1. education
2. school

DRAFT
Cover Sheet for Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Organization Code: 0880
District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1
School Code: 0250 School Name: KNAPP ELEM
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. The school’s report
(pp.1-2 of this template) is available through CEDAR. More detailed reports on the school’s results are available on SchoolView (www.schoolview.org). The tables below reference 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, CSAPA, 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
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Description: % PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAPA and
Lectura in Reading and Math for each group
Expectation: Targets set by state*
‘09-10 Federal and State Expectations
Academic
Growth
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
3-years
1-year
3-years
Reading
71.6%
72.0%
29.9%
32.1%
Does Not Meet
Math
70.9%
70.1%
42.2%
36.0%
Does Not Meet
Writing
53.5%
54.8%
22.5%
24.5%
Does Not Meet
Science
47.5%
45.4%
3.5%
3.4%
Does Not Meet
Overall number of targets for School:
Available in final report in November
% of targets met by
School: Available in
Nov**
Reading
Not ava
Math
Not ava
Median Adequate SGP
Median SGP
Reading
52
45/55
Median SGP: 61
Exceeds
Math
68
45/55
Median SGP: 61
Meets
Writing
71
45/55
Median SGP: 51
Approaching
* To see annual AYP targets , go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/prof.asp#table
** To see y our school’s detailed AYP report (includes school results by content area, dis aggregated group and school level), go to: www.schoolv iew.org/SchoolPerformance/index .asp
Revised 11/19/10
Meets
Expectations?
1-year
Median Student Growth Percentile
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing
and math
‘09-10 School
Results
DRAFT
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Median Student Growth Percentile
See your school’s performance frameworks
for listing of median adequate growth
expectations for your school’s disaggregated
groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible,
minority students, students with disabilities,
English Language Learners and students
below proficient.
Graduation Rate
80% or above
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math
by disaggregated groups.
Expectation: If disaggregated groups met
adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 45.
If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate
growth, median SGP is at or above 55.
Academic
Growth Gaps
Expectation: 80% or above
Post
Secondary
Readiness
’09-10 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
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
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median
growth by each disaggregated
group.
N/A
1-year
Dropout Rate
’09-10 School Results
3-years
20
1-year
N/A
1-year
N/A
Meets
Expectations?
Overall Rating for
Growth Gaps:
Meets
N/A
3-years
N/A
N/A
3-years
N/A
N/A
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)
Not available
until Nov 2010
Once the plan type for the school has been finalized, this report will be re-populated in
November 2010. Specific directions will be included at that time. For required elements in
the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
Title I school missed same AYP
target(s) for at least two consecutive
years**
Not available
until Nov 2010
Once the improvement status for the school has been finalized, this report will be repopulated in November. Specific directions will be included then. For required elements in
the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 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
Turnaround
 Restart
 Closure
Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach.


Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded?
Yes. Knapp received the SIP G rant in 2008-2009.
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school par ticipated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
Yes. Knapp participated in an S ST Review in 2008-2009.
External Evaluator
Has the school partnered with an ex ternal evaluator to provide comprehensive
evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.
No.
Related Grant Awards
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
 State Accountability
 Title IA
 Tiered Intervention Grant  School Improvement Grant
School Contact Information
1
2
Transfor mation
 Other: ________________
(Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
Name and Title
Cristina Bansch-Schott
Email
[email protected]
Phone
720-424-6130
Mailing Address
500 S. Utica St., Denver, CO 80219
Name and Title
Leticia Jara-Leake
Email
[email protected]
Phone
720-424-6130
Mailing Address
500 S. Utica St., Denver, CO 80219
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
3
DRAFT
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “evaluate” 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 four 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 performance reports and are expected 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 step two.
• 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
Using at least three years of data, the team should begin by identifying positive and negative trends in each of the key performance indicators (i.e., academic
achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, post secondary readiness). The summary provided in Part I of this template (pp. 1-2) will provide some
clues on content areas, grade levels and disaggregated groups where the school needs to focus its attention. Local data (suggestions provided above) should
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
4
DRAFT
also be included – especially in grade levels and subject areas not included in state testing. 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. At least one priority need must be identified for every performance indicator for
which school performance did not at least meet state and/or federal expectations. 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 priority 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 (Preuss, 2003). Finally, the school should have control over the proposed solution – or the means to implement the solution. Remember to
verify the root cause with multiple data sources. These efforts should be documented in the Data Analysis Worksheet below.
