UIP

download                                                                   man

 

District Code:  0880                        District Name:  Denver Public Schools        School Code: 4450      School Name: Johnson Elementary                                                 Official 2016 SPF:
Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2016-17

 

Executive Summary
Johnson Elementary Context
Johnson is a school of 400 students in SW Denver with demographics of 93% FRL, 64% Minority, 55% ELL, and 9.1% SPED.  It is an expanded learning opportunities school focused on bilteracy, and has begun a pilot program exploring personalized learning.  Our goal is to provide students with a well rounded educational experience that builds academic and social emotional skills in students first and second languages.

 

 

If we…

Major Improvement Strategies
 

 Deepen instructional practices around increasing rigor and aligning instruction to focused content language objectives

Implement Data Analysis Cycles that will be built using common formative and interim assessments designed to increase rigor around targeted standards.

Improve student culture that will build on foundation of values to create an environment where students feel a sense of joy, agency, and ownership.

Deepen and increase community engagement through regular communication and increased opportunities for parent engagement.

 

 

 

Then we will address…

Root Causes
 

Our lack of rigorous planning aligned to standards, differentiated planning to meet individualized student need, student voice and choice, and parent engagement.

 

 
 

Then we will change current trends for students.

Priority Performance Challenges
 

Low CMAS scores, low early literacy measures (specifically around students significantly below grade levels), inconsistent student engagement levels, and low levels of parent engagement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Timeline for Improvement Plan

 

Summary of School Plan Timeline November 18th, 2016 The school UIP is due to DPS for review on November 18th, 2016 through Tracker or the UIP online system.  For required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at:  http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.
January 6th, 2017 (Schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround based on the 2014 SPF)  The school UIP is due to CDE for review on January 6th, 2017 through Tracker or the UIP online system.  For all schools, if any modifications or changes have been made an updated UIP is due to CDE on January 6th, 2017.
April 12th, 2017 (All Schools)  The UIP is due to DPS for public posting on April 12, 2017 through Tracker or the UIP online system. For required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at:  http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.

 

 

Section II:  Improvement Plan Information

 

Additional Information about the School

Improvement Plan Information
School Contact Information  (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)
40 Name and Title Elliott Lepert – Principal
Email Elliott_lepert@dpsk12.org
Phone 720-424-6290
Mailing Address 1850 S Irving St. Denver, CO 80219
2 Name and Title Guerin Gray – Assistant Principal
Email Guerin_gray@dpsk12.org
Phone 720-424-6290
Mailing Address 1850 S Iriving St. Denver, CO 80219

 

 

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.

 

Data Narrative for School

 

Brief Description

Directions: Provide a brief description of the school to set the context for readers. Include the general process for developing the UIP and participants (e.g., SAC involvement). The description may include demographics and local context, such as location, performance status, notable recent events or changes, stakeholders involved in writing the UIP, and an overview of the general process.  This summary will be prepopulated in the school’s executive summary.

 

Brief Description:

 

Johnson Elementary is an Expanded Learning Opportunities neighborhood school in the Southwest Network of Denver Public Schools. Johnson’s enrollment in 2016-2017 is 405 students: 93% FRL, 64% Minority, 55% ELL, and 9.1% SPED. Johnson is in its first year with a new leadership team (new Principal and Assistant Principal), and is implementing a Teacher Leadership model, with two teachers teaching half time, and coaching the other half of their day.  Staff retention has maintained above 80% for the past two years with all of the primary grade (ECE-2) teams remaining intact.  However, there has been significant turnover in the intermediate grades (3-5) with only 3 of the 9 teachers from 15-16 teaching in the same role this year.  The staff culture is one of collaboration and camaraderie, which has helped lessen the burden of the high turnover in upper grades, and the Teacher Leadership model is designed to ensure the new teachers on those teams receive increased support.

 

Johnson is in its first year of new curriculum adoption K-5, Bridges Math, for Mathematics, and is in its 2nd year of new curriculum, Expeditionary Learning, for intermediate literacy, and first year of adoption for early literacy (K-2), Benchmark.  It is a TNLI school that provides native language instruction, promotes biliteracy, and provides 45 minutes of structured ELD time every day for all English Language Learners.  It uses district aligned interim analysis to measure mastery of standards 3 times a year, and gives regular aligned formative assessments.  It also utilizes monthly progress monitoring via iStation, a computer based literacy assessment, and running records to gauge individual growth at each student’s instructional level.  Additionally, Johnson has begun to pilot elements of a student-driven personalized approach to intermediate instruction that seeks to leverage character, student agency and school culture to align student need with academic and social programming.

