Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools

Thornton Middle School UIP 2024-25

      
 Download PDF

Content


  • Document icons and definitions

  • Priority Performance Challenges
  • Root Cause
  • Major Improvement Strategies
  • Action Steps
  • Progress Monitoring
  • Trend Direction

Executive Summary


Priority Performance Challenges Root Cause Major Improvement Strategies
  • Assessment Systems and Data Culture
    		•
  • Professional Learning Communities and Data Informed Instruction
    		•
  • Teacher Collaboration
  • Differentiated Professional Learning
    		•
  • Assessment Systems and Culture
    		•
  • Professional Learning Communities and Data Informed Instruction
    		•
  • Teacher Collaboration
  • Differentiated Professional Learning
    		•
  • Effective Student Supports and Culture
    		•
  • Student Engagement with School
    		•
  • Positive School Culture
    		•


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

    Access the Literacy Curriculum Transparency Dashboard here: https://www.cde.state.co.us/code/literacycurriculumtransparency-dashboard

    Improvement Plan Information


    Additional Information about the school


    Thornton Middle School serves 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at 9451 Hoffman Way, Thornton, CO 80229. We serve approximately 750 students. Our student population is diverse with 38% of our student population are multilingual students and 16% are students served by Individualized Education Plans. Approximately, 77% of our student body identify as Hispanic, and then we also have students who identify as white/caucasian, black/African American, Asian, Native Indian, Native Hawaiian and many that identify with multiple races/ethnicities. We focus on equity as a high priority. As a staff we created three commitments: 1. We are responsible for creating authentic, meaningful relationships that create a safe and inclusive learning environment. 2. We are accountable to be all in, all the time to close opportunity-gaps for our students and families. 3. It is our duty to cultivate a strong sense of belonging within the community for all students. We believe that relationships come first so that students feel safe at school, feel seen and heard. We actively engage and encourage students and staff to utilize restorative practices to help keep positive and healthy relationships with each other in order to ensure the most effective and safe learning environment. Additionally, we believe that students need to feel a sense of belonging and identity as a Thornton Middle School student. Our Mental Health team and teachers work collaboratively together to understand our student Panorama Survey results so that we can address teaching needed skills and leverage strengths within instruction. We provide a lot clubs/activities for students to join after school so that they can engage outside of the classroom with staff and peers in an area they feel excited or passionate about.

    Improvement Plan Information

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


    -->

    Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification


    Prior Year Targets

    Provide a summary of your progress in implementing the Major Improvement Strategies and if they had the intended effect on systems, adult actions, and student outcomes (e.g. targets).


    Based on your reflection and evaluation, provide a summary of the adjustments that you will make for this year's plan.

    Current Performance

    Math Growth and Achievement Student Performance Priority #1

    Historically, Thornton Middle School over the last 5+ years shows that we need to prioritize growth in Math. We believe that by reaching the 50th percentile in growth, achievement will also start to increase. We will never reach achievement if we are not ''growing'' our students’ knowledge and skills in relation to mathematics. We have collected multiple data points from MAP and CMAS testing that articulate our historical gaps.


    Evidence #1: Number of Students Historically that have performed at or above the 50th percentile for MAP Math, by grade level

    This bar graph illustrates a disaggregation by grade level, the number of students since 2020 that have performed at or above the 50th percentile for Math. This data was pulled from our data dashboard, Student Insights. When analyzing the percentage of students for each grade level, there is a decline from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2023-2024 school year that shows we have not recuperated since the pandemic. In 6th grade for the 2020-2021 school year we had 29% of students perform at or above the 50th percentile, while in the 2023-2024 school year only 21% of students in 6th grade performed at or above the 50th percentile. In 7th grade for the 20-21 school year 34% of students were at or above the 50th percentile, while for the 23-24 school year only 12% of students performed at or above the 50th percentile. In 8th there was a decline from the 20-21 school year to the 23-24 school year from 32% to 16% demonstrating at or above the 50th percentile.


    Evidence #2: Average RIT Score Math MAP

    This bar graph shows the average student RIT scores of all students, disaggregated by year on Math MAP historically since 20-21. Prior to the 23-24 school year, our students' average RIT score was higher and students between the fall and spring grew 3-4 points, whereas, for the 23-24 school year, students still grew from fall to spring 4 points, but the RIT score itself was lower.

    Evidence #3: Achievement Math MAP

    This graph shows that since the 20-21 school year the number of students performing ''low'' has increased from 48 to 66 students. While our ''high average'' achievement range has stayed nearly the same between school years, more students are moving from ''average'' and ''low average'' into the ''low'' category. These are key categories for why focusing on growth in math is imperative.

