2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form

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

2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form School/code & District/code: Adams County School District 50 / 0070

State Review Panelists: Lisa A. Escárcega and Mark A. Payler

Recommendation Meeting Date: June 12, 2015

Panel’s Recommendation:

The State Review Panel recommends that Adams County School District 50 pursue Innovation School status for M. Scott Carpenter Middle School, based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as well as a district site visit conducted on May 6, 2015. Evidence and Rationale:

The SRP recommends the district pursue Innovation School Status for M. Scott Carpenter Middle School, one of only two Priority Improvement status schools left in the Adams County School District 50 (Adams 50), because the district has been rated as Effective in the following areas: the leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results, there is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner, and there is a likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing. Adams 50 currently has a strong leadership team in place as a result of restructuring over the past four year. Adams 50 also a proven track record of successfully removing schools from the Accountability Clock. The chart below shows the movement of schools on the Accountability Clock over the past 5 years.

The Adams 50 leadership has developed adequate infrastructure to support district improvement. Top level organization and accountability roles are clearly defined. The district leadership is intentional with leadership development, with a strong focus on retaining and developing staff. The district has adopted new literacy and math curriculum within the past three years and continues working to align curriculum to district-adopted standards and a Competency-Based Instructional model (adopted by the Board of Education in 2009 and readopted in 2012). The district is in the developing stages of planning effectively to lead to appropriate actions such as requiring schools to review their data on a regular data cycle and ensuring leadership monitors building level student achievement data on a

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

regular basis. The district demonstrated the capacity to benefit from the use of external partners such as CDE, Evans Newton for title schools, CDE’s Language and Equity Department and Marzano Labs. While Innovation Status is appropriate for M. Scott Carpenter School and recommended by the SRP, it is also recommended that - within the broader scope of the district - work begins to prioritize the focus on best first instruction and data driven instructional practices. The SRP notes that the district has undertaken a large number of initiatives with the need to make multiple revisions to several of the practices and processes adopted. The multiple revisions and the substantial number of initiatives currently in place appear to be interfering with the district’s ability to move forward effectively. The State Review Panel does not recommend management by a private or public entity other than the district because there is no evidence that the district leadership is lacking in effectiveness. The district leadership’s effectiveness, combined with the present infrastructure, has garnered strong School Board and Community support under the current management system. The district has shown a number of positive early indicators of change including the ability to support schools out of Priority Improvement and Turnaround status. Management is intended to be targeted toward schools and districts that demonstrate a lack of effectiveness in leadership, but this is not the case for Adams 50. The district has developed a number of processes and supports to help ensure the district and all schools move off of Priority Improvement or Turnaround status. These processes and supports include mandatory district expectations, processes for UIP development at the schools and review of the UIPs to align to the district, creation of district leadership positions for both English Language Development and PWR, along with the securing of several grants to support initiatives. The State Review Panel does not recommend conversion of school(s) to charter status due to the leadership that is in place and the demonstrated capacity of the district to move schools off the Accountability Clock. Specifically, Adams 50 had 13 schools with Priority Improvement or Turnaround ratings in 2010 and now has only 2 schools that remain on Priority Improvement status. The Adams 50 leadership has developed adequate infrastructure to support continued district improvement. Top level organization and accountability roles are clearly defined and the district leadership is intentional with leadership development. The State Review Panel does not recommend closure of the district or school(s) due to the necessity of the district and school to remain in operation to serve students. The district has made substantial progress in the competency-based learning system and has heavily invested resources to support the progress. Closure of M. Scott Carpenter School is not a realistic option as the district lacks the capacity to absorb the students into other schools. The State Review Panel does not recommend district reorganization given that the district has reorganized leadership and staffing at different school sites over the period of time that schools have entered on the Accountability Clock. Some of these staffing changes have been substantial. Evidence from both the document review and site visit showed that the new structures in place are effectively improving schools.

State Review Panel Site Visit Feedback Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

end of the accountability clock.

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

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

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

the six key areas. This report presents the school/district’s capacity levels in relation to the six key areas and a summary of evidence for each. Reviewer Name(s): Lisa A. Escarcega and Mark A. Payler Date: April 22, 2015 Form: [ ] Individual [X] Consensus

District Name/Code: Westminster 50 / 0700 School Name/Code: N/A

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

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

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

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

Developing

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

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

Developing

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



Capacity Level Rubric

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

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

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

Capacity Level Quality Standard

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

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

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

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

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective



SRP Evaluation Based on Site Visit

State Review Panel Criteria Claims & Evidence

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

Considerations:

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

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

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

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

Leadership acts as a change agent, making data-driven changes to the

academic program and conveying clear expectations for stakeholders.

