1 NYC’s 2008-09 Proposed Citywide C4E Plan The FY09 Contracts for Excellence allocations described in this plan are preliminary. Funds are subject to a.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Update and 2009 Grant Process. What is ITQ? Part of Federal No Child Left Behind $$ focused on increasing the number of “highly qualified” teachers in.
Advertisements

Introduction to Title I October 23, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) January 2001 Re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Consolidated Application Budget Detail and Fiscal Issues.
Contracts for Excellence: New York City’s failures and violations of law as regards class size November 15, 2011 Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters.
Delta Sierra Middle School Napa/Solano County Office of Education School Assistance and Intervention Team Monitoring Report #8 – July 2008 Mary Camezon,
Clark County School District
1 Marie Izquierdo & Pablo G. Ortiz. Prioritizing Tiered Support to Schools schools defined as “persistently low- achieving” by the requirements.
District Awards for Teacher Excellence A presentation to the ACISD Board of Trustees 4/17/08.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Federal Initiatives Update Investing in Innovation (i3)
Annual Report of Progress The Public Schools of Jersey City Dr. Charles T. Epps, Jr. State District Superintendent of Schools January 4, 2006.
Common Core Implementation Plan Whittier City School District Board of Education Meeting April 7, 2014.
District-wide Articulation and Math/English Interventions LUSD Board of Education Meeting November 15, 2011.
BO MERRITT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS Federal Grants Planning Titles I, II, & III.
NEW TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS CONNECTING TEACHER PERFORMANCE to ACADEMIC PROGRESS.
SAVING AND CREATING JOBS AND REFORMING EDUCATION U.S. Department of Education June 12, 2009.
Effective Use of Instructional Time Jane A. Stallings Stephanie L. Knight Texas A&M University.
Fresno Systemic Program National Science Foundation USP Mid-point Review and Accomplishments February 10, 2003 Fresno Schools – Making A+ Difference For.
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Contract for Excellence Prepared for the New York State Association of Small City School Districts Deborah H. Cunningham Coordinator for Educational Management.
Intel Schools of Distinction Finalist. Once Upon a Time… There was a Middle School in the South Bronx named The Laboratory School of Finance & Technology.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Budget Reductions December 15, 2008.
Potential Preschool Provider Info Session April 2015 – Part 1.
July 24, :30 p.m. Ware County BOE Room 202.
Rewarding Excellence in the Classroom Idaho’s Pay for Performance Plan
Frankford Elementary School. Awards and Recognitions  NCLB National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence – 2003  National Distinguished Title I School –
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONTRACTS FOR EXCELLENCE PUBLIC HEARINGS JUNE 2008.
Title 1, Part A Local Consolidated Plan (LCP) Application May 2009.
What Does Supplement, Not Supplant Mean?. 2 Fiscal Requirements Supplement, not Supplant –
Contracts for Excellence (C4E) Supporting the link : Funding and Achievement Charles A. Szuberla, Jr. Deborah H. Cunningham New York State Education Department.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ONE SCHOOL’S STORY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT BEING ON “THE LIST?”
2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results. 2 Raising Achievement Over past several years, Board of Regents has voted measures to raise standards and require.
Virginia Department of Education Division Leadership Liaison Meeting January 7, 2013.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONTRACTS FOR EXCELLENCE PUBLIC HEARINGS JUNE 2008.
The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program California Postsecondary Education Commission California Mathematics & Science Partnership 2011 Spring.
Contracts for Excellence FY16 Proposed Plan July 2015.
July 18, Glover Marietta, Georgia 1.  Federally funded program which provides resources to schools, based on the poverty percent at that school.
Watertown Public Schools Schools Committee Budget & Finance, and Curriculum Subcommittees January 21, 2010.
Rowland Unified School District District Local Education Agency (LEA)Plan Update Principals Meeting November 16, 2015.
Click to edit Master subtitle style 2010 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Lawrence Public Schools August 9, 2010.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP AND COMPENSATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW.
Title I, Part A Program Title I, Part A provides educational services to schools with high percentages of children from low-income families by providing.
December Preliminary Class Size Summary and analysis.
Teacher Incentive Fund U.S. Department of Education.
Office of Title I & Section 31a Compliance Welcome! Title I, Part A (Title I) Program and Budget Planning March
ESO #2 Network Principal Meeting, March 25, Principals’ Meeting Wednesday, March 25, 2009 ESO #2 Best Practices for Strategic Budgeting and Planning.
Tift County High School ANNUAL TITLE I MEETING SY16 Tap Knowledge – Capture Wisdom - Harness Talents -Sculpt Minds.
GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING & LEARNING TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL COMMITTEE MARCH 18, 2015 Newton Public Schools SUPERINTENDENT’S PROPOSED FISCAL 2016 BUDGET.
Single Plan For Student Achievement January 27, 2016 Los Angeles Unified School District Local District Northwest “Building Academic Excellence Through.
What is Title I-A? Purpose – help disadvantaged children meet high academic standards Purpose – help disadvantaged children meet high academic standards.
Dear School District Administrator, This PowerPoint presentation is intended to help initiate and facilitate community engagement in budget planning during.
Reef-Sunset Unified School District BUDGET OVERVIEW June 2016 SUPPORTING OUR STUDENTS & FAMILIES 1.
The Every Student Succeeds Act
Local Control Accountability Plan Board of Education June 25, 2015 Alvord Unified School District Students | Teachers | Instructional Content.
Introduction to Title I
System Goals Academic Excellence Educational Equity Social and Emotional Learning Improving and Expanding Facilities.
Introduction to Title I
System Goals Academic Excellence Educational Equity Social and Emotional Learning Improving and Expanding Facilities.
Academic Goals Presentation
Title I Parent/Family Meeting
Overview: Every Student Succeeds Act and the Tile I, Part A Program
BUDGET TOWN HALL MEETING
Title I Parent Meeting September 29, 2015
Contracts for Excellence: Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters
Funding for State-level Activities under the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 June 27, 2018 Good morning This presentation is in response to.
Contracts for Excellence FY 2019 Proposed Plan CEC August 2018.
Title I Annual Meeting Pinewood Elementary, August 30, 2018.
Summerour Middle Planning Meeting
2019 K-12 Budget Review Putting Dollars in Classrooms
Contracts for Excellence
What Every Family Needs to Know! Date
Presentation transcript:

1 NYC’s Proposed Citywide C4E Plan The FY09 Contracts for Excellence allocations described in this plan are preliminary. Funds are subject to a public engagement process and approval by the State Education Department.

2 All Spending: By Program Strategy DiscretionaryTargetedDistrict-WideTotal Class Size Reduction Creation of additional classrooms $46,341,355- Reducing teacher-student ratio through team teaching strategies $37,872,902$62,309,368-$100,182,270 Total$84,214,257$62,309,368$146,523,625 Time on Task Before- and After-School Programs $24,759,859-- Summer School Programs $955,818$30,004,891*-$30,960,709 Dedicated Instructional Time $41,615,983-- Individualized Tutoring $10,044,149-- Total$77,375,809$30,004,891-$107,380,700 Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives Programs to recruit/retain Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) $4,033,334-$20,000,000$24,033,334 Professional mentoring for beginning teachers and principals $7,334,730-- Instructional coaches for teachers $45,177,223-- Leadership coaches for principals $1,195,318-$10,000,000$11,195,318 Total$57,740,605-$27,000,000$87,740,605 *Maintenance of Effort funds

3 All Spending: By Program Strategy DiscretionaryTargetedDistrict-WideTotal Middle & High School Restructuring Instructional Changes $8,472, Structural Changes $2,855,379-$7,000,000$9,855,379 Total$11,328,251-$7,000,000$18,328,251 Full-Day Pre-KTotal $122,150$4,763,118-$4,885,268 Model Programs for ELLs Total $11,573,740$2,172,949-$13,746,689 TOTAL ALLOCATED$378,605,139 TOTAL FY09 C4E AMOUNT$385,776,488 Difference*$7,171,349 *Please note that an additional $7 million will be allocated to a group of high-need schools at the end of the week of July 21, Details about school-level allocations will be posted as soon as they are available.

4 Discretionary Allocations to Schools Amount $242 million in restricted Contracts for Excellence funds were released to 1,439 schools on May 22, 2008 and June 30, 2008 Description Funds were released directly to schools to be used at the discretion of the principal, School Leadership Team, and greater school community. Restricted to spending on new or expanded supplemental programs in the six C4E-eligible areas. Schools were required to complete an appendix to the Comprehensive Education Plan (CEP) outlining uses of these funds. The following slides outline how schools have proposed spending these discretionary funds.

