receive professional development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and interpret a range of data reports; frame questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment



literacy; use data tools and resources). revealed that the district’s actual budget is approximately $1.9 million, a fund balance of $358,000, with an additional $200,000 to be added from an accounting oversight from the previous academic year.

● When asked about the district’s budget, the school board could not articulate the operations and finances, including the district’s budget or fund balance. They stated they rely on the superintendent to submit information and make financial decisions.

● When asked, school leadership was unable to articulate the budget and stated that this was overseen by the superintendent.

● When asked, district leadership articulated that the district does not have a strategic plan.

Leaders do not provide effective instructional leadership.

● District and school leadership, along with teachers, reported that a curriculum had previously been created by an external partner between 2011-13. These stakeholders explained that the curriculum provided was wholly based on a textbook, but was not aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards. They added that it was not rigorous, viable, or implemented with fidelity. All stakeholders explained that the district has stopped using this curriculum. Currently, the district does not have a set curriculum with a transparent scope and sequence for grade-level progression; however, they reported they are collectively using the following resources: Singapore math/Big Idea math, Step Up to Writing and Treasures (Elementary Level).

● School leadership and external partners reported that adjusting the instructional delivery of Singapore Math from 5-days per week to 4-days per week needed to occur in order to ensure that students can achieve grade level. It was reported district and school leadership, along with teachers and an external partner that they are going to be making these adjustments this summer (July, 2016) in partnership with Generations Schools to ensure pacing.

● A review of observation feedback samples showed a consistent teacher observation form being used district-wide. Examples included feedback in the areas of: student engagement, learning targets,



standards-based objectives, and checks for understanding; however, the feedback provided by school and district leaders was not specific (e.g., “students were engaged” or “state the learning objective”).

● School leadership and external partners both reported that professional learning communities (PLCs) are planned, but are not yet in place; however, district leadership did not corroborate this. The vision for implementation of PLCs were inconsistent, depending on which stakeholder group was sharing with the site visit team.

● School leadership reported that they are looking at data multiple times throughout the year; partial confirmation of this was visible in NWEA documents (10/8/15 and 10/14/15).

● District and school leadership, along with teachers, reported looking at K-12 data (CMAS, DIBLES, NWEA, etc.) to look at trends over the last three years and five years. School leadership provided documentation that illustrated a significant drop in 2011 test scores. Stakeholder explained that review of this data pressed urgency for improvement “at all levels” in “all areas.”

● School leadership reported that no clear systems are in place to collect data. This was confirmed in the document review of an external Diagnostic Review Summary Report prepared by Generation Schools. In this report, an identified “area of challenge” states that “the school does complete NWEA benchmark assessment 3 times a year in reading and math, teachers are not aware of how that relates to their instruction.”






Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

3.1: Educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect shared commitments to students’ learning.

District personnel convey shared vision and values about teaching and learning and reference these to guide their instructional decision making.

District personnel convey a shared commitment to the learning of all students in the district.

District personnel convey that students’ learning is a collective responsibility, regardless of their personal/home situations.

District personnel convey that it is important not to give up on any students, even if it appears that they do not want to learn.

District personnel convey commitment to, and hold each other accountable for, improvement goals and tasks.

Educators’ mindsets and beliefs do not consistently reflect shared commitment to all students’ learning.

● District and school leadership, along with teachers, reported that the district needs to improve in all academic areas (reading, writing and math). The School Board reported that they need to get out of “turnaround.”

● Teachers reported that students this year are getting to participate in FFA and an agricultural program. They added that these programs are “good for special education kids” because they have different standards.

● The current class configuration in the elementary school is not being implemented in a way that is supporting all student learning. The site visit team observed combined grade classes (i.e.: grades 1 and 2; grades 3 and 4; grades 5 and 6) without differentiation. Notably, the site visit team observed that only half of classes were being instructed while the other half sat passively, or completed work that is not at grade level. For instance, in the grades 3 and 4 classroom, the teacher was directly instructing the third graders and the fourth graders had completed an assessment and had then begun to work on a worksheet. It was observed that not all students were able to complete the assessment and when the teacher was giving impromptu directions to the fourth graders on the worksheet, she confused the third graders. Another observation made by the state review panel observers was that in the grades one and two classrooms, students were separated for math instruction and the teacher was leading a group of seven

3.2: The district has established conditions that support educators’ learning culture.

Communications among all stakeholder groups are constructive, supportive, and respectful.

Communications between leadership and district/school staff are fluid, frequent, and open.

District leaders model and convey well-defined beliefs about teaching and learning, and convey value for innovation, learning from mistakes, and risk-taking.

District leaders participate in formal and informal professional learning, including their own leadership development about how to improve curriculum and instruction in a leadership context (i.e., high- or low-poverty; urban or rural district).

3.3: District personnel collaborate regularly to learn about effective instruction and students’ progress.

District personnel meet frequently during regularly scheduled, uninterrupted times to collaborate, establish improvement goals, and make data-informed instructional decisions.

District personnel’s collaborative meetings have a clear and persistent focus on improving student learning and achievement.

District personnel describe sharing knowledge and expertise among colleagues as essential collaborative activity for success.

District staff and school leaders are willing to talk about their own practice, to actively pursue and accept feedback from colleagues, and to try new leadership strategies.



The district has created a performance-driven culture in which district staff, school leaders, and teachers effectively use data to make decisions about daily instruction/organization of students.

boys while an instructional assistant was leading a group of seven boys and girls in the library. The group given direct instruction by the teacher appeared to be more academically rigorous than the instruction led by the instructional assistant. The teacher also provided the students in her group visual supports via the overhead projector, while the instructional assistant in the library didn’t even have the overhead lights on.

