1. School Improvement Grants (SIG) Overview Adapted from LACOE Intervention for for Persistently Lowest- Achieving Schools 1

2. Purpose of the Program NCLB, Title I, Section 1003(g): – To provide resources to LEAs for use in schools identified as “persistently lowest-achieving” in order to substantially raise the achievement of their students so as to enable the schools to make AYP. 2

3. LEA Eligibility A LEA must: – Receive Title I funds in 2009-10 and – Have an approved LEA Plan and – Have one or more schools identified as a “persistently lowest-achieving” school. 3

4. Schools Excluded Subject to Waiver Approved by USDE Schools that: – Improved by 50 points or more on the API over the last 5 years – Had an API of 800 or more – Had fewer than 100 valid test scores in each of the 3 years 4

5. “Persistently Lowest-Achieving” Lowest 5% of schools based on: – 3-year average (07, 08 & 09) of combined English Language Arts & Mathematics AYP proficiency rate OR – Schools with a graduation rate below 60% over the last 4 years 5

6. “Persistently Lowest Achieving” Tier I: 5% lowest-achieving PI schools Tier II:5% lowest-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funding Tier III: PI schools that were not identified in the 5% “persistently lowest-achieving” schools SBE Action Agreed on applying for a waiver to USDE to re-define Tier II Agreed on applying for a waiver to USDE to re-define Tier II – 37 schools on the Tier II list were replaced by Tier I secondary PI schools that were lower achieving 6

7. Identifying the Lowest 5% Additional 5 schools identified with graduation rate of less than 60% in each of the last four years. GroupN Five Percent Elementary schools in PI (Tier I)1,67684 Middle schools in PI (Tier I)60130 High schools in PI (Tier I)42721 Sub-total selected from Tier I2,704135 Middle schools, eligible but not receiving Title I funds (Tier II)29215 High schools, eligible but not receiving Title I funds (Tier II)65633 Sub-total selected from Tier II94848 Total3,652 183 Schools 7

8. School Student Enrollment Economically Disadvantaged Years in PI Three Year Proficiency Rate on AYP Five Year API Net Gain Scores Grad Rate 2004-05 Grad Rate 2005-06 Grad Rate 2006-07 Grad Rate 2007-08 Tier Angeles Mesa ES48590%428.5% 36 NA Tier 1 Audubon MS1,21979%12 19.0% 46 NA Tier 1 Carson SH 3,54747%537.3% No API for 5 Years 84.0%77.5%79.4%81.7% Tier 2 Carver MS1,96389%12 13.5% 23 NA Tier 1 Clay MS1,30188%5 11.0% -6 NA Tier 1 Clinton MS1,14980%213.8% No API for 5 Years NA Tier 1 Contreras Learning Complex93484%225.3% No API for 5 Years NA 89.4%84.7% Tier 1 Crenshaw SH2,03980%11 21.1% No API for 5 Years 65.6%56.9%41.0%51.8% Tier 1 Drew MS2,15683%12 13.4% 26 NA Tier 1 East Valley SH1,30679%225.7% No API for 5 Years NA Tier 1 Fulton MS2,09387%12 18.7% 45 NA 100.0% Tier 1 Gage MS3,15289%12 18.9% 40 NA Tier 1 Gardena SH3,16162%5 27.2% No API for 5 Years 59.2%62.2%63.6%64.9% Tier 1 Gompers MS1,62276%12 13.4% 33 NA Tier 1 Griffith Joyner ES93493%4 25.7% 46 NA Tier 1 Hillcrest Dr. ES90892%12 22.0% 47 NA Tier 1 International Studies SH76071%426.7% No API for 5 Years NA Tier 1 Jefferson SH1,97084%12 17.8% 47 66.1%54.0%43.1%48.6% Tier 1 Los Angeles SH3,17074%11 28.8% No API for 5 Years 46.8%48.5%50.6%56.5% Tier 2 Manual Arts SH3,49876%12 20.6% No API for 5 Years 91.4%81.4%76.2%69.0% Tier 1 Markham MS1,49782%12 9.6% 12 NA Tier 1 Maywood Academy SH1,35091%334.0% No API for 5 Years NA 94.9% Tier 2 Muir MS2,00277%12 14.1% 48 NA Tier 1 San Fernando SH3,26186%3 29.2% 49 80.7%78.5%74.8%80.2% Tier 2 South East SH2,81580%328.5% No API for 5 Years NA 84.8%85.6% Tier 2 Stevenson MS2,28287%6 19.9% 39 NA Tier 1 Sun Valley MS1,64290%5 20.3% 42 NA Tier 2 Sylmar SH3,664 68% 5 30.7% 46 67.9%77.9%79.1%83.0% Tier 2 Washington Prep SH2,38486%11 17.6% No API for 5 Years 48.1%44.5%52.2%52.9% Tier 1 Woodcrest ES92396%5 18.3% 7 NA Tier 1 *Belmont SH1,47585%12 19.9% 96 51.1%42.7%37.2%49.5% Tier 1 List of LAUSD Persistently Lowest-achieving Schools from the State 8