 

Johnson is part of the DPS extended learning program, receiving a grant that increases instructional time for students by 70 minutes a day and doubles the required amount of planning time for teachers. It also provides funding for a partnership with Boys and Girls Club of Metro Denter as well as other community partners and citywide organizations offer enrichments during the extended day, expanding the knowledge and experiences of Johnson students.  Finally the extended learning program works to provide wrap around services for students who need it after school including homework help, further enrichment activities, and dinner.

 

The history of Johnson’s status according to DPS’s School Performance Framework, has varied over time, 2010 – Green, 2011 – Yellow, 2012 – Red, 2013 – Yellow, 2014 – Green, and now in 2016 back to Red.  This variance in time has been studied by the school’s leadership team in August and September in conjunction with the analysis of key data points in order to create this UIP.  We have concluded that as the level of innovation has increased in the school it has made different systems and structures more fragmented, and led to a lack of cohesion and focus in the school.

 

The UIP Process began in June with the instructional leadership team (consists of Principal, Assistant Principal, and two Teacher Leaders), and continued into the fall, with expanded input from both the School Leadership Team (a team of 6 teachers) and the Collaborative School Committee (a team consisting of teachers, non-licensed staff, and parents).  These committees provided input and feedback on the root cause and major improvement strategies.  The plan will be made available on our school website on January 9th, 2017 and will also be available for parents in the office.

 

 

Current Performance

Directions: Review the State SPF, District SPF, and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/ federal expectations .At a minimum:

  • Address areas where expectations were not met or areas where you would like to improve
  • Provide a description of the magnitude of challenges

 

Some additional resources that may be helpful include: Section I, the Performance Frameworks, the DISH and the School Dashboard. Consulting local data is also very important to this section.

 

Current Performance:

 

Johnson’s current performance on the district’s SPF is “Red – Accredited on Probation”.  It falls in the area of Does Not Meet Expectations on all 4 areas: status, growth, parent and student engagement and satisfaction, and equity.

 

In regards to status, Johnson students were 14.95% proficient on the PARCC Literacy exam (3rd Grade: 10%, 4th: 11.8%, and 5th 23.2%) with 31.8% of students falling in the next category of Approaching Expectations.  This data shows that while we are not meeting the needs of our students, we have a large portion of our population who is close and can move to proficiency soon.  In Mathematics, Johnson students were 5.3% proficient on the PARCC exam (3rd Grade: 0%, 4th: 2.9%, and 5th: 8.8%). Here the approaches category consists of 18% of our students, 38.5% partially met expectations, and 39% did not meet.  Our science data is also below the expectation with 3.3% of students meeting expectations.  These data points when compared to similar schools look similar and show us in the meeting category according to our SPF.  Our school participation rates are at 100% for math, 99.5% for literacy, and 98.5% for science.  In lower grades our data looks more promising with 80% of 1st graders reading at grade level according to DRA/EDL and 55% of kindergartners reading at grade level.  This is even after we raised the targets for our students to reach the demand of the common core.  While this data shows bright spots in regards to early literacy and comparisons to similar schools, it shows that across the board we are not meeting the bar for our students’ achievement.

 

In regards to growth, Johnson does also not meet the expectations set forth by the district.  Our Median Growth Percentiles for Literacy are at 47 and for Mathematics are at 29.  Our ACCESS data is a bright spot as over the past two years we have shown 76% and 79% of our students on track in their English Language Development.  Our data also shows that we are having success catching up our students below grade level according to READ Act Assessments (50% in 2015, and 27% in 2016), when extrapolating out for just significantly below grade level students we once again fall into the does not meet category with only (36% in 2015, and 25% in 2016).

