sig cohort 3 la honda pescadero application - title i (ca ... · web viewapplicants must submit...

SIG Form 1—Application Cover Sheet

School Improvement Grant (SIG)Application for Funding

APPLICATION RECEIPT DEADLINEMarch 14, 2014, 4 p.m.

Submit to:California Department of EducationImprovement and Accountability DivisionSchool Turnaround Office1430 N Street, Suite 6208Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

NOTE: Please print or type all information.County Name:SAN MATEO COUNTY

County/District Code:41-68940

Local Educational Agency (LEA) NameLA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

LEA NCES Number:0620220

LEA Address360 BUTANO CUTOFF

Total Grant Amount Requested$2,016,344.00

CityPESCADERO

Zip Code94060

Name of Primary Grant CoordinatorAMY WOOLIEVER

Grant Coordinator TitleSUPERINTENDENT

Telephone Number650-879-0286

Fax Number650-879-0816

E-mail [email protected]

CERTIFICATION/ASSURANCE SECTION: As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I have read all assurances, certifications, terms, and conditions associated with the federal SIG program; and I agree to comply with all requirements as a condition of funding.

I certify that all applicable state and federal rules and regulations will be observed and that to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this application is correct and complete.Printed Name of Superintendent or Designee

AMY WOOLIEVER

Telephone Number

650-879-0286Superintendent or Designee Signature (Blue Ink) Date

4

March 13, 2014

5

SIG Form 2—Schools to Be ServedIndicate which schools the LEA commits to serve, their Tier designation, and the intervention model the LEA will implement for each Tier I and Tier II school. For each Tier I and Tier II Title I school, indicate which waiver(s) will be implemented at each school. Note: An LEA that has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools, including schools that are currently being served with SIG funds and those that are eligible to receive FY 2013 SIG funds, may implement the transformation model in no more than 50 percent of these schools. (Attach as many sheets as necessary.)

School Name NCES Code(Available at

http://nces.ed.gov )

TIER I

TIER II

INTERVENTION MODEL WAIVER(S) TO BE IMPLEMENTED

Turnaround

Restart

Closure

Transformation

“Starting Over” in the School

Improvement Timeline (Restart and Turnaround

Only)

Implement a School-Wide Program in a

Title I Participating School that

does not meet the 40 Percent

Poverty Eligibility Threshold

Not Applying for Waiver

PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL

062022002422X

xX

6

http://nces.ed.gov/

SIG Form 2a—Eligible, But not Served SchoolsIf the LEA is not applying to serve all Tier I schools within its jurisdiction, the LEA must identify those schools and explain why it lacks the capacity to serve each Tier I school using SIG Form 2a. If the limitation is at the LEA level then the LEA must identify the specific barriers that preclude serving all of its Tier I schools. If the limitation is based on conditions at a specific school or schools, the LEA must describe those conditions. If there are additional limiting factors, the LEA must describe them. The SEA will review the description of the limitation and any supporting evidence provided by the LEA to determine whether the rationale provided supports the LEAs claim of lack of capacity. This section will also serve as the LEAs demonstration of capacity. Identify each Tier I school that is eligible to receive the SIG, but that the LEA is not applying to serve, and give the reason for their exclusion.

School NameNCES Code(Available at

http://nces.ed.gov/) Reason For Not Serving

NOT APPLICABLE

7

http://nces.ed.gov/

SIG Form 3—District and School Improvement TeamThe role of the district and school improvement team is to organize and lead the needs assessment process. District leadership may assign additional roles to the team, such as developing, defining, and recommending actions necessary to accomplish the goals of the school improvement plan. The team should be comprised of a cross-section of district staff, school staff and parents, or community members involved in school improvement, professional development, curriculum and instruction, assessment, Title I coordination, special education, student services, fiscal management, union representation, and the school board. If the district is working with a technical assistance (TA) provider, it may choose to have the TA provider serve on the team. It is suggested that the team identify a contact to serve as the team lead, e.g. the superintendent or superintendent’s designee. This person may serve as a liaison to the CDE, district leadership, external support providers, and other team members. The team lead has the full support of district leadership, is knowledgeable about the development of the SIG, and is comfortable leading and facilitating diverse groups of people.

