Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2012-13
Organization Code: 0470 District Name: ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J School Code: 5288 School Name: LONGS PEAK MIDDLE SCHOOL SPF Year: 2012 Accountable by: 1 Year
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2011-12. 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 as shared through the School Performance Framework (SPF) data. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
2011-12 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura,
Escritura
Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and
science
Expectation: %P+A is at or above the 50th percentile
by using 1-year or 3-years of data
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
-
71.43%
-
-
59.55%
-
M
-
52.48%
-
-
40.85%
-
W
-
57.77%
-
-
44.61%
-
S
-
48.00%
-
-
31.67%
-
Median Adequate Growth Percentile
(AGP)
Median Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading,
writing and math and growth in CELApro for English
language proficiency
Expectation: If school met adequate growth: then
MGP is at or above 45.
If district did not meet adequate growth: then MGP is
at or above 55.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
2011-12 School Results
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for
Academic Achievement:
Approaching
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
Median Growth Percentile (MGP)
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
-
44
-
-
61
-
M
-
77
-
-
55
-
W
-
64
-
-
56
-
ELP
-
61
-
-
62
-
Overall Rating for
Academic Growth:
Meets
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
1
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Median Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth Gaps
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.
Graduation Rate
Expectation: at 80% or above on the most recent
4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Post
Secondary/
Workforce
Readiness
Expectation: at 80% or above on the
disaggregated group’s most recent 4-year, 5-year,
6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below State average overall.
Mean ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above State average
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
2011-12 Federal and State
Expectations
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median adequate
growth expectations for your district’s
disaggregated groups, including
free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities,
English Language Learners and students
below proficient.
At 80% or above
2011-12 School Results
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median growth
by each disaggregated group.
Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate
- using a - year grad rate
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:
Meets
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each student
disaggregated group at each content area
at each level.
-
At 80% or above for each
disaggregated group
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6year and 7-year graduation rates for
disaggregated groups, including
free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities, and
English Language Learners.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Overall
Rating for
Post
Secondary
Readiness:
-
2
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Program
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
State Accountability
Final Plan Type
Plan assigned based on school’s overall school
performance framework score (achievement,
growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and
workforce readiness)
Performance
Based on final results, the school 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, 2013 to be uploaded on
SchoolView.org, unless other programs require an earlier submission. Refer to the UIP
website for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the Quality Criteria
to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school's plan at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.
Does not receive Title I
funds
The school does not receive Title I funds and does not need to meet the additional Title I
requirements.
Not identified as a Title I
Focus School
This school has not been identified as a Title I Focus school and does not need to meet
the additional requirements.
ESEA and Grant Accountability
Title I Formula Grant
Title I Focus School
Program's resources are allocated based upon the
poverty rates of students enrolled in schools and
districts and are designed to help ensure that all
children meet challenging state academic
standards.
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.
Tiered Intervention Grant
(TIG)
Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified as
5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I eligible
schools to implement one of four reform models as
defined by the USDE.
Not a TIG Awardee
This school does not receive a TIG grant and does not need to meet those additional
requirements.
Improvement Support
Partnership (ISP) or Title I
School Improvement
Grant
Competitive Title I grant to support school
improvement through a diagnostic review (i.e.,
facilitated data analysis, SST) or an
implementation focus (i.e., Best First Instruction,
Leadership, Climate and Culture).
Not a Title I School
Improvement Grant
Awardee
This school does not receive a School Improvement grant and does not need to meet
those additional requirements.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
3
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.
Additional Information about the School
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History
Related Grant Awards
Has the school received a grant that supports the school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant
awarded?
NO
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
NO
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.
NO
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability  Title IA (Targeted Assistance or Schoolwide)
 Implementation Support Partnership Grant (ISP) or Title I School Improvement Grant


Title I Focus School
 Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
Other: ___________________________________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
MATT BUCHLER, PRINCIPAL
Email
[email protected]
Phone
303.776.5611
Mailing Address
1500 14TH AVENUE LONGMONT, CO 80501
Name and Title
KIM WATRY, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL
Email
[email protected]
Phone
303.776.5611
Mailing Address
1500 14TH AVENUE LONGMONT, CO 80501
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
4
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.
Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2011-12 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
Academic Achievement
(Status)
Academic Growth
Targets for 2011-12 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
Performance in 2011-12? Was the target met? How
close was school in meeting the target?
Increase the overall percentage of students
scoring Proficient/Advanced in Math on 2012
CSAP by 5 percentage points to 41.3%.
NO. The percentage of students scoring
Proficient/Advanced in Math on 2012 TCAP was
39%. Students grew by 3 percentage points, but we
missed our target.
Increase the overall percentage of students
scoring Proficient or Advanced in Writing on
2012 CSAP by 5 points to 42%.
YES. The percentage of students scoring
Proficient/Advanced in Writing on 2012 TCAP
increased by 6 points to 43%
By the end of the 2011-2012 school year, the
Median Student Growth Percentile in Math will
be 52%, an increase of 5 percentage points
from 2010-11.
YES. The Median Student Growth Percentile in TCAP
By the end of the 2011-2012 school year, the
Median Student Growth Percentile in Writing
will be 56%, an increase of 5 points from
2010-11.
NO. The Median Student Growth Percentile in TCAP
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Math was 53%, an increase of 6 percentage points from
2010-11.
Writing was 52%, an increase of 5 percentage points from
2010-11. We missed our target by 1 percentage point.
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
*Based on our data driven dialogue in August of 2012,
our students continue to struggle with math
computation in all grades and, more specifically, in the
areas of probability and statistics (grade 6) and linear
concepts (grades 7 & 8).
*Our teaching staff has increased the intensity of
writing instruction and increased the amount of writing
students do.
*Our teaching staff has increased the amount of
homework and practice students experience in the
math.
*Based on our data driven dialogue in August of 2012,
our students continue to struggle with writing at grade
level proficiency on timed, extended writing
assessments (like TCAP). Additionally, our students
need to improve using a variety of sentence types and
proper grammar and mechanics.
5
Performance Indicators
Targets for 2011-12 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
Performance in 2011-12? Was the target met? How
close was school in meeting the target?
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
As our SPED teachers have gained experience
with our math supplements (FASTMath and Do
the Math), our students on IEPs have experienced
improved instruction.
By the end of the 2011-2012 school year, the
Median Student Growth Percentile in Writing
for SPED students will be 42%, an increase of
5 points from 2011-12.
Academic Growth Gaps
By the end of the 2011-2012 school year, the
Median Student Growth Percentile in Writing
for SPED students will be 42%, an increase of
5 points from 2011-12.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
YES. The Median Student Growth Percentile in TCAP
Math for students on IEPs was 51%, an increase of 15
percentage points from 2010-11.
6
Worksheet #2: Data Analysis
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)
Performance Indicators
*Reading: Reading scores continue to increase.
Priority
Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
N/A
3 Year Data Trends in Reading –
Percent Proficient/Advanced on TCAP
(Green denotes increase; red decrease)
Academic Achievement
(Status)
Grad
e
6th
7th
8th
School
Avg.
2012
57%
63
%
56
%
59%
2011
66%
49
%
61
%
58.6%
2010
58%
58
%
52
%
56%
*Writing: Increase in scores in TCAP Writing from 42% P/A in 2011
to 43% P/A in 2012.
3 Year Data Trends in Writing – Percent
Proficient/Advanced on TCAP
(Green denotes increase; red decrease)
Grad
6th
7th
8th
School
e
Avg.
2012 31% 56
42
43%
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
*YES. TCAP
achievement in
writing has
increased 5.4%
over the past two
years to 43%
Proficient and
Advanced, far
below state and
Teachers need to provide additional instruction and practice time for
students on timed, extended writing assessments. Teachers need to
build better knowledge of sentence types (simple, compound,
complex, and compound-complex) and grade-level appropriate
grammar and mechanics in students in order for them (students) to
vary sentence use and complexity of prose in their writing.
7
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Performance Indicators
Academic Growth
2011
53%
2010
37%
%
35
%
35
%
%
38
%
41
%
42%
Priority
Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
federal
expectations.
37.6%
Math: TCAP Math scores improved in 2012 – to 39% P/A from
36.3% P/A in 2011:
3 Year Data Trends in Math – Percent
Proficient/Advanced on TCAP
(Green denotes increase; red decrease)
Grad
6th
7th
8th
School
e
Avg.
