Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools

Penrose Elementary 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
  • Achievement in ELA and Math
  • A need for students to transfer knowledge in independent practice.
  • A Need for Structured Teaching to Increase the Effective Use of Time
  • A Need for Collaborative Structures to Analyze Student Data.
  • A Need for Improved Instructional Leadership Routines
  • Implement Spiral Review in Mathematics
  • Implement a Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Model
  • Implement a Consistent and Effective PLC Process


  • 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



    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

    Penrose Elementary was named a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 2015. We had been a ''Performance'' School for 10 + years prior to 2017/2018 where we earned the rating of ''Priority Improvement'' on the School Performance Framework. It was a humbling experience. We requested and were approved for a Diagnostic Review. The Diagnostic Review allowed us to look closely at our processes, structures, procedures, and most importantly, search for strategies  to increase growth and achievement in ELA and Math to move our school from ''Priority Improvement'' to ''Performance'' in one school year. In 2018-2019, our School Performance Framework was ''Performance''.  We had not had an SPF since the 2018-2019 school year until the 2022-2023 school year.  Currently, our School Performance Framework rating is ''Performance''.  COVID played a big part in student and staff struggles during the 2021-2022 school year.  There were a significant number of student and staff quarantines that impacted instruction, achievement and growth; however, the 2022-2023 school year was a normal school year where students and staff we in school for the entire year.  Our SPF went from priority improvement to performance for the 2023-2024 school year and has now remained in performance for the 2023-2024 school year. 

     
    Staff Configuration: The Penrose Elementary administrative team consists of  first year principal in an interim role, an administrative secretary, and two full time school guidance counselors.  

     
    The instructional staff at Penrose consists of 3 preschool classrooms (1 classroom which hosts 2 half day sessions and 2 classrooms with full days sessions),  as well as one infant room and one toddler room. The K-6 school consists of two teachers per grade level in K, 1, 2,  3, 4, and 5, with 6th grade being our only grade-level where we are one track. The support staff consists of the following staff members:, one STEAM teacher, one physical education teacher, one music teacher, 3 special education teachers, 7 special education paraprofessionals, 1 Title Certified reading teacher (she serves as the Gifted and Talented teacher too), 1 full time Title 1 paraprofessional, and 1 1/2 time math interventionist who also serves as our district's ELL teacher.

    Instructional Programs PreK-6:

    Preschool:

    Prior to January 2019 the PreSchool in our district had been outsourced to a local entity, this included our CPP slots and special education students. After applying for a large center license, we are now able to serve the needs of our preschool population. Our leadership has been consistent and very knowledgeable. We were able to hire quality teachers for our youngest learners. We are able to predict a much higher Colorado Shines rating which in turn has lead to increased academic performance of our youngest learners. In addition, it has increased our enrollment in kindergarten. 

    Our Preschool program has adopted Creative Curriculum. The Creative Curriculum includes developmentally appropriate goals and objectives for children within four main categories of interest: social/emotional, physical, cognitive and language.

    Kindergarten-Third Grade Reading Instruction:

    Our school and district have created Curriculum Maps and pacing guides utilizing Atlas Rubicon. The core resource for reading is INTO Reading.  We supplement and provide interventions with CR Success, Phonics Boost, SPIRE, Seeing Stars, and SIPPS. We utilize the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness book to address phonemic awareness deficiencies as phonemic awareness is a precursor to reading instruction. All of our teachers and administrator have complete the Reading Teacher's Top Ten Tools course  which meets the READ Act K-3 teacher training requirement. 

    We assess our students at the beginning, middle, and end of the year utilizing Acadience Reading (formerly known as DIBELS) by making sure all students receive instruction in the foundational skills of reading. In kindergarten, students learn to discriminate sounds in words and map them to the letters they represent. This continues through the grades until each third-grade student can read with ease, understand the materials and think critically.

    In addition, our K-3 teachers are becoming well versed in Acadience Reading. They look at probe detail reports to determine next steps for student instruction, with a set schedule for progress monitoring early literacy skills. Our goal, with our primary teachers and our Title 1 staff,  is to promote early identification of reading difficulties and provide effective interventions to quickly close reading gaps and ensure all Penrose students can demonstrate a level of competency in reading skills necessary to achieve success in school.

