1. education
2. school

DRAFT
Cover Sheet for Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Organization Code: 3000
District Name: Denver Public Schools
School Code: 0473 School Name: Florence Crittenton High School
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: CDE has pre-populated the school’s 2009-10 data in blue text which was used to determine whether or not the school met the 2010-11 accountability expectations. More
detailed reports on the school’s results are available on SchoolView (www.schoolview.org). The tables below have been pre-populated with data from the School Performance
Framework and AYP. The state and federal expectations are provided as a reference and are the minimum requirements a school must meet for accountability purposes.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
CSAP, CSAP-A, Lectura, Escritura
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and
science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile
by using 1-year or 3-years of data
‘09-10 Federal and State Expectations
3-years
1-year
3-years
Reading
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[Reading SPF
Rating]
Math
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[Math SPF Rating]
Writing
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[Writing SPF Rating]
Science
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[Science SPF Rating]
Overall number of targets for School: [#]
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing
and math
Expectation: If school met adequate growth:
then median SGP is at or above 45
If school did not meet adequate growth:
then median SGP is at or above 55
Meets
Expectations?
1-year
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Description: % PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAP-A and
Lectura in Reading and Math for each group
Expectation: Targets set by state*
‘09-10 School
Results
Overall % of targets
met by School: [%] **
Reading
No
Math
No
Median Adequate SGP
Median SGP
Reading
[#]
45/55
Median SGP: [#]
[Reading SPF
Rating]
Math
[#]
45/55
Median SGP: [#]
[Math SPF Rating]
Writing
[#]
45/55
Median SGP: [#]
[Writing SPF Rating]
* To see annual AYP targets, go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/prof.asp#table
** To see your school’s detailed AYP report (includes school results by content area, subgroup and school level), go to: www.schoolview.org/SchoolPerformance/index.asp
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
1
DRAFT
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
CSAP
Description: Growth gaps for reading, writing and
math by subgroups
Academic
Growth Gaps
Expectation: Subgroups meeting adequate
growth: median SGP is at or above 45
Subgroups not meeting adequate growth:
median SGP is at or above 55
Graduation Rate
See your school’s performance frameworks
for listing of median adequate growth
expectations for your school’s subgroups,
including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities, English
Language Learners and students below
proficient.
’09-10 School Results
Expectations Met?
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median
growth by each subgroup.
Overall Rating for
Growth Gaps:
[Rating]
80% or above
Expectation: 80% or above
Post
Secondary
Readiness
’09-10 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
na
1-year
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below State average
Mean ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above State average
5.09%
3-years
5.74%
1-year
19
3-years
[Rating]
1-year
[%]
3-years
[Rating]
[%]
1-year
3-years
[Rating]
20
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Program
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for completing improvement plan
State Accountability
Recommended Plan Type
Plan assigned based on school’s overall
school performance framework score
(achievement, growth, growth gaps,
postsecondary and workforce readiness)
[Plan Type]
[School must…]
Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for
at least two consecutive years**
[School is identified for
improvement/corrective
action]
[School must…]
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
2
DRAFT
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
Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach.
 Turnaround
 Transformation
Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded?
Title 1 School Improvement Grant – Fall 2009
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
Title 1 School Improvement Grant – SST
review in January 2010
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.
na
Related Grant Awards
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
State Accountability x Title IA
 Tiered Intervention Grant x School Improvement Grant
 Restart
 Closure
 Other: ________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
Donna Campanella, Principal
Email
[email protected]
Phone
303-733-7686
Mailing Address
96 S. Zuni St., Denver, CO 80223
Name and Title
Email
Phone
Mailing Address
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
3
DRAFT
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “evaluate/monitor” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. Provide a narrative that
examines the data for your school – especially in any areas where the school was identified for accountability purposes. To
help you construct this narrative, this section has been broken down into three steps: (1) Gather and organize relevant data,
(2) Analyze trends in the data and identify priority needs, (3) Determine the root causes of those identified needs, and (4)
Create the narrative.
Step One: Gather and Organize Relevant Data
The planning team must gather data from a variety of sources to inform the planning process. For this process, schools are
required to pull specific reports and are highly encouraged to supplement their analysis with local data to help explain the
performance data. The team will need to include three years of data to conduct a trend analysis in the next step.
• Required reports. At a minimum, the school is expected to reference the key data sources posted on SchoolView
(www.schoolview.org/SchoolPerformance/ index.asp), including: (1) School Performance Framework Report, (2) Growth Summary Report, (3) AYP
Summaries (including detailed reports in reading and math for each subpopulation of students), and (4) Post Secondary Readiness data.
