Submitted to:

Colorado State Board of Education

By:

Colorado Department of Education

January 2018

Colorado Department of Education

201 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203 303-866-6600

2

3

This reports provides background information for Martinez Elementary School in Greeley 6 School

District. Martinez Elementary School will enter its 6th consecutive year of Priority Improvement or

Turnaround on July 1, 2018. The district is Accredited with Improvement. The State Board of Education is

required, by law, to direct action concerning the school to the district’s local school board prior to June 30,

2018. This report is intended to provide relevant background information to support the State Board with its

decision.

State Review Panel Recommendation

Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009, the State Review Panel is required to

evaluate schools at the end of the accountability clock and provide a recommendation to the Commissioner

and the State Board of Education. The State Review Panel has recommended Innovation Status for Martinez

Elementary School based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as well as a site visit

conducted on March 30-31, 2017. Please refer to the State Review Panel report for a summary of their

rationale for the recommendation and a detailed report of their site-visit evaluation and document review.

District Proposal for Martinez Elementary School

During the 2016-17 school year, Martinez Elementary School developed an Innovation Plan with

input from leadership, staff, parents and community partners. The Innovation Plan was approved by the

Greeley Board of Education in May 2017 and the State Board of Education in June 2017. The district is

submitting their Innovation Plan for the State Board’s consideration, along with a report describing why they

believe that the Innovation pathway is the right action for Martinez Elementary School to dramatically

improve student outcomes.

CDE evaluated the school’s Innovation Plan and found that it includes the necessary components to

drive rapid and significant changes, particularly when combined with the rigorous professional development

that the school leader is currently receiving through the Turnaround Network. Given the school’s upward

trend in student achievement data, CDE finds that the redesign strategies embedded in the Innovation Plan

have a strong likelihood of moving Martinez Elementary School into Improvement status or higher by 2019.

CDE’s detailed evaluation of the Innovation Plan begins on page 18 of this report.

Report Outline

An analysis of school data trends is provided in the next section, followed by a review of the school’s

systems and conditions. A summary of the school’s Unified Improvement Plans is included, as is an overview

of the state and federal grants provided to the school over the past several years. Lastly, the report includes

an evaluation by CDE staff of district’s pathway proposal and Innovation Plan for Martinez Elementary

School.

4

Greeley-Evans School District 6 is a district of approximately 21,000 students serving the communities

of Greeley and Evans, Colorado. The district consists of 31 schools, seven of which are currently on the

Accountability Clock. One of these schools, Martinez Elementary School, is entering Year 6 of Priority

Improvement status. Greeley 6 serves a majority-minority population with a high poverty rate. The following

section provides a summary of enrollment and performance trends for both Greeley 6 at the district level

and for Martinez Elementary School.

Greeley 6: District and School Performance Frameworks

Over the last six accountability cycles, Greeley 6 earned a rating of Priority Improvement once and

Improvement six times. In 2016, Greeley 6 earned 48.6% of points possible on the District Performance

Framework (see Table 1). In 2017, Greeley 6 earned 50.8% of points possible on the District Performance

Framework.

Table 1. District Ratings over Time

DPF 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017

Rating Improvement2 Improvement2 Priority

Improvement1 Improvement1 Improvement1 Improvement1 Improvement1

Overall % Points Earned

* * * * * 48.6% 50.8%

1Accountability rating derived from 1 year accountability framework. 2Accountability rating derived from 3 year accountability framework. *Points earned on the 2010 through 2014 frameworks are not displayed as they are not comparable to current framework calculations.

The distribution of school ratings within Greeley 6 has fluctuated over the last six years (see Table 2).

Martinez Elementary earned an Improvement rating in 2010 and a Priority Improvement rating from 2011 to

2017. Other schools in the district have moved on and off the Accountability Clock. As of the 2017

performance frameworks, seven of the district’s 31 schools are in Priority Improvement.

5

Table 2. School Plan Types, 2010-2017 for Greeley 6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 Year on Clock

(eff. July, 2018)

Greeley I I PI I I I I

School Name Level Final School Plan Type

BELLA ROMERO ACADEMY OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY

EM I PI I PI I P I

BRENTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL M I I PI PI PI P P

CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

E I I I PI PI PI PI Year 4

CHAPPELOW K-8 MAGNET SCHOOL

EM P P P P P P P

DOS RIOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E P P I I P P PI Year 1

EARLY COLLEGE ACADEMY H P P

FRANKLIN MIDDLE SCHOOL M PI PI PI T PI PI P

FRED TJARDES SCHOOL OF INNOVATION

EM P

FRONTIER CHARTER ACADEMY EMH P P P P P P P

GREELEY CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL H I I I I I I I

GREELEY WEST HIGH SCHOOL H I I I P I I I

HEATH MIDDLE SCHOOL M I PI I PI I I I

HEIMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E P P P I I I I

JACKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E PI I I I P P P

JEFFERSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH MH P AEC:

T AEC: I AEC: I AEC: P AEC: I AEC: I

MADISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E I I PI PI I I P

MAPLEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

E P PI PI I PI I PI Year 1

MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E I PI PI PI PI PI PI Year 6

MEEKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E P I I PI I P PI Year 1

MONFORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E P P P P P P P

NORTHRIDGE HIGH SCHOOL H I PI PI I I I I

PRAIRIE HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL

M T T T PI PI PI PI Year 7

S. CHRISTA MCAULIFFE STEM ACADEMY

E P P P P P P P

SALIDA DEL SOL ACADEMY EM P T I

SCOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E P P P PI PI T PI Year 4

SHAWSHEEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

E P I I PI PI P P

UNION COLONY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

E P PI PI PI P

UNION COLONY PREPARATORY SCHOOL

MH P P P P P P P

UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS EMH P P P P P P P

WEST RIDGE ACADEMY EM P P PI P P P

WINOGRAD K-8 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

EM I P I P P P P

Legend P=Performance I=Improvement PI=Priority Improvement T=Turnaround

6

Martinez Elementary School

School Enrollment and Retention Trends Martinez Elementary School’s enrollment has ranged from a low of 507 to a high of 613 since 2012-

13 (see Table 3). This school serves a higher proportion of at-risk students than other elementary schools

across the district and the state, particularly when considering racial and ethnic minority students, English

language learners and students who qualify for free and reduced lunch (see Figure 1).

Table 3. October Count Enrollment at Martinez Elementary School Over Time

Figure 1. Demographic Enrollment at Martinez Elementary in 2017, by Disaggregated Group

School Performance Frameworks Martinez Elementary School earned a rating of Priority Improvement from 2011 to 2017. In 2016,

Martinez Elementary earned 36.6% of points possible on the framework. In 2017, Martinez Elementary earned 41.3% of points possible on the framework (see Table 4).

Table 4. School Ratings over Time at Martinez Elementary School

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017

Rating Improvement3 Priority

Improvement2 Priority

Improvement2 Priority

Improvement1 Priority

Improvement1 Priority

Improvement1 Priority

Improvement1

Overall % Points Earned

* * * * * 36.6% 41.3%

1Accountability rating derived from 1 year accountability framework. 2Accountability rating derived from 3 year accountability framework. *Points earned on the 2010 through 2014 frameworks are not displayed as they are not comparable to current framework calculations.

93.17%

8.27%

65.11%

89.57%

66.83%

10.71%

27.02%

64.69%

47.58%

11.80%16.67%

44.50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Minority % IEP % ELL % FRL

% o

f St

ud

ents

Martinez ES (N=556) Greeley - E (N=11491) State - E (N=430729)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

October Count Enrollment

579 613 596 575 507 556

7

The district submitted a request to reconsider the Priority Improvement plan type for Martinez

Elementary School. On the preliminary 2017 School Performance Framework, the school earned 41.3% of

points, just 0.7 percentage points away from the cut point of 42 needed for an Improvement plan type. The

district submitted its request based on improvements on WIDA ACCESS, DIBELS for grades K-3, and

SchoolCity benchmark assessment data for grade two. The school is demonstrating strong upward trends in

early literacy, but there is still more progress that is needed for all students to meet expectations on

achievement and growth—specifically in grades 3 through 5. The department recommended a Priority

Improvement Plan type.

