ESEA Report Card 2012-13 Colorado Department of Education Unit of Federal Programs

ESEA Report Card 2012-13
Formerly No Child Left Behind
Colorado Department of Education
Unit of Federal Programs
Office of Data, Program Evaluation, and Reporting
1560 Broadway, Suite #1450
Denver, Colorado 80202
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 1
Contents
page
Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Assessment Data--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TCAP/CSAP-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lectura/Escritura-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CoAlt----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
4
12
13
Title I Accountability Data--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) -----------------------------------------------------------High School Graduation Rates------------------------------------------------------------------------Elementary Reading and Writing---------------------------------------------------------------------Elementary Math and Science------------------------------------------------------------------------Middle Reading and Writing--------------------------------------------------------------------------Middle Math and Science-----------------------------------------------------------------------------High Reading, Writing, Math and Science---------------------------------------------------------District Accountability----------------------------------------------------------------------------------School Accountability-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
23
24
27
28
29
30
31
33
37
Title II Accountability: Highly Qualified (HQ) Teacher--------------------------------------------------- 43
Title III Accountability: Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) ---------------
45
2013 Title I Distinguished Schools---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49
APPENDIX---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 2
Introduction
The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) is pleased to present the ESEA 2012-13 Report Card, which details the progress
Colorado, its districts and their schools are making toward reaching the goals of the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) [formerly No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act]. Public reporting is a key component of ESEA. Public
information and data become catalysts for change. The intent of the ESEA Report Card is to inform parents, teachers, the
general public, key policy-makers and other decision-makers about the status of education in Colorado generally and in
relation to ESEA goals.
Colorado is among 39 states and the District of Columbia that requested and was granted an ESEA flexibility waiver from the
U. S. Department of Education, which gave Colorado permission to alter how it would fulfill a number of ESEA requirements.
Until 2012, Colorado used two different accountability systems—our state system and the federal system established under
ESEA legislation. The flexibility waiver authorized Colorado to use its state accountability system in place of key federal
accountability requirements. As a result of the flexibility waiver, Colorado’s rigorous state accountability system satisfies
ESEA requirements for determining school and district progress toward meeting annual performance targets. Growth is an
important component of Colorado’s accountability system. Schools and districts are accountable for reading, writing and
math academic growth overall, as well as the academic growth of historically disadvantaged students such as English
learners, and students with disabilities or who are eligible for free/reduced cost meals.
This report includes links to:
• Assessment Data (http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CoAssess-DataAndResults) – grade-level results of state
reading, writing, math and science content assessments: Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP), Colorado
Alternative Assessment (CoAlt) and Lectura and Escritura (Spanish reading/writing assessments)
• Accountability Data (http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/amos)
• 2011-12 Graduation Rate Data (prior year’s data always apply for accountability due to timing constraints around when
graduation rate data are available)
• Accountability status of individual school districts
• Accountability status of Title I schools, including priority, focus and reward designations
• Accountability status of Title III grantees, based on Annual Measurable Academic Objectives (AMAOs)
(http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tiii/amaos).
• Information about teacher qualifications and percentages of classes taught by highly qualified teachers
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 3
• Colorado’s 2013 Title I Distinguished Schools
Parents, school/district staff and the general public have ready access to assessment, Title I Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMOs), Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) and highly qualified (HQ) teacher data for individual
schools and districts through the Data, Program Evaluation and Reporting (DPER) website
(http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/index) as well as on SchoolView (http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview).
Additionally, all Colorado districts create annual reports to the public, which contain data and information on that specific
district and its schools. See the Appendix for specific instructions for accessing assessment and accountability data.
The Colorado Department of Education appreciates your interest in the education of our students. If you have questions
about an individual school or district, I encourage you to contact the applicable administrative office. Please explore this
report, as well as the above referenced websites, and let us know what other data you believe would be helpful to include in
future Report Cards. Working together, we can provide educational environments wherein students thrive, educators are
effective, and outstanding schools and districts meet the needs of Colorado students.
Patrick Chapman, Executive Director
Federal Programs Unit
Colorado Department of Education
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 4
Assessment Data
The Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) is Colorado’s standards-based assessment designed to measure
student achievement and progress toward proficiency on Colorado’s Content Standards. TCAP assesses 3rd – 10th grade
students in reading, writing and math, and 5th, 8th and 10th graders in science. Lectura (Spanish reading) and Escritura
(Spanish writing) are administered to 3rd and 4th grade Spanish-speaking students with limited English proficiency. State,
district and school results are available by grade at http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/coassess-dataandresults.
Students with significant cognitive disabilities (approximately 1%) may be eligible to take the Colorado Alternate assessment
(CoAlt). School IEP teams determine if students qualify for CoAlt, in accordance with criteria established by CDEs Exceptional
Student Services Unit (ESSU). CoAlt assesses students on modified state content standards in reading, writing, math (grades
3-10) and science (grades 5, 8 and 10). State, district and school grade-level results are available at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/coaltassess-dataandresults.
State-level Assessment Summaries present the percentages of students in the unsatisfactory, partially proficient, proficient,
advanced categories on TCAP/Lectura/Escritura/CoAlt by grade and content area for 2012-13, as well as the prior two years,
2010-11 and 2011-12, in accordance with U.S. Department of Education reporting guidance. No-scores are not specifically
reported here but factor into percentages; test booklets are marked no-score if a student did not take the test or did not
complete the minimum required number of questions in all test sessions to receive a score. Data are disaggregated by
race/ethnicity and gender categories, as well as reported for non-white students (minority) combined, English learners,
economically disadvantaged and migrant students and students with disabilities, for groups with 16 or more, for 2013 only.
Disaggregated data for prior years are available in earlier NCLB Report Cards and on the Data, Program Evaluation and
Reporting (DPER) website at http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/index.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 5
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 3
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
61,828
63,385
63,240
9
8
10
17
18
17
67
67
66
6
7
7
61,802
63,399
63,278
6
6
6
42
41
43
43
45
43
8
7
8
485
2,044
2,855
20,204
35,386
131
2,133
27,852
5,901
11,528
28,034
30,938
32,297
150
17
8
17
17
5
7
7
15
42
22
16
7
12
23
27
13
23
25
12
17
13
23
27
28
24
16
18
30
53
67
56
55
73
66
71
58
29
48
57
68
65
47
2
10
2
2
10
9
8
3
1
2
2
8
5
484
2,043
2,860
20,223
35,404
133
2,129
27,872
5,911
11,520
28,068
30,936
32,339
149
12
6
11
10
3
3
4
9
27
12
10
4
7
19
56
33
53
56
35
44
40
53
58
59
56
39
47
59
28
48
32
31
51
48
47
33
12
27
31
47
39
21
3
12
3
3
11
4
9
4
1
2
3
10
5
1
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Total
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
UN
PP
PR
AD
63,042
64,578
64,444
8
8
7
22
21
20
41
40
41
28
31
31
485
2,046
2,859
21,384
35,404
132
2,130
29,036
6,013
12,693
29,186
31,535
32,906
157
14
5
16
12
4
5
5
12
29
14
12
7
8
17
29
13
30
30
14
21
17
28
35
32
29
21
19
38
41
36
39
41
41
42
41
41
27
39
42
42
40
35
16
45
14
16
41
31
37
20
8
14
17
30
33
10
Page 6
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 4
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
62,507
63,137
64,484
11
11
11
23
22
21
61
63
63
5
4
5