The district has restructured over the past four years including the Board of Education, Administration, and Management Team.

District leadership responded to feedback from Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) reviews, and is implementing Action Steps as authored in the Major Improvement Strategies by creating a district leadership English Language Development (ELD) position, a district level Post Workforce Readiness (PWR) office, and establishing an ELD program with expectations for scheduling of ELD blocks and establishing a walkthrough protocol for the ELD courses.

The district leadership has changed the reading curriculum and math curriculum based on academic achievement results and the recommendation of a CADI review.

The district has changed the alignment to newly adopted standards five times.

Walkthroughs that include review of recent data have been established for all schools.

The district has expectations for data walls and/or data sheets to be used in all schools.

The superintendent receives UIPs from all schools and checks with directors and principals on a regular cycle.

The school board receives reviews and approves all school and district Unified Improvement Plans.

The district has a Mandatory District Expectations document that is updated annually.

The district is using a rubric twice yearly to determine the level of implementation of the Competency Based System (CBS).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The school/district holds high expectations for academic learning.

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

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

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

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



Leadership analyzes data to identify and address challenges; however, these challenges have not yet been prioritized.

District leadership presented data and included district and school staff in the district UIP development process. This process was corroborated by all staff interviewed.

The district leadership and superintendent monitor data trends of interim assessments and movement of students through levels.

The district leadership presents data to the district Board of Education (public venue).

District leadership included teachers in the recent process to prioritize professional learning offerings.

District leadership expends general fund resources equally among buildings.

Attendance was identified by some leadership staff as a significant issue. State data reports showing attendance declining.

The district has obtained several state grants including TDIP, Turnaround Improvement Grant, Pathways, and Read To Achieve.

District leadership continues to support a significant number of priorities including the on-going district-wide implementation of a Competency Based System, utilizing school level data walls or data sheets to monitor student achievement, creating communication systems to ensure a timely and consistent response to a variety of stakeholders (communications protocols and Customer Service for Excellence), and implementing a timely interim benchmarking assessment (Scantron).

When challenged to identify from memory, any of the Major Improvement Steps or Action Steps from the current UIP, few interviewed parties (outside of the learning services staff) could provide specific feedback.

Multiple interviewees and CDE UIP feedback recommended reducing the number of actions within the district UIP.

Leadership establishes high expectations for student behavior and



students’ ownership of their learning.

The Competency Based System (CBS) adopted by the district in 2008 is modeled on students being a part of the choices made in learning activities and for monitoring their learning. However, the degree to which the model is fully implemented at all levels could not be determined.

There has been a decrease in student behavior incidents (District-level CDE 2011 to 2014 Safety and Discipline Incidents Report shows 51% decrease in reportable incidents).

During site visits to school buildings, observers noted that students at the elementary level had portfolio notebooks that included monitoring and rubric scoring tools to enable students to be self-directed learners.

Teachers use rubrics with students to evaluate student work. Rubrics are evidenced in classrooms and student notebooks at the Elementary level.





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

Considerations:

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

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

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

The district/superintendent leads intentional and ongoing leadership

development to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the

sustainability of the organization.

The district has actions in the district UIP for new principal and new teacher induction.

School leadership staff reported that mentoring is available and that principals with several years of experience serve as mentors.

The district completes an annual 360 survey of teachers for principal evaluation.

The superintendent meets with staff on a regular cycle and reviews data.

The superintendent has developed several cabinets to communicate with staff and students from different areas.

Adams 50 elicited input from teachers and district staff when deciding to implement CBS in 2008. 85% of teachers voted to move forward with CBS. The Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution in 2010 to support the continuation of the CB System.

The School board provides a Boot Camp for new board members to ensure continuity of board level initiatives and district instructional practices focused on CBS.

The district leadership has a strong focus on retaining and developing

talent; evaluates all staff and dismisses those in leadership positions who do

not meet professional standards and expectations. The district has restructured over the past four years including the

Board of Education, Administration, and Management Team.

School board members, on multiple occasions, stated that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3: School/district leadership ensures

School/district leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential school functions, and that roles



that the school/ district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

and responsibilities of all individuals at the school are clear.

