UIP

download                                                                   man

 

JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UIP

2017-18

District: DENVER COUNTY 1 | Org ID: 0880 | School ID: 4450 | Framework:

Pending | Draft UIP

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for School

Executive Summary

How are students performing? Where will the school focus 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, PWR), where the School did not meet federal, state

and/or local expectations.

Name: Increased rigor of instruction

Description: 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.

Name: Independent Application of Learning

Description: While our students are now scoring much higher on early literacy measures, we are

struggling to see a correlation when these translate to the new levels of rigor discussed above. To

meet those demands, we need to provide students with more specific feedback and goals so they can

translate their learning to independent work contexts.

Name: School Culture/Whole Child

Description: 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

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Improvement Plan Information

Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

Action Plans

Addenda

Name: Community Engagement

Description: Our parent engagement levels are low and show a need to increase opportunities for

parents to become engaged in school activities

Why is the education system continuing to have these challenges?

Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, or performance

challenges, that, if dissolved, would result in elimination, or substantial reduction of the performance

challenge(s).

Name: Rigorous Planning

Description: We do not have a consistent planning method that connects daily instruction back to

the rigor of the standards and the assessments

Name: Goal Setting and Feedback

Description: We do not have an approach that allows students to routinely set goals for their

practice nor do they receive regular feedback on how to achieve their goals. We do not have a

consistent planning method that leads to students practicing the most appropriate skill in his or her

independent work.

Name: Student Voice and Choice

Description: 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.

Name: Parent Engagement

Description: 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.

Major Improvement Strategies

Major Improvement Strategies: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) that will address the root

causes determined in the data narrative.

Name: Creating a Culturally Responsive Enivronment

Description: If we want Ss and families to show increased engagement and satisfaction through

formal and informal surveys then we need to create a welcoming and culturally responsive

environment for both students and families

Name: Student Centered Rigorous Practices

Description: If we want students to successfully engage in complex, rigorous and open ended

experiences according to increased proficiency on CMAS and READ Act measures, then we need

to 1) provide access to those types of tasks and questions and 2) provide appropriate supports to

assist students in accomplishing those opportunities.

Name: Individualized Goal Setting and Regular Feedback

Description: If we want students who are aware of their current performance relative to the

standard and can identify the highest leverage move to get them to the next step and higher

achievement on formative assessments and ultimately PARCC and READ Act measures, then we as

teachers need to be providing students with individualized goals and regular strategic feedback

aligned to those goals.

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

Improvement Plan Information

Additional Information about the school

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

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.

The school partnered with SchoolWorks to conduct a School Quality Review in November of 2016.

Improvement Plan Information

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

School Contact Information

Elliott Lepert

Principal

1850 S Irving St

Denver Colorado 80219

Phone: (720) 424-6290

Email: elliott_lepert@dpsk12.org

Alexandria Wenzel

Assistant Principal

1850 S Irving St

Denver Colorado 80219

Phone: (720) 424-6290

Email: alexandria_wenzel@dpsk12.org

Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

Description of school Setting and Process for Data Analysis

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.

Johnson Elementary is an Expanded Learning Opportunities neighborhood school in the Southwest Network of Denver

Public Schools. Johnson’s enrollment in 2016-2017 was 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 15-16 and 16-17 school years, and is at 67% going into the 17-18 school 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 just finished its first year of new curriculum adoption for mathematics grades K-5 and is using the Bridges Math

program. It completed it’s 2nd year of the Expeditionary Learning curriculum for intermediate literacy, and it’s first year of

adoption for early literacy curriculum (K-2), Benchmark Litearcy. 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 Denver as well as other community partners and citywide organizations to 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 including 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.

This year Johnson partnered with district strategic supports to go through a School Quality Review

process in collaboration with SchoolWorks in November. From that report it prioritized findings

which were incorporated into our Major Improved Strategies and Action Steps portion of this UIP. In

the spring of 16-17 we received the CDE Connect for Success grant which will help bolster strategic

improvement efforts over the next two years. We are looking forward to implementing the findings

from a CDE diagnostic site visit in April and the learnings from the CDE High Achieving Schools

Study to improve our school’s achievement, systems, and culture.

