organization code: 0880 district name: denver county 1 … · 2019. 12. 6. · elp 31 - - 22 - -...

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 6.0 -- Last Updated: June 17, 2014)

K

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2014-15

Organization Code: 0880 District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1 School Code: 1400 School Name: CENTENNIAL A SCHOOL FOR EXPEDITIONARY LEARNING Official 2014 SPF: 1 Year

Section I: Summary Information about the School

Directions: This section summarizes your school’s 2013-14 performance on the federal and state accountability measures. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations. Most of the data are pulled from the official School Performance Framework (SPF). This summary should accompany your improvement plan.

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability

Performance Indicators Measures/ Metrics

2013-14 Federal and State Expectations 2013-14 School Results Meets Expectations?

Academic Achievement (Status)

TCAP, CoAlt, Lectura, Escritura Description: % Proficient and Advanced (%P+A) in reading, writing, math and science Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile (from 2009-10 baseline) by using 1-year or 3-years of data

R

Elem MS HS Elem MS HS Overall Rating for

Academic Achievement: Did Not Meet

* Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each

content area at each level.

71.65% 71.43% - 40.71% 46.27% -

M 70.89% 52.48% - 45.07% 20% -

W 53.52% 57.77% - 27.86% 32.84% -

Academic Growth

Median Growth Percentile Description: Growth in TCAP for reading, writing and math and growth on ACCESS for English language proficiency. Expectation: If school met adequate growth, MGP is at or above 45. If school did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or above 55.

R

Median Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP) Median Growth Percentile (MGP)

Overall Rating for Academic Growth:

Approaching * Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each

content area at each level.

Elem MS HS Elem MS HS

54 58 - 39 53 -

M 64 96 - 45 45 -

W 63 76 - 40 54 -

ELP 31 - - 22 - -

School Code: [1400] School Name: [Centennial, A School for Expeditionary Learning]

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 6.0 -- Last Updated: June, 17 2014) 2

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


2013-14 Federal and State Expectations 2013-14 School Results Meets Expectations?

Academic Growth Gaps

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

See your School Performance Framework for listing of median adequate growth expectations for your school’s disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners (ELLs) and students below proficient.

See your School Performance Framework for listing of median growth by each disaggregated group.

Overall Rating for Growth Gaps: Approaching

* Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each student disaggregated group at each content area at each level.

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

Graduation Rate Expectation: At 80% or above on the best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.

At 80% or above Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate

-

Overall Rating for

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness: -

- using a - year grad rate

Disaggregated Graduation Rate Expectation: At 80% or above on the disaggregated group’s best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.

At 80% or above for each disaggregated group

See your School Performance Framework for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year and 7-year graduation rates for disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, and ELLs.

-

Dropout Rate Expectation: At or below state average overall (baseline of 2009-10).

- - -

Mean Colorado ACT Composite Score Expectation: At or above state average (baseline of 2009-10).

- - -

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan

Summary of School Plan Timeline

October 15, 2014 Initial 2014-15 UIP Draft Due for IS Review (via upload tool). December 10, 2014 UIP Due for ALL schools (via upload tool). April 8, 2015 2014-15 UIP due; this submission will be public on Schoolview.org in May 2015.



Program Identification Process Identification for School Directions for Completing Improvement Plan

State Accountability

Plan Type Assignment Plan type is assigned based on the school’s overall School Performance Framework score for the official year (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness).

Turnaround - Entering Year 3 as of July 1, 2015

The school has not met state expectations for attainment on the SPF performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Turnaround Plan. The plan must be submitted by January 15, 2015 along with the required Turnaround Plan addendum for review. The updated plan must also be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2015 to be posted on SchoolView.org. Note the specialized requirements for identified schools included in the Quality Criteria document.

ESEA and Grant Accountability

Title I Focus School

Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate (regardless of plan type), and/or (2) Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type with either (or both) a) low-achieving disaggregated student groups (i.e., minority, ELL, IEP and FRL) or b) low disaggregated graduation rate. This is a three-year designation.

Identified as a Ttitle I Focus School

In addition to the general requirements, a Focus School’s UIP must reflect the reasons for its designation. In the data narrative, the plan must address the low achievement of applicable disaggregated groups. Note the specialized requirements for identified schools included in the Quality Criteria document.

Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)

Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified as 5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I eligible schools, eligible to implement one of four reform models as defined by the USDE.

Not awarded a TIG Grant

This school does not receive a current TIG award and does not need to meet those additional requirements.

Diagnostic Review Grant Title I competitive grant that includes a diagnostic review and/or improvement planning support. Not awarded a current Diagnostic Review and Planning Grant

This school has not received a current Diagnostic Review and Planning grant and does not need to meet those additional requirements.

School Improvement Support (SIS) Grant

Title I competitive grant that support implementation of major improvement strategies and action steps identified in the school’s action plan.

Awarded a current SIS Grant

Schools receiving a SIS grant should ensure that the data narrative is aligned with the implementation activities supported through the grant. These activities should be reflected in the action steps of the plan under the appropriate major improvement strategies. Associated timelines and implementation benchmarks should also be included. The expectations are detailed further in the Quality Criteria.

Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)

The program supports the development of sustainable, replicable models for dropout prevention and recovery that improve interim indicators (attendance, behavior and course completion), reduce the dropout rate and increase the graduation rate for all students participating in the program.

Not a CGP Funded School

This school does not receive funding from the CGP Program and does not need to meet these additional program requirements.



Section II: Improvement Plan Information

Additional Information about the School Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Related Grant Awards Has the school received a grant that supports the school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant awarded?

Diagnostic Review, School Support Team or Expedited Review

Has (or will) the school participated in a Diagnostic Review, SST or Expedited Review? If so, when?

External Evaluator Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.