Data Analysis Worksheet
Directions: This char t 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 per formance indicators. – at a minimum, you must address the perfor mance indicators for the targets that were not met for
accountability purposes. U ltimately, your analysis will guide the major improvement strategies you choose in section IV. You may add rows, as necessary.
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement (Status)
Description of Significant Trends
(3 years of past data)
Reading: Knapp is rated as Does Not Meet
DRA scores indicate that 50% of students at
Knapp are reading below grade level. Over a 3
year period, grade 3 experienced a 1% decline,
grade 4 experienced a 4% increase, and grade 5
experienced a 17% increase.
Reading Gaps Status: Knapp decreased the gap
for Hispanic students by -4.7% in grade 4 and by 17% in grade 5.
Reading Continuously Enrolled: Over 3 years,
students’ proficiency increased from 33% to 43%
Math: Knapp is rated as Does Not Meet
Over a 3 year period, grade 3 experienced a 4%
increase, grade 4 experienced an 11% increase,
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Priority Needs
Root Causes
-Only 21% of third
grade students
achieved proficiency
on CSAP in the
Spring of 2010.
- The School Leadership Team analyzed the status and
growth data and came to the following conclusions
regarding root cause in terms of status:
There is a lack of consistency in the way reading
strategies are taught despite the fact that reading
- Only 50% of Knapp strategies flip charts were created last year. The
students are reading current planning guides offer big ideas but the
at grade level as
resources associated with each lesson in the guides
measured by the
become unmanageable, especially for a new staff
DRA2.
member. This creates a lack of consistency which, in
turn, this creates lack of rigor – lesson get watered
down. We also noticed that our students demonstrate
-Consistent low
huge gaps in grade level proficiency, mostly due to a
performance in
lag in transition to English.
grade 3 on math
CSAP.
5
DRAFT
and grade 5 experienced a 20% increase.
Math Gaps Status: Knapp decreased the gap for
Hispanic students by -5.7% in grade 4 and by 21.7% in grade 5.
Math Continuously Enrolled: Over 3 years,
Students’ proficiency increased from 43% to 48%
Writing: Knapp is rated as Does Not Meet
Over 3 years, grade 3 experienced an 11%
increase, grade 4 saw no change, and grade 5
experienced a 22% increase.
Writing Gaps Status: Knapp decreased the gap
for Hispanic students by -18% in grade 5.
Writing Continuously Enrolled: Over 3 years,
students’ proficiency increased from 17% to 42%
Science: Knapp is rated as Does Not Meet
Over three years, grade 5 has experienced a 1%
decrease in scores. Currently, only 3% of our fifth
grade students demonstrate proficiency in science.
Our math curriculum presents its challenges. Many staff
members find the curriculum to be too literacy based
and overwhelming. Our current curriculum does not
emphasize mastery and in many cases does not match
state assessed grade level standards. Again, teachers
find themselves having to manipulate a variety to
resources to determine what is important. At Knapp,
the Every Day Math games are utilized inconsistently.
Even though they provide the basic math fact practice,
many staff members observe that they do not allow
students to achieve mastery of math facts, for example.
We observe similar patterns in writing. First, gaps in
reading level greatly affect our students’ ability to be
proficient writers. Knapp implemented the use of Step
Up To Writing two years ago to be utilized in
conjunction with our district planning guides. We saw
great growth in its first year of implementation. The
staff has determined that the new program adequately
addresses the needs around content and organization
but does not address our students’ needs around style
and fluency. It is a concern of the SLT that, once again,
teachers will find themselves having to manipulate too
many resources to teach one lesson.
In terms of science, the staff is aware that we have not
placed emphasis on the teaching of science. Our
school was rated on Probation on the DPS School
Performance Framework two years ago and reading,
writing, and math were established as priorities.
