Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools

Janitell Junior High 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
  • Students with IEP's ELA Achievement
    		•
  • Lack of Structure Around Co-Teaching
  • Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning
    		•
  • Collaborate to Plan
  • Increased Intervention Support
    		•
  • Students with IEP's Math Achievement
    		•
  • Lack of Structure Around Co-Teaching
  • Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning
    		•
  • Collaborate to Plan
  • Increased Intervention Support
    		•
  • 6th Grade Math Growth
    		•
  • Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning
  • Lack of Adjusting Instruction
  • Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention
  • Lack of Differentiation
    		•
  • Collaborate to Plan
  • Increased Intervention Support
  • Increased Progress Monitoring & Adjusting Instruction Accordingly
    		•
  • Students with IEP's Science Achievement
    		•
  • Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning
  • Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention
  • Lack of Adjusting Instruction
  • Lack of Differentiation
    		•
  • Collaborate to Plan
  • Increased Progress Monitoring & Adjusting Instruction Accordingly
  • Increased Intervention Support
    		•
  • Math Growth
    		•
  • Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention
  • Lack of Differentiation
  • Lack of Adjusting Instruction
    		•
  • Increased Progress Monitoring & Adjusting Instruction Accordingly
  • Collaborate to Plan
  • Increased Intervention Support
    		•
  • ELA Growth
    		•
  • Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention
  • Lack of Differentiation
  • Lack of Adjusting Instruction
    		•
  • Increased Progress Monitoring & Adjusting Instruction Accordingly
  • Collaborate to Plan
  • Increased Intervention Support
    		•


    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


    Janitell Jr. High serves the the Security-Widefield Fountain Valley communities. Janitell enrolls students in 6-8th grade from the Security-Widefield community as well as Fountain, and is located at the South side of the Widefield School District. Janitell focuses on engaging the whole student through academics, arts, and athletics, and takes great pride in striving for excellence in all of these areas.

    Improvement Plan Information

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


    Checked
    -->

    Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification


    Description of School Setting and Process for Data Analysis

    Mission Statement
    Janitell Jr. High’s mission is to provide an innovative, challenging learning environment in which our students develop positive self-concepts and academic skills, enabling them to live in an ever-changing society.

    Janitell Leadership & Instructional Staffing
    The Janitell Junior High School administrative team comprises one principal, assistant principal, a dean of students, and two counselors. Janitell has experienced consistent turnover in these positions, and the 2023/2024 school year marked the first consistent leadership team in approximately ten years.
    The instructional staff at Janitell consists of 44 classroom teachers and several support professionals. Instructional staff includes: 

    • Eight language arts teachers
    • Seven math teachers 
    • Six science teachers
    • Six social studies teachers
    • Nine elective teachers (3 music, one art, 1 Spanish, 2 PE, and 2 ITE.)
    • Six special education teachers (four mild/moderate special education teachers with two educational assistants, one significant support needs teacher with six assistants, and one autism teacher and four assistants).
    • One intervention specialist
    • One full-time librarian. 


    UIP Development
    Janitell’s UIP was developed based on building initiatives and focus areas that were put in place starting with the 2023/2024 school year, with adjustments and additions that take Janitell further steps into the 2024/2025 school year. Janitell’s overall SPF decreased by 7.5 points from the 22/23 school year to the 23/24 school year, so digging in to data, refining systems, and finding innovative ways to support student growth is critical. According to the CDE’s School Performance Framework, Janitell received an ''Improvement'' rating for the 23/24 school year.

    Janitell’s principal initiated the writing of the UIP. The process underwent conceptual thinking and problem-solving by the administrative team before it was presented to the faculty leadership team, the building accountability committee, and the district accountability committee. These groups provided feedback and next steps for performance challenges, root causes, and major improvement strategies. Most of the concepts listed and discussed in the document underwent thought and implementation through faculty leadership and staff members before the start of the year and the UIP writing process. DAAC and BAAC feedback was critical to the appropriate articulation and communication of Janitell’s work in this document.

