Salida Schools

Unified Improvement Plan 2013-14

 

 

 

Description: image1.pngFor a more comprehensive understanding of Salida Schools please visit:

http://salidaschools.com/district/strategic-plan/

The UIP is the major data analysis and planning in regards to the state tests.  The strategic plan allows for an understanding of how the community is trying to evaluate students in all areas of success.  In many ways the UIP is a plan for maintaining our minimum levels of expectations for students. 


 

 

ColoradoÕs Unified Improvement Plan for Districts for 2013-14

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Organization Code:  0500       District Name:  SALIDA R-32                     AU Code:  64093       AU Name: MOUNTAIN BOCES       DPF Year:  1 Year

 

Section I:  Summary Information about the District/Consortium

 

Directions:  This section summarizes your district/consortiumÕs performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2012-13.  In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the district/consortiumÕs data in blue text.  This data shows the district/consortiumÕs performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations.  Most of the data are pulled from the official District Performance Framework (DPF). This summary should accompany your improvement plan. 

 

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics

2012-13 Federal and State Expectations

2012-13 District Results

Meets Expectations?

Academic Achievement (Status)

TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % Proficient and Advanced (%P+A) in reading, writing, math and science

Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile (from 2009-10 baseline) by using 1-year or 3-years of data

R

Elem

MS

HS

Elem

MS

HS

 

Overall Rating for Academic Achievement:  

Meets

* Consult your District Performance Framework for the ratings for each content area at each level.

71.51%

70.50%

71.53%

77.49%

81.88%

81.88%

M

70.51%

50.00%

32.16%

81.29%

66.25%

50.98%

W

54.72%

56.36%

48.61%

67.45%

68.13%

67.55%

S

48.00%

45.60%

48.93%

60.26%

68.6%

68.92%

Academic Growth

Median Growth Percentile
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading, writing and math and growth on ACCESS/CELApro for English language proficiency.

Expectation: If district met adequate growth, MGP is at or above 45.

If district did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or above 55.

For English language proficiency growth, there is no adequate growth for 2012-13. The expectation is an MGP at or above 50.

R

Median Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP)

Median Growth Percentile (MGP)

Overall Rating for Academic Growth: 

Meets

* Consult your District Performance Framework for the ratings for each content area at each level.

Elem

MS

HS

Elem

MS

HS

26

14

6

66

52

69

M

41

48

64

63

54

59

W

35

35

25

56

45

50

ELP

-

-

-

-

-

-


 

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

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics

2012-13 Federal and State Expectations

2012-13 District 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 District Performance Framework for listing of median adequate growth expectations for your districtÕs disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners (ELLs) and students below proficient.

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

 

Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:

Approaching

* Consult your District 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

Exceeds

Overall Rating for Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness:

Meets

94.4% using a 5 year grad rate

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

At 80% or above for each disaggregated group

See your District 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.

Exceeds

Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below state average overall.

3.6%

0.7%

Exceeds

Mean Colorado ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above state average
.

20

19.7

Approaching

 


 

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

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics

2012-13 Federal and State Expectations

2012-13 Grantee

Results

Meets Expectations?

English Language Development and Attainment

AMAO 1
Description: Academic Growth sub-indicator rating for English Language Proficiency

A rating of Meets or Exceeds on the Academic Growth sub-indicator for English Language Proficiency

-

-

AMAO 2
Description: % of ELLs that have attained English proficiency on WIDA ACCESS

11% of students meet AMAO 2 expectations

-

-

AMAO 3
Description: Academic Growth Gaps content sub-indicator ratings (median and adequate growth percentiles in reading, mathematics, and writing) for ELLs; Disaggregated Graduation Rate sub-indicator for ELLs; and Participation Rates for ELLs

(1) Meets or Exceeds ratings on Academic Growth Gaps content sub-indicators for ELLs, (2) Meets or Exceeds rating on Disaggregated Graduation Rate sub-indicator for ELLs and (3) Meets Participation Requirements for ELLs

R

-

-

W

-

M

-

Grad

-

Partici-pation

-

 

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan

Summary of District Plan Timeline

October 15, 2013

The district has the option to submit the updated 2013-14 plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.

January 15, 2014

The district has the option to submit the updated 2013-14 plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.

April 15, 2014

The UIP is due to CDE for public posting on April 15, 2014 through Tracker.  Some program level reviews will occur at this same time.  For required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at:  http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.


 

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan (cont.)

Program

Identification Process

Identification for District

Directions for Completing Improvement Plan

State Accountability and Grant Programs

Plan Type for State Accreditation

Plan type is assigned based on the districtÕs overall District Performance Framework score (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness) and meeting requirements for finance, safety, participation and test administration.

Accredited with Distinction

Based on District Performance Framework results, the district meets or exceeds state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan.  The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2014 to be posted on SchoolView.org.  Note that other programs may require a review at the same time.

School(s) on Accountability Clock

At least one school in the district has a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan type – meaning that the school is on the accountability clock.

Number of Schools on Clock:  0

Districts are encouraged to include information on how schools on the accountability clock are receiving additional intensive support aimed at increasing dramatic results for students.  This will be a required element in 2014-15. Note: the number displayed does not include any AEC schools within the district with Pending AEC School Performance Frameworks or any schools with Insufficient State Data.

Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)

In one or more of the four prior school years, the district (1) had an overall Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness rating of ŅDoes Not MeetÓ or ŅApproachingÓ on the District Performance Framework and (2) had an on-time graduation rate below 59.5% or an annual dropout rate at least two times greater than the statewide dropout rate for that year.

No, district does not need to complete a Student Graduation Completion Plan.

The district does not need to complete the additional requirements for a Student Graduation Completion Plan.

Gifted Education

All districts are expected to provide services to Gifted students.  Some districts belong to a multi-district AU (including BOCES) that may develop plans together or separately.

Not AU Lead for Gifted Program.

