Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2012-13
Organization Code: 1010 District Name: COLORADO SPRINGS 11 School Code: 4070 School Name: HOLMES MIDDLE SCHOOL SPF Year: 2012 Accountable by: 3 Year
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2011-12. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows the
school’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations as shared through the School Performance Framework (SPF) data. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability
Performance
Indicators
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
2011-12 Federal and State
Expectations
Measures/ Metrics
TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura,
Escritura
Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and
science
Expectation: %P+A is at or above the 50th percentile
by using 1-year or 3-years of data
2011-12 School Results
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
-
71.35%
-
-
85.83%
-
M
-
51.53%
-
-
72.81%
-
W
-
58.34%
-
-
75.4%
-
S
-
48.72%
-
-
63.76%
-
Academic
Growth
Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading,
writing and math and growth in CELApro for English
language proficiency
Expectation: If district met adequate growth: then
median SGP is at or above 45.
If district did not meet adequate growth: then median
SGP is at or above 55.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Overall Rating for
Academic Achievement:
Meets
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
Median SGP
Median Adequate SGP
Median Student Growth Percentile
Meets Expectations?
Elem
MS
HS
Elem
MS
HS
R
-
18
-
-
55
-
M
-
50
-
-
58
-
W
-
35
-
-
53
-
ELP
-
57
-
-
57
-
Overall Rating for
Academic Growth:
Meets
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each
content area at each level.
1
Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Median Student Growth Percentile
Academic
Growth Gaps
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.
Graduation Rate
Expectation: at 80% or above on the most recent
4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Disaggregated Graduation Rate
Post
Secondary/
Workforce
Readiness
Expectation: at 80% or above on the
disaggregated group’s most recent 4-year, 5-year,
6-year or 7-year graduation rate.
Dropout Rate
Expectation: At or below State average overall.
Mean ACT Composite Score
Expectation: At or above State average
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
2011-12 Federal and State
Expectations
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median adequate
growth expectations for your district’s
disaggregated groups, including
free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities,
English Language Learners and students
below proficient.
At 80% or above
2011-12 School Results
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of median growth
by each disaggregated group.
Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate
- using a - year grad rate
Meets Expectations?
Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:
Meets
* Consult your School Performance
Framework for the ratings for each student
disaggregated group at each content area
at each level.
-
At 80% or above for each
disaggregated group
See your school’s performance
frameworks for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6year and 7-year graduation rates for
disaggregated groups, including
free/reduced lunch eligible, minority
students, students with disabilities, and
English Language Learners.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Overall
Rating for
Post
Secondary
Readiness:
-
2
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Program
Identification Process
Identification for School
Directions for Completing Improvement Plan
State Accountability
Preliminary Recommended
Plan Type
Plan assigned based on school’s overall school
performance framework score (achievement,
growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and
workforce readiness)
Performance
Based on preliminary results, the school meets or exceeds state expectations for
attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a
Performance Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2013 to be
uploaded on SchoolView.org, unless other programs require an earlier submission.
Refer to the UIP website for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the
UIP Handbook to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school’s plan at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp. Once the plan
type for the school has been finalized, this report will be re-populated in December
2012.
Does not receive Title I
funds
The school does not receive Title I funds and does not need to meet the additional Title I
requirements.
Not identified as a Title I
Focus School
This school has not been identified as a Title I Focus school and does not need to meet
the additional requirements.
This school does not receive a TIG grant and does not need to meet those additional
requirements.
ESEA and Grant Accountability
Title I Formula Grant
Title I Focus School
Program's resources are allocated based upon the
poverty rates of students enrolled in schools and
districts and are designed to help ensure that all
children meet challenging state academic
standards.
Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate
(regardless of plan type), and/or (2) Turnaround or
Priority Improvement plan type with either (or both)
(a) low-achieving disaggregated student groups
(i.e., minority, ELL, IEP and FRL) or
(b) low disaggregated graduation rate. This is a
three-year designation.
Tiered Intervention Grant
(TIG)
Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified as
5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I eligible
schools to implement one of four reform models as
defined by the USDE.