    School Demographics
    As outlined below, Janitell has a diverse student body, including a high military population due to our proximity to military installations.
    Student enrollment information for the 2024-2025 school year was as follows:
    229 6th graders, 217-7th graders, and 214-8th graders (total of 660 students).
    ** 313 male students, 347 female students (47% male / 53% female)
    ** Ethnicity: 41% white, 34% Hispanic, 10% black, 1% Native American, 1% Asian, 2% Hawaiian, 11% two or more ethnicities
    ** Free or Reduced Lunch was 38.64%
    ** Attendance Rate was 90.71%

    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).

    Prior Year Student Targets

    Academic Achievement: All students will meet or exceed the state assessment averages in student achievement (both Math and ELA).
    ELA: 6th, 7th, and 8th grade exceeded the state average for ELA achievement.
    Math: 6th, 7th, and 8th grade were below the state average for math achievement. 

    Academic Growth: We will have a math growth percentile of 50% or higher on the CMAS (both math and ELA) assessment according to the 2024 School Performance Framework in all grade levels.
    ELA: 7th (53.5) exceeded the 50% median growth percentile for ELA, while 6th (47) and 8th (46.5) grades fell below 50% median growth percentile for ELA.
    Math: 7th (55) and 8th (52) exceeded the 50% median growth percentile for math, while 6th grade (32.5) was below the 50% threshold.

    Major Improvement Strategies

    Collaborate to Plan: Janitell saw benefits from our increased focus on collaborative planning. While there will be adjustments to the grade level meeting times outlined below, there was positive progress made and we were able to support individual students accordingly throughout these meetings. We also saw progress in our grade-level content PLC's, with a higher focus on data and collaborative planning.
    Increased Intervention Support: While we prioritized co-teaching in math and ELA classes for students with IEP's, an increased focus on norms and establishing standards will be critical moving forward. Providing support was a big part of these classes, but moving toward a stronger model of co-teaching will be beneficial. 
    TLC 3.0 Training & Implementation: We completed all six of the TLC modules throughout the year. We saw a number of benefits from this, including a refreshed knowledge of the TLC for veteran staff, hearing new information for newer staff, and a calibration on instructional practices throughout the entire instructional staff.


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

    While the above shows some positives in growth (four of the six groups were above the 50th percentile in growth), Janitell needs to focus on overall growth moving forward. A renewed focus on increasing our growth will be important moving forward, and this year's action steps will reflect this focus.

    Current Performance

    Janitell Jr. High received a ''Improvement Plan'' rating, and decreased the total points earned by 7.5 from the 22/23 school year (Janitell received a ''Performance'' rating last year). Janitell's ratings are outlined below'.

    Academic Achievement: Approaching
    Academic  Growth: Approaching

    Academic Achievement Breakdown

    • ELA
      • All Students: Meets
      • Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible: Approaching
      • Minority Students: Meets
      • Multilingual Learners: Insufficient Data
      • Students with Disabilities: Does Not Meet
    • Math
      • All Students: Approaching
      • Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible: Approaching
      • Minority Students: Approaching
      • Multilingual Learners: Insufficient Data
      • Students with Disabilities: Does Not Meet
    • Science
      • All Students: Approaching
      • Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible: Approaching
      • Minority Students: Approaching
      • Multilingual Learners: Insufficient Data
      • Students with Disabilities: Does Not Meet
    • Total: Approaching

    Academic Growth Breakdown

    • ELA
      • All Students: Approaching
      • Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible: Approaching
      • Minority Students: Meets
      • Multilingual Learners: Insufficient Data
      • Students with Disabilities: Approaching
    • Math
      • All Students: Approaching
      • Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible: Approaching
      • Minority Students: Approaching
      • Multilingual Learners: Insufficient Data
      • Students with Disabilities: Does Not Meet
    • ​​​​​​​English Language Proficiency
      • ​​​​​​​Insufficient Data
      • Insufficient Data
    • Total: Approaching

    Academic achievement is approaching or meets throughout all groups except students with disabilities in science, math and ELA. While there are many challenges to increasing achievement in this population, this will be a priority for Janitell throughout the 24/25 school year.