 

In regards to parent and student engagement, our school once again does not meet expectations, particularly around attendance (93.8% in 2015 and 92.8% in 2016).  Our student perception surveys show 80% favorable responses and parents show 79% favorable responses.  When digging into this student level data deeper we see gaps in the area of where students said they feel like students do not treat them nicely and worry about bullying.  Both of these responses were double digits below the district average.  On the positive side, students showed that they felt safe in school with 82% positive responses.  This shows that combined with a low suspension rate (1.8%) we have inconsistent data that shows how we are meeting student engagement and satisfaction needs.  The trends within parent data show that we are in line or slightly above the district averages, however they show trends of wanting more opportunities to connect with other parents and more community involvement opportunities.  However, we only had 42% of families return surveys which is below the district average of 55%.  Our data is mixed across the board in this area, but points to growth points necessary in the areas of attendance, student satisfaction, and parent engagement.  

 

In the area of equity, when you break out Johnson data by relevant subgroups, we again do not meet expectations.  While there are not noticeable gaps in performance of non-ELLs and ELLs, the performance levels of our ELLs still lags below the expectations (15% proficient in Literacy, and 3.93% in Mathematics).  This trend carries over to growth (48 MGP for Literacy and 29 for Math).  These trends continue when looking at our other subgroups of students of color and FRL status.  We do see a gap in our Special Education services as we only have 1 student who met expectations according to PARCC.  For the most part, these trends do not show gaps versus the rest of the school, however they show we are not meeting the needs of our students in any of our subgroups.

 

Course Analysis data shows that the participation rates for CMAS Math, Literacy and Science were 100%, 99.5%, and 98.5% respectively.

 

Overall school attendance was 93% during the 2015-2016 school year

There were 2 in-school suspensions during the 2015-2016 school year

There were 12 out- of-school suspensions during the 2015-2016 school year

 

 


Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets

Directions: Consider the previous year’s progress toward the school’s targets. Identify the overall magnitude of the school’s performance challenges.

Performance Indicators Targets for 2015-16 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan)

Performance in 2015-16?  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) 35%% of  3rd-5th grade students will meet expectations in ELA assessments 14.95% of 3-5 grade students met expectations on ELA PARCC.  Did not meet target by 20% The PARCC targets were not met due to a variety of factors including:

·         Implementation of new curriculum in language arts (Expeditionary Learning) and math (Zearn) led to a focus on curriculum adaptation opposed to standards driven instruction.

·         Grades 4-5 implemented a mixed age platooning based model centered around Personalized Learning principles that proved to not meet students’ needs.

·         Curricular resources and small group instruction professional development methods were not adequate in meeting students’ needs.

 

The Early Literacy Targets were not met due primarily to a lack of systematic professional development around guided reading, as well as progress monitoring techniques that proved to not be rigorous enough to match the needs of the end assessment.

80% of K, 1st, and 3rd grade students reading at or above grade level on Spring EOY Assessment. According to READ Act Assessment (iStation) 22% of K, 24% of grade 1, and 23% of grade 3 students were reading at GL or above

 

According to DRA, 55% of K, 80% of grade 1, and 47% of grade 3 students were reading at GL or above.  Both data sources did not meet the target

25% of  3rd-5th grade students will meet expectations in Math assessments 5.13% of students met expectations on Math PARCC.  Did not meet target by 20%.
Academic Achievement (Status) – Disaggregated Groups NA
Academic Growth NA
Academic Growth – Disaggregated Groups NA
Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness NA
Other

 

Trend Analysis

Directions: Provide a description of the trend analysis that includes at least three years of data (state and local data). Trend statements should be provided in the four performance indicator areas and by disaggregated groups. Trend statements should include the direction of the trend, the measure/metric, specific data (e.g., percentages), content area, student population and a comparison (e.g., state expectations, state average) to indicate why the trend is notable. Only those trend statements that are marked as ‘notable trend’ will populate in the data narrative. It is wise to keep track of the data source for future updates. Trend analysis resources are available at the UIP Target Setting Tools page and through the DISH and the School Dashboard.

 

Per Indicator:

Trend Statement(s), which include:  Measure/metric, content area, magnitude, student population, specific data, data source

Trend direction

Whether it is a notable trend – Y/N

 

For Example:

“Middle school students are on a slight decline in reading as seen in NWEA MAP data between 2013 and 2015 (2013 = 50.4%; 2014 = 49.8%; 2015 = 48.7%). This is a notable trend because it is well below the state expectation (70.5%) by more than 20 percentage points. (Source: NWEA MAP)”

Performance Indicators Description of Notable Trends
(3 years of past state and local data, as available)
Academic Achievement (Status) CMAS PARCC Math scores for met expectations have maintained a flat trend (4.5% in 2015 and 5.3% in 2016) and have stayed approximately 20% points below the district average.