2012 41% 45
31
39%
%
%
2011 47% 27
35
36.3%
%
%
2010 40% 36
43
39.6%
%
%
*YES. TCAP
achievement in
math has
decreased 0.6%
over the past three
years to 39%
Proficient and
Advanced, far
below state and
federal
expectations.
*TCAP Reading Median Growth Percentiles continue to grow: 2012
TCAP Reading MGP = 60% (2011 TCAP Reading MGP = 54%)
N/A
*TCAP Writing Median Growth Percentiles continue to grow: 2012
TCAP Writing MGP = 55% (2011 TCAP Writing MGP = 51%).
Nevertheless, we need our students’ MGP to reach 65% in order to
catch up.
*YES. Over the
past 3 years,
TCAP MGPs in
Writing have
increased from the
47th percentile to
the 55th percentile;
the adequate
growth percentile
**TCAP Math Median Growth Percentiles continue to grow: 2012
TCAP Math MGP = 55% (2011 TCAP Math MGP = 47%).
Nevertheless, we need our students’ MGP to reach 70% in order to
catch up.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Math teachers need to instruct and assess students in grade-level
computation skills and number sense. Math teachers need to
develop knowledge of probability and statistics in sixth graders and
knowledge of linear concepts in seventh and eighth graders.
Teachers need to provide additional instruction and practice time for
students on timed, extended writing assessments. Teachers need to
build better knowledge of sentence types (simple, compound,
complex, and compound-complex) and grade-level appropriate
grammar and mechanics in students in order for them (students) to
vary sentence use and complexity of prose in their writing.
Math teachers need to instruct and assess students in grade-level
computation skills and number sense. Math teachers need to
develop knowledge of probability and statistics in sixth graders and
8
Performance Indicators
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority
Performance
Challenges
needs to be at the
65th percentile in
order to make
catch up growth.
Root Causes
knowledge of linear concepts in seventh and eighth graders.
*YES. Over the
past 3 years,
TCAP MGPs in
Math have
increased from the
37th percentile to
the 55th percentile;
the adequate
growth percentile
needs to be at the
70th percentile in
order to make
catch up growth.
Academic Growth Gaps
There is a 12 point gap in the MGP of general education students
and students on IEPs as measured by TCAP Math. Increase MGPs
in TCAP Math for SPED students from 43rd percentile to catch up
growth percentile (65th percentile).
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
*YES. We need to
narrow this gap.
Teachers need to increase the amount of time and the amount of
instruction in grade-level math concepts for SPED students.
9
Data Narrative for School
Directions: Building on the data organized in Worksheet #1 and Worksheet #2, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including review of prior years’ targets, trends,
priority performance challenges and root cause analysis. The narrative should address each aspect of the descriptions below. The narrative should not take more than five pages.
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 document any areas
where the school did not 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 indicator areas
and by disaggregated groups. Trend
statements should include the direction
of the trend and a comparison to state
expectations or trends 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 3-4 are
recommended. Provide a rationale for
why these challenges have been
selected and takes into consideration the
magnitude of the school’s over-all
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.
Narrative:
School Setting & Process for Data Analysis: Longs Peak is a grade 6-8 middle school with 422 students. Our student population is approximately 55% Latino, 43% White, and 3% AfricanAmerican/Asian. 78% of our students qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch. In August and September, we conduct a school-wide Data Driven Dialogue of TCAP scores with all of our teachers. We
analyze school trends in reading, writing, and math. As the DDD progresses, grade-level teachers identify trends, challenges, and root causes at each grade level and in each assessment area.
Current Performance: We are APPROACHING state and federal expectations in the area of “Academic Achievement.” We are APPROACHING state and federal expectations in the areas of
“Academic Growth” in math and writing. We are APPROACHING state and federal expectations in the areas of “Academic Growth Gaps” in reading, math, and writing. The greatest area of
concern is “Growth Gaps” for students with disabilities in the area of math. We are MEETING state and federal expectations in overall “Academic Growth” and in “Academic Growth Gaps” in
reading.
