Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2013-14
Organization Code: 1010 District Name: COLORADO SPRINGS 11 School Code: 3890 School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SPF Year: 1 Year
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2012-13. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows
the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations. Most of the data are pulled from the official School Performance Framework (SPF). This summary should accompany your
improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
2012-13 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % Proficient and Advanced (%P+A) in
reading, writing, math and science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile (from
2009-10 baseline) by using 1-year or 3-years of data
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
71.65%
-
-
43.66%
-
-
M
70.89%
-
-
50.36%
-
-
W
53.52%
-
-
32.62%
-
-
S
47.53%
-
-
22.64%
-
-
Median Adequate Growth Percentile
(AGP)
Median Growth Percentile
Academic Growth
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading,
writing and math and growth on ACCESS/CELApro for
English language proficiency.
Expectation: If school met adequate growth, MGP is
at or above 45.
If school did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or
above 55.
For English language proficiency growth, there is no
adequate growth for 2012-13. The expectation is an
MGP at or above 50.
2012-13 School Results
Overall Rating for
Academic Achievement:
Approaching
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
Median Growth Percentile (MGP)
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
47
-
-
49
-
-
M
63
-
-
39
-
-
W
59
-
-
44
-
-
ELP
-
-
-
44
-
-
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for
Academic Growth:
Approaching
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Median Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth Gaps
2012-13 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math
by disaggregated groups.
Expectation: If disaggregated groups met
adequate growth, MGP is at or above 45.
If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate
growth, MGP is at or above 55.
See your School Performance Framework
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 (ELLs) and students
below proficient.
Graduation Rate
Expectation: At 80% or above on the best of 4year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness
Expectation: At 80% or above on the
disaggregated group’s best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year
or 7-year graduation rate.
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below state average overall.
Mean Colorado ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above state average.
2012-13 School Results
See your School Performance Framework
for listing of median growth by each
disaggregated group.
Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate
At 80% or above
- using a - year grad rate
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:
Approaching
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each student
disaggregated group at each content area at
each level.
-
At 80% or above for each
disaggregated group
See your School Performance Framework
for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year and 7year graduation rates for disaggregated
groups, including free/reduced lunch
eligible, minority students, students with
disabilities, and ELLs.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating
for
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness: -
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Summary of School Plan
Timeline
Program
October 15, 2013
The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.
January 15, 2014
The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.
April 15, 2014
The UIP is due to CDE for public posting on April 15, 2014 through Tracker. Some program level reviews will occur at this same time. For
required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
State Accountability
Plan type is assigned based on the school’s
overall School Performance Framework score
for the official year (achievement, growth,
growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce
readiness).
Improvement
The school is approaching or has not met state expectations for attainment on the SPF
performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement an Improvement Plan. The
plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2014 to be posted on SchoolView.org.
Title I Focus School
Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate
(regardless of plan type), and/or (2)
Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type
with either (or both) a) low-achieving
disaggregated student groups (i.e., minority,
ELL, IEP and FRL) or b) low disaggregated
graduation rate. This is a three-year
designation.
Not identified as a Title I Focus
School
This school is not identified as a Focus School and does not need to meet those additional
requirements.
Tiered Intervention Grant
(TIG)
Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified
as 5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I
eligible schools, eligible to implement one of
four reform models as defined by the USDE.
Not awarded a TIG grant
This school does not receive a TIG grant and does not need to meet those additional
requirements.
Colorado Graduation
Pathways Program (CGP)
The program supports the development of
sustainable, replicable models for dropout
prevention and recovery that improve interim
indicators (attendance, behavior and course
completion), reduce the dropout rate and
increase the graduation rate for all students
participating in the program.
Not a CGP Funded School
This school does not receive funding from the CGP Program and does not need to meet
these additional program requirements.
Plan Type Assignment
ESEA and Grant Accountability
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
3
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Additional Information about the School
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History
Related Grant Awards
Has the school received a grant that supports the
school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant
awarded?
TAP Grant, 2011-2012 school year.
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST or
Expedited Review? If so, when?
Achieve Team support starting 2010-2011 school year.
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.
NIET through TAP school year 2011-2012 to present
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):


State Accreditation  Title I Focus School
 Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
 Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)
Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
Dr. Larry Howard School Principal
Email
howarle@d11.org
Phone
719-328-2902
Mailing Address
917 E Moreno Ave Colorado Springs Colorado 80903
Name and Title
Bill Brown School social Worker
Email
brownwh@d11.org
Phone
719-328-2979
Mailing Address
917 E Moreno Ave Colorado Springs Colorado 80903
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
4
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “Evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that
describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions
proposed in Section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section
includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations; describing progress toward
targets for the prior school year; describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends; identifying trends and priority
performance challenges (negative trends); describing how performance challenges were prioritized; identifying the root causes of performance
challenges; describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used; and describing stakeholder involvement in the
analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in the Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.
Data Narrative for School
Directions: In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including (1) a description of the school and the process for data analysis, (2) a review of current
performance, (3) trend analysis, (4) priority performance challenges and (5) root cause analysis. A description of the expected narrative sections are included below. The narrative should not take
more than five pages. Two worksheets (#1 Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been provided to organize the data referenced in the narrative.
Data Narrative for School
Description of School
Setting and Process for
Data Analysis: Provide a
very brief description of the
school to set the context for
readers (e.g.,
demographics). Include the
general process for
developing the UIP and
participants (e.g., SAC).
Review Current Performance:
Review the SPF and local data.