CELA: The percentage of students proficient on
CELA increased from 28.8 % to 34.6% from 2009
to 2010.
DRA: The percentage of students at grade level
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
-The Knapp Transition to English Plan was fully
implemented last year. Knapp began to monitor DRA
scores in ELA-S classrooms beginning Kindergarten.
Our goal is have students reach grade level proficiency
in both languages in grades K, 1 and 2. In an effort to
6
DRAFT
increased from 48% to 52%.
Academic Growth
Reading: Knapp exceeds expectations
The median growth percentile in reading increased
from 55 to 60 from 2009 to 2010.
Writing: Knapp is rated as Approaching
The median growth percentile in writing decreased
from 67 to 51 from 2009 to 2010.
Math: Knapp meets expectations
The median growth percentile in math increased
from 50 to 61 from 2009 to 2010.
CELA Growth: The percent of students who
improved on CELA proficiency increased from
49.9% to 59.9%.
DRA Growth: The percentage of students who
made adequate improvement on DRA remained
unchanged at 64%.
Academic Growth
Gaps
Post Secondary
Readiness
match language of instruction to language of
assessment, most of Knapp’s third grade students took
the CSAP in English in 2010.
Knapp regroups students for reading according to DRA
levels and utilizes a push in model for reading
instruction. Spellography and Fundations are taught as
core skills as well as interventions. Data is collected by
RTI coordinator who monitors student placement and
growth.
Knapp is in its sixth year of consistently implementing
Data Teams to track progress in math. The last two
years, Data Teams have been led by the Assistant
Principal. Student progress is monitored via RSAs and
interventions are selected. More time is needed for
teams to prioritize content.
Knapp Meets expectations in this category.
School Performance Framework indicated that
there is still a large gap in achievement for Special
Education, ELL and Hispanic students.
n/a
n/a
---------------------------------------------CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
7
DRAFT
Preuss, P. G. (2003). School Leader's Guide to Root Cause Analysis: Using Data to Dissolve Problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
8
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 our school trending positively? On
which performance indicators is our school trending negatively? Does this differ for any disaggregated student
groups, e.g., by grade level or gender? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school?
Root Cause Analysis: Why
do we think our school’s
performance is what it is?
Verification of Root Cause: What
evidence do you have for your
conclusions?
Narrative:
Knapp Elementary School shows a positive trend in academic achievement (status) from 2008 to 2010 in reading, writing, and math. Knapp is beginning to close
the gap between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students, especially in grade 5. Our continuously enrolled population also shows an increase in academic
achievement in reading, writing, and math. However, using the new (10-11) Level 4 DRA end of year requirement for Kinder, only 21% of our students would be
considered at grade level exiting Kinder.
Students Continuously Enrolled for 3 Years (2008 to 2010)
Administration Year: 2010
At or Above Proficient
2008
2009
2010
Reading
33%
17%
42%
Math
43%
43%
48%
Writing
17%
17%
42%
CSAP Grade s 3
Percent Proficient
2008
Reading
Mathematics
Writing
2009
2010
22%
34%
11%
38%
38%
25%
21%
38%
22%
2008
22%
29%
2009
23%
37%
2010
26%
40%
CSAP Grade 4
Reading
Mathematics
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
9
DRAFT
Writing
11%
13%
11%
CSAP Grade 5
2008
32%
2009
28%
2010
49%
Mathematics
31%
27%
51%
Writing
Science
16%
4%
21%
2%
38%
3%
Reading
DRA Proficiency by Grade Level – Spring 2010 (utilizing new DRA4 Kinder requirement)
An analysis of students who are below grade level in grades 3, 4 and 5 revealed that students do make growth in DRA scores, however, they fail to keep up with
classmates and grade level standards. One reason is attributed to the fact that only in the last two years has Knapp emphasized a systematic transition to English.
Currently, 50% of our second graders are reading at grade level. We predict that our grade 3 proficient CSAP scores will be consistent with this number.
