Submitted to: Colorado State Board of Education By: Dr. Katy Anthes, Commissioner of Education March 2017 Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 303-866-6600 Commissioner's Recommendation 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Data Analysis 7 Review of Systems and Conditions 14 Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) Overview 17 Grants and Support 20 State Review Panel Report Discussion 24 CDE Evaluation of District's Plan 26 Appendix A: Accountability Clock Background 39 Appendix B: History of UIP Feedback 41 Appendix C: Amount of Grants Awarded, 2010-11 to 2016-17 43 Appendix D: August 2015 Commissioner Recommendation 44 Appendix E: Additional School Data 82 3 Aurora Central High School will enter its sixth year of implementing a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan on July 1, 2017. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District presented to the State Board of Education on April 9th, 2015 and on June 10th, 2015 on the proposed pathway (Innovation) for Aurora Central. The district requested that a pathway be selected early to enable the school and district ample time for the design process. At the June 10th meeting, the State Board of Education directed CDE staff “to move forward with completing the process of reviewing the Aurora plans so that a formal recommendation will be ready for the August 2015 State Board meeting.” A recommendation was delivered to the State Board in August 2015 and can be found in Appendix D. In May 2016, the district submitted an Innovation Zone plan to the State Board that included Aurora Central High School; the plan was approved unanimously under the Innovation Schools Act. Aurora Central High School began implementing its innovation plan at the start of the current school year (2016-17). The following report constitutes an updated version of the Commissioner’s formal recommendation for Aurora Central High School. CDE Recommendation Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009, the Commissioner of Education is required to provide a recommendation to the State Board of Education. The Commissioner recommends Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School based upon a review of the school’s data, leadership, culture, academic systems, Unified Improvement Plan, and the history of grants and supports provided to the school. The Commissioner’s visit to the school in January 2017, as well as many staff visits and support over past several years also informed this recommendation. In addition, the Department took into consideration the State Review Panel’s final recommendation and the district’s own initiative to create an Innovation Zone, or “ACTION Zone,” which includes Aurora Central High School. Background Aurora Central High School is a large, comprehensive high school that serves a diverse community of families in Aurora. The school has a much higher concentration of at-risk students than a typical Colorado high school. Seventy percent of Aurora Central students in grades 9-12 are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs, compared to 37 percent of high school students across the state. A significant majority of Aurora Central students (71 percent) are English learners compared to 51 percent of high school students in the district and 17 percent of high school students in the state. Nearly all of the school’s students identify as racial/ethnic minorities (96 percent), compared with 42 percent at the average Colorado high school. Aurora Central High School earned a Priority Improvement rating on the School Performance Framework for five consecutive years from 2010 to 2014. In 2016, the school dropped to Turnaround status (see Table 1). Aurora Central showed some improvement in postsecondary outcomes in 2016, with increased graduation rates, decreased dropout rates and improved ACT scores. The school, however, also showed declines in Achievement and Growth in the same period, and Aurora Central continues to fall significantly short of state expectations on all indicators. 4 Table 1: Performance Ratings for Aurora Central High School, 2010-2016 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 Aurora Central High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority School Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Turnaround Note: Ratings are reflective of official performance frameworks. 1 year frameworks were used in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2016. 3 year frameworks were used in 2010 and 2013. Key Conditions for Success Based on conversations with district and school leaders, a thorough review of state data, school systems and conditions, and a review of the district’s Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), it is evident to the Department that the school continues to face challenges in engaging students, providing rigorous and differentiated instruction, and preparing students for high school graduation, college and careers. The district’s pathway plan for Aurora Central High School must address the following conditions to ensure that dramatic change will occur at the high school and that outcomes will improve for students. The Department notes that some of these conditions are included in Aurora Central’s Pathways Proposal already, and if implemented fully, can result in the necessary changes. 1. Given the consistently low performance of the school on all student performance measures, it is critical that the District fully commit to implementing the following actions.  Provide regular and supportive supervision of the school including weekly coaching meetings with Zone staff;  Strategically align district staff to provide streamlined support to innovation schools (for example, all innovation zone schools could have the same contact in the district’s human resources office who is knowledgeable on the zone’s HR waivers);  Set and maintain clear performance expectations and goals for the school;  Routinely examine student data, as well as plan implementation data, and use that information to enact real-time, mid-course adjustments; and  Seek and implement any new waivers, flexibilities or actions deemed necessary from data collected during performance management processes. 2. The Department believes the Innovation Plan, if implemented with fidelity, can result in positive outcomes for students. The district needs to honor the autonomies granted to the school (as delineated in the approved innovation plan), to ensure zone and school leadership have needed discretion over:  Recruiting, hiring, evaluating, and termination of teachers;  Budget and staffing decisions;  Curricular and assessment decisions;  Professional development decisions;  Student support strategies and services;  Calendar and school day decisions;  Partnerships and programs to meet the specific needs of special populations of students; and  Key operational decisions. 5 3. CDE has determined that adding a proven management partner to support project and performance management will help ensure that the district creates a responsive system for the innovation at ACHS. As such, the district’s pathway proposal should convey a willingness to seek support in performance management and external accountability from a quality provider to improve the implementation of key reforms and systemic changes. Rationale for Recommendation These conditions can be met through several of the pathways that are included in state law, including innovation and change in management, which the school is already in early implementation. CDE recommends that the district maintain Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School. The innovation plan approved in 2016 represents a viable pathway for achieving the conditions stated above and is aligned to the district’s strategic plan for creating differentiated zones to support low-performing schools (e.g. ACTION Zones). The district and school have taken steps to ensure thoughtful and deliberate implementation of their innovation plan. There is broad community support for the innovation plan and the plan has the likelihood of resulting in significant structural changes both at the school and district level if implemented well. The district and school have encountered some early successes with implementation of their innovation plan and identified where there are continued challenges and barriers. While CDE recognizes that some indicators declined in the testing data last year—the district is only at the very beginning of the implementation of the innovation plan. CDE has seen some improvement in leading indicators including a decrease in the 2016 dropout rate and increase in the 2016 graduation rate. This, along with the high quality of implementation of the plan during the 2016-17 school year, gives the Department encouragement that the school should continued implementation of the innovation plan. We know these large-scale changes take more than one or two years to take hold. CDE believes that the district has identified key next steps to deepen implementation of the innovation plan at Aurora Central and within the broader zone structure. Additional pathway option CDE believes a rigorous Innovation School Plan that implements significant and rapid change can facilitate an environment that addresses the first two conditions described above. Given the significant challenges the school faces in student engagement, performance, graduation and college readiness, CDE recommends that the district consider an additional pathway to address the third condition around performance management and accountability. Leveraging an external management partner, an action that Aurora Public Schools is actively pursuing, is an additional viable pathway particularly if paired in conjunction with the current innovation plan. Adding a targeted external management partner could foster the conditions required for robust change, especially in creating systems for the district to ensure the flexibilities and autonomies included in the innovation zone are upheld through district policies and practice. A management partner may also help support the Zone in creating systems of performance management to ensure the Innovation Zone is implemented well and brings about lasting, sustainable change for the district while also adding in necessary and ongoing mechanisms for accountability of outcomes. CDE does not recommend conversion of Aurora Central High School to a charter at this time. Given the size of Aurora Central and the community support behind the current reforms being enacted, the 6 Department recommends full implementation of the innovation zone for at least two years before considering conversion to a charter school. Aurora Public Schools is pursuing partnerships with charter schools as a part of their district-wide turnaround strategy. CDE strongly recommends continued pursuit of charter options as part of that broader turnaround strategy to address other pockets of low performance within the district and provide multiple choices for families in the district. CDE does not recommend school closure, first and foremost, because there is not capacity at other district high schools to serve the 2,172 Aurora Central students. In addition, the high school serves a large number of immigrant and refugee students and has developed supportive resources for this specific community. Aurora Central has made positive strides over the past several years in developing and promoting community engagement and partnerships. Summary of Pathways that Meet Necessary Conditions for Improvement District/School Pathway Innovation School Status Conversion to a Charter School External Management Partner School Closure CDE Recommendation X Additional Options CDE Does Not Recommend X X X CDE Recommendation Report Outline The next sections of this report provide supporting evidence and documentation for the statements made above. First, a summary of state data trends is provided, followed by a review of the district and school’s systems and conditions. A summary of the Aurora Central High School Unified Improvement Plan is included, as is an overview of the state and federal grants provided to the school over the past several years. Lastly, the report includes an evaluation by CDE staff of the State Review Panel’s report and the school district’s plan for innovation at Aurora Central High School. 7 Aurora Central High School has earned Priority Improvement or Turnaround ratings on the school performance frameworks over the past six years. The high school showed some improvement in postsecondary outcomes in 2016 with increased graduation rates, decreased dropout rates and improved ACT scores. The school, however, also showed declines in the Achievement and Growth indicators in the same period, and Aurora Central continues to fall significantly short of state expectations on all indicators. The sections below contain descriptions of key measures of performance as captured through the state accountability system. Additional data can be found in Appendix E. Enrollment and Demographics The number of students enrolling in grades 9-12 at Aurora Central High School has declined by more than 6 percent over the last five years, from 2,334 down to 2,172, while the district’s overall K-12 enrollment has increased by 19 percent, from 35,523 to 42,550. Figure 1 below contains enrollment information for disaggregated student groups at the state level (all 9-12 public schools only), district level (all APS 9-12 schools) and at the school level. These data help contextualize the student population being served at Aurora Central and the additional challenges the school may face in working with students from at-risk and higher needs backgrounds. % of Students Figure 1. Enrollment at Aurora Central High School, by Student Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 96% 84% 71% 70% 59% 51% 45% 37% 14% 17% 11% Aurora Central High School (N=2172) % Minority 9% District - High (N=11176) % IEP % ELL State - High (N=261968) % FRL Aurora Public Schools, as a district, enrolls more at-risk students in high school grades (across all categories) than do schools state-wide. Within Aurora Public Schools, Aurora Central High School serves a particularly at-risk student population. This school’s students have high poverty rates, have a higher rate of disabilities than in typical, and are more likely to be English learners than students at other high schools in Aurora. Additionally, Aurora Central High School enrolls a larger proportion of English Learners (ELs) at all levels – Non-English Proficient (NEP), Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Fluent English Proficient (FEP) – than Aurora as a district at the high school level or high schools in Colorado statewide. Aurora Central High 8 School also enrolls a larger proportion of students who are new to the United States than either high schools in Aurora or high schools statewide (see Figure 2). Figure 2. English Learner (EL) and Newcomer Enrollment at Aurora Central High School 100% 90% % of Students 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 29% 29% 30% 20% 27% 18% 13% 7% 10% 5% 5% 4% 1% 6% 10% 0% Aurora Central High School (N=2172) District - High (N=11176) % New to US % NEP % LEP State - High (N=261968) % FEP Note: New to US refers to students arriving to the United States within 12 months of first enrollment at a US school. District and state percentages reflect averages for high schools only. School Performance Frameworks Aurora Central High School earned a Priority Improvement rating on the School Performance Framework from 2010 to 2014. In 2016, the school dropped to a Turnaround rating, earning 31.8% of possible points (see Table 2). Table 2. School Rating over Time for Aurora Central High School School Rating1 % Points Earned 2010 Priority Improvement 37.6% 2011 Priority Improvement 45.4% 2012 Priority Improvement 41.6% 2013 Priority Improvement 41.1% 2014 Priority Improvement 44.5% 2016 Turnaround * 1 Accountability rating derived from official accountability frameworks, which were 1 year frameworks for all years except for 2010 and 2013, which used 3 year frameworks. *Points earned on 2016 SPF are not comparable to points earned on 2010-2014 frameworks and are not displayed. School Academic Performance Trends Math and Reading/English Language Arts achievement at Aurora Central have both been consistently low from 2010 to 2016, earning Does Not Meet ratings on the School Performance Framework. Growth results have shown greater variability between years in both content areas. Math and Reading/English Language Arts Growth ratings have typically fallen in the Approaching range, though both 9 content areas have achieved a Meets rating at one point. It is notable that in 2016, both content areas’ performance fell one rating level (see Table 3). Table 3. School Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth, for English Language Arts and Math Content Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Reading/ ELA DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM Achievement Math DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM Reading/ ELA A A M A A Growth Math A A A A M DNM=Does Not Meet A=Approaching M=Meets Note: Data from 1 year frameworks are presented for year-to-year comparability. Indicator 2016 2016 Participation Rates DNM DNM 95.2% 96.1% DNM A CDE staff analyzed the high school’s academic performance as compared to other high schools that also serve high populations of minority, low-income or English Learner (EL) students. As displayed in Figure 3, Aurora Central falls in the bottom quartile (25 percent) of student achievement when compared to other high schools serving high-needs populations. In other words, there are high schools in Colorado that serve a high proportion of EL students, low-income students and minority students that perform better on the English Language Arts state assessments. 10 Figure 3. Aurora Central High School’s 2016 English Language Arts Achievement Compared to Other High Schools Serving a High Proportion of High-Needs Students Data showing the performance of other schools in the highest quartile of minority students, students in poverty and English learners (those with the highest percentages of students compared to other schools in the state) is displayed in each of the columns below. Each dot represents a school; Aurora Central is highlighted in orange whereas other high schools are shaded in gray. The band in the middle of each plot represents high schools scoring in the 25 th – 75th percentile on the English language arts assessment in 2016. Note: Only schools with a valid mean scale score were included and with students enrolled at the high school level. Schools were excluded if they had fewer than 16 students or the assessment participation rate was below 90%. Schools classified as either high minority, high poverty, or high English learners represent the top quartile within each student population. The following data sources were used to create this chart: Student October 2015-16 and CMAS PARCC English Language Arts results for the 2015-16 school year. Figure 4 shows the school’s Achievement percentile ranks on English Language Arts and Math in disaggregated by student group. No within-school gaps among groups are apparent, as all groups performed at the first percentile. It should be noted that a percentile of 1 is the lowest possible percentile rank a school 11 can earn, and it indicates that 99 percent of other high schools in the state had a higher mean scale score than this school in the specified content area. Figure 4. Achievement Percentiles Rank at Aurora Central High School in 2016, by Subgroup Exceeds Expectations 99 Percentile Rank 85 Meets Expectations 50 Approaching Expectations 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ELA Math All EL FRL Minority IEP Figure 5 shows the school’s median growth percentiles in English Language Arts and Math by student group. Aurora Central High School generally shows growth data that is below state expectations. There is variance in the growth performance across the disaggregated groups—for example, the English Learners at Aurora Central High School are outperforming the All Students group—but no disaggregated group is meeting state expectations for academic growth. Figure 5. Median Growth Percentiles at Aurora Central High School in 2016, By Subgroup 99 Exceeds Expectations Median Growth Percentile 65 Meets Expectations 50 38 35 28 31 29 29 40 38 29.5 27 0 ELA Math All EL FRL 38 Minority IEP Approaching Expectations 12 School Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Trends Table 4, below, shows that the four-year graduation rates have fluctuated between 2012 and 2016, overall increasing from 36.4 percent of students graduation in four years to 48.1 percent. The 5, 6, and 7year graduation rates for these cohorts are noticeably higher than the 4-year rates, indicating that many students stay in school additional years before graduating. Despite this increase, the best-of graduation rate for 2016 was 66.7 percent. Additionally, for all years and cohorts, graduation rates at Aurora Central High School were lower than those of the district overall. Additionally, the dropout rate for Aurora Central has decreased from 9.0 in 2012 to 5.8 in 2016, but it is still high (see Figure 6). Table 4. Graduation Rates over Time Cohort School/District Aurora Central High School District Anticipated Year of Graduation 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 36.4 42.2 46.2 44.3 48.1 48.0 52.6 55.9 59.0 65.0 51.4 58.2 58.3 62.5 57.0 62.9 65.3 59.0 66.7 59.4 66.2 68.8 75.2 63.0 70.4 74.2 65.2 74.1 13 Figure 6. Dropout Rates over Time 20% 18% Dropout Rate 16% 14% 10.5% 12% 10% 8% 9.0% 5.7% 6% 8.8% 8.8% 4.8% 5.1% 5.8% 4.4% 4% 3.4% 2% 0% 2012 2013 2014 Aurora Central High School 2015 2016 District Average As displayed in Figure 7, below, performance on the ACT as measured by the composite score has increased at Aurora Central from 14.9 in 2012 to 15.9 in 2016. District-wide averages for ACT scores are slightly higher—typically at or around 17. Students scoring below 17 on the ACT will likely need remediation in core content areas before being ready for college-level, credit-bearing coursework. Figure 7. Composite ACT Scores over Time 36 Composite ACT Score 32 28 24 20 16.7 17.1 17.2 17 17.3 14.9 15 15.2 15.1 15.9 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 16 12 8 4 0 Aurora Central High School District Average 14 This section is designed to provide a summary of a qualitative review of district and school systems and conditions. Research on school turnaround shows that certain conditions are essential in establishing a strong foundation for rapid school improvement.1 Schools on track to improve student achievement are likely to show strong evidence of highly-functioning leadership, culture, academic systems, district support structures and board and community relationships. The data listed below were captured primarily through CDE Performance Manager site visits to Aurora Central High School to help support the implementation of the school’s Tiered Intervention Grant, as well as through CDE databases such as SchoolView. School Leadership & Staff     A principal and new administrative team was hired in spring 2013 to lead the school in implementing the Transformation model as a part of the federally-funded Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) program. In spring 2015, the principal was reassigned to a different position in the district. A principal from within the district, Gerardo de la Garza, was assigned to lead the school as an interim principal for the 2015-16 school year. Mr. de la Garza was then named permanent principal prior to the 201617 school year. Mr. de la Garza attended the Relay National Principal’s Academy Fellowship (NPAF) during the 2015-16 school year. At the start of the 2016-17 school year, approximately one half of Aurora Central’s teaching staff was new to the building, and most of the leadership team are new to their roles. This allowed the school to hire staff who are committed to the innovation plan and the extra work entailed in implementation. School Culture    1 Average daily attendance at Aurora Central has declined from 89.3 percent in 2011-12 to 76.5 percent in 2015-16, which is significantly below the state average of 93.2 percent. The school’s truancy rate has fluctuated between 10 percent and 20 percent over the past six years. During the last full academic year (2015-16), the high school had a truancy rate of 20.1 percent, which is 8 times higher than the state average of 2.4 percent. In 2016-17, the school has started to use restorative justice in dealing with student behavior concerns. Public Impact. (2008). School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success; Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. (2007). The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools; Player, D. Hitt, D.H. and W. Robinson, W. (2014). District Readiness to Support School Turnaround. University of Virginia Partnership for Leaders in Education. 