CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction March 17, 2011 Presented by: California Department of Education.

Slides:



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

School Improvement Grants Tier I and Tier II Schools March, 2010.
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.
IMPLICATIONS FOR KENTUCKY’S SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS SUPERINTENDENTS’ WEBCAST MARCH 6, 2012 NCLB Waiver Flexibility 1.
MSDE Alternative Governance Plan Development School: James Madison Middle School January 2012.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
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.
High-Quality Supplemental Educational Services And After-School Partnerships Demonstration Program (CFDA Number: ) CLOSING DATE: August 12, 2008.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part D—Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children.
1 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT COHORT 2 LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION APRIL 5, 2011.
Support for the Change, Challenge, and Commitment All Maryland Students College and Career Ready.
School Improvement Grant (SIG) Cohort 6 Informational Webinar June 10, 2015.
School Improvement Grants. Over 13,000 schools are currently under some form of improvement status schools = 5% of schools in some form of restructuring.
1 Tier 1 Education: Review Participant Training January AmeriCorps External Reviewer Training.
Title I Technical Assistance Training Federal and State Programs.
Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Law NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.
MONITORING INDISTAR® STATE-DETERMINED IMPROVEMENT PLANNING TOOL.
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-
Priority, Focus and SIG School Requirements and Implementation Strategies Virginia Baker Regional Coordinator.
“An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap” Report of the Superintendent Melinda J. Boone, Ed.D. March 4, 2010.
Mississippi Department of Education Office of School Recovery November 18, :30-4:30 Committee of Practitioners Meeting School Improvement Grant 1003(g)
IMPLEMENTING THE SIG REQUIREMENTS 1.  Students who attend a State’s persistently lowest- achieving schools deserve better options and can’t afford to.
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.
Title I Schoolwide Ray Draghi and Rasha Hetata October 2014.
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.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Presentation to the Providence School Board: June 18, Federal Budget: Preliminary Overview.
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.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction An Informational Webinar with The California Department of.
Nuts and Bolts of the Title II, Part A Application Virginia Department of Education Coordinators’ Academy July 22 – July 24, Coordinators' Academy.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bilingual Coordinators Network September 16, 2010 Sacramento,
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
GUIDANCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Region VII Comprehensive Center The University of Oklahoma 555 Constitution Street Norman, OK David.
AB Miller High School Community Meeting April 13, 2010.
1 46th Annual PAFPC Conference May 5, 2015 MARIA GARCIA Schoolwide Program Manager DIVISION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS Title I Schoolwide Programs.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title.
Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants Presented by: WVDE Title I Staff March 9, 2010.
Teacher Incentive Fund U.S. Department of Education.
Center on School Turnaround at WestEd. 2 3 Race to the Top School Improvement Grants Alignment of Existing Federal Resources ESEA Flexibility Lowest-
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’
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part A Overview May 11, th Annual Juvenile.
TTIPS Model Overview.
Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
January 2010 Marilyn Peterson Data and Federal Programs
Overview: Every Student Succeeds Act and the Tile I, Part A Program
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT
Summary of Final Regulations: Accountability and State Plans
Studio School Title I Annual Meeting Title I Program Overview for Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools Federal and State Education Programs Branch.
The CSP Grant in North Carolina
School Improvement Grants
Developing and Revising Schoolwide Plans
Presentation transcript:

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction March 17, 2011 Presented by: California Department of Education Regional Coordination and Support Office School Improvement Grant Fiscal Year 2010 Overview

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 22 Agenda General Overview of the School Improvement Grant (SIG) School Intervention Models Changes for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Resources Questions

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 3 SIG Overview The SIG program is authorized by Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The United States Department of Education (ED) awards grants to States to enable the States to provide sub-grants to local educational agencies (LEA) for the purpose of providing assistance for school improvement consistent with Section 1116 of ESEA.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 4 SIG Overview (Cont.) The California Department of Education (CDE) is to award approximately $68 million in school improvement sub-grants to LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving schools. Three-year grant, with second- and third-year appropriations from subsequent year’s budget

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 5 SIG Overview (Cont.) A persistently lowest-achieving school is: Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; or any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that is among the lowest-achieving five percent of schools Any high school that has had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 6 SIG Overview (Cont.) The FY 2010 SIG Application will be made available to the 96 eligible schools not served in the FY 2009 SIG application process. Per ED’s guidance on SIG, FY 2010 SIG funds should be used to make first-year only awards to LEAs to serve approximately thirty schools. Priority for funding will be given based on a determination of schools with greatest need as well as the geographic distribution of Tier I and Tier II schools throughout the state.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 7 School Intervention Models The LEA must identify the Tier I and Tier II schools it wants to transform and then determine which of the four school intervention models is most suited to the needs of the school and the resources available to the LEA.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 8 Turnaround Model Principal and Teachers: Replace the principal* Use locally adopted “turnaround” competencies to screen and select staff (rehire no more than 50 percent)* Implement strategies to recruit, place, and train staff * Must be completed by the first day of the 2011–12 School Year (SY)

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 9 Turnaround Model (Cont.) Instructional and Support: Select and implement a new instructional model Provide job-embedded professional development (PD) to staff Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction* * Must be completed by the first day of the 2011–12 SY

