LPS SIPs Critique Archive

Independent Citizens Action Network

LPS SIPs Critique Archive

ICAN has reviewed all 24 of the 2002-2005 School Improvement Plans (SIPs) that were approved by the LPS Board of Education in November, 2002. We offer this critique (comments, questions, and suggestions) related to the three SIP sections (School Overview, Improvement Plan and Accreditation Contract, and Support Information) and their main headings (also shown in bold type). Copies of current SIPs are available from ICAN as PDF file attachments to e-mail replies upon request to admin@ICAN4.info.

ICAN believes that there will be little or no improvement in the below-grade-level performance of many LPS students as a result of the current 2002-2005 LPS School Improvement Plans. Most are merely accreditation compliance documents with significant shortcomings:

General lack of challenging objectives to improve academic achievement
Cursory analysis of data
Unclear problem statements
Little identification of probable (or even possible) causes
Little confidence in the likely (corrective-action) effectiveness of planned activities

Conversely, the Littleton Academy CSAP scores (proficient or advanced) for the past two years have exceeded the overall school averages for each of those subjects at every one of the other 16 LPS elementary schools and the other five LPS middle schools. Those results are partly due to clear and concise action plans that targeted basic individual academic needs of below-grade-level students at that LPS charter school. ICAN recognizes that the Littleton Academy School Improvement Plan [PDF 1370KB] obviously is the best of the 24 LPS 2002-2005 SIPs prepared by each school in the district.

Section I: School Overview

I A. Executive Summary

Most elementary schools used the Wilder Elementary School SIP content as a model. [Few seem to realize that an “Executive Summary” should be more like an “abstract” than merely an “introduction” section for the SIP.]
Few schools have clear focus statements regarding student academic achievement. [Should the purpose go beyond getting or maintaining just enough CSAP proficiency to retain accreditation for the district and the schools? How about clear identification of significant problem areas for improvement of student academic achievement?]
Levels of school satisfaction: At least one-third of schools apparently did not do a parent survey the previous year; very few schools indicate proportion of returns. [Since most parents tend to avoid returning the survey forms, are their opinions useful? Are the survey questions insightful or even relevant? Would disclosing a low return rate affect perceptions of credibility?]
“In addition, the SIP is posted on the school website.” [Hopkins ES, which is the only LPS school with its 41-page SIP [PDF 512KB] on the Internet]

I B. School/Community Description

Socioeconomic conditions: Few schools mention this factor [Although “poor” SES conditions are important for analysis, they should not be used to excuse poor performance rather than for effective corrective actions].
Student mobility rate: Four schools had at least 30% during 2001-2002 [The formula of counting each “in” and each “out” tends to overemphasize the problem of lack of “stability” (neither “in” nor “out”), which should be a factor for developing effective corrective actions rather than just an excuse. By the way, a 30% "mobility" rate is about the same as an 85% "stability" rate.].

I C. Student Discipline Data

Few schools have any reported expulsions. [What are the “detention” and “in-house suspension” data as indicators of student discipline issues?]

I D. School Accountability Committee Information

Major accomplishments of the SAC: Most of the mentioned activities are not directly related to academic achievement accountability (planning, monitoring, and reporting results).
Proportion of staff membership on SAC: About half do not have parent majority.
Evidence of SAC effectiveness: Most schools state the number of meetings held. [What have been the effects upon student academic achievement?]
“Because the committee is charged with measuring the effectiveness of the school and making recommendations where areas for improvement are noted, the school’s success is evidence of the committee’s effectiveness.” [Littleton Academy CS, highest-performing LPS school]

Section II: Improvement Plan and Accreditation Contract

II A. Student Performance Data and Analysis

Evidence of problems or concerns: Few schools specify problems clearly. [Is that to avoid “shoot the messenger” reactions by central administration, school community, general public, etc.?]
Possible factors contributing to the problem: Few schools identify causes clearly. [What confidence can there be for proposed “corrective actions” (which may be a list of activities) which are not linked to probable causes?]

II B. Student Performance Goals: Reading, Writing, Math

School Goals—Growth: Many goals seem inadequate. [Refer to the inappropriate LPS practice of expressing ITBS/CogAT “predicted” scores as student “potential” rather than just the national average achievement for those CogAT ability levels).]
School Goals—Close the Learning Gap: Many goals seem inadequate. [What levels of differences are reasonable and acceptable?]

II C. Student Performance Curriculum Goals

Data collection process: Why are the goals identical for nearly all LPS schools?
75-85% achievement of grade-level expectations: Is a “C” average really the same level of proficiency (by subject content standard and grade level) at each school and within each classroom at the same grade?

II D. School Action Plan to Achieve Goals

Growth Goals: What relative emphasis should be placed upon improvement vs. high-level achievement? What are the districtwide plans for increasing the appropriate resources (e.g., instructional coaches) for schools with greatest needs?
Closing the Learning Gap Goals: What resources should be devoted to reaching and maintaining “acceptable” gaps?
Curriculum Goals: Why do nearly all schools state identical three-year plans?
“Develop consistency among department members in the content area disciplines regarding the relationship between proficiency and a “C” grade." [Heritage HS]

II E. Other Local Goals (Optional)

Few schools have stated additional goals beyond district-required student performance goals and plans in SIP Sections IIB, IIC, and IID for reading, writing, math, and curriculum. However, the "other local goals" for both LPS charter schools are noteworthy.
Littleton Preparatory Charter School additional goals [PDF 57KB] cover six areas: improve Core Knowledge implementation; improve the skills of teaching staff; improve the curriculum selection process; increase the rate of retaining students, parents, and staff; expand resources; and develop a unique junior high program.
Littleton Academy additional goals [PDF 23KB] include academic achievement and school environment.

Section III: Support Information

All schools were requested for this SIP section to include attendance rate, CSAP participation data, and evidence of a safe and civil learning environment.
Attendance rate (as a percentage of total enrollment) is not provided by three elementary schools (Centennial, Franklin, and Whitman).
CSAP participation data (number of students tested or as a percentage of total enrollment) is not provided by 10 schools (Centennial ES, Field ES, Highland ES, Moody ES, Peabody ES, Runyon ES, Whitman ES, Littleton Preparatory CS, Arapahoe HS, and Littleton HS).
Evidence of a safe and civil learning environment is not provided by two schools (Field ES and Whitman ES).

Last modified: 12/29/2006