2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form...partnership with the University of Virginia (UVA)...

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 1

2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form School & District: Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District/2035

State Review Panelists: Mark Payler and Nancy Sanger

Recommendation Meeting Date: August 14, 2015

Panel’s Recommendation:

The State Review Panel recommends management by an external public or private agency for the Montezuma-Cortez School District based on an analysis of compiled data and as well as a site visit conducted on August 4, 2015.

Evidence and Rationale:

The State Review Panel recommends that the Montezuma-Cortez School District continue its management partnership with the University of Virginia (UVA) Turnaround Program. The non-negotiables of the program, combined with recurring 90-day monitoring visits, have borne fruit over the past two years and continuation of the partnership is the preference of the district leadership. As a result of this partnership, the State Review Panel (SRP) rated this district as Effective in the areas of leadership and personnel capacity, infrastructure, readiness and capacity to engage with an external partner, and likelihood of positive returns on investment. Specifically, the SRP noted that there have been significant changes in the district as a result of the UVA partnership. These include increased and effective use of data to inform instruction, increased and effective teacher leadership, development of building level leadership, and the development and use of common interim assessments. Results of this partnership to date have included academic growth at all levels, an increased graduation rate and decreased dropout rate, improved ACT scores and increasing student population.

The foundation of the UVA program is the development of 90-day plans developed for and by each school. Although only three district schools are officially part of the UVA program, the district has embedded the program in all district schools. The 90-day plans identify the root cause challenges of each school’s achievement, identify goals for improvement both over the 90-days and for the end of the year, and specify action plans to achieve those goals. The district cites the 90-day plans as the basis for the development and monitoring of the Unified Improvement Plan. The current infrastructure is adequate to support the ongoing district improvement through a continuation of the partnership. Development of teacher leaders has been a strength of the UVA program and its implementation in the district. TELL 2015 survey data indicates that teachers are in agreement with the program, and have benefited greatly from the professional development included, particularly in the development of common interim assessments and the analysis and use of data.

The curriculum has recently been realigned to Colorado State Academic Standards and new instructional programs implemented, including Success For All reading, Engage New York math, and Write Tools writing. Professional development in program implementation has been provided for all.

Building leadership has especially benefited from the district shepherd meetings, which are a requirement of the UVA program. Through these meetings, building leaders meet monthly with a district level shepherd who monitors progress on 90-day plans, co-observes in classrooms with the leader, and mentors the leader on the progress of his or her growth plan which has been developed to specifically target areas of need for that leaders. The district has also effectively engaged with other partners, particularly with the San Juan BOCES, which provides significant support for the district ESS program, including support for counselors. In addition, the BOCES has provided professional development, particularly in the area of analysis of assessments.

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 2

The State Review Panel does not recommend Innovation status for the Montezuma-Cortez School District. While the district would appear to be a target for innovation, based on the multiple areas in which it was rated Effective, the State Review Panel does not feel that conversion to Innovation status would be appropriate at this time. The State Review Panel identified teacher recruitment and retention as a major challenge for this district, due to the remoteness of the area and low salaries. Innovation status could exacerbate this problem by making it more difficult to recruit and retain teachers, particularly in competition with other districts in the state. Beyond the flexibility allowed in personnel matters, Innovation Status does not appear to provide any significant benefits to this district. In addition, the district has already demonstrated many early indicators of change without the process to reach Innovation Status and does not demonstrate an interest in this option at this time. The State Review Panel does not recommend charter status for the Montezuma-Cortez School District. There are currently three charter schools within the district and all are reported to be showing stagnant academic growth for their students, many of whom leaders noted were performing well in the district schools. Fewer than 10% of the student population of the community currently attend the charter schools, compared with 2,837 students in the seven district schools. District leadership reported that many students are choosing the district schools over the charter schools. Finally, it is apparent from the significant lack of community and family involvement that there is a degree of community apathy regarding the school district, which would make it difficult to find support for a district charter. The State Review Panel does not recommend district reorganization for the Montezuma-Cortez School District. The current district leadership is effective as evidenced by the partnership with the UVA Turnaround Program and the significant changes that have resulted in increased academic growth for students at all levels. Current leadership has communicated a laser-like focus on district turnaround and improvement, has ensured that data drives all changes and decisions made, and has communicated high expectations for all stakeholders. The State Review Panel does not recommend closure of the Montezuma- Cortez School District. The district serves a unique population in an isolated rural community, and the State Review Panel has determined that there is a need for the district that could not be served by another. Specifically, the district serves an extremely large geographical area of almost 1,400 square miles and most students are bused to and from school each day from all over that area. Moving students to another district would only acerbate that problem, leading to even longer hours for students in transit and high transportation costs. Additionally, closing individual under-performing schools within the district would likely lead to over-population in other schools. With only 5 elementary schools, one middle school and one high school in the district, there are not enough available options to serve displaced students in the case of school closure. Finally, removing the district from local control would only serve to increase the community apathy and may decrease parent involvement still further.