District and School Improvement Team MembershipName Title/Position Representing

AMY WOOLIEVER SUPERINTENDENT LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED

PATTY CRUICKSHANK ASSESSMENT SPECIALIST LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED

PAT TALBOT PRINCIPAL PESCADERO MIDDLE SCHOOLERICA HAYS PRINCIPAL PESCADERO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

KERRY LOBEL DIRECTOR PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR

YADIRA HERRERA COMMUNITY LIAISON LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED

ADRIANNA BALENTINE KINDERGARTEN TEACHER LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED

JACKIE MUNOZ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAD

DAIT LEAD

PETER BOHACEK BOARD MEMBER LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED

RITA MANCERA PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION PESCADERO ELEMENTARY

8

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and AnalysisAs part of the needs assessment process, the district must provide school performance data and analysis. Please complete the information requested on the forms below. (8 page limit per school.)District Name: LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTSchool Name: PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL CDS: 41-68940-6044085

School Demographics2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Grade Levels Currently Served K-8 K-8 K-8Total Enrollment 158 148 177Percentage of Special Education Students 10% 11% 10%Percentage of English Language Learners 63% EL 15% RFEP 67% EL 9% RFEP 62% EL 10% RFEP

School Background InformationHome languages of English Language Learners (please list up to three primary languages):

SPANISH

Briefly describe the community served by the school. Pescadero Elementary and Middle School (PES/MS) is a small, rural, K-8 school in San Mateo County. Located in the town of Pescadero, PES/MS is one of three schools in the PreK-12 La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District (LHPUSD.) LHPUSD serves a large geographical area spanning approximately 160 square miles. PES/MS serves 163 full-day students and an additional 18 preschool students in two half-day programs. Our demographics are diverse. The K-5 program draws children primarily from Pescadero while the 6-8 program incorporates students from both the towns of La Honda and Pescadero. Students from La Honda are primarily Caucasian while 77% of Pescadero students are Hispanic.Briefly describe the background of the school prior to implementing SIG reform efforts (within the last three years) and include climate, culture, instructional practices, data use, and school staffing. In 2010, PES/MS was identified by the California Department of Education as a Persistently Low Achieving School. At the time of designation, LHPUSD was emerging from a construction and facility crisis due to management of a 2008 district bond program in which led to county fiscal oversight from 2009 to 2010. Morale was low and teacher turnover high. In the spring of 2010, a successful Cohort 1 State Improvement Grant application was developed. The Board believed so strongly in the strength of the transformation model program that the school commenced the services prior to confirmation of funding by the CDE. While the funding ended in 2013, a Sustainability Report generated in October identified key components of the program to retain using one-time state funding sources. Data-driven decision making, job embedded professional development, stable and collaborative staffing, and consistent, standards-based practices have been established. The data, instructional practice, and Prof. Dev. protocols put in place under SIG Cohort 1 remain and are being used to transition to Common Core. Areas identified as not sufficiently addressed in the Cohort 1 SIG results are family engagement, middle school engagement and achievement and best practices for English Language Learners.

Prior and Current School Improvement Reform Efforts

9

Please complete the table below on prior and current reform efforts (within the last five years) at the school. Indicate if the reform effort was successful in school improvement or not successful and the reason.

Year Reform Effort Successful

Not Successfu

lReason

2010-2013 SIG- Cohort 1 XFinancial resources adequate to deliver necessary services. Ability to hire and retain high quality teachers to increase the learning week/year. Inclusive hiring process which included teachers, staff and admin.Regularly scheduled/monitored professional development and structured collaboration. Restructured school calendar, high quality external provider selected and regular coaching for leadership and teachers. Teacher evaluation adopted which incorporates student data. New evidence-focused teacher evaluation rubric adopted (Danielson). Flexible hours opportunity, benchmark testing, “I Can” Power standards.

2010-2013 SIG-Cohort 1 X Difficulty hiring a qualified Community Liaison which delayed implementation of parent engagement efforts. Parent- school engagement building slowly. School climate continues to be an area of concern with parents. Adequate progress in learning English. Interventions need to start earlier language interventions to bridge the 0-5 achievement gap influenced by poverty. Families resisted Saturday School but fully engaged in intersession and Summer School.

