Cover Page – for Colorado Department of Education (CDE)

INNOVATION PLAN COVER PAGE **PLEASE SUBMIT THIS PAGE AS THE FIRST PAGE OF THE INNOVATION PLAN**

Direct innovation plan questions to Kelly Rosensweet (Rosensweet_k@cde.state.co.us)

Innovation School Name: Billie Martinez Elementary School

Location (address): 341 14th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631

Plan Contact (name and position): Monica Draper, Principal; Wes Tuttle, Director of Elementary Schools, Dr. Deirdre Pilch, Superintendent

Email: mdraper@greeleyschools.org; wtuttle@greeleyschools.org; dpilch@greeleyschools.org

Phone: School- (970) 348-1800; District Office- (970) 348-6000

Please answer the following questions to help us review the innovation plan as efficiently as possible.

Is this plan for a new school or an existing school (circle one)? Existing School ➢ If this plan is a new school, is the new school (check one):

Replacing legacy schools on turnaround status; or

Part of a district plan to create a portfolio of schools necessary to serve the Act’s purpose of improving student performance and addressing the issues identified in chronically failing schools or student populations?

➢ Has the school submitted a request for to CDE for a new school code, grade change, name change, etc.? No

➢ If so, when was the request made and what was it for? N.A.

➢ Has the school been granted status as an Alternate Education Campus (AEC)? No

➢ If the school does not have AEC status, does the school plan on submitting an application for AEC status before opening? (Please note that the deadline is July 1ST.) No

➢ Is the school in Priority Improvement or Turnaround? Yes

➢ Is the school a recipient of the federal School Improvement Grant (10039g))? Yes- Pathways Grant

➢ Will the school be seeking a waiver for graduation guidelines? No ➢ Please indicate in the plan if the school will follow district requirements and include the district

graduation policy as an appendix.

**PLEASE SUBMIT THIS PAGE AS THE FIRST PAGE OF THE INNOVATION PLAN**

1

Table of Contents

Letter From School Design Teams………………………………………..……………………………...3

Innovation: Executive Summary……………..…………………………..…………………………...…..9

Innovation: School Profile ……………………………………….……………………………………....16

Innovation: Vision, Mission, and Values…………………………………………………………….....20

Innovation: The Need for Innovation…………………………………………………………………...22

Section I: Culture of Performance ………………………………………….……………………….….30

Section II: Academic Systems …………………………………………….……………….…………...43

Section III: Talent Management ………………………………………………………..……………....72

Section IV: Budget and Operations ……………………………………….……………….…………..77

Section V: District Partnership …………………………………………….…………………….……..80

Conditions Necessary for Innovation: Waivers………………………...………………….………….83

District Policy Waivers……………………………………………….……...…………….…....83

State Statute Waivers…………………………………………….…………….……………….93

Collective Bargaining Waivers……………………………………………….....…………….105

Appendix A: Innovation Implementation Timeline…………………….………………………..……108

Appendix B: Bibliography………….………………………………………………………..………...112

Appendix C: Project Based Learning Research………………………………………..…………...114

Appendix D: Preschool Assessments……………………………………………………....………..139

Appendix E: Diagnostic Review, Annotated……………….………………………………...………148

Appendix F: Unified School Improvement Plan………………………………………….….………174

Appendix G: Presentation to SAC; Support Signatures and Letters………………….……..…... 234

Appendix H: Letters of Support................................................................................................. 252

2

Letter from the School Design Team

April 24, 2017

Dear Greeley-Evans School District Six Board of Education and Colorado State Board of Education:

The Billie Martinez School Innovation Team respectfully submits this innovation plan for Billie Martinez Elementary School, currently a K-5 building in Greeley-Evans District 6. The primary components of the Martinez school design are the creation of a Community Based School with a focus on identifying as a STEAM school, using Project Based Learning, conducting feasibility studies on both an academic preschool and an on-site health care clinic for our families. We are seeking innovative status to effectively implement the design components that are unique to the school, its natural setting and distinct programming. Innovative practices at Billie Martinez will include the following:

● Official identification as a STEAM school

● Project Based Learning for implementation of STEAM

○ Literacy Design Collaborative to further implement the Understanding by Design planning process

● During year two, we will study the feasibility of adding a preschool program for all 3 and 4 year olds to address school readiness, language development, pre-reading and pre-math skills.

● Year three will include the exploration of a Health Care Center to address the lack of quality health care for students and families in our Martinez community.

The innovation design team is comprised of all teachers, school administrators, parents and community partners. The teaching staff and School Accountability Committee (SAC), and classified staff all unanimously approved this innovation plan.

The undersigned Innovation Design Team is proud to submit the attached plan on behalf of all the current and future Martinez Elementary School students and families.

Respectfully submitted,

3

4

5

6

7

RESOLUTION

Greeley-Evans •" _.)I Gi.A"IT SlHOi.lt ·'' ~I(T b

Resolution to Support the Innovation Plan for Martinez Elementary School

WHEREAS, the Board of Education is committed to leading the nation's cities in student achievement, high school graduation, college preparation, and college matriculation; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Education is committed to improving the quality and effectiveness of each of its schools; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Education believes that we must develop new, innovative approaches to teaching and learning in our existing and future schools by giving schools more autonomy over the critical areas of personnel, use of time, and use of money, expanding choices, and building the capacity for innovation, and holding schools accountable for improving student achievement; and

WHEREAS, The Innovation Schools Act provides a critical means for schools and the District to accelerate progress toward our goals; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Education has considered the Innovation Plan for Martinez Elementary School and found that it meets all expectations of The Innovation Schools Act, including that it is fiscally feasible and that it will not result in lower student performance;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT;

1. The Board of Education approves the Innovation Plan as submitted by the Department of Academic Achievement under The Innovation Schools Act.

2. The District shall hold Martinez Elementary School accountable on an annual basis for progress toward the goals in its Innovation Plan and their School Improvement Plan using the District 6 School Performance Framework and report that progress to the Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education.

3. The Office of the Director of Elementaty and K-8 Schools will be responsible for the continued review and accountability of all instructional elements of the plan, including any academic waivers from the District's curricular policies.

GIVEN under my hand and the Executive Seal of Weld County School District 6, this 8Lh day of May 2017.

8

Executive Summary

Billie Martinez Elementary has been a part of the greater Greeley community for the past 70 years. We are a unique part of the northeast corner of Greeley. We serve a primarily Latino population of students, 97% of whom qualify for free or reduced lunch. In the past year we have experienced an increase in the percent of Asian, African, and Native American children in our school. Currently there are 10 different languages spoken in our building. We have a rich cultural heritage and value the diversity of our students and families. While the challenges we face are great, we are committed to making great changes which will bring great academic success to our children.

Prior to 1973, Billie Martinez Elementary was known as Park Elementary. At that time Billie Martinez was a parent at Park Elementary. She championed community engagement and a strong education for all students. She believed it takes a village to educate a child. In 1973, Park Elementary became Billie Martinez Elementary in honor of all of the hard work and dedication to this small northeastern corner of Greeley to which Mrs. Martinez was so dedicated. She championed education and the inclusion of parents as partners in the educational process. She would often help parents by driving them or their children to school. She would provide child care to another family so those parents could be at school for any reason. Mrs. Martinez made a difference in the lives of not only the children of Park Elementary School and their families, but for the future students and families of Billie Martinez Elementary. We respectfully submit this plan based not only on her legacy, but the needs of our children to have more, be more, and do more for a community of students.

Over the past decade our academic and growth data has indicated adult actions have not been strong enough, unique enough or courageous enough to ensure high academic success for all students and families at Billie Martinez. We fall well below district and state expectations for performance in all content areas (reading, writing, math and science) in both academic success and growth. Some challenges which impact our achievement are poverty, attendance, and the percent of second language learners. The percent of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch is currently 97%. Approximately 92% of our students are Hispanic. Attendance averages 94.6% daily. All of these things can impact instruction. Given our demographics we know our students often need different instruction to meet the rigorous standards. We have followed all District 6 directives for instruction and programing, and participated in all District provided professional development opportunities. Clearly, we need to do something dramatically different to meet the very unique needs of Billie Martinez students. This new design will align with the District 6 Innovation 2020 plan by allowing us to work with the students at Billie Martinez in a unique way to meet their unique needs. Innovation status will give Billie Martinez educators the autonomy we need to create the changes necessary to drive us into the future and provide for the unique needs of all of our students.

Staff turnover at Billie Martinez has been natural part of the life of any organization. Teachers who are committed to the the work at Billie Martinez tend to stay. Turnover has generally been retirement or teachers moving out of the area. In 2013-2014 we retained 79% of our staff. In 2014-2015 we retained 86% of our staff and in 2015-2016, 85% of our staff stayed. We maintain a blend of experience at Martinez. Approximately one third of staff are within their first two years of teaching, one third are between three and ten years of experience, and the remaining third have over ten years of experience.

9

Student behavior at Billie Martinez is outstanding. Our students are well behaved and are able to attend to instruction in the classroom. After completing a full diagnostic review in the fall of 2015, Focused Leadership Solutions reported:

“The school has a visibly organized environment with clear and consistent expectations for student behavior. This appears to result in generally suitable behavior by students which creates the opportunity for teachers to engage them in academic learning.”

A community based program focused on the needs of the whole child and families will help us meet the unique needs of our students. Through an academic based preschool for three and four year olds, a health care center for families, as well as a center for Senior Citizens in our community we will be better able to meet the unique needs of our families. Opportunities and services to families which are currently unavailable will now be possible. Preschool will allow us to provide clear, focused instruction in school readiness skills, pre-reading, and pre-math skills. Preschool will provide the opportunity to develop English Language skills for students prior to kindergarten which will better prepare all children to be school ready. A school based health care center will provide ongoing health care to families of Billie Martinez. Students at Billie Martinez often experience untreated illnesses that can cause hearing loss or developmental delays. When caught early and treated properly, we could reduce the challenges we see in our students. With the inclusion of a Foster Grandparent program we can begin to engage the whole community in education of students. Mentor programs for students provide opportunities for our senior citizens to be involved in tutoring children and supporting learning at Billie Martinez.

Instructional focus and strategies must change within classrooms for all kindergarten through fifth grade students. STEAM focused content taught through Project Based Learning will be foundational to our reform efforts. Grounded in research, STEAM will provide engaging access to rigorous standards in Literacy, Math, and Science through technology, engineering, and the arts. Using the Literacy Design Collaborative, 6 units of study will be developed using the full Understanding by Design construct to provide highly engaging instruction and learning to all students. We will allow students to engage in rigorous content by allowing them to construct meaning through an environment that will require the students to collaborate, think critically and solve real world problems. To do this requires adults to rethink and revise current teaching methodologies. Teachers will receive training and follow up training using a train the trainer model in project based learning as well as Understanding by Design with Literacy Design Collaborative focusing our work on Stage 3 – strong instructional practices. All of this is to focus our instruction throughout Billie Martinez. All staff will be provided with on going support to implement project based learning through coaching, weekly collaboration, and planning.

Although we have begun the work of innovation with initial training and implementation of Understanding by Design and the development of two STEAM projects, in order to grow our program and to have a significant impact on student success, we are requesting official innovation status to allow us the opportunity to fully implement the redesign of our program. Teachers and staff will recommit to our community of learners and families by providing highly engaging learning opportunities with strong content, instruction, and success. We are committed to effective and efficient change at Billie Martinez to truly impact learning. With a highly committed staff, a commitment to innovation, strong coaching and planning processes, and the support of our District and community, we believe we have a strong foundation for positive change which will propel our students forward to strong academic success.

10

The innovation plan for Billie Martinez will require certain conditions, flexibilities and waivers in order to be successful. Most of the requests we are making should come from Greeley-Evans District 6 including, flexibility with professional development days and times, flexibility with developing a strong follow up professional development program, flexibility in designing staff hours to meet the needs of the community before and after school, additional paid time in the summer for teachers to work, curriculum and pacing guides, assessments, and the hiring process.

Throughout this process, we have also consulted with Nicole Monet, Turnaround Support Manager, as well as Kelly Rosensweet, Charter and Innovation Schools Support Coordinator to ensure that this plan is high quality and meets all state expectations and requirements.

School Historical Context and Background

Billie Martinez Elementary is a neighborhood school rich culture, tradition and high expectations for student achievement. Our goal is to ensure the success of all children and to help each child learn and grow every day. We value the uniqueness of each individual child and adult in our school. We practice Pride, Respect, and Cooperation every day. We work to prepare all students in a fair, challenging, and safe environment to become self-motivated, independent problem solvers. Students, parents, and staff work together to contribute positively to the school and community.

Data released from the State and our Diagnostic Review was part of our review process and used to write an innovation plan for the Billie Martinez community. 100% of our certified staff participated in the design of our proposed new innovation program. Billie Martinez parents, teachers and administrators examined state and local data. We know we have not met standards. We have challenges which need to be addressed. These challenges start with our inability to address the needs of students before the age of 5 due to our lack of a rigorous, high quality preschool program focused on language development, pre-reading skills, concepts about print, and numeracy. We also know engaging our community in effective ways to help us fully educate our students has been a struggle. We deeply understand the need for adequate health care within the Billie Martinez community and neighborhood. Addressing community needs and issues are central in the development of our innovation plan. In order to address the academic needs of our students we are proposing to be a STEAM school with a focus on project based learning to dramatically change our instructional delivery model to address our needs in literacy, math, science and social studies for all students. Planning processes will be completed using Understanding by Design to develop units of study which will focus on integration of rigorous content across disciplines of reading, writing, science, social studies and the arts. The same Understanding by Design structures will be in place to plan math units of study. Stage three of Understanding by Design, the learning events support student learning in acquisition, meaning making and transfer deep understanding of rigorous standards. This stage of the process will be planned using the Literacy Design Collaborative to engage students in project based learning opportunities which meet the goals of stage 3 for Understanding by Design. Project based learning will be our most important instructional change and will create a common, strong instructional delivery model for all Billie Martinez students. In the 2016-2017 we have already made some instructional changes based upon observational data, PARCC data and DIBELS. In five classrooms in our school we saw 55% growth in Literacy on PARCC. Teachers in these classrooms were only doing a few things differently than every other classroom in our building. Teachers in these classrooms focused time in text for all

11

students, every day. Teachers provided an interactive read aloud focusing their metacognitive processes on comprehension standards. Students were given clear, specific goals for reading which focused on using the same standards teachers just modeled. As students read, the teachers monitored their comprehension with strong conferencing. Students in each of the five classrooms read for at least 45 minutes per day. At the end of time in text these teachers engaged their students in some kind of follow up to demonstrate their understanding and use of the standard. Students would write about their thinking, share with peers, participate in reciprocal teaching. Teachers in these classrooms also progress monitored their students every two weeks using DIBELS. Students set reasonable goals, monitored their goals, and made progress. The percent of fifth graders at benchmark went from 24% at the beginning of the year to 48% at the end of the year. 80% of students in the second grade classroom were benchmark at the end of the year and maintained that benchmark well into the fall. These are practices we can and are replicating. Instruction in math is also changing. Teachers are engaging students in new ways during math instruction to fill learning gaps and provide stronger instructional strategies including guided math groups, blended learning with ZEARN or Moby Max. Teachers are using data to drive day to day decisions about instruction for students in math. The Literacy by Design (LDC) processes will be driven by teacher leaders in the building. LDC and project based learning will be a train the trainer model which will allow us to change the culture of Billie Martinez and build the leadership capacity of all teachers for now and the future.

Another area of promise in our building is in building the language skills of our second language students. We have two consecutive years of good to great growth data for WIDA (53% in 2015, and 75% in 2016). Observational data by administrators (approximately 425 walk throughs and full observations in 2014-2015 and approximately 600 in 2015-16) also supports our understanding of what works for our second language students. We know the classrooms which used a time in text format of modeling with mentor text, setting a focus for time in text around modeled strategies and skills, conferencing with students while reading, and a reciprocal teaching action at the end showed growth and higher achievement in reading as demonstrated on DIBELS and on PARCC. These successes impact WIDA as well. In terms of instructional strategies for our second language students, we have only made two major changes to the way we instruct students at Billie Martinez. We created writing non-negotiables for all grade levels and we insist on students answering and speaking in complete sentences while in classrooms. This will be our third year of this practice and our results are clear. Our growth data on WIDA was high for two years and we have moved almost 75% of our students up at least one level, more often two levels. More of our students are moving at a faster pace to fluent English proficient status. Focused time in text, non-negotiables for writing, and responding in complete sentences are all promising practices for us to consider in our innovation plan.

The following additional information is provided to help build a picture of our school as it is currently. We submit this plan as a way to build a successful future which provides academic success to all children and to build a new community focused on the whole child.

Demographics: Billie Martinez Elementary is a K-5 school of approximately 520 students in Greeley, Colorado. We serve a population of students who are: 97% free or reduced lunch; 88.6% Hispanic; 6.8% white; 4.6% other race; 80% second language learners.

Student Achievement: Student achievement at Billie Martinez has been flat for the past seven years, with less than half of our student body performing at or above State and District levels on State tests. Because of this trend a Diagnostic Review grant was written and granted during the summer of 2015. Focused

12

Leadership Solutions was hired to conduct the Diagnostic Review. The review was completed on September 28, 29, and 30, 2015. The staff was presented the data from the Diagnostic Review on October 26, 2015, during a staff meeting. The results of this Diagnostic Review are the driving force in the creation of this school improvement plan in 2015 and continues to guide our work in 2016-2017.

School Culture and Climate: As part of the Diagnostic Review we have identified school culture and climate as part of our root cause for lack of sustained growth and achievement. In 2015 our Leadership TEAM Martinez used the State rubric for Turnaround Schools as well as the results of the TELL survey in May 2015 to analyze teacher/staff perceptions and performance within our school and to then identify action steps to take as the result of this analysis. Our analysis aligned with the findings of the Diagnostic Review team. We used these results to begin to work together to develop a strong vision, mission and beliefs for our school community. In May of 2016 our school Leadership TEAM took all of the work we did as a whole staff and all of the drafts of visions, missions and beliefs to edit, revise and make sure all voices were in the document. The result is a complete Vision, Mission, and set of Beliefs we all own. This year we are taking each bulleted statement in our Mission and Belief statement and digging into what each item means and how each item is reflected in our work at Billie Martinez every day. After working on our vision all year during the 2015-2016 year, we gave the leadership section of the TELL survey again.

In our 2015-16 TELL Leadership survey, the following results were noted. We outperformed other schools in our district and were able to start to change our culture at Billie Martinez.

Percent Agree/Question

● 79.4% (1.) There is an atmosphere for trust and mutual respect in this school. ● 87.5% (2.) The school leadership consistently enforces rules for student conduct. ● 100% (3.) The school leadership communicates clear expectations to students and parents. ● 95.8% (4.) The school leadership communicates with the faculty adequately. ● 100% (5.) The faculty and leadership have a shared vision. ● 83.3% (6.) Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them. ● 79.1% (7.) The teacher evaluation process improves teachers' instructional strategies. ● 75% (8.) Teacher components of the teacher evaluation process accurately identify

effectiveness. ● 83.3% (9.) Teacher evaluation are fair in my school. ● 100% (10.) Teachers in this school receive informal feedback about their teaching on an ongoing

basis. ● 95.9% (11.) The school leadership works to minimize disruptions for teachers, allowing teachers

to focus on educating students. ● 87.5% (12.) The school leadership consistently supports teachers. ● 100% (13.) Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction. ● 100% (14.) The school leadership facilitates using data to improve student learning. ● 87.5% (15.) The faculty are recognized for their accomplishments. ● 100% (16.) The school leadership focuses on the professional growth of staff.

13

Our survey results are well above district averages in all areas. The smallest difference was +4.3, and the largest difference was +35.5. We exhibited growth in all 16 areas from the previous year. Data tells us we are ready for sustained, positive change to advance teacher efficacy and vastly improve student learning.

Staff Quality, Recruitment and Retention: Billie Martinez employees 44 certified staff and 6 paraprofessionals. The average number of years employed by Greeley/Evans District 12. The most senior teacher has been at Billie Martinez for 24 years. Four staff members have been employed for less than a year. 24 employees have Masters degrees and 20 have Bachelors degrees. The average years of experience at Martinez is 10. There are 502 years of experience combined on our staff.

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment: Billie Martinez Elementary currently uses districtwide curriculum to instruct students at our school. We use the Understanding by Design process for our planning, which is unique to Billie Martinez. This planning process has been in place since the spring of 2015 with 12 hours of training in April and May 2015. As a focus of planning, teachers use the Understanding by Design process in conjunction with District curriculum guides, which focus on priority standards, as well as Reading Mastery Signature Edition for Kindergarten and first graders, Wonders Reading for all 2nd– 5th grade students, Being a Writer, Assessing Math Concepts and Eureka in math, Pearson for Social Studies, FOSS kits for Science, Language for Learning, Language for Thinking and Language for Writing for all K-2nd grade students. Assessments in each area are provided by the curriculum or English Language Arts Common assessments each quarter, DIBELS, Phonics Benchmark, Math Units of Study tests, Assessing Math Concepts, PARCC/CMAS. We have researched STEAM for the past two years. Students in all grade levels participated in a unit of study during the spring of 2016 and in the fall of 2016. We are moving forward with STEAM, project based learning using Literacy Design Collaborative and a Math/Science Project grant to help us. As part of Literacy by Design, we will use Common Assignment Study to evaluate each unit of study. Representative teachers will train to be trainers in Literacy Design Collaborative and project based learning. Teachers will also be trained in project based learning teaching in the summer of 2017 through the Buck Institute for Education.

Family and Community Involvement: Billie Martinez Elementary has a very respectful, positive relationship with parents. In the Parent Survey given each spring, 98% of families say they are happy with Billie Martinez as their child’s school. While most of our parents do not volunteer at our school, we do have a very committed group of mothers who manage our Parent/Teacher Organization, School Accountability Committee, and volunteer in our building. Parents are invited to school once per month for a parent education night. We focus on reading, writing, math, science, and technology. Parents show pride in their children’s education when they attend every concert and Parent/Teacher Conferences. We generally have between 95% and 100% attendance of parents during conferences.

Within the greater Greeley community, we are fortunate to have several organizations which help us tremendously to provide for our students and families. Both Spradley-Barr of Greeley and Coyote Grill provide additional support to families during the holiday season with food and gifts for children. Spradley-Barr has been our partner since 2010-2011. Coyote Grill has worked with our school for the past 18 years. Redeemer Lutheran Church has been our partner in education for five years. Redeemer not only provides needed supplies to families including clothing and food, they also provide our Kids’ Hope program which grows in number every year. Students have access to free piano and guitar lessons from a music instructor provided by Redeemer through a program called Project Harmony. We have several students who are in their third year of lessons. Redeemer Church members are often in our building

14

working with the staff and with students to provide a quality learning experience for all students. They are making a difference in the lives of our children and families at Billie Martinez. They provide school supplies, backpacks, health totes, coats, shoes and socks for students. Redeemer also organized our Strengthening Latino Families class at our school for families. Scroll and Fan, another local organization, provide clothing, shoes, and blankets for the children at Billie Martinez. Greeley First Church provides whole meals to families over the holidays. We also have support from a group of volunteers, The Purple Hat Ladies, who come to our school the third Thursday of every month. This group runs copies for teachers, put together projects, whatever we ask for. We have worked with The Purple Hat Ladies for the past three years.

School Organization: Billie Martinez is a K-5 campus. We have five rounds of kindergarten and three rounds of 5th grade. We have four rounds each of all 1st through 4th grade classrooms. Teachers work together with their grade level teams for all planning and instruction purposes. We walk to read in kindergarten and first grade. Students are grouped based upon their needs as learners. Students in grades 2 – 5 stay with their homeroom teachers for all core subject areas. Some students are in a pull out program for reading core replacement. Students in 2nd through 5th grades are grouped according to their academic needs in reading for an additional Targeted Instruction block during the day. In addition to classroom teachers we have three ELD teachers, five interventionists, two ESS teachers, and additional support staff to assist in meeting student needs.

Technology: Billie Martinez has Promethean Boards in 26 classrooms. We have a computer lab with 30 desk top computers. There is a desktop computer in each classroom as well. Students in all 4th and 5th grade classrooms have their own device paid for by our parent organization or through a grant. All 1st through 3rd grade classrooms have 6 to 12 computers to use with students. Kindergarten classrooms have 6 computers each. This is our first year with enough computers to provide Blended Learning opportunities for children. In the fall of 2016 teachers wrote plans to the administration team about how they plan to use the computers in their classrooms. All kindergarten, first, and fifth grade classrooms are using ZEARN to support math for all students and to provide remediation and enrichment to individualize instruction using a flip model. One teacher in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades is using ZEARN as well. The remaining teachers in these grade levels are using Moby Max as part of a rotation station model. Kindergarten and fourth grade have added a reading component. Students in kindergarten who are reading above grade level are getting an extra 10 to 20 minutes of time on a computer to read. 4th grade students are using Wonders on line as part of their week to focus on vocabulary development.

In 2016 five teachers at Billie Martinez applied for and received grants from JDO Foundation to implement a Global Partnership project with students in fourth and fifth grades. All students in all five classrooms received a chromebook to use for the project. Each classroom has a partner classroom in England or Ireland. Teachers in partner classrooms plan instructional projects for students in both rooms to complete together. Students communicate with their pen pal from the partner classroom once per week via google. Partner classrooms Skype with each other once per month throughout the year. The project lasts for three years at the end of which the chromebooks are gifted to Billie Martinez.

In January of 2017, Billie Martinez became the recipient of a $10,000 donation from JBS in Greeley. The donation will be to purchase ten additional devices to put into second and third grade classrooms. We will

15

also be able to provide access to digital content science through Discovery to every student in grades 2 through 5.

Student Behavior: Student behavior at Billie Martinez is outstanding. We have less than 50 referrals per year. Most of our students meet or exceed our high expectations for behavior. We only have about 2% of our population who need additional supports in this area. Billie Martinez has some of the lowest referrals of any school in our district. This was noted, even by the Diagnostic Review team. They stated, ''The school has a visibly organized environment with clear and consistent expectations for student behavior. This appears to result in generally suitable behavior by students which creates the opportunity for teachers to engage them in academic learning''

Student Attendance: Attendance at Billie Martinez has been, on average 95% every year for the past three years. (95.2% in 2013-2014; 94.1% in 2014-2015; 95.15 in 2015-2016; 94.7 in 2016-2017 to date) We often struggle with just a handful of families who do not understand the urgency of school. We build attendance contracts for these families. We work within the greater Greeley community to try to provide supports to these families as well.

UIP Major Improvement Strategies: As a result of our data review and our Diagnostic Review from Focused Leadership Solutions we have identified the following major improvement strategies for our school.

1. Best First Instruction - All instructional staff members will provided aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery in all content areas, specifically literacy and math to provide equity and access for all students.

2. Culture and Climate - All staff members will work together to function as an effective learning community and support a climate conducive to performance excellence for student and staff to provide equity and access to all students.

School Profile School Name: Billie Martinez Elementary School Principal Name and Contact Information: Monica Draper; mdraper@greeleyschools.org; 970-348-1809 Asst. Principal Name and Contact Information: Alison Ferguson; aferguson1@greeleyschools.org; 970-348-1810 Innovation Planning Committee: Michael Amack Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Co-Chair Maria Anaya Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member

16

Kathleen Battleson Teacher School Culture Committee Co-Chair Susan Buller Art Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Kori Combs Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Member Kelsey Crosgrove Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Member LaLona Dargis Teacher School Culture Committee Member Ines Florez Teacher School Culture Committee Co-Chair Tori Geist Speech/Language Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Linda Gunderman Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Member Samantha Hausman Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Member Cassandra Hermanson Paraprofessional Accountability Team Co-Chair Sara Herrmann Special Education Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member

Teacher

Wendy Hutchins Interventionist Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Member Jill Ibanez-Luna Interventionist Accountability Team Committee Member Erin Kelly Psychologist School Culture Committee Member Susan Knoeckel Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Co-Chair Connie Larson Interventionist School Culture Committee Member Sarah Lillie Music Teacher School Culture Committee Member Carlee Lutz Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Juanita Martinez Teacher Parent & Community Outreach Committee Member Max Moralez P.E. Teacher Accountability Team Committee Co-Chair Caitlin Mounce Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member CJ Mowrer Special Education Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member

Teacher

Mist Murray Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Debbie Neergaard Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Laurel Nichols Teacher School Culture Committee Member Marshelle Nichols Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Co-Chair Martha Ochoa Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Maite Oluma Teacher Accountability Team Committee Member Helen Paul Teacher Parent & Community Outreach Committee Member Deborah Perry Teacher Accountability Team Committee Co-Chair Yolanda Reyes Teacher Parent & Community Outreach Committee Co-Chair Debbie Rodriguera Paraprofessional Parent & Community Outreach Committee Member Tracie Rodriguez Teacher Structure, Time & Calendar Committee Member Kim Rudolph Instructional Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member

Coach

Cheryl Schall CLD Curriculum and Instruction Committee Member Danielle Switzer Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Co-Chair Erin Tappan Teacher Curriculum and Instruction Committee Co-Chair Miriam Wadman Teacher Parent & Community Outreach Committee Member Erin Wagner Teacher Parent & Community Outreach Committee Member Alison Ferguson Asst. Principal SAC Consultation/Co-Chair Committee Member Monica Draper Principal SAC Consultation/Co-Chair Committee Member

17

Parent/Community Consultation Group Members: Parents: Elizabeth Garcia - PTO President Carmen Lino Amy Jo Castro MaryEllen Martinez Juana Mejia Rosa Espino Maria Espino Crystal Sanchez Juanita Mendez Avalos Raquel Tejeda Goldie Langley Lizbeth Orona Felipe Zamudio Maria Luciona Reynosa Sulema Lopez Lance Mead Haron Yousif Flora Pelico Sontay DeZarate District/Community: Wesley Tuttle Director of Elementary Schools Brian Lemos Director of English Language Development Jesse Tijerina Director of Cultural Excellence & Parent Engagement Bob Williams Secondary Math/Science/Social Studies Coordinator

Billie Martinez Enrollment Data:

Grades: K-5 5 year Enrollment Trend: -33

Student Enrollment: 533 Mobility Rate:

School Days Per Year:

Total # of Student Days Per Year:

174 Instructional Minutes/Day including Art, Music, PE, and Library:

400

Total # of Teacher Days Per Year:

184 Extended Day Program? Y

Student Demographic Breakdown:

% Hispanic: 89.5% % Male: 51%

% White: 5.6% % Female: 49%

% Other: 4.9% % ELL: 56%

18

% FaRM 96% % Special Education: 9.8%

% READ Plans 22% % Gifted and Talented: 1%

Average Daily Attendance 94.7%

Personnel Data:

# of Administrators (FTE): 2 % of Teachers “Basic”: 0%

# of Teachers (FTE): 40 % of Teachers “Partially Proficient”:

11.4%

# of Support Staff (FTE): 5 % of Teachers “Proficient”: 85.7%

# of Psychologists (FTE): .5 % of Teachers “Accomplished/Exemplary”:

2.8%

# of Social Workers (FTE): 0 3 year Teacher Retention Rate: 70.5%

School Performance Framework:

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

SPF Rating: 38.5 43.8 39.7 39.7 36.6

State Assessment (TCAP) % Proficient or Advanced

Reading 11-12 12-13 13-14 Math 11-12 12-13 13-14

Grade 3 40.86% 51.81% 43.4% Grade 3 49.47% 55.95% 55.66%

Grade 4 37.8% 31.81% 37.8% Grade 4 48.78% 51.65% 48.19%

Grade 5 37.78% 37.78% 40.23% Grade 5 33.33% 31.82% 38.89%

State Assessment (PARCC) Percent Proficient or Advanced

Reading 14-15 15-16 Math 14-15 15-16

19

Grade 3 12.6% 22.2% Grade 3 19.7% 23.2%

Grade 4 13.3% 15.2% Grade 4 11.5% 11.9%

Grade 5 16.8% 17.5% Grade 5 13.2% 9.9%

Vision, Mission, and Values

In 2015-2016, the staff of Billie Martinez worked collaboratively to develop the vision, mission, and belief

statements for our school community. Staff members were instrumental in developing a workable vision

statement with mission and beliefs throughout the entire 2015-2016 school year. Our staff collaborated

to identify a vision of the future for the students and families of Billie Martinez which focused on what

they believed to be the foundation of our work, a future in which all students will have a solid foundation

of learning which allows them to choose the future they want, not one predetermined by the lack of a

strong education. Staff members participated in professional development about vision and mission to

understand what each meant and how vision and mission could be the driving force for future success.

Working in collaborative groups, teachers drafted vision statements focusing on clear, concise language

that would be easily remembered and understood. Next staff members were asked to write down what

they believe deeply about teaching and learning at Billie Martinez. The only direction was these had to

be things they believed so deeply, no one would be able to convince them otherwise. After collecting the

four drafts of vision and the belief statements from all staff members, Leadership TEAM Martinez took

the summer of 2016 to bring the words and language and tone of our staff to life. Teachers developed

the vision statement first. After, they categorized all of the belief statements. We broke into smaller

groups. Each group took a category of beliefs and working together, drafted the statements. We came

back together to share. The results are what follows. Our Vision, Mission and Belief Statements are

translated into Spanish for all families. The results of our work is a clear, cohesive vision and mission

which are now the driving force for all decision making at Billie Martinez.

During the 2016-2017 school year staff members are working to identify action steps which go with each

of the mission/belief statements. Staff are discussing what each statement means to them. We are now

identifying the look fors in each area based upon these conversations. Vision and mission have come to

life at Billie Martinez.

20

Mission/Vision and Values

Vision:

Martinez parents, students, and teachers all work together to create a solid foundation of learning for the future.

Martinez Dedicated~Children Educated~A Better Future Created

Mission and Belief Statements: Love:

● We teach and believe in the whole child. ● We provide a safe environment filled with respect and love because

every child matters. ● We build positive, trusting relationships with students, parents and one

another. Live:

● Our Martinez family includes students, faculty, parents and community partners, all working together.

● Every family member brings a unique cultural perspective and influence that we honor and celebrate.

● By empowering parents, we empower the students. ● Education gives everyone the ability to grow, learn, and succeed in life

regardless of the circumstances. Learn:

● Students will have personalized instruction that focuses on individual needs and strengths.

21

● Students, teachers, and families will learn by developing a growth mindset focused on hard work and perseverance instead of fixed ability.

● Using Understanding by Design, standards will guide teachers to develop best first instruction to build students’ understanding of content.

● Students and teachers are committed to innovation and change, working collaboratively to meet the demands of the 21st century.

● Project Based Learning creates enthusiasm and engagement by involving students in their learning.

The Need for Innovation

Explain the need for innovation.

Student Population

Billie Martinez Elementary School is rich in culture with 10 different languages spoken by our 520

students. Students at Billie Martinez represent a global community. Many of our students are Latino.

We have students from Mexico, Guatemala, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Somalia, Kenya, Malaysia, Haiti, and

Myanmar. 56% of our students are second language learners. 88% of students are Hispanic. 7% are

Caucasian and 5% are of other cultures. 10% of our students have an IEP. 49% of our students are female

and 51% are male. Our students come from hard working families in our community who often are in

hourly wage jobs. Our 97% free or reduced lunch rate is a challenge we work to overcome every day.

Most of our children do not attend preschools. Health care can sometimes be an issue with our families

for a variety of reasons. Mobility rates can sometimes impact parts of our school, but we have a majority

of our families who start with us in kindergarten and stay through fifth grade. Attendance is sometimes

challenging due to untreated illnesses and a lack of understanding about the importance of good

attendance. While in a section of Greeley often associated with gangs, our school sees little to no impact.

Parents and students are respectful of our school and are very protective of our staff and students.

Students and families at Billie Martinez often face challenges other families in Greeley do not face. We

have students who have had at least one parent deported in recent years. The ICE raids on Swift meat

packing plant had a traumatic impact on families and many still feel the impact of the raid that occurred

on December 12, 2006. Some of our students have one or both parents in jail and are being raised by a

grandparent and in two cases a great grandparent. Many of our students live in low-income housing or

are doubled-up with another family. Some of our families move often and on occasion will be living at

one of the local homeless shelters. Many of our families depend upon Billie Martinez to provide both

breakfast and lunch to their children. As a community based school, our proposal would focus on

22

providing for some of those basic human needs to provide students with every opportunity to be ready to

learn. The implementation of an academic preschool and a health care clinic would positively impact

each child’s ability to learn as well as provide a strong start to a lifetime of learning.

The instructional portion of Billie Martinez’ innovation plan is built upon the foundation of research based

instruction focused on achievement of rigorous standards by students because of engaging and

life-changing instructional practices meant to improve student achievement. Understanding by Design in

collaboration with the Literacy Design Collaborative and Math/Science Project to plan for rigorous

instruction of standards. Delivery of instruction will focus on Project Based Learning emphasizing

connections in and among standards, highly engaging learning opportunities, with focus on achievement

and growth of all students.

Billie Martinez’ plan for innovation is based upon data found in our priority improvement challenges.

These challenges are evident in our data and verified by our Diagnostic Review in 2015. Working to

address our priority challenges is critical to our plan and to creating success for all students.

Performance Challenges

*More specific data is found in the UIP,

Appendix A

Unique Needs to be

Addressed

How will Innovation

Address the Needs?

Declining

Performance

and Growth/

Growth Gaps

in Literacy,

Math and

Science

Literacy: Currently Billie

Martinez students perform at

the 12th percentile rank in

ELA on the PARCC

assessment in 2016,

representing only 18.3% of

students scoring at the 4 or 5

level. This is below our

performance in the past 3

years when approximately

40% of students were

proficient or advanced in all

of those three years on TCAP.

Literacy growth in 2016 was

45, only 5 points below the

State expectation of 50. We

are approaching State

expectations for growth in

literacy.

· Poverty

· Attendance

· Second Language

· Lack of Academic

Vocabulary

· Lack of Background

Knowledge

· Lack of Academic

Preschool Options for

All Children

· Lack of Access to

Medical Care

· Identify, implement

and improve

instructional

practices.

Academic preschool access to

72 children ages 3 and 4,

focused on school readiness,

language development,

foundational literacy and math

skills. Parenting classes will be

part of preschool for all families.

On Site Health Care Clinic

STEAM Program

Understanding by Design

Planning Process with Literacy

Design Collaborative

Math/Science Project

Math: In 2016, 15% of

23

students were at level 4 or 5

on PARCC. All students were

at the 12th percentile of

achievement. These scores

are the lowest in the past

three years. We have had

between 45 and 50% of our

students at benchmark on

TCAP.

Growth in math this past

year was well below the

State expectation of 50. Our

growth score in math in 2016

was 31.

Project Based Learning

On-site, on going professional

development for staff.

Science: Students in 5th grade

scored at the 11th percentile

in Science on the PARCC test.

School Readiness:

Kindergarten students enter

Billie Martinez with little to

no school experience. This is

most notable in our DIBELS

data. We consistently begin

the kindergarten year with

5% to 10% of our students at

benchmark. Language is a

priority challenge for

kindergarten as well.

Students who enter

kindergarten with minimal or

no previous English Language

skills tend to score at the

lowest WIDA levels of LEP 1.

Academic

Growth in

English

Language

Proficiency

Students who qualify as

Fluent English Proficient or

FEP, outscore all other

subgroups by 4 times in all

content areas; reading,

writing, math, and science.

In 2015 our English Language

· Poverty

· Attendance

· Second Language

· Lack of Academic

Vocabulary

Academic preschool access to

72 children ages 3 and 4,

focused on school readiness,

language development,

foundational literacy and math

skills. Parenting classes will be

part of preschool for all families.

24

Learners showed 53% in

2015 and 75% in 2016, both

of which were above the

State expectation of 50% on

WIDA.

· Lack of Background

Knowledge

· Lack of Academic

Preschool Options for

All Children

· Lack of Access to

Medical Care

· Identify, implement

and improve

instructional

practices.

On Site Health Care Clinic

STEAM Program

Understanding by Design

Planning Process with Literacy

Design Collaborative

Math/Science Project

Project Based Learning

On-site, on-going professional

development for staff.

Priority Performance and Root Cause Analysis

The needs of Billie Martinez students and families may be great, but they are things we can address with

our proposed innovation plan. With a clear focus, dedicated learning staff, and time, we can overcome

the challenges by providing for the needs of all students in a clear, comprehensive manner. Each

component of our proposed innovation plan is in more detail in the Proposed Innovation Model section.

Reflection of Priority Performance Billie Martinez students have not made progress in literacy, math, or science achievement over the past

three years. TCAP results indicated low achievement with no significant change over time in all areas.

Achievement continued to decline with the change to PARCC in both 2015 and 2016. While there was a

small rise in achievement between 2015 and 2016, (14.2% in 2015 to 18.3% in 2016 literacy results; 14.8%

in 2015 and 15% in 2016 math results; and 11% science achievement in 2017) no achievement scores

were strong enough to ensure rigorous standards are met by all students in the areas of literacy, math,

and science. Upon further examination of the data, we know students are unable to access academic

vocabulary. When students do not understand the vocabulary within the context of the curriculum, it

impedes their learning and understanding of grade level material in all content areas. Students do not

have access to the academic vocabulary to be successful readers, writers, and problem solvers. It is

25

important to note language as a priority in educating our students. the percent of LEP students who score

P or A on TCAP is much less than FEP students. This trend is true for the past five years. When students

become fluent English speakers, they outscore every other subgroup by four times as much. Based upon

all data and observations of our data, it is notable that students overall are not making adequate progress

over time as exhibited in academic achievement scores as well as growth scores. Unless we make

significant changes to our program, achievement and growth will continue to be below State and District

expectations.