State Review Panel Site Visit Feedback Form 2015

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Site Visit Feedback Form - 1

The Purpose: The State Review Panel (SRP, or the Panel) was created by the Accountability Act of 2009 to provide a critical evaluation of the state’s lowest-

performing schools and districts’ plans for dramatic action and provide recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. The

Panel’s work is informed by a review of documents (e.g., Unified Improvement Plan) and, in some cases, by a site visit. The site visit component was added

in 2013 to strengthen panelists’ understanding of the conditions in the schools and districts that are further along on the accountability clock. The

expectation is that the site visit will inform their recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education about potential actions at the

end of the accountability clock.

Prior to arriving on site, panelists conducted a document review aligned to the six key areas in the Accountability Act. The results of this review were shared

with all members of the site visit team and helped inform the team’s work during the visit. On site at the school/district, the site visit team used evidence

collected through classroom observations, focus groups, interviews, and document review to come to consensus on capacity levels in relation to the six key

areas. This report presents the school/district’s capacity levels in relation to the six key areas and a summary of evidence for each. Reviewer Name(s): Nancy Sanger & Mark Payler Date: August 5, 2015 Form: [ ] Individual [X] Consensus

District Name/Code: Montezuma-Cortez RE-1/2035 School Name/Code: N/A

SRP Site Visit Summary (complete using ratings from the following pages) Capacity Level:

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Effective

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Effective

3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance.

Developing

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Effective

5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.

Effective

6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. Yes



Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based

on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or

system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective



SRP Evaluation Based on Site Visit

State Review Panel Criteria Claims & Evidence

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [X] Effective [ ] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

1.1: Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership communicates a relentless commitment to the school/district turnaround.

Leadership makes data-driven changes to the academic program and organization to promote dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership conveys clear expectations for performance for all stakeholders, including leadership, teachers, students, and partners.

Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

The district has partnered with the University of Virginia (UVA)

Turnaround Program for two years. This partnership, spearheaded

by district leadership, has resulted in significant changes in the

district. These include increased and effective use of data to inform

instruction, increased and effective teacher leadership, development

of building level leadership, and the development and use of

common interim assessments.

For example, stakeholders in focus groups reported that leaders

have used the partnership with UVA to spur change and promote

initiatives that have contributed to an increase in student

achievement, particularly in literacy achievement in the early

elementary grades. This was observed by the SRP in data reviewed

for the end-of-year assessment results from STAR tests,

demonstrating substantial improvements in both achievement and

growth over previous years.

All stakeholders reported that the UVA partnership has significantly increased the focus on the use of data in all areas. Extensive professional development has been provided to teachers and leadership at all levels on the use of data to inform instruction. Specifically, building and teacher leaders attended Bambrick-Santoyo training on data driven instruction. After focusing on development of interim assessments last year, district leaders reported that the focus now is on delving deeper into data and determining how best to use it to change instruction in the classroom. Leadership teams are also in the process of developing a rubric around the SEED data team component (the acronym used to refer to the school-level teacher leadership team meetings) with a focus on teacher action

1.2: Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges.

Leadership communicates data trends and issues, ensures timely access to data, and models and facilitates data use.

Leadership first concentrates on a limited number of priorities to achieve early, visible wins.

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results and effective use of data.

Leadership involves teachers in making and implementing meaningful decisions and policies that guide continuous school improvement.

Leadership targets resources (e.g., funding, materials, time, staff) toward the school's instructional framework and goals, treats resources flexibly, and implements focused improvement efforts with a focus on early wins.

1.3: Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

The school/district holds high expectations for academic learning.

Educators set high expectations for learning and clearly convey these to students.

Educators convey that students are responsible for raising their achievement and encourage their participation in learning.

The school provides a safe environment to support students’ learning and, in the case of a virtual school, ensures that students’ interactions between and among themselves and school staff are respectful and supportive.

Leadership ensures that school’s physical environment is clean, orderly, and safe.



planning. District stakeholders reported that all teachers understand and are using data.

Additionally, leaders reported that they have made strategic shifts to

the school calendar in order to support the focus on data, including a

change from a 4 to a 5 day week, flipping elementary and secondary

start times, and establishing a 90-minute early release time on

Wednesdays to allow SEED (teacher) teams to analyze formative

assessment data and plan instruction. Leadership reported that they

specifically built the calendar around the internal assessment work,

to ensure that regular cycles of assessment, analysis, and adjustment

were prioritized

The district has developed a robust focus on the development of both building and teacher leadership. Teacher leaders have been identified in each building and have become the leadership team of the building. District leadership reported that they strategically placed teachers who were strong supporters of the changes being made with those who were not and the result was that teachers took ownership of the process. Teacher leaders continue to receive the same professional development as building leaders and will receive additional leadership training.

A Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) to identify individual areas of need for building leaders is part of the UVA Turnaround process. The lowest competencies identified for principals have become the focus of their growth plans under UVA. Leaders reported that this has elevated strategies that principals have used to interact with teachers. For example, one principal identified that the area of shared leadership was identified as a growth area for her and she was able to make “huge gains” in that area by more intentionally delegating responsibilities. Another reported that he was able to use what he learned through his own growth plan with his leadership team.

