Submitted to:

Colorado State Board of Education

By:

Dr. Katy Anthes, Commissioner of Education

February 10, 2017

Colorado Department of Education

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

2

3

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District will enter its 6th year of being Accredited with a Priority

Improvement Plan on July 1, 2017. This report constitutes CDE’s formal recommendation for the school

district. The State Board of Education is required, by law, to direct action to the district’s local school

board prior to June 30, 2017. While three schools in the district are on the accountability clock, none are

entering Year 6 on July 1, 2017. Thus, this recommendation is focused on the district pathway.

CDE Recommendation

Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009, the Commissioner of Education is

required to provide a recommendation to the State Board of Education.1 The Commissioner

recommends a management partnership for Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District based upon a

review of the district’s data, leadership, culture, academic systems, Unified Improvement Plan, and the

history of grants and supports provided to the school. The Commissioner’s visit to the district in fall

2016, as well as many staff visits and support over the last three

years also informed this recommendation. In addition, the

Department took into consideration the State Review Panel’s final

recommendation and the district’s own proposal to pursue a

management partnership with the University of Virginia.

Background

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District serves approximately 2,800 students in southwest

Colorado. In 2016-17, 68 percent of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The district

represents a diverse population; about 26 percent of the district’s students are Native American, 20

percent are Hispanic, 50 percent are white and four percent are other race/ethnicities. The

superintendent, Lori Haukeness, has served in the district in a number of roles for the past 22 years, but

was just named superintendent in 2016. The district has been Accredited with Priority Improvement

since 2010, and has had persistent challenges with student performance at the elementary level,

particularly in English Language Arts and Math achievement. Montezuma-Cortez School District has

been investing support and resources in its lowest performing elementary schools, and one school –

Kemper Elementary – moved from Turnaround in 2014 to Performance in 2016. Kemper had previously

been on Year 5 of the Accountability Clock.

Historically, the district’s middle school and traditional high school have had better outcomes than

the elementary grades, with academic growth results approaching or meeting expectations in both

reading and math in 2010 to 2014. On the latest district performance framework (2016), the middle and

high schools showed a sharp decline in academic performance in both ELA and math, but the data

should be interpreted with caution as both schools had low participation rates on the state assessments.

The district requested a reconsideration of the preliminary plan types for the middle and high schools

based on the concern that those students who did take the CMAS assessments were not representative

1 Please see Appendix A for additional background information on the Accountability Clock.

4

of the school population as a whole. Local assessment data was submitted by the district which showed

that, in fact, the students who did not test on the state assessment were higher performing on the local

assessments, compared to the students who did test. The district’s request for the two schools was

approved, and the middle and high school have final plan types of Insufficient State Data: Low

Participation.

Key Conditions for Success

Based on interactions with the district over the past several years, and based on the district’s

Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), it is evident to the Department that the district continues to face core

challenges around academic systems, teacher recruitment and retention, community engagement and

district systems of support. As such, the district’s pathway plan must address the following conditions to

instill confidence that the district is on track to attaining an Accredited rating.

Academic systems. While the district has focused on data-driven instruction, short-cycle planning

and reflection, and fostering a culture of high expectations, this work needs to be further refined and

implemented with fidelity across all schools, including the district’s secondary schools.

Talent management. The district has already begun implementing promising initiatives around

talent management including a partnership with the Boettcher Teacher Residency Program. Given the

historically high turnover in staff at the elementary level, the district needs to continue developing and

implementing a robust talent management plan that includes strategies for recruiting quality teachers,

providing strong professional development, and retaining the best teachers. The district should also

consider a “grow-your own” leadership and principal pipeline strategy to lessen the impact of transitions

and support the sustainability of initiatives.

Parent and community engagement. The district should consider strategies to consistently

engage the parent community and the community at large in supporting improvement efforts,

celebrating academic performance and setting high expectations, which the district acknowledges has

been challenging to date.

District systems of support. While the district has made a conscious effort to adjust district

systems, including personnel and resources, to provide better differentiated support and accountability

to its low-performing schools, there is a need to strengthen those systems. The district must continue to

monitor the implementation of key improvement strategies, including short-cycle planning and a culture

of high expectations, to ensure consistent and rigorous implementation at all schools.

Rationale for Recommendation

CDE is recommending a management partnership for Montezuma-Cortez School District based on

the key conditions needed for success, the State Review Panel recommendation, multiple CDE staff visits

and the district’s proposal. The Department has reviewed the district’s proposal for a two-year

partnership with the University of Virginia Turnaround Leaders Program (UVA) and finds that the plan

sufficiently addresses the key conditions for success that are listed above. Furthermore, the proposed

partnership is an extension of the current collaboration between the district and UVA that has seen

5

early success with Kemper Middle School, which dramatically improved from Turnaround to

Performance.

Over the last three years, the district and the three elementary schools in priority improvement

and turnaround participated in the UVA program. The UVA program is typically a two year program

based on systemic changes in key areas, frequent progress monitoring, and stakeholder buy-in. In 2016,

the district applied for and was accepted into the UVA Sustainability Program for an extra year of

support. The UVA Sustainability Program is a selective process only for districts that UVA feels has made

significant progress in implementing its program’s tenets. A requirement of the UVA program is weekly

“district shepherd” visits and support. Through the weekly district shepherd meetings, the district began

to identify turnaround leadership competencies that were essential for their schools to be successful.

Recognizing that their priority improvement and turnaround schools needed the most skilled leaders,

the district made the decision to move the leader of the middle school, a school rated as performance in

2014, to the elementary school furthest along on the clock, Kemper Elementary. With the leadership

change and the partnership with UVA, Kemper Elementary improved dramatically and received a

Performance rating in 2016. The other elementary schools participating in UVA have also seen early

gains in achievement, although they remain on the accountability clock at this time.

The high school and middle school have not participated in the UVA program yet as both schools

held Improvement or Performance ratings prior to 2016, and so the schools were not eligible for

additional funding to support their participation. Nonetheless, the district has focused on improvement

efforts at the secondary schools. The district, for example, recognizes that shifting the Cortez Middle

School principal to Kemper Elementary left a leadership gap at the middle school, and the district is

working to support the current middle school leader. Part of the district’s management plan is to build a

leadership pipeline to prevent this gap from occurring in the future.

At the high school level, the district has sought out support for both its traditional and alternative

high schools to improve the postsecondary and workforce readiness of their students (for example,

through the Expelled & At-Risk Student Services and School Counselor Corps grants). The Montezuma-

Cortez High School principal has been relentlessly focused on bolstering dropout prevention efforts,

increasing student engagement and enhancing career and technical education programming. The

improvement efforts have had positive outcomes thus far; the Montezuma-Cortez High School

graduation rate increased by over 20 percentage points in the past five years, and ACT scores have

improved as well.

Over the last three years, Montezuma-Cortez has welcomed and invited CDE as a partner. The

district has allowed CDE to participate in every meeting during the UVA program. The district has invited

CDE to speak with the local board, visit with school staff, provide feedback and technical support, and

has indicated a desire to continue this partnership during the implementation of the management

pathway. The ongoing partnership between Montezuma-Cortez School District and the Department has

led CDE to feel confident in the district’s improvement strategies, effort and urgency. CDE staff have

seen improvements in instruction, culture, district systems and an intense focus on school turnaround in

the last two years. District and school leaders are committed to their turnaround strategies, which have

seen early success. While dramatic results are difficult to achieve in a short time period, the Department

6

is confident that the district is on the right track to attain the improvements needed to reach an

Accredited status within the next two years.

In summary, given the progress seen at the Kemper Elementary School, promising local data,

strong evidence of systemic change and the district's willingness to engage with CDE and external

partners, the Department recommends the management pathway. The district’s proposed plan for a

management partnership is thorough and well-developed. The plan includes a scope of work that is

focused on supporting the district’s core needs around academic systems, talent management,

community engagement and district systems. The partnership with UVA will provide targeted

professional development and ongoing accountability to enable the district to deepen implementation

of best practices and continue the promising work that has already begun.

Alternative pathway options

CDE has also reviewed the other potential pathway options for the district—innovation status,

conversion of a district-run school to a charter school, closure of individual schools and district

reorganization. At this juncture, CDE does not recommend that Montezuma-Cortez School District seek

innovation status for a school or group of schools because there are not district or state policies that are

preventing schools from implementing the needed turnaround efforts. The district already grants

significant autonomy to school leaders in decisions related to school-level instruction and culture. There

is not a collective bargaining agreement with teachers or any other employee group in place. Further, as

the State Review Panel notes, teacher recruitment and retention are a challenge for the district and

altering statutory protections for teachers may exacerbate those problems. The Department, however,

does see an opportunity for Innovation Status to be used in the future for one school, Manaugh

Elementary (Year 5), as a lever for school redesign. Manaugh Elementary is currently in its first year of

the Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) and is engaging in an extensive redesign process (referred to as

whole school reform). Innovation status could be beneficial to Manaugh in redesigning, or restarting,

the school’s systems and culture. However, CDE does not believe this strategy alone would address the

key conditions needed for success in schools district-wide.

The Department does not recommend the conversion of any district-run schools to charter

schools. Given the remoteness of the district, it has been challenging to identify a high-quality charter

operator with proven turnaround experience that is interested and willing to engage in a rural area and

has a viable business model for operating a “one-off” charter school. This is a barrier not just for

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District, but for many rural districts across the state.2 Additionally, both

the State Review Panel and the district have noted a lack of community support for another charter

school beyond the three charter schools the district already authorizes. Furthermore, an additional

charter school would not address the systemic issues the district needs to address.

CDE does not recommend closure of individual schools, first and foremost, because there is not

capacity at other district schools to serve displaced students in the case of school closure. There is also

evidence that the district is on the right path with its improvement efforts as seen by Kemper

2 See, e.g. Pandit, M., and Ibtissam, E. (2016). Harvesting Success: Charter Schools in Rural America. Safal Partners.

7

Elementary School, which moved from Turnaround (in 2014) to Performance (in 2016). Other district

schools are seeing initial improvements and the Department believes they, too, can get to Performance

status with their current strategies as long as they remain diligent and focused.

The Department also does not recommend district reorganization because Montezuma-Cortez

RE-1 School District serves a large geographical area spanning nearly 1,400 square miles. Altering district

boundaries would result in long bus rides for students and high transportation costs. The district serves

a unique need by educating a diverse population in an isolated rural community. Moreover, both CDE

and the State Review Panel attest to the effectiveness of the new district leadership and the promising

outcomes of the UVA management partnership. As the Panel states in its report, “current leadership has

communicated a laser-like focus on district turnaround and improvement, has ensured that data drives

all changes and decisions made, and has communicated high expectations for all stakeholders.” The

Department’s evaluation of the school district strongly aligns with the Panel’s assessment; the school

district is determined to maintain a focus on turnaround and is willingly seeking assistance in doing so

through its proposed partnership with the UVA Turnaround Leaders Program.

