federal feedback to sig application

8/9/2019 Federal Feedback to SIG Application

1/36

California Department of EducationExecutive OfficeSBE-003 (REV. 06/2008)clab-dsid-jul10item12 ITEM # 26

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

JULY 2010 AGENDA

SUBJECT

Elementary and Secondary Education Act: School ImprovementGrant: Update on the Response to U.S. Department of EducationFeedback on Californias 200910 School Improvement GrantApplication.

Action

Information

Public Hearing

RECOMMENDATION

The California Department of Education (CDE) recommends that the State Board ofEducation (SBE) take action as deemed necessary and appropriate. There is nospecific recommendation at this time.

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION

At its March 2010 meeting, the SBE approved Californias federal application and itsRequest for Applications (RFA) for local educational agencies (LEA) pursuing SchoolImprovement Grant (SIG) funding. Actions necessary to operationalize the application

included approval of three waivers that: 1) allow an extension of the grant periodavailability by one year; 2) permit Tier I schools that will implement a turnaround orrestart model to start over in the school improvement timeline; and, 3) waive the 40percent poverty eligibility threshold in Section 1114(a)(1) of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act (ESEA) to permit LEAs to implement a schoolwide program ina Tier I school that does not meet the poverty threshold. In addition, the SBE approvedtwo waivers related to establishing the definition of persistently lowest-achievingschools and the list of schools eligible to apply for this funding that included: 1) a waiverto permit the inclusion of a minimum n size in the identification criteria for persistentlylowest-achieving schools; and, 2) a waiver that incorporated an alternate definition inidentifying Tier II schools. Contingent upon approval from the U.S. Department of

Education (ED) of these waivers, the SBE approved the list of persistently lowest-achieving schools that was created using the n size waiver and the Tier II DefinitionWaiver. The approved list of persistently lowest-achieving schools consists of 188schools from a total of 76 LEAs, including 139 schools in Tier I and 49 schools in Tier II.

Additional Tier III schools are eligible to apply for this funding although thoseschools have a lower priority for funding than Tier I and Tier II schools.

6/29/2010 10:01 AM


2/36

clab-dsid-jul10item12Page 2 of 6

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS (Cont.)

Following SBE approval of the SIG RFA, the CDE has provided technical assistanceand support through presentations at the California Title I Conference in Anaheim andSacramento, Categorical Program Directors meetings, and Statewide System of School

Support meetings; posted SIG information on the CDE School Improvement Grant Webpage at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/sig09.asp; conducted teleconferences with SIGapplicants, frequently asked question and answer page, Webinars on SIG applicationforms process, and individual consultations with eligible SIG applicants and CDE staff.

At its January 2010 meeting, the SBE received and discussed an update on issuesrelated to Californias implementation of the ESEA including the 20092010 Applicationfor SIG funding.

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

The ED granted approval to Californias SIG application on June 24, 2010.California had initially submitted its SIG application to ED on March 26, 2010.Since that initial submission, ED made four separate requests for revision orclarification of elements of Californias current SIG application, including the draftLEA RFA. On each occasion, based on ED comments, refinements were made tothe RFA and the updated document was forwarded at the request of ED. OnJune 16, 2010, California submitted the most recent draft documents to ED forreview and approval. The following is a chronology of EDs feedback, followed byCalifornias response to concerns raised by ED.

First Request for Clarification was received onApril 14, 2010. ED requestedCalifornias response to four issues raised in the initial review of the states SIGapplication (Attachment 1):

Criteria California used to prioritize schools for receiving SIG funding

Elements of Californias proposed process for reviewing and scoringSIG applications submitted by LEAs

Process for assessing each applicant LEAs commitment to designand implement its selected SIG intervention model(s)

Clarification of Californias timeline for reviewing and approving LEAapplications

Greater detail on Californias plans for providing technical assistanceto eligible LEAs during the SIG application and implementation phases

6/29/2010 10:06 AM
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/sig09.asphttp://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/sig09.asp


3/36


SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES (Cont.)

Based on EDs feedback, point values have been aligned to the existing rubric inorder to arrive at a final rating system that will allow for a rank order of SIGapplications. This is particularly critical in the event funding is not sufficient to cover

all applicants. The current scoring process of assigning specific values to eachapplication component was based on discussions with SBE liaisons in earlyphases of the application development process. A system for calculating a scaledscore for each of the application components to total 100 points has been alignedwith the existing rubric (Attachment 2). The CDE intends to use this scoring systemto determine appropriate recommendations for funding eligible schools to the SBE.The SBE will continue to have final discretion concerning which schools will befunded and the specific funding amount to be awarded each school.

Forms for School Projected Budget (SIG Form 4b) and School Budget Narrative(SIG Form 5b) have been added in the forms section of the RFA to respond to

EDs request for evidence of a school-by-school budget for each fiscal year.Tofurther implement EDs request for LEAs to provide school-by-school budgets foreach funding year, the Implementation Chart for a Tier I or Tier II School andImplementation Chart for a Tier III School (SIG Forms 10 and 11), the budgetcolumn is split to show projected costs at both the school and LEA level.

On May 4, 2010, CDE staff provided responses to each of the issues ED raised.See Attachment 1 for the specific ED concerns and information requests of April14, and Californias response to those items.

On May 24, 2010, California received confirmation of EDs approval of the states

definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools in a letter from U.S. AssistantSecretary of Education Thelma Melndezde Santa Ana. The letter is included asAttachment 7.

Second Request for Clarification was received on May 24, 2010. Subsequent toreceiving Californias updated application, ED conducted a second review and notedadditional concerns:

Additional detail on the mechanics of the process by which California will assignscores to each LEAs SIG application

Language regarding Californias expectation that charter schools identified aspersistently lowest achieving select the Closure intervention model

Initial scoring rubric did not include criteria for scoring proposed SIG budgets andImplementation Charts

Collaborative Signature form did not include sufficient space to indicate printedname, signature, and affiliated organization of individuals signing the form.

6/29/2010 10:06 AM


4/36


In response to EDs feedback, the CDE provided a detailed description of the plannedscoring process and the method by which scores on individual elements will be

converted to percentage scores. The scoring rubric was also expanded to includecriteria for scoring the SIG budgets and Implementation Charts. To address EDsconcerns about the stated expectation that persistently-lowest achieving charter schoolsselect the Closure model, pertinent RFA language was revised to state that charterschools must clarify how the intervention selected will create a significantly differentinstructional model and school culture.

CDE staff responded to ED on May 27, 2010, with a revised draft application thataddressed all of the issues raised by ED as noted above. See Attachment 3, Summaryof Changes to Californias 200910 SIG Application, for a detailed description ofCalifornias revisions submitted on May 27, 2010. Attachment 4, SIG Scoring Rubric,

includes the new guidance for scoring the budget and implementation chart componentsof each LEAs SIG application.