 

CMAS PARCC Literacy scores for met expectations have maintained a flat trend (15.8% in 2015 and 14.95% in 2016) and have stayed approximately 20% points below the district average.

CMAS PARCC Science scores for met expectations have maintained a flat trend (3.1% in 2015 and 3.3% in 2016) and have stayed approximately 16% points below the district average.

 

 

Students (grades K-5) reading at Grade Level of Above dropped dramatically from 58% to 25% over past two years and changed from within 6% of the district average to 25% behind the district average.  This drop also coincided with a change in assessment, as in 2015 we used DRA2/EDL2 and in 2016 we used iStation.  In 2016 we used DRA/EDL in grades K and 1 as a second data point for our own progress monitoring process, which showed a 12% increase of students reading at grade level, however this did not correlate with our iStation results.
Academic Achievement (Status) – Disaggregated Groups Students reading SGBL showed a negative trend and increased from 25% to 46% and students reading BGL also increased from 17% to 29%.  This again corresponds with a change in assessment but falls below the district averages by 20% and 12% respectively.
ELL students meeting expectations on CMAS ELA showed a flat trend from 14% in 2015 to 12% in 2016.  This is in line with our student performance as a whole.  This is below the district average by 16%.

 

ELL students meeting expectations on CMAS Math also shows a flat trend of 4% proficient in both 201th and 2016.  This is in line with our student performance as a whole.  This is below the district average by 20%.

Female students out performed male students by 13% in 2016 (20% to 7%) and 6% (19% to 13%) in 2015 on CMAS ELA.  Males are falling below the district average by over 20%.

 

Male students out performed female students by 5% in 2016 (8% to 3%) and performed equally in 2015.  Both groups are falling below district averages by 15-20%.

Academic Growth Students on track according to ACCESS trajectory increased from 76% to 79% in 2016.  This is 16 points above the district average.
ACCESS growth percentiles show a declining trend decreasing from 75 to 44 to 43 from 2014 to 2016.  This is 7 points below the district average.
CMAS growth percentiles are in their first year, and therefore do not show trends but show a 48 MGP in ELA and 29 in Math.  Both of these scores are below the district average.
Academic Growth – Disaggregated Groups
Growth Gaps
CMAS English Language Arts —

The MGP for Students of Color overall at Johnson on the PARCC English Language Arts assessment in 2015-16 was 47 which was 13 pts lower than the district expectation of 60. The N for white students was not large enough to report.The MGP for Students who receive free and reduced lunch overall at Johnson on the PARCC English Language Arts assessment in 2015-16 was 46 which was 14 pts lower than the district expectation of 60. The N for NON-FRL students was not large enough to report.

The MGP for ELL students at Johnson on the PARCC ELA Assessment in 2015-16 was 46, which was 14 pts lower than the district expectation of 60, and was the same as the MGP for NON-ELL students.

CMAS Math —
The MGP for Students of Color overall at Johnson on the PARCC Math assessment in 2015-16 was 29 which was 31 pts lower than the district expectation of 60. The N for white students was not large enough to report.

The MGP for Students who receive free and reduced lunch overall at Johnson on the PARCC Math assessment in 2015-16 was 29 which was 31 pts lower than the district expectation of 60. The N for NON-FRL students was not large enough to report.

The MGP for ELL students at Johnson on the PARCC Math Assessment in 2015-16 was 25, which was 35 pts lower than the district expectation of 60, and 8 pts lower than the MGP of NON-ELL students.

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness
Other


 

 

 

Priority Performance Challenges and Root Causes

 

Directions: Based upon your analysis of notable trends, select a limited number (no more than three or four) of Priority Performance Challenges (PPCs). Provide a rationale for why these challenges have been selected and address the magnitude of the school’s overall performance challenges.

 

Identify at least one root cause for every priority performance challenge. Root causes should address adult actions, be under the control of the school, and address the priority performance challenge(s). Provide evidence that the root cause was verified through the use of additional data. This can be included in the “reflection” box. A description of the selection process for the corresponding major improvement strategies is encouraged.