In 2012, Longs Peak moved from “Improvement” to “Performance” on our SPF. This was a major milestone. Increasing MGPs in reading, writing, and math, as well as a narrowing of
the growth gaps between White students and Hispanic students and ELL students caused this shift. The greatest challenge Longs Peak faces is to increase and sustain then MGPs in
writing and math to a level (approximately 70%) at which our students who are behind will be able to catch up over three years.
Trends Analysis: In August of every school year, teachers and administrators conduct a Data Driven Dialogue of TCAP & CELA scores from the previous spring. Local data (STAR & SRI reading
scores) are also analyzed.
TCAP Data: TCAP achievement scores show that our students have not yet made sufficient growth gains in order to achieve “catch up” growth (70%) and achievement. 59% of students scores P/A
on the 2012 TCAP Reading assessment. This represents the highest TCAP reading scores in 5 years. This is likely due to the continued school-wide emphasis on reading through our Accelerated
Reader (AR) program. Last year, 75% of students achieved 100% of their AR goals in reading. Seventh grade achievement increased significantly from 2011. TCAP scores in Math & Writing were
below our district & state average:
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
10
TCAP SCORES (Proficient & Advanced)
Year
Rdg.
Wrtg.
Math
6TH GRADE
2008
54%
49%
50%
2009
53%
38%
44%
2010
58%
37%
40%
2011
66%
53%
47%
2012
57%
31%
41%
7TH GRADE
2008
52%
48%
37%
2009
52%
45%
40%
2010
58%
35%
36%
2011
49%
35%
27%
2012
63%
56%
45%
8TH GRADE
2008
57%
44%
42%
2009
57%
48%
46%
2010
52%
41%
43%
2011
61%
38%
35%
2012
56%
42%
31%
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
11
Growth Summary (Overall): Overall (grades 6/7/8), Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) continue to rise (as does our population of at-risk learners) as measured by TCAP. MGPs in Reading,
Writing, and Math were they highest they’ve been in 5 years. We need to continue this trend in order to achieve sufficient “catch up growth” (70%):
TCAP MEDIAN GROWTH PERCENTILES
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Reading
Total
50
46
52
54
60
Writing
Total
44
41
46
51
55
Math
Total
53
41
38
47
55
Growth Summary (Disaggregated): Hispanic students MGPs are higher than White students in 2012. This denotes the closing of the achievement gap in growth, a good sign considering that our
Hispanic students need to grow more than White students in order to make catch up growth. Hispanic students’ MGPs have grown in Math, but they are still 1% below the 50% average:
DISAGGREGATED TCAP MEDIAN GROWTH PERCENTILE
2011-2012
White Hispanic
SPED
Reading
Total
58
60
48
Writing
Total
46
58
51
Math
Total
62
49
43
White
54
51
49
2010-2011
Hispanic
54
51
43
SPED
51
37
47
CELA Scores: Longs Peak’s ELL students have continued to outperform ELL students in our district. This trend is important because it shows our ELL students moving to English proficiency:
100
90
80
70
60
50
St. Vrain
40
LPMS
30
20
10
0
Beg.
E.Int
Int.
Prof.
Adv.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
12
Priority Performance Challenges:
Over the past 3 years, TCAP MGPs in Writing have increased from the 47th percentile to the 55th percentile; the adequate growth percentile needs to be at the 65th percentile in order to make catch
up growth. Over the past 3 years, TCAP MGPs in Math have increased from the 37th percentile to the 55th percentile; the adequate growth percentile needs to be at the 70th percentile in order to
make catch up growth. Our top priority performance challenges continue to be improving TCAP achievement scores in Math and Writing, thus meeting state and federal expectations for
achievement in these areas. Additionally, we need to continue improving TCAP MGPs in Math and Writing. These two goals are linked. Once we reach and sustain MGPs near 70% in Math and
Writing for three consecutive years, students’ achievement levels will begin to meet state and federal expectations.
Root Cause Analysis (Math): Math teachers need to instruct and assess students in grade-level computation skills and number sense. Math teachers need to develop knowledge of probability and
statistics in sixth graders and knowledge of linear concepts in seventh and eighth graders.
Root Cause Analysis (Writing): Teachers need to provide additional instruction and practice time for students on timed, extended writing assessments. Teachers need to build better knowledge of
sentence types (simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex) and grade-level appropriate grammar and mechanics in students in order for them (students) to vary sentence use and
complexity of prose in their writing.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
13
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section addresses the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, you will identify your annual performance targets and
the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form below. Then you will move into action planning,
which should be captured in the Action Planning Form.
