Unified Improvement Plan

Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2011-12 Preliminary Report Organization Code: 0180

District Name: ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J

School Code: 9083

School Name: VISTA PEAK P-8 EXPLORATORY

Plan type based on: 3 Year

Section I: Summary Information about the School Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2010-11. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – and state accountability expectations – School Performance Framework (SPF) data. The data reported for state accountability results the SPF results (1-year or 3-year) for which the school is accountable. This summary should accompany your improvement plan.

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability Performance Indicators

Measures/Metrics CSAP, CSAP-A, Lectura, Escritura Description: % P+A in reading, math, writing and science.

Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile by using 1-year or 3-years of data.

Academic Achievement (Status)

Academic Growth

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Description: %PP+P+A on CSAP, CSAP-A and Lectura in reading and math for each disaggregated student group. Expectation: Targets set by state*.

Median Student Growth Percentile Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, math and writing.

Expectation: If school met adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 45.

If school did not meet adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 55.

2010-11 Federal and State Expectations

2010-11 School Results

Meets Expectations?

E

M

H

E

M

H

Reading

72.0%

71.4%

72.2%

49.0%

50.3%

N/A

Math

70.1%

51.6%

30.5%

40.6%

31.2%

N/A

Does Not Meet

Writing

54.8%

58.3%

49.6%

35.0%

34.8%

N/A

Science

45.4%

48.7%

50.0%

17.1%

22.6%

N/A

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.

Overall number of targets for School: E M

<space> <space>

30

<space>

38

H N/A

Overall percent of targets met by School: E M H 67%

Median Adequate SGP

82%

N/A

Median SGP

Overall Rating for Academic Achievement:

<space>

E

M

H

Reading

NO

NO

N/A

Math

NO

NO

N/A

Overall Rating for Academic Growth:

<space>

E

M

H

E

M

H

Reading

42

43

N/A

29

42

N/A

Math

61

83

N/A

24

36

N/A

* Consult your SPF for the ratings for each

Writing

46

70

N/A

29

39

N/A

content area at each level.

Does Not Meet

* To see annual AYP targets, go to: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp ** To see your school’s detailed AYP report (including school results by content area, disaggregated group and school level), access the report in the Automated Data Exchange AYP System.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.1 Last updated: August 9, 2011)

1

Organization Code: 0180

District Name: ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J

School Code: 9083

School Name: VISTA PEAK P-8 EXPLORATORY

Plan type based on: 3 Year

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)

Performance Indicators

Measures/Metrics

2010-11 Federal and State Expectations

Median Student Growth Percentile Academic Growth Gaps

Description: Growth in CSAP for reading, writing and math by disaggregated groups.

Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 45.

If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth, then median SGP is at or above 55.

2010-11 School Results

See your School Performance Framework Report for a listing of median adequate growth percentiles for your schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disaggregated student groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible students, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and students needing to catch up.

Meets Expectations?

Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:

See your School Performance Framework Report for a listing of median growth percentiles for your schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disaggregated student groups.

Does Not Meet * Consult your SPF for the ratings for each content area at each level.

Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan Program

Identification Process

Identification for School

Directions for completing improvement plan

State Accountability

Recommended Plan Type

Plan assigned based on school's overall school performance framework score (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness).

Turnaround

Based on preliminary results, the school has not met state expectations for attainment on the performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Turnaround Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by January 17, 2012 to be uploaded on SchoolView.org. Refer to the UIP website for more detailed directions on plan submission, as well as the UIP Handbook to ensure that all required elements are captured in the school's plan. Final results will be available in November 2011.

ESEA Accountability School Improvement or Corrective Action (Title I)

Title I school missed same AYP target(s) for at least two consecutive years.**

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.1 Last updated: August 9, 2011)

E

N/A

Not identified for Improvement under Title I.

M

N/A

Not identified for Improvement under Title I.

H

N/A

Not identified for Improvement under Title I.

2

2

Section II: Improvement Plan Information Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district.

Additional Information about the School Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History Title I Program

Related Grant Awards

Does the school receive Title I funds? No If yes, indicate the type of Title I program

¨

Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? No Indicate the intervention approach.

¨ Turnaround ¨ Transformation

Targeted Assistance

¨

Schoolwide

¨ ¨

Restart Closure

Has the school received a School Improvement grant? No When was the grant awarded?

School Support Team or Expedited Review

Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? No When?

External Evaluator

Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? No Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.