Not a TIG Awardee
Improvement Support
Partnership (ISP) or Title I
School Improvement Grant
Competitive Title I grant to support school
improvement through a diagnostic review (i.e.,
facilitated data analysis, SST) or an
implementation focus (i.e., Best First Instruction,
Leadership, Climate and Culture).
Not a Title I School
Improvement Grant
Awardee
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
This school does not receive a School Improvement grant and does not need to meet
those additional requirements.
3
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.
Additional Information about the School
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History
Related Grant Awards
Has the school received a grant that supports the school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant
awarded?
This school does not have a grant supporting
school improvement efforts.
School Support Team or
Expedited Review
Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
This school has not participated in an SST or
Expedited Review
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.
This school has not partnered with an
external evaluator.
Improvement Plan Information
The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):
X State Accountability  Title IA (Targeted Assistance or Schoolwide)  Title I Focus School  Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)
 Implementation Support Partnership Grant (ISP) or Title I School Improvement Grant
 Other: ___________________________________________
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
1
2
Name and Title
Robert Utter
Email
utterrg@d11.org
Phone
719-328-3802
Mailing Address
Holmes Middle School, 2455 Mesa Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80904
Name and Title
Margo Herbert
herbema@d11.org
Email
Phone
719-328-3803
Mailing Address
Holmes Middle School, 2455 Mesa Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80904
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
4
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
5
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that
describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions
proposed in section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes:
identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations, describing progress toward targets for the
prior school year, describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends, identifying trends and priority performance challenges
(negative trends), describing how performance challenges were prioritized, identifying the root causes of performance challenges, describing how
the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used, and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance
on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.
Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2011-12 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the
main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.
Performance Indicators
Academic Achievement
(Status)
Academic Growth
Academic Growth Gaps
Targets for 2011-12 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
Performance in 2011-12? Was the target met? How
close was school in meeting the target?
Percent Proficient and Advanced will be
at or above the state 50th percentile in all
areas: Reading, Writing, Math & Science
This target was met in all areas: Reading = 85.83%
P/A; Math = 72.81% P/A; Writing = 75.4% P/A;
Science = 63.76% P/A
Observed growth will meet or exceed
adequate growth in all areas: Reading,
Writing & Math
This target was met. Median Student Growth
Percentile exceeded state expectations in all areas:
Reading = 56 in 2012, 55 over three years;
Mathematics = 55 in 2012, 58 over three years;
Writing = 52 this year, 53 over three years.
There will be 5 percentage points or less
gap between each disaggregated subgroup with an N of 30 students or more in
This target was not met. In Reading, Minority
Students (48 MGP) and English Learners (50 MGP)
were more than 5 percentage points below the school
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
6
Performance Indicators
Targets for 2011-12 school year
(Targets set in last year’s plan)
all areas: Reading, Writing, Math &
Science
Performance in 2011-12? Was the target met? How
close was school in meeting the target?
Brief reflection on why previous targets were
met or not met.
MGP of 56. In Mathematics, English Learners (47
MGP) were more than 5 percentage points below the
school MGP of 55. In Writing, Students with
Disabilities (32 MGP) were more than 5 percentage
points below the school MGP of 52 while
Free/Reduced Lunch Students were on the cusp and
below the 50th Percentile (47 MGP)
Post Secondary
Readiness
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
7
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
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
6th Grade Reading (% P/A) increased then decreased
from 2010 to 2012 – from 89 to 90 to 85% P/A;
Standards 1 and 4
Non-fiction and
Poetry requiring
Constructed Response
in multiple steps
increasing in difficulty
requiring greater
Depths of Knowledge
(DOK 2 & 3)
Instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge
and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively
transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular
situations.
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
6th Grade Writing (% P/A) increased then decreased
from 2010 to 2012 - from 75 to 78 to 72% P/A.
Standard 2.a & 2.b
Constructed Response
- Paragraph Writing &
Extended Writing that
increase in difficulty
and require greater
Depths of Knowledge
(DOK 2 & 3)
Instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge
and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively
transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular
situations.
