1 Submitted to: Colorado State Board of Education By: Dr. Katy Anthes, Commissioner of Education April 2017 Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 303-866-6600 Table of Contents Executive Summary Data Analysis Review of Systems and Conditions Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) Overview Grants and Support State Review Panel Report Discussion CDE Evaluation of District's Plan Appendix A: Accountability Clock Background Appendix B: History of UIP Feedback Appendix C: Grants 8 Supports Appendix D: Additional Information on Beyond Textbooks Appendix E: Additional District and School Data 3 Adams 14 School District will enter its 6th year of being Accredited with a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan on July 1, 2017. In addition, the district’s comprehensive high school, Adams City High School is entering its 6th year of being in Priority Improvement or Turnaround status. This report constitutes CDE’s formal recommendation for the school district and for the high school. The State Board of Education is required, by law, to direct action to the district’s local school board prior to June 30, 2017. 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 for districts and schools at the end of the accountability clock. For both the district and school level action, the Commissioner recommends an external management partnership based upon a review of student data, leadership, culture, academic systems, and Unified Improvement Plans. The Commissioner’s visit to the district, as well as many Department staff visits over the past school year also informed this recommendation. In addition, the Department took into consideration the State Review Panel’s final recommendation and the district’s own proposal for an external management partnership. Background Adams 14 School District serves approximately 7,500 students just north of Denver. Compared to the state as a whole, Adams 14 has a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students and English language learners. Nearly 90 percent of the district’s students identify as a racial or ethnic minority and 85 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. The majority of the district’s students (53 percent) are English learners, compared to 17 percent of students statewide. Adams 14 School District operates 11 schools, eight of which are on the accountability clock in Priority Improvement or Turnaround status (see Table 1). Adams 14 was Accredited with a Turnaround Plan from 2010 through 2012 and Accredited with a Priority Improvement Plan in 2013 and 2014. In 2016, the district fell back to an Accredited with Turnaround rating. The local board hired a new superintendent, Dr. Javier Abrego, in summer 2016. Dr. Abrego is new to Colorado, but is an experienced superintendent that has previously worked in struggling education systems. Much of the district leadership team has turned over and been replaced in the last year, as well. Adams City High School has a history of rapid leadership turnover. Most recently, the high school principal accepted a new position at the district office. The high school has been led by an experienced interim principal since January 2017. The district is in the process of restructuring the leadership model at the high school and is currently hiring a new principal, assistant principals and other support staff (e.g., coaches, counselors). 4 Table 1: Performance Ratings for Adams 14 School District and its Schools, 2010-2016 ADAMS 14 SCHOOL DISTRICT School Name ADAMS CITY HIGH SCHOOL ADAMS CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ALSUP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DUPONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HANSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KEARNEY MIDDLE SCHOOL KEMP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LESTER R ARNOLD HIGH SCHOOL MONACO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Legend 2010 2011 T T Level H M E E E E M E H E E T I T I PI PI PI PI PI I T P=Performance 2012 2013 2014 T PI PI Final School Plan Type PI PI PI PI PI PI P I P I I PI I PI PI PI PI I PI PI T P PI I P I P P I I I PI AEC: T AEC: T AEC: PI AEC: I I I PI I PI PI T I I=Improvement PI=Priority Improvement 2016 Year on Clock (eff. July 1, 2017) T Year 6 PI PI PI PI PI I I PI AEC: I T T Year 6 Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 3 --Year 2 -Year 1 Year 1 T=Turnaround Key Conditions for Success: Adams 14 School District Based on interactions with Adams 14 over the past several years, and considering other systems reviews (e.g., UIP, diagnostic reviews, State Review Panel report), it is evident to the Department that the district continues to face core challenges around academic systems, teacher recruitment and retention, community engagement and district systems of support. Best practice in turnaround schools and change management is to focus on two to three key priority areas. CDE believes that the most urgent priorities, with the greatest potential impact on students, are strengthening academic systems and building out the district systems of support. Recruitment and retention systems, as well as community engagement, are important needs of the district as well. As such, the district’s pathway plan must address the following conditions to instill confidence that the district is on track to attaining an Improvement or Accredited rating. Academic Systems  To address the root causes identified in the district Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), the district has begun to articulate and fill in gaps to ensure consistent curriculum, interim assessments, and instructional strategies. Clarifications on how curriculum, assessments and instructional strategies work or need to be differentiated for special populations (e.g., English language learners, students with IEPs) is emerging as well. The local board has also earmarked funds for future investment in curriculum, assessment and instructional materials. Moving forward, the district should continue addressing these gaps to ensure a comprehensive and rigorous academic system in all content areas, all grades, all schools and for all students. For the sake of 5    transparency with staff and the community, the district should outline a communication plan for how and when this will occur. The district is planning to partner with Beyond Textbooks, an organization that provides curriculum development, instructional improvement, student assessment, and multi-level interventions. With implementation, there is an expectation that alignment in the teaching and learning cycle will occur with increased rigor. The district will need to be vigilant to ensure that this approach is implemented well in the three schools that have been selected to work with Beyond Textbooks. The district should document whether this is a good fit within the Adams 14 context and whether to scale up the program in additional schools. The district uses interim assessments so that there is consistent data across the district. A data dashboard has been recently released to help visualize and make sense of available data. School staff would benefit from communication from the new district administration on the comprehensive assessment plan. District leadership’s expectations on use of data and ongoing, formative assessments need to be better communicated; school and district staff members also need additional support on how to use data more effectively. Whereas a number of Adams 14 schools are engaged in developing biliteracy or dual-language instructional models, consistent instructional expectations for English language learners are not fully articulated or understood across the district. A clear instructional plan and plan for implementation for all schools (especially at the secondary level) is important to best serve students. District Systems of Support     While work on district systems of support has already begun, the district needs to fully flesh out a clear system for supporting and supervising each school on the accountability clock. The district must ensure that urgent, rigorous strategies have been selected for each of these schools. At the same time, the system of supports must be coherent and aligned across the entire district. Because effective implementation of the district’s turnaround plan is so important, ongoing feedback loops (e.g., formal and informal ways of sharing data and information) need to be built between the district and schools. District staff need to prioritize time to visit schools on the accountability clock to engage building leadership teams in ongoing progress monitoring (e.g., student indicators, implementation benchmarks) and timely problem solving (e.g., addressing barriers, adjusting implementation plans) throughout the school year. Building upon the new administration’s efforts over the last year, the district’s systems (e.g., leadership development, recruitment and retention of highly effective staff, communication with school staff, parents and the community) and routines need time to mature. District staff must be focused on establishing these systems and building in a continuous improvement cycle. This means that feedback loops are built and the feedback is acted upon. The district has been open to working with outside partners. In particular, Beyond Textbooks has been identified as a key solution to addressing the academic systems concerns. Furthermore, the administration has invited CDE to provide consultation and support on its 6 turnaround plan and in specific program areas (e.g., READ Act, Educator Effectiveness, Federal Programs). The district should continue to work with external partners to provide the district with another perspective and bring resources and expertise to support the work. Key Conditions for Success: Adams City High School CDE has also identified urgent, key conditions for success at Adams City High School. As the school has been in a holding pattern this school year due to leadership transitions, a strong school leadership team must be identified as soon as possible. Recruitment and retention of leadership will allow the school to move forward as quickly as possible. Additionally, academic systems (e.g., implementing an early warning system, expanding college and career pathways) needs to be the other primary focus. School Leadership    Adams City High School has had four principals in the past five years and has had an interim principal in place since this past January. The district must pursue hiring a principal with urgency. Stable, visionary, and effective leadership is critical to the success of the school. Research suggests that the following turnaround leadership competencies are important in hiring a new principal (Public Impact, 2008):  Driving for results – a relentless focus on student learning  Influencing for results – working through and with others  Problem solving – solving and simplifying complex problems  Showing confidence to lead – focus and commitment in the midst of challenging situations In recruiting leader at Adams City High School, the district should prioritize the following attributes:  Successful experience in school turnaround settings  Experience as a school leader  Experience leading effective data-driven assessment, instruction, coaching and planning cycles A priority should be placed on keeping an effective leader in the school for at least three to five years. Retention of leadership within the newly designed structure will be paramount to helping the school gain momentum to move off of the accountability clock. Academic Systems  Adams City High School has been working to strengthen instruction to the necessary depth and rigor required by the Colorado Academic Standards across the entire school. Transitions in leadership, however, may have slowed this work to some degree. While the addition of Beyond Textbooks should increase rigor in content and instruction, the school will need to create internal systems of support and accountability to take full advantage of the external management partnership. 7   The high school has been developing career and technical pathways for a number of years, yet they have not yet come to fruition. School and district leadership need to decide if these pathways are viable, and if so, what resources are needed to implement them. Building on Adams City High Schools’ work to increase high school graduation and matriculation to college, the school should focus on its early warning systems and supports to address attendance and dropout concerns. Rationale for Recommendation: Adams 14 School District CDE is recommending an external management partner as the best pathway for the district to meet the key conditions for success (academic systems and district systems of support). Under the previous district administration and upon recommendation from the State Review Panel, the district began the innovation planning process. After the district leadership transition, little progress on the innovation plan, and further decline on the accountability clock, CDE suggested that the district consider which pathways would best meet their most pressing needs. Current leadership has spent the last nine months building or redefining basic structures (e.g., leadership supports, a consistent teaching and learning cycle, and differentiation of instruction to meet student needs) across the whole district. In looking at how best to meet the key conditions for success, district leadership believes that an external partner could lend some needed supports around academic systems to accelerate performance, while simultaneously allowing district staff to focus on laying the basic foundational procedures districtwide and ensuring necessary leadership is in place in schools and across the district. A management partner should have expertise in academic systems and providing school staff with teaching and learning routines. The district would also benefit from a partner that will assist the district in holding itself accountable to the implementation of the turnaround plan and in enhancing the district’s supports to schools. Any established partnership should include clear roles and lines of authority. The district administration has prepared a proposal for an external management partner as part of the accountability pathway. Based upon the superintendent’s previous experience, the district has selected Beyond Textbooks. Beyond Textbooks is a comprehensive program of curriculum development, instructional improvement, student assessment, and multi-level interventions. Beyond Textbooks was created by Vail School District in Arizona as a way to improve their own student achievement concerns. Upon receiving recognition as a high achieving district in the state, they began partnering with other Arizona districts and districts in neighboring states that were searching for a more systematic way of approaching academic systems. Through the program, school staff receive a highly-structured curriculum framework focused on standards, extensive professional development, observations and coaching, and access to a wide array of sample lessons and classroom-based assessments. Additional details on Beyond Textbooks, including evidence of prior success, are available in Appendix D and in the district’s pathway proposal. The district has selected three schools – Rose Hill Elementary, Central Elementary, and Adams City High School - to participate in the Beyond Textbooks program as a way to focus on their most struggling schools. The district is purposefully starting with just three schools to study and thus can adjust its implementation practices by starting small. This will enable the district to focus on developing a relationship 8 with the management partner and building internal systems to support the work adequately. With effective implementation, this partnership holds promise in lifting performance in these three schools. The external management proposal for the three schools on its own may not be enough to move the district to be accredited with Improvement or higher. The district has begun to include details in their pathway proposal to address the other key conditions for support. The plan lays out district-led supports for other schools (e.g., leadership training, professional development) and turnaround supports offered through the state (e.g., Connect for Success, Turnaround Network). If there is evidence of success in the schools working with Beyond Textbooks, the district has stated that it will expand the Beyond Textbooks contract to other schools. This approach may be a good fit for the district as it blends together the district’s in-house expertise and determination to “own” the current situation with the strong structures and proven methods of an external partner. To make this work well and maintain alignment, the district will need to study and manage the various programs and grants, such as Beyond Textbooks, Connect for Success, the CDE Turnaround Network, and the Biliteracy program, to ensure a coherent approach. To better meet one of the key conditions for success, district systems of support, Adams 14 negotiated additional terms with Beyond Textbooks to provide assistance at the district level to assist with creating a stronger system of supports. While some of the activities may be helpful (e.g., district leader conference, coaching from Vail School District assistant superintendent), it is not clear that Beyond Textbook’s expertise lies in managing a district’s internal accountability system. The district has invited CDE into the progress monitoring process. This means that CDE will be present to gauge progress and provide recommendations along the way. It may be helpful to formalize checkpoints every six months with the district, Beyond Textbooks and CDE to determine whether the district’s turnaround plan is progressing well and whether the external supports are properly aligned. If progress is not being made, an additional external partner that specializes in designing and implementing strong feedback loops and holding the district accountable may be a consideration. Rationale for Recommendation: Adams City High School CDE is also recommending an external management partner for Adams City High School. Similar to the district, the high school was committed to submitting an innovation plan as its proposed pathway. The State Review Panel agreed with this option in fall 2015, in large part because of the swift and promising practices that the leadership team had put into place. The school staff drafted an innovation plan last year that sought flexibility in its governance model and use of time (e.g., calendar, number of professional development). The plan lost momentum after the district and school leadership transitions, however. With reflection around which pathway would best meet the school needs, district leadership agreed to pursue an external partnership. The district selected the high school as one of the three schools to receive external management around its academic systems through Beyond Textbooks. The Beyond Textbook approach (e.g., curriculum framework, focus on standards and extensive library of resources for high school level subjects) will address some of the key conditions for success of academic systems for the high school. The plan should also address the conditions around career and 9 technical pathways as well as how to increase graduation and matriculation rates. Some of the remaining conditions around leadership are addressed in the district’s turnaround proposal to restructure the school’s leadership model. They are proposing to flood the high school with a tighter leadership team and many additional supports. In addition to a new principal, the school will have four new assistant principals with redefined roles (i.e., curriculum and instruction; English language development; attendance, Restorative Justice, deans, counselors; career technical education) to ensure development and implementation of needed systems. The school will also be assigned additional coaches and specialists to support the Assistant Principals in the priority areas. If strong hires are made and implementation is prioritized, then the combination of Beyond Textbooks and the new leadership model will be powerful and could propel the school from a Priority Improvement to Improvement plan type or higher. Additional details around timeline and competencies for hiring are needed in the current plan. The high school will need a designated supervisor at the district level to act as an advocate, address any barriers and hold the school accountable to implementing the turnaround plan. In recognition of the high school being at the end of the clock with an interim principal—the superintendent, Dr. Abrego, has stepped in to play that role as supervisor. Eventually, he will need to find another person to take over this role at the district level to make it more sustainable. Alternative pathway options CDE has also reviewed the other potential pathway options for the district and the high school— innovation status, conversion of a district-run school to a charter school, closure of individual schools and district reorganization. At this time, CDE does not recommend that the district or Adams City High School pursue innovation status. This may be a viable option in the future as school and district leaders establish a solid infrastructure and are ready for the innovation process. While innovation status was recommended by the State Review Panel for both the district and for the high school, this was during the last administration’s tenure. The 2015 State Review Panel report states that the district “…indicated a district-wide interest in the Innovation Zone option.” The transition at the district level and at the high school, however, has significantly detracted from their ability to create an innovation plan that addresses identified root causes and that will result in dramatic-enough change. Furthermore, neither the district nor the high school have been able to identify any state waivers that are necessary to implementing the proposed reforms. They have identified some local waivers that may be helpful and are currently working with their local board on new policies (e.g., calendar, school budgets). Conversion of Adams City High School or another district school to a charter school is not recommended at this time. The additional work of converting a school to a charter school would likely take away from the new district leadership’s focus on the needs of the whole system. Converting a single school to a charter also would not address the systemic issues impacting the district’s performance, and would be unlikely to remove the district from the accountability clock. As for the high school, it should be noted that this is the district’s only comprehensive high school. With the exception of students that are best served by the district’s Alternative Education Campus (Lester Arnold), all other district students in grades 9-12 attend Adams City High School. If the district does not improve within the next two years, then converting an existing school to a charter school or opening an additional charter school may be a logical next step. Likewise, if the high school does not improve within the next two years, then authorizing a charter high 10 school in addition to Adams City High School may provide families with additional choices. This will give the new district team, new high school leadership and the new external partner time to determine if the external management approach holds promise. This will also provide time to explore possible charter management operators that have an interest in serving the community. School closure is not a viable option at this point in time. The public is passionately supportive of their schools and view them as the heart of their tight-knit community, as shown at board meetings and other public forums. There is not a public appetite for the closure process and it could unnecessarily disenfranchise the community from the turnaround process. Closing a single school would not address the district systemic issues, and would be unlikely to remove the district from the accountability clock. Overseeing a school closure process may also distract the district from the very important systems-level turnaround work. The small Alternative Education Campus of Lester Arnold could not accommodate all of the district’s high school-aged students if Adams City High School were to close. This is further supported by the State Review Panel’s assessment of the school in the fall 2015 report: “Adams City High School serves a large population of students who would be displaced; the district does not have the capacity to absorb these students into another school. As important, there is a necessity that the school remain in operation to serve students and their families. The school is the hub of the community and has deep traditional roots in Commerce City. Closure of the school would have a negative impact on the community from which they may not recover.” At this time, CDE is not recommending district reorganization. There are enough promising practices and a new leader in place that a district reorganization process would create an unfortunate disruption and halt current momentum. CDE believes the current leadership should be given time to implement the proposed management plan. There are several neighboring districts with an Improvement rating, but only two with at least a district rating of Performance (i.e., Adams 12, Brighton 27J). A district reorganization conversation has not been initiated with neighboring districts and would take a significant amount of time and negotiation to work out before benefits to students are seen. Additionally, Adams 14 has not expressed a desire to pursue this pathway. Pathways that Meet Necessary Conditions for Improvement for District District Pathway CDE Recommendation Additional Options CDE Does Not Recommend at this time Innovation School Status X Conversion to a Charter School X External Management Partner X School Closure X District Reorganization X 11 If significant progress in student performance is not seen in the next two years, CDE would consider reevaluating this recommendation to determine if the district is able to meet the academic needs of its students, or if there is a better option available to students. Pathways that Meet Necessary Conditions for Improvement for Adams City High School School Pathway CDE Recommendation Additional Options CDE Does Not Recommend at this time Innovation School Status X Conversion to a Charter School X External Management Partner School Closure X X If significant progress in student performance is not seen in the next two years, CDE would consider reevaluating this recommendation to determine if the school is able to meet the academic needs of its students, or if there is a better option available to students. 