Improvement Plan Information The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply): X State Accountability ¨ Title IA ¨ Tiered Intervention Grant ¨ School Improvement Grant

¨

Other: ________________

School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed) 1

2

Name and Title

Melanie Moreno, Pathway Director

Email

mjmoreno@aps.k12.co.us

Phone

303-364-3757 X 23019

Mailing Address

24551 E. 1st Ave, Aurora CO 80018

Name and Title

Garrett Rosa, Pathway Director

Email

gjrosa@aps.k12.co.us

Phone

303-364-3757 X 23022

Mailing Address

24551 E. 1st Ave, Aurora CO 80018

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

3

3

Name and Title

Marisol Enriquez, Pathway Director

Email

mfenriquez@aps.k12.co.us

Phone

303-364-3757 X 23020

Mailing Address

24551 E. 1st Ave, Aurora CO 80018

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

4

Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. In the text box at the end of this section, provide a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations, describing progress toward targets for the prior school year, describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends, identifying trends and priority performance challenges (negative trends), describing how performance challenges were prioritized, identifying the root causes of performance challenges, describing how the root causes were identified and verified (with more than one data source) and what data were used, and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in Unified Improvement Planning Handbook.

Worksheet: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2010-11 school year (last year’s plan). This information should be considered as a part of the data analysis narrative and in setting or modifying targets (section IV) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. You may add rows, as necessary.

Performance Indicators

Academic Achievement (Status)

Targets for 2010-11 school year (Targets set in last year’s plan)

Target met? How close was school in meeting the target?

Reading Overall from 54% to 57% 4th from 65% to 68% 5th from 43.5% to 48.5% 6th from 55% to 58% 7th from 46% to 49% 8th from 65% to 68% 9th from 49% to 52%

Reading Overall-No % Proficient (P) decreased from 54% to 48% 4th grade-No % P decreased from 65% to 42% 5th grade-No % P decreased from 43.5% to 45% 6th grade-Yes % P decreased from 55% to 61% 7th grade-No % P decreased from 46% to 45% 8th grade-No % P decreased from 65% to 54% 9th grade-No % P decreased from 49% to 43%

Writing Overall from 42% to 45% 4th from 44% to 47% 5th from 41% to 44% 6th from 60% to 63% 7th from 31% to 34% 8th from 57% to 60% 9th from 34% to 37%

Writing Overall-No % Proficient (P) decreased from 42% to 34% 4th grade-No % P decreased from 44% to 33% 5th grade-No % P decreased from 41% to 41% 6th grade-No % P decreased from 60% to 54% 7th grade-Yes % P decreased from 31% to 38% 8th grade-No % P decreased from 57% to 28% 9th grade-No % P decreased from 34% to 26%

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

5

Performance Indicators

Targets for 2010-11 school year (Targets set in last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan)

Math Overall from 46% to 49% 4th from 46% to 49% 5th from 60% to 63% 6th from 64% to 67% 7th from 39% to 42% 8th from 39% to 42% 9th from 40% to 43%

Academic Growth

Target met? How close was school in meeting the target?

Math Overall-No % Proficient (P) decreased from 46% to 34% 4th grade-No % P decreased from 46% to 41% 5th grade-No % P decreased from 60% to 38% 6th grade-No % P decreased from 64% to 48% 7th grade-No % P decreased from 39% to 31% 8th grade-No % P decreased from 39% to 36% 9th grade-No % P decreased from 40% to 23%

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or growth data including growth gaps to base this on.

Outlined below was our best estimate.

Reading From 51 percentile to -56 percentile (5 more than district median) -57 percentile (Clyde Miller) -54.75 percentile (Aurora Frontier) -52 percentile (Murphy Creek)

Reading No-Exploratory 29 lower than goal of 56MGP No-Preparatory 42 lower than goal of 56MGP

Writing From 52 percentile to -57 percentile (5 more than district median) -67 percentile (Clyde Miller) -47 percentile (Aurora Frontier) -52 percentile (Murphy Creek) Math From 53 percentile to -60 percentile -83 percentile (Clyde Miller) -55.25 percentile (Aurora Frontier) -60.5 percentile (Murphy Creek)

Writing No-Exploratory 29 lower than goal of 57MGP No-Preparatory 39 lower than goal of 57 MGP

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

Math No-Exploratory 29 lower than goal of 60 MGP No-Preparatory 39 lower than goal of 60 MGP

6

Performance Indicators

Academic Growth Gaps Post Secondary Readiness

Targets for 2010-11 school year (Targets set in last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan)

Target met? How close was school in meeting the target?