15    As a part of Aurora Central’s TIG planning, the school has partnered with over 30 community organizations. These organizations provide services directly to students and parents, including tutoring, job placement support and English as a second language classes. In 2016, the school implemented a “House” model in ninth grade. The model entails dividing the class into four “houses” of core teachers to allow for greater cross-subject planning as well as building better relationships with students. ACHS plans to build the house concept into later grade levels in subsequent years. The “House” model has been noted by multiple staff members as a positive change for both staff and students. In multiple site visits during the 2016-17 school year, CDE staff has noted a dramatically improved culture including a more welcoming environment and high level of student engagement in classes. Academic Systems       Aurora Central currently utilizes MAP data to track student growth and proficiency, as well as for targeting students for intervention and acceleration during enrichment class. The Action Zone is currently reviewing different assessment providers to determine the best fit for interim assessments for 2017-18. In 2015, ACHS implemented a comprehensive professional development sequence in partnership with Marzano Research Lab. The focus of this work was to support teachers with lesson planning and deepening instructional strategies. Aurora Central has established multiple systems to support students most at-risk of dropping out, including mentors, additional counseling and tutoring support. ACHS utilizes Edgenuity software for credit recovery for students who have fallen off track for graduation. 2017 data is on pace for twice as many courses recovered as in 2016. Another program, called IGNITE, utilizes project-based learning opportunities to reengage students and recover credits. Both programs are cited in supporting the jump in graduation rate in 2016 and are poised to support an additional jump in 2017. The “House” model noted above allows for more personalized learning opportunities in small communities within the school. Specialized District Support and Flexibility    Aurora Central has received additional supports from Aurora Public Schools through the differentiated support structures. This includes additional funding to support school improvement efforts. As part of the new “Action Zone,” Aurora Central is overseen by the Office of Autonomous Schools (OAS). This model provides added flexibility and accountability along with streamlined reporting to the superintendent. The OAS has taken a very hands-on approach to supporting the school including weekly visits focused on supporting plan implementation, driving systemic improvement, and increasing accountability. The district provided Aurora Central with additional technical assistance and support in implementing the TIG grant through a project manager who tracked and documented TIG-related activities. 16  The Aurora Central leadership team used the flexibility to restructure the school day, recruit and hire TIG-funded positions, and establish rewards and incentives for teachers as a part of the TIG program. 17 Aurora Central High School submitted their UIP in January 2017 on time. A summary of CDE feedback over time can be found in Appendix B. Feedback on their current plan acknowledges their thorough data analysis, but points out a lack of detail on their action plan and progress monitoring. This may be because of competing priorities with different plans (e.g., innovation plan, local progress monitoring tool). The school has participated in improvement planning supports facilitated by CDE at the school district. Current School UIP Summary The following items were pulled directly from the school’s Unified Improvement Plan submitted to CDE in January 2017. (The text in the boxes below is the work of the school/district, not CDE). Where are students continuing to struggle most? Priority Performance Challenges: Specific statements about the district’s performance challenges (not budgeting, staffing curriculum, instruction, etc.). 1. Academic Achievement: The 9th and 10th grade achievement scores, for all disaggregated groups, are persistently below state expectations in reading, math, and writing Percentage of students reaching proficiency is consistently below state and district averages, resulting in a total SPF rating of “Does Not Meet.” 2. Name: Academic Growth: Academic growth for all disaggregated groups in language arts and Math is not making adequate growth in order to close the achievement gap. The total growth in the areas of language arts and math are below state average. In particular, 2016 SPF indicates a MGP of 28 percentile. Significantly below the 50 needed to receive a rating of Meets. In addition, the language arts and math MGP of IEP students lagged significantly behind all other subgroups. 3. Academic Growth Gaps: All subgroups have not demonstrated Median adequate growth for the past three years. Overall language arts and math growth data for all subgroups is below the state average. In particular, IEP students rank behind other subgroups. 4. Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness: ACHS students are not being successful in the comprehensive setting, due to the number of transitions, gaps in their education, suspension/expulsion history, and truancy issues. The school’s attendance rate has remained constant and flat. The school has not met state expectation in the graduation rate, dropout rate, COACT score, and matriculation rate. The graduation rate is 38% points below state expectations. The school is below state expectations in ACT Composite. 18 Why is the school continuing to have this problem(s)? Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, of performance challenges, that, if dissolved, would result in elimination, or substantial reduction of the performance challenge(s). 1. Unresponsive and Ineffective Student Support System: Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) - We do not adequately respond to Low performing students that miss an inordinate amount of school due to several factors, including but not limited to: lack of engaging instruction, low academic resiliency and increasing responsibilities out of school. This results in a lack aligned post-secondary workforce readiness systems to progress monitor 9-12 grade students off-track in order to decrease the dropout rate and increase the graduation rate. 2. Unresponsive and Ineffective Systems and Structures for Collaboration: We lack instruction that has been aligned to Common Core Standards and informed by data results, student academic needs, and cohesive planning and pacing in core content area as Professional Learning Communities have not been specifically identified and do implement recognized bestpractices. 3. Unresponsive and Ineffective Teaching and Learning Practices: We lack appropriate methods to assess what each student has learned, including formal and informal assessments, and use results to plan further instruction which supports fidelity to the instructional model that continues to reduce academic growth gaps. 4. Unresponsive and Ineffective Data Driven Instruction: We lack adequate professional development and training for our staff to teach literacy and numeracy across all content areas, and professional development around differentiation through the lens of culturally responsive teaching and beliefs that all students can learn. This results in ineffective communication of high expectations for all students and predictable learning environments characterized by acceptable student behavior, efficient use of time, and appropriate intervention strategies. What action is the school taking? Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach that describes a series of related actions intended to result in improvements in performance. 1. Major Improvement Strategy #1 - Culture and Climate: Engage in school redesign resulting in ACTION Zone Innovation Plan that will create a culture of performance 2. Major Improvement Strategy #2 - Student-Centered Data-Driven Instruction: Ensure strong alignment between Colorado Academic Standards, curricular resources, instructional pacing, and formative and accountability-level assessments so teachers and school administration can confidently and effectively use the resources to inform and support DDI planning and teaching and learning to proficiency. 3. Major Improvement Strategy #3 - Professional Development: Provide high quality, job embedded, differentiated professional learning for staff that is grounded in best practice and 19 data-driven teaching and learning cycles and evaluated by the learning outcomes of our students. 4. Major Improvement strategy #4 - Multi-Tiered System of Support: Implement MTSS to ensure the engagement of effective wrap-around, targeted, and precise learning experiences for all students under-performing and specifically, for IEP students, ELL's, and students at-risk of dropping out or not on-track to graduate. 5. Major Improvement Strategy #5 - Parent/guardian and community Engagement: ACHS school administration and faculty will work collaboratively with parents to increase parent/community participation in our overall goal to increase student academic achievement and attendance. 6. Major Improvement Strategy #6 - Develop Professional Learning Communities (PLC's): Implement Data cycles once a week during common PLC planning time to align vertically and address high priority frameworks. Teachers will receive proficiency scales professional development to look at units, lesson plans, create assessments, and look at data to modify instruction. History of Supports Available from the State on UIP Development The school has had access to universal and targeted supports from CDE on its UIP development. Universal supports include regional trainings held each spring and fall and access to many resources (e.g., quality criteria, UIP Handbook, online tutorials, sample plans) on CDE’s website. CDE has also worked directly with the district and with schools (including Aurora Central staff) on their plan development. CDE staff members were invited to work with district and school staff through events over the past two years. 20 Aurora Central High School has applied for, and received, the Expelled and At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) grant, Tiered Intervention Grant, and the Colorado Graduation Pathways grant. Summaries of the grant activities and outcomes are below. Appendix C includes details on the amounts of the awards. Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) Aurora Central High School received an Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) grant beginning in 2008-09. The grant program ran for four years—through the end of the 2011-12 school year. Grant purpose. The EARSS grant is a state-funded grant program intended to assist with providing educational and supportive services to expelled students, students at-risk for expulsion, and students of compulsory school age who are truant and at risk of being declared habitually truant as defined by unexcused absences. Funded activities. Aurora Central used the EARSS grant to fund the Early Intervention Program. Through the program, two district-level staff provided intensive case management services to 50 truant and/or expelled students attending Aurora Central High School and West Middle School and their parents in order to improve student engagement and academic achievement, reduce suspensions, and increase parent engagement/leadership by accessing community and district resources. The EARSS program funded the following activities to support Aurora Central students:  Credit Recovery  GED Prep  Mental Health Services  Other supports, such as tutoring, Response to Intervention (RtI), PBIS, case management and character education APS contracted with The National Center for School Engagement to provide a Policy and Practice Review to participating EARSS Early Intervention Program schools (West Middle School and Aurora Central). Administrators and teachers completed the survey which outlines best practices for school policies and practices. The Early Intervention Program also partnered with Aurora Mental Health Centers to provide parent support groups, and the district partnered with the America's Promise Initiative to promote parent workshops, and intensive case management services for families. As part of the EARSS grant, Aurora Public Schools had opportunities to participate in the annual networking meetings and had access to training and technical assistance on attendance issues. Grant outcomes. In 2010-11, the Early Intervention Program students showed improvements in academic course completion and decreased the number of failing grades in core subjects compared to the baseline. In 2011-12, fewer APS students were filed in truancy court than in previous years. This reflects a positive correlation that parents were willing to resolve their child's truancy without the need for courtmandated case management. One specific example of the impact of the EARSS grant is when an Aurora Central student was flagged for services because his father had expressed concerns about his at-risk behavior and chronic absenteeism. The Dean of Students referred him to the Early Intervention Program Advocate. The advocate 21 and parents met and during the initial home visit set up a goal plan and completed a behavior and attendance assessment. Prior to the Early Intervention Program, the student had missed a total of 120 class periods or 20 days of school. He was also failing most of his classes in the 1st quarter; he was placed in credit recovery classes and after-school tutoring. Since participating in the program, the student’s attendance dramatically improved. He did not fail any classes during the 2nd quarter and his grades were all Cs or better. He attained a 3.0 GPA and 2.75 credits during the 2011-12 school year. Tiered Intervention Grant Aurora Central High School was awarded a federally-funded Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) for the 2013-14 school year. The grant continued during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years. Additionally, CDE offered sustainability grants for TIG awardees for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. ACHS applied for the sustainability grants and was awarded those funds. Grant purpose. TIG is intended to increase the academic achievement of all students attending chronically low performing schools as measured by the state’s assessment system. Schools partner with the Colorado Department of Education in the implementation of one of the school intervention models provided in the guidance for the use of Federal Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grant Funds. Funded activities. Aurora Central was awarded grant funds to implement the transformation model. In the first several years of the grant, TIG funds paid for support personnel to develop and implement early warning systems to bolster student attendance, improve behavior and increase graduation rates. The school did not demonstrate improvement on those indicators, and CDE expressed concern to the district that the budgets included funding for a substantial number of FTEs. In the renewal process of the TIG grant, the grant was suspended in July 2015 pending resolution and resubmission to address concerns about the lack of evidence of progress and the large numbers of FTE. As a result, the school submitted a revised budget for two additional sustaining years of the grant (2016-2017 and 2017-2018). In 2016-17, ACHS shifted the focus of their TIG grant to revolve around implementing the school’s innovation plan by paying for teacher time for further training and development, providing necessary incentives, as well as much needed personnel support for classroom instruction. The sustaining funds are also being used to pay for:  Beginning of the year professional development for all staff to support implementation of the Innovation plan.  Staff and materials for a summer academy program to support at-risk students and English Language Learners. Grant outcomes. Aurora Central HS has received regular visits from their CDE Performance Manager throughout the duration of the TIG grant. Highlights from CDE’s most recent interactions with Aurora Central as they implemented TIG-funded activities are listed below. Aurora Central TIG Progress Monitoring Highlights - Winter 2017  The district used TIG funds to hire a project manager to support the documentation and tracking of TIG implementation. The project manager organized the progress monitoring meetings between the school, the district, and CDE.  The school used a Unified Improvement Plan project management tool to track implementation of action steps. The school leadership team provided evidence that TIG-funded activities were 22   conducted. This tool is used on a consistent basis in meetings with district leadership and supports diving substantive change and accountability within the school. The school collected and tracked data around student attendance and behavior to use these data to modify or adjust strategies. The school leadership is continuing to refine their system to regularly collect and analyze student achievement and instructional data to understand the impact and effectiveness of teacher professional development on improving student achievement for students. This work in conjunction with targeted support and accountability from the Office of Autonomous Schools creates a system that should allow for the focus and responsiveness required to dramatically improve outcomes for all students at ACHS. Colorado Graduation Pathways Aurora Central High School was a Colorado Graduation Pathways (CGP) school, and it received funds as part of the state’s U.S. Department of Education High School Graduation Initiative grant award that ran from 2010-11 to 2014-15. Grant purpose. CGP was designed to support systems change at the school level to increase the graduation rate, decrease the dropout rate, and reengage students who had dropped out. Funded activities. The Colorado Graduation Pathways has provided technical assistance and training to Aurora Central for five years based on the dropout prevention framework.2 Some examples of training and technical assistance include:  Development of Logic Model for Systems Change  Site visits to review programming tied to dropout prevention framework  Analysis of postsecondary readiness indicators  Training on Early Warning Systems  Training on Online Learning and Credit Recovery  Two conferences on alternative education  Misc. webinars on progress reporting, improvement planning, dropout prevention and best practices Grant outcomes. According to the benchmarks set at the beginning of the grant, CGP schools should achieve an average daily attendance rate equal to the state average after five years and see a stable upward trend in attendance. Aurora Central fell short of these goals. While 2011-12 attendance rates (89.3%) were up from the prior school year (83%) and closer to meeting the state average, the attendance rates fell in the following school years. At the end of the five-year grant, Aurora Central’s average daily attendance rate was 76.8 percent, significantly below the state average of 93.2 percent in 2014-15 (see Figure 7). The attendance rate remained flat at 76.5 percent in the most recent year data is available for, 2015-16. According to the Colorado Graduation Pathways progress reports, Aurora Central High School did see some positive results for disaggregated groups of students, including English language learners, minority students and low-income students in terms of increased graduation rates and decreased dropout rates. According to one of the school’s progress reports, overall improvement was not made because the school’s systems were ineffective in supporting the vast range of language learners and the large number of 2 For more information on the framework, visit: www.cde.state.co.us/dropoutprevention/cgp_framework. 23 significantly over-age and under-credited students Aurora Central serves. Ineffective leadership and an unsuccessful credit recovery program were also cited as reasons consistent improvements were not seen at the high school, with the student achievement data confirming this feedback. While gains (even some significant ones) were made during some years in certain metrics, the high school did not see a steady rise across years in any metric. Trends were erratic, and any gains made were typically lost in the following year. Figure 7. Average Daily Attendance Rate (Total Student Days Attended/Total Possible Attendance Days), 2010-11 to 2014-15 83.1% 89.3% 2010-11 Year 1 2011-12 Year 2 75.7% 2012-13 Year 3 79.0% 2013-14 Year 4 93.2% 76.8% 2014-15 Year 5 State Average 2014-15 24 Department staff reviewed the State Review Panel’s report, which was based on the panel’s 2015 document review and one-day site visit. The State Review Panel’s recommendations and the department’s reflection on those are noted below. The State Review Panel recommended Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School stating, “the school 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 likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.” The school was rated as “Developing” on the remaining two criteria (see Table 5). While the State Review Panel recommended Innovation for the school, the Panel did not recommend that school participate in an Innovation Zone “because stakeholders report that a lack of coordination with the district is creating barriers to school improvements and success.” The barriers described by the previous Aurora Central administration in the State Review Panel report largely focused on district mandates or lack of resources. The school, however, was provided with some autonomy as a part of the Tiered Intervention Grant, and even with these additional flexibilities the leadership team struggled to foster an open, outcomes-driven relationship with district staff. The school leadership team in place at that time struggled to establish progress monitoring systems, which made it difficult to make data-driven decisions in collaboration with the district. The Department believes that the current leadership working within the flexibility and structure of an Innovation Zone will be able to maximize district services to better meet the needs of students at Aurora Central. As a district, Aurora has made strategic moves to provide targeted and differentiated supports to schools. The Innovation Zone, or ACTION Zone, provides a way for the district to customize and prioritize support for struggling schools, including Aurora Central. CDE staff find that it is essential for the district to continue to be a partner in the turnaround efforts at Aurora Central High School, particularly in providing support and accountability to the school’s leadership. Table 5: State Review Panel Site Visit Summary for Aurora Central High School- 2015 2015 SRP Site Visit Summary 1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. 