• Suggested data sources. Furthermore, it is assumed that more detailed data is available at the school/district level to provide additional context and
deepen the analysis. Some recommended sources may include:
Student Learning
• Local outcome and
interim assessments
• Student work samples
• Classroom
assessments (type and
frequency)
Local Demographic Data
School Processes Data
• School locale and size of student population
• Comprehensive evaluations of the school (e.g., SST)
• Student characteristics, including poverty,
language proficiency, IEP, migrant,
race/ethnicity
• Curriculum and instructional materials
• Student mobility rates
• Staff characteristics (e.g., experience,
attendance, turnover)
• List of schools and feeder patterns
• Student attendance
• Discipline referrals and suspension rates
• Instruction (time and consistency among grade levels)
• Academic interventions available to students
• Schedules and class sizes
• Family/community involvement policies/practices
• Professional development structure
• Services and/or programs (Title I, special ed, ESL)
Perception Data
• Teaching and learning
conditions surveys (e.g., TELL
Colorado)
• Any perception survey data
(e.g., parents, students,
teachers, community, school
leaders)
• Self-assessment tools (district
and/or school level)
• Extended day or summer programs
Step Two: Analyze Trends in the Data and Identify Priority Needs
With the data gathered in step one, the planning team should analyze and interpret what the data is suggesting. Each of the key performance indicators should be
considered, including academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and post secondary readiness. The team should begin by identifying
patterns or trends in the data. The summary provided in Part I of this template (pp. 1-2) will provide some clues on content areas and subgroups where the school
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
4
DRAFT
needs to focus its attention. The team will need to examine at least three years of data to conduct a more thorough trend analysis. Next, the team should share
observations of its strengths on which it can build, and identify areas of need. Finally, those needs should be prioritized. These efforts should be documented in
the Data Analysis Worksheet below.
Step Three: Root Cause Analysis
This step is focused on examining the underlying cause of the needs identified in step two. A cause is a “root cause” if: (1) the problem would not have occurred
if the cause had not been present, (2) the problem will not reoccur if the cause is dissolved and (3) correction of the cause will not lead to the same or similar
problems. Finally, the school should have control over the proposed solution – or the means to implement the solution. Remember to verify the root cause with
other data sources. These efforts should be documented in the Data Analysis Worksheet below.
Data Analysis Worksheet
Directions: This chart will help you record and organize your observations about your school level data for the required data analysis narrative. You are encouraged to conduct a
more comprehensive analysis by examining all of the performance indicators. However, it is not necessary to complete every cell in the chart – just the areas that will be
highlighted in the narrative. Keep in mind that you must address the performance indicators for the targets that were not met for accountability purposes. Ultimately, your analysis
will then guide the major improvement strategies you choose in section IV. You may add rows, as necessary.
Performance
Indicators
Description of Significant Trends
(3 years of past data)
At or above proficiency CSAP 9th and 10th overall:
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
•
Reading: 25% (2008), 34% (2009), 15%
(2010)
•
Math: 0% (2008), 1% (2009), 3% (2010)
•
Writing: 14% (2008), 15% (2009), 3% (2010)
• Science: 0% (2008), 5% (2009), 0% (2010)
MAP % of students scoring below 9th grade level at Fall
administration:
•
•
•
Reading: 78% (2009); 90% (2010)
Math: 87% (2009); 85% (2010)
Lang Usage: Unavailable (2009);70% (2010)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
Priority Needs
Consistently low
percentage of students
scoring proficient or
above on CSAP and at
or above grade level
on MAP in all content
areas
Root Causes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Insufficient/ineffective instructional time
Lack of structure/systems for students participating
in activities outside classroom (counseling, nursing,
social work)
Schedule is often interrupted by non academic
activities and announcements
Unclear systems for reporting/addressing discipline
issues
Not all students are scheduled in the appropriate
grade level course
Not all students had all core content courses each
semester
What students needed wasn’t offered (scheduling
issue)
Inconsistency in effective use of instructional time
5
DRAFT
Growth Median Percentiles CSAP
•
Reading: 59.5 (2009); 67 (2010)
•
Math: 23 (2009); 53 (2010)
•
Writing: 62.5 (2009); 35 (2010)
Growth Median
Percentile for all
content areas needs
improvement
Academic Growth
Reading: 42.5%(2009); 46.88% (2010)
•
Math: 41.28% (2009); 47.4% (2010)
•
Lang Usage: 41.77% (2009) 44.77% (2010)
•
•
MAP growth
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Academic Growth
Gaps
Post Secondary
Readiness
Composite Scores on ACT:
•
(2008) 15
•
(2009) 14
•
(2010) 14
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
Consistently low
composite scores on
ACT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of rigor & common understanding of what
rigor means
Insufficient professional collaboration related to
academic achievement using data
Inconsistent use of Instructional Best Practices
including lack of scaffolding/differentiation in
classes
Insufficient focus of development of academic
language
Inconsistent use of assessment, progress
monitoring and grading practices
District curriculum not consistently
used/implemented with fidelity
Not all teachers have been trained in district
curriculum
Lack of focused interventions, did not implement
targeted interventions with fidelity
Isolated academic/lesson/strategy planning (silo
instruction)
Inconsistent expectations of students
Inconsistent communications to parents/families
about student progress (grades, attendance,
behaviors)
Lack of integrated ACT competencies across the
curriculum
Insufficient time spent on ACT prep
Juniors did not have time together in a like
grouping to support ACT prep
Insufficient emphasis on importance of ACT
test/test prep
Teachers not trained in ACT prep
Lack of appropriate materials for ACT prep
Lack of working knowledge of ACT standards and
how to align with curriculum
6
DRAFT
Step 4: Create the Data Narrative
Directions: Blend the work that you have done in the previous three steps: (1) Gather and organize relevant data, (2) Analyze trends in the data and identify priority needs, and (3) Determine the
root causes of those identified needs. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Consider the questions below as you write your narrative.