Document any areas where the
school did not at least meet
state/federal expectations.
Consider the previous year’s
progress toward the school’s
targets. Identify the overall
magnitude of the school’s
performance challenges.
Trend Analysis: Provide a description
of the trend analysis that includes at
least three years of data (state and local
data). Trend statements should be
provided in the four performance
indicator areas and by disaggregated
groups. Trend statements should
include the direction of the trend and a
comparison (e.g., state expectations,
state average) to indicate why the trend
is notable.
Priority Performance
Challenges: Identify notable
trends (or a combination of trends)
that are the highest priority to
address (priority performance
challenges). No more than 3-5 are
recommended. Provide a
rationale for why these challenges
have been selected and address
the magnitude of the school’s
overall performance challenges.
Root Cause Analysis: Identify at least
one root cause for every priority
performance challenge. Root causes
should address adult actions, be under the
control of the school, and address the
priority performance challenge(s). Provide
evidence that the root cause was verified
through the use of additional data. A
description of the selection process for the
corresponding major improvement
strategies is encouraged.
Narrative: Narrative:
Description of School:
Hunt Elementary consists of two buildings. The West building is one of the first schools built in Colorado Springs and has been continuously functioning since
1902. The additional East building was completed and opened in 1969. Hunt Elementary is located in the Hillside community. There is a high level of unemployment
and mobility with in this community. At one time Hunt served a single community, as the population in southern Colorado Springs declined two schools were closed
in 2009. The three schools were combined into one at which time Hunt’s population tripled. Hunt has lost 170 students over a 5 year period. Hunt Elementary is a
Title-one school with 89% of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The population percentage of Spanish speaking immigrants new to the United States has been
increasing in recent years. Currently the population consists of 43% Hispanic, 30% Caucasian, and 20% African American. Hunt currently has an enrollment of
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
5
approximately 320 students in grades K-5, with an additional 30 Pre-K students. Hunt has 15 classroom teachers, a full time school social worker, a full time media
specialist, a full time teaching learning coach and a part time math specialist. Hunt offers music, band, orchestra, physical education, art, two Head Start programs
for children 6-months through 4 years of age and a Beyond the School Bell program. Hunt Elementary is the only school in Colorado Springs that has been adopted
by the local Army post (Ft Carson) and benefits from approximately 20 soldiers each week who volunteered over 1,000 hours working with students in various
capacities last year. For the 2013-2014 school year Hunt became a Watch DOGS school with 45 father figures participating. Hunt is the recipient of the Sloan Award
for Workplace Excellence in the area of Effectiveness and Flexibility in the work place. Currently there are five buses transporting approximately 90 students to and
from school each day.
Review of Data:
The data review team at Hunt Elementary consists of the Teacher Learning Coach, Math Resource Teacher, School Social Worker, TAP (The system for teacher and
student achievement) Master Teachers, PTA officers and the Principal. The data reviewed includes the following sources, DIBELS, TCAP, Available MAP data,
Attendance, Office Referral and Historical Data.
Performance Review:
The school performance framework (SPF) for 2013 listed the school accountability status as “improvement”. Academic achievement was rated as approaching at
43.8% (11 out of 15 points). Academic growth was approaching 50% (25 out of 50 points). Academic growth gaps were also approaching 52.1% (13 out of 25 points).
Total points earned 49% (49 out of 100 points). Therefore, Hunt Elementary is 10% points below the expected performance level threshold of 59%. In academic
achievement areas Hunt earned 1 out of 4 possible points not meeting the percentage of proficient and advanced required. In Mathematics writing and science Hunt
earned 2 of 4 points and was rated as approaching. Total points earned were 7 of 16 which received the approaching rating.
Hunt earned 3 of 4 points in academic growth in reading and made adequate growth. In Mathematics Hunt earned 1 of 4 points and did not meet the median growth
percentile. In Writing Hunt earned 2 of 4 points and was rated approaching adequate growth. English Language proficiency (ACCESS) Hunt earned 1 of 2 points for
an approaching rating. With a total of 7 of 14 points Hunt earned an overall approaching rating.
Academic growth gaps:
In Reading Hunt earned 11 of 16 possible points for 68.8% and an overall rating of meets adequate growth. Free and reduced lunch students, minority students and
ELL earned 3 of 4 points to meet adequate growth rating. Student’s needing to catch up received an approaching rating with 2 of 4 eligible points.
In Mathematics free and reduced lunch, minority students and ELL scored I out of 4 points and did not meet adequate growth. Students needing to catch up scored 2
out of 4 and were approaching adequate growth.
In Writing free and reduced lunch students, minority students and students needing to catch up scored approaching with 2 out of 4 points. English language learners
scored 3 out 4 to meet adequate growth. In the area of academic achievement Hunt eared 25 of 40 possible points for an overall rating of approaching.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
6
In all three primary academic areas free and reduced lunch students, minority students and student needing to catch up scored either approaching or did not meet
adequate growth. There is a strong probability that all three of these areas measured the same student’s performance.
