Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2015-16 · CDE Improvement Planning Template...

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 7.0 – Template Last Updated: June 9, 2015)

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2015-16

Organization Code: 0880 District Name: DENVER COUNTY 1 School Code: 4795 School Name: KUNSMILLER CREATIVE ARTS

ACADEMY Official 2014 SPF: 3 Year

Section I: Summary Information about the School

Directions: This section provides an overview of the school’s improvement plan. To complete this section, copy and paste the school’s Priority Performance Challenges, Root Causes and Major

Improvement Strategies from Section III and IV of the 2015-16 UIP once it has been completed. In the UIP online system, this section will populate automatically as the UIP is written.

Executive Summary

How are students performing? Where will school staff be focusing attention?

Priority Performance Challenges: Specific statements about the school’s performance challenges (not budgeting, staffing, curriculum, instruction, etc.), with at least one priority identified for

each performance indicator (achievement, growth, growth gaps, PWR) where the school did not meet federal, state and/or local expectations.

KCAA administration and teacher leaders analyzed a variety of data and came up with the following priority performance challenges:

Growth: All grade levels in all content areas were below 55 MGP except for grade 5, and questions about grade 9.

o ELL: All ELs in K12 have MGPs below 55.

CCR: There are initial upward trends in ACT growth; however all College and Career Readiness indicators are below acceptable standards.

Engagement: Both parent engagement scores and parent response rates decreased K12.

Status: In all content areas, all grade levels are below 55% P&A/S&D with the exception of 9/10 reading.

Why is the school continuing to have these problems?

Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, of the performance challenges, that, if dissolved, would result in elimination, or substantial reduction of the

performance challenges.

School Code: 4795 School Name: KUNSMILLER CREATIVE ARTS ACADEMY CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 7.0 – Template Last Updated: June 9, 2015) 2

Through various discussions with school administration and teacher leaders, the following root causes were identified:

Lack of ownership of culturally responsive systems, including the lack of adaptability to meet individual student and staff member needs.

Lack of evaluation of current instructional systems.

Lack of a focus on norming all stakeholders on the vision and mission of KCAA.

Lack of vertical K12 alignment owned by teachers, students, staff, administration, parents, district, and community.

Lack of and inconsistent multi-directional communication, including voice, choice and access.

What action is the school taking to eliminate these challenges?

Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach that describes a series of related actions intended to result in improvements in performance.

Major Improvement Strategies include:

MIS #1: Develop instructional systems and structures to improve teacher effectiveness and student learning..

MIS #2: Implement professional development and teacher leadership structures to increase teacher effectiveness.

MIS #3: Develop systems to increase student engagement.

MIS #4: Develop a college and career readiness plan that ensures that all students are college and career ready.

MIS #5: Develop systems to strengthen parent and community partnerships.

Access School Performance Frameworks here: http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/performance

http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/performance


Pre-Populated Report for the School

Directions: This section summarizes program accountability requirements unique to the school based upon federal and state accountability measures. Historically, this report has included

information from the School Performance Framework; because of the state assessment transition and passage of HB15-1323, 2015 SPFs will not be created. 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 program expectations.

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan

Summary of School

Plan Timeline

October 15, 2015 The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.

January 15, 2016 The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.

April 15, 2016 The UIP is due to CDE for public posting on April 15, 2016 through Tracker or the UIP online system. Some program level

reviews will occur at the same time. For required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.

Program Identification Process Identification for

School Directions for Completing Improvement Plan

State Accountability

READ Act All schools that serve students in grades

Kindergarten through 3rd Grade. Currently serving

grades K-3

Schools serving grades K-3 must include targets and strategies that address the

needs of K-3 students identified as having significant reading deficiencies (e.g.,

instructional strategies, parent involvement strategies). Schools and districts

looking for the CDE approved scientifically or evidence based instructional

programs and professional development to support identified strategies may

access the advisory lists at

http://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/readact/programming

Plan Type Assignment

Plan type is assigned based on the school’s overall

2014 official School Performance Framework

rating (determined by performance on

achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary

and workforce readiness).

Improvement Plan

The school is approaching or has not met state expectations for attainment on the

2014 SPF performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement an

Improvement Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2016 to be

posted on SchoolView.org.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp


ESEA and Grant Accountability

Title I Focus School

Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate

(regardless of plan type), and/or (2) Turnaround

or Priority Improvement plan type with either (or

both) a) low-achieving disaggregated student

groups (i.e., minority, ELL, IEP and FRL) or b)

low disaggregated graduation rate. This is a three-

year designation.

Not identified as a

Title I Focus School This school is not identified as a Focus School and does not need to meet those

additional requirements.

Tiered Intervention Grant

(TIG)

Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified

as 5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I

eligible schools, eligible to implement one of four

reform models as defined by the USDE.

Not awarded a TIG

Grant This school does not receive a current TIG award and does not need to meet

those additional requirements.

Diagnostic Review and

Planning Grant Title I competitive grant that includes a diagnostic

review and/or improvement planning support.

Not awarded a

current Diagnostic

Review and

Planning Grant

This school has not received a current Diagnostic Review and Planning grant and

does not need to meet those additional requirements.

School Improvement

Support (SIS) Grant

Title I competitive grant that supports

implementation of major improvement strategies

and action steps identified in the school’s action

plan.

Not a current SIS

Grantee This school has not received a current SIS grant and does not need to meet those

additional requirements.

Colorado Graduation

Pathways Program (CGP)

The program supports the development of

sustainable, replicable models for dropout

prevention and recovery that improve interim

indicators (attendance, behavior and course

completion), reduce the dropout rate and increase

the graduation rate for all students participating in

the program.

Not a CGP Funded

School This school does not receive funding from the CGP Program and does not need

to meet these additional program requirements.


Section II: Improvement Plan Information

Additional Information about the School

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Related Grant Awards Has the school received a grant that supports

the school’s improvement efforts? When was

the grant awarded?

External Evaluator

Has the school partnered with an external

evaluator to provide comprehensive

evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of

the provider/tool used.

Improvement Plan Information

The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):

◻ State Accreditation ◻ Title I Focus School ◻ Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) ◻ Diagnostic Review and Planning Grant

◻ School Improvement Support Grant ◻X READ Act Requirements ◻ Other:

___________________________________________________

School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)

1 Name and Title Pete Castillo, Executive Principal

Email [email protected]

Phone 720-424-0200

Mailing Address 2250 S. Quitman Way, Denver, CO 80219

2 Name and Title Khristian Brace, Elementary Principal

mailto:[email protected]




Phone 720-424-0200


3 Name and Title Cori Canty Woessner


Phone (720)424-0228




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.