2013-2014 0-5 planning with community-based organization

X Support from Puente de la Costa Sur to do long range planning for youngest students. Outside support for planning yearKnowledgeable and highly qualified external resources

2013-2014 Expanded After-School program for middle school students

X Greater participation by students leading to higher profile of program.Modification of bus schedule encouraged students to stay and participate in programEnhancement of elective opportunities meeting student interestsProgram flexibility allows staff to quickly meet changing needs.

10

Student Academic Performance DataPlease complete the table below regarding school academic performance data for the school years requested. School data reports may be found at CDE Dataquest: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest . API Data

2010–11 2011–12 2012–13Growth—Schoolwide 61 16 -35Met Growth Target— Schoolwide (yes or no) YES YES NOMet Growth Target—for all Subgroups (yes or no) YES YES NOAYP Data

2010–11 2011–12 2012–13Percent of Students at or Above Proficient ELA 41% MATH 44% ELA 39% MATH 53% ELA 37% MATH 41%Met AYP Schoolwide Criteria (yes or no) YES NO/YES NOMet all Participation Rate Criteria (yes or no) YES YES YES

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and AnalysisCalifornia Standards Test Data by SchoolwideFor the school years listed below, please enter the percentage of all students who tested proficient or above on the California Standards Test for English-language arts and mathematics. You will need to provide data for each grade level tested at school. Add grade levels to table, as needed. GRADE: 2 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 English Language Arts 25% 59% 27% Mathematics 63% 75% 53%GRADE: 3 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 English Language Arts 43% 14% 46% Mathematics 71% 85% 54%GRADE: 4 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 English Language Arts 44% 59% 21% Mathematics 72% 66% 64%GRADE: 5 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 English Language Arts 35% 50% 50% Mathematics 43% 72% 50%GRADE: 6 2010-11 2011-12` 2012-13 English Language Arts 19% 39% 41% Mathematics 12% 43% 38%GRADE: 7 2910-11 2011-12 2012-13 English :Language Arts 69% 32% 41% Mathematics 42% 36% 23%GRADE 8 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 English Language Arts 47% 50% 38% Mathematics 8% Gen Math 27% Algebra 21% Gen Math 83% Alg

11

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest

CST Data by SubgroupFor the 2012–13 school year, please indicate the percentage of student in each of the listed subgroups represented at your school who tested proficient or above on the ELA and Math. You will need to provide data for each grade level tested at school. Add grade levels to table, as needed. Grade: 2

Content Area White, Non-Hispanic

Black or African-American Hispanic or Latino Socioeconomically

DisadvantagedEnglish Language

Learners Special Education

ELA 79% NA 14% 23% 17% 25%Mathematics 79% NA 36% 44% 42% 50%

Grade: 3





ELA 50% NA 23% 27% 25% NoneMathematics 90% NA 39% 36% 33% None

Grade: 4






Grade: 5





ELA 100% NA 50% 44% 33% NoneMathematics 100% NA 57% 53% 44% 100%

Grade: 6






Grade: 7





ELA 57% NA 35% 45% 36% 50%Mathematics 28% NA 20% 25% 14% None

Grade: 8





ELA 83% NA 19% 28% 6% No tester CST

Mathematics 33% GM100% Alg NA 19% GM

71% Alg 22% GM 78%Alg 7% GM50% Alg No tester CST

12

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis

2013 Graduation Rate Not Applicable

13

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis

School Information2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Number of minutes all students were required to be at school and any additional learning time

74190 74795 69995

Student attendance rate (%) 94% 95% 96%Discipline incidents 16 suspensions 17 suspensions 12 suspensionsTruancy rate (%) 6% 14% 12%

High school dropout rate (%) –high schools only NA NA NAHigh school graduation rate (%) – high schools only NA NA NANumber of students who complete advanced coursework (such as Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), or advanced mathematics courses)–high schools only

NA NA NA

Number of students who complete at least one class in a postsecondary institution (dual enrollment)–high schools only

NA NA NA

Teacher attendance rate (%) 96% 97% 96%Distribution of teachers by performance level on the district’s teacher evaluation system

95% Satisfactory 5% Needs Improvement

85% Satisfactory15% Needs Improvement

85% Satisfactory15% Needs Improvement

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and AnalysisNeeds AnalysisPlease describe the process and findings of the needs assessment conducted for each school that the LEA will commit to serve. The description of the needs assessment must address the following areas:

Assessment instruments used to conduct the analysis (e.g., Academic Performance Survey (APS), Inventory of Services and Supports (ISS) for Students with Disabilities, District Assessment Survey (DAS), and the forms found within this application) and if applicable, other assessments used (e.g. California Modified Assessment, California Alternate Performance Assessment, California English Language Development Test, etc.)