    When students are identified as significantly below grade level based upon our diagnostic assessment  (Acadience Reading) to determine specific areas of need for reading improvement. Teachers use this information to collaboratively develop an intervention plan (called a READ plan) with the child’s parents to bring the child up to grade level reading proficiency.  Our students continue to receive interventions until the teacher determines that the child's data has met reading skill competencies.

    We are very thoughtful and intentional about providing parent friendly home supports and materials for our primary students in the 5 components of reading instruction. We have purchased several online programs to reinforce skills (Lexia, IXL, and Reading Eggs).

    Fourth-Sixth Grade Reading Instruction:

    Our school and district have created Curriculum Maps, and pacing guides utilizing Atlas Rubicon. The core resource for reading is INTO Reading.  At the intermediate level we focus on vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. If an intermediate student struggles in reading, we are able to intervene by employing a Multi-tiered system of support. We diagnosis issues by triangulating our data from multi-sources so we can provide high quality, researched based interventions after ensuring good first instruction. All of our intermediate teachers completed the Reading Teacher's Top Ten Tools course even though it was not required beyond 3rd grade. We wanted to ensure continuity of language, strategies, and supports.

    Math Instruction Kindergarten-6th Grades:

    Our school and district have created Curriculum Maps and pacing guides utilizing Atlas Rubicon. common resource for math is Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's, INTO Math. This is a newly published program and our third year using it as a common resource across grade levels. We have encountered some difficulties. Assessment structure doesn't always match the recommended teaching. We are now intentional about ''planning backward'' by looking at the assessment for modules to assist in planning for instruction. We are currently implementing Professional Learning Communities as a means of looking more closely at teaching and learning.

    Standards Based Instructional System/Monitoring our Instruction and Learning:

    Our district has created common formative assessments which we believe matches the depth, rigor, and difficulty of state assessments for every grade level in reading, writing, and math. We believe that being standards based means that every teacher, in every classroom, every day, through this continuous teaching/learning cycle, ensures students learn all standards and associated concepts and skills to mastery. We strive to continually answer four critical questions, adapted from Dufour & Eaker (1998, 2002, 2006): 1. What do students need to know, understand, and be able to do? 2. How do we teach effectively to ensure all students are learning? 3. How do we know students are learning? 4. What do we do when students are not learning or are reaching mastery before expectation? We are able to work through this process by implementing Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). We are still learning about the process and perfecting it.
    User-added image

    Multi-tiered Systems of Supports:   

     Colorado Multi-Tiered System of Supports (CO-MTSS) is defined as a prevention-based framework of team-driven data-based problem solving for improving the outcomes of every student through family, school, and community partnering. We are beginning to learn and implement more and more layers of evidence-based practices. Our primary focus on Tier 1 instructional practices to be in alignment with district expectations and support.  However, we we intend to shape, develop, and increase the collective capacity of  our school to  implement and hopefully sustain a multi-tiered system of supports through a problem-solving culture that integrates data, practices, and systems to improve educational outcomes for every student. This year we are putting a high focus on our MTSS model and our school guidance counselor and TITLE teacher are a part of this team. We are trying to improve our MTSS by increasing parent attendance and participation and early intervention.                                                                                             

    Student Characteristics

    Student Demographics:

    Student enrollment at Penrose is approximately 258 students in grades K-6.  Of those 258 students only 17.4% report as minorities. 41.1% of all students at Penrose qualify for free or reduced lunch. 1.6% of the students at Penrose speak English as a second language. 16.7% of students at Penrose have been identified for Special Education services. 0.8% of students at Penrose have been identified as Gifted. We had a mobility rate of 10%.

    Follow up from Diagnostic Review Results from February 2019:

    Onward Educational Consulting, LLC conducted our Diagnostic Review in February of 2019 due to our School Performance Framework rating of ''Priority Improvement''. We have since moved to ''Performance''. However, we continue to utilize the results of our Diagnostic Review to move from ''good'' to ''great'', a destination for quality education in Fremont County. 