Third Request for Clarification was received onJune 3, 2010. After reviewingCalifornias revised application submitted May 27, 2010, ED responded with severaladditional concerns:

Clarification of circumstances under which a schools SIG application may beconsidered for non-renewal, and the specific consequences of a non-renewaldecision

Clarification of circumstances under which an LEAs or schools SIG budget maybe recommended for adjustment, and the criteria upon which such adjustmentswould be based

The timeline and process California described for distributing annual SIG fundingto selected LEAs and schools

The timeline California described for announcing SIG grant awards and postingall LEA applications on the CDE Web site

Based on EDs feedback, the CDE amended language concerning both the criteria to be

considered in sub-grant renewal decisions and the consequences of an SBE decisionnot to renew a SIG sub-grant. Specifically, non-renewal decisions are to affect fundingfor individual schools that do not make appropriate annual progress in SIG modelimplementation and/or academic performance. Language concerning adjustments ofproposed SIG budgets was also amended to clarify that the CDE may recommendadjustments to proposed budgets based on a determination that the LEAs projectedimplementation costs are inaccurate. The process and timeline for distribution of theseSIG funds was also revised in response to EDs comments. California also revised its

6/29/2010 10:06 AM



5/36



description of the process for posting applications to assure ED that the processcomplies with federal requirements.

CDE staff responded to ED on June 10, 2010, with a revised draft application thataddressed these additional issues raised by ED. Attachment 3, Summary of Changes toCalifornias 200910 SIG Application, provides a detailed description of Californiasrevisions submitted on June 10, 2010.

Fourth Request for Clarification was received onJune 16, 2010. ED providedadditional questions described as brought forward through the final (ED) reviewprocess regarding:

How not applicable elements of the application narrative are accounted for inCalifornias application scoring process

Requested minor revisions in language describing: 1) funding adjustments basedon LEA capacity issues; and, 2) acceptable uses of SIG funding

How the application scoring process accounts for an LEAs omission of one ormore components within an application element

CDE staff made additional changes to both the draft state application and the LEA RFAto address these concerns and submitted the revised documents to ED on June 16,2010. Attachment 3, Summary of Changes to Californias 200910 SIG Application,provides a detailed description of Californias revisions submitted up to June 16, 2010.

Also, the addition of a column in Form 10, Implementation Charts, in which LEAs will berequired to identify actions and activities that address each of the required componentsof the SIG intervention model selected for each applicant school. The instructions forcompleting the Implementation Chart were also revised to include this new requirement.Attachment 5, School Improvement Grant Model Component Acronyms, andAttachment 6, the revised Form 10Implementation Charts for Tier I or Tier II schools,provides details on how this new requirement is proposed to be implemented. See alsoAttachment 2 for a detailed description of the process by which LEA applications areproposed to be scored and how California plans to account for not applicable elementsof those LEA applications.

The SIG funds are anticipated to provide LEAs with grants ranging from $50,000 to $2million per year for up to three years. A maximum of $415 million is available underSection 1003(g) for this cohort of schools for a three-year period beginning in 200910.Funding for this program is contingent upon legislative authority to distribute these fundsand will be provided through the inclusion of authorizing language in the 201011 StateBudget Act. Staff of the CDE and SBE are in contact with the Legislature to draft therequisite language.

6/29/2010 10:06 AM


6/36


ATTACHMENT(S)

Attachment 1: ED Concerns on Californias SIG Application, April 14, 2010 (4 Pages)

Attachment 2: School Improvement Grant (SIG) Request for Applications (RFA) Scoring

Proposal (2 Pages)

Attachment 3: Summary of Changes to Californias 200910 SIG Application (3 Pages)

Attachment 4: Revised Appendix A: SIG Rubric (15 Pages)

Attachment 5: Appendix B: School Improvement Grant Model Component Acronyms(2 Pages)

Attachment 6: Revised Form 10 Implementation Chart for a Tier I or Tier II School(1 Page)

Attachment 7: Letter from U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Concerning Approval ofCalifornias Definition of Persistently Lowest-achieving Schools

(5 Pages) (This attachment is not available for Web viewing. A printed copy isavailable for viewing in the State Board of Education office.)

6/29/2010 10:06 AM


7/36

clab-dsid-jul10item12Attachment 1

Page 1 of 4

ED Concerns on California SIG Application

REQUIREMENTS U.S. Department of EducationREVIEW NOTES

CDE SOLUTION

Item 1: Approved PLA definition. ED is working with CA to finalizeapproval of its PLA definition.

ED is working with CA to finalizeapproval of its PLA definition.

Item 2: The SEA has described, withspecificity, the criteria the SEA will useto evaluate whether an LEA hasanalyzed the needs of each Tier I andTier II school identified in the LEAsapplication and has selected anintervention for each school.

The SEA has described, withspecificity, the criteria the SEA will useto evaluate whether the LEA hasdemonstrated that it has the capacity touse SIG funds to provide adequate

resources and related support to eachTier I and Tier II school identified in theLEAs application in order to implementfully and effectively the selectedintervention in each of those schools

OVERARCHING NOTE:California provided detailedinformation about the criteria itwill use to evaluate whether anLEA has analyzed the needs ofeach Tier I and Tier II schools,including a review rubric. Thecriteria California will use toevaluate LEA SIG applications isdescribed in Enclosure 2, Part I,Item B Pages 4-7. On Page 7 theSEA notes that it will evaluatethe SIG applications based on

the evaluation criteria described(pages 4-7) . . . the LEAapplications will be reviewed toensure that each meets thespecified criteria. Applicationsthat adequately address all therequirements described in theapplication will be recommendedto the SBE for funding.Applications not meeting thoserequirements will not berecommended for funding.

The rubric provides threecategories strong, adequate,and inadequate rubric. It is notclear how the SEA will make afinal determination that onlyapplications that adequatelyaddress all the requirementsdescribed in the application willbe recommended to the SBE forfunding. This appears to be apass fail system andapplications that meet thestrong and adequate

categories will be recommendedfor funding. Although thisappears to be an acceptablesystem, the SEA should consideradding values/weights/scores toeach component of the rubric toarrive at a final scoring system toapprove SIG applications.

We have developed a new scoringprocess that takes these concerns intoaccount, assigning specific values tothe application components, which wilresult in readers assigning numericalscores to each application.

The scoring process provides for amaximum of 100 points on theapplication:

Narrative40 points;

Implementation Charts25

points

Budget 25 Points

Collaborative Signatures5points

Complete Application5 points

See Item 2 Attachment for furtherdescription of the scoring process.

Assigning a specific score on eachLEA application will allow for rankingall applications based on relativemerit, assisting the decision on which

applications will be funded.