Data Narrative for School
Trend Analysis and Priority Needs: On which performance indicators is my school trending positively? On
which performance indicators is my school trending negatively? Does this differ for any disaggregated
student groups, e.g., by grade level or gender?
Root Cause Analysis: Why
do you think this is?
Verification of Root Cause: What
evidence do you have for your
conclusions?
Trend Analysis:
We identified trends by analyzing three years of data including CSAP, MAP, AYP, attendance, ACT and the District’s School Performance Framework (SPF). We have
consistently low percentage of students scoring proficient or above in all content areas of CSAPs, consistently high number of students who score below grade level in all areas
measures by MAP, and consistently low composite score for ACT. Our average daily attendance rates hover at the 70% level school wide. Our SPF rating was “accredited on
watch” for 08-09 and “accredited on priority watch (a new category) for 09-10.
CSAP At or Above
Proficiency 9th and 10th
overall
2008
2009
2010
Reading
25%
34%
15%
Math
0%
1%
3%
Writing
14%
15%
3%
Science
0%
5%
0%
Our targets are to increase the percentage of students who score proficient or above to 35% in Reading, 8% in Math, 20% in Writing, and 5% in Science on the 2011 CSAPs.
MAP % of students scoring
below 9th grade level
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Reading
78%
90%
Math
87%
85%
Language Usage
Data unavailable at this time
70%
Our target is to decrease the number of students who score below 9th grade level on the Spring MAP Assessment by 10% in each content area.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
7
DRAFT
Grade Level
Equivalency MAP
Fall 2010 (not all
scores included in
this report)
Reading
# of
students
Math
# of students
Language Usage
# of students
K
2
0
0
1
3
1
0
2
6
5
9
3
9
17
7
4
21
21
12
5
24
15
19
6
24
12
9
7
10
23
13
8
4
6
5
9
1
8
14
10
4
2
9
11 or higher
6
7
8
The MAP scores distribution shown above indicates student performance that is significantly below grade level for the majority of our students. Our target is to have all
students show at least one grade level improvement over the course of the school year between Fall and Spring administration of the MAP assessment.
Growth Median Percentiles
(CSAP)
2009
2010
Reading
59.5
67
Math
23
53
Writing
62.5
35
Our growth median percentile for CSAP is a positive trend with the exception of writing. While we have shown improved growth in reading and math, we still need to focus on
improving our growth median percentiles in all content areas. Our target growth percentiles for 2011 are 70 for reading, 60 for math, and 60 for writing.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
8
DRAFT
MAP Growth
2009
2010
Reading
42.5%
46.88%
Math
41.28%
47.4%
Language Usage
41.77%
44.77%
Our growth scores for MAP have shown improvement in all three content areas. Our target for 2011 is 50% in all three areas. We also want to see individual student growth at
least one grade level from Fall 2010 to Spring 2011.
AYP Trends
07-08
(Enrolled/Participated)
Included Students
08-09
(Enrolled/Participated 3yr average)
Included Students
09-10
(Enrolled/Participated)
Included Students
AYP Overall Reading
No (79/55) 14
No (243/205) 20
No (99/72) 19
AYP Overall Math
AYP Free/Reduced Lunch Reading
No (80/58) 15
No (66/50)
No (242/203) 20
No (197/169)
No (99/73) 19
No 66/48)
AYP Free/Reduced Lunch Math
No (66/53)
No (197/169)
No (66/50)
AYP Hispanic Reading
No (59/45)
No (186/163)
No (75/56)
AYP Hispanic Math
AYP LEP Reading
No (59/45)
NA
No (186/160)
No (85/76)
No (75/57)
No (41/30)
AYP LEP Math
NA
No (85/74)
No (41/31)
We did not make AYP in any content area the past three years. We are hopeful that through our targeted efforts in CSAP/MAP for both status and growth measures, we will
see improvement in our AYP results.
Attendance(ADA)Infinite Campus
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Fall 2010
9th
69%
68%
65%
65%
10th
11th
72%
74%
70%
74%
65%
68%
71%
66%
12th
76%
81%
79%
82%
Overall
73%
73%
68%
69%
12th
Our attendance rates show more positive trends for
graders. Our targeted growth in attendance is 77% for 9th grade, 78% for 10th grade, 78% for 11th grade, and 88% for
th
12 grade, with an overall attendance target for all students of 80%.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
9
DRAFT
Composite Scores ACT
2008
2009
2010
15
14
14
We have very low composite scores for ACT. Our target for 2011 is a composite score of 17.