    Culture of Performance Recommendations:

    1. Build shared accountability through school-wide commitment to collaboratively established student achievement goals that are understood by all. Goals should be set at the teacher level, grade level, and school level. The work of PLCs should focus on meeting or exceeding goals.

    Academic Systems Recommendations:

    3. Ensure the school provides a comprehensive and aligned curriculum by articulating the types and levels of performance expected at each grade level based on standards and evidence outcomes. Clarify the role of standards versus instructional materials to ensure a focused, school-wide approach to teaching the standards. Provide ongoing opportunities for both horizontal and vertical articulation to ensure consistency of planning and practice.

    4. Identify a consistent set of research based, non-negotiable practices to be implemented school-wide. The school’s instructional model should intentionally maximize student engagement and should be used to drive instructional planning, the selection of instructional materials, planning of classroom activities, and use of technology. The instructional model should be well articulated by school leadership and systemically implemented in all classrooms in support of a rigorous cycle of teaching and learning.

    5. Maximize the use of instructional time through the effective use of school-wide practices. Ensure the use of instructional time reflects the articulated instructional model for math and reading and includes engaging, rigorous, student centered instructional strategies and frequent checks for understanding and effective use of technology. Maximize the effectiveness of whole group and mall group instruction including interventions.

    Talent Management Recommendations:

    6. Provide high-quality professional development and coaching support for teachers in the implementation of high-leverage instructional strategies aligned to the articulated instructional model.

    7. Put structures in place that allow school leadership to implement a system of frequent, ongoing observation and feedback to teachers to support the implementation of the instructional model. Observations from weekly cycles should be used to inform school-level professional development topics and coaching.

     ​​

    UIP Creation

    To create the UIP in 2024/2025, the principal, leadership team, and staff used state data, and local data (NWEA and Acadience Reading/DIBELS) to conduct a ''Data Dig''  at the beginning of the school year. We began the process of looking for trends, determining root causes, narrowing down priority performance challenges, and brainstorming possible action strategies. The Building Leadership Team took the work from the staff to develop the UIP. From this work, Priority Performance Challenges were identified and then we focused on determining the root causes. Major improvement strategies and aligned action steps were created and written into the the Unified Improvement plan to target the root causes and effectively eliminate them with the goal of staying at Performance when the state accountability system resumes. We have set a goal to  increase our overall academic performance in reading and math.  We continuing to seek a higher overall percentage on the SPF. 

    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).

    Both ELA and Math Student Targets for Academic Achievement were unfortunately not met. The average mean score for academic achievement for ELA was 732.3 and Math was 729.4. Our achievement is what we will be focusing on this year. As far as the Improvement Strategies some were met and some were not. Implementing a Gradual Release was successful in that teachers were doing "I do, we do, you do" in their classrooms on a weekly basis. PLCs were not consistent and effective because student behavior issues were high and PLC teams were not meeting on a regular basis. About 50 percent of teachers implemented strategic monitoring. Teacher "buy in" for strategic monitoring was low due to many teachers not understanding the "why" behind them. 


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

    This year the main focus will be on Academic Achievement. Teachers will continue to work on the Gradual Release model with a focus on the components, I do, We do, You do, in weekly lesson plans and daily instructional practices. We are taking away strategic monitoring due to its lack of effectiveness and teacher consistency. We have found a significant need for spiral review specifically in mathematics and so we will be adding that to our Major Improvement Strategies. 

    Current Performance

    State Performance Data: 2021-2024

    ELA Achievement

    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, PES students have been below the state average for ELA Achievement; however, FRL students were above the state average.  There is no significant gap between the subgroup of students.

    ELA Growth

    In 2021, PES students were above the state average in ELA growth overall, but in 2022, our growth significantly dropped well below the state average due to COVID. Our students and families were greatly impacted by quarantines and missing school. However, in 2023 and 2024 our ELA growth was above the state average. There are no significant differences among sub groups.