2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. 3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. 4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. 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. 6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. *Capacity levels include: Not Effective, Developing, Effective and Highly Effective Capacity Level* Effective Developing Developing Effective Effective Yes 25 The Panel did not recommend a management partnership because, at the time of their review, they found evidence that the school leadership was effectively leading school improvement efforts and an external management organization was not needed. Given that a new leadership team was put into place at Aurora Central at the start of the 2016-17 school year, and given the heavy lift of implementing an ambitious innovation plan, the Department sees the management pathway as a viable option for the high school—particularly to help support and monitor the innovation plan. The Panel did not recommend charter status because they found the school to be on an “upward trajectory” and concluded that the high school “can gain access to the necessary autonomies through Innovation status without going through the lengthy process and transitions of opening a charter, and can maintain a connection to the district to continue to capitalize on their community services and supports.” Lastly, the Panel did not recommend school closure because “the school serves a unique population of students whose needs could not be better met elsewhere.” Aurora Central serves a large number of immigrant and refugee students and has developed supportive resources for this specific community. The district and the high school have made positive strides over the past several years in developing and promoting community engagement and partnerships. 26 The Department used the following rubric to evaluate the innovation plan for Aurora Central High School. The rubric was developed to assess whether the plan, if implemented, will have significant, rapid and positive impact on student learning. Aurora Central’s Innovation Plan was approved by the State Board in May 2016 under the Innovation Schools Act. Innovation Plan Overview Plan Component Need for Innovation Innovation Plan provides a clear and compelling rationale for innovation. Mission & Vision Innovation Plan articulates a vision and mission that reflects high expectations for student learning. X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations  Explicitly explains how innovation status will ensure a greater level of success for student learning.  Provides clear rationale for why the district is selecting innovation school/zone as the accountability clock pathway for the selected Priority Improvement/ Turnaround school(s)  Effectively identifies and justifies need for waivers.  Gives in-depth description of the barriers or roadblocks to successful implementation of the current school improvement plan that would require innovation status to address. Meets Expectations  The vision and mission provides a clear and concise picture of what the school aims to achieve, what the unique focus of the school is, and the student population and community to be served.  Demonstrates support for innovation in student learning. □ Does not meet expectations Notes Comments  Use of TIG to implement changes with large inflow of resources alone proved unable to correct systemic challenges on its own  The inclusion of a chart delineating needs, rationale and design clarifies the need for innovation.  The inclusion of stakeholders from various groups including the community within the School Design Team strengthens the validity of the needs analysis within the plan.  The plan includes elements directly in response to CDE feedback from TIG reviews. Comments  The innovation plan itself discusses the process by which a new mission and vision will be collectively developed in response to the new theme of international studies.  Since the implementation of the plan, a new mission and vision has been developed:  Mission: ACHS’s mission is to develop global leaders who have the knowledge, skills and habits of mind necessary to shape a successful future. 27  Clearly articulates how the mission and vision is different from what it was previously, if it is being changed. Student Learning Outcomes Innovation Plan thoroughly describes the goals and specific gains in academic achievement the school will commit to. Meets Expectations Implementation Timeline Includes timeline for implementing components of the Innovation Plan. Meets Expectations      Identifies actionable goals for student academic achievement. Gives in-depth explanation for how the plan will improve student learning and move the school off the Accountability Clock. Explains how student learning and performance will be comprehensively measured by multiple sources of evidence and data. Timeline thoroughly outlines a plan for implementation. Provides evidence of a strong sense of urgency at the school district, school and within the community for the Innovation Plan.  Vision: ACHS strives to graduate leaders who are self-aware, locally active, and globally engaged.  The new mission and vision is different from the previous mission and vision and draws on the themes spelled out in the innovation plan. Comments  Plan includes ambitious targets for percent of points earned on the School Performance Framework for the first five years of plan implementation. The stated targets would have the school entering Improvement after the 16-17 school year and entering Performance after the 18-19 school year.  Other student data metrics for school climate were not completed in the innovation plan as they would be based off of the final data from the 15-16 school year. Those targets have since been crafted.  No other student performance targets for student achievement, including any local data were included in the plan. The plan does, however, include a description of how local student data will be used in decision making and in noting if proper progress is made (p. 99). Comments   A detailed chart is included in the plan which details out the specifics of plan implementation with a high level of detail. Timeline for implementation shows a sense of urgency while also accounting for time to properly phase in complexities thoughtfully. 28 Academic Systems Plan Component School Calendar & Schedule Plan articulates any proposed changes to the school calendar and schedule, which may include changes to:  Length of school day/year  School calendar  Hours of instruction  Number of work days X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations        Innovation Plan clearly describes what changes to the school schedule or calendar will occur and articulates how the changes will address current barriers and lead to increased student achievement. Explains how the daily schedule maximizes instructional time with an emphasis on core subject areas for all students. Provides copies of the school calendar and daily schedules as an attachment to the Innovation Plan. Identifies the total number of days and hours of instruction students will receive and the number of in-service days for teachers. Identifies the minimum number of hours/minutes per day and week that the school will devote to academic instruction in each grade for core subjects. Identifies what opportunities for extended instructional time are available and explains how that time will be strategically structured and allocated. If changes to schedule and/or calendar are not being pursued under the Innovation Plan, the district provides a compelling rationale for why changes in this area are not needed. □ Does not meet expectations Comments     Proposed piloted schedule allows for longer blocks for all core content (55 minutes). Proposed teacher schedule allows for teachers to have daily common planning within content areas as well as within specific houses. Daily schedule allows for extended learning opportunities at the end of the day. Annual calendar includes slightly extended calendar with extra days at the beginning of the year and built in teacher PD days every month. The calendar also aligns closely with other Zone schools to allow for collaboration. 29 Curriculum and Instruction Plan articulates any proposed changes to curriculum and instruction. Meets Expectations       Explains all innovations related to the school’s curriculum and instructional model. Discusses any special academic/curricular themes the Innovation School will feature, if any. Clearly describes how the chosen curriculum and instructional methods are expected to improve school performance and student achievement. If seeking curricular autonomy, explains why the proposed educational program is more likely to succeed in the school. The Innovation Plan includes evidence that the curriculum is research-based and has delivered or will deliver rigorous, engaging and effective instruction for the student population and boosts student achievement. Describes the instructional materials and resources that the school will use to support its curriculum and explains how they are aligned with the Colorado Academic Standards and the innovation model of the school. If changes are not being made to the curriculum, discusses how the standard curriculum will support the other changes being pursued in this Innovation Plan. Comments       Proposed student graduation pathways to fit student needs and provide more choice and opportunity Development of curricula for competency-based instructional model will utilize Asia Society’s Graduation Performance System to help with curriculum design. Staff in the school will complete the majority of curriculum development. It is unclear at this point if the staff and leadership have the capacity to implement the significant changes required by shifting to a competency based model, especially as it requires teachers to be curriculum authors. Supporting students in developing global competencies in conjunction with ISSN will serve as a lens through which staff will develop curriculum. Instructional model includes anchor activities of individual learning time, 1:1 tutoring and targeted small group instruction. Students will be provided with multiple opportunities for credit recovery to support students toward graduation. 30 Assessments & Data Plan explains innovations around student assessments and data systems, which could include changes to progress monitoring, datadriven practices and differentiated instruction. Meets Expectations       Provides an overview of the school’s proposed assessment plan, including a description of any assessments that will supplement those required by the district and the state, if applicable. Demonstrates that the assessment system is aligned with learning expectations and will yield reliable, valid and timely information. Explains any changes to how and how frequently the school will collect and analyze student academic achievement data, use the date to refine and improve instruction, and report the data to the school community. Provides an overview of how the school will manage their data systems independently, if that is an innovation they are seeking. Describes the school’s approach to provide personalized and differentiated instruction that best meets the needs of all students. Includes explanation of how staff will use students’ formative assessment data to inform and differentiate instruction. If changes are not being made to the assessment system, discusses how the current system will support the other changes being pursued in this innovation plan. Comments    The plan details how teachers will utilize their two daily common planning times for data-driven instruction as well as Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). In year one, the school will use common formative assessments, NWEA MAPs and Acuity for assessing student learning. Zone and school leadership will evaluate assessments in year 1 for best fit and make adjustments as necessary. 31 Special Populations Plan articulates how the school will support special populations. Meets Expectations   Talent Management Plan Component Recruitment and Hiring Plan articulates any proposed changes to recruitment and hiring processes. Provides an overview of how the school model will support students with disabilities, students with special education needs, English learners, gifted and talented students, and other special populations. Describes how any of those supports will change under innovation status, if applicable. Comments   Engagement of Students with Disabilities in House model provides needed collaboration. The plan specifically focuses on supports for ACHS’s high ELL population by providing school-wide ELL supports. Implementing these supports will be a major focus of professional development for all students. Students designated as English Language Learners will also be exposed to integrated ELD-Language Arts courses. X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions □ Does not meet expectations Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations Notes Comments  The plan details an implementation of a multi-step recruitment process including establishing formal partnerships with external teacher producing organizations in order to both expand the pool of potential teachers and find the best fit for the students of ACHS.     Describes any innovations in the school’s staffing plan under innovation status and how these changes will produce gains in academic achievement. Details the strategies the school will use to attract and recruit highly-effective, culturallycompetent teachers and staff. Describes the talent selection model and criteria, including the cultural competencies required for staff to support the student population and innovation plan. Explains the overall hiring process steps and timeline. Includes description of the flexibilities required to hire outside of district processes and timelines. If changes to recruitment and/or hiring are not being pursued under the Innovation Plan, 32 the district provides a compelling rationale for why changes in this area are not needed. Professional Development Plan articulates any proposed changes to the school’s professional development plan. Meets Expectations      Describes the professional development opportunities that will be offered to the teaching staff, at the start of an academic year and throughout the year. Explains how plans for professional development differ from the school’s current practice and/or district requirements and why these changes are necessary. Describes how innovations in the school’s professional development plan will lead to increased student achievement. Details the onboarding process the school will take to prepare incoming new teachers. Identifies the expected number of days/hours for professional development throughout the school year and explains how the school’s calendar, daily schedule, and staffing plan will be structured to accommodate this plan. Notes when teachers will have time for common planning or collaboration, and how such time will typically be used. Comments   Professional development for teachers includes extra days at the beginning of the school year as well as a full day PD every month. Professional development will all be focused around core elements of plan including: competency-based instruction, unpacking standards, assessment literacy, personalized and blended learning, integration of global competencies, ELL supports, and Culturally-Responsive instruction. 33 Evaluation and Retention Plan describes any proposed changes to evaluation and retention processes. Meets Expectations      Compensation Plan explains any changes being made to the school’s compensation system. Describes innovations to the processes and criteria used to support the strategic evaluation and retention of highly effective teachers and staff. Provides examples of innovative frameworks, standards, and practices that will be used to evaluate teachers. Specifically addresses what role student progress and achievement will play in teacher evaluations. Articulates strategies to promote retention of the best performing teachers. Specifies steps or actions the school will take when teacher or leader performance is unsatisfactory. Describes how the performance management system will be used to drive improvements in teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Meets Expectations  Describes any innovations in the school’s compensation system under innovation status and how these changes will lead to increased student achievement.  Outlines any incentive or reward programs and how they align with the vision and mission of the school. Comments    The plan outlines how teacher evaluation processes will shift dramatically to utilizing at least eight informal observations for every teacher rather than two formal evaluations. This shift should allow for more coaching opportunities for teachers as well as more accurate evaluations. ACHS will provide greater opportunity for teachers to experience leadership roles without completely leaving the classroom by utilizing creative teacher leader roles. All teachers will have annual contracts to allow for greater accountability and flexibility. Comments Waivers within the plan allow for differentiated compensation to incentivize hard to staff areas as well as stipends and bonuses for teachers who take on greater leadership roles. 34 Culture of Performance Plan Component Culture and Climate Plan articulates any changes being proposed to foster a positive school culture. Stakeholder Engagement Plan includes a variety of strategies to engage key stakeholders. X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions □ Does not meet expectations Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations  Describe in detail any changes to the systems, programs, structures, rituals, and routines the school will use to foster a positive school culture for all students and teachers. Areas the Innovation Plan could address include:  Systems to promote high expectations  Code of conduct & disciplinary procedures  Attendance policies and expectations  Wraparound services Meets Expectations   Includes highly developed plan for collaboration and partnerships directly linked to school strategies and sets forth a robust plan for parent engagement. Describes how those innovations will increase learning outcomes for children. Describes how the school and district will engage regularly, frequently, and effectively with parents and guardians, local board of education members, and other community members. Notes Comments     The plan relies on implementation of a “House” model along with a daily advisory period to provide greater consistency for students and give teachers more opportunities to form relationships with students. This type of model has found success in large high schools. New behavior supports include the introduction of a PBIS system as well as restorative practices to support students. The plan uses a “multi-pronged strategy” for tackling attendance with both proactive and reward based as well as specific reactions to chronic absenteeism The school needs to continue to focus on strategies to improve attendance and student engagement given the very low attendance rate and the long history of implementing solutions that have not worked. Comments  The plan includes multiple new strategies to engage families at ACHS including:  A parent-family outreach program for proactive home visits for all students;  Academic counseling with parents prior to school year;  Recruiting more parent volunteers; and  Holding an annual Culture Fair 35 School Leadership and Governance Structure Plan provides overview of leadership and governance, including how the implementation of innovations will be monitored. Meets Expectations Comments  The plan includes a diagram and accompanying chart which delineates the school organizational structure as well as the responsibilities of each party within the leadership team. The proposed structure seems to support the plan at the building and provide a necessary level of organization and oversight.    Identifies the key school administrators, including the school principal, assistant principals, and any other new leadership roles the school plans to create. Articulates changes to leadership roles and responsibilities under innovation status. Describes systems and policies for continued monitoring and implementation of the school’s Innovation Plan. Explains how the school will regularly evaluate implementation of its plan to ensure continuous improvement. Budget and Operations Plan Component Budget Innovation Plan includes an explanation of how the school will use increased flexibility and autonomy over the funds allocated it by the district, including an estimate of increased operating costs and/or increased X Meets expectations Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations  Outlines any proposed use of budget autonomies for the school and provide reasons for their necessity.  Explains any specific resources, material, equipment, staff, programs and policies that create additional operating costs as a result of the Innovation Plan (e.g., longer school year and school day).  Highlights any one-time implementation costs that will be incurred during the planning year and/or year one of operating with innovation status.  Explains how the school will fund such additional operating costs. □ Needs revisions □ Does not meet expectations Notes Comments The plan is budgeted for as cost neutral. It is lacking significant budget autonomy, which may limit the school’s ability to use resources in the best possible way. 36 costs savings and efficiencies.  Facilities & Operations Plan describes any innovations being pursued in relation to general school or building operations. Meets Expectations     District Systems Plan Component Accountability and Supervision Plan includes details on how the school district administration will support, Estimates any cost savings or increased efficiencies due to the implementation of the innovation proposal (e.g. analysis of budgeting using average vs. actual salaries or estimates of centrally budgeted services for which the school intends to access funding directly). Comments  Describes any innovations to the general school or building operations. Explains if there are significant construction projects necessary to implement this Innovation Plan. Addresses if there is enough classroom space to implement this Innovation Plan. Describes any innovations in the way the school will provide transportation for students. Details any autonomies being sought regarding procurement processes. X Meets expectations   □ Needs revisions Innovations in this area are not evident, but also not deemed necessary for initial implementation of the plan. This is an area which may require further attention as the plan is enacted and more barriers to improvement are found. The management partnership with MIE should allow for this concern to be addressed as necessary. □ Does not meet expectations Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations Notes Comments  Plan includes development of Office of Autonomous Schools (OAS) which will provide targeted district support and accountability as well as streamlined communication to the superintendent.  Plan conveys that the principal supervisor will provide consistent support and accountability to school principal. Plan describes reporting and evaluation structures for the innovation school principal, 37 supervise and hold accountable school leadership. District Systems noting if any changes are being made to current practices or management structures. Meets Expectations  Outlines the district’s plan for providing differentiated support to the innovation school, including changes to organizational structures, routines, or systems.  