Demographic information
DPS SPF 2010:
• 90% FRL (this rate has hovered around 90% for several years)
• 18.6% ELL
• 12.4% SpEd
DPS IC October 2010:
• 96.69% Excluding White of not of Hispanic Origin
• 84% Hispanic/Latina
• 2% American Indian or Alaska Native
• 1% Asian
• 12% Black or African American
• 3% White
• 2% Biracial or Undefined
Data from School's Intake Inventories and 1:1 Interviews Fall 2010:
• High mobility: new students 40% and returning 55% (some returning after leaving the school for a period of time)
• Students Spanish + English 47%
• Students English only: 35%
• Attendance History (self-report) on last year’s attendance: 49% attending regularly, 36% enrolled but not attending regularly, 12% not in school one year or more.
• Transportation: 55 dropped off, 26 drive, 98 ride RTD, 4 walk
According to Colorado Dept. of Education, 100% of FCS students are deemed high risk because they are under 20 years of age and pregnant or parenting. Other
characteristics of FCS students recognized by CDE as high-risk behaviors include delinquency, school drop-out, drug or alcohol use by students or their parents, gang
involvement, history of child abuse or neglect, parents on parole or probation, and familial history of domestic violence. Multiple stressors, mental health and contextual matters
function as barriers to students’ academic achievement. Teen mothers are one of the most stressed student populations with affective, adjustment, anxiety and trauma related
disorders (e.g., depression and anxiety as well as both acute and post traumatic stress symptoms), domestic violence, limited access to transportation, limited access to
adequate child-care, discrimination, cultural displacement, oppression and family system dysfunction. While our students face significant challenges, they also have great
determination and strength. Students come to FCS from across the Metro area - 54% using the public transportation system to get to school. Those who come on the bus often
leave home at an early hour, sometimes changing busses 2-3 times in the process, usually with their small child in tow unless they are still pregnant. All students are, at least at
a basic level, motivated to finish school. They don't always know what it takes to succeed when they enroll, but they strongly desire a positive future for themselves and their
children.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
10
DRAFT
2009-2010 outcomes including CSAP results, AYP, ACT composite scores, and achievement gaps were not positive and in fact, declined from the previous year with the
exception of CSAP math scores. The growth data for CSAP and MAP showed a more positive trend with growth in all areas except writing. We believe that part of the reason
for our declines is an implementation dip. In the Spring of 2009, the school's Data Team attended the “Raising the Bar, A Goal-Focused Approach for Data-Driven School
Change” workshop delivered by a team from the Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University (sponsored by CDE). As we worked through this
session, the team determined that because our outcomes had not been improving enough over time with the small changes we had made, we needed to consider a “second
order change” process. (This type of change is a major adjustment to the mode of operations as opposed to tiny adjustments.) A significant component to this change was a
shift from a longstanding quarter/block schedule of classes to the more traditional semester/period schedule. In addition, we added a school-wide intervention period to provide
the structure needed to support our students, the majority of whom are significantly below grade level in all content areas. These two major schedule changes resulted in a fair
amount of chaos, anxiety, and other difficulties. Teachers went from 4 classes per day to 6, and from 90 minute planning periods to 55 minutes. Implementation of the school
wide intervention period was difficult as we struggled to find the right balance in scheduling as well as struggles with implementation of interventions with fidelity. We believe
that the difficulties we experienced in 2009-2010 were the result of an “implementation dip” and are hopeful that the 2010-2011 school year will show the positive impact we
desired in taking on this 2nd order change process.
Priority Needs:
We will focus on three priority needs as determined by the performance indicators in section 1: 1) Consistently low percentage of students scoring proficient or above on CSAP
and at or above grade level on MAP in all content areas 2) Growth Median Percentile for all content areas needs improvement 3) Consistently low composite scores on ACT for
the past three years.
Root Causes:
As we work to understand the root causes of our priority needs, our team has determined several areas that need attention:
Instructional time. We know that in order to address the significant challenges our students face, we must ensure that they have access to quality, engaging instruction and
that instructional time is protected. There has been inconsistency in effective use of instructional time. Historically, we have had a lack of structure/systems for students who
need services outside classroom the classroom (counseling, nursing, social work) and there has been a tendency to interrupt instructional activities with non-academic
activities and announcements. In addition, we have not had clarity around systems for reporting/addressing discipline issues.
Scheduling. Because of the gaps our students have with their academic history, the interruption caused by giving birth, and the scheduling limitations of a small staff (10
teachers), schedules sometimes impact access to instruction in the following ways; not all students are scheduled in the appropriate grade level course, not all students have
all core content courses each semester, what students need isn't offered.