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or growth data including growth gaps to base this on.

Not applicable

Not applicable. At this time Vista PEAK has grades 9 and 10 and we do not have a graduation rate, dropout rate or ACT scores

Not applicable

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

7

Worksheet: Data Analysis Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data for the required data narrative. Planning teams should describe positive and negative

trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data. Prioritize the performance challenges that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan will be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as necessary.

Performance Indicators

Academic Achievement (Status)

Description of Trends (3 years of past data)

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or data for previous years.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

Priority Performance Challenges Math Across all grade levels there is a range of 50-75% of students not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students.

Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged below the 30th percentile. In addition, almost all of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in math.

Again, this includes all subcategories of students.

Root Causes

we lack a deep understanding of math content knowledge at our grade levels we don’t have vertical articulation to define proficiency of mastered standards at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding and effective use of resources (pacing, manipulatives, guides, curriculum ,etc.) we don’t provide precise first instruction using effective formative assessment data in order to plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention

8

Performance Indicators

Description of Trends (3 years of past data)

Priority Performance Challenges

Writing Across the elementary grade levels there is a range of 59%-72% of students are not proficient and at the secondary grade levels a range of 46%-74% of students are not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students.

Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 33rd percentile.

In addition, an overwhelming majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in writing.

Again, this includes all CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

Root Causes

We do not understand the stages of a writer and do not have a common understanding of writing process We do not provide precise instruction using formative assessment data to provide appropriate initial first instruction and plan accordingly We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have vertical articulation/alignment and clarity of grade level proficiency in writing Students are writing well below grade level expectations

9

Performance Indicators

Description of Trends (3 years of past data)

Priority Performance Challenges

Root Causes

subcategories of students.

Reading 31% of kindergarten students were not on grade level at the end of the year. On average 60% of students grades 1st -3rd were not on grade level by the end of the year. Across grades 4-9, roughly 50% of all students are not proficient in reading. This includes all subcategories of students.

Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 35th percentile.

In addition, an overwhelming CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

we do not understand the stages of a reader at a given grade level, do not have a common understanding of reading content in order to implement the appropriate curriculum, frameworks, and resources we do not know how to use data/the RtI process to plan interventions for struggling readers and differentiate instruction through the use of appropriate formative assessment and effective monitoring

10

Performance Indicators

Description of Trends (3 years of past data)

Priority Performance Challenges

Root Causes

majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in reading.

Again, this includes all subcategories of students.

Science In 5th grade science 84% of students are not proficient. In 8th grade science 77% of students are not proficient.

We lack a deep understanding of the scientific process We do not provide precise instruction using formative assessment data to provide appropriate initial first instruction and plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have vertical articulation to define mastery/ proficient work at each grade level; and we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a solid understanding of how to effectively use resources (pacing guides, curriculum etc.)

Academic Growth

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or data for previous years.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

See above priority performance challenges for Reading, Writing, Math 11

Performance Indicators

Description of Trends (3 years of past data)

Priority Performance Challenges

Root Causes

and Science

Academic Growth Gaps

Post Secondary Readiness

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or data for previous years.

Vista PEAK is a new school and did not have a School Performance Framework or data for previous years.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

See above priority performance challenges for Reading, Writing, Math and Science

Not applicable

12

Data Narrative for School Directions: Describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including review of prior years’ targets, trends, priority performance challenges and root cause analysis. This analysis should be tightly linked to section IV; targets and action planning should be aimed at addressing the priority performance challenges and root causes identified in this section. The narrative should not take more than five pages.

Data Narrative for School Trend Analysis and Performance Challenges: What data did we use to identify trends? What are the positive and negative trends in our school’s performance for each indicator area? Does this differ for any disaggregated student groups (e.g., by grade level or gender)? In which areas did we not at least meet minimum state and federal expectations? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? How/why did we determine these to be our priorities?

How did we engage stakeholders in this analysis?

Root Cause Analysis: Why do we think our school’s performance is what it is?

How did we determine that?

Verification of Root Cause: What evidence do we have for our conclusions?