6/29/2010 10:01 AM


8/36


Page 2 of 4


Item 3: The SEA has described, withspecificity, the criteria the SEA will useto evaluate whether the LEAs budgetincludes sufficient funds to implement

the selected intervention fully andeffectively in each Tier I and Tier IIschool identified in the LEAsapplication as well as to support schoolimprovement activities in Tier IIIschools throughout the period ofavailability of those funds.

It is not clear what criteria will beused to evaluate the sufficiencyand accuracy of informationprovided on SIG Forms 4-5 and 9

See Review Rubric Pages 55,63-64. There should be aseparate category in the rubricfor each of the required SIGbudget and implementation formsor, at a minimum, a separatesection to evaluate the adequacyand linkage of these forms.

Our new scoring process addressesthis concern. Budget Forms andImplementation Charts will each beassigned a score on five discrete

elements. Those scores will be addedto the applications scores on thebudget narrative and other applicationelements to determine the total scorefor each application.

(See Item 2 Attachment for furtherdescription of the scoring process.)

Item 4: The SEA has described how itwill assess the LEAs commitment todesign and implement interventionsconsistent with the final requirements.

The requirement did not appearto be specifically addressed.

We have added the following languageto the SEA Application (Part 1, Item B.Evaluation Criteria) to clarifyCalifornias process for assessing theLEAs commitment :

The SEA will assess each LEAscommitment to design and implementits selected intervention(s) based onthe completeness andappropriateness of the LEAsNarrative Response, ImplementationCharts, Budget Forms, andCollaborative Signatures. Thisinformation must indicate that the LEAhas committed sufficient resources tosupport successful implementation aswell as a comprehensive and coheren

plan to fully implement all requiredelements of the selected interventionsin order for the application to berecommended for funding.

Item 5: The SEA has described theSEAs process and timeline forapproving LEA applications.

The models must beimplemented by the beginning ofthe 201011 school year. It isunclear as to the impact of theOctober 1, 2010, date in thetimeline in which LEAs will submittheir revised LEA plan.

We have added a statement to the LEARFA (Timeline, page 4) that clarifies thwhile completion of the LEA Planaddendum can be completed concurrew/ initial implementation of theintervention(s), the models must beimplemented within the required timeli(See Item 5 Attachmentfor new Timelinsection.)

See also LEA RFA page 4, Timeline,which indicates the elements of eachmodel that must be in place day 1 ofthe 2010-11 school year.

Item 6: The SEA has described the Additional details are needed We have added the following

6/29/2010 10:06 AM


9/36


Page 3 of 4


activities related to administration,evaluation, and technical assistancethat the SEA plans to conduct with theState-level funds it has received from

its School Improvement Grant.

regarding the use of the statelevel funds. For example, whattypes of TA will be provided butthe Statewide System of Support,

etc.

description of state-level activities toItem F. of the SEA Application:

The SEA will conduct a series of

webinars and conference calls relatingto the SIG LEA RFA applicationprocess, expanded Statewide Systemof School Support meetings to informregional directors on the applicationand implementation processes,ongoing one-on-one technicalassistance from CDE staff to eligibleapplicants, and CDE web pagepostings of frequently askedquestions and answers and otherpertinent information concerning SIGimplementation.

Item 7: The LEA application requiresan LEA to demonstrate, for each Tier Iand Tier II school the LEA commits toserve, that: (1) the LEA has analyzedthe needs of each school and selectedan intervention for each school; and (2)the LEA has the capacity to use SIGfunds to provide adequate resourcesand related support to each Tier I andTier II school identified in the LEAsapplication in order to implement, fullyand effectively, the required activities ofthe school intervention model it has

selected.

Just a note: The LEA applicationrequires an LEA to demonstrate,for each Tier I and Tier II schoolthe LEA commits to serve, that:(1) the LEA has analyzed theneeds of each school andselected an intervention for eachschool; and (2) the LEA has thecapacity to use SIG funds toprovide adequate resources andrelated support to each Tier I andTier II school identified in theLEAs application in order to

implement, fully and effectively,the required activities of theschool intervention model it hasselected.

These requirements are addressed ininformation the LEA provides in itsapplication narrative and budgetforms. The LEA is required to describein detail both the process it undertookin analyzing the needs of each schoolit commits to serve, as well as thespecific findings on each schoolsneeds resulting from the analysis. TheLEA is then required to provide itsrationale for the intervention model ithas selected based on its finding, andmust provide its complete plan for

implementing the intervention it hasselected, including a description ofhuman, fiscal, and other resources itwill use to successfully implement thatplan.

Item 8: The LEA application requiresthe LEA to describe the goals it hasestablished (subject to approval by theSEA) to hold accountable its Tier IIIschools that receive SIG funds.

It is unclear if this item is listed inthe LEA application. Pleaseverify. If it is not included pleaseadd to the LEA application.

We have addressed this specificrequirement in the narrative elementfor Tier III schools. Please see page 26item x., sentence 3.

Item 9: The LEA application requiresan LEA to include a budget thatindicates the amount of SIG funds theLEA will use each year in each Tier I,Tier II, and Tier III school the LEAcommits to serve.

There is no indication in thedirections for SIG Forms 9-11that the LEA must provideschool-by-school budgets foreach year funds are available.Item D on page 28 only refers toSIG Forms 4 and 5 that appear tobe the LEAs projected budgetand include both school anddistrict level budgeted items.

To address this concern we haveadded a school-level budget summarypage and school-level budget narrativeto the forms LEAs will be required tosubmit in their application. LEAs willnow be instructed to complete a set ofthese school-level budget forms foreach school the LEA commits toserve. (See Item 9 Attachment forthese new forms and instructions.)

Item 10: The LEA application requiresan LEA to provide a budget that

Same as above: There is noindication in the directions for

The LEA-level budget forms allow forinclusion of LEA-level expenditures.

6/29/2010 10:06 AM


10/36


Page 4 of 4


indicates the amount of SIG funds theLEA will use each year to implementthe selected model in each Tier I andTier II school it commits to serve.

SIG Forms 911 that the LEAmust include district levelbudgeted items. Although thenote on page 28 mentions that

the budget must cover the periodof availability.

Information provided in the newschool-level budget forms will allowfor differentiation betweenexpenditures made at the LEA level to

support implementation fromexpenditures made directly at theschool site(s).

Item 11: The LEA application requiresan LEA to provide a budget thatindicates the amount of SIG funds theLEA will use each year to conduct LEA-level activities designed to supportimplementation of the selected schoolintervention models in the LEAs Tier Iand Tier II schools.

The budget form does notindicate that the LEA will need toprovide a budget that indicatesthe amount of SIG funds the LEAwill use each year to conductLEA-level activities.

We have revised the LEA BudgetSummary Form to address thisrequirement. The LEA will now identifythose items in the LEA budget that areLEA-level activities by placing anasterisk next to those activitiesconducted at the LEA level.