The UVA partnership established a district level shepherd who

provides district support to continue support of building leadership.

That support is provided through a weekly meeting with each



building leader structured around an agenda determined by that

building’s needs and the leader’s growth plan. Examples of meeting

agendas were reviewed by the SRP, and school leaders in focus

groups indicated that these agendas were personalized, relevant,

and actionable. They reported that each meeting ends with an

action plan outlining what they will do in the next week and what the

district shepherd will do; the next week’s meeting begins with a

review of what each person did. Stakeholders reported that the

principals’ growth plans, described above, are addressed through the

shepherding process, as well.

Although financial resources are a challenge, leadership has consistently protected classrooms. Classroom teaching positions have not been targeted for attrition, while district level staff positions (e.g., Chief Operations Officer, Gifted and Talented) were eliminated and their duties absorbed by remaining personnel.

Finally, the UVA partnership spurred the district to push for teachers to develop and use common interim assessments. Training was provided to building and district leadership and teacher leaders and teachers were provided with professional development on the development and use of interim assessments through the UVA partnership. Teachers received additional training and mentoring through an Adams 14 partnership which helped them understand how to create quality interim assessments and trained them in how to write good questions and understand distractor analysis.

Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority

challenges.

District leaders and principals reported, and a review of the

professional development calendar confirmed that teachers have

received professional development in the analysis and use of data

and have access to all assessment data through the Alpine

Achievement data warehouse.



Data is transparent and available to all staff, parents and the school

board. Leads reported that data walls at each school document

student achievement levels.

Resource allocation decisions are based on data and resources are

targeted to address the needs the data identifies. For example, the

social-emotional data identified a need to provide additional

counselor support for students struggling with issues of poverty.

District staff reported that this data analysis led to the use of

resources to develop the counselor corps and enabled the district to

secure additional counselor and social worker support from BOCES.

District and building leadership reported that data indicating strong

middle school achievement was used to justify a focus on

improvement at the elementary school level and to move a high

performing middle school principal to a low-performing elementary

school for the 2015-16 school year. District leaders reported that

they felt that improving achievement at the elementary level would

ensure that students would continue to achieve at the middle school.

With leadership support, the focus on data allowed the high school

to identify and provide support to those students most at risk of

dropping out which has resulted in an increased graduation rate, and

decreased dropout rate.





2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [X] Effective [ ] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

The district/superintendent ensures ongoing leadership development for emerging and current school leaders with a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

The district/superintendent provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to deliver the curriculum, monitors instruction on a regular basis, and provides adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness

of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

Building leadership is being developed through the weekly shepherding

meetings with district leadership. District leaders described the

shepherding meetings as support with accountability. As noted above,

building leaders reported that the meetings include co-observation

walkthroughs by the principal and the district shepherd, progress

monitoring of the 90 day plans, support for implementation of the plans,

support for staff concerns, and work on the leaders’ growth plans.

Although only three schools (the lowest performing elementary

schools), are officially part of the UVA program, district leadership has

embedded the UVA work in all schools. All stakeholders noted that

leadership and staff in all buildings have received the assessment and

data training and all building leaders participate in weekly shepherd

meetings.

New instructional programs in reading, math and writing have been

adopted and implemented district-wide to replace the multiple programs

previously used. The district adopted Success for All as the reading

program to replace Open Court after a vote by teachers, which

leadership reported was very helpful with implementation. Engage New

York was chosen to replace Everyday Math, as part of a partnership with

Eagle County. The district also adopted The Write Tools program. District

staff members reported that they made program decisions with

significant teacher input and focus on “integrity” rather than “fidelity.”

2.2: School/district leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership has created and/or implemented an organizational and staffing structure that will drive dramatic student gains.

Leadership recruits and hires teachers with commitment to, and competence in, the school’s philosophy, design, and instructional framework (e.g., trained and experienced with curriculum, certified/licensed to teach, qualified to teach subject area).

Leadership ensures the evaluation of all staff, and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership provides teachers with active, intense, and sustained professional development (PD), including guidance on data analysis and instructional practice, aligned to school improvement efforts.

PD is informed by ongoing analysis of student performance, instructional data, and educators’ learning needs.

PD requires teachers to demonstrate their learned competency in a tangible and assessable way.

PD engages teachers in active learning and provides follow-up sessions and ongoing support for teachers’ continued learning.

The quality of professional development delivery is regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.



2.3: School/district leadership ensures that the school/ district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

School/district leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential school functions, and that roles and responsibilities of all individuals at the school are clear.

School/district leadership has established effective means of communicating with school staff.

School/district leadership ensures that the school meets all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state, including the submission of school improvement plans, financial statements, school audit, calendar, and student attendance.

School/district leadership effectively manages the school budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.

The school/district leadership effectively manages operations (e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

As noted above, the district has provided effective instructional

leadership through spearheading the development and implementation

of common interim assessments and data driven instruction in all the

schools. This work is now being led by teachers on the SEED team, those

teams who meet weekly as PLCs.

School and district leadership evaluates and develops all staff; dismisses

those who do not meet professional standards and expectations; and is

developing a focus on recruiting and retaining talent.

