Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools

Pete Mirich 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
  • Enhancing Note-Taking and Academic Language for Reading and Writing Proficiency
    		•
  • Lack of Data Driven Instruction
    		•
  • Incorporate explicit academic vocabulary instruction across all content areas.
  • PD, Formative Assessment, DDI
  • Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students
    		•
  • Mathematical Proficiency - Academic Language, Vocabulary, Structured Responses
    		•
  • Gaps in Note-Taking and Organizational Skills
    		•
  • Incorporate explicit academic vocabulary instruction across all content areas.
  • PD, Formative Assessment, DDI
  • Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students
    		•
  • Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students
    		•
  • Lack of core math resource and math interventions
    		•
  • PD, Formative Assessment, DDI
  • Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students
    		•


    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


    Pete Mirich Elementary School in LaSalle, Colorado, serves approximately 357 students from PreK through 5th grade. The student body is diverse, with 52% Hispanic and 46% White students. Around 61% of students are eligible for free lunch, with an additional 8% qualifying for reduced-price lunch, indicating that a significant portion of the student body comes from low-income households. The school maintains a student-teacher ratio of 13:1, allowing for more personalized attention compared to the state average. Our SpEd population is 5.32% at 19 students. 46 on read plan with 10 on IEPs. Mission: The school’s mission is to "provide an exemplary and safe education for all; Vision: Pete Mirich Elementary envisions a "positive and engaging learning environment led by creative and inspiring adults committed to professional growth and students reaching their full potential." The vision focuses on fostering collaboration and critical thinking among both students and staff. Values: The belief that all students can learn. Use of research-based instructional strategies to meet diverse learner needs. Promoting a safe and comfortable classroom environment that encourages students to take ownership of their learning. Community collaboration and effective decision-making as integral parts of school success. Celebrating diversity and building an inclusive school community where students feel safe to take academic risks

    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

    Pete Mirich Elementary School is a PK-5 school in LaSalle, Colorado with a student population of around 380 (350 +ECE) students. The demographics of the school consist of the following:

    -Hispanic students 55.15% ,White students 39.28%, Other <1%

    -PMES students qualify for free or reduced lunches  67.68%

    -English Language Learners 24%

    -Students with a disability 13.6% (4.8% severe, 8.8% mild)

    -Our school’s mission is to provide an exemplary and safe learning environment for every student.

    Current Performance:

    On our final School Performance Frameworks report we rated as a performance level school, we earned 60 points out of 100. 

    Subject

    Rating 

    Academic Achievement

    Meets

    Academic Growth

    Approaching

    Academic Achievement ELA All Students

    Meets

    Academic Achievement Math All Students

    Approaching

    Academic Growth ELA All Students

    Does not meet

    Academic Growth Math All Students

    Approaching

     

    Development of the UIP:
    We began our root cause analysis with all certified teachers having analyzed our current Assessment Frameworks.  The Instructional Leadership team narrowed the root causes and helped to develop our Priority Performance Challenges.  With the help of our SAC and the Instructional Leadership Team, the root causes and action plans were developed.  The principal (Christian Eaves) and ELG Coach (Emily Ullmann) put the data and plan in place using the online UIP system.  After having examined the data we will be addressing the areas where we did not meet expectations.  Those areas are Students on IEP's and ML students.

    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).

    ELA
    Successes
    Worked on foundational skills due to the ELG grant had gains in foundational skills but lacked comprehension due to the focus of the foundational skills. 

    Math
    Successes
    We did not have a tier 1 resource for our work. Teachers had to create design a lot of their math work using Engage NY, iReady, and Rocket Math.


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

    ELA
    We are using Wonders as our Tier 1 resource and SIPPS for Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions with a focus on comprehension skills. We are also getting support through the ELG grant and developing our capacity in note taking and syntax through our CDE consultant and also ording Writing Revolution 2.0 to use as a book study as a whole teaching community. 

    Math
    We are developing our understanding of the new Tier 1 resource Into Math with our Tier 2 interventions being Math 180 and Waggle . With support of our instructional coaches and PLCs, we are learning how to speak and write using academic language within the math realm. 