Blue Print Site Visits:

• September 30, 2014 • December 11, 2014 • March 3, 2014

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

✗ State Accreditation ✗ Title I Focus School ¨ Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) ¨ Diagnostic Review Grant ✗ School Improvement Support Grant ¨ Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP) ¨ Other: _________________________________________________________________________________

School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed) 1 Name and Title Laura Munro, Principal

Email [email protected]

Phone 720-424-8900

Mailing Address 4665 Raleigh Street, Denver, CO 80212

2 Name and Title JH Sava, Principal Resident



Email [email protected]

Phone 720-424-8900

Mailing Address 4665 Raleigh Street, Denver CO 80212



Implement Plan

Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

This section corresponds with the “Evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions proposed in Section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations; describing progress toward targets for the prior school year; describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends; identifying trends and priority performance challenges (negative trends); describing how performance challenges were prioritized; identifying the root causes of performance challenges; describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used; and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook. Data Narrative for School Directions: In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including (1) a description of the school and the process for data analysis, (2) a review of current performance, (3) trend analysis, (4) priority performance challenges and (5) root cause analysis. A description of the expected narrative sections are included below. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Two worksheets (#1 Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been provided to organize the data referenced in the narrative. Data Narrative for School

Description of School Setting and Process for Data Analysis: Provide a very brief description of the school to set the context for readers (e.g., demographics). Include the general process for developing the UIP and participants (e.g., SAC).

Review Current Performance: Review the SPF and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/ federal expectations. Consider the previous year’s progress toward the school’s targets. Identify the overall magnitude of the school’s performance challenges.

Trend Analysis: Provide a description of the trend analysis that includes at least three years of data (state and local data). Trend statements should be provided in the four performance indicator areas and by disaggregated groups. Trend statements should include the direction of the trend and a comparison (e.g., state expectations, state average) to indicate why the trend is notable.

Priority Performance Challenges: Identify notable trends (or a combination of trends) that are the highest priority to address (priority performance challenges). No more than 3-5 are recommended. Provide a rationale for why these challenges have been selected and address the magnitude of the school’s overall performance challenges.

Root Cause Analysis: Identify at least one root cause for every priority performance challenge. Root causes should address adult actions, be under the control of the school, and address the priority performance challenge(s). Provide evidence that the root cause was verified through the use of additional data. A description of the selection process for the corresponding major improvement strategies is encouraged.

Narrative: Centennial, A School for Expeditionary Learning, is an inclusive school that fosters each child’s sense of wonder and adventure through exemplary standards of character, academic achievement, and social responsibility. There are approximately 405 students currently enrolled at Centennial, grades ECE-5. Here is a breakdown of the demographics of Centennial’s student population.

• 77% Hispanic • 76% Minority • 74%% Free/Reduced Lunch • 14% Special Education (Centennial currently serves a K-5 self-contained Multi-Intensive Severe special education program) • 17% English Language Learner



In July 2014 school leadership met to review student achievement data and to plan for the 2014-15 school year alongside our Expeditionary Learning School Designer. The 2014-15 Work Plan identified two main goals for the school – one focused on academic achievement and one focused on school conditions. The two work goals drafted state:

1. Increase student growth and proficiency in all content areas (R, W and M) by utilizing assessment for learning strategies and quality assessments that lead to high quality work. This means: All classrooms will use Assessment for Learning strategies daily to promote a growth mindset and high quality, authentic student work.

2. Increase community wide understanding of Crew and its impacts on Academics and Relational Character. This means: All staff will create and use consistent systems and structures throughout the community: in the classroom, in common spaces, during community meetings, while on fieldwork and Adventure Programming.

These work plan goals align with the following Expeditionary Learning Core Practices: • #10 • #18 • #19 • #20 • #21 • #22 • #31 • #33

During the August 20th DPS Green Day, Centennial staff were introduced to a high-level view of school-wide student achievement data and the 1st draft of the EL School Work Plan. This meeting provided the staff an opportunity to dig deeply into the source data behind the school’s SPF and to think about connections to the EL Work Plan and the goals, major improvement strategies that needed to be drafted for the Unified Improvement Plan. This first look at the draft EL Work Plan gave teachers the chance to connect with the Faculty Learning Targets associated with each work plan goal. On September 8th and October 6th, Centennial had the first two Collaborative School Committee (CSC) meetings. The following topics were addressed at these CSC meetings.

• Centennial’s School Performance Framework (SPF) and corresponding source data- Accredited on Probation, Red on the DPS SPF Stoplight. UIP draft data trend statements

Reading Achievement and Growth o The overall % of students scoring P/A has steadily declined across all grade levels from 2010-11 to 2012-13. The % P/A in 2014 was flat from 2013. The % P/A for

elementary, 40.71%, is well below the State expectation of 71.65%. Writing Achievement and Growth

o The overall % P/A on TCAP writing has generally declined across all grade levels from 2010-11 to 2012-13 and the % P/A in 2014 was flat from 2013. The % P/A on elementary writing TCAP (27.86%) was well below the state expectation of 53.52%.

Math Achievement and Growth

o The over all % P/A on math TCAP has steadily declined since 2010-11 but there was an increase in the % P/A from 2013 to 2014. The % P/A on elementary math TCAP



(45.07%) is well below the State expectation of 70.89%. UIP draft priority performance challenges

o There is pervasive low achievement and growth across all content areas, all grade levels and all subgroups. o The gaps between adequate growth and actual growth for all sub groups are quite large indicating that the problem is systemic in nature.

UIP draft Root Causes -

1. Teachers have not been provided sufficient support with transitioning to the Common Core State Standards and planning standards-based instruction that clearly communicates standards-based learning objectives and ensures differentiation.

