2015 state review panel recommendation form...recommendation meeting date: june 8, 2015 panel’s...

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 1

2015 State Review Panel Recommendation Form School/code & District/code: Julesburg Re-1/2862

State Review Panelists: Sam Humphrey and Laura Gorman

Recommendation Meeting Date: June 8, 2015

Panel’s Recommendation:

The State Review Panel recommends continued management by a public or private entity other than the district for

Insight School of Colorado (ISCO), based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as well as a site visit

conducted on April 15, 2015.

Evidence and Rationale:

The SRP recommends continued management by a public or private entity other than the district of Insight School

of Colorado at Julesburg (ISCO). The SRP found that, overall, the district is Developing in the areas of leadership,

infrastructure, the capacity of personnel, and the capacity to work with external partners. Additionally, the SRP found

that district is Effective in relation to the likelihood of positive returns on state investments. While ISCO is but one

school within the Julesburg School District, its presence is considerable in terms of the impact it has on the district’s

overall student performance data. This is due primarily to its significantly higher enrollment (400-500 students at

various times) than the other schools (260 students) within the district. As a result, the success of ISCO is a major

factor in the overall performance data reflected by the district as a whole.

ISCO is an online school already managed by K12, an outside management entity. ISCO and the Julesburg School

District have experienced only one school year (2014-15) under K12 management. During the transition to K12

management, district administration provided substantial leadership through the initiation of new staffing structures

(e.g., a Director of Academics and a Director of Accountability) and increased/improved student support resulting in a

stronger working relationship and improved clarity of expectations for the school. The SRP found that, as a result of

these shifts, preliminary evidence shows an upward trajectory in terms of student retention and student pass rates

within Insight school.

Through the site visit, the SRP found that K12 has a depth of experience from its management of schools across the

nation and provides curriculum, training and support aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards. ISCO can benefit

from these resources and structures to enhance improvement efforts locally.

The SRP also found that the district leadership is strong and has a clear understanding of how to implement an

effective improvement process. For example, the district affected change within its brick and mortar school as

evidenced by recent changes to the elementary school year calendar and targeted instructional programing, as well as

through the use of state and local performance data.

As a result of the above, the SRP does not believe that introducing a new management organization or making other

significant structural changes at this time would result in meaningful improvements for students or a significant

increase in student performance. Instead, the SRP recommends allowing the district to continue management by K12

and the promising changes already implemented. Failure to make meaningful improvements within the next two

years would indicate a larger systemic problem; in that case, the SRP recommends closure of ISCO.

The SRP does not recommend Innovation School status for ISCO. By its very nature, as an online school, ISCO already

enjoys significant autonomy and flexibility in terms of hours of attendance, length of school year and personnel. As a

result, it is not clear that ISCO would benefit from Innovation Status.

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Recommendation Form - 2

The Review Panel also does not recommend conversion to a charter school. ISCO already operates much like a

charter school in terms of the flexibility it employs as an online school. In addition, the district leadership has

demonstrated the ability to generate meaningful student performance in its brick and mortar schools physically

located within the district. It has recently made potentially beneficial changes in the staffing structure, student

support efforts and overall expectations at ISCO as well. Early indicators of success include the previously mentioned

improvements in student retention and course pass rates for students chronically behind in academic performance. A

significant potential downside in conversion to a charter school would be the loss of the improved linkage between

the district and school. Over the past school year, this heightened relationship has led to improved clarity of

expectations regarding improved structures for accountability; for example, these expectations have led to a new

Director of Accountability position at ISCO.

The SRP does not recommend closure. It is clear that the performance status of ISCO is the overriding factor for the

school district’s current low academic rating. ISCO, with a reported enrollment between 400-500 students, is

considerably larger than the brick and mortar school in the district, which has an enrollment of approximately 260

students. If ISCO were closed, district performance rating would improve. However, the site visit noted that students

in the brick and mortar schools have the ability to access the K12 curriculum as the need arises. For example, in

coordination with the district’s distance learning program students have access to class not available in-house.

Students from the brick and mortar schools can also access ISCO on a part-time basis to make-up lost credits. ISCO is

also major revenue source for this small, relatively isolated school district. The district’s operating budget has

benefited from this revenue through the ability to extend the school day and provide a summer school at the

elementary level. For these reasons, the SRP does not recommend closure at this time. Instead, as discussed above,

the SRP recommends allowing the present management oversight at ISCO an additional period of two years to

manifest their improvement potential.

The SRP does not recommend district reorganization. As stated above, the SRP found that the district is Developing

in the key critical areas of leadership, infrastructure, the capacity of personnel, and the capacity to engage with

external partners. Additionally, the SRP found the district to be Effective in the likelihood for positive returns on state

investments. The brick and mortar schools located within the district are all rated as performance schools,

demonstrating the successful improvement practices and guidance of school and district leadership. The closest

neighboring districts are 30+ miles away and their overall performance is similar to the brick and mortar schools

within the Julesburg RE-1. Finally, SRP interviews with the Julesburg Board of Education revealed high pride in the

district and a clear commitment to a quality education for students.