 

Priority Performance Challenge Name Priority Performance Challenge Description Root Cause Name (associated with this Performance Challenge) Root Cause Description
CMAS Across all status and growth measures our students fail to meet the increased demands of the common core aligned assessments.  To meet the needs of our students and prepare them for college and career, we need to increase the depth and rigor of our instruction to match the common core. Rigorous Planning Aligned to Standards We do not have a consistent planning method that connects daily instruction back to the rigor of the standards and the assessments

 

Teachers are unsure about how to implement pieces of old curricula that do not align to CCSS

Early Literacy While our students showed increased performance according to DRA/EDL, our students are not meeting the demands of the new more rigorous literacy assessments.  We also are not moving students who are BGL and SGBL in a way that will allow them to catch up and access grade level content successfully. Differentiated Planning to meet Individualized Student Need We do not have a consistent planning method that leads to teachers selecting the best instructional next step that will move students from one level to another in small group math or literacy instruction

 

We do not have a consistent planning method that leads to students practicing the most appropriate skill in his or her independent work.

Culture/Whole Child While our student data shows success in some areas, it shows a need for a deepened level of ownership and engagement in order to turn into academic success Student Voice and Choice Our students do not have a deep ownership over their learning due to instruction being primarily by the teacher.  Students do not have a voice that allows them to express how they would like to learn best or activities that would allow them to reach their goals.
Community Engagement Our parent engagement levels are low and show a need to increase opportunities for parents to become engaged in school activities Parent Engagement Our families and staff feel a disconnect between the organization of our family and community events and partnerships.  It is unclear what responsibilities fall on the school and what fall on the Boys and Girls Club that resides within Johnson, leading to families not sure where to become engaged.

 

Priority Performance Challenge Name

(from above)

Associated Root Cause and Rationale for prioritization of this Performance Challenge; Verification and Validation Process
CMAS When observing classrooms in 15-16 school year it was evident that our teachers have strong instructional moves and strategies in their instruction, but that the moves are often not planned with the level of intentionality and purpose that are needed.  When following up with teachers about planning in regular feedback conversations and data team meetings it is evident that the planning was starting from the curricular resources available as opposed to starting with standards in mind or with data in mind of how our students are performing relative to those standards.  Knowing the magnitude of CCSS and specifically the importance of students mastering those standards on assessments such as CMAS, we must plan with those standards in mind in order to meet that bar.  We need to shift our focus to starting our regular planning with those standards front and center, and have clear expectations of what student mastery looks like at regular intervals using formative assessments.
Early Literacy Our early literacy data shows that once a student is behind they tend to stay behind, and growth is not being accelerated in the way it needs to.  This is verified by observation data that shows that 1) small group instruction is not targeted or intensive enough to meet students’ needs and 2) supports are not adequately planned into the whole group lesson to support students in accessing the rigorous grade level content.  This is essential as 46% of our students are reading significantly below grade level, and we must accelerate their growth in order to truly meet the needs of every student.  Better and more intentional planning must occur at the individual student level in both small group instruction and differentiated whole group instruction.
Culture/Whole Child In looking at student perception survey data from last year, in accordance with empathy data collected via our personalized learning pilot it was shown that our students lack a sense of agency.  In observations this was verified by seeing that students rarely had choices in how they were learning or how they were presenting their learning.  We know that for students to be truly engaged they must feel “bought in” and feel like they have a sense of purpose in their classroom.  We believe this comes through providing them a voice in their learning and more choices in how they learn.  Students must then also be provided with regular feedback around those choices so they know how they are doing in their learning progression.  These are all systems that are happening infrequently throughout observations conducted in the 15-16 school year.
Community Engagement Through conducting parent interviews in the spring of 2016, trends were determined that the primary reasons for decreased parent involvement were 1) a lack of clarity around which events were for all Johnson families and which were for Boys and Girls Club students and families and 2) a lack of regular communication between parents and home.  We know that research shows that students whose families are connected and involved at school perform better, therefore we must improve our systems to keep parents better in the loop as well as make them feel welcome and involved in all family events in the building.

 

 

 

 

Section IV: Action Plan(s)

 

 

Directions: Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, and postsecondary and workforce readiness unless provided you by your district. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.

