1. education
2. school

Cover Sheet for Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Final Report
Organization Code: 0880 District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1 School Code: 1866 School Name: ACE COMMUNITY CHALLENGE CHARTER SCHOOL (H)
Comparison based on:
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-polulated with the 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. The columns
highlighted in Yellow define the plan comparison as either 1 Year or 3 Year.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Measures/Metrics
CSAP, CSAP-A, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % P+A in reading, math, writing and science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3years of data
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
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 Federal and State Expectations
1-year
3-years
Reading
73.3%
72.2%
15.1%
13.6%
Math
33.5%
30.5%
0.0%
1.0%
Writing
50.0%
49.6%
1.4%
1.9%
Science
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Overall number of targets for School:
14
Median Adequate SGP
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, math and writing
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
09-10 School Results
1-year
Meets
Expectations?
3-years
Overall % of targets met by School:
57.1%
Overall
N/A
AEC
Reading
NO
Math
NO
Overall
Median SGP
Reading
95
45/55
Median SGP:
43
Math
99
45/55
Median SGP:
44
Writing
99
45/55
Median SGP:
36
N/A
*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: December 1, 2010)
1
Cover Sheet for Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Final Report
Organization Code: 0880 District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1 School Code: 1866 School Name: ACE COMMUNITY CHALLENGE CHARTER SCHOOL (M)
Comparison based on:
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-polulated with the 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. The columns
highlighted in Yellow define the plan comparison as either 1 Year or 3 Year.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Measures/Metrics
CSAP, CSAP-A, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % P+A in reading, math, writing and science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3years of data
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
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 Federal and State Expectations
1-year
3-years
Reading
71.4%
71.4%
14.6%
10.5%
Math
52.5%
51.6%
2.1%
0.8%
Writing
57.8%
58.3%
4.3%
3.8%
Science
48.0%
48.7%
N/A
N/A
Overall number of targets for School:
10
Median Adequate SGP
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, math and writing
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
09-10 School Results
1-year
Meets
Expectations?
3-years
Overall % of targets met by School:
90.0%
Overall
N/A
AEC
Reading
YES
Math
NO
Overall
Median SGP
Reading
90
45/55
Median SGP:
30
Math
99
45/55
Median SGP:
18
Writing
96
45/55
Median SGP:
27
N/A
*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: December 1, 2010)
1
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Measures/Metrics
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Gaps
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math by
disaggregated groups.
Expectation: Disaggregated groups met adequate growth:
median SGP is at or above 45.
Disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth:
median SGP is at or above 55.
09-10 Federal and State Expectations
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.
See your school's performance frameworks for
listing of median growth by each subgroup.
Overall
N/A
Graduation Rate
Post
Secondary
Readiness
Expectations
Met?
09-10 School Results
80% or above
Expectation: 80% or above
80% or above
N/A
N/A
Dropout Rate
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
3.6%
3.9%
N/A
N/A
Mean ACT Composite Score
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
20
20.1
N/A
N/A
Expectation: At or below State average
Expectation: At or above State average
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)
Performance
The school meets or exceeds state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a
Performance Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2011 to be uploaded on SchoolView.org. Refer to the SchoolView
Learning Center for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the Quality Criteria and Checklist for State Requirements for
School Improvement Plans to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school's plan.
Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for at
least two consecutive years**
N/A
Not identified for Improvement under Title I.
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
2
Cover Sheet for Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2010-11
Organization Code: 0880
District Name: Denver Public Schools
School Code: 1866
School Name: ACE Community Challenge 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. 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 (available through CDE reports shared with the districts).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
(Expectations based on DPS School
Performance Framework for alternative schools)
‘09-10 Federal and State Expectations
3-years
1-year
3-years
Reading
20% or more
20% or more
18%
13.3%
Math
2.5% or more
2.5% or more
2%
1.3%
Does not meet
Does not meet
Writing
10% or more
10% or more
2%
2.3%
Does not meet
Science
10% or more
10% or more
0%
1.7%
Does not meet
Overall number of targets for School: 24
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing
and math.
Expectation: Based on two years of data
(Expectations based on DPS School
Performance Framework for alternative schools)
Meets
Expectations?