Implications of Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) on Data Analysis: During the 2014-15 school year, Colorado transitioned

from reading, writing and math TCAP assessments to CMAS PARCC English language arts and math assessments. These assessments measure

related, but different content standards and are expected to have different proficiency levels. As a result, updating the data analysis this year

(particularly the trend statements) may be more challenging. While the school’s data analysis is still expected to be updated, some modifications in typical practice may be needed.

Refer to the UIP state assessment transition guidance document on the UIP website for options and considerations.

Data Narrative for School Directions: In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including (1) a description of the school and the process for data analysis, (2) a

review of current performance, (3) trend analysis, (4) priority performance challenges and (5) root cause analysis. A description of the expected narrative sections are included

below. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Two worksheets (#1 Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been

provided to organize the data referenced in the narrative.

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

Review Current

Performance: Review

recent state and local data.

Document any areas where

the school did not at

least meet state/federal

expectations. Consider the

Trend Analysis: Provide a

description of the trend analysis that

includes at least three years of data

(state and local data), if available.

Trend statements should be

provided in the four performance

indicator areas and by disaggregated

Priority Performance

Challenges: Identify notable

trends (or a combination of

trends) that are the highest

priority to address (priority

performance challenges). No

more than 3-5 are

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


the general process for

developing the UIP and

participants (e.g., School

Accountability

Committee).

previous year’s progress

toward the school’s targets.

Identify the overall

magnitude of the school’s


groups. Trend statements should

include the direction of the trend

and a comparison (e.g., state

expectations, state average) to

indicate why the trend is notable.

recommended. Provide a

rationale for why these

challenges have been selected

and address the magnitude of

the school’s overall


was verified through the use of

additional data. A description of the

selection process for the corresponding

major improvement strategy(s) is

encouraged.


Narrative: Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy (KCAA) is now in its seventh year as a magnet school in the southwest region of Denver. The 2015-2016 school year will

serve as the second year in KCAA’s existence as a true K-12 school, as the building has now added its second 12th grade class. We are also in our third year of

implementing a transitional native language instructional program (TNLI) at the elementary level. Currently TNLI services students with Spanish and English

instruction in grades K-3, and English as a Second Language services in grades 4-12.

Our current demographics are still similar to those at our launch date in 2009/10: FRL - 83%, ELL- 31% (but with 688 Hispanic students out of 1007, many more

needed academic language development), minority combined - 82%, SPED -92 students with IEP’s.

KCAA has restructured its administrative team for the 2015-16 school year. For the past three years, there has been a K-12 Principal, an elementary Assistant

Principal, a secondary Assistant Principal, and three Administrative Assistants (Assistant Principal-type role) that have supported the Arts, Student Behavior and

Restorative Justice, and Assessments. This year, there is an Executive Principal that supports operational aspects of the school for grades K-12, and supervises

instructional systems in grades 6-12. An Elementary Principal was added, along with an Administrative Assistant (Assistant Principal-type role) to supervise

instructional systems in grades K-5. There is an Assistant Principal over grades 6-8 and an Assistant Principal over grades 9-12. There are three additional

Administrative Assistants that oversee Arts, Student Behavior and Restorative Justice, and Assessment and Data. Of the eight individuals on the administrative

team, five are new to KCAA this year.

The administrative team, together with teacher leaders from the School Leadership Teams and Instructional Leadership Teams, met several times to analyze data,

determine performance challenges and explore root causes. Various members of the team developed Major Improvement Strategies, and the administrative team

further defined the MISs by developing Action Steps.

The process to develop the Unified Improvement Plan this year was different than in previous years, including a different way of analyzing Root Causes. This

process led to different Major Improvement Strategies than in previous years. Teacher leaders have met several times during the school year to review the UIP

and the UIP tracker, which is used to monitor progress towards completion of action steps, in order to get a deeper level of understanding. The teacher leaders

have also disseminated the UIP information to the rest of the staff.

Academic Achievement Data Analysis

Data considered during the data analysis included academic achievement from TCAP, CMAS, ACCESS, ACT and AP scores. Data was disaggregated by grade

level, English Language Learners, and ethnicity, among other factors. Trend statements were developed and consolidated, when applicable, to determine

performance challenges, which were then prioritized. In light of the lack of PARCC results for 2015, trends were determined using TCAP data from 2012 to 2014.


Although some gaps were identified between subgroups in various areas, the prioritized performance challenges reflect pervasive issues that reflect needed

improvements for all students.

STATUS DATA

Reading Status:

Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced by Grade Level by Year (TCAP)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2012 46.94% 33.33% 62.96% 49.24% 42.42% 40.15% 50.00%

2013 41.18% 40.35% 45.61% 56.08% 45.83% 42.22% 60.94% 64.10%

2014 44.64% 42.00% 46.55% 51.02% 53.06% 40.00% 62.50% 69.39%

Trend: The percentage of students proficient or advanced has fluctuated by grade level, with all grades having less than 55% of students proficient or advanced

except for 9th and 10th grades.

Writing Status:



3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2012 32.65% 20.83% 55.56% 40.91% 42.42% 34.85% 25.00%

2013 16.00% 26.32% 38.60% 37.84% 44.44% 40.00% 42.19% 25.64%

2014 21.43% 22.00% 46.55% 44.22% 44.90% 33.10% 42.86% 44.90%

Trend: The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in writing at all grade levels, except 5th grade in 2012, has been below 50%.

2015 PARCC ELA test


Math Status:



3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2012 36.73% 37.50% 62.96% 44.70% 30.30% 23.48% 8.33%

2013 38.00% 35.09% 31.58% 48.65% 36.11% 31.85% 7.81% 12.82%

2014 28.07% 24.00% 46.55% 37.41% 34.01% 23.45% 25.00% 6.12%

Trend: The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in math for all grades, except for 5th grade in 2012, in below 50%.

2015 PARCC Math Test


PARCC Sub-Groups

Elementary PARCC Sub-Groups


Other race/ethnicities were not included in this analysis as they were groups smaller than 16. Students with IEPs were not included in this analysis as there were

less than 16.

Middle School PARCC Sub-groups


Other race/ethnicities were not included in this analysis as they were groups smaller than 16.

High School PARCC Sub-Groups:


Other race/ethnicities were not included in this analysis as they were groups smaller than 16.