While our priority challenges are great, and we know we did not meet our growth targets from 2015 to

2016. We do know part of our challenge is in managing three new curriculums in one year: RMSE or

Wonders, Being a Writer, and Engage NY. Teachers worked to understand all of the standards in relation

to our new curriculum. While Wonders reading closely aligns with Houghton-Mifflin, which we used in the

past, it was still new and required us to think differently. Phonics in 2nd grade Wonders is not as strong

and we had to use SIPPS to continue phonics instruction and transfer practice of phonics skills for

students. We also know we did not provide enough rigorous instruction to grow our students to high

levels of achievement.

We did have some promising practices in our work with English language development, reading and

writing. In the past two years, we have had average to high growth with WIDA. We changed and

implemented two practice in the past two years. First, we require all students to respond to us in

complete sentences, and second, we created writing non-negotiables at all grade levels. Teachers use

non-negotiables to make sure students are using all the writing skills they have learned in any given

written response or in the case of kindergarten and first grade, all oral responses. Based upon and MGP in

5th grade of 55 and one second grade classroom in which 80% of students were benchmark on DIBELS at

the end of the year and observational data, we can pinpoint what these five classrooms did that others

did not, focused time in text with good modeling by the teacher. Teachers in these five rooms taught

comprehension instruction through interactive read-alouds, setting a specific focus for time in text,

conferencing with students during this time in text, and follow up with a comprehension activity either

written, partner share, or reciprocal teaching. This promising practice was a part of everyday practice. We

can replicate this practice as well. In math, our instruction is not strong enough to help all students to

master rigorous standards. We applied for an MSP grant for this reason. We are now using our new

technology to provide targeted, focused instruction in math. We must change the way we instruct in math

because we are failing our students.

Reflection of Root Causes Root causes became clear during three months of work starting on May 22, 2015, with Leadership TEAM

Martinez. We met for one full day in each year to review the TELL survey as well as to conduct a

26

self-assessment using the Colorado Department of Education Turnaround School Rubric. The alignment

of these two documents helped us identify some adult issues, which are blocking our ability to move

forward. In particular our culture of trust in the building. We used the rubrics to discuss our

implementation of high quality first instruction. This team believed we were not consistent throughout

the building with implementation of practices we had identified at the beginning of the year including

objectives for learning and ELD strategies and scaffolds. This team met again in July and August after

Leadership training with District 6 to plan for improvement of instruction in our school and to improve

school climate and culture. Focused Leadership Solutions conducted a diagnostic review of Billie

Martinez per our request in September 2015. Through their review of our building data, staff identified

several areas of the rubric used in the diagnostic review to address 8 standards for high performing

schools. Based upon results as well as data from the TELL survey and Turnaround school rubric we believe

we have identified two root causes which if addressed will improve our student results for achievement in

all academic areas including Literacy, Math and Science as well as improve growth for all students and

close any gaps in performance between sub groups. Those two root causes are improvement of

instruction with best first instruction and improve culture and climate. In May of 2016, Leadership TEAM

Martinez supported our root causes and when the data from PARCC became available in October of 2016,

we verified our root causes for our school. We must change the culture and the level of instruction in our

building in order to move forward and get high growth from our students.

Best First Instruction

Focused Leadership Solutions who conducted our Diagnostic Review, observed variable

implementation for effective use of Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction,

Formative Assessments and Frequent and Timely Feedback. (present in only 34% to 66% of

classrooms observed) The team observed minimal implementation for Effective Use of Learning

Targets/Goals, use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students taking

Responsibility for Learning and Peers Sharing Responsibility for Learning. (present in less than 34%

of classrooms observed) Engaging and research-based instruction is inconsistent and without deep

implementation of eleven common high effect-size instructional practices. Those practices are:

Classroom Learning Environment, Classroom Management, Student Engagement in Learning, High

Impact Instruction, Formative Assessment, Frequent and Timely Feedback, Learning Targets/Goals,

Use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students Taking Responsibility for

Learning, and Peers Sharing Responsibility for Learning.

27

Culture and Climate

Staff feedback from both the Diagnostic Review Team (Focused Leadership Solutions) and the TELL

survey indicate a lack of trust among colleagues that teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about

students and their ability to learn is high. Staff reports they do not believe all teachers have a

strong belief that all students can learn at high levels regardless of their background. The staff also

report they do not believe all educators put forth needed effort to ensure all students achieve high

academic standards.

Process Used for Creating the Innovation Plan The staff at Billie Martinez started this work towards an innovation plan in January 2015. A STEAM Steering Committee was formed in January 2015 to explore becoming a STEAM School. Then in the spring of 2015, Focused Leadership Solutions was hired to conduct a Diagnostic Review in the fall of 2015. This work drove the creation of their UIP goal areas for both the 2015-16 and the 2016-17 school years.

In the fall of 2016 Martinez staff explored the potential pathways through a Pathways Grant funded through CDE. In October 2016, the staff voted 100% to explore the innovation pathways. From October to December, five innovation committees met to design their initial thinking and ideas they might have, based on research they collected. These teams met on a weekly basis and included the following teams: Structure, Time and Calendar; Parents & Community, Outreach & Engagement; School Culture; Curriculum and Instruction; and Accountability. 100% of the certified staff and three of the instructional assistants were all part of the innovation teams. Then in January, the staff was divided into nine different teams, each looking at a portion of the plan to review and provide feedback. The feedback was shared with the entire staff and then each unit of the staff was given another portion of the plan and asked to provide feedback and input. Finally teams met with the principal in February to review the plan. each person was asked to think in terms of their original planning team and answer the questions “Is everything your committee discussed and planned in the plan?” “Did we miss anything?” and “Is there anything there you did not plan?” After that feedback, the staff (including 44 staff members) met in consensus circles to approve the plan by looking at the components and then voting on each

28

of the appropriate waivers. The votes for each of these approvals are represented in each section of the plan. While the state allows a lower approval threshold, we strove to have 80% in order to feel we had a critical mass of the staff on board with a waiver before we approved it and moved on. In most cases the approval rates are in the high 90’s or 100% of the staff approving.

The staff signature page at the beginning of this document represents their approval of this plan, with 46 staff members endorsing the plan including all certified staff, the three instructional assistants that were part of the development of the plan and two additional itinerant staff who support the plan.

The plan was also presented to the SAC and Parent group on March 1, 2017. The powerpoint is included in Appendix G and 100% of the parents there supported this plan and have signed the signature page endorsing this plan.

29

Proposed Innovations

SECTION I: CULTURE OF PERFORMANCE

Billie Martinez is rich in history and culture. We celebrate the uniqueness of each individual child and family who comes into our school. We plan to continue to honor families, students, and staff in the traditions of our school and our families. From giving each 5th grader the opportunity to leave their mark on Billie Martinez with a tile representing who they are in this moment in this time, lovingly placed along the walls of our hallways to building new traditions with our preschool students, we are a family.

Billie Martinez strives to ensure the success of every student. In order to improve the success of our school and the implementation of the innovation program we must engage all stakeholders in providing feedback before and during the innovation implementation. Listed below are the building-wide assessments we propose to use to ensure the success of our program and the impact on our students.

A. Positive Learning Environment and School Culture and Climate a. Billie Martinez has a rich cultural heritage we continue to support and honor.

Students meet our high expectations for behavior with few major behavior problems. We continue to use Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) for behavior management. PBIS has worked successfully at Billie Martinez to teach and support positive behaviors throughout the school. (Matrix in Appendices) We propose to revise what we currently do with PBIS by:

i. Use PBIS World website to provide differentiated support to students and to document interventions for the RtI process.

ii. Update matrix across the building.

iii. Update student instructional videos with Panther Leadership.

iv. Retrain staff to implement Panther PBIS.

v. Develop our cultural responsiveness in relationship to PBIS

1. http://pbisworld.org

2. http://www.pbis.org

b. Transition to Panther Family Groups

i. All students are divided into family groups with at least one student from each grade level in each group. One staff member will lead each group.

30

ii. Groups will meet on Monday mornings for 20 minutes for a bully proofing or character counts lesson. The lesson will be the affective focus of our building all week.

c. Developing Student Leaders

i. Continue to engage student leaders through Panther Leadership.

1. Morning student leadership program focused on community service, growing kindness in our school and helping all students take responsibility for their school.

2. Feasibility Study: Character Counts vs. Leader in Me

3. Character Counts

a. The six pillars of character are a framework for teaching students good character. The pillars are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. These are used to create a positive school culture for students and staff. The program is designed to make schools a safe place for students to learn.

4. Leader in Me

a. Part of Franklin Covey whole school transformation, to provide a structure and support to grow the Panther Leadership program and to further develop student leaders at Billie Martinez. If it aligns with our student needs and our program goals, we will implement the program starting in year 3, 2019-2020. http://www.theleaderinme.org/what-is-the-leader-in-me/

d. Action Based Learning and Brain Development:

Action-Based Learning provides students with opportunities to learn using one of the most effective learning environments to promote active engagement of the brain in regard to learning. 85% of students learn best in a hands on environment which provides opportunities for movement.

Brain-based Learning is focused on developing instructional strategies based upon how the brain works. When educators focus on integrating physical movement into a student’s day, academic learning is improved. Physical movement provides more oxygen to the brain which improves on task behaviors and learning.

31

i. We believe it is of great importance that students get as much physical activity as possible during the day. We advocate the following to ensure as much activity as possible to engage young minds and to energize learning!

1. Stricter policy on the importance of recess and keep it in place for all students while exploring other options for managing student behaviors.

2. Students will receive lunch recess and one other recess during the day. The recess break will occur either in the morning or afternoon depending upon art, music, PE, library or computer lab. Recess will be in the opposite part of the day from these programs.

3. Implement alternative to suspension or loss of recess with assigned organized games. One person on duty will assist students in an organized game such as kickball, four square, etc. Students who lose recess due to behavior will be assigned to the organized game with the adult for a period of recess sessions. When the student has earned choice recess back, he/she may continue to be a part of the organized game, or can choose other options. Besides those students assigned to the organized game, other students may choose to play as well. 3 people on duty for K-1. Staff will look at possibly doing Playworks to address this need.

4. Start each day with physical activity, brain energizers, such as running club, yoga class, fitness classes, and continuing with brain breaks throughout the day. These programs will be implemented both in our STEAM Start and as part of classroom morning routines. http://www.pgsd.org/cms/lib07/PA01916597/Centricity/Domain/43/braininmind.pdf http://www.pgsd.org/cms/lib07/PA01916597/Centricity/Domain/43/Brain%20Breaks.pdf

e. Billie Martinez teachers are highly qualified and able to collaborate and work together to solve any problem. In order to ensure Billie Martinez staff voices are heard, we will operate our school with the following MAJOR and MINOR leadership groups:

i. Leadership TEAM Martinez

1. Made up of a member of each unit in our school.

2. Purpose is to review building data, provide support to staff in the learning environment, make adjustments when necessary to teaching and learning at Billie Martinez. Will continue to research and provide input to the staff on growing the Billie Martinez STEAM

32

program including professional development activities. STEAM will engage the local and regional community in helping to build our program and provide opportunities to students. Connections will include, but are not limited to: Poudre Learning Center, Denver Science Museum, Lockheed Martin, University of Northern Colorado and the Colorado Department of Education.

3. Reports to administration.

4. Equity, MTSS, STEAM, LDC and MSP leads report to Leadership TEAM Martinez.

ii. MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support)

1. Made up of representative members of teams at Billie Martinez. (K-1, 2-3, 4-5, CLD – Interventionists, Special Education)

2. Purpose is to provide support through data review, intervention support ideas and follow up for teachers to provide the best possible instruction to all students in their classrooms. MTSS is the new name for Response to Intervention or RtI.

3. Reports to Leadership TEAM Martinez.

4. Teachers with students who need assistance in order to meet rigorous State and local standards report to MTSS.

iii. Cultural Equity

1. Made up of volunteer staff members from across Billie Martinez.

2. Purpose is to provide the staff at Billie Martinez with an opportunity to learn about and celebrate the cultures within our own staff and within our school community. The Equity team will work to build a culture of performance and understanding among adults so as to provide the same experiences to students.

3. Reports to Leadership TEAM Martinez.

iv. PAC (Principal Advisory Council)

1. Made up of one parent representative, a non-instructional classified employee, an instructional classified employee, one certified teacher in the classroom, one certified teacher who supports instruction.

33

2. Purpose is to advise administration on the climate and culture of the building and to provide guidance about what is going well and ways to improve.

B. School Performance Monitoring and Accountability a. Program Surveys

i. Stakeholders will each participate in a survey about instruction and learning at Billie Martinez. The first survey will go out in the spring of 2017. Follow up surveys will be given to parents each fall during Parent/Teacher Conferences. Results will be shared through school newsletters and website with the community by October 1 of each year.

b. State Assessment

i. PARCC

ii. WIDA

c. District Assessments

i. DIBELS including DIBELS DEEP

1. We plan to continue to use DIBELS as a way to check progress of pre-reading and reading skills in all students K-5.

2. We will follow all testing time frames and expectations for testing protocols within District 6.

3. Progress monitors for students in grades 2-5 and for students who have reached the end of RMSE transitions will be conducted every other week for all students.

4. Students in K-1 who are still in RMSE will use RMSE mastery checks and fluency check-outs as appropriate. Once a first grader reaches RMSE 1, lesson 80, DORF (DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency) will be monitored twice monthly until they exit the program, at which time the other progress monitoring rules will be in place.

ii. Phonics Bench Assessment

1. Teachers will use the Wonders’ phonics benchmark assessment to track the progress of students in phonics instruction. Data will be used to provide small group instruction during foundational literacy

34

to ensure all students are able to access grade level text to comprehend.

iii. Reading Common Assessments

1. We will use Wonders as a primary resource in grades 2 through 5 and Reading Mastery Signature Edition (RMSE) in kindergarten and first grade to address rigorous State standards for reading in the Foundational Literacy block of our program (See Section 2: Academic Systems, E.e. Sample Schedule Primary K-2 and Section 2 E.e. Sample Schedule Intermediate 3-5). As such we will continue to use the Reading Common Assessments for Wonders and RMSE mastery and fluency assessments to determine each student’s progress toward mastery of rigorous State standards.

2. The change we propose is to realign District Wonders Reading Common Assessments in 2nd through 5th grades to better address the learning outcomes in place for each student not only in Foundational Literacy, but in Content Literacy as well. We also propose a different schedule for the assessments to again align with our work as we plan six distinct units of study using the Literacy by Design Collaborative (LDC) process.

iv. Writing Assessments

1. We currently use Being a Writer as our primary writing program. Our plan is to create building-wide prompts which go with each section, use the prompts to track writing data both across teams and across all grade levels to ensure we are teaching grade level rigorous standards.

2. Given our focus on writing across the curriculum in our STEAM program, we will be able to use a variety of writing including writing about thinking, personal narrative writing, expository nonfiction writing, fiction writing, functional writing, opinion writing, and poetry writing to assess student growth in writing.

a. Writing about Thinking (Writing to demonstrate understanding of rigorous reading standards.): Last question on the reading common for all 2nd – 5th grades. Will be monitored every 6 weeks.

b. Personal narrative, fiction, and poetry writing will be assessed during foundational literacy block through Being a Writer for all grades.

35

c. Expository writing, functional writing, and opinion writing will be taught in foundational literacy and used to help students perform as part of the content literacy block where students will be asked to write daily in response to and as a way to demonstrate learning and understanding of the content.

d. Prompt Writing: We will develop school wide writing prompts for the end of instructional units of study. Every student will write to a prompt. Teachers will bring student writing samples to Building-wide Data Teams in order for us to vertically align writing and to work toward growth in writing for all students. All prompts will be the same across grade levels, allowing us to examine vertical alignment of writing conventions and development from one year to the next.

v. Math Assessments

1. Eureka is our primary math resource for all Pre K – 5th grade students to meet rigorous State and District standards. ZEARN, online learning for Eureka will also remain as part of our math program. Staff will redesign existing math units to break those units into smaller more measurable chunks of learning to create high levels of mastery among all students. Our focus will be on major standards at each grade level as well as performance tasks to ensure students are transferring their learning to unknown situations. We will identify essential standards vs. the good to know standards. All teachers will have a list of these essential vs. good to know standards.

a. Pre-K and kindergarten students will be assessed in math through teacher observation and checklists. Teachers will use the standards to design a rubric for student work.

b. 1st – 5th grade students will be assessed on their progress toward mastery of standards using the math unit assessments. We would propose to use the current District math unit assessments to assess progress toward Mastery Level Standards. We propose to break down the current assessments into smaller assessments which match our redesign of math units stated in above, Math Assessments, item 1. A timeline for data entry will be designed to align to units of study as well and to keep us on track to help all students master rigorous content standards in math.

d. Other Assessments

36

i. CAS (Common Assignment Study - part of Literacy Design Collaborative)

1. CAS is part of Literacy Design Collaborative and will be part of the way teachers at Billie Martinez evaluate the effectiveness of different modules developed using Understanding by Design and the Literacy Design Collaborative. The work of CAS will be completed with the help of Literacy Design Collaborative and other teachers in other schools developing common modules. CAS will help us to evaluate our STEAM program units of study.

ii. Student Development Portfolios

1. Students in grades K-5 will collect work samples from Content Literacy, LDC, and CAS to demonstrate their mastery of rigorous standards. Students will identify work which represents their mastery of rigorous State and District Standards in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies to be included in a body of evidence. The students will be able to identify how each piece represents mastery, why they chose it and what significant learning they took away from the piece.

a. Portfolios will be shared with parents each spring as a culminating activity for each student’s year and to show mastery of standards. Portfolio presentations will be scheduled by teachers during Dia del Nino week, the first week of May each year. OR

b. In lieu of traditional Parent/Teacher Conferences, teachers will plan two nights each at the end of the first and second trimester to schedule student led parent conferences for portfolio presentations. Students would lead the conference for their parents and the teacher would remain in the room to answer questions and address any concerns. (See schedule)

iii. Longitudinal Study of Preschool Participants

1. We would like to track the progress of all students who participate in our preschool starting at ages three and four. We will collect data about language, pre-reading skills, number sense skills, language skills. To assess reading we will use Concepts About Print, Letter/Sound recognition, PELI, and Strategies GOLD assessments. In order to assess for math we will use Eureka for preschool to assess math skills. We will research and find the most appropriate assessment of language skills for preschool children. We will track the progress of students three times each year and compare their results to the results of students who had

37

no preschool program and to students who participated in Head Start or other preschool program. The purpose is to have evidence that an academic based preschool with a focus on language development, pre-literacy, and numeracy skills will have a more positive impact on students who had no preschool or who participated in an alternate program.

C. Stakeholder Engagement a. Parents and community are vital to helping Billie Martinez staff ensure the

success of all students. We strive to create a community school in which parents and families are welcomed and whose input is valued as part of our work. We will build partnerships with families to ensure the success of every child at Billie Martinez. As a community school we plan to meet both the academic and non-academic needs of our families. We specifically plan to bring in Parents as Partners parenting classes, a health care center attached to our building for our families, a senior citizen outreach center for mentor programs, and a daycare center on-site for our staff.

i. Parents as Partners: “Rooted in the premise that once educators understand the value of families for healthy development they can begin to create strong partnerships to assist children in successful experiences in school. Parents as Partners in Education: Families and Schools Working Together, Eighth Edition will be a key component to teachers gaining this knowledge and using it in the classroom for the betterment of all children and their families.” Pearson Higher Education Website.

1. Engage families on a daily basis.

a. Resource - Parents as Partners in Education: Families and Schools Working Together, 8th Edition; Hepworth Berger, Eugenia, Professor Emerita, Metropolitan State College of Denver and Riojas-Cortez, Mari R., Professor, University of Texas at San Antonio

2. Parenting Class Strands

a. Assist families to understand how to navigate the school system.

i. How to talk to teachers.

ii. How to ask for help.

iii. How to express concerns.

38

iv. How to prepare for a parent/teacher conference.

v. How to advocate for their child.

vi. How to participate in special education meetings and services for their children.

vii. How to help with homework.

viii. How to read a report card.

ix. How to understand the standards, what we teach and why.

x. How to volunteer in their child’s classroom.

b. Provide parenting classes for managing home.

i. How to develop a budget.

ii. How to manage banking systems.

iii. How to read food labels.

iv. How to build a chore chart.

v. How to manage child behaviors at home.

vi. How to teach your children safety information such as how to call 911, their address and phone number.

vii. How to seek assistance if needed.

1. health care

2. financial aid

3. available human resources/services

4. community based resources through non-profits, churches, United Way 211 program.

c. Providing parents with opportunities for advancing their own education.

i. Adult ESL classes.

ii. Adult GED classes.

39

iii. How to register for college courses at either UNC or Aims Community College.

ii. Health Care Center

1. Purpose is to provide ongoing health care to our families with the intention of preventing illnesses and supporting families in treatment options in a timely manner. We will focus on keeping students healthy to ensure attendance in school and improved academics.

2. Work with Sunrise Community Health to establish an on-site health care clinic for Billie Martinez Families.

3. Assistance with Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus

4. Same day appointments will be available for sick or injured children.

5. Hours will be Monday and Friday, 7:30 AM to 12:00 PM; Tuesday - Thursday, 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.

6. Program will include:

a. Kids Care Clinic

b. Immunization Services

c. Mental Health and Counseling

d. Well Child Examinations

e. Dental Screenings

f. Other

7. Team will include:

a. School Nurse

b. Health Clerk

c. Outreach Coordinator

d. Behavioral Health Consultant

e. Family Nurse Practitioner

f. Medical Assistant

40

g. Community Outreach Technician

iii. Senior Citizen Outreach Center

1. Goal is to create opportunities to engage our Senior population in our area. We will create opportunities for engagement through a Foster Grandparent Mentoring program. Foster Grandparents can be provided through Senior Corps, an organization which engages and trains citizens age 55 and older to be mentors, coaches and companions to children and families in their communities. Currently Senior Corp serves almost 300,000 Americans across our country.

a. Organize Foster Grandparents through a national organization, Senior Corps, and create opportunities to:

i. Help children learn to read and provide one on one tutoring in other content.

ii. Mentor students and/or young moms and dads.

iii. Care for students in the Panther Preschool Program

iv. Help children who are homeless, live in foster care, or need an adult role model who will advocate for them.

iv. On-Site Day Care for Billie Martinez Staff

1. Many teachers at Billie Martinez have young families or are considering starting a family in the near future. Child care can be very difficult to find and often leads to stress or absenteeism on the part of the employee. An on-site day care for our staff provides families with child care options. Research supports the use of on-site day care. Benefits include:

a. Improved productivity on the part of the worker

b. Reduced stress.

c. Affordable, dependable.

d. Increased attendance.

e. Lowers employee turnover.

2. Our day care center will be pay based and provide services to children ages birth to 3. At age 3, academic preschool will provide

41

services to children for half of the day. Day care will be available for the other half of the day.

3. Services will be offered to staff first, the Billie Martinez neighborhood families second, and the greater Greeley Community third.

References/Supporting Research:

● http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB11_ParentInvolvement08.pdf

● https://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/sites/brown.edu.academics.education-alliance/files/uploads/KLOOM_sfcp_entire.pdf

● http://cshca.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SBHCs-Academic-Success-CA-Alliance-2014.pdf

● http://www.schoolbasedhealthcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/APHA4_article_Health_Rev_9_14_FINAL2.pdf

42

SECTION II: ACADEMIC SYSTEMS

A. Innovation Model/Focus and Instructional ExpectationsOur innovation model is focused primarily in STEAM. The instructional delivery model will be project based learning which will require staff members to think differently, bring hands on learning to their classrooms and to focus on integrating literacy and content standards to allow students to transfer their learning and understanding of rigorous standards to unknown situations. While we will rely on District curriculum as our primary resources, we will completely change our delivery model for instruction. Our instructional model will also change from serving kindergarten through fifth grade to serving pre-k (3 and 4 year olds) to fifth grade.

a. STEAM - Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math

We approve the idea of the Martinez identity to be known as a STEAM school. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 2, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed with 100%.)

i. STEAM will be the primary focus of units of study and models developed for our Content Literacy block each day.

ii. Teams will develop four units of study and expand two current units of study throughout the year; three units will focus on science only, three will focus on social studies.

iii. Units will be planned using the Understanding by Design process and will include content, reading and writing standards.

43

iv. Stage 3 of UbD will be planned using the Literacy by Design Collaborative.

When we think about our work of "Understanding by Design" as our Instructional Model, we approve Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) as our Instructional Planning Model- Stage 3 of "Understanding by Design". This includes support from Colorado Education Initiative (CEI), and a plan to use the mornings of our Monday Release time to work on LDC. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 2, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed with 97.7%.)

1. Each unit of study will have three, two week modules

2. Module planning will be part of monthly and weekly planning described below.

3. Modules will have built in assessments designed using CAS (Common Assignment Study), part of Literacy by Design.

44

4. Data teams will occur at the end of each module to plan for the next module within the unit of study.

Sample Unit Time Line With Data Teams

v. STEAM concepts will focus on the development of students ability to think critically and deeply about science using technology, the arts, and engineering.

vi. A before school program, STEAM Start, will provide students constant access to science and arts integration each day. Options for students will be provided throughout the year and students will have opportunities to select several extended day activities each trimester. This program is optional for all students. We will invite students to participate and provide engaging options which students will want to be a part of. Options may include:

1. Art Therapy

2. Dance

3. Yoga and Meditation

4. Theater

5. Choir

6. Instrumental Music

7. Sports

8. Lego Robotics

45

9. Science Olympiad

10. Odyssey of the Mind

11. Math Olympiad

12. Gardening with Greenhouses

13. Girls on the Run

vii. Access UNC for possible teachers in extended day program. Also consider student teachers and preservice teachers in practicum programs.

viii. Engage with Poudre Learning Center for Units of Study within grade levels which engage in science standards related to environmental issues concerning Colorado.

ix. Build Foster Grandparent program to include Foster Grandparents as partners in extended day programs and in STEAM.

x. A Makerspace will be developed to provide teachers and students access to materials, technology, and supplies to complete STEAM projects. The Makerspace will help to create opportunities for students to design, create, learn and invent. The Makerspace will evolve as we learn more and do better in our STEAM program. Kits will be developed around science standards and units of study. We consider starting with:

1. Microscopes and Slide Sets

2. Telescopes

3. Gardening tools

4. Planting materials

5. Solar panels

6. Wires

7. Batteries & Bulbs

8. Petri Dishes

9. Sound forks

46

10. Magnets

11. Beakers and graduated cylinders

12. Craft sticks

13. Legos

14. Thermometers

15. Scales

16. Supplies to build robots

17. Water tables

18. Sand and soil tables

19. Owl pellets

20. Goggles & gloves

21. Technology

22. Art supplies for teachers to incorporate the ‘Arts’ in STEAM in their units of study

b. Project Based Learning

When we think about the Martinez Instructional Model, we approve Project Based Learning as our Instructional Model in order to implement STEAM. This includes a plan to use the afternoons of the Monday release time to develop PBL units. (Vote taken on Friday, March 3, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed with 97.7%.)

i. Professional Development

1. A group of teachers will be trained in a train the trainer model for Project Based Learning by PBL World, hosted by the Buck Institute

47

for Education. Teachers, instructional coach, and administration will participate in a four day training starting on June 18, 2017, through June 22, 2017. The institute provides separate strands for teachers, coaches and administrators to help focus the work specific to each group’s responsibilities in the implementation of project based learning. BIE provides initial training for teams one year and follow up training with the same intensity the following year. Selected trainers must make at least a three year commitment to Billie Martinez to ensure a cultural shift in instruction and full development and implementation of project based learning.

When we think about the desire to create a project based learning instructional model, we approve the summer professional development for a trainer-of-trainer model to be held for a selected group of 9-11 staff in June who will then lead the PBL Collaborative Groups throughout the schoolyear. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 9, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed with 93.2%.)

2. Trainers will provide initial professional development in project based learning in August 2017 prior to the start of the new school year. All staff will be trained. Teachers at Billie Martinez will report four days prior to other teachers in our District to be trained. Staff will be paid as the training is mandatory. Each staff member will be assigned one ‘mentor’ from the initial training team as their project-based learning leader. This leader will be engaged with their small collaborative group throughout the year for peer coaching and mentoring.

When we think about the desire to create a project based learning instructional model, we approve the summer professional development for staff to be paid at the

48

curriculum rate ($216 for an 8-hour day) August 8-11, 2017. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 9, 2017- 43 staff members participated, passed with 88.4%.)

3. Teachers will not attend District 6 curriculum day. This day will instead be attached to the previously mentioned additional days to align our curriculum and standards to our units of study and to outline all units of study to ensure we provide high quality instruction to all students and that we address all rigorous standards.

4. On going professional development will occur throughout the year on planned early release dates at least once per month and weekly through team collaboration, peer coaching, and with the instructional coach. All staff will receive on going feedback and support from administration at least twice per month.

5. Monthly professional development will be full days one Monday per month. The agenda will be:

a. Share out adult actions implemented since the last professional development.

b. Share student work and data identified from the last professional development.

c. Adult action learning delivered by the instructional coach and the training staff.

d. Module planning using LDC focused on instruction of standards to be instructed in the next block.

e. Practice teaching of the instructional strategies in a coaching model with teachers giving feedback to one another.

f. Focus on expected results for students. Build the rubric for evaluation of student work. Agree on student work to bring forward next time.

6. Weekly professional development will focus in the following ways:

a. Instructional coach will assist teams in continuing the planning process for foundational literacy, content literacy

49

and math, primarily focused on the implementation of instructional model in content literacy.

b. Instructional coach will work with training staff to continue to grow their skills. The instructional coach will team teach, provide modeling and observational feedback to this team. The instructional coach will help this team with their next steps for their training group.

c. The training team will meet with their collaborative team one morning per week. A schedule will provide guidance on expected meeting times. Agenda will be developed by the training team, instructional coach, and administration.

Martinez teachers agree to meet with their PBL Collaborative Teams once during the week, in lieu of individual planning time. (Vote taken on Friday, March 10, 2017- 45 staff members participated, passed with 91.1%.)

7. Observational Feedback, at least twice per month

a. Administrators will provide continuous observational feedback to staff members by:

i. invitational visits to classrooms

ii. 10 minute walk throughs

iii. full block observations

50

iv. one-on-one teacher meetings every other Friday

b. Focus of observations will be determined by monthly professional development times when major standards and instruction are planned.

B. Curriculum and Standards: Billie Martinez will maintain a strong focus on State and District standards. Students will be engaged in learning activities designed to help all students achieve at high levels on all State, District approved, and building assessments. All assessments will be aligned with State and District standards so as to create a direct connection between standards, planning, instruction, and results. We propose minor adjustments to our current practice which align with District protocols.

a. Foundational Literacy

b. Content Literacy

c. Math

d. Writing in every content, every day.

i. As part of Literacy Design Collaborative, writing is embedded in all parts of the day for all students.

1. Every student will have Learning Journals.

2. Distal learning targets for modules of learning will be glued in Learning Journals.

3. Writing will be responses to learning, short constructed responses, exit tickets.

4. Teachers will teach and enforce all non-negotiable agreed upon skills for all students.

ii. As part of each module in the six units of study, students will be assessed on their learning using CAS, Comprehensive Assessment System. The assessment will measure content knowledge, reading and writing standards connected to the module. Teachers will follow data team

51

protocols to evaluate student work for these areas and achievement on content, reading, and writing standards.

e. Specific, Focused Vocabulary Development

i. All teachers will identify content and academic vocabulary that all students must learn in order to fully grasp the standards and be able to transfer their learning to other situations. Comprehension of content is dependent upon deep understanding of vocabulary and students having strategies to figure out unknown words. In order to develop vocabulary we will instruct students in specific words needed to make meaning. We will teach them how to use a word learning strategy to have a way to understand unknown words in time in text. Intentional instruction will happen in the Foundational Literacy Block. Application of vocabulary and skills to develop vocabulary will be a part of Content Literacy and Math.

1. Bringing Words to Life, Second Edition: Robust Vocabulary Instruction; Beck, Isabel L.

f. Blended Learning

i. Teachers will incorporate opportunities for students to use technology as part of their resource to address rigorous State and District standards.

1. In reading, Lexia Learning as a support for the five components of an effective reading program: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

2. Wonders vocabulary practice.

3. ZEARN for math concept development and skill practice.

4. ST math options for Pre K and kindergarten.

5. Discovery Learning for Science content support.

6. Moby Max to support learning across content.

g. English Language Development

i. Students need role model peers to help them further develop language skills. We are proposing to emphasize oral language development aligned with vocabulary development in all classrooms, pre k - 5. Programs such as Spoken English through Ohio State, Imagine Learning, and WestEd

52

have provided evidence and research about developing English learners academic progress. Vocabulary development is a key component.

1. Eliminate ‘Language for’ programs except for pre k.

2. Effective WestEd strategies training for staff will be embedded in our project based learning trainings as part of the effective instructional practices we use daily with all children. English Language Development specialists at Billie Martinez will have at least one team member trained as a trainer for project based learning. This person will work with their team, the instructional coach, and administration to blend the two practices into one cohesive plan for instruction.

3. WIDA Access data will be used by teachers to effectively guide instruction and expectations for all students, providing differentiation and scaffolding to ensure all students are able to successfully navigate STEAM through project based learning.

4. We will develop school-wide expectations for English language development with specific language and vocabulary development for all students.

5. Push in/pull out programs will be determined upon the needs of the students.

6. Push in for Science and Math to support academic vocabulary and comprehension of rigorous state and local standards.

a. need adequate collaborative planning

b. need training for both classroom staff and CLD staff to work effectively.

C. Data-Driven Instruction: Instructional focus will be project based learning in order to help students learn and apply rigorous State and District standards in reading, writing, math, science, social studies, and the arts with a STEAM focus. Although we will primarily use district curriculum as a resource, we would like to reorganize the timing and delivery of the standards based instruction and restructure district assessments to align with the units of study taught in content literacy. Content literacy will be the focal point of instruction for STEAM. Foundational skills, vocabulary development, comprehension and math skills needed for students to be successful during content literacy will be aligned to each unit of study and

53

based in rigorous standards. We will identify mastery level standards in all content, align and plan instructions in a logical sequence for our students and units of study. We will provide a focused assessment system. We will use student work and data to plan and refine each module. Our focus is on student success.

a. Program Surveys

i. Stakeholders will each participate in a survey about instruction and learning at Billie Martinez. The first survey will go out in the spring of 2017. Follow up surveys will be given to parents each fall during Parent/Teacher Conferences. Results will be shared through school newsletters and website with the community by October 1 of each year.

b. State Assessment

i. PARCC

ii. WIDA

c. District Assessments

i. DIBELS and DIBELS DEEP

1. We plan to continue to use DIBELS as a way to check progress of pre-reading and reading skills in all students K-5.

2. We will follow all testing time frames and expectations for testing protocols within District 6.

3. Progress monitors for students in grades 2-5 and for students who have reached the end of RMSE transitions will be conducted every other week for all students.

4. Students in K-1 who are still in RMSE will use RMSE mastery checks and fluency check-outs as appropriate. Once a first grader reaches RMSE 1, lesson 80, DORF (DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency) will be monitored twice monthly until they exit the program, at which time the other progress monitoring rules will be in place.

ii. Phonics Bench Assessment

1. Teachers will use the Wonders’ phonics benchmark assessment to track the progress of students in phonics instruction. Data will be used to provide small group instruction during foundational literacy to ensure all students are able to access grade level text to comprehend.

54

iii. Reading Common Assessments

1. We will use Wonders as a primary resource in grades 2 through 5 and Reading Mastery Signature Edition (RMSE) in kindergarten and first grade to address rigorous State standards for reading in the Foundational Literacy block of our program (See Section 2: Academic Systems, E.e. Sample Schedule Primary K-2 and Section 2 E.e. Sample Schedule Intermediate 3-5). As such we will continue to use the Reading Common Assessments for Wonders and RMSE mastery and fluency assessments to determine each student’s progress toward mastery of rigorous State standards.

2. The change we propose is to realign District Wonders Reading Common Assessments in 2nd through 5th grades to better address the learning outcomes in place for each student not only in Foundational Literacy, but in Content Literacy as well. We also propose a different schedule for the assessments to again align with our work as we plan six distinct units of study using the Literacy by Design Collaborative (LDC) process.

iv. Writing Assessments

1. We currently use Being a Writer as our primary writing program. Our plan is to create building-wide prompts which go with each section, use the prompts to track writing data both across teams and across all grade levels to ensure we are teaching grade level rigorous standards.

2. Given our focus on writing across the curriculum in our STEAM program, we will be able to use a variety of writing including writing about thinking, personal narrative writing, expository nonfiction writing, fiction writing, functional writing, opinion writing, and poetry writing to assess student growth in writing.

a. Writing about Thinking (Writing to demonstrate understanding of rigorous reading standards.): Last question on the reading common for all 2nd – 5th grades. Will be monitored every 6 weeks.

b. Personal narrative, fiction, and poetry writing will be assessed during foundational literacy block through Being a Writer for all grades.

c. Expository writing, functional writing, and opinion writing will be taught in foundational literacy and used to help students perform as part of the content literacy block where students

55

will be asked to write daily in response to and as a way to demonstrate learning and understanding of the content.

d. Prompt Writing: We will develop school wide writing prompts for the end of instructional units of study. Every student will write to a prompt. Teachers will bring student writing samples to Building-wide Data Teams in order for us to vertically align writing and to work toward growth in writing for all students. All prompts will be the same across grade levels, allowing us to examine vertical alignment of writing conventions and development from one year to the next.

v. Math Assessments

1. Eureka is our primary math resource for all Pre K – 5th grade students to meet rigorous state and district standards. ZEARN, online learning for Eureka will also remain as part of our math program. Staff will redesign existing math units to break those units into smaller more measurable chunks of learning to create high levels of mastery among all students. Our focus will be on major standards at each grade level as well as performance tasks to ensure students are transferring their learning to unknown /real world situations. We will identify essential standards vs. the good to know standards. All teachers know and follow a list of these essential vs. good to know standards.

a. Pre-K and kindergarten students will be assessed in math through teacher observation and checklists. Teachers will use the standards to design a rubric for student work.

b. 1st – 5th grade students will be assessed on their progress toward mastery of standards using the math unit assessments. We would propose to use the current District math unit assessments to assess progress toward Mastery Level Standards. We propose to break down the current assessments into smaller assessments which match our redesign of math units stated in above, Math Assessments, item 1. A timeline for data entry will be designed to align to units of study as well and to keep us on track to help all students master rigorous content standards in math.

d. Other Assessments

i. CAS (Common Assignment Study - part of Literacy Design Collaborative)

56

1. CAS is part of Literacy Design Collaborative and will be part of the way teachers at Billie Martinez evaluate the effectiveness of different modules developed using Understanding by Design and the Literacy Design Collaborative. The work of CAS will be completed with the help of Literacy Design Collaborative and other teachers in other schools developing common modules. CAS will help us to evaluate our STEAM program units of study.

ii. Student Development Portfolios

1. Students in grades K-5 will collect work samples from Content Literacy, LDC, and CAS to demonstrate their mastery of rigorous standards. Students will identify work which represents their mastery of rigorous State and District Standards in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies to be included in a body of evidence. The students will be able to identify how each piece represents mastery, why they chose it and what significant learning they took away from the piece.

a. Portfolios will be shared with parents each spring as a culminating activity for each student’s year and to show mastery of standards. Portfolio presentations will be scheduled by teachers during Dia del Nino week, the first week of May each year.

b. In lieu of traditional Parent/Teacher Conferences, teachers will plan two nights each at the end of the first and second trimester to schedule student led parent conferences for portfolio presentations. Students would lead the conference for their parents and the teacher would remain in the room to answer questions and address any concerns. (See schedule)

iii. Longitudinal Study of Preschool Participants

1. We would like to track the progress of all students who participate in our preschool starting at ages three and four. We will collect data about language, pre-reading skills, number sense skills, language skills. To assess reading we will use Concepts About Print, Letter/Sound recognition, PELI, and Strategies Gold assessments. In order to assess for math we will use Eureka for preschool to assess math skills. We will research and find the most appropriate assessment of language skills for preschool children. We will track the progress of students three times each year and compare their results to the results of students who had no preschool program and to students who participated in Head

57

Start or other preschool program. The purpose is to have evidence that an academic based preschool with a focus on language development, pre-literacy, and numeracy skills will have a more positive impact on students who had no preschool or who participated in an alternate program.

b. Data Analysis and Planning

i. Teachers will meet every week to check the progress of students.

ii. Teachers will bring student work samples to each data team.

iii. Math standards will be addressed every other week. Content literacy will be addressed every other week at the end of a module of instruction within a six week unit of study.

iv. Adult actions will be addressed using the following discussion and data collection process.

58

Sample Data Team Process Data Collection Sheet

Columns completed by the team at the beginning of a 2 week module as part of the data and planning process. Teams will build a 3 point rubric to use throughout instruction to collect student work and move students to mastery of rigorous standards. This will be part of Monday professional development day as part of the instructional planning process.

Columns are completed after a 2 week cycle of instruction. Teachers will bring in common student work samples to address the rubric designed in the first meeting. Teachers will share student examples at each level of the rubric as well as what worked instructionally. Teachers will plan the next two weeks of instruction based upon student data. Instructional strategies will be planned and practiced. Instructional coach will provide follow up planning and instructional support.

Standard Interpretation of the Standard

Actual Performance of Standard

Implications for Future Work

Content Standard: Science or Social Studies standard to be addressed in the next two weeks will be identified and charted.

What skills and actions will we see in student work that demonstrate mastery of the content standards?