School Academic Performance Trends Due to the assessment transition, the trend results are best described by looking at the rating level for

each indicator on the performance frameworks. As visible in Table 5, Martinez Elementary School has

struggled with Reading/English Language Arts and Math Achievement and Growth, which have been rated

as Does Not Meet or Approaching from 2010 to 2017.

Table 5. School Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth, for English Language Arts and Math

Indicator Content

Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017

2017 Participation

Rates

Achievement Reading A DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM A 100.00%

Math A A DNM DNM A DNM A 100.00%

Growth Reading A DNM DNM A A A A

Math A DNM DNM A A DNM DNM

Legend DNM=Does Not Meet A=Approaching M=Meets

Figure 2 shows the school’s achievement percentile ranks on English Language Arts (ELA) and math as

reported on the 2017 School Performance Framework, disaggregated by student group. All Students

performed equivalently to the other disaggregated groups on English Language Arts, with the exception of

students with disabilities. English Learners slightly outperformed All Students on Math. Except for students

with disabilities, all percentile ranks across both content areas are in the Approaching range.

Figure 3 shows the school’s 2017 median growth percentiles in English Language Arts and Math,

disaggregated by student group. Disaggregated groups generally performed equivalently to the All Students

group in terms of median growth percentiles across both content areas. Except for All Students on Math, all

growth percentiles were in the Approaching range. (There were too few students with disabilities with

growth percentiles to report the results).

8

Figure 2. Achievement Percentile Ranks at Martinez Elementary School in 2017, by Disaggregated Group

Figure 3. Median Growth Percentiles at Martinez Elementary School in 2017, by Disaggregated Group

School Academic Performance Comparison The following graphic provides a series of box and whiskers plots that compares the 2017 English

Language Arts assessment results for Martinez Elementary School to the results of other elementary schools

with similar demographic characteristics. Compared to all other elementary schools in the state, Martinez

Elementary School is in the highest quartile for the percentages of English Learners, FRL eligible students,

and minority students enrolled in the school. The graphs below plot the mean scale scores for schools that

fall into the highest quartile for the percentage of students enrolled in each of these three demographic

262325 2425

222319

1 10

99

ELA Math

Per

cen

tile

Ran

k

All EL FRL Minority IEP

50

15

85

44

34.5

4438

4235

44.5

35

0

99

ELA Math

Med

ian

Gro

wth

Per

cen

tile

All EL FRL Minority IEP

50

35

65

9

categories. On each of the three graphs, individual dots represent distinct elementary schools. Martinez

Elementary School is highlighted in orange, whereas other elementary schools are green. The gray bands in

the middle of each plot represent the mid-range of performance for that particular set of schools. On each

of the three graphs, Martinez Elementary School’s performance on the English Language Arts assessment

places it in the higher end of this middle range compared to other schools with similar proportions of high-

needs students.

Figure 4. 2017 English Language Arts Achievement at Martinez Elementary School Compared to Other

Elementary Schools Serving a Similar Proportion of High-Needs Students

10

Martinez Elementary school spent $6,254 per pupil over the course of the 2015-2016 school year.

Total spending per student is calculated based on Learning Environment and Operations spending only and

does not include district level costs.1 The district operating spending per pupil equates to $3,293. Therefore,

the total per pupil spending with allocated district operating spending for Martinez Elementary is $9,547.

This compares to per pupil operating spending of $9,143 for Greeley 6 and of $9,960 statewide.2

Learning Environment

Expenditures found within the Learning

Environment are most associated with

having an impact on learning. There are

six sub-components to the Learning

Environment: Instruction, Activities &

Athletics, Student Support, Staff

Support, School Administration, and

District Administration.

Operations

Expenditures found within the

Operations provide the essential services necessary to support the activities found within the Learning

Environment. In many ways, Operations expenditures are the 'business' of the school, district, and BOCES.

Operations is comprised of five sub-categories: Food Services, Transportation, Operations & Maintenance,

Other Support Services, and Enterprise Services.

1 School spending figures retrieved from https://coloradok12financialtransparency.com/ 2 Colorado Department of Education calculations.

11

This section provides a brief summary of district and school systems and conditions. Research on school

turnaround shows that certain conditions are essential in establishing a strong foundation for rapid school

improvement.3 Schools on track to improve student achievement are likely to show strong evidence of

highly-functioning leadership, culture, academic systems, district support structures and board and

community relationships.

The information described below was captured primarily through CDE grant support visits to Billie Martinez

Elementary School and through the application process for the school to join the Turnaround Network in the

2017-2018 school year. CDE staff have provided support to the school though innovation plan feedback,

diagnostic reviews and classroom walk-throughs.

Highlights of Improvement Strategies

In 2015, the school received a diagnostic review grant from the Colorado Department of Education.

Based on findings from the diagnostic review, the school identified two major improvement

strategies: best first instruction and climate and culture.

The staff redeveloped the school’s mission and vision in the 2015-2016 school year and built out the

action steps to accomplish the mission and vision in the 2016-2017 school year.

In spring 2016, the school was awarded an Accountability Pathways Planning grant from CDE, and

the school began to explore the end-of-clock pathway options. As a result, the school submitted an

Innovation Plan for approval in the spring of 2017.

Martinez applied for and was accepted into CDE’s Turnaround Network for the 2017-2018 school

year.

For the current school year (2017-18), the school is focusing on best first instruction for all students

and creating an adult culture that has shared accountability for the school’s fundamental purpose of

student achievement.

School Leadership & Staff

The principal, Monica Draper, has been the school leader for the last seven years.

In fall 2017, the principal participated in the Behavior Event Inventory. This was a CDE

recommendation to identify and coach strength and growth areas in school leadership.

Teacher turnover is low and staff retention is high. The retention rate over the last several years has

3 Public Impact. (2008). School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success; Mass Insight Education & Research

Institute. (2007). The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student

achievement lies in our worst-performing schools; Player, D. Hitt, D.H. and W. Robinson, W. (2014). District Readiness

to Support School Turnaround. University of Virginia Partnership for Leaders in Education.

12

been between 79% and 85%.

100% of teaching staff voted to pursue innovation status in October 2016. Following that, the staff

and broader school community collaborated to create the plan of innovation, which was formally

adopted by 100% of school staff in April 2017. The Innovation Plan was approved by the Greeley

Board of Education in May 2017 and the State Board of Education in June 2017.

Teachers receive regular coaching from school leadership. Last year, leadership completed over 600

classroom observations to provide ongoing feedback to teachers.

School Culture

Current student enrollment (2017-18 school year) is 556 students and average daily attendance for

the last three years has been 94-95%, which is above the state average.

According to the innovation plan and diagnostic review, student behavior is not a concern. The

school has less than 50 behavior referrals per year. Through implementation of their innovation

plan, the school is continuing and deepening its Positive Behavior Intervention and Support

structures.

A focus of the innovation plan is increased stakeholder engagement and support services through

classes to support parent involvement in school, expanding pre-school services, establishing an on-

site health care clinic and a senior citizen mentoring program. The school is running four sections of

pre-school for the current year. The on-site health care clinic and senior citizen mentoring program

will be implemented in the 2019-2020 school year with exploration beginning during the 2018-2019

school year.

Academic Systems

Through their innovation plan, Martinez Elementary has begun to implement a focus on science,

technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM) and project-based learning in the current school

year.

The school uses state assessments (CMAS, WIDA) and local assessments including DIBELS and

curricular assessments for reading, writing and math and will use Common Assignment Study (part

of Literacy Design Collaborative) to analyze student work as well as student portfolios. Common

Assignment Study is facilitated by the Colorado Education Initiative (CEI) to develop and analyze

student work across schools to compare peer groups and ensure high quality rigorous instruction.

Teachers meet weekly to review student progress and work.