    Current Performance

    Based on the data from the 2024 performance report for Pete Mirich Elementary School (PMES), the school received an overall ''Improvement Plan'' rating with a total performance score of 47.5%, indicating that it falls within the state’s ''Improvement Plan'' category (42.0% - 52.9%).

    Key Performance Areas:

    1. Academic Achievement (62.5%):
    • PMES performed relatively well in academic achievement, earning 62.5% of possible points. This is classified as Meets Expectations.
    • The English Language Arts (ELA) results showed that overall student scores reached the 54th percentile, and the school earned 6 out of 8 possible points. Performance for students previously identified for READ plans or those in specific subgroups, such as free/reduced lunch and multilingual learners, was notably lower.
    • In mathematics, the overall performance was lower, reaching the 47th percentile, earning 4 out of 8 points. Subgroup performances, particularly for free/reduced lunch and multilingual learners, showed scores in the 18th to 37th percentiles.
    • For science, the school scored in the 56th percentile, earning 6 out of 8 points.
    1. Academic Growth (37.5%):
    • The school's academic growth was less favorable, earning 37.5% of possible points, which is classified as Approaching.
    • ELA growth was especially concerning, with a median growth percentile of 31, significantly below the expected growth rate. This placed the school in the ''Does Not Meet'' category.
    • Math growth, however, was stronger, with a median growth percentile of 45, classified as ''Approaching Expectations.''
    1. Subgroup Analysis:
    • The data revealed performance disparities among student subgroups, especially for students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch and multilingual learners. These subgroups consistently scored lower across subjects and growth indicators.
    • For instance, free/reduced lunch students scored at the 42nd percentile in ELA and the 24th percentile in math, while multilingual learners scored in the 24th percentile in ELA and the 18th percentile in math.
    1. Participation Rates:
    • The school met the participation thresholds with 95% participation rates in both ELA and math. However, there was a noted discrepancy with a low total participation descriptor, signaling concerns about potential opt-outs from assessments.

    Summary of Strengths:

    • PMES achieved solid results in academic achievement, particularly in science and ELA, where scores were above state averages for many students.
    • Math achievement, while lower than ELA, still performed within an acceptable range.



    Areas for Improvement:

    • Academic growth is a significant area of concern, particularly in ELA. Low growth scores across subgroups, especially for multilingual learners and free/reduced lunch students, are areas that will need targeted interventions.
    • Subgroup performance disparities need to be addressed to close the achievement gap. Additional resources may be needed for students with economic disadvantages and those with limited English proficiency.
    • Strengthening participation in assessments, particularly ensuring a higher percentage of students complete state assessments, is critical for more accurate reporting and a true reflection of student capabilities.


    Comparison of Data Over 3 Years


    1. Overall Performance:

    • 1-year data: The school earned 47.5% of possible points, placing it in the Improvement Plan category.
    • 3-year data: Over the 3-year span, PMES earned 61.8% of possible points, placing it in the Performance Plan category, which is a higher rating and indicates stronger long-term trends compared to the recent 1-year data.

    2. Academic Achievement:

    • 1-year data: The school scored 62.5% of available points in academic achievement, classified as Meets Expectations.
    • 3-year data: The school performed better over three years, scoring 66.2% in academic achievement. This suggests that while the school still meets expectations, the 1-year performance showed a slight drop in overall achievement points earned.
      • ELA: In the 3-year data, students reached the 60th percentile, earning 6/8 points, compared to the 54th percentile in the 1-year data, showing a decline in recent performance.
      • Math: The 3-year data reflects a stronger performance at the 53rd percentile, earning 6/8 points, while the 1-year data shows a drop to the 47th percentile. This suggests that math achievement has notably declined over the past year.
      • Science: Scores were consistent across both reports, with students performing in the 56th percentile and earning 6/8 points.


    3. Academic Growth:

    • 1-year data: PMES earned only 37.5% of available points for academic growth, which is categorized as Approaching Expectations. Growth in ELA, in particular, was weak, with a median growth percentile of 31.
    • 3-year data: The school performed significantly better in academic growth over the longer term, earning 58.9% of available points. This suggests that growth has been more consistent over time, though recent data shows a notable decline in growth.
      • ELA Growth: The median growth percentile for ELA in the 3-year data was 43, compared to 31 in the 1-year data, indicating that recent growth in ELA has significantly lagged behind long-term trends.
      • Math Growth: The median growth percentile for math remained consistent at 45 in both the 1-year and 3-year data, showing stable, though not exceptional, growth in this area.