Narrative: The Vista PEAK P-20 Campus is a new concept school in APS that was intentionally developed to reflect, as a coalition of, the educational philosophy of the district’s strategic plan, the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K), and the Colorado Department of Education’s strategic plan, Forward Thinking. Vista PEAK was given the charge to develop the campus around small learning communities, educational alignment from preschool through post secondary education, multiple academic and career pathways, collaborative partnerships, and leadership development. This massive reform effort led to significant challenges and we applied to become a school of innovation in order to take on systemic challenges.

Our students came from communities across the city of Aurora including Buckley Air Force base, the Colfax corridor, and local communities east of E-470. This convergence generated a wonderful coming together of different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds, but required the staff and leadership to foster a newly developing culture within this new environment. We had to generate our baseline data using feeder school’s CSAP data which was not only incomplete, but not available for many students. We did utilize the CSAP data that was available, Interim assessments, as well as our own internal assessments to set our goals for the 2010-11 school year.

What data did we use to identify trends?

Vista PEAK utilized baseline data including 2011 CSAP growth data as outlined on the School Performance Framework, proficiency data, and DRA2/Mondo data.

CSAP Achievement Data: Math U

PP

P/A

3rd grade

22

39

39

4th grade

21

37

41

5th grade

18

44

38

6th grade

23

29

48

7th grade

27

42

31

8th grade

26

38

36

9th grade

50

27

23

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

13

CSAP Achievement Data: Reading U

PP P/A

3rd grade 17 19

56

4th grade 22 36

42

5th grade 29 26

45

6th grade 19 20

61

7th grade 23 32

54

8th grade 15 51

54

9th grade 10 46

43

CSAP Achievement Data: Writing U

PP P/A

3rd grade 12 60

28

4th grade 12 53

33

5th grade 13 46

41

6th grade 9

38

54

7th grade 7

55

38

8th grade 1

70

28

9th grade 5

69

26

CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Ethnicity Black

Black/%P/A

White

White/%P/A

Hispanic

Hispanic/%P/A

Reading

90

52%

227

60%

242

35%

Writing

90

30%

227

45%

243

24%

Math

89

27%

225

46%

243

26%

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

14

Our Hispanic students are scoring significantly lower than our white and black students in overall proficiency in reading writing and comparable with black students in math. Our black students are comparable in reading when compared to white students, however, our black students are scoring significantly lower in writing and math.

CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Disability SIED

SIED/%P/A

SPEC/LD

SPEC/LD%P/A

SP/Lang

SP/Lang/%P/A

Reading

5

20%

29

0%

9

33%

Writing

5

0%

29

3%

9

22%

Math

5

20%

28

4%

9

22%

Students with Specific Learning Disabilities are not performing at proficient or advanced levels when compared to other cohort groups.

CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Language Proficiency FEP

FEP/%P/A

LEP

LEP/%P/A

NEP

NEP/%P/A

Reading

61

62%

111

12%

16

0%

Writing

61

46%

111

5%

17

0%

Math

61

41%

111

9%

17

0%

Our FEP students are outperforming all cohort and non-cohort groups in reading and writing and are outperforming our black and Hispanic students in math.

CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Free/Reduced Lunch Free

Free/%P/A

Reduced

Reduced/%P/A

Reading

254

34%

57

65%

Writing

255

19%

57

54%

Math

254

21%

57

53%

Our students on reduced lunch are outperforming all cohort groups in all reading, writing and math.

CSAP Achievement Data: Disaggregated by Gifted and Talented AGATE

AGATE/%P/A

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

15

Reading

31

97%

Writing

31

94%

Math

31

94%

Elementary: Our median growth percentile for 4th grade reading is 33. The percent of students catching up is 18% which means that 82% of our 4th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading.

Our median growth percentile for 5th grade reading is 27. The percent of students catching up is 17% which means that 83% of our 5th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading.

Our median growth percentile for 4th grade math is 33. The percent of students catching up is 4% which means that 96% of our 4th grade students are not on track to catch up in math.

Our median growth percentile for 5th grade math is 15. The percent of students catching up is 0% which means that 100% of our 5th grade students are not on track to catch up in math.

Our median growth percentile for 4th grade writing is 26. The percent of students catching up is 29% which means that 71% of our 4th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing.

Our median growth percentile for 5th grade writing is 32. The percent of students catching up is 21% which means that 79% of our 5th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing.

Middle School: Our median growth percentile for 6th grade reading is 38. The percent of students catching up is 18% which means that 82% of our 6th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading.

Our median growth percentile for 7th grade reading is 48. The percent of students catching up is 18% which means that 82% of our 7th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading.

