Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2011-12
Organization Code: 0180 District Name: Adam-Arapahoe 28J School Code: 7932 School Name: Sixth Ave. Elementary Plan Type Based on: 1 Year
Section I: Summary Information about the School
Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2010-11. 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 – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – and state accountability expectations – School Performance Framework (SPF) data. Columns highlighted in yellow indicate the SPF results (1-year or 3-year) that are applied to the school for accountability purposes. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability
Performance Indicators / Measures/ Metrics / ’10-11 Federal and State Expectations / ’10-11 School Results / Meets Expectations?Academic Achievement (Status) / CSAP, CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura
Description: % P+A in reading, writing, math and science
Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3-years of data / Reading / 1-year / 3-years / 1-year / 3-years / Overall Rating for Academic Achievement:
Does Not Meet
* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.
71.6% / 72.0% / 43.0% / 38.2%
Math / 70.9% / 70.1% / 33.3% / 31.3%
Writing / 53.5% / 54.8% / 31.4% / 24.3%
Science / 47.5% / 45.4% / 17.3% / 10.0%
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Description: % PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAPA and Lectura in Reading and Math for each group
Expectation: Targets set by state* / Overall number of targets for School: 28 / % of targets met by School: 71.4% / Reading / No
Math / No
Academic Growth / Median Student Growth Percentile
Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing and math
Expectation: If school met adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 45
If school did not meet adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 55 / Reading / Median Adequate SGP / Median SGP / Median SGP: 45 / Overall Rating for Academic Growth: Approaching
* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.
54 / 45/55
Math / 66 / 45/55 / Median SGP: 43
Writing / 55 / 45/55 / Median SGP: 46
* To see annual AYP targets, go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp
** To see your school’s detailed AYP report (includes school results by content area, disaggregated group and school level), access the report in the Automated Data Exchange AYP System.
Student Performance Measures for State and ESEA Accountability (cont.)
Academic Growth Gaps / Median Student Growth Percentile
Description: Growth for reading, writing and math by disaggregated groups.
Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 45.
If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth, median SGP is at or above 55. / See your school’s performance frameworks for listing of median adequate growth expectations for your school’s disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners and students below proficient. / See your school’s performance frameworks for listing of median growth by each disaggregated group. / Overall Rating for Growth Gaps: Approaching
Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan
Program / Identification Process / Identification for School / Directions for completing improvement planState Accountability
Recommended Plan Type / Plan assigned based on school’s overall school performance framework score (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness) / Priority Improvement / Based on preliminary results, the school has not met state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Priority Improvement Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by January 17, 2012 to be uploaded on SchoolView.org. Refer to the UIP website for more detailed on directions on plan submission, as well as the UIP handbook to ensure
that all required elements are captured in the school’s plan. Final results will be available in
November 2011.
ESEA Accountability
School Improvement or Corrective Action (Title I) / Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for at least two consecutive years** / School Improvement Year
2 / Once the improvement status for the school has been finalized, this report will be re-populated in November. Specific directions will be included then. For required elements in the improvement plans, go to: www.schoolview.org/UnifiedImprovementPlanning.asp
Section II: Improvement Plan Information
Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.
Additional Information about the School
Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant HistoryTitle I Program / Does the school receive Title I funds? If yes, indicate the type of Title I program / ¨ Targeted Assistance ¨ Schoolwide
Related Grant Awards / Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach. / ¨ Turnaround ¨ Restart
¨ Transformation ¨ Closure
Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded?
School Support Team or Expedited Review / Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?
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 Accountability ¨ Title IA ¨ Tiered Intervention Grant ¨ School Improvement Grant ¨ Other: ______
School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)1 / Name and Title / Grace Choi, Principal
Email /
Phone / 303-366-6019
Mailing Address / 560 Vaughn Street Aurora, CO 80011
2 / Name and Title / Joshua Jones, Assistant Principal
Email /
Phone / 303-366-6019
Mailing Address / 560 Vaughn Street Aurora, CO 80011
CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011) 29
Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification
This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. In the text box at the end of this section, provide a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. 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 (with more than one data source) and what data were used, and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.
Worksheet: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2010-11 school year (last year’s plan). This information should be considered as a part of the data analysis narrative and in setting or modifying targets (section IV) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. You may add rows, as necessary.
Performance Indicators / Targets for 2010-11 school year(Targets set in last year’s plan) / Target met? How close was school in meeting the target? /
Academic Achievement (Status) / Reading
Grade / K-2
DRA-2
2009-10 / K-2
DRA-2
2010-11
Targets / CSAP 2009-10 / CSAP
2010-11
Targets
K / 67% / 75% / --- / ---
1 / 50% / 70% / --- / ---
2 / 34% / 60% / --- / ---
3 / 43% / 55% / 35% / 45%
4 / 42% / 55% / 40% / 45%
5 / 47% / 55% / 34% / 45%
/ 2010-11 DRA 2 results showed that we have not made our achievement targets for 2010-11 school year in K, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. The fourth grade met its target in DRA 2 and the fifth grade did not meet its target by 1%.