The roles and responsibilities of the district and school personnel and other collaborative partners responsible for conducting the needs assessment and/or analyzing its results

The process for analyzing the findings A summary of the findings for the school

Roles and

14

Tool/Description Responsibilities Analysis Process Findings#1 PES/MS School Improvement Grant Sustainability Report- October 17, 2013

SIG Coordinator- Group LeadPrincipal and 1 PES/PMS teacher- Report developerSuperintendent and SIG Coordinator- Analysis of report

The team used CARA, a tool from the Charles A. Dana Center. CARA is a collaborative process that involves teachers and leaders in reflective conversations designed to lead to action, usually in the classroom. The team collects, analyzes, reflects and acts. (CARA)

Increased Learning Time (ILT) is essential to student success. More rigor and individualization of instruction is necessary for stronger student outcomes. “I Can” power standards are effective. Retain protocol and use with CCSSCommunity Liaison services are essential to building home-to- school connections and should be increased.

#2 Analysis of Student Performance Data- CST, CELDT, NWEA

Assessment Director- Student and Class profiles, data chatsPrincipals- Data chats Review and disseminate data to teachersTeachers- Provide analysis of trends and areas of needSuperintendent- Review data and identify

Data analyzed yearly to determine critical areas of need. Analysis conducted in Data Chats and in Cabinet meetings. PES/MS shifted reliance from CST to the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress, starting in 2012. NWEA is aligned to Common Core State Standards in content. CELDT Data analyzed in January and individual student progress is reported to principals and teachers.

-2-5th grade students made significant progress on CST Math and ELA from 2009-2012 but slipped back in 2013. -6-8 students did not make significant progress (cohort) in ELA and made limited progress in math from 2009-2013. -8th grade students taking Algebra made significant growth-but fewer students took Algebra 1 as 8th gradersTitle 3 Accountability measures indicate that PES/MS made the following progress towards AMAO’s for 2012-2013 -51% (target 57.5%) of English Learners made progress in the learning of English as measured by the CELDT. -11.1% of students in the US for less than 5 years attained proficiency in English as measured by the CELDT. The 2012-2013 target is 21.4%-49.1% of students learning English for more than 5 years attained proficiency in English as measured by the CELDT. The target is 47%.NWEA results were analyzed from the Fall 2013 to Winter

15

performance gap areas.

2013:-62% of students were below nationally normed, Common Core grade level standard in September 2013. These students were identified as Focal Students. -77% of the Focal Students either made or exceeded their growth targets as measured by the December administration of NWEA. -While students were lower than the national grade level norm, they made more significant growth at each grade level than the normed projected growth charts provided by NWEA.

#3 Family Engagement Impact Project Needs Assessment Report by the John Gardner Center, Feb 2014

Puente Staff- Administered survey to 100 parents.Conducted Focus Groups with 6 groups.Superintendent- Co–Lead Early Childhood Steering CommitteeEarly Childhood Steering Committee- Select evidence-based practice to increase family engagement.

Early Childhood Steering Committee met with the John Gardner Center to review findings. Steering Committee working with a facilitated process to identify and match key findings to an evidenced-based practice for increasing family engagement and Early Literacy.

Parents want to be able to provide students with more support. -76% of surveyed parents reported that they want to help children with learning and development but sometimes don’t know how. -49% reported language issues prevent parents from communicating with teachers about child progress.- 64% of parents self-report that they lack a high school diplomaSchool Support is high as indicated by…81% of parents reported being strongly interested in supporting their elementary child’s homework needs.77% of parents reported being strongly interested in supporting their child’s literacy needs.84% of parents have either heard about or used Panther Camp 100% of parents reported feeling welcome to visit their child’s school95% of parents reported that teachers keep them informed about their child’s development. 99% of parents reported that their child’s teacher is interested in getting to know them.97% of parents reported that school encourages and

16

supports parents

#4 Academic Program Survey

Superintendent, Principals, Community-based organization (PUENTE) completed survey

The survey was conducted over a two-day period by district, school and community leadership. The results were reviewed by the team and key findings were aligned with other key data.