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.

Prior Year Targets

Consider the previous year’s progress toward the school targets. Identify the overall magnitude of the

school performance challenges.

Performance Indicator: Academic Achievement (Status)

Prior Year Target: 25% of students grades 3-5 will meet expectations on PARCC assessment

Performance:

Prior Year Target: 50% of students will read on grade level by EOY iStation

Performance:

Prior Year Target: 15% of students grades 3-5 will meet expectations on PARCC assessment

Performance:

Prior Year Target: 7% Meet Expectations of 5th Grade Science CMAS

Performance:

Performance Indicator: Academic Growth

Prior Year Target: MGP greater than 55

Performance:

Prior Year Target: MGP greater than 50

Performance:

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Prior Year Target: Less than 30% students SGBL, Less than 20% of students BGL

Performance:

Performance Indicator: Other

Prior Year Target: Participation on Parent Satisfaction surveys of 65%

Performance:

Current Performance

Provide a description of the trend analysis that includes at least three years of data (state and local data).

Trend statements should be provided in the four performance indicator areas and by disaggregated groups.

Trend statements should include the direction of the trend and a comparison (e.g. state expectations, state

average) to indicate why the trend is notable.

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 in the 15-16 school year, 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.

For early literacy in 15-16, Johnson used a combination of data sources as it began transitioning from the DRA/EDL to

iStation. DRA data showed strengths with 80% of 1st graders reading at grade level and 55% of kindergartners reading at

grade level. This data did not hold with the new iStation data as it showed only 25% of students grades K-3 students were

on grade level. In 16-17, Johnson transitioned to using iStation as our primary measure for grades K-3. We showed

incredible growth in our status with 35% of students reading on grade level at the beginning of the year, and 71% reading

on grade level at the end of the year. We also lowered our amount of students reading Significantly Below Grade Level to

9.7%. These scores are above the district average.

In regards to growth for the 15-16 school year, Johnson did also not meet the expectations set forth by the district. Our

Median Growth Percentiles for Literacy are at 47 and for Mathematics were 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). This however does change now

in 16-17 as we will meet expectations with less than 10% of students showing scores SGBL, and having over 70% of our

students in the ”catch up” category move up a band.

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, 93.6% in 2017). Our student perception surveys for 15-16 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 (1.2%, 5 out of school

suspensions and 6 in school suspensions) 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.

Trend Analysis

Review the DPF and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/federal

expectations.

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.

Trend Direction: Stable – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Academic

Achievement (Status)

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.

Trend Direction: Stable – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Academic

Achievement (Status)

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.

Trend Direction: Stable – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Academic

Achievement (Status)

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.

Trend Direction: Decreasing – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Academic

Achievement (Status)

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.

Trend Direction: Decreasing – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target:

Disaggregated Achievement

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%.

Trend Direction: Decreasing – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target:

Disaggregated Achievement

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%.

Trend Direction: Stable – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated

Achievement

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%.

Trend Direction: Decreasing – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target:

Disaggregated Achievement

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% on CMAS Math.

Trend Direction: Stable – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated

Achievement

Students on track according to ACCESS trajectory increased from 76% to 79% in 2016. This

is 16 points above the district average.

Trend Direction: Increasing – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Academic

Growth

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.

Trend Direction: Decreasing then stable – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator

Target: Academic Growth

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.

Trend Direction: – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

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.

Trend Direction: – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated Growth

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.

Trend Direction: – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated Growth

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.

Trend Direction: – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated Growth

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.

Trend Direction: – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated Growth

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.

Trend Direction: – Notable Trend: Yes – Performance Indicator Target: Disaggregated Growth

Priority Performance Challenges and Root Cause Analysis

Review the DPF and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/federal

expectations. Priority Performance Challenges and Root Cause Analysis Priority Performance Challenges:

Identify notable trends (or a combination of trends) that are the highest priority to address (priority

performance challenges). No more than 3-5 are recommended. Provide a rationale for why these

challenges have been selected and address the magnitude of the school’s overall performance challenges.