State Review Panel Site Visit Feedback Form 2015

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Site Visit Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: The State Review Panel (SRP, or the Panel) was created by the Accountability Act of 2009 to provide a critical evaluation of the state’s lowest-

performing schools and districts’ plans for dramatic action and provide recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. The

Panel’s work is informed by a review of documents (e.g., Unified Improvement Plan) and, in some cases, by a site visit. The site visit component was added

in 2013 to strengthen panelists’ understanding of the conditions in the schools and districts that are further along on the accountability clock. The

expectation is that the site visit will inform their recommendations to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education about potential actions at the

end of the accountability clock.

Prior to arriving on site, panelists conducted a document review aligned to the six key areas in the Accountability Act. The results of this review were shared

with all members of the site visit team and helped inform the team’s work during the visit. On site at the school/district, the site visit team used evidence

collected through classroom observations, focus groups, interviews, and document review to come to consensus on capacity levels in relation to the six key

areas. This report presents the school/district’s capacity levels in relation to the six key areas and a summary of evidence for each. Reviewer Name(s): Sam Humphrey and Laura Gorman Date: April 16, 2015 Form: [ ] Individual [X] Consensus

District Name/Code: Julesburg Re-1/2862 School Name/Code: N/A

SRP Site Visit Summary (complete using ratings from the following pages) Capacity Level:

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

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

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. Developing

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 Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based

on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or

system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective



SRP Evaluation Based on Site Visit

State Review Panel Criteria Claims & Evidence

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

1.1: Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership communicates a relentless commitment to the school/district turnaround.

Leadership makes data-driven changes to the academic program and organization to promote dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership conveys clear expectations for performance for all stakeholders, including leadership, teachers, students, and partners.

Leadership acts as a change agent to drive incremental achievement gains.

District leadership and Insight School Of Colorado leadership reported that During K12 transition of Kaplan (formerly Apollo) district leadership insisted on new staffing structures and additional personnel (including an Executive Director, Director of Academics, Director of Operations and a Director of School Accountability) to better support improved student performance and the school improvement process.

District leadership has implemented a process to recognize academic excellence as evidenced by the student Academic Hall of fame at the district/high school office.

The school board and district leadership noted regular (at least monthly) data updates related to student performance and instructional supports that guide decisions about the improvement process district wide.

Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges.

All stakeholders reported that the data has driven modifications that they have made. For example, stakeholders are aware of the cut points required to meet the next level of state accreditation at the school and district level.

School leaders reported that pass rates, at Insight School of Colorado, have grown from 50% to 70% year-to-year as reflected by the local Scantron data.

1.2: Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges.

Leadership communicates data trends and issues, ensures timely access to data, and models and facilitates data use.

Leadership first concentrates on a limited number of priorities to achieve early, visible wins.

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results and effective use of data.

Leadership involves teachers in making and implementing meaningful decisions and policies that guide continuous school improvement.

Leadership targets resources (e.g., funding, materials, time, staff) toward the school's instructional framework and goals, treats resources flexibly, and implements focused improvement efforts with a focus on early wins.

1.3: Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

The school/district holds high expectations for academic learning.

Educators set high expectations for learning and clearly convey these to students.

Educators convey that students are responsible for raising their achievement and encourage their participation in learning.

The school provides a safe environment to support students’ learning and, in the case of a virtual school, ensures that students’ interactions between and among themselves and school staff are respectful and supportive.

Leadership ensures that school’s physical environment is clean, orderly, and safe.



Stakeholders reported that retention rate within Insight School of Colorado has increased, year-to-year 31% to 60% with a 2015-16 goal of 85%.

School leadership indicates the use of teacher-lead data conferences with them about student performance and appropriate instruction.

School leaders stated that they use a variety of interim assessments during PLC (Profession Learning Community) days and resulting professional development. Data walkthroughs occur weekly with teachers. (Example: the determination of which math curriculum a student will use).

School and district leaders reported the teachers’ role in determining priority performance challenges. For example, at the elementary school teachers are analyzing achievement and growth data (NWEA MAP data, DIBELS, State Assessments) to identify literacy as a priority performance focus.

School and district leaders reported that there are changing demographics seen at the elementary level requiring adjustments to instructional programing (for example: additional Title 1 programing and increased SPED supports). The number of students with an Individual Education Plan has grown from 15 to 40 students.

The site visit team observed Title I instruction and resources in action during the school walkthrough.

School and district leadership report data review sessions during the formal improvement process and throughout the school year for the purpose of instructional and curriculum monitoring and modification.

Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

District and Insight School of Colorado leadership related their pre-enrollment parent/student and teacher counseling procedures regarding student expectations and responsibility for attendance, engagement and completion of work.



As evidenced in the Insight School of Colorado student/parent handbook and as explained by school leadership; students and parents are required to sign an agreement of responsibility and demonstrate adequate academic progress to continue enrollment from year to year.

The site visit team observed clean and orderly buildings with well-behaved classrooms during high school/middle school and elementary school walkthroughs.