    Academic Growth is approaching or meets for all groups.

    Trend Analysis

    Trend Direction: Increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    6-8 students are on a slight increase in Math Achievement on CMAS in 2021-2024 (2021= 718.1; 2022= 721.9; 2023=723.2; 725.5). This is a notable trend because it is increasing. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Decreasing then increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    Students with IEP's declined, and then increased in math achievment on CMAS from 2021-2024 (2021=691.6; 2022= 690.6; 2023=696.2; 2024=699.8). This is a notable trend because despite remaining in the "Does Not Meet" category, achievement increased with students with IEP's in math. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    Students with IEP's increased in ELA achievment on CMAS from 2022-2024 (2022= 704.5; 2023=710.2; 2024=714.3). This is a notable trend because despite remaining in the "Does Not Meet" category, achievement increased with students with IEP's in ELA. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    6-8 Students increased math achievement from 2021-2024 (2021=718.1; 2022=721.9; 2023=723.2; 2024=725.5 MGP). This is notable because math achievement has been steadily increasing every year since the pandemic. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Decreasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    6-8 students decreased math growth on CMAS from 2022-2024 (2022=61.0; 2023=49.0; 2024=46.0 MGP). This is a notable trend because ELA growth overall has clearly been decreasing, to the point it is now in the "Approaching" category. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Decreasing then increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    Students with IEP's are on a decline in math growth on CMAS from 2019-2024 (2019=48.5 MGP; 2021= 43.0 MGP; 2023=33.0; 2024=44.0 MGP). This is a notable trend because it was declining and the MGP had fallen into the "Does Not Meet" category, but now is back in the "approaching" category. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Decreasing then increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    6th grade students are on a decline in math growth on CMAS from 2019-2024 (2019=34.0 MGP; 2021= 34.0 MGP; 2023=31.0; 2024=32.5 MGP). This is a notable trend because it was declining, and the MGP was in the "Does Not Meet" category, but this year it increased to be in the "Approaching" category. (Source: SPF)
    Trend Direction: Increasing then decreasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    6-8 students increased ELA growth on CMAS from 2019-2024 (2019=34.0 MGP; 2021= 48.0 MGP; 2023=60.0;2024=49.5 MGP). This is a notable trend because it was increasing consistently and had entered the "Meets Expectations" category, but has now fallen back into the "Approaching" Category. (Source: SPF)

    Priority Performance Challenge and Associated Root Cause

    Priority Performance Challenge:  Students with IEP's ELA Achievement

    Students with IEP's were in the "Does Not Meet" category for ELA achievement. This is a trend that continues from 2022, although the mean scale score increased from 710 to 714.3. While the mean scale score of 714.3 is slightly above the state average, students with IEP's are currently not near the "Approaching" category.

    Area of Focus: English/Language Arts achievement


    Root Cause: Lack of Structure Around Co-Teaching

    While Co-Teaching has been integrated into the schedule for students with IEP's that have math and/or ELA goals, structures, expectations, and norms have not consistently been implemented across grade levels or content areas. It is important that these are in place to ensure that students are receiving appropriate levels of engagement and differentiation, as opposed to simply support in the classroom from another adult.

    Root Cause: Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning

    Collaborative planning occurred throughout Janitell, but it was not a priority at the building level or from the administration. Teachers did not know how to plan collaboratively overall, although some teams were high-functioning independently. Also, administration did not attend planning meetings, leading to a lack of opportunity to influence and monitor the planning of instructional practices. A lack of collaborative planning also allowed students to slip through the cracks because there was no intentional time to discuss student needs across grade-level teachers.

    Root Cause Category: Teacher Development


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Students with IEP's Math Achievement

    Students with IEP's were in the "Does Not Meet" category for math achievement. The mean scale score was 696.2 in 2023, which increased to 699.8 in 2024. The mean scale score of 699.8 is slightly below the state mean scale average, and is not near the "Approaching" category.