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

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

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

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

superintendent brings data on ineffective principals to the board and the board takes appropriate actions, possibly leading to dismissal.

The district created a comprehensive ELD plan.

The district uses the state Educator Effectiveness evaluation model.

Staff turnover at the principal level has occurred in the past and is now stable.

A review of the district’s professional development (PD) plan indicates many PD opportunities. A district PD focus in 2013-14 was data-driven dialogue.

Data analysis PD is included in ELD WIDA grant.

The visiting team had an opportunity to briefly observe a professional learning activity during the site visit. However, a clear understanding of the effectiveness of the PD offered by the district was unable to be determined.

The district leadership has the essential personnel to ensure that the district has aligned and sound operational and financial systems and processes.

District support positions are in place for district level operations.

The superintendent has several advisory committees including instruction, teacher leaders and student groups.

Leadership positions noted their responsibilities for assuring compliance with the Mandatory District Expectations provided by Learning Services, explaining this demonstrates a direct link to the school level Unified Improvement Plan while the remaining expectations strongly support the on-going implementation of the CBS model.

The district has implemented a standard formula for providing school level funding. However, based on identified local level needs, extra dollars can be put into schools for other initiatives (i.e. – technology).

District level operations staff was aware of the Unified Improvement Plan and the CBS model and could speak to those initiatives in very broad terms and also indicated how they supported those same initiatives.

District leadership has developed Customer Service Plan and

2.4: School/district leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

Leaders regularly provide meaningful feedback on instructional planning.

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

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

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

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

School leaders ensure that all teachers receive professional development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and



interpret a range of data reports; frame questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment literacy, use data tools and resources).

communications protocols.

The district leadership provides instructional leadership by ensuring that

structures and expectations are in place. Top level organization and accountability roles are clearly defined as

evidence by multiple school board members indicated that superintendent monitors leadership and the board monitors the superintendent.

New literacy and math curriculum were adopted within the past three years to align curriculum to district adopted academic standards.

The district has aligned curriculum to the Common Core Standards, and removed CAS-only evidence outcomes.

District leadership worked with school staff to determine if ‘holes’ were present in the new standards adoption (i.e. Common Core).

The district has changed curriculum expectations five times since the implementation of CBS, due to changes in state standards.

Schools are expected to provide Professional Learning Community (PLC) time for all teachers. School Leadership reported this expectation has been easier to meet at the elementary and middle level, with the high school level scheduling accommodating more PLC time starting 2015-16.

The district uses the Scantron Performance Series (nationally normed) for interim assessment. Scantron Achievement Series is used to create custom assessments for formative use and to create Measurement Topic Assessments that are used to determine if students have met criteria to move up a level in the CBS.

Walkthroughs are conducted every two to three weeks at schools by school leadership and supervisors.

Walkthrough protocols used by some district leadership cover budget, staff evaluation, Community/Culture, Data entry expectations, CBS implementation, UIP implementation, curriculum implementation (all related to mandatory expectations within the District Mandatory Expectations Document).

District 50 is using the state Educator Effectiveness model which requires observations and feedback sessions.

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction.

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

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

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



Educate is reported to be used at the Elementary level. Middle and High School levels will start using Educate (again) this fall. Stakeholders reported a delay in deployment of Educate due to technical difficulties. School staff reported that having to go between student tracking systems has been problematic.





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

Considerations:

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

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

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

Educators understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains school-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Progress toward school goals is shared regularly across the school.

Leadership historically has established clear, targeted and measurable

goals. However, there are no learning targets evidenced for 2015-16.

Academic goals in reading, math, writing and science were not articulated in the UIP for 2014-15.

District and school leadership in focus groups could articulate their roles and school-wide focus. School leadership could always articulate how the schools goals aligned with district goals.

District level operations directors clearly stated that they are committed to allocating, as best they could, their resources to match the student achievement needs of the district (for example, with climate/HVAC systems).

The school board has multiple study sessions on the school and district UIPs and provides input which is embedded into the revised UIP.

The district leadership has not set learning targets for the 2015-16 school year. It is not evident that the district leadership has set targets for movement of students across levels.

There is limited evidence that leadership adjusts implementation of the action plan in response to systematic review of data.

Schools review their data on regular data cycles as reported by several principals, their supervisors and district leadership.

Supervisors of school leadership reported that they monitor building level student achievement data on a regular basis.