Pathways that Meet Necessary Conditions for Improvement

District Pathway CDE

Recommendation Additional Options

CDE Does Not

Recommend

Innovation School Status X

Conversion to a Charter School X

External Management Partner X

School Closure X

District Reorganization X

CDE Recommendation Report Outline

The next sections of this report provide supporting evidence and documentation for the

statements made above. First, a summary of district-level data trends is provided, followed by a review

of the district’s systems and conditions. A summary of the Montezuma-Cortez School District Unified

Improvement Plan is included, as is an overview of the state and federal grants provided to the district

over the past several years. Lastly, the report includes an evaluation by CDE staff of the State Review

Panel’s report and the school district’s management proposal.

8

Montezuma Cortez Re-1 School District serves approximately 2,800 students in southwest

Colorado. In 2016-17, 68 percent of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The district

represents a diverse population; about 26 percent of the district’s students are Native American, 20

percent are Hispanic, and 50 percent are white. The district has been Accredited with Priority

Improvement since 2010, and has had persistent challenges with student performance at the

elementary level, particularly in English Language Arts and Math achievement. The low participation

rates at the middle school and high school make it difficult to interpret the low achievement and growth

scores on the 2016 district performance framework. Historically, the middle and high school have been

approaching or meeting state expectations on the performance indicators. The following section

provides a summary of district-level student performance trends and postsecondary and workforce

readiness data. Please refer to Appendix B for additional district-level data.

District and School Performance Frameworks

The District has earned a rating of Priority Improvement for the last six accountability cycles on

the state’s district performance framework, as displayed in Table 1. While the rating received has been

consistent, overall percentage of points earned on the framework has fluctuated over time.

Table 1. District Rating over Time

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016

District Accreditation Rating

Priority Improvement

Priority Improvement

Priority Improvement

Priority Improvement

Priority Improvement

Priority Improvement: Low Participation

Table 2 depicts the distribution of school ratings within Montezuma-Cortez, which have been

somewhat consistent over the past six years. Since 2011, three to five schools have received Priority

Improvement or Turnaround ratings on the school performance frameworks each year, with the

district’s remaining schools receiving a mix of Improvement and Performance ratings. In 2016, three

schools in the district received Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan types, a single school received

an Improvement Plan, and two schools received Performance Plans. One of the schools in Performance

is Kemper Elementary School, which had been on the accountability clock for five consecutive years and

had a Turnaround rating in 2014. The school made significant progress on all indicators to earn the

Performance rating in 2016. Due to parent opt-outs on the state assessments, four schools were

designated as Insufficient State Data: Low Participation, including the district’s middle school and high

school, in 2016.

9

Table 2. School plan types, 2010-2016 for Montezuma-Cortez School District

Final School Plan Type Year on

Clock (eff. July 1,

2017) School Name Level 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016

Manaugh Elementary School E I PI PI T T PI Year 5

Mesa Elementary School E P I I T PI T Year 3

Southwest Open Charter School H AEC: I

AEC: PI AEC: PI AEC: PI AEC: I AEC: PI Year 1

Cortez Middle School M P P P I P

Insufficient State Data: Low Participation*

Montezuma-Cortez High School H I I I I I

Insufficient State Data: Low Participation*

Children's Kiva Montessori School EM P P: Low Participation

Kemper Elementary School E T T PI PI T P

Lewis-Arriola Elementary School E I P P PI I I: Low Participation

Battle Rock Charter School E PI I I I I

Insufficient State Data: Low Participation

Pleasant View Elementary School E P P P P I

Insufficient State Data: Low Participation

*2016 Request to Reconsider was approved for Cortez Middle School and Montezuma-Cortez High School Note: Low Participation (LP) indicates that the participation rate for the school falls below 95% in more than one content area

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

District 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 3, reading and math

achievement at the elementary level has been a consistent challenge for the District over the past six

years. Academic growth for both English Language Arts (ELA) and math at the elementary level showed

improvement in 2016 as compared to 2014, although these students are still falling behind their

academic peers.

The middle and high levels have had somewhat better outcomes than the elementary grades, with

academic growth results approaching or meeting expectations in both reading and math in 2010-2014.

While the 2016 data for the middle and high levels shows low academic achievement and growth, the

data should be interpreted alongside the participation rates. Both the middle school and high school had

low participation rates on the state assessments. The district requested a reconsideration of the

preliminary plan types for the middle and high schools based on the concern that those students who

did take the CMAS assessments were not representative of the school population as a whole. Local

assessment data was submitted by the district which showed that, in fact, the students who did not test

on the state assessment were higher performing on the local assessments, compared to the students

10

who did test. The district’s request for the two schools was approved, and Cortez Middle School and

Montezuma-Cortez High School have final plan types of Insufficient State Data: Low Participation.

Lastly, performance gaps for all groups of interest (students eligible for free/reduced price lunch,

students of color, English language learners and students with disabilities) have trailed behind all

students in the district consistently since 2010. This pattern appears at every level in both Reading and

in Math. Please refer to Appendix B to view district performance data by subgroups.

Table 3. District Performance Framework Trends on Academic Achievement and Growth

Level Indicator Subject 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016

Participation Rate

Elementary

Achievement Reading/ELA DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 87.9%

Math Appr DNM DNM DNM DNM DNM 87.7%

Growth Reading/ELA M Appr M Appr DNM Appr

Math Appr Appr Appr DNM DNM Appr

Middle

Achievement Reading/ELA Appr DNM DNM DNM Appr DNM 70.1%

Math Appr Appr Appr Appr Appr DNM 70.6%

Growth Reading/ELA M M M M M DNM

Math M M Appr Appr Appr Appr

High

Achievement Reading/ELA Appr DNM DNM DNM Appr DNM 26.6%

Math Appr Appr Appr Appr Appr DNM 26.6%

Growth Reading/ELA M Appr Appr Appr M Appr

Math Appr Appr Appr Appr Appr DNM

Note: Indicator ratings are based off of 1 Year district performance frameworks for comparability.

Legend

M= Meets Expectations

Appr= Approaching Expectations

DNM= Did Not Meet Expectations

District Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Trends

From 2012 to 2016, the district-wide, 1-year dropout rate decreased from 6.5 percent to 5.7

percent (see Table 4). In the district there are two high schools: the comprehensive district high school

and an alternative high school, Southwest Open School (SWOS), a charter that has been open and

designated as an Alternative Education Campus (AEC) since 2011. SWOS had a 1-year dropout rate of

17.2 percent in 2016, an increase from the 14.3 percent dropout rate in 2012. Montezuma-Cortez High

School had a dropout rate of 5.3 percent in 2016, which was a decrease (improvement) from the

dropout rate of 7.8 percent in 2012. In 2016, SWOS served 144 students, and Montezuma-Cortez High

School served 642 students. Thus, the proportionally lower enrollment at the AEC results in a lower

overall, district dropout rate.

11

Table 4. Dropout Rates over Time

1-Year Dropout Rates (%)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

SWOS (AEC) 14.3 12.2 15.4 27.9 17.2

Montezuma Cortez High School (Non-AEC) 7.8 6.0 7 6.1 5.3

District Average 6.5 5.2 6.9 8.4 5.7

The district showed an increase in the 4-year graduation rate in 2016, which was driven by an

increase in the 4-year graduation rate at Montezuma-Cortez High School (see Table 5). From 2012 to

2016, Montezuma-Cortez High School saw their 4-year graduation rate increase over 20 percentage

points from 65.6 percent to 86.4 percent, respectively. The 5-year graduation rate for the traditional

high school was even higher—at 88.5 percent in 2016. The 4-year graduation rate at SWOS, the district’s

AEC high school, declined in 2016, but the 6-year graduation rate was an increase over prior years at

34.6 percent.

Table 5. Graduation Rates over Time (%)

School/District Anticipated

Year of Graduation

Years to Graduate

4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year

District 2012 52.1 57.9 67.6 64.2

2013 52.2 59.3 59.9 64.1

2014 54.9 62.3 69.2

2015 67.5 77.2

2016 73.2

SWOS 2012 14.3 26.2 29.3 32.1

2013 3.2 13.1 21.8 26.3

2014 18.6 27.3 34.6

2015 16.3 32.5

2016 13.9

Montezuma Cortez High School

2012 65.6 70.3 71.1 71.3

2013 70.9 76.4 75.1 77.1

2014 70.6 76.5 79.7

2015 80.7 88.5

2016 86.4

In the table above, Anticipated Year of Graduation refers to the year in which a student is

expected to graduate within 4 years after the first time they enter high school as a ninth grader. For

example, the 4 year graduation rate for the 2012 anticipated year of graduation reflects the percent of

students that started 9th grade in fall of 2008 and graduated four years later in 2012, which for the

district was 52.1 percent. By 2013, 57.9 percent of students in the 2012 Anticipated Year of Graduation

cohort graduated (the 5 year rate). Looking from left to right across the chart, you can see the increase

in the percent of students in each cohort over time. This shows that the district is helping students to

reach graduation rate requirements, even after their initial 4 years of high school. Looking down the

12

“Years to Graduate” columns, you can also see that for each new cohort, the district, for the most part,

is increasing the graduation rate over time as well.

The cells shaded in dark gray represent all students who actually graduated by 2016 across all

cohorts. The 2016 four year cohort students were students who were expected to graduate in 2016 and

did. The 2015 five year students are students who were expected to graduate in 2015 but took an extra

year to graduate (the rate represents the percent of students in the 2015 who graduated within 5

years). The 2014 six year students are students who were expected to graduate in 2014 but took two

extra years to graduate. The 2013 seven year students are students who were expected to graduate in

2013 but took three extra years to graduate.

Rates that appear italicized and in red font are the best-of rates for the actual graduation in the

2015-2016 year across all cohort years. Thus, for Montezuma-Cortez as a district, across all cohorts,

their five year cohort rate was the highest graduation rate in 2016 at 77.2 percent.

ACT Scores

Another positive area of growth for the District’s traditional high school has been an increase in

composite ACT scores over the past five years. The mean ACT composite score for Montezuma-Cortez

High School increased from 18.0 in 2011-12 to 19.6 in 2015-16, just 0.4 shy of the “meets expectations”

benchmark of 20.0.

13

This section is designed to provide a summary of a qualitative review of district 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 performance manager

site visits to Montezuma-Cortez over the last three school years, information gathered from the

University of Virginia Turnaround Leaders program, and state data. The following information provides

context as to how the district has been functioning on the key conditions necessary for district and

school turnaround.