62,508
63,148
64,487
6
8
7
38
43
39
45
42
45
11
7
8
461
2,109
2,987
21,240
35,287
143
2,254
29,194
6,480
12,612
28,949
31,722
32,760
191
16
8
21
18
6
6
8
17
47
22
18
8
13
28
31
16
28
31
15
27
18
29
30
34
31
20
23
32
52
68
50
50
72
62
68
52
21
42
50
66
61
39
1
8
1
1
7
6
6
2
1
1
1
6
3
1
461
2,109
2,987
21,241
35,289
143
2,254
29,195
6,481
12,612
28,951
31,722
32,763
191
14
5
14
11
4
3
5
11
31
13
12
4
9
17
50
27
49
51
32
48
34
48
54
53
52
34
44
56
33
54
34
34
52
37
50
37
12
30
33
50
41
24
3
14
3
3
11
11
11
4
1
2
3
11
5
2
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Total
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
UN
PP
PR
AD
62,656
63,236
64,590
8
8
8
20
20
20
43
41
43
28
30
28
460
2,107
2,988
21,346
35,286
144
2,256
29,301
6,489
12,720
29,042
31,769
32,816
197
16
5
20
14
4
7
6
13
37
16
14
8
9
19
30
12
27
29
14
24
18
27
32
31
29
20
19
37
41
39
40
43
44
45
45
42
24
40
43
45
42
38
13
44
12
14
38
24
31
17
6
12
14
27
30
6
Page 7
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 5
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
PR
AD
11
12
11
23
18
18
61
61
62
5
8
8
61,989
62,792
63,468
4
5
5
35
36
37
50
48
48
11
11
9
463
2,150
2,899
20,798
34,921
123
2,108
28,541
6,528
12,440
28,355
30,994
32,466
205
21
9
21
19
6
13
8
18
50
23
19
9
14
35
25
12
24
26
13
16
16
24
27
28
26
16
19
23
50
63
51
52
69
63
66
53
21
46
52
64
60
40
4
15
3
3
11
7
10
4
1
3
3
10
6
2
463
2,150
2,898
20,798
34,924
123
2,108
28,540
6,529
12,440
28,353
30,996
32,466
205
12
5
10
8
3
2
4
8
25
10
8
3
7
19
50
23
49
51
29
43
34
47
60
52
51
32
42
50
34
54
37
37
55
45
51
39
13
34
37
53
44
28
3
17
3
3
12
8
11
5
1
3
3
12
6
3
Total
All Students
PP
62,507
62,790
63,466
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
UN
UN
PP
PR
Science Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
61,993
62,776
63,463
10
10
9
24
26
25
36
36
36
30
28
29
61,976
62,775
63,459
16
15
14
37
37
37
33
35
35
13
14
13
459
2,147
2,899
20,798
34,928
122
2,108
28,533
6,525
12,441
28,348
30,996
32,464
204
17
6
21
15
5
9
7
14
41
17
16
8
10
21
34
13
35
36
19
30
23
33
37
36
35
25
25
42
35
32
32
34
38
35
38
34
16
32
35
38
35
29
13
48
12
15
38
25
32
18
5
14
14
28
29
8
462
2,147
2,899
20,798
34,918
123
2,108
28,537
6,526
12,439
28,349
30,993
32,460
204
25
11
28
26
6
17
10
24
46
31
24
13
15
36
45
29
46
47
31
37
36
45
39
46
47
39
36
50
25
40
22
23
44
34
39
25
12
19
24
36
35
12
5
20
3
4
19
11
15
6
2
4
4
12
14
2
Page 8
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 6
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
60,600
62,081
63,051
9
8
8
19
18
18
60
62
62
11
12
11
60,598
62,089
63,053
4
5
4
34
38
38
51
47
49
11
9
9
506
1,994
2,925
20,449
34,864
129
2,177
28,180
6,350
11,842
27,755
31,118
31,931
182
13
8
14
14
4
6
5
13
40
17
14
5
10
23
27
12
26
28
12
20
14
26
34
31
27
16
20
36
52
59
51
53
68
60
64
54
23
46
54
63
60
40
7
19
3
4
16
10
15
6
1
3
3
14
8
1
506
1,994
2,925
20,453
34,862
129
2,177
28,184
6,350
11,845
27,757
31,120
31,931
182
8
3
8
7
2
3
4
6
22
8
7
2
6
11
53
22
50
52
29
37
32
48
64
53
52
32
43
62
35
57
38
38
55
51
52
41
12
36
38
54
44
25
4
17
3
3
12
8
12
4
1
3
2
12
6
2
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Total
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
UN
PP
PR
AD
60,598
62,080
63,050
13
12
12
24
26
26
36
37
35
27
25
27
507
1,996
2,927
20,444
34,864
127
2,178
28,179
6,353
11,843
27,754
31,120
31,930
183
20
7
25
20
6
12
10
19
50
21
20
10
13
31
35
15
35
35
20
24
23
33
32
35
35
26
25
36
31
31
30
32
37
36
35
32
13
30
32
37
33
25
14
47
9
13
36
28
31
16
4
13
12
26
28
7
Page 9
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 7
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
59,736
60,893
62,395
12
11
11
21
20
21
58
59
59
9
9
9
59,743
60,897
62,398
3
3
3
37
35
35
47
48
47
12
14
15
512
1,954
2,993
20,224
34,584
120
2,003
27,806
5,793
11,403
26,594
30,391
31,998
172
18
10
21
19
6
13
7
17
50
24
19
8
14
38
28
15
29
30
15
22
19
28
30
33
30
19
22
30
50
60
47
47
66
58
63
49
17
41
47
61
57
30
4
15
3
3
12
6
11
4
1
2
3
11
6
1
512
1,954
2,994
20,223
34,587
120
2,003
27,806
5,794
11,403
26,595
30,392
32,000
172
7
4
5
4
2
1
1
4
16
6
5
1
4
11
48
20
49
51
26
43
30
47
69
54
51
29
41
56
37
50
38
38
52
45
49
40
13
35
38
49
44
30
7
26
7
6
20
9
19
8
1
4
5
20
10
1
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Total
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
UN
PP
PR
AD
59,752
60,909
62,403
15
15
14
32
32
30
29
29
28
24
24
27
511
1,955
2,997
20,229
34,585
120
2,002
27,814
5,788
11,403
26,607
30,408
31,993
173
25
8
27
23
8
17
10
22
55
25
24
13
15
34
37
19
40
39
25
36
29
37
31
39
39
31
30
39
22
27
22
24
31
28
28
25
9
24
25
29
27
19
15
46
10
13
36
19
32
16
4
12
12
27
27
6
Page 10
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 8
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
PR
AD
10
10
10
23
22
23
58
59
59
9
8
8
58,487
59,926
61,079
3
3
3
42
41
40
44
45
47
11
10
9
515
1,843
3,052
19,314
34,205
164
1,975
26,863
5,581
10,519
25,304
29,887
31,183
149
17
9
19
16
5
11
6
15
45
21
17
7
12
36
29
15
33
34
16
22
20
32
35
38
34
20
25
37
51
61
45
46
67
59
63
48
18
39
46
61
56
26
3
16
2
2
11
6
10
4
515
1,843
3,052
19,317
34,206
164
1,976
26,867
5,583
10,519
25,309
29,888
31,187
149
8
4
6
4
2
5
2
4
18
6
5
1
5
17
52
28
56
56
31
38
34
52
71
60
57
34
47
61
36
50
34
35
54
48
51
37
9
31
34
51
42
19
3
18
3
3
13
7
11
5
Total
All Students
PP
58,480
59,916
61,074
2
2
11
5
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
UN
UN
PP
PR
3
3
13
6
1
Science Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
58,472
59,914
61,070
19
21
19
29
27
29
29
27
29
22
24
23
58,455
59,891
61,074
23
23
1
26
28
27
41
41
43
8
7
9
515
1,841
3,055
19,307
34,208
164
1,975
26,857
5,579
10,515
25,309
29,884
31,180
151
29
11
35
30
12
22
15
28
64
33
31
18
20
46
29
17
34
36
25
26
27
34
24
35
36
30
28
31
29
29
22
23
32
35
31
24
8
22
23
30
27
19
11
42
9
10
30
16
27
13
3
10
9
22
24
3
514
1,843
3,054
19,312
34,208
164
1,974
26,861
5,583
10,513
25,299
29,883
31,186
150
32
14
39
35
11
26
15
33
64
41
35
20
21
59
32
19
30
33
23
28
26
31
23
32
33
28
26
25
32
51
28
28
52
42
49
31
10
24
29
44
43
15
4
15
2
3
12
2
10
4
1
2
2
8
9
1
Page 11
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 9
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
59,881
60,050
61,547
7
7
7
26
24
24
62
63
64
4
4
4
59,892
60,067
61,553
4
4
3
41
43
40
44
44
47
9
7
8
490
1,928
3,132
19,206
34,729
150
1,870
26,776
5,372
10,400
24,296
30,166
31,336
162
11
7
14
12
4
8
5
11
35
16
12
5
9
31
36
15
34
36
17
22
19
33
44
39
35
21
27
38
49
69
49
50
73
67
70
52
18
42
50
68
60
30
1
8
1
1
5
1
5
2
490
1,928
3,133
19,206
34,734
150
1,870
26,777
5,373
10,400
24,302
30,169
31,339
162
6
4
7
5
2
3
2
5
18
7
6
1
5
15
59
25
56
58
30
37
35
54
69
62
57
35
46
63
31
53
33
33
55
50
53
36
10
27
33
51
43
20
1
17
2
3
12
9
9
4
1
1
5
2
2
2
12
5
1
Math Percentages
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Total
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
UN
PP
PR
AD
59,859
60,058
61,540
31
31
30
30
30
30
24
24
24
14
14
15
490
1,929
3,132
19,200
34,766
150
1,867
26,768
5,362
10,397
24,307
30,193
31,341
164
42
17
52
46
19
27
25
43
75
50
46
29
30
64
32
23
28
32
30
36
29
31
16
29
32
32
29
25
18
26
13
15
30
28
28
17
5
14
15
24
24
9
6
33
5
5
20
7
16
8
2
5
5
14
16
1
Page 12
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
TCAP/CSAP Grade 10
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
Reading Percentages
Total
UN
57,936
57,735
58,686
470
1,902
2,776
17,362
34,274
149
1,750
24,409
4,706
9,379
21,146
28,848
29,832
126
PP
8
7
7
11
9
13
12
4
8
5
11
36
16
12
4
10
28
PR
Writing Percentages
AD
Total
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013 Disaggregated Groups
Am. Indian/AK Native
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/Pacific Is.
2+ races
Minority
Students w/Disabilities
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
UN
PP
PR
AD
24
22
21
58
60
59
8
8
10
57,956
57,746
58,696
6
6
6
45
43
43
42
43
41
5
6
7
28
13
30
32
15
22
17
29
40
35
32
18
24
31
54
59
50
50
65
60
63
52
20
45
50
61
57
38
5
17
4
4
14
7
13
5
470
1,902
2,777
17,365
34,280
149
1,750
24,413
4,710
9,381
21,151
28,848
29,842
127
11
7
11
10
4
6
4
10
30
13
11
3
10
24
51
32
54
58
34
54
39
54
59
62
57
37
48
57
31
45
29
27
49
34
45
30
6
22
27
47
36
16
4
14
3
2
10
3
9
4
2
3
14
7
Math Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
2
2
10
4
Science Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
57,940
57,735
58,685
29
28
29
37
37
35
26
14
28
6
2
6
57,950
57,732
58,660
29
26
25
21
22
21
41
43
43
7
7
8
470
1,903
2,775
17,358
34,276
150
1,751
24,407
4,696
9,381
21,155
28,844
29,835
126
42
17
50
47
19
34
25
43
75
50
46
30
29
61
34
26
32
35
36
38
35
34
17
32
35
36
33
33
18
38
14
15
35
23
28
18
4
14
15
27
28
5
3
18
2
2
8
2
9
4
469
1,902
2,776
17,345
34,264
149
1,753
24,394
4,700
9,371
21,130
28,838
29,816
125
35
17
43
43
16
30
20
39
70
49
42
25
26
64
28
15
23
25
19
23
20
24
16
24
25
22
20
21
31
51
29
27
52
36
46
31
10
24
29
44
42
14
4
15
2
2
11
7
11
4
1
2
2
7
10
2
1
5
8
Page 13
Lectura Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Escritura Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
2011
2012
2013
All Students
1,199
1,199
1,175
18
17
15
20
24
20
52
49
51
10
9
13
1,225
1,203
1,179
18
17
20
20
26
24
41
39
37
21
18
18
2013
Lectura/Escritura Grade 3
Students w/Disabilities
FRM
Female
Male
100
1,132
598
577
56
16
11
20
22
20
18
22
19
51
54
48
13
17
8
101
1,136
604
575
57
20
15
25
29
24
19
29
14
38
42
33
18
25
12
2011
2012
2013
All Students
2013
Lectura/Escritura Grade 4
FRM
Female
Male
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Lectura Percentages
Total
UN
PP
PR
Escritura Percentages
AD
Total
UN
PP
PR
AD
125
92
108
23
40
31
32
25
33
43
27
31
2
7
4
125
92
108
32
51
44
37
23
32
29
23
18
2
1
98
50
58
34
32
31
36
32
34
30
34
29
1
2
5
98
50
58
47
44
43
36
38
28
12
14
21
2
Page 14
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
2011
2012
2013
All Students
667
692
693
15
19
17
23
24
25
34
29
34
19
19
17
5
4
3
670
692
692
13
15
13
23
24
25
