1 program improvement update part i: persistently lowest-achieving schools part ii: delta sierra...

1

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT UPDATE

PART I: PERSISTENTLY LOWEST-ACHIEVING SCHOOLS

PART II: DELTA SIERRA MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THE DISTRICT/SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PROCESS

LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - BOARD OF EDUCATIONSPECIAL SESSION

APRIL 13, 2010

2

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT SCHOOLS:NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND DEFINITION

Title I schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2+ consecutive years are “in improvement”

Schools that fail to make AYP after 4 years are in “corrective action”

Schools that fail to make AYP after 5 years are “in restructuring”

3

LUSD PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT SCHOOLS

Year 3: Westwood

Year 4: Beckman

Creekside

Year 5: Heritage Parklane

Lawrence Sutherland

Needham Wagner Holt

Oakwood Washington

4

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION/RESTRUCTURING

EFFORTS

All PI Schools: Monitoring and Accountability Process District/School Leadership Team (DSLT)

- To bring district and school personnel together to implement corrective action at site

- To articulate, plan, and monitor restructuring and improvement strategies

- To assist in the implementation of interventions, collaborative teams, and use of data for decision-making and monitoring

5

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION/RESTRUCTURING

EFFORTS, CONT.

English/Language Arts (ELA) Instructional Coaches and Intervention Teachers

Additional Support provided to PI Schools Prior to Budget Challenges:

.5 Vice Principal added to formula ELD Instructional Coaches Certificated Community Liaison High Priority Grant Principal Coaching

6

INDIVIDUAL PI SCHOOL EFFORTS

Strategic Teacher Institute: Focus on research-based instructional strategies using a collaborative team/coaching model (7 PI schools, more under consideration for 2010-11)

Elementary AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination): Program to provide students with organizational skills with a focus on college and career readiness (3 PI schools, 2 non-PI schools, more under consideration for 2010-11)

Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA): Class Size Reduction K-6, full implementation of Nine Essential Program Components

7

NEW REQUIREMENTS FORPROGRAM IMPROVEMENT SCHOOLS

Federal and state laws and guidance associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, and the Race To The Top (RTTP) program require California to identify the state’s persistently lowest-achieving schools and require the lowest 5% of these schools to implement one of four school intervention models beginning in the 2010-11 school year.

8

GOAL FOR ARRA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS

Target majority of funds to each state’s

chronically low-performing schools, including high schools and their feeder schools, to

implement robust and comprehensive reforms to dramatically transform school culture and

increase student outcomes.

9

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.

10

LUSD TIER I SCHOOLS

Lawrence Elementary School

Sutherland Elementary School

11

FOUR SCHOOLINTERVENTION 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.

12

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

13

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.

14

Close/Consolidate Model

Close the school Enroll the students who attended the school in

other, higher-performing schools in the district.

15

TIMELINE

Turnaround Model: Must have completed principal and staff replacements by Day 1 of 2010-11 school year.

Transformation Model: Must have replaced the principal and instituted the new schedule that increases instructional time by Day 1 of 2010-11 school year.

Restart Model: Must open under new charter management on Day 1 of 2010-11 school year.

Closure Model: May prepare for the school’s closure during the 2010-11 school year, but must close the school no later than the end of the 2010-11 school year.

16

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY (LEA) ROLE

LEA would be required to:

Implement one of the four models in Tier I and Tier II schools it has the capacity to serve

Provide adequate resources to each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve in order to implement fully one of the four proposed interventions

Serve Tier I schools before it serves Tier III schools Establish three-year student achievement goals in

reading/language arts and mathematics and hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, those goals

17

LAWRENCE AND SUTHERLANDNEXT STEPS

Hold Community Forums/Public Hearings:

- Wednesday, April 14, 2010: Lawrence

- Thursday, April 15, 2010: Sutherland Share designation and intervention model choices

with parents, staff, and community members Seek input Speak To Action/Public Hearing – Board of

Education: April 20, 2010

18

CONSIDERATIONS

Seeking funds is in the best interest of the learning communities

School Improvement Grant Deadline: June 1, 2010 Does not provide for a planning year as with High Priority

Grants Notification of receipt of grant: July 1 or August 1, 2010 If awarded the grant, the district must implement all

elements by the beginning of the school year: July 27, 2010

The law is silent on the timeline for the implementation of one of the four models if the district does not apply for funding

19

CONSIDERATIONS (CONT.)