Development of teacher leaders has been a strength of the UVA program

and its implementation in the district. Building leaders reported that

teacher leaders comprise the leadership teams in their schools, drive the

PLCs, and are becoming change agents in the district. The district is

bringing the cohort of teacher leaders back to school early, before other

staff, to conduct leadership training. District leaders reported that the

teacher leaders will assist in the development of each school’s 90 day

plans and will be charged with presenting them to teachers.

The teacher evaluation process employs RANDA as a performance

management system and the evaluation process is compliant with the

CDE Educator Effectiveness program.

Professional development for program implementation has been

provided through the instructional programs Success For All and Engage

New York. Elementary building leaders reported that they worked with

Success For All to provide training that was specifically designed for their

staff and met the needs they had identified. In addition, teachers have

received training through the Literacy Design Collaborative and the Math

Design Collaborative which building leaders report has been very

successful. Professional development has been differentiated from

school to school to meet each building’s needs.

Leadership has identified serious social-emotional concerns stemming

from the culture and poverty issues in the district as well as the use of

methamphetamines. Professional development is being provided

2.4: School/district leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

School leaders ensure that the school implements a coherent, comprehensive, and aligned curriculum.

School leaders ensure that curriculum, instruction, and assessments are aligned with state standards, aligned with each other, and coordinated both within and across grade levels.

School leaders ensure that instructional materials are selected and/or developed in accordance with a school-wide instructional framework and aligned with established curriculum standards.

School leaders ensure the curriculum is periodically reviewed and revisions are made accordingly.

School leaders provide meaningful feedback on teachers’ instructional planning and practice.

Leaders regularly provide meaningful feedback on instructional planning.

Leaders regularly observe instruction and provide meaningful, timely feedback that helps teacher improve their practice.

School leaders provide conditions that support a school-wide data culture.

Teachers have easy access to varied, current, and accurate student and instructional data.

Teachers are provided time to collect, enter, query, analyze, and represent student data and use tools that help them act on results.



School leaders ensure that all teachers receive professional development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and interpret a range of data reports; frame questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment literacy, use data tools and resources).

through the “Getting Along” program and Eric Jensen’s work on poverty

to all staff. There has been an increased focus on social-emotional issues

as a contributing factor to the graduation rate. District leaders and staff

also reported that professional development around the development

and implementation of common interim assessments has been

challenging, particularly at the elementary school, but that teachers have

thoroughly adopted the development process. Stakeholders reported

that the development of the interim assessments and getting them

aligned was the first phase of the work, with the next phase being to go

deeper in the level of data analysis and ensuring that instruction will

actually change in the classroom.

District leaders and staff members reported that strategic personnel

changes have been made, including the removal of an ineffective

principal and the reassignment or dismissal of ineffective teachers.

Recurring issues of high staff turnover are being addressed through a

new district Talent Management plan which has recently been

developed to guide recruitment, retention and development of staff.

The plan includes providing for an improved rewards and incentive

package, including a stipend for moving expenses; an improved benefits

package; and developing an improved mentoring program for new staff.

District leaders acknowledged that budget constraints leading to low

salaries and the remote location in a small town contribute to retention

issues, and they intend to implement a “stay” interview to ensure that

the needs of teachers are being heard and acted upon.

2015 TELL Survey data included the following:

a. 82% of district teachers agreed or strongly agreed that teachers

are provided opportunities to take on formal leadership roles.

b. 87% agreed or strongly agreed that teachers are held to high

professional standards for delivering instruction.

c. 73% agreed or strongly agreed that professional development

offerings are data driven.

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction.

Classroom interactions and organization ensure a supportive, highly structured learning climate.

Classroom instruction intentional, engaging, and challenging for all students.

The school has created a performance-driven classroom culture in which teachers effectively use data to make decisions about daily instruction and the organization of students.



d. 77% agreed or strongly agreed that professional learning

opportunities are aligned with the school’s improvement plan

(e.g., Unified Improvement Plan.)

e. 87% agreed or strongly agreed that teachers are encouraged to

reflect on their own practice.





3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

3.1: Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Leadership communicates clear and focused goals that are understood by all staff.

Data on progress toward goals drives organizational and instructional decision making.

Educators understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains school-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Progress toward school goals is shared regularly across the school.

Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals to

promote student performance and adjusts actions plan in response to a

systemic review of data.

As mentioned above, 90 day plans are developed by each school and

implementation is monitored through weekly shepherding meetings.

The plans include root causes, performance challenges, goals, and

action plans as well as evidence of progress to be provided. The plan

is intended to insure a focus of all stakeholders on the school’s

turnaround initiative and includes “quick wins” intended to build and

maintain momentum. For example, one 90 day plan reviewed by the

SRP identified that student engagement was low and set a goal of

80% engagement. The plan identified the root cause as a lack of

teacher use of engagement strategies. The action plan described

review of Teach Like a Champion strategies in weekly building

meetings and weekly observations focused on those strategies as

implementation benchmarks.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim

results toward goals through ongoing data analysis at all levels

including building shepherd visits and weekly SEED team meetings.