2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have not made our achievement targets in Reading for 2010-11 school year in 3rd and 4th. The fifth grade met its target.
Reading
Grade / K-2
DRA-2
2009-10 / K-2
DRA-2
2010-11 Actual / CSAP 2009-10 / CSAP
2010-11
Actual
K / 67% / 69% / --- / ---
1 / 50% / 37% / --- / ---
2 / 34% / 42% / --- / ---
3 / 43% / 37% / 35% / 42%
4 / 42% / 56% / 40% / 39%
5 / 47% / 54% / 34% / 45%
Writing
Grade / CSAP 2009-10 / CSAP 2010-11
Targets
3 / 20% / 40%
4 / 29% / 40%
5 / 17% / 40%
/ 2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have not made our achievement targets in Writing for 2010-11 school year in 3rd and 4th. The fifth grade met its target.
Writing
Grade / CSAP 2009-10 / CSAP 2010-11
Actual
3 / 20% / 20%
4 / 29% / 32%
5 / 17% / 41%
Math
Grade / CSAP 2009-10 / CSAP 2010-11
Targets
3 / 35% / 50%
4 / 42% / 50%
5 / 45% / 50%
/ 2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have not made our achievement targets in Math for 2010-11 school year in 3rd, 4th and 5th.
Math
Grade / CSAP 2009-10 / CSAP 2010-11
3 / 35% / 24%
4 / 42% / 42%
5 / 45% / 35%
Academic Growth / Reading
Grade / Spring 2010 / Spring 2011
Targets
All / 53%ile / 65%ile
4 / 45%ile / 65%ile
5 / 62%ile / 65%ile
/ 2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have not made our growth targets in Reading for 2010-11 school year in 3rd, 4th and 5th.
Reading
Grade / Spring 2010 / Spring 2011
All / 53%ile / 45%ile
4 / 45%ile / 35%ile
5 / 62%ile / 55%ile
Writing
Grade / Spring 2010 / Spring 2011
Targets
All / 54%ile / 65%ile
4 / 50%ile / 65%ile
5 / 62%ile / 65%ile
/ 2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have not made our growth targets in Writing for 2010-11 school year in 3rd, 4th and 5th.
Writing
Grade / Spring 2010 / Spring 2011
All / 54%ile / 46%ile
4 / 50%ile / 47%ile
5 / 62%ile / 44%ile
Math
Grade / Spring 2010 / Spring 2011
Targets
All / 54%ile / 65%ile
4 / 43%ile / 65%ile
5 / 61%ile / 65%ile
/ 2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have not made our growth targets in Math for 2010-11 school year in 3rd, 4th and 5th.
Math
Grade / Spring 2010 / Spring 2011
All / 54%ile / 43%ile
4 / 43%ile / 43%ile
5 / 61%ile / 44%ile
Academic Growth Gaps / Reading
The percentage of male students scoring P/A as well as growth data will be within 5% of female students 3-5 combined in reading. / 2010-11 CSAP results showed we have not met our growth gaps targets in Reading. (Female 48%/Male 36%)
Writing
The percentage of male students scoring P/A as well as growth data will be within 5% of female students 3-5 combined in writing. / 2010-11CSAP results showed that we have not met our growth gaps targets in Writing. (Female 40%/Male 23%)
Math
The percentage of male students scoring P/A as well as growth will be within 5% of female students 3-5 combined in math. / 2010-11 CSAP results showed that we have met our growth gaps targets in Math. (Female 34%/ Male 34%)
Post Secondary Readiness / N/A
Worksheet: Data Analysis
Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data for 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. Prioritize the performance challenges that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan will be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended. 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. Consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as necessary.
Performance Indicators / Description of Trends(3 years of past data) / Priority Performance Challenges / Root Causes /
Academic Achievement (Status)
Reading, Writing, and Math / CSAP Reading / 2009 / 2010 / 2011
3rd / 41 / 45 / 42
4th / 18 / 40 / 39
5th / 40 / 34 / 45
· Over three years our percentage of proficient and advanced students on CSAP has been lower than our district’s average except 5th Grade. The average for the percentage of proficient/advanced 4th grade students is only 32%.
· The Achievement indicator shows that we did not meet the state’s proficiency goal in Reading in 2011.
· All scores are significantly below state CSAP averages.
· The percentage of proficient and advanced in the 4th grade (cohort groups) has been declining in reading.
(2006/45%, 2007/28%)
(2007/46%, 2008/31%)
(2008/23%, 2009/18%)
(2009/41%, 2010/40%)
(2010/45%, 2011/39%)
DRA2 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011
K / 62 / 61 / 67 / 69
1st / 36 / 27 / 50 / 37
2nd / 21 / 17 / 34 / 42
/ Boys and no
· Over three years we have been losing proficiency from kindergarten to 1st and from 1st to 2nd, except 1st grade in 2009 (27%) to 2nd grade in 2010 (34%)
CSAP Writing / 2009 / 2010 / 2011
3rd / 19 / 20 / 20
4th / 6 / 29 / 32
5th / 26 / 17 / 41
· Cohort students’ proficiency has increased.