    Area of Focus: Math achievement


    Root Cause: Lack of Structure Around Co-Teaching

    While Co-Teaching has been integrated into the schedule for students with IEP's that have math and/or ELA goals, structures, expectations, and norms have not consistently been implemented across grade levels or content areas. It is important that these are in place to ensure that students are receiving appropriate levels of engagement and differentiation, as opposed to simply support in the classroom from another adult.

    Root Cause: Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning

    Collaborative planning occurred throughout Janitell, but it was not a priority at the building level or from the administration. Teachers did not know how to plan collaboratively overall, although some teams were high-functioning independently. Also, administration did not attend planning meetings, leading to a lack of opportunity to influence and monitor the planning of instructional practices. A lack of collaborative planning also allowed students to slip through the cracks because there was no intentional time to discuss student needs across grade-level teachers.

    Root Cause Category: Teacher Development


    Priority Performance Challenge:  6th Grade Math Growth

    6th grade math students had a Median Growth Percentile (MGP) of 32.5, well below the median MGP. All other grade levels in math had MGP's above 50.

    Area of Focus: Math growth


    Root Cause: Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning

    Collaborative planning occurred throughout Janitell, but it was not a priority at the building level or from the administration. Teachers did not know how to plan collaboratively overall, although some teams were high-functioning independently. Also, administration did not attend planning meetings, leading to a lack of opportunity to influence and monitor the planning of instructional practices. A lack of collaborative planning also allowed students to slip through the cracks because there was no intentional time to discuss student needs across grade-level teachers.

    Root Cause Category: Teacher Development

    Root Cause: Lack of Adjusting Instruction

    Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.

    Root Cause: Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention

    Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Root Cause: Lack of Differentiation

    Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Students with IEP's Science Achievement

    Students with IEP's Math Achievement Students with IEP's were in the "Does Not Meet" category for 8th grade science achievement. Unfortunately, there was insufficient data in previous years to compare to previous data. The mean scale score of 725 is below the state mean scale average, and is not near the "Approaching" category. Challenge Category: Science achievement

    Area of Focus: Science


    Root Cause: Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning

    Collaborative planning occurred throughout Janitell, but it was not a priority at the building level or from the administration. Teachers did not know how to plan collaboratively overall, although some teams were high-functioning independently. Also, administration did not attend planning meetings, leading to a lack of opportunity to influence and monitor the planning of instructional practices. A lack of collaborative planning also allowed students to slip through the cracks because there was no intentional time to discuss student needs across grade-level teachers.

    Root Cause Category: Teacher Development

    Root Cause: Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention

    Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Root Cause: Lack of Adjusting Instruction

    Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.

    Root Cause: Lack of Differentiation

    Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Math Growth

    While math growth increased for 6th graders (from 31 to 32.5 as outlined above), it is well below expectations. 7th grade math growth decreased from 56 to 55 MGP, while 8th grade math decreased from 60 to 52 MGP.

    Area of Focus: Math growth


    Root Cause: Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention

    Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Root Cause: Lack of Differentiation

    Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.

    Root Cause: Lack of Adjusting Instruction

    Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.


    Priority Performance Challenge:  ELA Growth

    All three grade levels decreased in their ELA growth. 6th grade went from 52 to 47 MGP, 7th grade went from 63 to 53.5 MGP, while 8th grade went from 59.5 to 46.5 MGP.

    Area of Focus: English/Language Arts growth


    Root Cause: Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention

    Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Root Cause: Lack of Differentiation

    Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.

    Root Cause: Lack of Adjusting Instruction

    Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.


    Why were these challenges selected and what is the magnitude of the overall performance challenges:

    • Students with IEP’s ELA, Math, and Science Achievement
      • Any category that earns a ''Does Not Meet'' designation is concerning. Students with IEP’s have extra supports in place to ensure student success through academic growth. While students with IEP’s may have obstacles to their achievement, evaluating and adjusting special education supports is critical as we take a step toward ''Approaching'' in this area.
    • 6th Grade Math Growth
      • Janitell’s Median Growth Percentile in 6th grade is 32.5%, while 7th (55%) and 8th (52%) are significantly higher. Data shows Janitell students are achieving at high levels in 5th grade, but growth (as indicated by MGP) takes students a big step backward transitioning into middle school and 6th grade. Closing this gap for 6th graders is monumental for their success in math, especially as 7th and 8th grades show appropriate math growth after the decline in 6th grade.
    • ELA & Math Growth
      • Growth is down in all grades 6-8, in both math and ELA from 2023. The only exception is 6th grade math, which increased from 31.5 to 32, but that is approximately 20 points behind the next closest grade/level content area. Growth is a component that best reflects components that are within our control, so demonstrating positive growth numbers needs to be a priority. Increased growth numbers demonstrates meeting out students where they are at and taking them to the next level.