Scantron assessment system results are reported to the Leadership Team.

The summer school program was changed from a traditional

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

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

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

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

3.3: The

school/district

engages the

community and

families in support of

students’ learning

school improvement

efforts.

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

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

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

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



summer school to a shorter period during the summer utilizing on-line credit recover. The change was based on data collected on the program outcomes are reported by building leaders.

Staff reported that the high school schedule will be changed for 2015-16 in order to reduce truancy and to increase time teachers have available for joint planning.

A Levels Change report monitors the number of students that have moved a level. It is not clear, however, that this report is used to change or improve instructional approaches or organizational structures.

No formal or external evaluations of programs’ implementation or outcomes were provided to the team.

The district has some strategies in place to engage the community and

families in support of students’ learning.

The ELL Department and ECE department reported sharing the oversight of parent engagement.

The district has eight parent engagement specialists.

Parents have been brought in at the high school level and shown data on where their students are and where their students need to be by exit of high school.

Parent workshops and English classes are offered by the schools. Parent engagement strategies that offer parent engagement in an

on-going manner (versus separate events) was not evident.





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

Considerations:

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

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

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

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

The district leadership collaborates effectively with existing external

partners.

The district had a CADI review in 2008 that recommended curriculum alignment, and the District acted on that recommendation.

The district worked with Marzano to create a curriculum framework.

The district received a WIDA grant that partners the District with CDE and the WIDA Consortium to improve programming for ELL students.

There is a newly created PWR position to development partnerships.

The district leadership reported extensively vetting external partners.

Schools have external partnerships as evidences by Hodgkins Elementary School’s list of partnerships.

Partnerships were documented with the Morgridge Family Foundation, the Rose Foundation and the State-wide Parent Coalition.

The district has a Community Health Clinic.

The district leadership team meets to vet possible partnerships based on fit to district initiatives.

The district leverages existing partnerships effectively to support of student learning.

The WIDA grant provided professional learning that was aligned with the district’s data-driven model.

Investment of READ Act dollars was documented in literacy training and instructional assistants.

Multiple district and school leadership members clearly articulated partnerships to support student learning and well-being, including: Rotary Club (provide free computers and dental clinic), the District’s education foundation (providing dollars for classroom level support), Highland Hills Park and Rec (16 week parenting course), Have A Heart

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

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

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.



(food/clothing bank, Adult ESL classes), and the Westminster Area Action Awareness Team (monthly meetings with school representatives and parents).

Mountain State Employment Council has been retained to support the district with personnel practices.





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

Considerations:

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

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

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

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

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

The district leadership is developing processes for monitoring the return on

investment of overall improvement initiatives.

The district has identified Competency Based System (CBS) as the transformational improvement strategy. District and school leadership corroborated the implementation of CBS throughout the district.

Innovation status has been granted to one school and will be sought for a second that remains on Priority Improvement/Turnaround status.

The district has a report showing a reduced number of schools receiving a Priority Improvement or Turnaround one-year SPF rating.

The district leadership has outlined an Interventionist Framework for the district that outlines six essential components and guidelines. This guidance was revised in February 2015.

An action plan for the interventionist framework and scoring rubric for implementation are developed. Data is to be collected at the end of the year on each schools performance on action plan goals. However, no completed forms were available for review.

The district leadership uses resources effectively, though it has not been

consistently responsive to feedback.

The district has implemented a standard formula for providing school level funding. However, based on identified local level need, extra dollars can be put into a school for other initiatives (i.e. – technology).

District leadership monitors student performance. If student performance is not going in a positive direction the district implements a root cause analysis to determine possible causes as well as develop specific action steps to address the cause.

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

Leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

Leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.

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

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



The district leadership team reviews funding streams and grant opportunities to determine alignment of funding to the district UIP.

The district had a CADI review of the district in 2008 and was responsive to feedback regarding curriculum alignment.

However, the district leadership made minimal changes to the district UIP after state level feedback given in 2013-14. The need for focusing and aligning of actions appears in the state UIP feedback and was articulated by school leadership.





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

Considerations:

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

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

School/district programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

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

The district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

The Board of Education, Superintendent, District Leadership Team and School Leadership interviewed all articulated support for the CBS model.

The Vision, Mission and Core Beliefs of Adams 50 appear in most documents reviewed, including the Interventionist Framework and Mandatory District Expectations.

The community relies on the district in terms of providing community liaisons, finding assistance in healthcare, and learning English. If the district was not there, district leadership indicated some of those families would be lost.