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
8th Grade academic achievement has been in a relatively
positive trend for the past three years (2010, 2011, 2012)
as indicated by the percent of students proficient or
advanced – Reading from 81 to 84 to 84% P/A;
Mathematics from 66 to 69 to 70% P/A; and Writing
from 67 to 69 to 71% P/A
Academic Achievement
(Status)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
8
Performance Indicators
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
7th Grade Reading (% P/A) has had a slight decrease
from 2010 to 2012 – from 84 to 84 to 82% P/A.
Standards 1 and 4
Non-fiction and
Poetry requiring
Constructed Response
in multiple steps
increasing in difficulty
requiring greater
Depths of Knowledge
(DOK 2 & 3)
Instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge
and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively
transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular
situations.
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
7th Grade Writing (% P/A) has remained relatively stable
from 2012 to 2012 – from 78 to 76 to 77% P/A.
Standard 2.a & 2.b
Constructed Response
- Paragraph Writing &
Extended Writing that
increase in difficulty
and require greater
Depths of Knowledge
Instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge
and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively
transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular
situations.
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
8th Grade Science (% P/A) experience a significant
increase, then a decrease from 2010 to 2012 – from 55
to 67 to 64% P/A.
Multi-step
Constructed
Responses at DOK 2
& 3; Multiple concepts
in Standard 3 Life
Sciences did not meet
expectations
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
Median Growth Percentiles have been consistently
above the 50th Percentile, yet fluctuating over the past
Our target has been to
attain > 60 MGP in all
6th Grade Math (% P/A) experienced a slight decrease
from 2010 to 2011 then stabilized to 2012 – from 77 to
75 to 75% P/A.
7th Grade Math (% P/A) increased then decreased from
2010 to 2012 – from 65 to 71 to 68% P/A.
Academic Growth
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
9
Performance Indicators
Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data)
Priority Performance
Challenges
Root Causes
three years by increasing, then decreasing from 2010 to
2012. Math from 50 to 65 to 55 MGP; Reading from 52
to 57 to 56 MGP; Writing from 52 to 55 to 52.
areas.
Overall, for the past three years Writing for Students
with Disabilities is “Approaching” the Median
Adequate Growth Percentile, currently with a 51 MGP
when 88 is the projected Adequate Growth Percentile
that would enable these students to catch up in three
years.
Despite demonstrating
growth above the state
average over three
years, 20+ students
with intensive writing
needs were below the
50th percentile in
growth in their writing
last year.
Instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge
and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively
transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular
situations.
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
Overall, for the past three years, Writing for “Students
Needing to Catch Up” is “Approaching” the Median
Adequate Growth Percentile, currently with a 53 MGP
when 74 is the projected Adequate Growth Percentile
that would enable these students to catch up in three
years.
Although these 139
students have
demonstrated growth
above the state
average for three
years, they are not on
a trajectory to close the
gap within three years.
Instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge
and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively
transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular
situations.
Instruction did not reach the Depth of Knowledge necessary for all
students to be proficient or advanced.
Academic Growth Gaps
Post Secondary &
Workforce Readiness
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
10
Data Narrative for School
Directions: Building on the data organized in Worksheet #1 and Worksheet #2, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including review of prior years’ targets, trends,
priority performance challenges and root cause analysis. The narrative should address each aspect of the descriptions below. The narrative should not take more than five pages.
Data Narrative for School
Description of School
Setting and Process for
Data Analysis: Provide
a very brief description of
the school to set the
context for readers (e.g.,
demographics). Include
the general process for
developing the UIP and
participants (e.g., SAC).
Review Current
Performance: Review the SPF
and document any areas
where the school did not meet
state/ federal expectations.
Consider the previous year’s
progress toward the school’s
targets. Identify the overall
magnitude of the school’s
performance challenges.
Trend Analysis: Provide a description
of the trend analysis that includes at
least three years of data (state and
local data). Trend statements should
be provided in the four indicator areas
and by disaggregated groups. Trend
statements should include the direction
of the trend and a comparison to state
expectations or trends to indicate why
the trend is notable.
Priority Performance Challenges:
Identify notable trends (or a combination
of trends) that are the highest priority to
address (priority performance
challenges). No more than 3-4 are
recommended. Provide a rationale for
why these challenges have been
selected and takes into consideration the
magnitude of the school’s over-all
performance challenges.