In terms of academic growth, Knapp exceeds standards in reading, meets standards in math, and is approaching expectations in writing. Growth for reading and
math increased but growth for writing declined from 2009 to 2010. Grade 4 growth scores are of particular concern. We believe that the current push in and
regrouping models for reading instruction are a key to our success in reading growth. Additionally, we progress monitor students using DIBELS on a regular
basis. DIBELS in conjunction with pre and post reading intervention tests and constructed response assessments help us determine if students are placed
correctly and receiving the proper interventions.
A Spring 2010 staff survey indicated that 100% of staff support continuing to deliver reading and reading intervention instruction using a regrouping and push in
model. The survey also indicated a need to research reading instruction materials especially to address the teaching of reading strategies.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
10
DRAFT
Knapp Elementary S chool Growth
Reading
Math
Writing
2009 Median S chool Growth
55
50
58
2010 Median S chool Growth
57.5
60
48
Change from 09 to 10
2.5
10
-10
AYP
2009 2010
Math: Knapp met AYP in all categories
Reading: Knapp failed to meet AYP in all categories except for ‘Disabled”.
Our School Satisfaction Survey indicates that students and parents have a positive perception of the school. Eighty six percent of students responded positively
to the survey along with 88% of the parents. In general, parents’ responses showed a slight increase over the past year. For both parents and students, bullying
and the manner in which students treat one another was an area of concern.
School Satisfaction Survey Results 2009-2010 for Knapp Elementary School
Students General Positive Response 2009 and 2010: 82% - 80%
Academics: 91% - 89%
Safety: 88% - 89%
Culture General: 82% - 81%
Parents General Positive Response 2009 – 2010: 86% - 89%
Academic Progress: 84% - 89%
School Leadership: 85% - 89%
Communication: 88% - 90%
Culture: 89% - 92%
Safety: 79% - 83%
Attendance: Students
Knapp’s Positive Behavior Team has emphasized good attendance via incentives such as trimester award assemblies. Knapp’s parent liaison also works with
families to improve attendance and informs them via US mail if
attendance is a concern. Overall, in three years, student
Student Attendance: Attendance Compared to Prior Years (by grade)
attendance has remained at 94%.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
11
DRAFT
All
Grades
200708
200809
200910
201011
0
1
2
3
4
5
EC
94.85%
92.59%
94.82%
95.26%
95.54%
95.47%
96.29%
92.84%
94.46%
93.01%
94.33%
94.51%
95.50%
95.70%
94.42%
93.39%
94.01%
92.12%
93.66%
94.61%
94.62%
94.70%
94.56%
93.91%
96.08%
95.16%
95.87%
96.14%
96.40%
95.64%
96.68%
97.47%
CSAP Frameworks:
In grade 3, students received the least number of points in the following standards:
1.b Summarize text passages.
1.c Identify main idea, and find information to support
particular ideas.
1.d Draw inferences using contextual clues.
1.f Fit materials into an organizational pattern (for
example, chronological order).
3.c Write in complete sentences.
3.d.2 Use correct punctuation to end sentences (such as the 4 2
period, question mark, and exclamation mark).
1.c Identify main idea, and find information to support 15 3
particular ideas.
In grade 4 , students received the least number of points in the following standards:
1.d Draw inferences using contextual clues.
4.d Make predictions and draw conclusions about stories.
5.a Use organizational features of printed text (for
example, page numbering, alphabetizing, glossaries,
chapter heading, table of contents, indexes, captions)
to locate information.
1.b Summarize long text passages.
3.c Know and use correct capitalization, punctuation, and 10 48
abbreviations.
6.c Use new vocabulary from literature in another context.
In grade 5 , students received the least number of points in the following standards:
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
12
DRAFT
1.c Locate and paraphrase the key/main ideas and 15 25
supporting details in fiction and nonfiction.
4.a Determine author’s purpose.
4.d Make predictions and draw conclusions from text in 4 27
various genre.
1.1.e Develop and communicate logical conclusions and 7 30
make predictions based on evidence from an
experiment.
Common among all three CSAP assessed grade levels determines that students continue to have difficulty making predictions, making inferences, drawing
conclusions, and using contextual clues.