    4. Subgroup Performance:

    • In both the 1-year and 3-year data, performance disparities among student subgroups, particularly students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, minority students, and multilingual learners, are evident. However, the 3-year data generally reflects stronger subgroup performance:
      • Multilingual Learners: In the 3-year data, this group had a 51.5 median growth percentile in ELA and a 50.5 median growth percentile in math. However, in the 1-year data, their ELA growth was too low to report, and their math performance was much weaker, reflecting a significant recent decline in performance for this group.
      • Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Students: In both datasets, these students consistently underperform compared to the general population, but their performance was stronger in the 3-year data, with ELA growth at the 42nd percentile compared to 34th in the 1-year data.

    5. Participation Rates:

    • The participation rates across both datasets were similar, with 95% participation in both ELA and math. However, the 1-year data flagged a low total participation descriptor, indicating potential issues with opt-outs in recent assessments.

    In summary, while the 3-year performance data shows that Pete Mirich Elementary School was able to maintain a Performance Plan rating and demonstrate consistent growth and achievement over time, the 1-year data reveals a concerning downward trend, especially in academic growth and math achievement. The drop in median growth percentiles for both ELA and math suggests that recent interventions or instructional strategies may not be as effective as those implemented over the longer term. Subgroup performance for multilingual learners and economically disadvantaged students has shown greater fluctuations, with the most recent year reflecting a decline.

    Recommendations:

    • Reassess Intervention Strategies: The decline in academic growth, particularly in ELA, suggests the need to revisit growth-focused interventions and professional development around differentiated instruction.
    • Support for Subgroups: The notable drop in performance for subgroups such as multilingual learners should prompt a focus on targeted supports and scaffolds to address language and achievement gaps.

    Sustain Long-Term Success: Leveraging the successful strategies that contributed to the stronger 3-year performance data could help stabilize recent performance declines.

    Trend Analysis

    Trend Direction: Decreasing
    Performance Indicator Target: Academic Growth

    Pete Mirich Elementary is on a decreasing trend for CMAS ELA growth. In 2022 we had the median growth percentile score of 58.5% and are now at 31% in 2024.

    Additional Trend Information:




     

    Priority Performance Challenge and Associated Root Cause

    Priority Performance Challenge:  Enhancing Note-Taking and Academic Language for Reading and Writing Proficiency

    Pete Mirich has been on a decreasing trend for the last three years and is currently scoring "Does Not Meet." This is a priority improvement challenge for this school.

    Area of Focus: English/Language Arts growth


    Root Cause: Lack of Data Driven Instruction

    The school's performance data, including low median growth percentiles on CMAS ELA (31.0) and challenges in meeting growth targets for NWEA and DIBELS, suggest that instructional decisions are not consistently data-driven. Without a systematic approach to data analysis, instructional adjustments to meet the needs of subgroups such as second language learners and students with disabilities are likely insufficient. This contributes to lower overall achievement and growth scores.

    Root Cause Category: Data Analysis


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Mathematical Proficiency - Academic Language, Vocabulary, Structured Responses

    We are still below the state average for math which is why it is considered priority improvement.

    Area of Focus: Math achievement


    Root Cause: Gaps in Note-Taking and Organizational Skills

    Lack of clarity for the rigor level needed to score "meets" or "exceeds" on ELA CMAS, especially when it comes to writing and the comprehensibility of student answers. Students may lack effective strategies for organizing and recording their thinking processes during problem-solving, leading to difficulties in retaining and applying mathematical concepts.

    Root Cause Category: Curriculum


    Priority Performance Challenge:  Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students

    Area of Focus: Math achievement


    Root Cause: Lack of core math resource and math interventions

    The absence of a core math curriculum last year likely contributed to inconsistent instructional practices. Without a structured curriculum, students may have missed key concepts or lacked the necessary progression of mathematical skills, which could directly impact their proficiency on state and interim assessments​.