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 district’s Unified Improvement Plan is included, as is an overview of the state and federal grants provided to the district 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 external management. 12 Adams 14 has eleven schools, eight of which are currently on the Accountability Clock (see Table 3). One of these schools, Adams City High School, is on Year 6 of the clock, as is Adams 14 as a district. Adams 14 serves a majority-minority population with a high poverty rate. The following section provides a summary of enrollment and performance trends for both Adams 14 at the district level and for Adams City High School. Adams 14 School District Districtwide enrollment in Adams 14 declined in 2016-17 compared to previous years (see Table 2). The district serves a higher proportion of minority students and students who qualify for Free and Reduced lunch than the state generally (see Figure 1). Adams 14 also serves a higher proportion of English language learners than other districts in the state (Figure 2). Table 2. October Count Enrollment for Adams 14 School District, 2011-12 to 2016-17 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 7,321 7,500 7,598 7,584 7,577 7,467 October Count Enrollment Figure 1. Enrollment in Adams 14 by Disaggregated Group, 2015-16 100% 90% 88% 85% % of Students 80% 70% 60% 50% 53% 45% 42% 40% 30% 20% 11% 17% 10% 10% 0% % Minority % IEP Adams 14 (N=7577) % ELL State (N=908735) % FRL 13 % of Students Figure 2. English Learner Enrollment in Adams 14, 2016-17 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 26% 17% 11% 9% 3% NEP (Not English Proficient) 6% LEP (Limited English Proficient) Adams 14 FEP (Fully English Proficient) State District and School Performance Frameworks Over the last six accountability cycles, Adams 14 earned a rating of Turnaround four times and Priority Improvement twice. In 2016, Adams 14 earned 32.5% of points possible on the District Performance Framework, which put the school near the top of the Turnaround band (see Table 3). Table 3. District Ratings over Time at Adams 14 Adams 14 District Rating Overall % Points Earned 2010 2011 2012 Turnaround1 Turnaround3 Turnaround1 37.8% 38.6% 39.5% 2013 Priority Improvement1 44.0% 2014 Priority Improvement3 42.7% 2016 Turnaround1 * 1Official accountability rating based on the 1 year accountability framework. 3Official accountability rating based on the 3 year accountability framework. *Points earned on the 2016 framework are not displayed as they are not comparable to previous years. The distribution of school ratings within Adams 14 has fluctuated over the last six years (see Table 4). Adams City High School earned a Turnaround rating in 2010 and a Priority Improvement rating from 2011 to 2016. Other schools in the district have moved on and off the Accountability Clock. As of the 2016 performance frameworks, eight of the district’s 11 schools are in Priority Improvement or Turnaround. 14 Table 4. School Plan Types, 2010-2016 for Adams 14 ADAMS 14 SCHOOL DISTRICT School Name ADAMS CITY HIGH SCHOOL ADAMS CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ALSUP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DUPONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HANSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KEARNEY MIDDLE SCHOOL KEMP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LESTER R ARNOLD HIGH SCHOOL MONACO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Legend 2010 2011 T T Level H M E E E E M E H E E T I T I PI PI PI PI PI I T P=Performance 2012 2013 2014 T PI PI Final School Plan Type PI PI PI PI PI PI P I P I I PI I PI PI PI PI I PI PI T P PI I P I P P I I I PI AEC: T AEC: T AEC: PI AEC: I I I PI I PI PI T I I=Improvement PI=Priority Improvement 2016 Year on Clock (eff. July 1, 2017) T Year 6 PI PI PI PI PI I I PI AEC: I T T Year 6 Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 3 --Year 2 -Year 1 Year 1 T=Turnaround District Academic Performance Trends Due to the assessment transition, the trend results are best described by looking at the rating level for each indicator on the performance frameworks. As visible in Table 5, Adams 14 has struggled with Reading/English Language Arts and Math Achievement at all levels. Math growth was rated consistently in the Does Not Meet range for high school grades at Adams 14 and in the Does Not Meet and Approaching range for the elementary grades. For the middle school grades, Adams 14 fluctuated on Math growth between Approaching and Meets Expectations. Adams 14 met state expectations on Math growth for the middle school grades in 2010, 2013 and 2014. Adams 14 has had greater success with Reading/English Language Arts growth, often earning a rating of Approaching in this category across all levels. Adams 14 met state expectations in Reading/English Language Arts growth in elementary grades in 2012 and in middle grades in 2010 and 2013. Figure 3 shows the district’s achievement percentile ranks on English Language Arts (ELA) and math as reported on the 2016 District Performance Framework, disaggregated by student group. Gaps between the All Students group and disaggregated groups are small across content areas and grade levels. Notably, English learners outperformed All Students on Math at the middle school and high school level. Students with disabilities (IEP) had the lowest possible percentile rank across all levels and content areas. The percentile ranks for all groups of students, across levels and content areas, earned Does Not Meet ratings on the 2016 District Performance Framework. 15 Figure 4 shows the district’s 2016 median growth percentiles in English Language Arts and Math, disaggregated by student group. Growth data showed a similar pattern to Achievement data: All Students performed similarly to the disaggregated groups, though students with disabilities tended to have lower median growth percentiles. A notable exception to this trend was high school English Language Arts and elementary Math, where students with disabilities had higher rates of growth compared to all other groups. Table 5. District Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth, for English Language Arts and Math Level Indicator Achievement Elementary Growth Achievement Middle Growth Achievement High Growth Content Area Reading 2010 DNM 2011 DNM 2012 DNM 2013 DNM 2014 DNM 2016 DNM Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading DNM A DNM DNM A M DNM A A DNM A A DNM M DNM DNM DNM A DNM DNM A DNM A M DNM A A DNM DNM A DNM A DNM DNM DNM A Math Reading Math Reading Math M DNM DNM A DNM A DNM DNM A DNM A DNM DNM DNM DNM M DNM DNM A DNM M DNM DNM DNM DNM A DNM DNM A DNM Legend DNM=Does Not Meet Note: Data from 1 year frameworks is presented. A=Approaching 2016 Participatio n Rates 99.20% 98.80% 98.60% 98.50% 95.30% 97.10% M=Meets Figure 3. Achievement Percentile Ranks at Adams 14 in 2016, by Disaggregated Group 99 Percentile Rank 85 50 15 6 5 6 5 1 1 1 10 12 10 9 11 11 11 11 9 10 9 9 9 9 8 9 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 0 ELA Math Elementary All ELA EL FRL Math Middle Minority IEP ELA Math High 16 Figure 4. Median Growth Percentiles at Adams 14 in 2016, by Disaggregated Group Median Growth Percentile 99 65 48 47 48 48 45 46 44.5 44.5 50 37 38 37 37 45 46 45 44 46.5 35 28 28 29 28.5 28 30 33 34 32 34 32.5 30 35 0 ELA Math ELA Elementary Math ELA Middle All EL FRL Minority Math High IEP District Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Trends Adams 14 School District’s dropout rate has increased since 2013. Currently, it is substantially higher than the state average (see Figure 5). Adams 14, however, has showed steady increases in the 4-year and extended-year graduation rates in 2016 (see Table 6). Though this is an improvement, these rates remain below the state average. Figure 5. District Dropout Rates at Adams 14 (1 Year Over Time) 20% 18% 16% Dropout Rate 14% 12% 10% 8% 6.90% 6.30% 6.00% 5.00% 6% 8.20% 4% 2% 2.90% 2.50% 2.40% 2.50% 2.30% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0% Adams 14 State 17 Table 6. Four Year and Extended Year Graduation Rates at Adams 14 Anticipated Year of Graduation 2012 Adams 14 State 4-Year Rate 5-Year Rate 6-Year Rate 7-Year Rate 63.4% 66.5% 68.0% 68.9% 2013 59.4% 69.4% 70.1% 73.6% 2014 65.9% 70.9% 74.5% 2015 64.2% 72.8% 2016 65.8% 2012 75.4% 80.1% 81.2% 83.7% 2013 76.9% 81.2% 82.5% 84.2% 2014 77.3% 81.7% 84.3% 2015 77.3% 83.3% 2016 78.9% In the table above, Anticipated Year of Graduation refers to the year in which a student is expected to graduate within 4 years after the first time they enter high school as a ninth grader. For example, the 4 year graduation rate for the 2016 anticipated year of graduation reflects the percent of students that started 9th grade in fall of 2012 and graduated four years later in 2016, which for the district was 65.8 percent. The cells shaded in dark gray represent all students who actually graduated by 2016 across all cohorts. The 2015 fiveyear rate includes students who were expected to graduate in 2015 but took an extra year to graduate and actually graduated in 2016, along with the students who graduated in 4 years in 2015. The 2014 six-year rates includes students who were expected to graduate in 2014 but took two extra years to graduate, along with those that graduated in 4 or 5 years. The 2013 seven-year rate includes students who were expected to graduate in 2013 but took three extra years to graduate, along with those that graduated within 4, 5 or 6 years. Rates that appear italicized and in purple font are the best-of rates for the actual graduation in the 2015-16 school year across all cohort years. For Adams 14 as a district, the six-year cohort rate was the highest graduation rate in 2016 at 74.5 percent. In 2015, their best-of rate was their five-year cohort rate at 70.9 percent. Adams 14’s ACT Composite Score increased from 2015 to 2016, but generally the district has had ACT scores in the range of 16 since 2013 (see Figure 6). The district has not met state expectations on this measure and lags significantly behind the state average. Composite ACT Score Figure 6. Composite ACT Scores at Adams 14 over Time 20 20.1 20.3 20.1 20.4 15.3 15.9 16 15.6 16.2 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Adams 14 State 18 District Academic Performance Comparison Given the high number of at-risk students Adams 14 serves, CDE staff analyzed the district’s academic performance as compared to other districts which serves similar populations of minority, English Learner, and low-income students. As displayed in Figure 7 below, Adams 14 falls in the bottom quartile of student achievement when compared to other districts serving high-needs populations. Figure 7. 2016 English Language Arts Achievement at Adams 14 Compared to Other Districts Serving a High Proportion of High-Needs Students Data showing the performance of other districts with similar enrollments of minority students, students in poverty and English Learners is displayed in each of the columns below. Each dot represents a district; Adams 14 is highlighted in orange whereas other districts are shaded in gray. The band in the middle of each plot represents districts scoring in the 25th – 75th percentile on the English Language Arts assessment in 2016. Data Notes: Only districts with a valid mean scale score were included. Districts were excluded if they had fewer than 16 students or the assessment participation rate was below 90%. Districts classified as high minority, high English Learners, or high poverty represent the top quartile (4 of 4) 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. Adams City High School School Enrollment and Retention Trends Adams City High School’s enrollment has steadily increased since 2011-12 (see Table 7). This school serves a higher proportion of at-risk students than high schools statewide, particularly when considering racial and ethnic minority students, English learners, and students who qualify for free and reduced lunch (see Figure 8). 19 Table 7. October Count Enrollment at Adams City High School Over Time October Count Enrollment 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 1689 1748 1749 1783 1782 1799 % of Students Figure 8. Demographic Enrollment at Adams City High School in 2016, by Disaggregated Group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 88% 88% 82% 83% 58% 57% 45% 37% 17% 10% 10% % Minority 9% % IEP Adams City HS (N=1782) % ELL Adams 14 - H (N=1995) % FRL State - H (N=261968) School Performance Frameworks Adams City High School earned a rating of Turnaround in 2010, and earned a rating of Priority Improvement from 2011 to 2016. In 2016, Adams City High School earned 36.8% of points possible on the framework, which put the school in the middle of the Priority Improvement band (see Table 8). Table 8. School Ratings over Time at Adams City High School Adams City High School Rating 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 Turnaround1 Priority Improvement1 Priority Improvement3 Priority Improvement1 Priority Improvement3 Priority Improvement1 Overall % Points Earned 34.6% 34.9% 35.9% 41.7% 38.1% 1 Official accountability rating based on the 1 year accountability framework. 3 Official accountability rating based on the 3 year accountability framework. *Points earned from 2016 framework are not displayed as they are not comparable to previous years. * School Academic Performance Trends Due to the assessment transition, the trend results are best described by looking at the rating level for each indicator on the performance frameworks. As visible in Table 9, Adams City High School has struggled with Reading/English Language Arts and Math Achievement, which was consistently rated in the Does Not Meet range from 2010 to 2016. 20 Math Growth was consistently rated in the Does Not Meet range from 2010 to 2016. Adams City High School fluctuated on Reading/English Language Arts Growth. The school was rated as Approaching for this content area in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2016 but rated as Does Not Meet in 2012 and 2014. Table 9. School Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth, for English Language Arts and Math Content Area Reading Achievement Math Reading Growth Math Legend Indicator 2010 2011 DNM DNM DNM DNM A A DNM DNM DNM=Does Not Meet 2012 2013 DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM A DNM DNM A=Approaching 2016 Participation Rates 95.3% 97.1% 2014 2016 DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM A DNM DNM M=Meets E=Exceeds Figure 8 shows the school’s achievement percentile ranks on English Language Arts (ELA) and math as reported on the 2016 School Performance Framework, disaggregated by student group. Notable gaps are present for both content areas for Students with Disabilities (IEP). All Students performed equivalently to the other disaggregated groups on English Language Arts. English Learners outperformed All Students on Math. All percentile ranks across both content areas are in the Does Not Meet range. Figure 9 shows the school’s 2016 median growth percentiles in English Language Arts and Math, disaggregated by student group. Disaggregated groups generally performed equivalently to the All Students group in terms of median growth percentiles across both content areas. Of note was that students with disabilities (IEP) outperformed All Students on English Language Arts and performed comparably to All Students on Math. Figure 8. Achievement Percentile Ranks at Adams City High School in 2016, by Disaggregated Group 99 Percentile Rank 85 50 11 11 11 11 10 12 10 1 15 0 ELA All EL FRL Minority Math IEP High 9 1 21 Figure 9. Median Growth Percentiles at Adams City High School in 2016, by Disaggregated Group Median Growth Percentile 99 65 46 45 44.5 46.5 44 50 33 34 32 35 32.5 35 0 ELA All EL FRL Minority Math IEP High School Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Trends Adams City High School’s dropout rate has increased steadily since 2013, from 2.5% to 6.3% (see Figure 10). The current dropout rate is above state expectations and above the state average. In 2016, Adams City High School increased both its 4 year graduation rate and its best-of graduation rate (7 year) (see Table 10). While these rates were higher than the district overall, they still did not meet state expectations and were still lower than state averages. Figure 10. Dropout Rates at Adams City High School (1 Year Over Time) 20% 18% 16% Dropout Rate 14% 12% 10% 8% 8.20% 6.30% 5.00% 6% 4% 2% 3.30% 2.50% 2.90% 2.30% 2012 2013 0% Adams City HS 6.00% 4.80% 6.90% 5.60% 6.30% 2.40% 2.50% 2.30% 2014 2015 2016 Adams 14 State 22 Table 10. Four Year and Extended Year Graduation Rates at Adams City High School Anticipated Year of Graduation 2012 Adams City HS Adams 14 State 4-Year Rate 5-Year Rate 6-Year Rate 7-Year Rate 70.6% 76.3% 78.4% 74.6% 2013 67.8% 82.0% 83.2% 86.3% 2014 78.8% 84.4% 86.1% 2015 73.0% 81.0% 2016 79.0% 2012 63.4% 66.5% 68.0% 68.9% 2013 59.4% 69.4% 70.1% 73.6% 2014 65.9% 70.9% 74.5% 2015 64.2% 72.8% 2016 65.8% 2012 75.4% 80.1% 81.2% 83.7% 2013 76.9% 81.2% 82.5% 84.2% 2014 77.3% 81.7% 84.3% 2015 77.3% 83.3% 2016 78.9% Adams City High School showed an increase in Composite ACT Score from 2015 to 2016, but generally has had ACT scores in the range of 16 (see Figure 11). The school has not met state expectations on this measure, and lags behind the state average on this measure. Figure 11. Composite ACT Scores at Adams City High School Over Time 36 Composite ACT Score 32 28 24 20 20 20.1 20.3 20.1 20.4 15.6 16.2 16.1 15.9 16.6 15.3 15.9 16 15.6 16.2 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 16 12 8 4 0 Adams City HS Adams 14 State 23 School Academic Performance Comparison Given the high number of at-risk students Adams City High School serves, CDE staff analyzed the school’s academic performance as compared to other high schools that serves similar populations of minority, English learner, and low-income students. As displayed in Figure 12 below, Adams City High School falls in the bottom quartile of student achievement for English learners compared to schools with a similar demographic enrollment to that group. Adams City High Schools falls at the midpoint for student achievement for minority students and students in poverty compared to schools with a similar demographic enrollment of those groups. Figure 12. 2016 English Language Arts Achievement at Adams City High School Compared to Other High Schools Serving a Similar Proportion of High-Needs Students Data showing the performance of other high schools with similar enrollments of minority students, students in poverty and English learners is displayed in each of the columns below. Each dot represents a high school; Adams City High School is highlighted in orange whereas other high schools are shaded in gray. The band in the middle of each plot represents districts scoring in the 25th – 75th percentile on the English language arts assessment in 2016. Data Notes: Only high schools with a valid mean scale score were included. High schools were excluded if they had fewer than 16 students or the assessment participation rate was below 90%. High schools classified as either high minority or high poverty represent the top quartile (4 of 4) within each student population. High schools classified as mid-high English Learners represent the second highest quartile (3 of 4) within that 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. 24 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 information listed below were captured primarily through CDE accountability partner visits with the district over the last year and a half, the district’s Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), the State Review Panel’s final recommendation report and state data. District Leadership ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 The district experienced a significant transition of district level staff at the end of the 2015-16 school year, as the superintendent and deputy superintendent left the district. Dr. Javier Abrego has been the Adams 14 superintendent since August 2016. While an experienced superintendent, he is new to Colorado and some of the unique aspects of state laws. The new Chief Academic and Innovation Officer is Aracelia Burgos. She is also new to Colorado but has an extensive background as an instructional leader. The district has filled other key positions, including positions for educator effectiveness, human resources, parent and community engagement and grants management. Over the past school year, the new leadership has focused on getting to know the community of Commerce City and the state’s accountability expectations. District leadership has begun developing and modifying foundational systems, including school calendars, additional instructional time, professional development structures, and staff induction and mentoring. The district has also focused on revitalizing the coaching model, implementing a new elementary curriculum and pursuing grant opportunities aimed at turnaround schools. The district underwent a similar leadership transition in 2012-13 when Pat Sanchez became superintendent. At that time, the district was invited to participate in the School Turnaround Specialist Program at the University of Virginia (UVA) and became particularly invested in the Driven by Data approach. Some of the districtwide practices and routines, however, ended as the administration turned over last school year. The current administration recognizes the challenges in front of them, including building a rigorous culture around best first instruction, supporting relatively young school leadership, using data to inform instructional practices, and high teacher turnover. 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. 25 ● The current district leadership is open to support from CDE and others, taking advantage of a wide array of training opportunities and consultation. For example, in working with CDE on the Pathways Grant, the district leadership team explored available accountability pathways. Over time, they determined that pursuing an external management partner as their accountability pathway would best meet student needs. School Leadership Districtwide ● ● ● ● ● Despite the district level leadership turnover, school leadership across the district has been relatively stable over the last two years. The building leaders are relatively new principals -- 75% have less than three years’ experience as compared to the state average of 20%. A principal induction program was not available in the district until this year. The principal in Central Elementary left her post mid-way in 2016-17 to take a new position at the district. That position has since been filled. Of the leaders who participated in the UVA program from 2012 to 2014, only a few remain at the district and school level. Three school leaders have participated in a training program focused on professional development and best practices around data driven instruction, observation and feedback, and student culture. Six additional leaders are planning to attend the turnaround training in summer 2017. The Chief Academic and Innovation Officer has been meeting with the elementary principals weekly to establish a peer group for problem solving and professional development. Adams City High School ● ● Leadership at Adams City High School has been in transition over the past five years. Since 2012, Adams City High School has had four principals. The principal for 2014-15 and 2015-16, Gionni Thompson, was promoted to a district-level position this past school year (2016-17). Despite conducting a search in the fall, a leader to meet the unique needs of the school was not found. One of the assistant principals with previous experience was asked to act as interim principal. The superintendent recently took over supervision of the principal for Adams City High School and has set a leadership restructure into motion. The principal position was reposted, as well as all of the assistant principal positions. Dr. Abrego is looking for particular expertise around English language learner instruction, postsecondary pathways and dropout prevention. Teaching Staff ● ● Districtwide, the Adams 14 teaching staff are relatively new to the profession. This year, just over 44% had less than three years teaching experience. The state average is 23%. Annual turnover rates for school staff (e.g., teachers, specialists, school leaders) are just above the state average. Adams 14 is overall at 22.5% as compared to the state at 20.5%. Teacher turnover is also slightly higher at 19.8% compared to the state at 16.9%. 