golden valley charter schools regular meeting of t he ...€¦ · 07/06/2017 · june 7, 2017...

June 7, 2017

Golden Valley Charter Schools Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees

6550 Filbert Avenue Orangevale, CA 95662

Agenda

1. Call to Order – 4:30p.m. (J. Hanafee)

2. Roll Call – 4:30 p.m. Board Members: John Hanafee, Chair, Ally Jakubicka, Vice Chair, Jodi Begley, Secretary, Sarah Sullivan, Zachary Phillips, G’anna Burke, Joanne Ahola, Becky Page, Ryan Sutton.

3. Flag Salute/Quote/Moment of Silence – 4:30 p.m. (C. Buckley)

4. Public Comment – 4:35 p.m.

This portion of the meeting is set aside for members of the audience to make public comments or raise issues that are not specifically on the agenda or for those that are on the agenda in areas of Board jurisdiction. These presentations are limited to three (3) minutes and the total time allotted to non-agenda items will not exceed fifteen (15) minutes.

5. Approval of the Minutes – 4:40 p.m. (J. Hanafee)

Action: Shall the Board approve the May 5, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes?

6. Approval of the Minutes – 4:45 p.m. (J. Hanafee) Action: Shall the Board approve the May 31, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes?

7. Orchard Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) for 2016-17 – 4:50 p.m. (C. Buckley) Action: Shall the board approve the Orchard LCAP for 2016-17?

8. River Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) for 2016-17 – 5:10 p.m. (C. Buckley) Action: Shall the board approve the River LCAP for 2016-17?

9. 2017-2018 Budget – 5:30 p.m. (C. Buckley) Action: Shall the board approve the 2017-18 school budget for Golden Valley Charter Schools?

10. 2017-2018 CharterSAFE Proposal – 6:00 p.m. (C. Buckley) Action: Shall the board approve the CharterSAFE proposal for coverage for 2017-18?

11. Reports – 6:15 p.m. Information/Discussion

Executive Director: The Executive Director will present items of interest to the board. (C. Buckley) Finance Committee: Caleb Buckley will present items of interest to the board. (C. Buckley) Board Chair: The Board Chair will present items of interest to the board.

(J. Hanafee) Orchard Faculty Chair: The Faculty Chair will present items of interest to the board. (Z. Phillips) River Faculty Chair: The Faculty Chair will present items of interest to the board. (R. Sutton)

June 7, 2017



12. Community Reports – 6:45 p.m.Information/DiscussionCCSA Families (A. Jakubicka) GVEF (S. Sullivan)

13. Closed Session – 7:00 p.m. (C. Buckley) The Board will go into closed session to discuss pending litigation and consultation with the attorney, according to Government Code § 54956.9.

14. Closed Session – 7:30 p.m. (J. Hanafee) The Board will go into closed session to consider the executive director’s annual employee evaluation, according to Government Code § 54957.

15. Recitation of the Motto of the Social Ethic – 8:00 p.m.The healing social life is foundWhen in the mirror of each human soulThe whole community finds its reflection,And when, in the community,The virtue of each one is living.

16. Adjournment of the meeting – 8:00 p.m. (J. Hanafee)

May 10, 2017



MINUTES

The meeting was called to order at 4:33 pm. Roll Call

Board Members Present: John Hanafee, Chair, Ally Jakubicka, Vice Chair, Jodi Begley, Secretary, Sarah Sullivan (Sarah left at 6:18 pm), G’anna Burke, Becky Page, Ryan Sutton. Board Members Absent: Zachary Phillips, Joanne Ahola. Guests: Amala Easton, Caleb Buckley, Julia Kapitula, Berry Crawford, Kim Crawford, Traci Ikemire, Rhoda Cortez, Ryan Gaska, John Baker, Susan Gutierrez.

Flag Salute/Quote/Moment of Silence - Caleb Buckley read the forgiveness virtue card. Public Comment

Jodi Begley commented about the dresscode. She is concerned that girls’ skirts are too short and bra-straps are showing. Traci Ikemire commented on the Teacher Looping Policy. She feels parents should have the opportunity to comment on this policy. Ryan Sutton commented that teacher assistants should not necessarily be phased out after grade 3. It should be based on the needs of the class.

Approval of the Minutes – The Board approved the April 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes? (Yeas: 6, Noes: 0, Abstain: 1, J. Hanafee)

Preliminary Budget for 2017-18 – The board reviewed the preliminary budget for 2017-18.

5 Year Budget Forecast – The board discussed the 5 Year Budget forecast.

Teacher Looping Policy – The board discussed the Teacher Looping Policy. Two members felt we should make sure to bring this policy discussion to the parent community.

Approval of Calendar Modification for 2017-18 – The board approved December 22, 2017 as a minimum day. (Yeas: 7, Noes: 0, Abstain: 0)

Approval of Board Meeting Dates – The board voted to approve the meeting dates for the 2017-18. (Yeas: 6, Noes: 0, Abstain: 1, Ryan Sutton)

Approval of MOU with San Juan for 2017-18 – The board will vote on this in June. Fundraiser Taskforce Update – The taskforce has met three times to review fundraisers and the relationship with field trips. The taskforce has established their goal as to make fundraising easier for parents, collecting money easier for teachers. They hope to have a revised policy draft by the year’s end. There is currently no faculty member to provide input or direction.

Preliminary LCAP Report – John Baker presented a preliminary LCAP report. Two board members would like to see the word “Waldorf” somewhere in the five primary goals.

May 10, 2017



Reports Executive Director: The Executive Director presented items of interest to the board. Board Chair: The Board Chair will report in closed session.

Orchard Faculty Chair: The Faculty Chair, Zachary Phillips, was absent. No Report.

River Faculty Chair: The Faculty Chair, Ryan Sutton, reported they are discussing bringing back the elective program for grades 7 and 8. They have considered doing a double block period.

Community Reports

CCSA Families – CCSA participated in Advocacy Day on May 2, 2017. They continue to have serious concerns about SB808, a bill that would allow districts to deny charter appeals and renewal based on the charter’s fiscal impact to the district. GVEF – No report.

Closed Session Discussion of ED evaluation. Extending survey deadline for more input. Chair will bring back results at June meeting

Recitation of the Motto of the Social Ethic The healing social life is found When in the mirror of each human soul The whole community finds its reflection, And when, in the community, The virtue of each one is living.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 pm. Respectfully submitted by Amala Easton. __________________________________________________ __________________________ John Hanafee, Chair Date

May 31, 2017



Special Meeting Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.. Roll Call – Board Members Present: John Hanafee, Chair, Ally Jakubicka, Vice Chair, Jodi Begley, Secretary, Sarah Sullivan, Zachary Phillips, G’anna Burke, Becky Page, Ryan Sutton. Board Members Absent: Joanne Ahola Guests: Amala Easton, Caleb Buckley, Adrienne Barnes, Julia Kapitula, Eric Walder, John Baker, Susan Gutierrez, Vida Easton. Flag Salute/Quote/Moment of Silence – Caleb Buckley read the Trust virtue card. Public Comment – There were no public comments Approval of the MOUs – The Board voted to approve the 2017-2019 MOU’s for Golden Valley Orchard School and Golden Valley River School with San Juan Unified School District. (Ayes: 7, Noes: 0, Abstain: 0)

Approval of the CSMC Service Contract 2017-18 – The board voted to approve the service contract with CSMC for the 2017-18 school year. (Ayes: 7, Noes: 0, Abstain: 0)

Recitation of the Motto of the Social Ethic

The healing social life is found When in the mirror of each human soul The whole community finds its reflection, And when, in the community, The virtue of each one is living.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:14 p.m.. Respectfully submitted by Amala Easton. ________________________________________________ __________________________ John Hanafee, Chair Date

of 49

LCAP Year 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20

Local Control Accountability Plan and Annual Update (LCAP) Template

Addendum: General instructions & regulatory requirements.

Appendix A: Priorities 5 and 6 Rate Calculations

Appendix B: Guiding Questions: Use as prompts (not limits)

LCFF Evaluation Rubrics [Note: this text will be hyperlinked to the LCFF Evaluation Rubric web page when it becomes available.]: Essential data to support completion of this LCAP. Please analyze the LEA’s full data set; specific links to the rubrics are also provided within the template.

LEA Name Golden Valley Orchard School

Contact Name and Title

John Baker, Principal Email and Phone

[email protected] 916-987-1490

2017-20 Plan Summary THE STORY Briefly describe the students and community and how the LEA serves them.

Golden Valley Orchard School opened in the fall of 2015 as an independent charter school. We serve approximately 228 students K through 6th grade. In the next two years, we will be growing to a K-8. The San Juan Unified School District has approved a 5-year renewal on December 13, 2016. Our student population is 2.2 % English Learner (EL), 41% are classified low-income, and 6.7% special education. Our student population is made up of 1% of American Indians, 1.3% of Asians, 13% of Hispanics, 1% of African Americans, 75.1% of Caucasians, and 9.8% of 2 or more races. Our school is a community of parents and teachers using a curriculum inspired by Waldorf education that nourishes and inspires our students. The education brings forth creative imagination, critical thinking, self-confidence, a sense of delight, and respect for nature and humanity; while building a strong academic foundation. Within this framework, each teacher selects and presents the subject matter using a curriculum inspired by Waldorf Education and other best practices tailored to the learning needs of the children in the class and aligned with Common Core standards.

LCAP HIGHLIGHTS Identify and briefly summarize the key features of this year’s LCAP.

The following 5 goals have been identified for focus within the next three years: Goal 1 – High-quality academics: GVOS will provide a high quality educational system and comprehensive instructional public Waldorf inspired program to increase achievement in the classroom. 5 actions/services (p. 17 to p. 22) Goal 2 – Broader community and family supports: GVOS will ensure students, staff, parents and the community are satisfied and engaged in our schools and programs. 7 actions/services (p. 24 to p. 31) Goal 3 – School Climate: GVOS will provide a clean, safe, and positive climate for all students and staff. 6 actions/service (p. 33 to p. 39)

mailto:[email protected]

of 49

REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE

Based on a review of performance on the state indicators and local performance indicators included in the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, progress toward LCAP goals, local self-assessment tools, stakeholder input, or other information, what progress is the LEA most proud of and how does the LEA plan to maintain or build upon that success? This may include identifying any specific examples of how past increases or improvements in services for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth have led to improved performance for these students.

GREATEST PROGRESS

Since it is our first school year with our own LEA, we currently cannot compare data until next year. The overall ELA performance 3rd through 5th grade, based on 76 students that participated in the CAASPP, 58% of the students met the achievement standards. The parent body at GVOS is highly invested in multiples areas of need such as parent circle, festival committee, safety committee, finance committee, class parents, field trip coordinators, and board of trustees. The school continues to implement educational services (RTI) to support students who need extra help in math, writing and reading.

Referring to the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, identify any state indicator or local performance indicator for which overall performance was in the “Red” or “Orange” performance category or where the LEA received a “Not Met” or “Not Met for Two or More Years” rating. Additionally, identify any areas that the LEA has determined need significant improvement based on review of local performance indicators or other local indicators. What steps is the LEA planning to take to address these areas with the greatest need for improvement?

GREATEST NEEDS

Based on the 2016 CAASPP scores, math is an area that needs improvement. Again, as 2015-16 was the baseline year for our single-school LEA there is not comparable data from 2015-16 to the 2016-17 year. The number of students that met or exceeded standards on the CAASPP was 21% out of the 78 students. We continue to invest in targeted support and intervention programs (RTI) to meet the instructional needs of at-risk students at all grade levels. The teachers have attended many hours of professional development in math with the intention to improve the math scores for the 2016-17 school year. See: Goal 1 (p. 17 to p. 22)

Referring to the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, identify any state indicator for which performance for any student group was two or more performance levels below the “all student” performance. What steps is the LEA planning to take to address these performance gaps?

Goal 4 – High-quality staff: GVOS will attract, recruit, and retain highly effective and diverse teachers with a California Teaching Credential and Waldorf Education Certification. Once hired, if the teacher is not Waldorf trained, the school will provide an opportunity for Waldorf training on the methodology and pedagogy. 5 actions/services (p. 41 to p. 46) Goal 5 – Efficient operations: GVOS will improve the school budget and demonstrate cost-effective budget management in the allocation of funds. 1 actions/services (p. 48 to p. 49)

of 49

PERFORMANCE GAPS

Since it is our first school year with our own LEA, we currently cannot compare data until next year. The school did not the LCFF Evaluation Rubric. GVOS will not have identified gaps until the 2017-2018 school year when we will obtain the LCFF Evaluation Rubric.

of 49

INCREASED OR IMPROVED SERVICES If not previously addressed, identify the two to three most significant ways that the LEA will increase or improve services for low-income students, English learners, and foster youth.

Based on stakeholder feedback and research on effective practices, we are implementing more than 24 LCAP actions and services to improve services for the low-income student sub-group at GVOS.

BUDGET SUMMARY Complete the table below. LEAs may include additional information or more detail, including graphics.

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

Total General Fund Budget Expenditures for LCAP Year $ 2,039,669

Total Funds Budgeted for Planned Actions/Services to Meet the Goals in the LCAP for LCAP year $ 112,830

The LCAP is intended to be a comprehensive planning tool but may not describe all General Fund Budget Expenditures. Briefly describe any of the General Fund Budget Expenditures specified above for the LCAP year not included in the LCAP.

The general fund budget expenditures of the amount of $2,039,669 was used in the category of certificated salaries, classified salaries, employee benefits, books and supplies, services and other operating expenditure, and capital outlay that are not included in the LCAP.

$ 1,993,067 Total Projected LCFF Revenues for LCAP Year

of 49

Annual Update LCAP Year Reviewed: 2016-2017

Complete a copy of the following table for each of the LEA’s goals from the prior year LCAP. Duplicate the table as needed.

Goal 1

Students will improve their ELA proficiency scores through strategic academic interventions, access to Common Core State Standards and instructional best Practices.

State and/or Local Priorities Addressed by this goal: STATE x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 COE 9 10 LOCAL ___N/A___________________________________

ANNUAL MEASURABLE OUTCOMES

EXPECTED ACTUAL

Beginning in the first grade the number of students who are at grade level or above in reading will increase by an average of 5% through the course of any given year.

Based on the end-of-year Golden Valley Orchard School benchmark assessments, 50.3% of students were at or above grade level in ELA.

ACTIONS / SERVICES

Duplicate the Actions/Services from the prior year LCAP and complete a copy of the following table for each. Duplicate the table as needed.

Action 1 Empty Cell Empty Cell

Actions/Services

PLANNED Our students are introduced to formal reading instruction beginning in first grade. Beginning in second grade and continuing through the eighth-grade students below grade level in reading will receive active interventions in reading acquisition. (i.e. small group instruction)

ACTUAL

20% of students enrolled at GVOS received RTI services during the 2016-17 school year.

of 49

Expenditures BUDGETED Cost of ES Staff ($15K – LCFF Base)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$15,000


Actions/Services

PLANNED Maintain adequate standards aligned instructional materials and classroom supplies to support portfolio assessment (main lesson books)

ACTUAL

Students in all grades were provided with instructional materials and classroom supplies to support portfolio assessment.

Expenditures BUDGETED Cost of Main Lesson Books ($10K – LCFF SG)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$10,000


Actions/Services

PLANNED Student achievement will be measured by formative and summative assessments.

ACTUAL

Benchmark assessments aligned with the Common Core standards were created and administered three times during the 2016-17 year. Students participated in the CAASPP summative assessments.

Expenditures BUDGETED Illuminate Assessment Coordinator ($30K-LCFF SG)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$30,000

Analysis Use actual measurable outcome data, including performance data from the LCFF Evaluation Rubric, as applicable Describe the overall implementation of the actions/services to achieve the articulated goal

All students were administered the GVOS benchmark assessments for ELA three times throughout the 16-17 school year. Teachers analyzed the results of these assessments and did further assessments to determine interventions needed inside the classroom as well as students needing short-term interventions in small pull-out groups outside of the classroom.

Describe the overall effectiveness of the actions/services to achieve the articulated goal as measured by the LEA

According to an overall benchmark results, growth took place in 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th.

However, there was a step back in 3rd and 6th grade. In 2015-2016, 68.3% of students met or exceeded standard, however, in 2016-2017, 50.3% of students met or exceeded standard. A total drop of 18% in ELA.

Explain material differences between Budgeted Expenditures and Estimated Actual Expenditure

N/A

Describe any changes made to this goal, expected outcomes, metrics, or actions and services to achieve this goal as a

The school decided to combine ELA and Math as one goal that will provide a high quality educational system and comprehensive instructional program to increase achievement in the classroom.

of 49

result of this analysis and analysis of the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, as applicable, identify where those changes can be found in the LCAP

Complete a copy of the following table for each of the LEA’s goals from the prior year LCAP. Duplicate the table as needed.

Goal 2

All students will improve their Math proficiency scores through strategic academic interventions, access to Common Core State Standards and instructional best practices.

State and/or Local Priorities Addressed by this goal: STATE x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 COE 9 10 LOCAL ___N/A___________________________________


EXPECTED ACTUAL

Beginning in the first grade the number of students who are at grade level or above in math will increase by an average of 5% through the course of any given year.

Based on the end-of-year Golden Valley benchmark assessments, 49.7% of students were at or above grade level in math.

ACTIONS / SERVICES

Duplicate the Actions/Services from the prior year LCAP and complete a copy of the following table for each. Duplicate the table as needed.


Actions/Services

PLANNED Students in the 1st - 5th grade will receive differentiated instruction in Math using CCSS/Public Waldorf aligned materials.

ACTUAL

20% of students enrolled at GVOS received RTI services during the 2016-17 school year.

of 49

Expenditures BUDGETED Cost of ES Staff ($30K LCFF Base)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$30,000

Action 2

Actions/Services

PLANNED Student achievement will be measured by teacher made formative and summative assessments

ACTUAL

Benchmark assessments aligned with the Common Core standards were created and administered three times during the 2016-17 year. Students participated in the CAASPP summative assessments. The sixth grade utilized the Math in Focus math curriculum during the 2016-17 year.

Expenditures BUDGETED Cost of ES Staff ($15K - LCFF Base)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$15,000


All students were administered the GVOS benchmark assessments for Math three times throughout the 16-17 school year. Teachers analyzed the results of these assessments and did further assessments to determine interventions needed inside the classroom as well as students needing short-term interventions in small pull-out groups outside of the classroom.


According to an overall benchmark results, growth took place in 1st, 2nd, and 4th. However a step back in 3rd, 5th and 6th grade. In 2015-2016, 44.5% of students met or exceeded standard, however, in 2016-2017, 49.7% of students met or exceeded standard. An overall increase of 5.2%. The implementation of Making Math Real helped teachers to deliver efficient math lessons and the students were able to master many areas of mathematics.


N/A

Describe any changes made to this goal, expected outcomes, metrics, or actions and services to achieve this goal as a result of this analysis and analysis of the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, as applicable, identify where those changes can be found in the LCAP

The school decided to combine ELA and Math as one goal that will provide a high quality educational system and comprehensive instructional program to increase achievement in the classroom.

of 49

Goal3

All students will be housed in appropriate San Juan District facilities.

State and/or Local Priorities Addressed by this goal: STATE x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 COE 9 10 LOCAL ___N/A___________________________________


EXPECTED ACTUAL

Increase school facilities for our growing student population including specialty classes, educational support and office space.

The school added a 6th grade class and a fully functional computer lab.

Action 1

Actions/Services

PLANNED Work with San Juan District Facilities Director on the Facilities Use Agreement that satisfies the needs of our growing student population

ACTUAL

Continue to work with San Juan Facilities Director to expand the school that will meet the needs of our students

Expenditures BUDGETED 0

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

0

Action 2

Actions/Services PLANNED Work with San Juan District Facilities Director to adequately maintain the facilities.

ACTUAL

San Juan Unified School District updated alarm system infrastructure and replace asphalt in the corridors and kinder yard.


ESTIMATED ACTUAL

0

of 49

Action 3

Actions/Services PLANNED Hire our own custodial staff to maintain one of our school site

ACTUAL

Continue to negotiate with the San Juan Unified School District obtaining a Head Custodian.

Expenditures BUDGETED $20K – LCFF Base

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$20,000


The school continues to negotiate facility arrangements with the San Juan Unified School District


N/A


N/A


None

of 49

Goal 4

All students will be educated in a learning environment that is safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.

State and/or Local Priorities Addressed by this goal: STATE x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 COE 9 10 LOCAL ___N/A___________________________________


EXPECTED ACTUAL

Create grade level appropriate descriptions for categories of disruptive student behavior which will provide teachers with guidelines for issuing Behavioral Referrals

Principal developed a behavioral referrals guideline and will be fully implemented in the fall of 2017

Action 1

Actions/Services

PLANNED The School Climate leadership Team, made up of administration and teachers, will develop the criteria as stated above.

ACTUAL

The principal created a Care Group Committee which consist of teachers so that they can analyze the health of the student body and develop events to reduce suspension/behavior referrals.


ESTIMATED ACTUAL

0

of 49

Action 2

Actions/Services

PLANNED Implement the Nurtured Heart (positive behavior), virtues project, and hope system (social skills) at all grade levels. Including the purchasing of materials.

ACTUAL

The school purchased the Nurtured Heart Approach book for every teacher. A monthly book study lead by the principal, took place in order to fully understand and implement strategies to improve classroom management.

Expenditures BUDGETED $20K – LCFF Base

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

~$3,000


The school fully implemented the Nurtured Heart Approach as a method to handle classroom management.


The implementation of the goal reduced suspensions and behavioral referrals.


Over budgeted – goal achieved at less expense.


The school is the process to develop a Care Group Committee that will replace the School Climate Leadership Team.

of 49

Goal 5

Attracts more parents to Parents Enrichment opportunities and class meetings

State and/or Local Priorities Addressed by this goal: STATE 1 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X6 7 8 COE 9 10 LOCAL ___N/A___________________________________


EXPECTED ACTUAL

The number of parents who attended parent enrichment offerings and class meetings will increase by 5% annually. Data will be collected on sign-in sheets.

28% percent of parent attendance to parent enrichment events.

Action 1

Actions/Services

PLANNED Advertise events to parents through a variety of communication methods

ACTUAL

Phone, emails, blackboard, newsletter, website, flyers, and poster, were communication methods to advertise school events the community.

Expenditures BUDGETED $1,250 for advertising (LCFF Base)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$1,250

of 49

Action 2

Actions/Services PLANNED Provide childcare for students during parent enrichment offerings

ACTUAL

The school provided childcare for parent events.

Expenditure BUDGETED $500 to childcare provider (LCFF Base)

ESTIMATED ACTUAL

$500


The actions and services were accomplished. More parents attended parent enrichment events in the fall of 2016 and Spring of 2017.


The advertisement method was successful which resulted in increasing the percentage of parents attending parent enrichment events.


N/A


None at this time

of 49

Stakeholder Engagement LCAP Year 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20

Empty Cell

INVOLVEMENT PROCESS FOR LCAP AND ANNUAL UPDATE

How, when, and with whom did the LEA consult as part of the planning process for this LCAP/Annual Review and Analysis?

The process for the LCAP at Golden Valley Orchard School was done as the following:

1) Town Hall meeting – September 28th of 2016 2) Town Hall meeting – February 8th of 2017 3) Staff Survey: February 27th of 2017 4) Student Survey: February 28th of 2017 5) Parent Survey: March 6th of 2017

IMPACT ON LCAP AND ANNUAL UPDATE

How did these consultations impact the LCAP for the upcoming year?

The survey and town hall meeting will indeed help the school to navigate with the stakeholders input. The consultation from the stakeholders will drive the school to improve current committees that will support the needs expressed by the parents and students.

of 49

Goals, Actions, & Services Strategic Planning Details and Accountability

New Modified Unchanged

Goal 1 High-quality academics: GVOS will provide a high quality educational system and comprehensive instructional public Waldorf inspired program to increase achievement in the classroom.

Empty Cell Empty Cell

State and/or Local Priorities Addressed by this goal: STATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 COE 9 10 LOCAL ______________________________________

Identified Need Math CAASPP results indicated 12% that shows a need of improvement. The results of a school wide survey report a need in increased in Math.

EXPECTED ANNUAL MEASURABLE OUTCOMES

Metrics/Indicators Baseline 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

CAASPP Math Achievement Scores

School 21% met or exceeded standard School 30% School 35% School 40%

CAASPP ELA Achievement Scores

School 58% met or exceeded standard School 61% School 64% School 67%

Academic Indicator rubric data to monitor progress in the State Indicator

No baseline since we were not our own LEA – (LEA was established on 2015-2016)

GVOS ELA Achievement Scores

School 50.3% met or exceeded standard School 53.3% School 56.3% School 59.3%

GVOS Math Achievement Scores

School 49.7% met or exceeded standard School 51.7% School 53.7% School 55.7%

of 49

PLANNED ACTIONS / SERVICES

Action 1.0 Empty Cell Empty Cell

For Actions/Services not included as contributing to meeting the Increased or Improved Services Requirement:

Students to be Served All Students with Disabilities [Specific Student Group(s)]___________________

Location(s) All schools Specific Schools:___________________ Specific Grade spans:__________________

OR

For Actions/Services included as contributing to meeting the Increased or Improved Services Requirement:

be Served English Learners Foster Youth Low Income

Scope of Services LEA-wide Schoolwide OR Limited to Unduplicated Student Group(s)


ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

New Modified Unchanged New Modified Unchanged New Modified Unchanged

1 hour a month of professional development focusing on math, ELA, and NGSS.




of 49

BUDGETED EXPENDITURES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount $1,500 Amount $2,000 Amount $2,000

Source LCFF Base Source LCFF Base Source LCFF Base

Budget Reference

Object code 1100 Budget Reference Object code 1100 Budget

Reference Object code 1100





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


On-going evaluation and mentorship from Principal and contracted mentors.




of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference

Object Code 1300 and 5800 Budget Reference Object Code 1300 and 5800 Budget

Reference Object Code 1300 and 5800





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Summer professional development for Waldorf Curriculum




of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount 0 Amount 0 Amount 0

Source N/A Source N/A Source N/A

Budget Reference

N/A Budget Reference N/A Budget

Reference N/A





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Provide teachers with professional development upon benchmark results




of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount $ 5,760 Amount $ 5,760 Amount $ 5,760


Budget Reference Object Code Series 1100 - 1999 Budget Reference Object Code Series 1100 - 1999 Budget

Reference Object Code Series 1100 – 1999





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


On-going educational support for students that are performing below grade level




of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount $40K Amount $45K Amount $45K

Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and Concentration

Funds Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds

Budget Reference Object code Series 1100 – 1999, 4000 - 4999

Budget Reference

Object code Series 1100 – 1999, 4000 - 4999

Budget Reference

Object code Series 1100 – 1999, 4000 - 4999

of 49


Goal 2 Goal 2 – Broader community and family supports: GVOS will ensure students, staff, parents and the community are satisfied and engaged in our schools and programs.