    Math Achievement

    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, PES students have been below the state average for Math Achievement; however, FRL students have been above.  Performance across subgroups has been flat over the past three years. There is no significant gap among the sub groups.

    Math Growth

    In 2021, PES students were below the state average in MATH growth overall.  In 2022, our growth significantly dropped well below the state average in all subgroups.  Growth was greatly affected by COVID, as not every grade was scored on CMAS making our state data less reliable than our local data.  In 2023 and 2024, our overall growth in all groups was well above the state average. 

    Local Data- NWEA Spring Scores
    ELA Achievement 
    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, our ELA achievement has been in the ''yellow'' range for NWEA, which is right below the average. It has ranged from 45th-55th and for NWEA to be in the ''green'' (on grade level track) the percentile has to be 61st or above. 

    ELA Growth 
    Over the past three years, 2021-2024, our ELA growth has also been in the ''yellow'' range for NWEA. It has ranged from the 45th-57th percentile for growth. Again for NWEA to be in the green for growth it has to be above 61. 

    Math Achievement 
    Over the past three years, 2021-2024, our math achievement has been in the green/ high yellow range for NWEA, ranging from 55th-63rd percentile. 

    Math Growth 
    Over the past three years, 2021-2024, our math growth has been in the ''green'' range for NWEA ranging from 61st to 65th. 


    Local Data-DIBELS

     


    DIBELS (K-3)



    Over the last three years, our DIBELS data for grades K-6th grade indicate that we decrease the number of intensive students from the beginning of the year to the end of the school year.  We also  increased our number of students who are grade level or above.  

    Trend Analysis

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

    Over the last three years, our students scoring in the intensive range for DIBELS decreases from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. Our students scoring on grade level or above grade level has increased. (Source: Amplify Reports)
    Trend Direction: Stable
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    Over the past three years, 2021-2024, our ELA achievement and growth for NWEA has been consistently in the 45th to 57th range which is below grade level for both categories. (Source: NWEA Growth Reports)
    Trend Direction: Stable
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    Over the past three years, 2021-2024, our Math achievement for NWEA has ranged from 55-61 percentile. This is right below the normed grade level. (Source: NWEA Growth Reports)
    Trend Direction: Stable
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, our ELA achievement for CMAS has been below the state average, having a student average mean score of 730. (Source: CDE District School Dashboard)
    Trend Direction: Stable
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Achievement (Status)

    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, our Math Achievement for CMAS has been below state average with a average student mean of 729. (Source: CDE District School Dashboard).
    Trend Direction: Increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, our ELA Growth has been above the state average with the exception of 2022 where it was below. We believe this was due to the impacts of COVID. (Source: CDE District School Dashboard)
    Trend Direction: Increasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    Over the last three years, 2021-2024, our Math Growth for CMAS has been above state average with the exception of 2022 where it was below. We believe this was due to the impacts of COVID. (Source: CDE District School Dashboard)
    Trend Direction: Stable
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    Over the past three years, 2021-2024, our math growth has ranged from 61-65 percentile. This puts us on track for being on grade level norm for growth. (Source: NWEA Growth Reports).

    Additional Trend Information:

    Overall, our growth for math and ELA is above state average for CMAS and for NWEA is "on grade level." On the contrary, our achievement for math and ELA is below state average for CMAS and is the "yellow" range for NWEA. This shows us we need to work on academic achievement; specifically for grades 3-6. 

    Priority Performance Challenge and Associated Root Cause

    Priority Performance Challenge:  Achievement in ELA and Math

    For the past three years on CMAS, student achievement in ELA and math has been below the state average.

    Area of Focus: Other achievement


    Root Cause: A need for students to transfer knowledge in independent practice.

    We lack spiral review specifically in mathematics; therefore we are not allowing students to transfer knowledge in independent practice throughout the entire school year. Students are only practicing isolated skills throughout mathematical modules and then never being exposed or assessed on that content again throughout the year.

    Root Cause Category: Curriculum

    Root Cause: A Need for Structured Teaching to Increase the Effective Use of Time

    We have a need for more structured teaching in order to increase the effective use of time.