PARCC Math and ELA Subgroup Performance Analysis:

KCAA has achievement gaps at all school levels. Achievement gaps are present between:

males and females

students who are Hispanic or of color and students who are White

English Language Learners (ELLs), non-ELLs and redesignated or exited ELLs

Students with IEPs and students without IEPs

Students receiving Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL) and students who pay for lunch

Students who are identified as Gifted and Talented (GT) and students who are not identified as Gifted and Talented

Percentile Trends in Reading, Writing and Math

In looking at performance over time between TCAP and CMAS PARCC scores, comparing percentile performance levels provides another perspective on student

achievement. The following tables represent KCAA’s percentile ranks in Reading, Writing and Math according to the 2013 and 2014 TCAP results and the 2015

CMAS PARCC results.

Reading Score Percentile Ranks 2013-2014-2015


KCAA has increased the percentile rankings in Reading from 2013 to 2015 for all students at the elementary and middle school levels. The percentile rankings for

high school students increased and then decreased in reading.

Trends of note:

Fourth grade students’ percentile rankings decreased then increased, which is different than the overall elementary school trend.

Seventh grade students’ percentile rankings increased then decreased, which is different than the overall middle school trend.


Tenth grade students’ percentile ranking increased, which is different than the overall high school trend.

Writing Score Percentile Ranks 2013-2014-2015

KCAA has increased the percentile ranking in Writing from 2013 to 2015 for all students at the middle school level. The percentile ranking for elementary

students decreased then increased. The percentile ranking for high school students increased and then remained flat in writing.


Trends of note:

Middle school students with disabilities’ percentile rankings remained flat at 1 percentile, which is different than the overall middle school trend.

Third, fourth and fifth grade students’ trends for percentile rankings were all different. The trend in fourth grade mirrored the overall elementary school

trend.

Seventh grade students’ percentile rankings stayed flat and then decreased, which is different than the overall middle school trend.

Ninth and tenth grade students’ trends for percentile rankings were different, and neither mirrored the overall high school trend.

Math Score Percentile Ranks 2013-2014-2015


The percentile ranking in Math from 2013 to 2015 for all students at the elementary school and high school levels remained statistically flat and then increased.

The percentile ranking for middle school students decreased then increased.

Trends of note:

Fifth grade students’ percentile rankings increased then decreased, which is different than the overall elementary school trend.

Middle school students with disabilities’ percentile rankings remained flat at 1 percentile, which is different than the overall middle school trend.


The trends for percentile rankings for students receiving Free or Reduced Lunch and for English Language Learners in high school both decreased and

then increased, which is different than the overall high school trend.

GROWTH DATA

Reading Growth: Average MGP by Grade Level by Year (TCAP)

GRAD

E 04

GRAD

E 05

GRAD

E 06

GRAD

E 07

GRAD

E 08

GRAD

E 09

GRAD

E 10

2012 52 50 49 55 41 57

2013 37 59 42 52 43 68 48

2014 36 59 43 47 48 49

Trend: All grade levels have had flat or declining median growth percentiles below 55, except for 5th and 9th grades.

Writing Growth: Average MGP by Grade Level by Year (TCAP)

GRAD

E 04

GRAD

E 05

GRAD

E 06

GRAD

E 07

GRAD

E 08

GRAD

E 09

GRAD

E 10


2012 42 56 63 59 52 60

2013 38 60 40 48 46 59 48

2014 31 78 53 52 44 57 46

Trend: All grade levels have flat, declining or decreased and then increased median growth percentiles below 60 except for 5th grade.

Math Growth: Average MGP by Grade Level by Year (TCAP)

GRAD

E 04

GRAD

E 05

GRAD

E 06

GRAD

E 07

GRAD

E 08

GRAD

E 09

GRAD

E 10

2012 33 59 59 42 35 46

2013 34 61 51 49 46 45 51

2014 26 71 45 37 36 30 38


Trend: All grade levels have declining or increased then decreased median growth percentiles below 50 except 5th grade.

CMAS Science and Social Studies


Data Observations: The percentage of students scoring strong or distinguished increased between 2014 and 2015, however there are achievement gaps between

various student subgroups, including ELLs and non-ELLs, SPED and non-SPED, and FRL and non-FRL.


Data Observations: The percentage of students scoring strong or distinguished stayed the same or increased between 2014 and 2015, however there are

achievement gaps between various student subgroups, including ELLs and non-ELLs, SPED and non-SPED, and FRL and non-FRL.


READ Act Data

Trend: The percentage of students in grades K-3 that are reading at or above grade level has remained flat between 2010 and 2014, with a slight increase in 2015.


Disaggregated Reading Data for grades K-3


Trend Statements: There are persistent achievement gaps in reading in grades K-3 between ELLs and non-ELLs, although this is showing recent signs of

narrowing. Other persistent achievement gaps exist between students receiving FRL and non-FRL, SPED and non-SPED, and White students and Students of

Color.

English Acquisition: ACCESS Scores


Data Observation: Higher percentages of KCAA EL students achieved an ACCESS level of 5+ in listening, comprehension and reading. Less than 20% of

KCAA EL students scored a 5+ in writing and speaking. Different grade levels had higher percentages of students achieving a 5+ in different composites or

domains.


ACCESS Growth


Trend: All grades combined have seen decreases in median growth percentile in ACCESS scores for ELs over the past three years. Grades 1 through 7 had higher

levels of MGP in 2013. Grades 8, 9 and 11 had higher levels of MGP in 2014. Grade 10 had higher levels of MGP in 2015.


Postsecondary Readiness

The 2014-15 school year was the first year that KCAA had seniors (12th grade students) and a graduating class. As a result, we are just beginning to collect

several data points, such as ACT scores, Advanced Placement test scores, graduation and completion rates, college applications. We continue to analyze dropout

rates, CTE program completion rates and ICAP participation. Our data observations are below.

Graduation Rate for 2014-15 seniors:

2015 Graduation Rate: 92%

Data observation: 23 out of 25 students graduated. The reasons why two students did not graduate are known, but are not discussed in this UIP due to the small

N.


Dropout Rates for 2012-2014 in grades 7-12:

2015 KCAA Dropout Rate: 0.7%

Trend: Dropout rates at KCAA remain low and below district and state averages.

Colorado ACT Results from 2014 and 2015:


Data Observation: The ACT composite score went up slightly from 2014 to 2015. English and Reading subtest scores went up but Math and Science subtest scores

went down.

There are gaps, many of which are increasing, in each subtest between students with Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL) and students without FRL, as well as between

White students and Students of Color.