● The site visit team also observed students taking an assessment and being left on their own to complete the assessment, with no completion monitoring by the teacher. During the assessment the site visit team did not observe the teacher circulating or checking to verify if students were completing the assessment; while seven of eight students had completed the test, one student was still testing and had only scribbled on his paper. When asked what the student was doing, s/he explained, “taking my test.”

● School leadership, teachers, and parents reported that Friday Extended Day gives students at the secondary level (grades 7-12) extended time for work completion. A big incentive for students to attend is that it helps them become eligible for participation in athletic activities. For elementary students, teachers reported that they have students complete their make-up work during recess.

● School leadership and teachers reported that the school is focused on flexible scheduling. For example, at the secondary level, the school works to include students in concurrent enrollment, allowing any student to participate, regardless of grade, who can do the work. They explained that this allows the school to adapt to students’ interests and needs. When asked if students were required to complete an assessment (Accuplacer) to take the concurrent classes, the response was no, it just had to be a class not offered at the high school. The district could not supply records for the performance of students within these programs.

● When asked about achievement expectations for students, some teachers responded that they expect students “to be at grade level,” while others said to “meet them where they are at” and focus on growth. Teachers explained that many students are far

3.4: District personnel demonstrate the capacity to implement appropriate action to support student achievement and school improvement.

School staff, with district support, use results from interim or summative assessments to make adjustments to the organization of students in the classroom, pace of instruction, or content being taught.

School staff, with district support, results from interim or summative assessments to identify students in need of remediation or acceleration, and assign students to appropriate supports.

Qualified district representatives provide oversight and support to ensure that schools deliver instruction and provide the necessary supports for English language learner (ELL) students or students with special needs.

District leaders involve school leaders and district staff in planning and implementation of district policies.

District leaders provide opportunities for school leaders and district staff to make or provide input on important decisions.

3.5: The district engages the community and families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

The district includes parents/guardians in cultivating a culture of high expectations for students’ learning and their consistent support of students’ efforts.

The district invites family participation in district activities (e.g., volunteering in on committees; attendance at organizational meetings) and regularly solicits their input.

The district offers workshops and other opportunities for parents/guardians to learn about home practices that support student learning.

District personnel communicate with parents/guardians about instructional programs and overall student progress within the district.



below grade level, and so expecting that they will be at grade-level is unrealistic. Specialists reported that formally identified special education students had increased from eight students in August, 2015 to 22 students as of April, 25, 2016.

The district generally has established conditions that support educators’ learning culture; however, district personnel do not collaborate regularly to learn about effective instruction and students’ progress.

● District and school leadership, teachers, and parents reported that ongoing, informal communication between leadership and stakeholders takes place regularly, but is not structured. When asked about what input they have, teachers and parents said that they are always invited to share ideas, even though it may not always lead to change; they feel communication has occurred. Parent reported they always “feel heard” and that their feedback is always informally solicited.

● Teachers reported that the superintendent and principal attended professional development with teachers (Capturing Kids’ Hearts, June 2015), even though neither the superintendent nor the principal led the learning. It was reported the principal does lead professional development with secondary staff in the areas of data and literacy (NWEA, Alpine, Step Up to Writing). The superintendent is currently working with a representative from Generation Schools, and the district has received a Turnaround Grant from the Colorado Department of Education for the 2016-17 academic year to work on strategic turnaround leadership, managerial turnaround leadership, and instructional turnaround leadership for five approved participants.

● School leadership reported that the principal is in an educational leadership program to receive her principal’s license, and has only three more classes to complete in the program, which she is scheduled to do during summer, 2016.

● School leadership and external partners both reported that



professional learning communities (PLCs) are planned, but not yet in place; however, district leadership did not corroborate. The vision for implementation of PLCs was inconsistent, depending on which stakeholder group was sharing with the site visit team.

Although the district leadership is working to increase the capacity of personnel to support student achievement and school improvement, leadership and staff do not yet demonstrate the capacity to serve all students effectively.

● School leadership and external partners reported that fall and winter NWEA assessments had taken place. Partial confirmation of this was visible in NWEA documents (10/8/15 and 10/14/15).

● School leadership and external partners reported that a reading specialist who is funded by Read Act funding is providing targeted reading interventions for students in grades kindergarten through three. It should be noted that the current reading specialist is the representative from Generation Schools Network who is also assisting the district with general education instruction; district leadership and external partners indicated that they would hire a new reading specialist for the 2016-17 academic year when this representative is becomes funded by the Leadership Turnaround grant.

● Teachers reported that tracking student progress around NWEA goals has occurred from fall to winter assessments; however, when asked, the district could not provide documents to this. The site visit team did not observe any data posted in the building around NWEA goals and tracking.

● Specialists described the MTSS/RTI process and reported that she had conducted a training for all staff at the beginning of the academic year. When asked, however, multiple stakeholders stated that there is not an active MTSS/RTI system, but that it is a district priority to establish such a system during the next academic year.

● Specialists could not articulate which assessments were being



utilized for testing students to be identified as special education. Three assessments were referenced in interviews with the site visit team, but only two could be referenced by title. Additionally, when asked, specialists reported that there is no coordination between the special education teacher and Read Act interventionist.

The district is working to engage the community and families; however, this is not yet in support of student learning and school improvement efforts.