Plans to select new principals for both schools already in place

Elements to be negotiated with Lodi Education Association To maximize the opportunity to make the biggest difference

in the shortest amount of time, staff recommends consideration of the Turnaround Model for both schools

20

DESIREABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TURNAROUND MODEL

Lower Class Size Increased Support Staff: Vice Principal, Counselor, Parent

Outreach, etc. Instructional Coaches: English/Language Arts, Math,

English Language Development Technology Extended Learning Time for Students with Compensation

for Staff Interventions (Ex: ELD, Read 180, Earobics, Math) Professional Development (ELD and Math)

21

DESIREABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF TURNAROUND MODEL (CONT.)

Increased Collaboration Time (Vertical and Horizontal) Extended Day Kindergarten Single Subject Credentialed Teachers (Ex. Math) Elementary AVID Increased Monitoring of Classroom Instruction (State and

District) Pre Service in July for Staff Community Partnerships

22

REVIEW AND DISCUSS RECOMMENDATION

To maximize the opportunity to make the biggest difference in the shortest amount of time, staff recommends consideration of the Turnaround Model for both schools

Hold Community Forums/Public Hearings:

- Wednesday, April 14, 2010: Lawrence

- Thursday, April 15, 2010: Sutherland Speak To Action/Public Hearing – Board of Education:

April 20, 2010 Begin process of developing selected intervention model

and grant writing to meet June 1, 2010 deadline

23

PART II: DELTA SIERRA MIDDLE SCHOOLAND THE DISTRICT/SITE LEADERSHIP PROCESS

24

SAIT Status

Delta Sierra Middle School was assigned a Secondary Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) at the end of the 04-05 school year.

25

Why was Delta Sierra identified as a SAIT school?

The school was a participant in the Intermediate/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) beginning with the 2001-02 school year and has not achieve its API (Academic Performance Index) growth targets. Therefore, the Education Code sections 52055.5 and 52055.1 require that Delta Sierra Middle School become a state-monitored school.

26

What is the SAIT Process?

The School Assistance and Intervention process is an attempt to align all the school and District systems in support of student achievement.

The School Assistance and Intervention process is designed to look primarily at reading/language arts and mathematics.

27

During the Academic Program Surveythe SAIT Team:

Examined practices in place at the school site.

Compared them with the State’s recommended practices.

Committed to working with the school to make the required changes to improve student achievement.

28

To Exit the SAIT Process:

Delta had to make 1 point API growth each year for 2 consecutive years during the 36-month period.

If it succeeded, it would no longer have been subject to State sanctions.

29

Delta Sierra Middle School API History

02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

30


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

With such explosive growth, why is Delta Sierra still in SAIT?

31


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

2005: Delta Sierra entered the SAIT process.

32


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

Delta had 3 years to grow its API by 1 point two years in a row.

33


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

If no growth 2 years in a row, they would enter “Secondary SAIT.”

34


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

Delta’s API had two years of growth, but not in a row.

35


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

This put Delta into “Secondary SAIT” beginning the 08-09 school year.

36


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

The last two years of growth were outside the mandated timeline.

37


02

0

25

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

The CDE admits they should have placed Delta in “Secondary SAIT” when it didn’t grow in 06-07, but they failed to do so.

38


20

25

43

10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10

Years

AP

I P

oin

ts

Growth

Now Delta only

needs to grow 1 API point to exit SAIT.

39

Delta Sierra Work in Progress

Interim Principal Jacquelyn Hodge Jill Hatanaka, San Joaquin County Office of

Education.

40

Delta Sierra 09-10 Work Since there has been a 3-year plan for

instructional improvement put in place (established last year), the data supports the current direction because there has been growth in student achievement. To that end, the current pattern for growth must be sustained, rather than attempting any new strategy. Student Engagement, Lesson Design, and Building Relationships are proving effective based on correlation data (see appendix).

