Denver Public Schools

1
Denver Public Schools

• Unified Improvement Planning 101

June 17, 2013
2
UIP 101 Road Map

• Overview of the UIP Process
• Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• Data Narrative
• School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• Data Analysis
• Review Past Performance/Describe
  Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

3
Intent, Power, Possibility and Purpose of the UIP

• School Improvement Historically at DPS
• Prior to the UIP process DPS developed School
  Improvement Plans (SIPs)
• In 2008, Colorado introduced the Unified
  Improvement Plan (UIP) to streamline state and
  federal accountability requirements.
• The UIP was established by the Education
  Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163)
• Colorado is entering its 4th year (2013-14) of
  requiring UIPs for all schools throughout the
  state.

4
Planning Requirements met by the UIP
School Level District Level District Level
State Accountability (SB09-163) Performance Improvement Priority Improvement Turnaround Distinction Performance Improvement Priority Improvement Turnaround  
Student Graduation and Completion Student Graduation and Completion Plan  
ESEA Program Plan Focus Schools Title IA Schoolwide Program Plan Title IA Targeted Assistance Program Plan Title I (priority improvement or turnaround) Title IIA 2141c (priority improvement or turnaround) Title III Improvement (AMAO)-  
Competitive Grants Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) (Priority Schools) School Improvement Grant (SIG)/ Implementation Support Partnership (ISP) Other grants reference the UIP Targeted District Improvement Grant (TDIP) Implementation Support Partnership (ISP) Other grants reference the UIP  
5
Intent, Power, Possibility and Purpose of the UIP
Theory of Action Continuous Improvement
6
How Has the UIP Process Focused Your School
Improvement Efforts?
The UIP reminds us to do what we expect from our
teachersanalyze the data, set goals, develop
action steps and measure the results.  Here at
GBMS we align our UIP to the professional
development, SGO's and data team process.
 Although we have set up our plan there are times
we have not met our goals.  This allows us take a
step back and talk about why we did not meet the
goal.  For example, we were going to incorporate
small group instruction in our reading classes
but did not provide enough PD to support the
goal.
Alex Magaña, Principal Grant Beacon Middle School
7
Intended Session Outcomes

• Participants will understand
• The district and state SPF
• The purpose, power and possibility of the UIP.
• The accountability measures associated with the
  UIP.
• How to develop each component of the UIP
  template.
• How local, state and federal accountability
  connect to the UIP process..
• The state and district tools and resources
  available to assist school leaders in engaging in
  UIP work.

8
Purpose of the UIP

• Provide a framework for performance management.
• Support school and district use of performance
  data to improve system effectiveness and student
  learning.
• Shift from planning as an event to continuous
  improvement.
• Meet state and federal accountability
  requirements.
• Give external stakeholders a way to learn about
  how schools and districts are making
  improvements.
• Serves as a 2-Year strategic plan

9
Structure and Components of the UIP Template

• Major Sections
• Summary Information about the School
  (pre-populated template)
• Improvement Plan Information
• Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause
  Identification
• Action Plan(s)
• Appendices (addenda forms)

10
State SPF Pre-Populated UIP Template
11
State SPF Pre-Populated UIP Template
12
Unified Improvement Planning Processes
Gather and Organize Data
Describe Notable Trends
Review Performance Summary
Prioritize Performance Challenges
Identify Root Causes
Data Analysis (Data Narrative)
Set Performance Targets
Identify Major Improvement Strategies
Identify Implementation Benchmarks
Identify Interim Measures
13
Data Narrative as a Repository
UIP Data and Information
Data Narrative A Repository
Description of School Data Analysis Process
School A has .
Review Current Performance
Trend Analysis Worksheets 1 2
Action Plans Target Setting/Action Planning Forms
14
Data Narrative

• Purpose The purpose of the data narrative is to
  describe the process and results of the analysis
  of the data for school improvement. It serves as
  a repository for everything you do in the UIP
  process.
• Elements to Include in the Data Narrative
• Description of the School Setting and Process for
  Data Analysis
• Review Current Performance
• State Federal Accountability Expectations
• Progress Towards Last Years Targets
• Trend Analysis
• Priority Performance Challenges
• Root Cause Analysis
• Throughout the school-year capture the following
  in the data narrative
• Progress Monitoring (Ongoing)

15
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• Data Analysis
• Review Past Performance/Describe
  Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

16
Step 2. Review Current Performance
DPS School Performance Framework (SPF)
17
What is the DPS SPF?
A comprehensive annual review of school
performance.

