|
|
|
|
The LPS district has a staff of about 964 certificated teaching personnel, 547 classified employees, and 76 administrative employees. Its sites include one early childhood facility, 15 elementary schools, four middle schools, three high schools, two alternative programs, and two K-8 charter schools. A one-page organizational chart [PDF 523KB] shows administrative relationships. The total June 26, 2008 budget appropriation of $192,601,267 for school year 2008-2009 is divided into eight funds: $143,721,518 General Fund, $16,958,115 Bond Redemption Fund, and $31,921,634 in six other funds. A brief introduction, a 13-page Executive Summary [PDF 1460KB], and the entire 161-page 2008-2009 Adopted Budget [PDF 18600KB] are available on-line at the district website. The 2008-2009 Adopted Budget also is available at the LPS Financial Services office, 5776 South Crocker Street, Littleton, CO 80120, USA. The very informative 32-page "Pocket Guide to Understanding Your School District Budget, 2007-2008" document [PDF 554KB] is available on-line and at the LPS Financial Services office. The LPS official district website contains much more information under these easily-navigated main categories: District Information, Our Schools, Employment, Calendars, for Parents, for Students, and for Staff. LPS Mission Statement: To educate students for the future by challenging every individual to continuously learn, achieve, and act with purpose and compassion. According to the July 29, 2008 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) data, the overall LPS district average for the 27 CSAP 2008 tests is 71% proficient or advanced (P+A), which was no change from the 71% average in 2007. Reading average for eight tests is 81% P+A (was 81%), writing average for eight tests is 68% P+A (was 69%), math average for eight tests is 67% P+A (was 66%), and science average for three tests is 63% P+A (was 63%). LPS does well when compared with 35 other Colorado districts that have at least five elementary schools. The CSAP 2008 LPS 71% P+A overall average is exceeded only by Cheyenne Mountain 12 (81%, was 81%), Lewis-Palmer 38 (79%, was 79%), Academy 20 (75%, was 76%), Douglas County RE 1 (72%, was 73%), and Boulder Valley RE 2 (71%, was 72%) P+A school district averages. Detailed summaries of CSAP P+A averages of those 36 districts for each grade in each subject are available for the 27 2006 tests [PDF 14KB], the 27 2007 tests [PDF 14KB], and the 27 2008 tests [PDF 14KB]. The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 12KB] of LPS CSAP district and schools proficiency (percent proficient plus advanced) and changes provides comparisons of 2008 and 2007 performance for each subject area (reading, writing, math, and science) and the total for each school and the district. Only one school (Whitman ES) had total gains of at least 5.0%; three other schools (Peabody ES, Runyon ES, and Highland ES) had total losses of at least 5.0%; all other schools had smaller changes. The institutional inertia maintains the status quo and continues to prevent significant increase in student academic achievement. Those results are not encouraging. More information is available on the ICAN LPS CSAP page. Other comparisons of academic performance are made on the CSAP school accountability reports SAR Ratings page. District officials emphasize the Professional Learning Communities (PLC) initiative as the principal process to address the LPS District Achievement Goal. However, most schools have been using some PLC concepts for years with little or no effect upon LPS student academic achievement progress. The effectiveness of the current PLC model (two-hour late start on 10 PLC days per school year, beginning in August, 2007) has not been determined. More information is available on the ICAN LPS Late-Start Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) page. LPS officials have established the Student Achievement Index (SAI) as an overall expression of results from assessments of individual students. The matrix includes Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), and other assessments. However, the current "classroom performance" portion (about one-third of total SAI score) is very biased by "grade inflation" rather than "essential learnings" performance. That "grade inflation" factor of about 18% falsely increases the otherwise-valid SAI scores by about 6% for 2007. Therefore, the current Student Achievement Index is not a valid measure of LPS student academic achievement progress. More information is available on the ICAN LPS Student Achievement Index page. On August 21, 2008 CDE released 2008 Colorado Growth Model summary data for districts and schools. The 24-page LPS section [PDF 314KB] has a separate page for each LPS school. Most of each page is district data, as shown by this Ames ES example [PDF 24KB]. The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 12KB] shows LPS CSAP growth for each LPS school and district grade-level (ES, MS, and HS) growth for 2006, 2007, and 2008. More information is available on the ICAN LPS CSAP Growth page. The LPS Strategic Plan 2006-2011 is much better than the LPS Strategic Plan 2001, which had less focus upon improvement of academic achievement for all students. However, ICAN is sure that there will be little or no reduction in the percentages of below-grade-level students until most of the LPS Board of Education members and the superintendent publicly declare their willingness to be held accountable for such specific, measurable objectives and then insist that lower-level officials do the same. Otherwise, institutional inertia will maintain the status quo and continue to prevent significant increase in student academic achievement. At the September 14, 2006 workshop the LPS Board of Education had received and discussed an "Improving Student Achievement" presentation [PDF 452KB], which included this District Achievement Goal: "90% of all students will be on or above grade level in reading, math, writing, and science by 2011. The achievement gap in student performance will be cut in half by 2009." The 1% overall gain in LPS CSAP proficiency during the past two years (2006 was 70%, and 2007 and 2008 were only 71%) was quite small compared to expectations of the District Achievement Goal and stated targets in the 2006-2009 school improvement plans (SIPs). Effects of the Board-approved strategic plan (core beliefs and focus areas) upon the buildings-implemented school improvement plans (using the districtwide SIP template) are uncertain. A lot depends upon the levels of understanding of, agreement with, and commitment to the SIPs in each of the buildings. However, there has been no Board of Education public discussion and candid critique of the LPS student academic achievement progress with regard to LPS 2006-2009 SIPs. Citizen activist Sam Drury outlined this issue by his August 14, 2008 presentation [PDF 13KB] to the Board. More information is available on the ICAN LPS SIPs Critique page. ICAN remains concerned about LPS public visibility of LPS student academic achievement progress. Significant improvement of such public visibility is needed for Board of Education meetings, District Achievement Goal, School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and updates, advisory groups, progress reporting, publicity, objectionable tactics, and other opportunities as outlined on the ICAN LPS Public Visibility of LPS Student Academic Achievement Progress page. Refer to the ICAN LPS Education Archive page for more information.
Last modified: 08/24/2008 |
|
Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with
your
questions or comments about this website.
|
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif){kind=small}