2013 TCAP results by proficiency level;
3rd grade: reading 38 Proficient 2 Advanced, writing 24 Proficient 4 Advanced, Math 44 Proficient 22 Advanced
4th grade: reading 42 Proficient, writing 18 Proficient, math 40 Proficient 8 Advanced
5th grade: reading 54 Proficient 4 Advanced, writing 43 Proficient 4 Advanced, Math 27 Proficient 11 Advanced, science 21 Proficient 2 Advanced
Trend Analysis:
A review of the school growth summary using the Colorado Growth Model indicates that total students in grades 4 and 5 have demonstrated an upward trend in
reading growth from 41% in 2011 to 49% in 2013. The greatest growth over a three year period in both grades was by non-ELL minority students moving from low
40%ile to low 60%ile with the most significant growth taking place from 2012 to 2013. In Math, 3rd grade had a similar upward trend of 15 points over the same three
year period with the greatest growth recorded last year. A marked exception to last year’s positive growth trends was 5th grade math where the trend was downward
by 15 points over the three year period. In writing scores showed an overall up and down trend ending with an increase of 4 points remaining in the 40%-50% range
over the same period.
Last year’s MAP scores indicated a slight decrease between fall and winter and a recapture between winter and spring in the area of Reading and Writing. In both
subjects there was a small but steady growth from approximately 25% to 33%. Combining intermediate scores from this year’s MAP testing Hunt may be projected to
have 41.5 % proficient and advance in reading, 56.9% in math and 29.2% in writing on the 2014 TCAP test.
School average scores on MCOMP tests for fall of 2012 were 44%. Spring scores increased by 10% to 54% by the end of last year. The 2013 Fall MCOMP score was
51%. The 2014 year end MCOMP goal is 65%. School average scores on MCAP tests for fall of 2012 were 55%. Spring scores increased by 12% to 67%. The 2013 Fall
MCAP score was 45%. The 2014 year end MCAP goal is 67%.
TCAP Reading scores for the last 3 years have been low but stable. In 2013 3rd grade scores raised by 4% points, 4th grade raised by 3% points and 5th grade raised
by 15% points.
In writing 3rd grade scores tripled to 28% an increase of 19%, 4th grade decreased by 14% points, 5th grade increased by 8% points. While there is a combined upward
trend in writing, the discrepancy in score between grades shows the need for continued improvement of student writing skills since writing impacts all academic
area scores in all areas of the curriculum. In all three grade levels a need has been noted to improve student skills in short constructed response, extended writing
and vocabulary usage. The two groups not meeting but approaching adequate growth were minority students and students needing to catch up.
In Math 3rd grade scores increased by 33% points to 66%, 4th grade decreased by 3% points and 5th grade decreased by 14% points. Overall TCAP scores increased
an average of 10% points due to the growth in third grade.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
7
Reading increased an average of 7% points, writing increased an average of 14% points, and math increased an average of 11% points. Continued improvement in
math with particular focus in 5th grade is needed. ELL exceeded the median growth expectation, minority and FR Lunch, and needing to catch up were approaching.
Due to the high student mobility at Hunt we felt it necessary to evaluate performance differences between students who had been at Hunt for a year or more and
others. Based on TCAP scores from 2011 to 2012 a comparison of the cohort of students that have been at Hunt for a year or more with students who have been at
Hunt for less than a year indicated that the cohort students scored lower than student’s new to Hunt. However, when comparing academic growth for similar groups
for the 2012 to 2013 year the gap has essentially closed, as evidenced below:
Writing:
-3rd Grade Cohort 16% and all Students 28%
-4th Grade Cohort 18% and all Students 18%
-5th Grade Cohort 47% and all Students 47%
Reading:
--3rd Grade Cohort 43% and all Students 40%
-4th Grade Cohort 40% and all Students 42%
-5th Grade Cohort 58% and all Students 58%
Math:
--3rd Grade Cohort 66% and all Students 66 %
-4th Grade Cohort 48% and all Students 48%
-5th Grade Cohort 38% and all Students 38%
Priority Performance Challenges:
Hunt Elementary is a school on improvement status on the school performance framework. Hunt did not meet the academic performance indicators for reading,
mathematics, writing or science. However, academic achievement targets were met in 5th grade reading and 3rd grade math. 4th Grade math and 5th grade writing were
within 2 points of meeting the target. All other grades and subjects with the exception of 5th grade math showed a positive trend towards the target, 5th grade math
showed a negative trend away from the target.
Writing is showing slight improvement but remains in the approaching category when compared with state and district expectancies. Writing effects student
performance in all areas of the curriculum and therefore remains the highest priority for the 2013 to 2014 school year. Continued improvement of student writing
skills in all three grade levels is imperative. Improving student writing skills in the area of short constructed response, extended writing and vocabulary as they apply
to all academic areas will be the immediate focus. This strategy will simultaneously address the challenge of moving minority students and students needing to
catch up in all three tested academic areas.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
8
Continued improvement in math with particular focus in 5th grade is the second priority challenge facing Hunt. While third grade showed a strong positive trend
towards the goal, 4th and 5th grades continue to fade from the target. As a school we have yet to achieve adequate growth and must re-join our efforts in this area to
ensure growth in all grades continues especially among free and reduced lunch, minority student and English language learners. Focus will be on implementing the
new Math Expressions Curriculum. In addition we will focus on written expressions and multi-step problems while maintaining the growth of Hunt cohort students
thus increasing the schools overall performance.
Root Cause Analysis:
A Root cause analysis was conducted using data from last year’s TCAP, the current year’s MAP, MCOMP, MCAP scores and teacher input garnered through
discussions in TAP cluster meetings using current student generated data. Hunt student’s did not meet the academic performance indicators for reading,
mathematics, writing or science, the two areas addressed in the 2012/2013 USIP that will continue to be addressed in the current USIP are writing and math.
