unified improvement plan

Organization Code: 0180 District Name: ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J School Code: 9083 School Name: VISTA PEAK P-8 EXPLORATORY Plan type based on: 3 Year

Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2010-11. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – and state accountability expectations – School Performance Framework (SPF) data. The data reported for state accountability results the SPF results (1-year or 3-year) for which the school is accountable. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability

Indicators

content area at each level.

* To see annual AYP targets, go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp ** To see your school’s detailed AYP report (including school results by content area, disaggregated group and school level), access the report in the Automated Data Exchange AYP System.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.1 Last updated: August 9, 2011) 1

Performance Measures/Metrics 2010-11 Federal and State Expectations 2010-11 School Results Meets Expectations?

Academic Achievement (Status)

CSAP, CSAP-A, Lectura, Escritura Description: % P+A in reading, math, writing and science. Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3-years of data.

E M H E M H Overall Rating for Academic Achievement:

Does Not Meet

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.

Reading 72.0% 71.4% 72.2% 49.0% 50.3% N/A

Math 70.1% 51.6% 30.5% 40.6% 31.2% N/A

Writing 54.8% 58.3% 49.6% 35.0% 34.8% N/A

Science 45.4% 48.7% 50.0% 17.1% 22.6% N/A

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Description: %PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAP-A and Lectura in reading and math for each disaggregated student group. Expectation: Targets set by state*.

Overall number of targets for School: Overall percent of targets met by School: <space>

Reading

E M H <space>

<space>

E M H E M H NO

NO

N/A

30

38

N/A

67%

82%

N/A

Math NO NO N/A

Academic Growth

Median Student Growth Percentile Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, math and writing. Expectation: If school met adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 45. If school did not meet adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 55.

<space>

<space>

Median Adequate SGP Median SGP Overall Rating for Academic Growth:

Does Not Meet

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each

E M H E M H

Reading 42 43 N/A 29 42 N/A

Math 61 83 N/A 24 36 N/A

Writing 46 70 N/A 29 39 N/A

Section I: Summary Information about the School

Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2011-12 Preliminary Report

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011) 2

Organization Code: 0180 District Name: ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J School Code: 9083 School Name: VISTA PEAK P-8 EXPLORATORY Plan type based on: 3 Year

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)

Indicators

area at each level.

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.1 Last updated: August 9, 2011) 2

Program Identification Process Identification for School Directions for completing improvement plan

State Accountability

Recommended Plan Type

Plan assigned based on school's overall school performance framework score (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness).

Turnaround

Based on preliminary results, the school has not met state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Turnaround Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by January 17, 2012 to be uploaded on SchoolView.org. Refer to the UIP website for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the UIP Handbook to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school's plan. Final results will be available in November 2011.

ESEA Accountability School Improvement or Corrective Action (Title I)

Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for at least two consecutive years.**

E

N/A

Not identified for Improvement under Title I.

M N/A Not identified for Improvement under Title I.

H N/A Not identified for Improvement under Title I.

Performance Measures/Metrics 2010-11 Federal and State Expectations 2010-11 School Results Meets Expectations?

Academic Growth Gaps

Median Student Growth Percentile Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing and math by disaggregated groups. Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 45. If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 55.

See your School Performance Framework Report for a listing of

median adequate growth percentiles for your school’s disaggregated student groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible students, minority students, students with disabilities,

English Language Learners, and students needing to catch up.

See your School Performance Framework Report for a listing of median growth percentiles for your school’s disaggregated

student groups.

Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:

Does Not Meet

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content


Section II: Improvement Plan Information

Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district. Additional Information about the School

Improvement Plan Information

The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):

X State Accountability ¨ Title IA ¨ Tiered Intervention Grant ¨ School Improvement Grant ¨ Other: ________________

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Title I Program Does the school receive Title I funds? No If yes, indicate the type of Title I program ¨ Targeted Assistance ¨ Schoolwide

Related Grant Awards Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? No Indicate the intervention approach.

¨ Turnaround ¨ Restart

¨ Transformation ¨ Closure

Has the school received a School Improvement grant? No When was the grant awarded?

School Support Team or Expedited Review

Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? No When?

External Evaluator Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? No Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.