    Root Cause Category: Instruction

    Root Cause: A Need for Collaborative Structures to Analyze Student Data.

    We have a need for collaborative structures to analyze student data in order to increase achievement in ELA and math.

    Root Cause Category: Data Analysis

    Root Cause: A Need for Improved Instructional Leadership Routines

    There is a need for improved instructional leadership routines in order to improve instruction and increase student achievement in ELA and math.

    Root Cause Category: Teacher Development


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

    These challenges have been selected because students in all subgroups are demonstrating academic performance below state performance levels in ELA and Math.  We utilized our local NWEA and DIBELS data, as well as the 2021-2022, and 2022-2024 CMAS data.  

    Students on IEPs were considered as an individual priority performance challenge, but were not singled out, as all subgroup's performance was below the state across all grade-levels.  We are addressing the magnitude of underperformance by identifying this priority performance challenge because it looks across all content areas and subgroups.

    We need to use student performance data, to better identify effective tier 1 instructional strategies.  We will have continuous discussions during PLCs (data teams) with an intentional focus on the Data Driven Teaching and Learning Cycle.  





     
     

    How were the Root Causes were selected and verified:

    These root causes were selected based off of analyzing student data during our spring Building Leadership Team meeting.  Based on discussions, BLT determined the priority performance challenge, and the root causes for that challenge in both ELA and math. To identify root causes, we utilized the fishbone analysis concept in order to identify the deepest underlying causes of our school's challenges.  After root causes were selected, they were then verified by the staff during a professional development meeting which included all teaching staff.  There was a review of formal and informal student data by teachers as evidence of root causes.




     

    Action and Progress Monitoring Plans

    Major Improvement Strategy and Action Plan

    > >

    Implement Spiral Review in Mathematics

    What will success look like:

    Teachers will be adding previously taught skills/ standards to new module assessments. They will then use this data to re-teach skills if needed during math intervention time. Teachers will also supplement our current math curriculum, Into Math, during whole group instruction time, by using standards based planning and again reteaching previously taught standards and pre-teaching upcoming standards/content.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    Jerome Bruner introduced the spiral curriculum model in 1960. Research supports the use of spiral review in the classroom, and its benefits include: Reinforcement: Revisiting topics strengthens student understanding and retention Progression: The spiral curriculum allows for a logical progression from simple to complex ideas Application: Students can apply early knowledge to later course objectives Student ownership: Students can take pride in seeing their strengths and weaknesses

    Strategy Category:

    Curriculum and Content

    Associated Root Causes:

    A need for students to transfer knowledge in independent practice.: We lack spiral review specifically in mathematics; therefore we are not allowing students to transfer knowledge in independent practice throughout the entire school year. Students are only practicing isolated skills throughout mathematical modules and then never being exposed or assessed on that content again throughout the year.

    A Need for Improved Instructional Leadership Routines: There is a need for improved instructional leadership routines in order to improve instruction and increase student achievement in ELA and math.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Addition to module assessment 70 percent of grade level teams are adding 2-3 additional questions to their module assessments that are assessing previously taught skills. This will be monitored during PLC time. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    Monthly
    Admin/ PLC teams
    Small group instruction 70 percent of grade level teams are using the additional module assessment spiral review questions to guide small group instruction. I will observe this through classroom observations. 01/06/2025
    03/01/2025
    Monthly
    Admin
    Addition to module assessments and small group instruction 100 percent of grade level teams are adding 2-3 additional questions to their module assessments that are addressing previously taught skills. 100 percent of grade level teams are using this data to guide small group instruction. 03/03/2025
    05/15/2025

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    IB 1: A
    Model for teachers how to look at previously taught topics and add them into current assessments. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    IB 1: B
    Ask a grade level team to share how they have been adding to their module assessments at a BLT or PD Day. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    IB 2: B
    Ask a grade level team to share their small group instruction plan and its effectiveness at a BLT or PD. 12/15/2024
    03/01/2024
    IB 2: A
    Model for teachers at a PD day or BLT how to use the data from a module assessment to guide small group instruction. 12/15/2024
    03/01/2025
    > >