The district must include a Gifted Education addendum.  As a member of a multi-district AU, consult with the AU Lead to decide whether to develop a common plan or a plan unique to your district.  All districts are expected to submit a Gifted Ed plan as a part of the UIP, even if it is a common plan. Note that specialized requirements for Gifted Education Programs are included for all LEAs in the District Quality Criteria document.   The state expectations for Gifted Education Programs are posted on the CDE website at:  http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/director.


 

 

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan (cont.)

ESEA and Grant Accountability

Title IA

Title IA funded Districts with a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan type assignment.

No, district does not have specific Title I requirements in the UIP.

District does not need to complete the additional Title I requirements.

Title IIA

Title IIA funded Districts with a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan type assignment.

No, district does not have specific Title IIA requirements in the UIP.

District does not need to complete the additional Title IIA requirements.

Program Improvement under Title III

District/Consortium missed AMAOs for two or more consecutive years.

Consult with your Title III Consortium Lead to see the ConsortiumÕs status.

Consult with your Title III Consortium Lead to see the ConsortiumÕs status.

District with an Identified Focus School and/or School with a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)

District has at least one school that (1) has been identified as a Title I Focus School and/or (2) has a current TIG award.

No, the district does not have any schools identified as a Title I Focus School or have a current TIG award.

The district does not need to meet additional requirements.


 

 

Section II:  Improvement Plan Information

 

Additional Information about the District

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Related Grant Awards

Has the district received a grant that supports the districtÕs improvement efforts?  When was the grant awarded? 

NO

CADI

Has (or will) the district participated in a CADI review?  If so, when?

NO

External Evaluator

Has the district(s) partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation?  Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.

NO

Improvement Plan Information

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

X  State Accreditation      ¬  Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)                     X  Title IA                                 X Title IIA
¬  Title III                     X  Gifted Education               ¬  Other: ______________________________________________________________________________

For districts with less than 1,000 students:  This plan is satisfying improvement plan requirements for:  ¬  District Only            ¬  District and School Level Plans (combined plan).  If schools are included in this plan, attach their pre-populated reports and provide the names of the schools: ______________________________________________

District/Consortium Contact Information  (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)

1

Name and Title

David Blackburn, Director of Academic Affairs

Email

dblackburn@salidaschools.org

Phone

719-530-5469

Mailing Address

349 E. 9th Street, Salida, CO 81201

2

Name and Title

Darryl Webb, Superintendent

Email

dwebb@salidaschools.org

Phone

719-530-5252

Mailing Address

349 E. 9th Street, Salida, CO 81201


 

 

Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

This section corresponds with the ŅEvaluateÓ 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 district.  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 district/consortium did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations; describing progress toward targets for the prior school year; describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends; identifying trends and priority performance challenges (negative trends); describing how performance challenges were prioritized; identifying the root causes of performance challenges; describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used; and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis.  Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in the Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.

 

Data Narrative for District/Consortium

Directions:  In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the district/consortium, including (1) a description of the district 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 YearÕs Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been provided to organize the data referenced in the narrative.

 

Data Narrative for District/Consortium

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

 

Review Current Performance:  Review the DPF and local data.  Document any areas where the district(s) did not at least meet state/ federal expectations.  Consider the previous yearÕs progress toward the districtÕs targets.  Identify the overall magnitude of the districtÕs 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 districtÕs 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 district, 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:

Overview: Salida school district (#0500) again saw gains overall.  The 3year DPF showed a 7% gain overall in possible points, and by the 1year DPF the district was rated as a district of distinction.  When considering the 1year DPFs from 2010 we see truly amazing gains in the area of student growth of almost 20% points.  (2010-55.6%; 2011-66.7%; 2012-69.4%; 2013-83.3%)

In light of those gains the districtÕs main objective is to stabilize the gains and improvements by investing in greater progress monitoring and continued focus upon communication with the community.  The areas of Writing and Growth Gaps have also been identified as curricula and instructional places for improvement.  The long-term trend of ACT scores is still a district focus. The scores in those two areas are not cause for concern; however they are the areas that show the greatest potential for improvement.  See Attachment #4

Last year the district identified a need for improved progress monitoring systems and fidelity in the use of data.  That focus is not specifically noted in the areas of priority performance; however, progress monitoring is still the focal point of professional development this year as it supports all sustainability of student achievement and supports all teachers use of data in targeted instruction.

 

Data Analysis: Salida School District R-32-J is a unique mountain town school system with approximately 1000 students k-12.  Caucasians make up the majority of the demographics and the only two significant growth gap areas for the district lie in the Free and Reduced Lunch category and the Students Needing to Catch Up. The district reports 48% free and reduced lunch. The district has two schools that are designated as School Wide assistance Title Schools.  Those Federal Funds help assist the district pursue academic improvements for students struggling with core content areas.

As the state scores were released over August and September the Director of Academic Affairs processed them and provided an initial analysis to the administrative team.  The feedback from the administrators guided the presentation to the Board of Education in a work session.  The feedback from the BOE provided guidance when the data was presented to the teaching staff and the District Accountability Committee. The media was present at all of these meetings and reported out to the larger community the districtÕs success. The teachers were provided two opportunities to review the data once from an individual student level and again from a vertical content department perspective.  The teachers then offered their personal and departmental goals for the academic year in response to the data.

After reviewing all of the feedback the Director of Academic Affairs drafted the initial UIP for the Administrative Team, BOE and DAC to review and offer a second round of feedback.  Overall this year the district has developed a data team to dig into data, discover trends, and then pass those significant findings on to building teams for action step development.  That team allowed the district to sift through radar graphs from the last three years and discover historical weaknesses down to the standards level as well as what standards had the highest yields.  The data team crosschecked Acuity predictive scores with student level data from TCAP to determine struggling students within the same academic year and get those names to building level teams.  The data team looked for trends in the 8th grade team that has consistently scored lower.  The data team reviewed data from the title intervention classes at the middle school to discover trends.