41

Delta Sierra 09-10 Work

2009-2010 School Year Goals/Expectations for Delta Sierra

1. Effective Lesson Design (California Content Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) 4.0)

2. 100% Student Engagement (CSTP 1.0)3. Build positive relationships with

students (CSTP 2.0)

42

Delta Sierra 10-11 Work

A District/Site Leadership Team (DSLT) will be assembled to help Delta Sierra Middle School’s staff build on the solid work they’re already doing. This model is built on mutual support and accountability

with the sole purpose of continuously improving student success.

Key district office leaders will work collaboratively with site administrators and teacher leaders to support the school’s plan to improve student performance.

43

The DSLT ProcessOne School’s Testimony

Ronald E. McNair High School Jim Davis, Principal Elizabeth Lawson, English Department Chair Elva Young, Pivot Learning Partners

44

APPENDIX

45

PI SCHOOL PROGRAMS/EFFORTS

Strategic Teacher Institute: Year 2: Creekside Year 1: Beckman

Parklane Lawrence Needham Oakwood

Wagner HoltAVID: Lawrence Needham Wagner Holt

46

QEIA: Needham

Oakwood

Sutherland

Washington

Delta Sierra

47

Persistently Low Achieving Elementary Schools

Data Charts

48

LUSD Persistently Lowest Achieving Elementary Schools Growth API (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

621 66

4 720

637 69

0 728

647

672 74

2

650

656

755

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 Growth API 621 664 720

2007 Growth API 637 690 728

2008 Growth API 647 672 742

2009 Growth API 650 656 755

Lawrence Elementary Sutherland Elementary California

49

LUSD Persistently Lowest Achieving Elementary Schools AYP Percent Proficient - English Language Arts (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

20.3 25

.4

44.8

23

28.2

45.5

25 25.9

48.2

24.6

26.3

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 20.3 25.4 44.8

2007 23 28.2 45.5

2008 25 25.9 48.2

2009 24.6 26.3 52


50

LUSD Persistently Lowest Achieving Elementary Schools AYP Percent Proficient - Mathematics (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

25.7 31

.9

48

25.6

34.8

48.5

33.4

27.8

51

31.4

33.7

54.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 25.7 31.9 48

2007 25.6 34.8 48.5

2008 33.4 27.8 51

2009 31.4 33.7 54.2


51

LUSD Persistently Lowest Achieving Elementary Schools CST Percent Proficient - English Language Arts (DataDirector - LUSD Schools 2006 thru 2009)

(CDE Dataquest - California 2007 thru 2009)

18.7

5

24.0

8

23.7

7

26.8

2

43.3

23.1

25.1

4

45.7

25 26.4

6

49.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 18.75 24.08

2007 23.77 26.82 43.3

2008 23.1 25.14 45.7

2009 25 26.46 49.9


52

LUSD Persistently Lowest Achieving Elementary Schools CST Percent Proficient - Mathematics

(DataDirector - LUSD Schools 2006 thru 2009)(CDE Dataquest - California 2007 thru 2009)

23.7

31.0

9

25.8

33.4

9 40.5

33.5

1

27.6

42.7

31.5

1

32.5

45.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

2006 23.7 31.09

2007 25.8 33.49 40.5

2008 33.51 27.6 42.7

2009 31.51 32.5 45.8


53

LUSD Persistently Lowest Achieving Elementary SchoolsCELDT Average Scaled Score (DataDirector_MAL Report)

2007 thru 200941

0.37 50

3.14

433.

79 515.

05

435.

94 512.