     

    How were the Root Causes were selected and verified:

    Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention:
    Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes. 

    Lack of Differentiation:
    Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.

    Lack of Adjusting Instruction:
    Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.
     
    Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning:
    Collaborative planning occurred throughout Janitell, but it was not a priority at the building level or from the administration. Teachers did not know how to plan collaboratively overall, although some teams were high-functioning independently. Also, administration did not attend planning meetings, leading to a lack of opportunity to influence and monitor the planning of instructional practices. A lack of collaborative planning also allowed students to slip through the cracks because there was no intentional time to discuss student needs across grade-level teachers.

    Lack of STructure Around Co-Teaching:While Co-Teaching has been integrated into the schedule for students with IEP's that have math and/or ELA goals, structures, expectations, and norms have not consistently been implemented across grade levels or content areas. It is important that these are in place to ensure that students are receiving appropriate levels of engagement and differentiation, as opposed to simply support in the classroom from another adult.

    Action and Progress Monitoring Plans

    Major Improvement Strategy and Action Plan

    > >

    Collaborate to Plan

    What will success look like:

    		All staff will participate in the collaborative culture at Janitell. Core teachers will participate in weekly horizontal meetings to discuss student needs and create solution-oriented plans to support learners. An adjustment to this weekly collaboration this shool year will be a more focused, data-driven approach to these meetings. Teachers will refer students before the meeting to Janitell's interventionist, who will look at data, communicate with parents, and prepare plans for students. We look to discuss students in more depth and utilize data to gauge our success with this process. Grade levels will also discuss cross-curricular connections every other week during these meetings, specifically looking for ways to incorporate math, reading, and writing across all content areas.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		There is a solid foundation of research that points to the strong benefits of learning that occur due to collaborative planning and a culture of collaboration. Having a culture of horizontal, learner-centered collaboration as well as a culture of collaborative planning, is critical for Janitell moving forward. Classrooms were also moved a year ago to support the proximity of vertical (6-8) content area teams. This allows content area teams to organically connect during passing periods, before/after school, and even hear each other's teaching throughout the day.

    Strategy Category:

    		Equitable Instructional Practices

    Associated Root Causes:

    Lack of Structure Around Co-Teaching: While Co-Teaching has been integrated into the schedule for students with IEP's that have math and/or ELA goals, structures, expectations, and norms have not consistently been implemented across grade levels or content areas. It is important that these are in place to ensure that students are receiving appropriate levels of engagement and differentiation, as opposed to simply support in the classroom from another adult.

    Lack of Prioritization of Collaborative Planning: Collaborative planning occurred throughout Janitell, but it was not a priority at the building level or from the administration. Teachers did not know how to plan collaboratively overall, although some teams were high-functioning independently. Also, administration did not attend planning meetings, leading to a lack of opportunity to influence and monitor the planning of instructional practices. A lack of collaborative planning also allowed students to slip through the cracks because there was no intentional time to discuss student needs across grade-level teachers.

    Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention: Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Lack of Differentiation: Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.