• Provides a body of evidence related to student
  growth and achievement and overall organizational
  strength using a variety of measures
• Is the basis of mandatory school accreditation
  ratings
• Aligns district goals, state requirements, and
  federal mandates
• Provides information for teacher and principal
  compensation systems
• Made public for the Denver community and is a
  factor in enrollment decisions

18
5 Possible Ratings
Based on the percentage of overall points earned,
schools receive one of five possible SPF ratings
DISTINGUISHED 80 - 100 MEETS EXPECTATIONS 51
- 79 ACCREDITED ON WATCH 40 - 50 ACCREDITED
ON PRIORITY WATCH 34 - 39 ACCREDITED ON
PROBATION UP TO 33
Consider this What about schools that combine
grade levels? (i.e. elementary and middle
schools in a K-8th grade format, and middle and
high schools in a 6th-12th grade format)
19
2012 DPS SPF Overall Rating Categories
Alternative Schools excluded
20
Indicators
gtgt Academic Growth gtgt Academic Status gtgt
Post-Secondary Readiness Growth gtgt
Post-Secondary Readiness Status gtgt Student
Engagement Satisfaction gtgt Enrollment gtgt Parent
Satisfaction
Consider this Should all areas be measured
equally? What weight would you assign to each
category?
21
DPS 2012 SPF Indicator Weights
22
DPS Sample Stoplight Scorecard Indicators
23
Indicator Total Points Come From the Measures
1) ACADEMIC GROWTH 2) ACADEMIC STATUS 3)
Post-Secondary Readiness Growth 4)
Post-Secondary Readiness Status 5) Student
Engagement Satisfaction 6) Enrollment 7) Parent
Satisfaction
10 Measures
Alt SPF 2
Alt SPF 1
7 Measures
9 Measures
Alt SPF PSR 7
11 Measures
3 Measures
Alt SPF 7
3 Measures
2 Measures
Consider this What indicators do the
Elementary/Middle/High School grades have in
common?
24
Adding up the Points
Data Collection Aggregation
Apply SPF Rubrics
Measure Points Stoplight
Sum and Apply Cut-Offs
Indicator Total Stoplight
Sum and Apply Cut-Offs
Overall Total Accreditation Rating
25
DPS SPF Based on 2-Years of Data
Example TCAP Median Growth Percentile
2012 MGP60 Meets
2011 MGP40 Approaching
2012 Measure Rating Approaching
26
Computation Process Based on 2-Years of Data
1.1 a-c Median Growth Percentile Was the school's CSAP median growth percentile at or above 50? 1.1 a-c Median Growth Percentile Was the school's CSAP median growth percentile at or above 50?
0. Does not meet standard The median growth percentile was less than 35.
2. Approaching standard The median growth percentile was at or above 35 and less than 50.
4. Meets standard The median growth percentile was at or above 50 and less than 65.
6. Exceeds standard The median growth percentile was 65 or higher.
Cut-points
Two-year rubric
27
DPS Sample Detail Scorecard Measures
Consider this What does Measure 1.2 mean by
Similar School?
28
DPS Similar Schools Clusters

• The DPS SPF provides information on how each
  school performs relative to similar schools in
  the district.
• Schools are then rank-ordered by Ed Level and
  compared with 10 schools that are closest to
  them.
• Clusters are custom for each school.

• The School Characteristics Indicator is a
  weighted calculation
• FRL (40) ELL (20) SpEd (20)
  Mobility(20)

Mobility is defined as the total number of
students who entered or left the school after
10/1 divided by the number of students in the
school as of 10/1.
29
Similar Schools Calculation How it Works
FRL(40) ELL(20) SpEd(20) Mobility(20)
School Characteristics Indicator
School Name FRL ELL SpEd Mobility School Characteristics Indicator
School A 30.35 16.47 7.06 13.00 19.45
School B 37.82 14.26 6.34 20.00 23.25
School C 34.03 36.39 5.76 7.00 23.44
School D 49.19 10.93 9.92 14.00 26.65
School E 51.92 21.39 5.12 4.75 27.02
School F 47.92 17.25 12.14 12.00 27.45
School G 52.22 17.21 8.32 10.83 28.16
School H 50.86 17.08 15.55 12.00 29.27
School I 57.02 24.47 13.83 9.00 32.27
School J 56.98 20.16 8.91 18.99 32.40
School K 62.50 13.78 13.78 14.00 33.31
School L 60.57 26.49 7.19 15.00 33.97
School Fs Cluster
30
DPS Sample Detail Scorecard Measures
Consider this What is a Median Growth
Percentile? What is Catch Up and Keep Up?
31
Growth Percentiles