School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)

1 Name and Title Melanie Moreno, Pathway Director

Email [email protected]

Phone 303-364-3757 X 23019

Mailing Address 24551 E. 1st Ave, Aurora CO 80018

2 Name and Title Garrett Rosa, Pathway Director


Phone 303-364-3757 X 23022



3 Name and Title Marisol Enriquez, Pathway Director


Phone 303-364-3757 X 23020



Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. In the text box at the end of this section, provide a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations, describing progress toward targets for the prior school year, describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends, identifying trends and priority performance challenges (negative trends), describing how performance challenges were prioritized, identifying the root causes of performance challenges, describing how the root causes were identified and verified (with more than one data source) and what data were used, and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook. Worksheet: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2010-11 school year (last year’s plan). This information should be considered as a part of the data analysis narrative and in setting or modifying targets (section IV) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. You may add rows, as necessary.

Performance Indicators Targets for 2010-11 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan) Target met? How close was school in meeting the target?


Reading Overall from 54% to 57% 4th from 65% to 68% 5th from 43.5% to 48.5% 6th from 55% to 58% 7th from 46% to 49% 8th from 65% to 68% 9th from 49% to 52%

Reading Overall-No % Proficient (P) decreased from 54% to 48%

4th grade-No % P decreased from 65% to 42%

5th grade-No % P decreased from 43.5% to 45%

6th grade-Yes % P decreased from 55% to 61%




Writing Overall from 42% to 45% 4th from 44% to 47% 5th from 41% to 44% 6th from 60% to 63% 7th from 31% to 34% 8th from 57% to 60% 9th from 34% to 37%

Writing Overall-No % Proficient (P) decreased from 42% to 34%




7th grade-Yes % P decreased from 31% to 38%






Math Overall from 46% to 49% 4th from 46% to 49% 5th from 60% to 63% 6th from 64% to 67% 7th from 39% to 42% 8th from 39% to 42% 9th from 40% to 43%

Math Overall-No % Proficient (P) decreased from 46% to 34%







Academic Growth

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or growth data including growth gaps to base this on. Outlined below was our best estimate. Reading From 51 percentile to -56 percentile (5 more than district median) -57 percentile (Clyde Miller) -54.75 percentile (Aurora Frontier) -52 percentile (Murphy Creek)

Reading

No-Exploratory 29 lower than goal of 56MGP

No-Preparatory 42 lower than goal of 56MGP

Writing From 52 percentile to -57 percentile (5 more than district median) -67 percentile (Clyde Miller) -47 percentile (Aurora Frontier) -52 percentile (Murphy Creek)

Writing

No-Exploratory 29 lower than goal of 57MGP

No-Preparatory 39 lower than goal of 57 MGP

Math From 53 percentile to -60 percentile -83 percentile (Clyde Miller) -55.25 percentile (Aurora Frontier) -60.5 percentile (Murphy Creek)

Math

No-Exploratory 29 lower than goal of 60 MGP

No-Preparatory 39 lower than goal of 60 MGP




Academic Growth Gaps Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or growth data including growth gaps to base this on.

Not applicable

Post Secondary Readiness

Not applicable. At this time Vista PEAK has grades 9 and 10 and we do not have a graduation rate, dropout rate or ACT scores

Not applicable


Worksheet: Data Analysis Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data for the required data narrative. Planning teams should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data. Prioritize the performance challenges that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan will be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as necessary.

Performance Indicators Description of Trends (3 years of past data)

Priority Performance Challenges

Root Causes


Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or data for previous years.

Math Across all grade levels there is a range of 50-75% of students not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged below the 30th percentile. In addition, almost all of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in math. Again, this includes all subcategories of students.

we lack a deep understanding of math content knowledge at our grade levels

we don’t have vertical articulation to define proficiency of mastered standards at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding and effective use of resources (pacing, manipulatives, guides, curriculum ,etc.) we don’t provide precise first instruction using effective formative assessment data in order to plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention




Root Causes

Writing Across the elementary grade levels there is a range of 59%-72% of students are not proficient and at the secondary grade levels a range of 46%-74% of students are not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 33rd percentile. In addition, an overwhelming majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in writing. Again, this includes all

We do not understand the stages of a writer and do not have a common understanding of writing process We do not provide precise instruction using formative assessment data to provide appropriate initial first instruction and plan accordingly We don’t have vertical articulation/alignment and clarity of grade level proficiency in writing Students are writing well below grade level expectations