District Leadership

Superintendent Lori Haukeness is in her first year as superintendent; she was previously the

assistant superintendent and has served in a number of roles within the district over the past 22

years. Her strong ties to the community and the commitment she has provided over the years to

the district has brought stability, trust and confidence to staff, families, board members and the

community at large.

Superintendent Haukeness has led the turnaround work with the elementary schools and led

the partnership with the University of Virginia over the past three years.

The superintendent meets weekly with each of the principals to set goals and reflect on

progress.

The district develops a “90 day plan” for short cycle planning. The plan consists of “big rocks” or

major improvement strategies. The district has focused on data driven instruction, climate and

culture, and distributive leadership. Within each of these buckets, the district identifies what

strong, medium and basic implementation would look like.

The district recognizes challenges around their leadership pipeline. In the last school year, the

district has taken steps to identify upcoming leaders and enroll them in professional

development that will support their leadership.

Current district leadership regularly seeks feedback and support from external partners. The

district has been very supportive of CDE as a partner and regularly shares information and

solicits feedback from CDE performance managers who are experienced in the work of

turnaround.

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.

14

School Leadership

Three of the elementary school principals (for Manaugh, Mesa and Kemper) have attended the

University of Virginia’s Turnaround Leaders Program for the last three years focused on short-

cycle planning, systems development and change management, and as a result they have

started to see improvement in student achievement as reflected in their local data. The district’s

goal for the 2017-2018 school year is to include the secondary principals in the program.

The district has a high retention of school leaders in its schools. During the last few years, the

district has only turned over one school leader.

The district’s goal for leaders that have completed the University of Virginia’s program is to

deepen their instructional knowledge by attending turnaround leadership training focused on

professional development and best practices around data driven instruction, observation and

feedback and student culture. The district hopes to send 2-4 leaders to the training and has

taken actions to execute this goal.

Each school develops a “90 day plan” for short-cycle planning. The plan consists of “big rocks”

including culture and climate, data driven instruction and distributive/teacher leadership. An

example of a specific goal the school and district have set under the culture and climate “big

rock” is to consistently create conditions that support a safe, engaging, relationship-building

community of learners as evidenced by 70% of the school perception survey results will be 70%

or more favorable. For further detail, please see the district’s management proposal plan.

Teaching Staff

The district recognizes that recruitment and retention of teachers has been an issue in the past.

The district is expanding partnerships with the Boettcher Teacher Residency, Fort Lewis College,

Teacher Match and the BOCES/CEI to help recruit qualified teachers. Currently 32 percent of

new teachers in the district for 2016-17 are in the Boettcher alternative licensure program.

Teacher retention varies from school to school with Manaugh Elementary having a high

turnover. In general, teachers leave because of higher pay in neighboring districts or family

relocation. The district is working on improving teacher retention by providing targeted

mentoring and support for new teachers, enhancing social and community support, expanding

benefits, administering teacher satisfaction surveys, and creating and maintaining a dynamic

district and school culture.

School Culture

In partnership with the district, each school has opted to administer an increased number of

satisfaction surveys to different stakeholders including students and parents. This data is used

by each school’s leadership team in improvement planning at the school level and to make

adjustments to school programming.

Based on school and classroom walk-throughs and feedback conversations with school leaders,

school culture is improving. Students appear to be engaged and the schools are working on

15

creating stronger school wide systems to support culture. Leaders recognize that next steps are

creating consistent rigorous expectations and learning environments at all schools.

Academic Systems

Over the last several years, the district has been working on district developed interim

assessments. These assessments are refined every year and are used to drive instruction. They

are given in short cycles and have impacted other district systems such as the district calendar

and allocation of resources.

The district also uses a locally-selected, nationally normed assessment (the STAR assessment) in

addition to the teacher-created interims to have a normed reference point.

The district has placed a heavy emphasis on Professional Learning Communities. Each school

sets aside time weekly to meet in their PLCs. Student work and data are regularly reviewed.

The district initially focused its academic system around literacy. The elementary schools use

Success for All, a research based literacy program. The school that achieved the highest growth

implemented this program with fidelity and the other schools are working on having the same

level of implementation.

District Support and Flexibility

The District recognized that Kemper Elementary, a school that was as far along on the clock as

the district (in Year 5 last year), needed strong leadership. During the 2015-2016 school year,

the district replaced the principal with the middle school principal, who has had a proven track

record of success. This new principal moved the school off the accountability clock to a

Performance rating, but the principal’s departure left a gap at the middle school. The district

would like to support the new middle school leader through the partnership with UVA.

The district has strategically applied for different grants to support each school’s needs, for

example, Connect For Success for Mesa and the Tiered Intervention Grant for Manaugh. (These

grants are explained in greater detail later in this report).

Board and Community Relations

The local board of education is participating in a training provided by the Center on School

Turnaround to assist the board in building its own capacity to set effective policy on

improvement and turnaround processes and to provide oversight of the implementation of

those policies.

The local board and the superintendent have a unified mission and vision for the district and

decisions are made in partnership.

District leadership keeps the local board updated on district and school progress including local

student data, external partnerships and accountability pathway planning.

Community and parent engagement has been a consistent challenge. The district is planning a

“marketing and engagement campaign” to provide messaging to the community around

academic goals and importance of parent engagement in a child’s education.

16

Montezuma Cortez School District submitted their most recent Unified Improvement Plan (UIP)

in compliance with the January 2017 deadline. CDE staff members are currently reviewing the plan and

preparing formal feedback. An initial review indicates a high-quality plan responding to previous

feedback from CDE.

Current School UIP Summary

The following section is pulled directly from the district’s UIP submitted to CDE in January 2017.

Where are students continuing to struggle most?

Priority Performance Challenges: Specific statements about the district’s performance challenges (not budgeting, staffing curriculum, instruction, etc.).

1. GROWTH in Math and ELA in grades 3-8: While the District has shown promising trends in STAR growth in math and ELA (attaining over 50 MGP in both subjects across grades district-wide), this has not yet translated into comparable levels of needed growth on PARCC which remains well below the 50th MGP state standard. Specifically, the District MGP is 38 for ELA and 39 for Math.

2. ACHIEVEMENT in Math and ELA in grades 3-8: The District has not demonstrated improvements in the

percentage of students scoring as "meets benchmark" or above in math or ELA in grades 3-8 over the two years of the PARCC test administration (with the exception of Kemper). In grades 3-5 the District has shown progress in reducing the percentage of students scoring at the lowest level on PARCC in math and ELA but in grades 6-8 the percentage of students scoring at the lowest level on PARCC in math and ELA has increased in the two years of PARCC testing.

3. Postsecondary Readiness (PSR) - Dropout rate: While the District has made progress in reducing the drop-

out rate, it remains higher than acceptable by state and District standards. The District's drop-out rate includes the traditional high school (MCHS - 5.3%) and an alternative high school campus (SWOS - 17.2%). Of particular concern is the drop-out rate for our Native American students (11.9%)

4. GAPS in Growth, Achievement, and PSR Data: The District continues to experience gaps in growth,

achievement, and PSR indicators across our K-12 continuum for Native American students and students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch.

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

Root Causes: Statements describing the deepest underlying cause, or causes, of performance challenges, that, if dissolved, would result in elimination, or substantial reduction of the performance challenge(s).

1. Weakness in Tier I Instruction: The District is experiencing inconsistency in the rigor of Tier I instruction in ELA and Math in Grades K-8. This is being driven by three main issues: 1. MATH: Gaps in professional knowledge and skills to support deep implementation of math standards and practices in K-8 2. LITERACY: Inconsistent standards-level rigor in Tier I instruction in literacy K-8. In K-5 this is due to varying levels of implementation of the adopted evidence-based curricular program (Success for All). In grades 6-8 literacy curriculum is teacher created using backwards design but there is not yet a shared consistently rigorous set of interim assessments to help teams norm on the rigor of ELA standards in Common Core to help drive rigor in instruction. 3. DDI: Inconsistent implementation of DDI practices across grades and schools. Specifically, while all schools/grades have a dedicated DDI/PLC time weekly there is variation in team

17

capacity to implement a successful DDI cycle and while rigorous, aligned district interim assessments exist for grades K-5 they are still being developed for grades 6-8.

2. Improving culture of high expectations and culturally relevant engagement: The District has not had a

consistent culture of high expectations and academic engagement leading to a consistent focus on engaging students ultimately culminating in setting and achieving post-secondary goals. In addition, the District has not consistently utilized culturally relevant academic and cultural engagement strategies to support Native American students and students eligible for free and reduced lunch. 1. CULTURALLY RELEVANT STRATEGIES: Need for additional culturally relevant strategies for engaging and supporting minority and FRL students in K-8 and in High School Post-Secondary goal setting and support. 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CULTURE OF CELEBRATING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: The District has not been successful in consistently engaging the parent community and community at large in supporting the school and district improvement work and in supporting a strong community culture of celebrating academic performance and high expectations.

3. District Systems and Structures for Accountability and School Improvement: The District has identified an

acute need to continue to strengthen District systems and structures to drive and support deep and comprehensive school improvement efforts in our schools that are not operating at a "Performance" level. Specifically the District has identified three key areas where weaknesses in District systems are contributing to our District performance as well as the performance deficits in some of our schools. These include: 1. TALENT MANAGEMENT: the District has historically lacked a creative, strategic District strategy for attracting, developing, and retaining top talent in teachers and leaders. This includes strategies to expand the breadth and depth of the applicant pool, deepening building level and district supports for new teachers, struggling teachers, and teacher leadership; and retaining effective teachers. 2. TIME AND SCHEDULE: The District has significantly fewer student contact days as compared to other districts across the state, especially districts serving high percentage of students eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch. 3. STRATEGIC PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRUCTURES: The District does not have updated strategic plan with clear, public performance targets and strategies aligned to mission, vision and values that the Board and community can use to support the District and hold the District accountable. In addition, the District has begun deep level District turnaround with UVA but the essential turnaround practices are not yet at the level of sustainable implementation across all schools and the secondary schools (CMS and MCHS) are in the initial phases of engagement in the work.

What action is the district taking?

Major Improvement Strategies: An overall approach that describes a series of related actions intended to result in improvements in performance.