33
31
34
25
22
22
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 3
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
52
261
324
33
369
118
406
241
450
23
19
16
15
19
25
17
17
17
19
24
26
45
25
20
24
27
24
33
36
32
21
36
38
36
34
34
17
16
19
18
16
13
18
14
19
4
3
4
52
261
323
33
369
118
405
240
450
17
13
14
12
13
16
12
14
13
21
22
26
33
23
22
21
24
25
29
37
33
33
36
36
38
33
34
29
22
20
21
23
19
24
21
22
3
1
3
4
3
NO
3
2
3
2
4
1
3
2
3
3
Math Percentages
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
660
686
690
10
9
8
18
21
22
23
25
19
23
16
23
23
23
24
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
Total
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
53
260
321
34
369
118
405
242
446
13
8
8
9
8
10
6
10
7
21
20
23
24
21
20
20
19
23
17
18
21
15
18
18
18
15
21
26
26
20
29
26
23
26
29
20
15
26
23
18
24
26
28
22
25
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 15
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
657
661
704
16
17
20
20
20
21
30
29
30
20
21
17
9
8
8
653
660
705
13
13
12
20
20
25
32
31
32
22
25
20
7
7
8
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 4
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
25
46
257
345
21
359
127
406
259
445
36
7
23
18
29
22
25
19
18
21
8
24
21
22
14
20
25
20
17
24
32
37
29
31
33
30
24
31
32
29
20
15
18
15
19
19
14
18
21
15
4
13
6
8
5
7
10
8
8
7
25
46
257
346
21
359
127
407
260
445
12
9
13
12
19
13
12
10
12
13
40
17
28
22
33
27
32
25
26
24
16
37
32
34
14
30
31
34
28
34
24
15
19
21
29
20
17
21
22
20
8
17
6
8
5
8
7
8
8
7
Math Percentages
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
Total
2011
2012
2013
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
All Students
643
653
704
7
7
7
27
25
28
23
26
24
29
28
27
9
9
10
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
25
46
257
345
21
359
127
407
261
443
8
2
8
6
19
8
6
5
5
8
44
17
28
29
29
27
32
27
27
29
20
30
20
26
24
22
23
23
23
25
16
33
31
23
19
30
28
31
30
25
12
13
9
11
10
9
9
11
10
10
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 16
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
689
642
692
11
13
11
21
26
23
20
18
19
31
29
32
13
10
12
688
642
692
10
12
10
17
21
19
30
28
26
31
27
30
9
8
11
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 5
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
17
40
261
340
24
352
141
380
257
434
18
8
12
11
4
11
6
9
12
10
41
23
24
20
42
25
26
21
22
23
18
13
21
18
13
20
24
19
21
18
12
45
30
32
38
32
25
36
30
33
6
8
10
16
4
9
12
12
12
12
17
40
261
340
24
352
141
381
257
434
12
5
10
9
21
10
6
8
12
8
24
13
20
19
21
19
23
17
19
19
35
30
28
25
25
28
26
28
26
27
18
35
30
30
21
30
31
33
28
32
6
10
8
13
13
9
9
10
11
10
Math Percentages
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
Total
2011
2012
2013
IN
EX
EM
Science Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
All Students
673
641
692
14
16
14
14
17
14
19
19
19
39
33
37
10
10
13
683
640
687
12
13
11
19
25
22
20
17
18
21
19
21
23
21
24
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
17
40
260
340
25
352
141
381
258
433
24
5
15
14
20
14
11
12
16
14
24
18
15
12
12
15
18
13
16
13
24
15
18
19
24
19
18
17
17
19
18
43
35
38
40
36
35
40
38
36
6
13
13
13
4
12
13
15
11
14
17
40
260
336
24
351
141
378
256
430
29
5
11
12
17
11
8
9
14
10
29
23
23
19
33
24
23
19
21
22
18
20
19
17
13
19
20
19
20
17
12
23
19
22
25
20
25
24
21
21
6
23
24
26
13
22
18
26
21
25
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 17
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
561
653
680
10
8
8
21
22
20
24
27
28
34
32
33
6
7
7
562
652
679
10
9
9
19
17
21
24
26
23
28
30
28
13
13
14
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 6
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
51
218
357
27
323
111
380
261
416
5
12
11
4
2
4
7
9
27
21
19
4
20
23
22
22
18
29
31
23
37
32
37
30
26
29
33
33
33
30
33
29
33
33
33
6
6
7
7
6
3
7
7
6
51
217
357
27
322
111
379
259
417
2
6
12
11
6
3
7
8
9
29
20
22
7
20
26
20
20
21
22
25
21
30
26
25
23
24
23
31
30
26
15
29
27
34
28
27
12
14
15
22
13
10
12
14
14
Math Percentages
IN
2011
2012
2013
All Students
560
660
684
11
11
11
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
Total
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
2+ races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
50
220
360
27
324
111
383
263
418
8
14
11
7
5
8
11
11
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
EX
EM
DE
NO
16
15
14
22
19
22
22
22
24
25
29
23
24
11
15
22
22
21
26
23
26
20
21
22
22
31
21
22
28
29
28
23
25
22
22
23
26
22
18
25
24
22
13
14
13
13
15
Page 18
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
598
556
648
8
11
9
24
23
25
24
21
22
33
33
33
6
8
6
598
556
647
10
13
11
21
20
21
25
20
22
25
27
28
13
14
13
2013
Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 7
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
50
242
316
332
105
368
242
402
8
7
10
8
7
8
8
9
12
28
26
24
28
24
21
27
34
24
20
25
29
22
21
24
32
30
34
32
30
36
38
30
6
5
6
6
2
6
9
5
50
242
315
332
105
368
241
402
12
7
13
9
6
10
9
11
12
23
22
20
23
18
18
23
20
25
19
25
30
23
21
22
42
29
26
29
30
33
28
28
6
10
15
11
8
12
18
10
Math Percentages
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
597
554
554
10
13
13
19
19
19
24
22
22
24
21
21
17
18
18
2013
Disaggregated
Groups
Total
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
49
243
317
237
105
370
240
406
12
7
14
13
7
9
9
12
12
18
19
19
18
15
16
19
18
27
22
22
28
24
28
20
35
26
21
21
31
29
25
25
12
14
18
18
10
17
16
17
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 19
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
535
579
543
16
15
14
27
26
24
22
22
24
24
25
26
5
8
5
533
579
543
17
13
14
21
24
21
22
21
22
20
21
22
13
15
14
2013
Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 8
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
39
184
289
254
81
290
202
341
5
14
13
14
14
11
16
12
23
23
25
24
19
24
26
23
33
26
22
26
27
28
19
27
31
27
26
26
28
27
30
24
3
3
6
4
2
5
5
5
39
184
289
254
81
290
202
341
10
11
16
11
10
11
19
10
21
21
20
22
19
20
20
22
15
24
21
23
31
23
19
24
23
23
22
21
23
25
22
22
26
13
13
15
9
14
15
14
Math Percentages
Total
2013
Disaggregated
Groups
2011
2012
2013
IN
EX
EM
Science Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
All Students
540
583
544
14
11
10
21
24
23
27
21
26
23
26
25
9
11
8
540
580
540
15
11
10
12
16
17
16
16
17
23
18
19
27
34
29
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
39
185
290
254
81
291
203
341
5
8
13
8
6
6
14
8
23
22
22
24
23
23
29
20
36
28
23
29
32
27
23
27
23
24
27
23
21
29
25
26
10
8
8
8
9
8
5
10
39
184
287
253
81
288
201
339
5
11
10
11
6
8
14
8
13
14
18
16
15
15
18
17
21
20
16
19
20
17
20
16
13
22
18
20
23
22
19
19
44
26
30
27
27
31
23
32
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 20
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
549
515
581
13
13
12
28
24
23
25
27
28
21
22
22
9
9
9
548
514
581
14
14
13
28
26
26
24
23
24
22
21
20
8
10
12
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 9
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Two or more races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
41
196
311
17
270
86
305
218
362
10
15
11
22
20
23
59
24
20
23
30
20
27
32
27
6
29
31
29
28
28
29
17
24
12
19
19
23
17
25
5
8
10
24
9
10
11
8
10
41
196
311
17
270
86
305
218
362
12
14
13
12
13
10
10
13
13
15
23
27
41
24
24
24
25
26
29
28
21
18
27
29
27
26
23
20
20
21
18
20
22
24
17
23
20
7
15
12
9
8
12
14
12
13
13
10
10
13
Math Percentages
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
552
519
588
15
14
13
25
24
25
30
29
31
18
18
18
8
9
10
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
Total
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Two or more races
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
41
196
318
17
270
86
307
222
365
12
13
13
12
13
14
11
13
13
20
22
26
35
23
16
21
27
24
39
33
29
24
33
36
35
32
30
12
16
19
24
16
20
19
14
20
12
9
11
6
9
8
11
9
10
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 21
Reading Percentages
Total
IN
EX
EM
Writing Percentages
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
2011
2012
2013
All Students
523
537
493
12
11
12
29
30
24
23
23
28
18
19
17
13
14
14
524
537
493
12
11
12
27
25
21
28
32
33
17
20
19
10
7
9
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
CoAlt Grade 10
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
16
44
167
248
245
68
275
197
295
19
7
16
12
13
19
14
13
12
25
27
23
23
24
18
20
24
23
44
20
29
27
28
34
26
26
28
14
19
18
16
15
21
18
17
6
27
11
13
15
12
16
12
15
16
44
167
248
245
68
275
197
295
25
11
14
11
13
16
11
14
11
38
18
20
22
21
15
21
20
22
19
32
35
33
33
41
36
34
33
13
14
20
19
20
18
21
18
20
6
20
7
8
9
9
8
9
8
Math Percentages
IN
EX
EM
DE
NO
Total
IN
EX
EM
2011
2012
2013
All Students
532
542
499
14
12
14
26
26
21
36
36
35
13
15
17
4
6
7
527
541
495
14
14
15
25
24
20
24
25
26
2013 Disaggregated
Groups
Total
Science Percentages
Asian
Black/African Am.
Hispanic/Latino
White
Minority
English Learners
FRM
Female
Male
16
44
169
253
246
68
277
200
298
25
16
17
11
16
18
13
14
13
50
14
17
23
19
15
19
26
18
13
34
38
36
35
37
36
35
36
6
18
17
16
17
19
20
14
18
6
14
8
6
9
12
8
7
8
16
44
168
249
246
68
276
198
296
31
16
16
13
16
19
14
16
13
19
18
18
21
18
15
16
19
20
38
27
27
24
29
25
26
30
24
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
DE
NO
14
15
13
16
17
20
9
15
14
13
16
15
12
15
6
23
20
20
20
22
24
17
23
Page 22
Title I Accountability
Prior to 2012 and approval of Colorado’s ESEA flexibility waiver application, NCLB required CDE to determine annually
whether the state and its school districts made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. Districts, in turn, determined
whether their schools made AYP targets. AYP determinations were based on TCAP/CoAlt reading/Lectura and math
participation, performance and graduation rate data. Detailed descriptions for calculating AYP and historical school and
district AYP results are available on the CDE website as well as in SchoolView under Accountability/Federal NCLB.