    Implement a Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Model

    What will success look like:

    The gradual release of responsibility model is a familiar concept. This traditional approach to teaching is centered around the idea that a teacher will model a skill or strategy for a few minutes, briefly allow students to practice with some support, and then release the students to begin practicing on their own. Become familiar with the four phases of the GRR framework: Focused Instruction (“I do it”); Guided Instruction (“We do it”); Collaborative Learning (“You do it together”); and Independent Leaning (“You do it alone”). Teacher success will look like: -In the “I Do” portion of the lesson, the Teacher conducts a 10-15 minute lesson of focused instruction. -Guided instruction, or “We Do”, is a time for the teacher to provide a task for students to complete using cooperative learning structures. As the students work together to complete the task, the teacher moves around the room, observing and aggressively monitoring each student. -The “You Do” phase, which typically lasts between 25 and 40 minutes. During this time, students practice the content in groups, organizing their materials, communicating and solving problems together. At this point the teacher pulls back and focuses on flexible group differentiation, or moves through the room prompting and questioning. -During the “You do it alone” phase, students work independently on the material to show mastery of the lesson objective.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    The gradual release of responsibility instructional framework is a template for powerful and effective instruction. Teachers should use it to hone their craft as a teacher and create and deliver more effective and engaging lessons. The GRR framework is built on evidence about how learning works. We learn first by observing or listening to others and then apprenticing ourselves, using new knowledge and practicing new skills until they become "our" knowledge and skills. (Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey)

    Strategy Category:

    Research-based Instructional Practices

    Associated Root Causes:

    A Need for Structured Teaching to Increase the Effective Use of Time: We have a need for more structured teaching in order to increase the effective use of time.

    A Need for Improved Instructional Leadership Routines: There is a need for improved instructional leadership routines in order to improve instruction and increase student achievement in ELA and math.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Plan for Gradual Release Model By December 15th, 75 % of grade level teams will plan for gradual release of responsibility in their weekly lesson plans and daily classroom routines. (I do, we do, you do). 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    Weekly
    Teachers, Principal
    Improve Direction Instruction through the Gradual Release Model By March 1st, 75 % of grade level teams will effectively plan the Gradual Release Model specifically focusing on improving direct instruction. (I do) 12/16/2024
    03/01/2025
    Weekly
    Teachers
    Plan for Gradual Release Model and Improve Direction Instruction By May 15th, 100 % of grade level teams will plan for gradual release of responsibility in their weekly lesson plans and classroom routines. In addition, there will be a greater focus on direct instruction. 03/01/2025
    05/15/2025
    Weekly
    Teachers

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    IB 1: B
    Classroom instructional practices reflect feedback provided by administration and instructional coach during observation feedback cycle. 10/31/2023
    02/29/2024
    Teachers
    IB 1: C
    Feedback will be given to teachers regarding the Gradual Release Model. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    Teachers
    IB 1: A
    Teachers will be trained at the beginning of the year on the elements of Gradual Release. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    Principal
    IB 1: B
    Lesson plans will reflect the use of the Gradual Release of Instruction Model. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    Teachers
    IB 2: A
    Model for teachers at a PD Day what "great" direct instruction looks like in the classroom. 12/16/2024
    03/01/2025
    Teachers
    IB 2: B
    Ask teachers to observe other teachers whom I identify as doing an exemplary job at the Gradual Release Model. 12/16/2024
    03/15/2025
    IB 3: A
    Analyze student data to see if the focus on direct instruction is making student achievement better. 03/01/2025
    05/15/2025
    > >

    Implement a Consistent and Effective PLC Process

    What will success look like:

    A structured PLC process will provide data teams with a focus that involves teachers and support staff to discuss student learning in relationship to academic standards. It will help data teams determine next steps and instructional needs based on student assessments. The elements of a Structured PLC Process -Develop success criteria (Standards based) -Plan for Tier I instruction (develop exemplars) -Analize student work (agressive monitoring documentation) -Determine trends in student data (misconceptions/common struggles and gaps in learning) -Plan for next steps in instruction (Tier I, II, or III)

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    Professional learning community (PLC) An ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. Professional learning communities operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous job-embedded learning for educators. DuFour's 4 Questions that teachers should ask during PLC include: What do we want all students to know and be able to do? How will we know if they learn it? How will we respond when some students do not learn? How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient? These questions help drive instruction.