Identified Need Updated technology to improve communication from school to parents To develop a clear structure of the organization to the stakeholders



Monitor yearly LCAP parent survey

Implementation of LCAP parent survey – First year 53.19%/100 of families who participated in the LCAP parent survey

60%/100 of families will participate in the LCAP parent survey



Monitor parents’ attendance to parent circle.

A total of 8 parents attended the parent circle monthly meeting

A total of 10 parents will attend the parent circle monthly meeting



Monitor parents’ attendance to parent enrichment events

A total of 80 parents attended parent enrichment events

A total of 85 parents will attend the parent enrichment events



Monitor Parent information meeting attendance

A total of 110 parents attended the Parent Information Meeting




of 49






OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


On-going parent involvement in Parent Circle (PTA) and festivals.

On-going parent involvement in Parent Circle (PTA) and festivals.

On-going parent involvement in Parent Circle (PTA), and festivals.

BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Empty Cell Empty Cell

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference

N/A Budget Reference N/A Budget

Reference N/A

of 49





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Fostering on-going volunteerism on field trips, in the classroom and school support




of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference N/A Budget Reference N/A Budget Reference N/A





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Updating technology that will improve the communication with stakeholders (Parent Square software and others)

Updating technology that will improve the communication with stakeholders (Parent Square Technology and others)

Updating technology that will improve the communication with stakeholders (Parent Square Technology and others)

of 49



2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount $250 Amount $1,050 Amount $1,050


Budget Reference Object Code 5800 Budget Reference Object Code 5800 Budget Reference Object Code 5800

Action

2.3

Empty Cell




OR





of 49

ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Developing a clear structure of the organization





2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference N/A Budget Reference N/A Budget

Reference N/A


of 49

Action 2.4 For Actions/Services not included as contributing to meeting the Increased or Improved Services Requirement:



OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Provide parent enrichment events to support parents with Waldorf Education in the public and charter school movement.





2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and

Concentration Funds

Budget Reference Object Code 5800 Budget Reference Object Code 5800 Budget Reference Object Code 5800

of 49

Action

2.5





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


On-going parent information meetings to recruit new students On-going parent information meetings to recruit new students

On-going parent information meetings to recruit new students



2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount $4000 Amount $4000 Amount $4000

Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and

Concentration Funds

Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000-3999 Budget

Reference Object Code Series 1000-3999

Budget Reference

Object Code Series 1000-3999

of 49

Action

2.6





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Work with Student Services Coordinator, administrators, parent groups, student council, and staff to develop ideas and increase student daily attendance



BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Empty Cell Empty Cell

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference Object Code Series 3000 - 3999 Budget Reference

Object Code Series 3000 – 3999

Budget Reference Object Code Series 3000 – 3999

of 49


Goal 3 School Climate: GVOS will provide a clean, safe, and positive climate for all students and staff.



Identified Need • Developing a behavior support committee • Developing student council • Recruiting a head custodian • Employ a school psychologist



Using suspension rate indicator rubric data to monitor progress in the State indicator

4.82%/100 students were suspended based on 228 students

Suspension will stay the same and not increase



Monitor school climate through parent survey

53.19%/100 parents participated on the LCAP parent survey

Parents participation on the LCAP survey will increase by 3%

Parents participation on the LCAP survey will increase by 3%

Parents participation on the LCAP survey will remain the same as the previous year

of 49






OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


On-going Safety Committee (consists of one parent, teacher, principal, and administrative assistant)



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 -3999 Budget Reference

Object Code Series 1000 -3999

Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 -3999





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Continue to negotiate our facility agreement with San Juan Unified School District with the intention of obtaining a Head Custodian.



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999 Budget


Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Contract a school psychologist and speech therapist



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference Object Code 5810 Budget

Reference Object Code 5810 Budget Reference Object Code 5810





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


On-going active communication with parents about chronic absences



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20










OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Developing a student council for middle school lead by 7th grade teacher

On-going student council for middle school lead by 7th grade teacher

On-going student council for middle school lead by 7th grade teacher

of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999 Budget Reference

Object Code Series 1000 – 3999


Action

3.5 ell Empty Cell




OR





of 49

ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Developing a behavior support committee to reduce suspensions and expulsions




2017-18 2018-19 2019-20




Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999 Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999

of 49


Goal 4

Goal 4 – High-quality staff: GVOS will attract, recruit, and retain highly effective and diverse teachers with a California Teaching Credential and Waldorf Education Certification. Once hired, if the teacher is not Waldorf trained, the school will provide an opportunity for Waldorf training on the methodology and pedagogy



Identified Need - Development of teacher evaluation form aligned with ESSA - On-going support for teachers with preliminary credential - On-going professional development to support teachers with instructional methods - On-going support with outside mentoring - Trying to be competitive in teaching salary scale with local district - To attract highly qualified teachers, school will participate in education job fair and Edjoin.



Monitoring teachers’ credential status

80% of staff who are fully credentialed (clear Induction)

90% of staff will be fully credentialed (clear Induction)



Monitor teachers’ yearly evaluation with rubric

100% percent of the teachers were evaluated

100% percent of the teachers will be evaluated

100% percent of the teachers will be evaluated

100% percent of the teachers will be valuated

Monitor teachers’ attendance to professional development

100% percent of the teachers attended one or more professional development trainings

100% percent of the teachers will attend one or more professional development trainings



of 49






OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Current full time teachers will be attending “Art of Teaching” as a requirement by the organization at a local Waldorf institute to develop efficient lesson plans over the summer for the upcoming school year.



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20





Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999 Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 - 3999





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


New teachers without a Waldorf Education background, will attend a local Waldorf institute over the summer to learn the fundamental of Waldorf curriculum which is tied with Common Core standards



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20




Budget Reference Object Code 5210 Budget Reference Object Code 5210 Budget

Reference Object Code 5210





OR





of 49

ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


School will place teachers with a preliminary credential into an Induction program through the Placer County Office of Education.




2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and

Concentration Funds Source Supplemental and Concentration Funds

Budget Reference Object Code 5210 Budget Reference Object Code 5210 Budget

Reference Object Code 5210





OR





of 49

ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


School will seek out a professional mentor to support teachers with their instruction and evaluation




2017-18 2018-19 2019-20



Budget Reference N/A Budget Reference N/A Budget

Reference N/A





OR





of 49

ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


School will develop a new evaluation form that is aligned with ESSA and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession.




2017-18 2018-19 2019-20






of 49


Goal 5 Efficient operations: GVOS will improve the school budget and demonstrate cost-effective budget management in the allocation of funds.



Identified Need GVOS will reduce the costs paid for administrative services, allowing funds for education programs.



Monitoring and reducing central management fee

Central Management office fee of $252,416.09

3% reduction from baseline fee Or, - $7572.48

Additional 3% reduction from baseline fee or, - $7345.30

Additional 3% reduction from baseline fee or, - $7124.94

of 49


Complete a copy of the following table for each of the LEA’s Actions/Services. Duplicate the table, including Budgeted Expenditures, as needed.





OR





ACTIONS/SERVICES

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


The Leadership Team will find ways to reduce the cost paid for administrative services in order to allocate funds for educational programs.



of 49


2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Amount $ 4,000 Amount $ 4,000 Amount $ 4,000

Source LCFF base Source LCFF base Source LCFF base

Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 – 5999 Budget


Budget Reference Object Code Series 1000 – 5999

Demonstration of Increased or Improved Services for Unduplicated Pupils

LCAP Year 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20

Estimated Supplemental and Concentration Grant Funds: $ 60,332 Percentage to Increase or Improve Services: 7.39 %

Describe how services provided for unduplicated pupils are increased or improved by at least the percentage identified above, either qualitatively or quantitatively, as compared to services provided for all students in the LCAP year. Identify each action/service being funded and provided on a schoolwide or LEA-wide basis. Include the required descriptions supporting each schoolwide or LEA-wide use of funds (see instructions).

The End

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 1.0: See Appendix B 1.1: See Appendix B 1.2: See Appendix B 1.3: See Appendix B 1.4: See Appendix B

2.0: See Appendix C 2.1: See Appendix C 2.2: See Appendix C 2.3: See Appendix C 2.4: See Appendix C 2.6: See Appendix C

3.3: See Appendix D 4.0: See Appendix E 4.2: See Appendix E 4.4: See Appendix E

Appendix

Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update Template Instructions

Addendum The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Annual Update Template documents and communicates local educational agencies’ (LEAs) actions and expenditures to support student outcomes and overall performance. The LCAP is a three-year plan, which is reviewed and updated annually, as required. Charter schools may complete the LCAP to align with the term of the charter school’s budget, typically one year, which is submitted to the school’s authorizer. The LCAP and Annual Update Template must be completed by all LEAs each year.

For school districts, the LCAP must describe, for the school district and each school within the district, goals and specific actions to achieve those goals for all students and each student group identified by the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) (ethnic, socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners, foster youth, pupils with disabilities, and homeless youth), for each of the state priorities and any locally identified priorities.

For county offices of education, the LCAP must describe, for each county office of education-operated school and program, goals and specific actions to achieve those goals for all students and each LCFF student group funded through the county office of education (students attending juvenile court schools, on probation or parole, or expelled under certain conditions) for each of the state priorities and any locally identified priorities. School districts and county offices of education may additionally coordinate and describe in their LCAPs services funded by a school district that are provided to students attending county-operated schools and programs, including special education programs.

If a county superintendent of schools has jurisdiction over a single school district, the county board of education and the governing board of the school district may adopt and file for review and approval a single LCAP consistent with the requirements in Education Code (EC) sections 52060, 52062, 52066, 52068, and 52070. The LCAP must clearly articulate to which entity’s budget (school district or county superintendent of schools) all budgeted and actual expenditures are aligned.

Charter schools must describe goals and specific actions to achieve those goals for all students and each LCFF subgroup of students including students with disabilities and homeless youth, for each of the state priorities that apply for the grade levels served or the nature of the program operated by the charter school, and any locally identified priorities. For charter schools, the inclusion and description of goals for state priorities in the LCAP may be modified to meet the grade levels served and the nature of the programs provided, including modifications to reflect only the statutory requirements explicitly applicable to charter schools in the EC. Changes in LCAP goals and actions/services for charter schools that result from the annual update process do not necessarily constitute a material revision to the school’s charter petition.

For questions related to specific sections of the template, please see instructions below:

Instructions: Linked Table of Contents Plan Summary Annual Update Stakeholder Engagement Goals, Actions, and Services Planned Actions/Services Demonstration of Increased or Improved Services for Unduplicated Students For additional questions or technical assistance related to completion of the LCAP template, please contact the local county office of education, or the CDE’s Local Agency Systems Support Office at: 916-319-0809 or by email at: [email protected].

Plan Summary The LCAP is intended to reflect an LEA’s annual goals, actions, services and expenditures within a fixed three-year planning cycle. LEAs must include a plan summary for the LCAP each year.

When developing the LCAP, mark the appropriate LCAP year, and address the prompts provided in these sections. When developing the LCAP in year 2 or year 3, mark the appropriate LCAP year and replace the previous summary information with information relevant to the current year LCAP.

In this section, briefly address the prompts provided. These prompts are not limits. LEAs may include information regarding local program(s), community demographics, and the overall vision of the LEA. LEAs may also attach documents (e.g., the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics data reports) if desired and/or include charts illustrating goals, planned outcomes, actual outcomes, or related planned and actual expenditures.

An LEA may use an alternative format for the plan summary as long as it includes the information specified in each prompt and the budget summary table.

The reference to LCFF Evaluation Rubrics means the evaluation rubrics adopted by the State Board of Education under EC Section 52064.5.

Budget Summary

The LEA must complete the LCAP Budget Summary table as follows:

• Total LEA General Fund Budget Expenditures for the LCAP Year: This amount is the LEA’s total budgeted General Fund expenditures for the LCAP year. The LCAP year means the fiscal year for which an LCAP is adopted or updated by July 1. The General Fund is the main operating fund of the LEA and accounts for all activities not accounted for in another fund. All activities are reported in the General Fund unless there is a compelling reason to account for an activity in another fund. For further information please refer to the California School Accounting Manual (http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/sa/). (Note: For some charter schools that follow governmental fund accounting, this amount is the total budgeted expenditures in the Charter Schools Special Revenue Fund. For charter schools that follow the not-for-profit accounting model, this amount is total budgeted expenses, such as those budgeted in the Charter Schools Enterprise Fund.)

• Total Funds Budgeted for Planned Actions/Services to Meet the Goals in the LCAP for the LCAP Year: This amount is the total of the budgeted expenditures associated with the actions/services included for the LCAP year from all sources of funds, as reflected in the LCAP. To the extent actions/services and/or expenditures are listed in the LCAP under more than one goal, the expenditures should be counted only once.

• Description of any use(s) of the General Fund Budget Expenditures specified above for the LCAP year not included in the LCAP: Briefly describe expenditures included in total General Fund Expenditures that are not included in the total funds budgeted for planned actions/services for the LCAP year. (Note: The total funds budgeted for planned actions/services may include funds other than general fund expenditures.)

http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/sa/

• Total Projected LCFF Revenues for LCAP Year: This amount is the total amount of LCFF funding the LEA estimates it will receive pursuant to EC sections 42238.02 (for school districts and charter schools) and 2574 (for county offices of education), as implemented by EC sections 42238.03 and 2575 for the LCAP year respectively.

Annual Update The planned goals, expected outcomes, actions/services, and budgeted expenditures must be copied verbatim from the previous year’s* approved LCAP. Minor typographical errors may be corrected.

* For example, for LCAP year 2017/18 of the 2017/18 – 2019/20 LCAP, review the goals in the 2016/17 LCAP. Moving forward, review the goals from the most recent LCAP year. For example, LCAP year 2020/21 will review goals from the 2019/20 LCAP year, which is the last year of the 2017/18 – 2019/20 LCAP.

Annual Measurable Outcomes

For each goal in the prior year, identify and review the actual measurable outcomes as compared to the expected annual measurable outcomes identified in the prior year for the goal.

Actions/Services Identify the planned Actions/Services and the budgeted expenditures to implement these actions toward achieving the described goal. Identify the actual actions/services implemented to meet the described goal and the estimated actual annual expenditures to implement the actions/services. As applicable, identify any changes to the students or student groups served, or to the planned location of the actions/services provided.

Analysis Using actual annual measurable outcome data, including data from the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, analyze whether the planned actions/services were effective in achieving the goal. Respond to the prompts as instructed.

• Describe the overall implementation of the actions/services to achieve the articulated goal. Include a discussion of relevant challenges and successes experienced with the implementation process.

• Describe the overall effectiveness of the actions/services to achieve the articulated goal as measured by the LEA.

• Explain material differences between Budgeted Expenditures and Estimated Actual Expenditures. Minor variances in expenditures or a dollar-for-dollar accounting is not required.

• Describe any changes made to this goal, expected outcomes, metrics, or actions and services to achieve this goal as a result of this analysis and analysis of the data provided in the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, as applicable. Identify where those changes can be found in the LCAP.

Stakeholder Engagement Meaningful engagement of parents, students, and other stakeholders, including those representing the student groups identified by LCFF, is critical to the development of the LCAP and the budget process. EC identifies the minimum consultation requirements for school districts and county offices of education as consulting with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district, parents, and pupils in developing the LCAP. EC requires charter schools to consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, parents, and pupils in developing the LCAP. In addition, EC Section 48985 specifies the requirements for the translation of notices, reports, statements, or records sent to a parent or guardian. The LCAP should be shared with, and LEAs should request input from, school site-level advisory groups, as applicable (e.g., school site councils, English Learner Advisory Councils, student advisory groups, etc.), to facilitate alignment between school-site and district-level goals and actions. An LEA may incorporate or reference actions described in other plans that are being undertaken to meet specific goals.

Instructions: The stakeholder engagement process is an ongoing, annual process. The requirements for this section are the same for each year of a three-year LCAP. When developing the LCAP, mark the appropriate LCAP year, and describe the stakeholder engagement process used to develop the LCAP and Annual Update. When developing the LCAP in year 2 or year 3, mark the appropriate LCAP year and replace the previous stakeholder narrative(s) and describe the stakeholder engagement process used to develop the current year LCAP and Annual Update.

School districts and county offices of education: Describe the process used to consult with the Parent Advisory Committee, the English Learner Parent Advisory Committee, parents, students, school personnel, the LEA’s local

bargaining units, and the community to inform the development of the LCAP and the annual review and analysis for the indicated LCAP year.

Charter schools: Describe the process used to consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, parents, and students to inform the development of the LCAP and the annual review and analysis for the indicated LCAP year.

Describe how the consultation process impacted the development of the LCAP and annual update for the indicated LCAP year, including the goals, actions, services, and expenditures.

Goals, Actions, and Services LEAs must include a description of the annual goals, for all students and each LCFF identified group of students, to be achieved for each state priority as applicable to type of LEA. An LEA may also include additional local priorities. This section shall also include a description of the specific planned actions an LEA will take to meet the identified goals, and a description of the expenditures required to implement the specific actions.

School districts and county offices of education: The LCAP is a three-year plan, which is reviewed and updated annually, as required.

Charter schools: The number of years addressed in the LCAP may align with the term of the charter schools budget, typically one year, which is submitted to the school’s authorizer. If year 2 and/or year 3 is not applicable, charter schools must specify as such.

New, Modified, Unchanged

As part of the LCAP development process, which includes the annual update and stakeholder engagement, indicate if the goal, identified need, related state and/or local priorities, and/or expected annual measurable outcomes for the current LCAP year or future LCAP years are modified or unchanged from the previous year’s LCAP; or, specify if the goal is new.

Goal State the goal. LEAs may number the goals using the “Goal #” box for ease of reference. A goal is a broad statement that describes the desired result to which all actions/services are directed. A goal answers the question: What is the LEA seeking to achieve?

Related State and/or Local Priorities Identify the state and/or local priorities addressed by the goal by placing a check mark next to the applicable priority or priorities. The LCAP must include goals that address each of the state priorities, as applicable to the type of LEA, and any additional local priorities; however, one goal may address multiple priorities. (Link to State Priorities)

Identified Need Describe the needs that led to establishing the goal. The identified needs may be based on quantitative or qualitative information, including, but not limited to, results of the annual update process or performance data from the LCFF Evaluation Rubrics, as applicable.

Expected Annual Measurable Outcomes For each LCAP year, identify the metric(s) or indicator(s) that the LEA will use to track progress toward the expected outcomes. LEAs may identify metrics for specific student groups. Include in the baseline column the most recent data associated with this metric or indicator available at the time of adoption of the LCAP for the first year of the three-year plan. The most recent data associated with a metric or indicator includes data as reported in the annual update of the LCAP year immediately preceding the three-year plan, as applicable. The baseline data shall remain unchanged throughout the three-year LCAP. In the subsequent year columns, identify the progress to be made in each year of the three-year cycle of the LCAP. Consider how expected outcomes in any given year are related to the expected outcomes for subsequent years.

The metrics may be quantitative or qualitative, but at minimum an LEA must use the applicable required metrics for the related state priorities, in each LCAP year as applicable to the type of LEA. For the student engagement priority metrics, as applicable, LEAs must calculate the rates as described in the LCAP Template Appendix, sections (a) through (d).

Planned Actions/Services

For each action/service, the LEA must complete either the section “For Actions/Services not contributing to meeting Increased or Improved Services Requirement” or the section “For Actions/Services Contributing to Meeting the Increased or Improved Services Requirement.” The LEA shall not complete both sections for a single action.

For Actions/Services Not Contributing to Meeting the Increased or Improved Services Requirement

Students to be Served The “Students to be Served” box is to be completed for all actions/services except for those which are included by the LEA as contributing to meeting the requirement to increase or improve services for unduplicated students. Indicate in this box which students will benefit from the actions/services by checking “All”, “Students with Disabilities”, or “Specific Student Group(s)”. If “Specific Student Group(s)” is checked, identify the specific student group(s) as appropriate.

Location(s) Identify the location where the action/services will be provided. If the services are provided to all schools within the LEA, the LEA must indicate “All Schools”. If the services are provided to specific schools within the LEA or specific grade spans only, the LEA must mark “Specific Schools” or “Specific Grade Spans”. Identify the individual school or a subset of schools or grade spans (e.g., all high schools or grades K-5), as appropriate.

Charter schools operating more than one site, authorized within the same charter petition, may choose to distinguish between sites by selecting “Specific Schools” and identify the site(s) where the actions/services will be provided. For charter schools operating only one site, “All Schools” and “Specific Schools” may be synonymous and, therefore, either would be appropriate. Charter schools may use either term provided they are used in a consistent manner through the LCAP.

For Actions/Services Contributing to Meeting the Increased or Improved Services Requirement:

Students to be Served For any action/service contributing to the LEA’s overall demonstration that it has increased or improved services for unduplicated students above what is provided to all students (see Demonstration of Increased or Improved Services for Unduplicated Students section, below), the LEA must identify the unduplicated student group(s) being served.

Scope of Service For each action/service contributing to meeting the increased or improved services requirement, identify scope of service by indicating “LEA-wide”, “Schoolwide”, or “Limited to Unduplicated Student Group(s)”. The LEA must select one of the following three options:

• If the action/service is being funded and provided to upgrade the entire educational program of the LEA, place a check mark next to “LEA-wide.”

• If the action/service is being funded and provided to upgrade the entire educational program of a particular school or schools, place a check mark next to “schoolwide”.

• If the action/service being funded and provided is limited to the unduplicated students identified in “Students to be Served”, place a check mark next to “Limited to Student Groups”.

For charter schools and single-school school districts, “LEA-wide” and “Schoolwide” may be synonymous and, therefore, either would be appropriate. For charter schools operating multiple schools (determined by a unique CDS code) under a single charter, use “LEA-wide” to refer to all schools under the charter and use “Schoolwide” to refer to a single school authorized within the same charter petition. Charter schools operating a single school may use “LEA-wide” or “Schoolwide” provided these terms are used in a consistent manner through the LCAP.

Location(s) Identify the location where the action/services will be provided. If the services are provided to all schools within the LEA, the LEA must indicate “All Schools”. If the services are provided to specific schools within the LEA or specific grade spans only, the LEA must mark “Specific Schools” or “Specific Grade Spans”. Identify the individual school or a subset of schools or grade spans (e.g., all high schools or grades K-5), as appropriate.

Charter schools operating more than one site, authorized within the same charter petition, may choose to distinguish between sites by selecting “Specific Schools” and identify the site(s) where the actions/services will be provided. For charter schools operating only one site, “All Schools” and “Specific Schools” may be synonymous and, therefore, either would be appropriate. Charter schools may use either term provided they are used in a consistent manner through the LCAP.

Actions/Services For each LCAP year, identify the actions to be performed and services provided to meet the described goal. Actions and services that are implemented to achieve the identified goal may be grouped together. LEAs may number the action/service using the “Action #” box for ease of reference.

New/Modified/Unchanged:

• Check “New” if the action/service is being added in any of the three years of the LCAP to meet the articulated goal.

• Check “Modified” if the action/service was included to meet an articulated goal and has been changed or modified in any way from the prior year description.

• Check “Unchanged” if the action/service was included to meet an articulated goal and has not been changed or modified in any way from the prior year description.

o If a planned action/service is anticipated to remain unchanged for the duration of the plan, an LEA may check “Unchanged” and leave the subsequent year columns blank rather than having to copy/paste the action/service into the subsequent year columns. Budgeted expenditures may be treated in the same way as applicable.

Note: The goal from the prior year may or may not be included in the current three-year LCAP. For example, when developing year 1 of the LCAP, the goals articulated in year 3 of the preceding three-year LCAP will be from the prior year.

Charter schools may complete the LCAP to align with the term of the charter school’s budget that is submitted to the school’s authorizer. Accordingly, a charter school submitting a one-year budget to its authorizer may choose not to complete the year 2 and year 3 portions of the “Goals, Actions, and Services” section of the template. If year 2 and/or year 3 is not applicable, charter schools must specify as such.

Budgeted Expenditures For each action/service, list and describe budgeted expenditures for each school year to implement these actions, including where those expenditures can be found in the LEA’s budget. The LEA must reference all fund sources for each proposed expenditure. Expenditures must be classified using the California School Accounting Manual as required by EC sections 52061, 52067, and 47606.5.