ESEA Accountability Requirements Beginning 2012
Under the flexibility waiver, federal school and district AYP determinations were replaced by state-developed Performance
Frameworks. District and School Performance Frameworks (DPFs and SPFs) provide snapshots of academic achievement and
growth, growth gaps (for disaggregated groups) and postsecondary readiness.
District performance on these indicators leads to the following accreditation designations (high to low): Accredited with
Distinction, Accredited, Accredited with Improvement Plan, Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan and Accredited with
Turnaround Plan. School performance determines which type of improvement plan CDE recommends (high to low):
Performance, Improvement, Priority Improvement and Turnaround.
Title I accountability is attached to districts and schools assigned Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plans. For additional
information, go to http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/districtaccountabilityhandbook.
Although the flexibility waiver eliminated prior AYP rules and performance targets, Colorado committed to setting rigorous
proficiency Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) (e.g., percentages that scored proficient or advanced) for reading and
math and, in accordance with ESEA regulations, reporting state/district/school and disaggregated group progress toward
these goals to the U.S. Department of Education and the public. However, these rigorous AMOs represent only part of what
goes into Title I accountability; under Colorado’s flexibility wavier, writing and science performance, as well as reading,
writing and math academic growth (see http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/coloradogrowthmodel and
http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/growthmodeltutorials) and graduation rate count.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 23
Further, federal accountability under the flexibility waiver includes the identification of the lowest performing five percent of
Title I schools as priority schools and schools with significant academic achievement or graduation rate gaps as focus schools.
Lastly, Colorado also identifies two categories of Title I reward schools: those with the highest academic achievement and no
significant achievement or graduation rate gaps, and those for whom disaggregated groups are making the greatest progress
in closing achievement and graduation rate gaps.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 24
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
Under the ESEA wavier, Colorado’s participation rate target continues to be 95 percent, which it had been prior to the
waiver. Proficiency AMOs (percentages of students who must score proficient and advanced (TCAP/Lectura/Escritura) or
developing and novice (CoAlt) and the schedule on which they would increase were established as follows below, separately
for schools and districts, by grade span and content area.
School AMO targets for 2011-12 were the percentages of students who scored proficient or above (e.g., proficient or
advanced TCAP/Lectura/Escritura; developing or novice on CoAlt) in the schools that performed at the 50th percentile,
separately by grade span (EMH) and content area, in 2009-10. The percentages of proficient students in the schools that
performed at the 90th percentile established the AMO targets for 2015-16. District-level AMOs were set similarly, based on
the percentages of proficient students at the 50th percentile for the 2011-12 targets and the percentages at the 90th
percentile for the 2015-16 targets. School and district AMOs were scheduled to increase at equal increments from the 50th
percentile to the 90th during the intervening years.
The elementary/middle other indicator target also remained the same as it had been under AYP, prior to the ESEA waiver:
1.33 percent advanced for reading and math, with the addition of writing and science. The percentage advanced calculation
excludes CoAlt tests, for which there is no advanced equivalent. The elementary/middle other indicator is for reporting
purposes only, and does not impact school or district ratings under the ESEA flexibility waiver.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 25
Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) Targets
Content
Area
Reading
Writing
Math
Science
Grade
Span
School Targets
District Targets
2011-12
th
50
percentile
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
th
90
percentile
2011-12
th
50
percentile
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
th
90
percentile
elementary
71.6
75.97
80.35
84.72
89.1
71.5
74.7
77.9
81.2
84.4
middle
71.4
75.60
79.80
84.00
88.2
70.5
73.8
77.1
80.3
83.6
high
73.3
76.77
80.25
83.72
87.2
71.5
74.8
78.2
81.5
84.8
elementary
53.5
59.32
65.15
70.97
76.8
54.7
58.5
62.2
65.9
69.7
middle
57.8
63.27
68.75
74.22
79.7
56.5
60.4
64.4
68.3
72.3
high
50.0
55.55
61.10
66.65
72.2
48.6
53.4
58.1
62.9
67.6
elementary
70.9
75.50
80.10
84.70
89.3
70.5
74.0
77.6
81.1
84.6
middle
52.5
58.12
63.75
69.37
75.0
50.0
54.7
59.4
64.1
68.8
high
33.5
38.82
44.15
49.47
54.8
32.2
37.2
42.3
47.1
52.1
elementary
47.5
54.62
61.75
68.87
76.0
48.0
53.4
58.9
64.3
69.7
middle
48.0
54.77
61.55
68.32
75.1
45.6
51.5
57.4
63.2
69.1
high
50.0
55.60
61.2
66.80
72.4
48.9
54.3
59.7
65.0
70.4
Graduation Rate
The high school other indicator is the prior year’s graduation rate, but targets went from a met/not met determination to a
percentage of points possible, as follows:
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 26
Graduation Rate: District/consortium’ graduation rate was:
Rating
Points
•
At or above 90%
Exceeds
4
•
At or above 80% but below 90%
Meets
3
•
•
At or above 65% but below 80%
Below 65%
Approaching
Does Not Meet
2
1
For federal accountability purposes, the expectation for Meets is 80 percent or higher. The best graduation rate (4-, 5-, 6- or 7-
year) for 2011-12 is in bold in the table below; red type indicates that the target was not met, green means that it was met.
For district and school information, go to the HS Grad Rate tabs in the school and district workbooks at
http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/amos.
State-Level 2011-12 Graduation Rates
Student Group
4-year
5-year
6-year
7-year
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
75.35
57.65
82.89
66.20
62.45
82.12
70.08
80.43
65.47
53.30
61.40
53.66
79.50
71.37
55.73
78.69
59.94
87.02
70.22
66.92
84.72
81.75
87.67
69.63
59.39
66.28
60.94
81.64
75.87
63.58
78.49
59.78
88.58
72.74
64.92
84.56
38.89
44.34
68.02
60.06
65.17
64.86
81.68
75.43
62.81
76.84
59.70
88.00
68.07
61.55
83.54
<16
39.47
64.87
57.67
62.61
64.91
80.26
73.58
62.13
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 27
The tables that follow present state-level performance toward reading, writing, math and science AMO targets (participation,
performance and advanced by grade span. The participation target for all grade spans and content areas is 95 percent. All
students who are enrolled during the testing window are required to test. Students who are either non-English proficient
(NEP) or limited English proficient (LEP), considered to be unable to test due to language, and have been in the U.S. for less
than one year can count as participants for reading and writing if they took the English proficiency assessment and received a
valid overall score.
At the district and school levels, only students who were enrolled prior to October Count, and therefore attending the school
since the beginning of the year, counted for performance calculations. For advanced targets, only student who took
TCAP/Lectura/Escritura counted, not CoAlt students, as there was no advanced equivalent on CoAlt. Percentages are printed
in green when the target was met and red when it was not met.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 28
State-Level Elementary Performance toward Reading and Writing AMO Targets
Participation (95%)
Performance (74.7%)
Advanced (1.33%)
Elementary Reading
Tested
Total
%
Tested
PR+AD
Tested
%
PR+AD
AD
Tested
% AD
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
Elementary Writing
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
206,574
1,541
6,637
9,047
67,524
114,475
412
6,926
92,087
39,758
91,979
22,159
101,045
105,513
591
207,489
1,548
6,673
9,107
67,874
114,903
416
6,956
92,574
40,004
92,482
22,493
101,389
106,084
591
99.56
99.55
99.46
99.34
99.48
99.63
99.04
99.57
99.47
99.39
99.46
98.52
99.66
99.46
100.00
Participation (95%)
Tested
206,372
1,540
6,623
9,037
67,452
114,376
413
6,919
91,984
39,660
91,904
22,167
100,925
105,433
588
Total
207,536
1,547
6,672
9,111
67,898
114,926
418
6,952
92,598
40,000
92,521
22,506
101,395
106,127
589
146,420
851
5,158
4,944
36,955
92,895
295
5,314
53,517
19,132
50,890
5,666
75,458
70,952
258
206,593
1,541
6,623
9,036
67,569
114,473
412
6,927
92,108
39,766
92,001
22,159
101,055
105,522
590
70.87
55.22
77.88
54.71
54.69
81.15
71.60
76.71
58.10
48.11
55.31
25.57
74.67
67.24
43.73
14,537
44
773
206
1,583
11,289
30
611
3,247
874
2,031
151
8,874
5,662
6
Performance (58.5%)
% Tested
99.44
99.55
99.27
99.19
99.34
99.52
98.80
99.53
99.34
99.15
99.33
98.49
99.54
99.35
99.83
PR+AD
Tested
112,424
551
4,450
3,413
25,620
74,027
215
4,144
38,393
13,626
34,484
3,459
62,344
50,075
159
206,396
1,540
6,609
9,028
67,501
114,373
413
6,920
92,011
39,673
91,931
22,168
100,938
105,444
587
% PR+AD
54.47
35.78
67.33
37.80
37.95
64.72
52.06
59.88
41.73
34.35
37.51
15.60
61.76
47.49
27.09
AD
204,432
1,516
6,568
8,903
66,762
113,420
409
6,845
91,003
39,383
90,769
20,000
100,265
104,154
590
7.11
2.90
11.77
2.31
2.37
9.95
7.33
8.93
3.57
2.22
2.24
0.76
8.85
5.44
1.02
Advanced (1.33%)
Tested