It was noted in writing that while achievement increased in two grades, the outcomes were still below expectations. The root cause for the lack of expected
achievement in writing was found to be inconsistency in teacher implementation of the new writing curriculum and school wide writing rubric. When looking at
student writing samples in TAP clusters, it was determined that there were inconsistencies in the implementation of the Writers Workshop model and grading of
student writing samples using the new rubrics. While some of these issues were expected during the initial year of implementation the team decided that they
needed to continue to be addressed this year. Last year all Hunt teachers completed the Mark Overmeyer trainings. During his site visit Mr. Overmeyer indicated that
we needed further direction and practice in implementation of the Writers Workshop model. Students were not being provided with sufficient frequency or time to
develop necessary skills to become successful independent writers. In addition the intermediate teachers and principal determined that our students lack the
stamina to complete the length of writing needed for greater success on TCAP items. Finally during data discussion at TAP clusters it became apparent to the
teachers that they need further training and practice to strengthen inter-rater reliability on scoring short constructed responses using the new rubrics.
Math achievement increased in 3rd grade but continued to decline in 4th and 5th grades and fell short of desired levels. The root cause for the lack of achievement in
5th grade was inconsistency of implementation of math instruction in the classroom. 4th grade students grew from their 3rd grade performance but still feel short of
the goal. Students continue to struggle with word problems and other applications of mathematical operations, especially multi-step problems and areas where
students must explain and justify their answers to math problems. In addition, Hunt is implementing the new Math Expressions curriculum and must prioritize and
monitor this implementation to ensure against any backward migration of student skills.
Stakeholder Involvement:
Those participating included school administrators, teachers, TAP (The system for teacher and student achievement) Master Teachers, Teaching Learning Coach,
selected paraprofessionals, and officers from the PTA/SAC. This group looked at data from the various sources and theorized responses to the question “why do we
think our schools performance is what it is”. Parents of the PTA and School Accountability Committee will be informed quarterly of our progress towards
improvement of the identified areas of challenge.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
9
Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2012-13 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the
main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.
Performance Indicators
Targets for 2013-14 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
“Percent Proficient and Advanced will be
at or above the state 50%ile.”
Performance in 2012-13? Was the target
met? How close was the school to meeting
the target?
Academic achievement targets were met in
5th grade reading and 3rd grade math. 4th
Grade math and 5th grade writing were within
2 points of meeting the target. All other
grades and subjects with the exception of 5th
grade math showed an increasing trend
towards the target. 5th grade math decreased
from the target.
3rd grade: reading 38 Proficient
2 Advanced, writing 24 Proficiency
4 Advanced, Math 44 Proficient
22 Advanced
4th grade: reading 42 Proficient, writing
18 Proficient, math 40 Proficient
8 Advanced
5th grade: reading 54 Proficient
4 Advanced, writing 43 Proficiency
4 Advanced, Math 27 Proficient
11 Advanced, science 21 Proficient
2 Advanced
Academic Achievement (Status)
“Observed growth will meet or exceed
adequate growth”
Academic Growth
Federal and State Expectations: Reading 47,
Math 65, Writing 56 and ELP 51. .
Hunt school results: Reading 46, Math 48,
Writing 49 and ELP 61.
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
Increase in achievement may be directly
attributed to the following:
--TAP focus and training was on reading and
writing.
-Direct instruction and small differentiated
groups in Math with aid of interventionists.
-Greater support for Tier 2 students with small
group instructions and interventions.
- Greater academic supervision in the
classroom. Master, mentor teachers and
principal.
-Embedded instruction in writing in TAP.
Decrease in achievement may be directly
attributed to the following:
-Inconsistency in 5th grade math instruction
-Implementation of new writing curriculum
Hunt was approaching in the areas of reading
math and writing. Hunt exceeded in the area
of ELP.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
10
Targets for 2013-14 school year
Performance Indicators
Academic Growth Gaps
Postsecondary & Workforce
Readiness
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
Performance in 2012-13? Was the target
met? How close was the school to meeting
the target?
Since Hunt is a TAP school, it was
decided that interim year goals would be
based on MAP scores.
Based on the Colorado Academic
Growth Model the established school
wide student growth expectation was set
at a year and a third which was set on
the MAP testing measurement.
In Reading: free and reduce lunch and ELL
met academic growth expectancies. Minority
student and students who need to catch up
were approaching.
In Math and Writing: ELL exceeded growth
expectancies. Free and reduced lunch,
minority student, and students needing to
catch up were approaching.
As a total school Hunt met movement in
academic growth area. This was an
improvement in the pattern from “does not
meet” over the 2 preceding years.
NA
NA
NA
NA
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
11
Worksheet #2: Data Analysis
Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data in preparation for writing the required data narrative. Planning teams
should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data and then prioritize the performance challenges (based on notable trends) that
the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance
challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority
performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore,
schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges.
Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed.
Performance Indicators
Academic Achievement
(Status)
Academic Growth
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority Performance
Challenges
Scores in TCAP Reading for the last 3 years have
been low but stable. In 2013 3rd grade scores
raised by 1%, 4th grade fell by 1% and 5th grade
rose by 14 percentage points. In writing 3rd grade
scores increased by 19%, 4th decreased by 14%,
5th increased by 8%. In Math 3rd grade scores
increased by 33 points, 4th grade decreased by 3,
and 5th grade decreased by 14 points.
Overall, reading increased an average of 5 points,
writing increased an average of 4.3 points, and
math increased an average of 5.3 points.
-Continued
improvement of
student writing skills in
all three grade levels
by improving student
skills in the area of
short constructed
response, extended
writing and vocabulary.