14

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

2007 410.37 503.14

2008 433.79 515.05

2009 435.94 512.14

Lawrence Elementary Sutherland Elementary

54

Selected Secondary Schools

Data Charts

55

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools Growth API (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

633 67

9

685

622

720

631 68

7

688

663 72

8

655

686

708

650 74

2

691

709

713

671 75

5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 Growth API 633 679 685 622 720

2007 Growth API 631 687 688 663 728

2008 Growth API 655 686 708 650 742

2009 Growth API 691 709 713 671 755

Delta Sierra Middle

Lodi Middle Bear Creek HighRonald McNair

HighCalifornia

56

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools AYP Percent Proficient - English Language Arts (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

25.5

32.5

47.4

32.9

44.8

28.3 34

.2 37.8

35.2

45.5

33.8

35.2 41

.6

33.5

48.2

37.9 41

.3 46.9

41.7

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 25.5 32.5 47.4 32.9 44.8

2007 28.3 34.2 37.8 35.2 45.5

2008 33.8 35.2 41.6 33.5 48.2

2009 37.9 41.3 46.9 41.7 52

Delta Sierra Middle Lodi Middle Bear Creek High Ronald McNair High California

57

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools AYP Percent Proficient - Mathematics (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

18.4

26.6

47.3

39.1

48

19

21.8

43.3

42.9 48

.5

19.8 22

.8

51.7

45.4 51

32.7

28.6

47.5

46.2

54.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 18.4 26.6 47.3 39.1 48

2007 19 21.8 43.3 42.9 48.5

2008 19.8 22.8 51.7 45.4 51

2009 32.7 28.6 47.5 46.2 54.2


58

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools AYP Graduation Rate (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

88.587.2

85

91.2

86.9

83.4

85.9 85.8

80.6

86.4

80.4 80.2

7476

7880

828486

8890

9294

2006 88.5 87.2 85

2007 91.2 86.9 83.4

2008 85.9 85.8 80.6

2009 86.4 80.4 80.2

Bear Creek High Ronald McNair High California

59

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools CST Percent Proficient - English Language Arts (DataDirector - LUSD Schools 2006 thru 2009)

(CDE Dataquest - California 2007 thru 2009)

22.6

9 32.3

3

33.2

3

22.7

2

27.5

1 33.9

3

34.1

1

26.8

7

43.3

32.7

5

33.7

6

36.7

1

29.3

4

45.7

34.5

6

40.3

40.9

7

33.4

7

49.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 22.69 32.33 33.23 22.72

2007 27.51 33.93 34.11 26.87 43.3

2008 32.75 33.76 36.71 29.34 45.7

2009 34.56 40.3 40.97 33.47 49.9


60

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools CST Percent Proficient - Mathematics

(DataDirector - LUSD Schools 2006 thru 2009)(CDE Dataquest - California 2007 thru 2009)

16.1

4

26

30.3

9

16.3

3

17.9

4

21.2

3

24.9

2

10.5

40.5

20.2

9

21.6

2

25.4

4

9.15

42.7

30.7

5

27.2

9

28.2

9.79

45.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

2006 16.14 26 30.39 16.33

2007 17.94 21.23 24.92 10.5 40.5

2008 20.29 21.62 25.44 9.15 42.7

2009 30.75 27.29 28.2 9.79 45.8


61

LUSD Selected Secondary Schools CAHSEE Grade 10 Percent Passing (CDE Dataquest)

2006 thru 2009

76

63

77 7468

7670 73 77

7278 7673

64

79 76 74 787972

79 76 75 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 76 63 77 74 68 76

2007 70 73 77 72 78 76

2008 73 64 79 76 74 78

2009 79 72 79 76 75 80

Bear Creek High Ronald McNair HighCalifornia Bear Creek High Ronald McNair HighCalifornia

English Language Arts Mathematics

62

LUSD Selected Secondary SchoolsCELDT Average Scaled Score (DataDirector_MAL Report)

2007 thru 2009

546.

61

546.

69

591.

80

583.

62

562.

12

534.

46

578.

30

582.

20

543.

96

549.

18

576.

24

579.

16

500.00

520.00

540.00

560.00

580.00

600.00

2007 546.61 546.69 591.80 583.62

2008 562.12 534.46 578.30 582.20

2009 543.96 549.18 576.24 579.16

Delta Sierra Middle Lodi Middle Bear Creek Ronald McNair High

1 program improvement update part i: persistently lowest-achieving schools part ii: delta sierra...

Documents

high schools

tiers of schools

feeder schools

corrective action schools

nonpi schools

program improvement

school year

improvement strategies