 

 

 

 

School Target Setting Form

Performance Indicators Measures/ Metrics Priority Performance
Challenges
Annual Performance Targets Interim Measures for
2016-17
2016-17 2017-18
Academic Achievement (Status) CMAS, CoAlt, K-3 literacy measure (READ Act), local measures ELA Our students fail to meet the increased demands of the common core aligned assessments.  To meet the needs of our students and prepare them for college and career, we need to increase the depth and rigor of our instruction to match the common core. 25% of students grades 3-5 will meet expectations on PARCC assessment 35% of students grades 3-5 will meet expectations on PARCC assessment ANet Interim Assessments: Target 40% of students score proficient

 

Formative Assessments 2x a month with target of 50% correct on Depth of Knowledge 3 Questions

READ While our students showed increased performance according to DRA/EDL, our students are not meeting the demands of the new more rigorous literacy assessments. 50% of students will read on grade level by EOY iStation 60% of students will read on grade level by EOY iStation Monthly iStation Assessments

October: 36%

Targets increase 3% until May to get to 51%

M Our students fail to meet the increased demands of the common core aligned assessments.  To meet the needs of our students and prepare them for college and career, we need to increase the depth and rigor of our instruction to match the common core. 15% of students grades 3-5 will meet expectations on PARCC assessment 25% of students grades 3-5 will meet expectations on PARCC assessment ANet Interim Assessments: Target 40% of students score proficient

 

Formative Assessments 2x a month with target of 50% correct on Depth of Knowledge 3 Questions

S Our students fail to meet the increased demands of the common core aligned assessments.  To meet the needs of our students and prepare them for college and career, we need to increase the depth and rigor of our instruction to match the common core. 7% Meet Expectations of 5th Grade Science CMAS 14% Meet Expectations of 5th Grade Science CMAS 3 End of Module Science Assessments, with targets of 20% proficient
Academic Achievement (Status) – Disaggregated Groups ELA
READ We are not moving students who are BGL and SGBL in a way that will allow them to catch up and access grade level content successfully. Less than 30% students SGBL, Less than 20% of students BGL Less than 20% students SGBL, Less than 20% of students BGL Monthly iStation Assessments
M
S
Academic Growth Median Growth Percentile (CMAS PARCC), local measures ELA Our students fail to meet the increased demands of the common core aligned assessments.  To meet the needs of our students and prepare them for college and career, we need to increase the depth and rigor of our instruction to match the common core. MGP greater than 55 MGP greater than 60 Monthly Running Records that set individualized aimline targets of 1 years growth for students on grade level and 1.5 years growth for students below

 

Formative assessments 2x a month, with emphasis on students below grade level increasing of points correct from month to month

M Our students fail to meet the increased demands of the common core aligned assessments.  To meet the needs of our students and prepare them for college and career, we need to increase the depth and rigor of our instruction to match the common core. MGP greater than 50 MGP greater than 55 Formative assessments 2x a month, with emphasis on students below grade level increasing of points correct from month to month
ELP
Academic Growth – Disaggregated Groups ELA
M
ELP
Participation Rates Participation measures Our parent engagement levels are low and show a need to increase opportunities for parents to become engaged in school activities Participation on Parent Satisfaction surveys of 65% Participation on Parent Satisfaction surveys of 70% Attendance at parent teacher conferences, and monthly family nights
Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness Graduation Rate
Disag. Grad Rate
Dropout Rate
Mean CO ACT
Matriculation Rate
Other PWR Measures
Other Other Measures

 

 

 

Action Planning Form for 2016-17 and 2017-18

Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 that will address the root causes determined in the data narrative. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address.

 

Major Improvement Strategy 1:   Deepen instructional practices around increasing rigor and aligning instruction to focused content language objectives

What will success look like? Effective LEAP scores in the indicators of I1 and I2 as well as students being able to articulate what they are learning and why during whole group instruction, small group instruction, and independent work
Root Cause(s) Addressed:  Rigorous Planning Aligned to Standards and Differentiated Planning to meet Individualized Student Need

 

 

Action Steps

Action Step Description Key Personnel Date Range School Year (this year/next year) Resources
(Dollar amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Status (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
Conduct weekly differentiated observations and aligned bite-sized feedback sessions ILT members will conduct 15 minute weekly observations with 30 minute feedback sessions focused around LEAP indicators of I1 and I2 Principal, AP, 2 Senior Team Leads 9/1 through 6/1 This Year Funding through TLC Initiative

 