What strengths and needs do you see in groups who are proficients, partially proficient or unsatisfactory as set forth in the rubric for performance?

What do we do to enrich, support, reteach students in each area of the rubric for this standard? What is the instructional plan?

Reading Standard: What reading standards do students need in order to meet the rigor of the content standard? How will students apply learned reading skills to this two weeks of learning?

How do proficient readers perform in this module? What does proficient look like?

What strengths and needs do you see in groups who are proficients, partially proficient or unsatisfactory as set forth in the rubric for performance?

What do we do to enrich, support, reteach students in each area of the rubric for this standard? What is the instructional plan?

Writing Standard: What writing standards do students need in order to meet the rigor of the content standard? How will students apply learned writing skills to this two weeks of learning?

How do proficient writers perform in this module? What does proficient look like?

What strengths and needs do you see in groups who are proficients, partially proficient or unsatisfactory as set forth in the rubric for performance?

What do we do to enrich, support, reteach students in each area of the rubric for this standard? What is the instructional plan?

Arts Standard(s): Music, library, P.E., art, technology

What arts standards are addressed in this unit. What does proficient look like?

What strengths and needs do you see in groups who are proficients, partially proficient or unsatisfactory as set forth in the rubric for performance?

What do we do to enrich, support, reteach students in each area of the rubric for this standard? What is the instructional plan?

59

Who, does what, by when? Teams divide any work that needs to be done. Those tasks are recorded and dated here.

D. Student Advancement, Pathways, and Transitions: At the current time we will continue to follow District Policy for student advancement. As part of our reporting systems we propose to develop a body of evidence for each reporting period which will more accurately reflect student achievement in relationship to rigorous standards from two cohesive units of study developed through the Literacy by Design collaborative during the trimester.

E. School Schedule and Calendar: Billie Martinez is requesting the opportunity to change our professional development schedule and to implement the LDC schedule for all classrooms. We further propose to have all teachers, including new staff and preschool staff, return four days prior to the return of other teachers in District 6 to provide best first instruction to teachers in building-wide identified professional development to fully implement our innovation plan.

a. Professional Development

i. Summer Schedule

1. A group of teachers will be trained in a train the trainer model for Project Based Learning by PBL World, hosted by the Buck Institute for Education. Teachers, instructional coach, and administration will participate in a four day training starting on June 18, 2017, through June 22, 2017. The institute provides separate strands for teachers, coaches and administrators to help focus the work specific to each group’s responsibilities in the implementation of project based learning. BIE provides initial training for teams one year and follow up training with the same intensity the following year. Selected trainers must make at least a three year commitment to Billie Martinez to ensure a cultural shift in instruction and full development and implementation of project based learning.

2. Trainers will provide initial professional development in project based learning in August 2017 prior to the start of the new school year. All staff will be trained. Teachers at Billie Martinez will report four days prior to other teachers in our District to be trained. Staff will be paid as the training is mandatory. Each staff member will be assigned one ‘mentor’ from the initial training team as their project-based learning leader. This leader will be engaged with

60

their small collaborative group throughout the year for peer coaching and mentoring.

3. Teachers will not attend District 6 curriculum day. This day will instead be attached to the previously mentioned additional days to align our curriculum and standards to our units of study and to outline all units of study to ensure we provide high quality instruction to all students and that we address all rigorous standards.

ii. During the School Year

1. On going professional development will occur throughout the year on planned early release dates at least once per month and weekly through team collaboration, peer coaching, and with the instructional coach. All staff will receive on going feedback and support from administration at least twice per month.

2. Monthly professional development will be full days one Monday per month. The agenda will be:

a. Share out adult actions implemented since the last professional development.

b. Share student work and data identified from the last professional development.

c. Adult action learning delivered by the instructional coach and the training staff.

d. Module planning using LDC focused on instruction of standards to be instructed in the next block.

e. Practice teaching of the instructional strategies in a coaching model with teachers giving feedback to one another.

f. Focus on expected results for students. Build the rubric for evaluation. Agree on student work to bring forward next time.

iii. Weekly professional development will focus in the following ways:

61

1. Instructional coach will assist teams in continuing the planning process for foundational literacy, content literacy and math, primarily focused on the implementation of instructional model in content literacy.

2. Instructional coach will work with training staff to continue to grow their skills. The instructional coach will team teach, provide modeling and observational feedback to this team. The instructional coach will help this team with their next steps for their training group.

3. The training team will meet with their collaborative team one morning per week. A schedule will provide guidance on expected meeting times. Agenda will be developed by the training team, instructional coach, and administration.

iv. Observational Feedback, at least twice per month

1. Administrators will provide continuous observational feedback to staff members by:

a. invitational visits to classrooms

b. 10 minute walk throughs

c. full block observations

d. one-on-one teacher meetings every other Friday

2. Focus of observations will be determined by monthly professional development times when major standards and instruction are planned.

v. During the School Year Schedule

1. *Full day release Mondays, once per month. Proposed dates are:

a. September 18, 2017 (Already a PD/Conference Day)

b. October 9, 2017

c. November 6, 2017

d. December 4, 2017

62

e. January 2, 2018 (Tuesday - No students are scheduled throughout the District)

f. February 5, 2018 (Already a PD/Conference Day)

g. March 5, 2018

h. April 9, 2018

i. April 30, 2018

*Dates will be aligned with full day Monday releases of high schools in our District.

vi. Observational Feedback, at least twice per month

1. Administrators will provide continuous observational feedback to staff members by:

a. invitational visits to classrooms

b. 10 minute walk throughs

c. full block observations

d. one-on-one teacher meetings every other Friday

2. Focus of observations will be determined by monthly professional development times when major standards and instruction are planned.

b. Student Daily Schedules

i. In grades K through 5, the first bell for students will be at 8:20 AM, Monday through Friday.

ii. End of the day will move to 3:45 PM every day, Monday through Friday. This change will end Early Release on any Monday students are in school.

iii. Preschool students will attend Tuesday through Friday. Morning sessions will be from 8:00 AM to 11:30 AM; or from 12:00 PM to 3:30 PM.

c. Teacher Daily Schedules

i. All teachers, including preschool staff will report at 7:30 AM and end of contract time will be 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday.

63

ii. Preschool teachers will have Mondays to provide parenting classes, conduct home visits, assess students and monitor progress. This aligns with other preschool schedules in our District.

d. Daily Academic Schedule: Billie Martinez will adopt the Literacy by Design Collaborative Schedule.

e. Sample Schedule Primary K-2 Instructional Focus Time Allocation

Opening 10 minutes Foundational Skills Based Literacy

- Interactive Read Aloud - Small Group, Differentiated - Modeled/Shared Reading mini lesson - Independent Reading - Word Work - Vocabulary - Writing

125 minutes

Lunch/Recess 40 minutes Content, Grade Level Literacy

- Science or social studies content literacy - Modeled, Shared/Interactive,

Guided/Independent Writing instruction (tied to content)

100 minutes

Recess 15 minutes Specials 50 minutes Math

- 60 minutes math instruction - 30 minutes math intervention

90 minutes

Closing 10 minutes

f. Sample Schedule Intermediate 3-5 Instructional Focus Time Allocation

Opening 10 minutes Foundational Skills Based Literacy

- Interactive Read Aloud - Small Group, Differentiated

95 minutes

64

- Modeled/Shared Reading mini lesson - Independent Reading - Word Work - Vocabulary - Writing

Lunch/Recess 40 minutes Content, Grade Level Literacy

- Science or social studies content literacy - Modeled, Shared/Interactive, - Guided/Independent Writing instruction

(tied to content)

130 minutes

Recess 15 minutes Specials 50 minutes

- 60 minutes math instruction - 30 minutes math intervention

90 minutes

Closing 10 minutes

F. Supports for Special Populations: Often times students at Billie Martinez come to kindergarten without any experience in a school setting. Most have not had any preschool experience. Language and poverty have a huge impact on our students. Often parents do not have help to understand the education system. Most cannot afford preschool. Head Start is always full with a waiting list. Billie Martinez kindergarten teachers often spend the first part of the year preparing students to be school ready. Language is a barrier. Lack of pre reading skills impacts the success of children. Lack of numerical fluency has a long term effect on math achievement far past kindergarten. Billie Martinez proposes to implement an academic preschool program focused on school readiness, English language development, pre reading and pre math skills for three and four year old children in our attendance area. Our goal is to better prepare our young learners for school, to prevent school failure, and to address second language issues early and successfully.

a. English Language Learners - Our English language learners make up about 60% of our student population. Students who enter school with no English skills will require English language acquisition skills to be developed right beside their content knowledge. We have shown growth over the past two years on WIDA Access. Based upon data, both observational and academic, we know our writing non-negotiables for writing and our expectation for all students to respond in complete sentences over the past two years has had a positive impact on students’ growth. We have reduced the percent of students who qualify for ELL services to 55%. In order to continue this growth we must include specific strategies for vocabulary development and increase writing across all content, every day. Our goal is to develop just right instruction to help all students develop and use critical thinking skills, collaboration skills, and engagement with rigorous

65

materials to support their thinking as well as build their confidence in their abilities, and grow their language skills.

i. “Provide explicit, systematic instruction in vocabulary.”

1. It is essential for all children, especially second language students, to have explicit, systematic instruction in vocabulary. Therefore we will have a major focus on vocabulary throughout the entire preschool day to help our children develop a rich understanding of word meaning and use of the language.

a. Present vocabulary aligned with content and make connections for students through realia to retain learned vocabulary.

b. Interactive read alouds with a focus on targeted vocabulary which supports young learners.

ii. “Ensure that ELLS have ample opportunities to talk with both adults and peers and provide ongoing feedback and encouragement.”

1. As with our K - 5 program, preschool students will be expected to use complete sentences when appropriate and daily.

iii. “Expose ELLs to rich language input.”

1. Teacher read alouds modeling the metacognitive processes we want all children to develop over time.

iv. “Structure the classroom space and routine to provide scaffolding for ELLs’ language learning.”

1. Labels for classroom materials in English and the native language of students.

2. Create a predictable learning environment in which all children can function and participate. Structure will help ensure students, regardless of language, know what is coming next.

v. Encourage continued L1 language development.” (the child’s native language)

1. Structure parenting classes to teach parents how to talk and read to their children in their native language.

2. Incorporate the children’s languages in the classroom whenever possible through music, videos, etc.

66

vi. Literacy Design Collaborative

1. Students will engage in writing across the content every day.

2. Planning for writing will be part of the Understanding by Design process, specifically stage 3 and Literacy by Design.

vii. Implement opportunities for students who need additional supports to use Lexia Learning to individualize instruction for all students.

b. Special Education: Recognizing that the plan to create an Innovation School does not impact or diminish the school’s or district's’ responsibility to comply with state or federal laws, Martinez Elementary will comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, the Colorado Exceptional Students’ Educational Act (ECEA), and the Colorado Rules for the Administration of the Exceptional Students’ Education Act. Our goal is to provide just right instruction to help all students develop and use critical thinking skills, collaboration skills, and engagement with rigorous materials to support their thinking as well as build their confidence in their abilities.

i. Students who require special education services will be served in the least restrictive environment. We will make every effort to include all students in best first instruction. Pull out programs will depend upon the needs of each child.

ii. One member of the special education team will be a trainer for project based learning. This person will align all instructional practices to meet the needs of our unique populations.

c. Gifted and Talented: Our goal is to extend the learning and provide more opportunities for students to develop and use critical thinking skills, collaboration skills, and engagement with rigorous material to support GT students.

i. Increase our identification of gifted and talented students, especially in relation to underrepresented populations.

ii. Students who qualify for gifted and talented services will be supported in the classroom by the classroom teacher.

iii. Classroom teachers will be supported in their work with our GT students by the GT specialist and administration.

d. Panther Preschool STEAM Academy Structure

i. Four, half day sections with 18 students in each.

67

ii. We will require 2 full time educators with Early Childhood licensure. We will have one full time paraprofessional to assist teachers with the clerical work and day to day running of the preschool.

e. Panther Preschool STEAM Academy Schedule

i. Students will attend either 8:00 AM to 11:30 AM, or 12:00 PM to 3:30 PM.

ii. Students will attend Tuesday through Friday.

iii. Staff will use Mondays to provide parenting classes, home visits, student testing, training.

f. Preschool Entry Criteria

i. Children will register for sections, if we have more applicants than available sections, we will use a lottery system.

ii. We will work with Head Start and District preschools to help determine best placement for all students.

iii. No cost to parents, but parents must volunteer for two hours each month. Those two hours can be fulfilled in the classroom, at Martinez K-5, or by participating in parenting classes.

iv. Students must be potty trained.

v. Parents must agree to no more than three unexcused absences. Parents who do not provide the proper excused absence documentation risk losing their spot to another family. (Excused absences include doctor’s note, child checked at Billie Martinez Health Care Clinic and excused, family emergency.)

g. Panther Preschool STEAM Academy Curriculum

i. Early Literacy Skills 1

1. Alphabetic Principles

a. Recognizing upper and lower case letters and sounds

2. Phonemic Awareness including

a. Rhyming

1 http://www.colorincolorado.org/

68

b. Sounds

c. Phonemic Sound Fluency

d. First Sound Fluency

3. Print Awareness

a. Develop each child’s concepts about print. ie: how to hold a book, the parts of a book, how the print works, where the title is on the book.

ii. Develop a program which focuses on foundational literacy skills.

1. Interactive read alouds.

2. Students ‘reading’ daily

3. Work with Lexia Learning as part of our reading curriculum for preschool to develop an understanding of rhymes and songs, word games, and online story books.

4. Work with the children’s native languages to grow their English language skills. Identify cognates, realia, a list of vocabulary in English and Spanish to provide a point of reference.

iii. Language Development: Children who speak a language other than English in preschool will need explicit instruction in English vocabulary as well as other opportunities to develop English speaking and listening skills. Language for Learning is our current Kindergarten language development program. It does provide some structures for English which are beneficial, however, the application throughout the day is limited. We will identify lessons which will be beneficial to our students in their development of English language skills and present only those lessons starting in Pre K for all students.

Dr. Karen Ford, a researcher with Colorin’ Colorado, provides insights as to how second language students use their native language skills to develop English language skills. She also offers teachers support in how to work with second language learners in preschool recommends five classroom strategies to help preschool children acquire English language skills

1. “Provide explicit, systematic instruction in vocabulary.”

69

a. It is essential for all children, especially second language students, to have explicit, systematic instruction in vocabulary. Therefore we will have a major focus on vocabulary throughout the entire preschool day to help our children develop a rich understanding of word meaning and use of the language.

i. Present vocabulary aligned with content and make connections for students through realia to retain learned vocabulary.

ii. Interactive read alouds with a focus on targeted vocabulary which supports young learners.

2. “Ensure that ELLS have ample opportunities to talk with both adults and peers and provide ongoing feedback and encouragement.”

a. As with our K - 5 program, preschool students will be expected to use complete sentences when appropriate and daily.

3. “Expose ELLs to rich language input.”

a. Teacher read alouds modeling the metacognitive processes we want all children to develop over time.

4. “Structure the classroom space and routine to provide scaffolding for ELLs’ language learning.”

a. Labels for classroom materials in English and the native language of students.

b. Create a predictable learning environment in which all children can function and participate. Structure will help ensure students, regardless of language, know what is coming next.

5. Encourage continued L1 language development.” (the child’s native language)

a. Structure parenting classes to teach parents how to talk and read to their children in their native language.

70

b. Incorporate the children’s languages in the classroom whenever possible through music, videos, etc.

iv. Math

1. Our primary K-5 math resource also has a preschool component. Eureka Math will provide preschool math to our students in alignment with our K-5 program.

v. STEAM

1. Students in preschool will have access to science concepts through technology, arts, and engineering.

vi. Developing the Whole Child

1. Social Support

a. Structured play

b. Recess

c. Building relationships

2. Parental Support

a. Parenting Classes

i. Parenting classes will be provided to all preschool parents.

ii. Classes will count as part of a parent’s two hour volunteer time requirement for a no fee preschool opportunity.

b. Volunteer Requirements

vii. Preschool Assessments

1. Strategies GOLD

2. Concepts About Print from Reading and Writing Project

3. PELI (Preschool literacy assessment for 3 to 5 year olds developed by Dynamic Measurement Group)

4. Eureka Preschool Mid Module and End of Module

71

5. Pre/post placement testing for second language preschoolers using WAPT (WIDA Access Placement Test) for preschool students.

SECTION III: TALENT MANAGEMENT

A. Recruitment and Hiring: Billie Martinez will be allowed to post any open teaching positions and hire one month earlier than other schools in the district because of our Priority Improvement Status. Questions will be focused on a candidate’s commitment to innovation, STEAM and Project Based Learning. Teachers must be willing to be coached and work through a peer mentoring program. Allowing Billie Martinez access to the hiring pool and posting available positions at lease one month sooner than other schools will enable us to recruit the best candidates for our students.

B. Evaluation and Retention “Feedback is in the top ten influences on achievement.” John Hattie

In order to help our teachers through first order change of implementing our STEAM program including instructional planning with Understanding by Design, supporting stage 3 with Literacy Design Collaborative, and our instructional model of project based learning, the administrative team must provide clear, consistent, quality feedback weekly to all staff.

“...the greatest effects on student LEARNing occur when the TEACHers become LEARNers of their own TEACHING and….when students become their own TEACHers.” John Hattie; Visible Learning (2009, p. 22)

Administrators at Billie Martinez currently support teachers will approximately 600 observations over the course of a year. Each staff member receives approximately 10 walkthroughs each and 5-6 full observations. Each staff member meets with their evaluator every third Friday to review their progress and to set goals for the next steps. We propose to further and enhance our practice by providing at least one piece of quality feedback to teachers weekly about their classroom instructional practices by focusing on growth of staff within the work. Given an increase in the amount of time in each teacher’s classroom we will also change the times we meet with staff members to every other Friday. This tightens the feedback loop and continues to support a growth mindset. From Hattie’s work we will focus on the following to help teachers think about and reflect on their adult actions within classrooms:

● Where are you in your learning? (Current Knowledge) ● Where are you headed? (Learning Goal)

72

● What steps do you need to take to get there? (Learning Actions/Strategies) ● How will you know when you’ve achieved the goal? (Success Criteria) ● How can I help you as a learner?

C. Professional Development

Professional Development will be fully directed by Billie Martinez administration, instructional coach in communication and connection with District Administration. Changes include schedules and focus.

a. Professional Development

i. Summer Schedule

1. A group of teachers will be trained in a train the trainer model for Project Based Learning by PBL World, hosted by the Buck Institute for Education. Teachers, instructional coach, and administration will participate in a four day training starting on June 18, 2017, through June 22, 2017. The institute provides separate strands for teachers, coaches and administrators to help focus the work specific to each group’s responsibilities in the implementation of project based learning. BIE provides initial training for teams one year and follow up training with the same intensity the following year. Selected trainers must make at least a three year commitment to Billie Martinez to ensure a cultural shift in instruction and full development and implementation of project based learning.

2. Trainers will provide initial professional development in project based learning in August 2017 prior to the start of the new school year. All staff will be trained. Teachers at Billie Martinez will report four days prior to other teachers in our District to be trained. Staff will be paid as the training is mandatory. Each staff member will be assigned one ‘mentor’ from the initial training team as their project-based learning leader. This leader will be engaged with their small collaborative group throughout the year for peer coaching and mentoring.

3. Teachers will not attend District 6 curriculum day. This day will instead be attached to the previously mentioned additional days to align our curriculum and standards to our units of study and to

73

outline all units of study to ensure we provide high quality instruction to all students and that we address all rigorous standards.

ii. During the School Year

1. On going professional development will occur throughout the year on planned early release dates at least once per month and weekly through team collaboration, peer coaching, and with the instructional coach. All staff will receive on going feedback and support from administration at least twice per month.

2. Monthly professional development will be full days one Monday per month. The agenda will be:

a. Share out adult actions implemented since the last professional development.

b. Share student work and data identified from the last professional development.

c. Adult action learning delivered by the instructional coach and the training staff.

d. Module planning using LDC focused on instruction of standards to be instructed in the next block.

e. Practice teaching of the instructional strategies in a coaching model with teachers giving feedback to one another.

f. Focus on expected results for students. Build the rubric for evaluation. Agree on student work to bring forward next time.

iii. Weekly professional development will focus in the following ways:

1. Instructional coach will assist teams in continuing the planning process for foundational literacy, content literacy and math, primarily focused on the implementation of instructional model in content literacy.

2. Instructional coach will work with training staff to continue to grow their skills. The instructional coach will team teach, provide

74

modeling and observational feedback to this team. The instructional coach will help this team with their next steps for their training group.

3. The training team will meet with their collaborative team one morning per week. A schedule will provide guidance on expected meeting times. Agenda will be developed by the training team, instructional coach, and administration.

iv. During the School Year Schedule

1. *Full day release Mondays, once per month. Proposed dates are:

a. September 18, 2017

b. October 9, 2017

c. November 6, 2017

d. December 4, 2017

e. January 2, 2018 (Tuesday - No students are scheduled throughout the District)

f. February 5, 2018

g. March 5, 2018

h. April 9, 2018

i. April 30, 2018

*Dates will be aligned with full day Monday releases of high schools in our District.

v. Observational Feedback, at least twice per month

1. Administrators will provide continuous observational feedback to staff members by:

a. invitational visits to classrooms

b. 10 minute walk throughs

c. full block observations

75

d. one-on-one teacher meetings every other Friday

2. Focus of observations will be determined by monthly professional development times when major standards and instruction are planned.

D. Compensation

Billie Martinez intends to create opportunities for peer coaching and support across our grade levels. The current system supports a ‘one coach’ model in which we have one building level position as an instructional coach. This broader view allows for more coaching opportunities in our school as well as more opportunities to collaborate and lead. We will document all professional development activities to provide teachers the ability to be compensated by receiving credit hours for movement across the pay scale.

Teachers who train to be trainers of project based learning will have their initial and follow up training paid out of Title 1. Fees for the conference are $1400. Travel and hotel will be $1500.

Trainers and all other staff will be paid at the curriculum rate of $27.00/hour to conduct and participate in training for four days in August, 2017.

Training staff will be able to apply for credit for movement on the pay scale as they meet district criteria to become teacher-leader experts or demonstration teachers. Policies for becoming a demonstration teacher are found in the professional development handbook under demonstration teacher.

All other staff will be able to apply for credit and movement on the pay scale if they choose to go through the process of becoming a lab host as well. This opportunity will be available in the second year of implementation. Requirements will be the same as trainers.

76

SECTION IV: BUDGET AND OPERATIONS

A. Budget and Policy

Attach a budget table; include description in the plan.

A draft budget is included below for our first year of implementation of this innovation plan. For years 2 and 3, budgets will be drafted at the appropriate time in the school year to support the upcoming academic year.

Billie Martinez will work in collaboration with the district finance department to ensure we are being fiscally responsible and transparent with our budget. Priority budget allocations will occur.

We face the current challenges to address our budget needs:

● Funding in our district is limited. ● In November 2016, a request for a mill levy override was not passed by voters.

We will continue to work with the budget provided us to ensure the funding supports student needs and is aligned with our school’s vision and mission.

As we implement our innovation plan, funding to support curriculum, instruction, and assessment will be important. Funding to support opportunities for professional learning will also be critical as we implement this innovation plan. Our budget will reflect our goals of best first instruction and culture/climate.

The following table represents different funding sources to maximize the impact we can have during the 2017-2018 school year.

Resource Expense Funding Source

Curriculum - Using district approved curriculum

Provided

District already purchased

Curriculum - Science Digital Content and 10 additional computers

$10,000

United Way Sponsor

Professional Development - June 19-22 Train the Trainer Summer Institute for PBL (1 administrator, 1 instructional coach, 9 teachers) - total 10 staff

● Travel ● Hotel ● Registration

$32,263 Title I Building Funds

Professional Development - August 8-11, Train the remaining staff in PBL

● Stipends

$30,000 CDE Network Grant

77

Professional Development - June 2018 Train the Trainer Summer Institute for PBL Part 2 (1 administrator, 1 instructional coach, 9 teachers) - total 10 staff

● Travel ● Hotel ● Registration

$35,000 Title I Building Funds

Professional Development -, Train the staff in LDC ● Stipends/Sub costs

$10,000 CEI

The following table represents the prior year budget and a proposed budget for next year. You will notice that the costs remain neutral.

78

79

B. General Operations

Billie Martinez Elementary school will explore the feasibility of an on-site academic preschool as well as an on-site health care clinic. Both programs may require additional funding to support. Grants may be available. We will need to ensure we have proper funding, space and personnel for both programs.

C. Branding and Marketing

Billie Martinez Elementary will be branded as, Billie Martinez Elementary, Full STEAM Ahead! Our identity will be STEAM. All of the planning and implementation components will go to support our STEAM identity. We will create new flyers and brochures to market our school to the community. To ensure success we will use our current Parent/Teacher Organization, School Accountability Committee and Principal Advisory Council to educate and engage our community including parents, grandparents, Poudre Learning Center, Centennial Village, Denver Museum of Science and Nature, Denver Zoo, and UNC.

As part of our new Billie Martinez Elementary, Full STEAM Ahead! we will design and purchase new school shirts for all students and families which will reflect our new identity. We will design and order new signs and banners for the outside and inside of our school. We will work with Poudre Learning Center to redesign the entrance to our school to better market our STEAM program.

SECTION V: DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP

A. Supervision and Accountability

The Director of Elementary Schools will provide weekly support, mentoring, and coaching to the administration team at Billie Martinez to support the implementation of the innovation plan.

Weekly support visits will allow building leadership the opportunity to set both short and long-term goals to manage the implementation of the innovation plan which includes new instructional strategies and a building-wide focus on Project Based Learning to fully implement STEAM across all grade levels. The Director of Elementary Schools will help us manage the data from students working on STEAM projects in writing, reading, Common Assignment Studies through Literacy Design Collaborative. During weekly meetings we will be able to make adjustments to support teachers and students so we achieve our goal of increased growth and achievement for all students.

● Year 1: ○ Schedule weekly meetings to

■ Set and monitor both short and long-term goals ■ Support and monitor the implementation of the innovation plan ■ Provide coaching and support to building level administrators

80

● Year 2: ○ Schedule bi-weekly meetings to address the above issues.

● Year 3: ○ Schedule monthly meetings to address the above issues.

B. Leadership Framework

Provide an overview of how the school will serve as a learning lab for the district and how the school leadership will grow as a part of district strategy.

81

Expected Outcomes: Improvement in Academic Achievement

School Performance Targets (Innovation Years 1-4)1

Expected PARCC Mean

Scale Score Language

Arts (Grades 3-5)

Expected Early Reading Assessment

% reduction in SRD

Expected PARCC Mean Scale Score

Math (Grades 3-5)

Expected CMAS Mean Scale Score

Science (Grades 3-5)

Expected Growth WIDA- Access

Year 0 (2016 Actual Mean Scale Scores) 721.5 10% 717.9 519.8 75%

Year 1 730.0 10% 730.0 540.0 75%

Year 2 740.0 10% 735.0 575.0 75%

Year 3 755.0 10% 745.0 625.0 75%

Year 4 760.0 10% 755.0 660.0 75%

Scoring Guide for 2016 District/School Performance Frameworks (From CDE)

Academic Achievement: Mean Scale Score by Percentile Cut Points Mean Scale Score by Percentile Cut-Points 1 Year (2016 school baseline)

Percentile English Language Arts: Elementary Mean Scale Score

Mathematics: Elementary Mean Scale Score

Science: Elementary Mean Scale Score

15th percentile 722.3 719.1 531.9

50th percentile 739.5 734.3 601.7

85th percentile 755.9 751.9 655.9

82

Conditions Necessary for Innovation: Waivers

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CHANGES

Give a brief overview of the types of conditions that need to change in support of innovation. In what areas is your school seeking waivers? If not already described elsewhere, please explain why certain flexibilities are required. Address what flexibilities the district plans to give the school in addition to waivers from local and state statute.

A. DISTRICT POLICY WAIVERS

Innovation schools may request waivers from district policies. If you are seeking these waivers, provide a summary of the existing policy as well as replacement language for each of the policies you plan to waive out of. A sample table is provided below. For each district policy that you would like to request a waiver from, please copy and paste the table (below).

Waivers from District Policy

District Policy Educational Philosophy/School District Mission

Policy IKA Grading & Assessment Systems

IKA Grading & Assessment

Systems

The Board believes that students and teachers should have access to tools and strategies that will support student learning. The district shall seek, therefore, in its instructional program to make achievement both recognizable and possible for students. It shall emphasize achievement in its processes of evaluating student performance.

State assessment system State and federal law require district students to take standardized assessments in the instructional areas of English language arts, math and science. State law also requires students to take standardized assessments in the instructional area of social studies. Accordingly, the district shall administer standardized assessments pursuant to these state and federal legal requirements. State law also requires the district to adopt policies and/or procedures concerning the use of pencil and paper on the computerized portion of state assessments,

83

parent requests to excuse their children from taking state assessments, and the district’s assessment calendar. This policy and its accompanying regulation represent the district’s processes to address these requirements.

1. Pencil and paper testing option The district may determine when a paper and pencil assessment is used in lieu of the computerized portions of a state assessment. Factors that will be considered in making this determination include:

● The technological capacity and resources of the particular school; ● Students’ previous experience with computerized and written assessments ● Whether the instructional methodology of the particular school is consistent

with the use of computerized assessments or written assessments; and ● the logistics of administering the state assessment in different formats at a

particular school or schools Prior to making this determination, the superintendent or designee shall consult with the school principal(s) affected by this determination. Consultation with parents/guardians of students enrolled in the district will occur in site or district meetings. For students with disabilities, the use of pencil and paper instead of a computer to complete a state assessment shall be determined by the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team or Section 504 team, in accordance with applicable law.

1. Parent/guardian request for exemption A parent/guardian who wishes to exempt his or her child from a particular state assessment or assessments shall make this request in accordance with this policy’s accompanying regulation. In accordance with state law, the district shall not impose a negative consequence upon a student whose parent/guardian has requested an exemption from a state assessment or assessments. This policy’s exemption process shall apply only to state assessment and shall not apply to district or classroom assessments.

1. Sharing of student state assessment results with parents/guardians The Colorado Department of Education is required to provide diagnostic academic growth information for each student enrolled in the district and for each public school in the district based on the state assessment results for the preceding school years. This information shall be included in each student’s individual student record. Appropriate school personnel, including those who work directly with the

84

student, shall have access to the student’s state assessment results and longitudinal academic growth information and shall share with and explain that information to the student’s parent/guardian.

District assessment system In addition to the state assessment system, the district shall develop a comprehensive assessment system that:

1. Challenges students to think critically, apply what they have learned and give them the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and knowledge.

2. Includes features that allow academic concerns to be diagnosed promptly to let students, teachers and parents/guardians know of extra supports and effort needed for academic success.

3. Provides reliable and valid information on student and school performance to educators, parents/guardians and employers.

4. Provides timely and useful data for instructional improvement and improved student learning, including feedback useful in determining whether the curriculum is aligned with the district's academic standards.

In accordance with applicable law, the district's program of assessment shall accommodate students with disabilities and English language learners. The district's assessment results, in combination with state assessment results, will be used as the measurement of student achievement. It is believed these results will provide reliable and valid information about student progress on the district's academic standards.

Additional assessment information for parents/guardians In accordance with state law and this policy’s accompanying regulation, the district shall distribute an assessment calendar and related information to parents/guardians on an annual basis to inform them about the state and district assessments that the district plans to administer during the school year.

Classroom assessment system Classroom assessment practices shall be aligned with the district's academic standards and assessment program. Assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process that should occur continuously in the classroom. The primary purpose of classroom assessment shall be to enable teachers to make instructional decisions for students on a continual basis.

85

Students are encouraged to engage in informal self-assessments as they study and attempt to solve problems, monitor their own progress and improve their learning.

Grading system The administration and professional staff shall devise a grading system for evaluating and recording student progress and to measure student performance in conjunction with the district's academic standards. The records and reports of individual students shall be kept in a form meaningful to students, parents/guardians as well as teachers. The grading system shall be uniform district-wide at comparable grade levels.

Adopted: June 8, 2015 Revised: October 26, 2015

LEGAL REFS.: C.R.S. 22-7-407 (district academic standards)

C.R.S. 22-7-409 (state assessment implementation schedule)

C.R.S. 22-7-409 (1.2)(d)(II) (assignment of scores on statewide assessments for students with disabilities)

C.R.S. 22-7-409 (1.9) (state assessment results included on student report card if feasible; results of college entrance exam included on student transcripts)

C.R.S. 22-11-101 et seq. (Education Accountability Act of 2009)

C.R.S. 22-11-203 (2)(a) (principal required to provide educators access to their students' academic growth information "upon receipt" of that information)

C.R.S. 22-11-504 (3) (policy required to ensure explanation of student assessment results and longitudinal growth information)

CROSS REFS.: AEA, Standards Based Education

AED*, Accreditation

JRA/JRC, Student Records/Release of Information on Students

86

School’s Replacement

Policy

The Board believes that students and teachers should have access to tools and strategies that will support student learning. The district shall seek, therefore, in its instructional program to make achievement both recognizable and possible for students. It shall emphasize achievement in its processes of evaluating student performance.

State assessment system State and federal law require district students to take standardized assessments in the instructional areas of English language arts, math and science. State law also requires students to take standardized assessments in the instructional area of social studies. Accordingly, the district shall administer standardized assessments pursuant to these state and federal legal requirements. State law also requires the district to adopt policies and/or procedures concerning the use of pencil and paper on the computerized portion of state assessments, parent requests to excuse their children from taking state assessments, and the district’s assessment calendar. This policy and its accompanying regulation represent the district’s processes to address these requirements.

1. Pencil and paper testing option The district may determine when a paper and pencil assessment is used in lieu of the computerized portions of a state assessment. Factors that will be considered in making this determination include:

● The technological capacity and resources of the particular school; ● Students’ previous experience with computerized and written assessments ● Whether the instructional methodology of the particular school is consistent

with the use of computerized assessments or written assessments; and ● the logistics of administering the state assessment in different formats at a

particular school or schools Prior to making this determination, the superintendent or designee shall consult with the school principal(s) affected by this determination. Consultation with parents/guardians of students enrolled in the district will occur in site or district meetings. For students with disabilities, the use of pencil and paper instead of a computer to complete a state assessment shall be determined by the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team or Section 504 team, in accordance with applicable law.

1. Parent/guardian request for exemption

87

A parent/guardian who wishes to exempt his or her child from a particular state assessment or assessments shall make this request in accordance with this policy’s accompanying regulation. In accordance with state law, the district shall not impose a negative consequence upon a student whose parent/guardian has requested an exemption from a state assessment or assessments. This policy’s exemption process shall apply only to state assessment and shall not apply to district or classroom assessments.

1. Sharing of student state assessment results with parents/guardians The Colorado Department of Education is required to provide diagnostic academic growth information for each student enrolled in the district and for each public school in the district based on the state assessment results for the preceding school years. This information shall be included in each student’s individual student record. Appropriate school personnel, including those who work directly with the student, shall have access to the student’s state assessment results and longitudinal academic growth information and shall share with and explain that information to the student’s parent/guardian.

District assessment system In addition to the state assessment system, the district shall develop a comprehensive assessment system that:

1. Challenges students to think critically, apply what they have learned and give them the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and knowledge.

2. Includes features that allow academic concerns to be diagnosed promptly to let students, teachers and parents/guardians know of extra supports and effort needed for academic success.

3. Provides reliable and valid information on student and school performance to educators, parents/guardians and employers.

4. Provides timely and useful data for instructional improvement and improved student learning, including feedback useful in determining whether the curriculum is aligned with the district's academic standards.

In accordance with applicable law, the district's program of assessment shall accommodate students with disabilities and English language learners. The district's assessment results, in combination with state assessment results, will be used as the measurement of student achievement. It is believed these results

88

will provide reliable and valid information about student progress on the district's academic standards. Additional assessment information for parents/guardians In accordance with state law and this policy’s accompanying regulation, the district shall distribute an assessment calendar and related information to parents/guardians on an annual basis to inform them about the state and district assessments that the district plans to administer during the school year. Classroom assessment system Classroom assessment practices shall be aligned with the Summit curriculum which includes on-demand assessments that measure competency of grade level standards as well as assessing student growth through project-based opportunities. Assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process that should occur continuously in the classroom. The primary purpose of classroom assessment shall be to enable teachers to make instructional decisions for students on a continual basis. Students are encouraged to engage in informal self-assessments as they study and attempt to solve problems, monitor their own progress and improve their learning.

Grading system The administration and professional staff shall devise a grading system for evaluating and recording student progress and to measure student performance in conjunction with the district's academic standards. The records and reports of individual students shall be kept in a form meaningful to students, parents/guardians as well as teachers. The grading system shall be uniform district-wide at comparable grade levels. With innovation status, the schools grading periods would be different, with a report card on trimesters instead of quarters. (Vote taken on Monday, March 13, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 97.6%.)

89

GES/GCF-R Regulation for Instructional/Administrative Staff Recruiting/Hiring

GCE_GCF Regulation

Instructional/ Administrative

Staff Recruiting/ Hiring

File: GCE/GCF-R

Instructional/Administrative Staff Recruiting/Hiring

Applications of all regular licensed personnel to be employed by the district will be processed according to this procedure. Short-term, temporary or interim appointments may be made directly by the superintendent, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, without following the advertising procedure.

1. Vacancies All regular vacancies will be advertised by the human resources department. 2. Applications All applications will be submitted electronically to the human resources department. 3. Initial screening and interview The human resources department will screen applications and conduct the initial interview with all applicants. The objectives of the screening and initial interview process are to: a. Determine if the applicant meets the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) for designation as a highly qualified teacher. b. Determine the suitability of the applicant for the specific position c. Determine the suitability of the applicant for the specific position d. Discuss with the applicant any district policies and procedures pertinent to the job and to the employment process.

4. Background Checks Prior to hiring and in accordance with state law, the personnel office shall: a. Conduct a background check through the Colorado Department of Education (the department) to determine the applicant’s fitness for employment. The department’s records shall indicate if the applicant has been convicted of, pled nolo contendere to, received a deferred sentence, or had his or her license or authorization denied, annulled, suspended or revoked for such crimes. The

90

department shall provide any available information to indicate whether the applicant has been dismissed by or resigned from a school district as a result of an allegation of unlawful behavior involving a child, including unlawful sexual behavior which was supported by a preponderance of evidence according to information provided to the department by a school district and confirmed by the department in accordance with state law. The department shall also provide information regarding whether the applicant’s license or certification has ever been denied, suspended, revoked or annulled in any state, including but not limited to any information gained as a result of an inquiry to a national teacher information clearinghouse. Information of this type that is learned from a different source shall be reported by the district to the department.

The department will not disclose any information reported by a school district unless and until the department confirms that the allegation resulted in the per son’s name being placed on the state central registry of child protection.

b. Contact previous employers of the applicant to obtain information or recommendations relevant to the applicant’s fitness for employment.

5. Fingerprinting non-licensed administrators

a. All non-licensed applicants selected for employment in an administrative position must submit a complete set of fingerprints taken by a qualified law enforcement agency or an authorized district employee and a notarized, completed form (described in b below) as required by state law.

b. On the form the applicant must certify either that he or she has never been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor charge, not including any misdemeanor traffic offense, or that he or she has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor charge (not including any misdemeanor traffic offense). The form must specify the felony or misdemeanor, the date of conviction and the court entering judgment.

c. The school district will release the fingerprints to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of conducting a state and national fingerprint-based criminal history record check utilizing the records of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

6. Information report to state

In accordance with federal and state law, the district will report the name, address and social security number of every new employee to Colorado State Directory of New Hires, P.O. Box 2920, Denver, Colorado 80201-2920.

91

This report, due within 20 days of the date of the hire or on the first payroll after the 20 days have expired, shall be submitted even if the employee quits or is terminated before the report is due. Upon termination, the employee’s last known address, the fact of the termination, and the name and address of the employee’s new employer, if known, shall be reported to the applicable court or agency.

Upon receiving a Notice of Wage assignment, the district shall remit the designated payment within 7 days of withholding the income according to instructions contained in the Notice. Child support withholding takes priority over other legal actions against the same wages. Approved: January 12, 1983 Revised: August 12, 1992 Revised: October 25, 2000 Revised: June 22, 2009

School’s Replacement

Policy

The Innovation School will follow District Policy GDF/GCF; however, the Innovation School will have autonomy to recruit staff and make offers to candidates outside of the traditional district hiring calendar. ● The principal or his/her designee will work with the district Human Resources office to post teaching positions through the district website. The school will also engage in independent outreach efforts to recruit candidates outside of the centralized recruitment channels, but will require that any interested candidates apply through the district site. All eligible applications for posted teaching positions will be provided to the school principal for selection using locally-designed processes. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 100%.) The principal or his/her designee will consider candidates from the direct placement process; however, the school shall not be required to select or accept teachers through direct placement or to alter the hiring schedule or selection process in a way that gives preference to direct placement teachers (with the exception of ADA placements).

92

(Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 42 staff members participated, passed at 92.9%.) Teaching positions that are responsible for non-core subject supplemental or enrichment instruction will not require a teacher certificate . All core content teachers shall meet the federal Highly Qualified (HQ) requirements. Core content teachers shall possess a valid Colorado license and subject matter competency for their assignment. (ESEA). Core content areas under ESEA include: English, reading or language arts; mathematics; science; foreign languages; social studies (civics, government, history, geography, economics); and the arts (visual arts, music). (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 92.7%) The principal will consult with district HR staff and incorporate hiring best practices at the school level where it is found to be appropriate. Background checks will be administered using the existing systems and processes for the district. The School shall conduct reference checks.