Root Cause: Identify at least one root cause for every priority performance challenge. Root causes should

address adult actions, be under the control of the school, and address the priority performance challenge(s).

Provide evidence that the root cause was verified through the use of additional data. A description of the

selection process for the corresponding major improvement strategies is recommended.

Relationship of UIP Elements

Priority Performance Challenges Root Cause

Increased rigor of instruction Rigorous Planning

Independent Application of Learning Goal Setting and Feedback

School Culture/Whole Child Student Voice and Choice

Community Engagement Parent Engagement

Root Causes

Priority Performance Challenge: Increased rigor of instruction

Rigorous Planning

We do not have a consistent planning method that connects daily instruction back to the rigor of the

standards and the assessments

Priority Performance Challenge: Independent Application of Learning

Goal Setting and Feedback

We do not have an approach that allows students to routinely set goals for their practice nor do they

receive regular feedback on how to achieve their goals. We do not have a consistent planning

method that leads to students practicing the most appropriate skill in his or her independent work.

Priority Performance Challenge: School Culture/Whole Child

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.

Priority Performance Challenge: Community Engagement

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.

Provide a rationale for why these challenges have been selected and address the magnitude of the

overall performance challenges:

Need to come back to this section. Need to revise to include student data.

Provide a rationale for how these Root Causes were selected and verified:

When observing classrooms in 16-17 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. Teachers in the 16-17 school year made strides in their

understanding of standards and planning proactively to assessments instead of reactively from data.

However teachers are still struggling with regularly understanding what the exemplar response looks like

the standard they are assessing, and planning in a way that prepares students to meet that exemplar

response. We need to continue the work we’ve done in PLCs to deepen our understanding of student

work aligned to standards, as well as begin planning preemptively to address for misconceptions that

students may experience as well as plan more effectively for the scaffolds and supports students need to

reach the more rigorous bar we are setting for students.

Our early literacy data shows that students are growing, however teacher observations show a gap

between what is occurring in small and whole group instruction and what is happening in independent

practice. This shows that students are not translating their work from one context to another. Through

observations and conversations with students and teachers, it is our understanding that this is due to a lack

of clear goals and next steps for students. Teachers need to work on building systems to regularly set

goals with students tied to individual need, and then need to provide regularly feedback to students on the

progress towards those goals.

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 16-17

school year.

The SQR and CDE site visit showed that while we have made progress on the following two issues we are

still to a degree seeing 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. The interviews also showed

that we need to move towards more events that are in tune with the issues our families are interested in

and providing more community based supports as opposed to school based supports.

Action Plans

School Target Setting

Directions: Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic

growth, and postsecondary and workforce readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the

performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected to prioritized

performance challenges. 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.

Priority Performance Challenge : Increased rigor of instruction

Performance Indicator: Academic Achievement (Status)

Measures / Metrics: ELA

Annual

Performance

Targets

2017-2018: 80% of students grades K-5 will be reading on grade

level according to the READ Act (iStation)

assessment

2018-2019: 85% of students grades K-5 will be reading on grade

level according to the READ Act (iStation)

assessment

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: All measures according to iStation 60% on GL in

September 70% on GL in December 80% on GL in

March 80% on GL in May

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Measures / Metrics: ELA

Annual

Performance

Targets

2017-2018: 25% of ELLs will score proficient on CMAS ELA

exam

2018-2019: 35% of ELLs will score proficient on CMAS ELA

exam

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: All measures according to illuminate Interim exams

Interim 1 (Oct): 15% proficient Interm 2 (Dec): 20%

proficient Interim 3 (Mar): 25% proficient Interim 4

(May): 25% proficient

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Measures / Metrics: M

Annual

Performance

Targets

2017-2018: 25% of ELLs will score proficient on CMAS Math

exam

2018-2019: 35% of ELLs will score proficient on CMAS Math

exam

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: All measures according to illuminate Interim exams