2. We have not developed the knowledge and skills of every teacher to collaboratively review, analyze and respond to data on a consistent basis. 3. We have not been able to create rituals and routines that build trust, support relationships and foster dialogue between teachers, students and families. 4. We have not fostered close relationships with parents and the community to help advocate for the school.

UIP Major Improvement Strategies – 1. Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and math. 2. Utilize structures to promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven

instructional practices. 3. Utilize structures, systems and processes to allow relationship building, academic progress monitoring, and character development to ensure all students at Centennial are

known well, their needs are met, and their individual strengths are discovered. 4. Engage Centennial families in our school community and the overall education of their students in order to support their success both at home and in school

Notable Action Steps: o Centennial instructional coaching initiative o Implement DPS Math Fellows Tutoring program o Implement weekly 60-minute PLC Meetings for each grade level team ECE-5 o Implement DDI cycle and process school-wide o One-way communication- Implement a structure for informative events or strategies. o Two way communication- Implement a structure for small group conversations. o Social Integrating Activities- Implement a structure for social events focusing on the DPS core values: Students First, Integrity, Equity, Collaboration,

Accountability and Fun. o Volunteer Program- Form partnership with Metro Volunteers to implement the School Partner Program and increase participation of parents and community

members in an effort to support our school on a daily basis.

Due to low MGP, and academic achievement gaps, for the subgroups at Centennial, in all academic areas, the school has been identified as a Title I Focus School. Reading MGP: ELL 45 MGP FRL 43 MGP Special Ed 42 MGP



Minority 44 MGP Math MGP: ELL 49.5 MGP FRL 45 MGP Special Ed 42 MGP Minority 44 MGP Writing MGP: ELL 47 MGP FRL 49 MGP Special Ed 47 MGP Minority 46 MGP In an effort to narrow our academic achievement gap, especially in reading, and increase students’ MGP, Centennial is partnering with Reading Partners during the 2014-15 school year to provide identified students, grades K-5, with 90 minutes of 1:1 reading tutoring each week. Reading tutoring happens three times a week for each identified students and is carried out by volunteers trained by Reading Partner staff. At the end of the 2014-15 school year Centennial engaged in a Implementation Review facilitated by Expeditionary Learning staff. This review is designed to help: 1. Determine the level of implementation of EL practices in your school and all EL schools, 2. Track growth of your school’s implementation practices levels over time, 3. Provide standardized scores that allow individual schools and researchers to analyze the relationships between level of implementation and other outcomes (e.g. growth in achievement, engagement, motivation, etc.), and 4. Inform the work plan and professional development activities for your school and EL schools nationally. The IR score is meant to be an accurate measure of the actual extent of implementation of 26 key EL practices in our school, called the EL Power Practices. The Power Practices are essential components of the EL model that are hypothesized to have an impact on student achievement either directly or indirectly. By establishing Power Practices, EL is not saying that anything in our Core Practices is unimportant; rather, we are attempting to prioritize those aspects of our design that we believe are most correlated with increased achievement. Centennial’s IR score for the 2014-15 school year was 66. The goal set for our school was 47 so Centennial was 19 points above our anticipated goal. TURNAROUND STRATEGY (noted in Turnaround Addendum) The Denver Public Schools Turnaround Plan focuses on 3 Major Improvement Strategies: Instruction and Instructional Systems, Professional Development and Growth, and Family/Community Engagement. The West Denver Network, district turnaround staff, and several partners monitor progress with frequent student and school performance data,



make adjustments in real-time, and provide an array of support strategies, depending on the capacity and needs of each school. Throughout the improvement process DPS strives to expand teaching and leadership capacity and extend successes across the system for sustainable improvement. Our UIP is structured within the DPS Turnaround Plan with a focus on the Major Improvement Strategies. Our assignment to the West Denver Network (WDN) was intentional to provide strategic and focused support in the 3 areas. With the WDN support, we have monthly Continuous Improvement Guide (CIG) conversations; do classroom, PD, and PLC observations, as well as monthly Principal Meeting/Training sessions. Weekly Principal and WDN Deputy Director one on one conversation are held to discuss school progress. We also meet regularly with our WDN Support Partners. The progress we are making on our UIP action steps is monitored using the WDN UIP Tracker (noted in benchmark column with appropriate action step). Using the UIP Tracker as a guide, discussion of our progress on implementation, as well as interim achievement data, is the focus of our conversation at our monthly CIGs.



Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2013-14 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.

Performance Indicators

Targets for 2013-14 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan)

Performance in 2013-14? Was the target met? How close was the school to meeting the target?

Brief reflection on why previous targets were

met or not met.

Academic Achievement (Status)

Reading Elementary: 70% Middle School: 73%

The target was not met. Actual reading TCAP achievement was P/A 40.71% at the elementary level was 46.27% P/A at the middle school level.

2014-15 was the 1st year of implementation of a new instructional models and new instructional tools. Approximately 80% of the teaching staff were new to Centennial and 100% of the staff were new to the Expeditionary Learning model. Math Elementary: 71%

Middle School: 46% The target was not met. Actual math TCAP achievement level was 45.07% P/A at the elementary level and 20% P/A at the middle school level.

Writing Elementary: 54% Middle School: 55%

The target was not met. Actual writing TCAP achievement level was 27.86% P/A for elementary and 32.85% P/A for middle school.

Academic Growth

Reading 65 MGP The target was not met. Actual MGP for TCAP reading was 39 at the elementary level and 53 at the middle school level.

Math 65 MGP The target was not met. Actual MGP for TCAP math was 45 at the elementary level and 45 at the middle school level.

Writing 65 MGP The target was not met. Actual MGP for TCAP writing was 40




Targets for 2013-14 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan)

Performance in 2013-14? Was the target met? How close was the school to meeting the target?

Brief reflection on why previous targets were

met or not met.

at the elementary level and 54 at the middle school level.