• In order to receive a growth percentile, students
  need a valid English CSAP/ TCAP score over two
  consecutive years with a typical grade level
  progression (e.g., third grade to fourth grade)
• Each student receives a growth percentile
  indicating how much growth they achieved in the
  current year compared to other students who
  earned similar scores in prior years. A growth
  percentile of 50 is considered typical growth.
• Every students growth percentile is then
  rank-ordered and the middle score, or median, for
  the population is identified. This is the median
  growth percentile (MGP).
• For accountability purposes (i.e., inclusion in
  the SPF), students need to have been enrolled in
  the same school since October 1 of the same
  school year.

32
Catch-Up Keep-Up Growth

• Includes all students who took TCAP for two
  consecutive years.
• Different from the states Catch-Up and Keep-Up.
• DPS Catch-up the percentage of students
  transitioning from a lower to higher performance
  level from one year to the next.
• DPS Keep-up the percentage of students staying
  in the proficient and advanced categories or
  moved from proficient to advanced.
• States is progress needed to be proficient in 3
  years or by 10th grade.
• This measure is limited to TCAP Reading, Math,
  and Writing.

33
Excellent Training on MGPs, Keep Up and Catch Up
can be found at the CDE website
http//www.cde.state.co.us/media/training/SPF_Onli
ne_Tutorial/player.html
34
DPS Sample Detail Scorecard Measures
Consider this What measures look at your English
Language Learners? Proficiency Gaps?
35

DPS SPF Language of Assessment
36
Language of Assessment Performance over
timeCELA Proficiency Compared to TCAP
Proficiency Reading/Lectura
P Grade 5 TCAP Reading (English)
P Grade 4 TCAP Reading (English)
2nd Grade CELA Level
Note ELLs who were in 2nd grade in either
2006-07, 2007-08, or 2008-09 and took CELA were
combined into one cohort and tracked forward to
3rd, 4th and 5th grades. Students opted out of
ELA services by their parents were not included
in the population.
37
Language of Assessment Performance over
timeCELA Proficiency Compared to TCAP Reading
Growth (MGPs)
Students who scored at CELA Levels 1, 2, or 3 and
took TCAP in English showed lower than typical
(50th percentile) growth in 4th grade.
Grade 2 Year Grade2 CELA Level 1 Grade2 CELA Level 1 Grade2CELA Level 2 Grade2CELA Level 2 Grade2CELA Level 3 Grade2CELA Level 3 Total Total
Grade 2 Year Grade 4 TCAP Reading MGP N Grade 4 TCAP Reading MGP N Grade 4 TCAP Reading MGP N Grade 4 TCAP Reading MGP N
2007 33.5 116 40.0 248 47.0 445 42.0 809
2008 36.5 110 52.0 257 52.0 491 49.0 858
2009 25.0 79 42.0 259 45.0 380 42.0 718
2010 39.5 56 42.0 232 52.0 385 48.0 673
Total 32.0 361 43.0 996 49.0 1,701 45.0 3,058
Data display the 4th grade MGPs for students who
scored at CELA Levels 1, 2, or 3 in 2nd grade and
took TCAP Reading (English test) in 3rd grade.
The population includes 2nd graders in either
2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010 with growth scores in
4th grade (2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012).
38
Language of Assessment Dispelling the SPF Myth

• Accountability Measures
• ELLs who take the TCAP Lectura in 3rd Grade,
  rather than the TCAP Reading, are more likely to
  have a positive impact on SPF scores.
• TCAP Lectura scores count toward both DPS and
  state SPF Status measures as much as TCAP Reading
  scores.
• Students who take the TCAP Lectura in 3rd Grade
  are removed from DPS and state SPF growth
  measures in 4th Grade (i.e., they do not count
  against a school).
• TCAP State Testing Requirements
• Students qualify for the Lectura/Escritura and/or
  the Oral Translation accommodation if
• The student has been enrolled in a Colorado
  Public School for less than three years in first
  grade or later (kindergarten is not counted in
  the three years).
• The student has been receiving native language
  instruction within the last 9 months.
• Decisions regarding the language of assessment
  should be made based on a body of evidence and in
  accordance with what is best for the student.

39

State School Performance Framework (SPF)
40
What is the State SPF and DPF?Colorado
Educational Accountability Act of 2009 (SB09-163)

• Colorado Dept. of Education annually evaluates
  districts and schools based on student
  performance outcomes.
• All districts receive a District Performance
  Framework (DPF). This determines their
  accreditation rating.
• All schools receive a School Performance
  Framework (SPF). This determines their school
  plan types.
• Provides a common framework through which to
  understand performance and focus improvement
  efforts A statewide comparison that highlights
  performance strengths and areas for improvement.