Interim 1 (Oct): 15% proficient Interm 2 (Dec): 20%

proficient Interim 3 (Mar): 25% proficient Interim 4

(May): 25% proficient

Priority Performance Challenge : Independent Application of Learning

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Measures / Metrics: ELA

Annual

Performance

Targets

2017-2018: 50% of students who are in the “Catch Up” category

will grow one proficiency band on CMAS ELA

exam

2018-2019: 60% of students who are in the “Catch Up” category

will grow one proficiency band on CMAS ELA

exam

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: All measures according to illuminate Interim data:

From baseline to Interim 1 20% of students in catch

up category will have improved one band From

baseline to Interim 2 35% of students in catch up

category will have improved one band From baseline

to Interim 3 50% of students in catch up category

will have improved one band From baseline to

Interim 4 50% of students in catch up category will

have improved one band

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Measures / Metrics: M

2017-2018: 35% of students who are in the “Catch Up” category

will grow one proficiency band on CMAS Math

Annual

Performance

Targets

exam

2018-2019: 50% of students who are in the “Catch Up” category

will grow one proficiency band on CMAS Math

exam

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: : All measures according to illuminate Interim data:

From baseline to Interim 1 15% of students in catch

up category will have improved one band From

baseline to Interim 2 25% of students in catch up

category will have improved one band From baseline

to Interim 3 35% of students in catch up category

will have improved one band From baseline to

Interim 4 35% of students in catch up category will

have improved one band

Priority Performance Challenge : School Culture/Whole Child

Performance Indicator: Student Engagement

Measures / Metrics: Supplemental Measure(s)

Annual

Performance

Targets

2017-2018: 85% of responses on EOY School Satisfaction

Survey will be positive

2018-2019: 90% of responses on EOY School Satisfaction

Survey will be positive

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: School created satisfaction surveys will be given to

students 3 times a year, with the targets being the

following: 75% positive on survey 1 80% positive on

survey 2 85% positive on survey 3

Priority Performance Challenge : Community Engagement

Performance Indicator: Other

Measures / Metrics:

Annual

Performance

Targets

2017-2018: 85% of responses on EOY Parent Satisfaction Survey

will be positive

2018-2019: 90% of responses on EOY Parent Satisfaction Survey

will be positive

Interim Measures for 2017-2018: School created satisfaction surveys will be given to

families 3 times a year, with the targets being the

following: 75% positive on survey 1 80% positive on

survey 2 85% positive on survey 3

Planning Form

Major Improvement

Strategy Name:

Creating a Culturally Responsive Enivronment

Major Improvement

Strategy Description:

If we want Ss and families to show increased engagement and satisfaction

through formal and informal surveys then we need to create a welcoming

and culturally responsive environment for both students and families

Associated Root Causes:

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.

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.

Action Steps Associated with MIS

Name Description Start/End

Date

Resource Key

Personnel

Status School Year

Classroom

Environment

Non-Negotiables

ILT will create

a list of

non-negotiables

for learning

environments

(both in

classrooms and

common

spaces) and

share with staff

07/24/2017

08/18/2017

input from

staff survey on

classroom

setup, LE

resources

provided by

Instructional

Superintendent

ILT Not Started This

School

Year

Emphasize

Parent

Teacher

1) Set aside

time in

August for

07/24/2017

09/15/2017

Data sources

from

previous year

ILT and

PTHV Lead

Not Started This School

Year

Home Visits

Early

PTHV and

incentivize

for teachers

2) Create a

list of

families to

target for

PTHVs early

on based on

“risk”

factors, i.e.

low

attendance,

new families,

lower

academic

performance

Culturally

Responsive

Teaching

Professional

Development

Conduct

professional

development

with staff

that focuses

on 1)

unpacking

own biases

2) utilizing

culturally

responsive

behavioral

strategies

(NNN and

RJ) and 3)