ELP 70 MGP The target was not met. Actual MGP for ELP was 22 at the elementary level.


Reading 65 MGP The target was not met. All subgroups were below 65 MGP.

Math 65 MGP The target was not met. All subgroups were below 65 MGP.

Writing 65 MGP The target was not met. All subgroups were below 65 MGP.


N/A

N/A



Worksheet #2: Data Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data in preparation for writing the required data narrative. Planning teams should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data and then prioritize the performance challenges (based on notable trends) that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore, schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed.


Description of Notable Trends (3 years of past state and local data)

Priority Performance Challenges Root Causes

Academic Achievement

(Status)

READING DATA Reading Trend statement: The overall % of students scoring P/A has steadily declined across all grade levels from 2010-11 to 2012-13. The % P/A in 2014 was flat from 2013. The % P/A for elementary, 40.71%, is well below the State expectation of 71.65%. 5 year Aggregate TCAP Data:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

% P/A

51% 47% 55% 45% 43% 43%

3 year TCAP % P/A Data by Grade Level:

2012 2013 2014

3rd 54% 56% 54%

4th 38% 37% 37%

5th 39% 34% 31%

7th 46% 41% 38%

8th 46% 41% 50%

Across all grades, especially at 4th, 5th and 7th, there is pervasive low achievement.

• Teachers need a high level of support with transitioning to the Common Core State Standards and planning standards-based instruction that clearly communicates standards based learning targets and ensures differentiation.

• We have not developed the knowledge and skills of every teacher to collaboratively review, analyze and respond to data on a consistent basis.

• We have not fostered close relationships with all parents, especially those of our minority students, and the community to help advocate for the school.






DPS EOY Reading Interim Overall % Correct as Compared to the District:

Centennial DPS

7th 54% 64%

8th 56% 63%

READ Act Requirement Data Trend Statement: From 2013 to 2014 there has been an increase in the % of K-2 students scoring proficient on the STAR Early Literacy assessment as well as an increase in the number of 2-5 students scoring proficient on the STAR assessment. Conversely, the % of students identified with significant reading deficiencies as measured by the STAR Early Literacy and STAR Reading has decreased since 2013.The % of students scoring at grade level as measured by the DRA 2 assessment has remained relatively flat from 2013 to 2014, but has declined since 2012 when 69% of students were assessed






as grade level or above. STAR Early Literacy K-2 Data:

2013 2014 SELE 61% 64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

STAR Early Literacy Enterprise (SELE)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

2013 2014


K

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3






STAR Reading 2-5 Data:

2013 2014 SRE 47% 55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

STAR Reading Enterprise (SRE)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

2013 2014


K

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3






Aggregate 5 year DRA2 Data:

MATH DATA Math Trend statement: The over all % P/A on math TCAP has steadily declined since 2010-11 but there was an increase in the % P/A from 2013 to 2014. The % P/A on elementary math TCAP (45.07%) is well below the State expectation of 70.89%. Aggregate 5 year Math TCAP Data:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

% P/A

38% 39% 45% 39% 32% 38%

Across all grades, especially 5th, 7th and 8th, there is pervasive low achievement.




2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % Proficient or

Above 47% 61% 59% 69% 63% 61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

DRA/EDL






3 year TCAP %P/A Data by Grade Level:

2012 2013 2014

3rd 56% 52% 57%

4th 52% 39% 51%

5th 37% 28% 29%

7th 27% 18% 23%

8th 26% 26% 17%

Math EOY Interim Overall % Correct as Compared to the District:

Centennial DPS

Kinder 78% 75%

1st 67% 74%

2nd 58% 64%

3rd 57% 60%

4th 51% 55%

5th 45% 50%

7th 27% 41%

8th 32% 53%

Across all grades, especially 5th and 7th, there is pervasive low achievement







WRITING DATA Writing Trend statement: The overall % P/A on TCAP writing has generally declined across all grade levels from 2010-11 to 2012-13 and the % P/A in 2014 was flat from 2013. The % P/A on elementary writing TCAP (27.86%) was well below the state expectation of 53.52%. Aggregate 5 year Trend Writing TCAP Data:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

% P/A

36% 33% 41% 35% 30% 30%

3 year TCAP %P/A Data by Grade Level:

2012 2013 2014

3rd 33% 36% 37%

4th 35% 26% 32%

5th 32% 30% 11%

7th 48% 37% 23%

8th 32% 26% 38%

Writing EOY Interim Overall % Correct as Compared to the District:

Centennial DPS

2nd 51% 59%

3rd 57% 61%

4th 56% 58%








5th 51% 61%

7th 45% 60%

8th 53% 65%

Academic Growth

READING DATA Trend Statement for Reading: The overall MGP for reading has remained relatively flat from 2010-11 to 2013-14. The 2014 MGP for elementary reading 39 is well below the State expectation of 54. Aggregate 5 year TCAP MGP Data:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 13-14 Change

39 43 48 40.5 37 43.5 +6.5

3year MGP Data by Grade Level:

2012 2013 2014

4th 18.5 30 42

5th 29 32 21

7th 43.5 50 39

8th 52.5 35 57.5

Even though Centennial saw increases in the aggregate reading MGP; there is pervasive low growth across all grade levels EXCEPT 8th.









MATH DATA Trend Statement for Math: The math MGP declined quite significantly in several grade levels since 2010-11. The 2014 MGP has gone up in both 4th and 5th grade since 2010-11. The elementary math MGP (45) is well below the state expectation of 64.. Aggregate 5year TCAP MGP Data:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 13-14 Change

45 46 55 30 33 45 +12


2012 2013 2014

4th 33.5 26 42

5th 18 22 54

7th 46.5 51 42

Even though Centennial saw increases in the aggregate reading MGP; there is pervasive low growth across all grade levels EXCETP 5th.