 

Current Performance and Trend Analysis: 

Overall the DPF shows a consistent growth from 2010 @ 70.8% of the possible points for achievement to 2013 @ 79.2% (2011-68.8% / 2012-75%)

When we compare achievement to the state we see only 3 areas total that did not exceed the state average.  When we look at class comparisons to other classes we see a variety of changes in trends up or down.  When we consider cohort performance we are pleased that only 2 cohorts in Reading and Writing did not achieve better than the previous year.  It was concerning to see 5 cohorts in Math perform worse than the year before.  In science we saw a turnaround in Achievement.  We saw a drop in 5th grade science, but 8th and 10th were significant improvements.  Last yearÕs 5th grade class has an historical trend of poor performance.  Social and Emotional issues were cited as the largest cause to that classes performance and as such a school counselor was added to the school to target that class for assistance. 

Reading and Math appear to be trending the right direction.  With our district out performing the state in almost every area it is impressive to see a trend that continues to grow in math in reading.  This trend seems to offset the concern of this last yearÕs lower math achievement scores; and yet, when we analyze adequate growth the concern arose again.  This requires more study.  However Writing growth continues to be low and trending down.

We see a larger gap this year between the economically disadvantaged students and the non-disadvantaged.  At the elementary level we meet or exceed the state expectations.  At the high school level we meet in Reading and Math, but not in Writing.  However at the Middle School we do not meet in any of the three areas.

Overall our students needing to catch up is insufficient.  At all three levels the students needing to catch up in Writing is E-45%, M-41%, H-45%.  At the Middle level Reading (41%)  Math (43%) and Writing (41%) do not meet the state expectations.

Our ACT composite scores continue to be lower than acceptable.  We did not meet this target set for the 2012-13 year.  The DPF has a 3year mark of 19.7 composite and the 1year 19.8 composite.  However the AEC data was able to be removed under the accreditation rules and the remaining ACT composite data was 20.2 for 1year and 20.1 for 3 year.  In both cases it meets the state expectation, but still remains below the district goal.  We identified the weakness last year and started some interventions.  However, most of the interventions have taken effect this year, including purchasing specific resources and practice software to help guide the English teachers in targeted instruction.

 

Priority Performance Challenges:  The district has identified two areas for improvement in the 2012-13 school year.  The overall priority is to establish and maintain the gains seen with last yearÕs focus.  Beyond that the district wants to consider how to improve achievement and growth in Writing.  Secondly the district wants to consider how to change the trends in FRL students and students needing to catch up. Lastly, the district wants to improve the ACT composite score.

 

Root Cause:  Writing—the district does not have a consistent curricula or instructional approach to writing across the grades.  Also, the district does not have a consistent manner to perform any progress monitoring related to writing as they do in the other core content areas.  Lastly, we do not have sufficient time to train and implement any sweeping program changes.

Growth Gaps—We believe there was a system issue in not effectively progress monitoring students.

ACT—the 11th grade cohort taking the ACT this year has historically performed poorly in achievement; thus, cause for focused support of them on a pure achievement test.  Also the district does not have any way to predicatively prepare students for the test.  Previous attempts to support Juniors have not made any significant change in the overall composite score.  The use of some pre-test or predictive assessment is necessary to further identify any root cause.  Attempts to support 11th graders have not been done in data driven and targeted manner.


 


Worksheet #1:  Progress Monitoring of Prior YearÕs Performance Targets

Directions:  This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2012-13 school year (last yearÕs plan).  While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the main intent is to record your district/consortiumÕs reflections to help build your data narrative.

 

Performance Indicators

Targets for 2012-13 school year

(Targets set in last yearÕs plan)

Performance in 2012-13?  Was the target met?  How close was the district to meeting the target?

Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.

Academic Achievement (Status)

Writing 65%

All three levels met this goal by approximately +2-3%

į       The achievement goals were met mainly due to explicitly focusing on areas and asking questions of staff regarding what causes could be at play. 

į       Writing is a long-term trend that needs to be addressed in Salida.  Last year we identified it and did not make much past making plans, which we began to implement this year.

į       We found a system weakness in progress monitoring our target interventions.  The changes have been implemented this year and hope to see growth from those changes on next yearÕs DPF

į       We identified the weakness last year and started some interventions.  However, most of the interventions have taken effect this year, including purchasing specific resources and practice software to help guide the English teachers in targeted instruction.

Science 57%

All three levels met this goal and the middle and high school years truly exceeded this goal.

Academic Growth

Writing 55%

 

We did not meet this target.  The elementary met it at 56%, but the Middle did not at 45%, nor the High at 50%.

Academic Growth Gaps

47% in the area of students needing to catch-up.  This yearÕs 3 year DPF marks this particular demographic as 43%

We did not meet this target.  However we were extremely close.  The aggregate across the three levels was 46.6% when considered across the 3 year DPF.  The one year DPF aggregated was

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

20.5 ACT composite score

We did not meet this target.  The DPF has a 3year mark of 19.7 composite and the 1year 19.8 composite.  However the AEC data was able to be removed under the accreditation rules and the remaining ACT composite data was 20.2 for 1year and 20.1 for 3 year.  In both cases it meets the state expectation, but still remains below the district goal.

Student Graduation and Completion Plan

(For Designated Graduation Districts)

n/a

 

English Language Development and Attainment (AMAOs)

No Targets were set.  Still our 3year DPF data does not have a sufficient N to be accounted for.  When analyzing data from other sources for our ELL students were are more than satisfied with that subgroupÕs performance.


Worksheet #2:  Data Analysis

Directions:  This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about district-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 district/consortium 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, districts/consortia are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the Ņlast yearÕs targetsÓ 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.

 

Performance Indicators

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

Priority Performance Challenges

Root Causes

Academic Achievement (Status)

Overall the DPF shows a consistent growth from 2010 @ 70.8% of the possible points for achievement to 2013 @ 79.2% (2011-68.8% / 2012-75%)

 

It appears the focus on academic achievement and time on task has paid off, yet that is anecdotal.  The greatest increase appears to be attributed to students actually trying harder and a change in culture; however, that is again anecdotal.