    Strategy Category:

    Data-Informed Instruction

    Associated Root Causes:

    A Need for Collaborative Structures to Analyze Student Data.: We have a need for collaborative structures to analyze student data in order to increase achievement in ELA and math.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    PLC Consistency and Student Data By March 2025, PLC teams will meet at least once a month and 50 percent of grade level teams will come to PLCs ready to discuss either upcoming module assessments which will guide backwards planning or previously given module assessments which will guide small group instruction and re-teaching for students. 03/01/2024
    05/23/2024
    Weekly
    Teachers, Principal
    PLC Consistency By December 15th, PLC teams will meet at least once a month and 25 percent of grade level teams will come to PLCs ready to discuss either upcoming module assessments which will guide backwards planning or previously given module assessments which will guide small group instruction and re-teaching for students. 09/30/2024
    03/01/2025
    Monthly
    Teachers, Principal
    PLC Consistency and PLC Cycles By May 2025, PLC teams will meet at least once a month and 100 percent of grade level teams will come to PLCs ready to discuss upcoming module assessments which will guide backwards planning or previously given module assessments which will guide small group instruction and re-teaching for students. 03/01/2025
    05/15/2025
    Weekly
    Teachers, Principal

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    IB 3:A
    Share an exemplary model of a PLC cycle at a BLT meeting.
    IB 1: C
    Create a PLC one pager which includes the essential 4 PLC questions and a PLC cycle guide.
    IB 3: B
    Each grade level sets a goal regarding their PLC collective efficacy.
    IB 1: A
    Share at monthly BLTs PLC expectation. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    IB 1: B
    Create a contingency plan to protect PLC time that clarifies roles. 09/30/2024
    12/15/2024
    IB 2: A
    Share an exemplary model of a PLC cycle at a BLT meeting. 12/15/2024
    03/01/2025
    IB 2: B
    Each grade level sets a goal regarding their PLC collective efficacy. 12/15/2024
    03/01/2025

    Progress Monitoring: Student Target Setting

    Priority Performance Challenge : Achievement in ELA and Math

    Performance Indicator:

    Academic Achievement (Status)

    Measures / Metrics:

    ELA
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: By Spring of 2025, PES will achieve a percentile rank for ELA achievement of 45 as measured by CMAS.
    2025-2026: By Spring of 2026, PES will achieve a percentile rank for ELA achievement of 55 as measured by CMAS.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    By February of 2025, students' ELA achievement as measured by NWEA RIT score will increase to the 55th percentile. By May of 2025, students's ELA achievement as measured by NWEA RIT score will increase to the 61st percentile.

    Performance Indicator:

    Academic Achievement (Status)

    Measures / Metrics:

    M
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: By Spring of 2025, PES will achieve a percentile rank for math achievement of 45 as measured by CMAS.
    2025-2026: By Spring of 2026, PES will achieve a percentile rank for math achievement of 55 as measured by CMAS

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    By February of 2025, students' math achievement as measured by NWEA RIT score will increase to the 55th percentile. By May of 2025, students's math achievement as measured by NWEA RIT score will increase to the 61st percentile.

    Performance Indicator:

    Other

    Measures / Metrics:

    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: By Spring of 2025, the number of students with Significant Reading Deficiency at PES will go from 63 students to 50 students.
    2025-2026: By Spring of 2026, there will only be 20 percent of students with Significant Reading Deficiency.

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    By January of 2025, the number of students who scored in the intensive range on DIBELS will go from 63 to 55. By Spring of 2025, the number of students who scored in the intensive range on DIBELS will go from 63 to 50.

    Attachments List

    © 2017 State of Colorado