Item 12: The LEA application requiresan LEA to provide a budget that

indicates the amount of SIG funds theLEA will use each year to supportschool improvement activities, at theschool or LEA level, for each Tier IIIschool identified in the LEAsapplication.

This requirement was notaddressed in its LEA application.

The new school-level budget formsaddress this concern. The LEA will be

required to submit specific budgetinformation for each Tier III school itcommits to serve. (See Item 9Attachment for these new forms andinstructions.)

6/29/2010 10:06 AM


11/36


Page 1 of 2

School Improvement Grant (SIG)Request for Applications (RFA)

Scoring Proposal

5 % Complete Screened Application

40 % Narrative Response

Up to eleven elements scored as (0 inadequate, 1 adequate, or 2 advanced).

These points are totaled and divided by the total possible points.

In order to account for narratives that do not address a non-required elementsuch as use of external providers, alignment with DAIT, and/or serving Tier IIIschools, the score is converted to a scaled score out of 40. (see examplebelow)

Applications with any element receiving a 0 inadequate will not be funded unless

those elements are revised to merit at least a score of 1 adequate.

Example:

The narrative addresses 9 of 11 elements.

(The LEA does not intend to use an external provider or serve Tier III schools.)

6/29/2010 10:06 AM

Element Received Possible

i. Needs Analysis 2 2ii. Selection of Intervention 1 2iii. Demonstration of Capacity 2 2iv. External Providers NA NAv. Align Other Resources 1 2vi. DAIT Alignment 2 2vii. Modification of Practices 2 2viii. Sustaining Reform 1 2ix. Annual Goals 2 2x. Tier III Schools NA NAxi. Consultation with Stakeholders 1 2

Total 14 20

Note: 14 out of 20 is 70% of the possible points

Conversion to a score out of 40:

The Narrative Response score must be converted to a scaled score out of atotal of 40 since this sections score makes up 40% of the total applicationscore.

The application will receive 70% of the 40 possible points which equals 28.

Final score on the Narrative Response = 28


12/36


Page 2 of 2

25 % Implementation Chart(s)

Five required elements scored as (0 inadequate, 1 adequate, or 2 advanced).

Total score is then multiplied by 2.5 for conversion to a 25-point scale.

Example:

o The Implementation Chart(s) receive a score of 8 points.

o The 8 points are multiplied by 2.5 yielding 20 points.

o This means that this section receives a final score of 8 x 2.5 = 20

25% Budget

Five required elements scored as (0 inadequate, 1 adequate, or 2 advanced).


Example:

o The Budget receives a score of 6 points.



6/29/2010 10:06 AM


13/36


Page 3 of 2

5 % Collaborative Signatures

One required elements scored as (0 inadequate, 1 adequate, or 2 advanced).


Example:

o The Collaborative Signatures receives a score of 2 points.



Summary of Example:

This application would receive a total of 73 out of 100 points.

6/29/2010 10:06 AM

Summary Received Possible

Complete Screened Application 5 5Narrative Response 28 40Implementation Chart(s) 20 25Budget 15 25Collaborative Signatures 5 5

Total 73 100


14/36


Page 1 of 3

Summary of Changes to Californias 200910 SIG Application

Description of Changes Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education (ED)May 6, 2010:

State Educational Agency (SEA) Application:

On page 3, a reference to the new school-level budget forms added to the localeducational agency (LEA) Request for Applications (RFA) was added.

On page 4, additional description of the criteria California will use to assess an LEAscommitment to implement its selected intervention(s) was added.

On pages 6 and 7, additional detail about the LEA application scoring process wasadded.

On page 8, detail on the SIG timeline was added concerning grant award notification,intervention implementation, and revised LEA plan submission.

On page 13, additional information was provided about technical assistance to beconducted for this cohort by the California Department of Education (CDE) during theimplementation phase.

LEA RFA:

In the timeline on page 4, the reference to submission of revised LEA Plan amendmentand Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) to the CDE by October 1, 2010, has

been modified to reflect that this will be for information and progress update purposes. Inaddition, a statement has been added to indicate that, while the LEA Plan addendumcan be completed concurrent with initial implementation of the intervention(s), themodels must be implemented within the required timelines described in the RFA.

A scoring system for submitted LEA applications has been added and can be found onpage 21 of the RFA in the Selection Process section. A reference to the fact that anapplication that receives a rating of inadequate on any element will not berecommended for funding has been added.

New forms for School Budget Plans (SIG Form 4b) and School Budget Narratives (SIGForm 5b) have been added in the forms section starting on page 31 of the RFA. As a

result of this change, the LEA Budget Plan should only reflect LEA-level expendituresand the School Budget Plan(s) should only reflect school-level expenditures.

School Implementation Charts (SIG Forms 10 and 11) have been modified to enableLEAs to show projected costs at both the school and LEA level. The total of the columnfor LEA cost on the School Implementation Chart(s) should match the amount on theLEA Budget Plan (SIG Form 4a). Correspondingly, the total of the column for school coston a schools Implementation Chart should match the amount shown on that schoolsBudget Plan (SIG Form 4b). These projected cost columns should only indicate SIG


15/36


Page 2 of 3

funds to be spent. If other funding sources are used, they should be included in theResources column.

Description of Changes Submitted to ED May 27, 2010:

SEA Application:

Changes were made in Section B, Evaluation Criteria, on pages 3, 4 and 7 which clarify thescoring rubric and further explain the percentage breakdown of budget and implementationelements

LEA RFA:

Page 8 regarding Charters schools expected to close has been modified to reflect thatpersistently lowest-achieving charter schools that do not select the School Closureintervention model must clarify how the intervention selected will create a significantly

different instructional model and school culture.

The word "points" has been replaced with "percent" in the scoring breakdown on page21.

Pages 64 and 65 of the rubric were replaced with an expanded rubric that includes fivecomponents for scoring LEA and school budgets and five components for scoring schoolimplementation charts.

"Total Grant Amount Requested" has been added to Form 1 - Application Cover Sheet.

In Form 2 - Collaborative Signature page, "Signature" has been added to the title of thename column and the column has been split to accommodate the name and signature; andSchool" has been added to the Organization column to allow collaborative partners toindicate with which school they are affiliated.

Description of Changes Submitted to ED June 10, 2010:

SEA Application:

On page 9, the timeline was updated to indicate that the LEA application due date andReaders Conference dates are delayed, pending ED approval of Californias SIGapplication.

On pages 9 through 11, language was added to clarify potential consequences for LEAsand schools not meeting annual progress and performance goals.

On page 12, revised language concerning application requirements for charter schoolsthat do not select the School Closure intervention model.

LEA RFA:


16/36


Page 3 of 3

The reference to the possibility that an LEAs entire sub-grant may not be renewed incases where one or more schools in the LEA are not meeting their improvement goalshas been replaced throughout the RFA with the notation that an LEAs sub-grant will beconsidered for a reduction equivalent to the annual award for the non-achieving

school(s) with the intent that the school(s) no longer receive(s) funding.