26 ● With the uncertainty of the district leadership transition, about half (48.3%) of the instructional support staff (e.g., coaches, interventionists) left the district after the 2015-16 school year. The state average is about 24%. District Culture ● ● ● The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigated the district during 2010-2014 due to complaints that students, staff and parents were discriminated against because of national origin (Hispanic). The district was found: (1) to create a hostile environment for Hispanic students and staff in violation of 34 C.F.R. §100.3(a) and (b); and (2) failed to communicate effectively with parents who are limited English proficient in a manner and way that they understand in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) and (b). The settlement agreement between the district and OCR outlines a series of actions that focus on creating anti-discrimination policies and implementing feedback loops (e.g., surveys, discussion forums) to keep lines of communication open. The new district leadership team has committed to working with CDE to provide Cultural Diversity trainings for district and school administrators and teachers. This entails several days of trainings over the course of the year. Adams 14 has begun to lay the groundwork for developing common language and common understanding for defining a culturally responsive approach to meeting the needs of all their students. The district has TELL data available from 2013 and 2015, which reflects the prior administration’s tenure. The information is available at: www2.cde.state.co.us/tell/historicaldata.htm. Adams City High School Culture ● ● ● A priority area for the high school, student behavior has improved over the last couple of years. This is based upon conversations with school staff, and observations of the school (e.g., hallway passing period). Attendance at the high school is still a concern with very low rates hovering between 85.9% and 87.3% since 2012. The state average attendance rate is 93.2%. Dropout rates have been on a steady rise over the last few years, with the 2016 rate at 6.3%, well above the state expectation of 2%. There has been work done to develop early warning systems, but implementation has not progressed as quickly as necessary with the various leadership transitions. Academic Systems Districtwide ● Recognizing academic systems as a high priority area (see identified root causes in the UIP section of this report), the district leadership team selected Beyond Textbooks as an external partner to work specifically with three of its most struggling schools (i.e., Adams City High School, Central Elementary, Rose Hill Elementary). Simultaneously, the district team is trying to implement many of the same practices across all schools. The three selected schools will receive accelerated support to 27 ● ● ● ● ● improve results more rapidly. The district will analyze the implementation of Beyond Textbooks in the three schools to determine whether an expanded partnership will be a good fit in other schools. All of the elementary schools have participated in an external review of their systems through the Title I Diagnostic Review grants around 2014. In reviewing the reports, a persistent theme emerges that highlights the need for consistent, rigorous instructional systems. Given the high percentage of ELL students (53%, the highest statewide), the district has embraced language development in multiple languages as a strength to be achieved by all students. A commitment by the local board and the new administration has been made to a biliteracy program with the ultimate goal of encouraging students to earn a seal of Biliteracy which requires proficiency in English as well as another language. As the overall Biliteracy program is being developed at the secondary level, an initial investment has already been made to support roll-out in elementary classrooms. This work is supported by the Bueno Center and the University of Colorado, Boulder. Early evaluation of the Biliteracy approach is promising; however, the recent leadership transitions slowed down expansion of the program. Plans have been reshaped several times over the past few years. In the past, emphasis was placed upon using formative assessments to drive instruction; however, this practice was set aside districtwide last year (2015-16). The new administration is interested in returning to a data-driven approach. This is part of why the district is pursuing Beyond Textbooks as a management partner, as data-driven instruction is embedded in their overall teaching and learning model. While the Beyond Textbooks approach would not be used by all schools, it gives the district opportunity to rebuild its policies while observing the three selected schools. The district has partnered closely with the early literacy team at CDE team to ensure that all K-3 teachers participate in the READing Foundations Academy. CDE is also developing a new module aimed at English language learner instruction specific for the district. The special education office has a new director that has aggressively created a strategic plan to support a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) approach within schools. The plan was approached collaboratively across the district. In the meantime, the district has been approved to participate in the State Personnel Development grant to receive assistance in designing and implementing their Multi-Tiered System of Supports. Adams City High School ● ● ● Adams City High School opened a new, modern building in 2009, and at the same time launched a vision for an early college and career pathways model. While elements of this vision have been developed, full implementation has not materialized. Several pathways are offered (e.g., engineering, arts, J.R.O.T.C.). An expansion has been in the school’s plan for a number of years, but has failed to take shape yet. The high school has focused the last couple of years on improving graduation rates. The four-year rates have improved from 2012 at 67.8% to 2016 at 79%, just below the state expectation of 80%. ACT composite scores have also improved slightly over time moving from 15.6 in 2012 to 16.7 in 2016, although this is still below the state expectation (composite score of 20). 28 ● ● ● Building expectations for Adams City High School students around attending college has also been a goal for the school. This has been mainly accomplished by tracking student course taking and conducting field trips to colleges. As some of the students would be the first in their families to attend college, the high school has invested in family visits to college campuses to provide broader exposure and make the experience more concrete. The school would benefit from an external review of its systems – and in particular its academic systems. Because the high school has not received Title I services, they have not been eligible for the diagnostic review grants. They are interested in pursuing this kind of opportunity. The State Review Panel, while seeing promise in the past leadership team at Adams City High School, acknowledged that “…the school does not yet deliver high quality instruction…” in their fall 2015 recommendation report. This suggests that this has been an ongoing concern for the school. Specialized District Support and Flexibility ● ● ● ● Specialized district support and flexibility has been an area that the district has struggled with for years. With different administrations, the emphasis has been placed on designing new foundational systems. Those systems have not matured into routines within the schools because of the constant state of change. Based on conversations with district and school staff, CDE has found that while district and school staff are working very hard, they are not necessarily working efficiently, effectively or in unison. Under the last administration and upon recommendation from the State Review Panel, the district began the innovation planning process. The plan took on several different focus areas over time, but did not really take root past the leadership transition last year. Given the late status on the clock, CDE urged the district to consider which approach would best meet their current needs. In identifying academic systems as a primary area of need, an external management partnership made the most sense. The school staff drafted an innovation plan last year that looked for flexibility in its governance model and use of time (e.g., calendar, number of professional development). The innovation plan lost momentum after the district and school leadership transitions. With internal reflection and conversations around which pathway would best meet the school needs, leadership agreed to pursue an external partnership through Beyond Textbooks recently. The new district administration is trying to work on a system of differentiated supports for its schools. This has primarily been demonstrated this year by applying for grants and state services throughout the year. Several schools will be participating in programs such as Connect for Success, the Turnaround Network, and the School Turnaround Leaders Development grant. Board and Community Relations ● Dr. Abrego has worked with the local board throughout the year to identify priorities and clearly define the board’s role. They demonstrated commitment to investing in academic systems (including the Beyond Textbooks partnership) by earmarking dollars recently. 29 ● ● The district and school accountability committees are representative of the community and well attended. The superintendent’s parent forums -- monthly venues to learn more about education initiatives and interact with district leadership -- are also well attended and have made the new leader more accessible to the community. District leadership’s decision to move away from innovation planning to external partnership occurred recently and is not yet widely understood by staff or the general community. Staff, association representatives and the community have expressed concerns that they are unclear about next steps. Both Adams 14 School District and Adams City High School submitted their UIPs in January 2017 on time. CDE’s review of the plans identified strong data analyses, but weak action plans and progress monitoring components. The district’s turnaround proposal provides much more detail that can be incorporated into future improvement plans for both the district and Adams City High School. A summary of CDE feedback over time can be found in Appendix B. History of Supports Available from the State on UIP Development The district and school staff members have 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. Targeted supports have also been available through the Improvement Planning unit and grant programs (Diagnostic Review and Improvement Planning grant, Tiered Intervention Grant). The district has routinely participated in universal trainings and requested targeted supports specific to the district—and then worked directly with the schools to provide support. Current District UIP Summary: Adams 14 School District The following items were pulled directly from the district’s Unified Improvement Plan submitted to CDE in January 2017. 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, PWR) where the district did not meet federal, state and/or local expectations. Achievement, Growth, English Language Acquisition and PWR: We have yet to meet local or state expectations in Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness or any content or for English Language Acquisition in achievement or growth district-wide. Why is the district 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). 30 1. Standards and Instructional Planning - The district does not have a comprehensive district plan to address English Language Arts (ELA) and Math performance deficiencies. 2. Best First Instruction - Instructional staff members do not consistently provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery. 3. Effective Educator - District leadership does not actively develop a high quality professional staff through professional learning, supervision, evaluation, and commitment to continuous improvement. What action is the district taking? Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach that describes a series of related actions intended to result in improvements in performance. 1. Standards and Instructional Planning: The district will implement a comprehensive district plan to address English Language Arts (ELA) and Math performance deficiencies. 2. Best First Instruction: Instructional staff members will consistently provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery. 3. Effective Educator: District leadership actively develops a high quality professional staff through professional learning, supervision, evaluation and commitment to continuous improvement. Current School UIP Summary: Adams City High School The following items were pulled directly from the school’s Unified Improvement Plan submitted to CDE in January 2017. 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, PWR) where the district did not meet federal, state and/or local expectations. Achievement, Growth and Post-secondary and Workforce Readiness: We have yet to consistently meet local and state expectations in the indicators across our school. 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). 4. Standards and Instructional Planning - Standard 1: Standards and Instructional Planning - The school has not consistently implemented a curriculum that is aligned to Colorado Academic Standards or consistently ensures rigorous, effective instructional planning. 31 5. Leadership - Standard 5: Leadership - School leadership has not consistently ensured the school functions as a learning organization focused on shared responsibility for student success and a rigorous cycle of teaching and learning. 6. Culture and Climate - Standard 6: Culture and Climate - The school does not consistently function as an effective learning community and does not fully support a climate conducive to performance excellence for students and staff. 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. 4. Standards and Instructional Planning - The school will consistently implement a curriculum that is aligned to Colorado Academic Standards or consistently ensures rigorous, effective instructional planning. 5. Leadership - School leadership will consistently ensure the school functions as a learning organization focused on shared responsibility for student success and a rigorous cycle of teaching and learning. 6. Culture and Climate - The school will consistently function as an effective learning community and fully support a climate conducive to performance excellence for students and staff. Over the past several years, Adams 14 has applied for and received a number of grants to support implementation of their improvement efforts. Below is a summary of the major state and federal grants and supports the district has received related to its turnaround efforts. In addition, the district has received other state and federal grants targeted to other district needs, which are not included below. 21st Century Community Learning Centers Grant purpose. The Title IV, Part B of ESSA, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) grant program, supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for students who attend high-poverty and lowperforming schools, and their families. Colorado’s 21st CCLC grant program operates grants in two primary five-year grant cohorts that are staggered two to three years apart in the cohort cycle. Funding beyond year one for each succeeding year is contingent upon funding availability, yearly evaluation of program objectives, and compliance with fiscal requirements. As part of ongoing sustainability planning, grant funding is provided based on a step-down process. Additionally, grantees must provide information on sustaining the grant beyond the grant cycle in the RFP and submit a sustainability plan to the state office mid-way through the grant cycle. Funded activities. Adams 14 School District uses 21st CCLC funds to improve the academic success of students in high needs schools through evidence based extended learning services at six sites across the 32 district, including Adams City High School. Funds are used to support staff, bus transportation for students, and purchased services and supplies for the afterschool grant program. At Adams City High School the 21st CCLC program activities focus on:  Improving student academic achievement, with activities like, computer lab and Saturday school homework help and tutoring;  Increasing youth academic enrichment opportunities with activities such as book club, Korean club, art, cooking and drama; and  Increasing parental involvement in their child’s education. Grant outcomes. Adams City High School has experienced the following outcomes.  Served 775 students during the 2015-16 school year.  Reported that they “Did not meet but progressed toward” their performance measure to improve academic achievement, based on the following benchmarks: o The number of “regularly participating” students who perform at or above partially proficient on the state assessment in reading and math will increase by 3% each year of the grant. o Each site will provide at least 6 hours of academic enrichment activities for each school year of the grant. o Each site will provide 20 weekly hours of academic activities during a 4-week summer session for each year of the grants.  Reported that they met their performance measure during the 15/16 school year to increase youth academic enrichment opportunities, based on the following benchmarks: o Each site will offer at least 12 weekly hours of academic enrichment opportunities, o One project based learning class each year of the grant, o Each site will maintain collaborations with at least five community-based organizations providing enrichment opportunities for each year of the grant.  Reported that they met their performance measure during the 15/16 school year to increase parental involvement in their child’s education, based on the following benchmarks: o During the first year of the high school program, each site will establish a benchmark to gauge parent involvement in a number of activities including: participation in family literacy, parent conferences, and accountability committees and volunteerism. Each year thereafter, we will increase participation as established by that benchmark by 10%. o The program coordinator will work with the Youth and Adult Education program to offer parents ESL and GED classes exclusively for parents of high school students. The first year each site will establish a benchmark to gauge parent participation in attendance in adult education classes and increase participation, as established by that benchmark, by 10% each year of the grant. 33 Colorado Graduation Pathways Adams 14 School District participated in the Colorado Graduation Pathways (CGP) program, which was active from October 2010 to August 2016. Adams City High School received funding support during this time period and dropout prevention services were extended to two feeder middle schools – Adams City Middle School and Kearney Middle School. Grant purpose. The Colorado Graduation Pathways program was funded by a competitive federal grant, known as the US Department of Education/High School Graduation Initiative (HSGI), which was awarded to CDE. The project goals concentrated on the development of sustainable, replicable models for dropout prevention and student re-engagement; improvement of interim indicators known to affect dropout and graduation rates; and increase of graduation rates in Colorado’s highest need schools. Funded activities. Funds were used to address the following areas of the CDE dropout prevention framework supported by the HSGI grant: Data Analysis, Early Warning System, Tracking out-of-school youth, Assess and Enhance School Climate, Policy and Practices Review, Family Engagement, Community Involvement, Transition Programs, Multiple Pathways to Graduation, Re-engagement of out-of-school youth, Enhanced Counseling and Mentoring, and Credit Recovery. Specifically, grant funds supported:  Salaries: Two Middle School Dropout Prevention Specialists, staffing costs for transition program and per diem for counseling staff  Purchased Services: Consulting services to update the DEWD (District's Dropout Early Warning Database); professional development for Freshman Teachers  Supplies and Supports: College Planners, tutoring, and summer school Grant outcomes. The intended grant outcomes for all 33 Colorado Graduation Pathways high schools were reduced dropout rates and increased graduation rates for struggling students. Adam City High School reported the following program outcomes for Year 4 of the grant (2013-14):  Students served in Year 4: 1,150  Made progress on the percentage of students enrolled in 8th grade that enrolled in 9th grade of the next school year. (Refers to the feeder middle schools, Adam City Middle School and Kearney Middle School, and the transition of their students to high school.)  Made progress on reducing the dropout rate.  Made progress on increasing extend-year graduation rates.  No substantial change in attendance rate.  Substantial positive change in decreasing suspensions or expulsions. Connect for Success Adams 14 School District was awarded a Connect for Success grant for Dupont Elementary that started in the 2015-16 school year and runs until the end of the 2017-18 school year. 34 Grant purpose. The Connect for Success grant provides opportunities for school leaders to network with and learn from high achieving schools. The grant strengthens the school’s Title I programs by implementing strategies shown to be effective through the High Achieving Schools study.2 Funded activities. In general, grant funds may be used to pay for travel to high achieving school sites and other networking opportunities, replicate the practices learned from high achieving schools, and pay for an implementation coach to support the school’s efforts to implement practices learned from high achieving schools. Dupont Elementary, specifically, has used Connect for Success funds to have leadership and staff visit a high achieving school, have the Implementation Coach support data meetings and the Title I program, and to facilitate parent and staff meetings regarding improvement strategies. Grant outcomes. Based on their mid-year implementation report, in addition to using the grant funds to support the above-mentioned activities, Dupont Elementary has also implemented the following actions as part of the lessons learned from the high achieving schools:  Implement flooding model, and determine effectiveness as part of MTSS process o Perception survey on implementation of flooding model was administered  Teachers and paras have been trained in the flooding model; 20 parents have been trained to help with interventions; evidence of training is seen in classroom observations o Interventions are continuing as planned, with additional supports given to first grade based on identified gaps in student benchmark data and observations o Parent tutors provide support M-Th and receive PD from interventionist every Friday; collaboration between paras and parent tutors has been established  Primary and intermediate MTSS teams are meeting weekly for RtI (including weekly DDI meetings) o Schedule will be adjusted next year so that all teams have common time and place, to enable staff to participate on multiple teams as needed Cultural Responsiveness Training CDE is providing support to Adams 14 School District on acquiring common language and common understanding on a district-wide culturally responsive approach to meeting the needs of all students. This is a 2-year process that includes trainings and facilitating conversations with district and school leadership. On April 7, 2017, CDE completed the Cultural Responsiveness (Initiating a Culturally Responsive Dialogue) Part I training for all Adams 14 central office staff. The following recommendations were shared with the district:  Recommend defining, communicating and implementing the core mission of the district to central office staff. There are some that struggle to see how their work, at this level, relates to students.  An analysis of strengths and challenges based on data and district information will need to be completed to better define next steps. 2 For more information on the High Achieving Schools Study, see http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/evalrpts#has. 35   Based on feedback gathered from participants, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of current practices. The connection between professional development and implementation needs to be an expectation from school and district leadership. There is a high level of commitment from Adams 14 district leadership to establishing culturally responsive practices within the district system. The superintendent has communicated to district staff that the cultural responsiveness work of the district is a priority. On May 15, 2017, CDE will provide a training for all principals and assistant principals from each school in the district, which will be followed with a discussion on feedback from participants, observations, and next steps. Data Used For Improved Results Adams 14 School district was awarded a Data Used for Improved Results grant in 2014-15. Grant purpose and expected outcome. This program provided additional funds to Title I schools so that they could engage in activities that supported their increased use of data to adjust and improve instruction. The expected outcome of this grant was for educators to become more effective in adjusting instruction for students to promote better outcomes for students and/or develop systems for the monitoring of implementation benchmarks. Funded activities. Adams 14 used grant funds to fund professional development opportunities for teachers at Central, Dupont, Hanson, Monaco and Rose Hill Elementary Schools. The professional development sessions were intended to further the teachers’ understanding of data and assessment literacy, including but not limited to, psychometrically sound assessment development through effective data analysis used to impact student learning. Diagnostic Review Seven Adams 14 schools were awarded a federally-funded Diagnostic Review grant between 2011 and 2017. Grant purpose. The diagnostic review grant is intended to provide an external diagnostic assessment, analysis and facilitation of results for targeted schools. The diagnostic review is expected to lead directly to strategic and prioritized improvement plans and activities. Funded activities. Adams 14 School District used the diagnostic review grant for the following schools: Central Elementary, Adams City Middle, Dupont Elementary, Hanson Elementary, Monaco Elementary, Rose Hill Elementary, and Adams City High School. Grant outcomes. The outcomes for this grant resulted in prioritized recommendations for each of the schools. These recommendations are expected to be included in and implemented through the school’s UIP. Literacy Support: READing Foundations Academy All of Adams 14 School District’s elementary schools are participating in the READing Foundations Academy, which provides training focused on explicit and systematic Tier 1 instruction in reading with an 36 emphasis on foundational reading skills based in the standards. Adams 14 participants include elementary school leadership, K-3 teachers, reading interventionists, specialists, and district support staff. The READing Foundations Academy consists of 7 three-hour long classes. Through the program, participants dig deeper into the Foundational Skills Standards and how to embed them into daily instruction, study the shift in standards, and explore methods for engaging students in comprehension and writing every day. CDE is also supporting Adams 14 School District with an additional class to support their biliteracy model and second language learner population. In addition, a CDE Literacy Consultant meets bi-monthly with district staff and school principals to answer questions and support ideas for continuing implementation of the learning from the READing Foundations Academy in their schools. The Literacy Consultant also provides support to the district around the READ Act, including assessment, funding and data analysis. Improvement Support Partnership Adams 14 School District received an Improvement Support Partnership grant in FY2012-13. Grant purpose. The purpose of this grant was to provide funds to eligible Title I schools and districts to support a focused approach to improvement in facilitated data analysis and action planning; or if a school or district has already conducted, and can provide evidence of strong data analysis then the grant can support best first instruction, leadership or positive climate and culture Funded activities. Adams 14 School District used the grant funding to support facilitated data analysis. A consultant from Leadership and Learning Center provided training and coaching for school and district staff around data analysis. Grant outcomes. The intended grant outcomes were to build capacity within the district for facilitated data analysis and incorporate those strategies into the district’s Unified Improvement Plan. Pathways Early Action Adams 14 School District was awarded a Pathway Early Action Grant for the 2016-17 school year. This is a one-year grant supported with federal funds. Grant purpose. The Pathways Grant enables schools and districts nearing the end of the Accountability Clock to explore pathway options. School and districts collaborate with CDE staff to develop a formal plan identifying an accountability pathway and implementation strategies. Funded activities. Adams 14 School District used Pathways Grant funds to hire a consultant (Point B) to provide project management and facilitation as they explored the turnaround pathways in anticipation of the end of the accountability clock. Grant outcomes. The district has engaged in exploring both the innovation and the management pathways, and the district ultimately decided to develop a multiyear management plan. CDE staff have provided feedback on drafts of the management pathway plan, and the district is on track to present a formal proposal of their plan to the State Board of Education in May 2017. 