Describes any flexibility from district policies and practices that will be granted to the innovation school. Comments A broad differentiation is described within the new Office of Autonomous Schools. The plan lacks details around how the district will work to streamline and train other district offices (e.g. human resources, finance) to ensure all necessary district personnel are aware of and can properly act upon flexibilities within the innovation plan. The added management partnership with MIE addresses the missing components in this section. Summary Overall Rationale Comments CDE has determined that the proposed Innovation Plan meets the expectations of rigorous standards and, if implemented, will have significant, urgent, and positive impact on student learning. The plan details an ambitious effort to overhaul the systems and structures at Aurora Central High School which:  Identifies and seeks to address the root causes of low performance at the school;  Creates a new governing structure to provide greater support and accountability from the district level;  Includes a renewed focus on global competencies within a larger Zone feeder pattern for vertical alignment for students; and  Entails a significant amount of family community engagement both in creation of and enacting the plan. School and district leadership requested feedback from CDE on an earlier draft of the plan and made necessary adjustments based upon that feedback. For example, CDE was concerned with a lack of detail around how the plan would be implemented. In response, Aurora developed a clear implementation framework and has specified how the district will support and hold the school accountable. The district took steps to create a new Office of Autonomous schools to oversee innovation and charter schools, including Aurora Central, and the district hired leaders with proven turnaround experience to run the office. Aurora Public Schools has engaged with Mass Insight who is providing performance monitoring and project 38 The district needs to adhere to its commitment to provide regular and supportive supervision of the school, while also maintaining fidelity of implementation for the approved waivers and flexibilities. CDE believes that adding a proven management partner to support project and performance management, will help ensure that the district creates a responsive system for the innovation at ACHS. management. The district is proposing to extend that partnership as part of their pathway proposal. The innovation plan at Aurora Central is part of an innovation zone, referred to as an “Action Zone,” which is only one aspect of the district’s larger portfolio of strategic reform, which includes charter schools, driven by the need to improve outcomes for all students. Management Proposal Review The Aurora Central Pathways Proposal (submitted March 22, 2017) also presents a plan to engage with a management partner—Mass Insight— to support the implementation of the innovation plan. The Pathways Proposal thoroughly explains the needs of the school and district and which aspects of the innovation plan require assistance from an outside management partner.  The proposed management partnership details a targeted plan for how Mass Insight Education will focus on project management and performance management for innovation implementation at Aurora Central, other Zone schools, and the district’s support of the Zone.  Mass Insight Education has a long proven track record of supporting schools and districts with this type of work and also has a history with the district in working to support the creation of the innovation plan itself. Mass Insight appears to be a good fit for the type of support the district needs in fully implementing the innovation plan at this time.  While the management aspect of the Pathways Proposal is narrowly focused on project management and progress monitoring for the innovation plan, CDE finds that this is an appropriate role for the management entity given the detailed scope of work outlined in the school’s innovation plan. 39 State law requires that the Colorado State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education hold all districts and schools accountable for student performance (C.R.S. 22-11-101 et al.). The state annually evaluates student performance in districts and schools through a set of consistent, objective measures, and then uses this information to inform rewards, sanctions, and supports. Districts and schools assigned to a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan have the lowest performing student outcomes of all districts and schools in Colorado, according to the state’s primary accountability tool— the District and School Performance Framework (DPF/SPF) reports. The DPF and SPF reports are based on key Performance Indicators that the state has determined to be most indicative of how prepared students are for college and career: achievement, growth, and postsecondary and workforce readiness, which each indicator including the disaggregated results for different student groups. Districts and schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround plans tend to be falling short of state expectations for students in each of these areas. Guidance on the 2016 School and District Performance Frameworks can be accessed at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworksresources. Pursuant to the Education Act of 2009, Article 11 of Title 22, C.R.S., a district or the Charter School Institute (Institute) may not remain Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan or Accredited with Turnaround Plan for longer than five consecutive years before the State Board removes the district’s/Institute’s accreditation. In State Board of Education rules, 1 CCR 301-1, section 5.07, the calculation of the five consecutive years begins July 1 of the summer immediately following the fall in which the district/Institute is notified that it is Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan or Accredited with Turnaround Plan. The Education Act of 2009, Article 11 of Title 22, C.R.S., outlines similar consequences for schools. Schools may not implement a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan for longer than five consecutive years before the district or Institute is required to restructure or close the school. According to State Board of Education rules, 1 CCR 301-1, section 10.05, the calculation of the five consecutive years begins July 1 of the summer immediately following the fall in which the school is notified that it must implement a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan. These statutory timelines are referred to as the “Accountability Clock.” The processes associated with each typical year of the clock, from the notification/planning Year 0 to the final Year 6, including actions directed by the State Board of Education at the end of the Accountability Clock, are detailed in the timeline below. Following the passage of HB15-1323, accreditation ratings and school plan types were not assigned in Fall 2015. As a result, the 2015-16 school year was removed from the calculation of five consecutive school years for both school districts and individual schools. This one year pause means that the 2016-17 school year resumes where the 2014-15 school year left off in terms of the accountability clock. The Accountability Clock is in effect for a district or school as long as it is assigned a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan. The Accountability Clock stops for a district or school once the State Board adopts an SPF/DPF with a rating of Improvement or higher. At that point, the district or school would be considered to have exited Priority Improvement or Turnaround status. If a district or school is on Turnaround and moves to Priority Improvement the Accountability Clock continues and is not reset. 40 If a school or district receives a plan type of Priority Improvement or Turnaround for more than five consecutive years, then the State Board of Education must direct an action to the local board of education. The State Board has discretion to take action prior to the end of the Accountability Clock for schools and districts with Turnaround plans. Schools and districts on the Accountability Clock for any period of time should be implementing research-based strategies of appropriate scope and intensity to improve student outcomes. After five consecutive years, the local board will be directed by the State Board of Education as to which strategy, or pathway, to pursue. This may include school closure, converting schools to a charter school, working with an external management partner, seeking innovation status for a school or group of schools, or district reorganization. In considering appropriate actions, the State Board will refer to recommendations from the State Review Panel and from the Commissioner of Education. School districts may also provide a proposal for their preferred pathway to the State Board. For more information on the accountability clock, please visit: http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/accountability_clock. 41 Since 2010-11, CDE has reviewed Aurora Central High’s UIP and provided feedback to the district. Over time, the feedback has shifted emphasis from strengthening the data analysis to providing an action plan that will result in dramatic enough change. The action plan has also needed more detail to convey understanding of the steps necessary to enact this change. While the plan meets some of the quality criteria, there has been more concern about the school’s weak action plan and relationship to the work described in the Innovation Plan. School Year Required Changes Summary of Required Changes 2016-07 Yes, high concern 2015-16 Yes, high concern 2014-15 Yes, high concern 2013-14 Yes, some concern The plan provides a data analysis inclusive of a number of years of data and explains challenges with local assessment results. Revisions are needed to the action plan, specifically targets and implementation benchmarks must be well described to be able to gauge successful implementation. CDE recognizes the school is in the midst of implementing a number of plans concurrently, namely the Innovation plan, TIG and the UIP. To the extent possible, these plans should align to each other. For the UIP, the action plan lays out some of the core aspects of the Innovation plan, but does not include enough action steps or implementation benchmarks to create connections between the UIP and Innovation plan. CDE realizes the school is using a progress monitoring tool to help the Innovation Zone schools track and monitor progress. The school may consider either pulling action steps and implementation benchmarks right from that OR linking to a copy of that implementation tool to provide more robust detail in the action plan. The plan includes a thoughtful and comprehensive data analysis. It is apparent the plan was developed in conjunction with the appropriate stakeholder groups. The school should continue its work in articulating trends in distinct categories as this will help narrow the school's focus as implementation of improvement work and the Innovation Plan occur. The school should prioritize its challenges even further. While it was clear the school was thoughtful in the list of performance challenges, a list this long does not lay a foundation for a more focused plan. More specific detail on how to prioritize performance challenges is included in the feedback below. Once the school prioritizes performance challenges, the school should use the identified challenges to narrow its list of root causes. Identifying more will make drafting improvement strategies and action plan steps more difficult and too broad to affect the change necessary to move the school off of the accountability clock. Once the school's Innovation Plan is developed, the school should include specific detail (or attach the Innovation Plan if it includes the necessary detail) in the plan. Overall the plan lacks a coherent plan for dramatic improvement. It does not describe a depth of analysis or understanding of the scale of student performance need or systems level understanding of improvements or urgency needed to bring about positive impacts for student outcomes. Overall, the plan met much of the quality criteria in the data narrative. The plan does not describe the process used to identify and verify root causes. The action planning section could be improved by adding more detail to the timelines, implementation benchmarks, and resources. The action steps should be more specific and intentional to impact the desired change. The school could benefit from revisiting the RMC audit and revise their action plan to ensure that they are quickly addressing the instructional gaps identified in the root causes. 42 2012-13 Yes, some concern 2011-12 Yes, some concern 2010-11 Yes, some concern Priority performance challenges are not clearly identified and are inconsistent in different areas of the plan. Because performance challenges are not clearly identified, the connection between the root causes and the challenge is not clear. Consider analyzing data in greater detail so that those students who are not meeting expectations can be clearly identified and appropriate root causes and targeted improvement strategies can be developed for them. The plan did not convey a sense of dramatic change. Furthermore, it was unclear whether the listed actions were new practices or a continuation of existing school practices. The plan did not demonstrate a strong data analysis and the action plan did not align with the data analysis. The action plan is not detailed enough to lead to significant changes in school practice. 43 Year Awarded & Award Amount Grant Name 2010-11 2011-12 Colorado Graduation Pathways $100,000 $100,000 Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) $160,465 $129,531 Tiered Intervention Grant - Cohort IV Total $260,465 2012-13 2013-14 $100,000 $81,000 2014 - 15 2016 - 17 $73,900 $1,070,778 $1,095,773 $229,531 2015 - 16 $100,000 $1,151,778 $1,469,134 $764,448 $100,000 $1,063,909 $324,574 Commissioner's Recommendation 44 Appendix D: August 2015 Commissioner Recommendation for Aurora Central High School Submitted to: Colorado State Board of Education By: Colorado Department of Education August 2015 Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 303-866-6600 Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3 CDE Recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 3 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................................................. 5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Enrollment and Demographics ............................................................................................................... 11 At-Risk Populations ................................................................................................................................. 12 English Language Learners ...................................................................................................................... 12 Academic Performance ........................................................................................................................... 13 Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness .............................................................................................. 14 Data Analysis Summary........................................................................................................................... 16 Review of School Systems and Conditions ................................................................................................. 17 Unified Improvement Plan Overview ......................................................................................................... 19 Current School UIP Summary.................................................................................................................. 19 History of Feedback on UIP from CDE .................................................................................................... 20 History of Supports Available from the State on UIP Development ....................................................... 21 Tiered Intervention Grant ........................................................................................................................... 22 Progress Monitoring of TIG Implementation .......................................................................................... 23 Dropout Prevention and Student Engagement Efforts ............................................................................... 25 Grant Awards to Aurora Central between 2010-11 to 2014-15 ............................................................. 25 Number of Aurora Central Students Served 2010-11 to 2013-14 .......................................................... 25 Services and Supports ............................................................................................................................. 26 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 What Worked .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Moving Forward: Where to Focus .......................................................................................................... 29 State Review Panel Report Discussion ........................................................................................................ 31 CDE Evaluation of District’s Innovation Zone Plan...................................................................................... 32 Appendix A: Aurora Central Academic Achievement and Growth ............................................................. 34 Appendix B: Budget Summary for TIG Funds .............................................................................................. 36 3 Executive Summary Background State law requires that the Colorado State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education hold all districts and schools accountable for student performance (C.R.S. 22-11-101 et al.). The state annually evaluates student performance in districts and schools through a set of consistent, objective measures, and then uses this information to inform rewards, sanctions, and supports. Districts and schools assigned to a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan have the lowest performing student outcomes of all districts and schools in Colorado, according to the state’s primary accountability tool— the District and School Performance Framework (DPF/SPF) reports. The DPF and SPF reports are based on four key Performance Indicators that the state has determined to be most indicative of how prepared students are for college and career: achievement, growth, growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce readiness. Districts and schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround plans tend to be falling short of state expectations for students in each of these areas. Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009, Article 11 of Title 22, C.R.S., a school may not implement a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan for longer than five consecutive years before the district or Institute is required to restructure or close the school. Schools entering year five of the state accountability clock on July 1, 2015 (based on 2014 SPF ratings) will be subject to action directed by the State Board of Education to the local district board of education on or before June 30, 2017 (per the accountability hold legislated in HB15-1323), provided that the school remains in Priority Improvement or Turnaround status on the 2016 SPF ratings. If a local board does not act upon or to the satisfaction of the State Board’s recommendations, the State Board may lower the district’s accreditation rating. Aurora Central High School entered its 5th year of implementing a Priority Improvement plan on July 1, 2015. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District presented to the State Board of Education on April 9th, 2015 and on June 10th, 2015 on the proposed pathway (Innovation) for Aurora Central. The district requested that a pathway be selected early to enable the school and district ample time for the design process. At the June 10th meeting, the State Board of Education directed CDE staff “to move forward with completing the process of reviewing the Aurora plans so that a formal recommendation will be ready for the August 2015 State Board meeting.” This report constitutes CDE’s formal recommendation for Aurora Central High School. Please note that the State Board of Education is not required, by law, to direct action to the district’s local school board for Aurora Central High School prior to June 2017. CDE Recommendation CDE recommends Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009, the Innovation School Commissioner of Education is required to provide a recommendation to the State Board of Education. The Status Commissioner recommends Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School based upon a review conducted by Department staff of the school’s data, leadership, culture, academic systems, Unified Improvement Plans, and the history of grants and 4 supports provided to the school. Department staff also considered the State Review Panel’s final recommendation and the district’s own proposal to create multiple Innovation Zones, or “ACTION Zones.” The district proposal lays out preliminary plans for Aurora Central to seek Innovation School Status as part of ACTION Zone 1. Per CDE’s review, the following conditions are needed for robust change at Aurora Central High School: 1. Recruitment of a school leader who: o Has experience in leading school turnaround efforts and has a demonstrated track record of increasing student achievement; o Will significantly change and promote a school culture of student academic performance amongst students, staff, and families; and o Will drive systems that foster positive academic outcomes for all students. 2. District commitment to implement: o Regular and supportive supervision of the school by district staff; o Clear performance expectations and goals for the school leader; and o Routine performance management that emphasizes examination of student data and promotes mid-course adjustments, as needed. 