The statement on page 8 regarding funding levels reflecting the LEAs state-approvedprojected cost of implementing the selected intervention strategy for each school hasbeen clarified to indicate that there is no formula calculation for grant awards. However,the CDE does intend to review cost projections for accuracy with respect to localimplementation costs.

The Payments to Sub-grantees section on page 20 has been revised to indicate that thefirst 25 percent payment, and all subsequent payments, may include expenses incurredto date and that no payment will be made in excess of the grant award.

The Award Notification date of August 1, 2010, has been replaced on page 21 with astatement that the CDE will post its notification of proposed sub-grant awards for the SIGprogram on the CDE Web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ within 30 days of the SEAaction to award SIG sub-grants to LEAs.

Description of Changes Proposed June 16, 2010:

SEA Application:

On pages 7 and 8, provide clarifying language concerning the LEA applicationscoring process, particularly regarding not applicable application elements.

LEA RFA:

On page 8, provide clarifying language concerning SEA funding decisions in cases inwhich an LEA application does not demonstrate it has sufficient capacity to serve allschools for which it applied.

On page 19, revise language on restrictions on uses of SIG funds using languageprovided by ED.

On page 27, added instruction for completing new element on ImplementationCharts: adding a column that ties actions and activities to required intervention

elements.

On Form 10, page 50, added Required Component Acronym column and revisedform instructions for completing this new required element on the ImplementationChart.

On Appendix A: Rubric, clarified which of the narrative elements may be notapplicable based on local conditions or implementation plans.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/


17/36


Page 4 of 3

Added Appendix B: School Improvement Grant Model Component Acronyms toguide respondents in completing the new Implementation Chart element describedabove.


18/36

clab-dsid-jul10item12Attachment 4Page 1 of 15

Revised Appendix A: SIG Rubric

School Improvement Sub-grants ApplicationSection 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Rubric LEA SIG Application

SIG Narrative Element Strong (2 points) Adequate (1 point) Inadequate (0 points)i. Needs Analysis

LEA describes the process andfindings of the needsassessment conducted oneach school it commits to serveand the evidence used toselect the intervention model tobe implemented at eachschool. The descriptionincludes:

assessment instrumentsused

LEA and school personnelinvolved

process for analyzingfindings and selecting theintervention model

findings on use of state-adopted standards-alignedmaterials and interventions

The narrative includes athorough and completeoverview of the process usedto assess schools, includingspecific instruments used, andmultiple data elements cited.

The narrative identifies avariety of qualified LEA, school,parents, and communitystakeholders providing a rangeof perspectives involved incollecting and analyzing schooldata.

The narrative describes aspecific and effective processfor analyzing assessmentfindings, including meetings ofappropriate LEA and schoolpersonnel and school advisorygroups to review the findingsand provide input on the needsanalysis.

The narrative includes ageneral overview of theprocess used to assessschools, including specificinstruments used, and multipledata elements cited.

The narrative identifies LEA,school, and communitystakeholders involved incollecting and analyzing schooldata, with a description of theirlevel of involvement.

The narrative describes aprocess for analyzingassessment findings, includinga basic description of how LEAand school personnel andschool advisory groupsreviewed the findings andprovided input.

The narrative includes limitedinformation on the process used toassess schools, including specificinstruments used, and multiple sourcescited.

The narrative does not identifyappropriate LEA, school, andcommunity stakeholders involved incollecting and analyzing school data.

The narrative does not sufficientlydescribe a process for analyzingassessment findings.


19/36



SIG Narrative Element Strong (2 points) Adequate (1 point) Inadequate (0 points)

o curriculum pacing andinstructional time

o Amount and types of staffPD, collaboration, and

instructional support

o use of student data,

alignment of resources,and staff effectiveness

The narrative includes discreteand specific findings

concerning all of the areaslisted in the RFA that led to theselection of the intervention.

The narrative includes basicfindings concerning all of the

areas listed in the RFA that ledto the selection of theintervention

The narrative does not include findingsconcerning all of the areas listed in the

RFA that led to the selection of theintervention.

ii. Selection of InterventionModel

The LEAs rationale for itsselection of the interventionmodel for each school is statedclearly and is correlated to theneeds analysis for that school.

The narrative reflects a logicaland well organized process forselecting the interventionmodel. The rationale for theselection demonstrates a solidconnection betweenassessment results, findings ofcurrent practice, and staffeffectiveness in the selectionthe intervention model.

All areas of the needs analysisare discussed and linkedcoherently to the selectedintervention, providing clearevidence that the selection isappropriate for the school.

The narrative provides specificdata from a variety of sourcesthat explicitly supports theselection of the interventionmodel.

The narrative describes a basicprocess for selecting theintervention model. Therationale demonstrates aconnection betweenassessment results, findings ofcurrent practice, and staffeffectiveness in the selectionthe intervention model.

All areas of the needs analysisare discussed and linked to theselected intervention.

The narrative provides datapoints from several sources tosupport the selection of theintervention model.

The rationale reflects some sense oforganization, but omits significant linksto the needs analysis.

Few of the needs analysis areas arediscussed and/or there is littleapparent correlation with the selectedintervention.

The rationale is supported by a smallnumber of data areas and from fewsources with limited specificity.


20/36




iii. Demonstration of capacityto implement selectedintervention models

a. The LEA demonstrates itscapacity to use schoolimprovement funds to provideadequate resources andrelated support to each Tier Iand Tier II school identified inthe LEAs application in orderto implement, fully andeffectively, the requiredactivities of the schoolintervention model(s) it hasselected.

b. Although not required, whenan LEA is not applying to serveeach Tier I school, it must

explain why it lacks capacity toserve each Tier I school. If thelimitation is at the LEA levelthen the LEA must identify thespecific barriers that precludeserving all of its Tier I schools.If the limitation is based onconditions at a specific schoolor schools, then the LEA mustdescribe those conditions. Ifthere are additional limitingfactors, please describe them.

a. The LEA fully describes howit will use SIG funding and allother available resourcesrequired to implement theintervention model selected.The narrative includesextensive information on thespecific use of each resourceto support implementation ofthe planned schoolimprovement activities.

The description demonstratesthat the LEA has fully identifiedthe resource needs of eachschool and appropriately

planned how resources will beused to achieve successfulimplementation of all activitiesplanned for each school.

b. The LEA identifies thespecific barriers that precludeserving all of its Tier I schools,and provides clear andsubstantial evidence of theexistence of those barriers

a. The LEA describes how itwill use SIG funding toimplement the interventionmodel selected. The narrativeincludes general information onhow resources will be used tosupport implementation of theplanned school improvementactivities.