41
State SPF4 Possible Plan Types, 5 District
Designations

• Plan Types
• Performance Plan
• Improvement Plan
• Priority Improvement Plan
• Turnaround Plan

• District Accreditation Designations
• Accredited with Distinction
• Accredited
• Accredited with Improvement Plan
• Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan (DPS
  2012 Accreditation Rating)
• Accredited with Turnaround Plan

Consider this How many times can a school or
district be on Priority Improvement or Turnaround?
42
State SPF Accountability Clock

• Once a school is rated as either turnaround or
  priority improvement (red or orange) on CDEs SPF
  they enter into a 5-year clock.
• Schools may not implement a Priority Improvement
  or Turnaround Plan for longer than five
  consecutive years before facing action directed
  by the State Board i.e., the district is
  required to restructure or close the school.

43
2012 State SPF DPS Schools' Plan Types
Alternative Schools excluded
44
2012 CDE Performance Indicators
45
State SPF Performance Indicator Weights
46
State SPF 1 year vs. 3 year data

• CDE provides two different versions of the School
  Performance Framework Reports
• One Year SPF
• The most recent year of data
• Three Year SPF
• The most recent three years
• Only one report counts for official
  accountability purposes
• Higher number of the performance indicators, or
• The one under which it received a higher total
  number of points.

47
CDE vs. DPS SPF
48
CDE vs. DPS SPF Key Differences

1. DPS framework includes metrics not collected by
   the state
2. Evaluates growth using a broader definition,
   including measures that evaluate the growth of
   advanced students and,
3. Rates each metric based on two consecutive years
   of performance as compared to CDEs approach of
   using either one or three years of data.

49
CDE vs. DPS SPF Key Differences

• Rating differences Several schools receive lower
  ratings on the districts framework than on the
  states framework.
• Cut Points The Standard For the district,
  these cuts are based largely on the distribution
  of total points earned by all district schools.
  Since these cuts are informed by the districts
  distribution, the placement of these cuts would
  invariably differ from cuts set by CDE using
  information from the distribution of all schools
  in the state.

50
DPS CDE SPF Ratings Crosswalk
DPS SPF Rating CDE SPF Rating
Distinguished Performance
Meets Expectations Performance
Accredited on Watch Improvement
Accredited on Priority Watch Priority Improvement
Accredited on Probation Turnaround

• Looking at the 2011-12 SPF
• DPS SPF was higher than the states 10 of the
  times.
• The states SPF was higher than DPS 28 of the
  times.

51
DPS SPF vs. State SPF
DPS SPF Indicators CDE SPF Indicators
Academic Achievement (Status) Academic Achievement
Academic Growth Academic Growth
Academic Growth Gaps Academic Growth Gaps
Postsecondary Readiness (Status) Postsecondary Workforce Readiness
Postsecondary Readiness (Growth) n/a
Student Engagement Satisfaction n/a
Re-Enrollment n/a
Parent Engagement n/a
52
DPS SPF Locationshttp//spf.dpsk12.org
ARE Homepage http//testing.dpsk12.org/ gt School
Accountabilitygt School Performance Framework
DPS Homepage http//www.dpsk12.org/gt About DPS
gt School Performance Framework
53
CDE Websitehttp//www.schoolview.org

• District Denver County 1
• School (Select)
• School Report Improvement Plan
• 2012 1 year SPF
• 2012 3 year SPF

54
Principal Portal https//principal.dpsk12.org
55
Lunch Break
Lunch 1 hour
56
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• Data Analysis
• Review Past Performance/Describe
  Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

57
Data Analysis (Worksheets 1 and 2)
58
Consider Prior Years Performance

• Review Prior Years Performance (Worksheet 1)
• List targets set for last year
• Denote the following
• Whether the target was met or not
• How close the school/district was to meeting the
  target and
• To what degree does current performance support
  continuing with current major improvement
  strategies and action steps

59
Prior Years Performance DPS Example
60
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• v New Updates to the UIP Process
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/Describe
  Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