There is a clear delineation of roles between building and district

leaders, which is monitored through shepherd meetings.

District leaders reported that they create a UIP that they identify as

aligned with and further developed through the 90 day plans.

Monitoring of progress toward UIP goals is done through the

progress monitoring of performance and implementation data in the

90 day plans.

3.2: Leadership adjusts implementation of the action plan in response to systematic review of data.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals.

There is regular progress monitoring of performance and implementation data and, as appropriate, results lead to elimination of tactics that do not work.

Benchmarks are used to assess progress toward goals; goals are adjusted as progress is made.

3.3: The

school/district

engages the

community and

families in support of

students’ learning

school improvement

efforts.

School/district includes parents/guardians in cultivating a culture of high expectations for students’ learning and their consistent support of students’ efforts.

School/district invites family participation in school activities (e.g., volunteering in classrooms or on committees; attendance at performances, sports events, organizational meetings) and regularly solicits their input.

School/district offers workshops and other opportunities for parents/guardians to learn about home practices that support student learning.

Educators communicate with parents/guardians about instructional programs and students’ progress.



The district does not yet effectively engage the families and

community.

District leaders and staff, along with school principals, reported that

they have struggled to effectively engage families in the schools.

District staff noted that substantial efforts have been made to

improve the level of engagement. Specifically, as a part of the new

teacher orientation process, new staff participate in community

tours which provide them with exposure to the significant poverty

experienced by many of the district's students. Additionally, district

leaders reported they are attempting to improve community

outreach through a weekly RE-1 Focus newsletter providing

information on district programs which appears on the district

website. A Weekly Staff Spotlight celebrates district employees on

the website.

Principals reported attempts to engage community and families

which varied by school, and most building leaders acknowledged

that these attempts had limited effectiveness. Specifically, district

staff reported that participation in parent-teacher conferences

ranged from 60-70% at the elementary level and dropped at the

middle and high schools. Additionally, district staff estimated that

only 30-40% of families use the student information portal.

Stakeholders reported that parent involvement varies by school and

location, with substantial differences between the in-town and rural

schools. In 2015 TELL survey data, only 41% of teachers agreed or

strongly agreed that the community they serve is supportive of the

school.

Leaders reported that a community survey has not been done for 3

years, and a review of documents indicates no parent or community

stakeholder involvement in the development of the Unified

Improvement Plan (UIP).

When asked about effective community engagement, stakeholders

repeatedly pointed to a new high school which has been built



through a BEST grant and will open this year. Leaders reported that a

significant majority of the community voted for funding for the new

school. However, despite this achievement, stakeholders repeatedly

reported ineffective work with parents and community. In some

instances, the SRP noted that stakeholders expressed the belief that

families should be responsible for reaching out to the district, putting

the onus on families to initiate contact. Stakeholders did identify

numerous attempts to reach the community, but as noted above,

these have not been consistently effective and all acknowledge that

this is an area for improvement.





4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [X] Effective [ ] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

4.1: The school/district collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

The school/district seeks expertise from external partners, as appropriate (i.e., for professional development, direct support for students).

The school/district ensures that roles and responsibilities of existing partners are clear.

There are designated school/district personnel to coordinate and manage partnerships.

The district collaborates effectively and leverages partnerships to support

student learning.

The district has effectively partnered with the University of Virginia

Turnaround Program for 2 years and the partnership has resulted in

dramatic changes in the schools. It has led to a partnership with the

Adams County 14 School District, which has provided significant support

in the development of common interim assessments. Additionally, the

district has seen significant growth and development of building leaders

and teachers through attendance at UVA conferences and trainings. The

development of 90 day plans has provided a way for buildings and the

district to not only plan for improvement but to effectively monitor that

improvement through the use of data, shepherding meetings with

buildings, and periodic meetings with UVA personnel.

Leaders and district staff members reported a strong partnership with

the San Juan BOCES, which provides support in ESS and counseling as

well as academic and professional development. For example, BOCES

personnel provided teachers with training in data analysis and the

analysis of assessments to specifically identify instructional needs

through the use of assessment data. The BOCES provides a psychologist

and social workers as well, to support direct services for students.

The district has a partnership with Colorado State University through the

CSU Alliance program which elevates the expectations of students and

their families regarding the importance, access and attainability of higher

education. At the middle school level, stakeholders reported, this

partnership has successfully engaged parents in working with their

4.2: The school/district leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

The school/district maximizes existing partners’ efforts in support of improvement efforts.

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.



students to plan post-secondary success through parent meetings that

were well attended.

Other partnerships include the Child Advocacy Center and the Pinon

project, which provide peer-to-peer counseling and adult mentoring.

Additionally, the district has recently entered into a Literacy Design

Collaborative partnership with Gates Foundation.



SRP Evaluation Based on site visit


5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [X] Effective [ ] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leadership identifies turnaround strategies and implements programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance.

Leadership assesses the cost and impact (effect on student achievement and number of students served) of each program/initiative to determine its academic return on investment.

Leadership makes decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on this analysis.

Leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Leadership is monitoring return on investment.