Advanced Placement Exam Results (2015):

A total of 18 Advanced Placement Exams were taken by 17 students in three subjects (English Language Composition, Human Geography and US History) in

2015. The following table shows the results of the AP Exams.


Career and Technical Education Pathways (2015 graduating class):

The percent of students completing a Career and Technical Education pathway is 64%.

Postsecondary Applications, Scholarships and Experiences:

For our first graduating class, every senior completed a postsecondary institution application. A total of 62 college applications were submitted, and 29

scholarship applications were submitted. All seniors were accepted into at least one postsecondary institution.

Of our secondary students, nine students participated in student internships, 198 students were enrolled in precollegiate programs, and 209 students participated in

college visits. Approximately $422,000 in scholarship awards were received by both middle and high school students.

Parent Satisfaction Data


Trends: The response rate to the school’s parent satisfaction survey has decreased at the elementary and high school levels, and increased and then decreased at

the middle school level. The percentage of positive responses for all school levels has decreased from 2013 to 2015.

In analyzing specific data between 2014 and 2015 responses, the largest drops in satisfaction was at the high school level. Additionally, school satisfaction

questions in the ‘genera;’ category decreased at the elementary, middle and high school levels.

Student Satisfaction Data

Trends: The response rates for student satisfactions surveys was flat at the elementary level, and decreased then increased at the middle and high school levels.

Response rates remain high at all three levels. The percentage of positive responses increased at the high school level, and was flat at the elementary and middle

school levels.

In analyzing data at the category level between 2014 and 2015 responses, overall changes at the elementary and middle school levels indicated decreased

satisfaction and overall changes at the high school level indicated increased satisfaction.

Student Engagement Data

Attendance

The school goal is a 95% attendance rate. We have not met that goal for the past three years.


Behavior

The number of behavior counts by grade over the past five years was analyzed, but cannot be displayed in this UIP due to numerous Ns under 16.

The data is represented by total number of behavioral incidents, not number of students or percentage of students. As our school levels have

different enrollment numbers, this data must be considered in conjunction with contextual information such as number of students per grade level

and the number of students contributing to the behavioral incidents (for example, five students may be responsible for 25 incidents). Trend

information can be considered by looking at a single grade level over time. Trends from this table indicate either declining numbers of behavioral

incidents or no change in number of behavioral incidents over time, depending on the grade level.


Mental Health Concerns

KCAA has numerous students with diagnosed mental health issues. The school is in the process of designing a system to track students with

identified mental health concerns regardless of whether the student has an IEP or 504. The team has recently created systems to track students

indicating suicide and self-hard ideations.

During a two-month period of time in the 2015-16 school year, the school mental health team performed twenty suicide risk reviews. Members of

the mental health team called 911 for students demonstrating imminent risk for approximately 20% of the suicide risk reviews. Results from the

suicide risk reviews indicate that 50% of students are considered high risk.

Data Analysis, Performance Challenge and Root Cause Identification Process

Elementary and secondary teams met separately to develop data statements using the historic data presented above, as well as other information gathered from the

Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, attendance and discipline data, and staff culture information. The administrative team then met to look for commonalities and

differences in the data statements from the different school levels. As the data statements were reviewed, it was noted that there were many more similarities in

the data statements than differences, and performance challenges were written reflecting the full K-12 school. These performance challenges were then prioritized

by the administrative team, and later reviewed and re-prioritized by a team of teacher leaders, resulting in the following Priority Performance Challenges.

Priority Performance Challenges

The following performance challenges were identified:

Growth: All grade levels in all content areas are below 55 MGP except for grade 5, and questions about grade 9. All ELs in K12 have MGPs below 55.

College and Career Readiness: There are initial upward trends in ACT growth, however all College and Career Readiness indicators are below acceptable

standards.

Engagement: Both parent engagement scores and parent response rates decreased K12.

Status: In all content areas, all grade levels are below 55% Proficient and Advanced, or Strong and Distinguished, with the exception of 9th and 10th grade

reading.

After PPCs were identified, the K-12 administrative team and the K-12 teacher leader team participated in the circle process to identify root causes. All root


causes, both within the school’s control and outside of the school’s control, as well as grade level specific causes, were initially considered. Through a process of

questioning and consolidation, root causes were collapsed into statements that each team felt reflected the deepest, most underlying causes of our school’s

performance challenges that are within our control. Even though each team participated in the root cause analysis process separately, both teams arrived at

surprisingly similar root causes that they feel are accurate for all grade levels.

The following root causes were identified by both teams in the root cause analysis process.

Root Cause Analysis

Stakeholders, including administration and the school leadership teams, participated in a modified circle analysis to determine root causes. Consolidation and

questioning techniques led the teams to determine the following as root causes:




Lack of vertical alignment owned by teachers, students, staff, administration, parents, district and community.

Lack of and inconsistent multi-directional communication, including voice, choice & access.

Although multiple root causes were identified, the root causes are not linearly related to the priority performance challenges. Relationships between Priority

Performance Challenges and Root Causes can be seen in the following table:

Root Causes

Priority

Performanc

e

Challenges

Lack of ownership of

culturally responsive

systems, including

the lack of

adaptability to meet

individual student

and staff member

needs.

Lack of

evaluation of

current

instructional

systems.

Lack of a

focus on

norming all

stakeholders

on the vision

and mission of

KCAA.

Lack of vertical

alignment

owned by

teachers,

students, staff,

administration,

parents, district

and community.

Lack of and

inconsistent

multi-directional

communication,

including voice,

choice & access.


Growth: All grade levels in all content areas are below 55

MGP except for grade 5, and questions about grade 9. All

ELs in K12 have MGPs below 55.

X X

College and Career Readiness: There are initial upward

trends in ACT growth, however all College and Career

Readiness indicators are below acceptable standards.

X X

Engagement: Both parent engagement scores and parent

response rates decreased K12. X X X

Status: In all content areas, all grade levels are below

55% Proficient and Advanced, or Strong and

Distinguished, with the exception of 9th and 10th grade

reading.

X X

Through conversations between the administrative and teacher leader teams, major levels were identified as directions for KCAA to move forward towards

improvement. As conversations continued between the administration and district leadership, these levers were refined and narrowed into Major Improvement

Strategies reflecting research-based or evidence-based areas of focus for the 2015-16/2016-17 Unified Improvement Plan. The following Major Improvement

Strategies were identified.