B. STATE STATUTE & RULES WAIVERS

Innovation Schools may request waivers from state statutes and policies except as otherwise prohibited by the Innovation Schools Act. If you are seeking these waivers, provide a summary 2

of the policy along with replacement language for each of the statutes you plan to waive out of. Use the sample table provided below as a guide. For each State Statute provision that you would like to request a waiver from, please copy and paste the table (below).

Each statute for which a waiver is being requested should include a rationale for why the school is seeking the waiver and a replacement plan either delegating the power from the district to the

2 See 33-32.5-108 (1) and (2), C.R.S. for specificity on state statutes that cannot be waived out of using an innovation plan.

93

school and/or zone OR indicating how the school will meet or exceed the intent of the law in a different way.

Request for Waivers from State Statute

State Statute AD- Educational Philosophy/School District Mission

School Proposal

Section 22-32-109(1)(f): Local Board Duties Concerning Selection of Personnel and Pay

Teaching: Human Resource Management: Staff Hiring, Compensation

Policy 22-32-109. Board of education - specific duties. (1) …each board of education shall have and perform the following specific duties: (f) (I) To employ all personnel required to maintain the operations and carry out the educational program of the district and to fix and order paid their compensation...A board of a district of innovation…may delegate the duty specified in this paragraph (f) to an innovation school

Replacement Policy

For all unique job descriptions, the Principal in consultation with the school’s leadership team and District HR shall determine the rate of pay during the budget cycle each Spring for the following year. ● The School will use support staff positions that have been established by the Board, when applicable. When unique support staff roles are needed to effectively implement the innovation plan, the School will establish new positions and create job descriptions for these roles. The School principal or his designee will consult with the district Human Resources department on the language of the job description. The job description will set forth the qualifications for the job, a detailed list of performance responsibilities and any physical requirements. The School shall also set the salary or hourly wage for the unique position in consultation with the district Human Resources department. The School may create, revise, or remove any unique job descriptions necessary to implement the school’s innovation plan. (Vote taken on Friday, March 17, 2017- 40 staff members participated, passed at 92.5%)

School Proposal

Section 22-32-109(1)(n)(I): Schedule and Calendar

Section 22-32-109(1)(n)(I): Schedule and Calendar

94

Policy (n) (I) To determine, prior to the end of a school year, the length of time which the schools of the district shall be in session during the next following school year, but in no event shall said schools be scheduled to have fewer than one thousand eighty hours of planned teacher-pupil instruction and teacher-pupil contact during the school year for secondary school pupils in high school, middle school, or junior high school or less than nine hundred ninety hours of such instruction and contact for elementary school pupils or fewer than four hundred fifty hours of such instruction for a half-day kindergarten program or fewer than nine hundred hours of such instruction for a full-day kindergarten program. In no case shall a school be in session for fewer than one hundred sixty days without the specific prior approval of the commissioner of education. In extraordinary circumstances, if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that compliance with the provisions of this subparagraph (I) would require the scheduling of hours of instruction and contact at a time when pupil attendance will be low and the benefits to pupils of holding such hours of instruction will be minimal in relation to the cost thereof, the commissioner may waive the provisions of this subparagraph (I) upon application therefore by the board of education of the district.

Replacement Policy

The School has the authority to determine its own annual calendar and daily schedule, provided it meets or exceeds minimum statutory requirements. ● School has the authority to determine the number of professional development days, days off, and late starts/early release days. ● In accordance with the innovation plan, the school’s principal, in consultation with the school’s leadership team shall determine through consensus of the entire staff, prior to the end of a school year, the length of time the School will be in session during the next school year. The school shall submit their calendar to the district in a timeframe as requested by the district in order to meet requirements for alignment with hiring/onboarding, transportation, facilities and other service provision. ● The actual hours of teacher-pupil instruction and teacher-pupil contact shall meet or exceed the minimum hours set by the district and state for public instruction. ● We will still honor the contract of being paid for time beyond the contract, but scheduling would be flexible with starting and ending times or trading days as examples. (Vote taken on Monday, April 10, 2017- 40 staff members participated, passed at 95.0%)

School Proposal

Section 22-32-109 (1)(n)(II)(A): Actual Hours of Teacher-Pupil Instruction and Contact

Educational Program: Calendar and Schedule

Policy (II) (A) The actual hours of teacher-pupil instruction and teacher-pupil contact specified in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (n) may be reduced to no fewer than one thousand fifty-six hours for secondary school pupils, no fewer than nine hundred sixty eight hours for elementary school pupils, no fewer than four hundred thirty-five hours for half-day kindergarten pupils, or no fewer than eight hundred seventy hours for full-day kindergarten pupils, for parent-teacher conferences, staff in-service programs, and closing deemed by the board to be 123 necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of students.

95

Replacement Policy

The School has the authority to determine teacher pupil contact, which will meet or exceed the minimum standards of the District and state. ● In accordance with the innovation plan, the principal, in consultation with the school’s leadership team shall determine, prior to the end of a school year, the length of time the School will be in session during the next school year. The school shall submit its calendar to the district in a timeframe as requested by the district in order to meet requirements for alignment with hiring/onboarding, transportation, facilities and other service provision. ● The actual hours of teacher-pupil instruction and teacher-pupil contact shall meet or exceed the minimum hours set by the district and state for public instruction. (Vote taken on Monday, April 10, 2017- 40 staff members participated, passed at 95.0%) When we think about the sample schedules of the day, we approve the big idea of having a schedule include foundational literacy, content literacy, mathematics, and specials. (Vote taken on Friday, March 3, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 100%.)

School Proposal

Section 22-32-109 (1)(n)(II)(B): School Calendar

Educational Program: Calendar and Schedule

Policy (B) Prior to the beginning of the school year, each district shall provide for the adoption of a district calendar which is applicable to all schools within the district…A copy of the calendar shall be provided to the parents or guardians of all children enrolled…Such calendar shall include the dates for all staff in-service programs…[The] school administration shall allow for public input from parents and teachers prior to scheduling …staff in-service programs. Any change in the calendar…shall be preceded by adequate and timely…of not less than thirty days.

Replacement Policy

The School has the authority to develop its own annual calendar that aligns with the innovation plan and that meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the District and state. ● No later than 60 calendar days before the end of each School year, the principal in consultation with the School’s leadership team will determine the following year's School calendar and School day schedule that meets or exceeds district and state determinations of the

96

length of time during which Schools shall be in session during the next School year. ● Input from parents and teachers will be sought prior to scheduling in-service programs and other non-student contact days. This calendar and schedule shall serve as the academic calendar and schedule for the School. All calendars shall include planned work dates for required staff in-service programs. Any change in the calendar except for emergency closings or other unforeseen circumstances shall be preceded by adequate and timely notice of no less than 30 days. ● A copy of the upcoming School-year calendar and School day schedule shall be provided to all parents/guardians of students who are currently enrolled. On or before May 1 of each academic year, a copy of the School calendar for the following academic year will be posted on the School’s website and provided to the district’s Superintendent. (Vote taken on Monday, April 10, 2017- 42 staff members participated, passed at 95.2%) As part of the planning for next year, we approve requesting full release Mondays to provide professional development instead of early release Monday time. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 2, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed at 93.2%.) As part of planning for next year, we approve requesting the use of the Monday P/T Conference prep and conference time for the use of Monday Release professional development. With that in mind, we will create opportunities within the remaining 8 hours to complete P/T conferences for our students. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 2, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed at 86.4%.)

School Section 22-32-109(1)(t): Determine Education Program

97

Proposal Educational Program and Prescribe Textbooks

Policy (t) To determine the educational programs to be carried on in the schools of the district and to prescribe the textbooks for any course of instruction or study in such programs;

Replacement Policy

The Greeley-Evans School Board authorizes the School to develop an educational program that aligns to the mission and vision of the School and enables the School to implement the innovation plan. The School’s curriculum will provide a program of instruction that enables students to meet or exceed the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The School will regularly evaluate its education program and make changes to curriculum content, instruction, and assessments. ● Curriculum development will be carried out by School personnel, consistent with the School’s innovation plan, using all available resources. ● The district will evaluate the impact of the School’s education program as part of its 3 year review of the School’s innovation plan in addition to the annual UIP review by the School’s leadership team. ● Substantive interim changes must be approved by the Principal and District Staff. (Vote taken on Monday, April 10, 2017- 40 staff members participated, passed at 97.5%)

School Proposal

Section 22-32-109(1)(jj): Identify Areas in which the Principal/s Require Training or Development

Teaching: Human Resource Management: Professional Development

Policy (jj) To identify any areas in which one or more of the principals of the schools of the school district require further training or development. The board of education shall contract for or otherwise assist the identified principals in participating in professional development programs to assist the identified principals in improving their skills in the identified areas.

Replacement Policy

In accordance with the innovation plan, the Principal will participate in district-provided coaching and professional development except when such coaching or professional development contradicts the successful implementation of the innovation plan and/or the mission /vision of the School. In determining the Principal’s PD and coaching schedule, the Superintendent or his/her designee will collaborate with the Principal to ensure that district PD and coaching supports the School leader and/or leadership team in implementing the goals of the innovation plan.

98

The standard district offered professional development for members of the Professional Development team will be attended in the instances in which it supports the implementation of the innovation plan and/or the mission and vision of the School. District professional development for teachers, teacher leaders, and other instructional or operational leaders will be attended when the School’s principal determines that such professional development is in the best interest of the School to successfully implement the innovation plan. (Vote taken on Thursday, April 13, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 100%)

School Proposal

22-32-110(1)(ee) Local Board Powers - Employ teachers' aides and other non-certificated personnel

Teaching: Human Resource Management: Hiring Teacher Aides

Policy (1) In addition to any other power granted to a board of education of a school district by law, each board of education of a school district shall have the following specific powers, to be exercised in its judgment: (ee) To employ on a voluntary or paid basis teachers' aides and other auxiliary, non-licensed personnel to assist licensed personnel in the provision of services related to instruction or supervision of children and to provide compensation for such services rendered from any funds available for such purpose, notwithstanding the provisions of sections

Replacement Policy

The Greeley-Evans School Board grants autonomy to the principal, in consultation with the School’s leadership team, to make staffing decisions consistent with waivers for district policies GCE_GCF. The School may employ non-licensed personnel to provide instruction or supervision of children that is supplemental to the core academic program and in compliance with ESSA HQ requirements. ● All core content teachers shall meet the federal Highly Qualified (HQ) requirements. Core content teachers shall possess a valid Colorado license and subject matter competency for their assignment (ESSA). Core content areas under ESSA include: English, reading or language arts; mathematics; science; foreign languages; social studies; and the arts (visual arts, music). (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 92.7%)

99

School Proposal

22-32-126: Employment and authority of principals

Leadership: Management

Policy (1) The board of education may employ through written contract public school principals who shall hold valid principal licenses or authorizations and who shall supervise the operation and management of the school and such property as the board shall determine necessary. (2) The principal shall assume the administrative responsibility and instructional leadership, under the supervision of the superintendent and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the board of education, for the planning, management, operation, and evaluation of the educational program of the schools to which he is assigned. (3) The principal shall submit recommendations to the superintendent regarding the appointment, assignment, promotion, transfer, and dismissal of all personnel assigned to the school under his supervision. (4) The principal shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the superintendent pursuant to the rules and regulations of the board of education. (5) (a) The principal or the principal's designee shall communicate discipline information concerning any student enrolled in the school to any teacher who has direct contact with the student in the classroom and to any counselor who has direct contact with the student. Any teacher or counselor who receives information under this subsection (5) shall maintain the confidentiality of the information and does not have authority to communicate the information to any other person. (b) Each school district shall include in its discipline code adopted in accordance with section 22-32-110 (2)procedures to inform the student and the student's parent or guardian when disciplinary information is communicated and to provide a copy of the disciplinary information to the student and the student's parent or guardian. The discipline code shall also establish procedures to allow the student and the student's parent or guardian to challenge the accuracy of the disciplinary information.

Replacement Policy

In the event of a change in leadership, the priority is maintaining building leadership that supports the mission and vision of the School and ensures that student achievement is supported. Members of the School community, including staff, parents and community members will be involved in the principal hiring process. ● Principal candidates will be provided to the School’s leadership team and superintendent or his/her designee from the district’s principal hiring pool using the Greeley-Evans D6 evaluation process. ● The district superintendent or his/her designee will manage the principal selection process in collaboration with the School’s leadership team and shall recommend at least two final candidates to the superintendent for hiring. ● The superintendent (or his/her representative) may redirect the School’s leadership team and his/her designee to continue the search for better qualified candidates should none of the proposed candidates meet his/her approval. ● In the event that the principal position is vacant, the superintendent (or his/her representative)

100

may appoint an interim principal until such a time that the above described hiring process results in a principal candidate that is agreeable to the School’s leadership team and the Superintendent or his/her designee. ● Interviews and selection will follow the Greeley-Evans School District’s Human Resource hiring procedures. (Vote taken on Thursday, April 13, 2017- 43 staff members participated, passed at 97.7%)

School Proposal

Teacher Employment, Compensation and Dismissal Act of 1990 Section 22-63-201: Employment - License Required – Exception

Teaching: Human Resource Management: Hiring and Teacher Qualifications

Policy (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the board of a school district shall not enter into an employment contract with any person as a teacher, except in a junior college district or in an adult education program, unless such person holds an initial or a professional teacher's license or authorization issued pursuant to the provisions of article 60.5 of this title. (2) (a) The general assembly hereby recognizes that many persons with valuable professional expertise in areas other than teaching provide a great benefit to students through their experience and functional knowledge when hired by a school district. To facilitate the employment of these persons and comply with the requirements of federal law, the general assembly has statutory provisions to create an alternative teacher license and alternative teacher programs to enable school districts to employ persons with expertise in professions other than teaching. These provisions enable a school district to employ a person with professional expertise in a particular subject area, while ensuring that the person receives the necessary training and develops the necessary skills to be a highly qualified teacher. The general assembly strongly encourages each school district to hire persons who hold alternative teacher licenses to provide a wide range of experience in teaching and functional subject matter knowledge for the benefit of the students enrolled in the school district. (b) A school district may hire a person who holds an alternative teacher license to teach as an alternative teacher pursuant to an alternative teacher contract as described in section 22-60.5-207. (3) The board of a school district may enter into an employment contract with any person to serve as an administrator based upon qualifications set by the board of the school district. Nothing in this article shall be construed to require that an administrator, as a condition of employment, possess any type of license or authorization issued pursuant to article 60.5 of this title.

101

Replacement Policy

The School will employ highly qualified and licensed teachers for teaching of core content pursuant to the federal ESSA Act. Core content teachers that are the primary provider of instruction will be highly qualified in their particular content area(s), Language Arts; Math; Science; Foreign language; Social Studies; Arts (Visual Arts, Music). The School will otherwise meet all Title III licensing expectations. ● The School may employ non-licensed teachers for supplemental and enrichment instruction consistent with the innovation plan and the Greeley-Evans School Board may enter into employment contracts with non-licensed teachers and/or administrators at the School as necessary to implement the School’s innovation plan. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 92.7%)

School Proposal

Teacher Employment, Compensation and Dismissal Act of 1990 Section 22-63-206: Transfer of Teachers - Compensation

Teaching: Human Resource Management: Direct Placement of Teachers

Policy (1) A teacher may be transferred upon the recommendation of the chief administrative officer of a school district from one school, position, or grade level to another within the school district, if such transfer does not result in the assignment of the teacher to a position of employment for which he or she is not qualified by virtue of academic preparation and certification and if, during the then current school year, the amount of salary of such teacher is not reduced except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section. There shall be no discrimination shown toward any teacher in the assignment or transfer of that teacher to a school, position, or grade because of sex, sexual orientation, marital status, race, creed, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, or membership or nonmembership in any group or organization. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a teacher who has been occupying an administrative position may be assigned to another position for which he or she is qualified if a vacancy exists in such position, and, if so assigned, with a salary corresponding to the position. If the school district has adopted a general salary schedule or a combination salary schedule and policy, the board may consider the years of service accumulated while the teacher was occupying the administrative position when the board determines where to place the teacher on the schedule for the assigned position. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the salary of a teacher who has received additional compensation for the performance of additional duties may be reduced if said teacher has been relieved of such additional duties. (4) A teacher may enter into an agreement for an economic work-learn program leave of absence with a board of education that shall not affect the teacher's employment status, position on the salary schedule if the school district has adopted a general

102

salary schedule or combination salary schedule and policy, or insurance and retirement benefits. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a receiving school to involuntarily accept the transfer of a teacher. All transfers to positions at other schools of the school district shall require the consent of the receiving school.

Replacement Policy

The School may refuse direct placements or mandatory transfers of teachers from the district. District teachers who are qualified for a vacant position at the School may apply for the position, and, if hired, will be compensated with a salary corresponding to the position and the years of service using the district salary schedule as a base. The School will accept transfers that are being placed under District compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 42 staff members participated, passed at 92.9%)

School Proposal

22-63-402. Services - disbursements Teaching: Human Resource Management: Teacher License

Policy No order or warrant for the disbursement of school district moneys shall be drawn in favor of any person for services as a teacher, except for services performed for a junior college district or in an adult education program, unless the person holds a valid teacher's license or authorization from the department of education. Such license or authorization shall be duly registered in the administrative office of the school district wherein the services are to be rendered. A teacher shall hold a valid license or authorization during all periods of employment by a school district. A person who performs services as a teacher without possessing a valid teacher's license or authorization shall forfeit all claim to compensation out of school district moneys for the time during which services are performed without the license or authorization.

Replacement Policy

The school may employ either licensed or non-licensed teachers for non-core subject areas. All core subject area teachers will be licensed and highly qualified under the requirements of the ESSA. School district moneys will be used to pay both licensed and non-licensed teachers hired to perform services consistent with the innovation plan. Prior to hiring any person, in accordance with state law the district shall conduct background checks. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 41

103

staff members participated, passed at 92.7%)

School Proposal

22-33-102(1) Definition of "Academic Year" Education Program: Calendar

Policy As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Academic year" means that portion of the school year during which the public schools are in regular session, beginning about the first week in September and ending about the first week in June of the next year, or that portion of the school year which constitutes the minimum period during which a pupil must be enrolled.

Replacement Policy

“Academic year” refers to the year as it is established by the innovation School’s developed academic calendar for the School. On or before May 1 of each academic year, a copy of the school calendar for the following year will be posted on the School’s website and provided to the Superintendent. The School’s leadership team will provide input into the calendar. (Vote taken on Monday, April 10, 2017- 42 staff members participated, passed at 95.2%)

104

C. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAIVERS

With limited exceptions, Innovation Schools may request waivers from district negotiated collective bargaining agreements. If you are seeking these waivers, provide a summary of the article along with replacement language for each of the articles you plan to waive out of. Use the sample table provided below as a guide. For each collective bargaining agreement section from which you would like to request a waiver, please copy and paste the table (below).

Innovation School’s Replacement Policies for Additional Waivers from Collective Bargaining Agreements

Article X.D.2 Work Day- Other Responsibilities

Article Summary

OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES: Exceptions to the required defined work day/work week shall be: 1. Parent teacher conferences, which are compensated at the Employee’s per diem hourly pay or equal release time from a regular contract day. 2. Two (2) after hour’s events per school year. Every attempt shall be made to limit such events to a maximum of two and one-half (2½) hours each, but in no case shall any such event exceed three (3) hours. Any such event that is required shall occur on Monday through Thursday within the teacher’s contract year; however Employees may volunteer for other events.

School’s Replacement Policy

Exceptions to the required defined work day/work week shall be: Multiple after hour’s events may be permitted within the school year, no more than 8 hours during the contracted school year for up to 4 after school events with the purpose of gaining flexibility in incorporating parents into the school and providing authentic audiences for our STEAM projects. Any such event that is required shall occur on Monday through Thursday within the teacher’s contract year; however, employees may volunteer for other events. We agree to no more than 8 hours of up to 4 after school events.

(Vote taken on Monday, March 13, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed with 78%.)

Article XI.A.1 Non-Contact, Duty-Free Time

Article Summary

Non-Contact, Duty-Free Planning and Preparation: 1. All certified employees covered by this agreement shall have approximately 268 minutes of individual, self-directed planning time for a full five (5) day week. Planning time will be scheduled daily in blocks of no less than 40-50 minutes. The planning minutes per week may be

105

adjusted, by the principal, for weeks of less than five (5) full days. Planning and preparation time shall be exclusive of the employee’s non-contact, duty-free lunch and travel time between worksites. Teachers may request, but will not be required to receive, instructional coaching during individual self-directed planning time.

School’s Replacement Policy

Martinez teachers agree to meet with their PBL Collaborative Teams once during the week, in lieu of individual planning time.

(Vote taken on Friday, March 10, 2017- 45 staff members participated, passed with 91.1%.) 

Article XXVII Pay for Contract Extension

Article Summary When an employee is hired to work a contract extension, all days will be paid at the employee per diem rate. Contract extensions are subject to annual appropriation and District placement.

School’s Replacement

Policy

The School’s staff will work their contracted days as required under the contract, which may or may not include days into the summer. In addition, teachers will not exceed the amount of instructional hours required by the contract, but they may be assigned to serve students in the day schedule or the afternoon/evening schedule. If teachers exceed their number of contract days, they will receive extra duty pay.

(Vote taken on Thursday, April 13, 2017- 42 staff members participated, passed at 95.2%)

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING

Joint Study /Recommendation

Group on Performance Pay

Guidelines for Non-Contact Days

Article Summary

A. Use of non-contact days

1. Three (3) total days for individual planning and/or preparation by the employee

2. Four (4) total days for School Improvement and/or District In-service

106

School’s Replacement

Policy

The Building Leadership Team in coordination with the Building Principal will develop the annual calendar to address the purposes of the non-contact days, including possibly using the P/T Conference Days for the use of professional development.

(Vote taken on Thursday, April 13, 2017- 42 staff members participated, passed at 95.2%)

As part of planning for next year, we approve requesting the use of the Monday P/T Conference prep and conference time for the use of Monday Release professional development. With that in mind, we will create opportunities within the remaining 8 hours to complete P/T conferences for our students. (Vote taken on Thursday, March 2, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed at 86.4%.)

107

Appendix A: Innovation Implementation Timeline

2017-2018 A. STEAM

a. Project Based Learning i. Professional Development in Summer 2017

1. Train the trainer model with Buck Institute Education. a. Four days of training Level 1.

2. Train entire staff in August, using four additional days for staff. ii. Monthly Professional Development Mondays iii. Job-Embedded Weekly Professional Development iv. Ongoing Feedback and Support for Staff

b. Realign literacy, math, science, social studies, and fine arts standards in order to match teaching and learning in LDC units of study over the course of the year.

c. Realign all content assessments to units of study over the course of the year. B. STEAM Start Before School Program

a. Survey parents and students about interests in programs. b. Survey staff about interests in teaching in STEAM Start. c. Begin outlining programs and opportunities for families. d. Set times and schedules for students to self select into the program. e. Build the excitement and interest with students and families.

C. Health Care Clinic a. In the fall of 2017, work with Sunrise to prepare the space and organize all

functions of the clinic. b. Spring of 2018, open clinic for Billie Martinez families. c. Full time school psychologist to meet the social and emotional needs of our

students. D. Parents as Partners

a. Develop specific components of Parents as Partners program with a committee of staff and parents working together.

b. Develop parenting classes through input from parents. c. Continue Adult ESL classes funded at the District level by Title 1.

E. Preschool a. Begin designing and building preschool space. b. Identify and acquire specific curriculum. c. Identify and acquire technology. d. Identify and acquire all supplies and material including books, tables, chairs, and

book shelves. e. Begin informing and educating the community about the preschool program. f. Hire lead teacher in May 2018.

108

g. Begin advertising preschool and taking application.

During the 2017-2018 school year, Martinez staff and District Leadership will explore the feasibility and create a plan for providing a preschool program for all 3 and 4 year olds to address school readiness, language development, pre-reading and pre-math skills (Vote taken on Thursday, March 16, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 100%.)

2018-2019

A. STEAM a. Project Based Learning

i. Professional Development follow up train the trainer in Summer 2018, Level 2.

ii. Training for all new staff in August 2018. iii. Monthly Professional Development Mondays iv. Job-Embedded Weekly Professional Development v. Ongoing Feedback and Support for Staff

b. Evaluate the realignment of literacy, math, science, social studies, and fine arts standards to ensure teaching and learning in LDC units of study have not missed any critical standards.

c. Evaluate the realignment of all content assessments to units of study to ensure the alignment is correct and measures the standards to the depth necessary to help students meet rigorous standards.

B. STEAM Start Before School Program a. Provide six week before school STEAM Start opportunities to students in 3rd - 5th

grade in the fall of 2018 and six weeks in the spring of 2019. b. Students will self select into two different opportunities in the fall and two in the

spring. C. Health Care Clinic

a. Continue to advertise and educate parents on how to access the services in the Health Care Clinic

D. Parents as Partners a. Begin implementing the Pre K - 5 program components.

109

b. Redesign and realign as we work with parents, survey the parents about their needs, and provide for those needs.

c. Align preschool parent opportunities with the total program, Pre K - 5. E. Preschool

a. Open one morning and one afternoon preschool session. b. Train parents to volunteer in the program. c. Build parent education programs and provide access to all families including K-5

parents. Use Parents as Partners to design and implement the complete program. F. Foster Grandparent Program

a. Write grant through Senior Corps.

During the 2018-2019 school year, Martinez staff and District Leadership will explore the feasibility and if feasible to create a plan for providing an on-site health care center to address the lack of quality health care for students and families in our Martinez community. (Vote taken on Friday, March 17, 2017- 44 staff members participated, passed at 100%.)

2019-2020

A. STEAM a. Project Based Learning

i. Training for all new staff in August 2019 ii. Monthly Professional Development Mondays iii. Job-Embedded Weekly Professional Development iv. Ongoing Feedback and Support for Staff

b. Review the alignment of literacy, math, science, social studies, and fine arts standards to ensure teaching and learning in LDC units of study have not missed any critical standards.

c. Review the align of all content assessments to units of study to ensure the alignment is correct and measures the standards to the depth necessary to help students meet rigorous standards.

B. STEAM Start Before School Program a. Continue to evolve and grow the program. b. Survey parents and students to evaluate offerings. c. Refine and revise as necessary.

110

C. Health Care Clinic a. Continue to advertise and educate parents on how to access the services in the

Health Care Clinic D. Parents as Partners

a. Begin implementing the Pre K - 5 program components. b. Redesign and realign as we work with parents, survey the parents about their

needs, and provide for those needs. c. Align preschool parent opportunities with the total program, Pre K - 5.

E. Preschool a. Open second morning and afternoon preschool sessions. b. Continue to train parents to volunteer in the program. c. Begin complete parent education programs and provide access to all families

including K-5 parents. F. Foster Grandparent Program

a. Recruit Foster Grandparents. b. Train Foster Grandparents on how to work with children and families. c. Survey Foster Grandparents about skills they bring to the program and possible

ways to engage them in the STEAM Start program. d. Assign students and families to a Foster Grandparent.

G. Day Care

During the 2019-2020 school year, Martinez staff and District Leadership will explore the feasibility and create a plan for developing a Senior Center to engage the Senior Citizens in our community in cooperation with the City of Greeley and accessing Senior Corps to create a Foster Grandparent program. (Vote taken on Friday, March 17, 2017- 41 staff members participated, passed at 97.6%.)

111

Appendix B: Bibliography

Words Their Way for Second Language Learners: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling; Helman, Lori

Classroom Instruction that Works with English Language Learners; Hill, Jane D.

Teaching English Language Learners: Across the Content Areas; Haynes, Judie

Vocabulary for the Common Core; Marzano, Robert J.; Simms, Julia A

Bringing Words to Life, Second Edition: Robust Vocabulary Instruction; Beck, Isabel L.

Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness; Report from the Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Initiative; U.S. Department of Education

Parents as Partners in Education: Families and Schools Working Together, 8th Edition; Hepworth Berger, Eugenia, Professon Emerita, Metropolitan State College of Denver and Riojas-Cortez, Mari R., Professor, University of Texas at San Antonio

The Creative Curriculum for Preschool; Berke, Kai-lee; Aghayan, Carol; Heroman, Cate

Content Literacy: Lessons and Texts for Comprehension Across the Curriculum (Primary & Intermediate); Harvey, Stephanie; Goudvis, Anne

Understanding by Design; Wiggins, Grant; McTighe, Jay

Learning Targets: Helping Students Aim for Understanding in Today’s Lesson; Moss, Connie M.,; Brookhart, Susan M.

Embedded Formative Assessments - practical strategies and tools for K-12 teachers; Wiliam, Dylan

Bringing Innovation to School; Boss, Suzie

Setting the Standard for Project Based Learning; Larmer, John; Mergendoller, John R.; Boss, Suzie

Cultivating STEM Identities: Strengthening Student and Teacher Mindsets in Math and Science; Hoffer, Wendy Ward

From STEM to STEAM: Using Brain-Compatible Strategies to Integrate the Arts; Sousa, David A.

112

STEAM Makers: Fostering Creativity and Innovation in the Elementary Classroom; Maslyk, Jacie

STEM is Elementary; Why Elementary Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Prepares Students to Beat the Gaps; Oljace, Glory; Everhart, Alexander

Hacking Project Based Learning: 10 Easy Steps to PBL and Inquiry in the Classroom (Hack Learning Series Vol. 9); Cooper, Ross; Murphy, Erin

Project-Based Learning for Gifted Students: A Handbook for the 21st Century Classroom; Stanley, Todd

Transforming Schools Using Project-Based Learning, Performance Assessment, and the Common Core Standards; Lenz, Bob; Wells, Justin

Launch: Using Design Thinking to Boost Creativity and Bring Out the Maker in Every Student; Spencer, John; Juliani, AJ

Academic Language Mastery Conversational Discourse in Context; Zwiers, Jeff; Soto, Ivannia

Visible Learning; Hattie, John

Reading with Meaning; Miller, Debbie

113

Appendix C: Project Based Learning Research

InSight: RIVIER ACADEMIC JOURNAL, VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2, FALL 2011

PROJECT-BASED INSTRUCTION: A Review of the Literature on Effectiveness in

Prekindergarten through 12th Grade Classrooms

Margaret Holm§

Ed.D. Program in Leadership & Learning, Rivier College

Abstract This article provides a review of research (2000-2011) regarding the effectiveness of project-based instruction in preschool, elementary and secondary school classroom settings, including academic, learner, and teacher response outcomes. First, the review provides some historical context, and a definition of project-based learning. Next, the reviewer synthesizes several themes emergent in the literature, including student and teacher attitudes, academic outcomes, and information about what recent research on project-based learning has shown as it has been used with specific student subgroups. Finally, the author provides a perspective on factors that can enhance or detract from instructional success with project based methodology, and suggest directions for further research. Overall, current research offers a generally positive view of project-based methodology, with some practical and theoretical caveats voiced by practitioners and researchers.

Introduction Project-based learning, a teaching methodology that utilizes student-centered projects to facilitate student learning (Mergendoller, 2006), is touted as superior to traditional teaching methods in improving problem solving and thinking skills, and engaging students in their learning (Berends, Boersma & Weggemann, 2003; Scarborough, Bresnen, Edelmann, Laurent,

114

Newell & Swann, 2004; Tsang, 1997). Popular in pre-professional training in medicine, science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers since the 1970’s, momentum has more recently developed to extend these practices to elementary and secondary classrooms (Buck Institute, 2005; Knoll, 1997).

Definition While most commonly known as a part of adult education, project-based learning for school-age children is not new. Project-based learning can be described as student-centered instruction that occurs over an extended time period, during which students select, plan, investigate and produce a product, presentation or performance that answers a real-world question or responds to an authentic challenge. Teachers generally serve as facilitators, providing scaffolding, guidance and strategic instruction as the process unfolds. According to an historical survey of project- and problem-based learning undertaken by Michael Knoll at the University of Bayreuth in Germany (Knoll, 2006), project methodology in American education can be traced to an early 20th century description offered by William H. Kilpatrick (1918), which referred to the Project Method as “a hearty, purposeful act", generally a project or pursuit, undertaken by the child, which has four distinct, student-centered phases: purposing, planning, executing and judging. Ideas such as these, combined with the model for scientific inquiry, have contributed to a variety of student-centered methods such as problem-based, case-based, discovery learning, and expeditionary learning (Knoll, 1997; Thomas, 2000; Prince & Felder, 2007).

Copyright © 2011 by Margaret Holm. Published by Rivier College, with permission. 1 ISSN 1559-9388 (online version), ISSN 1559-9396 (CD-ROM version).

115

In a review of the research on project-based learning, Thomas (2000) identified five distinguishing features of project-based learning:

• The use of projects that focus on content that is central to the curriculum. These projects become the primary vehicle for content learning, and often, assessment. • Projects are based on questions of importance or driving questions (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Driving questions must be germane to the content, and crafted both to engender optimal student engagement and foster active intellectual pursuit of solutions. • Projects involve students in ways that require them to identify problems, develop and design solutions, and create an end product such as a presentation, report, invention, or model. • Projects are student-centered to the greatest extent possible. Teachers serve as resources, facilitators and guides, but it is the students who define, choose and carry out their projects. • Projects are developed from reality-based ideas and problems rather than on academic exercises and pursuits. The projects represent authentic efforts in solving or investigating real-world dilemmas.

Both Thomas (2000) and Kilpatrick (1918) emphasize depth of learning and intrinsic motivation as key benefits of this methodology, as well as a focus on student-centered, systematic inquiry.

A number of researchers and educational theorists have adopted the principles of project-based learning as a foundation for related methodologies (Knoll, 1997; Prince & Felder, 2006). The goal of these methodologies is to move education toward more student centered, inquiry-based, active learning methods. The intent is to help students become self-directed learners who can apply sound higher-order thinking skills. Meyer (2004) describes three broad inquiry-based approaches that emerged as a response to the rise of constructivist ideas about learning in the 1960’s: inquiry on the basis of understanding problem-solving rules

116

based on the work of Jerome S. Bruner; in the 1970’s, Jean Piaget’s conservation of strategies applied to problem solving, and Seymour Papert’s contributions to discovery learning applied to computer programming concepts. Far from supporting such approaches, however, Mayer contends that constructivist, student-centered, discovery learning that minimizes the need for expert guidance and downplays the role of the teacher has repeatedly failed to deliver promised gains in student autonomy and the development of problem solving and thinking skills (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006; Mayer, 2004).

Mayer (2004) is not alone in challenging the utility of student-centered teaching. Some theorists believe that such teaching methods are in direct conflict with cognition research that demonstrates not only that learners in the novice stage do not attend to critical problem features or employ effective problem solving strategies, but that they should not necessarily be encouraged to do so. Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) assert that the ideals of constructivist, project-based learning may miss the mark by leaving too much at the discretion of novice learners. They suggest that leaving students to self-direct can result in sustained misconceptions and multiple “false starts”. Accordingly, adherence to a highly student-centered approach that does not promote strategic teacher intervention and guidance may prove inefficient and/or ineffective (Bransford, et al., 2000; Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Similarly, Blumenfeld, et al. (1998) described numerous classrooms where project based learning activities were being conducted, but where project results did not live up to expectations because the students got “stuck” or channeled their inquiry efforts in unproductive directions. They concluded that teacher involvement and guidance is needed for optimal learning.

Regardless of the opinions of theorists, the idea that students can become independent, motivated learners, able to apply their skills to real-world problems through personal and group inquiry is an energizing

117

prospect that, as Kirschner (2006) put it, “appeals to (educators) intuitively”, and projectbased programs and materials such as Expeditionary Learning (http://elschools.org), the The Jasper Series from Vanderbilt University (The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury Videodisc Series, 1992), and other commercial products which bundle resources and simplify implementation for practitioners, have met with some commercial and pragmatic success (David, 2008; Thomas, 2000). A number of school reform efforts (e.g., Ravitz, 2008) utilize project-based learning as a cornerstone of their design. Yet, for most schools and teachers, project-based instruction is carried out on an individual classroom scale that exists outside the eye of the research community. A review of the literature prior to the year 1999 (Thomas, 2000) found little research on home-grown, project-based learning in single schools and classrooms, while more recently, David (2008) reported that although project-based instructional practice continues to take place most typically in isolated schools and classrooms, little is known about the effectiveness of this approach in these settings, particularly when compared with other methods of instruction.

What does current research say about the effectiveness of project-based learning at the individual classroom level? The purpose of this literature review is to summarize peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of project-based learning over the past decade, as it pertains to prekindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. It includes studies that address academic outcomes, developmental gains, student perceptions about project-based versus traditional learning, attitudes toward subject matter, group process, perceptions of peers, and in some cases, perceptions of efficacy. Efficacy in this context can be defined as a belief in the abilities of a group or an individual to meet a goal, or achieve a desired outcome.

118

Method The review was conducted by means of searches of electronic databases of education-related journals and publications, including Academic Search Premier, Education Research Complete and ERIC. Articles were identified using the terms ‘project method’ and ‘teaching’ in combination with search restrictions to peer-reviewed articles in the English language that were published between January 2000 and June 2011. The initial search results yielded 768 articles. Manual sorting of these results was used to retain only articles pertaining to research relating to prekindergarten through 12th grade students and related to the instructional effectiveness of project-based learning as carried out in classroom settings (as opposed to distance learning), and the reference sections of the remaining articles checked for other articles that would meet the review criteria. Altogether, a total of seventeen articles were identified for inclusion.

In order to provide a frame of reference for the varying quality of research methods, information, and reporting across the included articles, the author utilized a screening process, adapted from Fink (2005), that focused on identifying whether or not:

(a) the main outcome variables were defined; (b) evidence was offered as to the appropriateness of any

psychometric instruments used in data collection; (c) data were collected prospectively; (d) the study population was randomized; (e) the final sample size was explained and/ or response rate

adequacy for interviews and surveys was explained; (f) the information offered was directly related to the effectiveness of

project-based learning; (g) the researchers provided psychometric evidence for the validity of

the data sources used for the main variables (i.e., achievement,

119

self-efficacy, IT skills, group process skills, etc.), and (h) the data analysis process was explicit.

Points were awarded for each factor, with one point representing partial or present-but-unclear elements and two points representing elements that were well-described and fully in place. No points were given if an element was absent, or the process for development or inclusion could not be determined. In the case of studies re-published in English but that were originally documented in other languages, each study was reviewed as carefully as possible to determine the researchers’ intended meaning and minimize translation effects. A list of the articles included and the scores for each are provided in Table 1. Summary information for the articles is provided in Table 2.

Table 1. Evaluative scores for articles identified in the literature review.

Category Scores

Article a b c d e f g h Total

Alacapinar, 2008 2 2 1 0 1 - 2 1 8

Aral, Kandir, Ayhan & Yasir, 2010

2 2 2 1 1 - 2 2 12

Baumgartner & Zabin, 2008

2 2 2 1 1 - 2 2 12

Beneke & Ostrosky, 2008 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 11

Bickaki & Gursoy, 2010 2 2 2 1 1 - 2 2 12

Cheng, Lam & Chan, 2008

2 1 2 2 1 - 0 2 10

Chu, Tse & Chow, 2011 2 1 2 0 1 - 1 2 9

120

Duncan & Tseng, 2010 2 - 2 1 1 - 2 1 9

Faris, 2008 2 0 2 1 1 - 2 0 8

Gutelkin, 2005 2 0 2 1 1 - 2 1 9

Geier, et al., 2008 2 2 2 2 2 - 2 2 14

Grant & Branch, 2005 2 1 2 1 1 - 2 1 10

Hertzog, 2007 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 12

Kaldi, Fillipatou & Gorvaris, 2011

2 1 2 1 2 - 2 2 10

Mergendoller & Maxwell, 2006

2 2 2 2 1 - 2 2 13

Mioduser & Betzer, 2007 2 1 2 2 1 - 2 1 11

Tal, Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006

2 1 2 2 1 - 2 1 11

Table 2. Summary information for articles included in the literature

review.

Author(s) Location School Setting

Focus of Study Findings

Alacapinar, F.

(2008)

Turkey Public, 5th

Quasi-Experimental, Qualitative: The

effects of project-based

learning (PBL) on cognitive and psychomotor

achievements and affective domain.

Students in the experimental group showed gains in achievement, and

in cognitive and psychomotor domains. Students enjoyed the

project work and noted improved self-

confidence, creativity, ability to plan and develop ideas, problem-solving skills, and the benefits of working in

groups.

121

Data collection: Video, interviews,

psychomotor instrument.

Aral, et al. (2010)

Turkey Public, K Quasi-Experimental: The effects of project-based instruction on learning

outcomes. Data Collection: BBCS-R, a

measure of basic concepts, for kindergarten

Students in the experimental group showed slightly greater gains after

weekly PBL instruction over 12 weeks. Results on the BBCSR were not strongly indicative of difference, however.

Baumgartne r, et al.

(2008)

United States

Charter, 9th

Qualitative: Examined whether PBL would increase students’

knowledge of scientific investigation and

foster positive attitudes about the

content. Data Collection: Pre/post

self-reporting of content knowledge,

essays, field journals.

Students reported increased content knowledge, and

understanding of the processes of scientific investigation. Student comments reflected a change

toward more positive views by the conclusion of the project.

Beneke & Ostrosky

(2008)

United States

Public, Pre-K

Qualitative: Explored preschool teacher

perceptions of PBL and the responses of their students. Data Collection: Pre/post

interviews

All teachers reported positive views of PBL. Most felt that their students were successful, noting improved

interest and motivation, a shift from functional to representational play, and fewer disciplinary issues. The

projects offered ways for differently-abled students to serve as experts in certain areas. Most

teachers felt there were benefits in bringing "real" objects into the

classroom for play and construction.