WRITING DATA Trend Statement for Writing: The writing MGP has stayed relatively flat across most grade levels since 2011 and went up from 2013 to 2014. Fourth grade had a significant drop in MGP from 2012 to 2013, but saw significant increase in MGP in 2014. Elementary writing MGP (40) was significantly below the state expectation of 63. Aggregate 5 year TCAP MGP Data:

Even though Centennial saw increases in the aggregate reading MGP; there is pervasive low growth across all grade levels EXCEPT at 7th and 8th grade.



• We have not fostered close relationships with all






2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 13-14 Change

42.5 44 52 41 38 47 +9


2012 2013 2014

4th 44 23 49.5

5th 30 33 27

7th 44.5 64 52

8th 52.5 47 54.5

parents, especially those of our minority students, and the community to help advocate for the school.


READING DATA TCAP Reading MGP Gap Data:

There is pervasive low growth across all grade levels, all content areas and all subgroups.









Trend statement(s) for ELL Gap: Since the 2010-11 school year the ELLs at Centennial have typically outperformed their non-ELL peers in all content areas.

Trend Statement(s) for FRL gap: In 2011-12 the gap between these two groups was closing as the FRL students outperformed their non-FRL peers in MGP, but gaps opened up again during the 2012-13 school year with a small gap still remaining in 2014.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ELL 38 56 45 38 42.5 45

Non-‐ELL 39 41 49 41 34 42

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Reading

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FRL 37.5 41 45 40.5 36.5 43

Non-‐FRL 45.5 50 52 40.5 34 46.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Reading






Trend Statement(s) for SPED Gaps: Since 2010-11 there has been a continuous significant gap between SPED and non-SPED students’ MGP at Centennial. The was a slight closing of the gap in reading in 2014.

Trend Statement(s) for Minority Gaps: Since the 2010-11 school year there has been a gap between Minority and non-minority students’ MGP in

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 School SPED 39 45 29.5 42 37 42

State SPED 44 42 44 45 44 45

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Reading

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Minority 40 41 45 40 35 44

Non-‐Minority 38 54.5 53 50 45.5 36

0 20 40 60 80

100

TCAP Reading






all content areas. The exception to this is for writing during the 2012-13 school year when minority students had MGP 2 points higher than their non-minority peers. In 2014 minority students outperformed their non-minority peers. Since 2010-11, the gap between these two groups has not closed. 2014 STAR Early Literacy Gap Data:

2013 2014 ELL 15% 54%

Non-‐ELL 66% 65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%







2013 2014 FRL 53% 60%

Non-‐FRL 91% 75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


2013 2014 SPED 24% 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%







SELE Trend Statement: Since 2013, the achievement gaps have begun to close for all subgroups, except Special Education. The % of ELL, FRL and Minority students scoring proficient on the SELE has incrased. 2014 STAR Reading Academic Gap Data:

2013 2014 Minority 55% 62%

Non-‐Minority 81% 71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%







2013 2014 ELL 41% 41%

Non-‐ELL 48% 59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


2013 2014 FRL 41% 50%

Non-‐FRL 70% 76%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%







SRE Trend Statement: Since 2013, all subgroups have increased their performance on the SRE. The rate of increase for ELLs was faster than for Non-ELLs

2013 2014 SPED 17% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


2013 2014 Minority 42% 49%

Non-‐Minority 64% 70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%







so the gap is beginning to close with those groups. In all other groups the rate of increase for both groups has been about equal, so while there has been an increase in proficiency, the gap has stayed about the same. DRA2 % P/A Gap Data:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ELL 28% 49% 43% 56% 34% 49%

Non-‐ELL 51% 63% 63% 72% 70% 64%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

DRA/EDL






2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FRL 43% 57% 55% 63% 56% 53%

Non-‐FRL 67% 72% 72% 88% 90% 87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DRA/EDL

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 School SPED 10% 29% 43% 36% 29% 23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DRA/EDL






DRA/EDL Trend Statement: While the % of students at or above grade level as measured by the DRA has increased for all groups since 2009, the % at or above grade level has decreased since 2012.

MATH DATA





2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Minority 43% 59% 55% 63% 59% 55%

Non-‐Minority 62% 63% 72% 87% 75% 79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

DRA/EDL

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ELL 45 62 60 25 38 49.5

Non-‐ELL 47 43.5 54 33 32 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Math






Trend statement(s) for ELL Gap: Since the 2010-11 school year the ELLs at Centennial have typically outperformed their non-ELL peers in all content areas. The exception to this has been in math and reading during the 2011-12 school year.

Trend Statement(s) for FRL gap: Since 2010-11 the gap between FRL and non-FRL students at Centennial has fluctuated. In 2011-12 the gap between these two groups was closing as the FRL students outperformed their non-FRL peers in MGP, but gaps opened up again during the 2012-13 school year. Gains made since 2013 have supported closing the gap in 2014.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FRL 43 47 52 30.5 30 45

Non-‐FRL 52.5 38.5 65 27 52 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Math






Trend Statement(s) for SPED Gaps: Since 2010-11 there has been a continuous significant gap between SPED and non-SPED students’ MGP at Centennial. The gap was greater in the area of math and writing, since the 2011-12 school year, but the gap has closed in 2014.

Trend Statement(s) for Minority Gaps: Since the 2010-11 school year

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 School SPED 49 41 40 27 21 42

State SPED 43 42 43 44 43 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Math

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Minority 46.5 44 52 30 30.5 44

Non-‐Minority 35 56 61 34 53 46

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Math






there has been a gap between Minority and non-minority students’ MGP in all content areas. The exception to this is for writing during the 2012-13 school year when minority students had MGP 2 points higher than their non-minority peers. Since 2012-13, the gap between these two groups has closed. WRITING DATA

Trend statement(s) for ELL Gap: Since the 2010-11 school year the ELLs at Centennial have typically outperformed their non-ELL peers in all content areas. The gap has narrowed with the 2014 school year where non-ELLs showed gains.