    Evidence #4: CMAS Math Achievement: By school year and by race

    For CMAS Math Achievement for the 23-24 school year, 48% of our students did not meet expectations. Historically, since the 20-21 school year has had between 77%-85% of students achieving within the partially met and did not meet categories. However, the first school after the pandemic (20-21) 81% of students were within the partially met and did not meet categories, while for the 23-24 school year 85% of our students were. When disaggregated by race subgroups, there are a few outliers by race depending on the year where one race had more students perform higher than others, but overall, all race subgroups, other than the white/caucasian subgroup, are generally showing less than 10 students performing at expectations. This shows that we have a race disparity between our white students and all other student race groupings.



    Evidence #5: CMAS Math Growth

    Based on our 23-24 school performance framework, we did earn Approaching for CMAS Math growth data. We only had one subgroup of students (free/reduced lunch) ranked ''approaching'', while the other subgroups ranked ''does not meet.'' Overall, our median growth percentile showed students at the 35th percentile. Students are showing growth, but not enough students and not at the progression needed to achieve meeting expectations yet. We need our growth to hit the 50th percentile.

    Reading Growth Performance - Student Performance Priority #2

    Evidence #1: Number of Students Historically that have performed at or above the 50th percentile for MAP Reading, by grade level

    This bar graph illustrates a disaggregation by grade level, the number of students since 2020 that have performed at or above the 50th percentile for reading. This data was pulled from our data dashboard, Student Insights. When analyzing the percentage of students for each grade level, there is a decrease from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2023-2024 school year of students that are at or above the 50th percentile. In 6th grade for the 2020-2021 school year we had 27% of students perform at or above the 50th percentile, while in the 2023-2024 school year only 23% of students in 6th grade performed at or above the 50th percentile. In 7th grade for the 20-21 school year 31% of students were at or above the 50th percentile, while for the 23-24 school year only 13% of students performed at or above the 50th percentile. In 8th there was a decline from the 20-21 school year to the 23-24 school year from 29% to 16% demonstrating at or above the 50th percentile.

    Evidence #2: Average RIT Score Reading MAP

    This bar graph shows the average student RIT scores of all students, disaggregated by year on Reading MAP historically since 20-21. Prior to the 23-24 school year, our students' average RIT score was higher and students between the fall and spring grew 3-4 points, whereas, for the 23-24 school year, students stagnated from fall to spring with the average score only at 197. This stagnation is alarming and strong evidence for why we need to focus on growth.

    Evidence #3: Achievement Reading MAP

    This graph shows that since the 20-21 school year the number of students performing ''low'' has increased from 46 to 60 students. While our ''high average'' achievement range has stayed nearly the same between the 20-21 to the 22-23 school years, more students moved from ''average'' and ''low average'' into the ''low'' category for the 23-24 school year. These are key categories for why focusing on growth in reading is imperative.

    Evidence #4: CMAS ELA Achievement: By school year and by race

    For CMAS ELA Achievement for the 23-24 school year, 42% of our students did not meet expectations. Historically, since the 20-21 school year has had between 62%-75% of students achieving within the partially met and did not meet categories. However, the first school after the pandemic (20-21) 66% of students were within the partially met and did not meet categories, while for the 23-24 school year 75% of our students were. When disaggregated by race subgroups, each race subgroup has a vast range of performance depending on the school year. This shows less disparity between races in regards to reading achievement. However, it is notable that specifically the black/African American and Hispanic subgroups don’t have more than 16 students meeting state expectations with reading, while all other subgroups of different years have many more than 16 students meeting the state expectations. This shows we are working to create more equitable lessons for reading instruction, as students perform similarly between subgroups, but we need to focus on the level of rigor with text complexity and delivery of instruction so that the task is also tightly aligned to grade level expectations.

    Evidence #5: CMAS Reading Growth

    Based on our 23-24 school performance framework, we ranked ''Does not meet'' for CMAS Reading growth data. Our students with disabilities were the lowest growth percentile at 27. Overall, our median growth percentile showed students at the 33rd percentile. Students are showing growth, but not enough students and not at the progression needed to achieve meeting expectations yet. We need our growth to hit the 50th percentile.

    Evidence #1: Attendance Data by year and by subgroups

    Historically since the 20-21 school year, our attendance rate has averaged approximately 87.8%. We want to focus on engaging students with high quality lessons and integrate more student supports for staying in class. Students cannot learn if they are missing school or not staying in class for instruction. 