3. Autonomy from district policies and practices to ensure the school leadership has appropriate discretion over: o Recruiting, hiring, evaluating, and termination of teachers, as needed; o Budget and staffing decisions; o Curricular and assessment decisions; o Professional development decisions; o Student support strategies and services; o Calendar and school day decisions; o Partnerships and programs to meet the specific needs of special populations of students; and o Key operational decisions. These conditions can be met through several of the pathways that are included in state law, including innovation, charter and change in management. CDE recommends that the district pursue Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School as Innovation represents a viable pathway for achieving the three conditions stated above, and it is aligned with the district’s strategic plan for ACTION Zones. Innovation status does require a thoughtful and deliberate plan of action for improvements at the school, including consideration of goals, barriers to those goals, and necessary waivers to address the barriers. The Innovation Schools Act requires that school districts engage the broader school community in the development of innovation plans, which includes staff, students, parents and the surrounding community. Successful innovation planning and implementation will require flexible thinking and ongoing collaboration between the school and the district. While CDE believes a thoughtful and rigorous Innovation School Plan can facilitate an environment that addresses the conditions described above, CDE notes that other pathways could also be appropriate 5 choices for Aurora Central High School. Converting Aurora Central to a charter school or bringing in an external management partner could be two other viable pathways, particularly if the Innovation Plan is not approved by the school community. Charter and external management could also foster the conditions required for robust change. CDE does not recommend school closure, first and foremost, because there is not capacity at other district high schools to serve the 2,120 Aurora Central students. In addition, the high school serves a large number of immigrant and refugee students and has developed supportive resources for this specific community. Aurora Central has made positive strides over the past several years in developing and promoting community engagement and partnerships. Pathways that Meet Necessary Conditions for Improvement CDE School Pathway Recommendation Innovation School Status X Conversion to a Charter School External Partner Changes and/or Takes Over Management Structures School Closure Other Viable Pathways CDE Does Not Recommend X X X Evidence and Rationale CDE staff relied upon the following evidence in developing its recommendation for Aurora Central High School:  As demonstrated by the school’s demographic data, Aurora Central serves a large number of atrisk students.  Academic performance indicators show the school has made some limited gains over the past five years but continues to fall significantly short of state expectations.  School leadership has not acted as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains and has not consistently implemented improvement efforts targeted at school culture and climate and the quality of instruction.  While Aurora Central has complied with the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) process, the school’s plan lacks detail and is not of sufficient magnitude given that the school is in Year 5 of Priority Improvement.  Aurora Central High School has failed to make expected improvements over the past five years despite the addition of substantial fiscal resources and supports. A summary of each evidence statement is provided below; detailed descriptions are available in the subsequent sections of the report. 6 As demonstrated by the school’s demographic data, Aurora Central serves a large number of at-risk students. Aurora Central High School serves a much higher concentration of at-risk students than a typical Colorado school, or even other district high schools. Almost 75 percent of Aurora Central students in grades 9-12 are eligible for free or reduced-price meal programs, compared to 42 percent of K-12 students across the state. A significant majority of Aurora Central students (69 percent) are English learners compared to 50 percent of students in the district and 18 percent of students in the state.1 The proportion of students at Aurora Central who are new immigrants to the country within the last three years is 12 times higher than the statewide average. Additionally, data provided by the district indicate that nearly 9 percent of the immigrant students qualify as refugees. Academic performance indicators show the school has made some limited gains over the past five years but continues to fall significantly short of state expectations. Aurora Central has earned Priority Improvement ratings on the School Performance Framework (SPF) for the past five years. As displayed in Figure 1, the percent of points earned on the SPF has fluctuated yearto-year but has generally trended upward from 37.5 percent of points in 2010 to 44.5 percent of points in 2014. The cut-score for Improvement status is 47 percent of points. While the high school is making progress, it is still falling short of state expectations. The high school is significantly below the state average on two performance indicators—academic achievement and postsecondary and workforce readiness (see Figure 1 on page 7). In all content areas, the academic achievement of the school as a whole has hovered in the single digit percentile rankings in comparison to schools across the state. In addition, when compared to other high schools serving high numbers of minority, low-income or English learner students, Aurora Central High School consistently shows performance in the bottom quartile. School leadership has not acted as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains and has not consistently implemented improvement efforts targeted at school culture and climate and the quality of instruction. CDE staff visited Aurora Central frequently over the past several years to support the implementation of the Tiered Intervention Grant. Staff observed that school leadership did not convey high expectations for student academic performance and did not hold staff accountable to performance goals. School leadership did not use transparent processes to identify improvement strategies or to hold the staff accountable for achieving results. Improving instruction was not a core focus of improvement, and school leadership did not unite the school community around a common vision for student success and turnaround. The 2015 TELL Survey results of the school staff reinforce these same observations. CDE 1 *Includes all Non-English Proficient (NEP), Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Fluent English Proficient (FEP) students. Other data sources, including SchoolView, only include NEP, LEP and students who are FEP-monitored Year 1 or Year 2. 7 further notes that in spring 2015, the principal was reassigned to a different position in the district. There will be an interim principal in place at Aurora Central for the 2015-16 school year. While the school has seen some improvements in culture and climate, there are community-wide concerns regarding school safety, facilities, and student engagement as documented in the letters sent to the State Board of Education by Aurora Central students and through multiple news media stories. Overall, improvement efforts around school culture and climate have not been consistently implemented by school leadership and staff. Figure 1: School Performance Framework (SPF) Percentage of Points Earned, 2010-2014 Total Percent of Points Earned on the School Performance Framework, 2010 through 2014 (Based on Official Ratings) Percent of Points Earned by Performance Indicator on the SPF 2010 through 2014 (Based on Official Ratings) Orange bars denote the high school was assigned a Priority Improvement Plan. Bars are color coded according to the SPF color rating. Green: Meets state expectations Yellow: Approaching state expectations Red: Does not meet state expectations 8 While Aurora Central has complied with the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) process, the school’s plan lacks detail and is not of sufficient magnitude given that the school is in Year 5 of Priority Improvement. Since 2010-11, CDE has reviewed Aurora Central’s UIP and provided feedback to the district, as required by law. The feedback has emphasized the need to strengthen the data analysis and provide an action plan that will result in dramatic-enough change. The action plan has consistently needed more detail to convey an understanding of the steps necessary to enact significant change. While the plan meets many of the quality criteria, there has been more concern about the school’s weak action plan in recent years since the school is so far along on the clock. The State Review Panel had similar reactions to the Aurora Central UIP, noting that “the plan lacks deep analysis to identify root causes and as a result it is difficult to assess if the major improvement strategies are the most effective strategies to solve current issues.” The State Review Panel also noted that Aurora Central’s UIP does not convey that the school is monitoring its progress toward meeting its stated goals, and thus it is unclear what is working and what should be changed. This is further evidence that the previous school leadership was not able to drive dramatic improvement efforts at the school. Aurora Central High School has failed to make expected improvements over the past five years despite the addition of substantial fiscal resources and supports. In 2013, Aurora Central was eligible to apply for the 1003(g) Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG), which is designed to support districts with chronically low-performing schools in the lowest 5 percent of achievement and/or persistently low graduation rates (Title I Priority Schools). Aurora Central received TIG funds for two years (2013-14 and 2014-15). A summary of the school’s proposed TIG budgets is below. During the renewal process of the TIG grant for year 3 funds in July 2015, the grant was suspended pending resolution and resubmission to address the following concerns:  The principal and an assistant principal left their positions at the end of the 2014-15 school year. The new school leadership has indicated they will carry out the TIG-funded activities.  The application did not provide evidence of how or if TIG-funded activities have resulted in a positive impact on student achievement.  A large amount of TIG funding was utilized for a Data Specialist and Early Warning Intervention Specialists. It was unclear in the application if these positions have had an impact on student achievement. Table 1. Overview of Aurora Central Proposed TIG Budget, Year 1 & 2 TIG Year Total Budgeted Amount Year 1 $1,017.239 Year 2 $1,095,773* Proposed Year 3 $748,562 * Includes carry-over funds from Year 1. # of Budgeted FTE 7.0 7.7 3 Budgeted FTE $501,390 $656,854 $230,000 Budgeted Professional Development $420,363 $282,580 $65,000 In addition, Aurora Central High School is a Colorado Graduation Pathways (CGP) school and received funds as part of the state’s US Department of Education High School Graduation Initiative grant award. 9 Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, Aurora Central was awarded $454,900 in competitive grants funds for the Colorado Graduation Pathways grant. CGP was designed to support systems change at the school level to increase the graduation rate, decrease the dropout rate, and reengage students who had dropped out. Aurora Central students were also supported through the state-funded Expelled and Atrisk Student Services (EARSS) grant, which was awarded to Aurora Public Schools (APS) in 2010-11 and 2011-12. The total amount of EARSS grant funding received by the district during this period was $289,996. The Dropout Prevention and Student Re-engagement Unit at CDE assessed the results of the funding and support for Aurora Central. While at certain times it seemed specific interventions were effective in impacting outcomes such as truancy, dropout rates and graduation rates, the school was not able to sustain those changes. Overall, the trends in student engagement and graduation metrics were erratic over the course of a four year period. Average daily attendance rates, for example, continue to fall short of the state average despite the systems and additional staff that were put into place specifically to improve attendance (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Average Daily Attendance Rate (Total Student Days Attended/Total Possible Attendance Days), 2010-11 to 2013-14 100.0% 83.1% 93.5% 89.3% 80.0% 75.7% 79.0% 2012-13 2013-14 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2010-11 2011-12 State Average Summary Based upon an analysis of this evidence, the Commissioner recommends that the district implement a rigorous plan for Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School. There remains a need for dramatic change at Aurora Central, which is unlikely to happen without the following conditions being met: 1. The recruitment of a strong school turnaround leader; 2. The involvement of the district in regular performance management activities; and 3. Appropriate autonomies being granted from district policies and practices to ensure school leadership has decision-making power over school staffing, budgeting, curriculum and calendar. Innovation School Status as part of the district’s larger Innovation Zones plan is one pathway under which Aurora Central and the district may be able to fulfill those necessary conditions for improvement. If an Innovation Plan is not approved by the Aurora Central community, if a leader capable of implementing the Innovation Plan is not hired, or if the Innovation Plan fails to demonstrate the district 10 is on track to meet the conditions stated above by fall 2016, CDE believes alternative viable pathways should be urgently pursued, including the options of converting Aurora Central to a charter school or recruiting an external partner to change and/or take over management structures. CDE Recommendation Report Outline The next sections of this report provide supporting evidence and documentation for the statements made above. First, a detailed look at Aurora Central’s data is provided, followed by a review of the school’s systems and conditions. A summary of the Aurora Central’s Unified Improvement Planning is included, as is an overview of the state and federal grants provided to the high school over the past five years. Lastly, the report includes an evaluation by CDE staff of the State Review Panel’s report and the school district’s Innovation Zone proposal. 11 Data Analysis Aurora Central has earned Priority Improvement ratings on the school performance frameworks over the past five years, with the total percent of points fluctuating, but generally trending upward from 37.5 in 2010 to 44.5 in 2014. The cut-score for Improvement status is 47 percent of points, so the school is making progress but is still falling short of state expectations. Enrollment and Demographics The number of students enrolling in grades 9-12 at Aurora Central High School has declined by more than 9 percent over the last five years, from 2,334 down to 2,120, while district’s overall K-12 enrollment has increased by 15 percent, from 35,523 to 40,877. Table 2 below contains enrollment information for disaggregated student subgroups at the state level (all K-12 public schools), district level (all APS K-12 schools) and at the school level. These data help contextualize the student population being served at Aurora Central and the additional challenges the school may face in working with students from at-risk and higher needs backgrounds. Table 2. 2014-15 October Enrollment Disaggregated Student Group American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/Latino White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Two or More Races Gifted and Talented Special Education Free or Reduced-Price Meal Eligible Homeless Migrant Immigrant (in US less than 3 years) English Learner* -Non-English Proficient (NEP) -Limited English Proficient (LEP) -Fluent English Proficient (FEP)* Colorado 0.7% 3.1% 4.7% 33.1% 54.5% 0.2% 3.7% 7.7% 10.1% 41.6% 1.8% 0.2% 0.9% 18.2% 3.3% 8.9% 6.0% Adams-Arapahoe 28J District 0.8% 4.5% 18.1% 53.9% 17.8% 0.6% 4.4% 4.6% 10.6% 69.4% 6.0% 0.5% 4.8% 49.5% 11.2% 24.0% 14.3% Aurora Central High School 0.8% 8.1% 16.5% 66.8% 5.2% 0.4% 2.3% 4.3% 14.6% 73.8% 8.0% 1.2% 10.5% 69.2% 12.9% 30.3% 26.0% *Includes all FEP students. Other data sources, including SchoolView, only include students who are FEP-monitored Year 1 or Year 2. The proportion of Hispanic students enrolling at Aurora Central is significantly higher than the district, and more than double the state’s proportion of Hispanic students. The percentage of black students enrolled is slightly smaller than the district, but more than three times the state figure. White students make up only 5 percent of the school population, which is well below the district proportion and dramatically lower than the state where more than half of enrolled K-12 students are white. 12 Both the district and Aurora Central have a smaller proportion of students qualifying as Gifted and Talented than the state. But where the state and district have similar proportions of students identified for Individual Education Plans (IEPs), Aurora Central is significantly higher (almost 15 percent compared to 10 percent). Students on IEPs require additional services and often face additional challenges in attaining state performance expectations. At-Risk Populations It is clear Aurora Central High School serves a much higher concentration of at-risk students than a typical Colorado (or even Aurora) school would face. Almost 75 percent of Aurora Central students in grades 9-12 are eligible for free- or reduced-price meal programs, compared to 42 percent of K-12 students across the state. Eight percent of students at Aurora Central are documented as homeless, which is more than four times higher than the state average. More than 1 percent of Aurora Central students qualify for migrant educational services and 10.5 percent are immigrants new to the country within the last three years. These proportions are double the district figures and between 6 and 10 times higher than the state’s enrollments. Additionally, data provided by the district indicate that 8.8 percent of their students qualify as refugees. Refugee students are not U.S citizens, but are residing in the U.S. due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in their home country. English Language Learners The majority of Aurora Central students (69 percent) are English learners compared to 50 percent of students in the district and 18 percent of the state’s K-12 population. The breakdown of students by English proficiency status is equally telling, with 3-4 times more students needing explicit English language instruction (classified as NEP or LEP) than Colorado students as a whole. Aurora Central also has a higher proportion of Former English Learner (FEP) students who had previously required English language instruction. To further characterize the linguistic make-up of the school, district, and state, Table 3 below shows the count of home languages spoken and the breakdown of K-12 enrolled students by home language (most categories collapsed 70% of Aurora Central into “other”). Less than one-third of students at Aurora Central High School students are native English speakers with the majority (58 percent) speak a language other speaking Spanish at home. These figures contrast sharply against than English at home the state as a whole, where more than three-quarters of students are native English speakers and only 16 percent are native Spanish speakers. Even in regards to home languages other than English and Spanish, Aurora Central has greater diversity than the state, with one in eight students speaking a language other than English or Spanish. 13 Table 3. Home Languages Spoken 285 Adams-Arapahoe 28J District 135 Aurora Central High School 43 80.4% 16.0% 3.7% 49.5% 41.7% 8.8% 30.3% 57.5% 12.2% Colorado Home Languages Spoken (count) Percent of students speaking: -English -Spanish -Other non-English language Academic Performance Math achievement at Aurora Central has been consistently low from 2008-09 to 2013-14, hovering between 10 and 12 percent of students scoring Proficient or Advanced, except for the IEP sub-group which has hovered around 1 percent of students scoring Proficient or Advanced. Reading achievement showed a slight decline after 2008-09 but then gradually rebounded to almost the original level in 201314 at 39 percent of students scoring Proficient or Advanced. Writing achievement was consistent from 2008-09 to 2012-13 and then showed an improvement in 2013-14 when 21 percent of students scored Proficient or Advanced. In all content areas, the achievement of the school population as a whole has hovered in the single digit percentile rankings in comparison to students and schools across the state. Growth results have shown greater variability between years in all content areas. For math, the median growth percentile (MGP) has fluctuated from 40 to 56, generally hovering around 50. Reading MGPs fell between 42 and 57 and showed notable fluctuations both above and below 50 across years. Writing MGPs were more consistent over the years, going from 46 to 57, but generally hovering around 50. IEP students showed slightly lower MGPs over the years, particularly in Reading. (The state average for growth, in all content areas is an MGP of 50). Appendix A contains visual depictions of Aurora Central’s academic achievement and growth results over the past six years. Given the high number of at-risk students Aurora Central serves, CDE staff analyzed the high school’s academic performance as compared to other high schools that also serve high populations of minority, low-income or English Learner students. As displayed in Figure 3 below, Aurora Central falls in the bottom quartile of student achievement when compared to other high schools serving high-needs populations. Compared to other high schools serving high-needs students, Aurora Central High School consistently shows performance in the bottom quartile. 14 Figure 3. Aurora Central High School’s 2014 Reading Achievement Compared to Other High Schools Serving a High Proportion of High-Needs Students Each dot represents a school; Aurora Central is highlighted in red whereas other high schools are shaded in gray. Data Notes: Only high schools with Reading achievement results included in analysis (schools that were serving both middle and high school students were excluded). Schools designated as AEC for 2014 were excluded. Schools classified as either high minority, high poverty, and high English learners represent the top quartile within each student population. High Minority N = 52, High Poverty N = 37 and High English Learners N = 44. Data Source: Colorado Department of Education Student October 2013, Colorado Department of Education 2014 Reading TCAP Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness As shown in Figure 4, four-year graduation rates have fluctuated slightly between 2010 and 2014, increasing from 41 percent to 46 percent. The 5, 6, and 7-year graduation rates for these cohorts are noticeably higher than the 4-year rates, indicating that many students stay in school additional years before graduating. Despite this increase, the best-of graduation rate for 2011 was 62 percent, nearly 20 points below the state average of 80 percent. Aurora Central’s overall 3x dropout rate for 2014 is Additionally, dropout rates for Aurora Central are very high three times the state (see Figure 5). Although the dropout rate has decreased from average 10.5 in 2010 to 8.8 in 2013, this is still more than three times the state average. Disaggregated dropout rates for ELL, IEP and minority students are also all two or more times higher than the corresponding state averages. 15 Figure 4. Aurora Central High School Graduation Rates for Class of 2010 through Class of 2014 By 4 (On-time), 5, 6, and 7 Year Rates Blue bars and numerical values represent the school’s graduation rate. The state’s graduation rates are shown in orange as a line. Figure 5. Aurora Central High School Dropout Rates by Student Group from 2009-10 to 2013-14 Aurora Central’s dropout rates are represented by the green bars. The state’s average dropout rates are represented as lines color coded in orange. Numerical values are the school’s dropout rates. 