● Stakeholders reported that over the last eight years there has been slow community and family disengagement; many programs such as varsity athletics and band had been cut from the high school program and the superintendent turnover had all caused families to seek schooling in other communities. Since the current superintendent has been on staff, the community and families are beginning to re-engage with the addition of expanded high school programing and consistent district leadership, as seen by the enrollment increase from 77 students in 2011 to 122 in 2015.

● All stakeholders reported that focusing on using extracurricular activities (e.g., varsity sports and high school band) to draw families and students back in has been a way to reconnect with disengaged families and community. For example, parents reported that the school was re-engaging with families at school athletic events by speaking with parents at the concession stand and sharing what is happening at the school.

● They also reported that by adding programs such as FAA and agriculture (mechanics) the community is becoming more supportive and engaged in the school. District leadership also reported that the big focus on outreach and giving creative options for students as helped to re-establish trust with families.

● School leadership reported that emails and phone calls home occur on a regular basis. They explained, however, that the challenge continues that many parents have do not have limited or no Internet access; for this reason, parents cannot effectively track



student grades (e.g., use Infinite Campus). Use of this system could not be verified because no one in the district is tracking this information.

● Parents reported that the Aguilar School E-6 Student & Parent Handbook (2015-16 grades Pre-K-12) is given to students and parents. They explained, and a review of the handbook confirmed, that the handbook lists the district’s expectations. Stakeholders reported that students sign a school contract acknowledging the expectations at the beginning of each school year.

● District and school leadership, along with parents, reported that parents are engaged through Family Nights (back to school), parent teacher conferences (two days per year), and sporting events (football, basketball, and band).

● Parents reported that there is a group of parents who are engaged, but that it has been more challenging to reach disengaged families. They explained that the district used to offer food to people to get them in; however, the strategy did not boost attendance, so it was discontinued.

School leadership reported that meetings are scheduled between families and school staff to discuss students’ literacy levels and goals in accordance to Read Act. Parents were able to review their child’s data and goals.





4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner.

Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

4.1: The district collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

The district seeks expertise from external partners, as appropriate (i.e., for professional development, direct support for students).

The district ensures that roles and responsibilities of existing partners are clear.

There are designated district personnel to coordinate and manage partnerships.

The district is beginning to collaborate with existing external partners.

All stakeholders reported ongoing partnerships with key organizations, from various professional agencies. o The partnership with Le Veta School District provides a

FFA/agriculture program and distance learning opportunity for high school Spanish).

o Trinidad State Junior College offers students concurrent enrollment for high school students, providing very clear roles and responsibilities in student contracts as agreed upon with the district superintendent, as verified by being signed by the superintendent.

o The district is also in partnership with an external educational organization, Generation Schools Network. Generation Schools provided a diagnostic visit in November, 2015 and is currently working with a reading specialist (Read Act K-3) to provide guidance to the district and school leadership team. The district plans to extend the Generation Schools contract (tied to Turnaround Leadership grant from CDE awarded April, 2016) to focus on leadership development over the next two academic years beginning in June, 2016. Per the document review of the Turnaround Leadership Grant, the focus will be at the elementary school level.

o Aguilar School District is also supported by the BOCES for special education support and district leadership support (CPI Training).

The district is beginning to leverage existing partnerships to support student learning; however, these partnerships are not clearly articulated

4.2: The district leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

The district maximizes existing partners’ efforts in support of improvement efforts.

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.

4.3: Leadership is responsive to feedback.

District leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

District leadership seeks feedback from key stakeholders

District leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.



and measures of success are not evident.

● District and school leadership reported limited internally provided professional development; the secondary principal has provided trainings in Step Up to Writing, Alpine, and NWEA.

● All stakeholders reported that staff participated in Capturing Kids Hearts (Flippen Group) in June, 2015 to focus on the climate at school. Perceived results of the training among all stakeholders was that the program has been very effective and that the school has seen positive returns. Specifically, they have seen a positive shift in relationships between students and teachers as well as teachers and teachers. Collectively, they reported that a renewed commitment to the schools via decreased discipline, participation in athletics (football, basketball, and band) and student commitment to be eligible (utilization of Friday school for work completion) can be seen.

● District and school leadership, along with specialists, reported that there does not appear to be a clear outline of roles and responsibilities for the work with Generation Schools. It was reported that the current representative is funded through Read Act and general funds. The district will have a new contract with Generation Schools funded by the Turnaround Grant that was just awarded to the District. A future implementation plan will be drafted in June, 2016 at a three-day training in Colorado Springs, CO.






Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [ ] Developing [X] Not Effective

Considerations:

5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leadership identifies turnaround strategies and implements programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance.

Leadership assesses the cost and impact (effect on student achievement and number of students served) of each program/initiative to determine its academic return on investment.

Leadership makes decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on this analysis.

Leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Leadership does not consistently monitor the return on investment of specific initiative and use data to inform decision-making.

● District leadership reported that there are three key turnaround strategies: redesigned schedule, focus on data-driven instruction, and the revamping of the MTSS/RTI system as confirmed by all stakeholders.

● District and school leadership, along with teachers and the school board reported that the superintendent is in charge of budget and allocation of resources. Decisions are generally aligned with improving instruction, especially at the elementary level (e.g., reading specialist), but a district strategic planning process was not evident in deliberate planning and resource allocation.

● When asked, district and school leadership reported that there is not a clear process by which to assess the cost and impact of programs and partnerships. District leadership stated that superintendent runs reports to look at data, but did not provide clear targets or measurement criteria.

Students do not yet demonstrate consistent academic progress over time.

