Current State:

NOTABLE DATA TRENDS

TCAP ACHIEVEMENT

Grade Level Tests / 2014
Prof/Adv / 2013
Prof/Adv / 2012
Prof/Adv / 2014 change from 2013 / 2014 change from 2012
3rd Reading / 59 / 59 / 60 / 0 / -1
4th Reading / 58 / 35 / 43 / +23 / +15
5th Reading / 67 / 42 / 68 / +25 / -1
3rd Writing / 48 / 28 / 36 / +12 / +12
4th Writing / 43 / 32 / 39 / +4 / +4
5th Writing / 47 / 33 / 51 / +14 / -4
3rd Math / 75 / 66 / 60 / +9 / +15
4th Math / 69 / 75 / 78 / -6 / -9
5th Math / 58 / 54 / 64 / +4 / -6

TCAP GROWTH
2014
Reading / Writing / Math
4th Grade / 56 / 66 / 70
5thGrade / 70 / 63 / 44
Sunset Ridge / 62 / 64 / 60
Adequate Growth / 46
(Met Goal) / 59
(Met Goal) / 53
(Met Goal)
TCAP Growth 2013
Reading / Writing / Math
4th / 39 / 50 / 73
5th / 47 / 51 / 41
Sunset Ridge / 46 / 51 / 60
Adequate Growth / 46 / 55 / 57

Academic Performance Summary

Sunset Ridge and 7 Neighboring Schools w/ Similar Demographics

Schools / Year / Reading / Writing / Math
Sunset Ridge / 2014 / 61% / 46% / 67%
Mesa / 2014 / 62% / 45% / 64%
Flynn / 2014 / 41% / 23% / 46%
Harris Park / 2014 / 45% / 24% / 48%
Sherrelwood / 2014 / 46% / 28% / 51%
Metz / 2014 / 49% / 29% / 50%
Rocky Mountain – D12 / 2014 / 39% / 22% / 42%
Federal Heights – D12 / 2014 / 29% / 11% / 41%
Schools / Year / Reading / Writing / Math
Sunset Ridge / 2013 / 46% / 31% / 65%
Mesa / 2013 / 55% / 42% / 61%
Flynn / 2013 / 46% / 23% / 51%
Harris Park / 2013 / 35% / 22% / 40%
Sherrelwood / 2013 / 43% / 27% / 55%
Metz / 2013 / 42% / 28% / 48%
Rocky Mountain – D12 / 2013 / 44% / 23% / 43%
Federal Heights – D12 / 2013 / 33% / 18% / 41%

Growth Summary

Sunset Ridge and 7 Neighboring Schools with Similar Demographics

Schools / Year / Reading / Writing / Math
Sunset Ridge / 2014 / 62% / 64% / 60%
Mesa / 2014 / 49% / 48% / 55%
Flynn / 2014 / 55% / 52% / 52%
Harris Park / 2014 / 57% / 58% / 52%
Sherrelwood / 2014 / 59% / 53% / 30%
Metz / 2014 / 51% / 51% / 53%
Rocky Mountain – D12 / 2014 / 45% / 54% / 42%
Federal Heights – D12 / 2014 / 44% / 46% / 58%
Schools / Year / Reading / Writing / Math
Sunset Ridge / 2013 / 46% / 51% / 60%
Mesa / 2013 / 55% / 63% / 45%
Flynn / 2013 / 62% / 60% / 45%
Harris Park / 2013 / 55% / 59% / 43%
Sherrelwood / 2013 / 57% / 43% / 55%
Metz / 2013 / 53% / 51% / 56%
Rocky Mountain – D12 / 2013 / 53% / 48% / 44%
Federal Heights – D12 / 2013 / 52% / 49% / 42%

DIBELS 2013-2014 Summary

RED / BOY 2013 / MOY 2014 / EOY 2014
Sunset Ridge / 56% / 36% / 27%
District 50 Average / 47% / 36%
YELLOW-GREEN / BOY 2013 / MOY 2014 / EOY 2014
Sunset Ridge / 44% / 64% / 73%
District 50 Average / 53% / 64%
RED
Significantly Deficient Readers / BOY
K / BOY
1ST
Grade / BOY
2ND Grade / BOY
3RD Grade / BOY
4TH Grade / BOY
5TH Grade
56% / 62% / 62% / 56% / 55% / 46%
MOY
K / MOY
1st Grade / MOY
2nd Grade / MOY
3rd
Grade / MOY
4th Grade / MOY
5th
Grade
18% / 47% / 49% / 50% / 38% / 23%
EOY
K / EOY
1st Grade / EOY
2nd Grade / EOY
3rd
Grade / EOY
4th Grade / EOY
5th
Grade
6% / 46% / 47% / 34% / 22% / 18%