16 As displayed in Figure 6, below, performance on the ACT as measured by the composite score has increased at Aurora Central from 14.3 in 2010 to 15.2 in 2014. The state results remain significantly higher and have shown a similar increase across time (19.4 in 2010 to 20.3 in 2014). Students scoring below 17 on the ACT will likely need remediation in core content areas before being ready for collegelevel, credit-bearing coursework. Figure 6. Aurora Central High School ACT Overall and Subject Results from 2009-10 to 2013-14 Results for Aurora Central are graphically displayed as bars in blue at the composite level and gray at the subject level. Overall results for the state are represented as lines in orange. Maximum ACT score is 35 for the both the composite and each subject. Data Analysis Summary Overall, while academic performance indicators show the school has made some limited gains over the past five years, Aurora Central continues to fall significantly short of state expectations. The high school earned 44.5 percent of points on the SPF in 2014, still short of the required 47 percent of points needed to earn Improvement status. The high school is considerably below the state average on two performance indicators—academic achievement and postsecondary and workforce readiness. Moreover, when compared to other high schools in Colorado that serve high numbers of minority, lowincome or English learner students, Aurora Central High School consistently shows performance in the bottom quartile. 17 Review of School Systems and Conditions This section is designed to provide a summary of a qualitative review of school systems and conditions. The data listed below were captured primarily through CDE Performance Manager site visits to Aurora Central High School to help support the implementation of the school’s Tiered Intervention Grant, as well as through CDE databases such as SchoolView. The following information provides context as to how the school has been functioning on key elements such as school leadership and culture. School Systems & Conditions Overview Research on school turnaround shows that the conditions outlined below are essential in establishing a strong foundation for rapid school improvement.2 Schools on track to improved student achievement are likely to show evidence of strong leadership, school culture, and academic systems. Some of the indicators used to evaluate these conditions are included below:      School Leadership o History of principal tenure o Specialized leadership training for principal/leadership team Teaching Staff o Teacher turnover o TELL survey results School Culture o Trends in student attendance o Community & parent engagement Academic Systems o Systems for interim assessments and progress monitoring of academic goals o Professional development Specialized District Support and Flexibility o District differentiates resource allocation to reflect the intensity of school-level turnaround efforts Aurora Central Systems & Conditions Summary School Leadership  A principal was hired in spring 2013 to lead school in implementing the Transformation model as a part of the Tiered Intervention Grant program.  The principal was allowed to re-hire a new administrative team, including three assistant principals.  In spring 2015, the principal was reassigned to a different position in the district. There will be an interim principal in place for the 2015-16 school year. 2 Research on school turnaround from University of Virginia Turnaround Leaders Program, Public Impact, and Mass Insight Education. 18 Teaching Staff  One-third of ACHS’s teaching staff was new to the building in the 2013-2014 school year. ACHS is staffed by 100% of NCLB Highly Qualified Teachers  TELL survey data reveals a significant gap in composite scores between the district and the school, with the school consistently posting lower results in all categories. o Teachers reported low satisfaction in the areas of managing student conduct, parent engagement, and consistency in enforcing school-wide rules and policies. o Teachers reported low satisfaction in the areas of relevant professional learning and a fair evaluation system. School Culture  Over the past three years, average daily attendance at ACHS has declined from 89% to 79%. This is below the state expectation of 92%.  The school’s truancy rate has fluctuated between 10% and 25% over the past four years.  As documented in letters sent to the State Board of Education by ACHS students and through news media stories, there are community-wide concerns regarding school safety, facilities, and student engagement.  As a part of the Aurora Central’s TIG planning, the school has partnered with over 30 community organizations. These organizations provide services directly to students and parents, including tutoring, job placement support and English as a second language classes. Academic Systems  Aurora Central HS does not have an interim assessment system in place. There is not a consistent system for using student achievement data to drive instructional planning and school decisionmaking.  ACHS has implemented a comprehensive professional development sequence in partnership with Marzano Research Lab. The focus of this work is to support teachers with lesson planning and deepening instructional strategies.  Aurora Central has established multiple systems to support students most at-risk of dropping out, including mentors, additional counseling and tutoring support. Specialized District Support and Flexibility  Aurora Central has received additional supports from Aurora Public Schools through the differentiated support pilot. These supports include additional instructional supports and an additional assistant principal.  The district provided Aurora Central with additional technical assistance and support in implementing the TIG grant through a project manager who tracked and documented TIG-related activities.  Aurora leadership team was given the flexibility to restructure the school day, recruit and hire TIGfunded positions, and establish rewards and incentives for teachers as a part of the TIG program. 19 Unified Improvement Plan Overview Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District submitted Aurora Central High School’s UIP in January 2015 on time. CDE staff members reviewed the plan and released feedback in early March. Current School UIP Summary The following items were pulled directly from the school’s Unified Improvement Plan submitted to CDE in January 2015. Where are students continuing to struggle most? Priority Performance Challenges: Specific statements about the district’s performance challenges (not budgeting, staffing curriculum, instruction, etc.), with at least one priority identified for each performance indicator(Achievement , Growth, Growth Gaps, PWR) where the district did not meet federal, state and/or local expectations. 1. Reading: Over the past 3 years Academic Achievement has increased slightly to 36.22% of students being proficient on TCAP/CSAP in Reading, 33 percentage points below state average proficiency levels, and 10 percentage points below district average proficiency levels. The priority Improvement Challenge is to increase Reading Academic Achievement narrow the Achievement gaps between the APS District and State of Colorado averages. 2. Writing: Over the past 3 years Academic Achievement has increased slightly to 17.76% of students being proficient on TCAP/CSAP in Writing, 36 percentage points below state average proficiency levels, and 16 percentage points below district average proficiency levels. The priority Improvement Challenge is to increase Writing Academic Achievement narrow the Achievement gaps between the APS District and State of Colorado averages. 3. Math: Over the past 3 years Academic Achievement has increased slightly to 12.8% of students being proficient on TCAP/CSAP in Math, 44 percentage points below state average proficiency levels, and 23 percentage points below district average proficiency levels. The priority Improvement Challenge is to increase Math Academic Achievement narrow the Achievement gaps between the APS District and State of Colorado averages. 4. Graduation Rate: Over the past 3 years the Graduation Rate has increased slightly to 57.4% using the 7 year graduation formula. This is 23 percentage points below the state expectation of an 80% graduation rate. The current 4 year graduation rate has risen slightly to 40.7%. The priority Improvement Challenge is to increase the Graduation Rate and narrow the Achievement gaps between the APS District and State of Colorado averages. Why is the school continuing to have this problem(s)? Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, of performance challenges, that, if dissolved, would result in elimination, or substantial reduction of the performance challenge(s). 1. We need to increase and refine teacher skills and implementation of reading and writing, and vocabulary development, and student discourse in all content areas. 2. We need to align post-secondary workforce readiness systems to include all grade levels. Implement a plan to systematically support all students with our RTI system. 3. We need to create support systems in math, such as tutoring or intentional inclusion models to continue to reduce academic growth gaps. 20 4. We need to develop differentiated language and instructional support based on the need of English Language learners. We need to increase culturally responsive professional development and focusing on the Affective, Behavioral and Cognitive student needs. What action is the school taking? Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach that describes a series of related actions intended to result in improvements in performance. 1. Curriculum Instruction: We provide differentiated professional learning that leads to rigorous, engaging first instruction which emphasizes literacy, language and critical thinking across all content. Instructional practice is assessed continual learning walks that will gather data and be analyzed to adjust and target the professional development needs of teaching staff. 2. Equity and Engagement: We foster a school culture in which all stakeholders have a shared responsibility to increase student achievement, attendance and create opportunities for students, parents and community to participate in preparing students with workforce readiness skills. 3. Communication and Accountability: We increase achievement and graduation rates while decreasing growth gaps, and drop-out rates by continual monitoring of attendance, and targeted interventions. 4. Campus and Community: We increase, parental and community involvement that creates an environment that is inviting and consistently streamlines home and school communications. History of Feedback on UIP from CDE As the school has been assigned a Priority Improvement plan, CDE is required to review the UIP annually. Overall Summary of CDE Feedback Since 2010-11, CDE has reviewed Aurora Central High’s UIP and provided feedback to the district. Over time, the feedback has shifted emphasis from strengthening the data analysis to providing an action plan that will result in dramatic enough change. The action plan has also needed more detail to convey understanding of the steps necessary to pull off this change. While the plan meets many of the quality criteria, there has been more concern about the school’s weak action plan in recent years since the school is so far along on the clock. School Year Required Changes Summary of Required Changes 2014-15 Yes, with great concern 2013-14 Yes, with some changes Overall the plan lacks a coherent plan for dramatic improvement. It does not describe a depth of analysis or understanding of the scale of student performance need or systems level understanding of improvements or urgency needed to bring about positive impacts for student outcomes. Overall, the plan met much of the quality criteria in the data narrative. The plan does not describe the process used to identify and verify root causes. The action planning section could be improved by adding more detail to the timelines, implementation benchmarks, and resources. The action steps should be more specific and intentional to impact the desired change. The school could benefit 21 2012-13 Yes, with some changes 2011-12 Yes, with some changes from revisiting the RMC audit and revise their action plan to ensure that they are quickly addressing the instructional gaps identified in the root causes. Priority performance challenges are not clearly identified and are inconsistent in different areas of the plan. Because performance challenges are not clearly identified, the connection between the root causes and the challenge is not clear. Consider analyzing data in greater detail so that those students who are not meeting expectations can be clearly identified and appropriate root causes and targeted improvement strategies can be developed for them. The plan did not convey a sense of dramatic change. Furthermore, it was unclear whether the listed actions were new practices or a continuation of existing school practices. 2010-11 Yes, with some changes The plan did not demonstrate a strong data analysis and the action plan did not align with the data analysis. The action plan is not detailed enough to lead to significant changes in school practice. History of Supports Available from the State on UIP Development The school has had access to universal and targeted supports from CDE on its UIP development. Universal supports include regional trainings held each spring and fall and access to many resources (e.g., quality criteria, UIP Handbook, online tutorials, sample plans) on CDE’s website. CDE has also worked directly with the district and with schools (including Aurora Central staff) on their plan development. CDE staff were invited to work with district and school staff through three events over the 2013-14 school year. A leadership team from Aurora Central attended the school specific session. 22 Tiered Intervention Grant ESEA Support Aurora Public Schools does not serve Aurora Central High School with Title I funds. However, ACHS was eligible to apply for the 1003(g) Tiered Intervention Grant since the school is Title I eligible and chronically low performing. The Tiered Intervention Grant is designed to support districts with chronically low-performing schools in the lowest 5 percent of achievement (Title I Priority Schools) as indicated by state assessments. The intent of the grant is to provide funding for Title I Priority Schools to:  Partner with CDE in the implementation of one of the four intervention models (Turnaround, Restart, The Tiered Intervention Transformation, Closure) provided in the draft guidance Grant provides support to (link below) for the use of federal Title I 1003(g) funds; districts with chronically  Increase the academic achievement of all students low-performing schools attending chronically low performing schools as measured by the state’s assessment system; and  Utilize the support and services from state-approved turnaround providers in their efforts to accomplish the above. In May 2013, Aurora Central submitted an application CDE to implement the Transformation model. See page 14 of the USDE guidance for the requirements of the Transformation model. USDE Guidance: http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/guidance-on-school-improvement-grants. Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) In July of 2013 the Aurora Central High School grant application was approved for $1,070,778 for Year 1 (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014) to implement the Transformation model. The district was eligible for $779,200 in year 2 (July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015) and maybe eligible for $750,000 in year 3 (July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016) based on:     Progress toward targets set in the school’s Unified Improvement Plan, Progress toward targets set related to the leading indicators, An upward trend in percent of points earned on the School Performance Frameworks, and Fidelity to the implementation of the reforms set forth in the grant application. The school submitted revised budgets for year 2 and 3 that included unspent funds carried over from the first year of the grant (approximately $350,000 in carry over funds). The district was advised that the budgets include funding for a substantial number of FTEs designed to support student intervention. While student intervention is essential, the district, Central HS, and CDE should work collaboratively to ensure these FTEs support systems-building designed to sustain improvement efforts beyond the grant 23 years. A summary of the TIG budgets is provided in Table 4 below. Appendix B contains a more detailed breakdown of the Year 1 and Year 2 budgets. Table 4. Overview of Aurora Central Proposed TIG Budget, Year 1 & 2 TIG Year Total Budgeted # of Budgeted Cost of Budgeted Amount FTE FTE Year 1 $1,017,239 7.0 $501,390 Year 2 $1,095,773* 7.7 $656,854 Proposed $748,562 3 $230,000 Year 3 Cost of Budgeted Professional Development $420,363 $282,580 $65,000 * Includes carry-over funds from Year 1 Year 3 TIG Funds In the renewal process of the TIG grant, the grant was suspended in July 2015 pending resolution and resubmission to address the following concerns:  The principal and an assistant principal left their positions at the end of the 2014 – 2015. The new school leadership has indicated they will carry out the TIG-funded activities.  The application did not provide evidence how or if TIG-funded activities result in a positive impact on student achievement.  The data provided did not clarify the current status of the school and the application did not summarize how the data included supports the impact of improvement strategies for student achievement.  A large amount of TIG funding was utilized for a Data Specialist and Early Warning Indicator Specialists. It was unclear in the application if these positions have an impact on student achievement. Progress Monitoring of TIG Implementation Through regularly scheduled, on-site visits the Performance Manager and the district check for and support implementation of the identified improvement strategies supported with the TIG grant funds. For all TIG schools, CDE: • Periodically reviews school and district UIPs and provides feedback; • Meets regularly with LEA and school leadership to review performance data and implementation of improvement efforts, as defined in the UIP Action Plan; • Provides support for quarterly budget revisions; • Provides ongoing technical assistance; and • Tracks a set of leading indicators and overall performance targets that the identified school(s) and external providers, if applicable, will be required to demonstrate during the course of the reform effort; additionally may review interim measures and implementation benchmarks that the LEA may use to hold school(s) and provider(s) accountable. Aurora Central HS received regularly scheduled visits from their Performance Manager throughout both the 2013-14 school year and the 2014-15 school year. Highlights from CDE’s interactions with Aurora Central as they implemented TIG-funded activities are listed below. 24 Aurora Central TIG Progress Monitoring Highlights     The district used TIG funds to hire a project manager to support the documentation and tracking of TIG implementation. The project manager organized the progress monitoring meetings between the school, the district, and CDE. The school used a Unified Improvement Plan project management tool to track implementation of action steps. The school leadership team provided evidence that TIGfunded activities were conducted, but did not create systems to monitor the impact or effectiveness of these strategies. The school collected and tracked data around student attendance and behavior; it was unclear during these visits how the leadership team used these data to modify or adjust strategies. The school leadership did not have a system to regularly collect and analyze student achievement and instructional data to understand the impact and effectiveness of teacher professional development on improving student achievement for students. Table 5, below, describes the TIG-specific support offered by CDE to Aurora Central High School over the last five years. Additionally, other CDE units have provided support to Aurora Central HS based on other grants and statutory requirements. Table 5. Summary of TIG Support Offered by CDE to Aurora Central Support Type Timeline Description Professional Development Beginning spring 2013  Consulting and technical assistance for improvement planning and Tiered Intervention Grant Beginning winter 2013, monthly    On-site support and performance management Beginning Fall 2013, monthly   Professional Learning Community meetings for TIG schools on topics such as recruiting and retaining turnaround-specific teachers, implementing change, and sustaining change after TIG Diagnostic visit to support development of TIG grant and on-going technical assistance in developing the TIG grant. Specialized UIP support after TIG award to incorporate TIG strategies into UIP On-going budget consulting and support Quarterly progress monitoring meetings to discuss student data, evaluate implementation, and develop next steps Feedback to district and school on implementation progress 25 Dropout Prevention and Student Engagement Efforts Grant Awards to Aurora Central between 2010-11 to 2014-15 Aurora Central High School is a Colorado Graduation Pathways (CGP) school, and it received funds as part of the state’s U.S. Department of Education High School Graduation Initiative grant award. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, Aurora Central was allocated $454,900 in funds for this grant. CGP was designed to support systems change at the school level to increase the graduation rate, decrease the dropout rate, and reengage students who had dropped out. Table 6. Summary of Aurora Central Colorado Graduation Pathways (CGP) Funding Aurora Central CGP Funding by Year Year Funding Amount 2010-11 $100,000 2011-12 $100,000 2012-13 $100,000 2013-14 $81,000 2014-15 $73,900 Total $454,900 In addition, Aurora Public Schools (APS) received state funds through the Expelled and At-risk Student Services (EARSS) grant for four years from 2008-09 to 2011-12. The total amount of EARSS funds received by the district during the last two years of the grant (when Aurora Central was in Priority Improvement status on the accountability clock) period was $289,996. The EARSS grant is funded through Amendment 23 and is a four-year competitive grant. The goals of the grant are to support students who have been expelled and develop strategies to help students who are at-risk of suspension or expulsion. There is also a provision to address habitual truancy. Early Intervention Program Description Two district-level staff in the Early Intervention Program (EIP) provided intensive case management services to 50 truant and/or expelled students, grades 1-10, attending Aurora Central High School and West Middle School and their parents in order to improve student engagement and academic achievement, reduce suspensions, and increase parent engagement/leadership by accessing community and district resources. Number of Aurora Central Students Served 2010-11 to 2013-14 It estimated that funding through the Dropout Prevention and Student Re-engagement unit annually supported an average of 750 Aurora Central students through both the EARSS and CGP grants. It is unclear if these numbers are unduplicated. During the years 2010-11 to 2011-12, there were 56 Aurora Central students served through the EARSS grant program. There were 32 students served in 2010-11 and 24 students served in 2011-12. Table 7, below, includes a sample of the numbers of students served by CGP programs. 