● During the document review, data trends show a decline in student performance at the elementary level in both reading and math (NWEA scores); there was not sub-group data because the “N count” was too small (less than 20 at a grade level).

● The district, school leadership, and teachers reported that the majority of students are making gains, but they are below proficiency. NWEA scores show increased growth scores in secondary math and reading,

5.2: Leadership has demonstrated an ability to produce positive returns on state investment and uses resources effectively.

Programs and initiatives are designed to support turnaround efforts and have demonstrated results.

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment.

Any additional resources received (i.e., specialized grant funding) are aligned, strategic, and showing evidence of results.

Leadership treats resources flexibly, and implements focused improvement efforts with a focus on early wins.

5.3: Students demonstrate academic progress over time.

Students demonstrate progress on internal measures linked with the district’s promotion or exit standards.

The performance of student subgroups on state assessments demonstrates that the district is making progress toward eliminating achievement gaps.

Students meet proficiency and grade-level targets across subjects and grade levels on norm-referenced benchmark assessments and state assessments.

Matched cohorts of students who score proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments maintain or improve performance levels across continuous



enrollment years.

The percentage of all students performing at proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments increases over time.

Students demonstrate academic growth as measured by value-added or state growth percentile measures.

Students demonstrate progress toward attaining expected knowledge and skills as measured by interim assessments.

but decreasing growth scores in elementary math and reading as confirmed by Projected Proficiency Summary Reports. These scores were aggregated by school and by grade.

● According to the State Data Resource Report (11/17/2015) provided by CDE, the JR/SR High School enrollment has increased from 42 to 53 from 2013-14 to 2014-15; the attendance rate has increased from 89.5% in 2012-13 to 91.3% in 2013-14 (the highest % for the past 5 years); mobility has decreased 38.6% in 2012-13 to 31.3% in 2013-14 (the lowest % for the past 5 years); the graduation rate in 4 years has remained flat (50% in 2013 and 23014, down from 53.8% in 2012); and the dropout has continued to fluctuate (7.0, 7.5, 12.5, 10.7) from 2009-10 - 2012-13 with no reported percentage in 2013-14.





6. There is necessity that the district remain in operation to serve students. [X] Yes [ ] No

Considerations:

6.1: The district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

All stakeholders share an understanding of, and commitment to, the mission and vision.

District programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

The mission and vision meet the needs of an identified student population.

Although the district does not have a unique mission, all stakeholders are driven by a commitment to the district mission.

● Document review of an Employee Handbook denoted the district mission as being “to help students succeed and reach their full potential.”

● All stakeholders, however, are not clear on the mission of the district. When asked, some reported that the mission is to equip students with the skills and knowledge to find their passion. Others stated they want students to be college/workforce ready. Other stated they want students to be productive and be able to choose the path that will make them happy.

● School leadership reported that students need exposure to the world outside of Aguilar, and this past February the school took 20 students to the Denver Broncos Super Bowl parade/rally and that for some of the students this was the first time they had ever been to the city of Denver.

While there are other viable options for students, these will not necessarily lead to better outcomes.

● Geographically, the two closest school districts (Trinidad and Huerfano) have schools that are in Priority Improvement or Turnaround status.

● Aguilar School District is in beginning partnership with a high performing district (La Veta) for agricultural programming and Spanish, demonstrating the district’s commitment to implementing curriculum changes that will potentially increase the academic rigor offered to their students

● All stakeholders discussed the K-12 school as a center of the community and described the negative impact it would have on the

6.2 There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

The district serves an isolated and/or remote community.

Closure or consolidation of district would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison districts do not promote better student outcomes.



community were the district or the school to close; the district has grown from 77 students in 2012 to 122 in 2015. This positive trend upward in enrollment indicates that the parents of Aguilar students are gaining trust in the school district, even though some families are still sending their students to Hoehne School District.

State Review Panel District Document Review

Feedback Form 2015-16

© 2016 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Document Review Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: To critically evaluate the district’s plan (i.e., Unified Improvement Plan) and performance. This report will be used as one element of a body of evidence to inform actions that may be undertaken by the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education.

Reviewer Names: Irene Almond and Alan Dillon Date: April 3, 1016 Form: [ ] Individual [ X ] Consensus

District Name/Code: Aguilar Reorganized School District/1620 School Name/Code: N/A

SRP Summary (complete using ratings from the following worksheets) Capacity Level:

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Not Effective

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school/district improvement. Not Effective


Not Effective

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with, and benefit from, the assistance provided by an external partner. Not Effective


Not Effective

6. There is necessity that the district remains in operation to serve students. Unable to Assess

Based on your professional judgment, will the plan result in dramatic enough change to pull the district off the accountability clock if it is implemented as written?

[ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Not sure, more information is needed. Specify the additional information required.

Based on your professional judgment, what is your overall level of concern regarding this district’s ability to significantly improve results?

Level of Concern: [X] High [ ] Moderate [ ] Low [ ] Cannot determine. Specify the additional information required.




Overall Comments:

Aguilar Reorganized School District 6 is a small, rural district located in Aguilar, Colorado as established through the Colorado Department of Education 2015-16 Pupil Membership by District Setting findings. As of 12/29/2015 124 PK-12 students and 13 teachers were eligible to complete the 2015 TELL Survey.

Provided documents and online resources do not demonstrate systemic transformation or implementation that will significantly improve performance or student achievement. District Unified Improvement Plan (DUIP) major improvement strategies do not have specific dates in the timeline, identified key personnel, or detailed resources for implementation benchmark monitoring. The status of Action Steps is either “In Progress” or “Not Begun” with no identified changes from 2014-15 to 2015-16.