    When disaggregated by grade levels, we currently show in 6th grade an average attendance rate of 86%, in 7th grade 86% attendance rate and in 8th grade 76% attendance rate. 


    More deeply, by subgroups of students in specialized programs/receiving specialized supports, we show that students served on IEPs have a 78% attendance rate, students supported by 504 plans have a 81% attendance rate and our multilingual students have 81% attendance rate.


    Attendance rates of race subgroups shows that our students who identify as Asian have an 87% attendance rate, while other races such as White, Hispanic and Black show approximately a 74% attendance rate. We need to raise our attendance rate for all groups to reach into 90-95% attendance rates.




    Evidence #2: Behavior Data from Student Insights - # of incidents and # of exclusionary responses to incidents

    The table and graph below indicate that since the 22-23 school year, we have been decreasing exclusionary practices with less suspensions and less behavior incidents requiring a consequence that would exclude students from the school day for learning. We decreased exclusionary responses to behavior by 51% between the 22-23 school year and the 23-24 school year. These data points validate positive changes and progress we are making towards increasing student belonging at school.



    Evidence #3: Panorama Data

    Comparing the 22-23 school year to the 23-24 school year, our Panorama data shows a small decline from student responses about their growth mindset, sense of belonging and self efficacy. These are important data points that impact our overall academic performance. In order for students to exhibit perseverance, they need strong growth mindsets and strong self efficacy. They also need to have positive relationships with their teachers (which shows a small increase). With a focus on our student culture and systems of support, we should see increases in those responses for the 24-25 school year.


    Priority Performance Challenge and Associated Root Cause

    Priority Performance Challenge:  Assessment Systems and Data Culture

    Area of Focus: Math growth


    Root Cause: Professional Learning Communities and Data Informed Instruction

    At Thornton Middle School, we have had large turnover of staff in previous years and were mostly able to “attract” early educators who were starting their career between years 1-3. This has impacted our school’s ability to gain traction each year within our professional learning community (PLC)/data team practices. Starting a school year with teachers who have not taught or only taught for a few years, requires us to start at almost ground zero every year because our new educator staff doesn’t quite have the depth of knowledge needed to address the standards, or clearly understand how to unpack the standards in order to create learning intentions and success criteria. This impacts our ability as a system to create rigorous instruction and standard aligned assessments that set students up for success to meet grade level expectations. That is a very different starting point than having a staff of teachers who are mostly in year 10+ of teaching experience. This 24-25 school year, we were able to hire more experienced, quality teachers because our district approved a pilot salary program to help us attract more high quality, experienced teachers. For the 23-24 school year, we hired 16 new teachers, and only one of them had 3 or more years of teaching experience. This year, only one of our 11 hires was a year 1 teacher. Having a more experienced staff has allowed us to push more deeply into our PLC practices to ensure students can find success at meeting grade level expectations. Previously, with so many new teachers in our system, our PLCs focused heavily on daily lesson planning as a result of our teachers needing that tier one support. Now, we have been able to shift the structure and work of PLCs so that they can follow a weekly scope and sequence that requires them to: unpack standards, create know/show charts, create common formative assessments, construct teacher exemplars, benchmark student work/performance, and use data to inform instruction with follow up re-teaching opportunities. Over the past year, Thornton Middle School teachers have focused primarily on a mimicry approach to instruction of math-more specifically there was a focus on an algorithmic approach to teaching. This upcoming year, teachers are engaging in a book study of Building Thinking Classrooms with the goal of teaching thinking and perseverance in students. While teachers did engage in a monthly DDI, the exit tickets and formative assessments were not collaboratively benchmarked nor was there a weekly reteach plan for the concept that students were showing as the biggest productive struggle. During the 24-25 school year, we have added additional PLC time so that teachers can benchmark data weekly, plan reteaches, and use data tdo support whether kids are understanding the big concepts.