Specialized District Support and Flexibility

This is Superintendent Pilch’s third year leading Greeley 6. Superintendent Pilch has taken steps to

differentiate support for low performing schools including supporting innovation plan applications,

supporting turnaround specific grant opportunities such as the Turnaround Network and the

Turnaround Leaders Grant, and allowing schools earlier access to the hiring pool.

The Director of Elementary Schools, Wes Tuttle, has participated in the Turnaround Network for the

13

last two years. He is currently attending the Relay Graduate School for Principal Managers to receive

training on coaching principals through data-driven instruction, observation and feedback and

school culture. He participated in the training for the Behavior Event Inventory including scoring and

coaching training.

A requirement of the Turnaround Network Grant is for Principal Managers to visit their schools

weekly and document progress in a weekly log. Martinez has been receiving weekly visits from the

director.

The school submitted their 2018 UIP for review before the January 16, 2018 deadline. The school has had access to and participated in supports in their planning efforts. The school’s UIP summary is shared below.

History of Actions Taken by the School, Reviews by CDE and Supports Available from the State on UIP Development Actions Taken by School. Overall, the school’s actions have been at a systemic level. Their improvement strategies have become better articulated and focused as the school has advanced on the accountability clock. Overview of CDE Feedback on School UIP. Since 2011, Martinez has had a Priority Improvement plan type. The school’s plans have generally had high quality data reporting and analysis. The school has been able to take feedback from CDE to strengthen the overall plan over time. Feedback from CDE to the school has centered on improving strategies that convey dramatic change and improving action plans so that they can be effectively implemented and monitored. More detail on CDE feedback is included in Appendix B. Summary of Supports from CDE. The district and school staff members have had access to universal and targeted supports from CDE on its UIP development. Targeted supports available to the school included district specific work sessions coordinated with district level staff for the past three years. Universal supports include regional trainings held each spring and fall and access to many resources (e.g., quality criteria, UIP Handbook, online tutorials, sample plans) on CDE’s website.

Current School UIP Summary The following items were pulled directly from the school’s Unified Improvement Plan submitted to CDE in January 2018.

14

What action is the school taking?

Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach intended to result in improvements in performance and address the identified root causes.

1. Provide best first instruction to all students in literacy, math and content. Billie Martinez

Elementary will implement high quality, best first instructional practices in project based

learning focusing on Design & Plan, Align to Standards, and Build the Culture. Teachers will

develop clear and specific learning targets and success criteria for all reading, math and

content lessons, create ways to progress monitor, review data, and plan instruction based

upon rigorous standards and data.

2. Create an adult culture with shared accountability for student learning.

Our clear mission and vision will align all goals and drive all aspects of our school. Our community will convey commitment to, and hold each other accountable for, collaboratively established improvement goals, tasks, and student achievement.

Why is the school continuing to have this problem(s)?

Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying causes within control of the school that if dissolved would result in elimination of the performance challenge.

1. Best First Instruction Our root cause of low performance and lack of growth in both ELA and

Mathematics is connected to inconsistent instruction which does not meet the level of urgency

or expectation needed to help all children meet or exceed rigorous State and Local standards.

All Billie Martinez Elementary teachers will implement high quality, best first instructional

practices to ensure all students are successful and able to meet rigorous State and Local

standards. We will use project based learning as our primary instructional model focusing first

on Design and Plan Lessons, Alignment of Instruction to Standards, and Building the Culture of

project based learning in all classrooms at Billie Martinez. We will develop clear and specific

learning targets and success criteria for all reading, math and content lessons, create ways to

progress monitor, review data and plan instruction based upon rigorous standards and data.

2. Culture and Climate The staff at Billie Martinez has just started to create an adult culture that

has shared accountability for our fundamental purpose of student achievement. We must align

our mission and vision to all goals and drive all aspects of our school with this shared mission

and vision. Our community must convey a commitment to and hold each other accountable for

collaboratively established improvement goals, tasks, and student achievement.

Where are students continuing to struggle most?

Priority Performance Challenges: Specific problem statements about student performance that provide the strategic focus for improvement efforts.

1. Low Achievement and Growth in ELA Our performance challenge in ELA is not enough growth

in academic achievement and low growth scores. In 2015 only 14.2% of students met or

15

exceeded standards, scoring in the 4 or 5 range and in 2016, 18.3% of students met or

exceeded standards. In 2017, 27.2% of students met or exceeded standards in ELA.

Disaggregated groups are also growing, though not at a rate to drive academic success to the

State and Local expectations. In 2016, 'All Students' had a mean scale score of 721.5 on PARCC

ELA. In the same year, ELL students had a mean scale score of 723.1, Free and Reduced Meal

students' mean scale score was 721.2, Minority students' mean scale score was 721.3, and IEP

students had a mean scale score of 680.1. These are all well below the state expectation of

739.5. In 2017, disaggregated groups did improve their mean scale score on PARCC ELA. "All

students" had a mean scale score of 729.1 in 2017. ELL students' mean scale score was 728.3

up 5.2 from the previous year. Free and Reduced Meal students' mean scale score was 728.6,

up 7.4 from 2016. Minority students had a mean scale score of 727.2 in 2017, up 5.9 from

2016. Students with Disabilities had a mean scale score of 680.2, up only .1 from 2016. While

this is growth, it is not enough to meet State or Local standards, it is moving up each year. Our

priority improvement challenge is to increase the rigor of best first instruction to meet the

needs of all students. We must build a culture for shared accountability to improve academic

success for all. Academic growth was found to be approaching in all areas except for Students

with Disabilities as there were not enough students to report this data. All students had a MGP

of 45 in 2016, only 5 points below meeting State expectations for growth. English Learners had

an MGP of 47, FaRM students’ MGP was 45.5 and Minority Students had an MGP of 45.

Growth scores went down in all subcategories in 2017. All students had an MGP of 44, down 1

from 2016. English Learners had an MGP of 44, down 3 from 2016. Free and Reduced Meal

students had a MGP of 42, down 3 from the previous year. Minority students had and MGP of

44.5, down .5 from the previous year.

2. Low Performance and Growth in Math While the percent of students meeting or exceeding

standards in math on PARCC has increased every year, it is not enough to meet the rigor of

State and Local expectations. Students at Billie Martinez are not meeting the expected

academic achievement or growth expectations in any year. In 2015 only 14.8% of our students

met or exceeded standards on PARCC Math and in 2016 only 15% of students met or exceeded

standards. More students met or exceeded standards in 2017. 22.5% of students scored at the

meets or exceeds level. In terms of disaggregated groups, there was growth between 2016 and

2017, but not enough to meet State and Local expectations. In 2016 "All Students" mean scale

score was 717.9. English Learners' mean scale score was 720.6. Free and Reduced Meal

students had a mean scale score of 717.7. Minority students' mean scale score was 717.8, and

Students with Disabilities' mean scale score was 683.6. These are all well below the state

expectation or 734.3. We did not meet expectations in 2016. In 2017 "All Students" had a

mean scale score of 723, up 5.1 from 2016. English Learners' mean scale score in 2017 was

723.1, up 3.1 from the previous year. Free and Reduced Meal students' mean scale score was

722.7, up 5 from 2017. Minority students' mean scale score was 721.2 in 2017, up 3.4 from

2016. All of these sub groups moved to the Approaching category on the SPF. Students with

Disabilities are the only subgroup to drop in 2017. The mean scale score for students with

disabilities was 676.7 in 2017, down 6.9 from 2016 and did not meet State expectations.

16

Growth scores did go up in 2017. In 2016 the growth score for All Students was 31. In 2017 the

growth score for All Students was 34.5, up 3.5, but still in the Does Not Meet category of the

SPF. In 2016 the growth score for English Learners was 30.5. In 2017 the growth score for

English Learners was 38, up 7.5 from 2016. In 2016, growth scores for Free and Reduced Meal

students was 31, compared to 35 in 2017. In 2016 the growth score for Minority students was

31, compared to 35 in 2017. English Learners, Free and Reduced Meal students, and Minority

students were all in the "Approaching" category for growth on the SPF.