Based on the UIP it is unclear how the district will determine the effectiveness of implemented turnaround strategies in order to adjust them. There is insufficient evidence that the district has instituted systems to gather and utilize data, and it is unclear the extent to which the district is holding teachers accountable. There is not a formal professional development plan included in the UIP for teachers, nor is there any indication that the current administration has systems in place to follow up with teachers to support implementation of professional development strategies.

Areas that should be explored more deeply through an on-site visit:

Artifacts to demonstrate progress of all three Major Strategy goals such as:

Major Strategy Goal #1:

District transition plan to reorganize internally;

List of dates when Stakeholder Feedback meetings occurred and notes from those meetings

District Recruitment plan for specialized administrators and teachers and a list of recruited employees and areas of expertise

Board of Education Implementation plan of reorganization


District curricular plan development and implementation

District curriculum plan articulated in School Transition plan

District Professional Development plan

Notes/Findings from Teacher Visits to neighboring districts (2 site visit dates)

Blended Learning Model framework

Samples of monthly communication about realigned curricular expectations to all stakeholders

Quarterly monitoring reports of daily implementation of the District’s curricular program





Human Capital strategy

Recruitment plan and list of recruitment activities

Collaborative Partners Outreach plan

Data Report on Status of Partnership programs

Copy of Cooperative Agreement with Teach for America and the data associated with that work

Other Sources of information may be obtained from the following:

Do walkthroughs take place to support improved teacher performance? What has been the impact on student achievement? What targets have been set by teachers and administration to support better growth and achievement by students? Who is providing teachers with feedback on instructional practice and how do they know if it is positively impacting classroom culture and achievement? What does current DIBELS data show, and is there an expectation that teachers have a progress monitoring system in place to gather data? Are teachers at the elementary level using this data to support instructional practice? What data are teachers (secondary teachers) using for Measures of Student Learning (MSL)?

What do teachers understand about the Student Learning Outcomes process for educator effectiveness?




Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based on

the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system

AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation




SRP Evaluation Based on Unified Improvement Plan and Other Available Documents

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results.

Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [ ] Developing [X] Not Effective [ ] Unable to Assess

State Review Panel Criteria Look-Fors Evidence

1.1 Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership communicates a relentless commitment to the district turnaround.

Leadership makes data-driven changes to the academic program and organization to promote dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership conveys clear expectations for performance for all stakeholders, including district staff, school leadership, teachers, district accountability committee, parents and community members.

Evidence of leadership driving impactful change. (Major Imp. Strategies & Action Plan)

The degree to which leadership has been continuous over time or change(s) in leadership utilized to activate change. (see HR data)

Aguilar Reorganized School District 6 is a small, rural district located in Aguilar, Colorado as established through the Colorado Department of Education 2015-16 Pupil Membership by District Setting findings. As of 12/29/2015, 124 PK-12 students and 13 teachers were eligible to complete the 2015 TELL Survey.

There is no documentation to indicate which leadership changes have been made by the current superintendent, principal, or other leadership within the last three years or how the effectiveness of these changes will be monitored/evaluated.

● Based on the current UIP, minimal evidence exists that leadership is driving impactful change.

According to the CDE Reviewer Feedback on the District Unified Improvement Plan Winter 2015 Review Cycle (Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plans) the achievement trends (Achievement, Growth, Growth Gaps, and Post-Secondary Readiness) do not meet state or federal expectations and the

1.2 Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Leadership communicates clear and focused goals that are understood by all district and school personnel.

District and school staff understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains district-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals.

High, but realistic goals are set.

Benchmarks are identified throughout the year.

Plan and narrative convey a sense of urgency.

Clear roles and ownership of action steps are identified.




1.3 Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges, and to adjust implementation of the action plan.

Leadership communicates data trends and issues, ensures timely access to data, and models and facilitates data use.

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results and effective use of data.

Leadership first concentrates on a limited number of priorities to achieve early, visible wins.

There is regular progress monitoring of performance and implementation data and, as appropriate, results lead to elimination of tactics that do not work.

Benchmarks are used to assess progress toward goals; goals are adjusted as progress is made.

Data on progress toward goals drives organizational and instructional decision making

Evidence that goals are based on data re: past performance. (see data analysis/narrative)

Focus on a limited number of changes. (see Priority Perf. Challenges)

Resources are allocated for new programs or identified action steps.

Structures for sharing and using data are present. (see Action Plan)

district is in Turnaround status year 5.

Leadership has not established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals. Clear roles and ownership of action steps have not been identified.

In the UIP Summary Reviewer Feedback (1/20/2015) the UIP, as written, investigates the most critical performance areas, prioritizes the most urgent performance challenges, and identifies research-based major improvement strategies that have a likelihood to eliminate the root causes. However, the UIP does not identify root causes that explain the magnitude of the performance challenges or present a well-designed plan for implementing the major improvement strategies to bring about dramatic improvement.

● Some evidence exists that leadership has made data- driven changes to the academic program. A new math curriculum has been adopted by the district and a reading specialist has been brought in to work in the district. ● It is unclear whether resources have been allocated for new

programs. ● The UIP has a focus on a limited number of changes (e.g., district-wide math curriculum, elementary reading). ● Clear roles and ownership of action steps are not identified in

the UIP.




2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school/district improvement.