Deepen community collaborations to drive student achievement: The District is engaged in several efforts to deepen community collaborations to drive student achievement. Successful implementation of this strategy would result in an increase in community engagement in individual school communities (School Accountability Committees, PTAs, etc.) and in the broader district improvement efforts. In addition the community would demonstrate a greater awareness of and investment in the District academic goals and progress including increased participation in testing/decreased opt-outs. Finally, the deepened collaborations will result in additional resources being leveraged in the community through Collective Impact and the partnership with the Tribe. This strategy is also a turnaround best practice as identified by UVA and CDE. Deepen and sustain relationship with External Management Agency – UVA: The District has been actively engaged with the University of Virginia Turnaround Cohort for the past 2 years and is currently in Year 3 which is a sustainability cohort. The work with UVA to date has focused on District-level systems changes to drive

18

implementation of the "Big Rocks" in our Turnaround and Priority Improvement Elementary Schools (Mesa, Manaugh, and previously Kemper). The Big Rocks include: Data Driven Instruction, Teacher Leadership, and Climate and Culture of Positive Engagement and High Expectations. The District is entering Year 6 on the State Accountability Clock and in alignment with our State Review Panel Recommendation, partnership with CDE and at our local Board's direction the District will be submitting a Pathways Proposal to the State Board this spring for deepening the relationship with UVA under the "External Management Agency Pathway". The focus of this Pathways proposal will be deepening and expanding the District level turnaround work, expanding our targeted school improvement/turnaround work to the Cortez Middle School and Montezuma-Cortez High School, and deepening work in Mesa and Manaugh. Build Board and District Capacity to Lead Improvement & Achievement: The School Board and District leadership is dedicated to improving our collective capacity to lead sustainable improvement and achievement efforts in the District. Successful implementation will result in the development of an aligned 3 year strategic plan to guide District and school-level improvement planning and strategies. This strategy was also identified as a best practice for turnaround districts by the Center for School Turnaround (CST), UVA, and CDE. Implement Dynamic Talent Management Strategy: The District is committed to becoming "the best rural district for teachers to live, work, and make a difference in the lives of students". To accomplish this, the District will implement a comprehensive talent management strategic plan that will address recruitment, development, and retention. This will result in an increase in the number and quality of applicants applying to the District, earlier hiring of quality applicants, and increased employee satisfaction and retention across the district. This strategy has also been identified as a turnaround best practice by UVA, Mass Insights, CDE and Public Impact. Furthermore, this was an area that was specifically identified as a priority focus for Cortez based on feedback from the State Review Panel and UVA. Differentiated Support to Schools - 90 day plans (UVA): All schools will develop and implement 90 day improvement action plans to drive rapid improvement aligned with the UIP and District Pathways plan. The 90 day plans are developed by the schools' instructional leadership teams and are closely monitored by those teams as well as the District academic leadership team. This is a turnaround strategy identified by UVA as a best practice for turnaround districts and schools and is consistent with research from Mass Insights and Public Impact on identifying clear goals and short-term wins. Differentiated Support to Schools - Site visits to high performing schools: The District will expand the proven strategy of supporting school teams of teachers and leaders in visiting high performing schools to learn more about proven best practices from high performing schools and identifying practices that could be replicated to drive improvements in growth and achievement in Cortez schools. This strategy has been successfully implemented at Mesa through a Connect for Success grant and will be expanded to other priority and turnaround schools. This is an effective school improvement/turnaround strategy identified by CDE. Differentiated Support to Schools - Increase student engagement in learning: The District will support schools in identifying and implementing strategies for increasing student engagement and increasing student ownership of their learning. Examples of these strategies that are being piloted within several schools include: student goal setting and progress monitoring (Mesa, Kemper, CMS), student-led parent-teacher conferences (Mesa), interdisciplinary project based learning (CMS), portfolio based demonstrations of learning (MCHS), focusing on CTE coursework (MCHS). Current successful strategies will be expanded and deepened through PLC meetings and through providing professional development on best engagement strategies. New strategies will be identified and piloted through site visits to high performing schools. The site visits will also have an emphasis on visiting high

19

performing schools with high Native American populations and learning about effective culturally relevant engagement strategies for Native American students. Differentiated Support for Schools - Observation and feedback to teachers: The District will engage principals and school leadership in establishing common expectations for observation and support of teachers and ensure principals and other instructional leaders have training and support to provide effective feedback to teachers to drive improvements in Tier I instruction. The District will also support math coaches and building-level reading/literacy coaches to help teachers implement core curriculum including SFA and Engage NY. Differentiated Support to Schools - Enhance support for Principals: The District will strengthen support for principals and aspiring principals to deepen their instructional leadership skills in implementing high leverage instructional leadership strategies to support DDI, culture and climate of high expectations and performance, high quality Tier I instruction, and observation and feedback. This will be done through support provided by UVA as well as enrolling identified leaders in the proven RELAY instructional leadership academies. In addition, the District will enhance and revise the Principal PLCs that the District provides on a bi-monthly basis to all instructional leaders in the district. These PLCs are intended to help drive the District priorities of DDI, Climate and Culture, and Teacher leadership development. This is identified as a turnaround best practice by UVA, CDE and other turnaround research. Differentiated Support to Schools - Aligned strategies for drop-out/graduation: The District will convene a working group to review research-based indicators of drop-out risk (e.g. Johns Hopkins study) and analyze current District drop-out data across the Cortez Middle School, Montezuma-Cortez HS, and Southwest Open School (AEC charter) to identify trends and a common set of indicators and develop a coordinated system to track that data, identify students at risk, and identify gaps in services and work to create shared solutions to meet those needs and reduce the drop-out rate and ensure all students have the opportunity to graduate and pursue PSR options. Differentiated Support for Schools -Strategic Staffing and Scheduling: The District will work with schools to identify, pilot, and implement strategic staffing and scheduling models to maximize the impact of current staff and scheduling to maximize instructional time and efficacy. Examples of this might include: flooding (Mesa), departmentalization in math and other subjects in upper elementary grades (Kemper, Mesa), and piloting an extended school year (Manaugh).

History of Support on UIP Development

The school has participated in universal and targeted supports from CDE on its UIP

development. 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. CDE has

also worked directly, in-person with the Montezuma-Cortez School District and with schools on their

plan development. CDE staff were invited to work with district and school staff through multiple on-site

visits in Cortez over the last two years.

20

Over the past few years, Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 District has applied for and received a number

of grants to support implementation of their improvement efforts. Below is a summary of the major

grants and supports the district received over the past three years.

Educator Effectiveness Grant

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District was awarded an Educator Effectiveness Liaison Network

(EELN) grant for the 2014-15 school year. The district was awarded additional funding in the 2015-16

school year to continue the grant work.

Grant purpose. The intent of the EELN grant was to develop a community of “Liaisons” from

districts and BOCES that would build their individual capacity to directly support their district’s

principals. The EELN convened five times from December 2014 – June 2015 resulting in 48 hours of

professional learning and networking for Cortez’s Liaison to take back to his district. The Liaison also

received side-by-side support by one of CDE’s co-facilitators of the grant to strengthen his learning and

district level support of Cortez’s evaluators. This consisted of 13 days of on-site visits by the CDE

facilitator to Cortez’s schools with the Liaison from Jan. – March 2016 to coach the Liaison, support

principal development and ensure grant components were in place.

Funded activities. The grant funds were used to support the cost of the district Liaison (salary or

stipend, etc.) and any expenses related to professional learning of principals around observation and

feedback for their educators (materials, trainings, etc.)

Grant outcomes. The grant supported all of the district’s schools through the capacity building

of their Liaison to deepen the support and depth of training provided for all evaluators (principals,

assistant principals, coaches, etc.) around quality observation and feedback skills. In general, EELN grant

participants across the state reported that, following the implementation of the grant, teachers saw

their principals in their classrooms more often, and there was more time and specificity being provided

around instructional feedback. The principals reported receiving more targeted professional learning

around how to observe and provide feedback to their teachers and how to have difficult conversations.

The principals felt a greater positive impact from the grant towards their practice and focus around

teacher evaluation skills.

Connect for Success

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District was awarded a Connect for Success grant for Mesa

Elementary that started in the 2015-16 school year and runs until the end of the 2017-18 school year.

Grant purpose. The Connect for Success grant provides opportunities for school leaders to

network with and learn from high achieving schools. The grant strengthens the school’s Title I programs

by implementing strategies shown to be effective through the High Achieving Schools study.4

4 For more information on the High Achieving Schools Study, see

http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/evalrpts#has.

21

Funded activities. In general, grant funds may be used to pay for travel to high achieving school

sites and other networking opportunities, replicate the practices learned from high achieving schools,

and pay for an implementation coach to support the school’s efforts to implement practices learned

from high achieving schools. Mesa Elementary, specifically, has used Connect for Success funds to have

all staff visit two high achieving school sites, support the Implementation Coach who conducts

classroom observations and provides feedback to teachers on an ongoing basis, and provide training on

parent and family engagement strategies.

Grant outcomes. Based on their mid-year implementation report, in addition to using the grant

funds to support the above-mentioned activities, Mesa Elementary has also implemented the following

actions as part of the lessons learned from the high achieving schools:

Restructured planning schedules to increase the frequency with which teacher co-plan and

collaborate;

Principal and Implementation Coach observe and provide feedback on the co-planning and

collaboration efforts;

Staff conduct peer observations and provide positive constructive feedback to each other.

Additionally, school leaders report having improvements in school culture and student

behaviors, positive reactions from teachers to observation and feedback protocols, and positive

feedback from parents and families on surveys. Therefore, at this juncture, there is evidence that Mesa

Elementary is having success in replicating selected strategies and practices, and they report being able

to implement with fidelity with minimal challenges and barriers.

School Counselor Corps Grant

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District was awarded a School Counselor Corps Grant for

Montezuma-Cortez High School beginning in 2014-15. The program is a four-year, state-funded grant.

Grant purpose. The purpose of the School Counselor Corps Grant Program is to increase the

availability of effective school-based counseling within secondary schools to improve the graduation

rate and increase the percentage of students who appropriately prepare for, apply to, and continue into

postsecondary education.

Funded activities. The School Counselor Corps Grant Program supports Montezuma-Cortez High

School with the following:

Salary and benefits for 1.0 FTE school counselor

Purchased study skills curriculum

College and career planning with students and their parents

o Professional development for counselors and administrators

Establish a college and career ready culture

o FAFSA Completion Activities

o College Visits

o Individualized Career and Academic Plan (ICAP) process to plan for next steps after

graduation

o Career exploration activities

22

Grant outcomes. During the first year of grant funding Montezuma-Cortez identified goals,

which were determined based on needs assessment results and community-based environmental scans.

The district is using School Counselor Corps Grant Program funds to meet their goals and increase school

counseling services. Based on a student needs survey administered in the fall of the 2015-16 school

year, the top three identified concerns as indicated by students grades 9-12 were:

1) Help with career and college planning and financial aid;

2) Concern about grades and credits; and

3) Stress management and healthy coping skills.