-Inconsistencies implementing writer’s workshop model and
use of new rubrics.
-Need for additional frequency and time to develop writing
skills.
-Lack of student stamina for extended writing.
-Continued
improvement in math
with particular focus in
5th grade.
-Inconsistency of math instruction in 5th grade.
-Mathematical operations needing multi-step solutions.
-Written justification of mathematical operations.
Using student scores on TCAP from 2011-2012 a
comparison of the cohort of students that have
been at Hunt for a year or more with students who
have been at Hunt for less than a year indicated
that the cohort of students scored 10% points
lower than student’s new to Hunt. When
comparing academic growth for similar groups for
-Maintain the growth of
cohort students so that
they surpass student
that have been at Hunt
less than one year,
while increasing
overall performance.
-Inconsistencies implementing writer’s workshop model and
use of new rubrics.
-Need for additional frequency and time to develop writing
skills.
-Lack of student stamina for extended writing.
Root Causes
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
12
Performance Indicators
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
2012-2013 the gap has essentially closed.
Writing:
-3rd Grade Cohort 16% and all Students 28%
-4th Grade Cohort 18% and all Students 18%
-5th Grade Cohort 47% and all Students 47%
Reading:
--3rd Grade Cohort 43% and all Students 40%
-4th Grade Cohort 40% and all Students 42%
-5th Grade Cohort 58% and all Students 58%
Math:
--3rd Grade Cohort 66% and all Students 66 %
-4th Grade Cohort 48% and all Students 48%
-5th Grade Cohort 38% and all Students 38%
Academic Growth Gaps
Reading: The two groups not meeting but
approaching adequate growth was minority
students and students needing to catch up.
Mathematics: ELL exceeded the medial growth
expectation, minority and FR Lunch, and needing
to catch up were approaching
Writing F&R lunch minority and needing to catch
up are approaching.
-Inconsistency of math instruction in 5th grade.
-Mathematical operations needing multi-step solutions.
-Written justification of mathematical operations.
-Address the challenge
of moving minority
student and student
needing it catch up in
all three tested
academic areas.
-The need for greater use of Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions
with minority students, and students needing to catch up.
-Greater focus on students who are in Tier 2.
-Development of greater language skills with our Tier 1 and
Tier 2 students.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
13
Performance Indicators
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
Postsecondary & Workforce
Readiness
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
14
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section addresses the “Plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, identify annual performance targets and the interim measures.
This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form on the next page. Then move into action planning, which should be captured
in the Action Planning Form.
School Target Setting Form
Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority
performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas).
Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce
readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected
to prioritized performance challenges. Consider last year’s targets (see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target,
identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
15
School Target Setting Form
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Annual Performance Targets
Priority Performance
Challenges
Interim Measures for
2013-14
2014-15
Reversing a 3 year
trend of low scores.
Increase by 15%
Increase by 10%
MAPS, DIBELS, & Core
Assessments
Increase literacy focus
time, Study Island,
Improved small group
instruction, Fidelity to the
TAP Rubric
Low scores in 3rd
grade Math.
Increase by 10%
Increase by 10%
MCAP, MCOMP, ST Math &
Core Assessments
Improved small group
instruction, Fidelity to the
TAP Rubric, Greater
fidelity to ST math
Reversing 3rd grade all
time low score.
(2012/2013)
Continued growth in all
grades for minority
students.
Increase by 15%
Increase by 10%
District Quarterly
Assessments & Core
Assessments
Implementation of Writers
Choice curriculum
Implement Writer’s
Workshop.
Professional Development
Fidelity to the TAP Rubric
Loss of 21% points.
(2012/2013)
Continued growth
Increase by 20%
Increase by 10%
Study Island, Core
Assessments.
Additional science
instruction 4th and 5th grade.
Fidelity to the TAP Rubric,
Science Encore,
Increased direct
instruction.
Improving the
performance of
students with a year or
more longevity at
Hunt.
Increase by 15%
Increase by 10%
MAPS, DIBELS, & Core
Assessments
Increase literacy focus
time, Study Island,
Improved small group
instruction, Fidelity to the
TAP Rubric, Increased
direct instruction.
Additional interventions.
Improving the
performance of
students with a year or
Increase by 15%
Increase by 10%
MCAP, MCOMP, ST Math &
Core Assessments
R
M
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
TCAP/CSAP,
CoAlt/CSAPA,
Lectura,
Escritura
W
S
Academic
Growth
Median
Growth
Percentile
(TCAP/CSAP
& ACCESS)
R
M
Major Improvement
Strategy
2013-14
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Improved small group
instruction, Fidelity to the
TAP Rubric, Greater
fidelity to ST math,
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
16
more longevity at Hunt
W
ELP
Increased direct
instruction.
Continued
implementation of
Writers Choice
curriculum and Hunt
writing rubrics.
Increase by 20%
Increase by 15%
District Quarterly
Assessments & Core
Assessments
Implementation of Writers
Workshop and Hunt
common assessments
Implement Writer’s
Workshop.
Professional Development
Fidelity to the TAP Rubric,
Increase direct instruction
Integration of services
into the curriculum.
Increase by 10%
Increase by 10%
Study Island, Core
Assessments.