2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

Leadership ensures ongoing development for emerging and current school leaders with a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

Leadership provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to deliver the curriculum, monitors instruction on a regular basis, and provides adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

The district provides adequate systems by which to capture and store data, report it to schools, and make it accessible for instructional staff to utilize.

Evidence of district involvement. (see

Data Narrative, Action Plan)

According to the Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Districts for 2014-15, major improvement strategies as written are to develop, create, and plan various strategies/action steps; however, no such artifacts are available for review to substantiate progress.

According to the CDE Reviewer Feedback on the District Unified Improvement Plan Winter 2015 Review Cycle (Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plans), a Turnaround Addendum and ESEA Addendum were due by June 30, 2015 to CDE; however, they were unavailable for this document review.

The UIP also does not include specific actions to address the reasons the schools were identified as “Focus” schools. The elementary and middle schools were identified for disaggregated achievement and the high school was identified as having a low graduation rate. Read Act requirements should also be addressed in the Action Plan; however, it was not included in the DUIP. The district should also address the identified community engagement and shared vision root causes identified in the Data Narrative, but does not.

Major improvement strategies are of the appropriate magnitude to address the root causes, but the action steps lack the detail necessary to effectively implement the plan.

Minimal evidence exists that the district/superintendent ensures ongoing leadership development for emerging and current school leaders has a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

No evidence exists in the DUIP that the superintendent provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to implement curriculum and monitor instruction on a regular basis. Additionally, the superintendent does not provide adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

2.2: District leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective leaders, teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership has created and/or implemented an organizational and staffing structure that will drive dramatic student gains.

Leadership recruits and hires leaders, teachers, and staff members with commitment to, and competence in, the district’s philosophy, design, and instructional framework (e.g., trained and experienced with curriculum, certified/licensed to teach, qualified in subject area).

Leadership ensures the evaluation of all staff, & dismisses those who do not meet standards/expectations.

Leadership provides leaders, teachers, and staff members with active, intense, and sustained professional development (PD), including guidance on data analysis and instructional practice, aligned to school improvement efforts. o PD is informed by ongoing analysis of student

performance, instructional data, and educators’ learning needs.

o PD requires leaders, teachers, and staff members to demonstrate their learned competency in a tangible and assessable way.

o PD engages leaders, teachers, and staff members in active learning (e.g., leading instruction, discussing with colleagues, observing others, developing assessments), provides follow-up sessions/ongoing support for teachers’ continued learning.

The quality of professional development delivery is regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.

Indication of strategic staff changes, particularly at the supervisory level, to support dramatic improvement efforts. (See HR data)

Evidence of professional development activities aligned to priorities. (see Data

Narrative, Action Plan, TELL data)




2.3: District leadership ensures that the district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

District leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential district and school functions, and that roles and responsibilities of all individuals at the school are clear.

District leadership has established effective means of communicating with district and school staff.

District leadership ensures that all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state are met, including the submission of school improvement plans, financial statements, school audit, calendar, and student attendance.

District leadership effectively manages the budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.

District leadership effectively manages operations (e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

Evidence of school communication with staff. (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan, TELL data)

Record of compliance.

Indication of strategic staff changes, at the instructional level to support improvement efforts are noted in the UIP. Major Priority Improvement Strategy #2 states that a reading specialist will be hired to assist the classroom teachers in the instructional management of the reading classroom and to assist with the additional tiered support necessary to ensure academic achievement.

2.4: Leaders provide effective instructional leadership.

District leaders ensure that schools implement a coherent, comprehensive, and aligned curriculum. o District leaders ensure that schools’ curriculum,

instruction, and assessments are aligned with state standards, with each other, & coordinated both within & across grade levels.

o District leaders ensure that instructional materials are selected and/or developed in accordance with a district-wide instructional framework and aligned with established curriculum standards.

o District leaders ensure the curriculum is periodically reviewed and revisions are made accordingly.

The district ensures that school leaders provide meaningful feedback on teachers’ instructional planning and practice. o The district ensures that leaders regularly provide

meaningful feedback on instructional planning. o The district ensures that leaders regularly observe

instruction and provide meaningful, timely feedback that helps teachers improve their practice.

District leaders provide conditions that support school-wide data cultures. o Staff, school leaders and teachers have easy access to

varied, current, and accurate student and instructional data.

o Staff, school leaders, and teachers are provided time to collect, enter, query, analyze, and represent student data and use tools that help them act on results.

Instructional needs and associated curricula and assessments are identified as a mechanism to address performance needs. (see Action Plan)

Organizational routines are established that include ongoing data analysis to improve student learning. (Evidence of interim measures and how they will be used to monitor results.) (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan, TELL data)




District leaders ensure that all staff, school leaders, and teachers receive professional development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and interpret a range of data reports; frame questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment literacy; use data tools and resources).







3.1: Educators’ mindsets and beliefs reflect shared commitments to students’ learning.

n/a

Not possible to assess from Document Review alone.

Major Improvement Strategy #1 is to develop and implement a transition plan for the district management turnaround strategy that is aligned with Colorado’s accountability system. No evidence was found in the review of District documents to support work in this area.

Under Major Improvement Strategy #2, found in the Action Plan of the UIP, the goal is to implement a K-12 curricular program that meets the specific needs of rural students and the expectations of Colorado’s latest content standards. According to the CDE website, Colorado’s content standards are the Common Core Standards associated with the national PARCC Consortium.