2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

2.1: The district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

The district/superintendent ensures ongoing leadership development for emerging and current school leaders with a focus on building leadership capacity to lead turnaround efforts and sustain improvement.

The district/superintendent provides adequate oversight in schools’ work to deliver the curriculum, monitors instruction on a regular basis, and provides adequate support and feedback to principals to improve instruction.

School/district leadership has is focused on creating and implementing systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains.

As noted above district leadership and Insight School Of Colorado leadership reported that During K12 transition of Kaplan (formerly Apollo) district leadership insisted on new staffing structures and additional personnel (including an Executive Director, Director of Academics, Director of Operations and a Director of School Accountability) to better support improved student performance and the school improvement process.

Elementary school leadership described the three non-negotiables teachers must manifest for working within the school; knowing and teaching to the standards, differentiated instruction based upon data and implementation of the identified curriculum.

District and school leadership described the content of professional development (i.e. elementary school: Reading Street and Reading Foundations training, high school/middle school and elementary school: unwrapping the standards and standards based instruction collaborate with neighboring districts) as substantiated by the district calendar including eight full days of professional development.

Insight School of Colorado leaders report using SWOT(Strengths/Weakness/Opportunities/Threats) analysis to identify the professional development needs of teachers and counselors. This resulted in training involving re-teaching techniques/strategies with

2.2: School/district leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership has created and/or implemented an organizational and staffing structure that will drive dramatic student gains.

Leadership recruits and hires teachers with commitment to, and competence in, the school’s philosophy, design, and instructional framework (e.g., trained and experienced with curriculum, certified/licensed to teach, qualified to teach subject area).

Leadership ensures the evaluation of all staff, and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Leadership provides teachers with active, intense, and sustained professional development (PD), including guidance on data analysis and instructional practice, aligned to school improvement efforts.

PD is informed by ongoing analysis of student performance, instructional data, and educators’ learning needs.

PD requires teachers to demonstrate their learned competency in a tangible and assessable way.

PD engages teachers in active learning and provides follow-up sessions and ongoing support for teachers’ continued learning.

The quality of professional development delivery is regularly monitored, evaluated, and improved.



2.3: School/district leadership ensures that the school/ district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

School/district leadership ensures that the organizational structure supports essential school functions, and that roles and responsibilities of all individuals at the school are clear.

School/district leadership has established effective means of communicating with school staff.

School/district leadership ensures that the school meets all compliance requirements and deadlines set by the state, including the submission of school improvement plans, financial statements, school audit, calendar, and student attendance.

School/district leadership effectively manages the school budget and cash flow, and there is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.

The school/district leadership effectively manages operations (e.g., food services, transportation, school facilities).

monitoring and follow-up based upon “drop-in” observations of teachers to gauge the use of the techniques/strategies.

District leadership ensures that the district has sound financial and operational systems and processes.

District and school leaders provided evidence of meeting state compliance requirements (i.e. student contact days/calendar, school improvement plans, attendance policies, identified assessment coordinator).

The superintendent referenced the use of Title I funds for a Title I teacher and resource teacher, SPED services through the NorthEast Board Of Cooperative Learning, McKinney-Vento funds for homeless students and Insight School of Colorado per pupil funding expenditures.

All students receive lunch at the elementary school cafeteria, which has won the state “Clean Kitchen” award.

Documentation provided by district leadership indicates a general fund balance increase from $359,000 to $3,978,588 over a 13-year period while experiencing declining on-site enrollment.

School/district leadership provides adequate instructional leadership.

All stakeholder confirmed oversight and involvement of the superintendent and board of education in curriculum selection (i.e. a BOE trip to Virginia to study curriculum development for the Insight School of Colorado) and class structures (i.e. block time, new summer school sessions and after-school program at Julesburg Elementary School).

The superintendent and school leaders reported that he provided data driven feedback to the Board of Education and school leadership on a regular basis (at least monthly).

Teacher are provided time to study data at all schools as evidenced by principal comments referencing weekly teacher lead “data-digs”, and analysis with school leaders resulting in instructional modifications and

2.4: School/district leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

School leaders ensure that the school implements a coherent, comprehensive, and aligned curriculum.

School leaders ensure that curriculum, instruction, and assessments are aligned with state standards, aligned with each other, and coordinated both within and across grade levels.

School leaders ensure that instructional materials are selected and/or developed in accordance with a school-wide instructional framework and aligned with established curriculum standards.

School leaders ensure the curriculum is periodically reviewed and revisions are made accordingly.

School leaders provide meaningful feedback on teachers’ instructional planning and practice.

Leaders regularly provide meaningful feedback on instructional planning.

Leaders regularly observe instruction and provide meaningful, timely feedback that helps teacher improve their practice.

School leaders provide conditions that support a school-wide data culture.

Teachers have easy access to varied, current, and accurate student and instructional data.



Teachers are provided time to collect, enter, query, analyze, and represent student data and use tools that help them act on results.