Each of those three needs were addressed via either classroom guidance lessons, small groups, or

meeting with individual students for longer sessions. The high school also has been implementing

evidenced-based programs to support student success and build study skills, and the 2015-16 end-of-

year report indicated that the school is meeting their identified goals.

Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS)

The District received Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS) grants beginning in 2014-15 for

Montezuma-Cortez High School, Cortez Middle School and Southwest Open School (SWOS). The grant

program runs for a total of four years.

Grant purpose. The EARSS grant is a state-funded grant program intended to assist with

providing educational and supportive services to expelled students, students at-risk for expulsion, and

students of compulsory school age who are truant and at risk of being declared habitually truant as

defined by unexcused absences.

Funded activities. The Montezuma-Cortez High School and Cortez Middle School grant utilizes

the EARSS funds to establish a Montezuma Student Support Program (MSSP). PowerSchool software in

both the high school and middle school is utilized to assess risk factors to identify EARSS-eligible

students and refer them to the support services provided by staff hired on the grant. The grant also

supports the following staff and activities at Montezuma-Cortez High School and Cortez Middle School:

2 FTE Check and Connect mentors for grades 5-12 – salary/benefits, laptops, supplies, mileage

reimbursement; laptops for students in mentoring lab

1 FTE Reading Teacher, Eight .15 FTE contract tutors for 30 weeks; Four .1 FTE contract teachers

for 30 weeks (incl. Summer School/Credit Recovery; 20/20 Online Learning Program subscription

fee)

1 FTE social worker for the HS, 1 FTE Student Success Advocate for overall MSSP coordination

and services, parent engagement, mileage reimbursement for home visits, and referrals to the

Community Evaluation Team to identify unmet basic and socio-emotional needs

Training and consulting fees for Restorative Justice to address misconduct in a non-punitive

manner

Cultural competency professional development

Related costs for student field trips and award ceremonies

23

SWOS utilizes EARSS funds for the following staff and strategies:

1 FTE Academic Intervention Instructor, 1 FTE Student Support, and .25 or less FTE for

Community Outreach and a Data technician, .10 of program director

Fame Reading Program Curriculum, training, consultation and software fees

Computer Assisted Learning Technology Programming (subscription for ALEXS math program)

and Global Student Network for online language arts interventions.

Curriculum supplies and materials for expeditionary classes, lab-based science, and math

Professional development and coaching for expeditionary learning, reading institute, Human

Accelerated Performance, character education, resiliency/assets-based coaching and

enhancement to behavior interventions.

Grant outcomes. Montezuma-Cortez High School and Cortez Middle School reported the following

results and outcomes from the grant in 2015-16.

Students Served: During the 2015-16 school year, the middle and high school served 5 expelled

students and 274 at-risk students. Of the expelled students, 1 graduated with a regular diploma,

2 will continue being served, 1 discontinued school or dropped out and 1 was expelled while

served and did not continue receiving services. Of the at-risk students, 12 refused services, 259

are continuing to receiving services, 1 completed and was transitioned back to school, and 2

were expelled with one receiving services and one not.

Parents served: The grant served 60 parents of the at-risk students, and 100% of parents

reported an improvement in their ability to support their child.

Performance Measures: The middle and high schools reported making progress on parent-

focused objectives and academic and safety-discipline/social-emotional performance objectives.

The school surpassed its goal of increasing graduation rates to 77.5% by 2016 and 80% by 2018

(the school’s 4-year graduation rate in 2016 was 86.4%)

Credit Recovery: Of the 122 students who began the school year behind their expected age,

grade and credit accumulation to graduate with a regular diploma, 78.7% (96 students) earned

at least half of the credits needed to get back on track for graduation. Of the 157 students who

began EARSS services being on track to graduate on time, 83.4% (131 students) remained on

track.

SWOS reported the following results and outcomes from the grant in 2015-16.

Students Served: SWOS served 17 expelled and 95 at-risk students during in 2015-16. Of the

expelled students, 9 will continue being served, 2 discontinued schooling, 2 were expelled with

no services, 1 completed an expulsion, 1 transferred to another school, 1 graduated, and 1

refused services. Of the at-risk students, 59 will continue to receive services, 12 graduated with

a regular diploma, 16 transferred to another school district within Colorado or another state or

country, 7 discontinued school or dropped out, and 1 was expelled with services.

Parents served: The grant served 16 parents of expelled students and 76 parents of at-risk

students; 100% of parents reported an improvement in their ability to support their child.

24

Performance Measures: SWOS reported making progress on their parent and safety-

discipline/social-emotional performance objectives. They reported not making progress on their

academic and attendance objectives.

Credit Recovery: Of the 81 students who began the school year behind their expected age,

grade and credit accumulation to graduate with a regular diploma, 7.4% (6 students) earned half

or more credits toward getting back on track. Of the 31 students who began EARSS services

being on track to graduate on time, 61.3% (19 students) remained on track.

Tiered Intervention Grant

Manaugh Elementary School was awarded a federally-funded Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) in

2016-2017. The grant will continue for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.

Grant purpose. TIG is intended to increase the academic achievement of all students attending

chronically low performing schools as measured by the state’s assessment system. Schools partner with

the Colorado Department of Education in the implementation of one of the school intervention models

provided in the guidance for the use of Federal Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grant Funds.

Funded activities. Manaugh Elementary is using grant funds to implement the whole school

reform model. The school will use an approved intervention, Success For All, from the What Works

Clearinghouse to increase achievement for students. The funds will also be used for research-based

professional development to support the school’s leaders around areas such as observation and

feedback and weekly data teams.

Grant outcomes. The school will submit their leading indicator data to CDE for on-going

progress monitoring. Expected outcomes include increased attendance, increased student achievement

on interim assessments and decreased behavior referrals.

Pathways Early Action Grant

Montezuma-Cortez School District was awarded a Pathway Early Action Grant for the 2016-17

school year. 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. School and districts collaborate with CDE staff to

develop a formal plan identifying an accountability pathway and implementation strategies.

Funded activities. Montezuma-Cortez is using Pathways Grant funds to support the planning for

a two-year management partnership with the University of Virginia (UVA) Turnaround Leaders Program.

Specific funded activities include travel to CDE accountability clock trainings, community outreach, local

board training in turnaround and accountability, professional development, and technical assistance on

the pathway plan development.

Grant outcomes. CDE staff collaborated with district leaders on a regular basis regarding the

development of the management pathway plan. The school district is on track to present a formal

proposal of their management partnership with UVA to the State Board of Education in March 2017.

25

Department staff reviewed the State Review Panel’s report, which was based on the panel’s

2015 document review and one-day site visit. The State Review Panel recommends that the

Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School District continue its management partnership with the University of

Virginia (UVA) Turnaround Program. The report notes that as a result of the UVA partnership, the Panel

rated the school district as “Effective” on four of the five quality criteria (see Table 6 below). In regards

to the sixth criteria that assesses the need for a district to remain in operation, the Panel found that

there is a need for the district to remain open as it serves a unique population in an isolated rural

community.

The State Review Panel cited significant programmatic changes in the district as a result of the

UVA partnership including increased use of data driven instruction, standards-aligned curriculum, and

evidence of strong leadership practices at both the school and district level. An example of a district-

level change that has benefited schools is the addition of the role of “district shepherd.” The UVA

Turnaround Program requires that principals meet monthly with district shepherds who monitor

progress on school plans, participate in classroom observations and mentor the school leaders. The

Panel report notes that “Results of this partnership to date have included academic growth at all levels,

an increased graduation rate and decreased dropout rate, improved ACT scores and increasing student

population.”

Table 6: State Review Panel Site Visit Summary

SRP Site Visit Summary Capacity Level*

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Effective

2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Effective

3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance.

Developing

4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner.

Effective

5. There is likelihood of positive returns on state investments of assistance and support to improve the performance within the current management structure and staffing.

Effective

6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students.

Yes

*Capacity levels include: Not Effective, Developing, Effective and Highly Effective

The one criterion that was rated as “Developing” was the “readiness and capacity of personnel

to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic

performance.” The Panel issued this rating because the district does not yet effectively engage families

and the community. The State Review Panel report was sent to the Montezuma-Cortez School District,

and it is evident that the district has reflected seriously on this feedback. The district’s management plan

identifies four strategic actions they will be focusing on during the next two years in partnership with

UVA. One of those strategic actions is to “deepen community partnerships to drive academic

26

achievement and a culture of performance.” To that end, the district is proposing a multi-year

community engagement campaign.

The Panel does not recommend Innovation status for the district because the district has

already demonstrated positive change, and Innovation could produce challenges with teacher

recruitment and retention. The Department agrees with the Panel’s assessment and recognizes the

challenge around talent management. CDE has encouraged the district to develop a strategic plan

around talent management, which the district has done and has included in their management proposal.

The Panel does not recommend charter status for the Montezuma-Cortez School District citing

“stagnant academic growth” at the existing three charter schools. CDE notes that one of the charter

schools, Children's Kiva Montessori School, was new in the 2013-14 school year, thus, there was only

one year of data available at the time of the State Review Panel visit, which makes it difficult to assess

academic trends for that school. Of the other two district charter schools, one is the AEC high school,

which has held an AEC: Priority Improvement or AEC: Improvement rating each year since 2010. The

third charter school, Battle Rock Charter School, was in Priority Improvement in 2010, held an

Improvement rating in 2011 through 2014, and received an Insufficient State Data: Low Participation

rating in 2016. Lastly, the State Review Panel report states that the Panel believes it would be difficult to

find community support for an additional charter school.

Lastly, the Panel does not recommend school closure or district reorganization for the

Montezuma-Cortez School District, citing the effectiveness of current leadership and the promising

outcomes of the UVA management partnership. The Panel also states that “current leadership has

communicated a laser-like focus on district turnaround and improvement, has ensured that data drives

all changes and decisions made, and has communicated high expectations for all stakeholders.” The

Department’s evaluation of the school district strongly aligns with the Panel’s assessment; CDE staff also

believe that the current leadership is determined to maintain that “laser-like focus” on turnaround.

Further, the Panel notes that the district serves a large geographical area spanning nearly 1,400 square

miles. Altering district boundaries would result in long bus rides for students and high transportation

costs. The District serves a unique need by educating a diverse population in an isolated rural

community.

27

The Department used the following rubric to evaluate the proposed management plan from Montezuma-Cortez School District. The rubric was developed to assess whether the plan, if implemented, will have significant, rapid and positive impact on student learning. A checked box indicates the management plan met the stated criteria.

Management Plan Overview X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence

Need for Management Partner

Meets Expectations Comments

Plan provides a clear and compelling rationale for pursuing a management partnership.

Provides clear rationale for why the district is selecting the management accountability clock pathway for the identified Priority Improvement/Turnaround school(s) or district.