Leaders in focus group interviews reported a constant use of data and a

focus on end goals. Specifically, leaders cited the following success

measures: percentage of students college-bound, percentage of students

college-prepared, and percentage of students graduating from high

school. The high school graduation rate has improved to 80.7% while the

dropout rate has decreased and ACT results have improved to 18.8. In

addition, district leaders reported that the student population in district

schools is increasing as students are choosing district schools over

charters. Leadership identifies this data as indicating that the significant

investment made in the UVA program and the professional development

and growth of both building leaders and staff has been worthwhile.

Because teacher recruitment and retention are major challenges in this district, leaders also defined return on investment as developing strategies to recruit and retain good teachers. They cited the cost of training and then having to replace teachers as justification for the expense of a good benefit plan and the development of the Talent Management Plan.

Funds are leveraged to provide the most significant impact on student achievement; for instance, district leaders and financial staff reported that they are using English Language Proficiency Act (ELPA) funds in high school and elementary schools to improve Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) results because that is where the largest population of language-challenged students currently exists. Additionally, two 21st century grants ended this year. The district has received permission from CDE to use their SES funds to provide for the afterschool tutoring that was part of the 21st century program. The

5.2: Leadership is responsive to feedback and uses resources effectively.

Leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

Leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment.

Any additional resources received (i.e., specialized grant funding) are aligned, strategic, and showing evidence of results.



district will provide its own tutors and partner with other providers. Finally, Title I funds are being directed to elementary schools. Leaders reported that they want to put the extra support in elementary schools so it won’t be needed at the middle school, making this a strategic investment with a long view of its return on investment. Leaders noted that roughly 80% of allocation at Title 1 goes to salaries, including SFA reading facilitators and kindergarten positions to provide full-day kindergarten.





6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. [X] Yes [ ] No

Considerations:

6.1: The school/district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

All stakeholders share an understanding of, and commitment to, the mission and vision.

School/district programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

The mission and vision meet the needs of an identified student population

The district meets a unique need and there is no other viable option to

serve this population.

The Montezuma-Cortez school district is located in the southwest corner

of the state and includes 7 traditional schools and 3 charter schools.

Student population was 2837 in October, 2014 and includes 50% white,

19% Hispanic, and 27% American Indian. 60% of the students receive

free or reduced meals. 5% are designated as ELL students, although

leaders reported that many more have significant language challenges

due to poverty. 10% of the students qualify for special education. The

district serves an extremely large geographic area (1308.35 square

miles) bordered by the Dolores, Mancos and Durango school districts, as

well as New Mexico and Utah.

There are limited other school options available. While there are

currently three charter schools within the district, several stakeholders

expressed the belief that community apathy would preclude the

successful development of adequate charter facilities.

6.2: There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

There are limited other school options available (e.g., online, charter, district).

The school/district serves an isolated and/or remote community.

Closure would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison schools do not promote better student outcomes.

State Review Panel Document Review

Feedback Form 2015

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Document Review Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: To critically evaluate the school or district plan (i.e., Unified Improvement Plan). This report will be used as one element of a body of evidence to inform actions that may be undertaken by the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education.

Reviewer Names: Nancy Sanger and Mark Payler Date: 7/24/2015

District Name/Code: Montezuma-Cortez RE-1/2035 School Name/Code:

Performance Trends Trend Trend

(based on % of pts. on DPF/SPF) Up Flat Down Varies None Up Flat Down Varies None

Overall X Growth Gaps OR Student

Engagement X

Achievement X PWR (District/High School Only) X

Growth X

SRP Summary (complete using ratings from the following worksheets) Capacity Level:

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Developing

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Developing

3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance.

Developing

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with, and benefit from, the assistance provided by an external partner. Effective

5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.

Developing

6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. Yes

Based on your professional judgment, will the plan result in dramatic enough change to pull the school/district off the accountability clock if it is implemented as written?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [X] Not sure, more information is needed. Specify the additional information required. (Site visit to get better handle on mission/vision)

Based on your professional judgment, what is your overall level of concern regarding this school/district’s ability to significantly improve results?

Level of Concern: [ ] High [X] Moderate [ ] Low [ ] Cannot determine. Specify the additional information required.


Feedback Form 2015


Overall Comments:

The Montezuma-Cortez School District serves approximately 2900 students in the southwest corner of Colorado. The district is entering year 5 of Priority Improvement and neither achievement nor growth has shown significant improvement over the past 5 years. The current superintendent was appointed 3 years ago and over the last few years has entered into partnerships with CDE and the University of Virginia School Turnaround Program. The UVA program began in the spring of 2014 and the current UIP addresses the implementation of that program in three schools as well as work district wide to improve student achievement through the use of data driven instruction as part of a standards-based teaching/learning cycle. The approach described is promising, but will take time and commitment to achieve results.

The district has worked hard to engage their external partners in trying to find the magic bullet for improvement. There is an obvious want and desire to improve for the benefit of the students the district serves. The dynamics of the region are difficult, but certainly not impossible. The overall UIP plan is rich with data, but somewhat lacking in analysis and strategic planning. The improvement strategies are good, but the action steps are not always aligned to provide the highest potentiality of success.