1-year
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 School
Results
% of targets met by
School: 70.8%
Reading
Approaching
Math
Approaching
Approaching
Meeting
Reading
35-50
50 or more
Median SGP: 35
Approaching
Math
35-50
50 or more
Median SGP: 41.5
Approaching
Writing
35-50
50 or more
Median SGP: 33
Does Not Meet
* To see annual AYP targets, go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp
** To see your school’s detailed AYP report (includes school results by content area, disaggregated group and school level), access the report in the Automated Data Exchange AYP System.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
1
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
’09-10 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
Median Student Growth Percentile
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
Not available for alternative schools.
Graduation Rate (transition success)
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below State average (for
alternative schools)
Mean ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above State average
Meets
Expectations?
Not available for alternative
schools.
Criteria not available
for alternative
schools
100%
Exceeds
80% or above
Expectation: 80% or above based on DPS
School Performance Framework
Post
Secondary
Readiness
’09-10 School Results
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
20.5%
22.3%
5.4%
5.8%
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
19
20
NA
NA
Meets expectations
Not Applicable (NA)
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)
Performance
Title I school missed same AYP
target(s) for at least two consecutive
years**
CA – high
school math
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
2
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.
Additional Information about the School
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History
Related Grant Awards
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?
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
External Evaluator
Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive
evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
X State Accountability
X Title IA
 Tiered Intervention Grant  School Improvement Grant
Turnaround
Transformation
 Restart
 Closure
No
No
No
 Other: ________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
Eloy Chavez, Executive Director
Email
[email protected]
Phone
303-436-9588
Mailing Address
948 Santa Fe Drive, Denver CO 80204
Name and Title
Email
Phone
Mailing Address
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
3
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 key data sources 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. This information is available either on SchoolView
(www.schoolview.org/SchoolPerformance/ index.asp) or through CDE reports shared with the district.
• 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
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
4
clues on content areas, grade levels and disaggregated groups where the school needs to focus its attention. Local data (suggestions provided above) should
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 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. – at a minimum, you must address the performance indicators for the targets that were not met for
accountability purposes. Ultimately, 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)
Despite growth approaching the standard in
reading and math, low student achievement in
reading, writing, math, and science as measured
by both the percentage of partially proficient or
higher and proficient or higher
Priority Needs
Increase student
achievement in all
subject areas
Evidence of very low achievement prior to
enrollment.
Academic Growth
Academic growth as measured by the Colorado
growth model that approach standard in reading
and math and do not meet standard in writing
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
Accelerate the rate
of academic growth
Root Causes
Root causes relate to school history prior to enrollment
at ACE/CCS:
Failure to provide instruction tailored to the needs of
individual students with sufficient intensity and time for
students to make necessary progress;
Failure to address social and behavioral barriers to
learning;
Failure to provide parents with the training necessary to
support high achieving children and to develop positive
parent-school relationships;
Root causes relate to school history prior to enrollment
at ACE/CCS:
Failure to provide instruction tailored to the needs of
individual students with sufficient intensity and time for
students to make necessary progress;
5
Failure to address social and behavioral barriers to
learning;
Failure to provide parents with the training necessary to
support high achieving children and to develop positive
parent-school relationships;
Academic Growth
Gaps
Post-Secondary
Readiness
Data not available
Dropout rates consistently far below state average
for alternative schools and very near state average
for all schools;
Not applicable
Not applicable
Transition success that exceeds district
expectations for the most recent two years and that
for 2009-2010 was 100%
Not applicable
Not applicable
Preuss, P. G. (2003). School Leader's Guide to Root Cause Analysis: Using Data to Dissolve Problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
6
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?
Introduction
ACE/CCS is an alternative school with an enrollment of about 200 students of whom about 95 percent are Hispanic and 97 percent are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.
Students typically enroll after a referral from a traditional school or another alternative school where they have had academic, behavior, and attendance problems. The mission of
the school is to re-engage these high-risk youth. This is accomplished through addressing academic, behavior/emotional, and attendance challenges. Students typically enter
ACE/CCS four to five years below grade level.