SEE Attachment #1—When we compare achievement to the state we see only 3 areas total that did not exceed the state average.  When we look at class comparisons to other classes we see a variety of changes in trends up or down.  When we consider cohort performance we are pleased that only 2 cohorts in Reading and Writing did not achieve better than the previous year.  It was concerning to see 5 cohorts in Math perform worse than the year before.  In science we saw a turnaround in Achievement.  We saw a drop in 5th grade science, but 8th and 10th were significant improvements.

 

There was a significant turnover this year in math personnel at the Math level.  We need further study to isolate whether this cause was the dominant variable in the change in performance.

Academic Growth

See Attachment #2—Reading and Math appear to be trending the right direction.  With our district out performing the state in almost every area it is impressive to see a trend that continues to grow in math in reading.  This trend seems to offset the concern of this last yearÕs lower math achievement scores; and yet, when we analyze adequate growth the concern arose again.  This requires more study.  However Writing growth continues to be low and trending down.

There is a historic and negative trend in writing across the district.

The district has not adopted a consistent curriculum and instructional approach to writing.  Also, there is insufficient professional development time to implement any sweeping programmatic changes.

Academic Growth Gaps

See Attachment #3—We see a larger gap this year between the economically disadvantaged students and the non-disadvantaged.  At the elementary level we meet or exceed the state expectations.  At the high school level we meet in Reading and Math, but not in Writing.  However at the Middle School we do not meet in any of the three areas.

Our targeted interventions are not effectively bridging the gap in a consistent manner at the middle school.

We believe there was a system issue in not effectively progress monitoring students.

Overall our students needing to catch up is insufficient.  At all three levels the students needing to catch up in Writing is E-45%, M-41%, H-45%.  At the Middle level Reading (41%)  Math (43%) and Writing (41%) do not meet the state expectations.

How do we address the growth gap of students needing to catch up in Writing growth

We believe there was a system issue in not effectively progress monitoring students.

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

Our ACT composite scores continue to be lower than acceptable. 

How do we raise the ACT composite score

There is no targeted instruction at the junior year.  The ACT test does not allow for teachers to breakdown performance of previous cohorts and make needed programmatic or curricular changes.

Student Graduation and Completion Plan

(For Designated Graduation Districts)

N/A

 

English Language Development and Attainment (AMAOs)

N/A

 

 


 

 

Section IV: Action Plan(s)

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01This section addresses the ŅPlanÓ portion of the continuous improvement cycle.  First, identify annual performance targets and the interim measures.  This will be documented in the required District/Consortium Target Setting Form on the next page.  Then move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form.

District/Consortium Target Setting Form

Directions:  Complete the worksheet below. While districts/consortia 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).

Districts are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce readiness.  At a minimum, districts should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges.  Consider last yearÕs 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.

District/Consortium Target Setting Form

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics

Priority Performance
Challenges

Annual Performance Targets

Interim Measures for
2013-14

Major Improvement Strategy

2013-14

2014-15

Academic Achievement (Status)

TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura

None Identified

 

 

 

 

Academic Growth

Median Growth Percentile TCAP

W

There is a historic and negative trend in writing across the district.

55% MGP Aggregate Average

57% MGP Aggregate Average

Acuity Predictive Tests

Research, Design, and Implement a district-wide consistent approach to writing.  Develop a local assessment to grow local capacity to monitor progress.

Academic Growth Gaps

FRL

Our targeted interventions are not effectively bridging the gap in a consistent manner at the Middle School

R-50% MGP

M-44% MGP

W-44% MGP

R-55% MGP

M-50% MGP

W-50% MGP

Dibels, Acuity, SRA.  There is no current interim measure for writing.

Complete a full review of the Title Programming including needed resources.

Need to Catch Up

How do we address the growth gap of students needing to catch up in Writing growth?

E-70% Adequate G%

M-47% MGP

H-50% MGP

E-80% Adequate G%

M-50% MGP

H- 53% MGP

The elementary level has local derived assessment.  The other levels have nothing.

Research, Design, and Implement a district-wide consistent approach to writing.  Develop a local assessment to grow local capacity to monitor progress.

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

Mean CO ACT

How do we raise the ACT composite score?

 

 

ACT On-line Prep Program

Increase the programming that is targeted in nature to student weaknesses.

English Language Development & Attainment

None Identified

 

 

 

 

 

Action Planning Form for 2013-14 and 2014-15

Directions:  Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2013-14 and 2014-15 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 districts focus on no more than 3 to 5 major improvement strategies.

 

Major Improvement Strategy #1:  Design a District-Wide Approach to Writing                     Root Cause(s) Addressed: The district has not adopted a consistent curriculum and instructional approach to writing.  Also, there is insufficient professional development time to implement any sweeping programmatic changes.

 

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

X  State Accreditation               ¬  Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)      X Title IA                              X  Title IIA
¬  Title III                              ¬  Gifted Program             ¬  Other:  ____________________________________________________________________________

 

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)

2013-14

2014-15

Complete all curriculum Maps for the district, including clearing out all old materials (26gigs) and ensuring there is something for every class.  Then improve all maps to the state standard and formatting.

X

 

David Blackburn

Approximately $6000 in additional stipends to complete the curriculum mapping project as outlined in the districtÕs Race to the Top budget.

December 2013-post all curriculum maps completed.

August 2014—100% of the curriculum maps formatted in the stateÕs template with all units outlined.

Benchmark 1—complete and posted

Benchmark 2—in progress

Train all Social Studies teachers in Cause and Effect writing strategies

X

 

David Blackburn

None required

Initial training by November 2013.

Follow Up training in April of 2014

Benchmark 1—complete and posted

Benchmark 2—in progress

Train all Math and Science teachers in Process Analysis writing strategies

 

X

David Blackburn

None required

Initial training by November 2014

Follow up training by April 2015

Benchmark 1—Not started

Benchmark 2—Not started

Implement local school wide assessments in regards to writing. To create opportunity for targeted instruction.