3. ELP Academic Growth 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. Our

percent of students who need to catch up to a proficient level within three years in math is

declining overall. We have 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 below State expectations of 54.84%. This is a difference of 27.52%

points. In 2015, Martinez students met the growth expectations for ELP students with an MGP

of 53%. In 2016, we had an MGP of 75%.

Over the past five years, Martinez Elementary School has applied for and received three grants

targeted to support the school’s turnaround efforts.

Turnaround Network

Martinez Elementary School is in its first year (2017-18) of the CDE Turnaround Network.

Grant purpose. The Turnaround Network is a three-year engagement designed to support schools in

Priority Improvement and Turnaround in implementing turnaround best practices. Schools and districts

collaborate with CDE staff to develop a robust improvement plan, engage in intensive professional

development, and receive on-going coaching and support. Turnaround Network schools are eligible to

receive grant funds.

Funded activities. Turnaround Network schools typically use grant funds to support a variety of

improvement activities, including additional professional development opportunities for teachers, additional

stipends to support teachers in planning for instruction, site visits to exemplar schools, and intensive

professional development for the principal. Martinez Elementary is using their grant for the current school

year to fund professional development around project based learning, a focus of their innovation plan.

Grant outcomes. The CDE staff contact for Martinez visits the school monthly as a part of the

Turnaround Network program. The school has attended all of the required Turnaround Network activities

and is on-track to implement their improvement plan.

17

Pathways Early Action Grant

Martinez Elementary School was awarded a Pathways Grant for the 2016-17 school year to support

its pathway planning efforts. This is a one-year grant supported with federal funds.

Grant purpose. The Pathways Grant enables schools and districts nearing the end of the

Accountability Clock to explore pathway options. Schools and districts collaborate with CDE staff to develop

a formal plan identifying an accountability pathway and implementation strategies.

Funded activities. Martinez used Pathways Grant funds to explore the different accountability

options available under the law. In fall 2016, the school’s leadership and staff decided to pursue innovation

status and spent the next several months engaging with the staff and parent community in developing their

innovation plan.

Grant outcomes. The Innovation Plan was formally adopted by 100% of the staff in April 2017. The

plan was then approved by the Greeley Board of Education in May 2017 and the State Board of Education in

June 2017.

Diagnostic Review

Martinez Elementary School was awarded a federally-funded Diagnostic Review grant in 2015.

Grant Purpose. The diagnostic review grant is intended to provide an external diagnostic

assessment, analysis and facilitation of results for targeted schools. The diagnostic review is expected to

lead directly to strategic and prioritized improvement plans and activities.

Funded Activities. Martinez Elementary School used the diagnostic review grant to pay for a 3-day

external review conducted by Focused Leadership Solutions in September 2015.

Grant Outcomes. According to the school, the findings from the diagnostic review directly drove the

work of the UIP and the work of the staff beginning in the fall of 2015 and continuing through the current

school year. The identified needs are centered on best first instruction and culture and climate. In addition,

the school states that the results were used to prompt the staff to develop a strong vision, mission and

beliefs for the Martinez community.

18

The Department used the following rubric to evaluate the pathways proposal and Innovation Plan for Martinez Elementary School. The rubric

was developed to assess whether the plan, if implemented, will have significant, rapid and positive impact on student learning.

Innovation Plan Overview X Meets expectations ☐ Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Need for Innovation Meets Expectations Comments

Innovation Plan provides a clear and compelling rationale for innovation.

• Explicitly explains how innovation status will ensure a

greater level of success for student learning.

• Provides clear rationale for why the district is selecting

innovation school/zone as the accountability clock

pathway for the selected Priority Improvement/

Turnaround school(s)

• Effectively identifies and justifies need for waivers.

• Gives in-depth description of the barriers or roadblocks

to successful implementation of the current school

improvement plan that would require innovation status

to address.

The waivers needed and the timeline for

implementation are clearly described.

The school makes a strong case that

dramatic change is needed to see different

results and the waivers that are gained

through Innovation Status are the best

method to accomplish that.

The rationale for the pathway is detailed

and based on an external diagnostic review

as well as a pathways planning grant.

The plan describes past challenges and

barriers that have led to flat and declining

performance.

Mission & Vision Meets Expectations Comments

Innovation Plan articulates a vision and mission that reflects high expectations for student learning. The plan explains how innovation status will meet district and school goals to

• The vision and mission provides a clear and concise

picture of what the school aims to achieve, what the

unique focus of the school is, and the student population

and community to be served.

• Demonstrates support for innovation in student learning.

• Clearly articulates how the mission and vision is different

from what it was previously, if it is being changed.

• The school is focused on being a STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and math) school implemented through project-based learning.

• The school wants to increase parent involvement and engage students in learning.

19

advance the vision and mission.

Student Learning

Outcomes

Meets Expectations Comments

Innovation Plan thoroughly describes the goals and specific gains in academic achievement the school will commit to as a result of securing innovation status. Articulates clear measures for monitoring learning outcomes.

• Identifies actionable goals for student academic

achievement.

• Gives in-depth explanation for how the plan will improve

student learning and move the school off the

Accountability Clock.

• Explains how student learning and performance will be

comprehensively measured by multiple sources of

evidence and data.

• Assessments that will be used and monitored include state assessments, program surveys, local assessments, data teams and student portfolios. In addition, a longitudinal study of the pre-school performance will be conducted. Targets for state assessments are outlined.

Implementation Timeline Meets Expectations Comments

Includes timeline for implementing components of the Innovation Plan.

• Timeline thoroughly outlines a plan for implementation.

• Provides evidence of a strong sense of urgency at the

school district, school and within the community for the

Innovation Plan.

• Timelines for implementation are clear and outlined.

Academic Systems X Meets expectations □ Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence

School Calendar &

Schedule

Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates any proposed changes to the school calendar and schedule, which may include changes to: • Length of school

day/year

• Innovation Plan clearly describes what changes to the

school schedule or calendar will occur and articulates

how the changes will address current barriers and lead to

increased student achievement.

• Explains how the daily schedule maximizes instructional

time with an emphasis on core subject areas for all

• The plan requests changes to the

professional development calendar for staff

to support and implement project-based

learning and to support the Literacy Design

Collaborative. Staff will return early for

training and have on-going support

20

• School calendar • Hours of instruction • Number of work days

students.

• Provides copies of the school calendar and daily

schedules as an attachment to the Innovation Plan.

• Identifies the total number of days and hours of

instruction students will receive and the number of in-

service days for teachers.

• Identifies the minimum number of hours/minutes per day

and week that the school will devote to academic

instruction in each grade for core subjects.

• Identifies what opportunities for extended instructional

time are available and explains how that time will be

strategically structured and allocated.

• If changes to schedule and/or calendar are not being

pursued under the Innovation Plan, the district provides a

compelling rationale for why changes in this area are not

needed.

throughout the year on planning. The bell

schedule will support the Literacy Design

Collaborative and a sample student

schedule is included in the plan.

• The calendar and minutes will meet or

exceed district and state expectations for

instruction.

Curriculum and Instruction Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates any proposed changes to curriculum and instruction.

• Explains all innovations related to the school’s curriculum

and instructional model.

• Discusses any special academic/curricular themes the

Innovation School will feature, if any.

• Clearly describes how the chosen curriculum and

instructional methods are expected to improve school

performance and student achievement.

• If seeking curricular autonomy, explains why the

proposed educational program is more likely to succeed

in the school. The Innovation Plan includes evidence that

the curriculum is research-based and has delivered or will

• The innovation plan focuses on implementing a STEAM model with projected based learning. According to the plan, the school researched and determined this to be the best option to deliver rigorous instruction with high engagement for all learners and a focus on achievement and growth for all learners.

• A description of the curriculum that will be used in each grade and subject is detailed in the plan.

• The school will rely on district curriculum but change its delivery method for the

21

deliver rigorous, engaging and effective instruction for

the student population and boosts student achievement.