There are limited options at the district level for enrollment of students

with closure having a significant negative impact on the community.

The district has opened a STEM Innovation School and has an on-line K-12 Virtual Academy School.

Closure of the district would leave 10,000+ students in need of a new school location.

Closure of the only Priority Improvement/Turnaround status school would leave the district unable to accommodate the students at other existing schools.

M. Scott Carpenter Middle School has been identified by the district, and clearly supported by the board, to become an Innovation School.

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

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

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

Closure would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison schools do not promote better student outcomes.

State Review Panel Document Review Feedback Form 2015

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

Purpose: To critically evaluate the school or district plan (i.e., Unified Improvement Plan). This report will be used as one element of a body of evidence to inform actions that may be undertaken by the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education. Reviewer Names: Lisa A. Escarcega and Mark A. Payler Date: April 1, 2015 District Name/Code: Westminster 50 / 0070 School Name/Code: n/a

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

Overall X, 0 Growth Gaps OR Student

Engagement X, 0 E,M

X HS

Achievement X E,M

X, 0 HS PWR (District/High School Only) 0 X

Growth 0 X

X = Trending Over Time 0 = Most Recent Year to Year (1 Year to 1 Year DPF)

SRP Summary (complete using ratings from the following worksheets) Capacity Level: 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Effective

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

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

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

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

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

Based on your professional judgment, will the plan result in dramatic enough change to pull the school/district off the accountability clock if it is implemented as written? Need further analysis of what caused improvement thus far and more information on the implementation of the many Action Steps. [ ] Yes [ ] No [X] Not sure, more information is needed. Specify the additional information required. (See statement above.)

Based on your professional judgment, what is your overall level of concern regarding this school/district’s ability to significantly improve results? Level of Concern: [X] High [ ] Moderate [ ] Low [ ] Cannot determine. Specify the additional information required.



Overall Comments: • The Unified Improvement Plan is comprehensive. The plan was written two years ago and has not changed significantly. The stability of the plan allows

the district to implement chosen improvement strategies in-depth. The lack of change to the plan also makes it difficult to discern which strategies and actions are having the most impact and which ones could be devalued.

• The district plan is showing general, gradual improvement at the elementary and middle school levels. The reviewers could not determine if this was directly related to the implementation of the Competency Based System (CBS) model or a result of professional learning.

• There is a great deal of professional learning required to implement all of the action steps, which lack prioritization, focus and alignment. • While the plan describes steps to implement the CBS, it lacks in-depth explanation of the CBS theory of change as well as connection to College and Career Readiness

standards.

• The district is to be commended for taking the bold and courageous small district model (Chugach School District, Alaska) of a Competency Based System (or Personalized Learning) and up-scaling the model to a larger district to help meet the challenges of 21st competency skills every child should aspire to master. However, this is Year 6 of implementing a Competency Based System (CBS) with achievement results remaining relatively flat since 2010.

• The overall plan could be improved by further alignment and focus on the most important actions. Some of the action steps are very large and could be broken down with improved benchmarks to support understanding and accountability by multiple levels of stakeholders. A large number of PD modules and support structures are being developed and implemented according to the 2014-15 UIP. While continuation and continuity of successful programming is to be championed and celebrated, it is a concern of these reviewers that the apparent minimal gains in DPF growth percentage ratings and flat achievement data at the EMH levels since 2010 are indications of on-going systemic challenges plaguing the district. The large number of Professional Development modules and support structures being developed around CBS at this stage (Year 6) of implementation is also a concern. It remains a substantial challenge to the district to achieve the substantial and rigorous gains needed, at all levels, to obtain Improvement (or greater) accreditation status at a pace than is currently happening.

• While the district leadership is to be commended for being advocates of the CBS model with state and local leaders as suggested by the Board Minutes of January 13, 2015, the reviewers are concerned about the urgency and on-going achievement issues of the current implementation strategies as well as the capacity of the district to initiate and implement the numerous Action Steps as outlined in the 2014-15 UIP.

• Focus and urgency cannot be emphasized enough by these reviewers. Any and all data analysis needs to be connected to concrete actions so that the district, working within the Competency Based System (CBS), is truly data-driven.

• Professional development could be more focused and developed to implement data-driven instruction techniques (as suggested in the UIP) and clearly defined teacher action plans that align within the CBS model.