Our median growth percentile for 8th grade reading is 28. The percent of students catching up is 20% which means that 80% of our 8th grade students are not on track to catch up in reading.

Our median growth percentile for 6th grade math is 34. The percent of students catching up is 0% which means that 100% of our 6th grade students are not on track to catch up in math.

Our median growth percentile for 7th grade math is 26. The percent of students catching up is 3% which means that 97% of our 7th grade students are not on track to catch up in math.

Our median growth percentile for 8th grade math is 28. The percent of students catching up is 3% which means that 97% of our 8th grade students are not on track to catch up in math.

Our median growth percentile for 6th grade writing is 40. The percent of students catching up is 29% which means that 71% of our 6th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing Our median growth percentile for 7th grade writing is 45. The percent of students catching up is 17% which means that 83% of our 7th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing Our median growth percentile for 8th grade writing is 22. The percent of students catching up is 0% which means that 100% of our 8th grade students are not on track to catch up in writing.

What are the positive and negative trends in our schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance for each indicator area?

Overall, we did not have positive trends in growth or achievement for the 2010-11 academic year. Negative trends revolve around the lack of adequate growth in math, reading, and writing and does not differ for any disaggregated student groups?

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

16

In which areas did we not at least meet minimum state and federal expectations?

Reading, Writing & Math What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? (In order of priority) Math Across all grade levels there is a range of 50-75% of students not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged below the 30th percentile. In addition, almost all of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in math. Again, this includes all subcategories of students.

Writing Across the elementary grade levels there is a range of 59%-72% of students are not proficient and at the secondary grade levels a range of 46%-74% of students are not proficient. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 33rd percentile. In addition, an overwhelming majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in writing. Again, this includes all subcategories of students.

Reading 31% of kindergarten students were not on grade level at the end of the year. On average 60% of students grades 1st -3rd were not on grade level by the end of the year. Across grades 4-9, roughly 50% of all students are not proficient in reading. This includes all subcategories of students. Pertaining to the overall growth percentile, students across all grades averaged at 35th percentile. In addition, an overwhelming majority of unsatisfactory and partially proficient students are not on track to catch up in reading. Again, this includes all subcategories of students.

Science In 5th grade science 84% of students are not proficient. In 8th grade science 77% of students are not proficient.

How/Why did we determine these to be our priorities and how did we engage stakeholders in this analysis?

We began our work with our instructional leadership team through gathering and analyzing all relevant data and looking for significant trends in the data. We continued this work through the charting of broad statements regarding our data in the categories of proficiency, growth and growth gaps. The instructional leadership team shared the school performance framework with the entire staff and shared the process Vista PEAK would be using to develop the Unified Improvement Plan. Members from the instructional leadership team presented the achievement, growth and proficiency statements and asked the staff to do gallery walk highlighting the factual statements related to our data. The entire staff was asked to prioritize the statements by placing colored dots on each poster to indicate their first, second and third choices in terms of priority and would lead the systemic change that would impact performance.

Our administrative leadership team took all the factual statements and merged them into four performance challenges addressing reading, writing, math and science in order to share with our instructional leadership team. The administrative leadership team provided guided practice using the performance challenge in science to conduct a root cause analysis. The instructional leadership team broke into three groups to identify the symptoms that lead to the root cause of the problem with the performance challenges pertaining to reading, writing and math.

After the instructional leadership team determined the root causes, they developed the theories of action as a guide when developing the action steps and implementation benchmarks. The instructional leadership team continued this work by identifying the action steps associated with each major performance strategy and the implementation benchmarks associated with each.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

17

Section IV: Action Plan(s) This section addresses the â&#x20AC;&#x153;planâ&#x20AC;? portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, you will identify your annual performance targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Goals Form below. Then you will move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form.

School Target Setting Form Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas).