Gives in-depth description of the district and/or school’s most pressing areas of need that the management partner will help address and support.

Explicitly explains how the management partnership will result in a greater level of success for student learning.

Strong rationale for selecting the management pathway, based on demonstrated prior success with the partner

Explicit connection between how the plan will result in improved outcomes at all schools

Mission & Vision Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates a vision and mission that reflects high expectations for student learning and sets goals for improving academic outcomes.

States a mission and vision that provides a clear and concise picture of what the school/district aims to achieve.

Demonstrates how the management partner will help the school/district advance its vision and mission.

Identifies actionable goals for student academic achievement. Establishes a vision for how the district and/or school will earn its way

off the accountability clock.

Clear explanation of how UVA’s work will support the district's mission and vision and help them reach their stated goals.

Specific strategies and actions are provided to communicate how the goals will be met by 2018.

District Systems Meets Expectations Comments

Plan describes district flexibilities and resources that will be granted to allow for

Describes any flexibility or changes in district policies and practices that will be granted to the school(s) as a result of the management partnership.

Outlines the district’s plan for providing differentiated support to the

Helpful explanation of the district context and what flexibilities school leaders have, and what commonalities exist across school.

28

the agreed upon scope of work.

school, including changes to organizational structures, routines, or systems.

Describes the district’s plan or changes in allocating resources (financial or personnel) to ensure the success of the management plan.

Explicit acknowledgement of the district and board’s commitment to supporting each school.

School Design Plan X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Academic Systems Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates what strategies, the school will focus on that are related to academic systems. Such strategies may address:

● Time ● Curriculum &

instruction ● Assessments &

data ● Special

populations

For schools or districts implementing changes to academic systems, please address the following elements. If a school or district is not making changes in these areas, provide rationale for not making changes. Articulate proposed changes to curriculum and instruction at the school

in response to school needs. Discusses any special academic/curricular themes and addresses how the chosen curriculum and instructional methods are expected to improve school performance and student achievement and are necessary for the school to achieve its mission.

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.

Describes the school’s approach to provide personalized and differentiated instruction that best meets the needs of all students, especially students with disabilities and English Language Learners.

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.

The plan clearly articulates the changes to academic systems that have occurred over the last two years and explains what will occur over the next 2 with support from UVA: deepening implementation of data-driven instructional practices, supporting teachers in building a deeper understanding of each standard, and strengthening systems and practices to ensure consistent high quality instruction in all classrooms.

The district recognizes the need to support all students and describes its approach to personalized and differentiated instruction through intervention and research-based programs. The district is also focusing on student engagement to strengthen Tier I instruction, which will benefit all learners.

The description of the proposed changes to the calendar being piloted at one school is clearly linked to current barriers and indicates the district’s willingness to pursue different options in an effort to increase achievement.

29

Culture of Performance

Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates what strategies the district is focused on related to the culture of performance.

For schools or districts implementing changes to school culture, please address the following elements. If a school or district is not making changes in these areas, provide rationale for not making changes.

Articulates changes to the systems, programs, structures, rituals, and routines the school will use to foster a positive school culture for all students and teachers.

Describes plan to engage regularly, frequently, and effectively with parents and guardians, external stakeholders and the community at large.

Fostering a culture of high expectations is a district priority, and schools are setting outcomes and goals related to this priority. Specific strategies to accomplish this goal are detailed in the plan. The plan recognizes the importance of stakeholder engagement and outlines a “marketing and engagement campaign” that the board and district will embark on over the next several years.

Talent Management Meets Expectations Comments

Plan articulates what strategies, the school or district will focus on that are related to talent management.

For schools or districts implementing changes to talent management systems, please address the following elements. If a school or district is not making changes in these areas, provide rationale for not making changes.

Provides an overview of the school’s recruitment and staffing plan how these changes will produce gains in academic achievement.

Explains how plans for professional development differ from the school’s current practice and/or district requirements and why these changes are necessary.

Describes changes to the processes and criteria used to support the strategic evaluation and retention of highly effective teachers and staff, including incentives and compensation.

The plan recognizes the need for a robust talent management strategy in order to accomplish many of the goals detailed in the plan. The plan outlines current barriers, articulates a vision for talent management for the district, and list several strategies and additional partnerships to support the district’s goals.

30

Management Partner X Meets expectations □ Needs revisions □ Does not meet expectations

Plan Component Rating of Evidence Notes

Selection of Partner Meets Expectations Comments

Plan describes the process the district used to select the partner and ensure management partner has a track record of success in supporting schools in identified areas of need.

Plan describes a rigorous process of recruitment, vetting and selection of partner.

Selection process demonstrates verifiable, quantitative data that demonstrates the partner’s past effectiveness in improvement in schools with similar needs and similar demographics. Where appropriate, names and qualifications of key staff members assigned to the school are provided.

Justifies why the scope of work is appropriate given school/district needs (e.g., if only seeking a targeted management partnership, why and how is the targeted approach appropriate?).

Articulates how the partner’s services and approach will align to and support current district needs. Explains how the partner will directly support the school or district’s plan for improvement.

The plan clearly details why the external partner was selected citing several reasons including partner’s track record of proven effectiveness. The district recognizes the current limited resources available and through the plan has demonstrated how the partner will build capacity in the district and support the sustainability of the work.

Scope of Work Meets Expectations Comments

Plan describes one or more targeted areas the management partner will focus on in the district and provides a timeline for the implementation.

Includes a clear and concise overview of the scope of services to be implemented by the management partner.

Provides detailed explanation of the agreed upon targeted areas for support for the school/district.

Includes a timeline that thoroughly outlines implementation of the scope of services. Plan should be practical but also demonstrate urgency for pulling the school/district off the accountability clock

The scope of work, key services and associated costs at both the school and district level are outlined. A timeline for the implementation of the scope of services is provided in the appendix.

31

Performance Contract/MOU

Meets Expectations Comments

The district and management partner should enter into a comprehensive performance contract/memorandum of understanding (MOU) that specifically outlines the terms of the performance partnership.

The plan should include a copy of the proposed contract/MOU between the district and the management partner. A contract/MOU that meets expectations will clearly outline the terms of the performance partnership, including (where applicable) the following components. Depending upon the nature of the partnership, not all components will be relevant to the particular situation. If a component is deemed to be not applicable for the contractual relationship, the box will be marked as “na”. Comprehensive Services Length of contract (suggested to be 2-4 years) Management fees, budget autonomy and fundraising

o Includes description of resources necessary to sustain the partnership for duration of the contract

District responsibilities should include providing the partner with a direct contact/advocate within the district system, continuing services as needed (e.g. purchased services), and ensuring compliance of the partner and school.

Terms of termination initiated by the district or the management partner. Description of process the district and partner will follow in the case of disagreements of judgment or scope of work as outlined in contract/MOU.

na Relevant responsibility for Non-Academic Operations (e.g., facilities, maintenance and operations, accounting, payroll and HR, technology, dining services, transportation, school security, procurement.)

Responsibilities, rights, and authorities of the management partner and the district Articulates what specific management authority the partner will hold

that will be significant and meaningful to addressing the identified school/district needs.

na The management partner’s rights and responsibilities should include any autonomies around academic systems, talent management and culture as specified above in the school design plan. The plan should describe

The contract and MOU from UVA are included. The length of the contract is detailed and district responsibilities and external partner responsibilities are included.

Each partner school and district will be responsible for developing a 90-day plan and reporting on student achievement to UVA. UVA will provide feedback on the plan and report out on the district and school’s progress on each of these pieces.

The “Pathways Work Plan” that is attached to the draft contract provides a clear depiction of the timeline of activities and benchmarks. The contract also includes an accountability check point at the end of each year of the partnership to assess progress toward goals.

32

the degree and type of decision-making control that the partner may exercise.

Establishes clear lines of reporting, responsibility, and supervision of district-partner relationship.

na Partner responsibilities should include the number and qualifications of partner staff who will be embedded within the district or school(s) and should articulate their roles and responsibilities.

Accountability for student achievement and assessment of success: Addresses performance accountability, including fidelity of

implementation and effectiveness at raising student achievement. Includes specific benchmarks and timelines for program implementation

and performance outputs. Includes agreements on shared access to data and leading and lagging

indicators of performance. Identifies supports and interventions for deviating performance, and

remedies available to either party if there is failure to make reasonable progress toward mutually agreed-upon performance benchmarks.

Summary Overall Rationale

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

The district’s proposed plan for a management partnership is thorough and well-developed. The Department reviewed initial drafts of the plan, and the district addressed all of CDE’s feedback in the final version of the plan. As a result, CDE finds that the management plan as it stands now meets all of the applicable elements of the rubric. The plan includes an explicit connection between how the management partnership will result in improved outcomes for students at schools in Montezuma-Cortez. The scope of work is focused on supporting the district’s core needs around academic systems, talent management, community engagement and district systems. The partnership with UVA will provide targeted professional development and ongoing accountability to enable the district to deepen implementation of best practices and continue the promising work that has already begun.

33

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 2016 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., a district or the Charter

School Institute (Institute) may not remain Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan or Accredited

with Turnaround Plan for longer than five consecutive years before significant action must be taken. In

State Board of Education rules, 1 CCR 301-1, section 5.07, the calculation of the five consecutive years

begins July 1 of the summer immediately following the fall in which the district/Institute is notified that

it is Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan or Accredited with Turnaround Plan. The Education Act

of 2009 outlines similar consequences for schools. 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.

These statutory timelines are referred to as the “Accountability Clock.” It is important to note

that, following the passage of 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 resumes 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 a performance framework 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.

If a school or district receives a plan type of Priority Improvement or Turnaround for more than

five consecutive years, then the State Board of Education must direct an action to the local board of

education. The State Board has discretion to take action prior to the end of the Accountability Clock for

schools and districts with Turnaround plans.

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

34

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 from the Commissioner of Education. School

districts may also provide a proposal for their preferred pathway to the State Board. The figure below

provides a depiction of the process.

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

35

INTRODUCTIONLAST UPDATED: 1/6/2017

This dashboard has been designed to display state data for district staff to support effective systems analysis and improvement planning. It is organized by tabs across thetop of the screen. All tabs were updated with more recent data. For additional support with planning, see resources found here:http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/uip_trainingandsupport_resources. In addition to text provided on the screen, information related to the data can be found by hovering thecursor over the elements of the report.