Additional ELL tutoring
Fidelity to the TAP Rubric,
Push in by ELL teachers,
Increase direct instruction
Hispanic and AfricanAmerican students 20
plus points below
Increase by 20%
Increase by 20%
MAPS, DIBELS, & Core
Assessments
Increase literacy focus
time, Study Island,
Improved small group
instruction, Fidelity to the
TAP Rubric, Increased
direct instruction. Tutoring
and Title I Interventionist
Hispanic and AfricanAmerican students 20
plus points below
Increase by 20%
Increase by 20%
MCAP, MCOMP, ST Math &
Core Assessments
Improved small group
instruction, Fidelity to the
TAP Rubric, Greater
fidelity to ST math,
Increased direct
instruction. Tutoring and
Title 1 Interventionist
Hispanic and AfricanAmerican students 20
plus points below
Increase by 20%
Increase by 20%
District Quarterly
Adopt Writer’s Workshop.
Assessments & Hunt
Professional Development
Common Core Assessments
Fidelity to the TAP Rubric,
Increase direct instruction,
Tutoring and Title 1
Interventionist
NA
NA
NA
R
Academic
Growth Gaps
Median
Growth
Percentile
M
W
Postsecondary
Graduation Rate
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
NA
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
17
& Workforce
Readiness
Disaggregated Grad
Rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dropout Rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mean CO ACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
18
Action Planning Form for 2013-14 and 2014-15
Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2013-14 and 2014-15 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root
cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps
necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that
will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Additional rows for action steps may be added. While the template provides space for three major improvement strategies,
additional major improvement strategies may also be added. To keep the work manageable, however, it is recommended that schools focus on no more than 3 to 5 major improvement strategies.
Major Improvement Strategy #1 Based on 2012/1013 writing and mathematics assessment results Hunt Elementary will increase the number of
advanced and proficient students while decreasing the number of unsatisfactory student on the 2013/2014 reading and writing TCAPs by
implementation of the following strategies:
Strategy #1: Implementation of the writer’s workshop model and use of new rubrics ensuring additional frequencies and time to develop
new writing skills and student stamina for extended writing. Percentages of student increases and decreases are below.
Writing
Based on the 3rd Grade scores 2012
Grade 4 will change to:
No Baseline Data for Writing
2013
2% Advanced
(1)
20% Proficient
(9)
67% Partially
Proficient (30)
11%
Unsatisfactory (5)
2014
Based on 4th Grade scores 2012
Grade 5 will change to:
2013
2014
0% Advanced
44% Proficient or
Advanced (20)
51% Partially
Proficient (23)
4% Unsatisfactory
(2)
20% Proficient (9)
65% Partially
Proficient (30)
15%
Unsatisfactory (7)
41% Proficient or
Advanced (19)
48% Partially Proficient
(22)
11% Unsatisfactory (5)
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
1. -Inconsistencies implementing writer’s workshop model and use of new rubrics.
2. -Need for additional frequency and time to develop writing skills.
3. -Lack of student stamina for extended writing.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
19
Strategy #2: Implementation of the Math Expressions Curriculum with greater consistency of math instruction, mathematical operation
needing multi-step solutions, and emphasis on written justification of mathematical operations. Percentages of student increases and
decreases are below.
Mathematics
3rd Grade Students will:
(Based on 3rd Grade Fall MAP – TCAP Correlation)
MAP Spring 2013
2014
9% Advanced (4)
43% Proficient (20)
34% Partially Proficient (16)
15% Unsatisfactory (7)
Based on the 3rd Grade scores 2013
Grade 4 will change to
2013
Based on 4th Grade scores 2013
Grade 5 will change
2014
2013
20% Advanced (7)
66% Proficient or
Advanced (31)
23% Partially
Proficient (11)
11%
Unsatisfactory (5)
46% Proficient
(16)
23% Partially
Proficient (8)
11%
Unsatisfactory (4)
2014
9% Advanced (3)
71% Proficient or
Advanced (25)
23% Partially
Proficient (8)
6% Unsatisfactory
(2)
38% Proficient (13)
32% Partially
Proficient (11)
21% Unsatisfactory
(7)
59% Proficient or
Advanced (20)
32% Partially
Proficient (11)
9% Unsatisfactory
(3)
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
1. -Inconsistency of math instruction in 5th grade.
2. -Mathematical operations needing multi-step solutions.
3. -Written justification of mathematical operations.
Strategy #3: Teachers advance their own learning, together with their students’ learning, through cycles of formative assessment and academic
feedback monitored in TAP clusters.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
1. Tap focus and training on short constructed response skills in writing.
2. Implementation of new writing curriculum with embedded instruction in TAP.
3. Greater support for Tier 2 students with small group instruction with trained interventionist.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
20
4.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation
 Title I Focus School  Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)  Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
2013-14
2014-15
Key
Personnel*
A. TAP field testing product,
performance and process directed
at all learning objectives aligned to
the state standards. l
Septemb
er 2013
to May
2014.
TAP Mentor
and Master
Teachers
B. Teachers will display and
effectively communicate the lesson
objectives to all students, referring
to objectives throughout the lesson.
August
2013 to
May
2014
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
and Principal.
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
TAP Classroom observations
and walkthroughs,
TAP Funds
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not begun)
In Progress
Lesson plan demonstrate
alignment of objective and
standards
TAP Funds
TAP Classroom observations
and walkthroughs,
In Progress
Learning targets displayed
Learning objectives referred
throughout lesson
C. All Teachers will demonstrate all
rubric components contained within
level 3 or above on the TAP rubric
dealing with student mastery of
product, performance and process.
Septemb
er 2013
to May
2014
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
and Principal.