% AD
17,469
52
967
284
2,144
13,263
33
725
4,205
1,248
2,692
155
11,440
6,028
11
204,239
1,515
6,554
8,896
66,699
113,318
410
6,838
90,912
39,293
90,698
20,013
100,153
104,075
587
8.55
3.43
14.75
3.19
3.21
11.70
8.05
10.60
4.63
3.18
2.97
0.77
11.42
5.79
1.87
Page 29
State-Level Elementary Performance toward Math and Science AMO Targets
Elementary Math
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
Elementary Science
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Participation (95%)
Tested
206,776
1,536
6,628
9,048
67,678
114,524
414
6,937
92,241
39,849
92,140
22,232
101,109
105,653
589
Total
207,510
1,539
6,670
9,113
67,888
114,915
417
6,956
92,583
40,005
92,491
22,510
101,391
106,105
589
Performance (74.0%)
% Tested
99.65
99.81
99.37
99.29
99.69
99.66
99.28
99.73
99.63
99.61
99.62
98.76
99.72
99.57
100.00
Participation (95%)
Tested
63,897
469
2,152
2,910
20,986
35,131
122
2,123
28,762
12,515
28,594
7,119
31,141
32,749
205
Total
64,146
471
2,164
2,939
21,058
35,254
124
2,132
28,888
12,577
28,727
7,213
31,249
32,890
205
PR+AD
Tested
143,832
814
5,411
4,495
36,622
91,079
281
5,123
52,746
20,278
50,195
6,680
70,648
73,175
249
206,779
1,536
6,628
9,048
67,678
114,526
414
6,938
92,242
39,849
92,141
22,233
101,109
105,656
589
% PR+AD
69.56
52.99
81.64
49.68
54.11
79.53
67.87
73.84
57.18
50.89
54.48
30.05
69.87
69.26
42.28
Performance (53.4%)
% Tested
99.61
99.58
99.45
99.01
99.66
99.65
98.39
99.58
99.56
99.51
99.54
98.70
99.65
99.57
100.00
PR+AD
31,041
143
1,286
750
5,646
22,016
55
1,144
9,024
2,825
8,112
1,226
14,963
16,077
30
Tested
63,897
469
2,152
2,910
20,986
35,131
122
2,123
28,762
12,515
28,594
7,119
31,141
32,749
205
% PR+AD
48.58
30.49
59.76
25.77
26.90
62.67
45.08
53.89
31.37
22.57
28.37
17.22
48.05
49.09
14.63
Advanced (1.33%)
AD
Tested
% AD
60,763
216
3,032
1,116
9,957
44,022
111
2,304
16,736
5,405
13,611
1,239
28,613
32,147
48
204,639
1,511
6,574
8,918
66,880
113,481
411
6,856
91,150
39,468
90,911
20,095
100,324
104,304
589
29.69
14.30
46.12
12.51
14.89
38.79
27.01
33.61
18.36
13.69
14.97
6.17
28.52
30.82
8.15
Advanced (1.33%)
AD
Tested
% AD
8,285
24
425
96
836
6,568
13
323
1,717
442
1,191
142
3,761
4,524
5
63,240
460
2,136
2,873
20,737
34,809
122
2,099
28,427
12,384
28,229
6,462
30,894
32,340
205
13.10
5.22
19.90
3.34
4.03
18.87
10.66
15.39
6.04
3.57
4.22
2.20
12.17
13.99
2.44
Page 30
State-Level Middle Performance toward Reading and Writing AMO Targets
Middle Reading
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
Middle Writing
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Participation (95%)
Tested
174,518
1,438
5,469
8,673
56,761
95,975
395
5,782
78,518
32,062
75,390
17,864
85,349
89,150
463
Total
176,218
1,456
5,516
8,912
57,346
96,714
402
5,846
79,478
32,444
76,373
18,298
86,084
90,115
469
Performance (73.8%)
% Tested
99.04
98.76
99.15
97.32
98.98
99.24
98.26
98.91
98.79
98.82
98.71
97.63
99.15
98.93
98.72
Participation (95%)
Tested
174,928
1,445
5,492
8,827
56,931
96,005
397
5,806
78,898
32,254
75,757
17,949
85,525
89,384
462
Total
176,227
1,456
5,516
8,913
57,351
96,716
402
5,847
79,485
32,446
76,381
18,299
86,085
90,123
469
PR+AD
Tested
119,805
783
4,176
4,399
29,093
76,717
263
4,361
43,075
14,177
38,920
3,802
62,912
56,883
146
174,517
1,438
5,469
8,673
56,760
95,977
393
5,782
78,515
32,047
75,384
17,866
85,340
89,158
463
% PR+AD
68.65
54.45
76.36
50.72
51.26
79.93
66.92
75.42
54.86
44.24
51.63
21.28
73.72
63.80
31.53
Performance (60.4%)
% Tested
99.26
99.24
99.56
99.04
99.27
99.26
98.76
99.30
99.26
99.41
99.18
98.09
99.35
99.18
98.51
PR+AD
Tested
101,515
586
3,971
3,655
23,363
65,955
222
3,752
35,549
11,947
30,388
2,568
56,428
45,078
120
174,928
1,445
5,492
8,828
56,930
96,007
395
5,806
78,896
32,240
75,752
17,951
85,517
89,392
462
% PR+AD
58.03
40.55
72.31
41.40
41.04
68.70
56.20
64.62
45.06
37.06
40.12
14.31
65.98
50.43
25.97
Advanced (1.33%)
AD
Tested
% AD
15,645
60
897
225
1,581
12,178
28
675
3,466
663
1,928
105
10,112
5,532
4
172,888
1,415
5,440
8,542
56,199
95,149
390
5,735
77,721
31,782
74,464
16,242
84,724
88,152
463
9.05
4.24
16.49
2.63
2.81
12.80
7.18
11.77
4.46
2.09
2.59
0.65
11.94
6.28
0.86
Advanced (1.33%)
AD
Tested
% AD
19,079
64
1,113
366
2,158
14,535
31
810
4,542
969
2,526
110
12,699
6,379
6
173,306
1,422
5,463
8,697
56,371
95,183
392
5,760
78,105
31,975
74,835
16,334
84,909
88,385
462
11.01
4.50
20.37
4.21
3.83
15.27
7.91
14.06
5.82
3.03
3.38
0.67
14.96
7.22
1.30
Page 31
State-Level Middle Performance toward Math and Science AMO Targets
Middle Math
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
Middle Science
2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Participation (95%)
Tested
175,160
1,440
5,503
8,850
56,965
96,173
396
5,810
78,964
32,270
75,836
17,969
85,631
89,516
465
Total
176,229
1,456
5,517
8,921
57,343
96,724
400
5,844
79,481
32,439
76,396
18,295
86,102
90,112
468
Performance (54.7%)
% Tested
99.39
98.90
99.75
99.20
99.34
99.43
99.00
99.42
99.35
99.48
99.27
98.22
99.45
99.34
99.36
Participation (95%)
Tested
61,102
519
1,847
3,059
19,328
34,208
162
1,974
26,889
10,539
25,345
5,974
29,859
31,238
149
Total
61,599
523
1,853
3,090
19,493
34,486
164
1,985
27,108
10,595
25,580
6,120
30,083
31,511
149
PR+AD
97,271
586
4,065
3,031
21,619
64,211
213
3,538
33,052
11,763
28,652
2,857
48,107
49,160
121
Tested
175,175
1,440
5,503
8,853
56,969
96,181
396
5,810
78,971
32,270
75,841
17,971
85,632
89,530
465
% PR+AD
55.53
40.69
73.87
34.24
37.95
66.76
53.79
60.90
41.85
36.45
37.78
15.90
56.18
54.91
26.02
Performance (51.5%)
% Tested
99.19
99.24
99.68
99.00
99.15
99.19
98.78
99.45
99.19
99.47
99.08
97.61
99.26
99.13
100.00
PR+AD
31,818
188
1,222
927
6,021
22,215
73
1,170
9,601
2,800
8,170
895
15,445
16,372
24
Tested
61,114
519
1,847
3,062
19,331
34,214
162
1,974
26,895
10,539
25,350
5,975
29,859
31,250
149
% PR+AD
52.06
36.22
66.16
30.27
31.15
64.93
45.06
59.27
35.70
26.57
32.23
14.98
51.73
52.39
16.11
Advanced (1.33%)
AD
Tested
% AD
44,050
188
2,485
818
6,589
32,170
81
1,717
11,878
3,616
8,299
557
20,863
23,187
24
173,558
1,418
5,472
8,726
56,415
95,352
393
5,765
78,189
32,005
74,936
16,358
85,023
88,528
465
25.38
13.26
45.41
9.37
11.68
33.74
20.61
29.78
15.19
11.30
11.07
3.41
24.54
26.19
5.16
Advanced (1.33%)
AD
Tested
% AD
5,232
19
281
61
506
4,154
4
206
1,077
225
609
65
2,339
2,893
1
60,616
510
1,837
3,025
19,162
33,952
162
1,963
26,659
10,466
25,084
5,477
29,667
30,944
149
8.63
3.73
15.30
2.02
2.64
12.23
2.47
10.49
4.04
2.15
2.43
1.19
7.88
9.35
0.67
Page 32
State-Level High Performance toward Reading, Writing, Math and Science AMO Targets
High 2012-13
Read Participation (95%)
Read Proficiency (74.8%)
Tested
Total
PR+AD
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
118,158
936
3,813
5,799
35,917
67,801
291
3,556
50,312
19,490
44,537
10,608
58,001
60,105
283
120,448
962
3,851
5,947
36,594
69,125
298
3,626
51,278
19,776
45,568
11,026
59,097
61,298
288
High 2012-13
All Students
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Pacific Islander
2+ ethnic/racial
Minority
English Learners
FRM Eligible
Students with Disabilities
Females
Males
Migrant
%
Tested
98.10
97.30
99.01
97.51
98.15
98.08
97.65
98.07
98.12
98.55
97.74
96.21
98.15
98.05
98.26
82,421
521
2,937
3,071
19,075
53,846
200
2,740
28,544
8,927
23,634
2,258
43,806
38,576
97
Tested
118,208
936
3,807
5,802
35,939
67,830
291
3,558
50,333
19,475
44,558
10,621
58,005
60,151
283
% PR+
AD
69.73
55.66
77.15
52.93
53.08
79.38
68.73
77.01
56.71
45.84
53.04
21.26
75.52
64.13
34.28
Write Participation (95%)
Tested
Total
% Tested
118,288
934
3,813
5,813
35,947
67,886
289
3,561
50,357
19,498
44,578
10,638
58,063
60,172
284
120,463
962
3,851
5,949
36,597
69,135
298
3,626
51,283
19,778
45,578
11,031
59,100
61,310
289
98.19
97.09
99.01
97.71
98.22
98.19
96.98
98.21
98.19
98.58
97.81
96.44
98.25
98.14
98.27
Math Participation (95%)
Math Proficiency (37.2%)
Science Participation (95%)
Tested
Total
PR+AD
Tested
118,415
936
3,820
5,827
35,982
67,995
292
3,555
50,412
19,523
44,663
10,649
58,127
60,274
284
120,453
962
3,852
5,947
36,588
69,174
298
3,624
51,271
19,772
45,590
11,021
59,127
61,312
288
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
%
Tested
98.31
97.30
99.17
97.98
98.34
98.30
97.99
98.10
98.32
98.74
97.97
96.62
98.31
98.31
98.61
43,870
214
2,217
1,009
6,785
32,060
90
1,495
11,810
3,582
8,484
810
20,677
23,192
21
Tested
118,486
936
3,821
5,837
36,010
68,025
293
3,556
50,453
19,525
44,703
10,662
58,139
60,333
284
% PR+
AD
37.03
22.86
58.02
17.29
18.84
47.13
30.72
42.04
23.41
18.35
18.98
7.60
35.56
38.44
7.39
57,850
461
1,888
2,748
17,175
33,712
144
1,720
24,136
9,300
20,882
4,979
28,394
29,449
123
Total
59,114
475
1,918
2,812
17,498
34,496
150
1,763
24,616
9,437
21,384
5,187
29,028
30,079
124
% Tested
97.86
97.05
98.44
97.72
98.15
97.73
96.00
97.56
98.05
98.55
97.65
95.99
97.82
97.91
99.19
Write Proficiency (53.4%)
PR+AD
62,503
320
2,471
2,013
12,061
43,354
143
2,114
19,122
5,322
14,927
1,169
35,234
27,237
54
Tested
118,342
934
3,807
5,817
35,970
67,916
290
3,563
50,381
19,483
44,602
10,653
58,070
60,219
284
% PR
+AD
52.82
34.26
64.91
34.61
33.53
63.83
49.31
59.33
37.95
27.32
33.47
10.97
60.68
45.23
19.01
Science Proficiency (54.3%)
PR+AD
30,268
164
1,258
891
5,249
21,632
64
1,009
8,635
2,419
6,665
657
14,722
15,545
18
Tested
57,887
461
1,888
2,756
17,188
33,727
144
1,721
24,158
9,301
20,904
4,987
28,402
29,478
123
% PR+
AD
52.29
35.57
66.63
32.33
30.54
64.14
44.44
58.63
35.74
26.01
31.88
13.17
51.83
52.73
13.64
Page 33
District Accountability Measures
District Performance Frameworks (DPFs) detail each district’s performance on measures of academic achievement, academic
growth and graduation rate, overall and disaggregated by ethnic/racial groups, English learners, students with disabilities and
students eligible for free or reduced price meals.