    Root Cause Category: Infrastructure (data, systems, identification)


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Assessment Systems and Culture

    Area of Focus: English/Language Arts growth


    Root Cause: Professional Learning Communities and Data Informed Instruction

    At Thornton Middle School, we have had large turnover of staff in previous years and were mostly able to “attract” early educators who were starting their career between years 1-3. This has impacted our school’s ability to gain traction each year within our professional learning community (PLC)/data team practices. Starting a school year with teachers who have not taught or only taught for a few years, requires us to start at almost ground zero every year because our new educator staff doesn’t quite have the depth of knowledge needed to address the standards, or clearly understand how to unpack the standards in order to create learning intentions and success criteria. This impacts our ability as a system to create rigorous instruction and standard aligned assessments that set students up for success to meet grade level expectations. That is a very different starting point than having a staff of teachers who are mostly in year 10+ of teaching experience. This 24-25 school year, we were able to hire more experienced, quality teachers because our district approved a pilot salary program to help us attract more high quality, experienced teachers. For the 23-24 school year, we hired 16 new teachers, and only one of them had 3 or more years of teaching experience. This year, only one of our 11 hires was a year 1 teacher. Having a more experienced staff has allowed us to push more deeply into our PLC practices to ensure students can find success at meeting grade level expectations. Previously, with so many new teachers in our system, our PLCs focused heavily on daily lesson planning as a result of our teachers needing that tier one support. Now, we have been able to shift the structure and work of PLCs so that they can follow a weekly scope and sequence that requires them to: unpack standards, create know/show charts, create common formative assessments, construct teacher exemplars, benchmark student work/performance, and use data to inform instruction with follow up re-teaching opportunities. Over the past year, Thornton Middle School teachers have focused primarily on a mimicry approach to instruction of math-more specifically there was a focus on an algorithmic approach to teaching. This upcoming year, teachers are engaging in a book study of Building Thinking Classrooms with the goal of teaching thinking and perseverance in students. While teachers did engage in a monthly DDI, the exit tickets and formative assessments were not collaboratively benchmarked nor was there a weekly reteach plan for the concept that students were showing as the biggest productive struggle. During the 24-25 school year, we have added additional PLC time so that teachers can benchmark data weekly, plan reteaches, and use data tdo support whether kids are understanding the big concepts.

    Root Cause Category: Infrastructure (data, systems, identification)


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Effective Student Supports and Culture

    Area of Focus: Equitable Practices


    Root Cause: Student Engagement with School

    When reviewing our data regarding exclusionary practices, attendance rates, our Panorama Student Survey data as well as our instructional walk through's throughout the 23-24 school year indicated that our students are unable to engage with school in the ways we would hope for a variety of reasons. We believe we need to reduce our suspensions because it is difficult for students to re-engage with school and learn when they miss part of school due to a behavior concern that results in suspension. We also noticed that our attendance rate was lower than desired and that is partly due to the lack of engaging lessons. Our Panorama survey results gave us insight into the fact that not as many students as we thought felt a sense of belonging at school.

    Root Cause Category: Equity

    Action and Progress Monitoring Plans

    Major Improvement Strategy and Action Plan

    > >

    Teacher Collaboration

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		We have been using RELAY and our CDE partners to help us determine these improvement strategies based on our school data. The research that supports our Major Improvement Strategies comes from readings/research such as: the Get Better Faster Guide, Measure What Matters - Andy Grove, from Good to Great - Jim Collins, and The Best Laid Plans Succeed - Meyers and Van Gronigen.

    Strategy Category:

    		Data-Informed Instruction

    Associated Root Causes:

    Professional Learning Communities and Data Informed Instruction: At Thornton Middle School, we have had large turnover of staff in previous years and were mostly able to “attract” early educators who were starting their career between years 1-3. This has impacted our school’s ability to gain traction each year within our professional learning community (PLC)/data team practices. Starting a school year with teachers who have not taught or only taught for a few years, requires us to start at almost ground zero every year because our new educator staff doesn’t quite have the depth of knowledge needed to address the standards, or clearly understand how to unpack the standards in order to create learning intentions and success criteria. This impacts our ability as a system to create rigorous instruction and standard aligned assessments that set students up for success to meet grade level expectations. That is a very different starting point than having a staff of teachers who are mostly in year 10+ of teaching experience. This 24-25 school year, we were able to hire more experienced, quality teachers because our district approved a pilot salary program to help us attract more high quality, experienced teachers. For the 23-24 school year, we hired 16 new teachers, and only one of them had 3 or more years of teaching experience. This year, only one of our 11 hires was a year 1 teacher. Having a more experienced staff has allowed us to push more deeply into our PLC practices to ensure students can find success at meeting grade level expectations. Previously, with so many new teachers in our system, our PLCs focused heavily on daily lesson planning as a result of our teachers needing that tier one support. Now, we have been able to shift the structure and work of PLCs so that they can follow a weekly scope and sequence that requires them to: unpack standards, create know/show charts, create common formative assessments, construct teacher exemplars, benchmark student work/performance, and use data to inform instruction with follow up re-teaching opportunities. Over the past year, Thornton Middle School teachers have focused primarily on a mimicry approach to instruction of math-more specifically there was a focus on an algorithmic approach to teaching. This upcoming year, teachers are engaging in a book study of Building Thinking Classrooms with the goal of teaching thinking and perseverance in students. While teachers did engage in a monthly DDI, the exit tickets and formative assessments were not collaboratively benchmarked nor was there a weekly reteach plan for the concept that students were showing as the biggest productive struggle. During the 24-25 school year, we have added additional PLC time so that teachers can benchmark data weekly, plan reteaches, and use data tdo support whether kids are understanding the big concepts.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    > >