37 School Improvement Support Grant Adams 14 School District has been awarded School Improvement Support (SIS) grants for Central Elementary School, Rosehill Elementary School and Adams City Middle School. Grant purpose. The SIS grant is intended to support planning and implementation of school improvement activities as identified in the school’s Unified Improvement Plan. The SIS grant is supported with federal 1003(a) funding and activities supported by this grant must be directed toward needs identified through a diagnostic review or needs assessment. In order to support a focused approach to improvement, applicants are required to prioritize two to three findings from the diagnostic review and address them with a targeted set of improvement strategies. Funded activities. Adams 14 School District used its SIS funding to support data-driven instruction at Central Elementary, Rosehill Elementary School and Adams City Middle School. The Center for Transforming Teaching and Learning facilitated trainings around data analysis and action planning for teachers and leaders at Rosehill Elementary and Adams City Middle. Additionally, SIS funding supported an extended day pilot at Adams City Middle School to support math intervention classes. Central Middle School used SIS funding to support professional development for teachers around data-driven instruction and to support activities to improve the school-wide climate and culture. Grant outcomes. The intended outcomes of the grant are for each school to develop robust Unified Improvement Plans and implement their identified major improvement strategies. All three funded schools focused on implementing data-drive instruction; Central Elementary additionally focused on improving school climate and culture. State Personnel Development Grant The district was accepted into the first grant cohort this school year, 2016-17. Designed to support districts in the planning and implementation of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), the district is currently engaged in the planning portion of the initiative. A representative district level team has access to ongoing consultation to complete a self-assessment and then build an action plan to address identified systems issues. The main focus of the district’s work thus far has been on collaborating across programs, finding concrete ways to connect the work, and on building capacity among all staff and supporting those who may be extending themselves across responsibilities. The district receives $5000 in year one to support the planning work. If the district shows readiness and commitment, then they may receive $10,000 for allowable uses in year two and incrementally more in subsequent years for implementation of the action plan. Tiered Intervention Grant Two Adams 14 schools, Hanson Elementary School and Lester Arnold High School, have received a federally-funded Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) between 2011 and 2017. These federal grants are aimed at providing substantial amounts of funding to implement one of the prescribed intervention models. 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 38 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. Hanson Elementary School used TIG funds for a variety of purposes including increasing and improving: professional development; embedded coaching across subject areas; curricula development; reforming teacher evaluation to include student outcomes; and extended time for collaboration. Hanson selected and was funded for the “transformation” TIG model which required replacing the principal amongst other activities. Lester Arnold High School, an alternative education campus, used TIG funds for a variety of purposes including: significant professional development to support data-driven instruction; an integrated blended learning model; and new systems to support family and student engagement and re-engagement. Lester Arnold also implemented the “transformation” TIG model. Grant outcomes. Hanson Elementary School’s performance rating has fluctuated between Priority Improvement in 2010, to Turnaround, to Performance in 2012, back down to Priority Improvement in 2014 and is now at an Improvement rating (see Table 1). Lester Arnold was rated as Priority Improvement and Turnaround in 2010-2013 and improved to an AEC: Improvement rating in 2014 and 2016. Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant purpose. Title II, Part B, Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP), is intended to increase the academic achievement of students in math and/or science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. This grant provides districts and schools with the opportunity to partner with faculty from the science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics (STEM) departments in institutions of higher education. Funded activities. Grant funds supported secondary math and science instructional coaches, UNC and CSU faculty provided professional development for secondary math and science teachers, and (per program requirements) an independent program evaluator. Grant outcomes. The evaluator did not find any relationship between increased teacher content knowledge and improved student achievement. Overall, teacher turnover in the district made it difficult for any grant-funded activities to have any lasting impact on teachers or students. University of Virginia School Turnaround Specialist Program Adams 14 participated in the University of Virginia’s School Turnaround Specialist Program from 2012 to 2014. This program is an intensive professional learning and leadership experience – through the Darden School of Business and the Curry School of Education - that included the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, other district staff, and three principals – for Adams City High School, Adams City Middle School, and Kearney Middle School. Grant purpose. The funds provided to Adams 14 over two years allowed the Superintendent and select district and school leaders to participate in the intensive UVA program. This program, utilized by many states and numerous districts in Colorado, is designed to support the systemic transformation of a 39 district and select schools through a better understanding and planning for change leadership, data-driven instruction, strategic staffing, school culture, and building the political will to make needed changes. Funded activities. The program supported a team from Adams 14 over a period of two and a half years in Virginia and Colorado. Costs include multiple days and events of professional learning, travel and lodging. Grant outcomes. Adams 14 leveraged the UVA program in a few prominent ways. The three participating principals embraced the data-driven work at their school sites and implemented some of the key strategies. None of these three principals are still in the district, however. The program also prompted the district to develop formative assessments which for three years provided ongoing data and powered a data-driven system. At this time, the district has discontinued the use of those assessments. Department staff reviewed the State Review Panel’s final recommendation reports for the district and Adams City High School. The State Review Panel visited the district in spring 2015 and the high school in spring 2016. In both cases, the Panel recommended innovation status. Adams 14 District Report (Spring 2015) The district’s context from when the State Review Panel reviewed the district has since changed. The Panel focused on the strength of the last district administrative team (Sanchez, et al) as a reason for supporting pursuit of innovation status. The district was “rated as Effective in the following areas: leadership is adequate to implement change and improve results, there is a readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner, and there is a likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance, and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing” (see Table 11). Conversely, this same rationale was used for why external management, conversion to a charter school and school closure was not an appropriate solution. More directly, there was “…no evidence that the current leadership is lacking in effectiveness or capacity.” Given the significant disruption in the district’s leadership team, the context for the 2015 State Review Panel’s recommendation has changed significantly. In fact, the Panel indicates sustained leadership and planning time would be important in making the innovation planning effective. “The district realizes, and has articulated, a need for time for planning. The district has stated, ‘Innovation status as an option may not benefit our students if Adams 14 is not given the time to effectively plan for innovation prior to execution’.” Likewise, the SRP also believed that “the district would benefit from the support of an external partner, such as the CDE Turnaround Network, to support and guide their work toward the creation of an Innovation Zone.” Adams City High School (Spring 2016 Report) Just like in the district report, much of the 2015 State Review Panel report focuses on the strength of the new leadership team (Gionni Thompson, et. al.) and the promising infrastructure that they had built in a relatively short amount of time. “The leadership team at ACHS has only been in place for 1.5 years and has a 40 record of success in another turnaround setting for Adams County at Lester Arnold High School. In the short time the leadership team has been with the school, they have implemented systems and structures that are already having positive impact on student achievement.” Conversely, this same rationale was used for why external management, conversation to a charter school and school closure was not an appropriate solution. More directly, there was “…no evidence that the current school leadership is lacking in effectiveness or capacity.” Since that State Review Panel report, the context at the school has changed. Adams City High School lost its principal and a key assistant principal during the 2016-17 school year. Furthermore, the new superintendent (Dr. Abrego) is seeking a complete leadership restructuring. Thus, taking into consideration the new leadership context for the school and the district’s own recommendation, CDE’s recommendation does differ from the State Review Panel. Table 11: 2015 State Review Panel Site Visit Summary: Adams 14 School District 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 Table 12: 2016 State Review Panel Site Visit Summary: Adams City High School 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 Capacity Level* Developing Developing Developing Effective Developing Yes 41 The Department used the following rubric to evaluate the proposed management plan from Adams 14 School District. The rubric was developed to assess whether the plan, if implemented, will have significant, rapid and positive impact on student learning. A checked box indicates the management plan met the stated criteria. Management Plan Overview □ Meets expectations X Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations Plan Component Need for Management Partner Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations Notes Comments Plan provides a clear and compelling rationale for pursuing a management partnership.  The plan provides a thorough explanation of its rationale for the external management pathway, although the rationale for not pursuing charter schools is not strong. The chart included on page 5 does not help clarify the reasoning and should be labeled more clearly (if included). District reorganization should be explored, and a rationale for not pursuing it should be included.   Provides clear rationale for why the district is selecting the management accountability clock pathway for the identified Priority Improvement/Turnaround school(s) or district. Gives in-depth description of the district and/or school’s most pressing areas of need that the management partner will help address and support. Explicitly explains how the management partnership will result in a greater level of success for student learning. CDE is concerned that the partnership with Beyond Textbooks at the 3 schools, along with the other proposed districtwide turnaround strategies, is not enough to pull the district off the accountability clock. CDE recognizes, however, that the combination of the external management partnership, the turnaround work of the district, and the leadership restructure at the high school does hold promise for improving student outcomes. The plan would be strengthened by clarifying how the Beyond Textbooks partnership will help the district as a system to work differently. The district-focused supports from Beyond Textbooks (e.g., conferences, district coaching) describe a promising direction, but it is not clear what the district is trying to address. How will the management partnership build the capacity of the district to implement its improvement strategies with fidelity and consistency across all schools? How will the district and the state know if the district-level support is successful? How will the district adapt what is learned from the Beyond Textbooks partnership at the 3 selected schools to serve its entire system of schools? The plan provides analysis of root causes at the district-level and charts out how Beyond Textbooks will meet 4 of the 5 identified district-level barriers. The plan would be strengthened by mapping the proposed strategies to Adams City High 42 School’s identified root causes, as that school has unique challenges (e.g. chronic absenteeism), and the school is also at the end of the accountability clock. CDE has concerns that the proposed plan for the high school depends upon a leadership team that has yet to be identified. Consider providing an estimated timeline for when the new leadership team will be in place. The criteria used for selecting a top notch team will further strengthen that portion of the proposal. More details should be included on how the district will supervise, support and engage the high school. In the initial proposal, CDE questioned whether initiating Beyond Textbooks at 9th grade alone at the high school would be enough of a change to dramatically improve student outcomes. Expanding Beyond Textbooks in the high school to 10th grade and providing detail on the high school’s restructuring plan is a helpful addition to the plan. Concerns, remain, however that the proposed management partnership with Beyond Textbooks does not fully address all of the needed conditions for success specifically at Adams City High School, including a need for student and family engagement, career and technical education pathways, and additional postsecondary readiness supports. It is unclear if such strategies will be embedded in the management partnership and if the proposed leadership restructure will be enough. For example, how will the culture of performance be addressed across the school, including grades 11 and 12? Additional clarity around how the high school plans to improve student attendance and engagement and postsecondary and workforce readiness would help address the department’s concerns. A detailed explanation for the selection process of schools to work with Beyond Textbooks is included. The addition of the readiness criteria used by Beyond Textbooks was helpful. The plan states that the district will review whether Beyond Textbooks is the right fit at the end of 2017-18 and will also consider scaling up to other schools. This careful and thoughtful approach is noted, especially in a district that has a history of taking on too many initiatives. Additional detail on what will be used in that decision making process for expanding Beyond Textbooks would strengthen the plan. How will the district know if Beyond Textbooks is making a difference? How will the district know or have a good indication whether expanding the partnership with Beyond Textbooks is a sound investment and will result in improved outcomes for students? 43 Mission & Vision Meets Expectations Comments Plan articulates a vision and mission that reflects high expectations for student learning and sets goals for improving academic outcomes as a result of the management partnership.  States a mission and vision that provides a clear and concise picture of what the school/district aims to achieve.  Demonstrates how the management partner will help the school/district advance its vision and mission.  Identifies actionable goals for student academic achievement.  Establishes a vision for how the district and/or school will earn its way off the accountability clock. The plan includes description of a mission/vision as well as goals and outcome targets for improving student learning and achievement. District Systems Meets Expectations Comments Plan describes district flexibilities and resources that will be granted to allow for the agreed upon scope of work.  Describes any flexibility or changes in district policies and practices that will be granted to the school(s) as a result of the management partnership.  Outlines the district’s plan for providing differentiated support to the school, including changes to organizational structures, routines, or systems.  Describes the district’s plan or changes in allocating resources (financial or personnel) to ensure the success of the management plan. There is some description of flexibilities and changes identified for schools that will work with Beyond Textbooks. The plan addresses some of the other support structures and resources identified for other schools on the accountability clock. Whereas the listing of waivers in the plan provides some insight into how the Beyond Textbooks schools may operate differently, additional detail about the context for the proposed flexibilities would be helpful. For example, what are the implications for state requirements (e.g., READ Act, Grad Guidelines) within the Beyond Textbooks partnership? While the district is trying to tighten academic expectations across the district, it appears that the Beyond Textbooks schools will have different expectations and authorities. How will this be managed? The plan describes how Beyond Textbooks will meet the goals of the district (e.g., move off of the accountability clock) and provides outcome targets for the schools. While end of year targets are included, the plan needs interim measures. This will be vital information to help the schools, district, Beyond Textbooks and the state know that the work is on track and adjust practices, if needed. The new Adams 14 data dashboard seems like a good first step in managing performance throughout the year. The inclusion of the local innovation plan proposal for the high school provides some ideas about flexibilities and waivers that would be sought and the rationale for how they might address the challenges of the district and school. To address how the district will work differently, consider describing how supports are differentiated by school need. How will the principal supervisor work with these three schools differently from the non-Beyond Textbooks schools? Will there be other needed flexibilities (e.g., human resources, finance and budget, operations, enrollment)? 44 The plan identifies that there will be a new district-level position called the Beyond Textbooks District Liaison and provides additional information about the roles and reporting structures. The local board has identified financial resources to support the work. School Design Plan □ Meets expectations X Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations Plan Component Academic Systems Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations Notes Comments Plan articulates what strategies, the school will focus on that are related to academic systems. Such strategies may address:  Time  Curriculum & instruction  Assessments & data  Special populations For schools or districts implementing changes to academic systems, please address the following elements. If a school or district is not making changes in these areas, provide rationale for not making changes. Beyond Textbooks’ strength lies in supporting academic systems, and the plan articulates how the Beyond Textbooks curricula, assessment, professional development, and platform will support leaders and teachers.  Articulate proposed changes to curriculum and instruction at the school in response to school needs. Discusses any special academic/curricular themes and addresses how the chosen and instructional methods are expected to improve school performance and student achievement and are necessary for the school to achieve its mission  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  Describes the school’s approach to provide personalized and differentiated instruction that best meets the needs of all students, especially students with disabilities and English Language Learners. The external management plan references expectations for Beyond Textbooks schools to use the district interim assessment, with formative assessments to be supported through the Beyond Textbooks program. The plan also includes a highlevel matrix of types of assessments to be administered by non- Beyond Textbooks schools but does not include a comprehensive and specific assessment plan. The Beyond Textbooks framework addresses teaching and learning cycles. This should be very helpful for new and inexperienced staff. The proposal clarifies to some degree how the Beyond Textbooks professional development intertwines with other district professional development and curricula. However, there are still concerns that reading modules from Beyond Textbooks do not align with the READ Act. This also may create confusion for elementary staff that have been participating in the READing Foundations work with CDE. The inclusion of the Student Special Services five-year plan is helpful and adds to the overall plan. The plan somewhat describes the approach to personalized and differentiated instruction. The proposal clarifies that the specific supports for ELL students will 45  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. continue to be in place and can be woven into the Beyond Textbooks approach. For Biliteracy classrooms, teachers will still use the Biliteracy framework. Additional description of the 1:1 Chromebooks is helpful. It is still not clear how the technology will enhance the Beyond Textbooks program, however. The proposal delineates how the Beyond Textbooks schools will interact with district supports. Additional detail around roles, responsibilities, expectations, and routines would strengthen the plan. Culture of Performance Meets Expectations Comments Plan articulates what strategies, the school or district focus on that are related to culture of performance. For schools or districts implementing changes to school culture, please address the following elements. If a school or district is not making changes in these areas, provide rationale for not making changes. The plan describes basic, predictable processes that could stabilize the teaching and learning cycle for staff. It unclear, however, what the changes will be, if any, to the structures and routines that drive positive school culture.  Articulates changes to the systems, programs, structures, rituals, and routines the school will use to foster a positive school culture for all students and teachers.  Describes plan to engage regularly, frequently, and effectively with parents and guardians, external stakeholders and the community at large. The background on how stakeholder input was gathered as the district explored the management pathway is included. A communication plan on how stakeholders (including staff, local board, parents and community members) will be kept abreast of progress and provide input has been included. There are concerns that relying on existing channels for communicating with stakeholders may not be enough. The addition of surveys or some other way to do broader outreach and ways to gather input from staff and parents may be warranted. Talent Management Meets Expectations Comments Plan articulates what strategies, the school or district will focus on that are related to talent management. For schools or districts implementing changes to talent management systems, please address the following elements. If a school or district is not making changes in these areas, provide rationale for not making changes. The plan describes the challenges the district faces in terms of recruiting, hiring, and retaining teachers and leaders. The plan includes helpful discussion of district talent strategies.  