TAP Funds
TAP Classroom observations
and walkthroughs,
TAP Rubric: score 3 or above
on the TAP rubric dealing with
student mastery of product,
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
In Progress
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
21
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
2013-14
2014-15
Key
Personnel*
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not begun)
performance and process.
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
22
Major Improvement Strategy #1 Top Quality Tier 1 instruction for every student, every day, in every classroom as evidenced by the
implementation of the Continuous Cycle of Standards-Based Teaching and Learning highlighting these three District 11 Playbook strategies:
Strategy #2: Teachers strategically create a balance between providing high-quality, explicit instruction that targets high levels of rigor and
engaging students in a well-designed, inquiry-based activities that foster discovery and learning at various Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels.
Root Cause(s) Addressed
1. -TAP focus and training was on reading and writing.
2. -Weak direct and small group instruction in Math with aid of interventions.
3. -Inconsistency in 5th grade math instruction
4. –Lack of understanding of the implementation of new writing curriculum with embedded instruction in writing (in TAP).
5. –Insufficient support for Tier 2 students with small group instructions and interventions.
6. –Insufficient quality of academic coaching in the classroom. TAP (The system for teacher and student achievement) Leadership Team, Teaching, Learning Coach and
principal.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation
 Title I Focus School  Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)  Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to
Implement the Major Improvement
Strategy
Timeline
2013-14
2014-15
Key
Personnel*
A. Embed depth of knowledge and
explicit instruction in-service
within all TAP Clusters
August
2013 to
May
2014
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
Principal and
instructional
staff.
B. Implementation of “Writers
Workshop” to address the D11
writing initiative.
August
2013 to
May
2014
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
Principal and
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation Benchmarks
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not begun)
Root Cause(s) Addressed
Tap Funds
andand
D11
Classroom
In Progress
1. -TAPTAP
focus
training
was on reading
and writing.
observations
2. -Weak
direct and and
small group instruction in Math with aid
walkthroughs,
of interventions.
3. -Inconsistency in 5th grade math instruction
4. –Lack of understanding of the implementation of new
writing curriculum with embedded instruction in writing
(in TAP).
District training and school
TAP and D11 Classroom
In Progress
5. –Insufficient support for Tier 2 students with small group
funds
observations and
instructions and interventions.
walkthroughs
6. –Insufficient quality of academic coaching in the
classroom. TAP (The system for teacher and student
achievement) Leadership
Team, Teaching,
Learning
School Code: 3890
School Name:
HUNT ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Coach and principal.
23
instructional
staff
C. Implement School wide writing
focus with common goals,
strategies and teaching practices.
August
2013 to
May
2014
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
Principal and
instructional
staff
District 11 and TAP Funds
TAP and D11 Classroom
observations and
walkthroughs
In Progress
D. Implementation of Math
Expressions curriculum in all
grades
August
2013 to
May
2014
Principal,
TLC, Master
Teachers and
Math Coach,
Cindie Togni,
Hunt MRT
District 11 and Title 1 Funds
Title 1 Budget Report
In Progress
E. Need action item to implement
impact on root cause 5
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
24
Major Improvement Strategy #3: 1 Top Quality Tier 1 instruction for every student, every day, in every classroom as evidenced by the
implementation of the Continuous Cycle of Standards-Based Teaching and Learning highlighting these three District 11 Playbook strategies:
Strategy #3: Teachers advance their own learning, together with their students’ learning, through cycles of formative assessment and academic
feedback.
Root Cause(s) Addressed
-TAP focus and training was on reading and writing.
-Direct and small group instruction in Math with aid of interventions.
-Inconsistency in 5th grade math instruction
-Implementation of new writing curriculum with embedded instruction in writing (in TAP).
-Greater support for Tier 2 students with small group instructions and interventions.
-Greater academic coaching in the classroom. TAP (The system for teacher and student achievement) Leadership Team, Teaching, Learning Coach and principal.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
 State Accreditation
 Title I Focus School  Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)  Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)
 Other: ______________________________________________________________________________
Description of Action Steps to
Implement the Major Improvement
Strategy
Re-focus of TAP training to Writing
curriculum and implementation.
Timeline
2013-14
August
2013 to
May 2014
Key
Personnel*
2014-15
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
Principal,
TLC and
instructional
staff
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Status of Action Step* (e.g.,
completed, in progress, not begun)
In Progress
TAP Funds
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Implementation Benchmarks
Cluster meeting training
sessions and staff meetings.
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
25
September
2013 to
May 2014
Mark
Overmeyer,
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
Principal and
instructional
staff
TAP cluster meeting, field testing and
direct instruction of students
August
2013 to
May 2014
TAP Mentor,
Master
Teachers,
Principal and
instructional
staff
Re-focus of TAP training to Reading
and Writing curriculum and
implementation.
August
2013 to
May 2014
MRT,
Principal and
instructional
staff
Continued staff development training
on Writers Workshop.
In progress
Title 1, District 11 Funds and
TAP Funds
TAP and D11 Classroom
observations, walkthroughs,
and cluster training.
In Progress
TAP and D11 Classroom
observations, walkthroughs,
and cluster training.
TAP Funds
In Progress
District 11 and school funds
Staff meetings and PLC’s.
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.
Section V: Appendices
For Schools Operating a Title I Schoolwide Program
Schools that participate in Title I must use this form to document Title I program requirements for operating a schoolwide program. As a part of the improvement planning process, schools are strongly encouraged to
weave appropriate requirements into earlier sections of the UIP. This form provides a way to ensure all components of the program are met through (1) assurances, (2) descriptions of the requirements or (3) a cross-walk
of the Title I program elements in the UIP.