The description demonstratesthat the LEA has consideredthe differing resource needs ofeach school in determininghow SIG funding and otherLEA resources will be used to

address the specific needs ofeach school and lead tosuccessful implementation.

b. The LEA identifies thespecific barriers that precludeserving all of its Tier I schools,and provides evidence of theexistence of those barriers.

a. The LEA provides a limiteddescription of how it will use SIGfunding to implement the interventionmodel selected. The narrative includeslittle or no information on how otherresources will be used to supportimplementation of the planned schoolimprovement activities.

The description does not adequatelydemonstrate that the LEA hasconsidered the differing resourceneeds at each school in determininghow SIG funding and other LEAresources will be used to address thespecific needs of each school and lead

to successful implementation.

b. The LEA marginally identifiesbarriers that preclude serving all of itsTier I schools, and provides limited orno evidence of the existence of thosebarriers.


21/36




iv. Recruitment, screening,and selection of externalproviders (if applicable)

Although not required, whenthe LEA intends to use externalentities to provide technicalassistance in selecting,developing, and implementingone of the four models, it mustdescribe its process forensuring their quality. The LEAdescribes the process that willbe undertaken to recruit,screen, and select externalproviders including specificcriteria such as experience,qualifications, and record ofeffectiveness in providing

support for schoolimprovement.

An LEA intending to use anexternal entity to providetechnical assistance describes

specific, appropriatequalifications (includingexperience, qualifications, andrecord of effectiveness inproviding support for schoolimprovement) that the LEA willrequire prospective providersto meet.

The narrative describes acoherent, rigorous process thatthe LEA will conduct inreviewing prospectiveproviders to ensure that theymeet the LEAs qualifications.

The LEA also describes, indetail, the specific process thatit will use in the selection of itsexternal support providers fromall prospective providers thatmeet the LEAs qualificationcriteria, including the specificactions and personnel involvedin the selection process.

An LEA intending to use anexternal entity to providetechnical assistance describes

specific qualifications (includingexperience, qualifications, andrecord of effectiveness inproviding support for schoolimprovement) that the LEA willrequire prospective providersto meet.

The narrative describes aprocess for reviewingprospective providers to ensurethat they meet the LEAsqualifications.

The LEA also describes, ingeneral, the process that it willuse to select its externalsupport providers from allprospective providers that meetthe LEAs qualification criteria,including specific actionsinvolved in the selectionprocess.

An LEA intending to use an externalentity to provide technical assistancedoes not adequately describe specific

qualifications that the LEA will requireprospective providers to meet.

The narrative does not adequatelydescribe the process to be used inreviewing prospective providers toensure that they meet thosequalifications.

The LEA does not adequatelydescribe the process that it will use toselect its external support providers

from all prospective providers thatmeet the LEAs qualification criteria.


22/36




v. Align other resources withthe interventions

The LEA identifies all

resources that are currentlyavailable to the school(s) thatwill be used to supportimplementation of the selectedintervention model.

The LEA identifies otherfederal, state, LEA and/orprivate funding sourcesincluding other districtresources the LEA will use tosupport SIG implementation.Examples of funds the LEAshould consider include, butare not limited to: Title II, PartA funds used for recruiting

high-quality teachers; or TitleIII, Part A funds which could beused to improve Englishproficiency of English learnerstudents, and categorical blockgrant funds used forinstructional materials andprofessional development.

The LEA explicitly identifies anumber of other resourcesplanned for use in

implementing the selectedschool intervention models,and fully describes how theseresources will support SIGimplementation.

The other resources identifiedclearly align with the LEAsneeds analysis for each schooland logically and appropriatelysupport the implementationplan for each school.

The LEA identifies otherresources planned for use inimplementing selected school

intervention models anddescribes how these resourceswill support SIGimplementation.

The other resources identifiedalign with the LEAs needsanalysis for each school andclearly support theimplementation plan for eachschool.

The LEA has identified few, if any,resources planned for use inimplementing selected school

intervention models.

The other resources identifiedminimally align with the LEAs needsanalysis and lack specificity andcoherence with the implementationplan for each school.


23/36




vi.Align Proposed SIGActivities with Current DAITProcess (if applicable)

For LEAs currentlyparticipating in the DistrictAssistance and InterventionTeam (DAIT) process, theLEA must describe how it willcoordinate its DAIT work andits SIG work around the lowest-achieving schools. Thedescription must identify themajor LEA improvementactions adopted from the DAITrecommendations and describehow the LEA has aligned itsproposed SIG activities with ofthose major LEA improvementactions.

The LEA provides a thoroughand comprehensive descriptionof how it will coordinate DAIT

recommendations andactivities identified in the LEAplan with the planned SIGimplementation activities foreach school.

The narrative providesinformation developed throughthe DAIT process to inform theselection of the interventionmodel(s) selected for eachschool.

The LEA provides a generaldescription of how it willcoordinate DAIT

recommendations andactivities identified in the LEAplan with the planned SIGimplementation activities foreach school.

The LEA provides little or nodescription of how it will coordinateDAIT recommendations and activities

identified in the LEA plan with theplanned SIG implementation activitiesfor each school.


24/36




vii. Modify LEA Practices orPoliciesDepending on the interventionmodel selected, the LEA may

need to revise some of itscurrent policies and practicesto enable its schools toimplement the interventionsfully and effectively. These mayinclude, but are not limited to,collective bargainingagreements, the distribution ofresources among schools,parental involvement policies,school attendance areas andenrollment policies, andagreements with charterorganizations.

If the LEA anticipates the need

to modify any of its currentpractices or policies in order tofully implement the selectedintervention model(s), identifyand describe which policiesand practices need to berevised, the process forrevision, and a description ofthe proposed revision.

The LEA has fully developedand described in detail acomprehensive plan to modify

any and all current practices orpolicies in order to fully andeffectively implement theselected intervention model(s).

The plan fully and clearlydescribes:

1) Which policiesor practices will berevised

2) The rationale for their selection

3) The process for revision (that includes

input from keystakeholders, includingparents and collectivebargaining units)

4) A description of the proposed revisionand expected outcome

The LEA has developed andgenerally described a plan tomodify practices or policies in

order to fully implement theselected intervention model(s).

The plan includes a descriptionof:

1) Which policiesor practices will berevised

2) The process for revision that includesinput from stakeholders

3) A description of

the proposed revisionand expected outcome

The LEA has not sufficiently developedor described a plan to modify currentpractices or policies in order to fully

implement the selected interventionmodel(s).

The plan does not sufficiently describe:

1) Which policies or practices will be revised

2) The process for revision

3) A description of theintended revision and expectedoutcome


25/36




viii. Sustain the reforms afterthe funding period ends

SIG funding provided through

this application must beexpended by September 30,2011, unless the LEA intendsto implement a waiver toextend the funding throughSeptember 30, 2013. The LEAmust state whether it intends toimplement a waiver to extendthe funding period and identifythe resources that will be usedto sustain the selectedintervention after the SIGfunding period expires.