The following table shows the Title I accountability status of all Colorado districts, percent of points earned and number of
years on improvement, if applicable. The percentages of points required for each accreditation category are:
Accredited with Distinction: 80% or higher
Accredited: 64% - 79.99%
Accredited with Improvement: 52% - 63.99%
Accredited with Priority Improvement: 42% - 51.99%
Accredited with Turnaround: below 42%
A district that accepts Title I funds and is accredited with Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plans is identified for Title I
improvement and may set aside up to 10 percent of its Title IA funds in support of professional development tied directly to
the areas where the district has not met expectations. In addition, CDE federal programs staff engage with Priority
Improvement and Turnaround districts to improve the effectiveness of programs supported with federal Title IA funds.
Identified districts must complete the ESEA addendum in the UIP to outline how they propose to spend these funds in
support of increased student achievement. The addendum is reviewed by CDE during the January UIP submission window.
The following table presents district accreditation categories and the percentage framework points earned, as well as the
number of years the district has been on a Priority Improvement of Turnaround Plan.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 34
District
0010
0020
0030
0040
0050
0060
0070
0100
0110
0120
0123
0130
0140
0170
0180
0190
0220
0230
0240
0250
0260
0270
0290
0310
0470
0480
0490
0500
0510
0520
0540
MAPLETON
ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR
ADAMS 14
DISTRICT 27J
BENNETT
STRASBURG
WESTMINSTER
ALAMOSA
SANGRE DE CRISTO
ENGLEWOOD
SHERIDAN
CHERRY CREEK
LITTLETON
DEER TRAIL
AURORA
BYERS
ARCHULETA
WALSH
PRITCHETT
SPRINGFIELD
VILAS
CAMPO
LAS ANIMAS
MC CLAVE
ST VRAIN
BOULDER
BUENA VISTA
SALIDA
KIT CARSON
CHEYENNE
CLEAR CREEK
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
% Points
Earned
2012-13
2012-13 Accreditation
Category
47.4
55.0
44.0
57.7
66.5
74.2
44.6
60.0
77.5
45.1
45.8
74.4
80.6
67.4
47.1
71.2
63.5
68.2
61.2
72.8
39.7
59.4
62.1
66.0
69.1
79.2
67.7
79.4
66.8
65.0
73.6
Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Accredited
Distinction
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Turnaround
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Distinction
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Year
PI/TA
4
4
4
3
5
District
0550
0560
0580
0640
0740
0770
0860
0870
0880
0890
0900
0910
0920
0930
0940
0950
0960
0970
0980
0990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1110
1120
NORTH CONEJOS
SANFORD
SOUTH CONEJOS
CENTENNIAL
SIERRA GRANDE
CROWLEY
CUSTER
DELTA
DENVER
DOLORES 2
DOUGLAS
EAGLE
ELIZABETH
KIOWA
BIG SANDY
ELBERT
AGATE
CALHAN
HARRISON
WIDEFIELD
FOUNTAIN
COLORADO SPRINGS
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN
MANITOU SPRINGS
ACADEMY
ELLICOTT
PEYTON
HANOVER
LEWIS-PALMER
FALCON
EDISON
% Points
Earned
2012-13
2012-13 Accreditation
Category
65.1
70.1
59.4
60.4
58.7
63.6
71.4
67.0
52.9
54.1
72.4
66.7
70.4
83.5
72.1
67.0
87.4
68.7
65.3
59.4
74.1
58.0
87.2
72.6
84.7
62.3
69.4
59.2
86.0
70.9
79.4
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Distinction
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Distinction
Accredited
Distinction
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Distinction
Accredited
Accredited
Year
PI/TA
Page 35
District
1130
1140
1150
1160
1180
1195
1220
1330
1340
1350
1360
1380
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1480
1490
1500
1510
1520
1530
1540
1550
1560
1570
1580
MIAMI/YODER
CANON CITY
FREMONT
COTOPAXI
ROARING FORK
GARFIELD 2
GARFIELD 16
GILPIN
WEST GRAND
EAST GRAND
GUNNISON
HINSDALE
HUERFANO
LA VETA
NORTH PARK
JEFFERSON
EADS
PLAINVIEW
ARRIBA-FLAGLER
HI-PLAINS
STRATTON
BETHUNE
BURLINGTON
LAKE
DURANGO
BAYFIELD
IGNACIO
POUDRE
THOMPSON
ESTES PARK
TRINIDAD
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
% Points
Earned
2012-13
2012-13 Accreditation
Category
61.7
56.3
56.5
78.3
66.7
57.0
58.5
66.6
57.8
77.2
70.5
92.4
54.0
70.6
82.7
68.9
70.0
70.0
76.2
67.0
64.4
60.7
63.9
46.6
65.0
74.9
46.3
71.7
67.3
63.5
48.3
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Distinction
Improvement
Accredited
Distinction
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Year
PI/TA
2
4
1
District
1590
1600
1620
1750
1760
1780
1790
1810
1828
1850
1860
1870
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2035
2055
2070
2180
2190
2395
2405
2505
2515
2520
2530
2535
2540
2560
PRIMERO
HOEHNE
AGUILAR
BRANSON
KIM
GENOA-HUGO
LIMON
KARVAL
VALLEY
FRENCHMAN
BUFFALO
PLATEAU
DE BEQUE
PLATEAU VALLEY
MESA COUNTY VALLEY
CREEDE
MOFFAT 1
MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ
DOLORES 4
MANCOS
MONTROSE
WEST END
BRUSH
FORT MORGAN
WELDON VALLEY
WIGGINS
EAST OTERO
ROCKY FORD
MANZANOLA
FOWLER
CHERAW
% Points
Earned
2012-13
2012-13 Accreditation
Category
67.2
67.1
46.4
55.8
78.7
59.9
75.1
39.2
59.3
79.9
73.3
84.3
58.4
54.6
62.9
70.1
59.3
43.7
74.9
70.4
63.7
54.1
59.5
57.8
85.1
70.8
50.1
44.1
53.6
69.7
61.1
Accredited
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Turnaround
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Distinction
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Distinction
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Year
PI/TA
4
5
4
1
4
Page 36
District
% Points
Earned
2012-13
2012-13
Accreditation
Category
Year
PI/TA
District
2570
2580
2590
2600
2610
2620
2630
2640
2650
2660
2670
2680
2690
2700
2710
2720
2730
2740
2750
2760
2770
2780
2790
2800
2810
SWINK
OURAY
RIDGWAY
PLATTE CANYON
PARK
HOLYOKE
HAXTUN
ASPEN
GRANADA
LAMAR
HOLLY
WILEY
PUEBLO CITY
PUEBLO COUNTY
MEEKER
RANGELY
DEL NORTE
MONTE VISTA
SARGENT
HAYDEN
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
SOUTH ROUTT
MOUNTAIN VALLEY
MOFFAT 2
CENTER
79.7
86.5
86.4
81.3
78.0
67.2
75.7
87.5
71.7
57.8
72.4
78.7
48.9
59.5
73.5
66.8
67.5
50.6
70.6
72.2
85.7
69.5
54.3
73.1
61.9
Accredited
Distinction
Distinction
Distinction
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Distinction
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Distinction
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
2820
SILVERTON
74.3
Accredited
8001
2830
2840
2862
TELLURIDE
NORWOOD
JULESBURG
83.0
67.6
49.3
Distinction
Accredited
Priority Improvement
9030
9050
9130
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
4
4
2865
3000
3010
3020
3030
3040
3050
3060
3070
3080
3085
3090
3100
3110
3120
3130
3140
3145
3146
3147
3148
3200
3210
3220
3230
PLATTE VALLEY 3
SUMMIT
CRIPPLE CREEK-VICTOR
WOODLAND PARK
AKRON
ARICKAREE
OTIS
LONE STAR
WOODLIN
WELD 1
EATON
KEENESBURG
WINDSOR
JOHNSTOWN-MILLIKEN
GREELEY
PLATTE VALLEY 7
WELD 8
AULT-HIGHLAND
BRIGGSDALE
PRAIRIE
PAWNEE
YUMA
WRAY
IDALIA
LIBERTY
CHARTER SCHOOL
INSTITUTE
MOUNTAIN BOCES
SAN JUAN BOCES
EXPEDITIONARY BOCES
% Points
Earned
2012-13
2012-13
Accreditation
Category
65.5
73.7
61.9
71.2
72.2
72.1
66.9
75.0
64.4
53.5
70.6
58.4
72.7
63.4
52.2
68.5
48.6
72.3
73.8
78.4
76.8
66.1
59.6
69.6
60.0
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
Improvement
Accredited
Priority Improvement
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Improvement
Accredited
Improvement
53.2
Improvement
40.3
52.2
77.1
AEC: Performance
Improvement
Accredited
Year
PI/TA
3
Page 37
School Accountability
Schools served with Title I funds and assigned School Performance Framework (SPF) plans of Priority Improvement or
Turnaround must offer Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Education Services (SES).
The PSC provision stipulates that all students in Title I schools assigned Priority Improvement or Turnaround plans have the
option to transfer to another public school within the district, including public charters, that has a Performance or
Improvement plan. This provision applies until the end of the school year in which the school no longer is identified as
Priority Improvement or Turnaround. Districts must provide transportation using Title I PSC set-aside funds. If PSC
transportation funds are limited due to the number of requests for transfer, the district may give first priority to the lowest
achieving students from low-income families, based on achievement levels evaluated by objective educational measures. In
2012-13, under these provisions, 1,572 students (of 55,744 eligible) were granted transfer and provided transportation to
another higher performing school in the district, at a total cost of $995,277.