Major Improvement Strategies

1. Develop instructional systems and structures to improve teacher effectiveness and student learning.

2. Implement professional development and teacher leadership structures to increase teacher effectiveness.

3. Develop systems to increase student engagement.

4. Develop a college and career readiness plan that ensures that all students are college and career ready.

5. Develop systems to strengthen parent and community partnerships.

A variety of visual organizers were developed to communicate the main points of the 2015-16 UIP to faculty, staff and community members. The graphic

organizers were primarily used to support the understanding of the non-linear relationships between the Priority Performance Challenges, Root Causes, High

Impact Levers and Major Improvement Strategies.


2015-16 Reflections and Next Steps:

KCAA’s administrative team and school leadership teams have stated that they appreciate the depth of data analysis and root cause analysis this year. The

recurring UIP meetings have supported the UIP as a living document with shared ownership among staff members. The administration continues to tweak and

refine action steps within the Major Improvement Strategies as we progress monitor whether or not the action steps are having their intended impact.

As KCAA continues to focus on continuous improvement, the Unified Improvement Planning process will begin during summer months to allow the

administration and school leadership teams to spend more time analyzing data and participating in the root cause analysis. As we dig deeper through the data with

consistent leadership teams, the resulting UIP document will reflect a more linear and streamlined process that reflects a whole child approach towards college and

career readiness.


Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2014-15 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included

in your UIP, the main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.

Performance Indicators Targets for 2014-15 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan)

Performance in 2014-15? Was the target

met? How close was the school to

meeting the target?

Brief reflection on why previous targets

were

met or not met.

Academic Achievement

(Status)

Literacy: DPS EOY Assessments

ES – 70% P/A

MS – 70% P/A

HS – 70% P/A

Literacy: DPS EOY Assessments

ES – P/A

MS – P/A

HS – 57% P/A (-13%) Target not met.

The school tried to implement a variety of

approaches to support student

achievement using inconsistent

messaging, training and support for

educators. This resulted in inconsistent

implementation of best practices.

Various curriculum implementation

strategies and instructional approaches

would conflict with each other from time

to time.

Pressure to demonstrate increased student

achievement outcomes as quickly as

possible has resulted in varying

curriculum and approaches that have

prevented educators from implementing

them in a culturally responsive

environment.

At the time targets were set, the school did

not consider the impact of PARCC on

proficiency scores. Additionally, end-of-

Math: DPS EOY Assessments

ES – 50% P/A

MS – 55% P/A

HS – 25% P/A

Math: DPS EOY Assessments

ES – P/A

MS – P/A

HS – 6.3% P/A (-18.7%) Target not

met.

Science: CMAS Assessments

ES – 35%

MS – 35%

HS – 40%

Science: CMAS Assessments

ES – 13% (-22%) Target not met.

MS – 12% (-23%) Target not met.

HS – %

Academic Growth

Literacy:

65% MGP

Literacy:

MGP

Math: Math:


70% MGP MGP year assessments were changed between

the time the targets were set and when the

end-of-year assessments were given. ELP:

65% MGP on ACCESS

ELP:

67.0 MGP on ACCESS in ES (+2%)

Target met.

29.2 MGP on ACCESS in MS (-22%)

Target not met.

65.9 MGP on ACCESS in HS (+0.9%)

Target met.

Academic Growth Gaps

Literacy:

Elementary 65%

Middle School 65%

High School 65%

Literacy:

Elementary

Middle School

High School

Math:

Elementary 65%

Middle School 65%

High School 65%

Math:

Elementary

Middle School

High School

Postsecondary & Workforce

Readiness

Graduation Rate:

100%

Graduation Rate:

92% (-8%) Target not met.

Dropout Rate:

0%

Dropout Rate (grades 7-12):

0.7% (+0.7%) Target not met.

Mean CO ACT:

Composite 19

Mean CO ACT:

Composite 18.4 (-0.6) Target not met.


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, when available, 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. In most cases, this should just be an update to the plan from 2014 since

the SPF has not changed for 2015. 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

Academic Achievement

(Status)

TCAP Score Analysis

Trend Statement: Trend: The percentage of

students proficient or advanced has

fluctuated by grade level, with all grades

Status: In all content

areas, all grade

levels are below

55% Proficient and

Advanced, or Strong

and Distinguished,

with the exception

of 9th and 10th grade

reading.

Lack of ownership of culturally responsive systems,

including the lack of adaptability to meet individual

student and staff member needs.



having less than 55% of students proficient

or advanced except for 9th and 10th grades.

Trend Statement: The percentage of students

scoring proficient or advanced in writing at

all grade levels, except 5th grade in 2012, has

been below 50%.



scoring proficient or advanced in math for all

grades, except for 5th grade in 2012, in below

50%.


in grades K-3 that are reading at or above

grade level has remained flat between 2010

and 2014, with a slight increase in 2015.


Data Observation: Higher percentages of

KCAA EL students achieved an ACCESS

level of 5+ in listening, comprehension and

reading. Less than 20% of KCAA EL

students scored a 5+ in writing and speaking.

Data Observation: : The percentage of

students scoring strong or distinguished

increased between 2014 and 2015.

Data Observation: The percentage of students

scoring strong or distinguished stayed the

same or increased between 2014 and 2015.


Academic Growth

TCAP Score Analysis

Trend Statement: All grade levels have had

flat or declining median growth percentiles

below 55, except for 5th and 9th grades.

Trend Statement: All grade levels have flat,

declining or decreased and then increased

median growth percentiles below 60 except

Growth: All grade

levels in all content

areas are below 55

MGP except for

grade 5, and

questions about

grade 9. All ELs in

K12 have MGPs

below 55.






for 5th grade.

Trend Statement: All grade levels have

declining or increased then decreased median

growth percentiles below 50 except 5th grade.

Trend Statement: All grades combined have

seen decreases in median growth percentile


in ACCESS scores for ELs over the past

three years.

Academic Growth Gaps

Postsecondary & Workforce

Readiness

Dropout Rates

2015 KCAA dropout rate: 0.7%

Trend Statement: Trend: Dropout rates at

KCAA remain low and below district and

state averages.

College and Career

Readiness: There are

initial upward trends

in ACT growth,

however all College

and Career

Readiness indicators

are below acceptable

standards.

Engagement: Both

parent engagement

scores and parent

response rates

decreased K12.




Lack of a focus on norming all stakeholders on the

vision and mission of KCAA.

Lack of vertical alignment owned by teachers, students,

staff, administration, parents, district and community.

Lack of and inconsistent multi-directional

communication, including voice, choice & access.

CO ACT


Data Observation: The ACT composite score

went up slightly from 2014 to 2015. English

and Reading subtest scores went up but Math

and Science subtest scores went down.