• The district could consider the use of an outside evaluator to get a clear and comprehensive overview of the current status of CBS within the district as well as help guide future steps to ensure the viability of the model.



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

• How is district leadership addressing their identified challenges of consistency of instructional practices (especially reading at the middle school level) and unifying instructional approaches (especially at the high school math levels) across the district?

• How were Root Causes, at the district level, derived and established? While they are articulated (UIP, page 24) there is no clear description of how they were determined. In other words, what was the most recent process utilized for the current UIP Root Cause analysis?

• Are instructional strategies such as Write from the Beginning rigorous enough to make the substantial gains needed to achieve academic success? Is there a laser-like focus on a limited number of instructional strategies or is the district spread too thin on multiple strategies that aren’t providing the Return on Investment in terms of increasing student achievement?

• How is the district involving staff, parents and key community stakeholders in the development and implementation of the UIP as well as on-going strategies around the CBS model outside of one-way communications as demonstrated by the “CBS tab” on the district website?

• Discuss talent management for under-performing school leaders as well as the teaching staff. • What do “data driven” best practices look like at the school level and how is it being utilized to drive instructional strategies at the school level? • District information suggests that the CBS reform effort has resulted in changes on several levels. Please discuss how CBS has impacted: (1) policy

changes, (2) budget reallocations, (3) school calendar and (4) professional development. • Who are the Partners for the CBS model and how do they tie into the overall effectiveness of the UIP and Action Steps? • What is the CBS grading policy? How was it determined? • What type of monitoring is utilized for CBS? (UIP - page 33) • Within the ELD instruction and program model – what percent of staff have an endorsement? • What does the overall high school program look like? • What changes to schools that have been made already? (Schools closed, turnaround, etc.) • Which of the action steps is getting the most traction? The least traction? • Has there been any change in staffing? What do staffing trends look like? • How long has each of the curriculums materials been in place? • Are there any extended learning opportunities beside SES? • How does regrouping of students work? • Has there been a new school schedule? (UIP - page 36) • How is concurrent enrollment going? • How is the parent engagement process going? (Everything is listed as still ‘in progress’ in the UIP.) • Will there be a general perception survey for students, staff and parents outside of the areas noted in the UIP? • How is the ‘showcase’ going for the rollout of new graduation guidelines?



Capacity Level Rubric The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of

adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

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

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

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

Evidence Relating to Strength of Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective

Exte

nt to

whi

ch S

PR T

eam

Fin

ds M

ultip

le

Type

s and

Mul

tiple

Sou

rces

of E

vide

nce

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation



SRP Evaluation Based on Unified Improvement Plan and Other Available Documents

State Review Panel Criteria Source(s) of Evidence

Notes

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

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

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

Major improvement strategies and action plan • The leadership at the district level has been relatively stable

over time. Current leadership turnover is below the state average - teachers: 13%, principals: 13%, administrators: 20% (Source: 2013 HR Collection Report).

• The leadership demonstrated a standard level of data analysis in the UIP (Data Narrative).

• District adopted and pioneered the Competency Based Systems model and is in the sixth year of implementation as a strategy to achieve positive outcomes. The move to a competency based system was a change made of a significant magnitude. The implementation of a CBS model has begun to improve the district’s effectiveness. (Source: UIP, page 8)

• Leadership openly shares the results for accountability. The degree to which the leadership holds staff accountable was not evident within the UIP.

• District has adopted a continuous improvement cycle by implementing the Plan-Do-Check-Adjust model and Interest Based Problem Solving. (Source: UIP, page 8)

• School Accreditation Plan ratings have decreased across the district from 12 Turnaround or Priority Improvement schools in 2010 to 2 Turnaround or Priority Improvement schools in 2014. (Source: Data Dashboard)

• DPF % points earned is slowly trending upward from 41.2 (2010) to 46.8 (2014) - (Source: Data Dashboard)

• Data driven dialogues are suggested in the UIP at the district and school levels to determine data trends, priority challenges

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

Human Resources data

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

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

Data analysis and data narrative

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

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

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

Target setting form, Action Plan



1.3 Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

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

Data Narrative, Root Cause Analysis, Action Planning

and root cause (at the school level, but not certain at the district level). (Source: UIP, page 7)

• High expectations are not evident in the 2014-215 UIP around the issue of behavior but the 2013 TELL Staff Survey indicates under topic Q.5 that (1) the leadership enforces the rules (66% agree), (2) students are following the rules (64% agree), (3) teachers have administrative support for administering the school rules (72% agree) and (5) the school is a safe environment (89% agree).