X

X

Principals

Use of title funds to provide stipends for the development of these local assessments--$2000

September 2013 elementary school develop and implement assessment

September 2014 Middle and High School develop and implement assessment.

Benchmark 1—Not started

Benchmark 2—Not started

Implement a writing strand to our Middle School Title Intervention classes

 

X

Will Wooddell

None Required

Curriculum outlined by August 2014

Benchmark1—Not Started

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

 

Major Improvement Strategy #2:  Complete a full review of the Title Intervention Program at the middle school.

Root Cause(s) Addressed:  We believe there was a system issue by not effectively progress monitoring students.

 

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

X  State Accreditation               ¬  Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)      X  Title IA                              X  Title IIA
¬  Title III                              ¬  Gifted Program             ¬  Other: _____________________________________________________________________________

 

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)

2013-14

2014-15

Review the longitudinal data for trends of the 5th and 6th grade intervention program.

X

 

Data Team

Title funds--$1278 for a stipend to fund a data researcher for the year.

Complete by October 2013

Complete

Implement a curriculum in the 5th/6th grade intervention classes.

X

 

Will Wooddell, David Blackburn

Title funds—less than $1000 to purchase resources

Complete by December 2013

Complete, requires review at end of the year.

Implement a progress monitoring program for reading.

X

 

David Blackburn

Title funds—less than$1500 for Dibels

Complete by December 2013

Complete, requires review at end of year.

Review and change teacher schedule to allow for best use of teacher time.

X

 

Will Wooddell

None Required

Complete by August 2014

In review now.

Review the longitudinal data for trends of the 5th and 6th grade intervention program.

 

X

Data Team

Title funds--$300 for stipend to fund a data researcher for the year.

Complete by September 2014

Not started

Review the longitudinal data for trends of the 8th grade FRL growth gap.

X

 

Data Team

Mentioned above

Complete by October 2013

Complete

Review the longitudinal data for trends of the 8th grade FRL growth gap.

 

X

Data Team

Mentioned above

Complete by October 2014

Complete

Review math materials and curriculum for math intervention class

X

 

Will Wooddell

None required

Complete by April 2014

In progress

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


 

 

Major Improvement Strategy #3:  Increase the programming that is targeted in nature to student weaknesses.           Root Cause(s) Addressed:  There is no targeted instruction at the junior year.  The ACT test does not allow for teachers to breakdown performance of previous cohorts and make needed programmatic or curricular changes.

 

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

X  State Accreditation               ¬  Student Graduation and Completion Plan (Designated Graduation District)      ¬  Title IA                              ¬  Title IIA
¬  Title III                              ¬  Gifted Program             ¬  Other: _____________________________________________________________________________

 

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)

2013-14

2014-15

Purchase ACT Prep Texts

X

 

David Blackburn

$2500 from local resource adoption funds

August 2013

Complete

Purchase ACT Online Prep Software

X

 

David Blackburn

$2500 from local funds

September 2013

In place, requires review at the end of the year.

Offer ACT study classes during TCAP testing for all juniors

X

X

Rob Tressler

None required

March 2013

In Place

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Section V:  Appendices

 

 

Some districts/consortia will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements:


 

 

Section V:  Optional Addendum—TITLE PROGRAMS

 

 

For Schools Operating a Title I Schoolwide Program

Schools that participate in Title I may choose to use this format to document Title I program requirements for operating a schoolwide program.  As a part of the improvement planning process, some schools may meet some of the requirements in earlier sections of the UIP.  This form provides a way to ensure all components of the program are met through (1) assurances, (2) descriptions of the requirements or (3) a cross-walk of the Title I program elements in the UIP.

 

Description of Title I Schoolwide
Program Requirements

Assurance

Recommended Location in UIP

Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)

How are parents and school staff involved in the development of the improvement plan?

 

Section III: Data Narrative (pp. 7-9)

The UIP planning process begins at the administrator level with the release of the TCAP scores and school performance frameworks. Administrators then bring the data and recommendations to staff and the board for review and additions.  The UIP is then formally drafted. The draft is then brought to the school and district accountability groups for review, which are made up of school personnel, parents, and community members.  After the accountability groups have had input a final draft is created and submitted.

What are the comprehensive needs that justify the activities supported with Title I funds?

 

Section III. Data Narrative (pp. 7-9) and Section IV. Action Plan (p. 15)

The middle schoolÕs title intervention programming is specifically identified as a weakness and is targeted as an area for improvement.                 

What are the major reform strategies to be implemented that strengthen core academic programs, increase the amount and quality of learning, and provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum?

 

Section IV:  Action Plan (p. 15)

The middle schoolÕs title intervention program is identified to be reviewed complete.  As well as implement a stronger curriculum in reading.  Also, Dibles will be implemented 5-8 to allow for an initial progress monitoring of students and provide a data driven rationale for determining when a student no longer needs supplemental services.

Title I students are only taught by highly qualified teachers.

  Yes

  No

 

 

How are highly qualified teachers recruited and retained?

 

 

The district only employees HQ teachers so that every student has an equal chance to access quality instruction.


 

How is the high quality professional development based on student and staff needs?

 

Section IV:  Action Plan (p. 15) and Section III: Data Narrative (p. 7-9)

As noted in the UIP the greatest need in the district is improved progress monitoring systems.  This year much of the professional development is around the use of Acuity for formative assessments of Math and Reading Literacy. 

The schoolÕs Parent Involvement Policy (including the Parent Compact) is attached.

  Yes

  No

 

 

How does the school assist in the transition of preschool students from early childhood programs to local elementary school programs?

 

Section IV:  Action Plan-not identified as a priority performance

This year the school is developing a school readiness plan to be published.  The district is designing a program to pass on all Gold assessment system to Kindergarten teachers as well as assessing students without previous Gold data during registration.  The district is reviewing the possibility of utilizing the Gold assessment in the Kindergarten program to create greater consistency between the Early Childhood Center and the elementary school.