Selected Data
Alternative Education Campus Risk Factors Pursuant to Section 22-7-604.5, CRS: One hundred percent of ACE/CCS students met one or more of the AEC criteria. The
most common risk factors and the percentage of students to whom they apply are listed below for 2009-2010. Data for previous years is similar.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Percentage of students who have been committed to the Department of Human Services following adjudication as juvenile delinquents or who are in detention awaiting
disposition of charges that may result in commitment: 25 percent
Percentage of students who have dropped out of school or who have not been continuously enrolled and regularly attending any school for at least one semester prior to
enrolling in this school: 62 percent
Percentage of students who have been expelled from school or who have engaged in behavior that would justify expulsion: 65 percent
Percentage of students who have documented histories of personal drug or alcohol use or who have parents or guardians with documented dependencies on drugs or
alcohol: 84 percent
Percentage of students who have documented histories of personal street gang involvement or who have immediate family members with documented histories of street
gang involvement: 67 percent
Percentage of students who have documented histories of repeated school suspensions: 81 percent
Behavior: For the 2009-2010 school year, about 41 percent of the students were suspended one or more times or expelled the year prior to ACE/CCS enrollment. For 20092010, only seven percent of ACE/CCS students were suspended. Data for prior years is similar
Credits Earned: For 2009-2010, only 30 percent of possible credits were earned the year prior to enrolling at ACE/CCS. At ACE/CCS students earned 92 percent of credits.
Data for prior years is similar.
Drug and Alcohol Usage: ACE/CCS tracks the percentage of students reporting drug and alcohol usage prior to attending the school and again at the end of the academic year.
Results are reported in the table below.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
7
2008-2009
2009-2010
Pre-test
30.5%
31.1%
2008-2009
2009-2010
Pre-test
34.6%
41.0%
No Alcohol Usage Previous Month
Post-test
Difference
67.6%
37.1%
76.4%
45.3%
No Marijuana Usage Previous Month
Post-test
Difference
79.8%
45.2%
84.8%
43.8%
Results show that only about 30 percent of students are not using alcohol and 34 to 40 percent of students are not using marijuana when they enroll. Through extensive
counseling, referral to community resources, and participating at the Pathways to Self-Discovery curriculum at the school, alcohol and marijuana use has been substantially
reduced by the end the school year.
Self-Report of School Bonding and Bullying: On a standardized school bonding scale that includes questions like how often do you pay attention to what your teachers are
saying, students’ mean pre-test response was between rarely and sometimes. For the post-test, mean responses were closer to often than sometimes. On a standardized scale
of bullying that includes items like how often have you punched or kicked someone, students’ mean pre-test response was it happened once or twice. For the post-test, students
typically responded that it never happened in this period.
Self-Report of Parenting Efficacy: On objective measures of parenting efficacy that include items like I do an adequate job helping my child with school work, average pre-test
response was between slightly agree and slightly disagree. On the post-test, the average response was between slightly disagree and somewhat disagree.
Adequate Yearly Progress: Detailed information about AYP results is reported in the two tables below. Results show that the school has been more successful in reading than
in math, but that the percentage of students meeting the criterion in math has increased since 2007-2008
Middle School
Made AYP: Reading
Made AYP: Math
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
High School
Made AYP: Reading
Made AYP: Math
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Reading – High School
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
#
Enrolled
53
87
83
# Eligible
24
31
33
%
Eligible
45.3%
35.6%
39.8%
% Part
Prof +
54.17%
67.74%
51.50%
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
Math – High School
AYP
Reading
N
Y
N
#
Enrolled
52
87
83
# Eligible
24
31
33
%
Eligible
46.2%
35.6%
39.8%
% Part
Prof +
0.0%
25.81%
18.20%
AYP
Math
N
Y
N
8
Colorado Growth Model: Colorado Growth Model median percentiles for ACE/CCS show that reading and mathematics growth has increased from 2008 and that for the last two
years mathematics growth has exceeded growth in other subject areas.
Reading
2008
2009
2010
Reading
26
41
35
Colorado Growth Model Results
Writing
34
29
33
Mathematics
25
44
42
MAP Assessment Results: The percentage of students equaling or exceeding NWEA 2005 national norms for MAP growth is shown in the table below as well as the average
pre-test RIT score. In 2009-2010, almost 75 percent of students made growth that equaled or exceeded national norms. Based on NWEA 2005 norms, RIT pre-test scores are
equivalent to achievement at about the fourth grade level.