For federal accountability, annual targets for AYP have already been determined by the state and may be viewed on the CDE website at: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/danda/aypprof.asp. Safe Harbor and Matched Safe Harbor goals may be used instead of performance targets. For state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and postsecondary and workforce readiness. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year. Finally, list the major improvement strategies that will enable the school to meet each target. The major improvement strategies will be detailed in the Action Planning Form at the end of this section.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

18

School Target Setting Form Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics

Elementary=49% Middle School= 50.3% Average=50% (State Reading=68%)

Academic Achievement (Status)

CSAP, CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura

Annual Performance Targets

Priority Performance Challenges

2011-12 50% to 60% P/A

2012-13 60 to 70% P/A

Interim Measures for 2011-12 CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

R

Major Improvement Strategies MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

M

Elementary=40.6% Middle School=

36% to 46% P/A

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

46 to 56% P/A

CSAP, Interim Assessments,

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to 19

31.2% Average=36% (State Math =56%)

Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, Place Value Continuum, Critical Learning Phase Continuum, Kathy Richardson Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

W

Elementary=35.0% Middle School= 34.8% Average=35% (State Writing=55%)

35% to 45% P/A

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

45 to 55% P/A

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) 20

Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

Elementary 17.1% Middle School 22.6% Average= 20% (State Science=48%)

20% to 35% P/A

S

35 to 50% P/A

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

MIS#1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) MIS#2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

21

with the learning MIS#3 We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

AYP (Overall and for each disaggregate d groups)

R

Elementary 94.23% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle School 93.41% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

High School- 94.92% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Elementary-94.23% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Elementary-94.23% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring nonproficient.

Middle School-93.41% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle School-93.41% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring nonproficient.

High School- 94.92% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

High School- 94.92% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring nonproficient.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

Elementary-District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May). Mondo Literacy Assessments ongoing (grades K-5).

Middle School- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

High School- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

22

Elementary- 94.54% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

M

Middle School89.88% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

High School- 86.75% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Elementary 29 Middle 42

Academic Growth

Median Student Growth Percentile

R

Elementary- 94.54% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Elementary- 94.54% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring nonproficient.

Middle- 89.88% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

Middle- 89.88% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring nonproficient.

High School- 86.75% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.

High School- 86.75% of all students and by each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring nonproficient.

Elementary Increase from 29 to 55 MGP Middle Increase from 29 to 55 MGP

Elementary increase from 55 to 60 MGP Middle Increase from 55 to 60 MGP

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

Elementary- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).Kathy Richardson Assessments ongoing (grades K-5).

Middle- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

High School- District Interim Assessments grades 3-10 (administered 3 times during the school year: September, December, May).

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, 23

Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A Elementary 24 Middle 36

Elementary Increase from 24 to 55 MGP Middle Increase from 36 to 55 MGP

Elementary increase from 55 to 60 MGP Middle Increase from 55 to 60 MGP

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, Place Value Continuum, Critical Learning Phase Continuum, Kathy Richardson Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

Elementary 29 Middle 39

Elementary Increase from 29 to 55 MGP Middle Increase from 39 to 55 MGP

Elementary increase from 55 to 60 MGP Middle Increase from 55 to 60 MGP

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

FRL

Increase to 55 MGP

Increase to 60 MGP across

CSAP, Interim

M

W

Academic

Median

R

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

24

Growth Gaps

Student Growth Percentile

M

Elementary 27 Middle 44 Minority Elementary 29 Middle 41 Students with Disabilities Elementary Middle 48 ELLs Elementary 33 Middle 42 Catch Up Elementary 29 Middle 44

across all sub groups

all sub groups

Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

FRL Elementary 28 Middle 36 Minority Elementary 24 Middle 38 Students with Disabilities Elementary Middle 28 ELLs Elementary 25 Middle 34 Catch Up Elementary 32

Increase to 55 MGP across all sub groups

Increase to 60 MGP across all sub groups

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, Place Value Continuum, Critical Learning Phase Continuum, Kathy Richardson Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

25

Middle 39

W

Post Secondary & Workforce Readiness

FRL Elementary 23 Middle 40 Minority Elementary 29 Middle 42 Students with Disabilities Elementary Middle 37 ELLs Elementary 31 Middle 42 Catch Up Elementary 34 Middle 42

Graduation Rate

N/A

Dropout Rate

N/A

Mean ACT

N/A

Increase to 55 MGP across all sub groups

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

Increase to 60 MGP across all sub groups

CSAP, Interim Assessments, Common Assessments, Grade Distribution Data, Mondo Reading Assessment, Mondo Oral Language, Running Records, Monitoring Notes, Curriculum Assessments, End of Unit Assessments, CELA, CSAP-A

26

Action Planning Form Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may add other major strategies, as needed.

Major Improvement Strategy #1: We will deepen our content understandings to develop our own understanding of grade level proficiency through effective Student Achievement Learning Meetings (SALT and Professional Learning (PL) Root Cause(s) Addressed: We lack a deep understanding of content knowledge at our grade levels.