One of the Action Steps under Major Improvement Strategy #2 in the Action Plan was the articulation of vertical alignment of the curricular program. The goal was to have this completed by August 2015, and that it would be ongoing. No information was provided that demonstrates a specific timeline of when the specific activities for this intervention will occur, specifically when those will take place, or who specifically by name will be responsible for that action. The UIP’s Action Plan states, “On-going monitoring of implementation: August 2015 and the Key Personnel includes the School Board, Superintendent, Teachers and Community Members,” but no names were listed.

Major Improvement Strategy #3 is to recruit and support effective professional educators with specific experience and expertise in best practices related to dramatically improving student achievement in heavily impacted, rural communities. No evidence was found in the review of district documents to support work in this area.

None of the Improvement strategies are specifically targeted towards improving student academic achievement. Specifically,

3.2: The district has established conditions that support educators’ learning culture.

Communications among all stakeholder groups are constructive, supportive, and respectful.

Communications between leadership and district/school staff are fluid, frequent, and open.

District leaders model and convey well-defined beliefs about teaching and learning, and convey value for innovation, learning from mistakes, and risk-taking.

District leaders participate in formal and informal professional learning, including their own leadership development about how to improve curriculum and instruction in a leadership context (i.e., high- or low-poverty; urban or rural district).

Evidence of development for leaders. (see Action

Plan) Structures for

collaborative activities are present. (see Action Plan, TELL data)

Roles are dedicated to supporting teams of teachers. (see Action Plan, TELL data)

Communication structures are referenced. (see

Data Narrative, Action Plan, TELL data)

3.3: District personnel collaborate regularly to learn about effective instruction and students’ progress.

District personnel meet frequently during regularly scheduled, uninterrupted times to collaborate, establish improvement goals, and make data-informed instructional decisions.

District personnel’s collaborative meetings have a clear and persistent focus on improving student learning and achievement.

District personnel describe sharing knowledge and

Collaborative meeting times and their purposes are referenced. (see Data Narrative, Action Plan, TELL data)




expertise among colleagues as essential collaborative activity for job success.

District staff and school leaders are willing to talk about their own practice, to actively pursue and accept feedback from colleagues, and to try new leadership strategies.

The district has created a performance-driven culture in which district staff, school leaders, and teachers effectively use data to make decisions about daily instruction and the organization of students.

under Strategy #2, some of the implementation benchmarks for curriculum development are not specific. For example, one benchmark states: “Reach out to CDE and collaboratively develop a plan to implement the state level curriculum.” There are monitoring timelines that state quarterly monitoring reports, but do not explain what the monitoring will look like or what data will be collected, or specifically which teacher(s) and administrator(s) will be involved. There is a lack of specificity in regards to which members of the school board, community members, and teachers are responsible for each action step within the major improvement strategies.

No information was provided regarding how the school and/or district are engaging the community in regards to the students’ learning and school improvement efforts. Community members are listed in the Action Plan as being key members in the monitoring of specific intervention activities.

There is minimal evidence of internal and external stakeholder involvement in development and implementation of UIP – for example PLCs, or the formation of leadership teams.

The UIP states that school leaders recognize the need to provide guidance to teacher teams (e.g., help to establish meeting routines; model and promote use of discussion protocols; ensure systematic monitoring of student progress; create focus on linking results to instruction) and ensure that teachers utilize tools and time well. However, there is no evidence that any training is provided to support teachers in developing these skills.

3.4: District personnel demonstrate the capacity to implement appropriate action to support student achievement and school improvement.

School staff, with district support, use results from interim or summative assessments to make adjustments to the organization of students in the classroom, pace of instruction, or content being taught.

School staff, with district support, results from interim or summative assessments to identify students in need of remediation or acceleration, and assign students to appropriate supports.

Qualified district representatives provide oversight and support to ensure that schools deliver instruction and provide the necessary supports for English language learner (ELL) students or students with special needs.

District leaders involve school leaders and district staff in planning and implementation of district policies.

District leaders provide opportunities for school leaders and district staff to make or provide input on important decisions.

Evidence of internal and external stakeholder involvement in development and implementation of UIP – for example PLC’s, building leadership teams. (see Data Narrative, TELL data)

Structures for remediation, RTI, tutoring, or other data-driven supports are present. (see Action Plan)

3.5: The district engages the community and families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

The district includes parents/guardians in cultivating a culture of high expectations for students’ learning and their consistent support of students’ efforts.

The district invites family participation in district activities (e.g., volunteering in on committees; attendance at organizational meetings) and regularly solicits their input.

The district offers workshops and other opportunities for parents/guardians to learn about home practices that support student learning.

District personnel communicate with parents/guardians about instructional programs and overall student progress within the district.

Strategies for community and family involvement are incorporated throughout the plan.

Parent Involvement Plan is present (for Title I Schools only) and details strategies for involving families to advance student learning.




4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner.



4.1: The district collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

The district seeks expertise from external partners, as appropriate (i.e., for professional development, direct support for students).

The district ensures that roles and responsibilities of existing partners are clear.

There are designated district personnel to coordinate and manage partnerships.

Articulation of roles/responsibilities with external entities (e.g., district level staff, BOCES staff, vendors, CDE) is evident. (see Action

Plan)

For 2014-2015, the district has partnered with Generation Schools whose mission is to support education improvement in rural communities per Major Improvement Strategy #3.

The district UIP denotes the following entities as external partners: Colorado Department of Education, BOCES, Ed Consortium, Trinidad State Junior College, Teach for America, community, and teachers. It is not clear whom some of the partner abbreviations represent or which programs/staff at larger organizations will be assisting the work, as written.