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
%age of Students Achieving Growth at/above National
Norms
Reading
Lang Use
Mathematics
58.0%
65.4%
46.9%
62.0%
61.2%
60.0%
73.9%
69.7%
74.8%
Average RIT Pre-Test Score
Reading
207
196
197
Lang Use
204
200
198
Mathematics
207
204
200
Other Key Data: Based on the DPS School Performance Framework, 63 and 67 percent of students enrolled in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, respectively, have improved their
attendance from the previous year. For many years, parent and student satisfaction rates have been no lower than 98 percent. Transition rates for the last two years have been
93 and 100 percent. ACE/CCS had dropout rates of 8.4, 3.6, and 5.4 percent in the last three years versus the state-wide alternative school averages of 24.1, 22.3, and 20.5
percent.
Significant Trends
All of the data in the previous section was reviewed, as well as CSAP scores by grade level. The following was also reviewed: three years of achievement data on the Brigance,
DPS School Performance Framework results, the performance summary at the front of this document, dropout data for three years disaggregated by gender and ethnicity,
ACE/CCS length of stay information, student demographics, attendance data, other objective behavioral data that the school collects, and feedback from former students. Data is
not available for academic growth gaps.
Positive Trends
Applicable to All Performance Indicators
1. The ACE/CCS program has had a demonstrated positive impact on behavior in school and drug and alcohol use based on a reduction in the percentage of students
suspended or expelled and positive pre- to post-test survey results in areas that include bullying, delinquency and school performance.
2. Parent and student satisfaction levels have been consistently near 100 percent, and bonding to school increases during the time that a student is at ACE/CCS.
3. Student attendance improves during the time a student is at the school.
4. Student success increases while at ACE/CCS as demonstrated by a large increase in the percentage of courses successfully completed.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
9
Academic Achievement Status
1. ACE/CCS made AYP at the high school level in 2008-2009 by meeting sheltered harbor criteria in reading and math.
Academic Achievement Growth
1. The percentage of students making at least a year’s growth for a year in school has been growing and in 2009-2010 reached almost 75 percent in reading and math
based on the MAP.
Post-Secondary Readiness
1. Dropout rates are far lower than the state alternative school average and are only slightly higher than the rates for the state as a whole.
2. One hundred percent of students withdrawing were successfully transitioned to other schools.
Negative Trends
Applicable to All Performance Indicators
1. Students have a demonstrated history prior to enrollment of lack of success in school as indicated by course failure rates, inconsistent school attendance, and behavior
that could justify suspension or expulsion. These characteristics are consistent with students’ overall lack of interest in school as demonstrated by school bonding data.
2. Students have social and emotional challenges beyond poor school performance and behavior including drug and alcohol abuse, bullying, gang activity, and
delinquency.
Student Achievement Status
1. Results, including the percentage of students partially proficient and above and proficient and above, remains at low levels. While reading achievement is higher than
math, science, and writing achievement, scores in this area are also a concern. There are no subgroups that have performed substantially differently than the school as
a whole. Achievement has neither grown nor declined consistently over the last three years. Analysis indicates that students enter ACE/CCS with achievement that is
very low – often four to five years below grade level.
Student Achievement Growth
1. Colorado Growth Model scores over the last three years have remained below the DPS expectation of the 50th percentile. This is especially significant since MAP
scores suggest that entering students on average achieve at about the fourth grade level. A much higher rate of academic growth is needed.
Priority Needs
Note: Data is not available to measure academic growth gaps and so no priority need has been established in this area, although other outcome indicators suggest that gaps in
performance are not significant and that achievement status and growth needs to be improved for all students. A priority need has not been identified for post-secondary
readiness because the school performs above expectations on this performance indicator.
1.
2.
Increase the percentage of students partially proficient or above and proficient or above in reading, writing, mathematics, and science.
Increase the median growth percentiles in reading, writing, and math as measured by the Colorado Growth Model.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
10
Root Causes
Root causes relate to school history prior to enrollment at ACE/CCS:
Failure to provide instruction 1) tailored to the needs of individual students with sufficient intensity and time for students to make necessary progress and 2)
delivered in an orderly school environment by instructional staff who have positive relationships with students: Evidence to support this root cause is the low
achievement levels that characterize enrolling students as well as the school’s CSAP, MAP, and growth scores. Low entering achievement levels suggest that students need
additional time to begin to make up lost ground and that they will only be successful with grade level curriculum if it is differentiated based on their needs and they have ongoing
staff support. With demonstrated low levels of interest and motivation based on the data presented, as well as behavior problems, students need to experience success fairly
quickly. To do this, smaller groups and differentiated instruction is needed.