How will the UIP (including the Title I requirements) be annually evaluated for effectiveness and includes the participation of parents?

 

Section IV:  Action Plan-not identified as a priority performance

The district accountability group was involved in reviewing the initial UIP in September and will discuss it at least twice more during the Winter/Spring to review.  At the same time the School Board is creating a community wide process to develop a multi-year strategic plan that is more comprehensive in scope, including considering factors beyond just the state assessment data.  This process is involving all stake holders from admin, staff, parents, and community members. 

How are Title I funds used in coordination with other ESEA funds, as well as state and local funds?

 

Section IV:  Action Plan-not identified as a priority performance

The district is bearing the lionÕs share of financial responsibility and funded locally from property taxes.  The federal funds never supplant local use, rather supplement. 

 

 

 

 


 

Section V:  Supporting Addenda Forms—GIFTED AND TALENTED

                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

For Administrative Units with Gifted Education Programs

Administrative Units (AU) must complete this form to document Gifted Education program plan requirements for student performance. AUs responsible for multiple districts may collaborate with districts, this is especially true for AUs with member district that have small n-counts. Numbers can be aggregated to the AU level and common targets can be recorded, as appropriate, in district documents.  As a part of the improvement planning process, districts are strongly encouraged to weave appropriate requirements into earlier sections of the UIP. This form provides a way to ensure all components of the program are met through assurances and by (1) describing the requirements in this addendum or by (2) listing the page numbers of where the gifted education elements are located in the UIP. 

 

Description of Gifted Education Program Requirements

UIP p#

Description of requirement or Crosswalk of Description in UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page number)

Record reflection on progress towards previous yearÕs targets.

p. 22

Last year we began meeting regularly with the families regarding frustrations in our district program.  Out of those meetings we developed a plan to try and improve programming for gifted and talented students.  We offered public trainings and facilitating the founding a parent group.  This year we reorganized our leadership team for gifted and talented.  All leaders have completed ALPs for all students.  We have held one parent training this year and identified motivation as the theme for learning in the GT group.  Currently we are facilitating two book groups reading a  GT book on motivation and the feedback from that study is guiding our leadership team.  We are reviewing our middle years programming.  We are also looking to determine how to create aptitude grouping in the 4th grade.  We have been working with the economic development council and two University presidents to improve the college offerings and access.

Disaggregate gifted student performance by sub-groups (e.g., grade ranges, minority, and FRED) to reveal strengths and/or gaps (disparities) in achievement and/or growth on state and/or district assessments.

p. 7-9

All GT students scored well on the state test.

Provide a data analysis that includes trend statements, prioritized performance challenges and root causes that investigates the needs of selected student groups.

pp. 7-9

See the data tables attached and data analysis.

Set targets for gifted studentsÕ performance that meet or exceed state expectations that facilitate gifted studentsÕ achievement and growth (e.g., move-up, keep-up) in their area(s) of strength.

 

Achievement—

Reading—aggregate average 95% advanced  Writing—Aggregate average 93%  Math—aggregate average 95% advanced 

Describe gifted student performance targets in terms of either the district targets (convergence) or as a specific gifted student target/s (divergence) based upon performance challenges of gifted students.

 

They exceed all exceed the average achievement of other sub groups or generalizations of cohorts.

Describe the interim measures to monitor progress of individual student performance for the selected student sub-group or grade level range.

 

We utilize acuity at targeted diagnostic grade levels above the studentÕs age to attempt to target learning at their optimal range.

Identify major (differentiated) strategies to be implemented that support and address the identified performance challenges and will enable the AU to meet the performance targets.

 

We currently utilize a autonomous learner model for the middle years in a pull out setting.  We currently utilize college courses and other internships to facilitate acceleration of curriculum.  We under utilize aptitude groupings at the primary years, but have targeted it as an area of improvement.

 

Description of Gifted Education Program Requirements (cont.)

UIP p#

Description of requirement or Crosswalk of Description in UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page number)

Describe steps and timeline for major improvement strategies and professional development that will have positive and long term impact to improve gifted student performance.

p. 22

See attached plan

Describe who has primary responsibility for implementing action steps for improvement of gifted student performance.

p. 22

David Blackburn at the district level and the counselors at the building level.

Indicate how student achievement is reported to parents and students, especially when gifted students are above grade level instruction in one or more contents at a grade level.

p. 22

Parent teacher conferences face to face in the annual development of the ALP

 

* Note that the Gifted Education Program budget is due in April.  The budget can be found at:  http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/director.htm.

 


Gifted Program Assurances

Description of General Program Assurances

Mark one box:

Description of General Program Assurances

Mark one box:

The district uses multiple pathways and tools to ensure equal and fair access to identification, especially in traditionally underserved student groups; and makes progress toward proportional representation in the gifted population.

¬  Completed

X  In progress

¬  No

The district/BOCES maintains a local database of gifted students that records the studentsÕ area(s) of strength as defined in regulations: general ability, a specific academic area(s), visual arts, music, performing arts, creativity, and/or leadership.

¬  Yes

X  In progress

¬  No

Gifted students receive special provisions, Tier II and Tier III, for appropriate instruction and content extensions in the academic standards that align with individual strengths.

Note: The AUÕs program plan should describe the key programming options matched to areas of giftedness and utilized in serving gifted students.

¬  Yes

X  In progress

¬  No

ALPS are implemented and annually reviewed for every gifted student for monitoring individual achievement and affective goals. (Districts may choose to substitute the ALP with the School Readiness Plan at the kindergarten level; and with the ICAP at the secondary level, if conditions of individual affective and achievement goals and parental engagement are fulfilled.)

X Yes

¬  In progress

¬  No

The budget and improvement planning process is a collaboration among stakeholders of schools or districts within the administrative unit.