planning

culturally

responsive

lessons

08/14/2017

10/31/2017

CELT team,

CRT texts

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Create clear

expectations for

Social-Emotional

Center

1) Revise flow

charts and

documents so

teachers have

clear

understanding

of purpose of

SEC and

when students

should go

there 2) Train

admin team

and Mental

Health team

on strategies

to use in SEC

08/14/2017

10/31/2017

OSEL

partner

ILT and

MH Team

Not Started This School

Year

and 3) Build

clear

follow-up

systems for

interventions

to use after a

student leaves

the SEC and

complete

appropriate

documentation

ILT

walkthroughs

and

calibrations

ILT will

regularly

conduct

walkthroughs

to check

implementation

of CRE

non-negotiables

and calibrate on

the

effectiveness of

the LEAP

indicator of

LE1 in

classrooms

08/21/2017

10/31/2017

LEAP

Framework,

Non-Negotiable

List

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Incentivize

PTHVs

throughout

Year

1) Set

increased

target of

visits for

100% of

families

(~250 visits)

2) Incentive

teachers for

hitting

benchmarks

throughout

the year

09/01/2017

05/31/2018

fundraising

funds for

staff

incentives

School

FACE

committee

Not Started This School

Year

Lesson Plan

Feedback on

Culturally

Responsiveness

Teachers

plan at least

one lesson a

week that

emphasizes

learnings

from PD

centered on

Culturally

Responsive

Teaching

Strategies

and then

09/04/2017

10/31/2017

Feedback

protocol

designed by

ILT

ILT and

Team

Specialists

Not Started This School

Year

receives

feedback on

that lesson

plan

Tighten up

focus on

Morning

Meeting

Build a clear

focus for

morning

meeting time

that emphasizes

1) school vision

of advocacy 2)

building

social-emotional

skills and 3)

provides space

to share their

own cultures

and learn about

others

09/04/2017

12/01/2017

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Create Parent

Leadership

Team

Staff selects

2 parents

from each

classroom to

serve on

PLT, which

then attends

monthly

meetings

focused on 1)

school data

share out 2)

educational

strategies for

families and

3) guest

speakers tied

to family

interests

10/01/2017

05/31/2018

Valverde

Elementary

Leadership

Team

School

FACE

committee

Not Started This School

Year

Survey Parents

for

Interests/Needs

Conduct a

survey to

gauge

interest for

potential

speakers and

community

partnerships

that parents

are

interested in

(i.e. ESL

classes,

immigration

10/01/2017

06/30/2017

Survey

created in

spring

Parent

Leadership

Team

Not Started This School

Year

resources,

etc)

Implementation Benchmark Associated with MIS

Action Step

Name

(Association)

IB Name Description Start/End/Repeats

Key

Personnel Status

School

Year

Culturally

Responsive

Teaching

Professional

Development,

ILT

walkthroughs

and

calibrations,

Implementation

of Action Steps

ILT tracks

weekly

implementation

of action steps

centered

around LE1

and CRT

practices

09/04/2017

11/17/2017

Weekly

This School

Year

Classroom

Environment

Non-Negotiables,

Culturally

Responsive

Teaching

Professional

Development,

ILT

walkthroughs

and calibrations,

LE1 LEAP

Scores

Average of

5.5

09/15/2017

09/22/2017

Monthly

This School

Year

Student and

Parent

Surveys

success rate

Team created

survey based

on questions

from SSS

and PSS that

address

culturally

responsive

environments

10/24/2017

10/31/2017

Quarterly

This School

Year

Emphasize

Parent

Teacher

Home Visits

Early,

#s of PTHVs

completed

Team

shooting for

goal of 250

PTHVs; 65

each quarter

10/24/2017

10/31/2017

Quarterly

This School

Year

Major Improvement

Strategy Name:

Student Centered Rigorous Practices

If we want students to successfully engage in complex, rigorous and open

ended experiences according to increased proficiency on CMAS and

Major Improvement

Strategy Description:

READ Act measures, then we need to 1) provide access to those types of

tasks and questions and 2) provide appropriate supports to assist students

in accomplishing those opportunities.