The LEA indicates whether itintends to implement a waiverto extend the funding through

September 30, 2013.

The LEA has provided a clearand comprehensive plan foruse of resources other thanSIG funds to sustain selectedintervention models andactivities following expiration ofthe SIG funding period.

The LEA indicates whether itintends to implement a waiverto extend the funding through

September 30, 2013.

The LEA has provided a basicplan for use of resources otherthan SIG funds to sustainselected intervention modelsand activities followingexpiration of the SIG fundingperiod.

The LEA may or may not indicatewhether it intends to implement awaiver to extend the funding through

September 30, 2013.

The LEA has not provided a completeplan for use of resources other thanSIG funds to sustain selectedintervention models and activitiesfollowing expiration of the SIG fundingperiod.


26/36




ix. Annual Goals for StudentAchievement

The LEA has established

annual goals for studentachievement on the Statesassessments in bothreading/language arts (RLA)and mathematics that it will useto monitor each Tier I and TierII school it commits to serve.

Examples may include:

Making one yearsprogress in RLA andmathematics

Reducing the percentageof students who are non-proficient by 10% or more

from the prior year

For students who are twoor more years below gradelevel, accelerating theirprogress at a rate of twoyears academic growth inone school year

Or meeting the LEAs goalsestablished in the States Raceto the Top application.

The annual goals for studentachievement are measurable,are based on the states

assessments in RLA andmathematics, and are clearlyidentified for each school thatthe LEA commits to serve.

The goals are realistic andreflect high expectations forimproved student achievement,and are based on the needs ofeach school.

The plan for monitoring theidentified goals is clearlydescribed, includes specifictimelines and procedures, andidentifies the personnel

responsible for itsimplementation.

The annual goals for studentachievement are measurable,are based on the states

assessments in RLA andmathematics, and are generallyidentified for each school thatthe LEA commits to serve.

The goals are realistic, projectimproved student achievement,and are based on the needs ofeach school.

The plan for monitoring theidentified goals is describedand includes clearimplementation procedures.

The annual goals for studentachievement are not sufficientlyidentified for each school that the LEA

commits to serve.

The goals appear limited, project aminimal increase in studentachievement, and/or are not based onthe needs of each school.

The plan for monitoring the identifiedgoals is inadequate or is not provided.


27/36


Page 10 of 15



x. Serving Tier III Schools (ifapplicable)

If applicable, the LEA has

described services andactivities that benefit each TierIII school the LEA commits toserve.

The LEA has clearly describedservices and activities thatbenefit each Tier III school.

The LEA has clearly describedactivities that reflect a direct,tangible, and substantialbenefit to each Tier III schoolthe LEA commits to serve.

The LEA has providedreferences to verify that theservices and activities areresearch based. The selectedservices and activities areclearly designed to meet theindividual needs of each Tier IIIschool the LEA commits to

serve.

The LEA has generallydescribed services andactivities that benefit each Tier

III school.

The LEA has generallydescribed activities that reflecta direct, tangible, benefit toeach Tier III school the LEAcommits to serve.

The LEA has not sufficiently describedservices and activities that benefiteach Tier III school.

The LEA has not clearly describedactivities that reflect a direct, tangible,benefit to each Tier III school the LEAcommits to serve.


28/36


Page 11 of 15



xi. Consultation with relevantstakeholders

The LEA has described its

process for consulting withrelevant stakeholders,including parents, regardingthe LEAs application andsolicited their input for thedevelopment andimplementation of schoolimprovement models in itsparticipating Tier I and Tier IIschools.

Examples may include localboard meetings, parentmeetings, School Site Councilmeetings, school and/or districtEnglish Language Advisory

Committee (ELAC), districtadvisory committee, and localbargaining unit meetings whichindicate discussion of theLEAs application.

The LEA clearly identifies its

process for consulting withrelevant stakeholdersregarding the LEAsapplication.

The LEAs descriptiondemonstrates comprehensiveconsultation with relevantstakeholders regarding theLEAs application, includinglocal board meetings, parentmeetings, School Site Councilmeetings, school and/or districtEnglish Language AdvisoryCommittee (ELAC), districtadvisory committee, and local

bargaining unit meetings.

The LEA has provided minutesand agendas of meetings withrelevant stakeholdersregarding the LEAs SIGapplication that recount theinput obtained.

The LEA identifies a generalprocess for consulting withrelevant stakeholdersregarding the LEAsapplication.

The LEAs descriptiondemonstrates consultation withrelevant stakeholdersregarding the LEAsapplication, including parentsand other stakeholders.

The LEA has describedmeetings with relevantstakeholders regarding theLEAs SIG application,including a description of keystakeholder input that wasincorporated in the LEAs SIGapplication.

The LEA does not clearly identify itsprocess for consulting with relevantstakeholders regarding the LEAsapplication.

The LEAs description does notadequately demonstrate consultationwith relevant stakeholders regardingthe LEAs application.

The LEA has not sufficiently describedmeetings with relevant stakeholdersregarding the LEAs SIG application.


29/36


Page 12 of 15



30/36


Page 13 of 15


xi. Consultation with relevantstakeholders (cont.)

The LEA identifies whichstakeholder recommendationshave been used in thedevelopment of the LEAs SIGhave been used in thedevelopment of the LEAs SIGimplementation plan, anddiscusses stakeholder input notaccepted, including a rationalefor rejecting that input.

The LEA has identified allsignificant stakeholder input,identifies input incorporated inthe SIG implementation plan,discusses rejected input andprovides a rationale for eachrejected suggestion.

The LEA has identifiedsignificant stakeholder input,identifies input incorporated inthe SIG plan, and provides arationale for each rejectedsuggestion.

The LEA has not sufficiently identifiedsignificant stakeholder input; notedinput incorporated in the SIG plan, orprovided a rationale for each rejectedsuggestion.

Other SIG ApplicationComponents Strong (2 points)

Adequate (1 point) Inadequate (0 points)

Implementation Chart(s)

The LEA s ImplementationChart(s) include actions andactivities required to implementall aspects of the selectedintervention model.

The actions and activities listedare aligned with the needs

analysis for the school.

The costs of actions andactivities listed are identified inthe Projected Cost column

A timeline of implementation isprovided.

The actions and activities areclearly stated, reasonable,research-based, and contain allrequired elements of theselected intervention model,including those that are alreadybeing implemented, andincludes some permissibleactivities.

The actions and activities listedare realistic and clearly aligned

with the needs analysis of theschool. The descriptionincludes references to specificaspects of the needs analysis.

The costs of actions andactivities listed are identifiedclearly and realistically basedon current LEA costs andfinancial practices.

The timeline is detailed, clear,contains specific dates, and thepacing appears to be brisk but

reasonable.

The actions and activities arereasonable and contain allrequired elements of theselected intervention model,including those already beingimplemented. Activities reflectstrategies likely to increasestudent achievement.