The Action Plan lists partners that have previously worked with Aguilar School District and includes the Colorado Department of Education, Edison, their regional BOCES, Auer Educational Consulting, and Flippin and Associates.

According to the UIP, the curricular alignment work with Edison and the regional BOCES has been ongoing for 4+ years and the curriculum is still not aligned to the standards. This remains a major improvement strategy.

Externally provided professional development is not identified in the UIP, so it is uncertain if PD is aligned to improvement efforts.

Activities of external entities are not identified, therefore it is unclear if the activities align with major improvement strategies and performance needs of the district.

According to the UIP, the data does not reflect achievement score increases as a result of working with the external partners; the trend lines of academic proficiency on all state assessments and the graduation rate continue to decrease.

4.2: The district leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

The district maximizes existing partners’ efforts in support of improvement efforts.

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.

Activities of external entities align with major improvement strategies and performance needs of the school/district (not just a list of services the entity provides). (see Action Plan)

4.3: Leadership is responsive to feedback.

District leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

District leadership seeks feedback from key stakeholders

District leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.

Feedback from CDE on UIP is integrated into subsequent UIPs (i.e. feedback is not repeated for multiple years) (see CDE feedback, previous UIPs, updated UIPs, TELL data)







5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leadership identifies turnaround strategies and implements programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance.

Leadership assesses the cost and impact (effect on student achievement and number of students served) of each program/initiative to determine its academic return on investment.

Leadership makes decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on this analysis.

Leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Additional resources provided through specialized grant funding are aligned, strategic and show evidence of positive results. (for districts/schools that have received additional funds.) (see Action Plan)

From the current DUIP and Action Plan, it appears that the district has identified three improvement strategies, however, Major Improvement Strategy #2 (Implement a K-12 Curricular Program) is the only major improvement strategy that directly correlates to student achievement.

Implementation of the three major improvement strategies requires time to be created/developed, implemented, monitored, and adjusted to show results. The Action Plan lacks specificity around what resources are being used to support the implementation of each action step. As currently written, the Action Plan only refers to “local resources” for all major improvement strategies. The Action Plan also lacks specificity in regards to timing and who is responsible for ensuring follow-through.

Leadership has identified some turnaround strategies and has partially implemented programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance. An articulated vertical alignment plan of the curricular program with realigned expectations to students, parents, and community stakeholders as referenced in Major Improvement Strategy #2 per the DUIP is in progress as of August 2015.

No evidence is included in the UIP around how leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Programs and initiatives are designed but have not been effective to support turnaround efforts and have not demonstrated results based on data provided in the UIP. All three major improvement strategies do not identify specific timelines, personnel, resources, or action steps to denote how work is being implemented. The information provided in the DUIP is too broad and vague; no additional rows for action

5.2: Leadership has demonstrated an ability to produce positive returns on state investment and uses resources effectively.

Programs and initiatives are designed to support turnaround efforts and have demonstrated results.

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment.

Any additional resources received (i.e., specialized grant funding) are aligned, strategic, and showing evidence of results.

Leadership treats resources flexibly, and implements focused improvement efforts with a focus on early wins.

Evidence of the results of previous initiatives. (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting, data dashboard, TELL data)

5.3: Students demonstrate academic progress over time.

Students demonstrate progress on internal measures linked with the district’s promotion or exit standards.

The performance of student subgroups on state assessments demonstrates that the district is making progress toward eliminating achievement gaps.

Students meet proficiency and grade-level targets across subjects and grade levels on norm-referenced benchmark assessments and state assessments.

Matched cohorts of students who score proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments maintain or improve performance levels across continuous enrollment years.

The percentage of all students performing at proficient or advanced (or equivalent) on state assessments increases over time.

Achievement and growth data trend up. (see Data Narrative, Target Setting, data dashboard)

Results of interim assessments show progress. (see Data

Narrative, Target Setting)




Students demonstrate academic growth as measured by value-added or state growth percentile measures.

Students demonstrate progress toward attaining expected knowledge and skills as measured by interim assessments.

steps were added.

Results of interim assessments do not show significant progress. Additionally, achievement and growth data trends are flat or going down based on ACT data provided by the State Data Resource Report on 11/17/2015.




6. There is necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students.

[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] Unable to Assess


6.1: The district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

All stakeholders share an understanding of, and commitment to, the mission and vision.

District programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

The mission and vision meet the needs of an identified student population.

Population of students served is clearly identified. (see Data Narrative)

Mission/Vision are evident in plan or publically available information. (see

website, Data Narrative)

The district’s website states, “Our Mission...is to help kids succeed and reach their full potential.” The home page provides a mailing address and telephone numbers for the district office and superintendent.

The current website it not functioning correctly. For example, it features 10 different links tied to further information; however, only 7 of the 10 links worked. Additionally, the information is not current with most of it dated from 2012 to 2014.

According to the Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Districts for 2015-16 – Online UIP Report, “[Aguilar] is one mile west of I-25 between Walsenburg and Trinidad,” making either district a potential option for students in the Aguilar School District.

The mission and vision is vague and it is unclear how the needs of an identified student population are being met.

There are other available districts, online, or charter options and their performance is better than the academic performance of the Aguilar School District.

Closure may have a significant negative impact on the community.

6.2 There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

The district serves an isolated and/or remote community.

Closure or consolidation of district would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison districts do not promote better student outcomes.

Number of other available district, online, or charter options and their performance. (see data dashboard, websites)

Performance of neighboring districts (see data dashboard, websites)

Performance of comparison schools. (see data

dashboard, websites)