*BOY – Beginning of the Year

*MOY – Middle of the Year

*EOY – End of the Year

DIBELS 2014-2015 Summary

RED / BOY 2014 / MOY 2015 / EOY 2015
Sunset Ridge / 48% / 35%
District 50 Average / 43% / 34%
RED
Significantly Deficient Readers / BOY
K / BOY
1ST
Grade / BOY
2ND Grade / BOY
3RD Grade / BOY
4TH Grade / BOY
5TH Grade
52% / 53% / 46% / 53% / 53% / 33%
MOY
K / MOY
1st Grade / MOY
2nd Grade / MOY
3rd
Grade / MOY
4th Grade / MOY
5th
Grade
13% / 43% / 41% / 46% / 42% / 25%
EOY
K / EOY
1st Grade / EOY
2nd Grade / EOY
3rd
Grade / EOY
4th Grade / EOY
5th
Grade

Beginning of the Year

*BOY – Beginning of the Year

*MOY – Middle of the Year

*EOY – End of the Year

Scantron Achievement Summary
Fall 2013 to Scantron Fall 2014
Percent Proficient and Advanced / District 50
3rd Grade / 4th Grade / 5th Grade
READING 2013 / 23% / 34% / 34% / 3rd – 16%
4th – 24%
5th – 21%
READING 2014 / 24% / 33% / 30% / 3rd – 24%
4th – 24%
5th – 28%
MATH
2013 / 54% / 43% / 46% / 3rd – 35%
4th – 36 %
5th – 30%
MATH
2014 / 38% / 39% / 40% / 3rd – 43%
4th – 35 %
5th – 33 %

READING Scantron Fall 2014

GRADE 5 / 72 STUDENTS
Advanced / 6 / 8%
Proficient / 16 / 22%
PP / 15 / 21%
Unsat / 35 / 49%
Prof/Adv: 30%

MATH Scantron Fall 2014

GRADE 3 / 65 STUDENTS
Advanced / 10 / 15%
Proficient / 15 / 23%
PP / 14 / 22%
Unsat / 26 / 40%
GRADE 4 / 51 STUDENTS
Advanced / 4 / 8%
Proficient / 16 / 31%
PP / 16 / 31%
Unsat / 15 / 28%

Prof/Adv: 38%

Prof/Adv: 39%

Goal State:

GOALS FOR ACHIEVEMENT AND GROWTH

DIBELS Reading Achievement Goals
Reduce the percentage of students in RED
Current State
Fall 2014 / End of Year Goal
Kindergarten / 52% / Less than 30% RED
1st grade / 53% / Less than 30% RED
2nd grade / 46% / Less than 30% RED
3rd grade / 54% / Less than 30% RED
4th grade / 53% / Less than 30% RED
5th grade / 33% / Less than 30% RED
Sunset Ridge / 48% / Less than 30% RED
100% of all students, by the end of their 3rd grade year, will meet or exceed the following benchmark goals as measured by DIBELS:
  • Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF): 40
  • Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF):
54Correct Letter Sounds
13Whole Words Read

SCANTRON ACHIEVEMENT
Content
and
Grade / Current State
Proficient and Advanced
(as measured by National Norms) / GOAL
By End of Year
2nd Grade Reading / 36% / 50%
3rd Grade Reading / 24% / 50%
4th Grade Reading / 32% / 50%
5th Grade Reading / 30% / 50%
3rd Grade Math / 38% / 50%
4th Grade Math / 39% / 50%
5th Grade Math / 40% / 50%
SCANTRON GROWTH
Content
and
Grade / GOAL
By End of Year
2nd Grade Reading / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
3rd Grade Reading / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
4th Grade Reading / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
5th Grade Reading / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
3rd Grade Math / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
4th Grade Math / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
5th Grade Math / 90% of students will make at least One-Year’s Growth
Fountas and Pinnell Growth
GOAL
By End of Year
Kindergarten / 80% at Instructional Level D
1st Grade / 80% at Instructional Level J
2nd Grade / 80% at Instructional Level M
3rd Grade / 80% at Instructional Level P
4th Grade / 80% at Instructional Level S
5th Grade / 80% at Instructional Level V
Goals for Instructional Level Movement
Goal
Kindergarten / 100% of Kindergarten students will meet and have evidence of completion of all Level 0 learning targets in literacy and math.
Level 1 and up / 100% of students not at level in literacy and math (fall 2014) will have evidence of completion of all literacy and math learning targets and participate in level promotion ceremonies in Nov., Jan., or Feb.