Root Cause Analysis Identify at
least one root cause for every
priority performance challenge. Root
causes should address adult
actions, be under the control of the
school, and address the priority
performance challenge(s). Provide
evidence that the root cause was
verified through the use of additional
data.
Narrative:
Holmes Middle School is a suburban middle school, grades 6, 7, 8 with approximately 700 total students educated within a strong middle school structure and philosophy. School demographics are
41.8% on Free or Reduced lunch, 4.5% SPED, 3.0% ELL, 22.7% Gifted/Talented. Ethnicities are comprised of 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.9% Asian, 2.6% Black, 20.3% Hispanic,
64.1% White, and 5.1% Two-or-More Races. State testing results are analyzed by all academic teachers in grade level and curricular teams. Strengths and weaknesses are determined for specific
standards and sub-content standards. Administrators and Goal Team Leaders further analyze performance utilizing the School Performance Frameworks to determine respective sub-group
performances and longitudinal growth for each. Ultimately, the weaknesses and subsequent action plans are prioritized by magnitude according to student populations as well as the respective
weight and frequency of standard/sub-content standards assessed on the TCAP by grade level.
Review of the School Performance Frameworks indicates that Holmes Middle School is a Performance school meeting state expectations in Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, and
Academic Growth Gaps over the course of the past three years with relatively minimal fluctuation. However, various sub-groups in Writing and Mathematics are not meeting the expectations of our
school. Just this past year, in Mathematics, students qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch, Students with Disabilities, and English Learners fell below the Adequate Growth Percentile. Likewise, in
Writing, Students with Disabilities, and students qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch also fell below the Adequate Growth Percentile.
Root Cause – Previous year’s root cause analysis indicated that instructional practice was not providing the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to fill the gaps in many students’ learning,
which in turn prevented students from effectively transferring/developing knowledge and skills in cross-curricular situations. This year, grade level curricular teams (For example 6th grade
math/science teachers, and 6th grade language arts/social studies teachers) conducted a detailed TCAP Item analysis for the 2012 TCAP assessments in reading, writing, math and science. Each
test item was analyzed by standard, sub-standard, level of difficulty, depth of knowledge requirements, and type of question (multiple choice versus constructed response; single step versus multiple
step problems). Cross curricular and grade level comparisons, revealed common concerns. Despite curricular areas, significant numbers of students, at times more than half, are not capable of
successfully solving problems that require a constructed response at a Depth of Knowledge 2 or 3 with multiple steps that increase in difficulty throughout the completion of the task. As such,
Holmes Middle School is poised to develop instructional practices that take all students to higher levels of rigor, difficulty and complexity. A focused effort in professional development, with attention
to Hess’s Matrices of Cognitive Rigor, will provide lesson planning and delivery that intentionally and purposefully engages students in daily questioning and thought processes that draw out higher
levels of thinking at great depths of knowledge to include DOK Level 2 and 3 questions on a regular basis. These efforts will be accomplished in collaborative and cross-curricular professional
learning communities.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
11
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
12
Section IV: Action Plan(s)
This section addresses the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, you will identify your annual performance targets and
the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form below. Then you will move into action planning,
which should be captured in the Action Planning Form.
School Target Setting Form
Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those
priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas).
Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and postsecondary and
workforce readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met – in each area
where a priority performance challenge was identified; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges. Consider last year’s targets
(see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to
monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
13
School Target Setting Form
Performance
Indicators
Measures/ Metrics
Academic
Achievement
(Status)
2 – 3 % increase P/A
NWEA-MAP Data
ACHIEVE 3000 and
DOK Training
Multi-step DOK 2 & 3
2 – 3 % increase P/A
2 – 3 % increase P/A
NWEA-MAP Data
Big Ideas Math at Tier 1,
and Compass Learning
Odyssey at Tiers 2 & 3
Paragraph & Extended
2 – 3 % increase P/A
2 – 3 % increase P/A
NWEA-MAP Data
DOK Training and
Common Assessment
Multi-step DOK 2 & 3
2 – 3 % increase P/A
2 – 3 % increase P/A
NWEA-MAP Data
DOK Training
Non-fiction & Poetry
> 58 MGP
> 60 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
ACHIEVE 3000 and
DOK Training
Multi-step DOK 2 & 3
> 60 MGP
> 63 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
Big Ideas Math at Tier 1,
and Compass Learning
Odyssey at Tiers 2 & 3
Paragraph & Extended
> 55 MGP
> 60 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
DOK Training and
Common Assessment
ELL is performing well
> 59 MGP
> 62 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
LANGUAGE! and
ACHIEVE 3000
Students w/ Disabilities
and Students Needing
to Catch Up
> 58 MGP
> 60 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
R
Corrective Reading,
ACHIEVE 3000 and
DOK Training
> 60 MGP
> 63 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
M
Free & Reduced Lunch
Eligible, Minority
Students, Students w/
Disabilities, and
Students Needing to
Catch Up
Big Ideas Math at Tier 1,
and Compass Learning
Odyssey at Tiers 2 & 3
M
S
R
Academic
Growth
M
W
ELP
Academic
Growth
Gaps
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
2013-14
Major Improvement
Strategy
2 – 3 % increase P/A
W
Median
Student
Growth
Percentile
(TCAP/CSAP
& CELApro)
2012-13
Interim Measures for
2012-13
Non-fiction & Poetry
R
TCAP/CSAP,
CoAlt/CSAPA
, Lectura,
Escritura
Annual Performance Targets
Priority Performance
Challenges
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
14
W
Students w/ Disabilities
and Students Needing
to Catch Up
> 55 MGP
> 60 MGP
NWEA-MAP Data
DOK Training and
Common Assessment
Graduation Rate
Post
Secondary &
Workforce
Readiness
Disaggregated Grad
Rate
Dropout Rate
Mean ACT
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
15
Action Planning Form for 2012-13 and 2013-14
Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2012-13 and 2013-14 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root
cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps
necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that
will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may
add other major strategies, as needed.
Major Improvement Goal #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 #1: Teachers communicate and model clear, standards-based, grade-level learning targets and what constitutes mastery with regard
to product, performance, and/or process.
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.
Strategy #3: Teachers advance their own learning, together with their students’ learning, through cycles of formative assessment and academic
feedback.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
1) Teachers do not consistently supply support with rich academic experiences and interventions for students with lower skill-sets,
2) Not all teachers know how to provide these experiences.
3) Instructional practice has not successfully developed student abilities and stamina to effectively respond to multi-step problems requiring higher levels of thinking at a complexity
of DOK 2, 3, or 4.
4) Students are not able to consistently transfer reading, writing and critical-thinking skills to all curricular areas.
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
X School Plan under State Accountability
 Title I Schoolwide or Targeted Assistance plan requirements
 Title I Focus School Plan requirements
 Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)  Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
Strategy #1
Grade Level Curricular Team collaboratively
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
2012-2013
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Key Personnel*
Horizontal Teams
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Horizontal Collaboration
Implementation
Benchmarks
Horizontal meeting and
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
In progress
16
developing instructional practice/strategies aligned
with common core standards.
PD to ensure designing and using effective learning
targets.
Description of Action Steps to Implement
Strategy #2
2012-2013
Administrative,
Horizontal and
Vertical Teams
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Guide
Curriculum & Pacing Guides
Curriculum Design Team
posted minutes
Clarifying and defining terms
activity through grade level
team meetings.
Teachscape Walk
Through to provide
immediate feedback
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation
Benchmarks
In progress
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
TCAP Item Analysis to determine weaker areas of
instruction
Aug-Sept. 2012
EDSS
TCAP Item Maps
TCAP Frameworks
State Standards
Disaggregated data by
standard, proficiency,
DOK, type of question
(MC or CR)
Completed
Depth of Knowledge training to enable teachers to
reliably engage students in DOK 2 & 3 thought
processes and activities
September
2012 – January
2013
EDSS
EDSS materials on the
S:Drive
Training in Septemberongoing development
through horizontal PLC
In progress
Teachers will purposefully activate and/or build
critical background knowledge and vocabulary
utilizing Teaching for Excellence strategies, prereading strategies.