Root Cause & Verification: The conclusions reached by the leadership team are a result of teacher surveys (Spring 2010), classroom observations, and teacher
testimonials. The school leadership team, which is comprised of a representative from each of the following: grade level, Special Education, and Specials,
believes that one of the major obstacles to not meeting Status expectations is related to lack of consistency in teaching and utilization of curriculum materials.
Even though our students show growth in all subject areas, they fail to meet grade level targets and expectations. We believe this is partly related to the fact that
transition to the English language was not a priority at Knapp until two years ago when the Transition to English Plan was developed. Only 50% of students at
Knapp read at grade level, which has an impact on their ability to read and write in math as well as in writing. Research based reading interventions were
implemented last year in grades K-5. Knapp uses DIBELS to progress monitor students as well as pre and post reading intervention assessments. We predict
that our reading scores will increase this year and that our growth will remain constant. In writing, we have renewed our emphasis on analyzing student work. Our
students do well in content and organization but need to improve style and fluency. Knapp administers school-wide writing prompts which we score collaboratively
using a scoring guide. This allows us to pinpoint areas of need. We are currently exploring curriculum that will allow us to address this area. Professional
development is also targeted to improving our students’ use of language structures and functions. The leadership team expressed concern regarding the variety
of resources that need to be accessed by a teacher to teach each lesson. In math, we have demonstrated continuous improvement in scores at all grade levels.
The leadership team noted that more grade level meeting time is needed to determine priority of content for each lesson in Every Day Math so as to narrow down
the focus. Progress monitoring is done via Data Teams. Currently, Knapp does not have math interventions. We are in the process of purchasing a subscription
to ALEKS, an online math intervention program which also tracks student improvement and progress. Students in need of this intervention will be tracked via Data
Teams. Last, the leadership team at Knapp is aware that the science scores are unacceptable. However, our focus has been on improving in reading, writing,
and math. We believe that once our students improve their reading ability, science scores will improve as well.
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
13
DRAFT
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.
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. Safe Harbor and Matched Safe Harbor goals may be used instead of performance targets. For
state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and 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. Make sure to include interim targets for disaggregated groups that were identified as needing
additional attention in section III (data analysis and root cause analysis). 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 below.
Example of an Annual Target for a Title I Elementary School
Measures/ Metrics
AYP
R
2010-11 Target
88.46% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above
OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
2011-12 Target
94.23% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR
will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.
14
DRAFT
School Goals Worksheet (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Annual Targets
Measures/
Metrics
2010-11
By the end of the 2010 – 2011
school year, 40% of third grade
students will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Reading.
R
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
CSAP,
CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
By the end of the 2010 – 2011
school year, 60% of Knapp
students will be at grade level in
reading as measured by the
DRA2.
2011-12
By the end of the 2010 – 2011
school year, 50% of third grade
students will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Reading.
50% of third grade students who
are ELLs will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Reading.
40% of third grade students who
are ELLs will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Reading.
M
By the end of the 2010 – 2011
school year, 45% of third grade
students will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Reading.
45% of third grade students who
are ELLs will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Math.
Interim Measures for
2010-11
By the end of the 2010 – 2011
school year, 55% of third grade
students will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Reading.
55% of third grade students who
are ELLs will score Proficient or
Advanced in CSAP Math.
-DIBELS
-IDEL
-Interim Benchmarks
Tests Reading & Math
-Guided reading scores
collected throughout
school year
-School wide (school
created) reading
assessments
-DRA2 testing in ELA-S
classrooms
-End of unit tests in
math
-School created short
constructed response
assessments
-Interim Benchmarks
Tests Math
Major Improvement
Strategies
Establish a clear and
consistent progress
monitoring system for
math, reading, and
writing.
Fully implement
Response to
Intervention and
progress monitor
success of reading
interventions.
Establish clear and
concise learning
objectives in reading,
writing, and transition
to English.
Establish a clear and
consistent progress
monitoring system for
math, reading, and
writing.
-
W
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
15
DRAFT
S
AYP
(Overall and
for each
disaggregated
groups)
State Target: 94.23% partially
proficient and proficient or above
on CSAP.