Root Causes

subcategories of students. Reading 31% of kindergarten students were not on grade level at the end of the year. On average 60% of students grades 1st -3rd were not on grade level by the end of the year. Across grades 4-9, roughly 50% of all students are not proficient in reading. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 35th percentile. In addition, an overwhelming

we do not understand the stages of a reader at a given grade level, do not have a common understanding of reading content in order to implement the appropriate curriculum, frameworks, and resources we do not know how to use data/the RtI process to plan interventions for struggling readers and differentiate instruction through the use of appropriate formative assessment and effective monitoring




Root Causes

majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in reading. Again, this includes all subcategories of students. Science In 5th grade science 84% of students are not proficient. In 8th grade science 77% of students are not proficient.

We lack a deep understanding of the scientific process We do not provide precise instruction using formative assessment data to provide appropriate initial first instruction and plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention We don’t have vertical articulation to define mastery/ proficient work at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding of how to effectively use resources (pacing guides, curriculum etc.)

Academic Growth Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or data for previous years.

See above priority performance challenges for Reading, Writing, Math




Root Causes

and Science

Academic Growth Gaps


See above priority performance challenges for Reading, Writing, Math and Science

Post Secondary Readiness


Not applicable


Data Narrative for School Directions: Describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including review of prior years’ targets, trends, priority performance challenges and root cause analysis. This analysis should be tightly linked to section IV; targets and action planning should be aimed at addressing the priority performance challenges and root causes identified in this section. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Data Narrative for School Trend Analysis and Performance Challenges: What data did we use to identify trends? What are the positive and negative trends in our school’s performance for each indicator area? Does this differ for any disaggregated student groups (e.g., by grade level or gender)? In which areas did we not at least meet minimum state and federal expectations? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? How/why did we determine these to be our priorities? How did we engage stakeholders in this analysis?

Root Cause Analysis: Why do we think our school’s performance is what it is? How did we determine that?

Verification of Root Cause: What evidence do we have for our conclusions?

Narrative: The Vista PEAK P-20 Campus is a new concept school in APS that was intentionally developed to reflect, as a coalition of, the educational philosophy of the district’s strategic plan, the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K), and the Colorado Department of Education’s strategic plan, Forward Thinking. Vista PEAK was given the charge to develop the campus around small learning communities, educational alignment from preschool through post secondary education, multiple academic and career pathways, collaborative partnerships, and leadership development. This massive reform effort led to significant challenges and we applied to become a school of innovation in order to take on systemic challenges. Our students came from communities across the city of Aurora including Buckley Air Force base, the Colfax corridor, and local communities east of E-470. This convergence generated a wonderful coming together of different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds, but required the staff and leadership to foster a newly developing culture within this new environment. We had to generate our baseline data using feeder school’s CSAP data which was not only incomplete, but not available for many students. We did utilize the CSAP data that was available, Interim assessments, as well as our own internal assessments to set our goals for the 2010-11 school year. What data did we use to identify trends? Vista PEAK utilized baseline data including 2011 CSAP growth data as outlined on the School Performance Framework, proficiency data, and DRA2/Mondo data. CSAP Achievement Data: Math

U PP P/A

3rd grade 22 39 39

4th grade 21 37 41

5th grade 18 44 38

6th grade 23 29 48

7th grade 27 42 31

8th grade 26 38 36

9th grade 50 27 23


CSAP Achievement Data: Reading

U PP P/A

3rd grade 17 19 56

4th grade 22 36 42

5th grade 29 26 45

6th grade 19 20 61

7th grade 23 32 54

8th grade 15 51 54

9th grade 10 46 43

CSAP Achievement Data: Writing

U PP P/A

3rd grade 12 60 28

4th grade 12 53 33

5th grade 13 46 41

6th grade 9 38 54

7th grade 7 55 38

8th grade 1 70 28

9th grade 5 69 26

CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Ethnicity

Black Black/%P/A White White/%P/A Hispanic Hispanic/%P/A

Reading 90 52% 227 60% 242 35%

Writing 90 30% 227 45% 243 24%

Math 89 27% 225 46% 243 26%


Our Hispanic students are scoring significantly lower than our white and black students in overall proficiency in reading writing and comparable with black students in math. Our black students are comparable in reading when compared to white students, however, our black students are scoring significantly lower in writing and math. CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Disability