X  Yes

¬  In progress

¬  No

The district/BOCES provides a certified person to administer the gifted education program plan, provide professional development, and facilitate implementation of the READ Act to accelerate reading skills of advanced readers.

X  Yes

¬  In progress

¬  No

 

Report on State Performance Indicators as Recorded on the 2012-2016 Program Plan

Description of State Performance Indicator

Mark one box:

Description of State Performance Indicator

Mark one box:

AU will increase the identification of gifted students from traditionally under-represented populations as evidenced in proportionality of local data by 2016.

X  Completed

¬  In progress

AU will implement ALPs in high schools either as a blended plan with the ICAP or as a separate individual ALP by fall 2014.

X Completed

¬  In progress

AU will implement procedures to identify exceptional potential/gifted students in all categories of giftedness.

¬  Completed

X  In progress

AU will have a policy or guidelines for acceleration. Districts reviewed acceleration plans for students in general and have a local acceleration plan for gifted students.

X  Completed

¬  In progress

AU will be successful in identifying and moving toward gifted student achievement/growth targets by 2016.

X  Completed

¬  In progress

AU will accomplish priorities set through the Colorado Gifted Education Review (C-GER).

X  Completed

¬  In progress

 

 


Text Box: 2015-16Text Box: 2013-14	Text Box: „	Review General Intellectual Ability and Leadership Ability
„	2 Parent Meetings (podcasts posted)
„	Review Clustering effectiveness
„	Identify down to K or 1st grade
„	Attend CASB student leadership conference
„	Begin writing leadership curriculum
Text Box: 2014-15Text Box: „	Program review—comprehensive 
„	Communication and solidarity with the community/parents
„	Program development and publishing
„	Identify gaps in programming
„	Website
„	2 Parent Trainings
„	3 Parent Meetings
„	Alpine Achievement—ALPs
„	  
Text Box: 2012-13Text Box: 4 Year Strategic PlanText Box: Gifted & Talented represents a unique demographic within society and schools.  As a school system they may represent the most difficult subgroup to meet his or her need.  By definition these individuals think, process, see, do, or lead differently from the majority of students.  It is not simply a question of degrees of gifts or talents.   These students do not simply have a higher degree of intellect or talent.  These students have talents and gifts that are unique; and as such, these students have unique needs requiring unique solutions and programs.  The difficulty, however, lies in the reality that these students potential will always go beyond our communityÕs capacity.  Our task as a community and school is to assist these students in learning to explore his or her gifts and talents, so that when they exhaust our resources they can continue forward independently.  As such our vision is:
The Salida Schools will identify and make unique plans to support students that have unique gifts and talents so that those students can independently explore their full potential.
Text Box: Vision


 

Achievement Scores—Attachment #1

Reading

Salida P/A

State P/A

Trend (+/-)

Stable

Cohort Stable/Growth

3rd

74

73(+1)

-4

 

 

 

4th

83

68(+15)

Ž+11

 

78% Ž

 

5th

68

70(-2)

-11

 

72% 

 

6th

84

73(+11)

-2

 

79% Ž

 

7th

84

68(+16)

Ž+6

X

86% 

 

8th

79

67(+12)

Ž+6

X

78% Ž

 

9th

76

68(+8)

-3

X

73% Ž

 

10th

83

70(+13)

Ž+17

 

79% Ž

 

 

Writing

Salida P/A

State P/A

Trend (+/-)

Stable

Cohort Stable/Growth

3rd

59

51(+8)

Ž+3

 

 

 

4th

83

53(+20)

 Ž+26

 

56% Ž

 

5th

51

57(-6)

-21

 

57% 

 

6th

75

58(+17)

Ž+5

X

72% Ž

 

7th

73

61(+12)

Ž+12

X

70% Ž

 

8th

62

56(+6)

-1

X

61% Ž

 

9th

70

55(+15)

-2

 

63% Ž

 

10th

64

49(+15)

Ž+22

 

72% 

 

 

Math

Salida P/A

State P/A

Trend (+/-)

Stable

Cohort Stable/Growth

3rd

78

72(+6)

-6

 

 

 

4th

91

72(+19)

Ž+8

 

84% Ž

 

5th

74

65(+9)

-9

 

83% 

 

6th

82

62(+20)

--

 

74% Ž

 

7th

71

55(+16)

Ž+13

 

82% 

 

8th

58

51(+7)

Ž+4

 

71% 

 

9th

51

39(+12)

-3

 

58% 

 

10th

50

34(+16)

Ž+21

X

51% 

 

 

Science

Salida P/A

State P/A

Trend (+/-)

Stable

Cohort Stable/Growth

5th

60

48(+12)

-9

 

--

8th

66

52(+14)

Ž+16

 

--

10th

68

51(+17)

Ž+28

 

--

 


Growth Data—Attachment #2

 

This is great! The trend is heading the right direction and it is far above the state norms of learning.  If you had to have one program that is amazing in a district you would choose reading.  At the grade level view we have some weaker spots that we believe can improve, but the district wide view looks FABULOUS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing is not bad.  Being at the 50%ile means our writing is average.  We can do better.  If we are to become The Education Community we dream of, it must improve. When we can focus energy beyond the normal day it will be on writing instruction for all staff. The admin team has made this a significant part of the staffÕs evaluation, regardless of content expertise to make sure every teacher is involved in changing this negative trend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our Math continues to be a strong program with great results and continual improvement.  There were a few grade levels that were below expectations and we believe those are correctable areas.  AgainÉFABULOUS.


Attachment #3

 

 

 

 


                                                                      


 


2013 Radar Graph Analysis-Attachment #4

Reading



High Impact Standards

Points Possible

Needs Improvement

Historically Struggle

8th

1.d - Infer using information from a variety of text and genre.

1.g - Identify the meaning of unfamiliar words in context using word recognition skills and context clues.

4.a - Identify an authorÕs point of view and purpose.