• Describes the instructional materials and resources that

the school will use to support its curriculum and explains

how they are aligned with the Colorado Academic

Standards and the innovation model of the school. If

changes are not being made to the curriculum, discusses

how the standard curriculum will support the other

changes being pursued in this Innovation Plan.

curriculum to project based. The school wants to reorganize the timing and delivery of the standards and align district assessments to the units of study.

• The curriculum will be aligned to state and district standards.

• The plan proposes to expand instruction to pre-school.

Assessments & Data Meets Expectations Comments

Plan explains innovations around student assessments and data systems, which could include changes to progress monitoring, data-driven practices and differentiated instruction.

• Provides an overview of the school’s proposed

assessment plan, including a description of any

assessments that will supplement those required by the

district and the state, if applicable.

• Demonstrates that the assessment system is aligned with

learning expectations and will yield reliable, valid and

timely information.

• Explains any changes to how and how frequently the

school will collect and analyze student academic

achievement data, use the date to refine and improve

instruction, and report the data to the school community.

• Provides an overview of how the school will manage their

data systems independently, if that is an innovation they

are seeking.

• Describes the school’s approach to provide personalized

and differentiated instruction that best meets the needs

of all students. Includes explanation of how staff will use

students’ formative assessment data to inform and

differentiate instruction.

• If changes are not being made to the assessment system,

• Students will be assessed during each module, which is part of the Literacy Design Collaborative.

• The assessment plan details state and local assessments that will be given including CMAS, WIDA, DIBELS, curriculum assessments in reading, writing and math as well as student portfolios.

• Data teams will meet regularly to analyze data and use it to drive instruction.

• The plan seeks to use district assessments but change the order to align better with the new instructional model and adds in additional assessments as part of the Literacy Design Collaborative modules.

• A sample data team process is included in the plan.

22

discusses how the current system will support the other

changes being pursued in this innovation plan.

Special Populations Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates how the school will support special populations.

• Provides an overview of how the school model will

support students with disabilities, students with special

education needs, English learners, gifted and talented

students, and other special populations.

• Describes how any of those supports will change under

innovation status, if applicable.

• The plan provides an overview of how the

school model will support students with

disabilities, English language learners and

gifted and talented students.

• The plan proposes to expand instruction to

include pre-school which will support

special populations.

• The plan included specific strategies around

vocabulary development for English

language learners, oral fluency, etc. Special

Education staff and gifted and talented

staff will be trained in project based

learning to provide additional support to

teachers and students.

Talent Management X Meets expectations ☐ Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Recruitment and Hiring Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates any proposed changes to recruitment and hiring processes.

• Describes any innovations in the school’s staffing plan

under innovation status and how these changes will

produce gains in academic achievement.

• Details the strategies the school will use to attract and

recruit highly-effective, culturally-competent teachers

and staff.

• The school will be allowed to hire candidates one month earlier than other district schools.

• Hiring questions will ask about commitment to STEAM, project based learning, commitment to coaching, etc.

23

• Describes the talent selection model and criteria,

including the cultural competencies required for staff to

support the student population and innovation plan.

• Explains the overall hiring process steps and timeline.

Includes description of the flexibilities required to hire

outside of district processes and timelines.

• If changes to recruitment and/or hiring are not being

pursued under the Innovation Plan, the district provides a

compelling rationale for why changes in this area are not

needed.

Professional Development Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates any proposed changes to the school’s professional development plan, which may include changes to:

Professional development content

Frequency and timing of PD opportunities

Ability to have teachers start in August for orientation

Onboarding process for new staff

• Describes the professional development opportunities

that will be offered to the teaching staff, at the start of an

academic year and throughout the year.

• Explains how plans for professional development differ

from the school’s current practice and/or district

requirements and why these changes are necessary.

• Describes how innovations in the school’s professional

development plan will lead to increased student

achievement.

• Details the onboarding process the school will take to

prepare incoming new teachers.

• Identifies the expected number of days/hours for

professional development throughout the school year

and explains how the school’s calendar, daily schedule,

and staffing plan will be structured to accommodate this

plan. Notes when teachers will have time for common

planning or collaboration, and how such time will

typically be used.

• The plan proposes increased professional development for teachers through additional summer training on project based learning and additional professional development days during the school year.

• Teachers will also receive professional development through the instructional coach and regular observation and feedback.

24

Evaluation and Retention Meets Expectations Comments

Plan describes any proposed changes to evaluation and retention processes.

• Describes innovations to the processes and criteria used

to support the strategic evaluation and retention of

highly effective teachers and staff.

• Provides examples of innovative frameworks, standards,

and practices that will be used to evaluate teachers.

Specifically addresses what role student progress and

achievement will play in teacher evaluations.

• Articulates strategies to promote retention of the best

performing teachers.

• Specifies steps or actions the school will take when

teacher or leader performance is unsatisfactory.

• Describes how the performance management system will

be used to drive improvements in teacher effectiveness

and student achievement.

Teachers will receive regular observations and feedback.

Compensation Meets Expectations Comments

Plan explains any changes being made to the school’s compensation system.

• Describes any innovations in the school’s compensation

system under innovation status and how these changes

will lead to increased student achievement.

• Outlines any incentive or reward programs and how they

align with the vision and mission of the school.

Conference fees for the project based learning training will be paid for by the school. Staff who attend trainings will be compensated at hourly rates.

Teachers who become trainers can apply for credit to move up the district pay scale.

25

Culture of Performance X Meets expectations □ Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Culture and Climate Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates any changes being proposed to foster a positive school culture.

• Describe in detail any changes to the systems, programs,

structures, rituals, and routines the school will use to

foster a positive school culture for all students and

teachers. Areas the Innovation Plan could address

include:

• Systems to promote high expectations • Code of conduct & disciplinary procedures • Attendance policies and expectations • Wraparound services

• The school will continue to use Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports and deepen its work with this structure.

• The school will incorporate Panther Family Groups where a staff member will be assigned a group of students to work on bullying prevention and character education.

• The school will deepen and expand student leadership.

Stakeholder Engagement Meets Expectations Comments

Plan includes a variety of strategies to engage key stakeholders.

• Includes highly developed plan for collaboration and

partnerships directly linked to school strategies and sets

forth a robust plan for parent engagement. Describes

how those innovations will increase learning outcomes

for children.

• Describes how the school and district will engage

regularly, frequently, and effectively with parents and

guardians, local board of education members, and other

community members.

• The school will create a “Parenting as

Partners” parenting class to help engage

parents in students’ learning.

• The plan proposes an on-site health care

center to support students and families, a

senior citizen mentoring program, and an

on-site day care facility for staff.

• Stakeholder surveys will be given regularly

to monitor parent satisfaction around

instruction and learning.

• Major and minor leadership groups are

detailed in the plan and will meet to gather

stakeholder input.

26

School Leadership and

Governance Structure

Meets Expectations Comments

Plan provides overview of leadership and governance, including how the implementation of innovations will be monitored.

• Identifies the key school administrators, including the

school principal, assistant principals, and any other new

leadership roles the school plans to create.

• Articulates changes to leadership roles and

responsibilities under innovation status.

• Describes systems and policies for continued monitoring

and implementation of the school’s Innovation Plan.

• Explains how the school will regularly evaluate

implementation of its plan to ensure continuous

improvement.

• The Directory of Elementary Schools will provide weekly support, mentoring and monitoring of the innovation plan.

• The Principal Advisory Committee made up of various stakeholders including a parent, a classified staff and a non-classified staff to advise and provide guidance to the principal on the climate and culture of the building.

Budget and Operations X Meets expectations □ Partially meets expectations □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Budget Meets Expectations Comments

Innovation Plan includes an explanation of how the school will use increased flexibility and autonomy over the funds allocated it by the district, including an estimate of increased operating costs and/or increased costs savings and efficiencies.

• Outlines any proposed use of budget autonomies for the

school and provide reasons for their necessity.