Expenditures that are included more than once in an LCAP must be indicated as a duplicated expenditure and include a reference to the goal and action/service where the expenditure first appears in the LCAP.

If a county superintendent of schools has jurisdiction over a single school district, and chooses to complete a single LCAP, the LCAP must clearly articulate to which entity’s budget (school district or county superintendent of schools) all budgeted expenditures are aligned.

Demonstration of Increased or Improved Services for Unduplicated Students This section must be completed for each LCAP year. When developing the LCAP in year 2 or year 3, copy the “Demonstration of Increased or Improved Services for Unduplicated Students” table and mark the appropriate LCAP year. Using the copy of the table, complete the table as required for the current year LCAP. Retain all prior year tables for this section for each of the three years within the LCAP.

Estimated Supplemental and Concentration Grant Funds Identify the amount of funds in the LCAP year calculated on the basis of the number and concentration of low income, foster youth, and English learner students as determined pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (5 CCR) Section 15496(a)(5).

Percentage to Increase or Improve Services Identify the percentage by which services for unduplicated pupils must be increased or improved as compared to the services provided to all students in the LCAP year as calculated pursuant to 5 CCR Section 15496(a)(7).

Consistent with the requirements of 5 CCR Section 15496, describe how services provided for unduplicated pupils are increased or improved by at least the percentage calculated as compared to services provided for all students in the LCAP year. To improve services means to grow services in quality and to increase services means to grow services in quantity. This description must address how the action(s)/service(s) limited for one or more unduplicated student group(s), and any schoolwide or districtwide action(s)/service(s) supported by the appropriate description, taken together, result in the required proportional increase or improvement in services for unduplicated pupils.

If the overall increased or improved services include any actions/services being funded and provided on a schoolwide or districtwide basis, identify each action/service and include the required descriptions supporting each action/service as follows.

For those services being provided on an LEA-wide basis: • For school districts with an unduplicated pupil percentage of 55% or more, and for charter schools and county

offices of education: Describe how these services are principally directed to and effective in meeting its goals for unduplicated pupils in the state and any local priorities.

• For school districts with an unduplicated pupil percentage of less than 55%: Describe how these services are principally directed to and effective in meeting its goals for unduplicated pupils in the state and any local priorities. Also describe how the services are the most effective use of the funds to meet these goals for its unduplicated pupils. Provide the basis for this determination, including any alternatives considered, supporting research, experience or educational theory.

For school districts only, identify in the description those services being funded and provided on a schoolwide basis, and include the required description supporting the use of the funds on a schoolwide basis:

• For schools with 40% or more enrollment of unduplicated pupils: Describe how these services are principally

directed to and effective in meeting its goals for its unduplicated pupils in the state and any local priorities.

• For school districts expending funds on a schoolwide basis at a school with less than 40% enrollment of unduplicated pupils: Describe how these services are principally directed to and how the services are the most effective use of the funds to meet its goals for English learners, low income students and foster youth, in the state and any local priorities.

State Priorities Priority 1: Basic Services addresses the degree to which:

A. Teachers in the LEA are appropriately assigned and fully credentialed in the subject area and for the pupils they are teaching;

B. Pupils in the school district have sufficient access to the standards-aligned instructional materials; and C. School facilities are maintained in good repair.

Priority 2: Implementation of State Standards addresses: A. The implementation of state board adopted academic content and performance standards for all students, which are:

a. English Language Arts – Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts b. Mathematics – CCSS for Mathematics c. English Language Development (ELD) d. Career Technical Education e. Health Education Content Standards f. History-Social Science g. Model School Library Standards h. Physical Education Model Content Standards i. Next Generation Science Standards j. Visual and Performing Arts k. World Language; and

B. How the programs and services will enable English learners to access the CCSS and the ELD standards for purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language proficiency.

Priority 3: Parental Involvement addresses: A. The efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each individual

school site; B. How the school district will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils; and C. How the school district will promote parental participation in programs for individuals with exceptional needs.

Priority 4: Pupil Achievement as measured by all of the following, as applicable: A. Statewide assessments; B. The Academic Performance Index; C. The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy University of California (UC) or California

State University (CSU) entrance requirements, or programs of study that align with state board approved career technical educational standards and framework;

D. The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT);

E. The English learner reclassification rate; F. The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement examination with a score of 3 or higher; and G. The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early Assessment

Program, or any subsequent assessment of college preparedness. Priority 5: Pupil Engagement as measured by all of the following, as applicable:

A. School attendance rates; B. Chronic absenteeism rates; C. Middle school dropout rates; D. High school dropout rates; and E. High school graduation rates;

Priority 6: School Climate as measured by all of the following, as applicable: A. Pupil suspension rates; B. Pupil expulsion rates; and C. Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness.

Priority 7: Course Access addresses the extent to which pupils have access to and are enrolled in: A. S broad course of study including courses described under EC sections 51210 and 51220(a)-(i), as applicable; B. Programs and services developed and provided to unduplicated pupils; and C. Programs and services developed and provided to individuals with exceptional needs.

Priority 8: Pupil Outcomes addresses pupil outcomes, if available, for courses described under EC sections 51210 and 51220(a)-(i), as applicable. Priority 9: Coordination of Instruction of Expelled Pupils (COE Only) addresses how the county superintendent of schools will coordinate instruction of expelled pupils.

Priority 10. Coordination of Services for Foster Youth (COE Only) addresses how the county superintendent of schools will coordinate services for foster children, including:

A. Working with the county child welfare agency to minimize changes in school placement B. Providing education-related information to the county child welfare agency to assist in the delivery of services to foster

children, including educational status and progress information that is required to be included in court reports; C. Responding to requests from the juvenile court for information and working with the juvenile court to ensure the delivery

and coordination of necessary educational services; and D. Establishing a mechanism for the efficient expeditious transfer of health and education records and the health and

education passport. Local Priorities address:

A. Local priority goals; and B. Methods for measuring progress toward local goals.

APPENDIX A: PRIORITIES 5 AND 6 RATE CALCULATION INSTRUCTIONS

For the purposes of completing the LCAP in reference to the state priorities under EC sections 52060 and 52066, as applicable to type of LEA, the following shall apply:

(a) “Chronic absenteeism rate” shall be calculated as follows:

(1) The number of pupils with a primary, secondary, or short-term enrollment during the academic year (July 1 – June 30) who are chronically absent where “chronic absentee” means a pupil who is absent 10 percent or more of the schooldays in the school year when the total number of days a pupil is absent is divided by the total number of days the pupil is enrolled and school was actually taught in the total number of days the pupil is enrolled and school was actually taught in the regular day schools of the district, exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays.

(2) The unduplicated count of pupils with a primary, secondary, or short-term enrollment during the academic

year (July 1 – June 30).

(3) Divide (1) by (2).

(b) “Middle School dropout rate” shall be calculated as set forth in 5 CCR Section 1039.1.

(c) “High school dropout rate” shall be calculated as follows:

(1) The number of cohort members who dropout by the end of year 4 in the cohort where “cohort” is defined as the number of first-time grade 9 pupils in year 1 (starting cohort) plus pupils who transfer in, minus pupils who transfer out, emigrate, or die during school years 1, 2, 3, and 4.

(2) The total number of cohort members.

(3) Divide (1) by (2).

(d) “High school graduation rate” shall be calculated as follows:

(1) The number of cohort members who earned a regular high school diploma [or earned an adult education high school

diploma or passed the California High School Proficiency Exam] by the end of year 4 in the cohort where “cohort” is defined as the number of first-time grade 9 pupils in year 1 (starting cohort) plus pupils who transfer in, minus pupils who transfer out, emigrate, or die during school years 1, 2, 3, and 4.

(2) The total number of cohort members.

(3) Divide (1) by (2).

(e) “Suspension rate” shall be calculated as follows:

(1) The unduplicated count of pupils involved in one or more incidents for which the pupil was suspended during

the academic year (July 1 – June 30).

(2) The unduplicated count of pupils with a primary, secondary, or short-term enrollment during the academic year (July 1 – June 30).

(3) Divide (1) by (2).

(f) “Expulsion rate” shall be calculated as follows:

(1) The unduplicated count of pupils involved in one or more incidents for which the pupil was expelled during the

academic year (July 1 – June 30).

(2) The unduplicated count of pupils with a primary, secondary, or short-term enrollment during the academic year (July 1 – June 30).

(3) Divide (1) by (2).

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 42238.07 and 52064, Education Code. Reference: Sections 2574, 2575, 42238.01,

42238.02, 42238.03, 42238.07, 47605, 47605.6, 47606.5, 48926, 52052, 52060, 52061, 52062, 52063, 52064, 52066,

52067, 52068, 52069, 52070, 52070.5, and 64001,; 20 U.S.C. Sections 6312 and 6314.

APPENDIX B

Goal 1 Goal 1.1

Raising Student Achievement Through Professional Development Recent extensive research has highlighted the shortcomings of the one-off workshops that many school districts tend to provide and has also found that the ongoing, job-embedded, collaborative, professional learning that is proven to be highly effective overseas is not widely used across the United States.

The most powerful way to raise student achievement is through professional learning. More than ever before, students need effective teaching if they are to develop the higher order thinking skills they will need to be career and college ready in the 21st century. At the same time the expectations for student achievement are being raised, the student population in schools is becoming increasingly diverse. This means the need for effective professional development for schools and teachers is critical. Research has shown that what distinguishes high performing, high poverty schools from lower performing schools is effective collaborative professional development for teachers'

Professional development serves three, often overlapping, functions: To improve school performance

To improve the quality of classroom instruction To support the implementation of new initiatives Professional development is a comprehensive, ongoing, and intensive approach to improving teachers' and principals' effectiveness in raising student achievement. While most teachers across the country take part in professional development

every year, current state, district and school approaches to professional learning vary widely. The impact of the professional development in terms of turning schools around and raising student achievement has also varied greatly2. Like other countries, teachers in the United States are provided with opportunities for professional development in the form of workshops, but they fall significantly behind high performing countries when it comes to opportunities to take part in extended and collaborative professional development'. For twenty years, we have been working to raise student achievement through providing quality professional development for school communities in ways that support and sustain effective classroom practice. This experience and a solid research base have highlighted the characteristics of professional development that result in improved teaching and increased student achievement. Effective professional development: Is planned over time, sustained, rigorous and embedded within the context of the school Fosters collaboration within schools and across districts Uses data to directly link to the school goals Is evidence-based and datadriven

both to guide improvement and measure impact Is differentiated and ensures an intensive focus on the teachinglearning relationship.

Ongoing and embedded within the context of the school Significant and sustainable change in practice is an ongoing process and it takes time to implement and reflect on new practices. Current research shows that intensive ongoing professional development for administrators and teachers leads to an increase in student achievement4.

Research shows that teachers need on-the-job support to make the new ideas part of their daily practice5. This evidence suggests that states reap greater benefits in terms of student achievement when they invest in classroom-based coaching as opposed to more costly changes such as smaller classes6.

Site based professional development is embedded in the teachers' daily practice. It has meaning and relevance to them, as it is about their students and will help them to facilitate the learning of these students today.

Factors impacting on the variation in student achievement (Hattie 2003)

Our professional development is planned Over time and embedded within the context of the school to ensure sustained impact.

Fosters collaboration within and across schools For the last three decades research has consistently shown that where there is a shared responsibility throughout the district or school community for student achievement positive changes are more likely to be sustained. A five year study of 1,500 schools undergoing comprehensive reform showed that in schools where professional learning communities were established achievement increased. Furthermore, the collaboration and shared responsibility for student achievement narrowed the achievement gap in schools with

students from low income homes 7

.

The greater the challenge of the school context, the greater the need for a deliberate leadership focus on student learning and well-being. Very rarely have schools been turned around without the leadership from a principal who has set clear priorities and goals that are followed through with professional learning. Many other factors contribute to positive change in schools, but leadership is the catalysts.

Although the principal is in a critical position to lead change, he or she cannot do it alone. Empowering others throughout the school to develop and exercise leadership roles and to share in the leadership of change is both desirable and achievable.

Our professional development is planned collaboratively with the principal and staff

to create structures that sustain professional learning.

Evidence-based and data-driven both to guide improvement and measure impact Focused effort in a school is important if school-wide teaching and student learning are to improve. Professional development is an ongoing cycle of improvement, where data is used to encourage reflection, inquiry, and dialogue in a collaborative learning community. It is the analysis of data about students, teachers, principals, and systems from both formal accountability systems and internal monitoring programs that drives decisions about the purpose and content of effective professional developments.

Factors attributed to student ability

Impact of the teacher Impact ofthe home Impact of

school environment

Impact of peers 5% Impact of the principal

When professional development starts with an analysis Of data about students and educators, it will be more closely aligned to the school goals and meet the unique needs of educators and their students by differentiating learning for individuals and teams Of educators. Data drives the planning and implementation of effective professional development and is also used to monitor and evaluate the quality and results of individual, team. and school-wide professional learning.

All change processes benefit from being evidence-informed and having regular review of progress and impact.

Our professional development uses district, school, and student data to drive the content and purpose of the professional development. Data from clients is used to monitor and evaluate the quality and effects ofour professional development.

Differentiated to ensure an intensive focus on the teaching— learning relationship

Effective professional development targets classroom instruction and is research-based in terms of both content and pedagogy, Successful

professional learning immerses teachers in the content they teach and provides research-based knowledge about how students learn.

The need for professional development to focus on instruction comes from the critical assumption that the quality of instruction is the key determinant Of variation in student achievement10 , In order to support excellent teaching, school leaders and teachers need to acquire and develop expertise about what constitutes powerful instruction. School-based professional development, then. needs to support principals in developing the vision, the language, and the tools to observe, analyze, and lead for high-quality instruction in every classroom.

Ongoing, intensive professional development that focuses on Supporting teachers' planning and instruction has a greater chance of influencing teaching practice and in turn, raising student achievementlt.

Just as students have diverse learning needs, so do their teachers. Professional development needs to be differentiated and take into account teachers' previous experiences and learning styles, and build on their current understandings. There is no one-size-fits-all answerl

Any professional development needs to provide in-school support for teachers In: Engaging all students in a

rigorous, standards-based core academic curriculum

Emphasizing project- based learning and other engaging, inquiry-based teaching methods that provide opportunities for students to master academic content, think critically, and develop personal strengths; Customizing teaching and learning using new technologies Differentiating instruction and providing supports that meet the varied learning needs of diverse student populations Connecting curriculum to realworld contexts that build upon student and community resources Using multiple measures to assess student Outcomes, including performance-based assessments Developing coherence and consistency in teaching practices

Our differentiated professional development supports teachers in becoming more effective practitioners by focusing on instructional strategies, curriculum design, student learning and assessment practices.

In conclusion, we provide professional development that is comprehensive, ongoing,

intensive and designed to improve teachers' and principals' effectiveness in raising student achievement.

References American Federation Of Teachers. (2011, May 19). Recommendations of the AFT Ad Hoc Committee on standards rollout. Washington, DC. Bryk, As, Camburn, E. , & Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781. Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America's best opportunity to dramatically improve Student achievement lies in our worstperforming schools. Boston, MA: Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. Elmore, R. (2002) Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in Education. Washington DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Goddard, Y. L. , Goddard, R. D. , & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record 109(4), 877-896.

Hammond, L., Wei, R. , Andree, A.,

Richardson, N., and Orphanos, S. (2009) Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. NSDC and the School of Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through professional development. In B, Joyce & B. Showers (Eds.), Designing training and peer coaching: Our need for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Knapp.M.S. (2003) Professional Development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education 27 (1), 109-157

Killion, J. (2012) Meet the promise of content standards: Professional learning required. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.

Marzano, R. J. , Waters, T. , & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Aurora, CO: ASCD and McREL. NSDC POLICY POINTS: Information for policy makers about professional development that improves student results, Vol. 1, NO. 2, April 2009

Silva, E. (2008). The bentwood plan: A lesson in comprehensive teacher reform. Washington, DC Education Sector Supovitz, J. A, & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities

Of instructional practice: Lessons for Cincinnati and Philadelphia. CPRE Policy Briefs, pp. 1-9. Pennsylvania: University Of Pennsylvania.

Timperley, H. , Wilson, A. , Barrar, H. , & Fung, l. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Weiss, l. , & Pasley. J. , (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional development: Insights from the local systemic change initiative. Philadelphia, PA. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Policy Briefs. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality, Princeton, NJ: Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. w.y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC.

Endnotes

ISilva, 2008 2 Hammond et al., 2009 3 Hammond et al., 2009 eYoon et al., 2007 5Joyce & Showers, 2002 60dden et al., 2007 'Calkins, Guenther, Before, & Lash,

2007; Goddard, Goddard & TschannenMoran, 2007; Supovitz & Christman,

2003 8Marzano et al., 2005 Learning Forward, 2011 IOWenglinsky, 2000; Hattie, 2009 1 Knapp, 2003; Supovitz, Mayer & Kahie, 2000; Weiss & Pasley, 2006

1 2Hattie 2009

56

Goal 1.0 and 1.4

Improving educational outcomes for poor children Brian A. Jacob and Jens Ludwig

Brian Jacob is Walter H. Annenberg Professor of Education Policy, Professor of Economies. and Director of the Center on Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University Of Michigan, as well as Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Jens Ludwig is McCormick Foundation Professor of Social Service Administration. Law, and Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Nonresident Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Introduction One of the best ways to avoid being poor as an adult is to obtain a good education. I People who have higher levels of academic achievement and more years Of schooling earn more than those with lower levels of human capital. This is not surprising, since economists believe that schooling makes people more productive and that wages are related to productivity.

Yet in modern America, poor children face an elevated risk for a variety Of adverse educational outcomes. According to the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 16 percent of fourth-grade students eligible for free lunch score at proficient levels in reading. compared with 44 percent of fourth graders whose family incomes are above the eligibility cutoff for free lunch.2 The disparity in math scores between those above and below the eligibility threshold for free lunch is even larger.' Equally large disparities in achievement test scores are observed between whites and minority racial or ethnic groups, with test score gaps that show up as early as three or four years of age. 4 In fact, the black-white test score gap among twelfth graders may not be all that different in magnitude from the gap observed among young children when

they first start school

Understanding why children's outcomes vary so dramatically along race and class lines in America is central to formulating effective education policy interventions. Disagreements about how to improve schooling outcomes for poor children stem in part from different beliefs about the problems that underlie the unsatisfactory outcomes in many of our nation's public schools. Broadly speaking. critics tend to invoke, at least

implicitly, one of the following explanations for why children in high-poverty schools are not performing as well as we would like: l. Schools serving poor and minority students have fewer

resources than they need. In this case, a potential solution would be to provide more money to disadvantaged schools.

2. High-poverty schools lack the capacity to substantially improve student learning, independent of financial resources. Potential solutions to this problem would involve helping schools improve the quality of their Standard operating practices, or increasing the instructional capacity of staff in these schools through professional development or more selective hiring.

3. High-poverty schools do not have sufficient incentives or flexibility to improve instruction. Proponents of this perspective argue that without clarifying key objectives and holding key actors accountable. additional spending will be squandered.

4. Schools matter only so much. The real problem rests with the social context in which schools operate— namely, the family, neighborhood, and peer environments that under this perspective make it difficult for low-income children to take advantage of educational opportunities. Adopting accountability or marketoriented reforms without changing social policy more broadly will punish educators for factors beyond their control. and potentially drive the most able teachers toward schools serving less-disadvantaged students.

For some reason, current education policy debates often seem to be argued as if the problems listed above are mutually exclusive. In contrast, we believe that there is likely some truth to each of these major explanations: schools confront no single problem that can be addressed with just one solution. Identifying the optimal policy response to the mix of problems that plagues our public schools is complicated by the possibility that these problems might interact with each other. For example, it may be the case that certain curriculum reforms are effective only if they are accompanied by an increase in resources such as student support services, or by an increase in teacher quality generated by reforms to hiring and tenure policies. Social science theory and common sense are likely to carry us only so far in identifying the most effective—and cost-effective—mix of education policy changes. For almost every education intervention that some theory suggests might be effective, another plausible theory suggests that the

57

intervention is likely to be ineffective or even harmful. Education policy also needs to be guided by rigorous evaluation evidence about what actually works m practice. Research over the past four decades has unfortunately fostered the impression that "nothing works" to improve schools for poor children. One of the first studies to contribute to this sense of pessimism was the landmark 1966 report by sociologist James Coleman and his colleagues.6 Drawing on a large. nationally representative sample, the Coleman Report found that most of the variation in student test scores occurs within rather than across schools, that family background is the strongest predictor of academic achievement, and that most measurable school inputs like student-teacher ratios are Only weakly correlated with student outcomes. Subsequent

evaluation studies of different educational interventions also tended to be disappointing. and helped contribute to a sense of pessimism about the ability of schools to improve poor

children 's life chances. In contrast, we offer a message of tempered optimism. Over the past few decades, the technology of education-policy evaluation has improved dramatically. making it much easier to detect moderately-sized program impacts within the complex environment that determines schooling outcomes. The available evidence reveals a number Of potentially promising ways to improve the learning outcomes of low-income children. This is not to say that everything works: many current and proposed education policies either have no empirical support for their effectiveness. or in some cases have strong empirical evidence for their ineffectiveness. The most successful educational interventions will reduce, but not eliminate, racial and social class disparities in educational outcomes. This is not a reason for either despair or inaction. The appropriate standard of success for policy interventions is that they generate net benefits, not miraculous benefits. Education policies that are capable Of improving poor children's schooling outcomes by enough to justify the costs of these policies are worth doing, even if these policies or programs by themselves are not enough to equalize learning opportunities for all children in America.

School resources The question of whether "money matters" has been the subject of contentious debate in the research literature for the past 40 years. Isolating the causal effects of extra school funding is complicated by the possibility that compensatory spending may be directed towards schools serving the most disadvantaged students, and adequately controlling for all aspects of student disadvantage is quite difficult in practice. The weight of current evidence provides fairly weak support for the idea that increases in unrestricted school funding on

average improve student outcomes. 8 There is, however, stronger evidence that some targeted increases in specific school inputs can improve student outcomes. Three areas in which we believe increased resources may yield important benefits for poor children are (l) increased investments in early childhood education: (2) class-size reductions in the early grades; and (3) targeted salary bonuses to help disadvantaged schools recruit and retain better teachers.

Early childhood education Disparities in academic achievement by race and class are apparent as early as ages three and four—well before children enter kindergarten. Recent research in neuroscience, developmental psychology, economics, and other fields

suggests that the earliest years of life may be a particularly promising time to intervene in the lives of low-income children. 10 Studies show that early childhood educational programs can generate learning gains in the short-run and, in some cases, improve the long-run life chances of poor children. Moreover, the benefits generated by these programs are large enough to justify their costs. Although preschool interventions represent a promising way to improve the life chances of poor children. their success is not well reflected in federal government budget priorities, which allocate nearly seven times as much money per capita for K—12 schooling as for pre-kindergarten, other forms of early education. and child care subsidies for three- to fiveyear-olds. Il Most social policies attempt to make up for the disadvantages poor children experience early in life. But given the substantial disparities between poor and nonpoor children that already exist among very young children, it is perhaps not surprising that many disadvantaged children never catch up.

Class-size reduction Reducing average class sizes may enable teachers to spend more time working with individual students, tailor instruction to match children's needs, and make it easier for teachers to monitor classroom behavior. Class-size reductions are expensive, as they require hiring additional teachers and in some cases expanding a school's physical space. However. the best available evidence suggests that class-size reduction. holding teacher quality constant, can improve student outcomes by enough to justify these additional expenditures, with benefits that are particularly pronounced for lowincome and minority children. Some research has suggested that class-size reduction might be most effective if focused on low-income districts or schools. 12

Focus vol. 26. No. 2, Fall 2009

58

Bonuses for teaching in high-needs schools or subjects Research has identified substantial variation across teachers in the ability to raise student achievement, both within and across schools. These studies attempt to isolate the value that a teacher adds to student achievement, referred to as "valueadded" measures of teacher effectiveness. If disadvantaged children were taught by the most effective teachers, disparities in schooling outcomes might be narrowed. Value-added measures of teacher effectiveness are not very strongly correlated with the easiest-to-observe characteristics of teachers. Novice teachers are less effective than more experienced ones, but this experience premium disappears after the first few years of teaching. 13 Teachers who have higher scores on the SAT or various teaching exams are generally more effective than others. 14 Still, many other observable teacher characteristics, such as whether teachers hold traditional teacher certifications or advanced degrees, are not systematically correlated with student learning. The policy challenge in this domain is to induce more effective teachers to teach in schools serving the most disadvantaged children, knowing that effectiveness cannot easily be measured. The dramatic variation in effectiveness that we observe among teachers highlights the great potential value of successful policies in this area.

Changing school practices Some Observers of America's schooling system remain skeptical that additional spending is needed to improve the learning outcomes of poor children. They argue that improving the Ways in which schools are organized, including the way they deliver instruction. could improve student achievement with few additional resources. This line of reasoning assumes there is good evidence on which practices are most effective, but that school personnel do not have the capacity to identify or implement these programs on their own. Some low-cost changes in school operating practices that seem to improve student outcomes include changes to school organization, classroom instruction. and teacher hiring and promotion. What remains unclear is why these "best practices" have not been more widely adopted—presumably the answer is some combination of lack of information, political resistance, bureaucratic inertia, or other factors.