122

Bicaki & Gursoy (2010)

Turkey Private, Pre-K

Quasi-Experimental: The effect of PBL on

specific developmental areas

in preschool children. Data Collection:

Pre/post testing on the Brigance Early

Development Inventory II and retention test.

The children in the experimental group scored higher on the posttest

on the overall scores of the Brigance II, more specifically in the areas of receptive and productive

language area A follow up test indicated that these gains were

long-term.

Cheng, et al.

(2008)

Hong Kong

Public, 7th-9th

Quantitative: The effect of achievement level

and group heterogeneity on

group process and self-efficacy in PBL.

Data Collection: Questionnaire of group-

and self-efficacy.

The quality of group process was determined to be a predictor of

self-efficacy in PBL for both high and low achieving students. Group

makeup did not appear to be a predictor for efficacy for high or low

achieving students.

Chu, et al. (2011)

Hong Kong

Public, 4th

Mixed Methods: The effects of combining a collaborative teaching approach with inquiry

project-based learning. Data

Collection: Pre and post intervention

student questionnaires and

semistructured parent and student interviews.

Collaborative and project-based approaches had a positive effect on student development of information literacy and information technology (IT) skills. Students also reported

that the IT skills they learned had a discernible application.

Duncan & Tseng (2010)

United States

Public, 9th

Mixed Methods: To document the

development and pilot implementation of a

PBL biology unit. Data Collection: Video/audio,

student artifacts, observation,

Substantial general gains in student learning of content concepts,

although the depth and detail of what was learned was less than

researchers had anticipated. When compared to achievement results in

a related study, PBL students showed improved understanding

overall.

123

curriculum-based measures.

Faris (2008)

Qatar Private, 9th

Qualitative: To determine if PBL affects student

perceptions of group work, content and PBL itself. Data collection:

Questionnaire, observations.

Students viewed group work more positively and the subject matter

more favorably after participation in a project-based science unit.

Geier, et al. (2008)

United States

Public, 7th-8th

Quasi-Experimental: To compare student

science achievement under PBL to

achievement under traditional instruction.

Data Collection: Standardized

assessments in science.

PBL was shown to be more effective in delivering content. Researchers

point out that this study was conducted within a wider school

reform, and that other factors may also have contributed to the results.

Grant & Branch (2005)

United States

Private, 8th

Qualitative (Case Study): To explore how

individual differences and abilities (multiple

intelligences) were employed in the completion of projects. Data

collection: Interviews and project artifacts.

PBL was found to offer flexibility in allowing for the expression of

individual differences and preferences in project development. Some multiple intelligence domains

were not employed in the completion of the projects. Students

cited practical reasons.

Gultekin (2005)

Turkey Public, 5th

Quasi-Experimental, Qualitative: To

determine the effects of project-based

instruction on learning outcomes for 5th grade

social studies students. Data

Collection:

Students in the project-based class showed greater academic gains

than their traditionally taught peers. Gains were also noted in higher

order thinking and research skills. Students reported positive views of project-based learning, the content, and their efforts in completing the

work.

124

Achievement testing, interviews.

Hertzog (2007)

United States

Public, 1st

Qualitative: To document how a

project-based approach was

implemented in two first grade classrooms

and to identify benefits and barriers.

Data Collection: Interview and

observational data.

Teachers had difficulty implementing the project approach because of their beliefs regarding

teaching and children, and felt ambivalent about devoting time to projects instead of other types of instruction. District and school

policies and curriculum also acted as constraining factors. Both

teachers made a shift toward more studentcentered activities, even when they were not engaged in

formal project based units. Both teachers noted greater engagement when students were doing projects.

Mergendoll er &

Maxwell (2006)

United States

Public, 12th

Qualitative: To compare the relative

effectiveness of traditional and project-based

instruction in 12th grade social studies.

Data Collection: Quick Word

Test- Level 1, Interest survey on Economics, survey

on group work, measure of problem

solving ability, curriculumbased measure on the

content.

Quantitative analysis of student achievement yielded modestly higher achievement in the PBL

group. Students who scored in the mid to low tertiles on the Quick Word Test showed the greatest gains in content learning; these

gains were not particularly significant on the group scale, but at the student level, translated to about one-half grade difference,

suggesting potential use of PBL as a means of heightening

achievement in students who struggle with traditional methods.

PBL was also found to foster relatively higher interest in the

subject matter.

125

Mioduser &

Betzer (2007)

Israel Public, 11th-12th

Quasi-Experimental: To determine the effect of PBL on high achieving

students' academic performance, skills

acquisition and attitudes toward technology, in comparison to

students in technologically-focuse

d schools. Data Collection: Pre/post

national exam on content, survey,

observations, rating scale.

Students in the experimental groups, and girls in particular,

showed higher gains in academic content knowledge when compared to the traditionally taught students.

Students in the PBL group also showed greater improvement in

their attitudes toward technology. The researchers conclude that PBL

has the potential to increase academic attainment and to foster greater student engagement in the

subject matter.

Tal, United Public, Krajcik, & States 7th-8th Blumenfeld (2006) Qualitative: To document instances of good teaching in PBL. (Student outcomes were reported as part of this study). Data Collection: Interviews, observations, student achievement data on course content. PBL yielded greater student performance on posttests when compared to other classrooms taught by less skilled teachers, suggesting that teacher skill is an important factor in the success of project-based instruction, contributing to classroom management, planning, positive interactions, high expectations, open-ended and student centered questioning. Suitable curriculum materials and solid teacher content knowledge are also keys in the success of PBL.

Discussion Examination of the included studies yielded a number of areas of interest. These areas include comparisons to traditional lecture-based instruction, effect on student attitudes and self-perception, developmental effects,

126

effects on diverse learners, teacher attributes, and the overall quality of the identified research studies. Overall Quality of the Research

Given the constructivist theoretical underpinnings of project-based instruction, it is perhaps not surprising that only a third of the identified studies offered comparative data as a major component (Alacapinar, 2008; Aral, Kandir, Ayhar, Yasar, 2010; Bickaki & Gursoy, 2010; Fillipatou & Govaris, 2011; Geier, et al., 2008), and a handful of other studies some lesser degree of comparative analysis (Faris, 2008; Krajcik, Neill & Reiser, 2007; Mergendoller & Maxwell, 2006; Tal & Krajcik, 2006). The remaining studies, comprising a majority of those identified, provided information that was more descriptive and qualitative in nature. It is interesting to note that most of the quantitative, comparative, studies originated outside the United States (Alacapinar, 2008; Aral, Kandir, Ayhan, Yasar, 2010; Bicaki & Gursoy, 2010; Faris, 2008; Gultekin, 2005; Kaldi, Fillipatou & Govaris, 2011), raising the possibility that the predominance of qualitative studies is a result of this review’s self-restriction to studies published in English. The multi-national nature of this grouping of studies posed additional challenges due to ambiguous translations, and internal reference to citations that were not available in English, for clarification.

Project-Based Learning and Traditional Lecture-Based Instruction

Although descriptive studies of project-based learning provide important information on participant perspective and experience, studies that compare project-based learning to traditional instruction offer factual insight into the relative value of project-based instruction as a means of reaching student mastery of curricular content and process skills. Overall, comparative studies identified for this review found project-based learning to be an effective means of teaching both content information and related skills. Students in project-based classrooms exhibited greater gains in content

127

knowledge than their traditionally taught peers (Baumgartner & Zabin, 2008; Duncan & Tseng, 2010; Geier, et al., 2008; Gultekin, 2005; Kaldi, Fillipatou & Govaris, 2011; Mergendoller & Maxwell, 2006; Mioduser & Betzer, 2007; Tal, Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006). Gains were also higher in the areas of process and group skill development and information literacy skills when compared to lecture-based classrooms (Baumgartner & Zabin, 2008; Cheng, Lam & Chan, 2008; Chu, Tse & Chow, 2011; Kaldi, Fillipatou & Diamanto, 2011; Mergendoller & Maxwell, 2006; Mioduser & Betzer, 2007).

Effects on Student Attitudes and Self Perception Many of the qualitative studies in this review sought to illuminate student reactions to participation in project-based instruction, and to create a window to some of the less-tangible effects of learning through projects. In all studies where student attitude was examined, project-based learning was perceived positively by participants, and described as fostering greater engagement with the subject matter. Students reported enjoying the active, hands-on approach to content, as well as improved perceptions of the subject matter. (Barron, et al., 1998; Baumgartner & Zabin, 2008; Beneke & Ostrosky, 2008; Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Chu, Tse, & Chow, 2011; Faris, 2008; Hertzog, 2007; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Developmental Effects

Two studies focused upon the comparative effects of project-based instruction versus traditional instruction on early concept development in preschool children (Aral, Kandir, Ayhan & Yasir, 2010; Bicacki & Gursoy, 2010). While the sample sizes for each study were relatively small, in both cases, project-based instruction was found to result in greater developmental growth in language and concept development than traditional instruction.

Effects on Varied Learners

128

Several studies looked at the effects of project-based learning on categories of learners or learner characteristics that are associated with school failure in traditional classroom situations. Beneke and Ostrosky (2008) examined teacher perceptions of how project-based instruction affected diverse learners in seven preschool classrooms. Teachers reported that the real-world focus of the projects allowed students who did not generally shine in academic discussions to share their knowledge about subject matter that was familiar and accessible. Teachers in this study also reported a reduced need for disciplinary actions during project-based study, citing increased student engagement as the chief reason. Additionally, several studies indicated that the beneficial academic effects of project-based instruction were most pronounced for middle- to low-achieving students (Mergendoller & Maxwell, 2006; Tal, Krajcik and Blumenfeld, 2006).

Teacher and Setting Attributes A number of researchers focused on identifying the specific teacher skills, expectations, and other attributes that might be contributing to the success of project-based instruction. Duncan and Tseng (2010) found that good classroom management skills, solid content knowledge, the ability to set clear learning goals, the ability to anticipate difficulties, willingness to support students on an as-needed basis, an understanding of individual differences, and a positive and encouraging approach to interactions with students were all important. Consisting predominantly of skills already known to enhance student achievement regardless of educational setting or specific teaching methodology, this list raises the possibility that much of the success in project-based learning is not due to the core values or practices unique to student-centered instruction, but rather that teachers simultaneously implement a variety of evidence-based practices – in other words, that good teaching transcends methodology.

129

The fact that project-based instruction requires multiple and fundamental shifts in classroom practices is highlighted by teachers’ reactions to it. Across a number of studies, teachers expressed reservations about putting project-based instruction into place because of the changes it required in the way they taught, the materials and resources they offered, and in the way they prepared and planned for instruction. Both Beneke & Ostrosky (2008) and Hertzog (2007) cited teacher resistance as a limiting factor in student success and overall effectiveness of project-based instruction; similarly, Mergendoller and Maxwell (2006) found that teacher expectations regarding the potential of project work and teacher views of student abilities and limitations were directly connected to student learning outcomes, and concluded that not all teachers might be well-suited to project-based instruction. Hertzog (2007) recommended that professional development occur over an extended period with follow-up and mentoring to facilitate success for both teachers and students.

While it is tempting to blame teachers who are reluctant to adopt project-based instruction, it is important to note that such teachers may be reacting to genuine factors in their schools or setting that can make adoption of new teaching methodologies genuinely difficult. In an educational system that seems chronically short of personnel and funds, little is known about the cost of pursuing a projectbased approach in terms of time, resources, balance with other school and system demands, teacher workload, and the interaction between project-based instruction and other requirements, such as teaching to standardized tests, that are placed on educators. As in many areas of educational achievement, systems variables have their own effects. Ravitz (2007) surveyed teachers from a variety of high schools that were using project-based approaches. Not surprisingly, achievement was higher in schools where the systems and policies aligned with project-based ideals were higher. The optimal application of project-based instruction requires change not only in the classroom, but at

130

school and system levels to optimize effectiveness (Barron, et al., 1998; Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Duncan and Tseng, 2010; Geier, et al., 2008; Ravitz, 2007).

It is notable that nearly all the project-based instruction in a single content area reported in these studies occurred in the content areas of social studies or science. Given that the first application of problem-based instruction as a classroom teaching tool originated in the medical sciences (Knoll, 1997), the continuing connection with science is not surprising. In regard to social studies, one can speculate that it offers a flexibility to choose topics and themes which are easily adapted for project work, as opposed to subject areas that are more systematically introduced and might require a somewhat different approach in order to develop successful project-based activities.

Conclusion Overall, studies conducted over the last ten years confirm earlier, generally positive findings (Thomas, 2000; Barron, et al., 1998) regarding the efficacy of project-based instruction. Project-based instruction in prekindergarten through 12th grade has yielded improved content learning, higher levels of engagement and more positive perceptions of the subject matter. With such a clear research base in support of its effectiveness, project-based methods appear to offer the possibility of success both overall and to a broader range of students than traditional lecture-based instruction.

Research clearly indicates that project-based learning is beneficial, with positive outcomes including increases in level of student engagement, heightened interest in content, more robust development of problem-solving strategies, and greater depth of learning and transfer of skills to new situations (Hmelo-Silver, 2007; Thomas, 2000; Barron, et al., 1998). With renewed emphasis being placed on the basics of education, and increasing

131

pressure to streamline instruction and teach to specific standards, the idea that the most effective instruction for these goals is also one that fosters depth of learning and engages students on a personal level is quite appealing.

In order to retain the beneficial aspects of project-based instruction and avoid the confusion that occurred in the mid 20th century when increasing numbers of theorists promoted related methodologies, but failed to prescribe adequate practical information to support successful long-term practice (e.g., Mayer in 2008), research that seeks to clearly distinguish between effective and ineffective elements of project-based instruction should continue. Areas in particular need of further exploration include how and when project-based instruction is most appropriate, how school structures and policies might be adjusted to best support teachers and learners, and how to maintain content integrity and meet federal and state learning standards while incorporating the authenticity of real-world issues and ideas.

Project-based methodology offers highly desirable benefits, yet implementation poses some practical difficulties within the current context of American classrooms. What is needed is a realistic approach that encourages teachers to incorporate successful, proven elements of project-based learning into classroom practice. Researchers should continue to refine understanding and respond to the practical challenges of this teaching method.

Acknowledgement Dr. Naomi Schoenfeld of Rivier College provided editing advice and technical assistance in preparing the tables for publication. Comments or inquiries about this article can be made via email to mholm@rivier.edu.

132

References References marked with an asterisk are those included in the research literature review.

*Alacapınar, F. (2008). Effectiveness of project-based learning. Eurasian Journal

of Educational Research, 32, 17-35. *Aral, N., Kandir, A., Ayhan, A. B., & Yaşar, M. C. (2010). The influence of

project-based curricula on six-yearold preschoolersʼ conceptual development. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(8), 1073-1079. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.8.1073.

Barron, B., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A. Zech, L., Bransford, J., and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University, (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271-311.

*Baumgartner, E., & Zabin, C. (2008). A case study of project-based instruction in the ninth grade: a semesterlong study of intertidal biodiversity. Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 97-114. doi: 10.1080/13504620801951640.

Berends, H., Boersma, K. and Weggeman, M. (2003). The structuration of organizational learning. Human Relations, 56:9 1035-1056.

*Beneke, S., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2008). Teachers’ views of the efficacy of incorporating the project approach into classroom practice with diverse learners. Young Children, (1), 1-9.

*Bicaki, M., Gursoy, F. (2010). A study on the effectiveness of project-based education. International Journal of Academic Research, 2(5), 379-388.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J. S., Gudzial, M., & Palinscar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the

133

doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 269-398.

Borgatta, C.G. & Corsini, R.J. (1964) Quick Word Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Bransford, J. Ed.(2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind Experience and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of the Sciences.

Brigance Early Development Inventory-II. (2010). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.

Bruner, J.S. (1961) The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.

Chang, L.-C., & Lee, G. C. (2010). A team-teaching model for practicing project-based learning in high school: Collaboration between computer and subject teachers. Computers & Education, 55(3), 961-969. doi:

10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.007.

Cheng, R. W.-yi, Lam, S.-fong, & Chan, J. C.-yan. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: the roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(Pt 2), 205-221. doi: 10.1348/000709907X218160.

Chu, S.K.W. & Tse, S.K. & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help primary students develop information literacy and information skills. Library and Information Science Research, 33, 132-143.

David, J. (2008). What the research says about project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 81-83.

Duncan, R. & Tseng, K. A. (2010). Designing Project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.

134

*Faris, A. (2008). The impact of project-based learning on the students’ attitudes towards science among nine graders in Hamza independent school. Analysis, 1-8.

Farkas, A. (2010). Project pedagogy - Interpretations and background principles. Education, 7(4), 30-37.

Fink, A. (2005). Conducting Research Literature Reviews From Internet to Paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

*Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., et al. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939. doi: 10.1002/tea.20248.

*Grant, M. M., & Branch, R. M. (2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing abilities through the artifacts of learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 65-99.

*Gultekin, M. (2005). The effect of project based learning on learning outcomes in the 5th grade social studies course in primary education. Educational Sciences, Theory and Practice, 5(November), 548-557.

*Hertzog, B. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 530-564.

Heyl, A. (2008). Fostering engagement for students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds using projectbased mathematics. Review Literature and Arts of the Americas, (May), 1-34.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Response, 42(2), 99-107.

*Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D., Govaris, C. (2011). Project based learning in primary schools: effects on learning and attitudes. Education, 39(1), 35-47.

135

Kilpatrick, W.H. (1918). The project method. Teacher’s College Record, 19, 319-335.

Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Learning, 41(2), 75-86.

Knoll, M. (1997). The Project Method: Its Vocational Education Origin and International Development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80.

*Krajcik, J., Neill, K. L. M. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science. doi: 10.1002/sce.

Lam, Shui-Fong; Cheng, Rebecca Wing-Yi; Choy, H. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 487-497.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-9. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.

Mergendoller, J.R. (2006) Project Based Learning Handbook, 2nd edition. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.

*Mergendoller, J. R., & Maxwell, N. L. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A Comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.

Meyer, D., Spencer, C., Turner, J. C. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students’ motivation and strategies in project-based learning. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501-521.

*Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2007). The contribution of Project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological

136

knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 5977. doi: 10.1007/s10798-006-9010-4.

Mitchell, S., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Rathkey, C. (2008). The negotiated project approach: Project-based learning without leaving the standards behind. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(4), 339-346. doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-0295-7.

Moylan, A. (2008). Learning by project: Developing essential 21st century skills using student team projects. International Journal, 15(9).

Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Oxford University Press.

Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching. March/April, 14-20.

*Ravitz, J. (2008). New tech high schools: Results of the National Survey of Project Based Learning and High School Reform. Conducted by the Buck Institute for Education. Online http://www.newtechnetwork.org/sites/default/files/news/new_tech_bie_survey_results8-08.pdf, 1-4.

Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small schools: Reform model and changing instruction with project based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 290-312. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2010.491432.

Scarbrough H , Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Laurent, S., Newell S. and Swan, J. A. The processes of project-based learning: An exploratory study. Management Learning, 35 (2004). 491-506.

*Tal. T. & Krajcik, J. & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Urban schools̓ teachers enacting project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722-745.

137

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Online. Retrieved June 24, 2011, from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf.

Tsang, E. (2007). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50, 73-89.

____________________________ § MARGARET HOLM, M.A., M.Ed., is a doctoral student at Rivier College. She is Curriculum Coordinator

for Language Arts and Social Studies, K-8 for the Bedford, NH School District. Her current research interests include project-based and cooperative learning, literacy development and writing instruction. She lives in Londonderry, NH, with her very supportive husband and is mother to three exceptional daughters. She began her educational journey at California State University, Los Angeles, but has been a New Hampshire resident since 1984. In addition to her interest in all things educational, Maggie is an avid cook, collector of children’s picture books, gardener and potter.

138

Appendix D: Preschool Assessments

PELI®

PELI is a preschool literacy assessment for 3- to 5-year-olds that measures alphabet knowledge, vocabulary and oral language, phonemic awareness, and listening comprehension.

PELI Early Release Dynamic Measurement Group is pleased to announce an early release version of PELI which will be available for research partners during the 2016-2017 school year.

● For details on the PELI Early Release, read our announcement. ● For technical adequacy data on the PELI, read this summary.

For a printer-friendly overview of the PELI with sample materials, download

our PELI Fact Sheet.

Overview The Preschool Early Literacy Indicator (PELI) is a storybook-embedded assessment of essential pre-literacy and oral language skills needed for kindergarten. The assessment is designed to identify children who are experiencing difficulties acquiring these skills with intent to provide the instructional support needed to improve future reading outcomes. The assessment is designed for preschool and pre-kindergarten students (ages 3-5). PELI measures alphabet knowledge, vocabulary and oral language, phonemic awareness, and listening comprehension.

The assessment is given in a storybook format that is familiar to most preschool students. Each alternate PELI form is designed around a central theme. Form titles include On the Farm, What's for Dinner, A Day the Beach, Grandma's Birthday, A Trip to Outer Space, The New Pet, Time for Bed, and others. The measure is untimed and takes about 10-15 minutes to administer.

PELI assessments are: efficient brief individually administered formative cost-effective developmentally appropriate engaging standardized

139

Why Use PELI?

The purpose of PELI is to: ● identify students who may be at risk for difficulties acquiring early literacy skills (universal

screening); ● help teachers identify skill areas to target instructional support; ● help early childhood programs identify curricular needs at the system level ● monitor progress of students receiving additional, targeted early literacy instruction; and ● examine the effectiveness of a program’s system of instructional supports.

PELI highlights: ● PELI has been specifically designed to be used within an Outcomes-Driven Model of

decision-making and is appropriate for use within a Response to Intervention service delivery model.

● PELI forms are reliable and valid. ● PELI benchmark goals are research based and define a level at which the odds are in the

student’s favor of meeting later early literacy outcome goals.

140

Concepts About Print Assessment

Purpose: Based on their home and early school experiences with print—bed time stories and read- alouds, big book shared reading, shared writing and their very independent adventures with pretend reading and writing—young children come to kindergarten and even first grade with different understandings about the arbitrary conventions that we use to communicate meaning in print.

An assessment of each child’s level of understanding, and sometimes misunderstandings of these conventions helps teachers know what their students are attending to in print and what still needs to be learned. This knowledge enables teachers to design and focus teaching points in literacy mini- lessons and other classroom literacy experiences that move children forward in their understanding of how print works. Where is the front of the book? Where does the story start? Where do I start reading and where do I go after that? What is a letter? What is a word? These are important literacy understandings that can develop through guided hands-on experience with reading and writing in the literacy workshop.

An assessment of emergent literacy print concepts should include:

• Book orientation knowledge

• Understanding of principles involving the directional arrangement of print on the page

• The knowledge that print, not picture, contains the story

• Understanding of important reading terminology such as word, letter, beginning of sentence,

and top of page

• Understanding of simple punctuation marks (Gillett and Temple, 1994, Understanding Reading Problems: Assessment and instruction. Harper Collins: NY. p. 70)

Directions: In assessing concepts of print, the teacher sits with the child, one-on one, and reads an engaging early level text, asking the child to help with the reading. The book used should have distinct layout of print and illustrations, good spacing between words, multiple lines of text on each page, some basic sight words (I, me, and, is, was, etc.) and basic elements

141

of punctuation (periods, quotation marks, question marks, exclamation points). Because the teacher reads the book to the child with the child looking on and responding to prompts, the text we are using is Honey for Baby Bear at a level F. This text has varied and sophisticated text layout and punctuation. (Other sample texts, levels C-F might include: Where is Hannah? Ben’s Teddy Bear, A Friend for Little White Rabbit, Nick’s Glasses, Dan, the Flying Man, Going to Lucy’s House).

The teacher should be very familiar with the text (story, layout and features, punctuation, etc.) before reading with the child. Have ready two brightly colored index cards, a pencil and the record sheet. This assessment incorporates prompts that help the teacher observe a student’s behaviors in response to the prompts and note these on the record sheet. (While working with the child, you will want to make small tick marks to note correct responses and keep moving, but later note the child’s specific behaviors and responses.)

Based upon the research of Clay, M. M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about printed language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

142

Student’s Name:

Date: Teacher/Recorder: Grade/Class:

Concepts of Print Choose a Level C-F book for the administration of this assessment. It should have distinct layout of print and illustrations, good spacing of words and multiple lines of text. Begin by telling the child, “I’m going to read you this story and I want you to help me. It is called .”

1. Orientation or layout of text/ Front of book: Hand the child the book, holding it vertically so that the spine faces the child. Ask:

• “Where is the front of the book?” • “Where is the back of the book?”

• “Open the book to where the story begins.” Child can open the book to title page or first page of story.

Score one point for each

2. Print, not pictures, carries the message: With the book open to page 1, ask the child:

• “Show me the picture.” Describe and discuss details of the picture. • “Show me the words.”

Only score one point if both are correct

3. Direction of print: On the same page ask: • “Show me where to start reading.” If child’s response is vague, prompt,

Where exactly?” Show me with your finger.”

143

• Point to the first word, read it and ask: “Where do I read after this?”

Only score one point if both are correct

4. Page sequencing: Point to the last word on the left page and ask:

• “Where do I read after this? Score one point

5. Difference between letter and word: Give the child the two strips of paper. Demonstrate how they slide together and apart on a page in the book. On the same page ask:

• “Show me one letter.” • “Show me one word.” • “Show me the first letter in a word.” • “Show me the last letter in a word.”

Score one point for each

6. Return Sweep: Turn to a page with at least 2 lines of text. Read the top line and keeping your finger on the last word ask:

• “Where do I read after this?” Score one point

7. One-to-One Correspondence: Point to the first word on a new page and before reading, ask the child:

• “Point to each word as I read this line.” Does the child follow and match text as you read?

Score one point

8. Punctuation: Point to the period, tracing it with your pencil and ask:

• “Do you know what this is?” If so, ask: “What is this for?” Score one point

TOTAL /13

For benchmark scoring rubrics please see the Benchmarks for Primary Assessments document. Based on Clay, M.M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about printed language? Heinemann: N.Z. ECLAS-II. Literacy Development Checklist. (2003). CTB/McGraw-Hill.

144

©TCRWP

Concepts about Print—Implications for Instruction:

Marie Clay calls concepts about print “the rules of the road,” and writes, “Teachers must teach so that all children become knowledgeable about these essential concepts so they open doors to literacy.” She explains that teachers who have an understanding of what aspects of print their students are attending to can introduce students early on to print conventions through experiences in both reading and writing—especially through focused instruction in the first six months of school (Clay, 2000, pp. 24-25).

Reading and writing are reciprocal literacy activities, especially in the early years; that is, they both promote student literacy learning and provide the experiences that children need to gain knowledge and use of „the rules of the road.‟ Through explicit teacher modeling as well as lots of guided practice and experience, students take on the concepts, and use them until the concepts become more automatic.

Based on teacher assessment, this literacy learning should and could be part of whole group, small group and one-on-one (conferring) learning contexts—from reading the morning meeting chart to writing a morning message together as part of an interactive writing experience, from shared reading of a big book with a focus on pointing to each word as we read and moving across the page from left to right, to writers‟ workshop mini-lessons where a teacher models where to start writing on the page or how to leave space between words so that readers can reread them.

145

Most importantly, because children have such varied and broad experiences with print when they first come to school, this assessment, together with ongoing running records and observation of students‟ writing, will help teachers to pull together small strategy groups for guided instruction and practice—whether it be a group of children who are ready to attend to punctuation in their own writing or a child who still needs support in pointing to words as s/he reads across a single line of print on a level A text.

Finally, while print layout, directionality, spacing and the stop and go marks of punctuation determine the “rules of the road,” the major entry into discovering how print works is building an understanding of how letters in print come together to represent sounds in words. Early letter and word study can begin with very important words, the children’s names: How many letters are in your name? What is the first letter? What sound does that letter make or what is the first sound you hear in your name? How many claps (syllables) are in your name? Is it a long name or a short name? As a strategy to building classroom community and literacy the children can have opportunities to play with their names, to sort names in their classroom by the number of letters, by the number of claps, by first letter, and to chant their names from a chart or word wall.

Children’s names go up on the word wall first. As the word wall expands to include little words the children see in books and want to write in their stories, the children learn about the concept of word—that words have first and last letters and sounds, that they are separated by spaces on the page and that the left to right directionality holds true in reading and writing words as it does in moving across a line of print: letters represent the sounds in words in left to right sequence. As young children chant words from the word wall, find them in a big book, or stretch them out to write during writer‟s workshop and then edit for accuracy of word wall words, they also learn that no matter the font or page layout, the sequence of letters for each word will always be the same.

Based on Clay, M.M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about printed language?

Heinemann: N.Z. ECLAS-II. Literacy Development Checklist. (2003). CTB/McGraw-Hill.

©TCRWP 2006-07 Do not duplicate without permission.

146

147

Appendix E: Diagnostic Review Summary Report with Updated Notes and Reflections of Progress on each goal

DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW

BILLIE MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Greeley School District #6

Review Conducted September 28, 29, & 30, 2015

1706 Brookhaven Circle West, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-407-9327 www.focusedleadershipsolutions.com

With support and cooperation from:

148

The Diagnostic Review Purpose:

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) provides support for identified Colorado Schools to conduct a diagnostic visit by a team of educational professionals to assess the current status of the school’s professional practices against a set of research-based standards and indicators to identify strengths, areas for improvement, and considerations for future planning. The Diagnostic Review is designed to help CDE and identified schools and districts understand the current state of professional practices in the school, the effectiveness or viability of those practices, as well as practices that have the potential to improve the school’s performance.

Process:

This Diagnostic Review was conducted by a team of three qualified educators with significant educational experience over 3-4 decades including conducting or participating in numerous school and district diagnostic reviews. The review team visited the school for three days and collected evidence from a number of sources to assess the effectiveness of the school’s current practices against eight Colorado District and School Standards and Indicators for Continuous Improvement. Primary evidence sources included school performance data, school documents, short school and classroom observations, and individual or team interviews of staff. Subsequently, the team analyzed the evidence gathered during the visit and synthesized it into a final written report. This report documents the team’s findings against the the eight standards by identifying significant strengths, findings that identify potential areas for improvement, and actions to consider as the school develops or updates its Unified Improvement Plan.

The eight standards and supporting indicators are:

Standards and Standards-Based Focus Instructional Planning Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum

149

Instructional Planning Best First Instruction Standards-Based Instruction Instructional Context

Instructional Practices Meeting Individual Needs Students as Learners

Assessment of and for Use of Assessment and Data Learning Assessment for Learning

Assessment of Learning Tiered Support System of Tiered Supports Multiple

Learning Opportunities Family and Community Partnerships

Leadership Expectations for Excellence

Instructional Leadership School Efficiency and Effectiveness Capacity Building Knowledge and skills

Culture and Climate Academic Expectations

Inclusive Learning Environment Safe and Orderly Environment Trust and Respect

Educator Effectiveness High Quality Staff

Supervision and Evaluation Professional Learning Impact on Professional Learning

Continuous Improvement School Mission and goals

Cycle of Continuous Improvement Improvement Planning

This report includes ten additional sections including: (1) Acknowledgements and Areas of Recognition, (2) Findings for each of the above eight standards that identify any Significant Strengths (defined below) and areas for improvement with a descriptive narrative, and (3) suggested Actions for Consideration by the staff as they develop next steps for improvement within a new Unified Improvement Plan. All areas of the report are based on the evidence gathered by the team during the review process.

150

Definitions of terms for the four sections of the report:

Acknowledgements This section of the report identifies both significant challenges and and Recognitions impacts faced by the school as well as those positive

characteristics of the school and staff that suggest a potential or capacity for improved performance.

Significant Strengths These are evidence of practices identified by the team that are

recognized in the research as having a significant effect on student achievement, are visible and pervasive throughout the school, and show evidence of a positive effect, or distinct potential for raising student achievement.

Findings This section identifies a few important areas or practices that may

need attention, enhancement or could be improved. Each statement includes a brief description of the current state of practice(s) and a description and rationale for why this area might be significant or important.

Actions These are suggestions for the staff to consider that address the for Consideration Findings identified by the team under the eight standards. The

staff will need to prioritize these and determine which are most critical to be addressed in a new Unified School Improvement Plan (UIP) which it will address in future plans, and if any suggestions are not appropriate.

The review team: David Benson, Team Leader,

Shelly Lantz, Team Member Russ Ramsey, Team Member

151

Acknowledgements & Areas of Recognition

Many students arrive at school with disadvantages that affect their academic learning such as limited or no English language competency, poverty, limited exposure to reading or even the world beyond the immediate community, single parent homes, and in some instances, deported or incarcerated parents. Along with these challenges, children as young as four years old from these backgrounds are being admitted to kindergarten.

A majority of the student population are English Language Learners. Recent school-wide data suggests that the work of teachers, ELL staff and interventionists is resulting in most primary students moving from Non English Proficient (NEP) to Limited English Proficient (LEP) in the primary grades and the school is exiting some students as Fully English Proficient (FEP) in the intermediate grades.

The school has a visibly organized environment with clear and consistent expectations for student behavior. This appears to result in generally suitable behavior by students which creates the opportunity for teachers to engage them in academic learning.

Through both interviews and observations, the team noted a high level of caring for students among all adults in the school.

All staff members articulate a desire and willingness to do what it takes to educate all students. However, some staff questioned whether this commitment was consistently demonstrated in the school.

Several instances of well designed, highly engaging, standards-based instruction were observed.

The beginning work of the staff in implementing the Understanding by Design framework offers significant opportunity for the staff to become pervasively standards-based in practice.

The staff has several processes and structures in place that help them to be “data driven” with regular structured time and a six-step protocol for periodically analyzing student data and responding to varying student levels of achievement.

Parent involvement and support is difficult to garner in this community. Despite this challenge, the school continues to look for ways to foster community engagement and partnerships.

The implementation of three new programs and other initiatives to improve student performance are placing a strain on teachers’ time and attention. In particular, teachers new to the profession and/or the building expressed feeling overwhelmed in their daily work. Nevertheless, these teachers also expressed confidence in their colleagues to support them.

Since not all students are disadvantaged or disadvantaged in the same way, there is a wide range of student readiness and ability that creates a considerable challenge to differentiate in the classroom.

152

The school’s Multi-Tiered System of Support is clearly articulated, in place and understood by staff. It describes each tier and teachers’ role with regard to documentation and time frames. This system of support allows multiple opportunities for a student to learn with customized support from teachers along with other school-wide interventions.

Standard 1. Standards and Instructional Planning: The school implements a curriculum that is aligned to Colorado Academic Standards and ensures rigorous, effective instructional planning.

Significant Strengths: No significant research-based, pervasive and highly effective strengths were identified for this standard.

Findings: It is evident the staff generally understands that a focus on standards is central to planning, instruction and assessment. Standards are posted in most classrooms and many teachers are also posting and/or referencing learning objectives. Further, staff members have had twelve hours of training in the standards-based framework of Understanding by Design (UbD). It appears that this initial training is being recognized by many staff as an effective approach to planning units and lessons with the end in mind. Additionally, this backwards-design framework engages teachers and ultimately students in a truly standards-based cycle of teaching and learning.

In addition to the standards, the district provides teachers with a district curriculum guide that identifies priority standards with supporting evidence outcomes and guidance in sequencing and pacing in core academic subjects. While these documents and the UbD framework support teachers in planning and instruction, they currently do not identify “indicators of mastery” (grade- level performance expectations for the evidence outcomes) that allow teachers to ensure they are planning and instructing students at their expected grade level. Without clear descriptions of what mastery looks and sounds like, i.e., the types and levels of performance expected at each grade level, teachers and leaders are at risk of adjusting learning expectations to meet the needs of their current students which often results in quality drift downward from a defined focus on grade-level performance. And, without teachers’ full knowledge and understanding grade-level mastery expectations, they are unable to show students, in clear terms, what quality learning looks like in daily learning targets or expectations. In rough terms, this translates into teachers and students performing without a target to attain or knowing if or when they have learned at a mastery level.

In the last year, in addition to the work with Understanding by Design, the staff is working to learn and use three new instructional programs. Some staff members refer to these and previous programs as curricula while others note the difference between a published core program and standards and curricula. While this shift in semantics is subtle, all staff need to recognize that published programs are not sufficient to ensure delivery of a comprehensive standards-based curriculum for students, nor does completing a published program in and of itself ensure student mastery. With that said, many staff did articulate they are making this shift, particularly as they related their understanding of UbD.

Building-wide collaborative team planning was not consistently identified by the staff as a common practice. Collaborative planning by teachers is a trait consistently found in high-growth Title I and other high achieving-schools and as a regular practice that allows teachers access to the thinking, knowledge and effective practices of their peers.

153

A consistently used, school-wide structured program, model or framework to develop grade-level academic vocabulary in the classroom was not noted by the team in interviews or observations.

On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 1 (February 2017): We continue to use Understanding by Design as a planning process for reading and math. August 8th through August 12th, 2016, twenty-six teachers participated in an updated training for the Understanding by Design process. Each grade level team was able to complete the first STEAM project for the 2016-2017 school year by the end of the week. Teachers are participating in 4 District 6 early release days focused on looking at student work and identifying what ‘at grade level’ means in relationship to the standards. This work will be carried through the building with focus on what grade level specific work looks like. We are also focusing a lot of time on learning targets and student success criteria within the bigger picture of all instruction in our building. Staff is currently reading Learning Targets by Moss and Brookhart. Classrooms are expected to use learning targets in core instruction areas. Administrators are reflecting back to teachers how learning targets, student activities, and teacher instructional strategies align. Teams are collaborating with the instructional coach to plan for instruction in reading and math. Teachers are using the UbD overall unit plan to develop weekly instructional plans based upon the progression of skills, the essential question, and the understandings and knowledge they want students to gain. Administrators will observe and provide feedback to the planning process for each team.

154

Standard 2. Best First Instruction: Instructional staff members provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery. Significant Strengths: No significant research-based, pervasive and highly effective strengths were identified for this standard. Findings: While several instances of engaging and research-based instruction were observed in 35 short classroom observations, the consistent and deep implementation of eleven common high effect- size instructional practices appeared to be irregular and occasionally minimal. The percentages of those eleven practices observed varied from 8% to 94% of classrooms observed. More specifically, the team found: ● Strengths (67%-100% of classrooms observed) were in the areas of Classroom Learning

Environment and Classroom Management. ● Variable implementation (34%-66% of classrooms observed) was noted for effective use

of Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessment and Frequent and Timely Feedback.

● Minimal implementation (below 34% of classrooms observed) was found for effective use of Learning Targets/Goals, Use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students Taking Responsibility for Learning, and Peers Sharing Responsibility for Learning.

Working toward deeper, intentional, consistent, and universal implementation of best instructional practices throughout the school has the potential to positively sway student achievement. However, at this point, there is still work to do in understanding the depth and consistency of the high-effect size instructional practices needed to more effectively impact measurable student achievement. Examples of standards-based instruction were also observed in several classrooms but notably absent in others. Standards-based instruction might best be described as a cyclical instructional pattern that ensures in every unit and lesson: ● Teachers identify and students understand the broad goal(s), learning intention(s) and the

success criteria (mastery-level performance) for each lesson and unit, ● Students receive clear and focused direct instruction with 4-5 levels of gradual release, ● Students engage in thinking, creating, and problem solving with a variety of engagement

and performance strategies that help teachers understand student ● thinking, quality of performance, and misunderstandings (formative assessment), and ● Teachers assess student thinking and performance with a variety of informal assessments

and adjust student learning experiences based on that data ensuring that students who are not yet learning will receive meaningful feedback and have additional and varied opportunities to reach mastery.

This instructional framework is very closely aligned with the Understanding by Design framework that essentially mirrors a standards-based cycle and provides substantial opportunity for the school to become more effectively standards-based in practice.

155

Finally, with three new core program adoptions this year along with creating standards-based units and lessons through UbD, the staff has been tasked with a number of formidable changes in expected practices. Addressing these four initiatives is a significant challenge for this staff and seems to be creating difficulty for staff members to deeply understand or implement these new programs and practices at the same time. Thus, it will be critical for school leaders to identify how to stage or scaffold these changes while maintaining quality instruction in every classroom. On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 2 (February 2017): Standard 2 is one of two standards from our Diagnostic Review we used as our goals for our Unified Improvement Plan. Under this particular standard we identified the following as our major improvement strategies:

● develop and implement Understanding by Design units of instruction in literacy and math;

● study and implement learning targets in all content areas beginning with reading and math, using the book, Learning Targets by Moss and Brookhart as our learning tool;

● study and implement the use of student success criteria using the book, Learning Targets and coaching in both learning targets and success criteria;

● develop an understanding and effective use of embedded formative assessments using the book Embedded Formative Assessments by Wiliam.

During the 2015-2016 school year teachers began reading and implementing some strategies from the book, Learning Targets. We completed two chapters by the end of the year. Teachers were also beginning to use learning targets in their classrooms, specifically in math. During the 2016-2017 school year, we are continuing to use the Learning Targets book as a resource for developing and using effective learning targets in reading, math and science. Most teachers are also attaching success criteria to their learning targets. In most cases the teaching staff has listed learning targets and/or success criteria as their professional goal. Feedback is being provided to the teaching staff during formal and informal observations concerning learning targets. In order to help new staff establish a foundation for the work, they have read the first five chapters of Learning Targets. Feedback is provided through observational data to teachers and the work they do in relationship to the teacher’s needs based upon their understanding of learning targets. This allows for deeper conversation during teacher conferences and allows the teacher to see if what is being taught and what is being learned are aligned with one another. For veteran staff who are using learning targets, feedback is provided to staff around how the learning target is being used, how student work reflects the target, and in some cases potential success criteria based upon observation of the lesson.