School Target Setting Form
Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those
priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas).
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 where state expectations are not met – in each area
where a priority performance challenge was identified; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges. 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.
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
Measures/
Metrics
Annual Performance Targets
Priority Performance
Challenges
2012-13
2013-14
Interim Measures for
2012-13
Major Improvement
Strategies
R
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Increase the overall
percentage of students
scoring Proficient/Advanced
in Math on 2013 TCAP by 5
percentage points to 44%.
Increase the overall
percentage of students scoring
Proficient/Advanced in Math on
2014 TCAP by 5 percentage
points to 49%.
Galileo assessments
(fall, winter, spring)
M
TCAP achievement in
math has decreased
0.6% over the past
three years to 39%
Proficient and
Advanced, far below
state and federal
expectations.
Students will receive additional
practice and instruction in math
computation in all grades and,
more specifically, in the areas of
probability and statistics (grade
6) and linear concepts (grades 7
& 8).
TCAP achievement in
writing has increased
5.4% over the past two
years to 43% Proficient
and Advanced, far
below state and federal
expectations.
Increase the overall
percentage of students
scoring Proficient or
Advanced in Writing on 2013
TCAP by 5 points to 48%.
Increase the overall
percentage of students scoring
Proficient or Advanced in
Writing on 2014 TCAP by 5
points to 53%.
Quarterly common
assessments of writing to
timed prompts in English
classes.
Students will receive additional
practice writing on timed,
extended writing assessments.
Teachers will increase the
frequency of teaching sentence
types, structure, and proper
grammar and mechanics with
students.
CSAP,
CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
W
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
14
S
AYP
(Overall
and for
each
disaggregat
ed groups)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Over the past 3 years,
TCAP MGPs in Math
have increased from the
37th percentile to the
55th percentile; the
adequate growth
percentile needs to be
at the 70th percentile in
order to make catch up
growth.
By the end of the 2012-2013
school year, the Median
Student Growth Percentile in
Math will be 60%, an increase
of 5 percentage points from
2011-12.
By the end of the 2013-2014
school year, the Median
Student Growth Percentile in
Math will be 65%, an increase
of 5 percentage points from
2012-13.
Galileo assessments
Students will receive additional
practice and instruction in math
computation in all grades and,
more specifically, in the areas of
probability and statistics (grade
6) and linear concepts (grades 7
& 8).
Over the past 3 years,
TCAP MGPs in Writing
have increased from the
47th percentile to the
55th percentile; the
adequate growth
percentile needs to be
at the 65th percentile in
order to make catch up
growth.
By the end of the 2012-2013
school year, the Median
Student Growth Percentile in
Writing will be 60%, an
increase of 5 points from
2011-12.
By the end of the 2013-2014
school year, the Median
Student Growth Percentile in
Writing will be 65%, an
increase of 5 points from 201213.
Quarterly common
assessments of writing to
timed prompts in English
classes.
Students will receive additional
practice writing on timed,
extended writing assessments.
Teachers will increase the
frequency of teaching sentence
types, structure, and proper
grammar and mechanics with
students.
R
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
M
Increase MGPs in
TCAP Math for SPED
By the end of the 2012-2013
school year, the Median
By the end of the 2013-2014
school year, the Median
Galileo assessments
Students will receive 88 minutes
of grade-level math beginning in
R
M
R
M
Academic
Growth
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
W
Academic
Growth Gaps
Median
Student
Growth
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
15
Percentile
W
students from 43rd
percentile to catch up
growth percentile (65th
percentile).
Growth Percentile in Math for
SPEC students will be 48%,
an increase of 5 points from
2011-12.
Growth Percentile in Math for
SPEC students will be 53%, an
increase of 5 points from 201213.
N/A
N/A
N/A
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
January 2013. SPED teachers
will co-teach math classes.
N/A
N/A
16
Action Planning Form for 2012-13 and 2013-14
Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2012-13 and 2013-14 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root
cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps
necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that
will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may
add other major strategies, as needed.