State Target: 94.23% partially
proficient and proficient or above
on CSAP.
Same as above
Same as above
State Target: 94.54% partially
M proficient and proficient or above
on CSAP.
State Target: 94.54% partially
proficient and proficient or above
on CSAP.
Same as above
Same as above
R
Academic
Growth
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
R
Academic
Growth Gaps
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
R
Post
Secondary &
Workforce
Readiness
M
W
M
W
Graduation Rate
Dropout Rate
Mean ACT
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
16
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 identify a major improvement strategy(s). For each major
improvement strategy (e.g., differentiate reading instruction in grades 3-5) 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, 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/restructuring under Title I (see pre-populated report on p. 2), 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: Establish a clear and consistent progress monitoring system for math, reading, and writing.
Root Cause(s)
Addressed: Consistency in the teaching of math, reading, and writing, rigor of instruction and grade level expectations.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements
 School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
a) Select and implement school wide genre Monthly
appropriate writing prompts for grades 1 5 (monthly) and K (starting Semester 2).
b) Writing professional development will
Once
focus on comparison between grade
trimester
level proficient writing and Knapp
samples with emphasis on developing
students’ writing style and fluency, as
well as analyzing writing in the content
area.
c) Monitor ELA-S’s students transition to
English
d) Progress monitoring students reading
levels and ability to summarize, infer, and
complete a short constructed response.
Key Personnel*
Implementation Benchmarks
Monthly: Grade level teams score
writing prompts, analyze results
using Scoring Guide, compare to
grade level proficiency, set
per
improvement goal, plan next
Consultant: Diana
instructional steps using backward
Geisler, PhD
$3,000 Title I Professional design process.
Development, and $1,500
Trimester:
per trimester for substitute
teachers, general fund
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Teacher
Effectiveness
Coach & Principal
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Teacher Effectiveness
Coach (support provided by
District, 3 times per week)
17
DRAFT
e) Half day planning sessions for teachers
to narrow down content of reading
curriculum, and agree on techniques to
teach reading strategies.
f) Research alternate curriculum (via
Innovation school process)
g) Progress monitor students’ progress in
mathematics via Data Teams.
Data Teams to meet twice monthly
to establish SMART goals, track
student progress, and prioritize
curriculum content.
a) Select and implement school wide
reading benchmarks (short constructed
response on main idea, identifying
important details, summarizing text) for
grades 1 – 5.
Monthly
Teacher
Effectiveness
Coach & Principal
Teacher Effectiveness
Coach (support provided by
District, 3 times per week)
Monthly: Grade level teams score
mini-reading benchmarks and utilize
school developed scoring guide for
short constructed response, retell
and summary writing (modified from
Better Answers & Step Up To
Writing), compare to grade level
proficiency, set improvement goal,
determine next instructional steps
utilizing backward design process.
b) Implement math short constructed
response assessments via Data Teams.
Monthly
Assistant Principal
and grade level
teams
Local
Grade level teams determine weight
of standards on standardized
testing and compare to curriculum.
Teams develop math constructed
response based on the above.
Teams develop rubric, score
assessment, group students
accordingly, set SMART goal.
Teams determine feedback for
students.
c) Collect guided reading instructional level
for every student on a monthly basis
using Benchmark Library leveled system.
Monthly
Principal & School
Leadership Team
Local
Monthly: Data review by Principal
and grade level teams and School
Leadership Team. Team
determines professional
development needs and resources.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
18
DRAFT
* Not required for state or federal requirements. Completion of the “Key Personnel” column is optional for schools.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
19
DRAFT
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Fully implement Response to Intervention and progress monitor success of reading interventions. Root Cause(s)
Addressed: Consistency in the teaching of reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements
 School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
Key Personnel
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
a) Re- group students during the reading
and skills blocks by DRA2 & EDL2
reading levels. Take into account
DIBELS data.
Spring previous Principal & RTI
year, team
Coordinator,
review in
September
2010,
November
2010, January
2011, March
2011, April
2011. Individual
students
reviewed
throughout year.
Local
Fundations or Spellography are
used as interventions depending on
groups’ needs and previous year’s
intervention.