61
Data Locations
Indicator Measure Location
Academic Achievement (Status) TCAP, CoAlt, CELA ACCESS, DRA/EDL2, GPAs, MAP, STAR, Assessment Frameworks Principal Portal - SPF Drill Down School Folders (CoAlt)
Academic Growth Median Student Growth Percentile Principal Portal - SPF Drill Down School level by Content Area School level by grade
Academic Growth Gaps Median Student Growth Percentile CDE (SchoolView.org) - Sub-groups
Student Engagement Attendance School Satisfaction Survey Student Perception Survey Principal Portal School Folders ARE Website
62
UIP Data Locations
Indicator Measure Location
Post Secondary and Work Force Readiness Graduation RateDropout Rate College Remediation Rate Principal Portal
Post Secondary and Work Force Readiness Disaggregated Graduation Rate CDE (SchoolView.org) - School Performance Data Center
Post Secondary and Work Force Readiness Mean ACT Composite Principal Portal (2013)
Post Secondary and Work Force Readiness Advanced Placement School Folders
63
Data Websites

• Principal Portal
• http//principal.dpsk12.org/
• School Folders
• https//are.dpsk12.org/assessapps/
• CDE
• http//www.schoolview.org/
• SchoolNet
• https//schoolnet.dpsk12.org/

64
Step 2 Identify Trends
IL 1

• Include all performance indicator areas.
• Identify indicators where the school did not at
  least meet state and federal expectations.
• Include at least three years of data (ideally 5
  years).
• Consider data beyond that included in the school
  performance framework (grade-level, sub-group,
  local data).
• Include positive and negative performance
  patterns.
• Include information about what makes the trend
  notable.

Indicators listed on pre-populated UIP template
include status, growth, growth gaps and
postsecondary/workforce readiness
65
Writing Trend Statements

• Identify the measure/metrics.
• Describe for which students (grade level and
  disaggregated group).
• Describe the time period.
• Describe the trend (e.g. increasing, decreasing,
  flat).
• Identify for which performance indicator the
  trend applies.
• Determine if the trend is notable and describe
  why.

66
Trends Could be

Stable
Increasing
Decreasing
Increasing then decreasing
Decreasing then increasing
Flat then increasing
Flat then decreasing
What other patterns could staff see in three
years of data?
67
What makes a trend notable?

• In comparison to what . ..
• Criterion-based How did we compare to a specific
  expectation?
• Minimum state expectations
• Median adequate growth percentiles
• Normative How did we compare to others?
• District or state trends for the same metric over
  the same time period.
• For disaggregated groups, to the school over-all
• By standard to the content area over-all

68
Examples of Notable Trends

• The percent of 4th grade students who scored
  proficient or advanced on math TCAP/CSAP declined
  from 70 to 55 to 48 between 2009 and 2011
  dropping well below the minimum state expectation
  of 71.
• The median growth percentile of English Language
  learners in writing increased from 28 to 35 to 45
  between 2009 and 2011,meeting the minimum
  expectation of 45 and exceeding the district
  trend over the same time period.
• The dropout rate has remained relatively stable
  (15, 14, 16) and much higher than the state
  average between 2009 and 2011.

69
Data Analysis DPS Example
Trends What did they get right? What can be
improved?
70
Data Analysis DPS Example w/ Table Graph
71
Disaggregating Data
IL 2
CEL 1 2
Yes
No
72
Analyzing Trends Keep in Mind
0

• Be patient and hang out in uncertainty
• Dont try to explain the data
• Observe what the data actually shows
• No Because

73
How to Describe Trends

• Start with a performance focus and relevant data
  report(s).
• Make predictions about performance.
• Interact with data (at least 3 years).
• Look for things that pop out, with a focus on
  patterns over time (at least three years).
• Capture a list of observations about the data in
  Data Analysis worksheet (positive or negative).
• Write trend statements.
• Identify which trends are significant (narrow)
  and which require additional analysis.

74
Make Notes for Data Narrative

• Guiding Questions
• In which performance indicators did school
  performance not at least meet state expectations?
  
• What data did the planning team review?
• Describe the process in which your team engaged
  to analyze the schools data.
• What were the results of the analysis (which
  trends were identified as significant)?

75
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/v Describe
  Trends/Performance Challenges/Root Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

76
Priority Performance Challenges
Priority performance challenges are. . . Priority performance challenges are NOT
Specific statements (notable trend statements) about performance What caused or why we have the performance challenge
Strategic focus for the improvement efforts Action steps that need to be taken Concerns about budget, staffing, curriculum, or instruction
About the students About the adults
77
Priority Performance Challenges Examples

• The percent of fifth grade students scoring
  proficient or better in mathematics has declined
  from 45 three years ago, to 38 two years ago,
  to 33 in the most recent school year.
• For the past three years, English language
  learners (making up 60 of the student
  population) have had median growth percentiles
  below 30 in all content areas.
• Math achievement across all grade-levels and all
  disaggregated groups over three years is
  persistently less than 30 proficient or
  advanced.