Curricular and instructional interventions In 2002. the Institute for Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education created the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in order to collect and disseminate scientific evidence on various educational interventions. Thus far, there is a lack of convincing evidence on curricular interventions. A more recent approach to school improvement known as Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) attempts to

improve many different aspects of the school at the same time. Unfortunately, the evaluation evidence about the effectiveness of CSR programs is also somewhat limited. Nevertheless, at the elementary school level a few models have been shown to improve student outcomes. One of the more promising interventions seems to be Success for All (SFA), a comprehensive whole-school reform model that operates in more than 1,200 mostly high-poverty Title I schools. 16 SFA focuses on reading, with an emphasis on prevention and early intervention. A random assignment evaluation of SEA documented that at the end of three years, students in the treatment schools scored roughly 0.2 standard deviations higher than students in the control schools on a standardized reading assessment, a difference equivalent to about one-fifth of the gap between low and high socioeconomic-status children. 17

Teacher labor markets A key policy challenge for school districts is to induce more effective teachers to teach in high-poverty schools. There are a variety of potential inefficiencies in the way schools hire, promote, and dismiss teachers, and at least some of these problems might be addressed without substantial increase in resources. One promising approach is to promote alternative pathways into teaching. Traditional certification requirements impose a high cost (both in money and time) on individuals interested in teaching, particularly on those with the best outside labor market options. Studies exploring the relative effectiveness of teachers with traditional versus alternative (or no) certification have generally found that differences between the groups are relatively small, and that in certain grades and subjects, teachers with alternative certification may actually outperform those with traditional certification. 19 Whatever system is used to hire teachers, it is inevitable that some teachers will not perform well in the classroom. Recognizing that the hiring process is imperfect, virtually all school systems place new teachers on probation. However, in practice. public schools typically do not take advantage of the probationary period to Obtain additional information about teacher effectiveness and weed out lower-quality teachers. One possible solution is to raise the tenure bar for new teachers, and to deny tenure to those who are not effective at raising student achievement. We suggest that this type of high-stakes decision should be based on a variety of teacher performance measures that include. but are not limited to. measures of effectiveness at raising student test scores. Principal evaluations should be included as one factor in teacher tenure ratings. both because they may add additional information beyond student test scores, and also because they reduce potential negative effects of relying solely on an output-based measure.

59

Incentives and accountability Class size reduction is an "input-based" educational intervention. based on the assumption that schools will perform better with additional resources. Comprehensive School Reform is based on the assumption that schools are not using best practices. and therefore seeks to improve schooling outcomes by prescribing a more effective instructional approach based on the knowledge of centralized decision makers. Both strategies assume that educators are willing to work as hard as they can gtven their resource constraints. An alternative approach to school reform focuses on enhancing both the incentives and flexibility enjoyed by school personnel. While the theories underlying school choice and school accountability differ in important ways, both strategies rely on the core notions of incentives and flexibility. The available evidence to date is probably strongest on behalf of the ability of school accountability systems to change the behavior of teachers and principals, although one lesson from that body' of research is the great importance of getting the design of such policies right.

Teacher merit pay Most public school teachers are paid according to strict formulas that incorporate years of service and credits of continuing education including Master's and doctorate degrees, despite the fact that research consistently finds that advanced degrees are not associated with better student performance and that experience only matters in the first few years of teaching. For this reason, reformers have suggested that a teacher's compensation should be tied directly to productivity as measured by student performance or supervisor evaluation. Proponents of "pay-for-performance," also known as "merit" or "incentive" pay, argue that it would not only provide incentives for current teachers to work "harder" or "smarter," but also could affect the type of people who enter the teaching force and then choose to remain. Incentive pay has a long history in American education, though few systems that directly reward teachers on the basis of student performance have lasted very long. 20 There is some evidence that incorporating incentive pay along with pay for additional professional development activities and other service may improve student performance on standardized tests 2 1 Given this tentative but positive evidence. we believe that it is worthwhile for schools and districts to continue experimenting with. and evaluating. pay for performance.

School accountability systems Recent studies suggest that accountability reforms can foster positive changes in behavior by school administrators, teachers, and students. At the same time. research provides some warnings that incentive-based reforms often generate unintended negative consequences. such as teachers neglecting certain students. cutting corners, or even cheating

to artificially raise student test scores. The fact that actors within the school system do respond to changes in incentives highlights both the promise and pitfalls of accountability reform. and underscores the importance of the specific design details of accountability policies.

A recent review of simple national time trends suggests that No Child Left Behind (NCI.B) may have improved student achievement. particularly the math pertòrmance of younger children. 22 However, to our knowledge, there has not been any systematic investigation of the impact of NCLB at a national level that attempts to account for prior achievement trends or the presence of other policies. Even without any direct evaluation evidence of NCLB, the available accountability research suggests a number of modifications to NCI-B that seem likely to do some good. First, we would encourage the adoption of a single achievement standard for all districts in the country. Second, we recommend moving away from a single proficiency level—that is. holding schools accountable for the share of students with scores above some single cutoff value—since this provides students an incentive to neglect students who are far above or below this threshold. Third, we suggest that if the current level of federal funding is not increased substantially, states and districts be provided the flexibility to focus on the schools most in need of improvement.

School choice Another way to clarify goals or change incentives is to provide parents greater choice of schools for their children through public magnet schools, charter schools, or vouchers for students to attend private schools. Proponents suggest that by creating a marketplace in which parents can select schools, a choice-based system might generate competition among schools that would improve the quality of schools throughout the marketplace. This theory rests on several assumptions, including that the degree of choice will be large enough to generate meaningful competition. A choice system must permit relatively easy entry into the market by potential suppliers, which includes individuals and organizations wishing to open schools. There must also be easy "exit" from the market that allows (and, indeed, forces) unsuccessful schools to close. 23 The second set of assumptions involves the information available to parents and the preferences they have for their children's education. Parents must have sufficient information to make an informed choice. Data on school performance must be transparent, accessible, and easily understood by parents with varying degrees of sophistication. There is mixed evidence on whether the opportunity to attend a choice school has substantial academic benefits for poor children, as well as on the question of whether largescale choice programs might improve the productivity Of schools in general. In our view, the main risk associated with expanded choice opportunities is the possibility of

60

exacerbating the segregation of poor, minority. or low-performing students within a subset of schools. Thus, the effects of any choice plan are likely to depend crucially on the details of key design questions, such as whether schools are allowed to select the best students from their applicant pools.24

The role of student background Some believe that the disappointing performance of our public schools stems in large part from the challenges that poor children face outside of school. Clearly, differences in family background help explain a large share of the variation in academic achievement outcomes across children. Poor children have substantially lower achievement test scores than nonpoor children as young as ages three or four, before they even start school. More relevant for present purposes is whether the challenges Of living in poverty cause poor children to benefit less than nonpoor children from similar types of schooling experiences. Our reading of the available evidence instead suggests that improving the quality of academic programs is at the very least sufficient to make noticeable improvements in poor children's educational outcomes. In fact, studies of early childhood

education programs typically find that disadvantaged children benefit even more from these interventions than do nonpoor children. As a result, social policy changes outside the realm of education that reduce child poverty in America, as desirable as they may be on their own merits, are not a necessary condition for enacting education reforms that improve poor children's outcomes by enough to justify the costs of these reforms. At the same time, the fact that poor children are geographically concentrated in neighborhoods that are segregated by race and social class presents special challenges for education policy, given that children have traditionally attended neighborhood schools. For example. research suggests that. all else equal, teachers tend to prefer to work in schools that serve more affluent and less racially diverse student bodies.25 In addition, systems that fail to adequately account for the confounding influence of family background may help drive the most effective teachers out of high-poverty schools. Peer characteristics may also directly affect student learning, if teachers set the level or pace of instruction to match the average student ability in their classroom. In theory, education policies could overcome the burden that concentrated poverty imposes on poor children by breaking

the link between place of residence and school assignment. Increase investments in early-childhood education for Some evidence suggests that earlier desegregation efforts did poor children. Even though short-term gains in IQ or improve the schooling outcomes of disadvantaged children.26 achievement test scores diminish over time, there is However. the potential for contemporaneous desegregation evidence of long-term improvement in a variety of policies to achieve large gains in student outcomes remains outcomes, including educational attainment. that will unclear. First. there are substantial barriers—both logistical help children escape from poverty as adults. Increased and political—to further integrating schools along race or investment in early childhood education is particularly class lines. Second, both schooling and social conditions for important given the limited investment our society cur- poor children have changed substantially since the initial rently makes in the cognitive development of very desegregation efforts, which may limit the effectiveness young children. This should be the top priority for new of desegregation efforts today. For example, although still spending in public education. far from equal, the difference in resources across poor and 2. Take advantage of the opportunity provided by No Child nonpoor schools has greatly narrowed since the early 1970s. Left Behind (NCLB) to better utilize accountability A different approach to addressing the problem of concen- reforms to improve outcomes for poor children. NCLB trated poverty is to use housing policy to help poor families was enacted in 2001 with bipartisan support, although move into different neighborhoods, though it is still unclear it has received considerable criticism in recent years. how effective such policies would be at changing neighbor- In our view, the debate over the existence of NCLB hood environment, or whether such a change would be suf- misses a fundamental lesson we have learned about ac- ficient to improve a child's academic outcomes. 2' countability in the past decade: the specific design of Reducing the prevalence of either child poverty or the geo- the program matters enormously. It would be a shame if graphic concentration Of poverty in America is difficult. Al- the current (often legitimate) concerns with how NCI-B though the persistence of these social problems is not benefi- has been implemented lead to a retreat from outcome- cial for the well-being of children. improving the educational oriented accountability in education. Instead, we would opportunities of poor children in their current neighborhoods recommend several changes to NCI-B as well as co-ex-

61

still has the potential to help them escape from poverty. isting state or district accountability systems: adopting common achievement standards across states, focusing accountability on student growth rather than proficiency

Conclusions levels, providing states and districts with the flexibility to focus limited resources on the neediest schools, and

The release of the landmark Coleman Report in 1966 fostered reconciling federal and state accountability systems. pessimism about the ability of schools to improve the life 3. Provide educators with incentives to adopt practices chances of poor children. This report and subsequent reseaRh with a compelling research base while expanding efforts pushed policymakers to consider outcome-based measures of to develop and identify effective instructional regimes. success and spurred interest in reform strategies that focus One of the lessons from the accountability movement is on changing the incentives within the public school system. that highly disadvantaged schools (and districts) often A careful review of the empirical evidence, however, sug- lack the capacity to change themselves. State and dis- gests a variety of policies that are likely to substantially im- trict officials should ensure that disadvantaged schools, prove the academic performance of poor children. We found particularly those that have continued to fail under examples of successful programs or policies within each of recent accountability systems, adopt instructional prac- three broad categories. Targeted investment of additional re- tices and related policies with a strong research base. sources in early childhood education, smaller class sizes, and There is no need to reinvent the wheel. At the same time, bonuses for teachers in hard-to-staff schools and subjects the federal government could help spur such advantages seem likely to pass a cost-benefit test, even without a funda- through more focused research and development spend- mental reorganization of the existing public school system. ing, and governments at all levels could help increase At the same time, researchers have identified some ways of the supply of high-quality practices by requiring schools changing standard operating procedures within schools that to use programs that have been rigorously evaluated. can improve the outcomes of poor children even without Continue to support and evaluate a variety of public large amounts of additional spending. Finally. policies that school choice options. Although we believe that the cur- seek to change incentives within schools offer some promise rent evldence on the benefits of public school choice is of improving schooling for poor children. limited, we also think that the risk associated with these Given limited financial resources and perhaps even more policies is small so long as they are implemented in limited political attention, it is unlikely that policymakers ways that do not substantially exacerbate school segre- could adopt all of the "successful" practices discussed in gation along race or class lines. We encourage states to this article. Based on our read of the empirical literature, we facilitate the expansion of magnet and charter schools, believe that the following should be the highest priorities for and to carefully evaluate the impact of these schools education policies to improve the academic achievement of on the students they serve as well as the surrounding poor children: schools.

Most antipoverty policies focus on lifting adults out of poverty. These policies are often controversial because of an unavoidable tension between the desire to help people who have been unlucky and the motivation to encourage hard work and punish socially unproductive behavior. In contrast, successful education policies can not only help reduce poverty over the long term by making poor children more productive during adulthood, but also foster economic growth that expands the "pie" for everyone. Educational interventions also benefit from a compelling moral justification. Disadvantaged children should not be punished for the circumstances into which they are born. and improved education policy is one of

the best ways to prevent this from happening.

'This article draws upon "Improving Educational Outcomes for Poor Children," in Changing Poverty, Changing policies, eds. M. Cancian and S. Danziger (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009). National Center for Education Statistics, "The Nation's Repon Card, Reading 2007: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8." NCFS 2007-496. U.S. Department Of Education, Institute of FAIucation Sciences. *National Center for Education Statistics, • •The Nation's Report Card. Math. ematics 2007: National Assessment Of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8," NCES 2007-494. U.S. Department of Education, Institute Of Education Sciences, 4C. Jencks and M, Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998). Note that these disparities in schooling Outcomes along race and class lines are not simply due to immigration into the United States by those with low initial levels of English or other academic skills, since, for example, reading and math disparities in National Assessment of Educational Progress scores are K'irge among fourth and eighth graders even between non-Hispanic whites versus non-Hispanic blacks (www.nces.ed.gov/nationsœportcard}nde, accessed on August 4, 2008).

62

'J. Ludwig, "The Great Unknown: Does the Black-White Test Score Gap Narrow or Widen through the School Years? It Depends on How You Measure," Education Next (Summer 2007): 79—82. "J. S. Coleman, E. Q. Campbell, C, J. Hobson, F, MCPartland. A. M. Mood, E D, Weinfeld. et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education/National Center for Education Statistics, 1966. See, for example. N. Glazer, "Education and Training Programs and Poverty." in Fighting Poverty: What Works and What Doesn eds. S. Danziger and D. Weinberg (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). pp. 152—172. see, for example, C. Jencks, 'Education and Training Programs and Poverty," in Fighting Poverty: What Works and What Doesn 't, eds. S. Danziger and D. Weinberg (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 173—179. "See the book chapter for details of the evidence in support of these interventions. 'D.See, for example, E. I. Knudsen. J. J. Heckman, J. L. Cameron. and J. P. Shonkoff, "Economic, Neurobiological, and Behavioral perspectives on Building America's Future Workforce," Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 103 (2006): pp. 10155-10162. 'J. Ludwig and I. Sawhill. "Success by Ten: Intervening Early, Often and Effectively in the Education of Young Children," Hamilton Project Discussion Paper 2007-02. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. ' 2C. Jepsen, and S. G. Rivkin, "What is the Tradeoff between Smaller Classes and Teacher Quality?" NBER Working paper 9205. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge. MA, 2002. õJ. Rockoff, •The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement:

Evidence from panel Data," American Economic Review, papers and ceedings 94. No. 2 (2004): 247-252. "C. T. Clotfelter, H. E Ladd, and J. L. Vigdor, •Teacher-Student Matching and the Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness," Joumal of Human Resources 41 (2006): 778-820. ['See. for example. D. Boyd, P. Grossman. H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement," NBER Working Paper NO. 1 1844, National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA. 2005. '(Several other elementary school models show promise. including Direct Instruction (CRSQ 2006). One of the only Other reform models that has been figorously evaluated is the Comer Schools program, although one problem identified by the lesearch is the limited degree Of difference between Comer treatment schools and control schools in the implementation of Comerstyle school practices. See T. D. Cook. H, Farah-Naaz, M. Phillips, R. A. Settersten, C. S. Shobha, and S. M. Degirmencioglu. "Comer's School Development Program in Prince George's County: A theory-based evalualion," American Educational Research Journal 36 NO. 3 ( 1999): 543_597. See also T. D. Cook, H. D. Hunt, and R. F. Murphy. "Comer's School Development Program in Chicago: A Theory-Based Evaluation," American Educational Resean•/l Journal .37 NO, 2 (20(k)): 535—597. • 'G. D. Borman. R. E. Slavin, A.C.K. Cheun, A. M. Chamberlain. N, A. Madden, and B. Chambers, • •Final Reading Outcomes Of the National Ran. domized Field Trial Of Success for All," American Educational Research

44 No. 3 (2007): 701-731, '*There has been little research on teacher "demand" policies, One reason is the perception that disadvantaged school districts are in a state of perpetual shortage, and thus hire anyone that walks through the door. In reality. while there are often shortages in certain subjects and grade levels, many disadvantaged districts have an ample supply Of teachers for most positions. For example, the Chicago Public Schools regularly receives 10 applications for each position. Josee, for example, S. Glazerman, T. Silva, N. Addy, S. Avellar, J. Max, A. McKie, et al., •Options for Studying Teacher Pay Reform Using Natural

Experiments," No. 12/0002, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.: Washington, DC, 2006. 20R. Murnane, and D. Cohen, "Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit pay Plans Fail and a Survive," Harvard Educational Review 56 (Spring 1986): 1—17. 21 M. G. Springer, D. Ballou, and A. Peng, "Impact Of the Teacher Advancement Program on Student Test Score Gains: Findings from an Independent Appraisal," National Center on Performance Incentives Working paper No. 2008-19,Vanderbi1t University: Nashville, TN, 2008. 22E. A. Hanushek and M. E. Raymond, "Does School Accountability Lead to

Improved Student Performance?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage24 No. 2 (2005): 297-327.

the administrators and teachers in a public school that loses half of its students to a nearby charter school continue teaching the smaller group of students, or are merely reassigned to other schools in the district, they may not change their practices despite the pressure exerted by the nearby chaner. '*This point is made by both D A. Neal. "How Vouchers Could Change the Market for Education," Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 No. 4 (2002): 25—44; and by H. F. Ladd, "School Vouchers: A Critical View," Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 NO. 4 (2002): 3—24. 25E. A. Hanushek, J. F, Kain. and S. G. Rivkin, "Why Public Schools Lose Teachers," Journal ofHuman Resources 39 NO. 2 (2004): 326—354. 6F0r an extensive revie,v of the segregation literature. see J. Vigdor and J. Ludwig, "Segregation and the Black-White Test Score Gap," in Stalled Pmgmss, eds. K. Magnuson and J. Waldfogel (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2008). 27E. O. Olsen, "Housing Programs for Low-income Households," in MeansTested Transfer Pmgram.s in the United States, ed. R. A. Moffitt (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 2003), pp. 365—442.

1

Goal 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3

Teaching Teachers: Professional Development To Improve Student Achievement Professional Development: Leadership Overview: Good teachers form the foundation of good schools, and improving teachers' skills and knowledge is one of the most important investments of time and money that local, state, and national leaders make in education. Yet with the wide variety of professional development options available, which methods have the most impact on student learning?

Research on professional development is scattered throughout subject areas, with its focus ranging from classroom processes and Structures to teachers' personal traits. We have limited our review to learning opportunities for teachers that are explicitly aimed at increasing student achievement, What Are Teachers Learning? FOCUS ON TEACHING SKILLS

Research on the links between teacher learning and student achievement is divided into two waves. The first wave, beginning in the 1960s, focused primarily on "generic" teaching skills, such as allocating class time, providing clear classroom demonstrations, assessing student comprehension during lectures, maintaining attention, and grouping students. These studies showed small to moderate positive effects on students' basic skills, such as phonetic decoding and arithmetic operations; in a few cases, reasoning skills also improved. For example, in an experimental study of fourth-grade mathematics in urban schools serving primarily low-income families, student achievement was greater when teachers emphasized active whole-class instruction — giving information, questioning students, and providing feedback — and more frequent reviews, among other measures. Student achievement also was enhanced when teachers learned to follow the presentation Of new material with "guided practice" — asking questions and supervising exercises. FOCUS ON SUBJECT MATTER AND STUDENT LEARNING

In the 1990s, a second wave of research delved deeper into student learning, focusing on students' reasoning and problemsolving potentials rather than only on basic skills. It suggested that professional development can influence teachers' classroom practices significantly and lead to improved student achievement when it focuses on (1) how students learn particular subject matter; (2) instructional practices that are specifically related to the subject matter and how students understand it; and (3) strengthening teachers' knowledge of specific subject-matter content. Close alignment of professional development with actual classroom conditions also is key. In one study, Thomas Carpenter and colleagues randomly placed first-grade teachers either in a monthlong workshop that familiarized them with research on how students understand addition and subtraction word problems or in professional development that focused on mathematical problem-solving strategies but not on how students learn. Teachers who participated in the student learning workshop more often posed complex problems to students, listened to the processes students used to solve those problems, and encouraged them to seek different methods of finding answers. By contrast, teachers who were not in the workshop emphasized basic fact recall, getting answers quickly, and working alone rather than in groups. Student achievement was consistently higher and growth in students' basic and advanced reasoning and problem-solving skills was greatest when their teachers' professional development focused on how students learn and how to gauge that learning effectively. This suggests that professional development that is rooted in subject matter and focused on student learning can have a significant impact on student achievement. In another study, Paul Cobb and colleagues provided opportunities for teachers to examine new curriculum materials, solve mathematics problems that they would teach to students, and then study student learning. At the end of the school year, these teachers' students did better on conceptual understanding and maintained their basic (computational) skills. Although research in teacher professional development is dominated by mathematics studies, good examples of such research also exist in other subjects including science, literacy, and basic reading skills. In reading, Deborah McCutchen and colleagues studied two groups of kindergarten and first-grade teachers. One group received professional development that improved their knowledge of word sounds and structure, whereas the Other group had no additional training. Students' reading performance then was tracked over the course of a year. Teachers who got the extra training spent more time explicitly teaching the building blocks of words and language, and their students did better on tests of word reading, spelling, and in first grade, comprehension.

2

LINKING PROFESSIONAL LEARNING TO TEACHERS' REAL WORK To be effective, professional development must provide teachers with a way to directly apply what they learn to their teaching. Research shows that professional development leads to better instruction and improved student learning when it connects to the curriculum materials that teachers use, the district and state academic standards that guide their work, and the assessment and accountability measures that evaluate their success. Two recent studies that support focusing professional development on curriculum have implications for states striving to connect education policy to instruction. David Cohen and Heather Hill found that teachers whose learning focused directly on the curriculum they would be teaching were the ones who adopted the practices taught in their professional development. These teachers embraced new curriculum materials when they were supported by training and, in some cases, workshops about the new state-required student assessment. The study also showed that students Of teachers who participated in this kind of curriculum-focused professional development did well on assessments. Unfortunately, most teachers received less effective forms Of training. In another study, Michael Garet and colleagues surveyed a nationally representative sample of teachers who, in the late 1990s, participated in the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which emphasized mathematics and science. The study found that teachers were more likely to change their instructional practices and gain greater subject knowledge and improved teaching skills when their professional development linked directly to their daily experiences and aligned with standards and assessments. How Much Professional Development Is Enough, and HOW Well IS It Working? Studies suggest that the more time teachers spend on professional development, the more significantly they change their practices and that participating in professional learning communities optimizes the time Spent on professional development. Therefore, it is striking that One national survey found that in nine of 10 content areas, most teachers said that they spent one day or less on professional development during the previous year. While adequate time for professional development is essential, studies also show that by itself, more time does not guarantee Success. If the sessions do not focus on the subject-matter content that research has shown to be effective, then the duration will do little to change teachers' practices and improve student learning. Most states and school districts do not know how much money they are spending on professional development for teachers Or what benefit they are actually getting from their outlays because they do not systematically evaluate how well the additional training works. An effective evaluation includes an examination Of actual classroom practices, the training's impact on teacher behavior, and its effect On student learning. Evaluation should be an ongoing process that starts in the earliest stages of program planning and continues beyond the end Of the program. Conclusion Our changi ng goals for learning, coupled with shifts in curriculum emphasis and a deeper understanding of teacher learning and student thinking, have led to new findings about the impact Of teacher professional development and how best to sharpen teachers' skills and knowledge. What matters most is what teachers learn. Professional development should improve teachers' knowledge of the subject matter that they are teaching, and it should enhance their understanding Of student thinking in that subject matter. Aligning substantive training with the curriculum and teachers' actual work experiences also is vital. The time teachers spend in professional development makes a difference as well, but only when the activities focus on high-quality subjectmatter content. Extended opportunities to better understand student learning, curriculum materials and instruction, and subject-matter content can boost the performance of both teachers and students.

Bibliography 1) Richardson, V. (1999). "Teacher Education and the Construction of Meaning." In G. Griffin (Ed.) Teacher Education

fora New Century: Emerging Perspectives, Promising Practices, and Future Possibilities (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), pp. 145—166. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2) For a review of the work, see Brophy, J.E., Good, T.L. (1986). "Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement." In ML. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., pp. 328—375. New York; MacMillan,

3) Good, T.L., Grouws, D. (1979). "The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project: An Experimental Study in Fourth-Grade Classrooms." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 71, PP. 335—362.

4) Kennedy, M. (1997), Defining Optimal Knowledge for Teaching Science and Mathematics (Research Monograph 10). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin.

5) Carpenter, T.P., et al. (1989). "Using Knowledge of Children's Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study." American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 499-531.

6) Cobb, R, et al. (1991). "Assessment of a Problem-Centered Second-Grade Mathematics Project." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 22, pp. 13—29.

3

7) Rosebery, A, Puttick, GM. (1998). "Teacher Professional Development as Situated Sense-Making: A Case Study in Science Education." Science Education, Vol. 82, pp. 649-677.

8) Greenleaf, C. Katz, M. (2004). "Ever Newer Ways to Mean: Authoring Pedagogical Change in Secondary Subject-Area Classrooms." In S.W. Freedman and A.F. Ball (Eds.) Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Learning, pp. 172—202. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.

9) McCutchen, D, et al. (2002). "Beginning Literacy: Links among Teacher Knowledge, Teacher Practice, and Student Learning." Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 35, NO. 1, 69-86.