Areas that should be explored more deeply through an on-site visit:

Talent management is a concern for this district. What is being done to mentor new teachers? What is the level of buy-in from teachers, particularly in the three elementary schools working with UVA? What leadership changes have there been at the building level?

Beyond CDE, who was involved in development of the UIP and especially the action plan?

The extent to which differentiated support is being provided to schools: What assessment of school needs has been completed?

To what extent has the action plan been implemented? What professional development have teachers had? Are data teams taking place and what are the outcomes?

Have interim assessments been administered as planned and what did results show?

What is the mission/vision for the district? Does the staff have that same mission/vision in mind?

Is the practice in the building aligned with the plan, as it is written, or is something else happening?

How can the district engage the community in the process of improvement?


Feedback Form 2015


Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based

on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or

system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation


Feedback Form 2015


SRP Evaluation Based on Unified Improvement Plan and Other Available Documents

State Review Panel Criteria Source(s) of Evidence

Notes

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

1.1 Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership makes changes that deviate from organization norms or rules – not just for the sake of change, but to intentionally achieve positive outcomes.

Major improvement strategies and action plan

Leadership in Montezuma-Cortez has been stable for the past three years. The Major Improvement strategy #1 implies that new secondary leadership staff will be trained in the DDI model.

There is a significant amount of data represented in the UIP document. It is not evident who the data will be shared with and what the data will be used for in the planning process. The effort to implement three major improvement strategies with multiple action steps is evident, but not necessarily aligned to identified root cause analysis. The UIP includes performance data and presents growth gap data, but there is no evidence of deep data analysis to identify the causes of poor student performance. Beyond the growth gap data, there is no disaggregation of performance data, particularly around minority and FRL subgroups, which could be helpful in identifying the causes of drop-out and graduation challenges, as well as performance at all levels.

The degree to which leadership has been continuous over time. Any change(s) in leadership is utilized to activate and sustain dramatic change.

Human Resources data

1.2 Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges.

Leadership analyzes data about the organization’s performance to identify high-priority problems.

Data analysis and data narrative

Leadership focuses on a limited number of changes that will achieve visible wins for the organization.

Priority performance challenge(s), root cause(s), major improvement strategies and action plan

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results. (Assessment data --both interim and summative-- and implementation benchmark data are described in the plan(s), including how data will be used to drive described work.)

Target setting form, Action Plan


Feedback Form 2015


1.3 Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

Elements of climate and culture are identified and addressed in the plan(s).

Data Narrative, Root Cause Analysis, Action Planning

The greatest performance challenges appear to be at the elementary level and particularly in three schools, but there is no data presented to acknowledge those challenges.

Performance targets are provided using STAR and DIBELS data, but it is unclear how those targets were identified.

Implementation benchmarks do not provide a means of assessing the effective implementation of action steps and in many cases are action steps.

The district appears open to change and is implementing specific strategies, e.g., the UVA partnership, to improve student success.

The data narrative presents TELL survey data regarding teacher and staff reflections on the use of time, facilities and resources, community support, student conduct, teacher and school leadership, professional development and instructional practices. No other evidence pertaining to climate and culture are considered.


Feedback Form 2015


2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

Others inside and outside the organization are contributing their effort and see a clear picture of success and its benefits. (Evidence of internal and external stakeholder involvement in development and implementation of UIP – for example PLC’s, building leadership teams)

Data Narrative, Action Plan

The district has a partnership with the University of Virginia, working collaboratively to focus efforts on improvement. There is no evidence of local stakeholders having involvement in the development of the UIP. There is some mention of PLC work completed at the school level, but not in conjunction with the development of the UIP. The elementary schools are working with CDE. Two of the elementary schools have been identified as Title I Focus Schools and thus are receiving additional embedded coaching and support in reading and writing through Title IA and Title IIA funds. Secondary teachers will be receiving training on the development of effective interim assessments through CDE support.

The district provides some reflective data from the Tell survey about the difficulty to hire quality staff and the low salaries of teachers in the area.

There is no evidence in the plan that reflects information concerning financial systems within the district.

There is evidence of significant process development for effective PLC teams throughout the district, including the use of interim assessments. The plan identifies STAR and DIBELS assessments and interim assessments and indicates that results will be used to improve Tier 1 instruction. At the secondary level, the action plan indicates that teacher made interim assessments will be developed and administered. That cannot be determined through the UIP document and the data does not support that high quality instruction is taking place.

2.2: School/district leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Indication of strategic staff changes, particularly at the supervisory level, to support dramatic improvement efforts.

Data Narrative, Action plan

2.3: School/district leadership ensures that the school/district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

Assessments (both interim and summative) and their results are identified and appropriately described in the plan(s).

Data Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan

2.4: School/district leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

Instructional needs and associated assessments are identified as a mechanism to address performance needs.

Organizational routines are established that include ongoing data analysis to improve student learning. (Evidence of interim measures and how they will be used to monitor results.)