School leaders ensure that all teachers receive professional development in data use (e.g., how to access, read, and interpret a range of data reports; frame questions for inquiry; analyze data, assessment literacy, use data tools and resources).

differentiation of curriculum resources (i.e. Everyday math verses Saxon at the elementary school).

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction. (School visits only.)

Classroom interactions and organization ensure a supportive, highly structured learning climate.

Classroom instruction intentional, engaging, and challenging for all students.

The school has created a performance-driven classroom culture in which teachers effectively use data to make decisions about daily instruction and the organization of students.





3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

3.1: Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

Leadership communicates clear and focused goals that are understood by all staff.

Data on progress toward goals drives organizational and instructional decision making.

Educators understand their responsibilities for achieving goals.

Leadership maintains school-wide focus on achieving established goals.

Leadership allocates resources in alignment with goals and critical needs.

Progress toward school goals is shared regularly across the school.

Leadership establishes clear and data driven goals designed to promote

student performance.

Board of Education members reported receiving monthly data updates on progress and queries from the superintendent about how progress might be improved.

The elementary principal indicated that all teachers understand that the primary elementary focus is literacy.

School leaders indicate that teachers and teacher leaders are involved in the identification of school improvement goals. This is further supported by the narrative in the school improvement plan.

District and school leaders reported that goals and progress are discussed and monitored regularly with staff (i.e. bi-weekly data discussions).

Leadership adjusts implementation of the action plan in response to systematic review of data.

Insight School of Colorado and district leaders report increased student monitoring and multi-tiered systems of support counseling (1 to 80 ratio at Insight School of Colorado), class attendance monitoring, course completion and pass rates and increased teacher accountability for purposefully implementation of improvement strategies as evidenced by the previously discussed “data-digs”, walkthroughs, teacher lead data conferences, etc.)

Based upon changing demographics and student assessed needs, leadership reports the following changes to instructional programming; Development of an elementary block schedule,

3.2: Leadership adjusts implementation of the action plan in response to systematic review of data.

Leadership has established systems to measure and report interim results toward goals.

There is regular progress monitoring of performance and implementation data and, as appropriate, results lead to elimination of tactics that do not work.

Benchmarks are used to assess progress toward goals; goals are adjusted as progress is made.

3.3: The

school/district

engages the

community and

families in support of

students’ learning and

school improvement

efforts.

School/district includes parents/guardians in cultivating a culture of high expectations for students’ learning and their consistent support of students’ efforts.

School/district invites family participation in school activities (e.g., volunteering in classrooms or on committees; attendance at performances, sports events, organizational meetings) and regularly solicits their input.

School/district offers workshops and other opportunities for parents/guardians to learn about home practices that support student learning.

Educators communicate with parents/guardians about instructional programs and students’ progress.



elementary afterschool and summer school program, increased length of school day, addition of Zoophonics at the preschool level to better align with primary level needs.

Elementary and high school/middle school leaders report the use of NWEA MAP data to measure and monitor student progress. Additionally, this is supported in the district and school improvement plans.

The district engages families in support of student learning and school improvement.

As reported by all stakeholders, including the Board of Education, a district accountability committee and school accountability committees are involved in the school improvement process per state requirements.

The elementary school principal referenced a building level parent academy, back to school night, reading night, math night, donuts with dad, muffins with mom to gain parent involvement and input.

In addition, the superintendent indicated that a goal at all parent meetings is emphasizing the importance of parents and the schools working together for improved student learning.

As evidenced in the Insight School of Colorado student/parent handbook and as explained by school leadership; students and parents are required to sign an agreement of responsibility and demonstrate adequate academic progress to continue enrollment from year to year. In addition, counselors provide exit interviews for families considering transition.





4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

4.1: The school/district collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

The school/district seeks expertise from external partners, as appropriate (i.e., for professional development, direct support for students).

The school/district ensures that roles and responsibilities of existing partners are clear.

There are designated school/district personnel to coordinate and manage partnerships.

The district collaborates effectively with existing external partners

District and school leadership reported their work with the Colorado

Department of Education’s assigned performance coach as helpful and

meaningful in their improvement planning. The number of visits by the

performance coach was not reported nor were the details regarding the

level of support and guidance.

As reported by district leadership and evidenced in professional

development documentation, the district partners with other districts in

northeastern Colorado to provide professional development related to

unwrapping standards and data/standards based instruction.

District leadership reports an online distance learning partnership with a

school district in Buffalo, N.Y. to provide classes for students that the

district would otherwise not be able to provide. The Site Visit Team

observed several students engaged in this process during a building tour.

Finally, interviews with district leadership and Insight School leadership,

underscored the partnership-like relationship between the district and

K12/Insight School of Colorado. This is evidenced in the staffing and

protocol changes the district was able to generate during the K12

transition. Documentation in terms of school handbooks, schedules and

staffing assignments support these efforts between the district and the

school

4.2: The school/district leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

The school/district maximizes existing partners’ efforts in support of improvement efforts.

All externally provided professional development is aligned to improvement efforts.