Associated Root Causes:

Rigorous Planning: We do not have a consistent planning method that connects daily instruction back to

the rigor of the standards and the assessments

Action Steps Associated with MIS

Name Description Start/End

Date

Resource Key

Personnel

Status School Year

Create Rigor

Non-Negotiable

List

ILT will create

a list of

non-negotiables

for what rigor

looks like in

various parts of

the day

(literacy and

math blocks)

and shares with

staff

07/24/2017

08/18/2017

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Backwards

Plan around

Target

Standards

Teachers will

take 1/2 days

at the start of

every new

unit/interim

cycle to

backwards

plan units

with rigor in

mind around

the target

standards

that were

determined

this past

spring

08/14/2017

05/31/2018

UBD

Templates

ILT and

Team

Specialists

Not Started This School

Year

Create and

Evaluate

Exemplar

Responses

Teachers will

create

exemplars to

each

formative

and interim

assessment

and evaluate

08/25/2017

05/31/2017

Network

exemplar

resources;

vertical

planning

protocols

ILT and

Team

Specialists

Not Started This School

Year

them through

vertical

alignment

protocols

Student

Discourse

PD

ILT will provide

professional

development and

observation/feedback

sessions around

structures for student

discourse and

collaboration

09/04/2017

10/13/2017

ILT Not Started This School

Year

ILT

Walkthroughs

and

Calibrations

ILT will

regularly

conduct

walkthroughs

to check for

implementation

of

non-negotiable

lists as well as

evaluate and

calibrate

teacher

effectiveness

on the LEAP

indicator of I2

11/01/2017

02/28/2018

LEAP

Framework,

Non-Negotiable

List

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Effective

Questioning

PD

ILT will provide

professional

development and

observation/feedback

on the following

questioning related

topics: -developing

high level tasks and

objectives

-sequencing

questions to build

understanding

-Preparing for

misconceptions and

planning “fallback”

questions

11/01/2017

02/28/2017

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Implementation Benchmark Associated with MIS

Action Step

Name

(Association)

IB Name Description Start/End/Repeats

Key

Personnel Status

School

Year

Major Improvement

Strategy Name:

Individualized Goal Setting and Regular Feedback

Major Improvement

Strategy Description:

If we want students who are aware of their current performance relative to

the standard and can identify the highest leverage move to get them to the

next step and higher achievement on formative assessments and ultimately

PARCC and READ Act measures, then we as teachers need to be

providing students with individualized goals and regular strategic

feedback aligned to those goals.

Associated Root Causes:

Goal Setting and Feedback: We do not have an approach that allows students to routinely set goals for

their practice nor do they receive regular feedback on how to achieve their goals. We do not have a

consistent planning method that leads to students practicing the most appropriate skill in his or her

independent work.

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.

Action Steps Associated with MIS

Name Description Start/End

Date

Resource Key

Personnel

Status School Year

Create

Non-Negotiable

List

ILT will set non

negotiables for

student goal setting

and feedback

including: having

clear

documents/templates

for teachers to

follow; data

ownership systems

for students;

frequency and

content expectations

01/02/2017

01/19/2018

ILT Not Started This

School

Year

Celebrate

Goal

Movement

Create

weekly and

monthly

events to

celebrate

goal

movement

both amongst

students and

families

01/02/2017

06/01/2018

FACE

Committee

and

Leadership

Council

Not Started This School

Year

“Next Best

Step” PD

ILT will plan

explicit PD

on what it

means to pull

out highest

leverage step

– dive deeper

11/01/2017

11/30/2017

Guided

Reading Plus

and Fountas

and Pinnell

Resources

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Scheduling

Explicit

Time for

Feedback

ILT will set a

clear

schedule for

when the

feedback

occurs

12/11/2017

01/08/2018

Master

Schedule

ILT Not Started This School

Year

ILT

Walkthroughs

and

Calibration

ILT will

regularly

conduct

walkthroughs

to check for

implementation

of

non-negotiable

lists as well as

evaluate and

calibrate

teacher

effectiveness

on the LEAP

indicator of I7

01/22/2018

04/28/2017

LEAP

Framework;

ILT

Non-Negotiable

Created List

ILT Not Started This School

Year

Implementation Benchmark Associated with MIS

Action Step

Name

(Association)

IB Name Description Start/End/Repeats

Key

Personnel Status

School

Year

Attachments List