Failure to address social and behavioral barriers to learning: Verification that this is a root cause is supported by the AEC student characteristics and responses to school
bonding, school performance, bullying, alcohol and drug surveys, as well as student history of suspensions and expulsions.
Failure to provide parents with the training necessary to support high achieving children and to develop positive parent-school relationships: Evidence that this is one
of the root causes of lack of achievement and achievement growth is the self-report of parenting efficacy, research showing that student success is related to parent involvement,
and the high responses to many of the AEC student characteristics (which include family variables).
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
11
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.
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/danda/aypprof.asp. 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
94.23% 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 Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 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.
12
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
Annual Targets
Measures/
Metrics
CSAP,
CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
2010-11
2011-12
R
65% partially proficient or above
70% partially proficient or above
M
25% partially proficient or above
30% partially proficient or above
W
70% partially proficient or above
75% partially proficient or above
Interim Measures for
2010-11
Ladders to Success
embedded assessments;
10% improvement from
August pre-test on interim
measures administered in
December and February
CSAP Coach embedded
assessments; 10%
improvement from August
pre-test on interim measures
administered in December
and February
Major Improvement
Strategies
Use RtI to provide differentiated,
high-quality classroom instruction
in reading, writing, science and
math based on individual student
needs identified through
universal screening (the MAP
along with other data including
CSAP and Brigance); for
students not making expected
progress, provide small group
and if necessary individual
instruction; monitor progress
weekly through management
team meetings and change
groups as needed.
S
10% partially proficient or above
15% partially proficient or above
R
10% reduction in percent of students
scoring non-proficient.
10% reduction in percent of students
scoring non-proficient
M
10% reduction in percent of students
scoring non-proficient.
10% reduction in percent of students
scoring non-proficient.
Academic
Growth
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
R
40
45
M
45
50
W
40
45
R
M
NA
NA
NA
Academic
Growth Gaps
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
W
NA
NA
Grad Rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dropout Rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mean ACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
AYP
(Overall and
for each
disaggregated
groups)
Post
Secondary &
Workforce
Readiness
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
Same as above
Reduce social and behavioral
barriers to learning
Same as above
Increase parent skills to support
student learning and parent
involvement at ACE/CCS
NA
13
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: Use RtI to provide differentiated, high-quality classroom instruction in reading, writing, science and math based on individual
student needs identified through universal screening (the MAP along with other data including CSAP and Brigance); for students not making expected progress
provide small group and if necessary individual instruction; monitor progress weekly through management team meetings and change groups as needed.
Root Cause(s) Addressed: Failure to provide instruction 1) tailored to the needs of individual students with sufficient intensity and time for students to make
necessary progress and 2) delivered in an orderly school environment by instructional staff that have positive relationships with students
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
X School Plan under State Accountability X Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan  Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant
X Title I school wide 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
Provide SES to students
Beginning
11/9/10 to 2/2/10
Provided from central DPS
Title I funds
Monitor progress and attendance using
data provided by service provider;
Replace school staff identified as responsible for
lack of progress to include the academic dean and
two teachers
Changes
complete by
7/12/10
None
100% of identified teachers identified
and dismissed at end of 2009-2010
school year
Use computer-based software to diagnose
learning needs and provide instructional materials
to address these needs
Software to be
operational by
7/20/10
General fund: $4985
Monitor frequency of use and the
number of teachers using the software;
observe teachers using the software
Provide intensive small group instruction by highly
qualified teachers to address learning needs of
students not making sufficient progress in regular
classroom settings
Beginning 8/1/10
and ongoing
throughout the
year
Title I - $29,926
paraprofessionals
11,747 (ELA tutor from Title I)
$5400 (ELA tutor from ELPA)
Weekly review of student progress on
pre- and post-assessments; regular
revisions to student groups based on
progress; review of teacher lesson
plans to ensure standards addressed,
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
14
Title I - $64,516 teachers
TGYS: $4, 032 for peer tutors
updated assessment information is
used, and plan to differentiate
instruction is in place.
Differentiate instruction in regular classrooms
through the use of additional highly qualified
teachers and paraprofessionals.
Beginning 8/1/10
and ongoing
throughout the
year
Same as above: Title I $29,926 paraprofessionals
11,747 (ELA tutor from Title I)
$5400 (ELA tutor from ELPA)
Title I - $64,516 teachers
Weekly review of student progress on
pre- and post-assessments; regular
revisions to student groups based on
progress; review of teacher lesson
plans to ensure standards addressed,
updated assessment information is
used, and plan to differentiate
instruction is in place.