SIED SIED/%P/A SPEC/LD SPEC/LD%P/A SP/Lang SP/Lang/%P/A

Reading 5 20% 29 0% 9 33%

Writing 5 0% 29 3% 9 22%

Math 5 20% 28 4% 9 22%

Students with Specific Learning Disabilities are not performing at proficient or advanced levels when compared to other cohort groups. CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Language Proficiency

FEP FEP/%P/A LEP LEP/%P/A NEP NEP/%P/A

Reading 61 62% 111 12% 16 0%

Writing 61 46% 111 5% 17 0%

Math 61 41% 111 9% 17 0%

Our FEP students are outperforming all cohort and non-cohort groups in reading and writing and are outperforming our black and Hispanic students in math. CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Free/Reduced Lunch

Free Free/%P/A Reduced Reduced/%P/A

Reading 254 34% 57 65%

Writing 255 19% 57 54%

Math 254 21% 57 53%

Our students on reduced lunch are outperforming all cohort groups in all reading, writing and math. CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Gifted and Talented

AGATE AGATE/%P/A


Reading 31 97%

Writing 31 94%

Math 31 94%

Elementary: Our median growth percentile for 4th grade reading is 33. The percent of students catching up is 18% which means that 82% of our 4th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading. Our median growth percentile for 5th grade reading is 27. The percent of students catching up is 17% which means that 83% of our 5th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading. Our median growth percentile for 4th grade math is 33. The percent of students catching up is 4% which means that 96% of our 4th grade students are not on track to catch up in math. Our median growth percentile for 5th grade math is 15. The percent of students catching up is 0% which means that 100% of our 5th grade students are not on track to catch up in math. Our median growth percentile for 4th grade writing is 26. The percent of students catching up is 29% which means that 71% of our 4th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing. Our median growth percentile for 5th grade writing is 32. The percent of students catching up is 21% which means that 79% of our 5th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing. Middle School: Our median growth percentile for 6th grade reading is 38. The percent of students catching up is 18% which means that 82% of our 6th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading. Our median growth percentile for 7th grade reading is 48. The percent of students catching up is 18% which means that 82% of our 7th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading. Our median growth percentile for 8th grade reading is 28. The percent of students catching up is 20% which means that 80% of our 8th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading. Our median growth percentile for 6th grade math is 34. The percent of students catching up is 0% which means that 100% of our 6th grade students are not on track to catch up in math. Our median growth percentile for 7th grade math is 26. The percent of students catching up is 3% which means that 97% of our 7th grade students are not on track to catch up in math. Our median growth percentile for 8th grade math is 28. The percent of students catching up is 3% which means that 97% of our 8th grade students are not on track to catch up in math. Our median growth percentile for 6th grade writing is 40. The percent of students catching up is 29% which means that 71% of our 6th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing Our median growth percentile for 7th grade writing is 45. The percent of students catching up is 17% which means that 83% of our 7th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing Our median growth percentile for 8th grade writing is 22. The percent of students catching up is 0% which means that 100% of our 8th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing. What are the positive and negative trends in our school’s performance for each indicator area? Overall, we did not have positive trends in growth or achievement for the 2010-11 academic year. Negative trends revolve around the lack of adequate growth in math, reading, and writing and does not differ for any disaggregated student groups?