PRIORITY PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES

Achievement / Growth and Growth Gaps
Achievement across reading, writing and math is low but improved in 2013-14. Growth percentiles increased 2012/2013 to 2013/14 by 15 percentile points in grades 3-5. / Increased language acquisition for ELL students correlates to increased academic growth.
Insufficient students were moved from red to yellow to green on DIBELS. / Priority engagement with ELL, girls, and FRL populations.
Current 5th graders are not increasing their proficiency over 3 years. / Expectations for all subgroups are equally high. Learners are exposed to grade level material, but are also taught at their instructional level.
3rd grade scores show no steady increase over the previous 3 years. / Female students are not sufficiently engaged in math activities.
Closing the achievement gap between White and Hispanic students continues to be the goal. / Continue to decrease unsatisfactory and partially proficient while increasing proficient and advanced.
Decrease gap between free and reduced and non-free and reduced lunch. / Meet or Exceed State Median Growth Percentile of 50% in all content areas.
Close the math achievement gap of 21% between boys and girls in 3rd in 2014.
Increase the number of students in yellow and green on DIBLES across all levels (predictor for PARCC assessments).
ROOT CAUSES
Formative Instructional Practices have not been consistently monitored by teachers using a systematic collection of student data. Students have not taken sufficient ownership of their achievement data in reading, writing and math. / A systemic vocabulary instructional program hasnot been implemented school-wide. Guaranteed lists of words have not been identified for each level of student performance. A systematic program for teaching and assessing students’ vocabulary knowledge has not been consistently monitored by teachers and administration.
Current processes for progress monitoring in reading, writing and math and formative data collection in all content areas is not yet systemic. Progress monitoring is not used effectively to guide instructional decision making. In reading, progress monitoring of the 5 components of reading was inadequate to properly differentiate and prioritize instruction based on data. Limited staff development on the collection of this data was provided and limited guidance on how to use progress monitoring to guide instruction and determine intervention supports. / Learners were not provided with a variety of ways to demonstrate proficiency.
Opportunity to apply mathematical learning to everyday situations was limited. The delivery of PMI was at a DOK level 1 and did not provide deeper levels of understanding and application