LEAP Framework, RELAY Feedback Session Frameworks

In Progress
Provide differentiated weekly professional development sessions In grade level PLCs, PD will be tailored to the needs of each team around implementing objective driven whole group instruction, small group instruction, and independent work Principal, AP, 2 Senior Team Leads 9/1 through 6/1 This Year Funding through TLC Initiative

 

LEAP Framework, RELAY Feedback Session Frameworks

In Progress
Utilize ILT to regularly monitor implementation of action steps and PD practices Conduct weekly ILT meetings where the team comes to consensus around next steps in regards to observation/feedback and professional development Principal, AP, 2 Senior Team Leads 9/1 through 6/1 This Year Funding through TLC Initiative

 

LEAP Framework, RELAY Feedback Session Frameworks

In Progress

 

Implementation Benchmarks

Associated Action Step Implementation Benchmark Description Key Personnel* Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
School Year (this year/next year) Status (e.g., met, partially met, not met)
Provide differentiated weekly PD 80% of teachers implementing next steps Principal will conduct monthly walkthroughs checking for implementation and scoring observations according to I1 & 2 Principal Monthly This Year
Conduct weekly observations with bite sized feedback 80% of teachers meet end of cycle goal Teachers will set goal around I1 or I2 every six weeks; Principal will check with ILT members at end of cycle to see if Ts made goal and plan next steps accordingly ILT Every 6 weeks This Year

 

Major Improvement Strategy 2: Implement Data Analysis Cycles that will be built using common formative and interim assessments designed to increase rigor around targeted standards.

What will success look like? Increased student scores in formative and interim assessments (50% on DOK 3 questions) as well as 85% of students reaching their individualized literacy targets for the year, as measured by adult analysis of CFAs and reporting during meetings.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:  Rigorous Planning Aligned to Standards and Differentiated Planning to meet Individualized Student Need

 

 

Action Steps

Action Step Description Key Personnel Date Range School Year (this year/next year) Resources
(Dollar amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Status (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
Build common formative assessments and exemplar responses for each cycle Teachers will receive intense PD during Blue Green Days to build common formative assessments and associated exemplars that assess standards at Depth of Knowledge 3 Grade Level Teams 9/1 through 6/1 This Year Depth of Knowledge

ANet

Curricular resources

SLOs

 

In Progress
Vertically align year end exemplars for each grade level Teachers will vertically align end of year expectations around Johnson Instructional Focus standards (RI1 and RL1) Grade Level Teams 1/1 through 6/1 This Year Depth of Knowledge

ANet

Curricular resources

SLOs

 

Not Started
Monthly Guided Reading Data Digs Teachers will meet monthly to problem solve individual students and guided reading groupsand other forms of small group instruction who are not growing in order to implement next steps Grade Level Teams 11/1 through 6/1 This Year Literacy Aimline Tool

Fountas & Pinnell Continuum of Literacy

Guided Reading Plus Resources

In Progress

 

Implementation Benchmarks

Associated Action Step Implementation Benchmark Description Key Personnel* Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
School Year (this year/next year) Status (e.g., met, partially met, not met)
Build common formative assessments 50% mastery to DOK 3 level tasks ILT will collect and analyze data to see how many students are meeting the target on the common formative assessments and adjust DDI protocols accordingly ILT 2x a month This Year
Monthly guided reading data digs Number of Students on Track for Aimline Target (goal is 50% in October, and improves 5% every month to 85% by April) MTSS team will analyze target data monthly to see who is on track, and who needs additional layers of sudpport MTSS Team Monthly This Year

 

Major Improvement Strategy 3:   Improve student culture that will build on foundation of values to create an environment where students feel a sense of joy, agency, and ownership.