In which areas did we not at least meet minimum state and federal expectations? Reading, Writing & Math What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? (In order of priority) Math Across all grade levels there is a range of 50-75% of students not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged below the 30th percentile. In addition, almost all of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in math. Again, this includes all subcategories of students. Writing Across the elementary grade levels there is a range of 59%-72% of students are not proficient and at the secondary grade levels a range of 46%-74% of students are not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 33rd percentile. In addition, an overwhelming majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in writing. Again, this includes all subcategories of students. Reading 31% of kindergarten students were not on grade level at the end of the year. On average 60% of students grades 1st -3rd were not on grade level by the end of the year. Across grades 4-9, roughly 50% of all students are not proficient in reading. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 35th percentile. In addition, an overwhelming majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in reading. Again, this includes all subcategories of students. Science In 5th grade science 84% of students are not proficient. In 8th grade science 77% of students are not proficient. How/Why did we determine these to be our priorities and how did we engage stakeholders in this analysis? We began our work with our instructional leadership team through gathering and analyzing all relevant data and looking for significant trends in the data. We continued this work through the charting of broad statements regarding our data in the categories of proficiency, growth and growth gaps. The instructional leadership team shared the school performance framework with the entire staff and shared the process Vista PEAK would be using to develop the Unified Improvement Plan. Members from the instructional leadership team presented the achievement, growth and proficiency statements and asked the staff to do gallery walk highlighting the factual statements related to our data. The entire staff was asked to prioritize the statements by placing colored dots on each poster to indicate their first, second and third choices in terms of priority and would lead the systemic change that would impact performance. Our administrative leadership team took all the factual statements and merged them into four performance challenges addressing reading, writing, math and science in order to share with our instructional leadership team. The administrative leadership team provided guided practice using the performance challenge in science to conduct a root cause analysis. The instructional leadership team broke into three groups to identify the symptoms that lead to the root cause of the problem with the performance challenges pertaining to reading, writing and math. After the instructional leadership team determined the root causes, they developed the theories of action as a guide when developing the action steps and implementation benchmarks. The instructional leadership team continued this work by identifying the action steps associated with each major performance strategy and the implementation benchmarks associated with each.


Section IV: Action Plan(s)

This section addresses the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, you will identify your annual performance targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Goals Form below. Then you will move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form. School Target Setting Form Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas). For federal accountability, annual targets for AYP have already been determined by the state and may be viewed on the CDE website at: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp. Safe Harbor and Matched Safe Harbor goals may be used instead of performance targets. For state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and postsecondary and workforce readiness. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year. Finally, list the major improvement strategies that will enable the school to meet each target. The major improvement strategies will be detailed in the Action Planning Form at the end of this section.


School Target Setting Form

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics


Annual Performance Targets Interim Measures for 2011-12

Major Improvement Strategies 2011-12 2012-13

Academic Achievement

(Status)

CSAP, CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura

R

Elementary=49%

Middle School= 50.3%

Average=50%

(State Reading=68%)

50% to 60% P/A 60 to 70% P/A CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

M Elementary=40.6%

Middle School=

36% to 46% P/A 46 to 56% P/A CSAP, Interim Assessments,

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to


31.2%

Average=36%

(State Math =56%)

Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, Place Value Continuum, Critical Learning Phase Continuum, Kathy Richardson Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

W

Elementary=35.0%

Middle School= 34.8%

Average=35%

(State Writing=55%)

35% to 45% P/A 45 to 55% P/A CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL)


Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

S

Elementary 17.1%

Middle School 22.6%

Average= 20%

(State Science=48%)

20% to 35% P/A 35 to 50% P/A CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement


with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

AYP (Overall and for each disaggregated groups)

R

Elementary 94.23% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle School 93.41% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

High School- 94.92% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Elementary-94.23% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle School-93.41% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

High School- 94.92% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Elementary-94.23% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle School-93.41% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.


Elementary-District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). Mondo Literacy Assessments ongoing (grades K-5).

Middle School- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

High School- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).


M

Elementary- 94.54% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle School- 89.88% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.


Elementary- 94.54% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle- 89.88% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.


Elementary- 94.54% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle- 89.88% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.


Elementary- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).Kathy Richardson Assessments ongoing (grades K-5).

Middle- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

High School- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

Academic Growth

Median Student Growth Percentile

R

Elementary 29

Middle 42

Elementary Increase from 29 to 55 MGP

Middle Increase from 29 to 55 MGP

Elementary increase from 55 to 60 MGP


CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records,


Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

M

Elementary 24

Middle 36





CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, Place Value Continuum, Critical Learning Phase Continuum, Kathy Richardson Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

W

Elementary 29

Middle 39





CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

Academic Median R FRL Increase to 55 MGP Increase to 60 MGP across CSAP, Interim


Growth Gaps Student Growth Percentile

Elementary 27

Middle 44

Minority

Elementary 29

Middle 41

Students with Disabilities

Elementary -

Middle 48

ELLs

Elementary 33

Middle 42

Catch Up

Elementary 29

Middle 44

across all sub groups all sub groups Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

M

FRL

Elementary 28

Middle 36

Minority

Elementary 24

Middle 38


Elementary -

Middle 28

ELLs

Elementary 25

Middle 34

Catch Up

Elementary 32

Increase to 55 MGP across all sub groups


CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, Place Value Continuum, Critical Learning Phase Continuum, Kathy Richardson Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A