78
Priority Performance Challenges Non-Examples

• To review student work and align proficiency
  levels to the Reading Continuum and Co. Content
  Standards
• Provide staff training in explicit instruction
  and adequate programming designed for
  intervention needs.
• Implement interventions for English Language
  Learners in mathematics.
• Budgetary support for para-professionals to
  support students with special needs in regular
  classrooms.
• No differentiation in mathematics instruction
  when student learning needs are varied.

79
Prioritizing Performance Challenges

1. Clarify indicator areas where performance
   challenges must be identified (where school
   performance did not at least meet state/federal
   expectations).
2. Start with one indicator area, consider all
   negative trends.
3. Focus the list (combining similar trends) (i.e.,
   If you have declining performancein ELLs, SPED
4. Do a reality check (preliminary prioritization by
   dot voting on the tree map)
5. Achieve consensus about top priorities (consider
   using the REAL criteria, see the UIP Handbook).
6. Record on Data Analysis Worksheet.

80
Capture in Data Narrative

• Guiding Questions
• In which performance indicators did school
  performance not at least meet state expectations?
  
• Who was involved in identifying trends and
  prioritizing performance challenges?
• What data did the planning team review?
• In what process did the planning team engaged to
  analyze the schools data?
• What were the results of the analysis (which
  trends were identified as significant)?
• How were performance challenges prioritized?
• What were identified as priority performance
  challenges for the 2011-12 school year?

81
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/v Describe Trends/ v
  Performance Challenges/Root Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

82
What is a Root Cause?
IL 1

• Root causes are statements that describe the
  deepest underlying cause, or causes, of
  performance challenges.
• They are the causes that, if dissolved, would
  result in elimination, or substantial reduction,
  of the performance challenge(s).
• Root causes describe WHY the performance
  challenges exist.
• Things we can change and need to change
• The focus of our major improvement strategies.
• About adult action.

83
Focus of Root Cause Analysis

• Root Cause analysis is always focused on student
  performance.
• It answers the question What adult actions
  explain the student performance that we see?
• Root cause analysis can focus on positive or
  negative trends.
• In this case the focus is on challenges

84
Steps in Root Cause Analysis

1. Focus on a performance challenge (or closely
   related performance challenges).
2. Consider External Review results (or categories)
3. Generate explanations (brainstorm)
4. Categorize/ classify explanations
5. Narrow (eliminate explanations over which you
   have no control) and prioritize
6. Deepen thinking to get to a root cause
7. Validate with other data

85
Root Cause Activity

• Priority Performance Challenge
• Little Johnny, who is in the fifth grade,
  habitually gets up late in the morning for
  school. As a result Johnny is late for his 1st
  class period 10 days in a row.
• Work with your table partners to determine the
  potential root causes for Johnnys behavior.
• (7 minutes)

86
From Priority Performance Challenge to Root
Cause
Systemic Programmatic Incident or Procedural Level
Priority Performance Challenge There has been an overall decline academic achievement in reading, writing and math from 2007-2011 for all grades (K-8). There has been a decline in achievement in reading, math and writing for 4th grade reading from 2007-2011. 4th graders did not demonstrate the multiplication concept on the last Everyday Math Exam.
Root Cause The RTI process has not been implemented with fidelity. Instruction has not been differentiated to meet the needs of the 4th grade student. The teachers did not teach multiplication concepts in the last EDM unit.
87
Verify Root Causes (example)
0
Priority Performance Challenge The
proficient/adv students in reading has been
substantially above state expectations in 3rd
grade but substantially below stable (54, 56,
52) in 4th and 5th for the past three years.
Possible Root Causes Questions to Explore Data Sources Validation
K-3 is using new teaching strategies, 4-5 are not. What strategies are primary vs. intermediate teachers using ? Curriculum materials and Instructional plans for each grade. K-3 strategies are different from 4-5.
Less time is given to direct reading instruction in 4-5 How much time is devoted to reading in primary v. intermediate grades? Daily schedule in each grade level. No evidence that less time is devoted to reading in 4-5.
88
Capture in Data Narrative

• Guiding Questions
• What data and evidence was used to determine root
  causes?
• What process was used to identify these? (e.g., 5
  Whys?)
• What process and data was used to verify these?
  (e.g., reviewed curriculum, teacher observations,
  interim assessments)