Provides an overview of the school’s recruitment and staffing plan how these changes will produce gains in academic achievement.  Explains how plans for professional development differ from the school’s current practice and/or district requirements and why these changes are The matrix on page 31 is helpful in thinking about how different schools will be supported. The implications for how to support and manage leaders and teachers working under the variety of support structures offered to different schools, is not addressed sufficiently. How will the district manage school leaders operating under different support structures? Will the leadership grants be enough to develop the needed school leadership in the struggling schools? How will the district and/or 46 necessary.  Describes changes to the processes and criteria used to support the strategic evaluation and retention of highly effective teachers and staff, including incentives and compensation. Beyond Textbooks create systems to groom new leaders and strengthen current leadership? The role and responsibilities of the Beyond Textbooks District Liaison are described. What new or different criteria will be used for hiring leaders or teachers into the Beyond Textbooks schools as compared to non- Beyond Textbooks schools? What specific waivers to building staffing flexibility are needed in order to implement Beyond Textbooks effectively? Given the urgency of the high school and the turnover of leaders, the plan should include hiring timelines and criteria used for hiring the high school leaders. Management Partner □ Meets expectations X Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations Plan Component Selection of Partner Rating of Evidence Meets Expectations Notes Comments Plan describes the process the district used to select the partner and ensure management partner has a track record of success in supporting schools in identified areas of need.  Plan describes a rigorous process of recruitment, vetting and selection of partner.  Selection process demonstrates verifiable, quantitative data that demonstrates the partner’s past effectiveness in improvement in schools with similar needs and similar demographics. Where appropriate, names and qualifications of key staff members assigned to the school are provided.  Justifies why the scope of work is appropriate given school/district needs (e.g., if only seeking a targeted management partnership, why and how is the targeted approach appropriate?).  Articulates how the partner’s services and approach will align to and support current district needs. Explains how the partner will directly support the school or district’s plan for The plan conveys that Beyond Textbooks was selected to address a number of the key challenges in the district. Yet, it does not appear that other management organizations were vetted in the process. The selection process for an external partner was not described adequately. The plan articulates that the district gathered community and teacher input as to the readiness and willingness of engaging with Beyond Textbooks. The plan includes some data describing the overall impact Beyond Textbooks has had on their clients’ (other districts) accreditation ratings. The plan could be strengthened by providing more details about changes in student learning and culture of performance within other Beyond Textbooks partner districts. Beyond Textbooks seems particularly suited to the work with academic systems. It is unclear, however, if the organization is well-suited to support district-wide accountability systems and processes. The district’s turnaround plan does not address internal accountability systems either. The management proposal needs 47 improvement. more of a focus on how district systems are being addressed—either by Beyond Textbooks or in other ways. Further, questions remain about how Beyond Textbooks will tailor their supports specifically to a district in Colorado. The plan needs to address how Beyond Textbooks will support Colorado Academic Standards, Colorado assessments, READ Act parameters, etc. The detailed description of the negotiated services to be provided at Adams 14 is helpful. Scope of Work Meets Expectations Comments Plan describes one or more targeted areas the management partner will focus on in the district and/or school. Plan also provides a timeline for the implementation of the management partnership activities.  Includes a clear and concise overview of the scope of services to be implemented by the management partner.  Provides detailed explanation of the agreed upon targeted areas for support for the school/district.  Includes a timeline that thoroughly outlines implementation of the scope of services. Plan should be practical but also demonstrate urgency for pulling the school/district off the accountability clock. Interagency agreements were included in a previous draft of the proposal and should be reinserted in to the final proposal to the Board. Assuming that the agreements have not changed since March, the agreements were very thorough and outlined details on the service agreements between partner and district. Please include copies of the agreements in the final version of the plan. Performance Contract/MOU Meets Expectations Comments The district and management partner should enter into a comprehensive performance contract/memorand The plan includes a copy of the contract/MOU between the district and the management partner. It clearly outlines the terms of the performance partnership, including (where applicable): The table on p.68 describes the frequency and level of engagement between Beyond Textbooks, the district, and the schools. This is valuable in clarifying the interactions among different stakeholders and individuals. Comprehensive Services  Length of contract (suggested to be 2-4 years) The submitted plan is focused district wide, but needs particular attention given to Adams City High School as well. Grades 9 and 10 are addressed in management plan, but implementation of Beyond Textbooks in grades 9 and 10 will likely not be enough to pull the school off the clock. The proposed leadership restructuring strengthens the proposal. Additional information on how grades 11 and 12 will be supported needs to be provided, as well as how the whole school will be supported to increase student and family engagement and improve postsecondary and workforce readiness. Furthermore, more detail on how the high school will be supervised and supported by the district will be necessary. Either an additional plan for Adams City High School should be included, or high school-specific details should be more explicitly developed in this plan. 48 um of understanding (MOU) that specifically outlines the terms of the performance partnership.  Management fees, budget autonomy and fundraising o Includes description of resources necessary to sustain the partnership for duration of the contract  Terms of termination initiated by the district or the management partner. Description of process the district and partner will follow in the case of disagreements of judgment or scope of work as outlined in contract/MOU.  Relevant responsibility for Non-Academic Operations (e.g., facilities, maintenance and operations, accounting, payroll and HR, technology infrastructure, dining services, transportation, school security, procurement.) Responsibilities, rights, and authorities of the management partner and the district  Articulates what specific management authority the partner will hold that will be significant and meaningful to addressing the identified school/district needs.  The management partner’s rights and responsibilities should include any autonomies around academic systems, talent management and culture as specified above in the school design plan. The plan should describe the degree and type of decision-making control that the partner may exercise.  Establishes clear lines of reporting, responsibility, and supervision of district-partner relationship.  District responsibilities should include providing the partner with a direct contact/advocate within the district system, continuing services as needed (e.g., purchased services), and ensuring compliance of the partner and school.  Partner responsibilities should include the number and qualifications of partner staff who The fee documents and contract show costs through 2018. Is that the extent of the contract? There is concern that this is not enough time to make necessary improvements. Local board has allocated funds for partnership with Beyond Textbooks. Provides stipulation for ending agreement if the district does not fulfill agreement. There is an eye toward accountability through Beyond Textbooks and CDE. The plan includes responsibilities of the Beyond Textbooks District Liaison position. The Liaison’s authority and position in the district office will be key to the success of applying Beyond Textbooks to the systems at the district level. How will the district approach selecting the District Liaison, if this has not already been done? The plan could be strengthened with more details around accountability provisions. The authority for ensuring improvement at the three Beyond Textbooks schools resides with the district and will be monitored by the District Liaison. Questions remain whether this is enough accountability to ensure that the schools implement the Beyond Textbooks components effectively and that the district differentiates its system of supports. If the schools do not show signs of improvement, how might the district and/or Beyond Textbooks intervene? Whereas the plan includes targets for academic outcomes, it is not clear whether the partner organization will be held accountable in any way for these academic outcomes. 49 will be embedded within the district or school(s) and should articulate their roles and responsibilities. Accountability for student achievement and assessment of success:  Addresses performance accountability, including fidelity of implementation and effectiveness at raising student achievement.  Includes specific benchmarks and timelines for program implementation and performance outputs.  Includes agreements on shared access to data and leading and lagging indicators of performance.  Identifies supports and interventions for deviating performance, and remedies available to either party if there is failure to make reasonable progress toward mutually agreedupon performance benchmarks. Summary CDE has determined that the proposed Management Plan partially meets the standards described above. Overall Rationale The submitted proposal for a management partnership between Adams 14 School District and Beyond Textbooks provides helpful details about how this partnership will support needed academic improvements in three of the district’s schools, including Adams City High School. The plan proposes that Beyond Textbooks will support these schools in multiple components of their academic systems. The District Liaison position will serve as the connector between Beyond Textbooks and the district and schools. Questions remain as to how this partnership will address the need for the district to develop its systems of support for other low-performing schools and implement processes for robust internal accountability. While differentiating the approach to supporting schools may be a wise direction, the plan does not adequately address the strategies or actions the district needs to take to stabilize and perform at a higher level. The plan does not provide adequate detail regarding the specific changes that will occur at Adams City High School, especially for grades 11 and 12. The high school is entering Year 6 of the accountability clock and needs significant attention to leadership, academics, and student services and engagement. 50 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. 51 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. 52 Adams 14 School District Since 2010, the district has had a Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type, with CDE conducting annual reviews of the UIP. Following the review of the UIP, CDE provides feedback and requires, in some cases, that changes be made to the plan before it is publicly posted or within the next year. The plans have generally had high quality data reporting and analysis. One consistent theme over time has been the weak feedback loops and progress monitoring (e.g., implementation benchmarks, interim measures). School Year Required Changes Summary of Required Changes 2016-17 Yes, greater concern at end of clock and plan is not detailed The district plan did not seem to shift much from the previous year. Given that the district trended downward in the final year of the accountability clock, it is expected that the district plan demonstrate some acknowledgement and urgency in action. The CDE reviewers also know that much more work is taking place within the district through the accountability pathway work. Feedback in this document references last year’s feedback as some of it still applies to this year -- however, requirements were adjusted in some cases to reflect greater concern. For example, last year the recommendation was made that the district include more in-depth references to the district’s selected turnaround pathway. References are made, but do not stand out and do not offer many details. This may also be because the overall plan continues to leave the action steps at a high level – it is difficult to discern how the district is proposing to act and gauge the sense of boldness and urgency. The progress monitoring (e.g., implementation benchmarks) are improved but still need work and still seem like a needed priority for the district. 2015-16 Yes, some changes The district’s work to align its improvement planning work with the diagnostic review standards and indicators has taken a promising direction. In particular, the district’s connection to the improvement planning work at the school level is exciting. However, work remains to be done to ensure that the action plan captures the concrete work that it will take to accomplish the identified major improvement strategies. Given that the district has struggled to identify an actionable plan with strong feedback loops in the past, this will remain an important focus for the future. Finally, the district should really take the opportunity to outline its accountability clock pathway plan (e.g., innovation status) since tremendous energy and investment seems to be placed there. The UIP can be a good way to document this work for external readers (e.g., CDE, State Review Panel, State Board of Education). See the remainder of the plan for more detailed recommendations and required actions. The bulk of the required actions reside in the action planning section for the READ Act. 2014-15 Yes, Overall, the plan is in good shape and progress is noted as the district continues to move forward with its initiatives. The involvement of district leadership in the plan development is a positive signal, as well as including the DAAC and 53 Some changes board. The bulk of the required changes build from last year’s feedback around ensuring that the district’s reforms are well supported and understood by school level staff and that the district has adequate feedback loops (interim measures, implementation benchmarks) to make mid‐course corrections. While the district has moved the ELD program forward, some questions still remain on implementation and alignment with other initiatives. 2013-14 Yes, some changes Overall, the district’s UIP is stronger than in previous years. The district’s continued commitment to implementing a system‐wide interim assessment and the focusing on data‐driven instruction shines throughout the plan. Greater involvement of various stakeholders is another positive step – although it is not clear how parents/community members participate in the planning process. There are still elements in the plan, however, that will still need immediate attention:  Building on comments from last year, the root cause analysis still needs to dive deeper. Include a description of the process used to select and prioritize the root causes. It may be helpful to conduct a positive root cause on middle school success and then generalize these findings to address other concern areas.  Action steps around the district’s English Language Development plan must be added, especially how will this play out during the full school day. The current plan is vague and not necessarily actionable.  More specificity on the progress monitoring components of the plan (i.e., interim measures, implementation benchmarks) are needed. This should help to ensure a continuous improvement cycle. Sometimes these measures/metrics are missing. 2012-13 Yes, with significant changes The plan shows an improved focus from the previous year. However, there are still some major components to address. With further refinement in the data analysis, the rest of the plan will have a greater likelihood of success. In particular, the priority performance challenges and root causes in the data analysis were inconsistent and needed to be more targeted. The framework for using data also needs to be strengthened. For example, interim measures (e.g., interim assessments) were often missing which will prevent the district from being alerted whether the actions are having the intended effect and adjusting quickly. Finally, the district’s turnaround strategy (district management) was not discussed in the plan. Given the Turnaround status of the district, dramatic change is needed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of the necessary changes are occurring, but this is not documented in the plan. Adams City High School Since 2010, the school has had a Priority Improvement plan type, with CDE conducting annual reviews of the UIP. Following the review of the UIP, CDE provides feedback and requires, in some cases, that changes be made to the plan before it is publicly posted or within the next year. Before 2015, the school struggled to document a rigorous turnaround plan. With district supports, the school was able to strengthen the plan considerably. However, the current plan needs additional detail in the action plan and progress monitoring components. 54 School Year Required Changes Summary of Required Changes 2016-17 Yes, some concern as they are at end of clock and plan is not detailed enough The plan includes multiple data points and corresponding analyses, however the remainder of the plan (performance challenges, root causes, improvement strategies and action steps) are not aligned with the findings of the data analysis. The Adams 14 approach to developing UIPs holds great promise – especially as it provides a common structure and vocabulary. However, something in the structure of the district’s approach does not convey key aspects of the school’s direction for external readers. More work needs to be done to provide the rationale for the school’s decision making process (e.g., Why that priority performance challenge? Why those root causes?). Furthermore, the action plan does not convey the prioritized work well. It is not clear what the school is doing to address the identified priority performance challenges and root causes or how it uses feedback loops (i.e., targets, interim measures, implementation benchmarks) to inform practice and make needed adjustments throughout the year. Because of the school’s position on the accountability clock, the school/district should continue to work closely with CDE to align the UIP with all improvement efforts and chosen end of clock pathways actions. 2015-16 Yes, some changes but greatly improved The 2016 UIP is significantly updated from previous years and aligns with Adams 14 district‐wide goals and targets. The plan provides a research‐based approach with emphasis on Colorado Standards and Indicators for Continuous School Improvement. The data narrative provides a telling story of urgency with credible historical perspective for their present state. Staff and stakeholders acknowledge where changes are needed as they tell their story. They describe optimism about their ability to bring about change. Not all required changes from last year are addressed in this year's plan. Action plan steps are not sufficiently detailed to guide implementation of the strategies and parent engagement strategies are not provided. In addition, the plan addresses only the 2015‐16 school year. 2014-15 Yes, Significant changes needed Adam City High School's Unified Improvement Plan does not differ significantly from previous years' plans, but performance has failed to improve significantly. In this 5th year of priority improvement status, dramatic and immediate change is needed. The plan, as written, will not create the dramatic change needed to move this school from priority improvement status. 2013-14 Yes, some changes Required Change: Conduct a more comprehensive data analysis and identify the school's notable trends, priority performance challenges, and root causes. Develop an action plan that presents a well‐designed plan for implementing the major improvement strategies and will result in the dramatic change needed to move this school from priority improvement status within 1 year. Feedback: 55 This plan reflects compliance rather than urgency regarding the status of this school in the 4th year of priority improvement. Although the data narrative indicates the use of Continuous Quality Improvement Tool to provide trend analysis, identify root cause and major improvement strategies, it is not apparent that a thorough data analysis process as recommended in the feedback from last year's UIP was conducted. While the performance of all subgroups remains roughly the same, a deeper analysis of the performance and growth data might determine if the root causes and associated improvement strategies will effectively address their needs. Major improvement strategy #1 is repeated from last year. Provide a rationale for this in the data narrative and describe the extent of implementation last year and the effectiveness of that implementation. 2012-13 Yes, with significant changes A more thorough data analysis process, including all available data, would begin to provide answers to the decline in performance. Consider specifically the performance of your subgroups, FRL, Minority, and English Language Learners. Although performance across all subgroups appears to be roughly the same, the school might consider analyzing performance and growth data in more depth to determine if the identified root causes and associated improvement strategies will effectively address the needs of these groups. Deeper analysis of that data might identify more specific root causes than those which apply to all students, and that in turn might allow you to identify those strategies that will be most effective in improving performance. The action plan appears to be the same as that developed last year. Provide justification for this in the data narrative and develop a more sequential, step-by-step plan to implement major improvement strategies. More specific implementation benchmarks will allow the school to gauge whether action steps are improving student achievement. These benchmarks, along with results from interim benchmarks, should allow the school to determine whether the strategies are effective. 