What will success look like? Students being able to articulate how they have voice and choice in their day, and how that voice helps them become a better student.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:  Student Voice and Choice

 

Action Steps

Action Step Description Key Personnel Date Range School Year (this year/next year) Resources
(Dollar amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Status (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
Implement weekly student led grade level meetings focused on celebration Grade levels will lead a celebration meeting that builds community and student ownership one a day a week.  Over the course of the year these meetings will become more and more student led Grade Level Teams 9/1-6/1 This Year In Progress
Refine discipline systems to increase focus on restorative practices Team will meet to review and adjust discipline process to increase effectiveness of in class interventions and supports, as well as build capacity and understanding of behaviors and their effect on the student and the community around them Behavior Team (Principal, AP, Social Worker, Psychologist, Restorative Practice Coordinator) 10/1-6/1 This Year In Progress
Conduct book study around personalized learning and conferencing strategies Teachers will engage in monthly PD that has a goal of building a common understanding of what personalized learning is and what it looks like in a classroom, as well as build strategies to provide more meaningful individualized feedback to students PL Pilot Team

 

Imaginarium District Supports

8/15-6/1 This Year Imaginarium Grant of $40,000 In Progress
Pilot personalized learning moves in certain classroom to provide more voice and choice for students 5 Teachers will receive regular feedback from Imaginarium with the goal to improve student voice and choice through formats such as flexible seating, individualized goals, project based learning, Genius Hour, etc PL Pilot Team

 

Imaginarium District Supports

8/15-6/1 This Year Imaginarium Grant of $40,000 In Progress

 

Implementation Benchmarks

Associated Action Step Implementation Benchmark Description Key Personnel* Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
School Year (this year/next year) Status (e.g., met, partially met, not met)
Conduct book study around personalized learning and conferencing strategies Average LEAP Score of 5.0 on LE2 and I7 With the focus being on increasing feedback, we will measure I7 to see how that feedback is working, as well as measuring LE2 to see how the learning environment is conducive to student voice and choice

 

These will be measured in the scope of our partial LEAP observations conducted every 6-8 weeks, with LE2 starting in September and I7 starting in March

ILT
Conduct book study around personalized learning and conferencing strategies Imaginarium Created Surveys to measure student ownership Will deliver surveys to students at the start of January and end of the year to measure how students are interpreting the personalization and ownership they have over their classroom Imaginarium Support Partner and Principal

 

Major Improvement Strategy 4:   Deepen and increase community engagement through regular communication and increased opportunities for parent engagement.

What will success look like? A 50% increase in parent participation and teacher participation in family events, as well as increased parent satisfaction scores.
Root Cause(s) Addressed:  Parent Engagement

 

 

Action Steps

Action Step Description Key Personnel Date Range School Year (this year/next year) Resources
(Dollar amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
Status (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)
Implement Family Friday structure on early release days Will roll out a structure that welcomes parents into classrooms once a month to see what their child is learning and do fun interactive learning activities with their child.  This will be backed up to their lunch schedule so parents can also have the opportunity to eat lunch with their child. Family Engagement Committee 11/1-6/1 This Year In Progress
Co-plan monthly events with Boys and Girls Club of Metro Denver Staff will work together with BGC so that there are no longer “Johnson events” and “BGC events”.  These will take place once a month with a different theme each month.  We will market through a variety of channels with a goal to increase family turnout Family Engagement Committee

 

BGC Staff Members

9/1-6/1 This Year In Progress
Incentivize Parent Teacher Home Visit and Parent Communication in IC Will set benchmarks for each teacher for PTHV visits with incentives at each benchmark.  Teachers will share their experiences at each PD session to build excitement.

Teachers will use Dojo schoolwide as a method to increase communication between parents

PTHV coordinator

 

Classroom Teachers

9/1-6/1 This Year In Progress
Create School-Parent Compact Will jointly create a document that lays out expectations for students, families, and staff to increase student achievement of all our students

 

Parents will then sign and complete as part of registration and be monitored throughout 17-18

Family Engagement Committee

 

CSC

4/17-8/17 This Year and Next Not Started

 

Implementation Benchmarks

Associated Action Step Implementation Benchmark Description Key Personnel* Resources
(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)
School Year (this year/next year) Status (e.g., met, partially met, not met)
Co-plan monthly events with Boys and Girls Club of Metro Denver Attendance at events Will measure attendance at each event with a goal of improving to 50 families by end of year Family Engagement Committee ELO Grant This Year
Incentivize Parent Teacher Home Visit and Parent Communication in IC Increased School Perception Survey scores School Perception Survey scores will improve to above district average Classroom Teachers Incentives from SBB This Year
Incentivize Parent Teacher Home Visit and Parent Communication in IC Increased attendance to 95% Regular communication about absences and progress in class will lead to an increase in attendance Classroom Teachers

 

Social Worker and Attendance Team

NA This Year

 

 

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 Addenda is required.