26 Table 7: Sample of the Number of Students Served through Colorado Graduation Pathways Programs* Year 2 (2011-12) Services Year 4 (2013-14) # of students served Services # of students served Intensive Case Management of Most At-Risk Students 66 Early Warning System and Resulting Intervention(s) 300 After-School Academic, Leadership and Enrichment Activities 137 Attendance Interventionists 100 After-School Academic Instruction, Tutoring, and Credit Recovery Programming 42 Credit Recovery 75 Dropout Recovery Efforts (including door-to-door) Creation of a Social and Health Services Referral System 105 - reenrolled dropout students 102 th 9 Grade Transition Programs 300 Dropout Prevention Recovery and Re-enrollment 100 Transition Supports for Mobile Students 128 *Note: Exact numbers of students served for Year 1 and 3 were not available. The data for Year 5 of the Colorado Graduation Pathways grant is still being collected. Services and Supports The EARSS program funded the following activities to support Aurora Central students:  Credit Recovery  GED Prep  Mental Health Services  Other supports, such as tutoring, Response to Intervention (RtI), PBIS, case management and character education APS contracted with The National Center for School Engagement to provide a Policy and Practice Review to participating EARSS Early Intervention Program (EIP) schools (West Middle School and Aurora Central). Administrators and teachers completed the survey which outlines best practices for school policies and practices. The Early Intervention Program partnered with Aurora Mental Health Centers to provide parent support groups. In addition, APS is partnered with the America's Promise Initiative to promote parent workshops, and intensive case management services were provided for the entire family. As part the EARSS grants, APS had opportunities to participate in the annual networking meetings and had access to training and technical assistance on attendance issues. 27 In addition, the Colorado Graduation Pathways has provided technical assistance and training to Aurora Central for five years. Table 8 depicts the variety of activities supported based on the dropout prevention framework. For more information on the framework, visit: www.cde.state.co.us/dropoutprevention/cgp_framework. Some examples of training and technical assistance include:  Development of Logic Model for Systems Change  Site visits to review programming tied to dropout prevention framework  Analysis of postsecondary readiness indicators  Training on Early Warning Systems  Training on Online Learning and Credit Recovery  Two conferences on alternative education  Misc. webinars on progress reporting, improvement planning, dropout prevention and best practices Table 8: Services Funded by the Colorado Graduation Pathways Grant Over the Past 5 Years to Aurora Central High School Dropout Prevention Framework: Methods and Tactics a) Data Analysis b) Early Warning Systems c) Tracking Out-of School Youth d) Assess and Enhance School Climate e) Policy and Practice Review f) Family Engagement g) Community Involvement h) Transition Programs i) Multiple Pathways to Graduation j) Re-engagement of Out-ofSchool Youth k) Enhanced Counseling and Mentoring l) Credit Recovery Year 1 2010-11 Year 2 2011-12 Year 3 2012-13 Year 4 2013-14 Year 5 2014-15 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Results EARSS Program results reported by APS In 2010-11, the Early Intervention Program (EIP) students showed improvements in academic course completion and decreased the number of failing grades in core subjects compared to the baseline. In 2011-12, fewer APS students were filed in truancy court than in previous years. This reflects a positive correlation that parents were willing to resolve their child's truancy without the need for court mandated case management. 28 Success Story An Aurora Central student was flagged for services because his father expressed concerns about his son's at-risk behavior and chronic absenteeism. The Dean of Students referred him to the Early Intervention Program (EIP) Advocate. The advocate and parents met and during the initial home visit set up a goal plan and completed a behavior and attendance assessment. Prior to the EIP, the student had missed a total of 120 class periods or 20 days of school. He was also failing most of his classes in the 1st quarter; he was placed in credit recovery classes and after-school tutoring. Since participating in the program, the student’s attendance dramatically improved. He did not fail any classes during the 2nd quarter and his grades were all Cs or better. He attained a 3.0 GPA and 2.75 credits the 2011-12 school year. Analysis of Colorado Graduation Pathways (CGP) Results The following analysis is based on annual CGP progress reporting by Aurora Central High School. Attendance metrics are useful in examining whether students are on track to graduate. According to the benchmarks set forth in the Evaluation Framework at the beginning of the grant, CGP schools should achieve an average daily attendance rate equal to the state average after five years. Another goal is to achieve a stable upward trend in these results. As illustrated in the chart below, Aurora Central fell short of these goals. While 2011-12 attendance rates were relatively high, they fell in the next year and did not recover to those levels by 2014-14. Figure 7. Average Daily Attendance Rate (Total Student Days Attended/Total Possible Attendance Days), 2010-11 to 2013-14 93.5% 89.3% 100.0% 83.1% 79.0% 75.7% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2010-11 Year 1 2011-12 Year 2 2012-13 Year 3 2013-14 Year 4 State Average 2013-14 What Worked According to the Colorado Graduation Pathways Years 1- 4 Progress Reports, Aurora Central High School achieved the most positive results in the following categories:  Truancy rates were low in Year 2 (2011-12) at 9 percent. This could be explained by intensive case management offered to 66 at-risk students as well as academic, enrichment, and leadership programming offered to 137 students. (Note: that in Year 1 and 2, they also were receiving support through the EARSS grant to support attendance.)  2011-12 also saw high reenrollment/reengagement rates, which could be attributed to dropout recovery (including door-to-door) that reached 105 students.  ACHS saw a 0.8 percent increase in graduation rates over four years and a 3 percent decrease in dropout rates for economically disadvantaged students (see Figure 8). 29 Figure 8. Aurora Central Economically Disadvantaged Graduation and Dropout rates Z3. Economically Disadvantaged Graduation Rate 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 1 2 3 4 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4  Z4. Economically Disadvantaged number of students who dropped out of school (Event dropout rate) ACHS saw a 5 percent increase in graduation rates over four years and a 2 percent decrease in dropout rates for English Learners (see Figure 9). (Note: The event dropout rate differs from the annual dropout rate calculation.) Figure 9. Aurora Central Limited ELL Graduation and Dropout rates 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Z1. Limited English Proficiencies Graduation Rate 2010-11 2013-14 Year 1 2011-12 Year 2 2012-13 Year 3 Year 4 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4   Z2. Limited English Proficiencies number of students who dropped out of school (Event dropout rate) In Year 4 (2013-14), dropout rates decreased from 11 percent to 8 percent, and four-year graduation rates increased from 48 percent to 55 percent in the black student population. Graduation rates among Hispanic students saw a 2.4 percent average increase over four years, with the Year 4 graduation rate at 47 percent. Moving Forward: Where to Focus According to feedback from the Year 3 progress report, overall improvement was not made because schools systems were ineffective in supporting the vast range of language learners and the large number of significantly over-age and under-credited students Aurora Central serves. Ineffective leadership and an unsuccessful credit recovery program were also cited as reasons consistent improvements were not seen at the high school, with the student achievement data confirming this feedback. While gains (even some significant ones) were made during some years in certain metrics, the high school did not see a 30 steady rise across four years in any metric. Trends were erratic, and any gains made were typically lost in the following year (e.g. see Figure 10 on truancy rates). Figure 10. Aurora Central High School Truancy Rate 30% 20% 10% 0% Year 1 2010-11 Year 1 Year 2 2011-12 Year 2 Year 3 2012-13 Year 3 Year 4 2013-14 Year 4 Furthermore, even in years that saw significant increases in one area, they saw drops in other areas. For example, from 2010-11 to 2011-12 the overall attendance rate increased significantly, from 83 percent to 89 percent, yet that same year overall four-year graduation rates dropped significantly, from 43 percent to 36 percent. Thus, there was a lack of consistency both year-to-year and within each year. Finally, the data shows that the areas that could use the most improvement moving forward are the following:  Dropout reengagement rate, or the percentage of retrieved dropouts who graduated, completed, or were still enrolled fell precipitously from 61 percent in 2012-13 (where it held steady since the previous year) to 6 percent in 2013-14. According to the Year 3 (2012-13) Progress Report, 100 students received dropout recovery intervention. School leaders should examine if they targeted the right students and if service delivery was high-quality.  In 2011-12, the Hispanic graduation rate dropped to 35 percent (Hispanics comprised 67 percent of the student population that year). While this rate was recovered in Years 3 and 4 to 42 percent and 47 percent respectively, this indicates there may have been cultural factors in place that made Hispanic student engagement difficult in the past, and this trend should continue to be monitored.  The Average Daily Attendance trend was erratic, but generally downward. In 2011-12, rates were at their highest at 89 percent but by Year 4 they had fallen to 79 percent. Summary While at certain times, it seems specific interventions were effective in impacting outcomes such as truancy, dropout rates and graduation rates for students at Aurora Central High School, the school was not able to sustain those changes. Gains (even some significant ones) would be made during some years in certain metrics, only to be lost the following year. The high school did not see a steady rise across four years in any metric. Overall, the trends in student engagement and graduation metrics were erratic over the course of a four year period. Aurora Central was unable to sustain steady improvements on any dropout prevention or student engagement metric over four years of receiving a considerable amount of federal funding. 31 State Review Panel Report Discussion Department staff reviewed the State Review Panel’s report, which was based on the panel’s 2015 document review and one-day site visit. The State Review Panel recommended Innovation School Status for Aurora Central High School because, as the panelists wrote, “the school 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 likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.” The State Review Panel commented on the relationship between the school and the district, concluding that they do not recommend Innovation Zone status “because stakeholders report that a lack of coordination with the district is creating barriers to school improvements and success.” The following section explains the two major areas of discrepancy between CDE’s assessment of Aurora Central High School and the State Review Panel’s evaluation. 1. CDE staff find that, over the past several years, leadership at Aurora Central has not been effective in driving the school toward dramatic achievement gains and has not consistently implemented improvement efforts targeted at school culture and climate and the quality of instruction. In contrast, the State Review Panel rated the school as effective on the following metric: “the leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results.” The State Review Panel (SRP) highlights the leadership teams’ prior experience in turnaround and their focus on stabilizing the school community as the main evidence of leadership capacity. However, it is noted in the SRP report that the leadership team did not maintain a consistent focus on raising student achievement and ensuring high-quality instruction. The leadership team did not establish systems to set ambitious improvement goals and consistently track and monitor progress towards those goals. While the SRP report highlights the progress the school made in creating a safe, orderly environment, letters from students to the State Board of Education reveal persistent challenges in student behavior, safety, and engagement. Site visits by CDE staff over the past two years revealed a lack of instructional leadership among ACHS’s leadership team. Site visits revealed inconsistencies in data tracking, classroom observations, and clear performance goals on the part of the school leadership. The State Review Panel report indicated that high-quality instruction was not in place in the majority of classrooms and CDE site visits revealed a lack of systems to use instructional data to drive professional development across the school. Data from the school’s partnership with a professional development provider revealed significant discrepancy between the providers’ assessment of instruction and self-assessments by ACHS staff, with ACHS staff consistently rating the quality of instruction higher than the providers. District staff and CDE staff both report that the school lacked formative assessment systems and teachers consistently reported that they were not expected to use formative assessment data to drive instruction and understand students’ needs. 32 Despite the leadership team’s focus on stabilizing the culture, the SRP report highlights that teachers and students report persistent student attendance, tardiness, and behavior problems. This reveals the limited capacity of the leadership team to lead and successfully execute a major turnaround initiative. Lastly, CDE staff note that the principal was reassigned to another position at the end of the 2014-2015 school year because of concerns that he did not have the unique and necessary skills to lead the next phase of turnaround. 2. CDE recommends that Aurora Central become an Innovation School as a part of a district-wide Innovation Zone initiative. This differs from the State Review Panel recommendation, which did not recommend that the school participate in the district’s Innovation Zone. The barriers described by the previous Aurora Central administration in the State Review Panel report largely focused on district mandates or lack of resources. The school, however, was provided with some autonomy as a part of the Tiered Intervention Grant, and even with these additional resources the leadership team struggled to foster an open, outcomes-focused relationship with district staff. The lack of progress monitoring systems established by the school leadership team made it difficult to make data-driven decisions or requests in collaboration with the district. It is likely that a new school leader with the flexibility and structure of an innovation zone will be able to maximize district services to better meet the needs of students at Aurora Central. As a district, Aurora has made strategic moves to provide targeted and differentiated supports to schools. The zone provides a way for the district to customize and prioritize support for struggling schools, including Aurora Central. CDE staff believe it is essential for the district to be a partner in the turnaround efforts at Aurora Central High School, particularly in holding school leadership accountable for performance efforts. CDE Evaluation of District’s Innovation Zone Plan CDE staff reviewed Aurora Public School’s proposal titled “APS 2020: Shaping the Future— Implementation Plan ACTION Zones.” The proposal sets forth a plan to create up to three Innovation Zones within the school district that will be called “Aurora Community-Based Transformation, Innovation and Opportunity Network Zones,” or, “A.C.T.I.O.N. Zones.” These zones will be “targeted to specific community strengths, priorities, and needs” and will be organized around schools with similar geographic characteristics, student demographics and/or educational approaches. APS proposes that ACTION Zone 1 be focused on supporting their growing refugee and immigrant communities. The following schools are under consideration for being included in ACTION Zone 1 based on their high numbers of refugee and immigrant students: Aurora Central High School, Aurora West College Preparatory Academy, Boston K-9 School, Crawford Elementary School and Sable Elementary School. Three of those schools (Aurora Central, Boston and Sable) are currently in Priority Improvement status. The district’s Innovation plan as it stands now does not clearly articulate the persistent root causes of underperformance, other than noting that the district experiences “stable instability.” Accordingly, 33 there is not an explanation of what strategies will be pursued to improve student performance. The stated rationale for choosing Innovation as a pathway for the district’s low-performing schools is that Innovation Schools can respond to community-specific needs. While CDE staff agree with that rationale, the district does not provide a compelling reason for why other pathways such as converting to a charter school or changing management structures would not also be able to reflect unique community needs. The plan provides general examples of waivers and areas of autonomy that schools in the ACTION Zones can pursue under Colorado’s Innovation Schools Act of 2008 (e.g. curriculum, staffing, and professional learning). At this point, however, there are not specific details as to which local or state waivers the Zone 1 schools will seek. The description of ACTION Zone 1 highlights that one of the goals is to leverage partnerships with private, philanthropic and community organizations to support “professional development, cross-disciplinary training for socio-emotional needs, cooperation and engagement with families, and targeted work related to culturally responsive teaching methods.” The district believes that strengthening these skills in school staff will increase student academic achievement in the entire zone. At this point, the district’s proposal does not set forth clear student achievement targets for the schools that will be in ACTION Zone 1. The district does, however, provide a general implementation timeline, with the 2015-16 school year being the planning year for Zone 1. APS will present a fully-developed Innovation Zone proposal to the local board of education and to the State Board of Education during the 2015-16 school year. It is expected that specific student outcome targets will be detailed in the proposal, along with a more thorough plan of which local and state waivers will be sought. In addition, per the state’s Innovation Schools Act, Aurora Public Schools must engage all school constituencies in the development of the innovation zone plan, which includes students, parents and the surrounding community. After soliciting community input, the district must demonstrate that a majority of administrators and teachers at each school in the Innovation Zone supports the plan. This will require engaging the staff and parent communities over the next several months. Lastly, the district has taken steps to select new leadership to lead the planning efforts at Aurora Central High School during the upcoming school year. The district has stated it will support Aurora Central and the other schools in the proposed Zone 1 to identify specific, persistent barriers to achievement and develop individualized innovation plans that respond to these challenges. While allowing the schools and their communities to develop innovation plans that reflect the unique needs of each school, it is CDE’s recommendation that the district articulate parameters, goals, expectations, and “nonnegotiables” for what each school-level innovation plan must include. Further, the district should articulate timelines and benchmarks for implementation and performance goals that each innovation school plan must meet over the next 1-2 years. The Department believes that the district and school community can engage in a rigorous, thoughtful planning period to accomplish this. If, however, Aurora Central fails to meet implementation benchmarks, CDE recommends that the State Board consider a different pathway as a means to improve student achievement outcomes at the high school. 34 Appendix A: Aurora Central Academic Achievement and Growth Aurora Central High School Percentage of Student Proficient or Advanced on CSAP/TCAP By Subject and Student Subgroup from 2008-09 through 2013-14 Each bar represents the percentage of students Proficient or Advanced on the state CSAP/TCAP. The chart is ordered by student subgroup (noted at the top of the chart) and by academic year (noted at the bottom of the chart). The bars are color coded to differentiate the student groups. 35 Aurora Central High School Median Growth Percentile and Median Adequate Growth Percentile Results By Subject and Student Subgroup from 2008-09 through 2013-14 The yellow bars and the numerical values represent median growth percentile, the growth of all students within the specific category. The blue bars represent the median adequate growth percentile, the growth necessary for students to be on track to reach or maintain proficiency. The height of yellow bars should exceed the blue bars. The state’s median growth percentile is 50 for all subjects. 36 Appendix B: Budget Summary for TIG Funds Aurora Central TIG Year 1 Detailed Budget Summary (2013-2014) FTE Amount Description 4 204,400 TOSA (187 days): Year 1: Research effective early warning systems; provide immediate academic and social-emotional support to identified students; develop and begin to implement a system of support for students behind for on-track graduation (Early Warning System) 1 75,600 55,257 1 20,438 55,257 1 20,438 51,100 Early Warning Interventionist x 4 at $18,900 @ 27% TOSA (205 days): Year 1: Provide job-embedded professional development to staff during regularly scheduled common planning time and professional learning communities; assist teachers/teams with data analysis for planning; Assist with site data collection and analysis; provide training and (Data Analyst) TOSA Data Benefits @ 27% TOSA (205 days): Year 1: Research effective Newcomer Programs; develop and implement a specific program/unique schedules to support recent immigrant and refugee population with academics, social & emotional skills. (Newcomer) TOSA Newcomer @ 27% TOSA (187 days): Year 1: Conduct audit of current community partnerships, recommend restructure as necessary, and actively solicit new avenues. Develop partnerships with parents and connect them to school and community resources. Develop and implement outreach events to engage parents and community. (Parent Engagement) 18,900 40,500 9,500 93,312 21,888 12,636 2,964 12,636 2,850 30,000 TOSA Community Liaison @ 27% Year 1: Design and implement extended learning opportunities and provide Extra duty compensation for teachers to provide extended learning opportunities Extended Day Tutors @ 19% All non-licensed staff (30) attend school climate professional learning session before contract time 8 hours @ per diem rate (average $20) and All licensed staff (128) attend 3 day school climate/reform professional learning sessions before contract time 3 days @ $25/ hour x 8 hours All Staff P.D. @ 19% Extra-duty compensation for ILT/Teacher leaders (20) to attend initial professional learning/training on leading to support establishing system of distributed leadership 1 day @25/hour x 8 hours Instr. Leadership P.D. @ 19% Substitute costs to extend the release of teachers by team to implement dataanalysis protocol 4-5 1/2 day every 2 months (50) @ $130/day Sub Release @ 19% New Frontier 21 Consulting Group (Muhammad): 3-day School Reform Training; Day 1 for all staff; Days 2 and 3 for Licensed staff before school starts; 3 follow-up consulting days with Administration, ILT/Teacher leaders 37 34,992 Total 8,208 155,520 Year 1: Identify and establish an agreement for a Consultant to provide one-day workshop on teaching students of poverty to support building positive climate and student centered school culture End of Year P.D & 19% Supplies for facilitation of PD, ILT training, Data Analysis/Planning meetings 36,480 24,363 Beginning of Yr. 2 All Staff @ 19% Supplies for facilitation of PD, ILT training, Data Analysis/Planning meetings 30,000 Year 1: Consultant to provide professional learning and onsite monitoring of implementation of best practices to support English leanrers; assist administrative team in observation $1,017.239 Aurora Central TIG Year 2 Budget Summary (2014-2015) FTE Amount Description 1 82,250 Data Specialist (TOSA 205 days): Assist with site data collection and analysis; provide training and assist teachers/teams with data analysis for planning 4 259,104 1 66,300 Early Warning Specialists (TOSA 187 days): monitor and support students 9th and 10th grade students at risk of not staying, or are not on-track for graduation Parent Engagement Specialist (TOSA 187 days): Implement and manage parent and community engagement strategies; manage parent initiatives, volunteers and serve as a family resource 1 63,652 131,966 0.5 30,250 8,175 14,000 32,000 0.2 11,935 3,222 32,000 6,080 Attendance Specialist (TOSA 187 days): monitor and support Tier III students in an effort to keep student on track for graduation Employee benefits (28%) for TOSAs (Data Analysis, Attendance Specialist, 4 Early Warning System, Parent Engagement) .5 FTE Mathematics Coach Employee Benefits (28%) for .5 FTE Mathematics Coach MAP Testing grades 9/10 (approximately 1,000 students) to monitor student progress Contract for RMC Research to provide an instructional audit of ACHS to monitor UIP and TIG implementation fidelity Project Manager .20 monitor and assist ACSH leadership team with TIG implementation. Employee benefits (28%) for Project Manager One day of professional learning prior to official report start of 14-15 school year (per diem rate for teachers) to jump start the school year. Employee benefits (19%) 1 day prior prof. development. 