Employ only highly qualified teachers and
paraprofessionals
7/12/10
None
100 percent of teachers and
paraprofessionals will be highly
qualified on the personnel report
submitted to the district in fall 2010
Provide mentoring and coaching to teachers to
increase their effectiveness
Start 7/26/10 and
ongoing during
the school year
Title II - $14,158
Title I - $12,039
Log of contact hours showing visits to
all classrooms at least twice per month;
review of teacher lesson plans for
quality; classroom observation of
instruction and classroom management
Provide high-quality staff development focusing on
RtI, differentiation of instruction, and training in the
specific instructional materials being used at the
School
Provide RtI,
Compass
Learning, MAP
and Cognitive
Tutor training
prior to 7/20/2010
Title I - $5,750
General Fund - $5792
Feedback from staff after training,
classroom observations to determine
what is being implemented effectively,
review of lesson plans for differentiated
instruction strategies
Administer interim benchmark measures
August and
December 2010,
and February
2010
None in 2010-2011; previously
purchased
Interim assessments administered to all
students and adjustments made to
instruction based on results
* Not required for state or federal requirements. Completion of the “Key Personnel” column is optional for schools.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
15
Major Improvement Strategy #2: Reduce social and behavioral barriers to learning
Root Cause(s) Addressed: Failure to address social and behavioral barriers to learning
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
X Title I school wide 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
Meet with students and parents to connect
students with community resources to address
social and behavioral barriers to leaning
Start 7/20/10 and
ongoing during
school year
Title I - $40,873
TGYS Grant -$27,559
Meetings with parents and students to
monitor helpfulness of resources
Teach Pathways to Self-Discovery and Bullying
Prevention curricula during homeroom period
Start 7/20/10 and
ongoing during
school year
Included in $40,873 and
$27,559 referenced above
Classroom observation of student
interest and progress
Provide students opportunities to express their
feelings through poetry and rap
2 times weekly
throughout the
school year
starting 7/20/10
Included in $27,559
referenced above
Number of students attending and
student feedback about activity
Designate a staff person to follow-up with students Start 7/20/10 and
ongoing during
whose attendance is erratic
General Fund: $37,000
Weekly monitoring of student
attendance at management meetings;
Meet with and provide support to former students
transitioning back to traditional District schools
Every other week
during the school
year (starting
7/20/10)
Included in $40,873 reference
above
Monitoring student progress at new
school and feedback from parents and
staff at new school
Meet with and ensure that all students
withdrawing from the school enroll in another
educational program
Start 7/20/10 and
ongoing during
school year
Included in $37,000
referenced above
Weekly monitoring of student
withdrawal codes at management
meetings
school year
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
16
Major Improvement Strategy #3: Increase parent skills to support student learning and parent involvement at ACE/CCS
Root Cause(s) Addressed: Failure to provide parents with the training necessary to support high achieving children and to develop positive parent-school
relationships:
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
X Title I school wide 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
Weekly training and support meetings with
parents - refreshments
Weekly during the
school year
starting 7/20/10
Title I - $5,173
Number of parents attending; feedback
from parents about helpfulness
Encourage attendance at weekly training and
support meetings, parent conferences, and
meetings with executive director – bus tokens
Weekly during the
school year
starting 7/20/10
Title I - $5,400
Number of parents attending; feedback
from parents about helpfulness
Ongoing parent and student meetings with
executive director to discuss student needs,
progress, and school wide issues – refreshments
At a minimum,
monthly during
school year
starting in July
Title I - $500
Number of parents attending; feedback
from parents about helpfulness
TGYS Grant - $1,175
Number of parents and students
attending; feedback from participants
about helpfulness
Once each
Peace in the Community events that bring all
parents and students together to celebrate school semester during
the school year
successes, emphasize peace in the community,
and enjoy the talents of local artists - refreshments
mmmmm
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
17
Title I Accountability Provisions
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
18
Community Challenge School
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AGREEMENT
Community Challenge School will:
1. Involve parents in the planning, review, and improvement of the school’s parental involvement policy, in an organized, ongoing, and timely way.