Target Setting (interim measures) and Action Plan (implementation benchmarks) Data Narrative, Action Plan

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction.

n/a n/a


Feedback Form 2015


3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

3.1: Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

The organization focused on high goals rather than on partial success. When a goal is met, the bar is likely to be raised.

Previous Targets Form, Target Setting Form and Action Plan, Previous UIPs (if applicable)

The action steps listed show a focus on the improvement of instructional and instructional processes; for example, “Systemic use of data to adjust instruction to increase student proficiency levels in reading.” The action plan does not specifically tie back to the root cause analysis and/or the data used in determining possible system issues.

There seem to be many action steps listed under the strategies, which are broad and somewhat vague. For instance, it is unclear how the action step “Implementation of Success for ALL reading framework with fidelity” aligns with the improvement strategy: “The district will implement a system of differentiated support and accountability that includes common expectations for schools on PI or T, weekly visits to schools, and meaningful monthly principal meetings.”

It is unclear if strategies that have not been successful have been eliminated. There is not enough specificity in the use of resources to determine if the plan is focusing all necessary resources on completion of the plan. It does not provide a clear design for effective implementation of the improvement strategies or monitoring that effectiveness.

The implementation benchmarks listed are more of a checklist than a systemic process to determine effective practices. Dates for interim assessments administered 3 times a year are identified and systems described for the use of results in monitoring progress and adjusting instruction.

There is very little about family involvement in the plan or how families might be impacted by the strategies mentioned.

The action plan is clear that change is mandatory, not optional. A sense of urgency is evident in the plan and does not include blaming or excuse making. There is a clear sense of ownership for performance and actions.

Action plan (to some extent the data narrative to get a sense of ownership in the root cause analysis)

Action plan is so clear that everyone involved knows specifically what s/he needs to do differently. Evidence that there is alignment throughout the plan and a logical progression of planning built on data.

Entire UIP with particular emphasis on the Action Plan

3.2: Leadership adjusts implementation of the action plan in response to systematic review of data.

Tactics that do not work are strategically eliminated and the plan focuses on tactics that work. The plan focuses limited time and money where they will have the most impact on critical results. Evidence that the plan presents a clear strategy and alignment of resources and a clear change in direction in response to performance.

Action Plan

Systems are set up to measure and report interim results often to enable the rapid discard of failed tactics and increase successful tactics essential for fast results. (Evidence of progress monitoring activities, review of performance and implementation data. The targets/interim measures and activities/implementation benchmarks are framed in a way that can be measured and used to adjust systems as needed.)

Target Setting Form and Action Plan

3.3: The school/district engages the community and families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

Strategies for community and family involvement are incorporated throughout the plan

Parent Involvement Plan is present (for Title I Schools only) and details strategies for involving families to advance student learning.

Action Plan

Parent Involvement Agreement/Compact (Title I Schools only)


Feedback Form 2015


4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [X] Effective [ ] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

4.1: The school/district collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

Articulation of roles/responsibilities with external entities (e.g., district level staff, BOCES staff, vendors, CDE) is evident. (District involvement with and support of school is evident.)

Action Plan

The primary external support mechanisms are the relationship with the UVA and CDE. The work has been occurring over the last few years with very little improvement in student achievement or growth being realized from the relationships.

The action steps listed do indicate how the relationship between the external providers and the district work, but are not specific in identifying who is responsible for each task.

4.2: The school/district leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

Activities of external entities align with major improvement strategies and performance needs of the school/district (not just a list of services the entity provides).

Action Plan


Feedback Form 2015


5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Additional resources provided through specialized grant funding are aligned, strategic and show evidence of positive results. (Districts/schools that have received additional funds.)

Data Narrative, Action Plan

The resources listed in the action plan give reference for their use, but there is not specificity in the dollar amount or the duration of how the resources are to be applied.

The resources do appear to be aligned with the improvement strategy, but only the source of funds is identified with no amounts specified.

The UIP has been developed with CDE and has incorporated the recommendations and required changes from 2014, including the inclusion of interim assessment data and prioritization of action steps.

5.2: Leadership is responsive to feedback and uses resources effectively.

Identification of resources is aligned and strategic.

Action Plan

(For Districts and Schools previously reviewed by CDE) There is evidence that feedback provided on previous UIPs has been integrated into the current plan.

Previous UIPs and associated feedback


Feedback Form 2015


6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. [X] Yes [ ] No

Considerations:

6.1: The school/district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

Population of students served is clearly identified.

Data Narrative

The UIP clearly indicates that the district is invested in improving the instruction that is provided to the students of the area. There is a great deal of dedication to this work and resources are being directed to make real, systemic change. The population of the Montezuma-Cortez School District is minimally described and the data narrative fails to tell the district’s story or clearly identify its challenges. The 2015 UIP presents a much more focused and systemic approach to improvement than that indicated in the 2014 plan. If the action plan is implemented with fidelity and both that implementation and student progress is effectively monitored, student achievement and growth will improve, but this will take time.

There are no other viable options in the region to effectively work with this large of a student population.

6.2 There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

n/a n/a

2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form...partnership with the University of Virginia (UVA)...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form...partnership with the University of Virginia (UVA)...