38 39,000 7,410 professional development for all licensed personnel, every other month, for two hours (per diem rate for teachers). This time complements and is in conjunction with already existing professional learning time in the calendar. Employee benefits (19%) for teachers professional development. 12,000 Substitutes for teacher release for professional development. 2,280 Employee benefits (19%) substitutes for prof. development. 15,600 Staffing for extended learning opportunities for summer (separate from district funded 5th block.) ($40/hr) 2,964 25,000 Employee Benefits (19%) for summer extended learning Extra duty compensation for teachers to teach and tutor ($40 per hour) in extended learning opportunities. Two days/week for two hours for 9 months. Employee benefits (19%) for extended learning Professional development contract with Marzano Research Laboratory 4,750 176,500 7,310 Total $1,095,773 Supplies to support professional learning opportunities for teacher; supplies for student extend learning opportunities 19:? Commissioner's Recommendation 82 Appendix E: Additional School Data SELECTASCHOOL AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J STUDENTDATA Dat anot es:I nf or mat i oni ncl udesper centofst udent sbyr ace/ et hni c i t ys t udentgr oup.ELLi sdef i nedasst udent swhoar eNEP,LEPandFEPM1andM2. Dat as our ce:Oct ober1St udentCount TOTALSTUDENTENROLLMENT 2, 437 2, 334 200809 200910 2, 291 2, 235 2, 270 201011 201112 201213 ENROLLMENTBYETHNI CI TY 100. 0% 80. 0% 201213 201314 201415 201516 11. 1% 11. 1% 12. 0% 11. 6% 12. 9% 15. 9% 15. 2% 16. 5% Engl i sh Lear ner s Per cent Per cent 67. 0% 66. 6% 201314 201415 201516 66. 8% 201213 48. 6% 201314 43. 0% 201415 44. 5% 46. 8% 201516 50. 9% 15. 8% Fr eeand Reduced Lunch Per cent 66. 8% 2, 172 201112 60. 0% 40. 0% 2, 188 ENROLLMENTBYSTUDENTGROUP 201112 16. 1% 2, 120 Speci al Educat i on Per cent 66. 8% 70. 9% 72. 4% 14. 4% 70. 6% 14. 0% 14. 3% 73. 8% 14. 6% 67. 6% 14. 1% 20. 0% Gi f t edPer cent 0. 0% 6. 7% 6. 2% Per centOt her 5. 3% 4. 6% 5. 0% 4. 2% 4. 3% 3. 9% 5. 2% Per c entBl ac k Per c entHi s pani corLat i no Per c entWhi t e At t endanceandMobi l i t yRat es I nf or mat i oni ncl udescal cul at edat t endanc er at eanddi st r i c tmobi l i t yr at e.Or angel i nei ndi c at ess t at eav er ager at e.Mobi l i t yr at ec al c ul at i onr evi s edf or2013.Pl easer ef er enc eSchool Vi ewf oraddi t i onal det ai l s. Dat aSour ce:CDEEducat i onSt at i st i c sPage At t endanceRat e Mobi l i t yRat e 44. 7 89. 3% 75. 7% 79. 0% 76. 8% 76. 5% 35. 6 31. 8 27. 0 24. 8 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 201011 201112 201213 201314 201415 SELECTASCHOOL AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J ASSESSMENTDATA-SCHOOLRESULTS Par t i cpat i onCol orKey 95% orgr eat er ,Hi ghPar t i cpat i on Bet ween85% and94%,Caut i on CATEGORY Bel ow85%,I nf er enceDi f f i cul t ALLSTUDENTS NoPar t i c i pat i onDat a CMASPARCC-MATHANDENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS Thef ol l owi ngv i s ual di s pl ay sCMASPARCCmeanscal es cor esf ormat handEngl i s hl anguagear tbygr adeands t udentgr oupf or201516s chool y ear .Thev i sual i nc l udest hef ol l owi ngel ement s:( 1) st at emeans cal es c or epr es ent edasaver t i c al l i nei nor ange,( 2)sc hool means c al esc or epr esent edasapl ussi gn,( 3)sc hool meansc al esc or ecol orcodedbasedont hepr opor t i onofst udent swho t ookt heas s es s ment s ,andl as t l y( 4)c ol orbandt hati dent i f i ess c or esmeet i ngas s ess mentbenchmar k/ st at est andar ds. ENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS ALLGRADES ALLSTUDENTS MATH 702 650 700 707 750 MeanSc al eSc or e 800 850650 700 750 MeanScal eSc or e 800 850 CMAS-SCI ENCE Thef ol l owi ngv i s ual di s pl ay sofCMASSs c i encemeans c al esc or esbyst udentgr oup,gr ade,andyear .Thevi s ual i ncl udest hef ol l owi ngt hr eeel ement s:( 1)s t at emeans cal es cor epr esent edasa v er t i cal l i nei nor ange,( 2)s chool meanscal es c or epr es ent edasapl uss i gn,andf i nal l y( 3)t heschool meanscal es cor ecol orcodedbas edont hepr opor t i onofs t udent swhot ookt heassessment . Cat egor y/ Subc. .Gr ade Year ALLSTUDENTS 2016 11 SCI ENCE 536 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 MeanSc al eScor e 700 750 800 COLORADO ACT COMPOSI TE ENGLI SH MATH 2012 14. 9 READI NG STUDENTS 2013 15. 0 SCI ENCE 2014 15. 2 2015 15. 1 2016 15. 9 5 10 15 900 SUBJECT Thec har tbel owdi s pl ay st her esul t sf r om t heCol or adoACT,i ncl udi ngt heover al l ( compos i t e)sc or e,Engl i s h,Mat h,Readi ngandSci enc edi saggr egat edbys t udentgr oup.Thepl us si gnsr epr esentt hes c hool ' sACTr esul t sandt heor angel i nesr epr esentt hes t at eaver age.Forgr oupst hatmeett hemi ni mum Ncountt hr eshol d( i . e. ,atl east16st udent st ookand r ecei v edav al i dt es ts c or e) ,t her esul t sar edi spl ayedbel ow.Cur s ormous eovereac hbart oseedet ai l edr esul t s . COMPOSI TE AL L 850 20 25 30 35 SELECTASCHOOL AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J Gr owt hmet r i cspr ovi deanot herv i ewoft heper f or manc eofaschool ,di st r i ctorgr oupofs t udent s .Whi l eac hi ev ementi sf oc us edont heper f or manc eatapoi nti nt i me,gr owt hpr ov i desani ndi cat i onof whathappensi nbet weent heas sess ment s .Looki ngatbot hachi evementandgr owt hr es ul t spr ov i desamor ei ndept hpi c t ur eofper f or manc e. Gr owt hr at esf ori ndi v i dual s t udent sar ecal c ul at edbyanal yzi ngs t udent s’ Col or adoMeas ur esofAc ademi cSuc c es s( CMAS)s c or esi nEngl i s hLanguageAr t sandMat hov erc onsec ut i v ey ear s .A st udent ' sgr owt hper c ent i l e( r angi ngf r om 1t o99)i ndi c at eshowast udent ’ sper f or manc ec hangedov ert i me,r el at i v et os t udent swi t has i mi l ars c or ehi s t or yont hes t at eas s essment s.School anddi st r i c t gr owt hr at esar edet er mi nedbyt hegr owt hper c ent i l esf r om i ndi v i dual st udent s,spec i f i c al l yt hemedi an( ors c or ei nt hemi ddl e)s t udentgr owt hper c ent i l e.Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l es( MGP)ar e cal cul at edf ort hewhol esc hool ,bygr ade,andbydi f f er ents t udentgr oups.Hi ghermedi angr owt hper c ent i l esi ndi c at ehi ghergr owt hr at esf ort het y pi c al s t udent si nt hos egr oups.Pl easenot et hatgr owt h r at esar ei ndependentofac hi evementl ev el s( st udent satal l ac hi evementl ev el sar ej us tasl i k el yt ohav ehi ghgr owt hasl owgr owt h) .Asapoi ntofr ef er enc e,t hes t at emedi angr owt hper c ent i l ef orany gr ade,over al l ,i s50.I nr ar ecas es,s t at emedi angr owt hper cent i l esmayvar ys l i ght l y . Mi s si ngdat ai nt het abl er ef l ec tf ewert han20st udent si nt hegr oup;t hei rdat ai snots howni nt het abl e( t hec el l sar ebl ank )t oens ur edat apr i v ac yandappr opr i at ei nt er pr et at i onofr es ul t s .For addi t i onal def i ni t i onsandi nf or mat i ongot o:www. cde. st at e. c o. us / account abi l i t y / c ol or adogr owt hmodel Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e 1. 0 99. 0 50 ENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS MATH SCHOOL DI STRI CT STATE SCHOOL DI STRI CT STATE 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 ALLSTUDENTS Al lSt udent s 28. 0 45. 0 50. 0 38. 0 49. 0 49. 0 GRADELEVEL 09 28. 0 45. 0 50. 0 38. 0 49. 0 49. 0 ENGLI SHLEARNERS Engl i shLear ner s( NEP,LEP,FEP) 31. 0 47. 0 51. 0 40. 0 51. 0 49. 0 NonEngl i shLear ner s 17. 0 43. 0 50. 0 37. 0 44. 0 49. 0 FREEANDREDUCED LUNCH( FRL) FRLEl i gi bl e 29. 0 44. 0 48. 0 38. 0 49. 0 47. 0 NonFRL 26. 0 49. 0 51. 0 42. 0 48. 0 52. 0 GENDER Femal e 30. 0 49. 0 54. 0 43. 5 52. 0 51. 0 Mal e 27. 0 41. 0 46. 0 37. 0 45. 0 48. 0 57. 5 61. 0 33. 0 58. 0 GI FTED Gi f t edandTal ent ed NonGi f t edandTal ent ed 28. 0 44. 0 48. 0 38. 0 49. 0 49. 0 I NDI VI DUALI ZED EDUCATI ONPLAN( I EP) OnI EP 27. 0 33. 0 43. 0 29. 5 34. 0 41. 0 NonI EP 28. 0 46. 5 51. 0 41. 0 51. 0 51. 0 MI GRANT Mi gr ant MI NORI TY 45. 0 28. 0 45. 0 50. 0 38. 0 49. 0 49. 0 Mi nor i t y 29. 0 44. 0 49. 0 38. 0 49. 0 48. 0 47. 0 51. 0 48. 0 51. 0 28. 5 48. 0 38. 0 50. 0 50. 0 NonMi nor i t y PERFORMANCELEVEL RACE/ ETHNI CI TY 52. 0 NonMi gr ant AtorAboveBenchmar k 29. 0 46. 0 50. 0 Bel ow Benchmar k 27. 0 45. 0 50. 0 Asi an 31. 5 51. 5 60. 0 33. 5 50. 0 58. 0 Bl ack 20. 0 39. 0 49. 0 34. 0 40. 0 48. 0 Hi spani c 31. 0 45. 0 48. 0 41. 0 52. 0 47. 0 47. 0 51. 0 48. 0 51. 0 47. 0 Amer i canI ndi anorAl askaNat i ve Whi t e 50. 0 Hawai i an/ Paci f i cI sl ander TwoorMor eRaces 43. 0 50. 0 52. 0 48. 5 49. 5 51. 0 SELECTASCHOOL AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J POSTSECONDARYWORKFORCEREADI NESS Gr aduat i onandCompl et i onRat es Col or adocal cul at es‘ ont i me’ gr aduat i onast heper c entofs t udent swhogr aduat ef r om hi ghs chool f ouryear saf t erent er i ngni nt hgr ade.Ther at espr esent edi nt hi sr epor tr ef l ectt he bes toft he4,5,6,and7yeargr aduat i onr at esatt heov er al l anddi s aggr egat edl ev el s ,basedonendofy ears t at esubmi s si onr epor t i ng.Thef our y earr at ef ort hi sr epor ti sbas edon 2015gr aduat es.Forgr aduat i on,ELLst udent si ncl udeonl yNEPandLEP.Pl easevi si tt hedepar t ment ' swebs i t eat oraddi t i onal i nf or mat i on. ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ cder eval / gr adc ur r ent def i ni t i ons #s t hash. as D4R2qV. dpuff Theor angel i ner epr esent st hest at eav er agef oreachy ear . ELL:Engl i shLanguageLear ner s FRL:Fr eeandReducedLuc hEl i gi bl e I EP:Speci al educ at i onst udent son i ndi v i dual i zededucat i onpl an MI N:Mi nor i t yst udent s GRADUATI ON St udentGr oup COMPLETI ON ELL FRL I EP 58. 2% 62. 9% 46. 2% 58. 3% 65. 3% 44. 3% 62. 5% 66. 7% 44. 0% 61. 9% 67. 0% 49. 6% 61. 8% 68. 9% 45. 3% 64. 3% 71. 9% MI N 201415 201314 42. 2% 201516 Cl assof 201213 ALL 48. 1% 49. 6% 4 5 6 7 4 Dr opoutRat es Theper cent ageofs t udent senr ol l edi ngr ades712whol eaveschool dur i ngas i ngl ey ear .I ti s cal cul at edbydi v i di ngt henumberofdr opout sbyamember shi pbas e,whi chi nc l udesal l st udent s whower ei nt hemember s hi panyt i medur i ngt hey earanddi dnotenr ol l i nadi f f er entCol or ado school . 10. 0% 5 6 7 Mat r i cul at i onRat es Al l 2015hi ghs chool gr aduat est hatenr ol l i naCar eer&Tec hni cal Educ at i on( CTE)pr ogr am,2Year Hi gherEduc at i onI ns t i t ut i on,or4YearHi gherEducat i onI ns t i t ut i ondur i ngt hesubsequentacademi c year .Ther at eal s oi ncl udesal l hi ghsc hool gr aduat est hatear nedaCar eer&Techni cal Educat i on cer t i f i c at eoracol l egedegr eewhi l et heywer est i l l enr ol l edi nhi ghsc hool .Themat r i cul at i ondat a i ncl udesbot hi ns t at eandout of s t at eenr ol l ment s.Formor ei nf or mat i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. s t at e. c o. us/ acc ount abi l i t y/ mat r i c ul at i on_gui dance_and_f aq_7_25_16 ALL CTE 2YEAR 4YEAR 100. 0. . 8. 0% 80. 0% 6. 0% 60. 0% 4. 0% 40. 0% 2. 0% 0. 0% 20. 0% 9. 0% 8. 8% 8. 8% 10. 5% 5. 8% 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 0. 0% 36. 3% 11. 2% 13. 4% 13. 0% 201415 201415 201415 201415 ACCOUNTABI LI TY Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl ay sont hi st abwi l l notbeupdat edwi t hnewdat ai n201516,butwi l l r emai ni nt hedashboar df or r ef er ence.Bec auseoft hes t at eas ses smentt r ansi t i onandt hepass ageofH. B.151323,s chool acc ount abi l i t ymeas ur es ar eaf f ec t ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebs i t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heacc ount abi l i t ysy st em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ acc ount abi l i t y/ i mpact of as ses sment t r ans i t i ononsc hool anddi st r i ct ac count abi l i t y Sel ectaSchool AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J Sel ectadat at i mespan ( Forl ongi t udi naldat aanal ysi s,sel ectei t her1yearor3year ) 1Year Thedat ai nt hi st abr el at est ot het r adi t i onal Sc hool Per f or manc eFr amewor k .Dat af or s c hool st hatar eAECi snotav ai l abl e.ForAECs c hool s ,pl eas er ef er enc ey ourSPFr epor t onSc hool Vi ew. or g.Thedi s pl aybel owwi l l i ndi c at ewhet hert hes c hool y ou' v es el ec t edi s anAEC. SPFPl anType 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Pr i or i t y Pr i or i t y Pr i or i t y I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement A.OVERALL 2010 2011 D.HI GH 37. 3 45. 4 2012 2013 2014 NO NO NO NO 2010 D.HI GH 2012 2013 2014 41. 6 40. 1 44. 5 41. 6 40. 1 44. 5 2011 A.OVERALL SPF% Poi nt sEar ned A.OVERALL 2011 NO Thebel owt abl ei ndi cat est hepl ant ypeused( 1yearor3Year ) Pr i or i t y Pr i or i t y Pr i or i t y Pr i or i t y Pr i or i t y I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement Pl an D.HI GH 2010 1Year 1Year 2012 2013 2014 1Year 1Year 1Year 1Year 1Year 1Year YearEnt er i ngPr i or i t yI mpr ov ementorTur nar ound Year5 SPFKeyI ndi cat orRat i ngsOver al l Numberi ndi cat esper cent agepoi nt sear nedonkeyi ndi cat or .Col orofbarr epr esent skeyper f or mancei ndi c at orr at i ng.Dr opdownmenuatt opofpagei ndi cat esdat at i mespan.Dat a Sour ce:School Per f or manceFr amewor k Col orKey Exceeds Meet s Appr oachi ng DoesNotMeet A.OVERALL Achi ev ement% Gr owt h% 53. 6 Gr owt hGaps% 53. 6 60. 7 Post secondar y% 56. 7 53. 3 43. 3 25. 0 25. 0 66. 7 D.HI GH 31. 3 31. 3 31. 3 31. 3 31. 3 31. 3 2012 2013 2014 25. 0 53. 6 50. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 53. 6 63. 3 60. 7 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 56. 7 53. 3 48. 3 43. 3 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Achi evementDat a 25. 0 25. 0 2010 2011 Gr owt hDat a Per centofs t udent ss cor i ngPr of i ci entandAdvanced.Col orofbarr epr esent sr at i ngf or Medi anst udentgr owt hper cent i l e.Col orofbarr epr esent sr at i ngf orsubi ndi c at or .Dr op subi ndi cat or .Dr opdownmenuatt opofpagei ndi cat esdat at i mespan.Dat aSour ce:School downmenuatt opofpagei ndi cat esdat at i mespan.MAGPcanbef oundon Per f or manceFr amewor k Per f or mancet ab.Dat aSour ce:School Per f or manceFr amewor k 57 46 50 56 57 51 55 47 49 MGP-ELP 48 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2013 2012 2011 40 49 2011 54 48 46 42 D.HI GH 2013 2010 13. 6 2012 2014 15. 4 14. 6 2011 2010 21. 5 16. 4 16. 3 2013 2014 16. 1 15. 4 2012 13. 2 2011 2010 11. 7 2014 13. 3 11. 4 2013 2012 2011 11. 2 39. 7 2010 2014 2013 2012 MGP-Wr i t e PostSecondar yandWor kf or ceReadi nessDat a Gr owt hGapsDat a Us et hePer f or manc eTabf or i nt er ac t i vedi agnost i congr owt h gaps .Vi ewmedi anandadequat e gr owt hper c ent i l ebys ubgr oup, byEMHl ev el ,andbysubj ec tf or 20082014academi cy ear s. MGP-Mat h 52 MGP-Read 2010 Ac h-S c i enc e 2014 Ac h-Wr i t e 57 Ac h-Mat h 13. 8 35. 6 35. 3 2011 33. 3 35. 9 2010 D.HI GH Ac h-Read 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Gr aduat i onRat i ng DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet Dr opoutRat i ng DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet ACTRat i ng Appr oachi ng Appr oac hi ng Appr oachi ng DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet STUDENTPERFORMANCE Sel ectaSchool Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl ay sont hi st abwi l l notbeupdat edwi t hnewdat ai n201516,butwi l l r emai ni nt he dashboar df orr ef er ence.Becaus eoft hest at eass es smentt r ans i t i onandt hepas sageofH. B.151323,school ac count abi l i t ymeasur esar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebs i t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t y s y st em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on:ht t p: / / www. cde. s t at e. c o. us/ acc ount abi l i t y/ i mpac t of as sess ment t r ansi t i ononschool . . AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J Achi evement :Per cent ageofSt udent sScor i ngPr of i ci entorAbove Thi si nt er ac t i v ev i s ual al l owsus er st ocompar eper cent ageofst udent spr of i ci entandadvancedbysubgr oup. Dat aSour ce:Dat aLab;School l evel i ncl usi on/ excl usi onr ul es 100. 0 Us et hequi c kf i l t er st o c ont r ol whatdat ai ss hown ont hec har t . 90. 0 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) 80. 0 Mat h Readi ng Per c entPr of i c i entAdv anc ed 70. 0 Wr i t i ng Sel ectaSubgr oup ( chooseoneormany) 60. 0 Al l St udent s ELL 50. 0 FRL I EP 40. 0 Mi nor i t y 30. 0 Subgr oupCol orKey Al l St udent s 20. 0 10. 0 0. 0 ELL 11. 0 10. 9 10. 5 10. 1 0. 9 200809 13. 0 12. 7 11. 3 11. 5 0. 9 0. 9 200910 201011 12. 8 11. 2 3. 2 10. 5 0. 9 201112 201213 11. 2 9. 9 1. 1 FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 201314 Gr owt h:Medi anandAdequat eGr owt hPer cent i l es Thi si nt er ac t i v ev i s ual al l owsus er st ov i ewMGPandAGPbySubgr oup,bySubj ect ,andbyEMHl evel .Yel l owbarshoul dexceedgr eenbar . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;School l evel i ncl usi on/ excl usi onr ul es Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o c ont r ol whatdat ai s shownont hec har t . 90 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) 80 Mat h Readi ng Gr owt hPer c ent i l e 70 Wr i t i ng Sel ectaSubgr oup ( chooseone) 60 50 Al l St udent s 50 ELL FRL I EP 40 30 Mi nor i t y 56 49 49 53 53 10 0 200809 200910 201011 201112 201213 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 39 20 Gr owt hCol orKey 201314 STUDENTPERFORMANCE Sel ectaSchool Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl ay sont hi st abwi l l notbeupdat edwi t hnewdat ai n201516,butwi l l r emai ni nt he dashboar df orr ef er ence.Becaus eoft hest at eass es smentt r ans i t i onandt hepas sageofH. B.151323,school ac count abi l i t ymeasur esar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebs i t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t y s y st em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on:ht t p: / / www. cde. s t at e. c o. us/ acc ount abi l i t y/ i mpac t of as sess ment t r ansi t i ononschool . . AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J Achi evement :Per cent ageofSt udent sScor i ngPr of i ci entorAbove Thi si nt er ac t i v ev i s ual al l owsus er st ocompar eper cent ageofst udent spr of i ci entandadvancedbysubgr oup. Dat aSour ce:Dat aLab;School l evel i ncl usi on/ excl usi onr ul es 100. 0 Us et hequi c kf i l t er st o c ont r ol whatdat ai ss hown ont hec har t . 90. 0 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) 80. 0 Mat h Readi ng Per c entPr of i c i entAdv anc ed 70. 0 Wr i t i ng Sel ectaSubgr oup ( chooseoneormany) 60. 0 Al l St udent s ELL 50. 0 FRL 40. 0 39. 7 38. 9 30. 0 32. 9 30. 3 35. 2 33. 5 33. 2 31. 0 35. 5 39. 1 38. 6 I EP Mi nor i t y 33. 5 31. 6 Subgr oupCol orKey Al l St udent s 20. 0 ELL FRL 10. 0 5. 5 0. 9 0. 0 200809 200910 4. 3 201011 6. 5 201112 I EP 3. 8 201213 3. 4 Mi nor i t y 201314 Gr owt h:Medi anandAdequat eGr owt hPer cent i l es Thi si nt er ac t i v ev i s ual al l owsus er st ov i ewMGPandAGPbySubgr oup,bySubj ect ,andbyEMHl evel .Yel l owbarshoul dexceedgr eenbar . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;School l evel i ncl usi on/ excl usi onr ul es Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o c ont r ol whatdat ai s shownont hec har t . 90 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) 80 Mat h Readi ng Gr owt hPer c ent i l e 70 Wr i t i ng Sel ectaSubgr oup ( chooseone) 60 50 Al l St udent s 50 ELL FRL I EP 40 30 Mi nor i t y 57 57 42 20 47 48 201112 201213 56 0 200910 201011 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 10 200809 Gr owt hCol orKey 201314 STUDENTPERFORMANCE Sel ectaSchool Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl ay sont hi st abwi l l notbeupdat edwi t hnewdat ai n201516,butwi l l r emai ni nt he dashboar df orr ef er ence.Becaus eoft hest at eass es smentt r ans i t i onandt hepas sageofH. B.151323,school ac count abi l i t ymeasur esar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebs i t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t y s y st em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on:ht t p: / / www. cde. s t at e. c o. us/ acc ount abi l i t y/ i mpac t of as sess ment t r ansi t i ononschool . . AURORACENTRALHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSARAPAHOE28J Achi evement :Per cent ageofSt udent sScor i ngPr of i ci entorAbove Thi si nt er ac t i v ev i s ual al l owsus er st ocompar eper cent ageofst udent spr of i ci entandadvancedbysubgr oup. Dat aSour ce:Dat aLab;School l evel i ncl usi on/ excl usi onr ul es 100. 0 Us et hequi c kf i l t er st o c ont r ol whatdat ai ss hown ont hec har t . 90. 0 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) 80. 0 Mat h Readi ng Per c entPr of i c i entAdv anc ed 70. 0 Wr i t i ng Sel ectaSubgr oup ( chooseoneormany) 60. 0 Al l St udent s ELL 50. 0 FRL I EP 40. 0 Mi nor i t y 30. 0 20. 0 10. 0 0. 0 Subgr oupCol orKey 15. 7 14. 4 13. 8 0. 0 200809 11. 9 15. 8 15. 0 15. 4 16. 3 14. 1 13. 5 9. 4 0. 0 0. 9 1. 1 0. 9 200910 201011 201112 201213 21. 4 21. 6 19. 2 Al l St udent s ELL FRL I EP 0. 0 Mi nor i t y 201314 Gr owt h:Medi anandAdequat eGr owt hPer cent i l es Thi si nt er ac t i v ev i s ual al l owsus er st ov i ewMGPandAGPbySubgr oup,bySubj ect ,andbyEMHl evel .Yel l owbarshoul dexceedgr eenbar . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;School l evel i ncl usi on/ excl usi onr ul es Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o c ont r ol whatdat ai s shownont hec har t . 90 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) 80 Mat h Readi ng Gr owt hPer c ent i l e 70 Wr i t i ng Sel ectaSubgr oup ( chooseone) 60 50 Al l St udent s 50 ELL FRL I EP 40 Mi nor i t y 30 50 57 47 51 Gr owt hCol orKey 48 50 10 0 200809 200910 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 20 201011 201112 201213 201314