Graduation Rate

92%

Disaggregated Graduation Rate

This was not disaggregated due to low N.


Section IV: Action Plan(s)

This section addresses the “Plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, identify annual performance targets and the interim

measures. This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form on the next page. Then move into action planning, which

should be captured in the Action Planning Form.

School Target Setting Form

Directions: Complete the worksheet below. Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for the performance indicators (i.e.

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 were not met; targets should also be connected to prioritized

performance challenges identified in the data narrative (section III). 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.

Implications of Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) on Target Setting: During the 2014-15 school year, Colorado transitioned from reading, writing and math

TCAP assessments to CMAS PARCC English language arts and math assessments. These assessments measure related, but different content standards and are expected to have

different proficiency levels. As a result, setting targets based on the percent of students scoring proficient and advanced on TCAP is not appropriate. Furthermore, CDE does not

yet know if student growth percentiles and median student growth percentiles will be available for accountability, planning or reporting use. It is known that adequate growth

percentiles will not be available this school year for 2014-15 results. Target setting is still expected to occur in the UIP process during this transition period. However, some

modifications in typical practice may be needed. Refer to the UIP state assessment transition guidance document on the UIP website for options and considerations.


School Target Setting Form

Performance

Indicators

Measures/

Metrics

Priority

Performance

Challenges

Annual Performance Targets

Interim Measures for

2015-16

Major Improvement

Strategy 2015-16 2016-17

Academic

Achievement

(Status)

CMAS/PARC

C, CoAlt, K-3

literacy

measure

(READ Act),

local

measures

ELA

In all content areas,

all grade levels are

below 55%

Proficient and

Advanced, or Met

Expectations or

Above, with the

exception of 9th and

10th grade reading.

Grade 3: 55%

Grade 4: 55%

Grade 5: 55%

Grade 6: 55%

Grade 7: 55%

Grade 8: 55%

Grade 9: 55%

Grade 10: 55%

Grade 11: 60%

Grade 3: 60%

Grade 4: 60%

Grade 5: 60%

Grade 6: 60%

Grade 7: 60%

Grade 8: 60%

Grade 9: 60%

Grade 10: 60%

Grade 11: 65%

Formative assessments

will be used to progress

monitor literacy and math

during quarters 1-3, with

a summative assessment

in quarter 4.

MIS#1: Develop

instructional systems

and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership

structures to increase

teacher effectiveness.

MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

REA

D



below 55%

Proficient and

Advanced, or Met

Expectations or

above, with the


1. 65% of K-3 students

will read at/ above

grade level in Spring

2.80% of K-3 students

that are identified as

SBGL in Fall will be at/

above grade level by

1. 70% of K-3 students

will read at/ above

grade level in Spring

2.80% of K-3 students

that are identified as

SBGL in Fall will be at/

above grade level by

iStation results will be

used in September,

February and April

MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional


10th grade reading. Spring

Spring

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

M



below 55%

Proficient and

Advanced, or Met

Expectations or

above, with the


10th grade reading.

Grade 3: 55%

Grade 4: 55%

Grade 5: 55%

Grade 6: 55%

Grade 7: 55%

Grade 8: 55%

Grade 9: 55%

Grade 10: 55%

Grade 11: 55%

Grade 3: 60%

Grade 4: 60%

Grade 5: 60%

Grade 6: 60%

Grade 7: 60%

Grade 8: 60%

Grade 9: 60%

Grade 10: 60%

Grade 11: 60%






in quarter 4.

MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

S



below 55%

Proficient and

Advanced, or Met

30% of students will be

at Met Expectations or

above

40% of students will be

at Met Expectations or

above






MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and


Expectations or

above, with the


10th grade reading.

in quarter 4. student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

Academic

Growth

Median

Growth

Percentile,

TCAP,

CMAS/PAR

CC,

ACCESS,

local

measures

ELA

All grade levels in

all content areas are

below 55 MGP

except for grade 5,

and questions about

grade 9.

All ELs in K12

have MGPs below

55.

Wait until CMAS ELA

and Math Growth data

is available in summer

of 2016*

Wait until CMAS ELA



of 2016*






in quarter 4.

MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

M All grade levels in

all content areas are Wait until CMAS ELA


Wait until CMAS ELA

and Math Growth data Formative assessments


MIS#1: Develop



below 55 MGP

except for grade 5,

and questions about

grade 9.

All ELs in K12

have MGPs below

55.


of 2016* is available in summer

of 2016* monitor literacy and math



in quarter 4.

and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

ELP

All grade levels in


below 55 MGP

except for grade 5,

and questions about

grade 9.

All ELs in K12

have MGPs below

55.

80% of ELs in grades

K-12 will have MGPs

of 65 or higher on

ACCESS.

85% of ELs in grades

K-12 will have MGPs

of 65 or higher on

ACCESS.






in quarter 4.

MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.


Academic

Growth Gaps

Median

Growth

Percentile,

local

measures

ELA

All grade levels in


below 55 MGP

except for grade 5,

and questions about

grade 9.

All ELs in K12

have MGPs below

55.

Wait until CMAS ELA



of 2016.

Wait until CMAS ELA



of 2016.






in quarter 4.

MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership



MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

M

All grade levels in


below 55 MGP

except for grade 5,

and questions about

grade 9.

All ELs in K12

have MGPs below

55.

Wait until CMAS ELA



of 2016.

Wait until CMAS ELA



of 2016.






in quarter 4.

MIS#1: Develop


and structures to

improve teacher

effectiveness and

student learning.

MIS#2: Implement

professional

development and

teacher leadership




MIS#3: Develop

systems to increase

student engagement.

Postsecondar

y &

Workforce

Readiness

Graduation Rate

There are initial

upward trends in

ACT growth,

however all College

and Career

Readiness

indicators are below

acceptable

standards.

100% 100% On Track to Graduation

rates will be monitored in

September, January,

March and June.

MIS#4: Develop a

college and career

readiness plan that

ensures that all students

are college and career

ready.

MIS#5: Develop

systems to strengthen

parent and community

partnerships.

Disag. Grad Rate

There are initial

upward trends in

ACT growth,

however all College

and Career

Readiness


acceptable

standards.

100% 100% On Track to Graduation

rates will be monitored in

September, January,

March and June.

MIS#4: Develop a

college and career

readiness plan that



ready.

MIS#5: Develop



partnerships.

