Located in Greeley, Colorado, Greeley Central is one of three comprehensive high schools in WCSD-6 and has been educating students at its current location since 1928. While the school?s address and values have remained the same for over 95 years, the demographics have seen a major shift. Currently, Greeley Central educates approximately 1500 students in grades 9?12 from extremely diverse settings. The members of our student body are approximately 71% Hispanic, 25% White, and 9% other minorities.…
Also, over 75% of our students have been identified as eligible for free or reduced meals. Of the students tested on the state assessment in the 2009 ? 2010 school year compared to those tested in the 2024-25 school year, we have seen the following demographic changes: our minority population increased from 58% to 79.5%, our FaRM population increased from 52% to 75%, and our CLD population has remained steady at around 24%. In addition, we have seen a decline in our gifted and talented population from 15% to 7% as well as an increase in our students receiving special education services from 11% to 18%. GCHS prides itself in its commitment to our students and has agreed upon three areas of emphasis for our staff and students: writing/reading focus, engagement in the classroom and equitable grading practices. Each week, the GCHS administrative team (one principal and three assistant principals) assemble to discuss the data around student performance including achievement, assessment, walk-throughs, etc. We also use this time to evaluate student attendance, the overall climate and culture of the school, and student discipline data. From these interactions, we develop plans of actions to address concerns and replicate successes through professional development opportunities and or coaching cycles with staff. Our Counselor Core Grant began four years ago providing a person to build our MTSS processes. All personnel supported by grant dollars meet regularly with the administrative team to ensure that we are all working together to support students by increasing collaboration.  PROCESS FOR DATA ANALYSIS  In developing this year?s Unified Improvement Plan (UIP), we have made a concerted effort to work collaboratively by involving a number of stakeholders in the process, including staff, our building leadership team, and our School Accountability Committee (SAC). The Greeley Central Building Leadership team meets monthly and is comprised of the principal, assistant principals, a counselor, and at least one representative from each department. The SAC meets four times a year and members include parents, teachers, administration, and community members. With the expertise of these three groups, we continue this year?s improvement planning process by explaining the components of the most recent School Performance Framework, reviewing relevant local data, and discussing the current UIP. As administrators, our next step in the process involves pulling (any available) trend data for each of the four performance indicators from CDE, Infinite Campus, WIDA, ACT, PSAT, and SAT. The collected data is represented in category specific tables in order to provide user friendly statistics for staff and community to assist in the process. Under the area of Academic Achievement for each of the tested areas (reading, writing, math, and science), we review past testing data to identify notable trends of students scoring proficient and advanced, to identify notable trends of student proficiency levels for each of the content standards, and to identify notable trends of disaggregated subgroups/students scoring proficient and advanced.  Additional tables consist of data regarding student proficiency levels according to WIDA ACCESS results and notable trend data according to ACT results for 2012?2024, respectively. For Academic Growth in reading, writing, and math, we pulled Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) from 2013-2025 and made the historical comparison between the MGP and the Median Adequate Growth Percentile (MAGP) from 2015-25. We also looked at the percentage of students Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Up. Another area we chose to incorporate was our ACCESS growth where we examined the same data but also took a closer look at the percentage and number of students moving from one language proficiency level to the next. For Academic Growth Gaps, we looked at the same MGP, MGAP, and Catch Up, Keep Up, and Move Up data as we did for Academic Growth in reading, writing, and math for each of the following disaggregated groups: students who are FaRM, students who are Minority, students with an IEP, students who are CLD, students by gender, and students recognized as GT. Finally, for Post?Secondary and Workforce Readiness, we compiled graduation and dropout rates across all and dis-aggregated subgroups along with SAT composite scores by subgroups from 2017?2025. Work Force readiness is now measured by the CO SAT , Dropout Rate, Matriculation Rate and Graduation Rate. Demographic studies of enrollment and AP courses and their assessments were also analyzed.
Accredited with Distinction - This is assigned to the highest performing districts. These districts are meeting or exceeding expectations on the majority of performance tasks.
Accredited - Districts with an overall rating of Accredited are meeting expectations on the majority of performance metrics.
Accredited with Improvement Plan - These districts are identified as lower performing. They may be meeting expectations on some performance metrics, but they are not meeting or are only approaching expectations on many.
Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan - These districts are identified as low performing. They are not meeting or are only approaching expectations on most performance metrics. The state will provide support and oversight to these districts until they improve.
Accredited with Turnaround Plan - These districts are identified as among the lowest performing districts in the state. They are not meeting or are only approaching expectations on most performance metrics. The state will provide support and oversight to these districts until they improve.
Accredited with Insufficient State Data - These districts are assigned this accreditation rating when the state does not have enough data to report publicly. To better understand why a district received an Insufficient State Data rating, all publicly reportable data are reflected in the performance framework report. More information about these ratings is available here.
School Ratings
Performance Plan - Schools with a Performance Plan are meeting expectations on the majority of performance metrics.
Improvement Plan - These schools are identified as lower performing. They may be meeting expectations on some performance metrics, but they are not meeting or are only approaching expectations on many.
Priority Improvement Plan - These schools are identified as low performing. They are not meeting or are only approaching expectations on most performance metrics. The state will provide support and oversight to these schools until they improve.
Turnaround Plan - These schools are identified as among the lowest performing schools in the state. They are not meeting or are only approaching expectations on most performance metrics. The state will provide support and oversight to these schools until they improve.
Insufficient State Data - These schools are assigned this plan type when the state does not have enough data to report publicly. To better understand why a school received an Insufficient State Data rating, all publicly reportable data are reflected in the performance framework report. More information about these ratings is available here.