2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ELL 49 52 53 44 43 47

Non-‐ELL 42 43 52 39 38 48.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Wri>ng






Trend Statement(s) for FRL gap: Since 2010-11 the gap between FRL and non-FRL students at Centennial has fluctuated. In 2011-12 the gap between these two groups was closing as the FRL students outperformed their non-FRL peers in MGP, but gaps opened up again during the 2012-13 school year. Gains made in 2013-14 with Non-FRL students and FRL students supported in closing the gap.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FRL 42.5 43 51 41 38 49

Non-‐FRL 43 51.5 53.5 37 41 47

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Wri>ng






Trend Statement(s) for SPED Gaps: Since 2010 there has been a continuous significant gap between school-SPED and state-SPED students’ MGP at Centennial. The gap was greatest in the 2012 and 2013 school years and gains for school-SPED in 2014 supported Centennial in outperforming state-SPED.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 School SPED 40 47 25 30 31.5 47

State SPED 40 41 43 44 45 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

TCAP Wri>ng






Trend Statement(s) for Minority Gaps: Since the 2010-11 school year there has been a gap between Minority and non-minority students’ MGP in all content areas. The exception to this is for writing during the 2012-13 school year when minority students had MGP 2 points higher than their non-minority peers. Since 2010-11, the gap between these two groups has not closed.

Postsecondary & Workforce

Readiness

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Minority 42 43 51 41.5 39 46

Non-‐Minority 55.5 51 56 39 37 59.5

0 20 40 60 80

100

TCAP Wri>ng



Section IV: Action Plan(s)

This section addresses the “Plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, identify annual performance targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form on the next page. Then move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form. School Target Setting Form Directions: Complete the worksheet below. Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators (i.e., Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, Academic Growth Gaps, Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness) where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges identified in the data narrative (section III). Consider last year’s targets (see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year. Implications of Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) on Target Setting: During the 2014-15 school year, Colorado is transitioning from reading, writing and math TCAP assessments to CMAS PARCC English language arts and math assessments. These assessments measure related, but different content standards and are expected to have different proficiency levels. As a result, setting targets based on the percent of students scoring proficient and advanced may not be appropriate. Furthermore, CDE does not yet know if student growth percentiles and median student growth percentiles will be available for accountability, planning or reporting use. It is known that adequate growth percentiles will not be available next year for 2014-15 results. Target setting is still expected to occur in the UIP process during this transition period. However, some modifications in typical practice may be needed. Refer to the UIP Handbook and guidance documents on the UIP website for options and considerations.



School Target Setting Form


Priority Performance Challenges

Annual Performance Targets Interim Measures for 2014-15

Major Improvement Strategy 2014-15 2015-16

Academic Achievement

(Status)

TCAP, CoAlt/, Lectura, Escritura, K-3 literacy (READ Act), local measures

R

Across all grades, especially at 4th, 5th and 7th, there is pervasive low achievement.

STAR Early Literacy 70%

• Kinder: 90% • 1st: 65%

Decrease students in kindergarten with SRD from 18% to 10% Decrease students in 1st grade with SRD from 44% to 34% STAR Reading 60%

• 2nd: 90% • 3rd: 65%

Decrease students in 2nd grade with SRD from 16% to 10% Decrease students in 3rd grade with SRD from 45% to 35%.

STAR Early Literacy 75% STAR Reading 70%

• Assess K-1 students with STAR Early Literacy or STAR Reading during DPS assessment periods.

• Assess 2-5 students with Achievement Network Interims, quizzes and tests.

• Assess students K-5 with DPS End of Year Interim assessment.

• Assess Kindergarten students and students in grades 1-5 in identified CBLA cohort 3x year with DRA2.

• Administer DRA2 progress monitoring assessments to identified students in Read Act cohort.

• Students identified as needing Tier III reading intervention will be assessed with AIMS Web progress monitoring

• Assess students K-5 with grade level created common assessments.

1. Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and math. 2. Utilize structures to promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven instructional practices.

M

Across all grades, especially 5th, 7th and 8th, there is pervasive low achievement.

% Correct on DPS EOY Math Interim: Kinder: 90% 1st Grade: 77% 2nd Grade: 68% 3rd Grade: 67%

% Correct on EOY DPS Math Interim: Kinder: 90% 1st Grade: 90% 2nd Grade: 80% 3rd Grade: 70%

• Assess 2-5 students with Achievement Network Interim assessments, quizzes and tests.

• Assess students in grades 2-8 with Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) up to 5x a year.

1. Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and math. 2. Utilize structures to



4th Grade: 61% 5th Grade: 55%

4th Grade: 70% 5th Grade: 65%

• Daily Exit Tickets for students in grades 4 and 8 during daily 45-minute tutoring sessions with DPS Math Fellows.

• Assess students using grade level common assessments.

• Assess students in grades 3,4 with Zearn Math quizzes, end of unit assessments.

• Assess students in grades 3,4 using Zearn math with STAR math 2x a year.

promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven instructional practices.

W

Across all grades, especially 5th and 7th, there is pervasive low achievement.

% Correct on DPS EOY Writing Interim: 2nd Grade: 60% 3rd Grade: 70% 4th Grade: 65% 5th Grade: 60%

% Correct on DPS EOY Writing Interim: 2nd Grade: 65% 3rd Grade: 70% 4th Grade: 75% 5th Grade: 70%

• At minimum, collect student-writing samples on a monthly basis from Expeditionary Learning grade level units to be scored against writing rubric aligned with PARCC.

1. 1. Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and math. 2. Utilize structures to promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven instructional practices.

S

Across all grades, there is pervasive low achievement.