Dropout Rate There are initial

upward trends in

0% 0% Student attendance rates

will be monitored

MIS#4: Develop a

college and career


ACT growth,

however all College

and Career

Readiness


acceptable

standards.

monthly. readiness plan that



ready.

MIS#5: Develop



partnerships.

Mean CO ACT

There are initial

upward trends in

ACT growth,

however all College

and Career

Readiness


acceptable

standards.

19 composite score 20 composite score Practice ACT scores will

be obtained for all 11th

grade students in

October. ACT Prep

Program progress will be

monitored in February

and March.

MIS#4: Develop a

college and career

readiness plan that



ready.

MIS#5: Develop



partnerships.

Other PWR

Measures:

AP scores

Student and

Parent

Engagement

There are initial

upward trends

in ACT growth,

however all

College and

Career

Readiness

indicators are

below

50% of AP

scores will be a 3

or higher

Parent

satisfaction rates

will be 75% or

higher

65% of AP

scores will be a 3

or higher

Student and

parent

satisfaction rates

will be 85% or

higher

Practice AP exam

scores will be

obtained in February.

School-developed

satisfaction surveys

will be developed

and samples obtained

in October and

February during

MIS#4: Develop a

college and career

readiness plan that



ready.

MIS#5: Develop




acceptable

standards.

Both student

and parent

engagement

scores and

parent response

rates decreased

K12.

Parent-Teacher

Conferences.

partnerships.


Action Planning Form for 2015-16 and 2016-17 Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2015-16 and 2016-17 that will address the root cause(s) determined in Section III. For each major improvement

strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the major improvement strategy will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In

the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to

implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Additional rows for action

steps may be added. While the template provides space for three major improvement strategies, additional major improvement strategies may also be added. To keep the work

manageable, however, it is recommended that schools focus on no more than 3 to 5 major improvement strategies.

Major Improvement Strategy #1: Develop instructional systems and structures to improve teacher effectiveness and student learning.

Root Cause(s) Addressed:



Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):

◻X State Accreditation ◻ Title I Focus School ◻ Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) ◻ Diagnostic Review Grant ◻ School

Improvement Support Grant

◻X READ Act Requirements ◻ Other:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Description of Action Steps to

Implement the Major Improvement

Strategy

Timeline

Key

Personnel*

Resources (Amount and Source: federal,

state, and/or local)

Implementation

Benchmarks

Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress,

not begun)

2015-16 2016-17

English Language Acquisition:

Inventory, review and update Year-

round,

Year-

round,

Administrati

on, ISA

Funds for bilingual staff

members, schedule to

Monthly check-ins on

development and

In progress


existing internal English Language

Acquisition systems to ensure best

practices and progress monitoring:

K-12 ISA Team

K-5 TNLI instructional

system (identification,

placement and instructional

practices)

6-12 ELD instructional

system (identification,

placement and instructional

practices)

with

monthly

checks

with

monthly

checks

Team

Members

accommodate student

ELD needs, regularly

scheduled ISA team

meetings

implementation of ISA

team and instructional

practices; Master schedule

development to be checked

in March, May, August and

October; Student schedules

to be checked in August,

September and January;

Testing systems to be

checked in August,

October, January and

March.

Data Driven Instruction:

KCAA HS & MS:

-DDI will be embedded each month

in the planning stage of the POLO

cycle with individual teachers.

-DDI will be embedded into PLCs

each month through data reviews.

-DDI will be embedded in large

group PD sessions three times each

year using interim assessment s

(October, January and February).

KCAA ES:

-KCAA will develop and follow an

interim assessment calendar.

-KCAA teachers will engage in

weekly data team meetings to

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Administrati

on, Dean of

Assessment

& Data,

teachers

Scheduled individual time

between administrators

and teachers; scheduled

PLC and data team times;

scheduled large group PD

time

Monthly check-ins on PLC,

data teams and individual

teacher check-ins; quarterly

checks on implementation

of large group PD

In progress


analyze student work and determine

instructional strategies.

Observation & Feedback:

KCAA HS & MS:

KCAA will implement a systemized

cycle (POLO) that includes:

Planning (including DDI),

Observation/Feedback,

LEAP (evaluation), and

Observation/Feedback

to structure our observation and

instructional systems.

KCAA ES:

KCAA will implement consistent

observation and feedback cycles

with every teacher on staff.

KCAA will track teacher

observations in a network tracker

(Teacher Support Matrix).

KCAA ES leadership will train

Differentiated Roles in effective

observation and feedback cycles.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Administrati

on, Teacher

Leaders

(DRs),

teachers

Scheduled time for

classroom observations

and teacher feedback;

scheduled time for DR

training

Every teacher will have a

minimum of 17

observations during the

year (12

observation/feedback

sessions and 5 LEAP

observations); monthly

check-ins using the Teacher

Support Matrix

In progress

READ ACT:

All K-3 teachers will implement the

Istation assessment and analyze the

student reading data to identify

student needs. Students identified as

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Administrati

on, Dean of

Assessment

and Data,

Teachers

Scheduled time for

assessment, data analysis,

READ Plan development

and implementation.

Check-ins on reading

assessments in September,

November, and April;

Check-ins on READ Plans

developed in November

In progress


having significant reading

deficiency (SRD) will receive daily

guided reading instruction and

additional intervention as

appropriate.

and May; Check-ins

monthly on targeted

reading instruction

* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.


Major Improvement Strategy #2: Implement professional development and teacher leadership structures to increase teacher effectiveness.

Root Cause(s) Addressed: Lack of ownership of culturally responsive systems, including the lack of adaptability to meet individual student and staff member

needs.




◻ X READ Act Requirements ◻ Other:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Strategy

Timeline Key

Personnel*



Implementation

Benchmarks

Status of Action Step* (e.g.,

completed, in progress, not

begun) 2015-16 2016-17

Teachers will participate in

Professional Learning

Communities (PLCs) weekly to

develop teacher capacity and use

data to identify instructional

strategies around identified needs.

year-

round; 6

week

progress

checks

year-

round; 6

week

progress

checks

teachers,

administrato

rs,

Differentiat

ed Role

personnel

(DRs)

scheduled meeting times 6 week progress checks

using the WDN (West

Denver Network) PLC

rubric

in progress


Distributed Leadership Roles:

Three DR roles have been created

around math, literacy and

instructional support at the

secondary level.

