All Colorado public school districts must meet the requirements of the 10-page "Rules for the Administration of the Accreditation of School Districts" (aka 1 CCR 301-1) [PDF 80KB], which includes definitions [§ 1.00], the accreditation contract [§ 2.00], accreditation indicator reporting [§ 3.00], and district accreditation categories and appeals [§ 4.00].

The Colorado State Board of Education approved the nine-page Littleton Public Schools (LPS) Accreditation Contract [PDF 149KB] for a six-year term of Accreditation from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2007.

The LPS District Accountability Committee (DAC), which includes at least one representative from each LPS school and some other at-large members, had performed a compliance review of each school's document on October 16, 2002 according to a previously-established three-page format [PDF 36KB].  Some of the DAC reviews were inconsequential and did not mention that some schools did not meet expectations for some of the compliance criteria.

The LPS Board of Education in November, 2002 then approved all of the "School Improvement Plan 2002-2005 and Accreditation Contract with Littleton Public Schools Board of Education" documents that were submitted by each of the 24 LPS schools during October.  ICAN agrees with the award of accreditation status to all schools.  However, the ICAN critique of LPS SIPs shows that there still is much room for significant improvement in the plans to increase student learning. 

On September 17 the District Accountability Committee was issued the revised LPS Accountability Resource Handbook, which includes a 16-page "Data Analysis" section [PDF 203KB].  That section involves using multiple sources of student achievement data, using data to improve student achievement, the LPS Student Learning System (SLS) process for accountability (written curriculum, classroom instruction, and assessment), and data use and interpretation flow charts for SLS building procedures and district procedures. 

ICAN is aware that SLS has had an inherent weakness: Data analysis that is done in a cursory manner (refer to the ICAN critique of the October, 2002 LPS school improvement plans, or SIPs) can lead to unclear problem statements, little identification of probable (or even possible) causes, and little confidence in the likely (corrective-action) effectiveness of planned activities. 

All LPS schools updated the 2002-2005 school improvement plans this November to incorporate NCLB (No Child Left Behind) AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) requirements for reading and math.  The new district template concentrated upon SIP performance goals, analyses of data, and descriptions of 2003-2004 action priorities for reading, writing, math, and curriculum.  ICAN has scrutinized all 23 SIP updates to look for changes in quality of the previously-disappointing (per ICAN critique) SIPs.  Although most of the recent SIP updates do show some improvements, many still suffer from cursory analysis of data, unclear problem statements, and little identification of probable (or even possible) causes that could provide confidence in the likely (corrective-action) effectiveness of planned activities.

On the other hand, ICAN applauds the LPS Learning Support Team for preparing the December 5 17-page draft [PDF 185KB] of the "District Improvement Plan for Littleton Public Schools" (DIP), which is an outstanding example of statements for performance goals, analysis of data, and action priorities for 2003-2004.  The performance goals are specific, measurable, and challenging for this school year.  The sections for analysis of data are well-done, with clear problem statements and identification of probable causes.  Therefore, there can be confidence in the likely corrective-action effectiveness of the action priorities.

Administration presented the DIP for discussion at the December 11 meeting of the LPS Board of Education (BoE) and stated that the District Improvement Plan "links district and school efforts to improve student learning."  ICAN noted that the BoE appeared to enthusiastically support the DIP, which can be a catalyst for schools to meet the NCLB AYP requirements and the other LPS student academic achievement goals.  However, ICAN is unaware of any answer to the question asked then and at subsequent BoE meetings: "What are the levels of understanding of, agreement with, and commitment to the District Improvement Plan in each of the buildings?"

The DIP and all SIP updates were supposed to use the same template presented to the BoE on September 11, but there are major differences in quality between the DIP and the SIP updates.  Copies of current SIP updates are available from ICAN as PDF file attachments to e-mail replies upon request to admin@ICAN4.info.

On February 10 ICAN received a copy of the seven-page "Annual Accreditation Assessment Report" [PDF 164KB] prepared by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) to include the LPS 2002-2003 school year.  Of course, the report summarized that CDE determines that the LPS district " . . . is meeting the intent of the requirements . . . and will continue to be fully accredited." 

ICAN has begun reviewing the current accreditation process and actual results for each school within the district.  One example for consideration is the Jefferson County Public Schools Accreditation and School Improvement Plan and Report, which is based upon the Strategic Plan with goals, objectives, indicators, and targets for Goal A and Goal B:

• Accreditation and School Improvement have been combined into a single process aligned with the Strategic Plan.

• The Accreditation Worksheets and School Improvement Plans are now a single document.

• The combined Accreditation and School Improvement Plan outlines all expectations for schools included in the Strategic Plan, Accreditation Process, and School Improvement Planning.

• The state-required Accountability Goals are included in the appropriate sections of the Accreditation and School Improvement Plan and Report.

• Schools will be given targets for all CSAP measures and will receive credit towards Accreditation for growth towards those goals.

• Goals set by schools to meet the requirements of the Accountability process will be used as Accreditation measures.  Every Accreditation measure does not require a goal.

• The report to the community can be the SAR (School Accountability Report) with additions related to school goals and accomplishments.  It can be distributed in December.  Any school that chooses may also distribute a report to the community in October as is traditional.

Last modified: 04/04/2004

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ LPS Goals ] [ LPS NCLB AYP ]

Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with your questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2003-2005 Independent Citizens Action Network (ICAN).   All Rights Reserved.