Rigor and focus on best practices. We have had a lack of rigor and no common understanding of what rigor means. Expectations of students have been inconsistent. Best
practices such as scaffolding/differentiation in classes, development of academic language, effective use of assessments, progress monitoring, grading practices have been
inconsistent, and communications to parents/families about student progress have been inconsistent.
Time for collaboration. We have not had sufficient professional collaboration related to academic achievement using data to focus on the intervention and learning cycles for
our students. We need to determine what we want students to learn, how we know if they learned it, and what we will do if they don’t. There has been an isolated approach to
academic/lesson/strategy planning resulting in silo instruction rather than effective collaboration.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
11
DRAFT
Consistency in implementation with fidelity of District curriculum and interventions. Some of the teachers have not used/implemented the district curriculum
consistently. In some cases this is because they have not been trained in the district curriculum. There has also been a general lack of focused/targeted use of interventions
being implemented with fidelity.
ACT prep. We have not had sufficient focus on preparing students for the ACT. Juniors have not had targeted time together for assistance in this area, teachers have not had
training in how to deliver ACT prep activities, and we have not done work to align ACT standards with the curriculum.
Verification of Root Cause:
We are fortunate to have resources to support us in our work through a 2-year Title 1 School Improvement Grant that was awarded during the 2009-2010 school year. (The
school was eligible for the grant because AYP was not met.) A School Support Team contracted through CDE visited in January 2010, creating a report, which guided a new
School Improvement Plan and process. This plan and process will compliment the UIP as we move forward.
Commendations from the SST include: Students feel positive about the school, staff make significant effort to help students feel connected, comprehensive/holistic supports
are provided, a high level of staff collegiality exists, teachers are aware of SIP content, and the Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) model is used.
Recommended actions from the SST include: Theme 1, Academics: provide professional development with coaching support in management of instructional time, use of
research-based instructional strategies, use of data, and use of technology and information literacy; Theme 2, Learning Environment: continue with holistic services, explore
new ways to engage families, create a professional development plan using a model such as the PLC model; Theme 3, Organizational Effectiveness: create a vision, establish
clear expectations, establish formal walkthrough and feedback process, study and implement the PLC model, consider schedule changes to increase instructional time, protect
instructional time.
The recommended actions from the SST help verify our priority needs, root causes, and action steps defined in this UIP. The following hypotheses statements from the School
Improvement Grant Plan also help support our findings and action plan:
If research-based interventions (e.g. LANGUAGE!, Rewards, & Compass Learning) are implemented with fidelity then student achievement will improve.
If a thorough analysis and restructuring of the school’s schedule is done to increase time for instruction and interventions, then student achievement will increase to
targeted levels.
• If teachers and support staff receive training on the Professional Learning Community (PLC) model, time to meet in a restructured schedule and regular feedback
from peers and supervisors, then instruction will improve resulting in greater student achievement.
• If the teachers and support staff establish clear and common sets of expectations for students regarding behavior (e.g. engagement, attendance, classroom
demeanor, etc.) and academic performance (e.g. grade level work exemplars, persistence, redoing work to standards, etc.), then student achievement will increase
and non-productive behavior will decrease.
As part of the School Improvement Grant planning process in 2010, the staff of Florence Crittenton School developed this Vision Statement:
It is the vision of Florence Crittenton School to graduate life-long learners, community leaders, and responsible parents with marketable 21st Century skills. We use a holistic
approach within an enriching academic environment to foster confident, accountable, and self-sufficient teen parents. Our educational philosophy is focused, student-centered,
and data driven using research-proven best practices. We utilize a strengths-based approach to provide targeted academic interventions and personalized counseling services.
Our culture is one of high expectations, positive behavioral support, diversity, and student engagement in learning. The Florence Crittenton staff is dedicated to a consistent,
collaborative approach to success involving the students, their families, and the larger community. Our staff is committed to continued professional development in pursuit of
this vision.
•
•
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
12
DRAFT
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section focuses on the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First you will identify your annual targets and the interim measures. This will be
documented in the School Goals Worksheet. Then you will move into the action plans, where you will use the action planning
worksheet.
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section focuses on the “evaluation” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First you will identify your annual targets and the interim measures. This
will be documented in the School Goals Worksheet. Then you will move into the action plans, where you will use the action
planning worksheet.