56 Grant Name FY2012-13 Year Awarded & Award Amount FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16 900,000 720,000 109,754 90,000 st 21 Century Community Learning Centers Colorado Graduation Pathways Connect for Success Diagnostic Review Data Used For Improved Results (Title I Reallocation) Improvement Support Partnership Pathways Early Action Grant School Improvement Support State Personnel Development Grant Tiered Intervention Grant Title II-B Math and Science University of Virginia School Turnaround Program TOTAL 3,056 82,000 331,706 100,000 9,984 20,000 FY2016-17 80,000 44,225 192,214 97,859 257,844 45,668 5,000 713,486 341,140 157,141 498,181 294,357 47,914 546,597 537,876 100,000 1,516,791 1,188,296 1,960,303 1,377,753 282,859 Commissioner's Recommendation 57 Appendix D: Additional Information on Beyond Textbooks Partner Information Questionnaire Management Partnerships for Colorado Schools and Districts Beyond Textbooks Vail School District March 3rd, 2017 Provide a brief description of your organization and your organization’s background and experience in school turnaround. Using the table above as a reference, describe the type of services the partner will provide to the district and/or school: whole school, academic systems, talent management, or other. Over the past decade, educators in the Vail School District (Vail, Arizona) have and continue to develop a philosophy of teaching and learning that transcends textbooks and state standards to strengthen support for communities of teachers, facilitate teaching and learning, and improve student achievement. In practice, Beyond Textbooks, a comprehensive program of curriculum development, instructional improvement, student assessment, and multi-level interventions, is the result of this philosophy of planning, teaching, and sharing. Facing the challenges associated with an increase in student population from 3,600 in 2001 to over 13,000 in 2017, Vail has used the Beyond Textbooks approach to increase student achievement in math and reading from levels near or below state averages prior to the advent of the program to pass rates that are now consistently 20 percentage points or more above state averages and greater than 90% year after year at most grade levels. Beyond Textbooks is not only a feasible, effective approach for improving student achievement in Vail, but it is also noteworthy that Vail is now partnering with over 100 school districts and charter schools across Arizona, California, Idaho, Wyoming, and Kentucky who are currently implementing the Beyond Textbooks program to move the needle on student achievement for its own students. The name Beyond Textbooks does not refer to an abandonment of traditional textbooks, but rather refers to a philosophy of teaching and learning that transcends textbooks and state standards to strengthen support for communities of teachers, facilitate teaching and learning, and improve student growth and achievement. This comprehensive approach begins with a “shoulder to shoulder” rather than “top down” curriculum development process. First, Vail teachers and the Curriculum Department collaboratively review state content standards to identify core sets of essential standards that establish what students must learn in each content area at each grade level. These are the standards that will provide students with knowledge and skills beyond just a test date. Teachers within a grade level and subject then collaborate to “unwrap” the standards to determine big ideas, key vocabulary, student-friendly language, essential questions, and performance tasks that prove mastery. The documents produced in this process form the foundation of the core subject curriculums at each grade level and establish district-wide expectations for what teachers should teach and what students should learn and be able to do in relation to a specific standard. The teachers and Curriculum Department next work together to develop curriculum calendars, facilitate the administration of common curriculum-aligned assessments, and encourage collaboration among teachers at the same grade level. Faculty and administrators then collaborate to identify, acquire, and develop the specific materials needed to implement the curriculum effectively. The capstone of the curriculum framework is an electronic delivery system, Beyond Textbooks – a web-based tool that allows for the collection of digital curriculum materials, support materials, and other digital resources accessible to all faculty. Teachers use the BT Website to review the curriculum and calendars, locate and/or share resource materials, and to communicate and collaborate with peers across the District and States who use the same curriculum but who would not otherwise be available to share resources and provide other support. It is a time-honored teaching tradition to beg, borrow, and steal ideas from one another. Beyond Textbooks takes sharing to a whole new level. While Beyond Textbooks began as a Vail initiative, over the past six years it has evolved into a program that has created partnerships with over 100 other diverse districts and charter schools in Arizona, and our first out of state partners in California, Idaho, Wyoming, and Kentucky. Beyond Textbooks now reaches over 13,000 teachers and 150,000 students who have adopted it as a framework to increase student achievement. With the help of Vail’s ongoing professional development, Beyond Textbooks partners are trained on: the philosophy and practices of the Beyond Textbooks framework; effective implementation strategies; and the technical facilitation of the Beyond Textbooks electronic delivery system (including how to access all of Vail’s digital curriculum calendars, unwrapped documents, formative assessments, and teacher-created resources that are congruent to selected essential standards, as well as how to contribute to the digital resources that are accessible to all Vail and Beyond Textbooks partner teachers). David Woodall, Superintendent of partner district Morenci Unified School District, states, “When I saw the amount of time Vail had spent unwrapping, prioritizing, and calendaring standards, and the amount of resources they had generated, I knew that it was something that would be very difficult for us to ever produce, and if we could tap into what they’ve created it would be very exciting. In the long run, this could really reshape instruction. It’s the ultimate tool for linking instruction and teacher creativity.” Beyond Textbooks would support Academic Systems: A district may conclude that a school, subset of schools or the entire district would benefit from a partner that manages all or some academic systems. These systems may include assessment, data, curriculum, instructional approaches, interventions, instructional services aimed at special populations (e.g., English language learners, Special Education), multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) or any combination therein. Describe the type of district or school best served by your organization. Include any considerations or conditions that are necessary for a successful partnership. Highlight any special populations or contexts (e.g., rural, online) your organization serves. “Coming Together to Improve Education” is the motto of Beyond Textbooks. With over 100 partners spanning several states, over 13,000 teachers trained and impacting close to 150,000 students, we feel confident that if followed with fidelity, Beyond Textbooks can increase student achievement in any organization. With that being said, Beyond Textbooks will never be the “magic bullet.” Many factors go into a successful organization beyond a successful, consistent framework helping to better align curriculum, assessment and intervention. Factors such as quality leadership, high expectations, and a clear vision should also be factored in when implementing any new program or structure. Knowing that several schools in the Adams County School District 14 are labeled as Turnaround and Priority Improvement Schools, Beyond Textbooks, with quality leadership, high expectations and a clear vision, could be the catalyst to improve student achievement. Describe the specific types of activities the organization is proposing and the scope of work your organization could provide to a district or school. Explain promising aspects of your partnership. When a School District or Charter School enters into a partnership with Beyond Textbooks, they are required to attend a series of trainings that include: -Leadership Retreat - Two days, 12 hour training
 District Leadership (administration and selected teachers) given an in depth look at the 7 Key BT Starting Points and create implementation plan; -BT 101 - 3.5 hour training All certified staff learns about the 7 Key BT Starting Points and how to navigate the BT Website; -BT 102 - 3.5 hour training Review of the 7 Key BT Starting Points and advanced BT Website facilitation; -Reteach and Enrich - 3 hour training Introduction of key ideas for Reteach and Enrich as well as practical ideas for implementation; -PLC Training - 3 hour training Comprehensive training on all aspects of a PLC, including effective data team implementation, data analysis and review cycle, SMART goal setting and accountability process. In addition, Beyond Textbooks offers a variety of professional development opportunities related to Data/PLCs, Instruction and Leadership. For a full list of our PD offerings, see Appendix. Provide specific examples of your accomplishments and where your organization has seen success for students. Describe existing programs inside or outside of Colorado, the results they have been able to achieve, and other available evidence demonstrating outcomes. Quite simply, for Vail, we went from being average in 2000, to being ranked the top-performing district in the state of Arizona for the first two years Arizona's ranking system was in place. The third year, Vail dropped to #2… behind our first Beyond Textbooks partner, the Benson Unified School District, who had been underperforming just three years prior. One superintendent sums what BT does for its partners. “Just wanted to let you know how much we appreciate BT and how it has helped our district. Our district now has an “A” rating from the state. We had been in district improvement for several years, and have a poverty rate of 67%. BT was responsible for a high percentage of our success. BT is especially helpful to small districts that do not have the funds or manpower to accomplish the things that BT provides.” - Seth Staples, Superintendent, Ash Fork USD. As the state rankings continued, our partner districts continued to rise. At one point, three of the top five districts in the state were using BT. And, as BT has branched out beyond the state borders, similar results have been experienced. BT’s partner in Troy, Idaho had never scored above the state average in math or reading. After just their first year with us, they did both. But, more importantly, their students grew academically. They gained 43% points on ELA assessments after one year. And, they went from the 59th ranked district in the state of Idaho to the 10th… in one year! Because of Beyond Textbooks’ specific framework, the program is not just a log in and go program. Extensive professional development for new partners is essential to the success of the use of the program. As such, since 2010, the Beyond Textbooks staff has provided over 1,765 trainings across Arizona and beyond. BT is not only the de-facto curriculum coordinator for many districts, it is also the de-facto professional development department. Over 44,000 educators have been trained in those trainings. Further, Beyond Textbooks provides annual BT Super Conferences with over 600 attendees from 60+ organizations. The Super Conference is one of the premier professional development events in Arizona every year. And, BT is continually providing BT Webinars for partners’ teachers and staff to keep them up to date with best practices, techniques, news, and more. The Beyond Textbooks program along with many of its staff members have been recognized for innovation and outstanding achievement. The program has been awarded the Sylvia Charp Award from ISTE, the Ed Tech Digest Trendsetter Award, ASBA’s Golden Bell, the Digital Content and Curriculum Achievement Award from ISTE, the District Administrator’s District of Distinction Award, and the U.S. Department of Education Recognition posting. Members of the BT Staff have earned Ed Tech Innovator from Ed Tech Digest, five Arizona Technology in Education Association awards, and more including three leaders earning a coveted Tucson’s 40 Under 40 Leadership award. But beyond test scores, awards, rankings, reputations etc., BT’s greatest accomplishment is in bringing educators of all walks together to improve education. BT does not discriminate between public and charter schools, rural, suburban, or urban schools, or small or large schools. All schools serve children. In a time when there is so much division among educational institutions, BT does the opposite. We want to help anyone who wants the help. Contract. Describe the parties needed for your proposed partnership (e.g., school, district, state) and their specific roles within the partnership. Describe the conditions that must be included in the contract to accommodate your proposed partnership. Highlight areas where you require flexibility or decision-making authority to establish a successful partnership Required Beyond Textbooks trainings and specifics parties identified for each training: Leadership Retreat - District Leadership (Building Principals and District Office Leadership) and Key Teacher Leaders from each school site. BT 101 - Principal and certified staff from each school site. BT 102 - Principal and certified staff from each school site. Reteach and Enrich - Principals and Key Teacher Leaders from each school site. PLC Training - Principals and Key Teacher Leaders from each school site. In addition, Adams County School District 14 would identify a BT District Liaison with the following primary duties: 1. Report directly to the Superintendent; 2. Serve as the district point person between BT executives and Adams 14 regarding scheduled trainings, feedback, and general communication; 3. Be responsible for contract negotiation, maintenance, and all associated terms of service agreements; 4. Negotiate the relationship between BT schools and all district departments in order for school leadership to maintain focus on instruction; 5. Complete annual school leadership observations and evaluations; 6. Monitor the implementation of BT through qualitative and quantitative reporting; 7. Manage policy and procedures waivers for BT schools; 8. Support school-based coaches, teacher leaders, and individuals responsible for data monitoring to provide guidance and ensure fidelity to implementation. Outcomes. Specify the ideal length of time needed to accomplish the partnership’s outcomes, and the specific measures that can be used to evaluate performance. Describe the timeline for establishing a partnership and implementing key components of the scope of work. If the partnership is time-limited, describe under what circumstances the partnership will be dissolved either as a result of successful completion of the partnership or as a failure to meet expectations As part of the Leadership Retreat training, administrators and key teachers leaders work shoulder-to-shoulder to develop an action plan specific to the Adams County School District. While Beyond Textbooks is not meant to be ‘cookie-cutter,’ it does provide a systematic framework focused on curriculum, assessment and intervention. In 2012, the number one ranked school district in Arizona was the Benson School District, Beyond Textbooks' first partner. In 2013, BT Partner Ash Fork School District ascended to the number one spot in the state. In 2016, BT Partner Troy School District in Idaho went from the 59th ranked school district to the 10th after one year of implementation. We continue to hear success stories with the implementation of BT in schools and districts and its impact on increasing student achievement. If followed with fidelity, the Beyond Textbooks framework will yield results. There are several measures that can be used to evaluate performance including: Formative Assessment Data - a five question ‘quiz’ in reading and math, grades 1-12, that is used to identify mastery of each essential standard; Colorado Required Summative Assessments - growth indicators in the areas of math, literacy and language acquisition; Classroom Walkthrough Data - members of the Beyond Textbooks team will walk classrooms three times each semester to collect data on instructional modalities, instructional materials, student engagement and classroom management and then provide feedback to leadership with classroom data, strengths, and areas of concern; BT 102 Training - a 3.5 hour training after a semester of BT implementation and a chance to check-in to hear successes, challenges and future goals Costs. Provide the cost structure associated with establishing a partnership with a school or district. 16/17 fiscal year Leadership Retreat: $3,000 Travel for Leadership Retreat: approximately $2,000 ($1,000/trainer) BT 101: $1,500 x 3 schools = $4,500 Travel for BT 101: approximately $3,000 ($1,000/trainer) Total: $12,500 17/18 fiscal year Annual Fee: $3,000 BT 102: $1,500 x 3 schools = $4,500 Travel for BT 102: approximately $3,000 ($1,000/trainer) Reteach and Enrich training: $1,500 x 3 schools = $4,500 Travel for R/E training: approximately $3,000 ($1,000/trainer) PLC Training: $1,500 x 3 schools = $4,500 Travel for PLC Training: approximately $3,000 ($1,000/trainer) Per Student Fee $9 x 1,500 students = $13,500 Total: $39,000 Additional Trainings Any additional trainings selected by a school district and provided by Beyond Textbooks is $1,500 for a half day, for a group up to 30 teachers plus associated travel costs. References. Include the name and contact information for the last three schools or districts your organization contracted with. These schools or districts may be contacted by CDE staff for references. Show Low School District Shad Housely, Superintendent email: ShadH@show-low.k12.az.us website: http://www.show-low.k12.az.us Agua Fria Union High School School District Grant Conway, District Director of Curriculum and Instruction email: gconway@aguafria.org website: http://www.aguafria.org Tonto Basin School District Chad Greer, Superintendent email: CGreer@tontobasinschool.org website: http://www.tontobasinschool.org Appendices -Beyond Textbooks Pyramid -Beyond Textbooks Support -Beyond Textbooks Partners -Arizona Data -Professional Development Opportunities Curriculum Digital version of curriculum Specific Materials Intentionally selected resources Curriculum Calendars When we teach it and for how long Unwrapped Documents What good enough looks like Essential Standards What students must learr? Beyond Textbooks Pyramid Instruction Cooperative Learning Marzano Strategies Balanced Math Literacy Essential Elements of Instruction Classroom Management WE HAVE A COMMON VISION OF Who We Are GUIDING PRINCIPLES Why We Exist ON STATEMENT How We Treat Each Other ACT STATEMENT What Quality Instruction Looks Like REAC STATE ENT Assessment Individual Progres Monitoring Can?t Do/Won?t do Skill or motivational issue CBM ProgressMonitoring creenings Student growth over tim in basnc skills Common Formatives check to see II students are learning Benchmarks Quarterly check to vnonitor student mastery Intervention Special Sewices Dail Math Skills Dai Fluency Practice Targeted Tutoring Based on ALL the data lntersession A Mandatory and Indiwdual Response to Benchmark Data Reteach and Enrich A Mandatory and School-Wide Response to Formative Data BT Support ✦ Gaining the Vision Parts I and II - Two, 2.5 hour meetings
 District administrative overview of the BT Vision and Teacher Buy in meetings ✦ Leadership Retreat - Two days, 12 hour training
 District Leadership (administration and selected teachers) given an in depth look at the 7 Key BT Starting Points and create implementation plan ✦ BT 101 - 3.5 hour training
 All certified staff learns about the 7 Key BT Starting Points and how to navigate the BT Website ✦ BT 102 - 3.5 hour training
 Review of the 7 Key BT Starting Points and advanced BT Website facilitation ✦ Reteach and Enrich - 3 hour training
 Introduction of key ideas for Reteach and Enrich as well as practical ideas for implementation ✦ PLC Training - 3 hour training
 Comprehensive training on all aspects of a PLC, including effective data team implementation, data analysis and review cycle, SMART goal setting and accountability process Other Partner Benefits ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ Free Monthly Webinars Access to BT Monthly Newsletter & Other Partner Updates Calendar Customization New Teacher Induction Free BT Partner Super Conference Attendance Cost Savings Site Visits Quick Response on Phone, Email, and Help Desk Beyond Textbooks Partners 1. Agua Fria 2. Altar Valley 3. Antelope Union 4. Apache Junction 5. ASDB* 6. Ash Creek 7. Ash Fork 8. Benson 9. Berean Academy* 10.Bicentennial 11.Bisbee 12.Blackwater* 13.Blue Ridge 14.Bouse 15.Buckeye Union 16.Cambridge Academy* 17.Chinle 18.Concho 19.Continental 20.Coolidge 21.Desert Choice* 22.Destiny School* 23.Dobson Academy* 24.Douglas 25.Excalibur Avalon* 26.Florence 27.Fountain Hills High School 28.Ft. Thomas 29.George Gervin Prep* 30.Gila Bend 31.Globe 32.Grand Canyon 33.Hackberry 34.Hayden-Winkelman 35.Heber-Overgaard 36.Heritage Phoenix* 37.Heritage Williams* 38.Holbrook 39.Hyder 40.Imagine Coolidge* 41.Joseph City 42.Kingman 43.Kirkland 44.La Paloma Academy* 45.Liberty 46.Liberty Traditional Phoenix* 47.Liberty Traditional Douglas* 48.Littlefield 49.Littleton 50.Mammoth/San-Manuel 51.Mayer 52.Miami 53.Midtown Primary* 54.Millcreek (KY) 55.Mobile 56.Morenci 57.Nadaburg 58.Noah Webster* 59.Owens Whitney 60.Page 61.Palominas 62.Palo Verde 63.Parker 64.Payson 65.Pensar Academy* 66.Pima 67.Pomerene 68.Quartzsite 69.Queen Creek 70.Ray 71.Red Mesa 72.Round Valley 73.Ruth Brown (CA) 74.Saddle Mountain 75.Sahuarita 76.Salome 77.San Carlos 78.Seligman 79.Show Low 80.Sierra Vista 81.Snowflake 82.Somerton 83.Sonoita 84.Southgate* 85.Stanfield 86.StarShine Academy* 87.St. David 88.St. Johns 89.Sun Valley* 90.Superior 91.Theodore Roosevelt 92.Tolleson 93.Tonto Basin 94.Topock 95.Troy (ID) 96.Tuba City 97.Uinta County (WY) 98.Vail 99.Valentine 100.Val Vista Academy* 101.Vernon 102.Wellton 103.Wenden 104.Western School of Science & Technology* 105.White Pine (ID) 106.Wickenburg 107.Willcox 108.Williams 109.Willow Creek* 110.Winslow 111.Young 112.Yucca * = Charter School or Agency Ranked #l in AZ Search Entries: Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 Rank Name Grade Polnts County 1 San Simon Uni?ed District A 156 Cochise 1 Vail Uni?ed District 3 Catalina Foothills Uni?ed District A 154 Pima 4 Cave Creek Uni?ed District A 149 Maricopa 5 Maine Consolidated School District A 148 Coconino 6 Higley Uni?ed School District A 147 Maricopa 7 Congress Elementary District A 145 Yavapai 8 Scottsdale Uni?ed District A 143 Maricopa 8 Chandler Uni?ed School District A 143 Maricopa 10 Queen Creek Uni?ed District A 142 Maricopa 10 Deer Valley Uni?ed District A 142 Country Two Consecutive Years 2013 Top DISTRICTS* Rank District Name Total Points 1 Benson Unified School District BT Partner 161 2 Vail Unified School District BT Partner 157 3 Catalina Foothills Unified District 4 Queen Creek Unified District 5 Cave Creek Unified District 153 6 Higley Unified School District 151 7 Litchfield Elementary District 149 8 Chandler Unified District #80 148 9 Ash Fork Joint Unified District 9 Glendale Union High School District 147 9 Tanque Verde Unified District 147 12 Deer Valley Unified District 146 155 BT Partner BT Partner 154 147 2014 Top DISTRICTS* Total Points and Label Rank District Name 1 Ash Fork Joint Unified District 2 Higley Unified School District 3 Vail Unified School District 4 Catalina Foothills Unified District 155 - A 5 Cave Creek Unified District 154 - A 6 Queen Creek Unified District 7 Chandler Unified District #80 149 - A 7 Glendale Union High School District 149 - A 7 Tanque Verde Unified District 149 - A 10 Gilbert Unified District 147 - A 10 Deer Valley Unified District 147 - A 10 Litchfield Elementary District 147 - A 10 Benson Unified School District BT Partner 165 - A 159 - A BT Partner BT Partner BT Partner 157 - A 153 - A 147 - A Beyond Textbooks Professional Development Beyond Textbooks Partners, In this handout, you will find a variety of professional development trainings offered by Beyond Textbooks. Finding effective uses for professional development days can be challenging and we would love to help fill some of these voids by bringing our proven PD to your sites and staff. PD Offerings are broken up into four categories: • Required BT Partner Trainings • Instruction • Data & PLC’s • Leadership If you would like more information any of these trainings, please contact me at (520) 879-3961 or carneyk@vailschooldistrict.org. Sincerely, Kevin Carney Beyond Textbooks Chief Executive Officer Vail Unified School District Coming Together to Improve Education 1 Required BT Partner Trainings Beyond Textbooks Gaining the Vision Part 1 (K-12) - (2.5 hours) Superintendent, building principals, and district level curriculum staff meet with BT staff for a 2.5 hour overview of Beyond Textbooks. They then have the opportunity to decide if they would like to move forward with BT Gaining the Vision Part 2. Beyond Textbooks Gaining the Vision Part 2 (K-12) - (2.5 hours) BT Staff meet with key teacher leaders, superintendent, building principals, and district level curriculum staff for a 2.5 hour overview of Beyond Textbooks designed to gain the buy in of teachers and provide administration with an opportunity to develop further understanding of BT and decide if they would like to move forward with the program. Beyond Textbooks Leadership Retreat (K-12) - (2 sessions, 6 hours each) The Leadership Retreat is meant to give your organization’s key stakeholders a chance to become more familiar with the theory and practices that make BT a success. Day One Agenda - (6 hour training) • Overview of Beyond Textbooks Pyramid • Overview of 7 Key BT Starting Points • Check for Understanding Day Two Agenda - (6 hour training) • Building Consensus • Create a plan for implementation of the 7 Key BT Starting Points Beyond Textbooks 101 (K-12) - (3.5 hours) Specifically designed for 1st year partners, this training is an overview of the 7 Key BT Starting Points as well as the technical aspects of how to effectively navigate the BT Website. Beyond Textbooks 102 (K-12) - (3.5 hours) Specifically designed for 1st year partners, this training is a “check-in” for understanding and clarification of the 7 Key BT Starting Points, as well as advanced technical navigation of the BT Website. Reteach and Enrich (K-12) - (3 hours) Reteach and Enrich is a time during the school day when students who have not mastered the district formative assessment in math or reading are re-taught concepts to mastery. Students who demonstrated mastery of the district formative assessment in math or reading are provided enrich opportunities on those same concepts. This training provides insights and strategies for reasons why to implement Reteach and Enrich and how to do these daily interventions. PLC Training (K-12) - (6 hours) Comprehensive training on all aspects of a PLC, including effective data team implementation, data analysis and review cycle, SMART goal setting and accountability process. 