    Root Cause Category: Curriculum

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

    PMES decided to focus on reading, writing, and thinking with more complexity in both ELA and Math. Our rationale is based on CMAS data showing a decrease in constructed response in both subject areas. We believe that targeted instruction around note taking and writing, with the support of our ELG grant and structured PLCs, we will improve overall student performance.

    How were the Root Causes were selected and verified:

    PMES chose the performance challenge of ''Students with Disabilities'' in the area of ELA because we are ranked in the 1st percentile.  This subgroup did make improvement in the 21/22 school year, but the ranking continues to be significantly lower than our overall student percentile ranking.

    PMES chose the performance challenge of  ''English Learners'', specifically in the area of math. ''English Learners'' were ranked in the 26th percentile, which is lower than our overall student percentile ranking of 59.  

    When looking at data from previous years, ''students with disabilities'' continue to stay in the first percentile or below in the area of ELA. While we know that ELA may be a struggle for these students we do know that when compared to other students in their subgroup, in the state, they are below the state average. This subgroup did show some gains in achievement last year (+8.5 scaled score) but they continue to be below the state average.

    The data from previous years shows that the math scaled score for the subgroup ''English Learners'' has fallen from 725.6 in 2017 to 724.7 in 2022. This subgroup has grown in ELA, but not in math. 

    Inconsistent use of best practices with instruction for ''English Learners'' in math causes students to have a lack of achievement. 

    Science of Reading instruction must be taught consistently to all students in their Tier 1 instruction, especially to ''Students with Disabilities''

     

     

     

    Additional Narrative / Conclusion

    There was a dynamic shift within the district that has led to many challenges within our district. Along with theses challenges, we have had a culture that was toxic and not conducive to the learning of our community. 

    Action and Progress Monitoring Plans

    Major Improvement Strategy and Action Plan

    > >

    Incorporate explicit academic vocabulary instruction across all content areas.

    What will success look like:

    		Success will be "English Learners" showing growth and achievement on Benchmark Assessments and I-Ready in math.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		Frayer Model and Vocabulary Development Frayer Model Overview: The Frayer Model is a graphic organizer that prompts students to define a concept, list its characteristics, provide examples, and give non-examples. This approach deepens students' understanding of academic vocabulary and conceptual knowledge by encouraging critical thinking about words in different contexts. Impact on Academic Language: Research by Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) supports the use of multiple strategies for vocabulary instruction, including the Frayer Model, as it encourages students to interact with words at a deeper level. This improves their ability to use academic language correctly in both spoken and written forms. Retention and Application: According to research by Nagy and Anderson (1984), students retain vocabulary better when they interact with words in a variety of ways. The Frayer Model allows students to explore and apply academic terms across different disciplines, enhancing both reading comprehension and writing clarity. Metacognitive Strategy: The model promotes metacognitive skills, as students must reflect on the meaning of the word, how it’s used, and how it can be misused (non-examples). This reflection supports reading comprehension by ensuring students grasp the nuances of language. Evidence-Based Support for the Frayer Model: Building Depth of Knowledge: The Frayer Model aligns with Marzano's (2004) findings on vocabulary instruction, emphasizing that the depth of knowledge about a word (not just rote memorization) is critical for literacy development. It fosters a more profound understanding of academic language, which is directly linked to improved reading comprehension and writing proficiency. Integrating Content Knowledge and Vocabulary: As students use the Frayer Model to explore vocabulary in various subjects (e.g., science, math, social studies), they strengthen their content-area literacy, which research by Shanahan & Shanahan (2008) highlights as essential for academic success. Engagement and Collaboration: The Frayer Model can be used in collaborative learning environments where students discuss vocabulary and concepts with peers, which enhances engagement and deepens understanding (Vygotsky, 1978). This cooperative approach benefits both academic language acquisition and the development of writing skills as students use new vocabulary in discussions and written responses. Practical Application in Reading and Writing: Reading: Teachers can use the Frayer Model as part of reading assignments, prompting students to define and analyze key terms from texts. This will improve their comprehension by giving them tools to tackle difficult academic vocabulary. Writing: The Frayer Model can be incorporated into writing assignments, where students must use academic language accurately. For example, students could be asked to define key terms in their essays using the Frayer Model as a pre-writing activity. Incorporating the Frayer Model into instruction provides students with a structured, evidence-based method to improve their note-taking skills and academic language, which are essential for proficiency in reading and writing.