Colorado’s ESEA flexibility waiver requires that Title I Priority Improvement or Turnaround schools offer Supplemental
Education Services (SES)—academic or linguistic tutoring, remediation and other interventions—outside the regular school
day to raise academic achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics, or English proficiency of non-English (NEP)
and limited English proficient (LEP) students. Students who are eligible for these English language arts or math services
scored unsatisfactory or partially proficient on TCAP reading or math, or below grade level on an early literacy assessment
that meets Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act requirements or another body of evidence for K-2 students
the prior year. Those eligible for English language development services scored NEP or LEP on the state language proficiency
assessment. Title IA SES set-aside funds must be used to provide high quality, research-based services specifically designed to
increase academic achievement or English proficiency on the state assessments. In 2012-13, 5,267 students received SES,
out of 31,677 students eligible, at a cost of $5,263,348. The SES provision applies until the end of the school year in which the
school no longer is identified as Priority Improvement or Turnaround.
Additionally, CDE identifies certain low performing Title I schools as focus or priority. Priority schools, the lowest performing
five percent of Title I/Title I eligible schools, are awarded competitive Tiered Intervention Grants (TIGs), (funded from Title I,
1003g of ESEA), to implement one of four reform models defined by the U.S. Department of Education: Turnaround,
Transformation, Restart and Closure.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 38
Focus schools are identified by:
1. Low graduation rate (regardless of plan type); and/or
2. Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type with low disaggregated group (minority, ELL, IEP or FRL) achievement
and/or graduation rate.
Schools must receive an Improvement or Performance plan assignment for two consecutive years to be removed from focus
or priority status.
Colorado also recognizes two types of Title I reward schools: high performance and high progress. Schools designated high
performance:
• Receive any of the following award designations: Governor’s Distinguished Improvement, John Irwin School of
Excellence, Centers for Excellence, Blue Ribbon School, or National Title I Distinguished School;
• Earn exceeds ratings on Academic Achievement (exceeds is greater than the current year AMO, until 2015-16 when it
equals the AMO);
• Have all disaggregated groups with 16+ students earns meets or exceeds ratings for the current year AMO; and
• Earn a high school Graduation Rate exceeds rating (90% or higher).
Schools designated high progress must have:
• Improved their Academic Achievement rating, between three years prior and the current year, from does not meet to
meets/exceeds, or approaching to meets/exceeds;
• Met the minimum n-count (20) for at least one disaggregated group;
• All disaggregated groups meeting or exceeding the current year AMO; and
• Improved their Graduation Rate indicator (high schools only), between three years prior and the current year, from does
not meet to meets/exceeds, or approaching to exceeds.
The following table lists 2013-14 Title I schools that were designated priority, focus or reward as a result of 2012-13
assessment performance, with their SPF Plan type assignments. For a complete list of all Title I schools and their SPF Plan
assignments, go to: http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/index and click on “Title I schools 2012-13 SPF plans with
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 39
2013-14 Accountability Status.” The Federal Programs website includes information about school priority, focus and reward
designations. You can find historic school-level AYP and improvement results on the Data, Program Evaluation and Reporting
website and on SchoolView at http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 40
District
0010
0020
MAPLETON
ADAMS 12 FIVE
STAR SCHOOLS
0030
ADAMS COUNTY
14
0040
BRIGHTON 27J
0070
WESTMINSTER
0123
SHERIDAN
0180
ADAMSARAPAHOE
0230
0290
WALSH
LAS ANIMAS
0640
CENTENNIAL
0870
DELTA COUNTY
School
0263
0502
0504
0505
0509
1878
2918
4000
5814
8361
8842
0020
1426
6534
7500
6294
6395
2876
3144
4465
5388
7860
9462
3054
0914
1948
4646
6728
7932
9222
4986
1396
7588
6298
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ACADEMY
MEADOW COMMUNITY
WELBY MONTESSORI
ACHIEVE ACADEMY
CLAYTON PARTNERSHIP
CORONADO HILLS ELEMENTARY
FEDERAL HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
HILLCREST ELEMENTARY
THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AT
THORNTON MIDDLE
STUKEY ELEMENTARY
THORNTON ELEMENTARY
ADAMS CITY MIDDLE
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY
HANSON ELEMENTARY
ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY
NORTH ELEMENTARY
NORTHEAST ELEMENTARY
FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY
FRANCIS M. DAY ELEMENTARY
JOSEPHINE HODGKINS ELEMENTARY
M. SCOTT CARPENTER MIDDLE
SHERRELWOOD ELEMENTARY
WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY
SHERIDAN ELEMENTARY
BOSTON K-8
CRAWFORD ELEMENTARY
KENTON ELEMENTARY
PARIS ELEMENTARY
SIXTH AVENUE ELEMENTARY
WALSH ELEMENTARY
LAS ANIMAS JUNIOR HIGH
CENTENNIAL JUNIOR HIGH
CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY
NORTH FORK MONTESSORI
EMH
EM
E
EM
EM
E
E
E
%
Points
Earned
48
54
33
54
58
53
45
37
Improvement
Improvement
Turnaround
Improvement
Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
M
39
Priority Improvement
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
EM
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
E
E
50
45
65
39
46
32
48
55
46
62
50
42
58
44
50
47
43
51
40
56
63
64
43
63
92
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Performance
Priority Improvement
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Performance
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Performance
Performance
Priority Improvement
Performance
Performance
Grade
Span
SPF Rating
4
3
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
School
Status 201314
Focus
Priority
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
3
SW
Focus
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
TA
SW
SW
SW
TA
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Priority
Focus
Focus
Focus
Priority
Priority
Focus
Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Reward
Focus
Focus
Focus
Reward
Year
PI/TA
4
4
2
1
4
1
4
1
3
3
2
2
Title I
2012-13
Page 41
District
0880
DENVER
School
0220
0418
1400
1528
1748
1788
1846
2789
2880
3000
3426
3655
4450
4656
5255
5844
5995
6188
6314
7163
0890
0900
DOLORES COUNTY 2
DOUGLAS COUNTY
1010
COLORADO
SPRINGS 11
1020
1380
1420
1430
1490
CHEYENNE
MOUNTAIN
HINSDALE COUNTY
JEFFERSON COUNTY
EADS
BETHUNE
8145
8909
9390
9496
7764
3995
8359
8457
1582
4899
4422
2328
0832
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
AMESSE ELEMENTARY
ASHLEY ELEMENTARY
CENTENNIAL ECE-8
CHELTENHAM ELEMENTARY
COLORADO HIGH
COLLEGE VIEW ELEMENTARY
COLUMBINE ELEMENTARY
ESCUELA TLATELOLCO
FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY
FLORENCE CRITTENTON HIGH
GILPIN MONTESSORI PUBLIC
GREENLEE ELEMENTARY
JOHNSON ELEMENTARY
KEPNER MIDDLE
LAKE INTERNATIONAL
CONTEMPORARY LEARNING ACADEMY
MONTBELLO HIGH
MUNROE ELEMENTARY
NORTH HIGH
P.R.E.P. (POSITIVE REFOCUS
EDUCATION PROGRAM)
SUMMIT ACADEMY
TREVISTA ECE-8 AT HORACE MANN
STRIVE PREP - LAKE
CASTRO ELEMENTARY
SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY
HOPE ON-LINE
SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND ARTS (STAR)
ACADEMY
JACK SWIGERT AEROSPACE ACADEMY
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN CHARTER
ACADEMY
LAKE CITY COMMUNITY
JEFFERSON HIGH
EADS ELEMENTARY
BETHUNE ELEMENTARY
Grade
Span
E
E
EM
E
H
E
E
EMH
E
H
E
E
E
M
M
H
H
E
H
% Points
Earned
44
45
39
45
25
61
33
61
46
35
45
40
63
46
47
27
41
47
57
Turnaround
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
Turnaround
AEC: Turnaround
Improvement
Turnaround
Turnaround
Turnaround
AEC: Turnaround
Turnaround
Turnaround
Improvement
Turnaround
Turnaround
AEC: Turnaround
Turnaround
Priority Improvement
Improvement
MH
29
AEC: Turnaround
H
EM
M
E
E
EMH
28
45
72
50
54
38
AEC: Turnaround
Turnaround
Performance
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
EM
60
Performance
M
36
Turnaround
E
79
Performance
EMH
H
E
E
92
45
67
43
Performance
Priority Improvement
Performance
Priority Improvement
SPF Rating
Year
PI/TA
1
3
2
1
4
Title I
2012-13
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
School Status
2013-14
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Priority
Priority
Focus
Focus
Priority
Focus
Priority
Focus
Priority
4
SW
Focus
3
4
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Focus
Priority
Priority
Focus
Focus
Focus
TA
Focus
SW
Focus
SW
Reward
TA
SW
TA
TA
Reward
Focus
Reward
Focus
2
4
1
4
2
3
2
1
3
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
Page 42
District
1500
1510
1520
1540
1560
1620
2000
BURLINGTON
LAKE COUNTY
DURANGO
IGNACIO
THOMPSON
AGUILAR
MESA COUNTY VALLEY
2035
MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ
2180
2395
2530
2560
2570
2580
2660
MONTROSE COUNTY
BRUSH
ROCKY FORD
CHERAW
SWINK
OURAY
LAMAR
2690
PUEBLO CITY
2810
3080
3110
CENTER
WELD COUNTY 1
JOHNSTOWN-MILLIKEN
3120
GREELEY
3140
WELD COUNTY 8
8001
CHARTER SCHOOL
INSTITUTE
9000
COLORADO SCHOOL FOR
THE DEAF AND BLIND
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
School
1150
9486
3012
4252
5992
0066
1686
4546
5436
5836
6807
1438
5114
1538
8452
6596
6794
0822
3206
4302
4376
5048
7481
1412
3398
5896
2414
5412
6774
8930
1376
1882
3475
8929
9999
BURLINGTON MIDDLE
WESTPARK ELEMENTARY
FLORIDA MESA ELEMENTARY
IGNACIO INTERMEDIATE
MONROE ELEMENTARY
AGUILAR JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH
CLIFTON ELEMENTARY
KEMPER ELEMENTARY
MANAUGH ELEMENTARY
MESA ELEMENTARY
PASSAGE CHARTER
BEAVER VALLEY ELEMENTARY
JEFFERSON INTERMEDIATE
CHERAW ELEMENTARY
SWINK ELEMENTARY
OURAY ELEMENTARY
PARKVIEW ELEMENTARY
BESSEMER ELEMENTARY
FREED MIDDLE
IRVING ELEMENTARY
JAMES H RISLEY MIDDLE
LEMUEL PITTS MIDDLE
RONCALLI MIDDLE
HASKIN ELEMENTARY
GILCREST ELEMENTARY
MILLIKEN ELEMENTARY
EAST MEMORIAL ELEMENTARY
MADISON ELEMENTARY
MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY
TWOMBLY ELEMENTARY
SCHOLARS TO LEADERS ACADEMY
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP ACADEMY
GOAL ACADEMY
PIKES PEAK PREP
COLORADO SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF
AND BLIND
EM
E
E
E
E
MH
E
E
E
E
H
E
E
E
E
E
E
EM
M
E
M
M
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
EM
EM
H
EMH
%
Points
Earned
60
31
62
40
68
42
56
46
26
36
26
53
37
33
73
86
58
35
27
40
42
51
25
64
73
65
32
43
44
54
31
81
31
56
Performance
Turnaround
Performance
Priority Improvement
Performance
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
Turnaround
AEC: Performance
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
Performance
Performance
Improvement
Turnaround
Turnaround
Priority Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Turnaround
Performance
Performance
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
Priority Improvement
Priority Improvement
Improvement
Turnaround
Performance
AEC: Improvement
Priority Improvement
EMH
33
AEC: Performance
Grade
Span
SPF Rating
Year
PI/TA
3
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
3
2
1
TA
TA
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
TA
SW
TA
TA
TA
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
TA
TA
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
School
Status
2013-14
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Priority
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Reward
Reward
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Priority
Priority
Focus
Priority
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Focus
Reward
Focus
Focus
SW
Focus
Title I
2012-13
Page 43
Title II Accountability: Highly Qualified (HQ) Teachers
ESEA requires that all core academic subject teachers be highly qualified (HQ). Core academic subject areas are defined as
English reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, social studies (civics, government, history,
geography, economics), and the arts (visual, drama, music). Generally, to be considered HQ, teachers must have earned at
least a bachelor’s degree, hold a valid Colorado teaching license, and demonstrate subject matter knowledge.