School Goals Worksheet
Directions: Complete the worksheet for the priority needs identified in section III; although, all schools are encouraged to set targets for all performance
indicators. Annual targets for AYP have already been determined by the state and may be viewed on the CDE website at:
www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/prof.asp#table. For state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic
achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and post secondary readiness. Once annual targets are established, then the school must identify
interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least twice during the school year. Finally, list the major strategies that
will enable the school to meet those targets. The major improvement strategies will be detailed in the action planning worksheet.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
13
DRAFT
School Goals Worksheet (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Annual Targets
Measures/
Metrics
2010-11
Interim Measures
2011-12
Major Improvement
Strategies
•
Increase % at or
above proficient
to 35% on CSAP;
R
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
CSAP,
CSAP-A,
Lectura,
Escritura
M
Decrease % of
students scoring
below 9th grade
on MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient
to 8% on CSAP;
Decrease% of
students scoring
below 9th grade
on MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient to
40% on CSAP;
Decrease% of
students scoring
below 9th grade on
MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient to
10% on CSAP;
Decrease % of
students scoring
below 9th grade on
MAP by 10%
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
REWARDS Unit Assessment
•
Course Assessments
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
Unit Assessments
•
Math Navigator Assessments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
W
Increase % at or
above proficient
to 20% on CSAP;
Decrease % of
students scoring
below9th grade
on MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient to
25% on CSAP;
Decrease % of
students scoring
below 9th grade on
MAP by 10%
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
Writing Rubric
•
•
•
Maximize
instructional
time
REWARDS,
LANGUAGE,
COMPASS
PCK
PD
Springboard
curriculum to
provide variety
of genres for
reading
Maximize
instructional
time
Math Navigator
Compass
APEX
PCK
PD
Maximize
instructional
time
School wide
writing rubric
and
assessment
PCK
PD
14
DRAFT
S
•
Increase % at or
above proficient
to 35% on CSAP;
R
Overall
AYP
M
AYP by
Groups
Academic
Growth
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
Decrease % of
students scoring
below 9th grade
on MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient
to 8% on CSAP;
Decrease% of
students scoring
below 9th grade
on MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient to
40% on CSAP;
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
REWARDS Unit Assessment
•
Course Assessments
Decrease% of
students scoring
below 9th grade on
MAP by 10%
Increase % at or
above proficient to
10% on CSAP;
Decrease % of
students scoring
below 9th grade on
MAP by 10%
•
•
•
•
•
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
Unit Assessments
•
Math Navigator Assessments
•
•
Progress monitoring
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
REWARDS Unit Assessment
•
Course Assessments
•
•
•
•
•
Maximize
instructional
time
REWARDS,
LANGUAGE,
COMPASS
PCK
PD
Springboard
curriculum to
provide variety
of genres for
reading
Maximize
Instructional
Time
Math Navigator
Compass
APEX
PCK
PD
R
M
R
Increase from 67
in 2010 to 70 in
2011 CSAP
Increase from
46.88% in 2010
to 50% in 2011
MAP
Increase from 67 in
2010 to 75 in 2012
CSAP
Increase from
46.88% in 2010 to
55% in 2012 MAP
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
•
•
Focus on
targeted
instruction and
progress
monitoring
REWARDS,
LANGUAGE,
COMPASS
15
DRAFT
M
Increase from 53
in 2010 to 60 in
2011 CSAP
Increase from
47.4% in 2010 to
50% in 2011 MAP
Increase from 53 in
2010 to 65 in 2012
CSAP
Increase from
47.4% in 2010 to
55% in 2012 MAP
•
Progress monitoring
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
Unit Assessments
•
Math Navigator Assessments
•
•
•
PCK
PD
Springboard
curriculum to
provide variety
of genres for
reading
•
Focus on
targeted
instruction and
progress
monitoring
Math Navigator
Compass
APEX
PCK
PD
•
•
•
•
•
•
W
Academic
Growth Gaps
Increase from 35
in 2010, 62.5 in
2009, to 60 in
2012 CSAP
Increase from
44.77% in 2010
to 50% in 2011
MAP
Increase from 35 in
2010, 62.5 in 2009,
to 65 in 2012 CSAP
Increase from
44.77% in 2010 to
55% in 2012 MAP
•
Progress monitoring
•
Acuity assessments 3 times a year
•
MAP given Sept, Jan, May
•
Writing Rubric
•
•
•
Focus on
targeted
instruction and
progress
monitoring
School wide
writing rubric
and
assessment
PCK
PD
R
CSAP
M
W
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
16
DRAFT
Graduation Rate
Dropout Rate
Post
Secondary &
Workforce
Readiness
Increase from
mean composite
of 14 in 2010 to
17 in 2011
Increase from mean
composite of 14 in
2010 to 18 in 2012
Mean ACT
•
ACT pre assessment October 2010
•
Targeted support to those scoring below 21 on pre
ACT
•
ACT prep materials added into 11th grade curriculum
•
•
•
•
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
Focus on ACT
prep and
Instruction
PD on
instructional
strategies
Vertical
alignment of
curriculum
EXPLORE for
9th grade,
PLAN for 10th
grade
17
DRAFT
Action Planning Worksheet
Directions: Based on your data analysis in section III, prioritize the root causes that you will address through your action plans and then match it to a major improvement strategy(s). For each major
improvement strategy (e.g., adjust reading approach) and the root cause(s) that the action will help to dissolve. Then indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the
chart, provide details on key action steps (e.g., re-evaluating supplemental reading materials, providing new professional development and coaching to school staff) necessary to implement the major
improvement strategy. Details should include a description of the action steps, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions and implementation benchmarks.