2 Instruction Assume Student Confidence with a Growth Mindset: A Viable Way to Empower Students (K-12 teachers & administrators) - (3 hours) Educators often believe lowering standards will give students successful experiences, boost self-esteem, and raise achievement. It doesn’t work! Lowering standards leads to poorly educated students and is a recipe for disaster. Great teachers believe in growing intellect and talent, and are fascinated with the process of learning. From Teachers: The Mindset of a Champion, participants will explore how shifting from a fixed mindset to growth mindset can empower student learning. Balanced Literacy Part 1 (K-8) - (4 hours) A framework for organizing literacy instruction that is comprised of these six components: • Flexible Ability Reading Groups • Shared Reading • Read Aloud • Read Independently • Spelling & Phonics/Word Work • Writer’s Workshop/6 Traits Teachers will examine how to incorporate these 6 strategies within their school day. (Note: This training can be combined with Balanced Literacy Part 2 for an eight hour training, including a lunch break) Balanced Lit. Part 2 – Writing Across the Curriculum (K-8) - (3 hours) Participants will: • Define what is writing and why it is powerful • Identify where writing instruction should take place • Explain the components of Writing to Learn and Writing to Apply • Implement the techniques of Writing Strategies for the content areas in the classroom (Note: This training can be combined with Balanced Literacy Part 1 for an eight hour training, including a lunch break) Balanced Math Training (K-8) - (3 hours) This training focuses on giving participants a structure for organizing math instruction that is comprised of these five components: • Math Review • Conceptual Lesson • Problem of the Week • Math Fact Fluency • Coaching 3 Classroom Management 101 (K-8) - (3 hours) Looking for tips on how to refine and improve classroom management in any K-8 classroom? Goals of this training include: • Explain the purpose of effective classroom management • Identify specific procedures to be rehearsed with students the first week of school • Connect the importance of teacher proximity, smooth transitions, and classroom signals to increasing student achievement Close Reading and Cloze Reading…Is It Different? (K-12) - (3 hours) Participants will: • Identify what close reading is and how is can be effectively used in a classroom • Introduce the strategy of annotations and learn how students can use annotations to enhance their comprehension • Analyze text dependent questioning and learn how to create text dependent questions for a close reading passage D.O.K. - That's Just the New Bloom's, Right? (K-12) - (3 hours) Webb's Depth of Knowledge (D.O.K.) provides a vocabulary and a frame of reference when thinking about our students and how they will engage with content. So how does this relate to the Common Core? Two major shifts that the Common Core brings are in Content and Rigor, with many people arguing that Rigor is the number one major shift with the Common Core. As we peel back the layers of what is expected with increased Rigor, it is mission critical to recognize the role that understanding and effectively using the D.O.K. plays in relation to this. This training will help participants to understand the importance of using both D.O.K and Bloom’s in lesson planning and task development. Critical Thinking Skills and the Common Core (K-12) - (3 hours) The new Common Core standards require students to use a different type of thinking. How do teachers embed critical thinking skills into the content so that students develop the quality of their thinking and problem solving, not just for tests, but for a lifetime of learning? This session will build background knowledge in helping educators empower all learners with the enduring skills of critical thinking. Daily Math Skills (K-8) - (3 hours) This training focuses on how to implement daily 20 minute math fact fluency skills in order to improve student fluency (speed + accuracy) so that students are able to perform computational tasks as well as higher level skills while not getting bogged down on the "ABC's of math". Implementing Daily Math Skills in Vail has historically demonstrated immediate gains on math AIMS scores, specifically the number of students who exceed the standard. 4 EEI (Essential Elements of Instruction) (K-12) - (8 hours) Based upon the Madeline Hunter model, EEI provides a framework for effective instruction and skills that assists teachers in making decisions when they teach. By attending this training, teachers will be provided with a common instructional language that helps build school and district culture. (Note: This training can be modified to 4 hours.) Effective Feedback (K-12) - (3 hours) Delivering effective feedback requires training and practice, and can be very powerful if done correctly. Constructive feedback gives students information they need so they can understand where they are in the learning process and what steps they need to do next. “It is just-in-time, just-for-me information delivered when and where it can do the most good.” This session will focus on how the principles and examples of powerful feedback can be applied in the classroom. Effective Enrichment for All Students (K-12) - (3 hours) Designed for teachers and administrators, this training provides participants with background as well as practical ideas for ensuring that all students are provided with enrichment opportunities throughout the school day. Whether students are grouped in a separate enrichment class or mixed within the core classroom, we discuss the benefits of enriching all students as well as a number of ideas that can be implemented into classrooms right away. Higher Order Questioning Strategies (K-12) - (3 hours) During this workshop, the participant will: a) explain the importance of effective questioning strategies, b) generate meaningful questions with a specific purpose, c) participate in a range of cooperative learning strategies and structures and be able to apply them to improving classroom practices. IEEI (Inverted Essential Elements of Instruction) (K-12) (3 hours) The IEEI model is an extension of the EEI framework that allows for supportive and structured inquiry based lessons. By attending this training, teachers will be provided with a framework that encourages student collaboration, an emphasis on higher Blooms/DOK levels, and a variety of approaches to support student growth. Managing Students Who Have Severe Behaviors (K-12) - (3 hours) During this workshop, the participants will: • Compare and contrast characteristics of reactive and proactive teachers • Identify the reasons for students’ misbehavior and the characteristics of each • Recognize effective and ineffective responses to situations involving students with severe behavior 5 Research-Based Instructional Strategies (K-12) - (3 hours) An opportunity for participants to examine research-based instructional strategies that affect student achievement and identify various methods for teaching these strategies. By attending this engaging training, participants will also be able to determine which strategies they should incorporate in their classroom practice. Student Engagement Strategies (K-12) - (3 hours) A repeatable sequence of steps designed to structure the interaction of students with each other and/or the curriculum in ways that align with basic principles and efficiently realize specific learning outcomes. Data & PLC’s Data Teams/PLC’s (K-12) - (3 hours) Data Teams/PLC's provide collaborative, structured, and scheduled team meetings that focus on analyzing and using data from multiple sources, effective teaching strategies, and how to achieve high levels of student achievement. In this training, participants are given detail into the purpose of Data Teams/PLC's and how to implement them. Benchmark Analysis Training (K-12) - (3 hours) In this training, participants will explore keys to effectively analyzing ATI-Galileo benchmark assessments. This is a hands on training using real time data designed for teachers as well as administrators and data coordinators at the site and district level. Highlights include, learning how to build trust around sharing data, and engaging participants in discussions about aligning school goals to benchmark data and creating a climate of shared accountability. Additionally, time will be spent identifying pertinent data from ATI-Galileo and using it to create an action plan that drives classroom instruction. Curriculum-Based Measurement Training (K-8) - (2 hours) Expand your current district’s assessment toolbox through the use of curriculum-based measures (CBMs). Learn how these general outcome measures of basic academic skills can compliment your current standards-based assessments. CBMs provide a quick, standardized, reliable and valid way to “take the temperature” of current academic health as well as monitor growth over time at a system-wide, site, classroom, and individual level. Data based decision making is enhanced through these measures which are also designed to objectively assess response to intervention and instruction. 6 Data Dig (K-12) - (6 hours) An opportunity for administrators and key teacher leaders to come together to "dig" into their data. Objectives include: analyze district and school data, identify areas of strength and what areas to focus on and create SMART goals to improve areas of focus. An emphasis will be placed on ACT/Explore data, analyzing Arizona's school accountability system and discussion on how the growth score is determined. The Data Dig is offered to multiple districts and charters two times throughout the school year, however districts and charters can also have a Data Dig in their specific school district or charter if requested. SAT Training (Student Achievement Teacher) (K-12) - (6 hours) Designed for districts adding the critical role of Student Achievement Teacher, this training will provide SAT’s and site administrators with an overview of the philosophy behind the position as well as provide in depth training in the daily responsibilities. Over the course of two sessions, SAT’s and principals will examine methods of tracking and sharing data with teachers and collaboratively tailor the SAT position to meet the unique needs of schools/districts. Leadership Assume Student Confidence with a Growth Mindset: A Viable Way to Empower Students (K-12 teachers & administrators) - (3 hours) Educators often believe lowering standards will give students successful experiences, boost self-esteem, and raise achievement. It doesn’t work! Lowering standards leads to poorly educated students and is a recipe for disaster. Great teachers believe in growing intellect and talent, and are fascinated with the process of learning. From Teachers: The Mindset of a Champion, participants will explore how shifting from a fixed mindset to growth mindset can empower student learning. Beyond Textbooks NTI (K-12) - (3 days) The purpose of this training is for site principals, curriculum or professional development coordinators, and superintendents from BT partners to: 1 - gain insights into base components of Vail's instructional model and 2 - compare your organization's current New Teacher Induction practices with Vail. Leadership Module: Campus-Wide Management (K-12) - (4 hours) As a classroom teacher, we all recognize that classroom management is key to providing a safe and efficient environment that leads to optimum student learning. As a principal, this idea does not change it only translates to a larger scale. Meant specifically for administrators, this training provides valuable insights and practical ideas to insure optimum campus-wide management is occurring in order to optimize student safety and learning. 
 7 Superintendent - Board Relations A strong relationship between the Governing Board and the Superintendent provides the foundation for highly effective schools. Conversely, problems with that relationship can sabotage almost any effort to make improvements. Join Vail Superintendent Calvin Baker for a year-long development module designed to help develop and grow a strong working relationship between the Governing Board and Superintendent. Using lessons he has learned working with dozens of board members in his 27 years as Superintendent in Vail, Mr. Baker will facilitate a Governing Board-Superintendent Retreat, attend a Governing Board meeting for your organization, invite you to a Vail Governing Board meeting, and be available for Governing Board consultation throughout the year. Whether you are a new Superintendent or returning to an organization, we hope you take advantage of this opportunity. 8 Commissioner's Recommendation 33 Appendix E: Additional District and School Data SELECTDI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 I NTRODUCTI ON LASTUPDATED:3/ 14/ 2017( Updat er ef l ect snewgr aduat i onanddr opoutdat a;f i nanc et abc ont ai nsupdat edl anguageandi nf or mat i on) Thi sdashboar dhasbeendes i gnedt odi s pl ays t at edat af ordi st r i c tst af ft os uppor tef f ec t i v es y s t emsanal y s i sandi mpr ov ementpl anni ng.I ti sor gani zedbyt absacr osst he t opoft hesc r een.Al l t abswer eupdat edwi t hmor er ec entdat a.Foraddi t i onal s uppor twi t hpl anni ng,s eer es our c esf oundher e: ht t p: / / www. c de. s t at e. c o. us / ui p/ ui p_t r ai ni ngandsuppor t _r esour ces.I naddi t i ont ot ex tpr ov i dedont hes c r een,i nf or mat i onr el at edt ot hedat ac anbef oundbyhover i ngt he c ur sorov ert heel ement soft her epor t . Ques t i ons ,pl eas ec ont ac tHai Huy nhathuynh_h@cde. st at e. co. us DI STRI CTI NFORMATI ON Di s t r i c tCont ac tI nf or mat i on DdstName Addr ess Ci t y,St at e,Zi p ADAMSCOUNTY14 5291EAST60THAVENUE COMMERCECI TY,CO 80022 Di s t r i c tCont ac tI nf or mat i on Count y WebSi t e Di st r i ctNumber ADAMS ht t p: / / www. adams 14. or g 0030 Super i nt endentI nf or mat i on Ful lName Emai l Javi erAbr ego j abr ego@adams 14. or g ADAMSCOUNTY14 STUDENTANDEDUCATORDATA NOTESABOUTENROLLMENTDATA TOTALSTUDENTENROLLMENT Enr ol l mentdat abas edonPK12c ount .ELLi sdef i nedas s t udent swhoar ec l as s i f i edasNEP,LEPandFEPM1andM2. Gr adesi ncl udedar ePKt hr ough12andf oronl yst udent s enr ol l edatapubl i cs c hool ,notpr i v at es chool .Demogr aphi c s def i ni t i onchangedf orHi s pani candAsi ani n201011. FRL-St udent sel i gi bl ef orf r eeorr educ edmeal ELL( Engl i shLanguageLear ner )-St udent swhoar el ear ni ng Engl i shi naddi t i ont ot hei rnat i v el anguage I EP-St udent swhoar eonani ndi v i dual i z ededucat i onpl an Dat asour ce:St udentOc t ober 7, 321 201112 7, 500 7, 598 7, 584 201213 201314 201415 7, 577 201516 DEMOGRAPHI CDATA Per centofs t udent si neac hgr oupr oundedt owhol enumber 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 44% ELL% 84% FRL% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% Gi f t edand Tal ent ed% 13% 13% 12% Mi gr ant% 82% 41% 43% 72% 85% 4% 5% 5% 5% 8% 7% 7% 7% 5% 11% 11% 12% 11% 11% I EP( Speci al Educ at i on)% 13% 82% 42% 4% Homel es s% 13% 44% 1% Asi an Hawai i an/ Paci f i cI sl ander Amer i canI ndi anorAl askanNat i ve Bl ac k Hi spani c TwoorMor eRaces 1% 1% 1% 1% Whi t e ATTENDANCEANDMOBI LI TYDATA I nf or mat i oni nc l udesc al c ul at edat t endancer at eanddi st r i ctmobi l i t yr at e.Or angel i nei ndi cat esst at er at e.Mobi l i t yr at ecal cul at i onwasr evi sedf or201213( mor ei nf or mat i on: ht t p: / / www. c de. s t at e. c o. us / cder ev al / mobi l i t y st abi l i t ycur r ent )Dat aSour ce:CDEEducat i onSt at i st i csPage At t endanceRat e:Di s t r i c tRat ev s.St at eOv er al l Rat e Mobi l i t yRat e:Di st r i ctRat evs.St at eOver al l Rat e 100. 0% 100. 0% 80. 0% 80. 0% 60. 0% 60. 0% 40. 0% 40. 0% 20. 0% 20. 0% 0. 0% 91. 8% 91. 6% 91. 4% 91. 8% 91. 6% 201011 201112 201213 201314 201415 0. 0% 30. 5% 36. 8% 17. 0% 18. 5% 19. 9% 201011 201112 201213 201314 201415 STAFFI NG PROFI LE( 201516) Teacher sdef i nedasj obc l as s i f i c at i onc odes201,202,204and206.Pr i nc i pal sdef i nedasj obcl assi f i cat i oncodesof105and106.I nst r uct i onal suppor tst af fandot heradmi ni st r at or s uppor tst af far enoti nc l udedi nt heanal ys i sbel ow.Thi si sanundupl i c at edc ountatt hedi st r i ctl evel ( t eacher smayt eachatmul t upl eschool s,butar eonl ycount edonceatt hedi st r i ct l ev el ) .Ex per i encei nc l udesi ns t at eandout of s t at e.Nodat ai sdi spl ayedf ordi st r i ctwi t hi nsuf i ci entdat a.Dat aSour ce:HRCol l ect i onDat a Teac herSt at i st i c s Pr i nci pal St at i st i cs Di st r i ct NumberofTeacher s St at e 52, 926 Av er ageYear sofEducat i onExper i ence( i nst at eandout of st at e)-Teacher s 14 10 Av er ageYear sTeachi ng( i nst at eandout of st at e)-Teacher s 14 10 9 17 TeacherTur noverRat e( %) Di s t r i c t FORTHCOMI NG 1, 881 NumberofPr i nc i pal s Av gYear sasPr i nc i pal ( Atc ur r ents c hool andanys c hool ) Av gYear sofEduc at i onEx per i enc e( i ns t at eandout of s t at e)-Pr i nc i pal s Av gYear sofTeac hi ngEx per i enc e( i ns t at eandout of s t at e)-Pr i nc i pal s Pr i nc i pal Tur nov erRat e( %) St at e 2, 827 216, 936 421 333 1, 093 937 811 647 1, 333 1, 440 ADAMSCOUNTY14 ASSESSMENTDATA-DI STRI CTRESULTS CATEGORY Par t i cpat i onCol orKey 95% orgr eat er ,Hi ghPar t i cpat i on FRL Bet ween85% and94%,Caut i on NoPar t i c i pat i onDat a El ement ar y SchoolLevel CMASPARCC-MATHANDENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS Thef ol l owi ngvi s ual di spl ay sCMASPARCCmeanscal escor 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 emeansc al es cor epr esent edasaver t i cal l i nei nor ange,( 2)di st r i ctmeanscal es cor epr es ent edasapl uss i gn,( 3)di s t r i ctmeansc al esc or ecol orcodedbasedont hepr opor t i onofst udent swho t ookt heassessment s,andl ast l y( 4)col orbandt hati dent i f i ess cor esmeet i ngass ess mentbenchmar k/ st at est andar ds. ENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS El ement ar y FRL-ELI BI GLE MATH 716 FRL-I NELI GI BLE 713 722 650 700 717 750 MeanSc al eSc or e 800 850650 700 750 MeanScal eSc or e 800 850 CMAS-SCI ENCE Thef ol l owi ngvi sual di s pl aysofCMASSsci encemeanscal escor esbyst udentgr oup,gr ade,andy ear .Thev i sual i nc l udest hef ol l owi ngt hr eeel ement s:( 1)st at emeanscal es cor epr esent edasa ver t i cal l i nei nor ange,( 2)di s t r i ctmeanscal escor epr esent edasapl ussi gn,andf i nal l y( 3)t hedi st r i c tmeans cal es cor ec ol orc odedbas edont hepr opor t i onofs t udent swhot ookt heassessment . Gr ade Cat egor y/ S. . Year 05 FRLELI BI GLE SCI ENCE 2014 505 2015 527 2016 521 504 FRL-FREE LUNCH 2014 2015 523 FRLI NELI GI BLE 2014 522 FRLREDUCED LUNCH 2015 530 2016 529 2014 300 350 400 450 500 COLORADO ACT 514 550 600 650 MeanSc al eScor e 700 750 800 Thechar tbel owdi s pl ayst her esul t sf r om t heCol or adoACT,i ncl udi ngt heover al l ( composi t e)s cor e,Engl i sh,Mat h,Readi ngandSc i encedi s aggr egat edbyst udentgr oup.Thepl us si gnsr epr es entt hedi s t r i c t ' sACTr esul t sandt heor angel i nesr epr esentt hest at eav er age.Forgr oupst hatmeett hemi ni mum Ncountt hr es hol d( i . e. ,atl eas t16s t udent st ookand r ecei vedaval i dt estscor e) ,t her esul t sar edi spl ayedbel ow.Cur sormouseovereachbart os eedet ai l edr es ul t s. 850 SUBJECT 900 ADAMSCOUNTY14 GROWTHDATA Gr owt hmet r i cspr ov i deanot herv i ewoft heper f or manceofaschool ,di s t r i ctorgr oupofst udent s.Whi l eachi evementi sf oc usedont heper f or manceatapoi nti nt i me,gr owt hpr ov i desani ndi c at i onof whathappensi nbet weent heas s essment s.Looki ngatbot hachi evementandgr owt hr es ul t spr ovi desamor ei ndept hpi ct ur eofper f or mance. Gr owt hr at esf ori ndi v i dual s t udent sar ecal cul at edbyanal yzi ngst udent s ’ Col or adoMeasur esofAcademi cSuc cess( CMAS)s cor esi nEngl i shLanguageAr t sandMat hoverc ons ec ut i v ey ear s .A s t udent ' sgr owt hper c ent i l e( r angi ngf r om 1t o99)i ndi cat eshowast udent ’ sper f or mancechangedovert i me,r el at i vet ost udent swi t hasi mi l arscor ehi st or yont hes t at eas sessment s .Sc hool anddi s t r i c t gr owt hr at esar edet er mi nedbyt hegr owt hper cent i l esf r om i ndi vi dual st udent s ,speci f i cal l yt hemedi an( ors cor ei nt hemi ddl e)st udentgr owt hper cent i l e.Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l es( MGP)ar e c al c ul at edf ort hewhol es c hool ,bygr ade,andbydi f f er entst udentgr oups.Hi ghermedi angr owt hper cent i l esi ndi cat ehi ghergr owt hr at esf ort het ypi cal st udent si nt hosegr oups .Pl eas enot et hatgr owt h r at esar ei ndependentofac hi ev ementl ev el s( s t udent satal l ac hi evementl ev el sar ej ustasl i kel yt ohavehi ghgr owt hasl owgr owt h) .Asapoi ntofr ef er ence,t hes t at emedi angr owt hper c ent i l ef orany gr ade,ov er al l ,i s50.I nr ar ec as es ,s t at emedi angr owt hper cent i l esmayvar ys l i ght l y. Mi s s i ngdat ai nt het abl er ef l ec tf ewert han20s t udent si nt hegr oup;t hei rdat ai snots howni nt het abl e( t hec el l sar ebl ank)t oensur edat apr i vacyandappr 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. s t at e. co. us/ acc ount abi l i t y/ c ol or adogr owt hmodel Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e 1. 0 99. 0 ENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS MATH DI STRI CT STATE DI STRI CT STATE 2016 2016 2016 2016 Al l St udent s 42. 0 50. 0 37. 0 50. 0 Engl i shLear ner s ,No 40. 0 50. 0 37. 0 51. 0 Engl i shLear ner s ,Yes 43. 0 50. 0 38. 0 47. 0 Et hni ci t y,Amer i c anI ndi anorAl as kaNat i ve 35. 0 47. 0 24. 5 46. 0 50 59. 0 Et hni ci t y,Asi an Et hni ci t y,Bl ac k 32. 0 48. 0 59. 0 38. 5 50. 0 Et hni ci t y,Hawai i an/ Pac i f i cI sl ander 46. 0 53. 0 Et hni ci t y,Hi spani c 42. 0 48. 0 37. 0 46. 0 Et hni ci t y,TwoorMor eRaces 48. 0 51. 0 27. 0 51. 0 Et hni ci t y,Whi t e 45. 0 51. 0 38. 0 53. 0 FRL,No 46. 0 52. 0 36. 0 53. 0 FRL,Yes 41. 0 47. 0 37. 0 46. 0 Gender ,Femal e 47. 0 55. 0 39. 0 51. 0 Gender ,Mal e 38. 0 45. 0 35. 0 49. 0 Gi f t ed,No 41. 0 49. 0 37. 0 49. 0 Gi f t ed,Yes 55. 0 60. 0 47. 0 60. 0 Gr ade,04 37. 0 50. 0 30. 0 50. 0 Gr ade,05 38. 0 50. 0 26. 0 50. 0 Gr ade,06 38. 0 50. 0 39. 0 50. 0 Gr ade,07 45. 0 50. 0 52. 0 50. 0 Gr ade,08 52. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 Gr ade,09 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 49. 0 I EP,No 44. 0 51. 0 38. 0 51. 0 I EP,Yes 30. 0 38. 0 32. 0 40. 0 Mi gr ant ,No 42. 0 50. 0 37. 0 50. 0 45. 0 Mi gr ant ,Yes 42. 0 Mi nor i t y,No 45. 0 51. 0 38. 0 53. 0 Mi nor i t y,Yes 41. 0 49. 0 37. 0 47. 0 Per f or mance,AtorAbov eBenchmar k 42. 0 50. 0 32. 0 50. 0 Per f or mance,Bel owBenc hmar k 42. 0 50. 0 38. 0 50. 0 ADAMSCOUNTY14 POSTSECONDARYWORKFORCEREADI NESS Gr aduat i onandCompl et i onRat es Col or adocal c ul at es‘ ont i me’ gr aduat i onast heper centofst udent swhogr aduat ef r om hi ghs chool f ouryear saf t erent er i ngni nt hgr ade.Ther at espr es ent edi nt hi sr epor tr ef l ectt hebestoft he4,5, 6,and7yeargr aduat i onr at esatt heover al l anddi saggr egat edl evel s,basedonendofyearst at es ubmi ss i onr epor t i ng.Thef our yearr at ef ort hi sr epor ti sbas edon2015gr aduat es.Forgr aduat i on, oraddi t i onal i nf or mat i on. ELLst udent si nc l udeonl yNEPandLEP.Pl easevi si tt hedepar t ment ' swebsi t eatht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us / c der eval / gr adcur r ent def i ni t i ons #st has h. asD4R2qV. dpuff Theor angel i ner epr es ent st hes t at eav er agef oreachy ear . ELL:Engl i s hLanguageLear ner s FRL:Fr eeandReducedLuchEl i gi bl e I EP:Speci al educat i onst udent son i ndi vi dual i zededuc at i onpl an MI N:Mi nor i t yst udent s GRADUATI ON St udentGr oup ALL COMPLETI ON FRL I EP 69. 4% 70. 1% 65. 9% 70. 9% 74. 5% 64. 2% 72. 8% 73. 6% 60. 9% 71. 5% 72. 4% 67. 9% 73. 3% 77. 0% 65. 0% 74. 3% MI N 75. 8% 2015 2014 59. 4% 2016 Cl assof 2013 ELL 65. 8% 67. 3% 4 5 6 7 4 Dr opoutRat es Theper c ent ageofst udent senr ol l edi ngr ades712whol eaveschool dur i ngasi ngl eyear .I ti s cal cul at edbydi vi di ngt henumberofdr opout sbyamember shi pbase,whi chi ncl udesal l st udent s whower ei nt hemember s hi panyt i medur i ngt heyearanddi dnotenr ol l i nadi f f er entCol or ado school . 8. 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 Educat i on( CTE)pr ogr am,2Year Hi gherEducat i onI ns t i t ut i on,or4YearHi gherEducat i onI nst i t ut i ondur i ngt hesubs equentac ademi c year .Ther at eal s oi ncl udesal l hi ghschool gr aduat est hatear nedaCar eer&Techni c al Educat i on c er t i f i cat eorac ol l egedegr eewhi l et heywer es t i l l enr ol l edi nhi ghs chool .Themat r i c ul at i ondat a i ncl udesbot hi nst at eandout of st 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% 6. 0% 50. 0% 4. 0% 2016 18. 3% 18. 5% 2015 8. 2% 2015 13. 6% 2014 6. 9% 2014 7. 8% 2015 6. 0% 2013 2. 7% 2014 5. 0% 2012 2. 0% 2015 6. 3% 33. 7% 2014 0. 0% 27. 6% 2015 0. 0% 2014 2. 0% ADAMSCOUNTY14 FI SCAL Col or adopubl i cschool sr ec ei v ef undi ngf r om avar i et yofsour c es .However ,al ar gepor t i onofr evenuest oCol or ado' s178school di st r i ct sar epr ov i dedt hr ough t hePubl i cSchool Fi nanceAc tof1994.Thet ot al amountofmoneyeachschool di st r i ctr ecei vesundert hi sActi sr ef er r edt oas“ t ot al pr ogr am. ”Thedat abel ow out l i nest het ot al pr ogr am f undi ngpr ov i dedt odi st r i ct s. Pl easevi si tt hedepar t ment ’ swebsi t eat :ht t ps : / / edx. cde. s t at e. c o. us/ School Vi ew/ Dat aCent er / r epor t s. j spx?_adf _ct r l st at e=pac20phbp_4&_af r Wi ndowMode=0&_af r Loop=2256883354326300&_adf . c t r l s t at e=10s z 0uwf m9_4f ori nf or mat i onshowi ngal l f undi ngsour cesf ordi st r i ct s. Pupi l Count FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Tot al FundedPupi l Count 7, 221 7, 458 7, 737 8, 066 8, 128 At Ri skPupi l Count 5, 628 5, 745 5, 862 5, 244 5, 885 0 0 0 2 3 292 292 296 473 471 0 0 0 0 0 ASCENTPupi l Count Col or adoPr es chool Pr ogr am CountFTE Mul t i Di st r i ctOnl i nePupi l Count Publ i cSchool Fi nanceActFundi ng FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Tot al Pr ogr am Bef or eNegat i veFact or $57, 184, 993. 15 $61, 026, 043. 14 $64, 263, 918. 50 $66, 908, 984. 64 $70, 826, 989. 52 Negat i veFact or ( $7, 396, 710. 27) ( $9, 820, 776. 63) ( $9, 910, 019. 44) ( $8, 676, 153. 84) ( $8, 378, 796. 23) Tot al Pr ogr am Af t erNegat i veFac t or $49, 788, 282. 88 $51, 205, 266. 51 $54, 353, 899. 06 $58, 232, 830. 80 $62, 448, 193. 29 Pr oper t yTaxes $13, 747, 723. 64 $13, 957, 483. 99 $15, 172, 014. 35 $15, 114, 488. 59 $15, 817, 961. 06 $969, 303. 75 $916, 476. 95 $997, 781. 90 $1, 187, 362. 11 $1, 291, 659. 38 $35, 071, 255. 49 $36, 331, 305. 57 $38, 184, 102. 81 $41, 930, 980. 10 $45, 338, 572. 85 Per Pupi l Fundi ngBef or eNegat i v eFact or $7, 918. 82 $8, 182. 74 $8, 306. 27 $8, 295. 39 $8, 713. 52 PerPupi l Fundi ngAf t erNegat i veFac t or $6, 894. 55 $6, 865. 91 $7, 025. 37 $7, 219. 72 $7, 682. 72 Speci f i cOwner shi pTaxes St at eShar e St at eandLocal Shar e/AsPer cent age Fi scal Year Fi scal Year FY12 29. 56% 70. 44% FY13 29. 05% 70. 95% FY14 29. 75% 70. 25% FY15 27. 99% 72. 01% FY16 27. 40% 72. 