• Explains any specific resources, material, equipment,

staff, programs and policies that create additional

operating costs as a result of the Innovation Plan (e.g.,

longer school year and school day).

• Highlights any one-time implementation costs that will be

incurred during the planning year and/or year one of

operating with innovation status.

• Explains how the school will fund such additional

operating costs.

• A draft budget is included for year 1 of the plan.

• The plan will work with current funds and potential grant resources to implement the innovations proposed.

27

• Estimates any cost savings or increased efficiencies due

to the implementation of the innovation proposal (e.g.

analysis of budgeting using average vs. actual salaries or

estimates of centrally budgeted services for which the

school intends to access funding directly).

Facilities & General

Operations

Meets Expectations Comments

Plan describes any innovations being pursued in relation to general school or building operations.

• Describes any innovations to the general school or

building operations.

• Explains if there are significant construction projects

necessary to implement this Innovation Plan. Addresses if

there is enough classroom space to implement this

Innovation Plan.

• Describes any innovations in the way the school will

provide transportation for students.

• Details any autonomies being sought regarding

procurement processes.

• The school will explore grant opportunities for the pre-school and on-site health care center.

District Systems X Meets expectations □ Partially meets expectation □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Accountability and

Supervision

Meets Expectations Comments

Plan includes details on how the school district administration will support, supervise and hold accountable school leadership.

• Plan conveys that the principal supervisor will provide

consistent support and accountability to school principal.

• Plan describes reporting and evaluation structures for the

innovation school principal, noting if any changes are

being made to current practices or structures.

• The Director of Elementary Schools will

meet weekly with the school in year 1 to

provide support, mentoring and

accountability.

28

District Systems Meets Expectations Comments

Plan provides explanation of how the district will support the innovation school.

• Outlines the district’s plan for providing differentiated

support to the innovation school, including changes to

organizational structures, routines, or systems.

• Describes any flexibility from district policies and

practices that will be granted to the innovation school.

• The district will allow the school to have earlier access to the hiring pool to secure the most qualified teachers for the school.

• Waivers from district policy are described and the resolution from the local board is attached to the innovation plan.

Summary Overall Rationale

CDE has determined that the proposed Innovation Plan meets the expectations of the rigorous standards described above, and, if implemented, will have significant, urgent, and positive impact on student learning.

Martinez Elementary School has just begun to implement their Innovation Plan, which was approved by the State Board in June 2017. CDE finds that the core components of the school’s Innovation Plan, including a new educational model centered on STEAM and project-based learning, enhanced and targeted professional development, and the plans for increased student and family engagement will result in stronger instruction and improved student outcomes. The school has seen an upward trend in student achievement data over the past several years and fell just short of the Improvement rating cut score in 2017. CDE staff believe that Martinez Elementary School should be given time to implement the school redesign strategies that are outlined in their Innovation Plan with the expectation that the school reach Improvement status or higher by 2019.

29

State law requires that the Colorado State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of

Education hold all districts and schools accountable for student performance (C.R.S. 22-11-101 et al.).

The state annually evaluates student performance in districts and schools through a set of consistent,

objective measures, and then uses this information to inform rewards, sanctions, and supports. Districts

and schools assigned to a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan have the lowest performing student

outcomes of all districts and schools in Colorado, according to the state’s primary accountability tool—

the District and School Performance Framework (DPF/SPF) reports. The DPF and SPF reports are based

on key Performance Indicators that the state has determined to be most indicative of how prepared

students are for college and career: achievement, growth, and postsecondary and workforce readiness,

which each indicator including the disaggregated results for different student groups. Districts and

schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround plans tend to be falling short of state expectations for

students in each of these areas. Guidance on the 2017 School and District Performance Frameworks can

be accessed at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworksresources.

Pursuant to the Education Act of 2009, Article 11 of Title 22, C.R.S., schools may not implement

a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan for longer than five consecutive years before the district or

Institute is required to restructure or close the school. According to State Board of Education rules, 1

CCR 301-1, section 10.05, the calculation of the five consecutive years begins July 1 of the summer

immediately following the fall in which the school is notified that it must implement a Priority

Improvement or Turnaround Plan. This statutory timeline is referred to as the “Accountability Clock.”

Per HB15-1323, accreditation ratings and school plan types were not assigned in fall 2015. As a

result, the 2015-16 school year was removed from the calculation of five consecutive school years for

both school districts and individual schools. This one year pause means that the 2016-17 school year

resumed where the 2014-15 school year left off in terms of the accountability clock.

The Accountability Clock is in effect for a district or school as long as it is assigned a Priority

Improvement or Turnaround Plan. The Accountability Clock stops for a district or school once the State

Board adopts an SPF/DPF with a rating of Improvement or higher. At that point, the district or school

would be considered to have exited Priority Improvement or Turnaround status. If a district or school is

on Turnaround and moves to Priority Improvement the Accountability Clock continues and is not reset.

Schools and districts on the Accountability Clock for any period of time should be implementing

research-based strategies of appropriate scope and intensity to improve student outcomes. After five

consecutive years, the local board will be directed by the State Board of Education as to which strategy,

or pathway, to pursue. This may include school closure, converting schools to a charter school, working

with an external management partner, seeking innovation status for a school or group of schools, or

district reorganization. In considering appropriate actions, the State Board will refer to

recommendations from the State Review Panel and, for districts, from the Commissioner of Education.

School districts may also provide a proposal for their preferred pathway to the State Board.

For more information on the accountability clock, please visit: http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/accountability_clock.

30

Since 2011, Martinez has had a Priority Improvement plan type. The school’s plans have generally had high quality data reporting and analysis. The school has been able to take feedback from CDE to strengthen the overall plan over time. Feedback from CDE to the school has centered on improving strategies that convey dramatic change and improving action plans so that they can be effectively implemented and monitored.

School Year

Plan

Quality (CDE Review)

Major Improvement Strategies Identified

Summary of Feedback

2016-17 Variable, better in performance challenges, strategies and actions with concerns about root causes and progress monitoring

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. 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. Title 1 Supports Implement improvement strategies in reading and math by using Title1 funding to supplement the support for non-proficient students in reaching proficiency.

The plan describes performance needs of the school over time, using multiple types of data including process (diagnostic review), perception (TELL) and performance data (CSAP/TCAP/CMAS). Root causes leverage diagnostic review data, but are framed more as major improvement strategies, rather than conveying a depth of understanding of what is occurring at the school that results in the performance of the school (ex. Instructional staff members will provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery.) Identified major improvement strategies and action steps describe a solid foundation for improvement efforts; some recommendations are provided to improvelikelihood of positive outcomes. Additional specificity should be provided in plan elements that gauge impact and efficacy of implementation, specifically targets/interim measures and implementation benchmarks. There is recognition of the connection of Root Causes, Major Improvement Strategies, and Action steps to the Innovation Planning process. School and district staff are encouraged to make evident strong alignment between these two documents.

31

2015-16 Overall high quality, progress monitoring low

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. 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. Title 1 Supports Implement improvement strategies in reading and math by using Title1 funding to supplement the support for non-proficient students in reaching proficiency.

Overall, this is a comprehensive, aligned plan. The school team has provided an in‐depth analysis and interpretation of both state and local data. The school has used reflection on the data to identify priority performance challenges and root causes and to determine major improvement strategies and action steps. The connections between the data, trends, performance challenges, and root causes are clear. Consider developing more concise priority performance challenges to capture the essence of the challenges. The same is true of the root causes. They are very broad and do not go deep enough to address "why" certain conditions exist (e.g., why there is not a belief that all students can learn). Also, given Martinez Elementary is in Priority Improvement Year 4, the action plan needs to be prioritized to focus on the most urgent actions the school must take to immediately improve student performance. For example, revisiting mission and beliefs does not convey the urgency required to move a school off of the accountability clock.

2014-15 Overall high quality

1. Teachers will ensure the systematic implementation of explicit, rigorous instruction by applying common instructional practices across grade levels to improve student success and meet rigorous State and District standards using research based ELD strategies and scaffolds for all students including ELL students across all content areas beginning with quality Tier 1 instruction.