Implementation benchmarks provide the school with checkpoints to ensure that activities are being implemented as expected. If the school is identified for improvement/corrective action under Title I,
action steps should include family/community engagement strategies and professional development (including mentoring) as they are specifically required by ESEA. 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: Maximize instructional time
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy: Insufficient/ineffective instructional time, lack of structure/systems for students participating in activities
outside classroom (counseling, nursing and social work), schedule is often interrupted by non-academic activities and announcements, unclear systems for reporting/addressing
discipline issues, not all students are scheduled in the appropriate grade level course, not all students had all core content courses each semester, what students needed wasn’t
offered
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
x School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Amendments to a Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan. x School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
1)
Evaluation of master schedule to address
gaps according to individual student needs
and to maximize effective use of instructional
time.
Timeline
4/2010
Evaluation,
Implemented
8/2010;
Re-evaluate
11/2010,
Implementation
1/2011;
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
Key Personnel
(optional)
Academic Counselor
and AP
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
•
•
Time to meet
Outside support from
DPS
Implementation Benchmarks
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minutes from meetings
Ongoing counseling
advisement of credits
Use of ABC stoplight to
determine schedule needs
Course changes and
additions
Quarters to semesters
Credit recovery options
18
DRAFT
2)
Targeted management of behavioral issues
8/2010, ongoing
Discipline committee
chair
•
•
Time to meet
Outside support from
DPS
•
•
•
•
•
3)
Classroom time management for instruction
7/2010, ongoing
Administrators
•
•
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
Administrative time to
walkthrough and
follow-up
Classroom
expectations and
protocol for
walkthrough
•
•
•
Tracking referrals in SWIS
and IC
Create a system for
dissemination of
information
Referral process from
teachers for bullying and
other SSP concerns
Behavior consequences
framework
Referral procedure for SSP
services
Priority on instructional time
vs. community building
Targeted announcement time
Classroom walkthrough
and follow-up
19
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Focus on targeted instruction and progress monitoring
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy: Lack of rigor and common understanding of what rigor means; insufficient professional collaboration related
to academic achievement using data; inconsistent use of instructional best practices including lack of scaffolding/differentiation in classes; insufficient focus of development of
academic language; inconsistent use of assessment, progress monitoring and grading practices; district curriculum not consistently used/ implemented with fidelity; not all
teachers trained in district curriculum; lack of focused interventions and did not implement targeted interventions with fidelity; isolated academic/lesson/strategy planning (silo
instruction); lack of clear understanding of RTI philosophy and framework/structure
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
X School Plan under State Accountability.
Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan
Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Amendments to a Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan. X School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
1)
2)
3)
Timeline
Professional
development
regarding
academic rigor as it relates to assessment,
progress monitoring and grading practices
with regard to the Intervention Cycle.
8/2010, ongoing
Implement PLC model and use PLC time to
focus on data to determine what we want
students to learn, how we know if they
learned it, and what we will do if they don’t.
(Learning Cycle).
7/2010, ongoing
Use PLC time to focus on RTI (Intervention
and Learning Cycles)
8/2010, ongoing
Key Personnel
(optional)
TLA and TEC
TLA and TEC
TLA and TEC
Resources
(federal, state, and/or local)
•
•
•
District trainings
Meeting time
Outside support
personnel and
materials
•
•
•
•
PLC materials
Outside support
Meeting time
Data reports
•
•
•
Time to meet
Outside support from
DPS
Outside support for
PD
Time to do
observations and
provide feedback
•
•
•
•
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
Implementation Benchmarks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exemplars and rubrics
developed by collaborative
teams
Agenda items from PD
Data reports
PD Calendar
Agendas and minutes from
PLC
Data reports
PD Calendar
Address schedule needs
Assess and coordinate
teacher resources
PD on progress monitoring
and data analysis (data
mining)
PD on implementing
interventions with fidelity
20
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #3: Focus on ACT prep and instruction
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy: Lack of integrated ACT competencies across the curriculum; insufficient time spent on ACT prep; Juniors
did not have time together in a like grouping to support ACT prep; insufficient emphasis on importance of ACT test/test prep; teachers not trained in ACT prep; lack of appropriate
materials for ACT prep; lack of working knowledge of ACT standards and how to align district curriculum
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
x School Plan under State Accountability.
 Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Amendments to a Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
1)
Vertical alignment of curriculum to ensure
that students are prepared for the ACT.