10) Cohen, DK., Hill, H.C. (2001). Learning Policy: When State Education Reform Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 11) Garet, M.S., et al. (2001). "What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of

Teachers." American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4 (winter), pp. 915—945. 12) Borko, Putnam, R.T. (1995). "Expanding a Teacher's Knowledge Base: A Cognitive Psychological Perspective on

Professional Development." In T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.) Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices, pp. 35-66. New York: Teachers College Press.

13) Parsad, B. , et al. (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development: 2000 (N CES 2001-088), pp. 4—5. U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

14) Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15) Louis, KS, Marks, H.M. (1998). "Does Professional Community Affect the Classroom? Teachers' Work and Student Experiences in Restructuring Schools." American Journal Of Education, Vol. 106, pp. 532—575.

16) National Staff Development Council (2001). Standards for Staff Development, rev. ed. Oxford, OH: Author.

About Teaching ToleranceContact Teaching Tolerance ©2017 Southern Poverty Law Center Privacy Information

4

APPENDIX C

Goal 2

Goal 2 – Action 2.0, 2.1 (according to the National Education Association or NEA)

http://www.nea.org/tools/17360.htm

Research Spotlight on Parental Involvement in Education NEA Reviews of the Research on Best Practices in Education

“When schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more.” That’s the conclusion of A New Wave of Evidence, a report from Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (2002).

The report, a synthesis of research on parent involvement over the past decade, also found that, regardless of family income or background, students with involved parents are more likely to:

• Earn higher grades and test scores, and enroll in higher-level programs • Be promoted, pass their classes, and earn credits • Attend school regularly • Have better social skills, show improved behavior, and adapt well to school • Graduate and go on to postsecondary education (see A New Wave of Evidence, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2002 - in

references below).

The school plays an important role in determining the levels of parental involvement in school. Specifically, schools can outline their expectations of parents and regularly communicate with parents about what children are learning. Also, schools can provide opportunities for parents to talk with school personnel about parents' role in their children's education through home visits, family nights, and well-planned parent-teacher conferences and open houses. In addition, the National PTA recommends that parent/family involvement programs welcome parents as volunteer partners in schools and that these programs invite parents to act as full partners in making school decisions that affect children and families.

When parents talk to their children about school, expect them to do well, make sure that out-of-school activities are constructive, and help them plan for college, their children perform better in school.

When schools engage families in ways that improve learning and support parent involvement at home and school, students make greater gains. When schools build partnerships with families that respond to parent concerns, honor their contributions, and share decision-making responsibilities, they are able to sustain connections that are aimed at improving student achievement.

http://www.nea.org/tools/17360.htm

5

Goal 2 – Action 2.3 (according to the ASCD)

Transforming Your School with Digital Communication

By Eric Sheninger

Learning to use social media can enhance your school's public image, your community connections, and your students' learning.

In 2009, as principal at New Milford High School in New Jersey, I made a small change that ultimately transformed my leadership style and my school. I shifted from using traditional forms of communication with families and community members—newsletters and e-mail—to using social media. With a click of a mouse, I set up my Twitter account and changed the course of my instructional leadership.

Twitter was my first step in a social media communication strategy that expanded to include a range of tools and approaches. What made these tools different from any I'd used before was their power to reach in all directions. Whether sending updates on school cancellations or tweeting about great student projects, with a few keystrokes, I could share ideas and information with students, students' families, community members, and the larger world—while inviting everyone's responses.

This transformation involved more than new tools. My colleagues and I had to make pedagogical and philosophical shifts, which had a deep impact on New Milford's students and our community. Each of these transformations was powerful for me personally. Watching my colleagues and me learn new things, reach out across geographic divides, and take risks offered a powerful model for students.

As I leveraged social media to enhance our school's impact on learning and our image, I discovered key principles for effectively communicating through digital tools: transparency, flexibility, and accessibility.1

Tapping the Power of Transparency

The power of using social media rests in the ability to engage stakeholders in two-way communications. Tools like Instagram, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube let me share information about New Milford more frequently and accurately and provide updates in real time—which engaged more stakeholders than traditional methods had. Teachers, parents, and even outsiders began contributing ideas to New Milford's work.

For this to happen, I had to commit to a new level of transparency and openness. This sometimes meant sharing challenges as well as successes and opening myself to feedback from anyone.

This was the case when I tackled the grading culture at New Milford High School in 2012. At the time, our grading policies were similar to those of most U.S. schools. However, after reviewing the latest research on grading and considering what was best for our students, I knew our current behaviors had to change. Getting detailed information to everyone in the community would be crucial.

The grading shift was one of the most difficult changes to make. When I broke the news to my staff that we were going to revise our grading culture, they reacted with questions, skepticism, and resentment. During initial conversations, I presented up-to-date research, some of which I gathered through social media, to serve as a foundation for changing our system. Social media also enabled me to share with staff perspectives on grading from other educators across the Unites States. Showing teachers how their colleagues in other schools were tackling grading to make learning assessments more beneficial for students went a long way in moving this change forward.

Together, we tackled difficult questions (What does a letter grade actually mean? How do you measure student learning?). A group of teacher volunteers helped establish new grading guidelines and support structures focused on student learning. These included

Using multiple forms of assessment. Promoting retests and retakes. Eliminating zeros; students had to keep trying until they got a score of 50 or higher on any graded assignment. Requiring teachers to meet seven criteria before they gave any student a failing course grade.

To ensure that parents and students were fully aware of the changes and why we made them, I began posting about these new policies on my principal's blog. Before adopting social media, I would have written a traditional memo about the new policies—that might or might not have made it to parents—and placed the information on the school's website. Visibility and access to the information would have been limited. We did place the information in the student handbook, which was linked to from the school website, but blogging enhanced the chances that the entire school community would see it. I pushed out the message using an arsenal of social media tools and our school app, with a hyperlink to my blog posts included.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr15/vol72/num07/Transforming-Your-School-with-Digital-Communication.aspx#fn1

6

I received a tsunami of tweets and comments on the blog. Many comments were from other educators offering insights on grading philosophy, including feedback from colleagues around the world as my posts were shared. A handful were from parents asking for more clarification. One student commented openly in support of creating a system that focused more on learning than on quality stamping effort with letters and numbers. A greater discussion on effective grading practices transpired before my eyes.

Reviewing and responding to this feedback took time, but as a leader looking to improve ineffective practices, I felt it was time well spent. The transparency and open dialogue allowed us to build stakeholder support.

Many comments supported our rationale for creating a different system, comments representing different points of view challenged my thinking and afforded me the opportunity to further refine the grading changes we'd made. One comment focused on the importance of avoiding a situation in which one major project has the potential to very negatively affect a student's overall grade. With this information in hand, we made sure to shape our policy to avoid this scenario.

Flexibility: Checking How Our Community Wanted to Communicate

One important aspect of our approach was involving students, parents, teachers, and community members in shaping the tools and processes we would use to communicate. We invited many stakeholders into our leadership and decision-making process.

Students, teachers, and administrators collaborated to develop our school communication app in partnership with a company called Beeonics. The only way we could create a tool that met everyone's needs was to invite representatives from the community to lead the design process. This team shaped the app's requirements and features, a process that involved both face-to-face brainstorming and eliciting feedback through online tools like Facebook and Google Apps.

The result was an app that supported communication in every direction: between students and teachers, between families and school staff, and across the faculty. It enabled students to check grades and submit work, teachers to share assignments and information, and parents to easily connect with teachers and view student progress. It also made it much easier for me to share updates and announcements quickly with all members of the school community.

This experience helped cultivate leadership skills across our student body. It also made clear to families that they were a valued part of the school community. And modeling transparency in school policy changes set an expectation of transparency across the school. Students' focus, too, shifted to sharing work and getting feedback at all levels, including creating work for a wider audience. This increased the quality of work across the board.

Expanding Access to Learning

Digital connections helped me grow professionally. Through Twitter, I discovered like-minded, passionate educators from all over the world. When struggling with a challenge, I could collect diverse ideas—more than my staff and I could have generated—from these colleagues. I engaged in conversations that ultimately improved my professional practice. How liberating to acquire new knowledge, resources, ideas, and feedback from anyone anywhere—while sitting at home in my pajamas!

For the longest time, I felt that professional development was something done to me. It lacked meaning and rarely helped me acquire skills and knowledge that enabled me to create a better school culture. Social media put me on a path to becoming the driver of my own professional learning.

Inspired to offer this kind of learning to my entire school, I began sharing with groups of teachers several ideas, strategies, and tools I'd acquired from my personal learning network. We worked as a team to create a shared vision for integrating social media to enhance teachers' learning, with an emphasis on free web-based tools. At targeted learning sessions after school, I demonstrated how to integrate these tools to enhance learning. Teachers chose from a variety of topics throughout the school year. I followed up with teachers who attended—and used social media to celebrate their successes! As we removed the fear of failure and provided necessary support for a culture of experimentation, teachers began to leverage their newfound autonomy and online tools.

Soon, instructional practices shifted and students also began to harness social media to support their own learning. Rather than limiting themselves to the expertise available within our school, students became part of a global classroom, drawing on expertise from leaders and thinkers around the world.

To provide students and teachers with access to this global classroom, I also needed to make sure the path was clear. Many districts block social media sites to "protect" students. Policies like these can be counterproductive; students will access social media outside school, so why not provide a supportive environment in which they learn to use these tools productively and safely? Digital leaders' work involves helping community and district leaders understand the power of social media for learning and creating tech policies that support access.

7

Sharing Positive News From Communications Boost to Public Relations Strategy

Once students and staff embraced this shift of learning from—and sharing with—a wider network, my job was to communicate this positive change far and wide. New Milford's communications strategy evolved into a powerful public relations strategy of targeted blog posts, tweets, and Facebook updates. These communications about the work taking place in our school caught the eye of national media outlets, which began producing news stories focused on our innovative practices.2

Educators make a difference every day, but mainstream media often focus on the negative stories. Subtle but hopeful stories—such as a teacher's conversion to a paperless digital learning environment—go unseen and unheard. Social media give school leaders the means to shape and share their school's narrative on their own terms, to highlight the everyday successes and hard work of students and teachers.

Amplifying Students' Stories

As well as raising New Milford's profile and enabling school leaders to tell a more nuanced, optimistic story about our work, digital communication tools empowered students to tell their stories to new audiences. This was the case with a presentation created with digital tools and shared through social media by sophomore Sarah Almeda.

As part of our Academies program, in addition to the added coursework students must complete to receive an Academies certification, students engage in authentic learning activities—field trips or special projects—outside the school day. For one such project, students read Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative by Ken Robinson (Capstone, 2011); watched a video on the importance of creativity in learning; then created a presentation sharing their creative experiences with their Academies group. Students could use any format they wanted—a written document, poster, collage, pin board through Pinterest, or any other media or combination thereof—as long as they answered these questions:

Tell about your creative self and how you are creative. When do you feel the most inspired? What stifles your creativity? Tell about (at least) one other person whose creativity you admire. What do schools need to do better to enhance students' creativity? Provide an example of something that helped you be more creative—

or that would have helped you.

In the resulting presentations, student after student explained the essential role of creativity in their learning—and how they yearned for freedom over how they might demonstrate their present and emerging learning. All students shone as they presented meaningful learning artifacts that reflected their own choices and voices.

Sarah's video (created with a graphics tablet, Bamboo Pad, the iMovie editing program, and QuickTime to record, on the computer screen, Sarah in the act of drawing) was one of the most thought-provoking student presentations I've seen. Not only was it created entirely through self-directed learning, it also sent a strong message about the power of creativity. In the video, Sarah articulated how schools strip creativity away from students and how schools could change this situation.

Social media amplified Sarah's voice and took her project to a whole new level. She uploaded her completed video to YouTube, and we were able to share her project well beyond our school community. To date, it's been viewed more than 10,000 times. With her permission, I shared the link to her video through my Twitter and other social media accounts and posted it on the school Facebook page. Other students, teachers, and schools could now see Sarah's exemplary work. Ken Robinson himself commented on Sarah's project on Twitter and posted the YouTube link to it on his official Facebook page.

The Most Important Transformation

To use social media effectively, I had to see myself as a learner, not just a leader. Making the shift from traditional to digital leadership demanded that I question my own assumptions, acknowledge how much I don't know, take risks, and learn from failure. This transition from a fixed to a growth mind-set was probably the most important component of the transformation at my school.

Just as teachers differentiate instruction for a variety of learning styles in the classroom, school leaders should differentiate our communication efforts if we want true partnerships between home and school. As leaders, we have the power to shape the culture of our schools. Using social media and digital tools as a lever, we can open the door to new ways of learning, thinking, and communicating for all members of our community.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr15/vol72/num07/Transforming-Your-School-with-Digital-Communication.aspx#fn2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-itvkb7kMc

8

Goal 2 – Action 2.3 (according to Community Tool Box, a service of the Work Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas)

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/structure/organizational-structure/overview/main

Learn how to develop a framework that gives members clear guidelines on building organizational structure, and keeping the organization functional.

• What is organizational structure?

• Why should you develop a structure for your organization?

• When should you develop a structure for your organization?

What is organizational structure?

By structure, we mean the framework around which the group is organized, the underpinnings which keep the coalition functioning. It's the operating manual that tells members how the organization is put together and how it works. More specifically, structure describes how members are accepted, how leadership is chosen, and how decisions are made.

Why should you develop a structure for your organization?

• Structure gives members clear guidelines for how to proceed. A clearly-established structure gives the group a means to maintain order and resolve disagreements.

• Structure binds members together. It gives meaning and identity to the people who join the group, as well as to the group itself. • Structure in any organization is inevitable -- an organization, by definition, implies a structure. Your group is going to have some

structure whether it chooses to or not. It might as well be the structure which best matches up with what kind of organization you have, what kind of people are in it, and what you see yourself doing.

When should you develop a structure for your organization?

It is important to deal with structure early in the organization's development. Structural development can occur in proportion to other work the organization is doing, so that it does not crowd out that work. And it can occur in parallel with, at the same time as, your organization's growing accomplishments, so they take place in tandem, side by side. This means that you should think about structure from the beginning of your organization's life. As your group grows and changes, so should your thinking on the group's structure.

Elements of Structure

While the need for structure is clear, the best structure for a particular coalition is harder to determine. The best structure for any organization will depend upon who its members are, what the setting is, and how far the organization has come in its development.

Regardless of what type of structure your organization decides upon, three elements will always be there. They are inherent in the very idea of an organizational structure.

They are:

• Some kind of governance • Rules by which the organization operates • A distribution of work

Governance

The first element of structure is governance - some person or group has to make the decisions within the organization.

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/structure/organizational-structure/overview/main

9

Rules by which the organization operates

Another important part of structure is having rules by which the organization operates. Many of these rules may be explicitly stated, while others may be implicit and unstated, though not necessarily any less powerful.

Distribution of work

Inherent in any organizational structure also is a distribution of work. The distribution can be formal or informal, temporary or enduring, but every organization will have some type of division of labor.

There are four tasks that are key to any group:

• Envisioning desired changes. The group needs someone who looks at the world in a slightly different way and believes he or she can make others look at things from the same point of view.

• Transforming the community. The group needs people who will go out and do the work that has been envisioned. • Planning for integration. Someone needs to take the vision and figure out how to accomplish it by breaking it up into strategies and goals. • Supporting the efforts of those working to promote change. The group needs support from the community to raise money for the

organization, champion the initiative in the state legislature, and ensure that they continue working towards their vision.

Common Roles

Every group is different, and so each will have slightly different terms for the roles individuals play in their organization, but below are some common terms, along with definitions and their typical functions.

• An initial steering committee is the group of people who get things started. Often, this group will create plans for funding, and organizational and board development. It may also generate by-laws, and then dissolve. If they continue to meet after approximately the first six months, we might say they have metamorphosed into a coordinating council.

• A coordinating council (also referred to as a coordinating committee, executive committee, and executive council), modifies broad, organization-wide objectives and strategies in response to input from individuals or committees.

• Often, one person will take the place of the coordinating council, or may serve as its head. Such a person may be known as the Executive Director, Project Coordinator, Program Director, or President. He or she sometimes has a paid position, and may coordinate, manage, inspire, supervise, and support the work of other members of the organization.

• Task forces are made up of members who work together around broad objectives. Task forces integrate the ideas set forward with the community work being done.

For example, from the director of a coalition to reduce violence in a medium-sized city: "Currently, we have three operational task forces. Members of each have an ongoing dialogue with members of the coordinating council, and also with their action committees. The oldest was formed with the goal of eliminating domestic violence about fifteen years ago, when a local woman was killed by her husband. Then, after several outbreaks of violence in the schools a few years back, our group offered to help, and a second task force sprung up around reducing youth violence. We've just started a third, with the goal of increasing gun safety.

"All of it is interrelated, and all of it applies to our mission of increasing the safety of residents of South Haven, as well as that of our visitors. But each task force is contributing to that mission in vastly different ways, with different objectives, and using different strategies. 'Cause, you know, the strategies you use to stop a ninth grader from bringing a gun to school just aren't the same as the ones you use to stop a 40-year-old man on unemployment from beating his wife."

• Action committees bring about specific changes in programs, policies, and practices in the sectors in which they work.

For example, the task force on domestic violence mentioned above has the following action committees:

• A government and law enforcement committee. Members include police officers, lawyers, a judge, and a state representative. Currently, they are trying to pass laws with stronger penalties for those convicted of domestic violence, especially repeat offenders. They are also training officers to be better able to spot an abusive relationship, and better able to inform a victim of his or her options.

• A social services committee. Members (who include representatives from most of the service agencies in town) work to assure that staff members know where to send someone for the resources he or she needs. They are also trying to increase the number of trained volunteer counselors who work at the battered women's shelter.

• A media committee. Members include local journalists, writers, and graphic designers. They keep the project and the issue in the public's minds as much as possible with editorials, articles and news clips of events, as well as advertisements and public service announcements.

10

• Support committees are groups that help ensure that action committees or other individuals will have the resources and opportunities necessary to realize their vision. Financial and media committees are examples of committees formed to help support or facilitate your work.

• Community trustees, also known as the board of trustees or as the board of directors, provide overall support, advice, and resources to members of the action groups. They are often either people who are directly affected by the issue or have stature in the community. That way, they are able to make contacts, network with other community leaders, and generally remove or weaken barriers to meeting organizational objectives.

• Grantmakers are another part of the picture. Grantmakers exist on an international, national, state, and local level and may be private companies and foundations, or local, county, state, or federal government organizations (for example, block grants given by the city would fall into this category).

• Support organizations (not to be confused with the support committees listed above) are groups that can give your organization the technical assistance it needs.

• Partner organizations are other groups working on some of the same issues as your organization.

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/structure/organizational-structure/board-of-directors/main

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/evaluate/evaluation/interests-of-leaders-evaluators-funders/main

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/finances/grants-and-financial-resources/grant-application/main

11

Goal 2 – Action 2.4 (according to the Educating Parents/Enriching families or PEP)

http://pepparent.org/why-parenting-education/research/

The Research

Research findings support the fact that parenting classes such as PEP’s have a strong impact on both parents and children. The positive parenting

theory and practice that PEP teaches is internationally well documented by educators, mental health professionals and child development experts

as highly effective.

Why is parenting education a good choice for parents? Parenting education has been linked to the following positive results:

• Improved parent-child bond and communication [1]

• Increased child compliance to parent requests [2]

• Increased parental knowledge of child development and parenting issues [3]

• Fewer negative parenting behaviors such as yelling, using bribery or hitting [4]

• Better physical, cognitive and emotional development in children [5]

• Reduced youth substance abuse such as smoking and drinking [6,7,8]

• Better adolescent school performance and stronger school engagement [9]

• Better mental health for children and fewer symptoms of depression [10,11]

References:

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Parent Training Programs: Insight for Practitioners (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 2009).

2. Ibid.

3. Anne Samuelson, “Best practices for parent education and support programs,” What Works: Wisconsin Research to Practice Series 10 (Madison:

University of Wisconsin–Madison/Extension, 2010).

4. Jody McVittie, M.D., and Al M. Best, Ph.D., “The Impact of Adlerian-Based Parenting Classes on Self-Reported Parental Behavior,” Journal of

Individual Psychology 65 no. 3 (Fall 2009): 264-285, http://www.positivediscipline.com/files/Press_Release_12_5_09.pdf.

5. Samuelson, “Best practices for parent education and support programs.”

http://pepparent.org/why-parenting-education/research/

http://www.positivediscipline.com/files/Press_Release_12_5_09.pdf

12

Goal 2 – Action 2.6

https://www.aft.org/resolution/preparing-stakeholders-reduce-students-chronic-absenteeism

PREPARING STAKEHOLDERS TO REDUCE STUDENTS’ CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM

WHEREAS, chronic absenteeism is a national problem that undermines our efforts to improve education and life outcomes among our students and significantly predicts children’s long-term ability to thrive; and

WHEREAS, chronic absenteeism is a challenge as early as preschool, and too many students at all grade levels miss 10 percent or more of scheduled instructional days due to chronic absenteeism, thereby placing them at academic risk;

And WHEREAS, the common metric of average daily attendance can mask chronic absenteeism, which is not simply a matter of truancy; it is defined as including unexcused absences, suspensions and excused absences, which are often related to illness, poverty and other social determinants of health, as well as a lack of access to needed physical health and mental health supports, resulting in further loss of valuable instructional time;

And WHEREAS, students only benefit from classroom instruction if they are in class, and chronic absenteeism as early as preschool, kindergarten and first grade is a proven early warning sign that a student will fall behind in reading and other key areas by third grade;

And WHEREAS, by secondary school, chronic absenteeism predicts course failure and dropping out of school, and research connects chronic absenteeism to the school-to-prison pipeline;

And WHEREAS, diverse root causes lead to chronic absenteeism, including the compounded effects of community and family impoverishment, chronic illness, school climate, zero-tolerance policies, testand-punish approaches, misconceptions about the importance of attendance and a lack of adequate investment in public services, such as those that improve mobility and healthcare access;

And WHEREAS, low-income students, students of color and students with disabilities have significantly higher rates of absenteeism in every state;

And WHEREAS, President Obama has issued a call to action to improve the lives of all young people through his Every Student, Every Day initiative to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism, recognizing that frequent school absences can be devastating to a child’s future success as well as to the future security and prosperity of the nation;

And WHEREAS, all school personnel play a critical role in reducing chronic absenteeism, as educators are often the first to identify problematic patterns of absence, support personnel are often best poised to identify the root causes, and school health professionals are often critical to the design and implementation of responsive interventions;

And WHEREAS, the American Federation of Teachers recognizes the need for cross-sector efforts to address this national problem by ensuring that schools, families and communities have the tools, resources and wraparound support to make sure students are in school and ready to learn;

https://www.aft.org/resolution/preparing-stakeholders-reduce-students-chronic-absenteeism

13

And WHEREAS, health interventions on school sites that seek to address asthma, nutrition, safe school climates, dental health, vision, mental health and the social determinants of these conditions have been shown to decrease the incidence of absences.

14

APPENDIX D

Goal 3

Action 3.3

U.S. Department of Education

Every Student, Every Day: A National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic Absenteeism

Every Student, Every Day National Conference: Eliminating Chronic Absenteeism by Implementing and Strengthening Cross-Sector

Systems of Support for All Students June 9-10, 2016

Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, Crystal City—Washington DC 300 Army Navy Dr. Arlington, VA 22202

The U.S. Department of Education (ED), Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, in collaboration with the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Justice (DOJ), is proud to sponsor the Every Student, Every Day National Conference: Eliminating Chronic Absenteeism by Implementing and Strengthening Cross-Sector Systems of Support for All Students. This conference is a key deliverable of President Obama's My Brother's Keeper (MBK) Initiative (https://www.whitehouse.gov/my-brothers-keeper) and is designed to support state and local efforts to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism among our nation's most vulnerable students, particularly those attending low-performing schools. By catalyzing nationwide action to implement and strengthen effective cross-sector early warning and response systems, which are proving integral to addressing chronic absenteeism, we can more effectively improve student achievement and other critical youth outcomes. New 2013-14 Civil Rights Data Collection data find that chronic absenteeism puts as many as six million students each year at risk of falling behind or dropping out of school. Chronic absence data is also a proven early warning sign that a student is off track for school success and graduation. This is a national problem that must be addressed. The Every Student, Every Day National Conference will therefore focus participating state and local teams—which will include state education officials, Cross-sector system leaders, local school district leaders, early learning providers, and other partners—on federal chronic absenteeism guidance (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/151007.html) issued by ED, HHS, HUD, and DOJ on how to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism, as well as on best practices from across the country that can help inform effective chronic absenteeism policy and practice that support all our students to attend school daily and succeed in school and in life. Conference Resources:

15

• For a complete agenda, click here (/about/inits/ed/chronicabsenteeism/esed-national-conf-agenda.pdf). • For descriptions of more than 40 workshops being offered at the conference, click here

(/abouthnits/ed/chronicabsenteeism/esed-nationalconf-program.pdf).

• For speakers bios, click here. • To access the new 2013-14 Civil Rights Data Collection "First Look", click here

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-20131 4.html).

• Click here (/datastory/chronicabsenteeism.html) to view a new data story website about chronic absenteeism.