Middle 39

W

FRL

Elementary 23

Middle 40

Minority

Elementary 29

Middle 42


Elementary -

Middle 37

ELLs

Elementary 31

Middle 42

Catch Up

Elementary 34

Middle 42



CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

Post Secondary & Workforce Readiness

Graduation Rate

N/A

Dropout Rate N/A

Mean ACT N/A


Action Planning Form Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may add other major strategies, as needed. Major Improvement Strategy #1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) Root Cause(s) Addressed: We lack a deep understanding of content knowledge at our grade levels. We don’t have vertical articulation to define proficiency of mastered standards at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding and effective use of resources (pacing, manipulatives, guides, curriculum ,etc.) We do not understand the stages of a reader at a given grade level, do not have a common understanding of reading content in order to implement the appropriate curriculum, frameworks, and resources. We don’t have vertical articulation to define mastery/ proficient work at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding of how to effectively use resources (pacing guides, curriculum etc.) We do not understand the stages of a writer and do not have a common understanding of writing process. Theories of Action:

If teachers develop deep content understandings... If teachers understand grade level proficiency and provide opportunities to engage in grade level content with appropriate resources... If teachers develop solid understandings of the stages of a reader, content, and implementation of the curricula including use of frameworks and resources... If teachers have a strong understanding of the stages of a writer and are be able to provide meaningful feedback that supports students in the formulation of relevant goals... If teachers understand rigorous grade level expectations and how it aligns with the enduring understanding and teachers instruct at grade level or above utilizing appropriate resources...

...then students will be able to engage in rigorous content knowledge experiences. ...then students will increasingly meet grade level expectations and assessments will show student growth in grade level proficiency. ...then students will be able to engage in rigorous and purposeful experiences as readers and demonstrate growth along the reading continuum. ...then students will take ownership over goals and begin to approximate their understandings in their independent writing. ...then students will achieve mastery/proficiency at each grade level and assessment/monitoring data would be used consistently/regularly to determine mastery/proficiency.


Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):

X School Plan under State Accountability ¨ Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan ¨ Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant

¨ Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements ¨ School Improvement Grant

Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Timeline Key Personnel*

Resources (Amount and Source: federal, state,

and/or local) Implementation

Benchmarks Status of Action

Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)

Vista PEAK Student Achievement Learning Team (SALT) Process Step 1: Teachers use current student work, formative and summative data see what students know and are able to do to meet individual student needs.

First Semester: Aug. 1st -

December 20th

Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and

Administrators

General Fund

Ongoing

On a weekly basis teachers will: Utilize assessments that reveal what students know and are able to do in relation to the standards Evaluate student work which leads to targeted groups and next instructional steps in which to deliver instruction Understand where students are in relation to standards, pacing guides, and instructional resources and determine an entry point for different learners Backwards plan by reviewing previous student data to prioritize quarter, weekly and daily learning objectives. Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

In progress


Vista PEAK SALT Process Step 2: Teachers use standards, pacing guides, curriculum and instructional resources to determine clear learning objectives

Second Semester: January 17th - June 14th

Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and, Administrators

General Fund

Ongoing

On a weekly basis teachers will: use appropriate standards for their content area refine backwards plan by reviewing previous student data to prioritize quarter, weekly and daily learning objectives. use the 4 M’s to determine if they are crafted appropriately manageable: can be taught & achieved in one period measurable: clearly assessed made first: activities should never lead...the learning leads you to the approach most important: is this rigorous and preparing students for college & careers? Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

In progress...

Vista PEAK SALT Process Step 3: Teachers develop success criteria and examine what it looks like when students show evidence of learning

First Semester 2012

Aug. 1st -

December 20th

Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and , Administrators

General Fund

Ongoing

On a weekly basis teachers will: determine what proficiency looks and sounds like on a given objective or series of objectives craft success criteria that reveals what students need to know and be able to do on a given objective monitor success criteria through observation, conversation, performance, or product

In progress...


evaluate how to best share/reveal the success criteria (ahead of the lesson, during, or socially constructed after an experience) plan for strategic questions and feedback in relation to the success criteria Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, although are completion is recommended. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention Grant).