RTI coordinator collects Pre and
Post assessment data for double
dose of Fundations and
Spellography.
b) School-wide SIT meetings to review all
students’ academic progress
4 times per year Principal, RTI
coordinator, SPED
representative,
grade level teams
Local
September, December, February,
April. Develop list of students
needing Body of Evidence.
Parent notification sent via U.S mail.
RTI coordinator works in
collaboration with Special Education
to fulfill requirements of SIT
process.
c) Assess all students using DIBELS &
IDEL
Throughout
school year
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
RTI
Coordinator Read To Achieve Grant
and RTA Teacher
All students given Benchmark
DIBELS
20
DRAFT
At risk and strategic students
monitored every 3 weeks.
Utilize DIBELS data to determine
success of reading
interventions/modify as needed.
d) Utilize decodable text with students
receiving reading interventions such as
Wilsons, Fundations, Read Naturally,
and Spellography.
Throughout
year
Humanities
School Improvement Grant Decodable text purchase,
distribution, and training.
Facilitator
& (ended 08/30/10)
Completed on 09/30/10.
classroom teacher
Major Improvement Strategy #3: Establish clear and concise learning objectives in reading and writing. Root Cause(s) Addressed: Coordination of
curriculum resources to teach reading, math, and writing. Monitoring/review of transition to English Plan.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 School Plan under State Accountability  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements
 School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
Key Personnel
a) Following the backwards design process,
grade level teams will identify big ideas,
and essential questions for each unit of
study in math, reading ,and writing.
2 half day
planning
sessions per
grade level by
end of
Semester 1 & 1
half day
planning
session by end
of Trimester 2
Principal,
Humanities
Facilitator
Teacher
Effectiveness
Coach
b) Review Transition to English Plan
-Research English language acquisition
Ongoing
Principal
Humanities
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal,
state, and/or local)
Teacher Effectiveness
Coach provided by District
& Humanities Facilitator
partially funded by Title II
Humanities Facilitator
partially funded by Title II
Implementation Benchmarks
Determine proficiency and utilize
backwards planning to achieve end
goal. Planning to take place in
October, November, January, and
April.
Utilize Progress Report Indicators in
process and identify RSAs.
Assess all ELA-S students in DRA2
in the Fall, Winter, and Spring.
21
DRAFT
program to be utilized 1 x per week
during writing to teach grammar and
English language functions.
-Monitor instructional strategies via
formal and informal observations and
peer observations.
Facilitator
Compare results to Literacy
Squared Continuum to determine
which students are progressing
according to expectations.
Major Improvement Strategy #4: Set clear expectations for parent and student accountability and enforce Knapp attendance, tardy, and homework policies.
Root Cause(s) Addressed by the Major Improvement Strategy: This will help address all root causes.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
a) Track and enforce attendance policy.
-Enforce tardy policy.
-Request Court Hearing for students with
20+ absences.
-Attendance reward assemblies
Trimesters 1, 2, & 3.
Timeline
Monthly
b) Continue to implement Positive Behavior Psychologist
Support.
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Key Personnel
(optional)
Resources
(federal, state, and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
-School
psychologist
-Parent Liaison
-School Nurse
General fund & A to Z Grant Parent liaison sends 5 days
attendance letter to be followed by
Truancy Letter at 10 days if no
Title I Funding for Parent
improvement. Parent liaison makes
Liaison
phone call or home visit.
Lunch detention for students who
are tardy. Repeat offenders
referred to parent liaison for parent
contact.
Psychologist
Positive Behavior
Support Team
Local
Maintain 70% or above positive
responses on PBS assessment tool.
Reduce total number of out of
school suspensions.
Consistently implement Behavior
22
DRAFT
Contracts.
c) Continue Homework Help policy for 2010 - 2011
students who do not bring completed
homework or who do not complete work
in class.
Psychologist
Local
Title I Accountability Provision #1: Parent Involvement/Communication
 School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan 
Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action
Steps to Address the
Accountability Provision
Back To School Morning
Parent Meeting – Title I
information
Back To School Morning
Parent Meeting – Curriculum
and school information –
Parent Contract at
Registration
Monthly parent meetings on a
variety of topics such as
Positive Behavior Support,
Mental and Medical Health
services, CSAP, etc.