Chronic absenteeism—or missing at least 10 percent of school days in a school year for any reason, excused or a primary cause of low academic achievement and a powerful predictor of those students who may eventually drop out of school. An estimated five to seven and a half million students miss 18 or more days of school each year, or nearly an entire month or more of school, which puts them at significant risk of falling behind academically and failing to graduate from high school. Because they miss so much school, millions Of young people miss out on opportunities in post-secondary education and good careers. Chronic absenteeism is also an equity issue, and it is particularly prevalent among students who are low-income, students of color, students with disabilities, students who are highly mobile, and/or juvenile justice-involved youth—in other words, those who already tend to face significant challenges and for whom school is particularlyt beneficial. Moreover, chronic absenteeism is often confused with truancy, which can lead to disproportionate suspensions and expulsions from school and inappropriate referrals of students and families to law enforcement. In response and in support of the President's My Brother's Keeper Initiative (MBK), the U.S. Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Justice (DOJ) are launching Every Student, Every Day: A National Initiative to Address and Eliminate Chronic Absenteeism to support coordinated community action that addresses the underlying causes of local chronic absenteeism affecting millions of children in our Nation's public schools each year. We believe that when a diverse coalition of local stakeholders work together to engage and support students who are chronically absent, youth and family outcomes of entire communities can be dramatically improved. In short, we believe chronic absenteeism in communities is a solvable problem. MBK Success Mentors & Student Supports Initiative: As a part of the President's My Brother's Keeper initiative:Department and the MBK Task Force (https://www.whitehouse.gov/my-brothers-keeper) have launched MBK Success Mentors (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-white-houselaunches-new-national-effort-and-ad-council-campaign-eliminate-chronic-absenteeism-and-drivestudent-success) the nation's first-ever effort to scale an evidence-based mentor model to reach and support our highest-risk students, using existing trained adults already, or easily, linked to our schools to reduce chronic absenteeism and drive student success. Initially, the model will target the Key transition years, Sixth and ninth grades, across 30 high-needs school districts, with the goal of eliminating chronic absenteeism in these grades. The model aims to reach 1 million students over the next 3-5 years. June 8th is the White House MBK Success Mentor & Student Supports Summit — where communities from around the nation will convene to mobilize an army of success mentors to drive school success. The Department has also launched a first-of-its-kind public awareness campaign (http://absencesaddup.org/) with the Ad Council (http://www.adcouncil.org/) tto inform and empower parents by providing information, resources, and support regarding the importance of being in school, every day. Together, these efforts will help to build a community of problem-solvers and supporters who are working to help all of our students succeed, stay in school, graduate from high school, and go on to fulfill their potential.

16

Action 3.3

1273 Original Article

Improving Student Attendance With School, Family, and Community

Steven B. Sheldon Download citation a http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.267-275

Researchers and policy makers have questioned the efficacy of family-involvement interventions. They believe that more studies are needed to compare outcomes of students whose families received a partnership intervention with those who did not. The author used data from the state of Ohio to compare student attendance in elementary schools that developed school-wide programs of school, family, and community partnerships with the attendance of students in schools that did not develop the programs. Analyses showed that in schools working to implement school, family, and community partnerships, student attendance improved an average of .5%, whereas in comparison schools, rates of student attendance declined slightly from 1 year to the next. Further analysis suggested that school outreach to families was the driving mechanism that caused this effect.

17

Action 3.3

Published Online: February 26, 2013

Published in Print: February 27, 2013, as poverty's prominent Role in Absenteeism

COMMENTARY

Poverty's Prominent Role in Absenteeism

By Marc Cuti110 "Half Of life is just showing up." I once loved repeating that to my printer-Friendly students who were regularly absent from school, Like all good

Email Article quotes, it owns a perfect blend of simplicity, adaptation, and sublimity, I used to love saying it, that is, until a young child curtly responded, "Sometimes I can't find a way to show up." I wasn't sure if he meant that, or if he was attempting to create his own unique axiom, but it certainly struck me. After all, if he cannot find a way to show up to school, how can we expect him to succeed? Chronic absenteeism—missing more than 10 percent Of school a year—occurs at rates three to four times higher in high-poverty areas, according to a study of six states conducted by Johns Hopkins University in May of last year. In these low-income communities, it is normal to find a quarter of the class missing every day, with some students missing 30 to 40 days a year—a fact that, as an inner-city English teacher, I regularly witness firsthand. The most alarming part is that multiple studies across various states show kindergartners to have the highest rate of absenteeism outside of high school students. Educators and policymakers have known for years that falling behind before 3rd grade has a high correlation not just with high school dropout rates, but with incarceration rates as well. An overwhelming majority of chronically absent kids are impoverished, dealing with such daily stresses as caring for siblings, high rates of disease, violence in the community, and frequent familial moves to find employment, I've spent many nights meeting with these children's parents—themselves products of failed educational and social systems. They do not recognize the long-term harm of missing school. There is a divergent culture not entirely known to many Americans, one consistent with the worst ills that poverty can beget, in which these children suffer. The prevailing attitude within these communities is about survival, not school attendance.

Some might take these Observations as a myopic argument that blames the poor for their own hardships. However, understanding these family structures requires a view of poverty that cannot be seen from the isolation of a suburban community.

There is no policy to cure generational poverty. Ten years of teaching has given me more questions than answers in this regard. What I do know, however, is the degree of risk inherent in not attending school, and it must be addressed. In high-poverty communities, the difference between escaping an undeniable fate and staying put can be found inside the classroom. The current solutions for absenteeism revolve around the local "In high-poverty communities, the department of human services and truancy courts. They continue difference between to fail because they do not address the root familial causes; escaping an instead, they treat school attendance as a court-mandated undeniable fate and punishment. As more policymakers recognize the need for put can be staying found inside the improved solutions to chronic absenteeism that do not involve court systems, they have turned to new models. Baltimore's School Every Day is a joint initiative between the city's public schools and community, alumni, and faith-based volunteers who visit the homes of truant children of all ages. Volunteers take to the streets prepared to provide parents with personal advice and resources—from alarm clocks to umbrellas to information on immunization centers— covering all the possible reasons for absences. The University of Pittsburgh has developed a comprehensive, yet playful, Ready Freddy program complete with a frog mascot, geared toward children entering kindergarten. The program brings together schools, parents, and children to ease the transition from home life to school entry. In over four years, it has more than tripled first-day attendance rates in participating schools. Even more expansive is President Barack Obama's early-childhood-education initiative, which he announced in his recent State Of the Union address: to expand federally funded, rigorous pre-K programs for children from low- and middle-income families. Most importantly, it includes a program for home visits by health professionals and social workers to families of pre-K children most at risk of not attending school. It's a start (and an acknowledgment), on a federal level, that treating the causes of absenteeism now prevents problems later. Naturally, these programs and ideas require a commitment from schools, communities, Congress, and taxpayers in order for them to translate into success for our students. Naysayers quick to point out the expense of these services should be reminded of the long-term societal costs high school dropouts place on cities, to say nothing of the moral obligation we owe innocent children. Every option must be used to curb this absenteeism epidemic, even temporary removal from parents, should it come to that. Education has long been considered one of the few opportunities for American society that everyone enjoys, and it remains the most dependable way to break the cycle of poverty. If we still believe this, then the issue of school attendance in poverty-stricken communities must be moved to the forefront of our national education discussion. The road to success, and failure, starts earlier than you think.

Marc Cutillo has worked with at-risk children for more than 10 years and is a former boar.

of 11

APPENDIX E

Goal 4

Goal 4 – Action 4.0 and 4.1

http://www.rudolfsteinercollege.edu/events/art-of-teaching-1st-4th-2015

Rudolf Steiner College

Grades 1 - 8 These efficient, effective professional development workshops are very popular as refreshers for Waldorf teachers. Over the course of a week, we focus on curriculum, child development, and practical pedagogy for a specific grade. The Art of Teaching provides an overview of the developmental principles that stand at the heart of Waldorf education. Participants will feel prepared for the joys and opportunities of a new grade with renewed insight into its unique developmental phase, new ideas for classroom activities, and tips for practical planning.

Classes are taught by experienced Waldorf teachers. There is ample opportunity for the networking, hands-on learning, and professional exchange that is a unique benefit of a week-long intensive. A range of grade-specific arts is included in each course.

http://www.rudolfsteinercollege.edu/events/art-of-teaching-1st-4th-2015

of 11

Goal 4 – Action 4.2 http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/chat/chat071.shtml

Induction Programs Improve Teacher Retention

School districts spend hundreds of thousands of dollars recruiting teachers, but invest almost nothing -- in terms of time or money -- to keep their teachers from leaving the schools or the profession. Left alone in a room full of students, plagued by self-doubts and unanswered questions, many young teachers quit in frustration after only a year or two.

Annette L. Breaux, the curriculum coordinator for the Lafourche Parish Public Schools in Thibodaux, Louisiana, witnessed that sieve effect in her own district: new teachers were pouring in, but few were retained. "They said we had nothing for them," Breaux told Education World. "They were leaving because they got no support." In 1996, Breaux's district contacted Dr. Harry K. Wong, a former high school science teacher who is now one of America's most prominent education authors and lecturers, and asked for assistance. Wong told administrators they needed a program that instructed and supported new teachers -- an induction program. "That's how we [Breaux and Wong] met and started working together," Breaux said.

Hoping to stem the defection of young, effective teachers, Breaux created the Framework for Inducting, Retaining, and Supporting Teachers (FIRST), which reduced the school system's teacher attrition rate by 80 percent. The state went on to adopt FIRST as a model induction program.

To spread the word about the effectiveness of induction programs, Wong and Breaux wrote New Teacher Induction: How to Train, Support, and Retain New Teachers. In the book, the authors not only show the value of comprehensive, long-term teacher induction programs, they also describe successful programs and outline how to start one. "An induction process is the best way to send a message to your teachers that you value them and want them to succeed and stay," write Breaux and Wong.

Besides her position in the Lafourche schools, Breaux also travels to other school systems giving presentations about induction programs. She recently talked with Education World about the educational and economic value of teacher induction programs.

Education World: What are the differences between orientation and induction?

Annette L. Breaux: Everybody has orientation! That's where all the new teachers come together for a day to learn about the policies and procedures of the school and district. That's it -- one day and it's done. Induction, on the other hand, involves ongoing, systematic training and support for new teachers beginning before the first day of school and continuing throughout the first two or three years of teaching. In other words, orientation is one small activity that takes place during an overall systematic two- or three-year training process known as induction.

EW: Why don't more school systems use staff induction programs?

Breaux: Many school districts do not have induction programs because they mistakenly believe that mentoring and induction are the same. They're not! Even if some school districts do realize there's a difference, they think that mentoring, in and of itself, is enough. It's not! Just as orientation is only one small component of an overall structured induction process, mentoring is only one of many components of a successful induction program. The fact is, simply providing a new teacher with a mentor does little, if anything, to improve that teacher's effectiveness.

That's not to imply that mentors are wasting their time. They can offer much-needed support to new teachers. But a mentor is just that -- a person who provides support when he or she is not busy teaching. Induction is an ongoing

http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/chat/chat071.shtml

http://lafourche.k12.la.us/

of 11

training process; mentoring usually is one component of that. A mentor alone cannot provide all the feedback, support, and ongoing training a new teacher requires. Induction, however, can -- and does!

Mentoring can't do it all -- and more than 20 years of research has yet to prove mentoring's effectiveness. Induction, on the other hand, has been shown to improve teacher effectiveness and increase teacher retention. In the words of Leslie Huling, "Simply assigning a mentor teacher does little to remedy the situation of teachers becoming discouraged and leaving the profession. Induction and mentoring must go hand in hand."

It's not rocket science. If you train and support new teachers, your chances of retaining them increase a hundredfold. At worst, it's much better to train new teachers and risk losing them than not to train them and risk keeping them!

EW: What are the key elements of a successful induction program?

Breaux: No two induction programs are exactly alike; each caters to the culture and needs of its unique school or district. Several common components, however, underlie the most successful induction programs:

• an initial four or five days of training before school begins.

• ongoing, systematic training over the course of two or three years.

• strong administrative participation in, and support of, the overall induction process.

• a mentoring component.

• study groups in which new teachers network and support one another.

• a structure for modeling effective teaching during in-services and mentoring.

• numerous opportunities for inductees to visit demonstration classrooms taught by successful veteran teachers.

EW: How do staff induction programs affect student learning?

Breaux: Research has proven time and again that it is the teacher who makes the difference in the classroom; just as it is the pilot who makes the difference on the airplane; just as it is the surgeon who makes the difference in the operating room. The better trained the pilot, the better the chances of arriving safely at your destination. The better trained the surgeon, the better the chances of successful patient recovery. Likewise, the better trained the teacher, the better the student achievement in the classroom.

Induction programs that are specifically designed to train new teachers help increase teacher competence, which, in turn, directly impacts student achievement. It seems like it would be a much better use of resources if we stopped conducting research to prove the obvious -- that teacher quality makes a difference -- and instead use those resources to ensure teacher quality by training our teachers better!

EW: What is the hardest part about starting an induction program?

Breaux: The most difficult part about implementing an induction program, for some districts, is wasting time, energy, and resources trying to reinvent the wheel. There's no need to do that. That's the reason we wrote New Teacher Induction -- to save school districts time, energy, and money while providing the induction training new teachers need and deserve. Also, many school districts across the country not only have successful induction programs in place, they also are more than willing to share their successes with others.

In New Teacher Induction, we go beyond just providing resources, however. We devote an entire chapter to "how to structure an induction program." We literally walk readers through seven simple steps to structuring an induction program. If they follow the steps, they have got an induction program in place!

of 11

EW: How long should induction programs last? Who should participate?

Breaux: The most successful induction programs begin with four or five days of training before the first day of school and continue throughout the new teachers' first two or three years of teaching. The intent is to not only train new teachers throughout their first few years, but to instill in them the importance of becoming lifelong learners so they will continue to grow professionally throughout their careers.

As for who should participate: ideally, we should induct all teachers who are new to the district, whether they have prior teaching experience or not. Experienced teachers entering the district should not require as much training and support as first-time teachers, but they still need to learn what will be expected of them and where to turn when they have questions or concerns. All teachers new to a district need to learn policies and procedures, missions, philosophies, and the overall culture of their particular school and district.

Many districts provide separate and specific induction training for first-time teachers and for experienced teachers who are new to the district.

EW: Where can districts and schools that want to start induction programs find resources?

Breaux: New Teacher Induction provides overviews and contact information for more than 30 highly successful, easily replicable induction programs used in rural, urban, and suburban school districts across the United States. A reference section provides research articles, agendas of successful induction programs, sample handouts, induction guidelines, and much more.

The best part of those induction programs is that they are actually saving money for their schools and districts! For example, the operating budget for FIRST, the Lafourche Parish (Louisiana) induction program, is $50,000 a year. Since implementing the program in 1996, the attrition rate of new teachers has decreased by more than 80 percent. In their research, Leslie Huling and Virginia Resta found: "If a bad hire costs a company nearly 2 times the employee's initial salary in recruitment and personnel costs as well as lost productivity, then each teacher who leaves the profession during the induction years likely costs taxpayers in excess of $50,000." Based on that conclusion, if Lafourche retains only one new teacher a year, it recoups its entire FIRST budget!

of 11

Goal 4 – Action 4.3 https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-924/mentoring.htm

Teacher Mentoring. ERIC Digest #7. Mentoring is the establishment of a personal relationship for the purpose of professional instruction and guidance. In education, the value of mentoring has been recognized in the use of teachers and other professionals in one-on-one instruction of students for vocational education, science, and reading (Evenson, 1982). Mentoring programs have been implemented recently for beginning teacher induction and continuing staff development. This digest describes teacher mentoring and its different applications.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AND ACTIVITIES OF MENTORING?

From the literature on mentoring in professions, Bova and Phillips (1981) compiled a list of ten characteristics inherent in any mentor-protege relationship.

1. Mentor-protege relationships grow out of voluntary interaction.

2. The mentor-protege relationship has a life cycle: introduction; mutual trust-building; teaching of risk-taking, communication, and professional skills; transfer of professional standards; and dissolution.

3. People become mentors to pass down information to the next generation.

4. Mentors encourage proteges in setting and attaining short- and long-term goals.

5. Mentors guide technically and professionally. Mentors teach proteges skills necessary to survive daily experiences and promote career-scope professional development.

6. Mentors protect proteges from major mistakes by limiting their exposure to responsibility.

7. Mentors provide opportunities for proteges to observe and participate in their work.

8. Mentors are role models.

9. Mentors sponsor proteges organizationally and professionally.

10. Mentor-protege relationships end, amiably or bitterly.

FORMALIZING AN INFORMAL PROCESS

Some school systems have formalized mentoring processes as part of newly developed induction programs, thus compromising some of the mentor-protege relationship characteristics. Voluntary participation becomes mandatory for the protege. At the same time the sphere of influences in which the mentor would ordinarily affect the protege is decreased by time and authority restrictions. The mentor cannot regulate the beginning teacher's levels of responsibility. The mentor does not have the freedom to direct the protege's activities nor the time to adequately oversee developing classroom performance. The mentoring relationship can be

https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-924/mentoring.htm

of 11

supported by creating a school environment which openly offers assistance and provides the means to expand the initiate's repertoire of teaching techniques and classroom management skills.

WHAT BENEFITS DOES MENTORING BRING TO THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM?

As an interactive system, mentoring benefits all participants: the mentor, the protege, and the school system. Mentors gain the satisfaction of being able to transfer skills and knowledge accumulated through extensive professional practice (California State Board of Education, 1983; Krupp, 1984). Much of this knowledge is intangible and is not contained in teacher preparation programs. It might be lost entirely if it were not rediscovered by each beginner. The questions from beginning teachers provide opportunities for mentor teachers to reexamine their own classroom practices and the effects of accepted instructional techniques on the teaching/learning process.

The protege benefits in three major ways: fast assimilation into the school environment, establishment of professional competence, and introduction to teaching as a continually developing, lifelong career. One of the most recognized uses of mentoring is the conveyance of operating procedures to the beginner (Evenson, 1982).

The school administration provides an introduction to the rules but the mentor teaches the skills necessary to comply and cope with them (Driscoll et al., 1985). The mentor provides the protege with opportunities to develop professional competence through a cycle of observation/assessment/practice/assessment. This permits continuous communication and constant feedback to the protege. Classroom skills develop under the mentor's constant and consistent assistance. The mentor also guides the protege though the maze of local and state administration systems which potentially influence the practices of the classroom teacher. Finally, the mentor directs the protege to professional organizations for academic and professional development.

The school district benefits both directly and indirectly from mentoring programs. A school which enthusiastically welcomes beginning teachers and initiates them to active participation in the educational processes potentially reduces its teacher attrition rate (Driscoll et al., 1985). Furthermore, close supervision of the beginning teacher catches problems which may affect the instructional process or discourage the teacher. Involving experienced teachers in the program and providing them the opportunity to pass on their expertise further demonstrates long-term professional interest in the faculty and provides an environment conducive to lifelong professional careers.

PROBLEMS COMMON TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MENTORING PROGRAMS

Confusing "assessment" with "evaluation" provides a common cause of mentor program failure (Griffin, 1984). An effective mentoring process is built on a foundation of mutual trust. The objective of the process is assistance. Both trust and assistance are placed in serious jeopardy if the mentor is saddled with evaluation responsibilities. Assessment, however, is an important part of the mentoring process which allows the protege self-criticism and direction for improvement (California State Board of Education, 1983). Programs can resolve this conflict by appointing separate evaluators who meet with the protege and mentor to discuss performance evaluations.

Mandatory program participation could cause problems in the mentoring process, but surveys of post-program proteges and mentors repeatedly report enthusiastic support of organized mentoring programs

of 11

(Krupp, 1984; Huffman and Leak, 1986). This seems to indicate that schools can establish an environment for effective mentoring in mandatory programs.

Finding criteria and methods for choosing mentors is a problem common to all programs. Some criteria and methods for mentor selection are suggested by Driscoll in her description of the Utah Teacher Evaluation

Program. The California Teacher Mentor Program (California State Board of Education, 1983) and the Model School Project of Louisville (Benningfield et al., 1984) offer additional mentor characteristics. Proteges become good teachers by assimilating the desirable skills, attitudes, and professional outlook of their

mentors. The latter is unlikely unless the beginning teachers are matched judiciously with prequalified senior teachers who share professional interests, expressed educational philosophies, and compatible personalities.

Using a mentoring program to fulfill state-mandated and district-required certification, induction, and staff development programs loads mentoring with obligations that the technique is not designed to handle. The mentor is a guide to the profession, not a stand-in for administration (Driscoll et al., 1985)

EXISTING PROGRAMS: MODELS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Krupp (1984) describes one of few wholly mentoring programs. This experimental program conducted in Connecticut elementary and secondary schools cultivated the spontaneous formation of mentoring relationships among teachers. An introductory seminar for all school staff motivated an interest in the mentoring process. Successive workshops for volunteer program participants provided information and guidance to mentor teachers and their proteges.

In most teacher mentoring programs, mentoring forms a basic component of a multipurpose teacher induction program. Many induction programs seek to qualify a new teacher for certification and permanent employment, necessitating evaluation of teaching skills and providing programs to improve those skills to preset standards. The literature provides many examples of these mentoring-evaluation program hybrids (see Galvez-Hjornevik, 1985). Another purpose for supporting the teacher mentor/protege relationship with additional induction activities is to restore some of the benefits of professional mentoring which are necessarily curtailed by the teaching environment: time constraints and limitations of personnel interaction. Driscoll et al. (1985) discuss the problems common to the adaptation of the traditionally idealistic relationship of mentor and protege to the teacher's real world of limited time and structured activities.

The multipurpose programs come in two varieties: those using mentoring as a part of an induction process and those using mentoring as a tool for general staff development. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Career Development Program (Schlechty, 1985) is representative of teacher induction programs which assign each new teacher to an induction committee. This "Advisory/Assessment Team" consists of a school administrator, an instructional consultant (often from a teacher preparation program of a nearby college), and a peer teacher who acts as a mentor to the beginner. These programs back up both the mentor and the protege with separate supporting activities. The system has received favorable reviews, despite the misleading use of the term "assessment": the final team "assessment" determines the employment status for the protege.

Examples of programs which use mentoring as a general approach to staff development are the California Mentor Teacher Program (California State Department of Education, 1983) and the proposed Model School System of Louisville, Kentucky (Benningfield et al., 1984). In these specific programs, the use of "mentor" is a misnomer. Both programs professionalize the mentoring process by training senior teachers as master

of 11

teachers to instruct beginning and experienced teachers in advanced instructional techniques and classroom skills. Each trained "mentor" is assigned a group of "proteges." The mentor also is responsible for curriculum development and the exploration of new instructional techniques. The concept of training experienced teachers to advise and monitor a group of other teachers does not evolve from developments in the use of mentoring as much as it is derived from twenty years of induction program development (see Galvez-Hjornevik's Appendix from Zeichner-1979, 1985). The California and Louisville programs borrow the best of master teacher programs and combine it with the less personal aspects of mentoring.

The success of mentoring programs has been documented largely by opinion survey. Most of the programs using teacher mentoring are less than four years old. Long-term objectives, including the retention of new teachers and development of experienced ones, have had insufficient time to be realized. However, surveys of perceptions of program success overwhelmingly conclude that beginning teachers expand their techniques, improve teaching skills, and learn classroom management (Huffman and Leak, 1986). Furthermore, mentors do appreciate the opportunity to and do pass their expertise on to new teachers (Califonia State Department of Education, 1983; Krupp, 1984). The varieties of mentoring programs described in the literature should allow any school district to find a model which fits its budget, time, and spatial constraints.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Benningfield, M., et al. "A Proposal to Establish Demonstration Schools and the Identification, Training and Utilization of Master/Mentor and Master Teacher: A Joint School District and University of Louisville Project." Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 1984. ED 241 465.

Bova, B. M., and R. E. Philips. THE MENTOR RELATIONSHIP. A STUDY OF MENTORS AND PROTEGES IN BUSINESS AND ACADEMIA. 1981. ED 208 233.

California State Department of Education. CALIFORNIA MENTOR TEACHER PROGRAM. PROGRAM ADVISORY. 1983. ED 241 473.

Driscoll, A., et al. "Designing A Mentor System For Beginning Teachers." JOURNAL OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT 6,2 (October 1985).

Evenson, J. S. WORKPLACE MENTORING. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. 1982. ED 246 182.

Galvez-Hjornevik, C. "Teacher Mentors: A Review of the Literature." Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas, 1985. SP 026 844. Note: most of this material appears in JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 37,1 (January-February 1986): 6-11.

Griffin, G. A. "Crossing the Bridge: The First Years of Teaching." Paper prepared for the National Commission on Excellence in Teacher Education, 1984. ED 250 292.

Huffman, G., and S. Leak. "Beginning Teachers' Perceptions of Mentors." JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 37,1 (January-February 1986): 22-25.

of 11

Krupp, J. A. "Mentor and Protege Perceptions of Mentoring Relationships in an Elementary and Secondary School in Connecticut." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1984. ED 245 004.

Schlechty, P. "Evaluation Procedures in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Career Ladder Plan." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 43,3 (November 1985): 14-19.

of 11

Goal 4 – Action 4.4

Teacher Evaluation

The Every Student Succeeds Act has ended the federal government’s involvement in prescribing and influencing teacher evaluation systems across the nation. ESSA does not require states to set up teacher evaluation systems based in “significant” part on students’’ test scores, which was a key component of the U.S. Department of Education state-waiver system. The law permits states to re-design and submit descriptions of their new accountability systems to the U.S. Department of Education.

KEY PROVISIONS

Prohibits the Secretary of Education from prescribing any aspect of states’ educational system, including teacher evaluation systems or defining teacher effectiveness.

Requires states to develop their own goals (long-term, short term, interim goals) and to look at a broad range of factors to gauge school performance—not just test scores.