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. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [X] Effective [ ] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Leadership identifies turnaround strategies and implements programs/initiatives designed to improve student performance.

Leadership assesses the cost and impact (effect on student achievement and number of students served) of each program/initiative to determine its academic return on investment.

Leadership makes decisions regarding continuation or discontinuation of programs/initiatives based on this analysis.

Leadership establishes systems and structures to support regular and ongoing monitoring.

Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement

initiatives.

As evidence by the District Stakeholder Input Form and confirmed

through interviews with the Board of Education and the superintendent;

leadership has considered the pros and cons of specific improvement

alternatives (turn around partners, innovation status, etc.) to current

programs and structures.

All stakeholders report ongoing analysis of the return on investment

related to the Insight School of Colorado and its improvement status.

Leadership is responsive to feedback and uses resources effectively.

Leadership reported seeking feedback on improvement plans. For

example, the Board of Education confirmed their involvement in the

improvement process.

District leaderships utilized their assigned Colorado Department of

Education performance manager for improvement guidance.

Leadership and the district/school improvement plans confirm the use

Title I funds and BOCES support in pursuit of improvement goals.

5.2: Leadership is responsive to feedback and uses resources effectively.

Leadership seeks feedback on improvement plans.

Leadership integrates feedback into future improvement efforts.

Leadership seeks resources aligned to its improvement efforts and programs/initiatives with high academic return on investment.

Any additional resources received (i.e., specialized grant funding) are aligned, strategic, and showing evidence of results.





6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. [X] Yes [ ] No

Considerations:

6.1: The school/district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

All stakeholders share an understanding of, and commitment to, the mission and vision.

School/district programs reflect the mission and vision.

The mission and vision guide decisions about teaching and learning.

The mission and vision meet the needs of an identified student population

There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

The district serves a small (1,200 population) and remote community and, apart from the hospital/elder care facility is the only insignificant employer.

Loss of the district would have a negative impact on this community.

The performance of individual schools neighboring school districts (30 to 60+ miles away) is similar to or less than that of Julesburg Elementary and Julesburg High/Middle School.

6.2: There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

There are limited other school options available (e.g., online, charter, district).

The school/district serves an isolated and/or remote community.

Closure would have a significant negative impact on the community.

Comparison schools do not promote better student outcomes.

State Review Panel Document Review

Feedback Form 2015

© 2015 SchoolWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Document Review Feedback Form - 1

Purpose: To critically evaluate the school or district plan (i.e., Unified Improvement Plan). This report will be used as one element of a body of evidence to inform actions that may be undertaken by the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education.

Reviewer Names: Sam Humphry and Laura Gorman Date: April 1, 2015

District Name/Code: Julesburg RE-1/2862 School Name/Code: N/A

Performance Trends Trend Trend

(based on % of pts. on DPF/SPF) Up Flat Down Varies None Up Flat Down Varies None

Overall X Growth Gaps OR Student

Engagement X

Achievement X PWR (District/High School Only) X

Growth X

SRP Summary (complete using ratings from the following worksheets) Capacity Level:

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

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

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. Not 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.

Developing

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

Based on your professional judgment, will the plan result in dramatic enough change to pull the school/district off the accountability clock if it is implemented as written?

[ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Not sure, more information is needed. Specify the additional information required.

Based on your professional judgment, what is your overall level of concern regarding this school/district’s ability to significantly improve results?

Level of Concern: [ ] High [X] Moderate [ ] Low [ ] Cannot determine. Specify the additional information required.


Feedback Form 2015


Overall Comments:

The UIP includes elements of a successful improvement effort, and the connection between student performance levels, the priority challenges and the identified strategies appear workably aligned. Previous reviews of earlier plans have identified a lack of clear focus and sufficient description related to the improvement strategies in those plans, and this continues to be a concern with the current plan. This lack of focus tends to make successful implementation and evaluation of the strategies and action steps difficult. Additionally, the lack of specific instructional strategies/models and/or research based strategies make moving beyond any initial success to long-term results and maintenance difficult. There is a linkage and alignment between performance trends, priority performance challenges, and improvement strategies. However, the UIP as currently written will not bring about the magnitude of change necessary to reverse the current downward trend in student performance. The major improvement strategies, specific instructional strategies, and the monitoring of the success of these strategies and related action steps, in particular reference to Insight School of Colorado at Julesburg are so broadly described that they are of concern.

Areas that should be explored more deeply through an on-site visit:

Details related to monitoring of the improvement strategies and the sense of urgency felt by leadership both at the district and school levels for the improvement process.

The quality of the professional development provided faculty is key to successful implementation of the strategies (e.g. how is it being implemented with fidelity, how is it supported and sustainable, and how is the effectiveness measured)

What evidence does the district (and Insight Colorado) have regarding the overall commitment and capacity of staff to develop a coherent plan of action, and the ability to implement it with fidelity as part of a continuous improvement process, inclusive of progress monitoring of student performance tied to targets?

What is the exact nature of the relationship/structure between the district and Insight Colorado?

What ongoing processes has the district established to review student progress and how do they make instructional changes based on the data?