• Climate and culture outside of data sharing, analysis and planning are not addressed in the UIP.

• The reviewers are concerned about the capacity of the district to focus on a limited number of changes that will achieve visible and substantial wins for the district as evidenced by the numerous Action Steps in the current UIP.



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

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

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

Data Narrative, Action Plan

• MIS#4 provides for a number of key strategies to address 2.2 including a PD Academy model to certify competencies in CBS, New Principal Induction training, New Teacher Induction/New Teacher Orientation and PD modules on various CBS instructional practices. (Source: UIP, page 44)

• The district has a continuous improvement process that includes both internal and external stakeholders (as noted in the UIP data narrative).

• There has been the addition of one staff to support EL student enrollment and there is an action to develop professional learning for new leaders (indicating some staff turnover).

• There is not a clear indication of how the district leadership either supports struggling teachers or addresses staff which does not meet professional expectations.

• While it is suggested that at the school level there is internal and external stakeholder involvement of school UIPs, the reviewers could find little evidence of how the same stakeholder involvement was utilized in creating the current district UIP.

• District efforts to recruit and retain effective teachers and leaders are not evident in the current UIP however support structures such as New Teacher and New Principal are included. (Source: UIP, page 43)

• The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of June 30, 2014 utilized the services of an outside audit firm and listed the auditee as qualifying as a Low Risk Auditee with no Governmental Auditing Standard Findings to be addressed on General Fund and Federal Fund Awards. The district has indicated that 75 cents of every dollar is spent on instruction and 86% of the General Fund is spent on Salaries and Benefits which is in line with a service providing organization. (Source: District 50 publication – Navigating the Budget)

• 3-week data review cycles and data walls are indicated

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

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

Data Narrative, Action plan

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

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

Data Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan

2.4: School/district leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

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

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

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

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction.

n/a n/a



throughout the Action Plan and Target Setting of the current UIP.

• Organizational routines are noted in several areas of the plan for ongoing data analysis to improve student learning. Organizational routines also include “Deploy(ing) monthly walk-through tools and protocols with a focus on priority needs” and “establishing consistent routines foe school visits with a clear focus on areas of need, support, data analysis and monitoring”. (UIP, page 24 – listed as In Progress or Updated)

• The plan outlines an assessment plan and process that is developed and appears to be meeting the needs of the CBS model.

• It is not clear if the instructional needs identified in the plan are meeting the needs of students. What has worked in in reading? What is working in math and writing? Targets are absent.



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

Considerations:

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

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

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

• There has been little change from last year’s UIPs and this year’s plan. The district has set achievable goals in the past and has raised them once they are met. This year’s plan lacks clearly established targets. There is a clear sense that change in the district is mandatory, and not optional.

• While steps within the action plan are relatively clear, many are quite large. Taken together, the plan at times lacks a logical progression. The district is attempting to get to an advanced level of implementation as the many Actions Steps speak to refinement.

• Indicator 3.3 is evidenced in MIS #3 and include district activities such as working with the Statewide Colorado Parent Coalition, reorganizing BACC and DACC Committees, partnering with the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and piloting a Parent University at Hodgkins Elementary School.

• One area of growth is in the area of family involvement. The 2013 TELL Survey indicates in Q.4 that (1) “parents/guardians are influential decision makers” (district level survey data indicates 46% agree, while the state average is 70.5%), (2) “parents/guardians support teachers” (district level survey data indicates 51.7% agree while the state average is 71.8%) and “parents know what is going on in the schools” (district level survey data indicates 59.2%, while the state average is 76.4%). (Source TELL Survey, staff perceptions)

• Interim measuring assessments include Scantron Performance Series (scale core increase) and writing samples assessed using the Right From the Beginning Rubric with 3 week data review cycles including disaggregated data walls being utilized. ( Source: UIP, pages 22-23)

• “Scale score increase” noted as interim measures and 2014-15 Annual Performance Targets established based on Priority Performance Challenges. Targets under Worksheet #1 for

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

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

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

Entire UIP with particular emphasis on the Action Plan

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

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

Action Plan

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

Target Setting Form and Action Plan

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

• Strategies for community and family involvement are incorporated throughout the plan

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

Action Plan Parent Involvement Agreement/Compact (Title I Schools only)