At the elementary level, two

distributed leadership roles have

been developed for math and

English language development.

year-

round;

progress

checks

quarterl

y

year-

round;

progress

checks

quarterl

y

administrati

on,

Differentiat

ed Role

(DR)

personnel

targeted district funds,

school general funds,

schedule flexibility to

allow for DR time with

teachers

progress checks each

quarter around number of

observation & feedback

events and evaluations

in progress

The year-long calendar will be

adjusted to provide timely

opportunities for more in-depth

large group PD. Differentiated professional

development will be driven by

results of teacher observations and

evaluations.

year-

round

with

monthly

checks

year-

round

with

monthly

checks

administrato

rs, teachers,

staff

members

scheduled dates and times quarterly progress checks

using professional

development feedback

in progress



Major Improvement Strategy #3: Develop systems to increase student engagement.







◻X READ Act Requirements ◻ Other:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Strategy

Timeline Key

Personnel*



Implementation

Benchmarks



begun) 2015-16 2016-17

RIO- Restorative Intervention

Office:

We will implement culturally

relevant Restorative Justice

practices at KCAA, K-12, by

providing:

The Restorative

Intervention Office will

provide support

instructional leadership

feedback around classroom

restorative practices; and,

follow-up restorative

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Dean of

Students,

RIO

Coordinator

s

Professional Development

Time, district and state

supports

RJ training for MS

teachers completed by

October, monthly check-

ins and feedback from

administration

In progress


approaches “refreshers” in

individual as well as group

forums.

specific Restorative Justice

training for the MS core

content teachers and

specific arts teachers that

they can then share with

colleagues.

Rituals & Routines:

KCAA ES:

KCAA ES will develop clear and

consistent expectations for rituals

and routines in the classroom to

maximize instructional time and

student learning.

KCAA ES will implement

Community Meetings to foster a

positive student culture.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Administrat

ion, teachers

Professional Development

time, Community

Meeting time


implementation and

impact

In progress

Attendance:

KCAA will develop a school-wide

protocol to track student tardies

and attendance.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Dean of

Students,

administrati

on, Office

Staff, RJ

Coordinator

s

Meeting and Coordination

time


implementation and

impact

In progress

PBIS (Positive Behavior Support):

KCAA will develop a PBIS team

Year-

round,

Year-

round,

Dean of

Students,

Meeting and professional Monthly check-ins on

implementation and

In progress


to promote a positive student

culture and engagement.

with

monthly

checks

with

monthly

checks

administrati

on, RJ

Coordinator

s

development time impact

Arts Integration:

KCAA MS & HS:

Arts-focused postsecondary and

career experiences, such as campus

visits, career exploration,

shadowing/internship, visiting

career artist, 8th grade summer

college program, etc.

KCAA ES:

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Dean of

Arts,

administrati

on, Arts

Teachers,

Support

Staff

Meeting and professional

development time; time in

schedule for activities


development,

implementation and

impact

In progress


Major Improvement Strategy #4: Develop a college and career readiness plan that ensures that all students are college and career ready.



Lack of vertical alignment owned by teachers, students, staff, administration, parents, district and community.




◻ X READ Act Requirements ◻ Other:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Strategy

Timeline Key

Personnel*



Implementation

Benchmarks



begun) 2015-16 2016-17

Implement a vertically articulated

career and technical education

program that results in students

completing the requirements for

pathway completion (to the

standards of the PSR Diploma).

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Dean of

Arts,

Administrat

ion, CTE

Teachers,

Counselors

General Funds, grant

funds, time in schedule

Master schedule

development to be

checked in March, May,

August and October

Counselor checks with

students towards the end

of each semester

In Progress

100% of KCAA students by grade

12 will have taken a minimum of 4

Concurrent Enrollment classes and

will increase our pass rate to 76%.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Dean of

Arts,

Administrat

ion, CE

Teachers,

Counselors



Master schedule

development to be

checked in March, May,

August and October

Accuplacer testing to be

completed at the end of

each semester


students at the end of each

semester


professors on student

progress monthly

In progress

Provide additional college-

readiness exam supports, including

tutoring, practice tests and

community partnerships, to

students taking ACT and AP

exams.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Administrat

ion,

Counselors,

test prep

providers



Identification of student

need: Pre-ACT in

September, pre-AP in

February

Development of Exam

Support System by

In progress


January and implemented

by end of February

KCAA ES:

Teachers will align instruction to

the Common Core State Standards

to prepare students for college and

career readiness.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Administrat

ion, teachers

General funds, time for

alignment

Monthly CCSS alignment

meetings, formative

assessments aligned with

CCSS in October,

December and February

In progress


Major Improvement Strategy #5: Develop systems to strengthen parent and community partnerships.







◻ READ Act Requirements ◻ Other:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Strategy

Timeline Key

Personnel*



Implementation

Benchmarks



begun) 2015-16 2016-17


Multi-directional Communication

will occur in the following ways:

Parent Forums to include

Principal Coffees, Parent

Community Partnership

Meetings, ELA-PAC and

Superintendent Forums

100% of school-to-home

communication will be

provided as paper and in

electronic forms and will

also be translated in

Spanish

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Parent

Liaison,

Teachers,

Dean of

Arts, Office

Staff,

Administrat

ion

Title 1 and general funds,

Parent Liaison and Dean

of Arts scheduled time

Track the number of

parent forums and

meetings each month.

In progress

Volunteers:

Develop family and community

volunteer opportunities that will

help to meet the needs of KCAA

students and staff.

Track the effectiveness of the

volunteer positions according to

the volunteers and staff member(s).

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Parent

Liaison,

Teachers,

Dean of

Arts, Office

Staff,

Administrat

ion


Parent Liaison and Dean

of Arts scheduled time

Track the number of

volunteer opportunities

available and filled each

month

In progress

Social and Educational Activities

Engage parents and family

members in local college visits,

family training opportunities and

school and community arts events.

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Year-

round,

with

monthly

checks

Parent

Liaison,

Dean of

Arts,

Counselors,

Administrat


Parent Liaison, Dean of

Arts and Counselors’ time

Track the number of

college visits, parent

trainings and arts events

each month.

In progress


ion


Section V: Appendices

Some schools will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements:

● Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability (Required)

● Tiered Intervention Grantee (TIG) (Required)

● Title I Schoolwide Program. Important Notice: The schoolwide addendum is one of several ways to document how a school is meeting the Title I schoolwide

requirements. While schools operating a Title I schoolwide program must have a plan, use of the UIP addendum is optional. The Federal Programs Unit and the

Improvement Planning Unit will be offering training in fall 2015 on schoolwide requirements and the possible pathways to meet those requirements.

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2015-16 · CDE Improvement Planning Template...

Documents

Transcript of Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2015-16 · CDE Improvement Planning Template...