Timeline
10/2010, through
April, ongoing
Key Personnel
(optional)
TLA and TEC
Resources
(federal, state, and/or local)
•
•
•
2)
3)
Create structure to provide targeted ACT
prep activities to Juniors; use of ACT Plan for
10th grade; ACT Explore for 9th grade
10/2010, through
April
Counselors, teachers
and administration
•
Provide PD to staff who implement ACT prep
activities
10/2010, through
April
TLA and TEC
•
•
•
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
•
•
•
ACT prep materials
Outside support for
PD
Time for planning,
prep
&
implementation
Outside support for
PD
Time for planning
ACT prep materials
CSAP Correlation
report
Outside support
Time for planning
ACT prep materials
Implementation Benchmarks
•
•
•
Small committee identifies on
standard of focus
PD on instructional strategies
Evaluate pre-test data
•
•
•
Advisement schedule
ACT prep calendar
Explore other schedule
options to support enhanced
ACT prep
•
•
Improved ACT scores
ACT prep curriculum
21
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #4: Focus on increasing parent/family/support partner's involvement
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy: Inconsistent communications to parents/families about student progress (grades, attendance, behaviors)
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Amendments to a Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
1)
Timeline
Communicate to parents/families/support
partners regarding academic progress,
attendance and behaviors
Ongoing
2)
Host Back to School Night event
3)
Implement
Activities
4)
Identify and implement formal strategies for
communication with parents/families/support
partners
Family
Engagement
Center
Key Personnel
(optional)
Resources
(federal, state, and/or local)
•
•
Progress reports
Conference tab entries
•
Time to make calls,
hold meetings
Postage
CSC
•
•
Time to meet
Title 1 pays for food
•
•
Agenda and sign-in sheet
Flyers
FEC Manager
•
•
FEC Staff
Florence Crittenton
Services
•
•
Flyers
Schedule of events
FEC Personnel
CSC
•
District
family
engagement office
•
Documentation
strategies
Teachers
Advisors
Administration
•
September 2010
August
ongoing
March 2011
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
2010,
Implementation Benchmarks
of
written
22
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #5: Ensure that teachers and paraprofessionals meet the requirements of NCLB
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy: NA
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Amendments to a Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
Key Personnel
(optional)
Resources
(federal, state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
1) Hire/assign teachers in roles for which they are
highly qualified
Ongoing
Principal
CSC
•
•
DPS HR Support
PD
to
support
continued
certification
requirements
Highly Qualified reports from district
2) Hire/assign paraprofessionals who have
qualifications to meet the requirements of NCLB
Ongoing
Principal
CSC
•
•
DPS HR Support
PD
to
support
continued
certification
requirements
HR screening reports
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Last updated: May 15, 2010)
23
SCHOOL-PARENT COMPACT 2010-2011
Florence Crittenton School and the parents of the students participating in activities, services,
and programs funded by Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
(participating children), agree that this compact outlines how the parents, the entire school staff,
and the students will share the responsibility for improved student academic achievement and
the means by which the school and parents will build and develop a partnership that will help
children achieve the State’s high standards.
School Responsibilities
Florence Crittenton School will:
1. Provide high-quality curriculum and instruction in a supportive and effective
learning environment that enables the participating children to meet the State’s
student academic achievement standards as follows:
Florence Crittenton School provides curriculum in alignment with DPS and The
Denver Plan. Staff are involved in ongoing professional development. Florence
Crittenton School believes that providing a supportive and effective learning
environment is a top priority.
2. Hold parent-teacher conferences during which this compact will be discussed as
it relates to the individual child’s achievement. Specifically, those conferences will
be held:
Parent-teacher conferences will be held October 27, 2010. Parents are also
encouraged and welcome to set up conferences with teachers and/or other staff
at any time throughout the school year.
3. Provide parents with frequent reports on their children’s progress. Specifically, the
school will provide reports as follows:
Teachers will provide progress reports to students at least every three weeks.
Progress reports will be sent home at least once per semester in addition to the
final grades report at the end of the semester.
4. Provide parents reasonable access to staff. Specifically, staff will be available for
consultation with parents as follows:
Staff will be available to speak to parents by phone, mail, e-mail or by
appointment before and after school or during planning periods. A staff brochure
will be available with email addresses and phone extensions.
5. Provide parents opportunities to volunteer and participate in their child’s class,
and to observe classroom activities, as follows:
Parents are welcome at any time to visit and observe the school. If parents are
interested in volunteering they are welcome to contact the volunteer coordinator
to make plans.
Parent/Guardian/Support Partner Responsibilities
We, as parents/guardians/support partners, will support our students’s learning in the
following ways:
Please place a mark on the line next to the ways you are able to provide support to
your daughter’s learning.
1. Monitoring attendance. ______
2. Making sure that my daughter’s homework is completed. _____
3. Monitoring the amount of television my daughter watches. _____
4. Volunteering in my daughter’s classroom. _____
5. Participating, as appropriate, in decisions relating to my daughter’s education._____
6. Encouraging my daughter to spend her time outside the school day in positive ways.
_____
7. Staying informed about my daughter’s education and communicating with the school by
promptly reading all notices from the school or the school district either received by my
daughter or by mail and responding, as appropriate. _____
8. Serving, to the extent possible, on school groups, such as the School Improvement
Team (CSC._____
Parent/Guardian/Support Partner _____________________________________________
Date ___________________