Major Improvement Strategy #1: Students will receive additional instruction and practice in math computation in all grades and additional instruction and practice in the areas of
probability and statistics (grade 6) and linear concepts (grades 7 & 8). Root Cause(s) Addressed: Math teachers need to instruct and assess students in grade-level computation skills
and number sense. Math teachers need to develop knowledge of probability and statistics in sixth graders and knowledge of linear concepts in seventh and eighth graders.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Resources
Implementation
Benchmarks
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
Students who did not score Proficient or Advanced
on 2012 Math TCAP will receive additional weekly
math interventions for 40 minutes per day.
September
2012
Math teachers
0
Scheduling & rotation of
Rams’ time tutoring
groups by math teachers
In progress
Students who scored Unsatisfactory on 2012 Math
TCAP will receive 15 minutes a day of FASTMath to
boost computation.
January 2013
Math teachers
Need to shuffle computer lab
times
N/A
In progress
20 eighth grade students who scored Partially
Proficient on 2012 TCAP will mentor 20 sixth grade
students who scored Partially Proficient on 2012
TCAP using the Learning Together protocol/math
program at the end of the school day.
November
2012-May 2014
Sandi Rethage, Tami
Simon
$12,000.00 (St. Vrain Valley
Schools)
PD training of Rethage
and Simon.
One day training of eighth
grade students
In progress
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, although completion is recommended. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention
Grant).
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
17
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Students will receive additional practice writing on timed, extended writing assessments. Teachers will increase the frequency of teaching
sentence types, structure, and proper grammar and mechanics with students.
Root Cause(s) Addressed: Teachers need to provide additional instruction and practice time for students on timed, extended writing assessments. Teachers need to build better knowledge of
sentence types (simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex) and grade-level appropriate grammar and mechanics in students in order for them (students) to vary sentence use and
complexity of prose in their writing.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation
Benchmarks
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
Teachers will give students seven, 60 minute writing
tasks during quarters 1-3. These prompts will
assess the two focus areas taught in class (e.g.,
using a variety of sentence structures, proper use of
grammar and mechanics).
9/26/2012;
English teachers
10/18/12;
11/8/12; quarter
three and
quarter four
(continue
through 201314 school year)
Need to use building time for
table grading and discussion
of results.
Grading of writing
prompts.
In progress
Teachers will place greater emphasis on
SpringBoard grammar and mechanics supplements
in lesson warm-ups and exit tickets.
Daily
throughout
2013-14
English teachers
Use of SpringBoard
supplements
Review of student exit
tickets to check for
proficiency
In progress
Teachers will use CDE and SpringBoard exemplars
to familiarize students with exemplary work and to
build greater student knowledge of what constitutes
excellent writing.
Intro of
Embedded
Assessments at
beginning of
each unit
English teachers
CDE and SpringBoard
resources
Analysis of if students
begin to perform at a
higher level after
reviewing exemplars
In progress
TCAP tutoring of small groups of high PP students
during Rams’ time.
January 2013May 2014
English and history
teachers
Rams’ time
All high PP students will
receive one full round of
tutoring
In progress
Core teachers will develop a tiered (6/7/8) writing
rubric all teachers to grade writing assignments in
core areas (science, math, history, English).
Summer 2013May 2014
Leadership Team,
Writing Committee
Professional Study Team will
create this and earn PD
credit.
Draft rubric by first PLC of Not begun
2013-14 school year
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
18
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
19
Major Improvement Strategy #3: Students on IEPs with math goals will receive 88 minutes of grade-level math beginning in January 2013. SPED teachers will co-teach math
classes.
Root Cause(s) Addressed: SPED students are not sufficiently exposed to grade-level math concepts.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Resources
Implementation
Benchmarks
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
SPED & math teachers will receive PD on teamteaching.
Fall 2012
Math and SPED
teachers
0
N/A
Completed
IEP students with math goals need placement in
general education math classes. This will increase
exposure to grade-level math concepts as well as
the amount of time in math each day to 88 minutes.
January 2013May 2014
Counselors, SPED
teachers
0
All IEP students with
math goals in mainstream
math at start of quarter 2
(January 4, 2013)
In Progress
Section V: Appendices
Some districts/consortia will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements:
 Title I Schoolwide Program (Required)
 Title I Targeted Assistance Program (Required)
 Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability (Required)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
20