The actions and activities listedare aligned with the needs

analysis of the school.

The costs of actions andactivities listed are identifiedand are generally aligned withcurrent LEA costs and financialpractices.

The timeline is clear and thepacing appears to beappropriate.

The actions and activities are notclearly stated, may be unreasonable,and/or do not contain all requiredelements of the selected interventionmodel. Activities reflect strategiesunlikely to increase studentachievement

The actions and activities listed areunrealistic and/or are not clearlyaligned with the needs analysis of the

school.

The costs of actions and activitieslisted are not fully identified and/or donot appear to be generally alignedwith current LEA costs and financialpractices.

The timeline is not clear, does notcontain specific dates, and/or thepacing appears unreasonable

The individual(s) responsible for

oversight are not clearly indicated.


31/36


Page 14 of 15

Other SIG ApplicationComponents

Strong (2 points) Adequate (1 point) Inadequate (0 points)

Budgets

The LEA projected budget iscomplete.

The LEA budget narrative iscomplete.

The school projected budget(s)

are complete.

The LEA projected budget iscomplete, expenditures areaccurately classified by objectcode, the full term of the grant

is covered, and totals by yearare provided.

The LEA budget narrativeincludes detailed information todescribe LEA activities andcosts associated with eachobject code. Budget itemsaccurately reflect the actualcost of implementing theselected intervention modelsand other LEA activitiesdescribed for each participatingschool are included.


are complete, expenditures areaccurately classified by objectcode, the full term of the grantis covered, and totals by yearare provided.

The LEA projected budget iscomplete; expenditures areappropriately listed for the fullterm of the grant and totals by

year are provided.

The LEA budget narrativeincludes general information todescribe LEA activities andcosts associated with eachobject code. Budget itemsgenerally reflect the actual costof implementing the selectedintervention models and otherLEA activities described foreach participating school areincluded.


are complete; expenditures areappropriately listed for the fullterm of the grant, and totals byyear are provided.

The LEA projected budget isincomplete, expenditures are notaccurately classified by object code,or the full term of the grant is not

covered.

The LEA budget narrative includeslittle information to describe LEAactivities and costs associated witheach object code. Budget items donot reflect the actual cost ofimplementing the selectedintervention models and/or otherLEA activities described for eachparticipating school are not included.

The school projected budget(s) areincomplete, expenditures are notaccurately classified by object code,

the full term of the grant is notcovered, and/or totals by year arenot provided.


32/36


Page 1 of 2

Appendix B: School Improvement Grant Model Component

Acronyms

Use the following acronyms to correlate your responses in the implementation chartswith the model components.

Turnaround model:

Other SIG ApplicationComponents

Strong (2 points) Adequate (1 point) Inadequate (0 points

dgets (cont.)

e school budgetrative(s) are complete.

e school and LEAget(s) are aligned.

The school budgetnarrative(s) include detailedinformation to describeactivities and costsassociated with each objectcode. Budget itemsaccurately reflect the actualcost of implementing theselected interventionmodels and other activitiesdescribed for eachparticipating school areincluded.

The LEA and schoolbudgets are clearly alignedand, taken together, fullydescribe appropriateexpenditures of funds in allcategories that are clearlysufficient to support thedesign, implementation and

ongoing maintenance ofthe proposed SIG activities.The proposed expendituresreflect research-basedstrategies likely to increasestudent achievement.

The school budgetnarrative(s) include generalinformation to describeactivities and costsassociated with each objectcode. Budget itemsgenerally reflect the actualcost of implementing theselected interventionmodels and other activitiesdescribed for eachparticipating school areincluded.

The LEA and schoolbudgets are aligned and,taken together, adequatelydescribe expenditures offunds in all categories ofthe proposed SIG activities.The proposed expendituresreflect strategies likely to

increase studentachievement.

The school budget narrativinclude little information todescribe activities and costassociated with each objeccode. Budget items do not the actual cost of implementhe selected intervention mand/or other activities descfor each participating schoonot included

The LEA and school budgenot clearly aligned, the LEAnot sufficiently describedexpenditures of funds incategories necessary to suproposed SIG activities, anproposed expenditures reflstrategies unlikely to increastudent achievement

laborative signatures

The information oncollaborative partnersclearly indicates support ofthe SIG plan by the LEAand each participatingschool, parents, school

advisory groups, the localbargaining unit, and otherstakeholders.

The information oncollaborative partnersindicates support of theSIG plan by the LEA and

participating stakeholdergroups.

The information on collabopartners indicates little, if asupport of the SIG plan by LEA and participating

stakeholder groups.


33/36


Page 2 of 2

Replace the principal and grant the new principal sufficient operational flexibility. (RP)

Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent, and select new staff. (SS)

Implement strategies that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff. (RPR)

Provide staff ongoing job-embedded professional development. (PD)

Adopt a new governance structure. (GS)

Use data to identify and implement a new instructional program. (IP)

Promote the continuous use of student data. (SD)

Provide increased learning time. (ILT)

Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services. (SCO)Transformation model:

Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformedmodel. (RP)

Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals.(ES)

Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff and remove those who,after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professionalpractice, have not done so. (IRR)

Provide staff ongoing job-embedded professional development. (PD)

Implement strategies that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff. (RPR)

Use data to identify and implement a new instructional program. (IP)

Promote the continuous use of student data. (SD)

Provide increased learning time. (ILT)

Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement. (FCE)

Give the school sufficient operational flexibility. (OF)


34/36


Page 3 of 2

Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and relatedsupport from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization. (TA)

Restart model

Select a charter management organization (CMO), or an education managementorganization (EMO) that has been selected through a locally-determined rigorous reviewprocess. (SO)

Submit charter application to CDE (if applicable). (SCA)

Plan for or enter into contract with EMO. (CEMO)

Enroll any former student who wishes to attend the school. (ES)

Closure model

Decision reached to close school. (CS)

Enroll the students who attended the closed school in other schools in the LEA that arehigher achieving. (OSE)

Ensure other schools are within proximity to the closed school. (CP)


35/36


Page 1 of 1

SIG Form 10Implementation Chart for a Tier I or Tier II School

Implementation Chart for a Tier I or Tier II SchoolComplete this form for each identified Tier I and Tier II school the LEA intends to serve. List the intervention model to beimplemented. Include the required component acronym, actions and activities required to implement the model, a timelinewith specific dates of implementation, the projected cost of the identified activity, the personnel and material federal, local,private and other district resources necessary, and the position (and person, if known) responsible for oversight.

School: Tier: I or II (circle one)

Intervention Model: Turnaround Restart Closure Transformation

Total FTE required: _____LEA _____ School _____ Other

RequiredComponent

AcronymServices & Activities Timeline Projected Costs

School LEAResources Oversight


36/36

federal feedback to sig application

Documents