Questions, please contact Hai Huynh at huynh_h@cde.state.co.us

SELECT DISTRICT

MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

DISTRICT INFORMATION

Ddst Name Address City, State, ZipMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ ..400 N ELM STREET CORTEZ, CO 81321

District Contact Information

County Web Site District NumberMONTEZUMA cortez.k12.co.us 2035

District Contact Information

Full Name EmailLori Haukeness lhaukeness@cortez.k12.co.us

Superintendent Information

MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

STUDENT AND EDUCATOR DATANOTES ABOUT ENROLLMENT DATA

Enrollment data based on PK-12 count. ELL is defined asstudents who are classified as NEP, LEP and FEP M1 and M2.Grades included are PK through 12 and for only studentsenrolled at a public school, not private school. Demographicsdefinition changed for Hispanic and Asian in 2010-11.FRL - Students eligible for free or reduced mealELL (English Language Learner) - Students who are learningEnglish in addition to their native languageIEP - Students who are on an individualized education planData source: Student October

TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT

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

2,787.00 2,782.002,753.00 2,837.002,830.00

DEMOGRAPHIC DATAPercent of students in each group rounded to whole number

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

18% 20% 19% 20% 20%

26% 26% 27% 26% 26%

53% 51% 50% 49% 50%

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

ELL %

FRL %

Gifted andTalented %

Homeless %

IEP (SpecialEducation) %

Migrant %

58%

11%

8%

6%

0%

0%

58%

10%

7%

5%

0%

0%

60%

10%

5%

5%

0%

0%

61%

11%

6%

5%

0%

0%

58%

11%

5%

4%

0%

0%

Asian

Black

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Two or More Races

White

ATTENDANCE AND MOBILITY DATAInformation includes calculated attendance rate and district mobility rate. Orange line indicates state rate. Mobility rate calculation was revised for 2012-13 (more information:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/mobility-stabilitycurrent) Data Source: CDE Education Statistics Page

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

91.1% 89.7% 91.8% 91.4% 90.5%

Attendance Rate: District Rate vs. State Overall Rate

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

26.1% 30.3% 22.1% 23.5% 25.4%

Mobility Rate: District Rate vs. State Overall Rate

STAFFING PROFILE (2015-16)Teachers defined as job classification codes 201, 202, 204 and 206. Principals defined as job classification codes of 105 and 106. Instructional support staff and other administratorsupport staff are not included in the analysis below. This is an unduplicated count at the district level (teachers may teach at multuple schools, but are only counted once at the district

level). Experience includes in-state and out-of-state. No data is displayed for district with insuficient data. Data Source: HR Collection Data

District State

Number of Teachers

Average Years of Education Experience (in-state and out-of-state) - Teachers

Average Years Teaching (in-state and out-of-state) - Teachers

Teacher Turnover Rate (%) 17

10

10

52,926

9

14

14

1,881

Teacher StatisticsDistrict State

Number of Principals

Avg Years as Principal (At current school and any school)

Avg Years of Education Experience (in-state and out-of-state) - Principals

Avg Years of Teaching Experience (in-state and out-of-state) - Principals

Principal Turnover Rate (%) 1,440

647

937

333

216,936

1,333

811

1,093

421

2,827

Principal Statistics

FORTHCOMING

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATH

650 700 750 800 850Mean Scale Score

650 700 750 800 850Mean Scale Score

ALL GRADES ALL STUDENTS 719 713

CMAS PARCC - MATH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTSThe following visual displays CMAS PARCC mean scale scores for math and English language art by grade and student group for 2015-16 school year. The visual includes the following elements: (1)state mean scale score presented as a vertical line in orange, (2) district mean scale score presented as a plus sign, (3) district mean scale score color coded based on the proportion of students who

took the assessments, and lastly (4) color band that identifies scores meeting assessment benchmark/state standards.

Category/S..Grade Year SCIENCE

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900Mean Scale Score

ALLSTUDENTS

05 2014

2015

2016

08 2014

2015

2016

11 2016

538

538

531

495

552

541

506

CMAS - SCIENCEThe following visual displays of CMASS science mean scale scores by student group, grade, and year. The visual includes the following three elements: (1) state mean scale score presented as avertical line in orange, (2) district mean scale score presented as a plus sign, and finally (3) the district mean scale score color coded based on the proportion of students who took the assessment.

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

COMPOSITE ALLSTUDENTS

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

17.5

17.9

18.6

17.4

18.4

COLORADO ACTThe chart below displays the results from the Colorado ACT, including the overall (composite) score, English, Math, Reading and Science disaggregated by student group. The plussigns represent the district's ACT results and the orange lines represent the state average. For groups that meet the minimum N-count threshold (i.e., at least 16 students took and

received a valid test score), the results are displayed below. Cursor mouse over each bar to see detailed results.

SUBJECTCOMPOSITE

ENGLISH

MATH

READING

SCIENCE

CATEGORYALL STUDENTS

School LevelALL GRADES

ASSESSMENT DATA - DISTRICT RESULTS

MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

Particpation Color Key95% or greater, High Particpation

Between 85% and 94%, Caution

Below 85%, Inference Difficult

No Participation Data

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 ofwhat happens in-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’ Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) scores in English Language Arts and Math over consecutive years. Astudent'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 districtgrowth rates are determined by the growth percentiles from individual students, specifically the median (or score in the middle) student growth percentile. Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) arecalculated for the whole school, by grade, and by different student groups. Higher median growth percentiles indicate higher growth rates for the typical students in those groups. Please note that growthrates 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, the state median growth percentile for anygrade, 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. Foradditional definitions and information go to: www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/coloradogrowthmodel

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTSDISTRICT

2016STATE

2016

MATHDISTRICT

2016STATE

2016All Students

English Learners, No

English Learners, Yes

Ethnicity, American Indian or Alaska Native

Ethnicity, Asian

Ethnicity, Black

Ethnicity, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Ethnicity, Hispanic

Ethnicity, Two or More Races

Ethnicity, White

FRL, No

FRL, Yes

Gender, Female

Gender, Male

Gifted, No

Gifted, Yes

Grade, 04

Grade, 05

Grade, 06

Grade, 07

Grade, 08

Grade, 09

IEP, No

IEP, Yes

Migrant, No

Migrant, Yes

Minority, No

Minority, Yes

Performance, At or Above Benchmark

Performance, Below Benchmark 38.0

41.0

36.0

44.0

38.5

23.5

41.0

46.0

30.0

28.0

41.0

47.0

37.5

55.0

37.0

35.0

42.0

37.0

46.0

44.0

36.0

35.5

38.0

38.0

38.0

50.0

50.0

49.0

51.0

45.0

50.0

38.0

51.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

60.0

49.0

45.0

55.0

47.0

52.0

51.0

51.0

48.0

50.0

48.0

59.0

47.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

40.0

32.5

38.0

42.0

39.0

35.0

40.0

31.0

41.0

35.0

48.0

41.0

35.0

48.0

38.5

37.0

40.5

36.0

46.5

42.0

43.0

34.0

36.0

40.0

39.0

50.0

50.0

47.0

53.0

42.0

50.0

40.0

51.0

49.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

60.0

49.0

49.0

51.0

46.0

53.0

53.0

51.0

46.0

53.0

46.0

59.0

46.0

47.0

51.0

50.0

GROWTH DATA

MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

50

1.0 99.0Median Growth Percentile

ACCOUNTABILITYSELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard for reference. Because of the stateassessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measures are affected. The following website provides additional details on theaccountability system during the transition: http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1 Year1 Year1 Year1 Year1 Year

The below table indicates the plan type used (1-year or 3-year) Select a Data Time Span1 Year

47.342.345.746.849.0

DPF % Points Earned

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

PriorityImprovement

PriorityImprovement

PriorityImprovement

PriorityImprovement

PriorityImprovement

DPF Accreditation Rating

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Schools: Turnaround

Schools: Priority Improvement

Schools: Improvement

Schools: Performance 2512

2322

3330

3321

3411

School Plan Type (Including AECs, only official results)

Year 5

Year Entering Priority Improvement or Turnaround

DPF Key Indicator Ratings OverallNumber indicates percentage points earned on key indicator. Color of bar represents key performance indicator rating. Drop down menu at top of page indicates data time span. Data

Source: District Performance Framework

Achievement Data by EMH LevelPercent of students scoring Proficient and Advanced. Color of bar represents rating forsub-indicator. Drop down menu at top of page indicates data time span. Data Source:

District Performance Framework

Achievement %

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

37.5 37.541.7 41.7

35.4

Growth %

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

63.9

51.355.6 53.6

44.0

Postsecondary %

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

41.7 45.3 45.3

33.340.6

Growth Gaps %

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

38.347.0

57.2

47.2 47.2

Does Not Meet Approaching Meets Exceeds Hover over bars to view indicator rating or use color coding.

Growth Data by EMH LevelMedian student growth percentile. Color of bar represents rating for sub-indicator. Dropdown menu at top of page indicates data time span. MAGP can be found on Performance

tab. Data Source: District Performance Framework

ELEMENTARY

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

45.350.1

54.3

52.8

55.3

Ach - Read

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

46.2

48.157.5

55.1

58.5

Ach - Math

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

25.329.9

29.8

32.5

30.1

Ach - Write

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

24.9

27.1

29.1

31.1

Ach - Science

ELEMENTARY

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

4654

354040

MGP - Read

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

3034454442

MGP - Math2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

3539384444

MGP - Write

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

232233

MGP - ELP

MIDDLE

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

58.2

58.2

58.4

59.1

58.9

Ach - Read

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

42.9

43.8

42.4

45.1

40.9

Ach - Math

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

40.9

41.4

41.7

43.0

45.6

Ach - Write

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

38.0

34.0

33.740.4

Ach - Science

MIDDLE

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

5450545458

MGP - Read

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

5758524852

MGP - Math

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

60566162

52

MGP - Write

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

54

20

MGP - ELP

HIGH

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

53.8

56.6

54.7

57.7

61.4

Ach - Read

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

26.8

25.3

25.9

20.7

20.4

Ach - Math

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

39.5

37.6

38.4

33.9

37.0

Ach - Write

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

36.541.6

31.837.6

Ach - Science

HIGH

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

58

4536

4439

MGP - Read

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

49474145

52

MGP - Math

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

56

37374749

MGP - Write

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

60

29

MGP - ELP

Growth Gaps Data Post Secondary and Workforce Readiness Data

Use the Performance Tab for interactive diagnostic ongrowth gaps. View median and adequate growthpercentile by sub-group, by EMH level, and by subjectfor 2008-2012 academic years.