57% Science CMAS 5th Grade: 15% Scoring at Strong or Above (up from 8%)

82% Science CMAS

1. Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and



math. 2. Utilize structures to promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven instructional practices.

Academic Growth

Median Growth Percentile (TCAP & ACCESS), local measures

R

Even though Centennial saw increases in the aggregate reading MGP; there is pervasive low growth across all grade levels EXCEPT 8th.

70 MGP 70MGP • Assess K-1 students with STAR Early Literacy or STAR Reading during DPS assessment periods.

• Assess 2-5 students with Achievement Network Interims, quizzes and tests.

• Assess students K-5 with DPS End of Year Interim assessment.


• Administer DRA2 progress monitoring assessments to identified students in CBLA cohort.

• Assess 7-8 students with Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) 2x year, or 3x year if identified as in CBLA cohort.

• Students identified as needing Tier III reading intervention will be assessed with AIMS Web




progress monitoring tools. • Grade level created

common assessments.

M

Even though Centennial saw increases in the aggregate reading MGP; there is pervasive low growth across all grade levels EXCETP 5th.

70 MGP 70 MGP • Assess students in grades 2-8 with Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) up to 5x a year.

• Daily Exit Tickets for students in grades 4 and 8 during daily 45-minute math tutoring block.

• Assess students using grade level created common assessments.

• Assess students in grades 3,4 with Zearn Math quizzes, end of unit assessments.



W

Even though Centennial saw increases in the aggregate reading MGP; there is pervasive low growth across all grade levels EXCEPT at 7th and 8th grade.

70 MGP 70 MGP • At minimum, collect student-writing samples on a monthly basis from Expeditionary Learning grade level units to be scored against writing rubric aligned with PARCC.




ELP 75 MGP 75 MGP


Median Growth Percentile, local measures

R


70 MGP 70 MGP • Assess K-1 students with STAR Early Literacy or STAR Reading


• Administer DRA2 progress monitoring assessments to identified students in CBLA cohort.

• Students identified as needing Tier III reading intervention will be assessed with AIMS Web progress monitoring tools.

• Assess students K-5 with common grade level assessments.


M


70 MGP 70 MGP • Assess students K-1 with District Interim math assessments 3x year.

• Assess students in grades 2-8 with Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI) up to 5x a year.

• Assess students in grades 3,4 with Zearn quizzes, test, end of unit assessments.


• Daily Exit Tickets for students in grades 4 and 8 during daily 45-minute math tutoring block.



• Assess students K-5 using common grade level assessments.

W


70 MGP 70 MGP • At minimum, collect student-writing samples on a monthly basis from Expeditionary Learning grade level units to be scored against writing rubric aligned with PARCC.

1. Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and math.

2. Utilize structures to promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven instructional practices.


Graduation Rate

Disaggregated Grad Rate

Dropout Rate Mean CO ACT Other PWR Measures



Action Planning Form for 2014-15 and 2015-16 Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2014-15 and 2015-16 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Additional rows for action steps may be added. While the template provides space for three major improvement strategies, additional major improvement strategies may also be added. To keep the work manageable, however, it is recommended that schools focus on no more than 3 to 5 major improvement strategies. Major Improvement Strategy #1: Instruction and Instructional Systems: Utilize strategic instructional systems, structures and processes to support increased growth and achievement in reading, writing and math. EL Work Plan Goal: Increase student growth and proficiency in all content areas (R, W and M) by utilizing assessment for learning strategies and quality assessments that lead to high quality work. This means: All classrooms will use Assessment for Learning strategies daily to promote a growth mindset and high quality, authentic student work. Root Cause(s) Addressed: • Teachers need a high level of support with transitioning to the Common Core State Standards and planning standards-based instruction that clearly communicates standards

based learning targets and ensures differentiation. • We have not developed the knowledge and skills of every teacher to collaboratively review, analyze and respond to data on a consistent basis.

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


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) 2014-15 2015-16

Great Habits, Great Readers Professional Learning Conference

• Staff will apply strategies learned during the Literacy Block to improve guided reading instruction.

June 2014

TBD Classroom Teachers Instructional Guide

2013-14 SIS Grant Funds • Walkthrough tools created/data gathered demonstrating practices being learned and implemented in the rooms of the teachers who attended the PD

• Teacher effectiveness

Conference Completed Classroom implementation – in progress



data (LEAP) for Masterful Content Knowledge for teachers who participated in PD

• Student achievement/growth data in reading as measured by ANet, STAR and DRA2

• Teacher Support Matrix

Expeditionary Learning (EL) 101 2-day Institute

• Teachers new to Centennial will participate in EL 101 to gain an overview to crew and expeditions

July 2014 July 2015 New teachers to Centennial Instructional Guide

EL 2013-14 MOU Addendum Completed

37 Direct Service Days from Expeditionary Learning

• Direct coaching • Whole school staff

development • Curriculum development • Leadership coaching

August 2014-June 2015

# of Days TBD when 15-16 MOU is created

EL School Designer Whole Staff

EL 2014-15 MOU 37 days x

• Walkthrough form created for Assessment for Learning and Crew and Culture

• PD connected to student Assessment for Learning and Crew and Culture

In Progress

Centennial Professional Learning Pathways Project

• 6-week differentiated professional learning sessions for all teachers focusing one of the following topics:

o Crew and Culture o Leaders of their own

Learning o Reading and Writing

in the Humanities Block

Weekly, August-June

TBD No cost associated • Professional Learning Pathways Proposals will include: o Guiding questions o Goals o Faculty Learning

Targets o EL Core Practices

connections o Assessments o Celebration of

Learning/Outcome o Description

In Progress



o Guided Reading • Staff self-assessment on Centennial EL Work Plan Faculty Learning targets

• Weekly exit tickets • Teacher Support Matrix

Centennial Instructional Coaching Initiative

• Bi-monthly coaching team meetings to discuss: o Coaching

assignments/caseloads o Instructional coaching cycles o Professional development

needs based on evaluation of coaching action plans

*This action steps specifically addresses our PPC related to academic growth gaps.