We don’t have vertical articulation to define proficiency of mastered standards at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding and effective use of resources (pacing, manipulatives, guides, curriculum ,etc.)

We do not understand the stages of a reader at a given grade level, do not have a common understanding of reading content in order to implement the appropriate curriculum, frameworks, and resources.

We don’t have vertical articulation to define mastery/ proficient work at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding of how to effectively use resources (pacing guides, curriculum etc.)

We do not understand the stages of a writer and do not have a common understanding of writing process.

Theories of Action: If teachers develop deep content understandings...

If teachers understand grade level proficiency and provide opportunities to engage in grade level content with appropriate resources...

If teachers develop solid understandings of the stages of a reader, content, and implementation of the curricula including use of frameworks and resources...

...then students will be able to engage in rigorous content knowledge experiences. ...then students will increasingly meet grade level expectations and assessments will show student growth in grade level proficiency. ...then students will be able to engage in rigorous and purposeful experiences as readers and demonstrate growth along the reading continuum.

If teachers have a strong understanding of the stages of a writer and are be able to provide meaningful feedback that supports students in the formulation of relevant goals...

...then students will take ownership over goals and begin to approximate their understandings in their independent writing.

If teachers understand rigorous grade level expectations and how it aligns with the enduring understanding and teachers instruct at grade level or above utilizing appropriate resources...

...then students will achieve mastery/proficiency at each grade level and assessment/monitoring data would be used consistently/regularly to determine mastery/proficiency.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

27

Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): X School Plan under State Accountability ¨ Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan ¨ Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant ¨ Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements ¨ School Improvement Grant Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Vista PEAK Student Achievement Learning Team (SALT) Process Step 1: Teachers use current student work, formative and summative data see what students know and are able to do to meet individual student needs.

Timeline First Semester: Aug. 1st December 20th

Key Personnel* Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and Administrators

Resources (Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local) General Fund

Implementation Benchmarks On a weekly basis teachers will:

Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)

In progress

Ongoing Utilize assessments that reveal what students know and are able to do in relation to the standards Evaluate student work which leads to targeted groups and next instructional steps in which to deliver instruction Understand where students are in relation to standards, pacing guides, and instructional resources and determine an entry point for different learners Backwards plan by reviewing previous student data to prioritize quarter, weekly and daily learning objectives.

Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

28

Vista PEAK SALT Process Step 2: Teachers use standards, pacing guides, curriculum and instructional resources to determine clear learning objectives

Second Semester: January 17th June 14th

Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and, Administrators

General Fund

On a weekly basis teachers will:

In progress...

Ongoing use appropriate standards for their content area refine backwards plan by reviewing previous student data to prioritize quarter, weekly and daily learning objectives. use the 4 Mâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to determine if they are crafted appropriately manageable: can be taught & achieved in one period measurable: clearly assessed made first: activities should never lead...the learning leads you to the approach most important: is this rigorous and preparing students for college & careers?

Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

Vista PEAK SALT Process Step 3: Teachers develop success criteria and examine what it looks like when students show evidence of learning

First Semester 2012 Aug. 1st December 20th

Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and , Administrators

General Fund Ongoing

On a weekly basis teachers will:

In progress...

determine what proficiency looks and sounds like on a given objective or series of objectives craft success criteria that reveals what students need to know and be able to do on a given objective monitor success criteria through observation, conversation, performance, or product

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

29

evaluate how to best share/reveal the success criteria (ahead of the lesson, during, or socially constructed after an experience) plan for strategic questions and feedback in relation to the success criteria Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month * Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, although are completion is recommended. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Status of Action Stepâ&#x20AC;? may be required for certain grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention Grant).

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

30

Major Improvement Strategy #2: We will develop expertise in precise and rigorous instruction through the use of formative assessment and effectively monitoring engagement with the learning Root Cause(s) Addressed: We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t provide precise first instruction using effective formative assessment data in order to plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention.

We do not know how to use data/the RtI process to plan interventions for struggling readers and differentiate instruction through the use of appropriate formative assessment and effective monitoring.

We lack a deep understanding of the scientific process.

We do not provide precise instruction using formative assessment data to provide appropriate initial first instruction and plan appropriate scaffolds for intervention.

Theories of Action: If teachers develop expertise in precise instruction through the use of formative assessment data to provide appropriate first instruction as well as plan for appropriate scaffolds/interventions...

If teachers develop solid understandings regarding data/the RtI process in order to provide interventions and differentiated instruction and if teachers develop solid understandings regarding formative assessment and effective monitoring...