Description of Title I Schoolwide
Program Requirements
How are parents and school staff involved in the
development of the improvement plan?
Assurance
Recommended
Location in UIP
Section III: Data
Narrative (p. 7)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
All staff members are involved in Building Teams which are each responsible for the
development of intervention strategies for a single academic or procedural goal. All reform
strategies are found in the USIP document with action steps for implementation. Parents on
School Code: 3890
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
26
the PTA/SAC are consulted and informed throughout the process. Parents of all students in
the school (preschool, Head Start, etc.) are invited to participate in all activities. Updates will
occur three times per year with input from the parent group and through the use of Plus/Delta
feedback at parent nights. The USIP will be posted on the school’s website and (eventually)
SchoolView.
What are the comprehensive needs that justify the
activities supported with Title I funds?
Section III. Data
Narrative (p. 7) and
Section IV. Action
Plan (p. 10)
Please refer to section III pages 9 and 10 of the USIP and section IV beginning on page 11 and go to
page 17.
What are the major reform strategies to be
implemented that strengthen core academic
programs, increase the amount and quality of
learning, and provide an enriched and accelerated
curriculum?
Section IV: Action
Plan (p. 10)
Please refer to section IV of the USIP beginning on page 11 and go to page 17.
Section IV: Action
Plan (p. 10)
Teachers are initially screened at the district level for Highly Qualified status. Once the pool of
applicants is established and interviews begin, the school is “sold” to applicants who are
viewed as good matches for the school, grade level team and classroom. Teachers are
encouraged to remain at the school by offering low- or no-cost professional development
opportunities which may be taken for credit to advance on the salary scale. Teachers are paid
for beyond contract hours for tutoring, Goals Teams participation and Parent Engagement
activities. Teachers are honored for accomplishments by “Teacher of the Week” preferential
parking and gifts, recommendations for awards, and all teachers are provided a nurturing
workplace.
All core content teachers are highly qualified.

Yes

No
How are highly qualified teachers recruited and
retained?
Description of Title I Schoolwide
Program Requirements
How are student and staff needs used to identify
Assurance
Recommended
Location in UIP
Section IV: Action
Plan (p. 10) and
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
Description of Requirement or Crosswalk of Description in
UIP Data Narrative or Action Plan (include page numbers)
In the Spring of each year, school staff, parents and program administrators are invited to
participate in the comprehensive needs analysis of the building (results on file). This process
School Code: 3890
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
27
the high quality professional development?
The school’s Parent Involvement Policy (including
the Parent Compact) is attached.
How does the school assist in the transition of
preschool students from early childhood programs
to local elementary school programs?
Section III: Data
Narrative (p. 7)

Yes

No
Section IV: Action
Plan (p. 10)
forms the skeleton for the upcoming year’s goals and strategies. When TCAP and
Performance Frameworks results become available and based upon the outcomes of the
needs analysis, the school-community group further refines the existing SIP goals or creates
new ones as directed by the needs analysis. Each goal in the USIP contains a professional
development component so that each strategy identified based upon the root cause analysis
is supported with staff training.
Early Head Start, Adult and Family Literacy Programs and Preschool (district & CPKP)
programs provide a bridge to elementary school for parents of young children; sometimes as
young as 3 months. The parent involvement component is supported by the district through
its Adult and Family Literacy Programs, CPKP and our school. Parents receive parenting
classes, English language and GED classes, and observe their children in classrooms (if the
parent has an elementary/preschool child enrolled at Helen Hunt School). During these
programs, parents, staff and children have the opportunity to visit elementary classrooms,
particularly kindergarten programs. All parents of these programs are invited to participate in
the literacy programs, Open House, BAAC and PTO programs at Helen Hunt School.
Open Houses and parent conference opportunities are provided at the beginning of the
school year, as well as throughout the year. Staff meets individually with parents to review
preschool information and procedures. Support for parents who are non-English speaking is
provided by staff.
Parents of these programs are also given surveys so we can monitor if we are meeting their
educational needs.
How will the UIP (including the Title I
requirements) be annually evaluated for
effectiveness and include the participation of
parents?
Section IV: Action
Plan (p. 10)
In the Spring of each year, school staff, parents and program administrators are invited to
participate in the comprehensive needs analysis of the building (results on file). This process
forms the skeleton for the upcoming year’s goals and strategies. When TCAP and
Performance Frameworks results become available and based upon the outcomes of the
needs analysis, the school-community group further refines the existing SIP goals or creates
new ones as directed by the needs analysis. All minutes of these meetings and sign-in sheets
are on file in the building. Because the results of TCAP and the School Performance
Frameworks are the ultimate measures of success of the Schoolwide Improvement Plan, the
annual evaluation is closely tied to the development of the plan. The evaluation of the plan
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
28
begins in the spring in the form of the needs analysis for plan development and continues
through the fall when the assessment results become available. The plan evaluation process
parallels the process for plan development. These process are inextricably entwined and the
parties participating in each are identical (see process of plan development, NCLB Section
1114(b)(2)(B)(ii), above).
If the schoolwide plan is not satisfactory to parents, parent comments are included in the
schoolwide when submitted to the district. We have received no unsatisfactory comments
from parents
How are Title I funds used in coordination with
other ESEA funds, as well as state and local
funds?
Section IV: Action
Plan (p. 10),
Resource Column
Please refer to section IV of the USIP beginning on page 11 and go to page 17.
School Code: 3890
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013)
School Name: HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29