What has been the level of staff turnover both at the district and in the Insight Colorado online e environment (if applicable)?

What are the instructional strategies that the school is implementing to serve struggling subgroups, for example what processes are in place for evaluating and adapting a model that meets the needs of the entire school population, including specific subgroups?

How adults are supported and/or held accountable for following through on school improvement efforts?

Will any external partnerships being utilized in the future?

What additional assessments does the district use?


Feedback Form 2015


Capacity Level Rubric

The site visit team will use the following guidance to select a capacity level for each key question. Note that the quality standard for each capacity level is based

on the extent to which the site visit team finds multiple types and multiple sources of evidence related to the adoption and/or implementation of a practice or

system AND the extent to which the site visit team finds evidence of high levels of adoption and/or implementation of a practice or system.

Capacity Level Quality Standard

Not Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is not a practice or system that has been adopted and/or implemented at the school/district, or that the level of adoption/implementation does not improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Developing Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that is developing at the school/district, but that it has not yet been implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness, OR that the impact of the key action on the effectiveness of the school/district cannot yet be determined.

Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has begun to improve the school/district’s effectiveness.

Highly Effective Evidence indicates that the key question is a practice or system that has been fully adopted at the school, and is implemented at a level that has had a demonstrably positive impact on the school/district’s effectiveness.

Evidence Relating to Strength of

Adoption/Implementation

Key:

Not Effective:

Developing:

Effective:

Highly Effective

Exte

nt

to w

hic

h S

PR

Tea

m F

ind

s M

ult

iple

Typ

es a

nd

Mu

ltip

le S

ou

rces

of

Evid

ence

Extent to which SPR Team Finds Evidence of High

Levels of Adoption and/or Implementation


Feedback Form 2015


SRP Evaluation Based on Unified Improvement Plan and Other Available Documents

State Review Panel Criteria Source(s) of Evidence

Notes

1. The leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

1.1 School Leadership acts as a change agent to drive dramatic achievement gains.

Leadership makes changes that deviate from organization norms or rules – not just for the sake of change, but to intentionally achieve positive outcomes.

Major improvement strategies and action plan

District leadership has been in place for over 14 years.

Principal leadership at the most impacted school (Insight) has been in place since the school’s inception.

Teacher/staff turnover information is not addressed in the UIP, nor is staff development or teacher leadership plans.

A general overview of the process used to design this plan and a similar description is included in the previous plan. Both imply that teachers are involved in the process but not necessarily at the initial data collection and study level. Instead, the data narrative indicates “the data was presented to school leaders and staff” in the fall. This is significant in that one of the identified root causes is the “expanded use of school and student assessment data to evaluate student progress, determine student interventions & to drive classroom instruction.”

While a “sense of urgency” about results is expressed in the data narrative as it was in the prior year’s UIP, and the major improvement strategies seem to indicate that they are designed to positively impact dramatic change, the phase-in

The degree to which leadership has been continuous over time. Any change(s) in leadership is utilized to activate and sustain dramatic change.

Human Resources data

1.2 School Leadership analyzes data to identify and address high priority challenges.

Leadership analyzes data about the organization’s performance to identify high-priority problems.

Data analysis and data narrative

Leadership focuses on a limited number of changes that will achieve visible wins for the organization.

Priority performance challenge(s), root cause(s), major improvement strategies and action plan

Leadership openly shares results and holds staff accountable for results. (Assessment data --both interim and summative-- and implementation benchmark data are described in the plan(s), including how data will be used to drive described work.)

Target setting form, Action Plan


Feedback Form 2015


1.3 School Leadership establishes high expectations for student learning and behavior.

Elements of climate and culture are identified and addressed in the plan(s).

Data Narrative, Root Cause Analysis, Action Planning

approach of several steps in the Action Plan does not confirm the sense of urgency (e.g. some deadlines are actually at the end of the year, including ILPs being completed in May).

The data included in the plan and the data narrative support a reasonable study of the state generated data. However, the only local data referenced in the data narrative are Scantron Assessments.

The data narrative indicates that leadership has done a thorough data analysis that has led to the focus on the specific priority performance challenges that would have the biggest impact on overall performance and areas showing little to no growth. However, it is not clear from the description in the UIP if school staff and other district staff are involved in reviewing state level results and local results. Additionally, there lacks an explicit link between the latest results and previous school improvement efforts. The UIP lacks an explanation regarding whether the review was an event or part of an ongoing process.

The only references to local data are the Scantron assessments and the Study Island assessments. While there is a major improvement strategy focused on a data driven instructional model, it is not clear from the UIP if the Scantron and Study Island results will be the only data used in this strategy or if there are other data resources (e.g., common assessments, student surveys).

There is no evidence of elements of climate and culture in the UIP, however they are alluded to with references to student attendance and engagement in Major Improvement Strategy 1 and the related action steps. For instance, the 2013-14 plan and the current plan contain very similar priority improvements, root causes and strategies. The current plan often includes implementation benchmarks that describe a phase-in process of teacher implementation indicating a culture of a more relaxed approach to improvement and student expectations (for example, see pages 43 & 45). As indicated earlier, overall, these tend to reflect a lack urgency.