2. Involve parents in the joint development of any school wide program plan, in an organized, ongoing, and timely way.
3. Hold an annual meeting to inform parents of the school’s participation in Title I, Part A programs, and to explain the Title I, Part A requirements, and the
right of parents to be involved in Title I, Part A programs. The school will convene the meeting at a convenient time to parents, and will offer a flexible
number of additional parental involvement meetings, such as in the morning or evening, so that as many parents as possible are able to attend. The
school will invite to this meeting all parents of children participating in Title I, Part A programs (participating students), and will encourage them to attend.
4. Provide information to parents of participating students in an understandable and uniform format, including alternative formats upon the request of
parents with disabilities, and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents can understand.
5. Provide to parents of participating children information in a timely manner about Title I, Part A programs that includes a description and explanation of the
school’s curriculum, the forms of academic assessment used to measure children’s progress, and the proficiency levels students are expected to meet.
6. On the request of parents, provide opportunities for regular meetings for parents to formulate suggestions, and to participate, as appropriate, in decisions
about the education of their children. The school will respond to any such suggestions as soon as practicably possible.
7. Provide to each parent an individual student report about the performance of their child on the State assessment in at least math, language arts and
reading.
8. Provide each parent timely notice when their child has been assigned or has been taught for four (4) or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not
highly qualified within the meaning of the term in section 200.56 of the Title I Final Regulations (67 Fed. Reg. 71710, December 2, 2002).
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
19
Community Challenge School
SCHOOL-PARENT COMPACT
2010-2011
Community Challenge 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
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 by providing quality academic and human services delivered by a high quality and
caring staff.
2. Hold parent-teacher conferences (at least annually in elementary schools) during which this compact will be discussed as it relates to the
individual child’s achievement.
3. Provide parents with frequent reports on their children’s progress through regular phone calls.
4. Provide parents reasonable access to staff.
5. Provide parents opportunities to volunteer and participate in their child’s class, and to observe classroom activities by contacting the
principal or another staff person.
Parent Responsibilities
I understand that ACE Community Challenge School is a school of choice. I have selected this school because it is my belief that it offers an
instructional program that can best meet my son/daughter’s needs. It is my understanding that there are specific expectations that I must fulfill to help
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
20
my son/daughter be a successful student at ACE Community Challenge school. Listed below are the expectations that are my responsibility as a
parent/guardian of an ACE/CCS student.
1. I will attend all monthly principal/parent meetings.
2. I will attend all individual parent conferences regarding my son/daughter requested by the school.
3. I will make sure that my son/daughter attends school on a regular basis.
4. I will make sure that my son/daughter gets to school on time.
5. If my son/daughter is under 17 and has excessive absences, I understand that the school will file a truancy petition and take the necessary court
action to require attendance.
6. If my son/daughter is over 17 and has excessive absences, I understand that the school has a right to withdraw him/her from the program.
7. If my son/daughter comes to school and is not wearing his/her uniform, I understand that he/she will be sent home to change.
8. If my son/daughter comes to school and does not have his/her school supplies, I understand that he/she will be sent home to get their supplies.
Student Responsibilities
1. I will attend school on a regular basis.
2. I will attend school on time.
3. I will complete all class assignments.
4. I will respect staff.
5. I will respect my peers.
6. I will wear my uniform.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
21
7. I will bring school supplies to school every day.
8. I will attend along with my parent the Nurturing Parent 12 week support group held every Tuesday from 5:00pm- 6:30pm.
9. I will comply with all school requirements.
10. The benefits of compliance are
1.
2.
3.
Remain at ACE Community Challenge School
Earn Necessary credits to pass to the next grade level
Receive individual and/or family counseling as needed
11. The consequences for Non-Compliance are
1.
I understand that if I don’t abide by the terms of this contract, I can be suspended and a placement review will be held immediately to
determine if recommendation for expulsion is warranted.
__________________
School
__________________
Parent(s)
_______________
Student
__________________
Date
__________________
Date
_______________
Date
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
22
SCHOOLWIDE PLANNING PROCESS
Note: The table below describes how teachers and parents were involved in the school wide planning process.
Check all that Apply
Meeting Dates
Agenda Topics/Planning Steps
7/14/2009
Discuss school improvement plan
Review progress toward meeting goals and objectives for
2008-2009 and proposed alternative education campus
goals and objectives for 2010-2010
Review data collection and improvement for 2009-2010,
and discuss new 5 year strategic plan for 2010 – 2015.