9. Participation Requirement LEAs that apply for and receive a SIG grant must implement one of 4 selected intervention models in each of the Tier I and Tier II schools that they have committed to serve. 9

10. 4 Intervention Models Restart Turnaround Transformation Closure 10

11. Restart Model School must close and reopen as a new charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) by the first day of the 2010 - 11 school year. 11

12. Turnaround Model School must have replaced the principal & up to 50% of instructional staff prior to the beginning of the 2010-11 school year. Must implement additional required improvement activities. 12

13. Transformation Model – School must have replaced the principal & increased instructional time by staff by the first day of the 2010-11 school year. The school must implement additional required improvement activities. – Note: An LEA with 9 or more Tier I and Tier II schools can only use this model in 50% or less of these schools 13

14. Closure Model LEA must close and enroll students in higher-achieving schools in the district no later than the end of the 2010-11 school year. 14

15. Priority for Funding LEAs that commit to serve: 1.All of their Tier I & Tier II schools 2.Some of their Tier I & Tier II schools 3.Tier III schools Note: CDE does not anticipate having sufficient funds to serve Tier III schools. 15

16. Annual Funding Levels School Annual Funding Levels Per School MinimumMaximum $2 million $50,000 Amount of funding is based on the model selected and the services to be provided. Renewal funding may be contingent upon the school’s progress. 16

17. Recommended LAUSD Schools Turnaround Model Transformation Model Restart Model Fremont HS Gardena HS Hillcrest ES Jefferson HS Washington Prep HS Maywood HS Carver MS Crenshaw HS Gompers MS Griffith Joyner ES Manual Arts HS Markham MS Stevenson MS 17

18. State’s Timeline EventDate SIG Applications due to CDEJune 1, 2010 Award Notifications MailedJuly 2010 Submit revised LEA Plan and SPSA to CDE October 1, 2010 All funds must be expendedSeptember 30, 2013 (with approved waiver) 18

19. LAUSD Timeline/Process Responsibility Steps Time Frame for the Week of District Meet with unions to review SIG process. April 5, 2010 District Determine steps that need to be taken for each model. April 9, 2010 District Convene a meeting of all prospective applicants. April 12, 2010 School Selected SIG schools must hold a public meeting to engage stakeholders After April 12, 2010 School Return School Improvement Intent to Comply with Conditions and Assurances Due: April 23, 2010 District Convene an advisory group as an outgrowth of the Teacher Effectiveness Taskforce April 19 – ongoing District Based on Intervention Models – meet with LACOE & iDesign partners April 19 – 23, 2010 District Write Grant April 23 - ongoing District Presentation to Board for Grant approval May 25, 2010 19

20. Needs Assessment Data Collection on 9 Indicators District Assurances Grant Writing 20