States may design and implement evaluation and support systems that are based in part on evidence of student academic achievement, which may include student growth, and shall include multiple measures of educator performance or other school leaders, such as by— o (I) developing and disseminating high-quality evaluation tools, such as classroom observation rubrics, and methods, including training and auditing, for ensuring inter-rater reliability of evaluation results; ‘‘(II) developing and providing training to principals, other school leaders, coaches, mentors, and evaluators on how to accurately differentiate performance, provide useful and timely feedback, and use evaluation results to inform decision-making about professional development, improvement strategies, and personnel decisions; and ‘‘(III) developing a system for auditing the quality of evaluation and support systems.

BARGAINING/ADVOCACY IMPLICATIONS:

In Title II, the ESSA savings clause provisions are “rights-preserving” provisions, not “rightscreating provisions.” If you did not have the right to bargain evaluation (either as a mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining) before the enactment of ESSA, the savings clauses in ESSA do not give you that right. Likewise, if you didn’t have a state law covering a topic before the enactment of ESSA, the savings clauses in ESSA do not give you that protection. Rather, the savings clauses protect against ESSA interference with existing rights under state and local law and association agreement.

If your state law permits, but does not require, negotiation over evaluation, the savings clause language provides another opportunity.

Review your existing state bargaining law and your contract for language on evaluation, joint committees, stipends for additional responsibilities, and other key provisions to ensure that where ESSA protects contractual and collective bargaining rights, the employer is not acting unlawfully in implementing ESSA. This review may also prompt your association to conclude that new language needs to be negotiated.

of 11

Under Title II, ESSA requires the local educational agency to “meaningfully consult” with teachers, specialized instructional support personnel, paraprofessionals, parents, and community partners, in developing a grant application that covers a number of issues including evaluation. This provision provides the Association with an opportunity to provide input regarding evaluation, even in non-bargaining states.

NEA’s Teacher Evaluation and Accountability Toolkit (http://www.nea.org/home/50813.htm) contains many contract language examples and guiding principles to consider when implementing or modifying an evaluation system. Some key points to consider include: Depending on the scope of your state’s collective bargaining law, the association may be able to negotiate many aspects of the evaluation system such as the measures to be assessed, observation procedures, and tools/forms associated with the evaluation or accountability system. Some associations have negotiated a joint evaluation committee to oversee the process, while others include the specifics in the collective bargaining agreement. Even where bargaining doesn’t exist, teacher evaluation systems should be developed in partnership with teachers to ensure teacher buy in. Evaluations must be meaningful, providing all teachers with clear and actionable feedback linked to tailored professional development. There is growing evidence that using student test scores to determine teacher effectiveness is misguided and does not improve instructional practice. As part of the implementation process, evaluation systems must be adequately funded and fully developed and validated. All teachers must be trained on the new systems before they are used to make any high-stakes employment decisions. New or modified evaluation systems should be piloted before the high stakes personnel decisions are tied to any evaluation system. The process for changing or modifying the evaluation system due to unanticipated consequences should be negotiated wherever possible and permitted by law. Improvement plans and due process rights should be considered when developing an evaluation plan and must align with the due process rights of the contract.

Consolidated Budget Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - ConsolidatedBudget SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

SACS Object CodeCode Description 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21Revenue

State 4,380,947 4,504,562 4,561,502 4,680,199 4,841,397

Federal

Local 190,008 190,008 190,008 190,008 190,008

Total Revenue 4,570,955 4,694,570 4,751,510 4,870,207 5,031,405

- - - -

Expenses - - - -

1000 Certificated Salaries 1,624,568 1,665,332 1,690,085 1,716,146 1,742,988

2000 Classified Salaries 514,347 506,728 501,328 513,360 525,753

3000 Benefits 501,664 594,778 637,387 700,640 752,939

4000 Books and Supplies 150,006 159,487 156,612 147,010 149,375

5000 Services and Other Operating Expenses 1,475,633 1,497,598 1,595,736 1,653,622 1,712,390

6000 Capital Outlay 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800

7000 Other Outgoing

Total Expenses 4,272,398 4,430,104 4,587,329 4,736,959 4,889,627 - - - - -

Surplus / (Deficit) 298,557 264,466 164,181 133,249 141,777 As a % of LCFF revenue 7% 6% 4% 3% 3%

Beginning Balance 954,225 1,252,782 1,517,248 1,681,429 1,814,678 Cash + Net AR/AP

Ending Balance 1,252,782$ 1,517,248$ 1,681,429$ 1,814,678$ 1,956,455$ As a % of Total Expenditures 29% 34% 37% 38% 40%

Page 1

HO - Budget Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - Home OfficeBudget SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21


State

Federal

Local 847,518 817,402 896,875 925,280 954,185

Total Revenue 847,518$ 817,402$ 896,875$ 925,280$ 954,185$

Expenses1000 Certificated Salaries


3000 Benefits 157,950 88,912 151,573 162,769 174,397


5000 Services and Other Operating Expenses 245,480 299,862 307,959 316,274 324,497

6000 Capital Outlay

7000 Other Outgoing

Total Expenses 847,518$ 817,402$ 896,875$ 925,280$ 954,185$

Surplus / (Deficit) -$ -$ (0)$ -$ -$ As a % of LCFF revenue #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Beginning Balance 1,791 1,791 1,791 1,791 1,791 Cash + Net AR/AP

Ending Balance 1,791$ 1,791$ 1,791$ 1,791$ 1,791$ As a % of LCFF revenue #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Page 2

HO - Revenue Input

Golden Valley Charter School - Home OfficeRevenueFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

SACS 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21State

8011 LCFF; state aid portion - 8012 LCFF; EPA portion - 8096 In-Lieu of Property Taxes, all grades - 8019 Prior Year Income / Adjustments8520 State Child Nutrition program8560 Lottery8550 Mandate Block Grant8591 SB 740 Rent re-imbursement program

8590 All Other State Revenue / Clean Energy

8599 Prior Year State Income

State Revenue -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Federal8181 Special Education, federal

8220 Federal Child Nutrition Programs

8290 All Other Federal Revenue, inc Facilities Incentive Grants program

8291 Title I

8292 Title II

8293 Title III

8295 Title V

8299 Prior Year Federal Revenue

Federal Revenue -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Local8660 Interest

8782 All Other Transfers from County Offices

8784 All Other Transfers from Other Locations8785 CMO Management fee 617,518 587,402 666,875 695,280 724,185 8792 SPED State / Other Transfers from County

8980 Student Lunch Revenue

8982 Foundation Grants / Donations 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000

8983 All Other Local Revenue

8984 Student Body (ASB) Fundraising Revenue

8985 School Site Fundraising

8986 Rental Income

8999 Revenue Suspense

Local Revenue 847,518$ 817,402$ 896,875$ 925,280$ 954,185$

Total Revenue 847,518$ 817,402$ 896,875$ 925,280$ 954,185$ Page 3

HO - Expenses Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - Home OfficeExpenses SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

SACS SeriesSACS Object CodeCode Description 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21Certificated Salaries

1100 Teachers' Salaries - - - - - 1105 Teachers' Stipends / Bonus - - - - - 1120 Substitute Expense - - - - - 1200 Certificated Pupil Support Salaries - - - - - 1300 Certificated Supervisor and Administrator Salaries - - - - - 1305 Certificated Sup. and Admin. Stipends / Bonus - - - - - 1900 Other Certificated Salaries - - - - - 1910 Other Certificated Overtime - - - - - 1000 Subtotal

Classified Salaries2100 Instructional Aide Salaries - - - - - 2110 Instructional Aide Overtime - - - - - 2200 Classified Support Salaries (Maintenance / Food) - - - - - 2210 Classified Support Overtime - - - - - 2300 Classified Supervisor and Administrator Salaries 150,860 125,258 127,763 130,319 132,925 2400 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Salaries 250,228 282,980 288,639 294,412 300,300 2410 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Overtime - - - - - 2900 Other Classified Salaries - - - - - 2905 Other Stipends - - - - - 2910 Other Classified Overtime - - - - - 2000 Subtotal 401,088$ 408,238$ 416,403$ 424,731$ 433,226$

Employee Benefits3101 State Teachers' Retirement System, certificated positions - - - - - 3202 Public Employees' Retirement System, classified positions 55,703 2,823 62,460 70,505 78,847 3313 OASDI 24,867 25,311 25,817 26,333 26,860 3323 Medicare 5,816 5,919 6,038 6,159 6,282 3403 Health & Welfare Benefits 43,200 45,360 47,628 50,009 52,510 3503 State Unemployment Insurance 3,384 2,967 2,967 2,967 2,967 3603 Worker Compensation Insurance 24,980 6,532 6,662 6,796 6,932 3703 Other Post Employment Benefits - - - - -

Page 4


3903 Other Benefits - - - - - 3000 Subtotal 157,950$ 88,912$ 151,573$ 162,769$ 174,397$

Total Personnel Expenses 559,038$ 497,150$ 567,976$ 587,500$ 607,623$

Books and Supplies4100 Approved Textbooks and Core Curricula Materials - 4200 Books and Other Reference Materials - 4300 Materials and Supplies 15,000 15,390 15,806 16,232 16,654 4315 Classroom Materials and Supplies - 4400 Noncapitalized Equipment 28,000 5,000 5,135 5,274 5,411 4430 General Student Equipment - 4700 Food and Food Supplies - 4000 Subtotal 43,000$ 20,390$ 20,941$ 21,506$ 22,065$

Services and Other Operating Expenses5200 Travel and Conferences 8,910 9,142 9,388 9,642 9,893 5210 Training and Development Expense 14,490 14,867 15,268 15,680 16,088 5300 Dues and Memberships 8,695 8,921 9,162 9,409 9,654 5400 Insurance 36,052 36,989 37,988 39,014 40,028 5500 Operation and Housekeeping Services/Supplies - - - - - 5501 Utilities 1,200 1,231 1,264 1,299 1,332 5505 Student Transportation / Field Trips - - - - - 5600 Space Rental/Leases Expense 20,400 20,930 21,496 22,076 22,650 5601 Building Maintenance - - - - - 5602 Other Space Rental - - - - - 5605 Equipment Rental/Lease Expense 3,000 3,078 3,161 3,246 3,331 5610 Equipment Repair - - - - - 5800 Professional/Consulting Services and Operating Expenditures 93,425 143,854 147,738 151,727 155,672 5803 Banking and Payroll Service Fees 6,408 6,575 6,752 6,934 7,115 5805 Legal Services and Audit 15,500 15,903 16,332 16,773 17,209 5810 Educational Consultants - - - - - 5815 Advertising / Recruiting 25,000 25,650 26,343 27,054 27,757 5820 Fundraising Expense - - - - - 5875 District Oversight Fee - - - - - 5890 Interest Expense / Misc. Fees - - - - - 5899 CMO Management Fee - - - - - 5900 Communications 12,400 12,722 13,066 13,419 13,768 5999 Expense Suspense - - - - - 5000 Subtotal 245,480$ 299,862$ 307,959$ 316,274$ 324,497$

Page 5


Capital Outlay6900 Depreciation Expense - 6000 Subtotal

Other Outgoing7010 Special Education Encroachment - 7438 Debt Service - Interest - 7000 Subtotal

Total Non-Personnel Expenses 288,480$ 320,252$ 328,899$ 337,780$ 346,562$

Total Expenses 847,518$ 817,402$ 896,875$ 925,280$ 954,185$

Page 6

O - Budget Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - OrchardBudget SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21


State 1,757,467 2,043,360 2,269,429 2,328,227 2,408,323

Federal

Local 65,168 65,168 65,168 65,168 65,168

Total Revenue 1,822,635$ 2,108,528$ 2,334,597$ 2,393,395$ 2,473,491$

Expenses1000 Certificated Salaries 599,966 675,154 752,288 768,848 785,905


3000 Benefits 190,630 237,309 265,627 293,242 315,467



6000 Capital Outlay 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800

7000 Other Outgoing 1,381 1,381 1,381 1,381 1,381

Total Expenses 1,694,633$ 2,036,969$ 2,223,055$ 2,298,614$ 2,382,293$

Surplus / (Deficit) 128,002$ 71,559$ 111,542$ 94,780$ 91,197$ As a % of LCFF revenue 8% 4% 5% 4% 4%

Beginning Balance 14,556 142,558 214,117 325,659 420,439 Cash + Net AR/AP

Ending Balance 142,558$ 214,117$ 325,659$ 420,439$ 511,636$ As a % of Expenditures 8% 11% 15% 18% 21%

Page 7

O - Student Info

Golden Valley Charter School - OrchardStudent InputFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21Enrollment By Grade

Kindergarten 49 52 52 52 52 Grade 1 30 30 30 30 30 Grade 2 28 30 30 30 30 Grade 3 30 30 30 30 30 Grade 4 30 30 30 30 30 Grade 5 27 30 28 28 28 Grade 6 30 27 28 28 28 Grade 7 30 27 27 27 Grade 8 - 26 26 26 Grade 9 - - Grade 10 - - Grade 11 - - Grade 12 - - Other Enrollment (Grade 12+, etc.) - - - - - Total Enrollment 224 259 281 281 281

Daily Attendance RateKindergarten 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 1 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 2 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 3 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 4 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 5 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 6 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 7 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 8 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 9 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 10 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 11 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 12 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Other Enrollment (Grade 12+, etc.) 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Page 8

O - Student Info

Average Daily Attendance Rate 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Average Daily Attendance by GradeKindergarten 46.6 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4

Grade 1 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 2 26.6 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 3 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 4 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 5 25.7 28.5 26.6 26.6 26.6

Grade 6 28.5 25.7 26.6 26.6 26.6

Grade 7 28.5 25.7 25.7 25.7

Grade 8 24.7 24.7 24.7

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Other Enrollment (Grade 12+, etc.)

Average Overall Daily Attendance 212.8 246.1 267.0 267.0 267.0

Average Daily Attendance by Grade Range

ADA Grades K-3 128.65 134.90 134.90 134.90 134.90

ADA Grades 4-6 82.88 82.65 81.70 81.70 81.70

ADA Grades 7-8 28.50 50.35 50.35 50.35

ADA Grades 9-12


Poverty and Free/Reduced Price LunchPoverty level, % of school's overall students 41.2% 41.2% 41.2% 41.2% 41.2%Poverty level, number of students 93 107 116 116 116

Free lunch qualifing, % of school's overall students 29.9% 29.9% 29.9% 29.9% 29.9%

Reduced priced lunch qualifing, % of school's overall students 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3%

Free/Reduced priced lunch, number of students 92 107 116 116 116

English Language Learners

Percentage of Students - ELL 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Number of Students 5 6 6 6 6

Page 9

O - Revenue Input

Golden Valley Charter School - OrchardRevenueFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

SACS 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21State P-2 May FCMAT May FCMAT May FCMAT May FCMAT

8011 LCFF; state aid portion 1,224,374 1,450,138 1,625,817 1,684,615 1,764,711 8012 LCFF; EPA portion 42,306 49,210 53,390 53,390 53,390 8096 In-Lieu of Property Taxes, all grades 424,452 493,719 535,657 535,657 535,657 8019 Prior Year Income / Adjustments (11,188) 8520 State Child Nutrition program8560 Lottery 38,286.93 46,503.45 50,453.55 50,454 50,454 8550 Mandate Block Grant 2,961.42 3,789.17 4,111.03 4,111 4,111 8591 SB 740 Rent re-imbursement program

8550 All Other State Revenue / Clean Energy 36,275.00 -


State Revenue 1,757,467$ 2,043,360$ 2,269,429$ 2,328,227$ 2,408,323$




8291 Title I

8292 Title II

8293 Title III

8295 Title V



Local8660 Interest


8784 All Other Transfers from Other Locations8785 CMO Management fee8792 SPED State / Other Transfers from County 65,168 65,168 65,168 65,168 65,168


8982 Foundation Grants / Donations




8986 Rental Income


Local Revenue 65,168$ 65,168$ 65,168$ 65,168$ 65,168$

Total Revenue 1,822,635$ 2,108,528$ 2,334,597$ 2,393,395$ 2,473,491$ Page 10

O - Expenses Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - OrchardExpenses SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21


1100 Teachers' Salaries 429,894.61 487,951.71$ 555,632.04$ 567,605 579,937 1105 Teachers' Stipends / Bonus 41,250.00 38,750.00$ 43,750.00$ 43,750 43,750 1120 Substitute Expense - -$ -$ - - 1200 Certificated Pupil Support Salaries 50,314.82 67,590.32$ 69,618.03$ 71,707 73,858 1300 Certificated Supervisor and Administrator Salaries 78,507.00 80,862.00$ 83,287.86$ 85,786 88,360 1305 Certificated Sup. and Admin. Stipends / Bonus - -$ -$ - - 1900 Other Certificated Salaries - -$ -$ - - 1910 Other Certificated Overtime - -$ -$ - - 1000 Subtotal 599,966.43 675,154.03$ 752,287.93$ 768,848$ 785,905$

Classified Salaries2100 Instructional Aide Salaries 68,685.84 65,941.97$ 66,477.24$ 67,029 67,596 2110 Instructional Aide Overtime - -$ -$ - - 2200 Classified Support Salaries (Maintenance / Food) 76,354.63 82,218.69$ 84,685.25$ 87,226 89,843 2210 Classified Support Overtime - -$ -$ - - 2300 Classified Supervisor and Administrator Salaries - -$ -$ - - 2400 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Salaries 52,984.01 54,478.87$ 56,113.24$ 57,797 59,531 2410 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Overtime - -$ -$ - - 2900 Other Classified Salaries 41,304.48 38,023.09$ 21,569.23$ 22,216 22,883 2905 Other Stipends - -$ -$ - - 2910 Other Classified Overtime - -$ -$ - - 2000 Subtotal 239,328.96 240,662.62$ 228,844.96$ 234,267$ 239,852$

Employee Benefits3101 State Teachers' Retirement System, certificated positions 75,475.78 97,424.73$ 122,472.47$ 139,392 150,108 3202 Public Employees' Retirement System, classified positions 24,992.97 25,861.13$ 24,732.30$ 27,988 31,383 3313 OASDI 14,838.40 14,921.08$ 14,188.39$ 14,525 14,871 3323 Medicare 12,169.78 13,279.34$ 14,226.43$ 14,545 14,873 3403 Health & Welfare Benefits 53,280.00 61,272.00 64,335.60 70,769.16 77,846.08 3503 State Unemployment Insurance 9,873.40 9,897.40$ 9,973.40$ 9,973 9,973 3603 Worker Compensation Insurance - 14,653.07$ 15,698.13$ 16,050 16,412 3703 Other Post Employment Benefits - -$ -$ - -

Page 11


3903 Other Benefits - -$ -$ - - 3000 Subtotal 190,630.33 237,308.75$ 265,626.71$ 293,242$ 315,467$

Total Personnel Expenses 1,029,925.72 1,153,125.40$ 1,246,759.59$ 1,296,358$ 1,341,224$

Books and Supplies4100 Approved Textbooks and Core Curricula Materials 1,200.00 1,432.12$ 1,595.72$ 1,639 1,681 4200 Books and Other Reference Materials 910.00 1,086.03$ 1,210.09$ 1,243 1,275 4300 Materials and Supplies 4,589.00 5,476.67$ 6,102.30$ 6,267 6,430 4315 Classroom Materials and Supplies 39,134.00 46,703.88$ 52,039.13$ 53,444 54,834 4400 Noncapitalized Equipment 10,341.24 12,341.59$ 13,751.44$ 5,000 5,130 4430 General Student Equipment 6,000.00 7,160.61$ 7,978.61$ 5,000 5,130 4700 Food and Food Supplies 5,052.00 5,052.00$ 5,052.00$ 5,052 5,052 4000 Subtotal 67,226.24 79,252.91$ 87,729.29$ 77,645$ 79,532$

Services and Other Operating Expenses5200 Travel and Conferences 7,288.00 8,697.75$ 9,691.35$ 9,953 10,212 5210 Training and Development Expense 17,760.00 17,760.00$ 17,760.00$ 17,760 17,760 5300 Dues and Memberships 2,432.92 2,903.53$ 3,235.22$ 3,323 3,409 5400 Insurance - 5500 Operation and Housekeeping Services/Supplies - 5501 Utilities 29,600.00 35,325.68$ 39,361.12$ 40,424 41,475 5505 Student Transportation / Field Trips - 5600 Space Rental/Leases Expense 199,765.00 221,121.00$ 232,177.05$ 243,786 255,975 5601 Building Maintenance - 5602 Other Space Rental - 5605 Equipment Rental/Lease Expense 1,500.00 1,790.15$ 1,994.65$ 2,049 2,102 5610 Equipment Repair 1,170.00 1,396.32$ 1,555.83$ 1,598 1,639 5800 Professional/Consulting Services and Operating Expenditures 7,953.08 9,491.48$ 10,575.75$ 10,861 11,144 5803 Banking and Payroll Service Fees - 5805 Legal Services and Audit - 5810 Educational Consultants 65,000.00 77,573.27$ 86,434.90$ 88,769 91,077 5815 Advertising / Recruiting - 5820 Fundraising Expense - 5875 District Oversight Fee 6,000.00 7,160.61$ 7,978.61$ 8,194 8,407 5890 Interest Expense / Misc. Fees - 5899 CMO Management Fee 249,958.99 411,181.64$ 466,812.41$ 486,696 506,929 5900 Communications 5,872.00 7,007.85$ 7,808.40$ 8,019 8,228 5999 Expense Suspense - 5000 Subtotal 594,299.99 801,409.29$ 885,385.28$ 921,431$ 958,356$

Page 12


Capital Outlay6900 Depreciation Expense 1,800.00 1,800.00$ 1,800.00$ 1,800 1,800 6000 Subtotal 1,800.00 1,800.00$ 1,800.00$ 1,800$ 1,800$

Other Outgoing7010 Special Education Encroachment - 7438 Debt Service - Interest 1,381.00 1,381.00$ 1,381.00$ 1,381 1,381 7000 Subtotal 1,381.00 1,381.00$ 1,381.00$ 1,381$ 1,381$

Total Non-Personnel Expenses 664,707.22 883,843.20$ 976,295.57$ 1,002,257$ 1,041,070$

Total Expenses 1,694,632.94 2,036,968.60$ 2,223,055.16$ 2,298,614$ 2,382,293$

Page 13

R - Budget Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - RiverBudget SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21


State 2,623,481 2,461,202 2,292,073 2,351,973 2,433,074

Federal

Local 124,840 124,840 124,840 124,840 124,840

Total Revenue 2,748,321$ 2,586,042$ 2,416,913$ 2,476,813$ 2,557,914$

Expenses1000 Certificated Salaries 1,024,601 990,178 937,797 947,298 957,083


3000 Benefits 311,033 357,469 371,761 407,398 437,472



6000 Capital Outlay 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

7000 Other Outgoing

Total Expenses 2,577,765$ 2,393,136$ 2,364,273$ 2,438,344$ 2,507,334$

Surplus / (Deficit) 170,555$ 192,907$ 52,640$ 38,468$ 50,580$ As a % of LCFF revenue 7% 8% 2% 2% 2%

Beginning Balance 939,669 1,110,224 1,303,131 1,355,770 1,394,239 Cash + Net AR/AP

Ending Balance 1,110,224$ 1,303,131$ 1,355,770$ 1,394,239$ 1,444,819$ As a % of Expenditures 43% 54% 57% 57% 58%

Page 14

R - Student Info

Golden Valley Charter School - RiverStudent InputFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21Enrollment By Grade

Kindergarten 52 53 53 53 53 Grade 1 30 30 30 30 30 Grade 2 29 30 30 30 30 Grade 3 30 30 30 30 30 Grade 4 26 30 30 30 30 Grade 5 30 26 28 28 28 Grade 6 27 29 28 28 28 Grade 7 53 27 28 28 28 Grade 8 47 60 26 26 26 Grade 9 - - Grade 10 - - Grade 11 - - Grade 12 - - Other Enrollment (Grade 12+, etc.) - - - - - Total Enrollment 324 315 283 283 283

Daily Attendance RateKindergarten 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 1 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 2 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 3 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 4 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 5 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 6 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 7 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 8 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 9 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 10 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 11 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Grade 12 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Other Enrollment (Grade 12+, etc.) 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Page 15

R - Student Info

Average Daily Attendance Rate 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Average Daily Attendance by GradeKindergarten 49.4 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4

Grade 1 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 2 27.6 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 3 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 4 24.7 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Grade 5 28.5 24.7 26.6 26.6 26.6

Grade 6 25.7 27.6 26.6 26.6 26.6

Grade 7 50.4 25.7 26.6 26.6 26.6

Grade 8 44.7 57.0 24.7 24.7 24.7

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Other Enrollment (Grade 12+, etc.)