2013-14 (UIP, pages 14-15) were met (except HS Reading) and are addressed in both the reflection in integrated into the MISs. (Source: UIP)

• Action Plan identifies Steps and responsibilities of Key Personnel resting on the shoulders of CEdO, School Supervisors and Principals. (Source: UIP, pages 24-46)

• The overall Action Plan is comprehensive and complex however, it is a concern of the reviewers that the plan lacks evidence of strategically eliminating tactics that do not work while emphasizing a tighter focus on fewer KEY Action Steps. (Source: UIP, pages 33-35)

• MIS #2 focuses on “Restructuring and refining to support (the) P20 CBS…”. A number of Action Steps appear to be continuation (In Progress) of previous Competency Based Education actions. (Source: UIP, pages 33-34)

• Strategies for community and family involvement are clearly articulated in MIS#3 and include developing standard operating procedures for soliciting parent and student voice as well developing a Community and Education Specialist Team to partner with the community. (Source: UIP, pages 40-41)

• Outside of Fall Parent Orientations (UIP, page 60) the Parent Involvement Plan is missing from the district UIP.



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

Considerations:

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

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

Action Plan

• The district has collaborated with external partners including CDE (2010), Evans Newton for Title I Focus Schools (9/2013), and CDE’s Language and Equity Department (2/2014). (Source UIP, page 56). Additional partners or collaboration activities include EARRS, Counseling Core, Graduation Pathways, various grants from CDE; and Rose Foundation and Morgridge Family Foundation grants. The purposes of the grants secured thus far appear to align with the need for improved college and career readiness outcomes and improved curriculum development and alignment.

• Activities of external partners are many and include Homeless Supports (page 30), the Statewide Parent Coalition (page 30) for involving parents with Academic Teams (page 41) and conducting Parent Education meetings to build partnerships (page 41) are evident and actually articulated as MIS#3 – “Engaging and communicating with all stakeholders” with protocols being developed in the various Action Steps of this MIS. (UIP – pages 40-42)

• Internships (UIP – page 37) and development of STEM partners are noted. (UIP - page 38)

• The district has an action to create a communication plan with external partners. (UIP - page 42)

• District support of schools is evident in the utilization of School Supervisors, 3 week data reviews, quarterly data cycles and bi-monthly meetings regarding school and UIP progress. (Source: UIP, pages 24-25)

• Title I and IIA Activities are aligned and targeted to support the Action Steps. (UIP, page 48)

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

Action Plan



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

Considerations:

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

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

Data Narrative, Action Plan

• There has been little change between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 UIPs.

• General dollar resource funds are indicated throughout the UIP however actual dollar amounts or percentages of the budget are absent. Budgets are aligned with activities and actions but it unclear if these specific dollar amounts (not clearly identified) are targeted to the areas of greatest need.

• The UIP mentions the following grants/resources: a. Rose grant for learning progressions b. Mortgridge Family Foundation Grant in what appears

to be the area of Math c. READ Act funds used for early literacy d. Title ll funds for professional development e. A WIDA grant to improve the program for ELL

students f. Title l and Title lll

• While resources are generally identified in the UIP and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of June 30, 2014 with 75 cents of every dollar being invested on supporting instruction, the return on investment has resulted in flat or slight increases in academic or growth percentage increases and not the substantial increase needed at the overall district level needed to raise achievement to obtain Improvement or greater accreditation status.

• CDE Reviewer Feedback (Winter 2015 Review Cycle) indicates that the district needs to utilize state expectations for student outcomes and a lack of strategic focus for the overall plan which are of a concern to this reviewer as well.

• Resources that are identified appear to align with actions specified in the action plans. How the Title funds were matched to needs based on a needs assessment is not clear.

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

• Identification of resources is aligned and strategic. Action Plan

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

Previous UIPs and associated feedback



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

Considerations:

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

• Population of students served is clearly identified. Data Narrative

• District 50 is a Competency Based System that serves 10,000 students in 20 schools. The district population is summarized in the Data Narrative (UIP, page 7) and self identifies the district as “more challenged than most.”

• If the Major Improvement Strategies are more strategically focused, data driven strategies are planned and followed with fidelity, and resources specifically targeted to schools of highest need, there is evidence (although the most recent DPF shows some slight declines in Academic Growth and PWR) that the UIP will be successful and the district remain in operation to serve students. There is a strong need for the district to improve and continue to serve the students in the district.

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

n/a n/a