89
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• v New Updates to the UIP Process
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• v Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/v Describe Trends/
  vPerformance Challenges/ vRoot Causes
• Action Plans
• Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

90
Setting Targets
SL 1
Focus on a priority performance challenge
Review state or local expectations
Determine YOUR timeframe (max 5 years)
Determine progress needed in next two years
Describe annual targets for two years
Action Planning Tools, p. 9
See accountability clock slide above.
91
Minimum State Expectations

• The value for which a rating of meets would be
  assigned for the state metric in each measure.
• Review state expectations on the 1st two pages of
  your pre-populated UIP template
• Example
• Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
• Graduation rate should be at or above 80

92
DPS District Accountability

• DPS goal is to close or significantly reduce the
  academic achievement and postsecondary readiness
  gaps between DPS and the state by 2015. DPS SPF
  is used to evaluate school performance as schools
  pursue the districts goal.
• School specific targets have been established
  that represent each schools share of the
  districts goal annually through 2015. Schools
  should strive to achieve these targets at
  minimum however, some schools will need to set
  higher targets. (see School Folders for your
  schools targets)

93
Example of School UIP Targets in School
Folders
94
Setting Academic Achievement Targets

• Practice Activity
• Review your schools performance for the
  2012-2013 school year. Find one area where you
  are not meeting district or state expectations
• How long would it take for your school to meet
  CDE expectations? (at most 5 years)
• How much progress can you make in the next two
  years?
• This is the process you will use to set your
  Annual Targets for the next two years.
• Dont forget to consider your accountability
  clock if you are orange or red on the state SPF.

95
Interim Measures

• Once annual performance targets are set for the
  next two years, schools must identify interim
  measures, or what they will measure during the
  year, to determine if progress is being made
  towards each of the annual performance targets.
• Interim measures should be based on local
  performance data that will be available at least
  twice during the school year.
• Across all interim measures, data should be
  available that would allow schools to monitor
  progress at least quarterly.

96
Interim Measures

• Examples of Interim Measures
• District-level Assessments Benchmarks/Interims,
  STAR, SRI
• School-level Assessments End of Unit
  Assessments, DIBELS, NWEA MAPS
• Measures, metrics and availability should be
  specified in the School Goals Form.
• Remember that the Interim Measures need to align
  with Priority Performance Challenges.
  Disaggregated groups should be included as
  appropriate.

97
Examples of Interim Measures

• The percentage of all students scoring
  Proficient/Advanced on the DPS Writing Interim
  assessment will increase by a minimum of 10
  percentage points from the Fall administration to
  the Spring administration.
• The median SRI score for 6th grade students will
  increase by 50 lexile points for each of the
  three administrations during the 2012-2013 school
  year.

98
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• v Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/v Describe Trends/
  vPerformance Challenges/ vRoot Causes
• Action Plans
• v Target Setting/Action Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

99
Major Improvement Strategies
OL 1

• Respond to root causes of the performance
  problems the school/district is attempting to
  remedy.
• Action steps are smaller activities that fit
  within larger major improvement strategies.
• Improvement Strategies and Action Steps must be
  associated with resources, people, and time.

100
Describe your Desired Future

• If root causes are eliminated . . .
• What will these different groups be doing
  differently?
• Students
• Staff members
• Leadership team
• Parents / Community
• Examples of Major Improvement Strategy
• Teachers daily use data about learning
  formatively to refocus instruction on their
  students needs.
• Staff members consistently implement identified
  practices in effective literacy instruction.

101
Action Steps

• Timeline
• Should include the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school
  years.
• Should include specific months.
• Key Personnel
• Consider who is leading each step and their
  capacity.
• Resources
• Include the amount of money, time, and source.
• Consider resources other than money.

102
Implementation Benchmarks

• Directly correspond to the action steps.
• Are something that a school/district leadership
  team could review periodically.
• Should help teams adjust their plans critical
  to a cycle of continuous improvement.

103
Implementation Benchmarks

• Implementation Benchmarks are. . .
• how schools will know major improvement
  strategies are being implemented
• measures of the fidelity with which action steps
  are implemented and
• what will be monitored.
• Implementation Benchmarks are NOT
• Performance measures (assessment results).

104
Implementation Benchmarks /Interim Measures
Activity

• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure Benchmark
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark
• Practice
• ELL students increased their performance on
  Reading Interim assessment in Round 2 by 5.