2012-2013
Teachers
PLCs, Content area
vocabulary lists
Teachscape Walk
Throughs, Systematic
sharing of implementation
through Core, horizontal
and goal team PLCs
In progress
Language Arts team will collaborate with EDSS in
developing quarterly assessments that measure
increased DOK in writing. Teachers will develop
writing prompts that promote responses reflecting
higher levels of thinking (DOK 2, 3, Costa, Bloom’s)
and improved performance across all grade levels in
extended and constructed responses.
2012-2013
Language Arts goal
team, GTRT, content
teachers, EDSS
DOK professional
development District training,
professional collaboration
Quarterly benchmarks
In progress
Resources
Implementation
Benchmarks
Description of Action Steps to Implement
Strategy #3
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
Key Personnel*
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
17
Formative Assessment & Feedback PD
2012-2013
All Teachers
EDSS, District curricular
facilitators, Goal team leaders
TBD
Learning Support Stations
2012-2013
All Teachers
On-going implementation of
Teaching for Excellence
strategies
Teachscape Walkthrough
Implementation of Achieve 3000 with fidelity in Tier 1
classrooms to target Non-fiction reading and writing.
2012-2013
All Teachers
District Training 9-2012
Twice a month progress
monitoring
In progress
In progress
In progress
* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, although completion is recommended. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention
Grant).
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
18
Major Improvement Goal #2: Quality Tier 2 & 3 instruction with fidelity as defined by research and evidenced by time, intensity and duration as evidenced by (strategy):
daily targeted differentiated learning experiences for all U/PP students and develop targeted instructional plans for the gifted student through Advanced Learning Plans.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
1) Teachers do not consistently supply support with rich academic experiences and interventions for students with lower skill-sets,
2) Not all teachers know how to provide these experiences.
3) Teachers do not consistently support the transfer of relevant reading, writing and critical-thinking skills to all curricular areas
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
X School Plan under State Accountability
 Title I Schoolwide or Targeted Assistance Plan requirements  Title I Focus School Plan requirements
 Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)  Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Advanced Learning Plans supported through
Essential Skills GT classes
Intervention programs delivered with fidelity focusing
on targeted flexible groups of students.
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation
Benchmarks
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
2012-2013
GRT
Advanced Learning Plans
Quarterly
In progress
2012-2013
Teachers, Special
Education Team,
Interventionist, GRT
Compass Learning Odyssey
Math, Fast Math, Just for Me
Achieve 3000, Jamestown
Reading Series, SRA kits,
Corrective Reading
Effective use of
interventions during
Essential Skills
In progress
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
19
Major Improvement Goal #3: A positive climate and culture exists as evidenced by Positive Behavior Intervention Support system, implemented with fidelity, parent and
community involvement and a sense of community.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:
Climate Survey Data – predominant concerns regarding bullying and communication
New students and parents at the beginning, and enrolling throughout the school year, do not have
Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):
X School Plan under State Accountability
 Title I School wide or Targeted Assistance plan requirements  Title I Focus School Plan requirements
 Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)  Improvement Support Partnership (ISP) or School Improvement Grant
Description of Action Steps to Implement
the Major Improvement Strategy
Timeline
(2012-13 and
2013-2014)
Key Personnel*
Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state,
and/or local)
Implementation
Benchmarks
Status of Action
Step* (e.g., completed,
in progress, not begun)
The Second Step Program will be implemented
systematically at all grade levels during a 9th block
schedule.
First semester
2012
Core Teams
Second Step resources
Weekly
In progress
NJHS implementing the New Student Passport for
6th, 7th & 8th Grade
2012-2013
Julie Lindeman
NJHS Students
2012 - 2013
In progress
Implementation of teacher pages through Sharepoint
2012-2013
Staff
Sharepoint, Zangle
2012-2013
In progress
Family Involvement Toolkit Implementation
1. Welcoming Families
2. Communicating Effectively
3. Supporting Student Success
2012 – 2013
FIT Coach,
counseling,
administration
GT night for Coronado HS
Parent Forum
Latte with Leadership
NJHS passport
Hawk Night prior to 5th grade
registration
2012-2013
In progress
Section V: Appendices
Some districts/consortia will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements:
 Title I Schoolwide Program (Required)
 Title I Targeted Assistance Program (Required)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
20

Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability (Required)
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 3.1 -- Last updated: June 28, 2012)
21