    Positive School Culture

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		We have been using RELAY and our CDE partners to help us determine these improvement strategies based on our school data. The research that supports our Major Improvement Strategies comes from readings/research such as: the Get Better Faster Guide, Measure What Matters - Andy Grove, from Good to Great - Jim Collins, and The Best Laid Plans Succeed - Meyers and Van Gronigen.

    Strategy Category:

    		School or District Climate and Culture

    Associated Root Causes:

    Student Engagement with School: When reviewing our data regarding exclusionary practices, attendance rates, our Panorama Student Survey data as well as our instructional walk through's throughout the 23-24 school year indicated that our students are unable to engage with school in the ways we would hope for a variety of reasons. We believe we need to reduce our suspensions because it is difficult for students to re-engage with school and learn when they miss part of school due to a behavior concern that results in suspension. We also noticed that our attendance rate was lower than desired and that is partly due to the lack of engaging lessons. Our Panorama survey results gave us insight into the fact that not as many students as we thought felt a sense of belonging at school.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    > >

    Differentiated Professional Learning

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		We have been using RELAY and our CDE partners to help us determine these improvement strategies based on our school data. The research that supports our Major Improvement Strategies comes from readings/research such as: the Get Better Faster Guide, Measure What Matters - Andy Grove, from Good to Great - Jim Collins, and The Best Laid Plans Succeed - Meyers and Van Gronigen.

    Strategy Category:

    		Targeted Talent Development

    Associated Root Causes:

    Professional Learning Communities and Data Informed Instruction: At Thornton Middle School, we have had large turnover of staff in previous years and were mostly able to “attract” early educators who were starting their career between years 1-3. This has impacted our school’s ability to gain traction each year within our professional learning community (PLC)/data team practices. Starting a school year with teachers who have not taught or only taught for a few years, requires us to start at almost ground zero every year because our new educator staff doesn’t quite have the depth of knowledge needed to address the standards, or clearly understand how to unpack the standards in order to create learning intentions and success criteria. This impacts our ability as a system to create rigorous instruction and standard aligned assessments that set students up for success to meet grade level expectations. That is a very different starting point than having a staff of teachers who are mostly in year 10+ of teaching experience. This 24-25 school year, we were able to hire more experienced, quality teachers because our district approved a pilot salary program to help us attract more high quality, experienced teachers. For the 23-24 school year, we hired 16 new teachers, and only one of them had 3 or more years of teaching experience. This year, only one of our 11 hires was a year 1 teacher. Having a more experienced staff has allowed us to push more deeply into our PLC practices to ensure students can find success at meeting grade level expectations. Previously, with so many new teachers in our system, our PLCs focused heavily on daily lesson planning as a result of our teachers needing that tier one support. Now, we have been able to shift the structure and work of PLCs so that they can follow a weekly scope and sequence that requires them to: unpack standards, create know/show charts, create common formative assessments, construct teacher exemplars, benchmark student work/performance, and use data to inform instruction with follow up re-teaching opportunities. Over the past year, Thornton Middle School teachers have focused primarily on a mimicry approach to instruction of math-more specifically there was a focus on an algorithmic approach to teaching. This upcoming year, teachers are engaging in a book study of Building Thinking Classrooms with the goal of teaching thinking and perseverance in students. While teachers did engage in a monthly DDI, the exit tickets and formative assessments were not collaboratively benchmarked nor was there a weekly reteach plan for the concept that students were showing as the biggest productive struggle. During the 24-25 school year, we have added additional PLC time so that teachers can benchmark data weekly, plan reteaches, and use data tdo support whether kids are understanding the big concepts.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status

    Progress Monitoring: Student Target Setting

    Priority Performance Challenge : Assessment Systems and Data Culture

    Priority Performance Challenge : Assessment Systems and Culture

    Priority Performance Challenge : Effective Student Supports and Culture

    Attachments List

    © 2017 State of Colorado