    Strategy Category:

    		Research-based Instructional Practices

    Associated Root Causes:

    Lack of Data Driven Instruction: The school's performance data, including low median growth percentiles on CMAS ELA (31.0) and challenges in meeting growth targets for NWEA and DIBELS, suggest that instructional decisions are not consistently data-driven. Without a systematic approach to data analysis, instructional adjustments to meet the needs of subgroups such as second language learners and students with disabilities are likely insufficient. This contributes to lower overall achievement and growth scores.

    Gaps in Note-Taking and Organizational Skills: Lack of clarity for the rigor level needed to score "meets" or "exceeds" on ELA CMAS, especially when it comes to writing and the comprehensibility of student answers. Students may lack effective strategies for organizing and recording their thinking processes during problem-solving, leading to difficulties in retaining and applying mathematical concepts.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Elevate the academic language proficiency of all students checklists for implementation of strategies 11/14/2022
    11/14/2022
    Quarterly     		Principal, ELG Coach, District Instructional and Teachers Partially Met

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    Staff Meeting- ML Strategies
    		Students in the subcategory "English Learners", will be closely monitored with IReady, Curriculum Assessments, and Progress Monitoring in Math 09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		IReady Curriculum Assessments Progress Monitoring Principal, District Coaches, ELG Coach In Progress
    Classroom Walkthroughs for ML Strategies
    		09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		Administrators and Coaches
    Pre-Teach Math Vocabulary in ML groups
    		09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		Principal, District Coaches, ELG Coach
    > >

    PD, Formative Assessment, DDI

    What will success look like:

    		Success will be when "students with disabilities" receive targeted/small group instruction in General Education Tier 1 intervention as well as from their special education instructor.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		1. Explicit Vocabulary Instruction Strategy: Teach key academic and mathematical vocabulary explicitly. Ensure students understand terms and their application within mathematical contexts. Evidence: Studies show that direct vocabulary instruction enhances comprehension, especially in subjects like math, where specialized language can be a barrier to understanding. Implementation: Use Frayer Models or similar graphic organizers to break down the meaning of terms. Have students use new vocabulary in both oral and written mathematical explanations. 2. Sentence Frames and Structured Responses Strategy: Provide students with sentence frames or starters that guide them in constructing clear, well-organized mathematical responses. Evidence: Research indicates that scaffolding students’ written responses helps them articulate complex mathematical reasoning. Implementation: Examples of sentence starters include: "In this problem, I used ___ because...", or "The relationship between ___ and ___ is...". Over time, gradually reduce scaffolding as students gain proficiency. 3. Interactive Notebooks and Structured Note-Taking Strategy: Teach students structured note-taking strategies, such as Cornell Notes, to capture key concepts, vocabulary, and problem-solving processes. Evidence: Structured note-taking has been shown to increase retention and comprehension by helping students organize information logically. Implementation: Train students to take notes during problem-solving, emphasizing steps taken, terminology used, and reflections on the process. Encourage students to revisit notes before constructing written responses. 4. Math Talk and Academic Discourse Strategy: Integrate opportunities for students to engage in "Math Talk" by discussing problems, strategies, and reasoning with peers, focusing on academic language and vocabulary. Evidence: Studies show that verbalizing mathematical thinking helps solidify understanding and increases proficiency in written articulation. Implementation: Pair or group students to discuss math problems and encourage them to use precise academic language. Use protocols like "Think-Pair-Share" or "Turn and Talk" with a focus on mathematical vocabulary. suggests collaboration time for teachers and interventionists is directly correlated to increased scores.8. Modeling and Think-Alouds Strategy: 5. Model the process of writing clear, concise mathematical explanations using think-alouds, demonstrating how to incorporate academic language and vocabulary. Evidence: When teachers model their thinking and writing process, it helps students internalize strategies for articulating mathematical understanding. Implementation: Regularly model solving a math problem and then writing a short constructed response, explaining your thought process aloud. Highlight how to select precise vocabulary and organize thoughts coherently. By combining these strategies, students can develop the skills needed to improve proficiency in academic language, mathematical vocabulary, and structured note-taking, ultimately leading to stronger comprehension and written articulation in math. 6. Promoting Productive Struggle in Problem-Solving Strategy: Encourage students to engage in productive struggle by providing challenging tasks that require persistence and critical thinking, while supporting them with necessary tools such as academic language and structured note-taking. Evidence: Research shows that productive struggle deepens conceptual understanding and helps students develop resilience in solving complex problems. It enhances their ability to explain their reasoning and use appropriate mathematical vocabulary. Implementation: Present students with non-routine, open-ended problems that push them to apply their understanding of mathematical vocabulary and note-taking strategies. Allow time for students to struggle productively before offering help. This could involve prompting them to reflect on their use of terms and problem-solving steps in writing. Use guiding questions like, “What mathematical term or process might help you here?” or “Can you explain what you’ve tried so far and why?” 7. Reflection During Productive Struggle Strategy: Have students reflect on their problem-solving process during and after productive struggle, focusing on the academic language they used, the steps they took, and their reasoning. Evidence: Reflection is a key aspect of productive struggle that helps students internalize their learning and improve their ability to explain mathematical concepts. Implementation: After a period of struggle, ask students to write about the strategies they used, why certain approaches worked or didn’t, and how they applied mathematical vocabulary in their thinking. Include sentence starters to guide reflection, such as, “I used the term ___ to describe...” or “The challenge in this problem was... because...”. 8. Scaffold Productive Struggle with Math Talk and Vocabulary Strategy: Use math talk and collaborative discussions during productive struggle to help students articulate their thinking using precise academic language and mathematical vocabulary. Evidence: Productive struggle combined with collaborative discussions enhances students' ability to verbalize their understanding, which strengthens their written explanations in constructed responses. Implementation: Pair students to work through challenging problems together, encouraging them to use academic language and reflect on their struggles out loud before writing. After completing a problem, ask students to engage in a discussion about the vocabulary and strategies they found most useful, followed by a written reflection. 9. Feedback on Effort and Process During Productive Struggle Strategy: Provide feedback that focuses on students’ effort and problem-solving process during productive struggle, rather than just the correctness of the answer. Emphasize their use of academic language and note-taking to support their reasoning. Evidence: Focusing feedback on the process rather than the outcome fosters a growth mindset, helping students persist through challenges and improve their mathematical reasoning and articulation. Implementation: After a productive struggle activity, give feedback that highlights the use of correct vocabulary and structured note-taking, regardless of whether the final answer was correct. Offer suggestions on how students can refine their language and written responses based on their problem-solving process.

    Strategy Category:

    		Research-based Instructional Practices

    Associated Root Causes:

    Lack of Data Driven Instruction: The school's performance data, including low median growth percentiles on CMAS ELA (31.0) and challenges in meeting growth targets for NWEA and DIBELS, suggest that instructional decisions are not consistently data-driven. Without a systematic approach to data analysis, instructional adjustments to meet the needs of subgroups such as second language learners and students with disabilities are likely insufficient. This contributes to lower overall achievement and growth scores.

    Gaps in Note-Taking and Organizational Skills: Lack of clarity for the rigor level needed to score "meets" or "exceeds" on ELA CMAS, especially when it comes to writing and the comprehensibility of student answers. Students may lack effective strategies for organizing and recording their thinking processes during problem-solving, leading to difficulties in retaining and applying mathematical concepts.

    Lack of core math resource and math interventions: The absence of a core math curriculum last year likely contributed to inconsistent instructional practices. Without a structured curriculum, students may have missed key concepts or lacked the necessary progression of mathematical skills, which could directly impact their proficiency on state and interim assessments​.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Improve student proficiency in academic language, mathematical vocabulary Increased scores as measured by iReady 08/16/2022
    05/26/2023
    Weekly     		Administration and Coaches

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    Team Meetings
    		Students in the subcategory "Students with Disabilities", will be closely monitored with DIBELS Benchmarks and Progress Monitoring in Math 09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		DIBELS Benchmarks and Progress Monitoring District Instructional Coaches, Principal and Teachers
    a05PU000003DNRh
    		09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		District Instructional Coaches, Principals, teachers
    > >

    Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students

    What will success look like:

    		General Education Teachers and ML teacher will meet at least monthly to discuss students and instructional strategies, "English learners" will show growth in Benchmark/progress monitoring/daily assessments in math.