156

In an effort to systematize instructional practices which work, staff are engaging students in more ‘at level’ instruction by providing mini lessons and small group instruction in reading and math. This is being coached by our instructional coach and feedback concerning implementation is provided by administration with the deep understanding this is a learning year. Teachers are able to level the instruction and provide students just right learning opportunities to ensure movement toward mastery of standards. We are also beginning the process of learning about and implementing project based learning through a STEAM focus. We have not begun this specific training yet. Our intention is to start by learning and then implementing throughout our school.

Standard 3. Assessment of and for Learning: The school uses multiple measures and assessment strategies to continuously inform instruction to meet student needs, measure student progress toward mastery of grade-level expectations, and improve instruction.

Significant Strengths: No significant research-based, pervasive and highly effective strengths were identified for this standard.

Findings: The school staff administers a number of progress monitoring assessments in the core academics as well as in English language acquisition. Staff members periodically analyze the results of these assessments using a six-step data analysis process. Staff members report that these assessments help them identify subgroups of students with similar learning needs and allow them to address those needs within the class and/or through language and or literacy interventions. Staff members also note that, while they generally believe this work is beneficial, they often find themselves only reaching step three of the process and are not able to fully design instruction based on their data analysis. Some staff believe that the number of assessments and subsequent analysis takes limited and valuable time from planning and delivering effective instruction. Some international research suggests that while this type of data analysis by teachers has a positive effect on learning, collaborating on highly-effective instructional and assessment practices may have a more significant effect on achievement, and engaging in both practices (with reasonable time allocated to both) can compound the positive effect of both these practices.

157

Teachers are developing an understanding of the importance of backwards design in planning units and lessons. In order for the staff to effectively assess students in this framework, teachers must identify success criteria (mastery level performance expectations) for a lesson with such tools as checklists, scales, rubrics, exemplars and/or “worked examples” which provide the criteria to check for understanding and learning along the way in all lessons. While the data work of the school is commendable, it’s important to be reminded that the largest effect on achievement will come from these latter mentioned practices where teachers assess student learning through checking for understanding to immediately adjust instruction, formative assessments that cause teachers to re-teach or re-organize one or more lessons, and then end-of-unit assessments using teacher-developed success criteria for teachers, students and peers to analyze performance and set subsequent goals.

Some classroom observations revealed regular checks for understanding that resulted in some actionable feedback to students. However, student engagement strategies as a vehicle to formatively assess student thinking, misunderstandings and problem solving were not often evident nor were other intentionally-designed formative assessments embedded in lessons. Again, the value of using various student engagement activities to informally assess learning cannot be overstated. It is also important to recognize that without success criteria (performance expectations/indicators of mastery), formative assessments rely on teacher judgement of learning rather than a more valid and reliable assessment based on a shared understanding among the teacher and students of what quality (mastery level) learning looks and/or sounds like.

On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 3 (February 2017): We use Understanding by Design process with particular attention to learning targets, success criteria and embedded formative assessments to grow in our ability to use multiple measures to inform instructional practices in our classrooms to address Standard 3. Data teams have changed dramatically in one year. We no longer spend time filling out forms. Instead, teachers bring student work samples and we discuss what they are learning about their students and what instruction must be provided to different groups to enhance, enrich or remediate learning to meet standards. Teachers are much happier with this approach. We are beginning to discuss what to do more than ever before.

158

Teachers are continuing to grow in their understanding of the importance of data. Teachers are progress monitoring all students in our building every other week using DIBELS. During observations by administration teachers were sharing past individual performance results with the students, asking them to set a new target, testing, and talking to students about how they met the target. Our building wide DIBELS results indicate this is an effective practice. We were able to move from 43% of our students at Benchmark to 58% by the end of the school year. 5th grade grew from only 24% of their students at benchmark in September 2015 to 48% at benchmark in May 2016. Data from the fall of 2016 to the winter of 2016 show a building wide growth pattern with every grade level increasing the percent of students at benchmark and decreasing the percent of students who are intensive. At the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year 47% of students were at benchmark compared to 55% in December of 2016. In the same time frame 38% of our students were intensive in September 2016 compared to 26% intensive in December 2016. Our quintile data also indicates the work we are doing is beginning to produce results.

DIBELS Fall semester 2016

159

Data from 2016 PARCC assessments also demonstrated some growth in fifth grade. Growth data was at the 55th percentile. Teachers in this grade level and in one second grade classroom implemented time in text strategies which look promising based upon data. Using both PARCC and DIBELS along with observational data, we are able to state students in these five classrooms spent approximately 45 minutes of time in text each day. Teachers in these classrooms used mentor text to model comprehension strategies and skills for students. Students were given practice in those same strategies in authentic text. During individual time in text teachers in these classrooms gave students specific comprehension focuses. Teachers conferenced with students individually during these times. At the end of time in text students had an exit ticket of some sort tied to the initial focus. Students in these classrooms also participated in reciprocal teaching on a regular basis. In terms of DIBELS data for these groups in 2016, only 24% of students in fifth grade were benchmark at the beginning of the year compared to 48% at the end of the year. In the second grade classroom, 80% of students were benchmark at the end of the year. At the beginning of the 3rd grade year for these same students, 80% were still benchmark.

160

Standard 4. Tiered Support: The school implements a comprehensive system of tiered academic and behavioral support to enable students to master grade-level expectations.

Significant Strengths: No significant research-based, pervasive and highly effective strengths were identified for this standard.

Findings: In response to the high number of students impacted by language, poverty and other social difficulties, the school has developed a well-defined multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) for both academics and behavior to address those problems as early and intensely as possible. A focus on student needs with multiple levels of intervention is a trait of effective schools so that when learning or behavior problems appear, they are addressed quickly and appropriate support is provided. Such systems also provide safeguards to prevent mislabeling and/or restrictive placement of students before other intervention options are exhausted.

The school’s MTSS team meets every other week to explore what options might best meet the needs of students identified by their teacher and to support teachers in exploring and determining how to proceed. Addressing the language and reading needs of students is often the focus of these efforts along with an emphasis on early intervention in grades K-2. A structured Tier II or Tier III intervention system in math is not as clearly defined at this time with classroom teachers providing targeted instruction through a daily Guided Math process.

Documentation of Tier II and III interventions is made through Enrich, an online program. When moving students from Tier I to Tier II, this documentation may sometimes be less formal. Making sure student progress is well documented throughout the MTSS levels provides useful information for ensuring interventions are having the desired effect or may need to be readjusted.

While the team was able to access data on the progress of students in English Language Development (ELD), data on the growth of students receiving intervention in reading, beyond DIBELS scores, did not appear to be readily available. With the large deployment of human and time resources to language and academic interventions, periodically measuring and documenting student progress is critical to ensuring that all interventions and/or programs are reaching desired learning goals.

161

In another vein, several staff members indicate a growing number of students are coming to school with notable social and emotional issues such as parent deportation, parents sent to jail, family mobility, and older students caring for siblings while parents work. These problems without doubt can impact their focus and full engagement in learning. While the staff is aware of many of these issues, the limited expertise of teachers and the lack of time or resources in the school needed to address significant emotional needs of these students is a concern.

On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 4 (February, 2017): Data used to track progress of all students, including ELD students includes:

● DIBELS ● WIDA Access ● RMSE Mastery Checks and Fluency Checks ● PARCC Data ● Reading Commons ● Math Units of Study

In terms of concerns for students’ affective and emotional needs, we have included a desire for a full time school psychologist in our Innovation Plan. We currently work with the district FASST team to access school social workers and community mental health advocates.

162

Standard 5. Leadership: School leadership ensures the school functions as a learning organization focused on shared responsibility for student success and a rigorous cycle of teaching and learning.

Significant Strengths: Evidence from documents as well as descriptions of the evaluation process by both administration and staff indicate a strong, consistent and well-implemented evaluation system is being employed by the school’s leadership. Every staff member is engaged in the formal evaluation process, including pre-conference, extended observation, post conference and the summative evaluation document. Additionally, all staff members receive regular feedback from numerous, informal walk- through observations. Teachers report feedback from both these processes is helpful and, in some cases, they cite specific changes they have made as a result of feedback they have received.

Findings: Administrators exhibit deep care and concern for the school, its staff and most especially, the students, many of whom arrive with backgrounds or issues limiting them from being prepared to perform at expected levels.

Leadership is focused on improving and supporting effective teaching and learning through the Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), professional development programs, instructional coaching and the teacher observation process. Work with instructional coaches and other staff in leadership roles is helping to build the capacity of the staff to better address student academic needs. However, alignment of all the expectations from the state and district with those priorities unique to the school is a significant challenge. Numerous comments from teachers about feeling overwhelmed were noted by the team.

While leadership communicates high expectations for staff and students, there appeared to be some varied perspectives among staff members about whether these children can respond to high expectations and that all staff can truly impact and accelerate the achievement of all the children in the school.

During interviews teachers gave mixed perspectives regarding how decisions in the school are made, by whom and what role the Leadership Team played in decisions. It was also unclear how input is sought from stakeholders prior to a decision being made and how completely decisions are communicated. Particularly during times of significant or rapid change, stakeholder involvement and understanding increases support for decisions and more consistent implementation of new goals or initiatives. A clear decision-making structure and process improves cohesiveness and confidence in the direction the school is taking. Open and transparent communications also help identify when difficulty is being encountered, allowing for refinement and support for implementation.

163

164

On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 5 (February 2017): In 2015-2016, the staff of Billie Martinez worked collaboratively to develop the vision, mission, and belief statements for our school community. Staff members were instrumental in developing a workable vision statement with mission and beliefs throughout the entire 2015-2016 school year. Our staff collaborated to identify a vision of the future for the students and families of Billie Martinez which focused on what they believed to be the foundation of our work, a future in which all students will have a solid foundation of learning which allows them to choose the future they want, not one predetermined by the lack of a strong education. Staff members participated in professional development about vision and mission to understand what each meant and how vision and mission could be the driving force for future success. Working in collaborative groups, teachers drafted vision statements focusing on clear, concise language that would be easily remembered and understood. Next staff members were asked to write down what they believe deeply about teaching and learning at Billie Martinez. The only direction was these had to be things they believed so deeply, no one would be able to convince them otherwise. After collecting the four drafts of vision and the belief statements from all staff members, Leadership TEAM Martinez took the summer of 2016 to bring the words and language and tone of our staff to life. Teachers developed the vision statement first. After, they categorized all of the belief statements. We broke into smaller groups. Each group took a category of beliefs and working together, drafted the statements. We came back together to share. The results are what follows. Our Vision, Mission and Belief Statements are translated into Spanish for all families. The results of our work is a clear, cohesive vision and mission which are now the driving force for all decision making at Billie Martinez.

During the 2016-2017 school year staff members are working to identify action steps to go with each of the mission/belief statements. Staff are discussing what each statement means to them. We are now identifying the look fors in each area based upon these conversations. Vision and mission have come to life at Billie Martinez. During the 2015-2016 school year we created a decision making protocol for our building. We also participated in consensus training in the summer of 2016. We are using both of these things in our building.

165

Standard 6. Culture and Climate: The school functions as an effective learning community and supports a climate conducive to performance excellence for students and staff.

Significant Strengths: No significant research-based, pervasive and highly effective strengths were identified for this standard.

Findings: A school-wide behavior system appears to be clearly defined and although a few more serious behaviors are emerging this year, for the most part, students appear to be ready for the learning process and behavior is not interfering. Behavior matrixes are developed for common areas around the school and used to teach and re-teach student behaviors. Positive behavior (Pride, Respect, and Cooperation) is supported through the PBIS program and includes Panther Paws and Golden Panther Paws. Celebrations in the form of assemblies for honor roll status have begun this year for both academics and good citizenship.

Research and common sense substantiate the importance of active community involvement in a child’s education. School communities should motivate youngsters to take school seriously and strive to achieve, and celebrate with them when they do. This culture of achievement augments the efforts of engaged parents and helps fill the void created by parents who are not involved. Martinez is fortunate to receive community support from several partners. Food for open house and other occasions, supplies for students, uniform donations, toys for Christmas, and piano lessons are some of the areas in which students and families benefit at Martinez. Parent and grandparent volunteers help support the work of the school. Within the school, parents who speak Spanish have the opportunity to have translations during meetings with teachers and English classes for parents are periodically provided. Teachers report that Spanish-speaking staff members help out immensely when communicating with parents. Newsletters are published in both English and Spanish. While Spanish-speaking parents have these language supports, parents of students who speak other languages may not have the same opportunities.

Teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about students and their ability to learn can make the difference between a struggling and high-performing school. Two cultural conditions are critical to create high student performance: a belief that all students can learn at high levels regardless of their background and staff members who believe that all students will learn at high levels because of their efforts as teachers. According to some interviews, these conditions are not 100% apparent among all staff members.

166

Highly-effective schools have a culture of trust that is supportive of teachers, administrators, other adults and students to engage in hard work of teaching and learning. Without a high level of trust in the system, there may be uncertainties about the ability of the organization to realize the potential that exists within the school to make a difference for students who are already at risk. Five components of trusting relationships include Benevolence (having confidence that others protect your interests), Reliability (extent to which you can depend upon others), Competence (belief in others to perform the tasks), Honesty (a person’s integrity), and Openness (how freely another party shares information). Some staff reports as well as the TELL survey suggest that trust within the school may not be at a level that creates an optimum collaborative culture and working environment. While an Equity Team is in place this year to address this issue, it may take more than committee attention to this issue in order to ensure that all staff are working together as a single team with a high level of mutual trust and collaboration. Building and maintaining trusting relationships takes the willingness and heartfelt commitment of every staff member to be benevolent, competent, reliable, honest and open. On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 6 (February 2017): As with Standard 5, our focus with Standard 6 has been the creating of mission/vision and decision making protocols. Those specific pieces are listed above. Parent engagement is growing at Martinez. We sent a survey in the spring of 2016 asking parents what they would like us to provide for them to better understand their children’s education. Parents stated they wanted to know how to work with their children in reading and math, especially math. We organized Parent University to better serve these needs. Six Parent Universities were created. Parents rotate through a reading block, math block, and dinner. The dinner time is a shared conversation with administrators about anything they wish. This year we focused on PARCC. At the end of each session, parents were surveyed about what they would like next. The agenda for the next Parent University was created out of the survey. Our focus included: Reading: How to read with my child. How to ask questions about their reading and how to help them be better. How to help my child sound out words. How to help my child select the right books. Math: Online math opportunities with ZEARN, Moby Max. Math stations/games parents can play at home. How to help children with fact fluency. How to get homework help.

167

Standard 7. Educator Effectiveness: School leadership actively develops a high quality professional staff through professional learning, supervision, evaluation, and commitment to continuous improvement.

Significant Strengths: A significant strength in this standard is that teachers new to the school or profession report strong, meaningful support from administrators, team mates, mentors, and instructional coaches. All new staff are supported in understanding the priorities and routines in the school and provided access to resources they may need. Teachers new to the profession, while understandably overwhelmed with the numerous new programs and procedures, let alone finding their way as a new teacher, express gratitude for the strong support received from many sources as valuable, timely and accessible. The school’s administrators have successfully incorporated the evaluation process into the overall support system for new teachers. Sustaining this support system for new staff who demonstrate strong potential is fundamental to maintaining and growing the strength of the school staff.

Findings: Well-planned, well-timed and individualized professional development is crucial in providing staff with the understandings, tools and practice they need to impact student performance. Changes in practice targeted toward the highest priority student needs, time for reflection and collegial discussion, analysis of student performance results, and feedback from observations are all part of developing each teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom and supporting organizational improvement.

At Billie Martinez, professional development activities are aligned, planned for and support the improvement goals of the school. Numerous structures are in place to support professional growth and collaborative planning with early release times built into the calendar, program implementation support from administrators and coaches, regular data team meetings, and grade-level team meetings that all contribute to a broad array of opportunities for professional growth and school improvement. However, it was difficult for the team to ascertain the full impact of current professional development initiatives with the adoption of three new core programs and the beginning work of UbD, along with changes in intervention priorities and models in delivering core academics.

168

The critical role of team planning that supports the professional growth of staff appeared uneven in the school with some teams reporting they regularly collaborated in planning and others reporting less such collaboration. Some teams reported that their regular collaboration and planning supported their classroom effectiveness with other teams reporting less regular or even little team planning. Consequently, overall effectiveness of team collaboration in supporting improvement of professional practices was difficult to assess school wide.

School administration is careful to select staff who have a disposition suitable for working with students in this community. The hiring process is designed to select those teachers who have a deep caring and understanding of elementary students with diverse backgrounds and some significant disadvantages. However, the environment of the school and the external demands being placed upon it create a challenge to retain these teachers. It is also a challenge to train new staff members in the new programs and initiatives that are underway currently. A differentiated, job-embedded professional development system will be needed so that existing staff will not have to retrace ground they have already covered while new staff will still receive the information and support they need at the right time to be effective in their first years of teaching or in the school.

On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 7 (February 2017): The level of support for teachers has continued through continuous walk through observations and formal observations of content. Teachers receive an average of 20 different forms of feedback in the year including classroom observations, parent/teacher conferences, collaborative planning, and data teams. Specialists also receive feedback on performances such as with music concerts. We continue to meet with each teacher every third Friday to communicate about goals and growth.

169

Standard 8. Continuous Improvement: The school implements a mission- driven cycle of

continuous improvement that optimizes learning and ensures organizational effectiveness

Significant Strengths: No significant research-based, pervasive and highly effective strengths were identified for this standard.

Findings: Through engaging in the district improvement planning process, the school has a Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) supported by a substantial amount of student achievement data. The Leadership Team and the faculty reviewed the plan last year. However, it was not evident that many staff felt the UIP was truly a guiding plan for the school. It is also unclear to the team how the numerous activities in the plan are being specifically monitored. Additionally, some initiatives or expectations of the staff, such as Understanding by Design, are not in the improvement plan.

As mentioned earlier, multiple initiatives are underway at the current time but not all are in the improvement plan. This presents considerable leadership and management challenges as well as the risk of uncertain priorities, creating uneven or ineffective implementation. Many teachers report being overwhelmed and working extremely hard to keep up. Even though some of these are district or state mandates, timing implementation and providing resources when possible may help focus on the most promising improvements. This will enable staff members to concentrate efforts on fully understanding the need for the change, the impact in their classrooms and how to gauge whether the change is accomplishing the desired result.

170

The UIP is a federal and state-required, district-directed plan that attempts to meet many purposes. As such it may not communicate well to all stakeholders, or even some staff members, what is changing, why and who is involved. As mentioned above, it did not appear that staff members had more than a passing familiarity with the document and its contents. The UIP does meet all of the requirements of a comprehensive school improvement plan, e.g., data-driven, analysis for root causes, actions with timelines and responsibilities. However, in its sheer size, a 70 +/- page plan does not communicate a focused direction easily, nor help staff to engage in the actions in a meaningful and effective way. In high-growth, Title I schools, all staff members are very clear about the school’s priority improvement initiatives, their purpose and their role in implementation of the plan.

On-going professional dialogue about best practices in teaching and learning as well as monitoring implementation of procedural and programmatic changes are critical components of advancing the school’s improvement plan. A strong, consistently implemented evaluation system now in place can also be one of the most potent methods to support the changes identified for improved student performance results.

On-Going and/or Completed Work Standard 8 (February 2017): Our big focus in this area has been to streamline everything in the UIP down to a usable one pager. See below.

171

Actions for Consideration

Consider how the current teacher leadership team might evolve to a team principally focused on and committed to improving the school’s achievement through effective planning, professional development, collaboration and communication with stakeholders, and periodic assessment of progress.

Make clear and sharpen decision-making processes in the school by clearly defining the role and function of the administration and teacher leaders, gathering input prior to finalizing a decision from the largest number of stakeholders as possible and ensuring communication about decisions is thorough and effective.

Work toward deep, intentional, and universally implemented high-effect size instructional and assessment practices by every teacher, in every classroom, every day.

Develop an understanding of the critical role success criteria (descriptions of mastery) play in backwards design, in communicating what learning and success look like to students, and ensuring all students have the opportunity to be taught and learn grade-level standards.

Re-think the current posting and use of standards and objectives and re-define them for students as a critical step in their role as a learner with clear, daily targets and unit goals. This includes developing and understanding of how they are used as an instructional tool and how they can help students take personal responsibility for their (and even peers’) learning.

Consider the value and impact of every benchmark or progress monitoring assessment for its positive, direct impact on daily instruction. Reduce the number of less impactful assessments to maximize instructional time.

Learn more about the power of effective formative assessment practices, how they can be embedded in daily instruction and how they can inform daily instructional decisions so formative assessment becomes a regular, intentional practice.

Utilize the power of regular team collaboration in planning units and lessons using a standards- based, backwards design and integrating high-effect-size instructional practices into every lesson and unit.

Consider how to design a reasonable scaffold for the implementation of new programs in order to ensure full understanding and deep, effective implementation of every new program or initiative.

172

Determine and evaluate the effectiveness of the various programs used for interventions to ascertain their positive impact on student achievement, assuring that more than year’s growth in a year’s time is the result.

Create a brief directional document that summarizes the UIP and highlights activities that have the most impact on staff and students. This document can help justify and steer improvement activities underway every day and help stakeholders remain clear on priorities, their roles and responsibilities. The scaffolding of new programs mentioned above could be part of this document.

As a new literacy programs is being implemented, consider how development of academic vocabulary can be a part of daily learning with a consistently used, school-wide model or framework.

Additional Considerations

Revisit the school’s core mission and accompanying statement and ensure it communicates the purpose and direction of the school in this unique community. Additionally, re-visit the staff’s core beliefs about teaching and learning and create belief statements that all staff commit to as a foundation for how business is conducted in this school.

A differentiated, job-embedded professional development system appears to be needed so that existing staff will not have to retrace ground they have already covered while new staff will still receive the information and support they need to be effective in their first years of teaching or in the school.

Consider developing a continuum of Tier II and III interventions for students struggling in math with the added language support necessary for students to accelerate the learning of concepts and vocabulary needed in that content area.

To maintain and enhance a productive and collegial working environment, reflect on how every staff member is, within themselves and among their colleagues, functioning as a benevolent, competent, reliable, honest and open professional.

173

Appendix E: Unified Improvement Plan

One-Pager developed 2015-2016

174

Martinez Elementary School

Home of the Panthers

Vision

Martinez Dedicated ~ Children Educated ~ A Better Future Created

Martinez parents, students, and teachers all work together to create a solid foundation of learning for the future.

Mission and Belief Statements

Love: We teach and believe in the whole child.

We provide a safe environment filled with respect and love because every child matters.

We build positive, trusting relationships with students, parents and one another.

Live: Our Martinez family includes students, faculty, parents

and community partners, all working together.

Every family member brings a unique cultural perspective and influence that we honor and celebrate.

By empowering parents, we empower the students.

Education gives everyone the ability to grow, learn, and succeed in life regardless of the circumstances.

Learn: Students will have personalized instruction that focuses

on individual needs and strengths.

Students, teachers, and families will learn by developing a growth mindset focused on hard work and perseverance instead of fixed ability.

Using Understanding by Design, standards will guide teachers to develop best first instruction to build students’ understanding of content.

Students and teachers are committed to innovation and change, working collaboratively to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Project Based Learning creates enthusiasm and engagement by involving students in their learning.

Major Improvement

Strategies and Action

Steps:

1. Best First Instruction - All

instructional staff members will

provide aligned, integrated, and

research-based instruction that

engages students cognitively and

ensures that students learn to

mastery in all content areas,

specifically literacy and math to

provide equity and access for all

students, including ELD, FaRM and

Catch-Up.

a. UbD Professional Development

b. UbD Implementation

c. UbD Collaborative Planning by

Teams

d. Formative Assessments for

Student Learning

e. Learning Targets

f. Success Criteria

g. Instructional Data Teams

h. Frequent and Timely Feedback

for Students

i. High Impact Instruction

2. Culture and Climate - All

staff members will work together

to function as an effective

learning community and support a

climate conducive to performance

excellence for students and staff,

to provide equity and access for

all students, including ELD, FaRM

and Catch-Up.

a. Mission, Vision, and Belief

Statements

b. Expectations for Performance

defined for all staff

c. Conflict Resolution and

Consensus Training

d. Collaboration and Vertical

Planning Time

e. Defined Decision Making

Process

f. Team Trust Building

175

Martinez Instructional Targets for Improved Student

Achievement and Learning

Teachers will work collaboratively and operate within the Martinez Mission,

Vision, Values and Beliefs to use the Understanding by Design Planning Process

for Reading and Math to develop Units of Study to provide Best First Instruction

to all students by:

1. Identifying Learning Targets using Priority Standards;

2. Developing Success Criteria to know when each Learning Target is met;

3. Developing Formative Assessments to measure student mastery of Priority

Standards.

Success Criteria

Formative Assessments

Learning Targets

Understanding by Design

Reading &

Math

Val

ues

& B

elie

fs

176

Appendix F: Complete Unified Improvement Plan (Fall 2016)

177

MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UIP2016-17

District:   |  Org ID:   |   School ID:   |   Framework: GREELEY 6 3120 6774 Priority  |   Improvement Plan Draft UIP

Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for School (2016-2017)

Executive Summary

How are students performing? Where will the school focus attention?

Priority Performance Challenges: Specific statements about the school's performance challenges (not budgeting, staffing curriculum, instruction,etc.), with at least one priority identified for each performance indicator (Achievement, Growth, PWR), where the School did not meet federal,state and/or local expectations.

Table of Contents

Executive SummaryImprovement Plan InformationNarrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause IdentificationAction PlansAddenda

178

 Declining Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in Reading Name:  Martinez students are losing ground in reading achievement over the past three years. Although we had some improvement inDescription:

2013, achievement declined in 2014 to 40.23%, 31.42 percentile points below the State expectation of 71.65%. This notable trend is reflectedin disaggregated subgroups including: FaRM at 39.5%, minority at 40.57%; and ELA at 40%. These sub groups are also below the State andDistrict expectations for achievement by approximately 30 percentile points per group. The only group to consistently score above State andDistrict expectations is our FEP students. For Reading growth, the percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient level within threeyears in reading is declining overall from 34.1% in 2010 to 26.1% in 2014. Over time the gap between MGP and MAGP for all students and fordisaggregated groups has grown wider. FaRM, Minority, ELL, and CU students continue to fall further behind and the gap continues toincrease from -5 in 2010 to -16 in 2014 for FaRM students, from -5 in 2010 to -14 in 2014 for minority students, from 0 in 2010 to -14 in 2014for ELL students and from -5 in 2010 to -26 in 2014 for CU students. Our performance challenges of declining performance and low growth inliteracy are still a challenge with the change from TCAP to the PARCC assessment. In 2015 only 14.2% of students scored in the 4 or 5 rangeand in 2016, 18.3% of students scored in the 4 or 5 range. Students scored at the 12th percentile rank in ELA in 2016, well below the 50thpercentile to meet State expectations. All subgroups were well below; English Learners scored at the 16th percentile, FaRM students scoredat the 12th percentile, Minority Students at the 12th percentile and Students with Disabilities scored at the 1st percentile. Academic growthwas found to be approaching in all areas except for Students with Disabilities as there were not enough students to report this data. Allstudents had a MGP of 45 in 2016, only 5 points below meeting State expectations for growth. English Learners had an MGP of 47, FaRMstudents’ MGP was 45.5 and Minority Students had an MGP of 45.

 Low Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in Math Name:  Although our current percent of student proficient or advanced demonstrated a slight improvement over the past two years withDescription:

46.53% or our students at P & A in 2011, and 49.22% of our students P & A in 2014, we are still a full 21.67 percentile points below StateExpectations. Only 5.4% of our students are in the Catch Up category for math which means we are not showing enough growth to help ourchildren reach expected levels of proficiency. Our percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient level within three years in math isdeclining overall. We have dropped from an MGP of 54 in 2010 to an MGP of 40 in 2014. Over time the gap between MGP and MAGP for allstudents and for disaggregated groups has grown wider, particularly for students needing to catch up. They continue to fall behind and the gapcontinues to increase. (Gap for Catch Up students is -24 compared to -9 in 2010.) Our priority improvement challenge in math became greaterwhen we moved from the TCAP assessment to PARCC in 2015. In 2015 only 14.8% of our students scored at the 4 or 5 level on PARCC andin 2016 only 15% of students scored at the 4 or 5 level. All students were at the 12th percentile rank for math achievement. This is well belowthe State expectation of 50th percentile. Subgroups did not meet expectations. English Learners scored at the 18th percentile while bothFaRM and Minority students scored at the 12th percentile. Students with Disabilities scored at the 1st percentile in math. Growth was anotable challenge in math. All students demonstrated an MGP of 31, well below State expectations of 50. English Learners had an MGP of30.5. Both FaRM and Minority Students MGP’s were 31. There were not enough Students with Disabilities to report a math growth score.

 Low Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in Writing Name:  We have plateaued in writing and are not improving. Overall only 27.35% of our students are Proficient or Advanced in writing.Description:

Although we improved in the past year by 5.46 percentile points, we are still well below State expectations of 54.84%. This is a difference of27.52% points. We have plateaued in writing and are not improving. Overall only 27.35% of our students are Proficient or Advanced in writing.Although we improved in the past year by 5.46 percentile points, we are still well below State expectations of 54.84%. This is a difference of27.52% points. We have plateaued in writing and are not improving. Overall only 27.35% of our students are Proficient or Advanced in writing.Although we improved in the past year by 5.46 percentile points, we are still well below State expectations of 54.84%. This is a difference of179

27.52% points. PARCC results for literacy are not separated into reading and writing. This makes it difficult to track growth, but we are able totrack progress on the two areas of ELA which are writing; Written Expression and Knowledge & Use of Conventions. In 2015, 21% of studentswere meeting or exceeding expectations in Written Expression and 37% were meeting or exceeding expectations in Knowledge & Use ofLanguage Conventions. In 2016, 32% of students met or exceeded expectations in Written Expression while 33% met or exceededexpectations in Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions.

 ELP Academic Growth Name:  The percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient level within three years in reading is declining overall from 34.1% inDescription:

2010 to 26.1% in 2014. Our percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient level within three years in math is declining overall. Wehave dropped from an MGP of 54 in 2010 to an MGP of 40 in 2014. We have plateaued in writing and are not improving. Overall only 27.35%of our students are Proficient or Advanced in writing. Although we improved in the past year by 5.46 percentile points, we are still well belowState expectations of 54.84%. This is a difference of 27.52% points. In 2015, Martinez students met the growth expectations for ELP studentswith an MGP of 53%. In 2016, we had an MGP of 75%.

Why is the education system continuing to have these challenges?

Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, or performance challenges, that, if dissolved, would result inelimination, or substantial reduction of the performance challenge(s).

 Best First Instruction Name:  Focused Leadership Solutions who conducted our Diagnostic Review, observed variable implementation for effective use ofDescription:

Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessments and Frequent and Timely Feedback. (present in only 34%to 66% of classrooms observed) The team observed minimal implementation for Effective Use of Learning Targets/Goals, use of SuccessCriteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students taking Responsibility for Learning and Peers Sharing Responsibility for Learning.(present in less than 34% of classrooms observed) Engaging and research-based instruction is inconsistent and without deep implementationof eleven common high effect-size instructional practices. Those practices are: Classroom Learning Environment, Classroom Management,Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessment, Frequent and Timely Feedback, Learning Targets/Goals,Use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students Taking Responsibility for Learning, and Peers SharingResponsibility for Learning.

 Culture and Climate Name:  Staff feedback from both the Diagnostic Review Team (Focused Leadership Solutions) and the TELL survey indicate a lack ofDescription:

trust among colleagues that teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about students and their ability to learn is high. Staff reports they do not believeall teachers have a strong belief that all students can learn at high levels regardless of their background. The staff also report they do notbelieve all educators put forth needed effort to ensure all students achieve high academic standards.

Major Improvement Strategies180

Major Improvement Strategies: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) that will address the root causes determined in the data narrative.

 Best First Instruction Name:  All instructional staff members will provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitivelyDescription:

and ensures that students learn to mastery in all content areas, specifically literacy and math to provide equity and access for all students,including ELD, FaRM and Catch-Up.

 Culture and Climate Name:  All staff members will work together to function as an effective learning community and support a climate conducive toDescription:

performance excellence for students and staff, to provide equity and access for all students, including ELD, FaRM and Catch-Up.

 Title 1 Supports Name:  Implement improvement strategies in reading and math by using Title1 funding to supplement the support for non-proficientDescription:

students in reaching proficiency.

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

181

Improvement Plan Information

Additional Information about the school

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Related Grant Awards

Has the school received a grant that supports school improvement efforts? When was the grant awarded?

We received a Diagnostic Review Grant in July 2015.  The review was conducted by Focused Leadership Solutions in September 2015.In June of 2016 we received a Pathways Grant which we are using to write our Innovation plan to submit to the State in April, 2017.

School Support Team or Expedited Review

Has (or will) the school participated in an SST or Expedited Review? If so, when?

No.

External Evaluator

Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/toolused.

We received a Diagnostic Review grant from Colorado Department of Education.  We hired Focused Leaderhsip Solutions to conduct the review. The review was completed on September 28, 29, and 30, 2015.

Improvement Plan Information

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

State Accreditation

Title I Focus School

Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) 182

Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)

School Improvement Support Grant

Other

School Contact Information

Monica  DraperPrincipal 341 14th Ave Greeley CO 80631

(970) 348-1800Phone: mdraper@greeleyschools.orgEmail:

Alison  FergusonAsst. Principal 341 14th Ave Greeley CO 80631

(970) 348-1800Phone: aferguson1@greeleyschools.orgEmail:

Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

Description of school Setting and Process for Data Analysis

Provide a brief description of the school to set the context for readers. Include the general process for developing the UIP and participants (e.g., SACinvolvement). The description may include demographics and local context, such as location, performance status, notable recent events or changes,stakeholders involved in writing the UIP, and an overview of the general process.

Description of School/Title 1 Comprehensive Needs Assessment: 

  Martinez Elementary is a K-5 school of approximately 520 students in Greeley, Colorado.  We serve a population of students who are:  95% free or reducedDemographics:lunch; 88.6% Hispanic; 6.8% white; 4.6% other race; 80% second language learners.  183

Student achievement at Martinez has been flat for the past seven years, with less than half of our student body performing at or above State andStudent Achievement:District levels on State tests.  Because of this trend a Diagnostic Review grant was written and granted during the summer of 2015.  Focused Leadership Solutions was hiredto conduct the Diagnostic Review.  The review was completed on September 28, 29, and 30, 2015.  The staff was presented the data form the Diagnostic Review on October26, 2015, during a staff meeting.  The results of this Diagnostic Review are the driving force in the creation of this school improvement plan in 2015 and continues to guide ourwork.

Martinez teachers and administrators have examined state and local data.  We know we have not met standards.  We have challenges which need to be addressed.  Thesechallenges start with our inability to address the needs of students before the age of 5 due to our inability to provide a preschool program focused on language development,prereading skills, concepts about print, and numeracy.  We also know we are not engaging our community in effective ways which could help us propel our students forward. We deeply understand the need for adequate health care within the Martinez community and neighborhood.  In the development of our Innovation Plan to submit to CDE inApril of 2016, we are addressing these community issues.  We are using data released from the State and our Diagnostic Review to write the Innovation Plan for our schoolcommunity.  100% of our certified staff are participating in the design of our proposed new Innovation program.  Along with our community based program in order to addressthe academic needs of our students we are proposing to be a STEAM school with a focus on project based learning using LDC (Literacy Design Collaborative) and an MSP(Math & Science Project) grant to dramatically change our instructional delivery model to address our needs in literacy and math skills for all students.  Based upon previousdata, specifically observational data and a 55% growth in reading in 5 grade in 2016, we are able to support LDC and the connection of literacy skills to content in all gradeth

levels.  Plans for all instruction will use Understanding by Design to develop units of study founded in science, social studies and the arts.  LDC will provide teachers a vehicleto plan stage 3 of understanding by design, instructional strategies. Math will be planned in the same way using Understanding by Design.  Teachers are engaging students innew ways during math instruction to fill learning gaps and provide stronger instructional strategies including guided math groups, blended learning with ZEARN or Moby Max. Teachers are using data to drive day to day decisions about instruction for students in math.  The MSP grant will allow us to grow our math instructional delivery model andensure high growth of students in math.  Both the LDC and MSP grant will be driven by teacher leaders in the building.  Each group will be a train the trainer model which willallow us to change the culture of Martinez and build the leadership capacity of all teachers.   We examined data from our School Performance Framework and our Growth data.  Although we are not growing at a rate we know will get us out of priority improvement, weare making major changes based upon known factors which created 55% growth on PARCC in reading at 5 grade, doubling the percent of students at benchmark from 24%th

to 48% on DIBELS for 5 graders, 80% of one second grade classroom to be benchmark on DIBELS and two consecutive years of good to great growth data for WIDA (53%th

in 2015, and 75% in 2016).  Observational data by administrators (approximately 425 walk throughs and full observations in 2014-2015 and approximately 600 in 2015-16)also supports our understanding of what works.  We know the classrooms which used a time in text format of modeling with mentor text, setting a focus for time in text aroundmodeled strategies and skills, conferencing with students while reading, and a reciprocal teaching action at the end showed growth and higher achievement in reading asdemonstrated on DIBELS and on PARCC.  In terms of WIDA, we have only made one major change to the way we instruct students at Martinez.  We created writingnon-negotiables for all grade levels and we insist on students answering and speaking in complete sentences while in classrooms.  This will be our third year of this practiceand our results are clear.  Our growth data on WIDA was high for two years and we have moved almost 75% of our students up at least one level, more often 2. 

 As part of the Diagnostic Review we have identified school culture and climate as part of our root cause for lack of sustained growth andSchool Culture and Climate: 

achievement.  In 2015 our Leadership TEAM Martinez used the State rubric for Turnaround Schools as well as the results of the TELL survey this summer to analyzeteacher/staff perceptions and performance within our school and to then identify action steps to take as the result of this analysis.  Our analysis aligned with the findings of theDiagnostic Review team.  We used these results to begin to work together to develop a strong vision, mission and beliefs for our school community.  In May of 2016 ourschool Leadership TEAM took all of the work we did as a whole staff and all of the drafts of visions, missions and beliefs to edit, revise and make sure all voices were in thedocument.  The result is a complete Vision, Mission, and set of Beliefs we all own.  This year we are taking each bulleted statement in our Mission and Belief statement anddigging into what each item means and how each item is reflected in our work at Martinez every day.  After working on our vision all year during the 2015-2016 year, we gave184

the leadership section of the TELL survey again.   In our 2015-16 TELL Leadership survey, the following results were noted. We outperformed other schools in our district and were able to start to change our culture atMartinez. 

Percent Agree/Question79.4%  (1.) There is an atmosphere for trust and mutual respect in this school.87.5%  (2.) The school leadership consistently enforces rules for student conduct.100%  (3.)  The school leadership communicates clear expectations to students and parents.95.8%  (4.)  The school leadership communicates with the faculty adequately.100%  (5.)  The faculty and leadership have a shared vision.83.3%  (6.)  Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them.79.1%  (7.)  The teacher evaluation process improves teachers' instructional strategies.75%  (8.)  Teacher components of the teacher evaluation process accurately identify effectiveness.83.3%  (9.)  Teacher evaluation are fair in my school.100%  (10.)  Teachers in this school receive informal feedback about their teaching on an ongoing basis. 95.9% (11.)  The school leadership works to minimize disruptions for teachers, allowing teachers to focus on educating students.87.5%  (12.)  The school leadership consistently supports teachers.100%  (13.)  Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction.100%  (14.)  The school leadership facilitates using data to improve student learning.87.5%  (15.)  The faculty are recognized for their accomplishments.100%  (16.)  The school leadership focuses on the professional growth of staff.

Our survey results were well above district results in all areas.  The smallest difference was +4.3, and the largest difference was +35.5.  We also went up in all results of the16 questions from the previous year.  

: We currently have 44 certified staff and 6 paraprofessionals.  The average number of years employed by Greeley/Evans DistrictStaff Quality, Recruitment and Retention12 years. The most senior teacher has been at Martinez for 24 years.  Four staff members have been employed for less than a year.  24 employees have Masters degreesand 20 have Bachelors degrees. The average years of experience at Martinez is 10.  There are 502 years of experience combined on our staff.  Our school vision, missionand belief statements were developed during the 2015-2016 school year by staff and administration. 

Home of the PanthersMartinez Elementary

Vision: Martinez Dedicated~Children Educated~A Better Future Created

Martinez parents, students, and teachers all work together to create a solid foundation of learning for the future. 

185

Mission and Belief Statements:Love:

We teach and believe in the whole child. We provide a safe environment filled with respect and love because every child matters. We build positive, trusting relationships with students, parents and one another.

Live: Our Martinez family includes students, faculty, parents and community partners, all working together. Every family member brings a unique cultural perspective and influence that we honor and celebrate. By empowering parents, we empower the students. Education gives everyone the ability to grow, learn, and succeed in life regardless of the circumstances.

Learn: Students will have personalized instruction that focuses on individual needs and strengths. Students, teachers, and families will learn by developing a growth mindset focused on hard work and perseverance instead of fixed ability.  

Using Understanding by Design, standards will guide teachers to develop best first instruction to build students’ understanding of content. Students and teachers are committed to innovation and change, working collaboratively to meet the demands of the 21st century.  Project Based Learning creates enthusiasm and engagement by involving students in their learning.