2. Teachers will implement and monitor student progress toward meeting rigorous State and District standards using the instructional data team process outlined in the six steps of “Decision Making for Results” with a specific focus on all students including ELL students.

3. Implement improvement strategies in reading and math by using Title1 funding to supplement the support for non-proficient students in reaching proficiency.

The school has developed a thorough and detailed UIP, and has met much of the quality criteria across all elements of the plan. The school has made adjustments to last year's plan, as the reflection demonstrates evaluation of performance data and prior root causes, and the Narrative and Action Plan reflect these adjustments accordingly. Connections between the plan elements are clear, and the Action Plan reflects research-based strategies aimed at resolving the systemic issues the school is facing. Recommendations are included in the plan to support the school as it continues to refine its improvement planning process.

32

2013-14 Overall high quality

1. Teachers and administrators will ensure the systematic and explicit implementation of a research based literacy program to improve the academic success of all students. This implementation will include professional development aligned with the needs of students, focused use of data to ensure progress, implementation of research based ELD strategies and specific targeted instructional strategies to enrich or remediate instruction for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. We will provide a comprehensive extended day program to enhance reading for all students. Students will be provided interactive learning through the use of technology (Promethean Boards) to increase student engagement and provide immediate feedback.

2. Teachers and administrators will ensure the systematic and explicit implementation of a research based math program to improve the academic success of all students. This implementation will include professional development aligned with the needs of students, focused use of data to ensure progress, implementation of research based ELD strategies and specific targeted instructional strategies during Numeracy Time to enrich or remediate instruction for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. Students will be provided interactive learning through the use of technology (Promethean Boards) to increase student engagement and provide immediate feedback.

3. Implement all Title 1 compliance areas and strategies for improvement.

The UIP presents a comprehensive set of data; however, they are not well synthesized. Consider displaying these data in a more easily understandable manner in the Data Narrative. Review the definitions of Academic Growth and Academic Growth Gaps, as there appears to be some confusion about the difference between the two. Be cautious when developing root causes so that the school does not appear to be blaming students for their academic problems. Although the school is making gains in growth, achievement in all areas is relatively flat. Consider revisiting the root causes, which were identified three years ago. The action plan is ambitious, building upon last year's work and addressing all content areas. Administrators and staff might consider analyzing which action plan steps are having the most positive impact on achievement and growth (which are most effective) and narrow the action plan to those. This might increase the school's focus and make the action plan steps easier to monitor and adjust - and lead to more dramatic change.

33

2012-13 Overall high quality

1. Design and Implement a multi-tiered support system that addresses students’ academic, behavioral, social/emotional needs for all students.

2. Implement grade level teams to map, pace and develop curriculum with accompanying common formative assessments that are Colorado Academic and Common Core State Standards based.

3. Increase the quality of explicit, engaging research-based instructional strategies across contents and throughout the school day.

The plan mostly meets critical Quality Criteria and should provide a foundation for improvement planning. However, the recommended revisions found within the Feedback Form could strengthen improvement efforts. Specifically, look for systemic root causes underneath the currently identified root causes, through deeper analysis that looks beyond student characteristics and adult actions. This might enable the school to remove barriers to implementation of standards-based practices that lead to changes in student performance.

2011-12 Overall low quality

Teachers will implement the District 6 comprehensive research based plan for student success in: 1. Literacy which will include

strategy and skill instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

2. Elementary literacy which includes focused intervention strategies and extended day programs to enhance student learning and time in text.

3. Math which will include instruction in number sense, conceptual understanding of math concepts, and the ability to use math to solve math problems.

4. Writing which will emphasize transfer of mechanics and grammar skills in daily writing.

5. Science to provide both content and process science lessons to all students with emphasis on academic vocabulary and comprehension.

6. Implement all Title 1 compliance areas and strategies for improvement.

The reviewers suggest that root cause analysis and verification processes be more strategic; consider the use of additional local data sources, to include all students in the school, to support identifying and verifying root causes and major improvement strategies. The plan must be revised to include an 18 month action plan, through the 2012-13 school year.

34

Grant Name

Year Awarded & Award Amount

2013- 2014

2014- 2015

2015- 2016

2016- 2017

2017- 2018

Turnaround Network $50,000

Pathways Early Action Grant $31,627

Diagnostic Review $50,000

Total $50,000 $31,627 $50,000

35

Retrieved from CDE’s School Dashboard at www2.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/dish/schooldashboard.asp

INTRODUCTIONLAST UPDATED: 12/01/2017

This dashboard has been designed to provide district staff and other stakeholders (e.g., District Accountability Committees, local boards) with data to support effective systems analysis andimprovement planning. It is organized by tabs across the top of the screen. Additional information related to the data can be found by hovering the cursor over report elements. Data is only populatedwhere available.

SCHOOL INFORMATIONDistrict Number District Name School Number School Name Phone Number3120 GREELEY 6 6774 MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 970-348-1800

School Map

SCHOOLGREELEY 6 (3120): MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (6774)

GREELEY CO 80631

Street Address341 14TH AVENUE

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Hispanic95.1%

Hispanic93.8%

Hispanic92.8%

Hispanic90.4%

Hispanic89.0%

Hispanic87.6%

ENROLLMENT BY ETHNICITY

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

American Indian or Alaska Nati..

Asian

Black

White

Hispanic

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Gifted Students

Students withDisabilities

English Learners(NEP, LEP, FEPM1/M2)English Learners(NEP, LEP, FEP,FELL)

Free/Reduced-PriceLunch Eligible

Minority Students 93.1%

95.3%

72.8%

72.2%

10.1%

1.2%

93.6%

96.3%

70.8%

68.7%

7.8%

94.1%

90.4%

70.3%

65.9%

8.7%

95.3%

91.5%

72.4%

69.7%

10.0%

0.5%

95.7%

94.8%

70.3%

68.7%

8.8%

1.2%

96.5%

95.2%

72.2%

72.0%

7.2%

0.5%

ENROLLMENT BY STUDENT GROUP

Attendance and Mobility RatesThe rates displayed here reflect information collected by CDE's Data Services Unit, which is published on the CDE Education Statistics page.The orange lines indicate the overall state rates for each

year. Mobility rates reflect revised calculation methodolgy implemented in 2013. See here for additional details: https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/mobility-stabilitycurrent

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

94.6% 95.0% 94.4%

Attendance Rate

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

18.4%19.3%

18.1%

Mobility Rate

Notes: Counts and percentages are based on the pupil membership information reported in the October Count submission for the designated year. The chart showing enrollment statistics for specificstudent groups includes two sets of calculations for English learners. One includes students who are currently receiving language acquisitions services: NEP, LEP, FEP M1, and FEP M2. The otherincludes students currently receiving services as well as those who received services in the past: NEP, LEP, FEP, and FELL.

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

579 575507

596607 613

TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT

SCHOOLGREELEY 6 (3120): MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (6774)

Colorado PSAT and SATNone

CMAS English Language Arts, Math, and ScienceElementary

Subject All Students English LearnersFree/Reduced-PriceLunch Eligible Gifted Students Minority Students

Students withDisabilities

2015

2016

2017

2015

2016

2017

2015

2016

2017

2015

2016

2017

2015

2016

2017

2015

2016

2017

ENGLISHLANGUAGEARTS

MATH

SCIENCE

680

700

720

740

680

700

720

740

550

600

650

680

700

720

740

Mean Scale Score

680

700

720

740

Mean Scale Score

550

600

650

Mean Scale Score

State Achievement ResultsThe graphs below display the mean scale scores for the annual CMAS and Colorado PSAT/SAT assessments. For CMAS English Language Arts and Math, mean scale scores are reported forindividual grade spans (Elementary, Middle, and High) and for the school or district overall (All Grades). For CMAS Science, means are only reported for individual grade spans; scores are not reportedat the overall level. Mean scale scores for the Colorado PSAT and SAT are reported separately, and are also broken out by subject area. Note that all calculations reported here conform to policy rulesestablished under the state accountability system. The calculations reflect only the outcomes for students who were continuously enrolled from October Count through testing and who received validscores. Results are not displayed in cases where the n-count is less than 16. Participation rates are important to consider when interpreting achievement results. Participation rates are available in thehover . CDE advises districts to consider the participation rates when interpreting achievement scores, and especially when those rates fall below 85%.