60% Loc al Shar e PerPupi l Fundi ngBef or eandAf t erNegat i veFac t or St at eShar e Per Pupi l Fundi ngBef or eNegat i v eFac t or PerPupi l Fundi ngAf t erNegat i v eFac t or FY12 FY13 8, 306 8, 183 7, 919 6, 895 FY14 6, 866 FY15 8, 714 8, 295 7, 025 FY16 7, 220 7, 683 ACCOUNTABI LI TY SELECTADI STRI CT Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont hi st abwi l l notbeupdat edwi t hnewdat ai n201516,butwi l l r emai ni nt hedas hboar df orr ef er enc e.Bec aus eoft hes t at e assessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,s c hool ac c ount abi l i t ymeas ur esar eaf f ec t ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebs i t epr ov i desaddi t i onal det ai l sont he account abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on:ht t p: / / www. c de. s t at e. c o. us / ac c ount abi l i t y / i mpac t of as s es s ment t r ans i t i onons c hool anddi s t r i c t ac c ount abi l i t y ADAMSCOUNTY14 Sel ectaDat aTi meSpan Thebel owt abl ei ndi cat est hepl ant y peus ed( 1y earor3y ear ) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1Year 1Year 1Year 1Year 1Year 2010 2011 1Year DPFAc c r edi t at i onRat i ng 2012 Sc hool Pl anTy pe( I nc l udi ngAECs,onl yof f i c i al r es ul t s) 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 1 4 5 1 1 6 2 2 0 5 5 1 School s:Tur nar ound Tur nar ound Tur nar ound Pr i or i t y I mpr ovement Tur nar ound School s:Pr i or i t yI mpr ovement Tur nar ound School s:I mpr ovement School s:Per f or mance DPF% Poi nt sEar ned 37. 8 37. 6 39. 5 YearEnt er i ngPr i or i t yI mpr ov ementorTur nar ound 44. 0 41. 9 Year5 DPFKeyI ndi cat orRat i ngsOver al l Numberi ndi cat esper c ent agepoi nt sear nedonkeyi ndi cat or .Col orofbarr epr esent sk eyper f or manc ei ndi c at orr at i ng.Dr opdownmenuatt opofpagei ndi c at esdat at i mes pan.Dat a Sour ce:Di st r i ctPer f or manceFr amewor k Appr oachi ng Meet s Gr owt h% Achi ev ement% 44. 4 46. 4 42. 2 40. 6 42. 2 Uset hePer f or manceTabf ori nt er ac t i v edi agnos t i con gr owt hgaps.Vi ewmedi anandadequat egr owt h per cent i l ebysubgr oup,byEMHl ev el ,andbys ubj ec t f or20082012academi cyear s. MGP-Mat h 2014 35 31 2013 2011 2010 2014 2013 MGP-Wr i t e 2012 44 36 40 MGP-ELP 68 MGP-Wr i t e 2014 47 48 2013 2011 2012 57 56 53 2010 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 MGP-Mat h 44 2014 50 52 2013 58 52 52 2012 62 2010 2014 MGP-ELP 51 2012 43 2011 38 2010 46 2014 2011 2013 42 39 42 2012 37 MGP-Wr i t e 40 MGP-Read MGP-ELP 2013 2012 2011 2010 40 33 2014 41 2014 46 2013 2010 2012 36 35 38 2011 35 34 2014 27 2012 2011 2010 36 36 2013 62 47 40 43 36 39 2014 HI GH MGP-Mat h 2010 2014 2013 2012 43 56 52 2013 49 51 2013 2013 20. 8 2013 2014 19. 1 2012 37 2012 29. 9 2012 MI DDLE 26. 3 2011 2014 28. 7 26. 1 2010 17. 6 47 48 MGP-Read Ac h-Sc i enc e 12. 1 40 2011 ELEMENTARY 15. 1 2014 2013 23. 5 18. 3 2011 2012 21. 2 2010 MGP-Read Ac h-Sci enc e 2011 28. 1 Gr owt hGapsDat a 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Gr owt hDat abyEMHLevel Ach-Sc i ence 2010 27. 6 2014 38. 7 34. 6 2014 28. 1 21. 1 2012 26. 4 20. 8 2011 2014 16. 6 2010 2013 13. 8 2014 9. 5 2012 13. 6 11. 2 2011 2013 30. 5 2012 33. 5 2010 Ac h-Wr i t e 2013 10. 4 2010 2013 34. 4 32. 4 2012 30. 4 2011 2010 32. 6 2014 36. 9 36. 0 30. 8 2013 2012 Ach-Mat h 2011 44. 4 2013 2014 39. 3 39. 0 2012 44. 6 43. 3 2010 36. 7 34. 9 2011 44. 7 2014 Ach-Wr i t e 41. 3 2014 43. 2 2013 38. 9 39. 2 2011 2012 36. 1 2010 Ach-Wr i t e Ach-Mat h 2010 46. 9 2013 39. 8 2012 48. 3 45. 0 2011 2010 MI DDLE HI GH 2011 45. 4 2014 50. 0 48. 7 46. 3 2013 2012 44. 4 2011 2010 ELEMENTARY Ach-Mat h Uset hePer f or manc eTab 33. 3 Medi ans t udentgr owt hper c ent i l e.Col orofbarr epr es ent sr at i ngf ors ubi ndi c at or .Dr op downmenuatt opofpagei ndi c at esdat at i mes pan.MAGPc anbef oundonPer f or mance t ab.Dat aSour c e:Di s t r i c tPer f or manc eFr amewor k 2011 Achi evementDat abyEMHLevel Ac h-Read 33. 3 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2012 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Per centofst udent ss c or i ngPr of i c i entandAdvanced.Col orofbarr epr esent sr at i ngf or subi ndi c at or .Dr opdownmenuatt opofpagei ndi cat esdat at i mespan.Dat aSour ce: Di s t r i c tPer f or manceFr amewor k Ac h-Read 47. 2 38. 3 25. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ac h-Read Pos t s ec ondar y% 48. 9 41. 7 41. 1 2011 25. 0 50. 0 45. 2 2010 27. 1 29. 2 44. 4 Gr owt hGaps% 2010 29. 2 Hov erov erbar st ov i ewi ndi c at orr at i ngorus ec ol orc odi ng. Exceeds 2010 DoesNotMeet PostSecondar yandWor kf or ceReadi nessDat a 2010 2011 2012 Gr adRat i ng DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet Appr oachi ng Dr opoutRat i ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng 2013 2014 Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng ACTRat i ng DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet DoesNotMeet PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh 50 44. 5 43. 8 43. 0 40 43. 4 40. 9 39. 5 39. 3 38. 2 37. 2 44. 6 44. 6 43. 3 Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s ELL FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 30 Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 13. 4 15. 2 11. 7 10 ELL FRL I EP 8. 5 8. 2 201112 201213 Mi nor i t y 0 200910 201011 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 00 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s 50 ELL 40 36. 6 34. 0 30 34. 0 FRL 36. 1 35. 7 31. 0 35. 6 30. 2 I EP 32. 7 31. 931. 8 Mi nor i t y Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 ELL FRL 10 5. 5 5. 6 3. 1 5. 4 I EP 5. 1 Mi nor i t y 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 000 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s 50 ELL 40 FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 30 Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 9. 9 9. 3 8. 6 10 2. 2 0 200910 10. 5 10. 0 1. 1 201011 10. 0 8. 8 13. 3 11. 7 0. 0 0. 0 201112 201213 14. 1 14. 0 13. 1 ELL FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 0. 0 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 00 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh 49. 0 50 44. 4 43. 1 39. 6 40 46. 0 50. 1 45. 7 46. 9 43. 2 45. 4 42. 4 Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s ELL FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 30 Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 ELL 11. 7 10 11. 7 8. 8 FRL 8. 8 Mi nor i t y 5. 1 0 200910 201011 201112 I EP 201213 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 000 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh 50 48. 3 44. 4 42. 3 40 46. 9 44. 9 39. 9 43. 8 45. 0 41. 7 Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s ELL FRL I EP 36. 3 Mi nor i t y 30 Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 13. 9 10 7. 4 FRL I EP 7. 3 6. 9 201011 201112 0 200910 ELL 13. 1 Mi nor i t y 201213 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 00 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s 50 42. 5 40 35. 435. 4 34. 4 31. 2 30 38. 3 33. 6 6 38. 238. 41. 3 40. 840. 6 38. 2 36. 9 ELL FRL I EP Mi nor i t y Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 ELL FRL 10 5. 4 0 200910 2. 1 2. 7 2. 8 201011 201112 201213 7. 8 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 00 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s 50 ELL 40 34. 6 30. 4 30 31. 4 27. 7 FRL I EP 32. 5 30. 4 28. 1 26. 1 28. 1 28. 1 27. 627. 3 20 Mi nor i t y Var i abl e Al l St udent s ELL FRL 10 4. 1 0 200910 2. 8 4. 0 4. 1 201011 201112 201213 I EP 3. 9 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 00 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s 50 38. 7 37. 3 40 33. 5 30 35. 0 30. 7 30. 6 37. 7 30. 5 ELL 36. 8 FRL 34. 8 33. 6 I EP Mi nor i t y Var i abl e Al l St udent s 20 ELL FRL 10 2. 5 0 200910 3. 4 4. 0 3. 8 201011 I EP 6. 6 201112 201213 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 000 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e PERFORMANCE SELECTADI STRI CT ADAMSCOUNTY14 Dat aTi meSpan: ( s el ec t3Yeari fnodat aappear s ) 1Year Pl easenot et hatt hedi spl aysont 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.Becauseoft hest at eassessmentt r ansi t i onandt hepassageofH. B.151323,school account abi l i t ymeasur es ar eaf f ect ed.Thef ol l owi ngwebsi t epr ovi desaddi t i onal det ai l sont heaccount abi l i t ysyst em dur i ngt het r ansi t i on: ht t p: / / www. cde. st at e. co. us/ account abi l i t y/ i mpact of assessment t r ansi t i ononschool anddi s t r i ct account abi l i t y 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 c i entandadvanc edbysubgr oup. Res ul t swi t hi nt hes hadedar eadonotmeetst at eexpec t at i ons. Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal c ul at ed;Di st r i ctl ev el i nc l usi on/ ex cl usi on Uset hequi ckf i l t er st ocont r ol what dat ai sshownont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 90 Readi ng 80 Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 70 B.Mi ddl e 60 C.Hi gh Sel ectSubgr oups: ( choosemul t i pl e) Al l St udent s 50 ELL 40 FRL I EP 30 25. 9 20. 3 20 16. 2 12. 9 10 17. 0 20. 8 19. 9 8 27. 627. 27. 1 27. 0 23. 0 Mi nor i t y Var i abl e Al l St udent s ELL FRL I EP 1. 1 0 200910 0. 0 0. 0 201011 201112 1. 9 201213 2. 9 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 ev el . Dat aSour c e:Dat aLab&CDECal cul at ed;Di s t r i ctl evel i ncl usi on/ ex cl us i on FRL Uset hequi c kf i l t er st o cont r ol whatdat ai sshown ont hechar t . 100 Sel ectaSubj ect : ( chooseone) Mat h 80 Readi ng Gr owt hPer cent i l e Wr i t i ng Sel ectanEMHLevel : ( chooseone) A.El ement ar y 60 50. 000 B.Mi ddl e C.Hi gh 40 Sel ectaSubgr oup: ( chooseone) Al l St udent s ELL FRL 20 I EP Mi nor i t y MGPMAGPCol orKey: Medi anAdequat eGr owt hP. . 0 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Medi anGr owt hPer cent i l e Adams City High School Data SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 1, 665 1, 695 1, 689 200910 201011 201112 1, 515 200809 201213 ENROLLMENTBYETHNI CI TY 201112 201213 201314 1, 749 1, 783 1, 782 201314 201415 201516 1, 748 ENROLLMENTBYSTUDENTGROUP 201415 201516 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 26. 2% 27. 7% 27. 4% 22. 8% 28. 5% 100. 0% Engl i sh Lear ner s Per cent 80. 0% Fr eeand Reduced Lunch Per cent Per cent 60. 0% 83. 2% 82. 8% 83. 1% 83. 1% 83. 7% Speci al Educat i on Per cent 40. 0% 80. 8% 75. 1% 77. 4% 12. 0% 10. 5% 11. 5% 67. 1% 81. 1% 10. 7% 10. 1% 7. 3% 8. 4% 20. 0% Gi f t edPer cent 0. 0% 12. 4% 12. 4% Per centOt her 12. 7% 12. 6% Per c entBl ac k 4. 4% 5. 6% 6. 3% 12. 1% Per centHi 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 31. 0 85. 9% 86. 3% 85. 9% 86. 9% 87. 3% 28. 0 20. 5 13. 7 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 201011 201112 201213 14. 8 201314 201415 SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 ASSESSMENTDATA-SCHOOLRESULTS Par t i cpat i onCol orKey 95% orgr eat er ,Hi ghPar t i cpat i on NoPar t i c i pat i onDat a CATEGORY ALLSTUDENTS CMASPARCC-MATHANDENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS Thef ol l owi ngv i s ual di spl ay sCMASPARCCmeanscal escor 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 cal l i nei nor ange,( 2)school meanscal 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 heass es sment s,andl ast l y( 4)col orbandt hati dent i f i esscor esmeet i ngassess mentbenchmar k/ st at est andar ds. ENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS ALLGRADES ALLSTUDENTS MATH 722 650 700 715 750 MeanSc al eSc or e 800 850650 700 750 MeanScal eSc or e 800 850 CMAS-SCI ENCE Thef ol l owi ngv i sual di s pl ay sofCMASSsci encemeanscal escor 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 escor epr esent edasapl ussi 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 578 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 MeanSc al eScor e 700 750 800 COLORADO ACT 2012 15. 6 STUDENTS 2013 16. 2 2014 16. 1 2015 15. 9 2016 10 15 COMPOSI TE ENGLI SH MATH READI NG SCI ENCE 16. 6 5 900 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 chool ' sACTr esul t sandt heor angel i nesr epr esentt hest at eaver age.Forgr oupst hatmeett hemi ni mum Ncountt hr eshol d( i . e. ,atl east16st udent st ookand r ecei v edaval i dt es tsc or e) ,t her esul t sar edi spl ayedbel ow.Cur sormouseovereac hbart oseedet ai l edr esul t s . COMPOSI TE AL L 850 20 25 30 35 SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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. co. us/ ac count abi l i t y/ col 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 45. 0 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 33. 0 49. 0 GRADELEVEL 09 45. 0 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 33. 0 49. 0 ENGLI SHLEARNERS Engl i shLear ner s( NEP,LEP,FEP) 46. 0 46. 0 51. 0 34. 0 34. 0 49. 0 NonEngl i shLear ner s 44. 0 44. 5 50. 0 32. 0 32. 0 49. 0 FREEANDREDUCED LUNCH( FRL) FRLEl i gi bl e 44. 5 45. 0 48. 0 32. 0 32. 0 47. 0 NonFRL 46. 0 46. 0 51. 0 41. 0 41. 0 52. 0 GENDER Femal e 47. 0 47. 0 54. 0 33. 5 33. 5 51. 0 Mal e 44. 0 44. 0 46. 0 33. 0 33. 0 48. 0 Gi f t edandTal ent ed 67. 0 67. 0 61. 0 14. 0 14. 0 58. 0 NonGi f t edandTal ent ed 43. 5 43. 5 48. 0 34. 0 34. 0 49. 0 I NDI VI DUALI ZED EDUCATI ONPLAN( I EP) OnI EP 46. 5 46. 5 43. 0 32. 5 32. 5 41. 0 NonI EP 44. 5 45. 0 51. 0 33. 0 33. 0 51. 0 MI GRANT Mi gr ant GI FTED MI NORI TY PERFORMANCELEVEL RACE/ ETHNI CI TY 45. 0 52. 0 NonMi gr ant 45. 0 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 33. 0 49. 0 Mi nor i t y 44. 0 44. 0 49. 0 34. 0 34. 0 48. 0 NonMi nor i t y 49. 5 51. 0 51. 0 31. 0 31. 0 51. 0 AtorAboveBenchmar k 46. 0 46. 0 50. 0 10. 5 10. 5 48. 0 Bel ow Benchmar k 44. 0 44. 0 50. 0 35. 0 35. 0 50. 0 Amer i canI ndi anorAl askaNat i ve 47. 0 43. 0 Asi an 60. 0 58. 0 Bl ack 49. 0 48. 0 Hi spani c 44. 0 44. 0 48. 0 33. 5 33. 5 47. 0 Whi t e 49. 5 51. 0 51. 0 31. 0 31. 0 51. 0 Hawai i an/ Paci f i cI sl ander 50. 0 48. 5 TwoorMor eRaces 52. 0 51. 0 SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 ec tt 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 sbasedon 2015gr aduat es.Forgr aduat i on,ELLs t 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 hes t at eav er agef oreachy ear . ELL:Engl i shLanguageLear ner s FRL:Fr eeandReduc edLuc 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 82. 0% 83. 2% 78. 8% 84. 4% 86. 1% 73. 0% 81. 0% 86. 3% 68. 3% 83. 1% 84. 4% 79. 3% 84. 9% 86. 4% 73. 5% 82. 1% 87. 2% MI N 201415 201314 67. 8% 201516 Cl assof 201213 ALL 79. 0% 79. 2% 4 5 6 7 4 Dr opoutRat es Theper cent ageofs t udent senr ol l edi ngr ades712whol eaveschool dur i ngasi ngl ey ear .I ti s cal cul at edbydi vi di ngt henumberofdr opout sbyamember shi pbase,whi chi ncl udesal l st udent s whower ei nt hemember s hi panyt i medur i ngt heyearanddi dnotenr ol l i nadi f f er entCol or ado school . 6. 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&Tec hni 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. . 80. 0% 4. 0% 60. 0% 40. 0% 2. 0% 20. 0% 0. 0% 3. 3% 2. 3% 4. 8% 5. 6% 6. 3% 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 0. 0% 38. 8% 3. 1% 14. 2% 22. 8% 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 ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 Tur nar ound Pl an D.HI GH 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 NO NO NO NO 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 I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement 2010 2011 A.OVERALL D.HI GH SPF% Poi nt sEar ned 2010 2011 A.OVERALL D.HI GH 34. 6 34. 9 2012 2013 2014 33. 6 41. 7 36. 9 33. 6 41. 7 36. 9 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% Gr owt hGaps% 42. 9 D.HI GH 25. 0 25. 0 32. 1 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 33. 3 32. 1 42. 2 40. 0 32. 1 48. 4 48. 4 48. 4 48. 4 2013 2014 33. 3 25. 0 42. 9 33. 3 Post secondar y% 40. 0 32. 1 31. 7 30. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 41. 7 41. 7 42. 2 2010 2011 2012 33. 3 25. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Achi evementDat a Gr owt hDat a Per centofst 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 Ac h-Read Ac h-Mat h Ac h-Wr i t e Ac h-S c i enc e MGP-Read MGP-Mat h MGP-Wr i t e MGP-ELP 45 37 36 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2014 35 36 31 27 34 36 35 41 47 39 44 37 D.HI GH 40 2010 21. 3 2014 19. 6 2013 18. 4 2012 2010 40 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 agnos t i congr owt h gaps .Vi ewmedi anandadequat e gr owt hper c ent i l ebys ubgr oup, byEMHl ev el ,andbys ubj ec tf or 20082014academi cy ear s . 2011 28. 7 2014 2013 12. 7 26. 6 21. 4 21. 1 2012 17. 0 2011 14. 1 2014 2010 13. 7 2013 11. 4 9. 8 2011 2012 10. 7 2010 43. 6 41. 6 2014 2013 40. 1 38. 9 2012 2011 D.HI GH 2010 36. 6 63 Gr aduat i onRat i ng 2010 Appr oachi ng 2011 Appr oachi ng 2012 Appr oachi ng 2013 Appr oac hi ng 2014 Appr oachi ng Dr opoutRat i ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Meet s Meet s ACTRat i 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 . . ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 8. 8 8. 4 8. 0 0. 0 9. 6 200809 200910 2. 2 10. 8 10. 2 10. 1 1. 1 9. 1 0. 0 201011 201112 13. 7 11. 7 0. 0 201213 14. 4 14. 2 13. 4 0. 0 ELL 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 Mi nor i t y 30 Gr owt hCol orKey Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . 20 34 35 200809 200910 35 36 35 201213 201314 27 10 0 201011 201112 Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 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 . . ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 40. 0 30. 0 40. 0 36. 0 33. 1 31. 6 39. 5 34. 0 42. 8 38. 6 41. 5 41. 2 38. 4 FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 37. 1 Subgr oupCol orKey Al l St udent s 20. 0 10. 0 ELL FRL 13. 0 5. 4 0. 0 200809 200910 2. 3 2. 8 2. 9 201011 201112 201213 7. 1 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 Mi nor i t y 30 20 Gr owt hCol orKey 36 41 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . 47 44 38 36 10 0 200809 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 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 . . ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 26. 0 19. 0 17. 0 16. 6 17. 3 20. 8 20. 0 23. 1 0. 0 200809 Subgr oupCol orKey Al l St udent s ELL FRL 13. 1 10. 0 0. 0 21. 1 28. 5 28. 1 27. 4 I EP 1. 1 0. 0 0. 0 200910 201011 201112 1. 9 201213 3. 1 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 20 Gr owt hCol orKey 33 37 36 38 200910 201011 201112 46 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . 41 10 0 200809 201213 201314 Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 1, 665 1, 695 1, 689 200910 201011 201112 1, 515 200809 201213 ENROLLMENTBYETHNI CI TY 201112 201213 201314 1, 749 1, 783 1, 782 201314 201415 201516 1, 748 ENROLLMENTBYSTUDENTGROUP 201415 201516 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 26. 2% 27. 7% 27. 4% 22. 8% 28. 5% 100. 0% Engl i sh Lear ner s Per cent 80. 0% Fr eeand Reduced Lunch Per cent Per cent 60. 0% 83. 2% 82. 8% 83. 1% 83. 1% 83. 7% Speci al Educat i on Per cent 40. 0% 80. 8% 75. 1% 77. 4% 12. 0% 10. 5% 11. 5% 67. 1% 81. 1% 10. 7% 10. 1% 7. 3% 8. 4% 20. 0% Gi f t edPer cent 0. 0% 12. 4% 12. 4% Per centOt her 12. 7% 12. 6% Per c entBl ac k 4. 4% 5. 6% 6. 3% 12. 1% Per centHi 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 31. 0 85. 9% 86. 3% 85. 9% 86. 9% 87. 3% 28. 0 20. 5 13. 7 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 201011 201112 201213 14. 8 201314 201415 SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 ASSESSMENTDATA-SCHOOLRESULTS Par t i cpat i onCol orKey 95% orgr eat er ,Hi ghPar t i cpat i on NoPar t i c i pat i onDat a CATEGORY ALLSTUDENTS CMASPARCC-MATHANDENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS Thef ol l owi ngv i s ual di spl ay sCMASPARCCmeanscal escor 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 cal l i nei nor ange,( 2)school meanscal 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 heass es sment s,andl ast l y( 4)col orbandt hati dent i f i esscor esmeet i ngassess mentbenchmar k/ st at est andar ds. ENGLI SHLANGUAGEARTS ALLGRADES ALLSTUDENTS MATH 722 650 700 715 750 MeanSc al eSc or e 800 850650 700 750 MeanScal eSc or e 800 850 CMAS-SCI ENCE Thef ol l owi ngv i sual di s pl ay sofCMASSsci encemeanscal escor 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 escor epr esent edasapl ussi 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 578 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 MeanSc al eScor e 700 750 800 COLORADO ACT 2012 15. 6 STUDENTS 2013 16. 2 2014 16. 1 2015 15. 9 2016 10 15 COMPOSI TE ENGLI SH MATH READI NG SCI ENCE 16. 6 5 900 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 chool ' sACTr esul t sandt heor angel i nesr epr esentt hest at eaver age.Forgr oupst hatmeett hemi ni mum Ncountt hr eshol d( i . e. ,atl east16st udent st ookand r ecei v edaval i dt es tsc or e) ,t her esul t sar edi spl ayedbel ow.Cur sormouseovereac hbart oseedet ai l edr esul t s . COMPOSI TE AL L 850 20 25 30 35 SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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. co. us/ ac count abi l i t y/ col 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 45. 0 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 33. 0 49. 0 GRADELEVEL 09 45. 0 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 33. 0 49. 0 ENGLI SHLEARNERS Engl i shLear ner s( NEP,LEP,FEP) 46. 0 46. 0 51. 0 34. 0 34. 0 49. 0 NonEngl i shLear ner s 44. 0 44. 5 50. 0 32. 0 32. 0 49. 0 FREEANDREDUCED LUNCH( FRL) FRLEl i gi bl e 44. 5 45. 0 48. 0 32. 0 32. 0 47. 0 NonFRL 46. 0 46. 0 51. 0 41. 0 41. 0 52. 0 GENDER Femal e 47. 0 47. 0 54. 0 33. 5 33. 5 51. 0 Mal e 44. 0 44. 0 46. 0 33. 0 33. 0 48. 0 Gi f t edandTal ent ed 67. 0 67. 0 61. 0 14. 0 14. 0 58. 0 NonGi f t edandTal ent ed 43. 5 43. 5 48. 0 34. 0 34. 0 49. 0 I NDI VI DUALI ZED EDUCATI ONPLAN( I EP) OnI EP 46. 5 46. 5 43. 0 32. 5 32. 5 41. 0 NonI EP 44. 5 45. 0 51. 0 33. 0 33. 0 51. 0 MI GRANT Mi gr ant GI FTED MI NORI TY PERFORMANCELEVEL RACE/ ETHNI CI TY 45. 0 52. 0 NonMi gr ant 45. 0 45. 0 50. 0 33. 0 33. 0 49. 0 Mi nor i t y 44. 0 44. 0 49. 0 34. 0 34. 0 48. 0 NonMi nor i t y 49. 5 51. 0 51. 0 31. 0 31. 0 51. 0 AtorAboveBenchmar k 46. 0 46. 0 50. 0 10. 5 10. 5 48. 0 Bel ow Benchmar k 44. 0 44. 0 50. 0 35. 0 35. 0 50. 0 Amer i canI ndi anorAl askaNat i ve 47. 0 43. 0 Asi an 60. 0 58. 0 Bl ack 49. 0 48. 0 Hi spani c 44. 0 44. 0 48. 0 33. 5 33. 5 47. 0 Whi t e 49. 5 51. 0 51. 0 31. 0 31. 0 51. 0 Hawai i an/ Paci f i cI sl ander 50. 0 48. 5 TwoorMor eRaces 52. 0 51. 0 SELECTASCHOOL ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 ec tt 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 sbasedon 2015gr aduat es.Forgr aduat i on,ELLs t 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 hes t at eav er agef oreachy ear . ELL:Engl i shLanguageLear ner s FRL:Fr eeandReduc edLuc 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 82. 0% 83. 2% 78. 8% 84. 4% 86. 1% 73. 0% 81. 0% 86. 3% 68. 3% 83. 1% 84. 4% 79. 3% 84. 9% 86. 4% 73. 5% 82. 1% 87. 2% MI N 201415 201314 67. 8% 201516 Cl assof 201213 ALL 79. 0% 79. 2% 4 5 6 7 4 Dr opoutRat es Theper cent ageofs t udent senr ol l edi ngr ades712whol eaveschool dur i ngasi ngl ey ear .I ti s cal cul at edbydi vi di ngt henumberofdr opout sbyamember shi pbase,whi chi ncl udesal l st udent s whower ei nt hemember s hi panyt i medur i ngt heyearanddi dnotenr ol l i nadi f f er entCol or ado school . 6. 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&Tec hni 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. . 80. 0% 4. 0% 60. 0% 40. 0% 2. 0% 20. 0% 0. 0% 3. 3% 2. 3% 4. 8% 5. 6% 6. 3% 201112 201213 201314 201415 201516 0. 0% 38. 8% 3. 1% 14. 2% 22. 8% 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 ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 Tur nar ound Pl an D.HI GH 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 NO NO NO NO 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 I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement I mpr ovement 2010 2011 A.OVERALL D.HI GH SPF% Poi nt sEar ned 2010 2011 A.OVERALL D.HI GH 34. 6 34. 9 2012 2013 2014 33. 6 41. 7 36. 9 33. 6 41. 7 36. 9 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% Gr owt hGaps% 42. 9 D.HI GH 25. 0 25. 0 32. 1 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 33. 3 32. 1 42. 2 40. 0 32. 1 48. 4 48. 4 48. 4 48. 4 2013 2014 33. 3 25. 0 42. 9 33. 3 Post secondar y% 40. 0 32. 1 31. 7 30. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 41. 7 41. 7 42. 2 2010 2011 2012 33. 3 25. 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Achi evementDat a Gr owt hDat a Per centofst 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 Ac h-Read Ac h-Mat h Ac h-Wr i t e Ac h-S c i enc e MGP-Read MGP-Mat h MGP-Wr i t e MGP-ELP 45 37 36 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2014 2013 2012 2011 2014 35 36 31 27 34 36 35 41 47 39 44 37 D.HI GH 40 2010 21. 3 2014 19. 6 2013 18. 4 2012 2010 40 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 agnos t i congr owt h gaps .Vi ewmedi anandadequat e gr owt hper c ent i l ebys ubgr oup, byEMHl ev el ,andbys ubj ec tf or 20082014academi cy ear s . 2011 28. 7 2014 2013 12. 7 26. 6 21. 4 21. 1 2012 17. 0 2011 14. 1 2014 2010 13. 7 2013 11. 4 9. 8 2011 2012 10. 7 2010 43. 6 41. 6 2014 2013 40. 1 38. 9 2012 2011 D.HI GH 2010 36. 6 63 Gr aduat i onRat i ng 2010 Appr oachi ng 2011 Appr oachi ng 2012 Appr oachi ng 2013 Appr oac hi ng 2014 Appr oachi ng Dr opoutRat i ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Appr oachi ng Meet s Meet s ACTRat i 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 . . ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 8. 8 8. 4 8. 0 0. 0 9. 6 200809 200910 2. 2 10. 8 10. 2 10. 1 1. 1 9. 1 0. 0 201011 201112 13. 7 11. 7 0. 0 201213 14. 4 14. 2 13. 4 0. 0 ELL 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 Mi nor i t y 30 Gr owt hCol orKey Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . 20 34 35 200809 200910 35 36 35 201213 201314 27 10 0 201011 201112 Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 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 . . ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 40. 0 30. 0 40. 0 36. 0 33. 1 31. 6 39. 5 34. 0 42. 8 38. 6 41. 5 41. 2 38. 4 FRL I EP Mi nor i t y 37. 1 Subgr oupCol orKey Al l St udent s 20. 0 10. 0 ELL FRL 13. 0 5. 4 0. 0 200809 200910 2. 3 2. 8 2. 9 201011 201112 201213 7. 1 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 Mi nor i t y 30 20 Gr owt hCol orKey 36 41 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . 47 44 38 36 10 0 200809 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314 Adequat eGr owt hPer c. . 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 . . ADAMSCI TYHI GHSCHOOL-ADAMSCOUNTY14 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 26. 0 19. 0 17. 0 16. 6 17. 3 20. 8 20. 0 23. 1 0. 0 200809 Subgr oupCol orKey Al l St udent s ELL FRL 13. 1 10. 0 0. 0 21. 1 28. 5 28. 1 27. 4 I EP 1. 1 0. 0 0. 0 200910 201011 201112 1. 9 201213 3. 1 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 20 Gr owt hCol orKey 33 37 36 38 200910 201011 201112 46 Medi anGr owt hPer c en. . 41 10 0 200809 201213 201314 Adequat eGr owt hPer c. .