If teachers have a strong understanding of the elements of the formative assessment process (objectives & success criteria) and how to monitor student understandings in writing (process & product)

...then students will achieve individual learning goals and make accelerated growth.

...then students will be able to achieve and articulate individual as well as grade level goals and demonstrate growth along the reading continuum.

If teachers used the teaching/learning cycle or inquiry process with precision across content areas...

If content/SALT teams and area experts develop expertise in precise instruction through the use of the teaching/learning cycle to provide appropriate first initial instruction and targeted instruction as well as plan for appropriate scaffolds/interventions...

...then students will receive precise instruction in whole group, small group, and independent learning on a daily basis

...then students would see the connection which would lead to a deeper understanding of the scientific process. ...then students will achieve individual learning goals and make accelerated growth.

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

31

Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): X School Plan under State Accountability o Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan o Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant o Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements o School Improvement Grant Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy MIS #2: Precise Instruction Vista PEAK SALT

Process Step 6/7: Teachers use formative data and effectively monitor student learning

Timeline

January 17th 2011Dec. 20th 2012

Key Personnel* Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and , Administrators

Resources (Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local) General Fund Ongoing

Implementation Benchmarks On a weekly basis teachers will:

Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun) In progress...

assess the student responses to questions and discourse use questions and feedback that move the students closer to the learning target identify student strengths, approximations and next steps to support student goal setting utilize higher-level questioning to engage students in an inquiry process around the learning targets engage students in significant discourse with peers around the learning target and press for evidence and explanation use exemplars, rubrics, success criteria and feedback to enable students to assess their own work, self correct and request additional support when needed Directors and Teacher Coaches will monitor and provide feedback at least 1X per month

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

32

Major Improvement Strategy #3: We will develop our understanding of vertical alignment to provide rigorous instruction/learning at or above grade level.

Root Cause(s) Addressed: We don’t have vertical articulation/alignment and clarity of grade level proficiency in writing We don’t have vertical articulation to define proficiency of mastered standards at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding and effective use of resources (pacing, manipulatives, guides, curriculum ,etc.)

We don’t have vertical articulation to define mastery/ proficient work at each grade level; and we don’t have a solid understanding of how to effectively use resources (pacing guides, curriculum etc.)

Theories of Action: If teachers understand grade level proficiency and provide opportunities to engage in grade level content with appropriate resources...

...then students will increasingly meet grade level expectations and assessments will show student growth in grade level proficiency.

If teachers have a common language, exemplars, and expectations for for proficiency across grade levels and at grade levels...

...then students will have access and utilize exemplars of student work that represent their next step as a writer.

If teachers understand rigorous grade level expectations and how it aligns with the enduring understanding and teachers instruct at grade level or above utilizing appropriate resources

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

...then students will achieve mastery/proficiency at each grade level and assessment/monitoring data would be used consistently/regularly to determine mastery/proficiency

33

Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply): ¨ School Plan under State Accountability ¨ Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan ¨ Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant ¨ Title I schoolwide or targeted assistance plan requirements ¨ School Improvement Grant Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy MIS#3: Vertical Alignment

Share our calibrated understandings of grade level proficiencies with one grade level above and below

Share summative bodies of evidence at key grades (P-2, 3/4 5/6, 7/8 and 9/10) that reveal students point of entry both below and above grade level

Timeline First Semester: Aug. 1st December 20th

First Semester: Aug. 1st December 20th

Key Personnel* Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and , Administrators

Teachers, Teacher Coaches, Instructional Leadership Team, and , Administrators

Resources (Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local) General Fund

Implementation Benchmarks On a bi-quarterly basis teachers will:

Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed, in progress, not begun)

In progress...

Ongoing Share models and exemplars of student proficiency across content areas

General Fund Ongoing

Share backwards plans to develop aligned expectations for objectives and success at a given grade level On a yearly basis teachers will:

In progress...

Teachers will meet with the grade level above and below in order to share the body of evidence that demonstrates what students know and are able to do.

Section V: Appendices Schools may add additional documentation to meet their unique needs. In particular, optional forms are available to supplement the improvement plan for schools to ensure that the requirements for the following have been fully met: • Title I Schoolwide Program • Title I Targeted Assistance Program • Title I Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring • Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability • Competitive School Grants (e.g., Tiered Intervention Grant, Closing The Achievement Gap)

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 2.0 -- Last updated: August 1, 2011)

34