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 10 Turnaround Model (Cont.) Time Support: Provide increased learning time* Provide social-emotional and community- oriented services Governance: Establish a new governance structure* Grant operating flexibility to the new principal* * Must be completed by the first day of the 2011–12 SY

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 11 Turnaround Model: Optional Activities A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such as: Any of the required and permissible activities under the transformation model A new school model (e.g., themed or dual language academy)

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 12 Restart Model

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 13 Restart: California Law Petition for establishment of a charter school within an LEA must be signed by: At least 50 percent of permanent status teachers currently at the site (conversion) or At least 50 percent of parents of prospective enrollees or 50 percent of prospective teachers (close and reopen) California Education Code (EC) Section 47605(a)

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 14 Restart: Assessing Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) and Education Management Organizations (EMOs) Academic Achievement: Performance relative to local and state averages Effectiveness with target groups similar to the school’s population Graduation and post-secondary success rate of former students

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 15 Restart: Assessing Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) and Education Management Organizations (EMOs) (Cont.) Fiscal and Operations: Track record of successful leader and teacher recruitment Stability of enrollment in CMO/EMO schools over time Fiscal soundness and adherence to state reporting requirements

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 16 Restart: Assessing Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) and Education Management Organizations (EMOs) (Cont.) Potential: Sustainable growth plan Evidence of successful transferability

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 17 Restart Model: Required Components Fulfill all California requirements for converting to a charter school (if applicable). Create a locally-determined rigorous review process for the purposes of selecting a CMO or EMO. Create a plan to transfer students who either cannot attend the new school because their grade is no longer served by the Restart school or whose parents choose not to have their child attend the Restart school. Create an accountability contract with the CMO or EMO which includes clearly defined goals for student achievement.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 18 Closure Model School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. The other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data is not yet available.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 19 Closure Model: Required Components Notify parents and community of closure, and provide information on school choice options available. Create a plan to transfer students. Create a plan for transfer of existing teachers and other staff. Create a support plan for schools receiving transferred students.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 20 Transformation Model Principal and Teachers: Replace the principal* Implement a new evaluation system Identify and reward or remove staff Implement strategies to recruit, place, and train staff Instructional and Support: Select and implement a new instructional model Provide job-embedded PD to staff Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction* * Must be completed by the first day of the 2011–12 SY

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 21 Transformation Model (Cont.) Time Support: Provide increased learning time* Partner to provide social-emotional and community-oriented services Provide ongoing mechanisms for community and family engagement Governance: Provide sufficient operating flexibility* Ensure ongoing technical assistance * Must be completed by the first day of the 2011–12 SY

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 22 Transformation Model: Optional Activities Developing and increasing teacher and school leader (and other staff) effectiveness Comprehensive instructional reform strategies Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools Providing operational flexibility and sustained support

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 23 Changes for FY 2010 Revised “Rule of Nine” An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools, including both schools that are being served with FY 2009 SIG funds and schools that are eligible to receive FY 2010 SIG funds, may not implement the transformation model in more than 50 percent of those schools.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 24 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) Pre-implementation This is a new section which is optional and enables an LEA to prepare for full implementation of a school intervention model at the start of the 2011–12 school year. To help in its preparation, an LEA may use SIG funds in its SIG schools after the LEA has been awarded a SIG grant for those schools based on having a fully approvable application, consistent with the SIG final requirements. Any funds provided to LEAs for pre- implementation would be counted as part of their first year SIG award.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 25 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) Pre-implementation activities include, but are not limited to: Holding community meetings Conducting the required rigorous review process to select a CMO, EMO, and/or external provider Recruiting and hiring new staff or evaluating the strengths and areas of need of current staff Providing remediation and enrichment to students Identifying and purchasing instructional materials Compensating staff for instructional planning Training staff on the implementation of new or revised instructional programs

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 26 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) Pre-implementation activities that may not be funded with SIG: SIG funds may not be used to continue paying unassigned teachers who have been removed from the classroom and are not participating in activities to prepare their school for full implementation of a school intervention model. An LEA may not use SIG funds to buy out the remainder of the current principal’s contract.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 27 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) Allowable Uses of SIG Funding: May be used for staff salaries, materials, services, training, equipment, supplies, evaluation, facilities, or other purposes, except as specifically limited by all applicable legal requirements including all regulations or statutes or by the SEA. Must supplement, not supplant, existing services and may not be used to supplant federal, state, local, or nonfederal funds.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 28 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) May not be used for new construction, most transportation, class size reduction, or purchases not directly related to any components in the models. Refer to ED’s FY 2010 SIG guidance at e pdf (Outside Source) for further information on allowable use of SIG funds. e pdf

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 29 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) The scoring system has been simplified and a priority ranking system has been established Only required narrative elements will be scored Collaborative Signatures form has been removed Revisions to the LEA Request for Applications (RFA):

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 30 Changes for FY 2010 (Cont.) Implementation Charts that contain all required components have been created for each model and component acronyms, projected costs, and resources columns have been removed. Budget directions have been revised to help LEAs more clearly organize their school and LEA budget narratives

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 31 SIG Resources The CDE’s SIG Web page at ED’s SIG Web page at (Outside Source) The Center on Innovation and Improvement at (Outside Source)

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 32 CDE Contact You may contact the Regional Coordination and Support Office by phone at or by at