105
Implementation Benchmarks or Interim Measures?

• Students increased STAR performance.
• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark

106
Implementation Benchmarks or Interim Measures?

• Classroom walkthroughs weekly.
• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark

107
Implementation Benchmarks or Interim Measures?

• Third grade students progress in reading will be
  benchmarked three times through AIMsWeb.
• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark

108
Implementation Benchmarks or Interim Measures?

• Input of classroom teachers will be gathered
  during the last week of October.
• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark

109
Implementation Benchmarks or Interim Measures?

• High school English students will demonstrate
  mastery using teacher developed writing rubrics.
• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark

110
Implementation Benchmarks or Interim Measures?

• Staff will participate in three Strategy Labs.
  Teacher leaders and administration will gather
  evidence and give feedback on the strategies
  being implemented in classrooms. Teachers will
  keep reflection journals on their implementation
  of the strategies.
• STAND UP if Example Interim Measure
• SIT DOWN if Example Implementation Benchmark

111
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• v Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/v Describe Trends/
  vPerformance Challenges/ vRoot Causes
• Action Plans
• v Target Setting/ vAction Planning/Progress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

112
Progress Monitoring

• Consider
• What performance data will be used to monitor
  progress towards annual targets? How will you
  check throughout the year that your strategies
  and actions are having an impact on student
  outcomes?
• What process data will be used to monitor
  progress towards annual targets? How will you
  check throughout the year that your strategies
  and actions are having an impact on adult actions?

113
UIP 101 Road Map

• v Overview of the UIP Process
• v Structure and Components of the UIP Template
• Developing a UIP
• v Data Narrative
• v School Performance Frameworks and the UIP
• v Data Analysis
• v Review Past Performance/v Describe Trends/
  vPerformance Challenges/ vRoot Causes
• v Action Plans
• v Target Setting/ vAction Planning/ vProgress
  Monitoring
• Leadership Considerations Resources
• School Type Title I
• UIP Timeline DPS/CDE Resources

114
Importance of School Type

• See CDEs Quality Criteria (in the back of the
  UIP handbook) to determine what you should
  include based on school/plan type.
• School plan types are based on CDEs SPF (and in
  a few minor cases the DPS SPF) and will be
  officially released in Dec. 2013
• ARE will communicate your preliminary CDE SPF
  rating with your IS/DAP/SIP only if you are a
  priority improvement or turnaround school.

115
Title I Requirements

• All Title I DPS schools follow Schoolwide plan
  requirements
• Additional Title I requirements for
• State SPF Priority Improvement Schools
• State SPF Turnaround Schools
• Focus Schools
• DPS Turnaround (TIG)
• ARE will communicate to you your status and the
  appropriate Title addenda forms to attach to your
  UIP in the fall.

116
Timelines/Deadlines/Resources

Websites Contains
DPS UIP http//testing.dpsk12.org/accountability/UIP/UIP.htm Training Materials Tools Timeline Templates/Addenda Forms UIP Upload Tool
CDE UIP http//www.cde.state.co.us/uip/index.asp Training Materials Tools Templates/Addenda Forms
DPS SPF http//communications.dpsk12.org/initiatives/school-performance-framework/ Principal Portal Drill-Down Tool Current and previous years SPF Additional reports on TCAP and ACCESS School CDE SPF Results Resources CDE SPF Rubric
CDE SPF http//www.schoolview.org/performance.asp School CDE SPF Results Resources CDE SPF Rubric
DPS Federal Programs http//fedprograms.dpsk12.org/ Title I Status
117
District Network Contacts
District Contact Network Contact
UIP SPF Brandi Van Horn (ARE) brandi_vanhorn_at_dpsk.12.org 720-423-3640 Katherine Beck (ARE) katherine_beck_at_dpsk12.org 720-423-3734 Instructional Superintendents (IS) School Improvement Partner (SIP) Instructional Support Partner (ISP) Data Assessment Partner (DAP)
Federal Programs (Title I) Veronica Bradsby (Federal Programs) veronica_bradsby_at_dpsk12.org 720-423-8157 Instructional Superintendents (IS) School Improvement Partner (SIP) Instructional Support Partner (ISP) Data Assessment Partner (DAP)
Assessments Assessment Coordinators (ARE) http//testing.dpsk12.org/secure/sal_resources/SAL20Role20and20Assessment20Information.pdf Instructional Superintendents (IS) School Improvement Partner (SIP) Instructional Support Partner (ISP) Data Assessment Partner (DAP)

118
Data Websites

• Principal Portal
• http//principal.dpsk12.org/
• School Folders
• https//secure2.dpsk12.org/schoolfolders/
• CDE
• http//www.schoolview.org/
• SchoolNet
• https//schoolnet.dpsk12.org/