    Lack of Adjusting Instruction: Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Weekly Collaborate to Plan Meetings Weekly meetings will take place where grade level content teams collaborate to plan their lessons. Special education teachers will meet with math and ELA teachers during this time to ensure they are planning for co-teaching and meeting their students' needs in these classes. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025
    Weekly     		Admin and instructional staff
    Weekly Grade Level Meetings Core teachers in each content area will meet to discuss student needs and create action steps for students collaboratively. Janitell's intervenionist will facilitiate the meeting and track data for students (academic and behavioral). Every other week, cross-curricular conversations will allow for teachers to collaborate on ways to incorporate math, reading, and writing into their classes as well. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025
    Weekly     		Admin and instructional staff

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    Interventions
    		Teachers will utilize PLC time to identify interventions necessary to positive impact individual student success, specifically considering what they will do when students don't know the information, along with what they will do when students do know the infomration. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025     		MTSS Tiered strategies Teachers, interventionist
    PLC Collaboration
    		PLC's will utilize Colorado State Standards to identify and address priorities within curriculum. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025     		Colorado State Standards Teachers
    PLC Collaboration/planning
    		Teachers will use TLC practices with fidelity when planning instruction. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025     		TLC binder, building level professional development Teachers, administration Complete
    > >

    Increased Intervention Support

    What will success look like:

    		Special education teachers will collaborate with content-area teachers to plan for their student's individual and group needs. They will also move toward a stronger co-teaching model rather than going into a classroom to support students. Tier-2 intervention class teachers in math and ELA will also need to collaborate with their content teams in order to meet the needs of students and monitor their progress.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		With an emphasis on a collaborative culture (supported by research), collaboration to increase learning in tier-2 intervention systems will be critical. Intervention systems should not be created, planned, or implemented in isolation or without reflection.

    Strategy Category:

    		Targeted Student Academic Supports

    Associated Root Causes:

    Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention: Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Lack of Structure Around Co-Teaching: While Co-Teaching has been integrated into the schedule for students with IEP's that have math and/or ELA goals, structures, expectations, and norms have not consistently been implemented across grade levels or content areas. It is important that these are in place to ensure that students are receiving appropriate levels of engagement and differentiation, as opposed to simply support in the classroom from another adult.

    Lack of Adjusting Instruction: Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Collaborative Planning Case managers and grade level tier-2 intervention teachers will collaborate with their teams in order to plan for their lessons and monitoring student needs. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025
    Weekly     		Admin, IEP case managers, and tier-2 intervention class teachers
    Tier-2 Data Tracking Staff, through collaborative teams, will evaluate data around students in tier-2 interventions classes to gauge progress and adjust accordingly. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025
    Monthly     		Collaborative teams, math coaches, admin, intervenionist, counselors

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    Parent Education
    		Building SSPs will provide virtual parent night(s) throughout the year regarding student social and emotional wellness so that parents can identify when their students need additional support. 08/16/2021
    05/20/2022     		Online virtual platforms Building admin, counsleors
    Tier-2 Data Tracking
    		Staff, through collaborative teams, will evaluate data around students in tier-2 interventions classes to gauge progress and adjust accordingly. 08/21/2024
    05/21/2025     		Data tracking platforms, curriculum tools Collaborative teams, math coaches, admin, intervenionist, counselors
    > >

    Increased Progress Monitoring & Adjusting Instruction Accordingly

    What will success look like:

    		Math, ELA, and Science will focus on increased progress monitoring and data tracking in order to guide instructional decisions. Adjusting instruction based on what students know, or don't know, is a critical component of growing a student's abilities and knowledge. All contents will focus on increasing formative checks that gauge real-time student understanding. Specifically, math is incorporating weekly, brief quizzes that will show them what students know in accordance to the standards-based skills that were taught that week. ELA will incorporate monthly STAR benchmarking assessments. Administration and Janitell's interventionist will assist in breaking down this data and providing action steps for how this data can be utilized to increase student growth.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		Increasing data use will allow teachers to make more objective decisions, rather than relying on subjective means of gauging student progress. Research is full of evidence that supports data-based decision making, especially around how data can be used to adjust instruction.

    Strategy Category:

    		Data Analysis & Reflection Practices

    Associated Root Causes:

    Lack of Data Tracking & Tier-2 Intervention: Regular progress monitoring is not prioritized and discussed, and tier-2 intervention classes were replaced by a tier-1 pull-out intervention during the school day. Students that need tier-2 intervention do not have specific, targeted time in order to receive scaffolded supports that allow them to find success in grade-level math classes.

