1 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT COHORT 2 LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION APRIL 5, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
School Improvement Grants Webinar – Tier I and II Schools April 21, 2010.
Advertisements

April 15, Through the SIG program, the United States Education Department (USED) requires state educational agencies (SEAs) to use three tiers to.
Restructuring Plans Glenbrook Middle School Bel Air Elementary School Rio Vista Elementary School Shore Acres Elementary School Mt. Diablo Unified School.
Presented by : Delaware Department of Education March 15, 2011.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APRIL 27, 2010 VANDERBILT MARRIOTT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION ROLLOUT 1.
Race to the Top Discussion Points to determine LUSD’s interest in participating in the State program January 7, 2010.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
OKLAHOMA SIG SCHOOLS State Profile – Cohort 1 Tier I SIG Schools: 8 – Cohort 2 Tier I and II SIG Schools: 3 Total SIG Schools: 11 Total Funding Awards.
North Carolina ESEA Flexibility Request Frequently Asked Questions April 30, 2012 April 27,
Dr. Kathleen M. Smith Director, Office of School Improvement (804) (804) (Cell) Dr. Dorothea Shannon.
FY 2012 SIG 1003G LEAD PARTNER REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL (RFSP) BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE February 7, 2011.
1 PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT UPDATE PART I: PERSISTENTLY LOWEST-ACHIEVING SCHOOLS PART II: DELTA SIERRA MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THE DISTRICT/SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PROCESS.
Nebraska Department of Education Focus on Effective Instruction and Student Learning Revised Standards and NeSA Nebraska’s P-16 Effort Federal Agenda Fiscal.
Support for the Change, Challenge, and Commitment All Maryland Students College and Career Ready.
School Improvement Grants. Over 13,000 schools are currently under some form of improvement status schools = 5% of schools in some form of restructuring.
School Improvement: Tier I, Tier II, Tier II and More! Partnerships for Results: Strategies for Educational Improvement KU/KSDE Lawrence, Kansas June 11,
STAR (Support through Assistance & Reforms) Report.
1 Tier 1 Education: Review Participant Training January AmeriCorps External Reviewer Training.
Subtitle 1003(g) School Improvement Grants April 2, 2012.
Federal Program Monitoring and Support Division Charlotte Hughes, Director Donna Brown, Section Chief.
School Improvement Grants (SIG) Overview Adapted from LACOE Intervention for for Persistently Lowest- Achieving Schools 1.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS (SIG): A New Opportunity for Turning Around Low-Performing High Schools January 29, 2010.
School Improvement Grants March, Overview American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Goals and purpose of SIG grants Definition of “persistently lowest-
Mississippi Department of Education Office of School Recovery November 18, :30-4:30 Committee of Practitioners Meeting School Improvement Grant 1003(g)
FLDOE Title I Update FASFEPA Technical Assistance Forum September 16, 2009.
Race to the Top (RTTT) Overview of Grant Competition Goals and Requirements 1.
School Improvement Grant Update Fall Grant Purpose School Improvement Grants (SIG), authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction March 17, 2011 Presented by: California Department of Education.
HEE Hui For Excellence in Education June 6, 2012
Mississippi Department of Education Office of Innovative Support February 17, 2010 Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting.
QUESTIONS MAY BE ED DURING THIS SESSION, OR AFTERWARD TO: Welcome to the SIG Cohort III Webinar Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
AWMLP BOARD MEETING JANUARY 26, 2014 MIKE HUBERT.
Considerations for Technical Assistance School Improvement Grant 1.
REVIEW PROCESS District Capacity Determination:. Review Team Selection Teams will contain geographically balanced representation. Each review team will.
Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement Office of Program Administration and Accountability April 19, 2011.
Title I 2010 Spring Admin. Meeting Spring Title I Administrative Meeting Maryland State Department of Education April 13-14, 2010 Presented by: Maria E.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
ESEA Flexibility: Overview Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 1 of 8.
1 No Child Left Behind for Indian Groups 2004 Eva M. Kubinski Comprehensive Center – Region VI January 29, 2004 Home/School Coordinators’ Conference UW-Stout.
School Improvement Grant (SIG) Cohort 3 Competition April 26, 2012 Gina Scroggins Director, School Turnaround.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: AN OVERVIEW September 26, 2011.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (API) ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT (PI) SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 Accountability Progress Reporting Update.
TRHS Action Plan Goal 1 O Goal #1: In the School Year TRHS will further develop our Response to Instruction (RTI) model to ensure.
Choosing a Reform Model District Wide Stakeholder Meeting 1.
School Improvement Overview September 17-18, 2015 Tyson Carter School Improvement Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education
What is Title I and How Can I be Involved? Annual Parent Meeting Pierce Elementary
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 We Can Do Better: Becca Walawender, Deputy Division Director,
GUIDANCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Region VII Comprehensive Center The University of Oklahoma 555 Constitution Street Norman, OK David.
What does an effective secondary school look like and sound like?
AB Miller High School Community Meeting April 13, 2010.
Lanphier High School The Future of Our SIG Efforts.
SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT TESTS District Level: Maintenance of Effort School Level: Comparability of Services Child Level: Educational.
Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants Presented by: WVDE Title I Staff March 9, 2010.
Center on School Turnaround at WestEd. 2 3 Race to the Top School Improvement Grants Alignment of Existing Federal Resources ESEA Flexibility Lowest-
Overview: Every Student Succeeds Act April ESEA in Ohio In 2012, our state applied for and received a waiver from provisions of No Child Left Behind.
Office of School Turnaround Center for Accountability and Improvement, Ohio Department of Education 25 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio
S CHOOL I MPROVEMENT G RANTS An Overview of Fiscal Year (FY) DRAFT.
Administering Federal Programs-A Charter School Perspective Dr. Vanessa Nelson-Reed Federal Program Administrator NCDPI.
Virginia Department of Education March 5,  The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) was informed that on March 3, 2010, USED posted the states’
February 25, Today’s Agenda  Introductions  USDOE School Improvement Information  Timelines and Feedback on submitted plans  Implementing plans.
TTIPS Model Overview.
ESEA Flexibility: An overview
Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting
January 2010 Marilyn Peterson Data and Federal Programs
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT
Campus Improvement Planning
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
School Improvement Grants
ESEA Flexibility: An overview
Presentation transcript:

1 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT COHORT 2 LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION APRIL 5, 2011

2 School Improvement Grant (SIG) This grant program is authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title I, Part A, provides funding through state educational agencies to districts that receive Title I funds. These funds are identified for the schools that demonstrate the greatest need and the strongest commitment to use the funds. These sub-grants are intended to provide adequate resources in order to raise substantially the achievement of students to enable schools to make adequate yearly progress and exit program improvement status.

3 DEFINITION OF TIERS I, II, AND III SCHOOLS Which schools will receive SIG funds?  There are three tiers of schools that are eligible for SIG funds:  Tier I: The state’s bottom 5% of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (or the state’s bottom 5 lowest- achieving Title I schools, whichever is greater).  Tier II: The state’s Title I eligible (but not necessarily participating) secondary schools with equivalently poor performance as Tier I schools.  Tier III: [only for State Education Agencies (SEA) that have sufficient funding for all Tier I and II schools and still have a surplus of SIG funds] Any state Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; SEAs will set exact criteria, which could include rewards for schools with low absolute performance but high growth rates over a number years, or the bottom 6–10% of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

4 LUSD TIER I SCHOOLS* Lawrence Elementary School Sutherland Elementary School *Based on the 2009 STAR results. The list of persistently lowest achieving schools was not re-confirgured to consider 2010 STAR results.

5 FOUR SCHOOL INTERVENTION MODELS Turnaround Model  Replace the principal  Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50% and select new staff  Adopt a new governance structure  Implement strategies such as financial incentives, opportunities for promotion, and more flexible work conditions designed to recruit and retain staff  Implement a new or revised instructional program  Provide on-going job-embedded professional development to ensure effective teaching and learning  Schedules that increase time for both students and staff  Appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services/supports.

6 Transformation Model  Replace the principal  Develop teacher and leader effectiveness  Implement comprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data  Provide on-going job-embedded professional development to ensure effective teaching and learning  Use rigorous evaluation systems for teachers and principals that take into account student growth data  Extend learning time and create community-oriented schools  Provide operating flexibility and intensive support  Implement strategies such as financial incentives, opportunities for promotion, and more flexible work conditions designed to recruit and retain staff

7 Restart Model  Convert or close the school  Restart it under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an educational management organization (EMO). A restart school must admit, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend.

8 Close/Consolidate Model  Close the school  Enroll the students who attended the school in other, higher-performing schools in the district.

9 BOARD OF EDUCATION DECISION APRIL 2010  The Board elected not to direct staff to apply.  Expressed concerns about unapproved application and very short timeline.  Responded to feedback from parents and staff to allow them to prove they could accelerate student achievement.  Forums were attended by 2-3 Board members.  Desire to give new principals a chance to be selected and observe the impact of their leadership.

10 LAWRENCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Academic Performance Index Schoolwide API Hispanic API Soc. Dis. API EL API

11 LAWRENCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adequate Yearly Progress /17 10/17 10/17 13/17 9/17 17/17* # of targets met * Schools meeting AYP targets for 2 consecutive years exit Program Improvement

12 SUTHERLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Academic Performance Index Schoolwide API African/American API Asian API Hispanic API Soc. Dis. API EL API

13 SUTHERLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adequate Yearly Progress /25 22/25 25/25 13/25 18/25 18/25 # of targets met

14 LAWRENCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPDATE  New Principal – Mr. Carlos Villafana  staff set in motion a plan to achieve all AYP targets through Safe Harbor and achieved that goal. If they are able to accomplish this goal for a second year, Lawrence will exit PI  Extensive, targeted intervention program  Strong AVID focus  Consistent implementation of instructional strategies  Goal setting with students  Intersession preparation for STAR  Behavior Incentive Program  Entire staff believes all students are capable of high achievement  Very strong parent support of new leadership and staff  Completion of facility/Strong school pride  Adopted by Lodi/Tokay Rotary and Calvary Bible Church

15 SUTHERLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPDATE  New Principal – Mr. Harold Brown  QEIA SIG grant - $335,962  Technology resources and professional development  Professional Student Focus  Greater consistent implementation of curriculum  Increase in consistent instructional strategies  Intervention support for students  Monthly goal incentives for students  Intersession preparation for STAR  Community connections – Principal’s Coffee  Significant reduction in discipline / Only 16 suspensions to date this year (112 violations in 09-10)  Plan to implement AVID in

16 COHORT 2 FUNDING  Funding for 30 schools  Total of 96 schools eligible to apply  Lawrence and Sutherland may fall in the middle of the group on the priority list.  Minimum of $50,000 to maximum of $2,000,000 for three years.  Must demonstrate ability to sustain maintenance of effort after the grant expires.  Only first year of funding guaranteed  Current deadline for application: April 15, 2011 Question: Will Lawrence and Sutherland even be considered if they fall in the middle of the list around schools #45 and #46?

17 Board and Staff Discussion