    Describe the research/evidence base supporting the strategy:

    		Inconsistent Learning Experiences Variability in Instruction: Without a core curriculum, students may experience significant differences in what they are taught depending on their school or classroom. This variability can lead to gaps in foundational knowledge, particularly in key subjects such as math and reading. Learning Gaps: Students may miss essential building blocks in their education, as different teachers may prioritize different content or teaching methods. For example, if math concepts are not introduced systematically, students might struggle with more advanced topics in later grades. 2. Impact on Educational Equity Inequity in Access: A core curriculum ensures that all students, regardless of their school or district, receive a similar baseline education. Without it, disparities can arise between wealthier schools with access to better resources and schools in underserved areas. Achievement Gaps: Research shows that schools with a consistent, standards-based curriculum tend to see smaller achievement gaps between student groups. A lack of a core curriculum can exacerbate these gaps, as marginalized students may not have the same opportunities to learn key content as their peers.

    Strategy Category:

    		Curriculum and Content

    Associated Root Causes:

    Lack of Data Driven Instruction: The school's performance data, including low median growth percentiles on CMAS ELA (31.0) and challenges in meeting growth targets for NWEA and DIBELS, suggest that instructional decisions are not consistently data-driven. Without a systematic approach to data analysis, instructional adjustments to meet the needs of subgroups such as second language learners and students with disabilities are likely insufficient. This contributes to lower overall achievement and growth scores.

    Gaps in Note-Taking and Organizational Skills: Lack of clarity for the rigor level needed to score "meets" or "exceeds" on ELA CMAS, especially when it comes to writing and the comprehensibility of student answers. Students may lack effective strategies for organizing and recording their thinking processes during problem-solving, leading to difficulties in retaining and applying mathematical concepts.

    Lack of core math resource and math interventions: The absence of a core math curriculum last year likely contributed to inconsistent instructional practices. Without a structured curriculum, students may have missed key concepts or lacked the necessary progression of mathematical skills, which could directly impact their proficiency on state and interim assessments​.

    Implementation Benchmarks Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Benchmark Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status
    Increased best first instruction in mathematics Rubrics, observation forms, assessment data 10/12/2022
    05/27/2023
    Monthly     		Principal, teachers, and District Coaches

    Action Steps Associated with Major Improvement Strategy

    Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status
    Classroom Observations & PD
    		Students in the subcategory "English Learners", will be closely monitored with I-Ready, Curriculum Assessments, and Progress Monitoring in Math 09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		I-Ready Curriculum Assessments Progress Monitoring Teachers and District Coaches, Principals
    Unit Data Meetings
    		09/06/2024
    05/10/2024     		All K-5 teachers, Principals, District Coaches, HMH
    a05PU000003DIYV
    		09/06/2024
    04/04/2025     		Principal, Teachers, and District Coaches

    Progress Monitoring: Student Target Setting

    Priority Performance Challenge : Enhancing Note-Taking and Academic Language for Reading and Writing Proficiency

    Performance Indicator:

    Measures / Metrics:
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: CMAS ELA Growth: Increase the median growth percentile for all students from 31.0 to 32.6 (a 5% increase) by the end of the 2024-2025 school year, with targeted support for second language learners.
    2025-2026:

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    Priority Performance Challenge : Mathematical Proficiency - Academic Language, Vocabulary, Structured Responses

    Performance Indicator:

    Measures / Metrics:
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Mean Scale Score: Increase the overall mean scale score for CMAS Math from 733.4 to 740.0. Proficiency Rate: Increase the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations from 47% to 52%.
    2025-2026:

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    Priority Performance Challenge : Increased Mathematics Achievement for All Students

    Performance Indicator:

    Measures / Metrics:
    ANNUAL
    PERFORMANCE
    TARGETS
    2024-2025: Increase student proficiency from 35-39% to 45% or higher on state assessments.
    2025-2026:

    INTERIM MEASURES FOR 2024-2025:

    Attachments List

    © 2017 State of Colorado