Discuss school improvement plan and parent involvement
policy and parent compact. Identify strategic plan and SIP
strategies
Discuss strategic plan and SIP strategies, and parent
involvement policy and parent compact
School-wide Title I school/NCLB & AYP requirements and
implications. Discuss parent involvement policy, parent
compact, parent’s rights, supplemental educational
services (SES), highly qualified teachers, and how parents
can help improve student performance.
Review progress and school improvement status
Review progress and school improvement status
Review plan strategies and data collection procedures
Review data and data collection plans
Discuss new 5 year strategic plan and school
improvement plan
Review new 5 year strategic plan, SIP, RTI training for
staff and Compass learning
Discuss school improvement plan, strategic plan and RTI
training scheduled for March 18
Draft school improvement plan for 2010-2013
7/22/2009
8/5/2009
8/19/2009
8/21/2009
9/1/2009
9/23/2009
10/6/2009
11/4/2009
12/9/2009
1/20/2010
2/24/2010
3/11/2010
3/17/2010
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
Planning
Team
All Staff
Parents
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
23
4/5/2010
4/7/2010
4/14/2010
4/30/2010
5/19/2010
6/1/2010
7/14/2010
7/30/2010
8/3/2010, 9/7/2010, 10/5/2010,
11/2/2010
8/11/2010
11/12/2010
11/23/2010
12/01/2010
12/03/2010
12/08/2010
Discuss SIP for 2010-2013, strategic plan, RTI (staff
training) and Compass Learning
Review and update all Title reports, and continue to revise
school improvement plan
Submit all Title reports and new SIP
Discuss SIP, new strategic plan, RTI and Compass
Learning
Review progress toward meeting goals and objectives for
2009-2010 and proposed alternative education goals and
objectives for 2010-2011
Discuss SIP, new strategic plan, RTI and Compass
Learning
Discuss implementation of RTI and Compass Learning
Review progress towards meeting goals and objectives for
2009-2010 and proposed alternative education goals and
objectives for 2010 - 2011
School –wide Title I school/NCLB & AYP requirements and
implications. Discuss strategic plan, SIP, parent
involvement policy, parent compact, parent’s rights,
supplemental educational services (SES), highly qualified
teachers, and how parents can help improve student
performance
Discuss strategic plan, SIP, and parent involvement policy
and parent compact; make final revisions to SIP based on
2009-2010 data and input from parents/staff
Review UIP draft format and discuss relationship to SIP
Finalize approach to completing UIP
Review draft of UIP
Review UIP with teachers and staff; discuss
implementation of major strategies; gather suggestions for
revisions
Identify and incorporate final revisions for UIP plan
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
24
Highly Qualified Teachers and Paraprofessionals
2008 - 2009
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
Percentage Highly Qualified
Teachers
Paraprofessionals
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.4 -- Last updated: October 25, 2010)
25
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Measures/Metrics
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth
Gaps
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math by
disaggregated groups.
Expectation: Disaggregated groups met adequate growth:
median SGP is at or above 45.
Disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth:
median SGP is at or above 55.
09-10 Federal and State Expectations
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.
Graduation Rate
Post
Secondary
Readiness
See your school's performance frameworks for
listing of median growth by each subgroup.
80% or above
N/A
N/A
Dropout Rate
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
3.6%
3.9%
4.8%
2.9%
Mean ACT Composite Score
1-year
3-years
1-year
3-years
20
20.1
N/A
N/A
Expectation: At or below State average
Expectation: At or above State average
Overall
N/A
80% or above
Expectation: 80% or above
Expectations
Met?
09-10 School Results
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,
Performance
growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and
workforce readiness)
The school meets or exceeds state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a
Performance Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2011 to be uploaded on SchoolView.org. Refer to the SchoolView
Learning Center for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the Quality Criteria and Checklist for State Requirements for
School Improvement Plans to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school's plan.
Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for at
Corrective Action
least two consecutive years**
The school must complete a Title I Corrective Action Plan using the Unified Improvement Plan template. Completed plans are due to the
district within 3 months of identification (Mid-January). The district must use a peer review process to review the plan within 45 days of
plan submission. The Quality Criteria highlights the Corrective Action requirements and where they would be included in the UIP. For
required elements in the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or
Corrective Action (Title I)
2