Family Math Night
Timeline
Key Personnel (optional)
Teachers email list of HW students
to school psychologist by 11:00 AM
daily.
School tracks data to intervene with
repeat offenders.
Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
Resources (federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation
Benchmarks
August 2010
Principal and AP
Local
Informal evaluation of meeting
August 2010
Principal and AP
Local
Parent attendance via sign in
sheet and informal evaluation
September 2010 through May Parent liaison & Principal
2011
Title I Funding for parent
liaison & food for parent
meetings - $2,790
Parent attendance via sign in
sheet and informal evaluation
November 2010
Parent Liaison & Principal
Local – Knapp Staff
Family Science Night
March 2011
Fifth Grade Continuation
Parent Teacher Conferences:
1 per semester
May 2011
Fall 2010 & Spring 2010
Parent Liaison & Principal &
Community Resources
Principal & Grade 5 Teachers
Principal & Teachers
Title I Funds – Community
Resources fee is $900
Title I Funds – Food - $300
Local
Attendance and informal
evaluation
Attendance and informal
evaluation
Attendance
Goal is to achieve 100%
attendance. Conferences are
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
23
DRAFT
Progress Report Indicators
1 per Trimester
Teachers
Local
SIT Process
Throughout school year
Principal, RTI Coordinator,
Psychologist, SPED
representative
Local
Title I Accountability Provision #2: Teacher/Paraprofessional Qualifications
 School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan 
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action
Steps to Address the
Accountability
Provision
The certification of Title I
teachers and
paraprofessionals will be
monitored to ensure they are
highly qualified.
Attract highly qualified
teachers: Job Fairs
Timeline
Key Personnel (optional)
held to discuss student
progress.
Trimester reports indicate
achievement or progress
towards standards.
Knapp informs parents via US
mail when there is an
academic, behavioral, or
other concern. Invites
parents to meet with school
staff.
Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
Resources (federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation
Benchmarks
Ongoing as teachers and
Principal
paraprofessionals are hired.
Attestation due to Title I Office
September 30th
Local
Teachers and
paraprofessionals are highly
qualified.
Spring 2011
Local
Knapp will retain 90% of our
current staff excluding staff
lost to budget cuts.
Principal or AP
Title I Accountability Provision #3: Transition from Early Childhood Programs
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
24
DRAFT


School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan 
Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action
Steps to Address the
Accountability
Provision
Early Childhood Education
teachers and Kindergarten
teachers will plan together 3
times per year
School nurse will hold parent
meetings with ECE parents
and consult with teachers on
topics such as on nutrition,
vision and hearing, child
development, etc.
Timeline
Key Personnel (optional)
Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
Resources (federal, state,
and/or local)
October 2010, November
2010, January 2011
Teacher Effectiveness Coach, Fund 16 – average of $500
Humanities Facilitator &
per planning session
Principal
2010 – 2011 school year
School Nurse
Local
Implementation
Benchmarks
Evaluation of planning
sessions will indicate that they
were useful and that
expectations are aligned.
Evaluation by parents and
teachers will indicate sessions
are informational.
Title I Accountability Provision #4: Coordination and Integration of Federal, State, and Local Services and Programs
 School Plan under State Accountability.  Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant.
 Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance requirement.  School Improvement Grant.
Description of Action
Steps to Address the
Accountability
Provision
Title I Funds:
-Materials and supplies
-Salaries for Title I teachers
Timeline
2010 – 2011 school year
Key Personnel (optional)
Principal
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
Resources (federal, state,
and/or local)
Title I
Title I ARRA
Title II
Implementation
Benchmarks
School budget is reviewed by
Collaborative School
Committee.
25
DRAFT
-Salaries for Intervention
Teachers
-Salaries for Parent Liaison
Title II Funds
-Humanities Facilitator
CDE Improv ement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.2 -- Last updated: August 4, 2010)
(See attached budget)
26