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment:  Martinez Elementary uses Districtwide curriculum to instruct students at our school.  We are currently using the Understandingby Design process for our planning.  This planning process has been in place since the spring of 2015 with 12 hours of training in April and May 2015.  As a focus of planning,teachers use the Understanding by Design process in conjunction with District curriculum guides, which focus on priority standards, as well as Reading Mastery SignatureEdition for Kindergarten and first graders, Wonders Reading for all 2 – 5 grade students, Being a Writer, Assessing Math Concepts and Engage NY in math, Pearson fornd th

Social Studies, FOSS kits for Science, Language for Learning, Language for Thinking and Language for Writing for all K-2 grade students.  Assessments in each area arend

provided by the curriculum or English Language Arts Common assessments each quarter, DIBELS, Phonics Benchmark, Math Units of Study tests. Assessing MathConcepts, PARCC/CMAS.  We have researched STEAM for the past two years. Students in all grade levels participated in a unit of study during the spring of 2016 and againthis fall.  We are moving forward with STEAM, project based learning using Literacy Design Collaborative and a Math/Science Project grant to help us.  Representativeteachers will train to be trainers in each of the Literacy Design Collaborative and Math/Science project.  Teachers will also be trained in project based learning teaching in thesummer of 2017.  

  Martinez Elementary has a very respectful, positive relationship with parents.  In the Parent Survey given each spring, 98% ofFamily and Community Involvement:families say they are happy with Martinez as their child’s school.  While most of our parents do not volunteer at our school, we do have a very committed group of motherswho manage our Parent/Teacher Organization, School Accountability Committee, and volunteer in our building. Parents are invited to school once per month for a parenteducation night.  We focus on reading, writing, math, science, and technology.  Parents show pride in their children’s education when they attend every concert andParent/Teacher Conference opportunity we provide. We generally have between 95% and 100% attendance of parents during conferences.  Within the greater Greeley community, we are fortunate to have several organizations which help us tremendously to provide for our students and families.  BothSpradley-Barr of Greeley and Coyote Grill provide additional support to families during the holiday season with food and gifts for children.  Redeemer Lutheran Church hasbeen our partner in education for five years.  Redeemer not only provides needed supplies to families including clothing and food, they also provide our Kids’ Hope programwhich grows in number every year.  Redeemer Church members are often in our building working with the staff and with students to provide a quality learning experience forall students.  They are making a difference in the lives of our children and families at Martinez. 186

1.

2.

3.

4.

  Martinez is a K-5 campus. We have five rounds of kindergarten and three rounds of 5 grade.  We have four rounds each of all 1 through 4 gradeSchool Organization: th st th

classrooms. Teachers work together with their grade level teams for all planning and instruction purposes.  We walk to read in kindergarten and first grade.  Students ingrades 2 – 5 stay with their homeroom teachers for all core subject areas.  Some students are in a pull out program for reading core replacement.  Students in 2nd through5th grades are grouped according to their academic needs in reading for an additional Targeted Instruction block during the day. In addition to classroom teachers we havefour ELD teachers, five interventionists, two ESS teachers, and additional support staff to assist in meeting student needs. 

  Martinez has a Promethean Board in 26 classrooms.  We have a computer lab with 30 desk top computers.  There is a desk top computer in each classroomTechnology:as well. Students in all 4 and 5 grade classrooms have their own computer paid for by our parent organization or through a grant.    All 1 through 3 grade classroomsth th st rd

have 6 to 12 computers to use with students.  Kindergarten classrooms have 6 computers each.    This is our first year with enough computers to provide Blended Learningopportunities for children.  In the fall of 2016 teachers wrote plans to the administration team about how they plan to use the computers in their classrooms.  All kindergarten,first, and fifth grade classrooms are using ZEARN to support math for all students and to provide remediation and enrichment to individualize instruction using a flip model. One teacher in 2 , 3 , and 4 grades is using ZEARN as well.  The remaining teachers in these grade levels are using Moby Max as part of a rotation station model.nd rd th

Kindergarten and fourth grade have added a reading component.  Students in kindergarten who are reading above grade level are getting an extra 10 to 20 minutes of timeon a computer to read.  4 grade students are using Wonders on line as part of their week to focus on vocabulary development.  th

In 2016 seven teachers at Martinez applied for and received grants from JDO Foundation to implement a Global Partnership project with students in fourth and fifth grades. Allstudents in all seven classrooms received a chromebook to use for the project.  Each classroom has a partner classroom in England or Ireland.  Teachers in partnerclassrooms plan instructional projects for students in both rooms to complete together.  Students communicate with their pen pal from the partner classroom once per weekvia google.  Partner classrooms Skype with each other once per month throughout the year.  The project lasts for three years at the end of which the chromebooks are giftedto Martinez. 

:  Student behavior at Martinez is outstanding.  We have less than 50 referrals per year.  Most of our students are extremely well behaved.  We only haveStudent Behaviorabout 2% of our population who need additional supports in this area.  Martinez has some of the lowest referrals of any school in our district.  This was noted, even by theDiagnostic Review team.  They stated, ''The school has a visibly organized environment with clear and consistent expectations for student behavior. This appears to result ingenerally suitable behavior by students which creates the opportunity for teachers to engage them in academic learning'' 

Attendance at Martinez has been, on average 95% every year for the past three years.  (95.2% in 2013-2014; 94.1% in 2014-2015; 95.15 inStudent Attendance:  2015-2016; 94.7 in 2016-2017 to date)  We often struggle with just a handful of families who do not understand the urgency of school.  We build attendance contracts forthese families.  We work within the greater Greeley community to try to provide supports to these families as well. Process for Data Analysis:The process for the development of our UIP was as follows:

The leadership team, Leadership TEAM Martinez, began working on our new plan on May 26, 2016.  We met for one full day to complete and finalize our Vision,Mission and Belief Statements.  We also spent time reviewing data and planning for instruction starting with a week of planning a STEAM unit using Understanding byDesign in August with training and follow-up. In September we reviewed the growth data for PARCC released by the State.  We also reviewed DIBELS data and local Math Unit Assessments and ReadingCommon Assessments. Staff and parents reviewed the school performance framework in October. 187

4. 5.

Parents reviewed data at the November PTO meeting and provided feedback.The staff at Martinez with the assistance of the Leadership TEAM Martinez are using every early release Monday to implement Major Improvement Strategies andaction steps and to refine our UIP on a continual basis.

Prior Year Targets

Consider the previous year's progress toward the school targets. Identify the overall magnitude of the school performance challenges.

Performance Indicator:  Academic Achievement (Status)

Prior Year Target: Local Measures:

Increase % of students at each grade level reading at benchmark on the DIBELS Spring BenchmarkKindergarten from 78% Benchmark to 95% BenchmarkFirst Grade from 72% Benchmark to 90% BenchmarkSecond Grade from 63% Benchmark to 80% BenchmarkThird Grade from 52% Benchmark to 70% BenchmarkFourth Grade from 29% Benchmark to 50% BenchmarkFifth Grade from 36% Benchmark to 60% Benchmark

CMAS/PARCC Increase the percent of students scoring at benchmark by 10% from the 2014 assessment of reading to the 2015 assessment of reading.

Performance: We did not meet our targets for performance on DIBELS:Kindergarten target was 95% at Benchmark, it was actually 74%First grade target was 90% at Benchmark, it was actually 57%Second grade target was 80% at Benchmark, it was actually 54%Third grade target was 70%, it was actually 65%Fourth grade target was 50%, we did meet this target. 54% of 4th graders read at benchmark.Fifth grade target was 60%, it was actually 48%

In terms of PARCC we did not meet this target. We set a target of 10% above the 2015 assessment which was 14.2%. In 2016 only 18.3% ofstudents were at benchmark.

Prior Year Target: CMAS/PARCC Increase the percent of students scoring at benchmark by 10% from the 2015 assessment of math to the 2016 assessment of math

Performance: We did not meet our target of increasing the percent of students at benchmark by 10 %. In 2015, 14.8% of students were atbenchmark on PARCC. In 2016, only 15% of students were at benchmark. 188

Prior Year Target: CMAS/PARCC Increase the percent of students scoring at benchmark by 10% from the 2015 assessment of writing to the 2016 assessment of writing.

Performance: We met one part of our target in writing. in 2015 21% of students were proficient in Written Expression on PARCC. In 2016, 32%of students were proficient in Written Expression on PARCC. In the other subcategory of writing, we did not meet expectations. In 2015, 37% ofstudents were proficient in Knowledge & Use of Language and Conventions. In 2016, only 33% of students were proficient in Knowledge & Useof Language Conventions.

Prior Year Target: READ Plan: Reduce the amount of students on a READ Plan by 10% from 22% to 12%Performance: We did not reduce the percent of students on READ plans. At the end of 2015-2016 school year, 170 students were identified withan SRD. This is up to 30% of students from the 22% in the previous year.

Academic Achievement (Status) Reflection

Our root cause has been that we are not getting all students to a high level of mastery on grade level content so as to ensure all students are ready for the next grade levelwithout losing instructional time to past grade level standards.  We believe that while we have been able to address the root cause in previous UIPs for all K-1 students, wehave not been able address the problem in 2 – 5 , which has continued to impact our scores.  After reevaluating our current standing and reevaluating the data we havend th

worked toward a new root cause and will be addressing all standards at each grade level with common instructional strategies and with rigor for all students and ELL studentsto meet the challenging standards.  In addition, with information we did not have previous to this year in the TELL survey and our Diagnostic Review with Focused LeadershipSolutions, we will not only focus on first quality instruction, we will also focus on our climate and culture.  We implemented three new curriculums in 2015-2016 includingRMSE, Wonders, and Being a Writer for ELA.  As we implemented each program with fidelity, we were able to evaluate our adult actions at the end of the year and makeplans to instruct around standards and not curriculum. 

Performance Indicator:  Academic Growth

Prior Year Target: CMAS/PARCC:Students will demonstrate average to high growth on CMAS/PARCC between 2014 and 2015 as determined by the State and District in the area

of literacy.Performance: Overall we did not meet this target. Our MGP for our school was 45 in ELA. 4th graders had an MGP of 40, 5th graders had anMGP of 55, which was our closest score to meet the target. In other sub groups we did not meet our target. English Learners MGP = 47Non-English Learners MGP = 32FaRM MGP = 45.5Female MGP = 49.5Male MGP = 36.5Non-IEP MGP = 49.5Minority MGP = 45At or Above Benchmark Students MGP = 38

189

Below Benchmark Students MGP = 47Hispanic Students MGP = 45

Prior Year Target: CMAS/PARCC:Students will demonstrate average to high growth on CMAS/PARCC between 2014 and 2015 as determined by the State and District in the area

of math.Performance: We did not meet our target to show high growth on PARCC in the area of math. Our MGP for our school was 31. The rest of ourgroups are as follows:4th grade MGP = 265th grade MGP = 34.5English Language Learners MGP = 30.5Non-English Language Learners MGP = 34FaRM MGP = 31Female MGP = 35.5Male MGP = 27.5Non IEP MGP = 31Minority MGP = 31At or Above Benchmark MGP = 37.5Below Benchmark MGP = 29.5

Prior Year Target: CMAS/PARCC:Students will demonstrate average to high growth on CMAS/PARCC between 2014 and 2015 as determined by the State and District in the area

of writing.Performance: Overall we did not meet this target. Our MGP for our school was 45 in ELA. 4th graders had an MGP of 40, 5th graders had anMGP of 55, which was our closest score to meet the target. In other sub groups we did not meet our target. English Learners MGP = 47Non-English Learners MGP = 32FaRM MGP = 45.5Female MGP = 49.5Male MGP = 36.5Non-IEP MGP = 49.5Minority MGP = 45At or Above Benchmark Students MGP = 38Below Benchmark Students MGP = 47Hispanic Students MGP = 45

Prior Year Target: Students will meet ACCESS growth targets moving from level to level: L1 to L2: 96% (Target); L2 to L3: 85% (Target); L3 to L4: 55% (Target); L4 to L5: 65% (Target); L5 to L6: 30% (Target)

Performance: We believe we fully met this goal:Students moving from L1 to L2 or higher was 91%. Within this only 46 students were at L1. 9 moved to L2, 29 moved to L3, and 4 moved to L4!190

77% moved from L2 to L3 or higher. Within this number, 9 moved to L3, 10 moved to L4, and 1 moved to L5! 86% of students moved from L3 toL4 or higher. 34 moved to L4, 40 moved to L5, and 4 to L6!. Finally 80% of L4 moved to L5. 66 moved from L4 to L5, and 14 moved from L4 toL6! We had no students at L5 in our testing window.

Academic Growth Reflection

We know we did not meet our growth targets from 2015 to 2016.  We do know part of our challenge is in managing three new curriculums in oneyear:  RMSE or Wonders, Being a Writer, and Engage NY.  Teachers were challenged to understand all of the standards in relation to our newcurriculum.  While Wonders is more closely aligned with HM which we used in the past, it was still new and required us to think differently. Phonics in 2nd grade Wonders is not as strong and we had to use SIPPS to continue phonics instruction and transfer practice of phonics skills forstudents.  We also know we did not provide enough rigorous instruction to grow our students to high levels of achievement.  We did have somepromising practices.  In the past two years we have had average to high growth with WIDA.  We have only changed and implemented two thingsin that time; one is we require all students to respond to us in complete sentences, and the other is we created writing non-negotiables at allgrade levels which teachers use to make sure students are using all the writing skills they have been taught in any given written response or inthe case of kindergarten and first grade, all oral responses.  Based upon and MGP in 5th grade of 55 and one second grade classroom in which80% of students were benchmark on DIBELS at the end of the year and observational data, we can pinpoint what these five classrooms did thatothers did not, focused time in text with good modeling by the teacher.  Teachers in these five rooms taught comprehension instruction throughthe use of interactive read-aloud, setting a specific focus for time in text, conferencing with students during this time in text, and follow up with acomprehension activity either written, partner share, or reciprocal teaching.  This practice was done every day.  We can replicate this practice aswell. 

In math our instruction is not strong enough to help students master rigorous standards.  We applied for an MSP grant for this reason.  We arenow using our new technology to provide targeted, focused instruction in math.  We must change the way we instruct in math because we arefailing our students. 

Performance Indicator:  Disaggregated Achievement

Disaggregated Achievement Reflection

Performance Indicator:  Disaggregated Growth

Disaggregated Growth Reflection191

Performance Indicator:  English Language Development and Attainment

English Language Development and Attainment Reflection

Performance Indicator:  Other

Other Reflection

Performance Indicator:  Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness Reflection

Performance Indicator:  Student Behavior

Student Behavior Reflection

Performance Indicator:  Student Engagement

Student Engagement Reflection

192

Current Performance

Provide a description of the trend analysis that includes at least three years of data (state and local data). Trend statements should be provided inthe four performance indicator areas and by disaggregated groups. Trend statements should include the direction of the trend and a comparison(e.g. state expectations, state average) to indicate why the trend is notable.

Review of Current Performance:

During the summer of 2015, Martinez Elementary was awarded a Diagnostic Review Grant.  This grant was an important part of our Comprehensive Unified SchoolImprovement work because it verified some concerns about culture and climate already uncovered by the Leadership TEAM Martinez in May 2015 and in July 2015 with datafrom the TELL Survey and the Colorado Department of Education Turnaround School Rubric.  We know our academic, academic growth, and academic growth gaps are notmeeting State or District standards for excellence.  We applied for a Pathways Grant in the spring of 2016 to help us get off of Priority Improvement and improve the academicperformance of our students by improving our instructional practices throughout the building and in all content areas.  We will be completing an innovation plan for our schoolwhich will be finished in January 2017 and presented to the State Board of Education in April 2017.  We are also opting into learning and using Literacy Design Collaborativeto help us with stage three of UbD planning, strong instructional strategies.  We have also applied for a MSP grant to get the same leverage for high impact instructionalstrategies in math.    

Martinez Elementary will be entering Priority Improvement year five as of July 1, 2017.  We are currently identified as a Title 1 Focus school.  During the 2013-2014 schoolyear our one year academic scores indicated we did not meet Overall Rating for Academic Achievement.  40.23% of our students were proficient in reading, 31.42 percentagepoints below State expectations and down 2.86 percentage points from 2012-2013. We did improve our one year reading academic scores from 38.17% P & A in 2012 to43.09% P & A in 2013, however in 2014 the scores decreased to 40.23%.  For the first time there were advanced scores in third grade reading during both 2013 and 2014. 49.22% of our students were proficient in math in 2014 compared to 46.53% in 2013. We demonstrated increased math achievement in both 2013 and 2014.  Our mathproficiency was still 21.67 percentage points below State and Federal expectations.  25.68% of our students were proficient or advanced in writing in 2014 compared to27.35% P & A in 2013.  Martinez students were 27.84 percentage points below Federal and State expectations in writing.  We were ''Approaching'' in the area of OverallRating for Academic Growth.  Our Median Growth Percentile was 40 in reading, 40 in math, 37 in writing, and 34 in ELP.  We were 13 points below adequate growth inreading, 24 points below adequate growth in math and 32 points below adequate growth in writing.  We exceeded MAGP in ELP by 3 points.  Martinez was ''Approaching''expectations for Overall Rating for Growth Gaps.  Given State and local expectations are the same, we were underperforming compared to our local expectations as well.  In2015 our student took PARCC for the first time.  All assessments were online.  In 2015, 14.2% of our students scored a 4 or 5 on PARCC ELA assessments and in 2016 wewent up slightly with 18.3% of students scoring at a level 4 or 5 on ELA assessments.  In Math during the 2015 school year only 14.8% of our students scored at a level 4 or 5on PARCC Math and we scored virtually the same in 2016 with only 15% of students in grades 3-5 scoring a 4 or 5.  Our school performance challenges are high.  We are notmeeting our students’ needs in academic achievement with lower than expected growth and lack of meeting growth gaps in all subject areas.  When examining our data ourmagnitude challenge is meeting the needs of all ELL students, especially LEP students.  Over the past five years in all three content areas, reading, writing, and math, thepercent of LEP students who are proficient or advanced is well below the percent of FEP students who are proficient or advanced.  For example, in 2014, 14.8% of LEPstudents were proficient or advanced in reading compared to 62.2% of FEP students. 

:  In reading our current performance is below our targeted performance.  Our 2015 target performance was 10% increase in scores of 4 and 5, or ProficientREADING/Advanced scores.  Our academic achievement was 18.3%, which was an increase from 14.2% in 2015, but did not meet our goal.  Reading academic growth was slightlybelow our target as well.  Our growth goal was to demonstrate average to high growth on PARCC.  In reading our MGP was 45 and was rated as ‘Approaching’.   We set thesame goal for our disaggregated groups. All disaggregated groups were rated as ‘Approaching’.  ELA students MGP was 47, FaRM students MGP was 45.5, Minoritystudents MGP of 45.  We do not have enough students in the Students with Disabilities category to report.  193

 As we analyzed our reading data we noticed our students have not made the gains needed to close gaps and perform at higher levels of proficiency.  Our TCAP scores werebelow our expectations for all grade levels. We did see gains from 2012 to 2013, and then a decline from 2013 to 2014. Fourth grade was the only grade to demonstrate anincrease in Reading achievement in 2014.  Fourth grade scores improved from 31.61% P & A in 2013 to 37.8% P & A in 2014. Third grade reading achievement declined from51.81% P& A in 2013 to 43.4% P & A in 2014.  Fifth grade reading achievement declined 41.83% P & A in 2013 to 34.44% in 2014.  In 2015 PARCC became the Stateassessment.  Our percent of students scoring at a level 4 or 5 decreased dramatically compared to the previous year’s TCAP scores.  In 2015, only 14.2% of students scoredat the 4 or 5 level.  In 2016 the score went up but was still well below the 34.44% in 2014.  Only 18.3% of students scored at the 4 or 5 level.  Our subgroup data reflects whatwe have observed in other data through the years.  Our ELL students scored at the 16 percentile compared to the 12 percentile for FaRM students and Minority students. th th

Our MGP for all students was 45.  We were only one point below the District and 5 points below the State. This did not meet our expectation for high growth, but it was higherthan math and rated as ‘Approaching’ on our School Performance Framework.  In terms of sub groups English Learners had an MGP of 47, non-English Learners at 32,female students had an MGP of 49.5 while males had an MGP of 36.5, FaRM students 45.5, and Minority Students 45.   All were in the ‘Approaching’ range. When we duginto the breakdown of growth for our 4 and 5 grade students we were able to identify specific instructional practices which were present in 5 grade, which had theth th th

greatest growth at 55, which was higher than even the District at 49 and the State at 50.  Our growth for subgroups was inconsistent in reading, but it was better than math.  4 graders had MGP of 40, 4 less than the District and 10 less than the State. th

Our DIBELS scores improved in 2014.  First, second, third, and fourth grades had more students at benchmark at the end of 2014 than 2013.  The best gains were made infirst grade.  61% of first grade students were benchmark in 2014 compared to 79% of first graders at benchmark in 2014.  Only kindergarten and fifth grade had fewerstudents at benchmark.  Fifth grade experienced the greatest drop in the percent of students at benchmark from 53% in 2013 to 35% in 2014.  In 2015 we had mixed resultsfor DIBELS.  While kindergarten, first and fourth grades had fewer students at benchmark at the end of the year than the previous year, there was growth for second, third andfifth grades.  For the first time since we have given the DIBELS assessment more first grade students were benchmark at the end of the year than at the beginning. Kindergarten, first and fifth grades all had more students at benchmark at the end of the year than the beginning.  2nd grade had the best end of the year results since westarted using the DIBELS assessment with 63% of second graders at benchmark.  In 2016 our DIBELS grew from only 40% benchmark at the beginning of the year to 58% atthe end of the year.  A few grade levels had tremendous growth in the year.  Kindergarten went from 8% benchmark at the beginning of the year to 74% at the end of theyear.  Third grade students went from 51% at the beginning of the year to 65% benchmark at the end of the year.  4 graders went up 10% from 44% to 54%.  And only 25%th

of 5 graders were at benchmark at the beginning of the year compared to 48% at the end of the year.  First grade students dropped only slightly from 58% benchmark at theth

beginning of the year to 57% at the end of the year.  2 graders saw the biggest drop going from 64% benchmark at the beginning of the year to 54% at the end of the year. nd

 Read Plan Analysis:  At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year 116 students in K-3 were identified as having significant reading deficiencies or (SRD). This represents19% of our student population. Of the 116 students, most were third graders, (57%).  Students with an SRD were placed in leveled, targeted instruction groups for part of theirday.  These groups focused on phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency.   At the end of 2013-2014 only 22 students remained on a Read Plan.  In the fall of 2014, 82 morestudents were identified with significant reading deficiencies for a total of 104.  This group represented new students to our building and/or district, 62%, and the remaining38% were students who had been in our building the previous year.  This new total represented 17% of all students.  Students with an SRD are missing key basic phonics andphonemic awareness skills, as identified with the Phonics Benchmark Assessment in 2013 and with DIBELS Deep in 2014.  At the end of 2015 119 students were on a READplan.  No students exited READ plans at the end of the year.  In the fall of 2015 we added 13 new READ plans for a total of 132 which is 23% of our students.  In May of 2016six students were exited from read plans.  At the end of the 2015-2016 school year 170 students were on READ plans.  As of this date we have added 16 new students toread plan in the fall of 2016.  We are not meeting our goal of exiting students from READ plans.  We started a new reading program for all K-1 students at the beginning of the2015-2016 school year, RMSE Signature Edition.  The positive impact has been with kindergarten students.  The first grade students in 2015-2016 will experience threedifferent reading programs by the end of second grade, Houghton-Mifflin, RMSE, and Wonders.  The impact is in DIBELS data.  Students have lost ground and 1/3 of ourcurrent second graders are reading well below grade level.    194

  Our current performance in math is below our expected, targeted performance.  Our academic performance goal for 2016 was to increase the percent of studentsMATH:scoring at the 4 or 5 level on PARCC by 10%.  We did not meet this goal.  In 2015 we had only 14.8% of students scoring at the 4 or 5 level on PARCC and in 2016, only 15%of students were at the 4 or 5 level of PARCC.  In terms of growth, we did not meet our targets either.  We set a target of demonstrating average to high growth, but ourgrowth for all students was only 31.  We had a rating of ‘Does Not Meet’ on our School Performance Framework in all categories and disaggregated groups.  We were -11from the District MGP of 42 and -19 from the State MGP of 50.  4 grade had an MGP of 26, 14 below the District MGP of 40, and -24 from the State MGP of 50.  5 grade’sth th

MGP was 34.5 which was 8.5 below the District MGP of 43 and 15.5 below the State’s MGP of 50.  Our disaggregated groups were all below both the District and StateMGPs.  Our English Learners MGP was 30.5, Non-English Learners were at 34.  FaRM students’ MGP was 31. Female students had an MGP of 35.5 and male students hadan MGP of 27.5.  Minority students’ MGP was 31.  Math was our weakest area of PARCC.  In analyzing our past math data we noticed our students have not made enough gains to fully close academic achievement or growth gaps in math.  On TCAP 49.22% of ourstudents scored proficient or advanced.  Overall TCAP math data is flat over the past four years.  Only 5 grade had an increase in the percent of students P & A betweenth

2013 and 2014, from 31.82% P & A in 2013 to 38.89% in 2014.  Third grade has moved from 48.94% P & A in 2011 to 49.47% P & A in 2012 to 55.95% P & A in 2013.  In2014, 55.66% of 3 graders were P & A, almost identical to 2013. Fourth grade has moved from 45.98% P & A in 2011 to 48.78% P & A in 2012 to 51.65% P & A in 2013,rd

and dropped to 48.19% in 2014.  Local interim measures are reflective of TCAP scores.   Between 2012 and 2013, 3 graders moved from 31% at benchmark on Galileord

assessments to 44% benchmark on Galileo assessments. The percent of 3 graders at benchmark improved again in 2014 to 50%. The percent of 3rd graders at benchmarkrd

rose again at the end of 2015 with 55% of students at benchmark. Fourth grade stayed the same at 43% benchmark in 2012 and 2013.  The percent of fourth graders atbenchmark increased between 2013 and 2014 to 71%. In 2015 there was a dramatic decline in achievement with only 33% of 4th grade students meeting end of the yearbenchmarks.   Fifth grade did improve slightly moving from 31% benchmark to 33% benchmark between 2012 and 2013.  The percent of fifth graders at benchmark increasedagain in 2014 to 42%.  In 2015 this percent dropped to 25% WRITING:  Our academic achievement target for writing was 33.89% proficient or advanced on TCAP.  Our one year score academic score was 25.68% P&A.  Our academicperformance is below our target and State expectations. Our Academic Growth is also not meeting State expectations for our entire population as well as for our subgroups. Academic growth in writing was 37 with an MAGP of 66 which is well below expectations.  Our goal for writing was to have all students in all subgroups meet or exceedMAGP targets in two years and to increase the percent of students in the ''Catch UP'' category or on target to meet proficiency levels in three years from 19.3% to 30%.    Wedid not meet this target, only 19.6% of students were in the ''Catch Up'' category.  None of our subgroups met the MAGP this year.  FaRM students had an MGP of 37,minority students had a MGP of 39, ELL students had an MGP of 40, Non-ELLs had an MGP of 34, students needing to catch up had a MGP of 39, and females had an MGPof 42 while males had an MGP of 33. PARCC does not separate Writing in the new assessment model.  We pulled our information about how our students have performed from the student reports about eachcomponent of the ELA test, specifically the two sub categories:  Written Expression and Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions.  In 2015 21% of students met orexceeded expectations for Written Expression and 37% of students met or exceeded expectations for Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions.  18.9% of students nearlymet expectations for Written Expression and 18.5% of students nearly met expectations for Knowledge & Use of Conventions. In 2016, 32% of students met or exceededexpectations in Written Expression, ups11percentile points from 2015;  and 33% met or exceeded expectations in Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions, down 4percentile points from 2015.  20% of students nearly met expectations for Written Expression, up 1.1 percentile points from 2015; and 27% nearly met expectations forKnowledge & Use of Language Conventions which is up 8.5 percentile points from 2015.

In analyzing our writing data while we have not yet met our goals to help students reach higher levels of achievement in writing, we have some promising results.  This is thefirst time in more than a decade that our writing data was the highest performance data.  We insist on students writing with non-negotiables at every grade level every day. 195

With our focus in the coming year on LDC, we see promising practices for students in writing about their thinking on a daily basis.   

Trend Analysis

Review the DPF and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/federal expectations.

ELA: The percent of students proficient or advanced on CSAP/TCAP Reading is inconsistent from year to year. (49.41, 45.91, 38.87,43.09, and 40.23) The trend is flat over the past three years and down 9.18% between 2010 and 2014. In 2014 only 40.23% of studentsin grades 3 – 5 were proficient or advanced. In 2015, 14.2% of students scored at the 4 or 5 level on PARCC and in 2016 only 18.3% ofstudents in grades 3-5 scored at the 4 or 5 level. This is well below the State expectation of 71.65% by 30.42 percentile points. This is anotable trend.

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

ELA: Subgroups are not meeting State or District expectations - only 42.4% of FaRM students are P/A, 42.2% of Minority students are Por A and only 41.1% of our ELL students are P/A in 2014 on TCAP. In 2016 with the PARCC assessment, FaRM students scored at the12th percentile, Minority students also scored at the 12th percentile, and ELL students scored at the 16th percentile, the highest in allgroups including all students in ELA.

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

ELA: Over the past five years the percent of FEPs scoring P/A on TCAP was significantly higher than the percent of LEPs. 2010: 41.3%of LEPS scored P/A and 93.75% of FEPs scored P/A. 2011: 35.4% of LEPS scored P/A and 82% of FEPs scored P/A; 2012: 19.13% ofLEPS scored P/A and 74,42% of FEPs scored P/A; 2013: 25.23% of LEPS scored P/A and 81% of FEPs scored P/A; 2014: 24.9% ofLEPS scored P/A and 79.55% of FEPs scored P/A.

Trend Direction: - Notable Trend: - Performance Indicator Target: Stable Yes Academic Achievement (Status)

Math: Although our current percent of student P/A demonstrated a slight improvement over the past two years with 46.53% of ourstudents at P/A in 2011, and 49.22% of our students P/A in 2014, we are still a full 21.67 percentile points below State Expectations.Only 5.4% of our students are on track to Catch Up to proficient levels of achievement for math which means we are not showing enoughgrowth to help our children reach expected levels of proficiency. Our PARCC data in 2015 and 2016 is low. In 2015 only 14.8% ofstudents scored in the 4 and 5 levels. In 2016 only 15% of students scored at the 4 or 5 level.

Trend Direction: - Notable Trend: - Performance Indicator Target: Decreasing Yes Academic Achievement (Status)196

Most subgroups are scoring very close to one another with one difference. The percent of FEP students who are P/A is about 40percentage points higher than LEP students consistently over the past five years. This is notable as it is the same trend in reading andwriting.

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

We have plateaued in writing and are not improving. Overall only 27.35% of our students are P/A in writing. Although we improved in thepast year by 5.46 percentile points, we are still well below State expectations of 54.84%. This is a difference of 27.52% points. We arestill below District and State expectations, however we have shown some growth in sub categories outscoring how we performed onTCAP. In 2015, 21% of students scored at the 4 or 5 level in Written Expression, and 37% of students scored at 4 or 5 levels inKnowledge & Use of Language Conventions. In 2016, 32% of students scored at the 4 or 5 level in Written Expression while 33% scored

at the 4 or 5 level in Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions. We are still below expectations. This was our highest area of achievement inboth 2015 and 2016.

Trend Direction: - Notable Trend: - Performance Indicator Target: Decreasing then increasing Yes Academic Achievement (Status)

Reading academic growth has been low. In 2014 the MGP was 26.1%. In 2016, with the change to PARCC, Reading and Writing werecombined into one assessment. For ELA in 2016 the MGP was 45 for all students and was approaching the State expectations of 50.Subgroups were also approaching: English Learners at 47, FaRM at 45.5 and Minority Students at 45.

Trend Direction: - Notable Trend: - Performance Indicator Target: Increasing Yes Academic Growth

Math MGP continues to drop over time. In 2014 our MGP in math was 40. In 2016 with the change to PARCC our MGP dropped to 31 forAll Students well below the state expectations for growth at 50 . English Learners had an MGP of 30.5. Both FaRM and Minority StudentsMGP’s were 31. There were not enough Students with Disabilities to report a math growth score.

Trend Direction: - Notable Trend: - Performance Indicator Target: Decreasing Yes Academic Growth

Additional Trend Information:

197

Priority Performance Challenges and Root Cause Analysis

Review the DPF and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/federal expectations. Priority PerformanceChallenges and Root Cause Analysis Priority Performance Challenges: Identify notable trends (or a combination of trends) that are the highestpriority to address (priority performance challenges). No more than 3-5 are recommended. Provide a rationale for why these challenges have beenselected and address the magnitude of the school's overall performance challenges. Root Cause: Identify at least one root cause for every priorityperformance challenge. Root causes should address adult actions, be under the control of the school, and address the priority performancechallenge(s). Provide evidence that the root cause was verified through the use of additional data. A description of the selection process for thecorresponding major improvement strategies is recommended.

Relationship of UIP Elements

Priority Performance Challenges Root Cause

Declining Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in ReadingBest First InstructionCulture and Climate

Low Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in MathBest First InstructionCulture and Climate

198

Low Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in WritingBest First InstructionCulture and Climate

ELP Academic GrowthBest First InstructionCulture and Climate

Provide a rationale for why these challenges have been selected and address the magnitude of the overall performance challenges:

Martinez students are losing ground in reading achievement over the past three years.  Although we had some improvement in 2013, achievement declined in 2014 to 40.23%,31.42 percentile points below the State expectation of 71.65%.  Achievement continued to decline with the change to PARCC in both 2015 and 2016.  While there was a smallrise in achievement between 2015 and 2016, (14.2% in 2015 to 18.3% in 2016) it is not enough to ensure rigorous standards will be met by all students in the area of reading. 199

This notable trend is reflected in disaggregated subgroups including:  FaRM at 39.5%, minority at 40.57%; and ELA at 40%.  These sub groups are also below the State andDistrict expectations for achievement by approximately 30 percentile points per group. The only group to consistently score above State and District expectations is our FEPstudents.   The percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient level within three years in reading is declining overall from 34.1% in 2010 to 26.1% in 2014. Over time thegap between MGP and MAGP for all students and for disaggregated groups has grown wider.  FaRM, Minority, ELL, and CU students continue to fall further behind and the gapcontinues to increase from -5 in 2010 to -16 in 2014 for FaRM students, from -5 in 2010 to -14 in 2014 for minority students, from 0 in 2010 to -14 in 2014 for ELL students andfrom -5 in 2010 to -26 in 2014 for CU students. Notable trends were determined by close examination of the data. Using the 5 Whys protocol we determined we are not gettingthe results we would expect given our focus on decoding for accuracy, improving fluency and addressing comprehension concerns because our students are not applyinglearned comprehension strategies and skills and the level of cognitive demand expected in the standards.  We used other local data to help us make this determination.  Westarted with DIBELS. We noticed our students were struggling not only with rate, but with accuracy of their reading as well.  We did see improvement in the data concerningreading accuracy.  Rate was not high enough to help students meet the benchmark composite scores in most cases.  Upon further examination we found through our PhonicsBenchmark Assessment that most students were not fluent in their phonics understanding and application on more difficult phonics skills. There were fewer gaps in basicphonics, the ability to decode two syllable and multisyllabic words seemed to be in part lack of mastery of more difficult phonics and not enough fluency in decoding skills to be atgrade level. We also noted students who are unable to decode multisyllabic words with fluency and accuracy were lacking in comprehension skills.  These students are unable toaccess academic vocabulary which impedes their learning and understanding of grade level material. Language for Learning assessments were used with all kindergarten, firstand second grade students.  This data verified our notable trends as well.  ELL, FaRM, ESS and Minority students area all struggling with content vocabulary and academicvocabulary.  Not only did our second language learners place into the program, our non-minority students who live in poverty also place tested into the program, deepening ourunderstanding of the data that students do not have access to the academic vocabulary to be successful readers.  Based upon all data and observations of our data, the

is that students overall are not making adequate progress over time as exhibited in academic achievement scores as well as growth scores.  Students in subNOTABLE TREND groups of free and reduced meals, minority and ELA are also not exhibiting academic growth or academic achievement over time. It was of great concern to note the percent ofLEP students who score P or A on TCAP is much less than FEP students. This trend is true for the past five years.  In 2014 the percent of LEP students P&A was 24.9%compared to 79.55% of FEP students This trend is of magnitude because it is true in writing and math as well. In 2015 on 14.2% of students scored in the 4 and 5 range and in2016 only 18.3% of students scored in the 4 and 5 range on PARCC. 

Although our current percent of student proficient or advanced in the area of Math demonstrated a slight improvement over the past two years with 46.53% of our students at P &A in 2011 and 49.22% of our students P & A in 2014, we are still a full 21.67 percentage points below State Expectations.  In 2015 with the change to PARCC, our math scoresdecreased dramatically from 49.2% proficient in 2014 to 14.8% in 2015 and only 15% in 2016. Only 5.4% of our students are in the Catch Up category for math which means weare not showing enough growth to help our children reach expected levels of proficiency within three years. Our percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient levelwithin three years in math is declining overall.  We have dropped from an MGP of 54 in 2010 to an MGP of 40 in 2014.  Over time the gap between MGP and MAGP for allstudents and for disaggregated groups has grown wider, particularly for students who need to catch up.  They continue to fall behind and the gap continues to increase.  (Gap forCatch Up students is 24 compared to 9 in 2010.) Notable trends in math were identified after careful examination of the data.  Our focus question was why are our students notachieving at higher levels given our focus on standards with data teams?   As with reading, we used the 5 Whys protocol to find our most notable trends and our priorityimprovement challenge.  Our trend data from TCAP and Galileo indicates our students are not achieving or making adequate growth or enough growth to close the gaps and helpstudents achieve at higher levels.  Only 49.22% of our students were P & A on TCAP.  While this is up from the previous three years, we are still not meeting State and Districtexpectations.  As we began to dig through our data we pulled in additional data from Math Perspectives and Assessing Math Concepts. Assessing Math Concepts is anassessment we use to help us understand a child’s sense of number and if he/she understands the conceptual part of math, not just the facts of math. AMC helps us provide asolid Tier II intervention for students during Numeracy Time.  We noted the growth for third and fourth graders in number sense (STD 1) in the past was strong, but it fell in 2014. We also noted that students in third and fourth grades showed improved achievement overall on TCAP in both 2012 and 2013 with a slight decrease in 2014.  Fifth grade did notshow growth in 2012 and 2013, but did in 2015. One of the lowest areas for fifth grade was number sense.  Keeping this in mind we looked at our Accessing Math Concepts(AMC) data to see if there were trends in this data.  It appeared that students who were at an expected level of achievement on AMC and who were working in a station matchedto their needs as learners were doing better in math on EDM and on Galileo. We tracked our students who scored ‘advanced’ in math on the 2013 and 2014 TCAP and found200

consistently that students who were working in Book 9 or higher and had fact fluency were ‘advanced’ on TCAP.  Students who were working below expected levels and whowere not making growth in the Critical Learning Phases were not reaching proficient levels of achievement in EDM, Galileo or TCAP.  It was also of great concern and a trend ofmagnitude that the percent of LEP students scoring P & A was on average 40 percentile points below FEP students.  This trend is important as it is found in reading and writingas well. These facts became a   adult actions to instruct rigorous standards at grade level is not in place.  Teachers struggle to deeply understand theNOTABLE TREND: standards and to implement meaningful instruction to fill numeracy gaps and to teach grade level content effectively.  This notable trend was verified by our significant drop inachievement with the change to PARCC which does assess standards.  We also can verify this trend by our own local data and our low data scores on all Math Moduleassessments.   

Past data would support we are not meeting expectations for writing.  New data indicates we are starting to make some positive changes and are growing in this content.  In thetwo subcategories for ELA which pertain to writing in 2015 21% of students were meeting or exceeding expectations in Written Expression and 37% in Knowledge & Use ofLanguage Conventions and in 2016 32% of students met or exceeded expectations in Written Expression and 33% in Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions.  While this isnot where we want to be, we are able to identify reasons for this growth and can duplicate what works. Our most notable trend in writing is students do not make any growth inwriting over a period of five years prior to 2015.  It was notable to our team that students are not making growth in grammar usage or mechanics given we use Daily LanguageInstruction which provides direct instruction in both grammar and mechanics.  Our local interim measures support this same notable trend.  Students perform lower on Galileowriting benchmarks, which tend to assess more grammar and mechanics skills.  While students do better on District Writing Assessments, students lowest performing componentof these assessments are also mechanics and grammar as determined when we looked at specific rubric scores.  Our most in writing is that students are notNOTABLE TRENDmaking growth in writing over a period of time.  It is also of notable concern we have such a difference in the performance of LEPs and FEPs in reading, math and writing.   Science:In our 2016 Science results we are examining what students can and cannot do as we move forward to pursue STEAM as a focus in our building through project based learning. All of our students were at the 11 percentile in Science performance in 2016.  We will use this as the baseline for our work in the coming year.  th

Provide a rationale for how these Root Causes were selected and verified:

Root causes for our school were identified through three months of work starting on May 22, 2015, with Leadership TEAM Martinez.  We meet forone full day to review the TELL survey as well as to conduct a self-assessment using the Colorado Department of Education Turnaround SchoolRubric.  The alignment of these two documents helped us identify some adult issues which are blocking our ability to move forward.  In particularour culture of trust in the building.  We also  used the rubrics to discuss our implementation of high quality first instruction.  This team believed wewere not consistent throughout the building with implementation of practices we had identified at the beginning of the year including objectives forlearning and ELD strategies and scaffolds.  This team met again in July and August after Leadership training with District 6 to plan for improvementof instruction in our school and how to improve school climate and culture.    In September of 2015 a Diagnostic Review of Martinez was conductedwith Focused Leadership Solutions.  Through their review of our building they identified several areas which we could address through 8 standardsfor high performing schools.  Based upon their results and what we had pulled from the TELL survey and the Turnaround school rubric we believewe have identified two root causes which if addressed will improve our student results for achievement in all academic areas including Reading,Math, and Writing as well as improve growth for all students and close any gaps in performance between sub groups.  Those two root causes areimprovement of instruction with best first instruction and improve culture and climate.  In May of 2016, Leadership TEAM Martinez supported our

201

root causes and when the data from PARCC was presented in October of 2016, we verified our root causes for our school.  We must change theculture and the level of instruction in our building in order to move forward and get high growth from our students.