Since 2010-11, more than 99 percent of Colorado classrooms have been taught by HQ teachers. The table below shows the
number of core academic classes and the number and percentage of them taught by HQ teachers in 2012-13. Districts’ and
schools’ individual HQ data can be found here, as well as on SchoolView at:
https://edx.cde.state.co.us/SchoolView/DataCenter/reports.jspx. For more information about Colorado’s definition of an HQ
teacher, go to: http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tii/a_hqt.
Core Academic
Classes
Total Core
Academic
# Taught by
HQ Teachers
% Taught by
HQ Teachers
All
Elementary
Secondary
256,223
159,643
96,580
254,919
158,935
95,984
99.49
99.56
99.38
# Taught by
non-HQ
Teachers
1,304
708
596
% Taught by
non-HQ
Teachers
0.51
0.44
0.62
With approval of Colorado’s ESEA waiver, the state has aligned the identification processes for Title IIA (ESEA § 2141c) and
state accountability. Colorado no longer uses Highly Qualified and AYP data to identify districts in need of
improvement. Instead, districts that receive Title IIA funds and have a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan are
identified for Title IIA accountability.
Identified districts are required to outline how their Title IIA allocation will be leveraged the following school year to address
priority performance challenges and root causes identified in the UIP. Districts must describe how Title IIA funds will target
priority performance challenges in identified schools in the Consolidated Application.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 44
Title III Accountability: Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
States that receive Title III funds to serve English learners (ELs) must establish annual measurable achievement objectives
(AMAOs) for developing and attaining English proficiency and meeting challenging academic achievement standards [Section
1111(b)(1)]. ELs in districts and consortia that receive Title III sub-grants are accountable for the following three AMAOs each
year:
AMAO 1 - Acquiring English, as measured by WIDA ACCESS growth between 2012 and 2013.
English Learners’ WIDA ACCESS Median Growth Percentile, taking into account whether or not adequate growth was met,
must be sufficient to earn a meets or exceeds rating. AMAO 1 captures the district’s progress in moving English learners
toward English proficiency. The AMAO 1 calculation changed beginning in 2011-12, based on Colorado’s flexibility wavier
application to the U.S. Department of Education. Before the waiver, making AMAO 1 required that a target percentage of ELs
improve at least one CELApro performance level from the prior year’s testing. The method beginning in 2011-12 and moving
forward determines progress toward English proficiency as measured by the district’s performance on the Academic GrowthEnglish Language Proficiency sub-indicator on the DPF report. The district/consortium is expected to receive a rating of meets
or exceeds based on growth points summed across grade spans (elementary, middle, and high school level, EMH), with
minimum of 20 students.
AMAO 2: Attaining English proficiency as measured by WIDA Access. Percent of students in district or consortium scoring
5.0+ Overall and 5.0+ on Literacy on WIDA Access (Target=11%).
Although the AMAO 2 calculation did not change with the flexibility waiver, Colorado moved from CELApro (up through 201112) to WIDA ACCESS in 2012-13. As such, the targets for proficiency were recalibrated. As in the past, AMAO 2 is not
calculated at the grade span (EMH) level, like AMAOs 1 and 3. The minimum number of students required to calculate AMAO
2 is 20, regardless of grade span (EMH). The State of Colorado met its AMAO 2 target (11%); 16.6 percent of ELs in the state
were proficient in 2012-13.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 45
AMAO 3: Making adequate academic progress in reading, writing and math, as measured by TCAP and achieving targets
for test participation and graduation rate.
ELs must meet TCAP Reading, Writing, Math and Science participation rate targets, and make sufficient points for Reading,
Writing and Math academic growth and graduation rate to earn a meets or exceeds rating. The minimum number of
students required at the grantee EMH level is 20 for academic content and 16 for graduation rate.
Some districts turn over their Title III funds to a consortium; therefore, the Title III accountability is calculated at the
consortium level. Districts must have been members for two consecutive years to be included in the consortium’s AMAOs
calculations. With approval by the U.S. Department of Education, AMAOs 1 and 3 now are aligned with the Colorado District
Performance Frameworks. For more information about 2013 AMAO calculations and district level results, go to
http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tiii/amaos.
Title III Improvement
A district/consortium that accepts Title III funds is identified for Title III Improvement if it does not make AMAOs for two
consecutive years. A Title III grantee that is identified for Title III Improvement must develop a UIP that addresses the
specific factors that prevented it from achieving AMAOs, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of its current plan.
Identified districts must complete the Title III addendum as part of their UIP submissions. If a grantee fails to meet AMAO
targets for four consecutive years, Title III law, Section 3122(b)(4), requires that CDE provide additional review of the
grantee’s language instruction program and technical assistance on any reform that should be implemented regarding the
education of English learners.
The table below contains information about 2012-13 AMAO results; for more specific information about how Title III
grantees performed toward making AMAOs, including which are on improvement as a result of 2013 AMAO determinations
and their status, go to AMAO information, which includes a guide to which districts are included in the various consortia.
Once final, district AMAO data can be found in the Data Center under “Accountability” and “Federal” when you select “ESEAAMAOs.”
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 46
Number of Title III sub-grantees
Met all three Title III AMAOs
Met AMAO 1
Met AMAO 2
Met AMAO 3
Did not meet any Title III AMAOs
Did not meet AMAOs for 2 consecutive years (2011-12 and 2012-13)
Implementing an improvement plan in 2012-13
for not making AMAOs for 2 consecutive years
Did not meet AMAOs for 4 consecutive years
(2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13)
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
61
12
20
49
24
10
46
46
37
Page 47
2013 Title I National Distinguished Schools Awards
In 2012-13, CDE recognized two Title I Distinguished schools: one for exceptional student performance and one for success in
closing the achievement gap, as measured by the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP). Each school received
$10,000 and was honored locally and nationally. Eligibility for Title I National Distinguished School designation required that
schools have 35+ percent eligible for free/reduced cost lunch. 2013 awardees were Swink Elementary (Swink School District)
and Nisley Elementary (Mesa County School District).
Exceptional Student Performance: Swink Elementary School
Swink students consistently score high in Reading, with 84 percent proficient and advanced in 2011, 88 percent in 2012, and
92 percent in 2013. Swink’s math performance was equally impressive. In 2011, 84 percent were proficient and advanced. In
both 2012 and 2013, 82 percent were proficient and advanced. Swink Elementary consistently made federal AYP targets in
the past and received the highest, Performance Plan, rating on its 2012-13 School Performance Framework, earning Meets
for Academic Growth and Academic Growth Gaps and Exceeds for Academic Achievement.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 48
Swink school and
district administrators along with Board of Education members and school staff and students receive the 2013 Title I Distinguished School Award
Closing the Achievement Gap: Nisley Elementary School in Mesa County School District
Nisley Elementary received Performance Plan assignments in 2013 and 2012 (making 81.7 of 100 framework points
possible), and made federal AYP targets in 2011. Nisley exceeded academic growth targets in all content areas and met
academic growth gap targets. In Reading, 66 percent of Nisley students were proficient or advanced on TCAP reading in
2013, up from 62 percent in 2013 and 50 percent in 2011. Economically disadvantaged students scored similar to those
from more affluent homes, with 63 percent proficient and advanced. More than half of English learners performed well in
reading. Results were similar for TCAP math, with 62 percent proficient and advanced in 2013, up from 56 percent in 2012
and 49 percent in 2011. Sixty percent of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient or advanced in math, as
well as 53 percent of English Learners, and 43 percent of students with disabilities, with all groups making 5-year highs.
Nisely staff and students are implementing many strategies to continually monitor and increase achievement: regular
progress monitoring and instruction that is responsive to needed changes, a flexible intervention system around students’
specific deficits, an efficient Response to Intervention system, and reading and math common core curricula that provide
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 49
continuity across grade levels. English learners’ instruction complements the general education classroom
curriculum. Professional Learning Communities are used to discuss student needs and determine proficiency level
alignment.
Nisley students and staff attend the 2013 Title I Distinguished School Award presentation.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 50
State Board of Education member, Marcia Neal and Department of Education Deputy Commissioner, Keith Owen present the 2013 Title I Distinguished
School Award to Nisley Elementary staff.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 51
APPENDIX: Accesing Data through SchoolView and the CDE Website
Go to: http://www.cde.state.co.us/ and click on SchoolView/Data and Accountability:
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 52
Click on Data Center:
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 53
The Data Center link will take you to the following screen, from which you can access various types of data at the state,
district and school levels and across years. Click Accountability to access state and federal accountability data.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 54
From the Federal NCLB link, you can access Title I AMO state-level, as well as individual district- and school-level results by
choosing the relevant entity on the right. Use the pull-down menus in the upper right to choose Title I accountability
element (participation, proficiency, other indicator), grade span and academic year or Title III accountability AMAOs.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 55
Go to the Staff tab for HQ teacher data, which also is available by state, district and school:
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 56
To access the Data, Program Evaluation and Reporting (DPER) website, go to:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/index and use the links to get to reports and Excel spreadsheets that allow
you to review the data across districts and schools.
NCLB Report Card 2012-13
Page 57