Use the Performance Tab

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Grad Rating Does Not MeetDoes Not MeetDoes Not Meet ApproachingApproaching

Dropout Rating Does Not Meet ApproachingApproachingApproachingApproaching

ACT Rating ApproachingApproachingApproachingApproachingApproaching

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.00

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19.120.0

33.9

39.4

19.4

38.6

39.1

55.2

39.5 36.3

7.9

42.2

48.240.842.8

48.448.8

6.8

46.4

32.6

57.6

48.144.1

58.2

34.2

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.000

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7.9

34.4

7.7

8.8

28.9

32.6

27.328.7

42.642.3

29.5

12.3

27.5

39.6

4.4

32.0

43.4

35.9

25.6

37.1

25.0

36.536.9

44.5

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.000

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

23.2

6.9

16.7

13.2

8.9

28.6

16.8

25.0

17.110.5

25.5

2.6

18.1

0.00.00.00.0

18.019.6

30.026.3

19.8

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.000

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18.2

11.8

34.6

9.5

31.4

41.9

41.3

30.0

43.2

35.6

29.7

34.2

37.0

53.1

29.7

50.045.6

38.4

45.4

54.8

1.7

45.6

27.1

55.6

39.9

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.000

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

14.8

15.1

45.5

21.6

7.9

41.5

4.4

46.343.8

40.5

47.9 49.443.2

58.4

58.359.1

44.7

58.2

49.749.6

39.7

42.7

57.9

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.00

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

9.76.7

21.1

43.7

3.7

41.7

47.6

55.8

52.4

44.7

40.4 42.0

56.4

45.2

36.8

59.5

47.942.6

39.5 41.8

44.6

0.0

52.8

52.7

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.00

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3.6

20.3

11.8

19.8

11.9

1.6

29.5

29.5

1.5

30.1

16.7 14.815.0

22.2

11.7

25.3

0.0

10.0

18.0

9.7

32.6

24.5

18.4

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.000

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

31.8

35.4

15.29.4

37.7

8.2 7.9

29.0

36.1

17.6

26.6 26.130.5

2.2

25.6

43.0

45.3

29.9

41.141.142.1

35.4

40.4 34.6

28.9

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

PERFORMANCE

Growth: Median and Adequate Growth PercentilesThis interactive visual allows users to view MGP and AGP by Sub-group, by Subject, and by EMH level.

Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

Achievement: Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or AboveThis interactive visual allows users to compare percentage of students proficient and advanced by sub-group.

Results within the shaded area do not meet state expectations.Data Source: Data Lab & CDE Calculated; District level inclusion/exclusion

FRL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

20

40

60

80

100

Growth Percentile

50.00

Use the quick filters tocontrol what data is shown

on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select a Sub-group:(choose one)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

MGP MAGP Color Key:Median Adequate Growth P..

Median Growth Percentile

Use the quick filters to control whatdata is shown on the chart.

Select a Subject:(choose one)Math

Reading

Writing

Select an EMH Level:(choose one)A. Elementary

B. Middle

C. High

Select Sub-groups:(choose multiple)All Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

VariableAll Students

ELL

FRL

IEP

Minority

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

32.034.1

24.0

42.9

26.3

21.8

36.535.8

3.2

18.4

29.925.8

32.6

3.7

37.6

26.6

5.4

19.3

22.627.4

38.2

0.00.0

22.8

Data Time Span:(select 3 Year if no data appears)1 Year

Please note that the displays on this tab will not be updated with new data in 2015-16, but will remain in the dashboard forreference. Because of the state assessment transition and the passage of H.B. 15-1323, school accountability measuresare affected. The following website provides additional details on the accountability system during the transition:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/impact-of-assessment-transition-on-school-and-district-accountability

SELECT A DISTRICTMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

Class of

GRADUATION COMPLETION

4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7

2012

2013

2014

2015

52.1% 57.9% 59.9% 61.1% 55.9% 62.0% 64.1% 65.7%

52.2% 59.3% 62.1% 57.0% 65.0% 67.9%

54.9% 62.3% 56.9% 64.4%

67.5% 68.4%

Student GroupALL

ELL

FRL

IEP

MIN

2012 2013 2014 2015

6.4% 5.1% 6.7% 8.2%

Dropout RatesThe percentage of students enrolled in grades 7-12 who leave school during a single year. It iscalculated by dividing the number of dropouts by a membership base, which includes all studentswho were in the membership any time during the year and did not enroll in a different Colorado

school.

Graduation and Completion RatesColorado calculates ‘on-time’ graduation as the percent of students who graduate from high school four years after entering ninth grade. The rates presented in this report reflect the best of the 4-, 5-,6-, and 7-year graduation rates at the overall and disaggregated levels, based on end of year state submission reporting. The four-year rate for this report is based on 2015 graduates. For graduation,ELL students include only NEP and LEP. Please visit the department's website at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/gradcurrentdefinitions#sthash.asD4R2qV.dpuf for additional information.

The orange line represents the state average for each year.ELL: English Language Learners | FRL: Free and Reduced Luch Eligible | IEP: Special education students on individualized education plan | MIN: Minority students

POSTSECONDARY WORKFORCE READINESS

ALL CTE 2 YEAR 4 YEAR

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

42.0% 51.2% 4.6% 2.4% 12.2% 19.5% 26.0% 31.7%

Matriculation RatesAll 2015 high school graduates that enroll in a Career & Technical Education (CTE) program, 2-YearHigher Education Institution, or 4-Year Higher Education Institution during the subsequent academicyear. The rate also includes all high school graduates that earned a Career & Technical Educationcertificate or a college degree while they were still enrolled in high school. The matriculation data

includes both in-state and out-of-state enrollments. For more information:http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/matriculation_guidance_and_faq_7_25_16

MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

Fiscal Year

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

7,077

6,162

7,336

6,156

7,535

6,3736,765

7,7736,966

7,901

Per Pupil Funding Before and After Negative Factor

Fiscal YearFY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

43.88%

35.47%

35.01%

33.89%

27.81%

56.12%

64.53%

64.99%

66.11%

72.19%

State and Local Share / As Percentage

Local Share State Share

Per-Pupil Funding Before Negative Factor

Per Pupil Funding After Negative Factor

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Total Formula At-Risk Funding

Total Program Before Negative Factor

Negative Factor

Total Program After Negative Factor

Property Taxes

Specific Ownership Taxes

State Share

Required Categorical Buyout From Total Program $0.00

$5,213,691.54

$927,186.59

$12,603,435.37

$18,744,313.50

($2,514,961.20)

$21,259,274.70

$1,290,824.58

$0.00

$6,255,735.19

$907,861.61

$11,296,626.58

$18,460,223.38

($2,750,402.75)

$21,210,626.13

$1,519,424.05

$0.00

$6,102,700.22

$746,217.23

$10,583,846.12

$17,432,763.57

($3,178,410.91)

$20,611,174.48

$1,411,323.92

$0.00

$6,061,802.09

$789,258.23

$10,237,782.94

$17,088,843.26

($3,277,508.82)

$20,366,352.08

$1,255,861.78

$0.00

$7,636,387.86

$763,219.02

$9,001,824.01

$17,401,430.89

($2,585,213.53)

$19,986,644.42

$1,264,862.83

Public School Finance Act Funding

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Total Funded Pupil Count

At-Risk Pupil Count

ASCENT Pupil Count

Colorado Preschool Program Count FTE

Multi District On-line Pupil Count 0

90

3

1,316

2,691

4

90

2

1,481

2,729

8

55

0

1,462

2,736

3

52

1

1,360

2,776

0

53

3

1,412

2,824

Pupil Count

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Assessed Valuation

Base Funding

Categorical Buyout Mill Levy (Final)

District percent of at-risk pupils

Equalization Mill Levy (Final)

Inflation

On-Line Funding 7,588

0

19

1

0

6,292

668,794,660

7,381

0

19

1

0

6,121

599,449,540

7,180

0

19

1

0

5,954

561,626,220

7,046

0

19

1

0

5,843

543,262,560

6,795

0

19

1

0

5,635

477,677,050

Funding Components

FISCALMONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1

52

CDE is required, by statute, to review Unified Improvement Plans (UIPs) on an annual basis for

schools and districts in Priority Improvement or Turnaround. Following the review of the UIP, CDE

provides feedback to the district and requires, in some cases, that changes be made to the plan before it

is publicly posted or within the next year. Over time, the feedback from CDE to Montezuma-Cortez

School District regarding its UIP has shifted from the need to strengthen the data analysis to the need to

provide an action plan that will result in dramatic change. The action plan has also needed more detail

to convey understanding of the steps necessary to pull off the change. While the plan meets many of the

quality criteria, there has been increasing concern about the weak action plan in recent years as the

district has advanced on the clock. CDE staff are currently developing feedback on the district’s most

recent UIP (2016-17), and an initial review indicates a high-quality plan responding to previous concerns.

School Year

Required Changes

Summary of CDE Feedback on the UIP

2015-16 Yes, with significant changes

The priority performance challenges and root causes have shifted from the previous plan, reflecting too narrow a focus that most likely will not have the system-wide impact needed given that the district is in Year 5 of the accountability clock. The data analysis does not provide a clear rationale for this narrowed focus. Furthermore, the action plan does not align with the identified needs and does not propose actions over the next two years.

2014-15 Yes, with some changes

The plan reflects the appropriate context and systemic concerns reflective of a district entering Year 5 on the accountability clock. The district has updated the plan to reflect its relationship with UVA and to reflect changes to respond to the prior year’s feedback. As written, some connections within the plan are unclear, and while it reflects an ambitious effort, it is difficult to connect the focus points across elements of the plan.

2013-14

Yes, with some changes

Overall, the plan met much of the quality criteria in the data narrative with improved connection across the steps in the plan. The action planning section could be improved by adding more detail to the timelines, implementation benchmarks, and resources. The action steps should be more specific and intentional to impact the desired change.

2012-13 Yes, with significant changes

While elements of the UIP are included in the plan, the overall alignment and connections between trends, priority performance challenges and root causes are inconsistent and unclear. As the district continues to create a plan to improve all performance indicators, rigorous targets must be set in the target setting form that will allow the school to meet state expectations.

2011-12

Yes, with significant changes

The plan overall did not meet many of the quality criteria and required significant revisions to both the data analysis and action planning section to improve the plan quality.

2010-11

Yes, with some changes

The district should articulate how the progress monitoring actions listed in the plan will be leveraged across the district.

53

Grant Name

Year Awarded & Award Amount

2014 - 15 2015 - 16 2016 - 17

Educator Effectiveness Grant $30,000 $16,000 ---

Expelled & At-Risk Student Services (EARSS)

$299,461 Montezuma-

Cortez HS

/Cortez MS

$299,461 Montezuma-Cortez HS /Cortez MS

$224,574 Montezuma-Cortez HS /Cortez MS

$250,000 SWOS

$250,000 SWOS

$186,600 SWOS

School Counselor Corps Grant $30,000 $98,642 $81,140

Connect For Success $20,000 $80,000

Pathways Early Action Grant $101,628

Tiered Intervention Grant - Cohort VII $284,736

Total $649,001 $684,103 $958,678