Reference Lines: Users may choose to display either state-level mean scale scores (state average), state accountability cut-points (used inperformance frameworks), or performance level cut-points (Did not yet Meet Expectations, Partially Met, Approached, Met and Exceeded) on thegraphs. The cut-points will display as a series of lines overlaying the bars. Selections will apply to all graphs.

State Accountability Ratings

SCHOOL GREELEY 6 (3120): MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (6774)

CMASENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

2016School District State

2017School District State

MATH

2016School District State

2017School District State

ALL STUDENTS All Students

GRADE LEVEL 04

05

ENGLISH LEARNERS English Learners (NEP, LEP, FEP)

Non-English Learners

FREE AND REDUCEDLUNCH (FRL)

FRL-Eligible

Non-FRL

GENDER Female

Male

GIFTED Gifted and Talented

Non-Gifted and Talented

INDIVIDUALIZEDEDUCATION PLAN (IEP)

On IEP

Non-IEP

MIGRANT Migrant

Non-Migrant

MINORITY Minority

Non-Minority

PERFORMANCE LEVELAt or Above Benchmark

Below Benchmark

RACE/ETHNICITY American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

50.0046.0045.00 50.0044.0044.00 50.0042.0031.00 50.0040.0034.50

50.00

50.00

49.00

44.00

55.00

40.00

50.00

50.00

43.00

45.00

58.50

34.50

50.00

50.00

43.00

40.00

34.50

26.00

50.00

50.00

42.00

39.00

43.50

30.50

50.00

49.00

46.00

46.00

32.00

47.00

50.00

50.00

42.00

46.00

45.00

44.00

51.00

47.00

42.00

42.00

34.00

30.50

50.00

49.00

39.00

43.00

27.00

38.00

53.00

47.00

49.00

45.0045.50

53.00

47.00

45.00

43.0042.00

53.00

46.00

44.50

41.0031.00

53.00

46.00

40.00

40.0035.00

46.00

54.00

42.00

52.00

36.50

49.50

47.00

53.00

40.00

47.00

37.00

48.00

49.00

51.00

42.00

42.00

27.50

35.50

51.00

49.00

42.00

38.00

32.00

38.00

49.00

61.00

46.00

55.00

45.00 49.00

62.00

44.00

44.00

42.00 49.00

60.00

41.00

68.00

31.00 49.00

60.00

40.00

51.00

34.00

52.00

36.00

48.00

33.00

49.50 51.00

38.00

45.00

29.00

44.00 51.00

41.00

43.00

36.00

31.00 51.00

42.00

41.00

34.50

37.00

50.00

45.00

46.00

45.50

45.00 50.00

45.00

44.00

46.00

44.00 50.00

42.00

42.00

36.00

31.00 50.00

48.00

40.00

48.00

34.00

51.00

48.00

48.00

45.5045.00

52.00

48.00

44.00

44.0044.50

52.00

47.00

43.00

42.0031.00

52.00

48.00

39.00

41.0035.00

50.00

50.00

48.00

43.00

47.00

38.00

50.00

50.00

46.00

40.00

45.00

35.00

50.00

50.00

43.00

40.00

29.50

37.50

50.00

50.00

42.00

34.00

39.50

28.50

52.00

52.00

51.00

47.00

48.00

59.00

47.00

57.00

48.00

45.00

55.50

62.00

45.00

52.00

50.00

52.00

47.00

47.00

58.00

43.50

34.00

44.00

44.00

43.00

59.00

44.00

51.00

58.00

52.00

46.00

45.00

60.00

45.00

29.00

43.00

41.00

44.00

50.00

31.00

50.00

51.00

52.00

47.00

44.00

59.00

41.00

34.00

39.00

40.00

42.00

55.00

35.50

Growth metrics provide another view of the performance of a school, district or group of students. While achievement is focused on the performance at a point in time, growth provides an indication of what happensin-between the assessments. Looking at both achievement and growth results provides a more in-depth picture of performance.

Growth rates for individual students are calculated by analyzing students’ scores over consecutive years. A student's growth percentile (ranging from 1 to 99) indicates how a student’s performance changed over time,relative to students with a similar score history on the state assessments. School and district growth rates are determined by the growth percentiles from individual students, specifically the median (or score in themiddle) student growth percentile. Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) are calculated for the whole school, by grade, and by different student groups. Higher median growth percentiles indicate higher growth rates forthe typical students in those groups. Note that growth rates are independent of achievement levels (students at all achievement levels are just as likely to have high growth as low growth). As a point of reference, thestate median growth percentile for any grade, overall, is 50. In rare cases, state median growth percentiles may vary slightly.

Missing data in the table reflect fewer than 20 students in the group; their data is not shown in the table (the cells are blank) to ensure data privacy and appropriate interpretation of results. For additional definitions andinformation go to: www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/coloradogrowthmodel

1.00 99.00Median Growth Percentile CMAS

SAT

SCHOOLGREELEY 6 (3120): MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (6774)

SCHOOL GREELEY 6 (3120): MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (6774)

Official RatingsThis tab summarizes data from the Performance Frameworks. A district or school's official accreditation rating or plan type is based on either the single-year or multi-year framework as indicated in the table thatappears in the upper right-hand corner of this page. Ratings and plan types are assinged based on the overall percentage of points earned on the official framework. Failing to meet the accountability requirement for95% participation on two or more assessments will reduce the overall rating by one level. Districts may appeal accreditation ratings and plan types through CDE's Request for Reconsideration process, which mayresult in a rating that does not correspond to the stated ranges for the percentage of points associated with each performance level. More information about the performance frameworks is available here:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworks

2016 2017

Priority Improvement Plan: Meets 95% Participation41.3%Priority Improvement Plan

36.6%Priority Imp.Improvement

Performance

Turnaround

2016 2017

SINGLE-YEARSINGLE-YEAR

Official Report Type

2016 2017

Year 6Year 5

Official Years on the Clock

2016 2017

Meets 95% ParticipationMeets 95% Participation

Official Participation

Overall Performance RatingsCDE calculates overall performance ratings for both the single-year and multi-year versions of the performance framework. For multi-level schools and districts, CDE also calculatesoverall performance ratings for each individual grade range. In this section of the report, users can toggle between report types and view the overall ratings associated with the schoolor district overall as well as for each distinct grade range. Filters applied in this section are applied to all sections below.

Report TypeSINGLE-YEAR

All Grades 2016 Priority Improvement Plan

2017 Priority Improvement Plan: Meets 95% Participation

36.6%

41.3%

Indicator RatingThis section of the report shows the performance ratings associated wtih each performance indicator for the school or district overall and for each distinct grade range. Users cantoggle between performance indicators using the drop-down filter. Filters selected here will also be applied to the section of the report below.

IndicatorAchievement

All Grades 2016 Does Not Meet

2017 Approaching

26.4%

42.1%

Subindicator RatingsThis section of the report shows the performance ratings associated wtih each sub-indicator. Achievement and Growth sub-indicators correspond to subjectareas on the state assessments. The PWR sub-indicators are graduation rates, dropout rates, matriculation rates, and the Colorado SAT.

Grade LevelAll

SubindicatorAll

Elementary CMAS -ENGLISHLANGUAGEARTS

All Students 2016 Does Not Meet

2017 Approaching

English Learners 2016 Approaching

2017 Approaching

Free/Reduced-PriceLunch Eligible

2016 Does Not Meet

2017 Approaching

Minority Students 2016 Does Not Meet

2017 Approaching

25.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

25.0%

50.0%

25.0%

50.0%