Bi-monthly August to June

Bi-monthly August to June

School Leadership EL School Designer Instructional Guide Teacher Effectiveness Coach

No cost associated • Pre/post instructional coaching cycle surveys

• Individual coaching action plans

• Coaching schedule • Teacher Effectiveness

data (LEAP) • Student academic

achievement data (growth and proficiency)

• Student Perception Survey (SPS)

• WDN Teacher Support Matrix

In Progress

Implement DPS Math Fellow Program • Daily, 45-minute math tutoring

for students in grades 4, 5

SY 2014-15

SY 2015-16

Math Fellows Coordinator, 4 DPS Math Fellows,

No cost associated • Growth on the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI)

• Growth on Achievement Network Math Interim assessments

• Progress monitored monthly through UIP Tracker

In Progress

Implement Zearn Math pilot in grades 3 and 4 and participate in all associated professional development

• In-class Tier I intervention tool aligned with Engage NY core math curriculum

SY 2014-15

SY 2015-16

Two 3rd grade teachers One 4th grade teacher

No cost associated • Student perception Survey results

• Teacher effectiveness data (LEAP)

• Student academic achievement data (growth and proficiency)

In Progress



• Progress monitored monthly through UIP Tracker

Participate in Compact Blue Peer to Peer Learning Model in collaboration with The Odyssey School and Denver Green School Full Day PD Sessions:

• August 13, 14, 15 Instructional Rounds:

• October 9, 10 • February 5, 6

Half-day Video Conference PD • September 26 • November 7 • January 23 • March 20

SY 2014-15

N/A (1) Kinder teacher (2) 1st grade teachers (1) 2nd grade teacher (1) 3rd grade teacher (1) 4th grade teacher (1) 5th grade teacher Instructional Guide

Grant Funded • Student perception Survey results


• Student academic achievement data (growth and proficiency)

In Progress

Reading Partners • Trained volunteers will provide

90 minute/week Tier II reading intervention to identified students

SY 2014-15

TBD Intervention Coordinator Principal

$20,000 from GF budget • Individual student growth on the Rigby PM Ultra Assessment

• Increases in individual student achievement on DRA2 and STAR EL/Reading

In Progress

Participate in National Center for Time and Learning Collaborative Year-2 Cohort

SY 2014-15

TBD Instructional Leadership Team

No Cost Associated • UIP Tracker • Progress Monitoring

Visits

In progress

Expeditionary Learning Site Seminar • Student Engaged Assessment

strategies

SY 2014-15

TBD Identified teachers

EL MOU • Teacher-led professional development for colleagues

• Teacher-led PLCs • Walkthrough tools

In Progress



created/data gathered demonstrating practices learned are being implemented

• Teacher/student survey data

3-Day Expeditionary Learning Institute • Refining Learning Expeditions

SY 2014-15

SY 2015-16

Identified teachers

EL MOU • Walkthrough tools created/data gathered demonstrating practices learned are being implemented


• Student achievement data/growth data

Completed for SY 2014-15

5-Day National Expeditionary Learning Conference

• Elementary Institute

SY 2014-15

SY 2015-16

School Leadership

EL MOU • Walkthrough tools created/data gathered demonstrating practices learned are being implemented

Completed for SY 2014-15

* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.



Major Improvement Strategy #2: Professional Learning Communities: Utilize structures to promote professional collaboration in order to actively progress monitoring students’ growth toward proficiency through data analysis and data driven instructional practices. Root Cause(s) Addressed: • Teachers need a high level of support with transitioning to the Common Core State Standards and planning standards-based instruction that clearly communicates standards

based learning targets and ensures differentiation. • We have not developed the knowledge and skills of every teacher to collaboratively review, analyze and respond to data on a consistent basis.

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


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) 2014-15 2015-16

Weekly 60-minute PLC meetings every Thursday during grade level teams’ planning time focusing on:

• Analysis of formative/summative and progress monitoring data

• Analysis of student work, exit slips, do-now’s

• Identification of effective instructional strategies to support re-teaching, acceleration

• Development of common assessments

• Identification of resources needed

SY 2014-15

SY 2015-16

School Leadership Instructional Guide Teacher Effectiveness Coach All classroom teachers, Support Staff, Electives Staff

No cost associated • PLC Observation Rubric developed by the West Denver Network

In Progress



Implement Data Driven Instruction (DDI) cycle and process school-wide

SY 2014-15

SY 2015-16

All Staff No cost associated • Expeditionary Learning (EL) Implementation Rubric

• DDI Rubric • Teacher Lesson Plans/6-

week Instructional Plans • Data Analysis PD exit

tickets after each Interim Assessment window

• Professional Development calendar

• Data displays and student goals evident

In Progress

Utilize Achievement Network (ANet) interim assessments grades 2-5

October-June

SY 2015-16

Instructional Leadership Team All classroom teachers grades 2-5

Funded with District level Title I funds

• EL Implementation Rubric

• Walkthrough tools created/data gathered demonstrating Assessment for Learning (AfL) practices learned are being implemented

• Criteria Checklists evident in classrooms

In Progress

* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.



Major Improvement Strategy #3: Instruction and Instructional Systems- Utilize structures, systems and processes to allow relationship building, academic progress monitoring, and character development to ensure all students at Centennial are known well, their needs are met, and their individual strengths are discovered. Root Cause(s) Addressed: • Teachers need a high level of support with transit

organization code: 0880 district name: denver county 1 … · 2019. 12. 6. · elp 31 - - 22 - -...

Documents