    Lack of Differentiation: Differentiation is not a consistent part of collaborative planning, which leads to a lack of differentiated learning opportunities. Students varied needs are not met without intentional differentiation opportunities.

    Lack of Adjusting Instruction: Assessments and formative checks have not been consistently utilized as a tool to adjust instruction. Whether providing further interventions or extensions, adjusting instruction is critical to meeting students where they are currently at and moving them forward.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Math Weekly Assessments Math will be performing weekly assessments to gauge student knowledge and adjust instruction. Weekly assessments created by grade level teachers and math coaches will gauge student learning and progress, and will allow for next steps (including interventions) to be seen 08/28/2024
    05/21/2025
    Weekly     		Math teachers, interventionist, math coach
    STAR Assessments Bi-Monthly STAR Assessments will take place in ELA classes to montior student growth. Administration and Janitell's interventionist will assist in analyzing this data and creating action steps based on it. The goal is for students to grow 0.15 per month, or 0.5 by the December window. 10/23/2024
    05/21/2025
    Monthly     		ELA Teachers, Admin, Interventionist

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status

    Progress Monitoring: Student Target Setting

    Priority Performance Challenge : Students with IEP's ELA Achievement

    Performance Indicator:

    		 Academic Achievement (Status)

    Measures / Metrics:

    		 ELA
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Students with IEP's will be in the move from the "Does Not Meet" category into the "Approaching" category for ELA.
    2025-2026: Students with IEP's will maintain the "Approaching" category for the 25-26 school year, while continuing to increase their growth by 10%.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    		 Janitell is increasing the number of STAR assessments students will take in order bolster progress monitoring. Students will increase by an average of 0.5 by their December window, their halfway point.

    Priority Performance Challenge : Students with IEP's Math Achievement

    Performance Indicator:

    		 Academic Achievement (Status)

    Measures / Metrics:

    		 M
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Students with IEP's will be in the move from the "Does Not Meet" category into the "Approaching" category for math.
    2025-2026: Students with IEP's will maintain the "Approaching" category for the 25-26 school year, while continuing to increase their growth by 10%.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    		 Janitell is increasing the number of STAR assessments students will take in order bolster progress monitoring. Students will increase by an average of 0.5 by their December window, their halfway point.

    Priority Performance Challenge : 6th Grade Math Growth

    Performance Indicator:

    		 Academic Growth

    Measures / Metrics:

    		 M
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: 6th grade math currently has an MGP of 32. 5. Next year, 6th grade math will have an MGP of 42.5 or higher.
    2025-2026: 6th grade math will have an MGP of 50 or higher for the 25-26 school year.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    		 Janitell is increasing the number of STAR assessments students will take in order bolster progress monitoring. Students will increase by an average of 0.5 by their December window, their halfway point.

    Priority Performance Challenge : Students with IEP's Science Achievement

    Performance Indicator:

    		 Disaggregated Achievement

    Measures / Metrics:

    		 S
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Students with IEP's will be in the move from the "Does Not Meet" category into the "Approaching" category for Science.
    2025-2026: Students with IEP's will maintain the "Approaching" category for the 25-26 school year.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    Priority Performance Challenge : Math Growth

    Performance Indicator:

    		 Academic Growth

    Measures / Metrics:

    		 M
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Janitell's MGP is currently a 46.0. Overall MGP will increase by 10%, or 50.6 or higher.
    2025-2026: Janitell's MGP will increase by another 10%, or 55.7 or higher.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    		 Janitell is increasing the number of STAR assessments students will take in order bolster progress monitoring. Students will increase by an average of 0.5 by their December window, their halfway point.

    Priority Performance Challenge : ELA Growth

    Performance Indicator:

    		 Academic Growth

    Measures / Metrics:

    		 ELA
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Janitell's MGP is currently a 49.5. Overall MGP will increase by 10%, or 54.5 or higher.
    2025-2026: Janitell's MGP will increase by another 10%, or 59.9 or higher.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    		 Janitell is increasing the number of STAR assessments students will take in order bolster progress monitoring. Students will increase by an average of 0.5 by their December window, their halfway point.

    Attachments List

    © 2017 State of Colorado