Average Daily Attendance by Grade Range

ADA Grades K-3 134.3 135.9 135.9 135.9 135.9

ADA Grades 4-6 81.0 80.8 81.7 81.7 81.7

ADA Grades 7-8 95.9 82.7 51.3 51.3 51.3

ADA Grades 9-12


Poverty and Free/Reduced Price LunchPoverty level, % of school's overall students 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4%Poverty level, number of students 131 128 115 115 115

Free lunch qualifing, % of school's overall students 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0%

Reduced priced lunch qualifing, % of school's overall students 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4%

Free/Reduced priced lunch, number of students 131 127 114 114 114

English Language Learners

Percentage of Students - ELL 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Number of Students 7 7 6 6 6

Page 16

R - Revenue Input

Golden Valley Charter School - RiverRevenueFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21

SACS 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21State P-2 May FCMAT May FCMAT May FCMAT May FCMAT

8011 LCFF; state aid portion 1,398,382 1,428,070 1,377,765 1,437,665 1,518,766 8012 LCFF; EPA portion 407,639 365,927 314,882 314,882 314,882 8096 In-Lieu of Property Taxes, all grades 629,936 606,039 544,473 544,473 544,473 8019 Prior Year Income / Adjustments 57,381 8520 State Child Nutrition program8560 Lottery 56,300.05 56,558.25 50,812.65 50,813 50,813 8550 Mandate Block Grant 4,354.70 4,608.45 4,140.29 4,140 4,140 8591 SB 740 Rent re-imbursement program - - - - -

8550 All Other State Revenue / Clean Energy 69,488.00


State Revenue 2,623,481$ 2,461,202$ 2,292,073$ 2,351,973$ 2,433,074$




8291 Title I - - - - -

8292 Title II

8293 Title III

8295 Title V



Local8660 Interest


8784 All Other Transfers from Other Locations8785 CMO Management fee8792 SPED State / Other Transfers from County 124,840 124,840 124,840 124,840 124,840


8982 Foundation Grants / Donations




8986 Rental Income


Local Revenue 124,840$ 124,840$ 124,840$ 124,840$ 124,840$

Total Revenue 2,748,321$ 2,586,042$ 2,416,913$ 2,476,813$ 2,557,914$ Page 17

R - Expenses Summary

Golden Valley Charter School - RiverExpenses SummaryFive Year Budget, 2016-17 to 2020-21


1100 Teachers' Salaries 685,517.07 645,831.17 589,544.13 589,872 590,210 1105 Teachers' Stipends / Bonus 52,500.00 47,500.00 42,500.00 42,500 42,500 1120 Substitute Expense - - - - - 1200 Certificated Pupil Support Salaries 225,577 222,847.19 229,532.61 236,419 243,511 1300 Certificated Supervisor and Administrator Salaries 61,007 74,000.00 76,220.00 78,507 80,862 1305 Certificated Sup. and Admin. Stipends / Bonus - - - - - 1900 Other Certificated Salaries - - - - - 1910 Other Certificated Overtime - - - - - 1000 Subtotal 1,024,601$ 990,178.36 937,796.73 947,298$ 957,083$

Classified Salaries2100 Instructional Aide Salaries 104,495.86 91,264.15 92,536.88 93,848 95,198 2110 Instructional Aide Overtime 1,582.00 1,582.00 1,582.00 1,582 1,582 2200 Classified Support Salaries (Maintenance / Food) 83,912.60 86,911.34 89,518.68 92,204 94,970 2210 Classified Support Overtime 1,729.00 1,729.00 1,729.00 1,729 1,729 2300 Classified Supervisor and Administrator Salaries - - - - - 2400 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Salaries 54,762 56,410.00 58,102.30 59,845 61,641 2410 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Overtime - - - - - 2900 Other Classified Salaries 28,537 28,168.94 29,014.01 29,884 30,781 2905 Other Stipends - - - - - 2910 Other Classified Overtime - - - - - 2000 Subtotal 275,018$ 266,065.43 272,482.87 279,093$ 285,901$

Employee Benefits3101 State Teachers' Retirement System, certificated positions 111,664 126,459.63 133,588.81 149,854 159,049 3202 Public Employees' Retirement System, classified positions 46,817 46,771.41 49,633.51 56,352 63,391 3313 OASDI 25,426.16 23,552.42 24,161.99 24,790 25,437 3323 Medicare 18,817.06 18,215.53 17,549.05 17,783 18,023 3403 Health & Welfare Benefits 95,520 109,848 115,340 126,874 139,562 3503 State Unemployment Insurance 12,789 12,522.50 12,122.50 12,123 12,123 3603 Worker Compensation Insurance - 20,099.90 19,364.47 19,622 19,888 3703 Other Post Employment Benefits - - - - -

Page 18


3903 Other Benefits - - - - - 3000 Subtotal 311,033$ 357,469.39 371,760.73 407,398$ 437,472$

Total Personnel Expenses 1,610,653$ 1,613,713.18 1,582,040.34 1,633,788$ 1,680,457$

Books and Supplies4100 Approved Textbooks and Core Curricula Materials 6,000 5,922.47 5,464.48 5,612 5,758 4200 Books and Other Reference Materials 1,000 987.08 910.75 935 960 4300 Materials and Supplies 4,405.00 4,348.08 4,011.84 4,120 4,227 4315 Classroom Materials and Supplies 51,000.00 49,065.26 44,080.86 44,081 44,081 4400 Noncapitalized Equipment 7,974.34 7,871.30 5,000.00 5,135 5,269 4430 General Student Equipment 4,400.00 4,343.14 2,500.00 2,568 2,634 4700 Food and Food Supplies 8,000 7,696.51 6,914.64 6,915 6,915 4000 Subtotal 82,779$ 80,233.83 68,882.57 69,366$ 69,843$

Services and Other Operating Expenses5200 Travel and Conferences 10,360.00 9,966.98 9,633.51 9,894 10,151 5210 Training and Development Expense 20,000.00 17,000.00 17,000.00 17,000 17,000 5300 Dues and Memberships 1,000.00 987.08 910.75 935 960 5400 Insurance - 5500 Operation and Housekeeping Services/Supplies - 5501 Utilities 45,200.00 44,615.91 41,165.75 42,277 43,376 5505 Student Transportation / Field Trips 2,000.00 1,974.16 1,821.49 1,871 1,919 5600 Space Rental/Leases Expense 263,401.00 275,831.00 283,278.44 290,927 298,491 5601 Building Maintenance - 5602 Other Space Rental - 5605 Equipment Rental/Lease Expense 4,800.00 4,737.97 4,371.58 4,490 4,606 5610 Equipment Repair 1,000.00 987.08 910.75 935 960 5800 Professional/Consulting Services and Operating Expenditures18,600.00 18,359.64 16,939.89 17,397 17,850 5803 Banking and Payroll Service Fees - 5805 Legal Services and Audit - 5810 Educational Consultants 125,000.00 123,384.71 113,843.35 116,917 119,957 5815 Advertising / Recruiting 3,500.00 3,454.77 3,187.61 3,274 3,359 5820 Fundraising Expense - 5875 District Oversight Fee 5,750.00 5,675.70 5,236.79 5,378 5,518 5890 Interest Expense / Misc. Fees - 5899 CMO Management Fee 367,558.94 176,220.70 200,062.46 208,584 217,255 5900 Communications 13,163.00 12,992.90 11,988.16 12,312 12,632 5999 Expense Suspense - 5000 Subtotal 881,333$ 696,189$ 710,351$ 732,191$ 754,034$

Page 19


Capital Outlay6900 Depreciation Expense 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 6000 Subtotal 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$

Other Outgoing7010 Special Education Encroachment - 7438 Debt Service - Interest - 7000 Subtotal

Total Non-Personnel Expenses 967,112$ 779,422$ 782,233$ 804,556$ 826,877$

Total Expenses 2,577,765$ 2,393,136$ 2,364,273$ 2,438,344$ 2,507,334$

Page 20

Golden Valley Charter Schools for Education Renewal

Insurance Proposal

Coverage Effective: July 1, 2017 at 12:01 AM -

July 1, 2018 at 12:01 AM

California Charter Schools Joint Powers Authority

P.O. Box 969, Weimar, CA 95736

Phone: (888) 901-0004 Fax: (530) 236-9569

Web Site: http://www.chartersafe.org

Disclosure:

This proposal is an outline of the coverages proposed by California Charter Schools Joint Powers Authority (CCSJPA), based on the information

provided by the Named Member. It does not include all of the terms, coverages, exclusions, limitations and conditions of the actual contract

language. The policies themselves must be read for those details. Policy forms for your reference will be made available upon the school's request to

the California Charter Schools JPA. As set forth in this document, CCSJPA DBA CharterSAFE shall be referred to as CharterSAFE.

1216

A

CS

P,WC

Page 1 of 16

INTRODUCTION

Dear Caleb,

CharterSAFE is pleased to present your renewal proposal for the 2017-2018 policy year. Please review

this document, which includes:

l 2017-2018 Premium Summary

l Exposures

l Schedule of Locations

l Board and Employment Liability

l General Liability

l Auto Liability & Physical Damage

l Excess Liability

l Property

l Pollution Liability & Property

l Crime

l Terrorism Liability

l Terrorism Property

l Student & Volunteer Accident Liability

l Cyber Liability

l Worker's Compensation & Employer's Liability

l Claims Reporting Instructions

As a CharterSAFE member, you will receive all of our complimentary member services for the 2017-2018

policy period. Member services include access to online staff training, human resources advice, risk

management and loss control guidance, site safety evaluations, and contract review of insurance and

indemnity provisions. Please contact a CharterSAFE representative for more information.

All of CharterSAFE's coverage placements are with insurance companies that have a financial rating A.M.

Best of A- VII or higher.

Required Signatures:

To bind coverage, you must sign and complete the following:

1. The proposal acceptance at the end of the Premium Summary Page

2. Cyber Application, if not yet completed

Please return the signed document to your CharterSAFE representative (Northern and Central California:

[email protected] / Southern California: [email protected] or fax to (530) 236-9569).

Thank you,

The CharterSAFE Team

Page 2 of 16

PREMIUM SUMMARY

Golden Valley Charter Schools for Education Renewal

Premium Summary 2017-2018

This proposal includes the following coverages:

Package $40,162.00 Premium:

l Board and Employment Liability

l General Liability

m Educator's Legal Liability (Educator's E&O)

m Employee Benefits Liability

m Sexual Abuse Liability

l Auto Liability & Physical Damage

l Excess Liability

l Property

l Pollution Liability & Property

l Crime

l Terrorism Liability

l Terrorism Property

l Student & Volunteer Accident Liability

l Cyber Liability

Worker's Compensation & Employer's Liability $30,668.00 Premium:

Total Premium $70,830.00 Premium:

q Payment in Full ($70,830.00)

q Installment Plan:

- Deposit (25%) - Due Now ($17,708.00)

- 9 Monthly Installments ($5,903.00)

Choose One Payment Option

*Refer to the CharterSAFE Invoice for details and instructions on payment by ACH Debits.

Invoices shall become delinquent thirty (30) calendar days from installment due date. Coverage is

subject to cancellation for any invoice over ninety (90) days past due.

Proposal Acceptance:

By signing below, I, representing the named member in this proposal, acknowledge that I have read the

complete proposal and agree to the terms outlined within.

Print Name Date

Signature Title

Disclosure:

This proposal is an outline of the coverages proposed by California Charter Schools Joint Powers Authority, based on the information provided by the

Named Member. It does not include all of the terms, coverages, exclusions, limitation and conditions of the actual contract language. The policies

themselves must be read for those details. Policy forms for your reference will be made available upon the school's request to the California Charter

Schools JPA.

Page 3 of 16

EXPOSURES

The premiums are calculated based on the following exposures on schedule:

No. Students 550

No. Employees 71

Annual Payroll $2,500,000.00

No. Vehicles 0

Continuity and Retroactive Dates:

07/01/2011Directors & Officers Liability Continuity Date:

07/01/2011Employment Practices Liability Continuity Date:

07/01/2012Fiduciary Liability Continuity Date:

Page 4 of 16

SCHEDULE OF LOCATIONS

Each of the addresses listed below are covered for all lines of coverage presented in this proposal:

Policyholder mailing address 1216

1000 River Rock Drive, Suite 220

Folsom, CA 95630

LocationID Building Value Content Value EDP Value Total TIV

15824 Golden Valley Chater School

CMO: 1000 River Drive

$0.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00

1000 River Drive, Suite 220

Folsom, CA 95630

11587 Golden Valley Orchard

School: 6550 Filbert Ave.

$0.00 $297,000.00 $297,000.00 $594,000.00

6550 Filbert Ave.

Orangevale, CA 95662

1804 Golden Valley River School:

9601 Lake Natoma Drive

$0.00 $353,500.00 $353,500.00 $707,000.00

9601 Lake Natoma Drive

Orangevale, CA 95662

$0.00 Total: $675,500.00 $650,500.00 $1,326,000.00

Page 5 of 16

BOARD AND EMPLOYMENT LIABILITY

Layer 1 Coverages*

Directors and Officers

and Company Liability

$1,000,000 per claim and member

aggregate

$5,000 per claim

Layer 1 Limits Layer 1 Deductibles

COVERAGE IS ON A CLAIMS MADE BASIS

Employment Practices Liability $10,000 per claim$1,000,000 per claim and member

aggregate

Fiduciary Liability

Layer 2 Deductibles:Layer 2 Limits:

Directors and Officers and

Company Liability$1,000,000 per claim and

member aggregate

$0

None, follow form

Layer 1 Coverage& Employment Practices

Liability

*Please refer to the Board and Employment Liability Declarations Page for complete details.

$1,000,000 per claim and member

aggregate

Layer 2 Coverages:

Must be reported to CharterSAFE within 60 days after policy expiration.

Coverage is provided on a claims-made basis.Reporting:

Page 6 of 16

GENERAL LIABILITY

Bodily Injury, Property Damage $2,000,000 per occurrence

Educator's Legal Liability $2,500 per occurrence

Layer 1 Deductibles:Layer 1 Limits:Layer 1 Coverages*:

Medical Payments

$2,000,000 per occurrence

$10,000 per person

$50,000 per occurrence$0

$500 per occurrence for

bodily injury arising out of

participation in a school

sponsored High Rigk

Activity**

(except for IEP Defense)

$50,000 per occurrence and per

member aggregate

IEP Defense Sublimit $7,500 per occurrence

Employee Benefits Liability

Law Enforcement Liability

Sexual Abuse Liability

Products and Completed

Operations





$0

$0

$0

$0

*Layer 1 Limits do not have aggregates (except for IEP Defense Sublimit)

**A list of High Risk Activities is available at www.chartersafe.org or you may contact Carly Weston

([email protected]/818-709-1570) of CharterSAFE's Risk Management team.

Page 7 of 16

AUTO LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DAMAGE

Owned Auto Liability, if

scheduled with CharterSAFE:

Auto Physical Damage**:

Non-Owned Auto Liability:

Hired Auto Liability:

*Layer 1 Coverages do not have aggregates.

** Auto Physical Damage described herein for hired automobiles is secondary to any/all rental coverage offered by the

rental company(ies). CharterSAFE strongly advises our members to purchase auto physical damage when renting

vehicles.

Layer 1 Deductibles:Layer 1 Limits:Layer 1 Coverages*:

$0$2,000,000 per occurrence



$500 per occurrence for

Hired Auto Physical

Damage


Page 8 of 16

EXCESS LIABILITY - CharterSAFE Option

General Liability

Auto Liability

Sexual Abuse Liability

Educator's Legal Liability

Employee Benefits Liability

Law Enforcement Liability

Excess over underlying:Coverage:

Directors and Officers Liability

Employment Practices Liability

Limits: $28,000,000 per occurrence/claim

$28,000,000 per member aggregate

Optional Excess Limits: Optional excess liability limits above $30,000,000 is available. If

interested, please contact:

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc

18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite #200

Irvine, CA 92612

Audra Powers

Account Executive

[email protected]

949-349-9840

Page 9 of 16

PROPERTY

Perils Include:

Valuation:

Property

Boiler & Machinery/

Equipment Breakdown

Direct Physical Loss subject to all the terms,

conditions, and exclusions established in the

applicable policy(ies)

Replacement Cost as scheduled with

CharterSAFE, see "Schedule of Locations" page

above

$1,000 per occurrence

Total Insured Value as

scheduled with CharterSAFE,

whichever is lower. Please see

"Schedule of Locations" page

above for scheduled limits



OR

OR






Business Interruption

Extra Expense

Please note:

- If you have a renovation/construction project valued over $200,000 in hard and soft costs, please contact Thuy Wong

([email protected]/949-476-5031). CharterSAFE is able to endorse builder’s risk coverage for renovation projects up

to $10,000,000 onto your policy. Additional premium would apply.

- If you are interested in a separate policy for flood and/or earthquake coverage, please contact Thuy Wong

([email protected]/949-476-5031).

Coverages Limits Deductibles






Page 10 of 16

POLLUTION LIABILITY & PROPERTY

Pollution Liability &

Property

$1,000,000 per pollution

condition or indoor

environmental condition

Reporting:

DeductiblesLimitsCoverages


CRIME

Monies and Securities:

Forgery or Alteration:

Employee Dishonesty:


Computer & Funds Transfer

Fraud:

DeductiblesLimitsCoverages

$500 per occurrence

$1,000,000 per occurrence $500 per occurrence




$5,000,000 CharterSAFE Members'

Combined Annual Aggregate

Must be reported to CharterSAFE within 60 days

after policy expiration. Coverage is on a

claims-made basis.

Page 11 of 16

TERRORISM LIABILITY


Reporting: Must be reported to CharterSAFE within 60 days

after policy expiration. Coverage is provided on a

claims-made basis.


Terrorism Liability: $5,000,000 per occurrence $0

$5,000,000 CharterSAFE

Members' Combined Annual

Aggregate

$0

TERRORISM PROPERTY


OR










Aggregate


Terrorism Property:

Page 12 of 16

STUDENT & VOLUNTEER ACCIDENT

Terms & Conditions:

Optional Catastrophic

Student Accident

Coverage:

$50,000 per injury/accident

104 Week benefit period

l Coverage is provided on an Excess Basis, but would

become primary should the student or volunteer not

have health insurance

l Claim submission deadline: 90 days after the

Covered Accident.

If interested in obtaining higher limits with or without sports included,

please contact:

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc.

18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite #200

Irvine, CA 92612

Audra Powers

Account Executive

[email protected]

949-349-9840

Student Accident:


Volunteer Accident: $25,000 per injury/accident

*A list of High Risk Activities is available at www.chartersafe.org or you may contact Carly Weston ([email protected] /

818-709-1570) of CharterSAFE's Risk Management team.

$500 per injury/accident for

school sponsored High Risk

Activities*

$500 per injury/accident for

school sponsored High Risk

Activities*

Page 13 of 16

CYBER LIABILITY

Coverage Includes: l Privacy Notification Costs

l Regulatory Fines and Claim Expenses for Privacy Liability

l Extortion Damages for Extortion Threat

l Crisis Management Expenses

l Business Interruption

Cyber Liability: $2,500 per occurrence$1,000,000 per occurrence



Aggregate

Reporting: Claims must be reported within 60 days after policy expiration. Coverage is

on a claims-made basis.

Requirement for Coverage to

be in effect:

Completed cyber application.



Page 14 of 16

WORKER'S COMPENSATION &

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY

Worker's Compensation:

Employer's Liability for Bodily

Injury:

Auditable:

Statutory

$5,000,000 per Accident

$5,000,000 by Disease Per

Employee

$5,000,000 by Disease Policy

Limit

The estimated payroll figure will be audited at the end of each

coverage period. The CCS JPA will request copies of the 941

Federal Quarterly Reporting Forms on a quarterly basis to verify

the payroll figure. If the estimated payroll figure has been

overestimated, a refund will be issued. If the estimated payroll

figure has been underestimated, an invoice for the additional

amount due will be issued.

Deductibles

$0

Coverages Limits

$0

$0

$0

Page 15 of 16

1000 River Rock Drive, Ste 220 Folsom, CA 95630 916-597-1478 www.goldenvalleycharter.org

K-8 Tuition-Free Public Waldorf Schools

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Submitted by Caleb Buckley, EdD

June 7, 2017

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT June 7, 2017

This has been accountability month for Golden Valley. We have produced five year budget projection that the Finance Committee reviewed. Upon approval, the budget will be submitted to the district. Our annual reports for oversight have been received by San Juan and they did their annual visit. Charter Safe, our liability insurer, completed a 79 question review of safety policies and did a four hours of site

inspections. Under a special meeting of the board, we approved a revised MOU with San Juan which is on their June agenda for approval. Business services are now being provided by CSMC and will expand to more areas under our new contract. The educational foundation presented a $130,000 parent donation check at the volunteer appreciation tea. Together with the $100,000 in the Fall, this amount covers the majority of the cost for our specialty programs. The central office will be open through the end of June and before you know it, we will be back for the first day of school on August 17.

The Orchard School had a wonderful open house to celebrate the close of another successful year. Liezel Legaspi will be joining the faculty as the new first grade teacher and has already met with parents in the park and been introduced at the fly-away ceremony. Morgan Garrett will also be coming over from River to be the 6th grade teacher. In reviewing the goals from this year, the Orchard administration’s

expectations have been exceeded, owing to the dedication of the staff and faculty. Over the summer we will be preparing the 7th grade classroom. We are also exploring having a split upper grades and lower grades recess at lunch time. Our new and returning parent registration will be on August 8 and we hope board members will attend.

THE CHARTER MANAGEMENT OFFICE

THE ORCHARD SCHOOL


The River School held its annual Volunteer Appreciation Tea on June 2nd and heard incredible performances from students across the grades. We have so many volunteers to honor, including Lee Scott, Lisa, Menconi, Annie Bosque and Monica Eisel from the educational foundation, Jodi Beagley from the board, Hillary Pollock from Parent Circle, and Sarah Miller and Tamara Webb from the festival committee.

We are very sad to be losing Mrs. Greer to her new home in Alaska but the hiring committee is already scheduling a demonstration lesson for next year’s 6th grade. Lisa Moraga is getting to know the kindergarteners who will be in her first grade next year. Our insurance company was just here for an inspection and upon opening the first closet and seeing how well organized Mr. Mark is, the inspector turned to him and said, “you’re good, this inspection is going to go well.” Preparing for the big moving day, the River faculty is excited to announce that they will be creating a handwork room out of room 9. Please join us for the Rose eremony on the last day of school as the first grade sends off two classes of 8th graders to graduation.

There are currently 545 students enrolled in our two school. Grades 1-7 at both schools are fully enrolled for the 17-18 school year.

ORCHARD SCHOOL ENROLLMENT as of the 1st of the month CBK ABK OBK 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Total

6 21 21 30 28 30 30 27 30 223 TK - 18 K - 30 30 28 30 30 27 30 223

RIVER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT as of the 1st of the month CBK LBK PBK 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 7th 8th 8th Total

12 19 21 30 29 29 26 30 27 24 28 21 26 322 TK - 22 K - 30 30 29 29 26 30 27 52 47 322

ENROLLMENT

THE RIVER SCHOOL


Outreach Sunday, May 21st Soil Born Farms Roughly 500-700 participants Several families approached to inquire about our schools

• Some had heard of Waldorf, but did not know about a public option • Some had never heard of Waldorf • Many were excited to see us and find out more information • Families loved the acorn boat craft we provided

Marketing Marlene Laughter is back from maternity leave. She has a few projects she will work on for this coming school year: implementing official Golden Valley Communication Guidelines around using parent Square for faculty, 2016-2017 Annual Report Template, rolling over and updating the websites, creating a distinct look and feel for each school website, creating a new newsletter template for school site communication, and working on having a larger presence for Golden Valley in Social Media Marketing. For Outreach, she will present a Golden Valley Charter Schools booth at the Sacparent EDfair. This fair is held at the Palladio at Broadstone in Folsom on Friday, July 21st from 4pm-8pm. This fair will explore "Education and Beyond".

MARKETING & COMMUNICATION


As we round the year to the last few days of school, our ES and Special Ed teams are busy completing services to students, final progress monitoring assessments, resolving ongoing IEP concerns, and writing progress reports on all students served in the program. Acknowledgement and appreciation to these teams of highly skilled professionals who have provided academic interventions in math, reading, writing, organizational skills, and behavior supports. We have had several staffing changes this year, with people returning, and some not returning, from maternity leaves. However we were able to continue seamless service to our students thanks to everyone’s professionalism, dedication, and creativity. In fact, Kelly Penneman worked right up to the day before her baby was born - a surprise month early! In addition to academic supports, a select group of students at both schools received social skills classes run by our school psychologist, Michele Custer, and speech therapist Jeananne Captein. These two educators have worked diligently and collegially with all teachers and staff, and have been highly valued members of our Education Support and Special Education teams. On the assessment front, we close the year having completed 3 benchmarks at each school and computerized state testing (CAASPP) in grades 5-8 at both schools. Assessment Coordinators are already laying out the Assessment Calendar for 2017-18, including benchmarks, debriefs, and CAASPP schedules for both schools. Next year, we will be fully implemented CAASPP testing grades 3-8 on the computers. As well as our Assessment Coordinators, Jennifer and Stephanie, a great and special thanks to our tech team in the Central Office, Becky Schwartz and Bob Holt - all integral partners in getting this feat accomplished. Assessment Coordinators have also been deeply involved in the development of the LCAP, and have served many hours supporting the work of LCAP, the most current assessment data being uploaded as I write. It is with a deep and slow exhale, and a full heart, that I thank everyone who has worked so diligently and with such great care on behalf of our most at-risk students. Who our staffing included this year: Resource Specialist/Special Education Case Manager: Devin Lombardi (Heather Peery subbed for Devin the first half of the year while Devin was on maternity leave) Psychologist - Michele Custer Speech Therapist/Special Education Case Manager - Jeananne Captein Orchard Education Support Specialists (ESS): Linda Calfee, Jennifer Hoover, assisted by Amy Montgomery River ESS: Kelly Penneman (not returning), Olivia O’Brien-Mackey (out on maternity leave Dec. 2016, not returning), Heather Peery (replaced Olivia), assisted by Jean Kriz. Math ESS (middle school) Bill Klamm and Martha Sault. Assessment Coordinators: Jennifer Hoover, Orchard, and Stephanie Lorenz, River (who also co-teach gen-ed computer classes with class teachers) Assistant to Education Support Director: Melanie Neal

EDUCATION SUPPORT

golden valley charter schools regular meeting of t he ...€¦ · 07/06/2017 · june 7, 2017...

Documents