Major Improvement Strategy #2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning Root Cause(s) Addressed: We don’t provide precise first instruction using effective formative assessment data in order to plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention. We do not know how to use data/the RtI process to plan interventions for struggling readers and differentiate instruction through the use of appropriate formative assessment and effective monitoring. We lack a deep understanding of the scientific process. We do not provide precise instruction using formative assessment data to provide appropriate initial first instruction and plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention. Theories of Action:

If teachers develop expertise in precise instruction through the use of formative assessment data to provide appropriate first instruction as well as plan for appropriate scaffolds/interventions... If teachers develop solid understandings regarding data/the RtI process in order to provide interventions and differentiated instruction and if teachers develop solid understandings regarding formative assessment and effective monitoring... If teachers have a strong understanding of the elements of the formative assessment process (objectives & success criteria) and how to monitor student understandings in writing (process & product) If teachers used the teaching/learning cycle or inquiry process with precision across content areas... If content/SALT teams and area experts develop expertise in precise instruction through the use of the teaching/learning cycle to provide appropriate first initial instruction and targeted instruction as well as plan for appropriate scaffolds/interventions...

...then students will achieve individual learning goals and make accelerated growth. ...then students will be able to achieve and articulate individual as well as grade level goals and demonstrate growth along the reading continuum. ...then students will receive precise instruction in whole group, small group, and independent learning on a daily basis ...then students would see the connection which would lead to a deeper understanding of the scientific process. ...then students will achieve individual learning goals and make accelerated growth.


Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):

X School Plan under State Accountability o Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan o Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant

o Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements o School Improvement Grant






MIS #2: Precise Instruction Vista PEAK SALT Process Step 6/7: Teachers use formative data and effectively monitor student learning

January 17th 2011-Dec. 20th 2012


General Fund

Ongoing

On a weekly basis teachers will: assess the student responses to questions and discourse use questions and feedback that move the students closer to the learning target identify student strengths, approximations and next steps to support student goal setting utilize higher-level questioning to engage students in an inquiry process around the learning targets engage students in significant discourse with peers around the learning target and press for evidence and explanation use exemplars, rubrics, success criteria and feedback to enable students to assess their own work, self correct and request additional support when needed Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

In progress...


Major Improvement Strategy #3: We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level. Root Cause(s) Addressed: We don’t have vertical articulation/alignment and clarity of grade level proficiency in writing We don’t have vertical articulation to define proficiency of mastered standards at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding and effective use of resources (pacing, manipulatives, guides, curriculum ,etc.) We don’t have vertical articulation to define mastery/ proficient work at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding of how to effectively use resources (pacing guides, curriculum etc.) Theories of Action:

If teachers understand grade level proficiency and provide opportunities to engage in grade level content with appropriate resources... If teachers have a common language, exemplars, and expectations for for proficiency across grade levels and at grade levels... If teachers understand rigorous grade level expectations and how it aligns with the enduring understanding and teachers instruct at grade level or above utilizing appropriate resources

...then students will increasingly meet grade level expectations and assessments will show student growth in grade level proficiency. ...then students will have access and utilize exemplars of student work that represent their next step as a writer. ...then students will achieve mastery/proficiency at each grade level and assessment/monitoring data would be used consistently/regularly to determine mastery/proficiency


Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): ¨ School Plan under State Accountability ¨ Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan ¨ Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant

¨ Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements ¨ School Improvement Grant






MIS#3: Vertical Alignment Share our calibrated understandings of grade level proficiencies with one grade level above and below


December 20th


General Fund

Ongoing

On a bi-quarterly basis teachers will: Share models and exemplars of student proficiency across content areas Share backwards plans to develop aligned expectations for objectives and success at a given grade level

In progress...

Share summative bodies of evidence at key grades (P-2, 3/4 5/6, 7/8 and 9/10) that reveal students point of entry both below and above grade level


December 20th


General Fund

Ongoing

On a yearly basis teachers will: Teachers will meet with the grade level above and below in order to share the body of evidence that demonstrates what students know and are able to do.

In progress...

Section V: Appendices

Schools may add additional documentation to meet their unique needs. In particular, optional forms are available to supplement the improvement plan for schools to ensure that the requirements for the following have been fully met:

• Title I Schoolwide Program • Title I Targeted Assistance Program • Title I Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring • Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability • Competitive School Grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention Grant, Closing The Achievement Gap)

unified improvement plan

Documents