How we will achieve our goals:Action Planning

Improvement
Strategy #1 / Improvement
Strategy #2 / Improvement
Strategy #3
Implement, refine and monitor the effects of a systemic student-led data monitoring program. Data monitoring will include: Use of Collective Action Planning through structured data analysis teams (i.e. Team Action Planning); Use of Individual Action Planning cycles with all certified staff and administration (i.e. Data Driven Dialogues); Individual Student Action Planning (i.e. Student Data Notebooks K-5). / Improve the academic achievement and academic growth of all students through intervention support and through the implementation of a tier 1, 2 and 3 intervention plan. Intervention Groups will meet daily to increase the academic achievement of students in reading, writing and math. Our tiered plan includes systemic implementation of formative instructional practices which will include routine use of rubrics, exemplars, progress monitoring tools, goal setting, pre/post assessments and action planning to positively impact student achievement. / Increased language acquisition for ALL students correlates to increased academic growth. Implement a systemic and systematic program to teach and assess students’ vocabulary knowledge. As part of this systemic approach, all teachers will participate in training on vocabulary instruction; all teachers will be part of the process to create leveled lists of essential and guaranteed academic words that will be taught; all students will create and use Vocabulary Journals; and all teachers will participate in Professional Learning Community (PLC) discussions to implement the vocabulary instructional program.
Action Steps / Action Steps / Action Steps
Student Data Notebooks strategically aligned with Competency Based Design components; District 50 Instructional Model; SB 191 Evaluation System; We Agree Statements. Distribute District 50 CBS Expectations/We Agree Statements to all staff; train staff on implementation of CBS Expectations; Monitor expectations using the CBS School Progress Monitoring Tool. / Implement systemic collection of a reading body of evidence (Scantron; DIBELS Next; BURST, Fountas and Pinnell score, RAZ-KIDS, and Readingplus.com) to inform instruction. Classroom teachers and Intervention Team will create flexible groupings to close learning gaps and accelerate reading achievement. Tier 1, 2 and 3 supports will be provided to meet individual student needs in reading. / Within PLC groups, a process will be used to select guaranteed vocabulary words for each student performance level. Process will include:
1. Teachers review list of academic terms provided in Marzano’s Vocabulary for the Common Core;
2. Teachers collaborate to make performance level lists;
3. Teachers confer with adjacent performance levels to ensure each level hasa unique set of guaranteed vocabulary words;
4. Words are recorded in a Google Spreadsheet
Weekly, regular scheduled meetings with PLC teams for data analysis. Focus of PLC meetings includes creating explicit lesson planning for instruction within the District 50 Instructional Model including a focus on the tracking and monitoring of critical thinking questioning, activities, and instruction.
Six-Week Action Planning and Data-Driven Dialogues with administration. Purposes include: reviewing current performance of students; SMART goal setting; identifying action steps to achieve goals; review of post assessment data; monitoring of student tracking of achievement. / Interventionists are assigned to specific teachers, K-5, based on greatest academic need of students to streamline communication and learning strategies for specific students.
Action Steps / Action Steps / Action Steps
All licensed staff will set professional instructional practice goals which will be tied to the District Instructional Model and monitored beginning to end of the year to ensure checks and adjustments are made as needed. / Conduct Problem Solving Meetings with teachers and Intervention Team. Purposes of Problem Solving Meetings:
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
What data highlights are emerging for the whole class?
Which students, based on data evaluation, are needing something different? Different intervention?
PROBLEM ANALYSIS (for specific students)
What school-based interventions have been implemented? (i.e. modifications to core instruction; supplemental interventions)
What are possible reasons why student is not meeting benchmarks? What are the gaps in learning or learning challenges?
INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATAION
Brainstorm ideas for an instructional support plan and Identification of Progress Monitoring plan. / All teachers will be trained on the Marzano strategies of teaching vocabulary.
1. Teachers provide a description, explanation or example of the new vocabulary term;
2. Students restate or write the description, explanation, or example in their own words;
3. Students construct a picture, symbol or graphic representation of the new term;
4. Teacher engages students in activities that help them add to their knowledge of the new terms;
5. Teachers ask students to discuss the new terms with each other;
6. Teachers involve students in games that allow them to play with the new terms.
All licensed staff will set academic achievement/growth goals for student groups. Goals will be SMART and monitored beginning to end of the year to ensure checks and adjustments are made as needed.
Administration conducts instructional walkthroughs/observations to observe the implementation of Formative Instructional Practices across all content areas.
1. We must know clearly where we want our students to be performing at the end of a cycle. The cycle could be six weeks, a quarter, a semester or an entire school year. Creating rubrics of proficiency; using exemplars to show what proficiency looks like; and modeling for students proficient work are examples of effective practice.
2. We will adequately and systematically assess where our students are currently performing. Teachers have a number of assessment tools available to them to assess the current understandings of students. Assessments include: DIBELS; Fountas and Pinnell; Scantron; PMI pre-assessments; and WFTB pre-assessments.
3. We will create action plans which are designed to take our students from where they are currently performing to where we expect them to achieve. We must explicitly plan to fill in the learning gaps that students lack and set high expectations that challenge our students to excel at a high level. Action planning will include identifying resources and instructional strategies that will engage our students in a variety of relevant learning experiences. Providing feedback; incorporating self/peer-assessments; providing higher order questioning; setting goals; requiring students to track/monitor their own learning; and utilizing flexible grouping are processes that will need to be explicitly planned for in each action cycle.
Interventionists compare a variety of assessment data to each other to determine gaps in learning and specific skills which need to be addressed and share outcomes with collaborating teachers. / Teachers will teach 1-3 new words per week using the Marzano instructional strategies.
To promote collaborate work and Team Action Planning, every teacher is a member of a Professional Learning Communities and are participants in Team Action Planning and Individual Data Dialogues with administration. / All students will create and keep a Vocabulary Journal. Within Student Vocabulary Journals; students will record:
  1. New vocabulary terms
  2. Pre-assessment understandings
  3. Description of terms
  4. Pictorial representation of terms

Weekly, regular scheduled meetings with PLC teams for data analysis. Focus of PLC meetings include: creating explicit lesson planning for instruction within the District 50 Instructional Model including a focus on vocabulary instruction across content areas.

1