Additional Narrative / Conclusion

202

Section IV: Target Setting, Major Improvement Strategies and Action Plans

Target Setting

Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, and postsecondary andDirections:workforce readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met;targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures thatwill be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.

Priority Performance Challenge : Declining Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in Reading

Performance Indicator: Academic Achievement (Status)

Measures / Metrics: R

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase the percent of students scoring in the meets or exceeds category ofPARCC Literacy assessment from the 12th percentile in 2016 to 30th percentile in 2017.

2017-2018: We will increase the percent of students scoring in the meets or exceeds category ofPARCC Literacy assessment from the 30th percentile in 2017, to 40th percentile in 2018.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will increase our % of students at Benchmark on DIBELS: Kindergarten from 74% atbenchmark in 2016 to 80% at benchmark in 2017. First grade from 57% at benchmark in2016 to 70% at benchmark in 2017. Second grade from 54% at benchmark in 2016 to60% in 2017. Third grade from 65% in 2016 to 70% in 2017. Fourth grade from 54% in2016 to 60% in 2017. Fifth grade from 48% in 2016 to 60% in 2017. We will increase thepercent of students in grades 2 through 5 scoring at proficient or advanced levels oneach of the Reading Common assessments throughout the year by 10 percent each.

203

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Measures / Metrics: R

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase the percentile rank of students in subgroups in 2017 by: All Studentsfrom 12 to 30. English Learners from 16 to 35. FaRM Students from 12 to 30. MinorityStudents from 12 to 30.

2017-2018: We will increase the percentile rank of students in subgroups in 2018 by: All Studentsfrom 30 to 40. English Learners from 35 to 45. FaRM Students from 30 to 40. MinorityStudents from 30 to 40.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will use DIBLES data to measure progress of our subgroups. We will identifystudents in each category and grow each sub group by 10 percentile points each in 2017.Subgroups to be tracked will include ELA, FaRM, and Minority students. We will alsotrack student progress using our Reading Common assessment. We will target a 10%growth on all reading commons for all students in 2017.

Performance Indicator: Academic Growth

Measures / Metrics: R

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase our MGP for all students in English Language Arts from 45 in 2016 to 55in 2017.

2017-2018: We will increase our MGP for all students in English Language Arts from 55 in 2017 to 65in 2018.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will increase our % of students at Benchmark on DIBELS: Kindergarten from 74% atbenchmark in 2016 to 80% at benchmark in 2017. First grade from 57% at benchmark in2016 to 70% at benchmark in 2017. Second grade from 54% at benchmark in 2016 to60% in 2017. Third grade from 65% in 2016 to 70% in 2017. Fourth grade from 54% in2016 to 60% in 2017. Fifth grade from 48% in 2016 to 60% in 2017. We will increase thepercent of students in grades 2 through 5 scoring at proficient or advanced levels oneach of the Reading Common assessments throughout the year by 10 percent each.

204

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Growth

Measures / Metrics: R

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase our MGP in all Disaggregated groups in 2017: English Learners from 47to 51. FaRM from 45.5 to 51. Minority Students from 45 to 51.

2017-2018: We will increase our MGP in all Disaggregated groups in 2018: English Learners to 55.FaRM to 55. Minority Students to 55.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will increase our % of students at Benchmark on DIBELS: Kindergarten from 74% atbenchmark in 2016 to 80% at benchmark in 2017. First grade from 57% at benchmark in2016 to 70% at benchmark in 2017. Second grade from 54% at benchmark in 2016 to60% in 2017. Third grade from 65% in 2016 to 70% in 2017. Fourth grade from 54% in2016 to 60% in 2017. Fifth grade from 48% in 2016 to 60% in 2017. We will increase thepercent of students in grades 2 through 5 scoring at proficient or advanced levels oneach of the Reading Common assessments throughout the year by 10 percent each.

Priority Performance Challenge : Low Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in Math

Performance Indicator: Academic Achievement (Status)

Measures / Metrics: M

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase the percent of students scoring in the meeting or exceeds math areas ofPARCC from 15% in 2016 to 25% in 2017 and to 35% in 2018.

2017-2018: We will increase the percent of students scoring in the meets or exceeds math areas ofPARCC from 25% in 2017 to 35% in 2018 and to 45% in 2019.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will track progress on our Math Module assessments throughout 2016-2017. Ourtarget will be to increase the percent of students scoring at the proficient or advancedranges by 10% from the previous year.

205

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Achievement

Measures / Metrics: M

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase the percentile rank of students in Math on PARCC: All students from 12in 2016 to 30 in 2017. English Language Learners from 18 in 2016 to 35 in 2017. FaRMStudents from 12 in 2016 to 30 in 2017. Minority Students from 12 in 2016 to 30 in 2017.

2017-2018: We will increase the percentile rank of students in Math on PARCC: All students from 30in 2017 to 45 in 2018. English Language Learners from 35 in 2017 to 50 in 2018. FaRMStudents from 30 in 2017 to 45 in 2018. Minority Students from 30 in 2017 to 45 in 2018.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will track progress on our Math Module assessments throughout 2016-2017. Ourtarget will be to increase the percent of students scoring at the proficient or advancedranges by 10% from the previous year.

Performance Indicator: Academic Growth

Measures / Metrics: M

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase the MGP of all of our students in the area of Math on PARCC from 31 in2016 to 50 in 2017.

2017-2018: We will increase the MGP of all of our students in the area of Math on PARCC to 55 in2018.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will track progress on our Math Module assessments throughout 2016-2017. Ourtarget will be to increase the percent of students scoring at the proficient or advancedranges by 10% from the previous year.

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Growth

Measures / Metrics: M

Annual

2016-2017: We will increase the MGP of all of our students and disaggregated groups in the area ofMath on PARCC: All students from 31 to 55. English Language Learners from 30.5 to 55.206

PerformanceTargets

FaRM Students from 31 to 55. Minority Students from 31 to 55.

2017-2018: We will increase the MGP of all of our students and disaggregated groups in the area ofMath on PARCC: All students from 55 to 70. English Language Learners from 55 to 70.FaRM Students from 55 to 70. Minority Students from 55 to 70.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will track progress on our Math Module assessments throughout 2016-2017. Ourtarget will be to increase the percent of students scoring at the proficient or advancedranges by 10% from the previous year.

Priority Performance Challenge : Low Performance and Growth/Growth Gaps in Writing

Performance Indicator: Academic Achievement (Status)

Measures / Metrics: W

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will increase the percent of students scoring at the meets or exceeds level ofachievement on two subcategories of the PARCC ELA assessment, Written Expressionand Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions. Written Expression from 32% in 2016to 40% in 2017. Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions from 33% in 2016 to 40% in2017.

2017-2018: We will increase the percent of students scoring at the meets or exceeds level ofachievement on two subcategories of the PARCC ELA assessment, Written Expressionand Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions. Written Expression from 40% in 2017to 50% in 2018. Knowledge & Use of Language Conventions from 40% in 2017 to 50% in2018.

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will increase the percent of students scoring a 4 on the last question of the ReadingCommon in grades 2 through 5 by 10% on each common assessment.

Priority Performance Challenge : ELP Academic Growth207

Performance Indicator: Disaggregated Growth

Measures / Metrics: ELA

AnnualPerformance

Targets

2016-2017: We will move students up one or more proficiency levels on WIDA ACCESS by thefollowing: Level 1 to Level 2 or above from 91% in 2016 to 95% in 2017 Level 2 to Level3 or above from 77% in 2016 to 80% in 2017 Level 3 to Level 4 or above from 86% in2016 to 90% in 2017 Level 4 to Level 5 or 6 from 80% in 2016 to 84% in 2017

2017-2018: We will move students up one or more proficiency levels on WIDA ACCESS by thefollowing: Level 1 to Level 2 or above from 95% in 2017 to 98% in 2018 Level 2 to Level3 or above from 80% in 2017 to 85% in 2018 Level 3 to Level 4 or above from 90% in2017 to 92% in 2018 Level 4 to Level 5 or 6 from 84% in 2017 to 88% in 2018

Interim Measures for 2016-2017: We will increase our % of students at Benchmark on DIBELS: Kindergarten from 74% atbenchmark in 2016 to 80% at benchmark in 2017. First grade from 57% at benchmark in2016 to 70% at benchmark in 2017. Second grade from 54% at benchmark in 2016 to60% in 2017. Third grade from 65% in 2016 to 70% in 2017. Fourth grade from 54% in2016 to 60% in 2017. Fifth grade from 48% in 2016 to 60% in 2017. We will monitor ourEnglish Language Learners throughout the year by reducing the number of students whodo not meet academic criteria as set by our District who are identified as our watchstudents by 10% over the year.

208

Planning Form

Major Improvement StrategyName:

Best First Instruction

Major Improvement StrategyDescription:

All instructional staff members will provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instructionthat engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery in all contentareas, specifically literacy and math to provide equity and access for all students, includingELD, FaRM and Catch-Up.

Associated Root Causes:

Focused Leadership Solutions who conducted our Diagnostic Review, observed variable implementation forBest First Instruction:effective use of Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessments and Frequent and Timely Feedback.(present in only 34% to 66% of classrooms observed) The team observed minimal implementation for Effective Use of LearningTargets/Goals, use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students taking Responsibility for Learning and PeersSharing Responsibility for Learning. (present in less than 34% of classrooms observed) Engaging and research-based instruction isinconsistent and without deep implementation of eleven common high effect-size instructional practices. Those practices are: ClassroomLearning Environment, Classroom Management, Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessment,Frequent and Timely Feedback, Learning Targets/Goals, Use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, StudentsTaking Responsibility for Learning, and Peers Sharing Responsibility for Learning.

Action Steps Associated with MIS

Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status School Year

Instructional DataTeams

Updated trainingwill be provided toall certified stafffor continuedimplementation ofthe data teamprocess.

08/23/201005/26/2017

Student data fromformativeassessments.Curriculumplanningmaterialsincluding

Certified teachingstaff CoachAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

209

Coaching andsupport will beprovidedthroughout theyear to ensureproperimplementation ofdata teams. Datateams will bescheduled everyTuesday tosupport teachersin use ofanalyzed data toplan and ensuresthe success of allstudentsincluding, ELD,FaRM, and CatchUp students. Aspart of thisprocess teacherswill use their UbDplans for studentunderstandingsand essentialquestions forpriority standardsto drive theconversationabout studentachievement ofthose standards.Tier 1 and Tier 2rigorous, qualityinstruction andinterventions willbe discussed anddocumented.Data from

CurriculumGuides, UbDplans, Wonders,Being a Writer,Engage NY andAMC Time setaside during plantimes for analysis

210

instructional datateams will helpform day to dayhigh qualityinstruction in theclassrooms.

of student workand planning.Time with coach.

Understanding byDesignImplementation

Teachers willcontinue toimplementUnderstanding byDesign as theplanning processfor reading andmath.Implementationwill includeworking with thecoaches andadministratorsduring the firstyear to ensurefidelity with theprocess and as asupport forimplementation inthe first yearworking towardindependent usein the future tobecome a part ofthe way we dobusiness atMartinez.

08/17/201505/15/2017

Books:Understanding ByDesign, byWiggins andMcTighe:EssentialQuestions, byWiggins andMcTighe, TheCommon CoreCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byBlauman andBurke; TheCommon CoreMathematicsCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byGojak and HarbinMiles Planningmaterialsincluding DistrictCurriculumGuides, State andDistrictStandards,WondersReading, EngageNY, AssessingMath ConceptsPlanningProfessional

InstructionalCoachesTeaching StaffAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

211

DevelopmentTime on MondayEarly Release

Understanding byDesignCollaborativePlanning byTeams

Each team willuse theUnderstanding byDesign process toplan Math Unitsof Study andSTEAM units ofstudy and Art,Music, and PEteachers willdesign UbD unitsaround theirstandards at leastfour times peryear. Teams willuse early releasetime on Mondaysidentified byadministration toplan for their unitswith theassistance of thecoach andadministrators.From the wholeunit of UbD,smaller weeklyplans using LDCwill be planned tofit under the UbDunit plan. Teamswill plan withcoaches for thesesmaller unitswithin UbD

08/17/201505/15/2017

Books:Understanding byDesign, byWiggins andMcTighe;EssentialQuestions, byWiggins andMcTighe; TheCommon CoreCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byBlauman andBurke; TheCommon CoreMathematicsCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byGojak and HarbinMiles Planningand ProfessionalDevelopmentTime on MondayEarly Releaseand WeeklyCommon PlanTimes

InstructionalCoach CertifiedTeaching StaffAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

Learning Targets Staff will research 01/11/2016 Books: Learning Certified Staff In Progress This School Year212

and SuccessCriteria

and implementeffective use ofLearning Targetsand SuccessCriteria in theclassroom toimproveperformance ofstudents includingELD, FaRM, andCatch Upstudents.Teachers willreceiveprofessionaldevelopment towrite appropriatelearning targetswith alignedsuccess criteriafor reading andmath as part ofthe work towardimproving studentlearning of Stateand Localstandards.

05/15/2017 Targets: Helpingstudents Aim forUnderstanding inToday's Lesson,by Moss andBrookhart;Designing andTeachingLearning Goalsand Objectives:ClassroomStrategies ThatWork, byMarzano; TheCommon CoreCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byBlauman andBurke; TheCommon CoreMathematicsCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byGojak and HarbinMilesProfessionaldevelopment timeduring earlyrelease MondaysPlanning timewith instructionalcoaches

InstructionalCoachesAdministrators

Understanding byDesignProfessionalDevelopement

Teachers willparticipate inprofessionaldevelopmentsessions toimprove

08/22/201605/15/2017

Books:Understanding byDesign, byWiggins andMcTighe;Essential

InstructionalCoaches CertifiedTeaching StaffAdministration

In Progress This School Year

213

implementationand use ofUnderstanding byDesign planningprocesses forReading, Math,STEAM

Questions, byWiggins andMcTighe; TheCommon CoreCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byBlauman andBurke; TheCommon CoreMathematicsCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byGojak and HarbinMiles PlanningMaterialsincluding DistrictCurriculumGuides, State andDistrictStandards,WondersReading, EngageNY; AssessingMath ConceptsPlanning andProfessionalDevelopmentTime on MondayEarly ReleaseWork with LDC

FormativeAssessments ofStudent Learning

Staff will researchand implementeffectiveformativeassessmentstrategies for usein classrooms.formative

11/28/201605/15/2017

Books:TransformativeAssessment, byPopham;AdvancingFormativeAssessment: AGuide for

CertifiedTeaching StaffCoachAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

214

assessments willbe designed andimplemented inliteracy and mathclassrooms toinforminstructionaldecision makingprocesses and toimprove studentlearning throughanalysis ofstudent workduringinstructional datateams. All studentgroups willimproveacademicsuccess throughformativeassessemtnsincluding ELD,FaRM, and CatchUp students.

InstructionalLeaders, byMoss; EmbeddedFormativeAssessment, byWiliam; TheCommon CoreCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byBlauman andBurke; TheCommon CoreMathematicsCompanion: TheStandardsDecoded byGojak and HarbinMilesProfessionalDevelopmenttime on earlyrelease Mondays.Coaching staffmade availablefor planning.

Frequent andTimely Feedbackfor Students

Staff will researchand thenimplementeffective use ofFrequent andTimely Feedbackfor students in theclassroom toimproveperformance ofstudents includingELD, FaRM, andCatch Upstudents.

11/28/201605/26/2017

Books: How toGive Feedback toYour Students, byBrookhart; VisibleLearning, byHattieProfessionalDevelopmenttime on earlyrelease Mondays

CertifiedTeaching StaffCoachAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

215

Teachers willreceiveprofessionaldevelopment andpractice in givingfrequent andtimely feedbackto students aspart of the worktoward improvingstudent learningof State andLocal Standards.

Math & ScienceProject

A team ofteachersrepresenting eachunit willparticipate in theMath & ScienceProject Grant tosupport changinginstruction inmath to be morerigorous andfocused on theneeds of studentsin relation tomeeting mathstandards.Teachers willtrain together andthen implementthe strategies intheir classroomswith the intentionof training the restof the staff. Theresults will beincreasedachievement of

01/16/201705/21/2018

Grant Money,Professionaldevelopment time

Trainers fromUNC DAASupport TeachersCoachesAdministrators

Not Started This School Year

216

all students anddisaggregatedgroups onPARCC in math.

Literacy DesignCollaborative

Teachers will usethe literacydesigncollaborativeprocess to planstage three ofUnderstanding byDesign plans forreading andSTEAM.Teachers will beable to addressstronginstructionalstrategies usingthis process withsupport from theState and Districtas well ascoaching staff.

01/30/201705/21/2018

Professionaldevelopment timeon Mondays towork with otherLDC leadteachers in ourbuilding to planusing the LDCtemplates andstandards

Lead Teachersfor LDC (onerepresentativefrom each unit),Coach,Administrators,Amy Spicer,Emily Yenny

Not Started This School Year

Innovation Plan Teachers and theMartinezCommunity willdesign anInnovation Plan tobe submitted tothe State in Aprilof 2017. The planwill beimplementedbeginning in the2017-2018School year with

06/19/201705/18/2020

Innovation Plan,Time to plan,Time toimplement

Staff of MartinezParents ofMartinez DistrictAdministrationBoard ofEducationBuildingAdministrators

In Progress Next School Year

217

specific actionsteps named inour UIP.

Implementation Benchmark Associated with MIS

Action StepName(Association)

IB Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status School Year

Understanding byDesignProfessionalDevelopement,Understanding byDesignImplementation,Understanding byDesignCollaborativePlanning byTeams,FormativeAssessments ofStudent Learning,Learning Targetsand SuccessCriteria, LiteracyDesignCollaborative,Math & ScienceProject,Innovation Plan,

Successfulimplementationand planningusingUnderstanding byDesign.

Teachers willconnectprofessionaldevelopment forthe overallframework ofUnderstanding byDesign and itscomponentsincludingLearning Targets,Success Criteria,EmbeddedFormativeAssessments toenhance stages1, 2, and 3 ofUbD. Teacherswill successfullyuse LiteracyDesignCollaborative asthe planning forstage three ofUbD asevidenced bysubmitted UbDplans andobservationaldata.

08/22/201605/15/2017Weekly

ClassroomTeachers,Coaches,Administrators

Partially Met This School Year

218

FormativeAssessments ofStudent Learning,Learning Targetsand SuccessCriteria,Instructional DataTeams, Frequentand TimelyFeedback forStudents, LiteracyDesignCollaborative,Math & ScienceProject,Innovation Plan,

Student Work andData

Teachers willcollect studentwork to providefeedback and touse in the datateam process toimprove planninginstruction andindividualizeinstruction

08/22/201605/15/2017Weekly

ClassroomTeachers,Coaches,Administrators

Partially Met This School Year

Understanding byDesignProfessionalDevelopement,Understanding byDesignImplementation,Understanding byDesignCollaborativePlanning byTeams,FormativeAssessments ofStudent Learning,Learning Targetsand SuccessCriteria,Instructional DataTeams, Frequentand TimelyFeedback forStudents, LiteracyDesign

AcademicImprovement inReading andMath

Students'academicsuccess inreading and mathwill increase.Data from localcommonassessments willbe used throughthe school yearincludingLanguage ArtsCommon, MathModuleAssessments,DIBELS, andDistrictBenchmarks inreading andmath.

08/29/201605/15/2017Monthly

ClassroomTeachers,Coaches,Administrators

Not Met This School Year

219

Collaborative,Math & ScienceProject,Innovation Plan,

Major Improvement StrategyName:

Culture and Climate

Major Improvement StrategyDescription:

All staff members will work together to function as an effective learning community and supporta climate conducive to performance excellence for students and staff, to provide equity andaccess for all students, including ELD, FaRM and Catch-Up.

Associated Root Causes:

Staff feedback from both the Diagnostic Review Team (Focused Leadership Solutions) and the TELL surveyCulture and Climate:indicate a lack of trust among colleagues that teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about students and their ability to learn is high. Staffreports they do not believe all teachers have a strong belief that all students can learn at high levels regardless of their background. Thestaff also report they do not believe all educators put forth needed effort to ensure all students achieve high academic standards.

Action Steps Associated with MIS

Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status School Year

Decision MakingProcess

Define decisionmaking processwithin the buildingto clearly defineroles andfunctions ofadministrationand teacherleaders, howinput will begathered from the

11/30/201505/15/2017

Flow chart fordecisionsDefinition forterms on flowchart ConsensusTraining

Leadership TEAMMartinez StaffAdministratorsDistrict SupportStaff

In Progress This School Year

220

largest number ofstakeholders andhowcommunicationabout decisionswill be thoroughand effective.

Mission, Visionand BeliefStatements

Staff will clearlydefine the vision,mission and beliefstatements of ourschool to bedeeplyunderstood andembedded in theschool by allstakeholdersincluding parents,teachers,students, staff,and thecommunity. wewill communicatethe purpose anddirection of theschool throughthe missionstatement as wellas create corebelief statementsabout teachingand learning forall stakeholders.We will create a'this is how we dobusiness'document toprovide explicitexpectations forperformance

01/11/201605/15/2017

DiagnosticReview, TellSurvey, ColoradoDepartment ofEducationTurnaroundSchool RubricOur createdVision andMissionDocument

All StaffAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

221

including how wetreat one anotherand how we treatstudents.

ConflictResolution andConsensusTraining

All staff will learnto handle conflictsand to developprotocols foractions - What doyou do if youmust confrontsomeone aboutnot meetingbuildingexpectations?How do you havedifficultconversationswith others andnot break theprofessionalrelationship? Staffwill participate inconflict resolutiontraining andconsensusbuilding toimproverelationships.Leadership TEAMMartinez will alsoparticipate inConsensustraining providedby the district inthe summer of2016. TheLeadership TEAM

07/25/201605/15/2017

Trainer forConflictResolutionMaterials forProfessionalDevelopment.

All staffAdministratorsDistrict Support

In Progress This School Year

222

will then train theother staff in thisprocess.

Expectations forPerformance

Defineexpectations forperformance forall staff. ie: Howis every staffmember, withinthemselves andamong theircolleaguesfunctioning orexpected tofunction as abenevolent,competent,reliable, honestand openprofessional?Clearly definewhat each termmeans in relationto the work andhow we hold oneanotheraccountable totheseexpectations.Define ways toapproach oneanother when weare not meetingtheseexpectations.

11/28/201605/15/2017

TeacherEffectivenessRubric "Way wedo business"documentMission, Vision,Belief StatementsTell SurveyDiagnosticReview ColoradoDepartment ofEducationTurnaroundSchools Rubric

All Staff CoachesAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

Collaborative andVertical PlanningTime

A differentiated,job-embeddedprofessionaldevelopment

01/09/201705/21/2018

ProfessionalDevelopmentCalendar UIPAction Steps and

Leadership TEAMMartinez Staff

Not Started This School Year

223

system will be putin place so thatexisting staff willnot have toretracie groundthey have alreadycovered whilenew staff will stillreceive theinformation andsupport they needto be effective intheir first years ofteaching or in theschool. TheLeadership TEAMMartinez willevolve to a teamprincipallyfocused on andcommitted toimproving theschool'sachievementthrough effectiveplanning,professionaldevelopment,collaboration andcommunicationwith stakeholdersand periodicassessment ofprogress for thisgoal. We willutilize the powerof regular teamcollaboration inplanning unitsand lessons using

MajorImprovementStrategies

AdministratorsDistrict SupportStaff

224

astandards-based,backwards designand integratehigh-effect sizeinstructionalpractices intoevery lesson andunit which willrequire additional,focusedprofessionaldevelopmenttime.

DiagnosticReviewInnovation Plan

Team TrustBuilding

Teams will workto build trustamong membersin order toimprove studentachievement andthe culture andclimate of ourschool. Activitieswill be conductedwith our entirestaff during staffmeeting times aswell as withindividual teamsduring their teammeeting times.We will reviewand learn aboutthe culture of trustamong teammembers usingresearch on teamdynamics:forming, storming,norming,

01/09/201705/15/2017

Book: StaffEsteem Buildersby Borba Variousarticles andresourcesfocused on GroupDevelopment,specifically: 5Stages of GroupDevelopment;Famous Models:Stages of GroupDevelopment;and TeamworkTheory:Tuckman'sStages of GroupDevelopmentProfessionalDevelopmenttime during earlyrelease Mondaysand additionalmornings or plantimes forindividual time.

All staffAdministrators

Not Started This School Year

225

performing andadjourning.Teams willimplementknowledge ofteam dynamicsas part of theirteam buildingactivities.

Implementation Benchmark Associated with MIS

Action StepName(Association)

IB Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status School Year

Decision MakingProcess, Mission,Vision and BeliefStatements,ConflictResolution andConsensusTraining,Expectations forPerformance,Collaborative andVertical PlanningTime, Team TrustBuilding,

Vision, Mission,Beliefs

Working with ournewly createdVision, Mission,and BeliefStatements, wewill create theaction stepswhich go undereach of theheadings andsections whichwill become ourworkingagreements. Thesame actions willbe done withparents so as tohave their voicein the documentas well.

08/22/201605/15/2017Monthly

Staff,Administration,Parents

Partially Met This School Year

Collaborative andVertical PlanningTime, Team TrustBuilding,

ProfessionalDevelopment

A professionaldevelopmentcalendar will bedeveloped and

08/22/201605/22/2017Weekly

Administrators,Staff

Partially Met This School Year

226

used to provideopportunities tomeet UIP MIPsand action steps.

Decision MakingProcess, Mission,Vision and BeliefStatements,ConflictResolution andConsensusTraining,Expectations forPerformance,

Data Collection Data will becollected in theform of the TELLsurvey, ParentSurveys andotheropportunities tocheck our growthand status inworking as a staffto be a unifiedteam and to growtogether.

05/21/2018Quarterly

Staff,Administration,Parents

Not Met This School Year

Major Improvement StrategyName:

Title 1 Supports

Major Improvement StrategyDescription:

Implement improvement strategies in reading and math by using Title1 funding to supplementthe support for non-proficient students in reaching proficiency.

Associated Root Causes:

Focused Leadership Solutions who conducted our Diagnostic Review, observed variable implementation forBest First Instruction:effective use of Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessments and Frequent and Timely Feedback.(present in only 34% to 66% of classrooms observed) The team observed minimal implementation for Effective Use of LearningTargets/Goals, use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, Students taking Responsibility for Learning and PeersSharing Responsibility for Learning. (present in less than 34% of classrooms observed) Engaging and research-based instruction isinconsistent and without deep implementation of eleven common high effect-size instructional practices. Those practices are: Classroom

227

Learning Environment, Classroom Management, Student Engagement in Learning, High Impact Instruction, Formative Assessment,Frequent and Timely Feedback, Learning Targets/Goals, Use of Success Criteria, Engagement in Higher-Order Thinking, StudentsTaking Responsibility for Learning, and Peers Sharing Responsibility for Learning.

Action Steps Associated with MIS

Name Description Start/End Date Resource Key Personnel Status School Year

Kindergarten Provide full daykindergarten to allkindergartenstudents atMartinezElementary toensure mastery ofkindergartenstandards inreading, writing,and math. Fullday kindergartenprovidesadditional supportfor ELD studentswho needinstruction inlanguage as well.

08/18/201605/26/2017

Reading FirstGrant, DistrictFunds for 5teachers

Principal,Kindergarten staff

In Progress This School Year

InterventionSupport

We will providehigh qualitytargetedinstructioninterventionsupports to allstudents who arenot masteringgrade levelstandards andrequire additionalsupport to do so.

08/18/201605/26/2017

Title 1 funds tohire 4.66teachers($299,575.00)

Principal,Teachers

In Progress This School Year

228

Interventionistswill be hired toprovide Tier 2instructionincludingadditionalsupports forcomprehension,phonics/decoding,fluency, andlanguageconcerns.

InterventionResources

Purchaseinterventionresources forreading and mathinterventionssuch as ReadingMastery, SIPPS,Phonics forReading,Language forLearning,Thinking,WRiting,numeracymaterials andinterventionsupplies thatsupport theimplementation ofliteracy and mathcurricula.

08/18/201605/26/2017

Title 1 Suppliesand Textbooks($5000)

Principal, Title 1Interventionists,ELD staff

In Progress This School Year

Time in Text Students ingrades 1-5 willread authentictext to transferand apply learnedreading strategies

08/18/201605/19/2017

Title 1 Supplies($2500)

Teachers andAdministrators

In Progress This School Year

229

and skills tocomprehend atgrade level textand participate incomprehensionactivities that areat the level ofrigor to meetState standardsin Reading andWriting.

Leadership TeamStipends

Provide stipendsfor leadershipteam an dgradelevel teams toexamine data andplan correctiveinstructionalactions.

08/18/201605/19/2017

Title 1 budget:Stipends $7000

Teachers,Administrators

In Progress This School Year

ParentInvolvement

Arrange parentinvolvementactivities andeducationalclasses tosupportcommunicationand learningbetweennon-Englishspeaking parentsand school staffin supporting thesuccess of theirstudent/child inschool includingwrittennotifications,parent/teacherconferences,

08/31/201605/17/2017

Teachers toinstruct. Materialsfor parentactivitiesincluding handson learningmaterials parentscan take homeand use with thestudents includingreading and mathsupplies.Translatorservices forparentcommunicationand meetingspaid through Title1 ($2500)

Administrators,PTO TeacherRepresentatives,SAC TeacherRepresentatives,ClassroomTeachers

In Progress This School Year

230

back to schoolnight, PTO, andParent University

Extended DayTutoring

Provide extendedday programs forall studentsespecially ELL,minority, FaRMand studentsneeding to catchup with a focuson improvementin meetingmasterystandards inreading, writing,math. Programswill be providedthrough ReadingClub, beforeschool, afterschool SummitProgram, Choir,Intermurals, andGirls on the Runprograms.

09/13/201603/17/2017

District Title 1Funds

Principal,Teachers, SiteFacilitator

In Progress This School Year

Technology Teachers willincrease studentachievement in allsubject areas,specificallyreading and maththrough the useof Acers,Chromebooks,PrometheanBoards, andiPads which willprovide increased

11/07/201605/25/2018

Grants throughJDO, PTO, andbuilding funds

Teachers,Administrators

In Progress This School Year

231

studentengagement,immediatefeedback andintegration of 21stcentury skillsusing ZEARN, STMath, LexiaLearning, iReady,and Moby Math

AchievementCamp

Provide anachievementcamp for studentsto close the gaparounddistrict/buildingpriority standards.

01/09/201703/17/2017

Title 1 Budget:%5130

Teachers,Administrators

Not Started This School Year

ProfessionalDevelopement -Project BasedLearning

Teachers willparticipate inprofessionaldevelopmenttrainings toimplementbuilding goals forSTEAM, ProjectBased LearningandUnderstanding byDesign planningto improvestudentengagement andachievement.

01/09/201712/20/2017

PD opportunitieswith LDC, UbD,STEAM andProject BasedLearning, Title 1for Project BasedLearning with theBuck Institute,$20,000

Teachers,Administrators,trainers

Not Started This School Year

Tutoring Martinez will offerSES tutoring forall studentsperforming belowgrade level.

01/10/201704/04/2017

District Title 1Funds for SESTutor in building

Principal,Parents,Teachers

In Progress This School Year

Transitions Preschool 03/27/2017 District Funds Principal, Not Started This School Year232

students will beprovided asummer transitionprogram tokindergartenincludingKindergartenRound Up,touring thebuilding, meetingkindergartenteachers, eatingin the cafeteria,and any othertransitionactivities plannedby teachers atMartinez andHead Start

05/19/2017 Kindergartenstaff, Preschoolstaff

Implementation Benchmark Associated with MIS

Action StepName(Association)

IB Name Description Start/End/Repeats Key Personnel Status School Year

Addenda

       Attachments List

233

Appendix G: Presentation to SAC

including their signatures of support

234

235

Martinez ElementaryInnovation Presentation

February 22, 2017

236

Innovation Plan Components

• STEAM– Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts,

Mathematics

• Project Based Learning

• Full day Monday professional developmentfor teachers– Students would not attend school on those

Mondays

• Preschool for all 3 and 4 year old children

• Health Care Center

• Parent University

237

Innovation Plan Components

• STEAM– Ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería, artes,

matemáticas

• Proyecto basado en aprendizaje• Día complete de lunes para el desarrollo

profesional para los maestros– Los estudiantes no asistirán a la escuela los

lunes

• Prescolar para todos los niños de 3 a 4 años

• Centro de Salud• Universidad de Padres

238

Innovation Plan Components

• STEAM– Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics

• STEAM would allow us to focus learning for all students around math, science, social studies usingthe arts, technology and engineering.

• STEAM presentation days for all families threetimes per year.

• A vote for STEAM means you want your children to have access to more learning connected to Science and Math. It means you are supportive of yourchildren being more engaged with reading and writing by learning about science and math.

Vote

239

Innovation Plan Components

• STEAM– Ciencia, Tecnología, Ingeniería, Artes, Matemáticas

• STEAM nos permitiría enfocarnos en el aprendizaje para todos los estudiantes en matemáticas, Ciencias, Estudios Sociales, usando las artes, ingeniería y tecnología.

• Días de presentación de •STEAM para todas las familias tres veces al año.

• Voto para STEAM significa que desea que sus hijos tengan acceso a más aprendizaje conectado con Ciencias y Matemáticas. Esto significa que apoyan a sus hijos ser más comprometidos con la lectura y escritura, aprendiendo por medio de las ciencias y matemáticas.

Voto

240

What is Project Based Learning?

241

What is Project Based Learning?

242

Innovation Plan Components

• Professional Development– Teachers will participate in professional development in the

first year of our plan about project based learning.• Staff will meet one Monday per month for specific professional

development for Project Based Learning and STEAM.

• Teachers would meet every week throughout the year in smallgroups to work on teaching skills.

• Staff will continue to be trained through the next five years.

• A vote for professional development means you willhave one Monday per month when your children wouldbe home. We will work with Rodarte to help providefamilies with options for their children. A year long calendar will be written and sent home for all parents at the beginning of the year so as to communicate all daysstudents will be in school or out of school.

Vote

243

Innovation Plan Components• Desarrollo Profesional

– Los maestros participarán en el desarrollo profesional en el primer año de nuestro Plan de Aprendizaje Basado en Proyecto.

• El equipo de trabajo cumplirá un lunes por mes para el desarrollo profesional específico para el Aprendizaje Basado en Proyecto y STEAM.

• Los maestros se reunirán cada semana durante todo el año en pequeños grupos para trabajar en la enseñanza de habilidades.

• El equipo de trabajo continuarán siendo entrenados a través de los próximos cinco años.

• Voto para El Desarrollo Profesional significa un lunes por mes cuando sus hijos se quedaran en casa. Vamos a trabajar con Rodarte para ayudar a las familias con opciones para sus hijos. Un año calendario largo será escrito y enviado a casa para todos los padres al principio del año con el fin de comunicar a todos los días en cuales los estudiantes estarán en la escuela o fuera de la escuela.

Voto244

Innovation Plan Components

• Preschool– We want to study and design a preschool for all three

and four year old children to have here at Billie Martinez. Head Start will still be here. The additionalpreschool would support students who cannot get intoHead Start.

– Preschool would be free of charge to all families.– Parents would be required to volunteer 2 hours per

month.– Preschool will be half day, Tuesday through Friday.– Preschool students would be part of Billie Martinez.

• A vote for preschool means you support preschooland are excited to help us build a program and would want your children in preschool if they are able to be in preschool.

Vote

245

Innovation Plan Components

• Prescolar– Queremos estudiar y diseñar un preescolar para todos los

niños de tres y cuatro años para tener aquí en BillieMartínez. Head Start todavía estará aquí. El preescolar adicional apoyaría a los estudiantes que no pueden entrar a Head Start.

– Preescolar sería gratuitamente para todas las familias.– Los padres necesitarían ser voluntarios 2 horas al mes.– Preescolar será hasta medio día, de martes a viernes.– Los estudiantes de preescolares serían parte de Billie

Martínez.

• Un voto para preescolar significa que apoyo preescolar y están encantados de ayudarnos a construir un programa y quisieran que sus hijos asistieran el preescolar si pudieran.

Voto

246

Innovation Plan Components

• Health Care Clinic– We want to study and design a Health Care Clinic

connected to Sunrise clinic for families at Billie Martinez. The clinic would be here at school and would be open Monday through Friday for all families.

– We would work next year to write a grant throughthe State of Colorado to fund the program.

• A vote for the Health Care Clinic means youwant us to pursue the grant and you want to have the clinic as part of our school.

Vote

247

Innovation Plan Components

• Clínica de Salud– Queremos estudiar y diseñar una clínica de

salud conectada a la clínica de Sunrise para las familias en Billie Martínez. La clínica estaría aquí en la escuela y estaría abierta de lunes a viernes para todas las familias.

– Trabajaremos el año próximo para escribir un Grant para el estado de Colorado para que nos financie el programa.

• Un Voto para la clínica de atención de la salud significa que desea proseguir con el Grant y desea tener la clínica como parte de nuestra escuela.

Voto

248

Innovation Plan Components

• Parent University– We would like to expand Parent University to

include options for parents. We would still off the classes on how to work with your children in reading and math. Other options might include:

• How to Navigate the School System

• How to Manage Your Home

• How to Further Your own Education

• A vote for Parent University means you wouldlike us to expand what we do currently. For this vote, please write down any additionalideas you have for Parent University.

Vote

249

Innovation Plan Components

• Universidad de Padres– Nos gustaría expandir Universidad de Padres para

incluir opciones para los padres. Todavía ofreceríamos las clases sobre cómo trabajar con los niños en la lectura y matemáticas. Otras opciones pueden incluir:

• Cómo navegar el sistema escolar• Cómo administrar su hogar• Cómo ampliar su propia formación

• Un voto para la Universidad de Padres significa que les gustaría amplíar lo que hacemos actualmente. Para esta votación, por favor anote cualquier otra idea que tenga para la Universidad de Padres.

Voto

250

Questions

251

Appendix H: Letters of support

252

April 11, 2017

To Whom It May Concern:

Let me begin by sharing a little bit about myself. I was born and raised in Ft. Collins/Loveland area. As far back

as I can remember there has always been some not so favorable talk about District 6 and our community. When I

attended UNC it was talked about amongst my Professors and fellow students. “You don’t want to teach in Greeley!” “If

you decide to make Greeley your home I would definitely look into private school or homeschooling!” This was common

talk and I have to say that it stayed with me for a long time. In fact when we purchased a home in Greeley we did so only

because we were homeschooling our four daughters and weren’t thinking of placing them in public schools.

My perspective completely changed a year and a half ago, when for some personal and financial reasons we

decided to send our girls to public school. Their first year in District 6 was the 2015-2016 school year. We had two

daughters at Scott Elementary, one at Heath and one at Greeley Central. I began substituting in the district and started

to apply for a permanent position. I also volunteered at their schools and I soon learned that all my worries and fears

were completely unfounded. February of 2016 I was hired at Billie Martinez as a PARA. From the moment that I stepped

foot into the school I knew that it was a special place! The atmosphere is something special and really quite hard to

explain! The love that these teachers and the staff have for these kids is palatable!

That brings me to this year and how I became the parent of two Billie Martinez students. My husband and I

discussed our options, weighed the pros and cons and knew that we wanted our daughters to be a part of the Billie

Martinez family! It has been one of the best decisions we have ever made when it comes to our children’s education!

Sophia and Andrea have looked forward to coming to school every day this year! They absolutely love their teachers and

are so excited to share about all the things they are learning with anyone who will listen! They have done numerous

STEAM projects this year and it’s been so exciting seeing their love for reading, writing and arts merge with a newfound

love for science, math, history and technology! They are so engaged and excited about the subjects they are studying. I

love that Project Based Learning is great for all types of learners at whatever skill level they are at. It’s challenging for the

gifted learner and for those students with special needs.

Sophia and Andrea invited their grandparents to one of their STEAM presentation days and they were so

impressed with the work their 1st and 3rd grade grandchildren were doing along with their partners! So much so that

they have come in to volunteer and translate on numerous occasions! Their grandparents have also fallen in love with

this school and its students!

There are not words for how blessed we feel as a family to be a part of Billie Martinez! The diversity, character

and the sheer determination of these students and their families has been life changing for us! The Mission and Belief

statement of our school is LOVE, LIVE and LEARN! I believe that those three things are what sets Billie Martinez apart!

As a family we feel like we are a part of an even bigger family! In loving the whole child it promotes an atmosphere

where we can share our lives with each other. Families now feel comfortable being a part of their child’s education. This

atmosphere allows our students to feel loved and cared for, which encourages them to step out of their comfort zone

and try new things when it comes to learning and their educations! My daughters and our family are better because of

Billie Martinez Elementary! As parents we are so pleased with the things happening here at Billie Martinez and look

forward to all the exciting things we have planned for the future! The students and staff at Billie Martinez are more than

that, they are our family!

Sincerely,

Debbie Rodriguera

253

254

255

256

257

258