Feedback Form 2015


2. The infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

2.1: The school/district leads intentional, strategic efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program and the sustainability of the organization.

Others inside and outside the organization are contributing their effort and see a clear picture of success and its benefits. (Evidence of internal and external stakeholder involvement in development and implementation of UIP – for example PLC’s, building leadership teams)

Data Narrative, Action Plan

The superintendent has been involved in the improvement planning process of Insight School. In fact, the 2014-15 district improvement plan is essentially a replica of the Insight School plan and does not reflect district-wide Major Improvement Strategies. Understanding what this means to the district’s and the school’s improvement process is an important consideration.

Internal stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation of the UIP is evidenced in the Data Narrative. However, there is no mention of specific external stakeholders, e.g. SAC, PTO, etc. and their involvement in the UIP process. It is not clear how all of these stakeholders ensure the effectiveness of the academic program or the action plan.

As Insight School of Colorado at Julesburg is a major component of the performance impacting the district’s rating and placement on the 5-year clock, it is not clear from the UIP what their involvement is in the improvement planning process.

“Effective data driven” and “intentional” models of instruction and support are identified as priorities in the plan however, specific instructional strategies and content are not defined. In addition, the role(s) of the principal and other leaders is/are not specific. For example, on page 59 the action step indicates “all teachers will receive instructional coaching…” and the key personnel are simply listed as teachers and administration.

There is no reference in the UIP of any staffing changes to support improvement efforts or if this was deemed not to be a necessary step to promote dramatic change. There is no discussion of staff qualifications and recruitment in the UIP.

It is clear from the Action Plan that the school does have local assessments but they appear to be limited to Scantron and Study Island assessments; their use, however, is not described

2.2: School/district leadership has a strong focus on recruiting and retaining talent; creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff who can drive dramatic student gains; evaluates all staff; and dismisses those who do not meet professional standards and expectations.

Indication of strategic staff changes, particularly at the supervisory level, to support dramatic improvement efforts.

Data Narrative, Action plan

2.3: School/district leadership ensures that the school/district has sound financial and operational systems and processes

Assessments (both interim and summative) and their results are identified and appropriately described in the plan(s).

Data Narrative, Target Setting, Action Plan

2.4: School/district leadership provides effective instructional leadership.

Instructional needs and associated assessments are identified as a mechanism to address performance needs.

Organizational routines are established that include ongoing data analysis to improve student learning. (Evidence of interim measures and how they will be used to monitor results.)

Target Setting (interim measures) and Action Plan (implementation benchmarks) Data Narrative, Action Plan

2.5: The school provides high quality instruction.

n/a n/a


Feedback Form 2015


as part of a continuous improvement cycle, nor are local results described to corroborate state results.

It is not evident what plans are in place for cross-functional instructional teams to review data and adjust instruction.

The UIP indicates that local and Title I funds will be used as resources, but the lack of detail on financial systems or specific use of the funds does not allow for an accurate assessment of financial/operational systems.


Feedback Form 2015


3. There is readiness and apparent capacity of personnel to plan effectively and lead the implementation of appropriate action to improve student academic performance. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

3.1: Leadership establishes clear, targeted and measurable goals designed to promote student performance.

The organization focused on high goals rather than on partial success. When a goal is met, the bar is likely to be raised.

Previous Targets Form, Target Setting Form and Action Plan, Previous UIPs (if applicable)

The identified student improvement targets are all set at or slightly above the state minimum performance for academic achievement and growth targets for 2015. Targets are also set for growth gaps related to free and reduced-priced lunch students and graduation rate. These growth targets are aligned with the performance challenges described in the data narrative and are “reasonable” expectations based upon past performance data they are potentially attainable.

A desire for higher results and a sense of urgency is reported in the narrative, but the phase-in approach (timelines in the action plan that include middle of year and end of year deadlines for complete implementation) of several steps in the Action Plan does not confirm the sense of urgency.

Based upon previous feedback from the Colorado Department of Education staff and the State Review Panel, it appears the improvement strategies have undergone minor modifications (i.e. “institute a new instructional model”, “attend professional development”) while others are no longer included in this version of the plan (i.e. “create new classes”). The strategies included in this plan continue to lack sufficient description to successfully drive instructional change and adequately monitor the change process and implementation.

Alignment is evident throughout the plan with major improvement strategies woven throughout the UIP process.

There is not a process in place for quantitative or qualitative reflection that might lead to developing new improvement strategies or discarding old ones. Strategies have been continued or abandoned without explanation and without multiple sources of data that validate strategy decisions.

Interim assessment results are quarterly or monthly depending on the assessment (e.g. Scantron or Study Island).

The action plan is clear that change is mandatory, not optional. A sense of urgency is evident in the plan and does not include blaming or excuse making. There is a clear sense of ownership for performance and actions.