5.c Summarize and organize information about a topic in a variety of ways (for example, graphic organizer, venn diagram, outline, timeline) from a variety of references, technical sources, and media

6.b Apply literary terminology and knowledge of literary techniques (including but not limited to, setting, protagonist, antagonist, point of view, foreshadowing, personification, and flashback) to understand text

6.d

12

10



7

8




6




9

Maintain

Maintain



Maintain

Yes




Yes




Maintain

-0.26




-.02



9th

1.d

1.e

1.g - Determine meanings of words, including those with multiple meanings, by using context clues (for example, synonyms, comparisons) and structural clues (for example, roots, suffixes, prefixes).

4.d - Analyze a variety of text in order to make predictions and draw conclusions.

4.e

5.a

5.d

6.b - Apply literary terminology and knowledge of literary techniques (including, but not limited to, rising action, style, mood, setting, protagonist, antagonist, point of view, foreshadowing, personification, or flashback) to understand text.

5

9

10

6

6

6

7

9

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

no to all

10th

1.c -

1.f - Determine the meanings of words, including those with multiple meanings, by using context clues (for example, synonyms, comparisons) and structural clues (for example, roots, suffixes, prefixes).

4.a - Identify author's viewpoint, purpose, and historical/cultural context from information presented in the text.

6.b - Apply literary terminology and knowledge of literary techniques (including, but not limited to, rising action, style, mood, setting, protagonist, antagonist, point of view, foreshadowing, personification, or flashback) to understand text.

6.c

9

10




9



11




9

Maintain

Maintain




Maintain



Maintain




Maintain

-0.30

-0.29





Writing



High Impact Standards

Points Possible

Needs Improvement

Historically Struggle

8th

2a Write in a variety of genres such as editorials, personal narratives, essays stories, and letters for specific purposes (for example to analyze, to evaluate to entertain, to inform, to persuade, or to explain)

2b Organize ideas so that there is an inviting introduction, logical argument of ideas, and a purposeful conclusion

3b Use Standard English Usage in writing, including pronoun/ antecedent agreement, subject/verb agreement, regular/irregular verbs, and modifiers

3c Write in complete sentences

3d - Use conventions correctly (for example, all capitalization; apostrophes in contractions; quotation marks; underlining/italics; commas in a series, dates, addresses, direct address, letters; introductory words/phrases in dialogue and in complex and compound sentences).

12




6



8



11

8

Yes




Yes



Yes



Yes

Maintain

no to all

9th

2.a - Write in a variety of genres such as editorials, personal narratives, essays, stories, and letters for specific purposes (for example, to analyze, to evaluate, to entertain, to persuade, to inform, or to explain).

2.b.2 - Organize writing so that it has an engaging introduction, development of ideas, and purposeful conclusion.

3.c - Write in complete sentences.

3.d - Use conventions correctly (for example, commas, quotation marks, apostrophes, underlining/italics, capitalization).

12

8

13

10

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

no to all

10th

2.a - Write in a variety of genres including expository, technical, persuasive, narrative, and descriptive for specific purposes (for example: to synthesize, analyze, evaluate, explain, persuade, inform, and entertain).

2.f - Organize writing so that it has an engaging introduction, logical and effective development of ideas, and a satisfying conclusion.

3.b - Use standard English usage in writing, including subject/verb agreement, agreement of pronoun and its antecedent, parallel structure, and correct modifiers.

3.c - Write in complete sentences.

12




9



10



11

Maintain




Maintain



Maintain



Maintain

-0.59




-0.50



-0.32



-0.41




Math



High Impact Standards

Points Possible

Needs Improvement

Historically Struggle

8th

1.4a - Use the relationship among fractions, decimals, and percents including the concepts of ratio and proportion problem solving situations (similarity, scale factor, unit rate).

2.1a Represent, describe, and analyze patterns (for example, geometric and numcric) and relationships using tables, graphs, verbal rules, and standard algebraic notation.

2.1b Convert from one functional representation (table, graph, verbal rule, standard algebraic notation) to another

2.4a Distinguish between linear and nonlinear functions through informal investigations

4.5a Solve problems involving perimeter and area in two dimensions, and involving surface area and volume in three dimensions (include right prisms and cylinders).

6




7




6



4



6

Maintain




Yes




Yes



Yes



Yes





-0.15







9th

2.1a Model real world phenomena involving linear and non-linear relationships using multiple representations of rules that can take the form of recursive processes, functions, equations, or inequalities

2.2a Represent functional relationships using written explanations, tables, equations, and graphs, and describe the connections among these representatives

2.5b - Express the perimeter, area, and volume relationships of geometric figures algebraically.

3.3a -  Fit curves to scatter plots using informal methods or appropriate technology to make predictions about the data.

4.2a  - Solve problems involving perimeter, area, and volume of regular and irregular geometric figures.

5.1b - Use measurement to solve real-world problems involving rate of chage (for example, distance traveled using rate and time).

5





4

6



6



7



5

Yes





Yes

Maintain



Maintain



Maintain



Maintain

no to all

10th

2.1a Model real world phenomena involving involving quadratic and exponential relationships using multiple representations of rules that can take the form of a recursive process, a function, an equation, or an inequality

6.1a - Use ratios, proportions, and percents in problem solving situations that involve rational numbers.

4





7

Yes





Maintain

no to all




Science



High Impact Standards

Points Possible

Needs Improvement

Historically Struggle

5th

1.1d

1.1e Develop and communicate logical conclusions and make predictions based on evidence from an experiment

3.1a

4.2a

5.2a Identify that basic models are used to understand scientific processes and/or objects that may be difficult to study.

6

11



4

4

6

Maintain

Yes



Maintain

Maintain

Yes



8th

1.1a

1.2c

1.3c

3.11a

3.8a

5.1a Identify a controlled factor in a scientific investigation

5.1c

6

5

4

5

4

4

6

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain

Yes

Maintain



10th

1.1a

1.2c

4.4a

9

5

5

Maintain

Maintain

Maintain