5

6 Discretionary Spending: By Program Strategy Allocations% Total Average Allocation # Schools Class Size Reduction Creation of additional classrooms $46,341, % $132, Reducing teacher-student ratio through team teaching strategies $37,872, % $121, Total$84,214, % Time on Task Before- and After-School Programs $24,759, % $44, Summer School Programs $955,8180.4% $19,91348 Dedicated Instructional Time $41,615, % $97, Individualized Tutoring $10,044,1494.1% $53, Total$77,375, % Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives Programs to recruit/retain Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) $4,033,3341.7% $42,01496 Professional mentoring for beginning teachers and principals $7,334,7303.0% $39, Instructional coaches for teachers $45,177, % $79, School leadership coaches for principals $1,195,3180.5% $17,84167 Total$57,740, %

7 Discretionary Spending: By Program Strategy Allocations% Total Average Allocation # Schools Middle & High School Restructuring Instructional Changes $8,472,8723.5% $130,35265 Structural Changes $2,855,3791.2% $129,79022 Total$11,328,2514.7% Full-Day Pre-KTotal $122,1500.1% $122,1501 Model Programs for ELLs Total $11,573,7404.8% $82,083141

8 Class Size Reduction: Targeted Grades, Subjects & Populations Additional Classroom Additional Teacher in Classroom Targeted Grades K-322%24% 4-527%13% 6-821%27% %34% No response3%2% Targeted Subjects English Language Arts43%47% Math9%14% Other (Science, Social Studies)11% All (Elementary Only)35%26% No response3%2% Targeted Populations ELLs17%26% Students with Disabilities4%17% Students in Poverty20%10% Students with Low Achievement53%44% No response5%3%

9 Other Discretionary Spending: Targeted Populations by Program Area and Strategy Please note that schools were required to target one or more of the following student groups when allocating funds to a particular C4E-eligible activity. % of Schools Targeting # SchoolsELLs Students with Disabilities Students in Poverty Students with Low Academic Achievement Time on Task Before- and After-School Programs 55868%59%66%87% Summer School Programs4873%60%73%85% Dedicated Instructional Time42560%58%54%86% Individualized Tutoring18960%58%54%79% Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives Programs to recruit/retain Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) 9672%65%67%76% Professional mentoring for beginning teachers and principals 18762%55%60%69% Instructional coaches for teachers57175%73%70%87% School leadership coaches for principals 6766%63%66%81%

10 Discretionary Spending: Targeted Populations by Program Area and Strategy Please note that schools were required to target one or more of the following student groups when allocating funds to a particular C4E-eligible activity. % of Schools Targeting # SchoolsELLs Students with Disabilities Students in Poverty Students with Low Academic Achievement Middle & High School Restructuring Total6571%68%70%90% Full-Day Pre-KTotal1100% Model Programs for ELLs Total141100%---

11 Targeted Allocations to Schools Amount $76 million is our revised estimate in this category since the preliminary posting of our plan. The total allocation amount will be determined through a public process and SED approval. Schools receiving allocations were chosen based on a) overall student need and b) capacity to carry out specific program. Description Funds allocated by the DOE directly to schools for specific uses that are eligible within the C4E programs areas: >$58 million - New Collaborative Team Teaching (CTT) Classrooms (inclusive of fringe) >$5 million - Full-Day Pre-K Expansion >$5 million - New & Expanded Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Classrooms >$2 million - ELL Summer School Expansion Please note that an additional $7 million will be allocated to a group of high-need schools at the end of the week of July 21, Details about school-level allocations will be posted as soon as they are available.

12 District-Wide Initiatives Amount $37 million is our revised estimate in this category. The total allocation amount will depend on the public process and SED approval. While these funds will not appear on schools’ budgets, they will be attributed to impacted schools as part of the DOE’s citywide C4E plan. Description Funds allocated to Central programs that directly benefit schools. >$7 million - New & Expanded Multiple Pathways to Graduation Initiatives (for over-age and under-credit students) >$10 million - New & Expanded Principal Training Initiatives Please note that, while the following allocations will appear on schools’ budgets, they do not constitute operational funds. As such, they have been moved from the Targeted Allocations to the District-Wide Initiatives category. >$20 million – School-Wide Performance Bonus Program

13 Maintenance of Effort Amount$30 million Description The Department proposes to spend these funds to maintain summer programs impacting the students with the lowest academic achievement in the system.