Action plan (to some extent the data narrative to get a sense of ownership in the root cause analysis)

Action plan is so clear that everyone involved knows specifically what s/he needs to do differently. Evidence that there is alignment throughout the plan and a logical progression of planning built on data.

Entire UIP with particular emphasis on the Action Plan

3.2: Leadership adjusts implementation of the action plan in response to systematic review of data.

Tactics that do not work are strategically eliminated and the plan focuses on tactics that work. The plan focuses limited time and money where they will have the most impact on critical results. Evidence that the plan presents a clear strategy and alignment of resources and a clear change in direction in response to performance.

Action Plan

Systems are set up to measure and report interim results often to enable the rapid discard of failed tactics and increase successful tactics essential for fast results. (Evidence of progress monitoring activities, review of performance and implementation data. The targets/interim measures and activities/implementation benchmarks are framed in a way that can be measured and used to adjust systems as needed.)

Target Setting Form and Action Plan

3.3: The school/district engages the community and families in support of students’ learning school improvement efforts.

Strategies for community and family involvement are incorporated throughout the plan

Parent Involvement Plan is present (for Title I Schools only) and details strategies for involving families to advance student learning.

Action Plan

Parent Involvement Agreement/Compact (Title I Schools only)


Feedback Form 2015


It is not clear how these results will be used to adjust instruction and to eliminate ineffective actions.

Major Improvement Strategy #1 (Student Engagement and Accountability) contains two action steps that include guardians signing a Student Performance Agreement and a face-to-face orientation related to expectations. Benchmarks for both of these steps are measured by the number of agreements collected and attendance rather than the degree of understanding and support generated by the actions. There is no other evidence of parent/community involvement specific to the Major Improvement Strategies and Action Plan.

Parent Involvement Plan for Title I is included.


Feedback Form 2015


4. There is readiness and apparent capacity to engage productively with and benefit from the assistance provided by an external partner. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [ ] Developing [X] Not Effective

Considerations:

4.1: The school/district collaborates effectively with existing external partners.

Articulation of roles/responsibilities with external entities (e.g., district level staff, BOCES staff, vendors, CDE) is evident. (District involvement with and support of school is evident.)

Action Plan

There is no explicit evidence of the role of external partners provided.

4.2: The school/district leverages existing partnerships to support of student learning.

Activities of external entities align with major improvement strategies and performance needs of the school/district (not just a list of services the entity provides).

Action Plan


Feedback Form 2015


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. Capacity Level: [ ] Highly Effective [ ] Effective [X] Developing [ ] Not Effective

Considerations:

5.1: Leadership monitors the return on investment of specific improvement initiatives, and uses that data to inform decision-making.

Additional resources provided through specialized grant funding are aligned, strategic and show evidence of positive results. (Districts/schools that have received additional funds.)

Data Narrative, Action Plan

Title I funding is aligned to strategies and actions. There does not appear from the UIP to be other sources of supplemental or grant funding to support actions.

The plan includes the structures and process to measure implementation and student growth and resources are label as “Local” or “Title”. The lack focus related to the improvement strategies (for instance, what does the “intentional multi-tiered system of support (MTSS)” look like and what is the “sufficient and quality professional development based upon current research”) tends to make the measures more quantitative (i.e. “by October….60% of teachers will be using DRIVE..”) than qualitative.

It is evident from the current UIP that the input provided by the CDE review of last year’s plan was taken into consideration in developing this year’s plan and most elements were incorporated, for example the representation of trends for all schools in the district, not just Insight Colorado.

The district has not provided enough information on the effectiveness of prior strategies and spending.

5.2: Leadership is responsive to feedback and uses resources effectively.

Identification of resources is aligned and strategic.

Action Plan

(For Districts and Schools previously reviewed by CDE) There is evidence that feedback provided on previous UIPs has been integrated into the current plan.

Previous UIPs and associated feedback


Feedback Form 2015


6. There is necessity that the school/district remain in operation to serve students. [X] Yes [ ] No

Considerations:

6.1: The school/district is mission-driven and its mission and vision meet a unique need.

Population of students served is clearly identified.

Data Narrative

The current level of description provided in the action planning steps of the UIP is insufficient to bring about the magnitude of change necessary to reverse current scores. Planning action steps will need to be more specific with clear implementation benchmarks that can be progress monitored along the way.

The data narrative includes a purpose statement and, as written, addresses the need for alternatives to the traditional classroom for middle school and high school students.

The UIP does not clearly define students served by Insight School of Colorado at Julesburg other than to note that many are credit deficient thus impacting the Graduation Rate. The UIP does not reference the district at large as those are all attendance area students meeting Graduation rates.

The district has another middle school and high school nearby. Both of which have demonstrated higher levels of performance than the Insight school. Out-of-district students at Insight Colorado would have to find other online or in-district options in their own districts of residence, it cannot be determined from what is provided in this review of documents that outcomes for this population would be better in other educational settings, particularly as many of the Insight Colorado students moved from traditional brick and mortar settings to the online environment.

6.2 There are no other viable options for enrolled students that will likely lead to better outcomes.

n/a n/a