Strengths:Protocols in place for professional development, data collection and analysis, selection of high quality instructional materials, best instructional practices and interventions. School calendars and increased learning time effective for improving student performance.Areas of Concern:English Learner support at all levelsEarly literacy- reading, writing, listening, speaking in L1 or L2. Early language acquisition Family engagement and support

PES/MS has made progress over the past three years. Strengthening the systems and structures around data collection, teacher evaluation, instructional program, increased learning time, and interventions for Focal Students has resulted in increased student performance and stability. in some but not all areas. The district and school leadership have identified the following Summary of findings:

Language barriers prevent communication between parents and teachers. Parents desire to be able to help their children but lack of ability to assist. High # of parents (64%) lack a high school

diploma Increased Learning Time is an essential strategy. Curriculum, assessment and instructional alignment particularly with Common Core is necessary. Writing across

curriculum, not evident. More effective English Language Development strategies needed to support CELDT and CST ELA scores and ensure

success on SBAC. More effective practices for Middle School necessary to promote the same growth seen in 2nd-5th grade assessments Integration of technology as a tool would assist teaching and learning. Early literacy key to bridging the achievement gap.

17

B. Demonstration of Capacity (Required) (Forms 4a, 5a, 4b, 5b, 6, 10)

The LEA must demonstrate that is has the capacity to use SIG funds to provide adequate resources and related support to each Tier I and Tier II school identified in the LEAs application in order to implement, fully and effectively, all required components of the school intervention model(s) it has selected.

This element includes the following required SIG Forms:

SIG Forms 4a, 5a, 4b, and 5b: Budget Summary and NarrativeAll budget forms should be accessed here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp

SIG Form 6: Demonstration of Capacity, see below page 41.

SIG Form 10: Implementation Charts Form 10 should be accessed here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp

18

http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp


School Improvement Grant, Cohort 3Local Educational Agency Form 4a—Budget Summary

District La Honda Pescadero Unified School DistrictCDS Code 41-68940County San Mateo Resource: 3180

Contact Sandra Stent SACS Code: 8290

E-mail [email protected] Fed Award:

S377A130006

Telephone (650) 879-0286 ext 201 alt: (530) 865-1486 GAN: 13-1234-00000

Object Code Series Line Item Description

Year 0(Pre-Imp.) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

FY 2013–14 FY 2014–15 FY 2015–16 FY 2016–17

1000-1999 Certificated Personnel Salaries $ 1,638.00 $ 55,979.00 $ 55,979.00 $ 55,979.00

2000-2999 Classified Personal Salaries $ 4,057.00 $ 4,261.00 $ 4,473.00

3000-3999 Employee Benefits $ 212.00 $ 14,735.00 $ 14,795.00 $ 14,857.00

4000-4999 Books and Supplies $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00

5000-5999 Services/Other Operating Expenses

$ 294.00 $ 294.00 $ 294.00

6000-6999 Capital Outlay

7310 / 7350 Indirect Costs $ 157.00 $ 6,249.00 $ 6,271.00 $ 6,294.00

Subtotal $ 2,007.00 $ 81,814.00

Total $ 83,821.00 $ 82,100.00 $ 82,397.00

CDE Use OnlyVersion Date

California Dept. of EducationFebruary 2014

19

mailto:[email protected]

School Improvement Grant, Cohort 3

Local Educational Agency Form 4b—Budget Narrative

FY 2013–14 (Pre-Implementation)

District La Honda Pescadero Unified School District

CDS Code 41-68940

County San Mateo

Contact Sandra Stent


Telephone (650) 879-0286 ext 201 alt: (530) 865-1486

Activity Number

(optional)

Component Number(required)

Expenditure Description

List Budget Sub-

Codes

Certificated Salaries

Classified Salaries Benefits Books and

Supplies

Services and Other

ExpensesCapital Outlay Indirect Costs

Total

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

II-SIG 17

Assessment Specialist - Certificated .35 FTE 187 Days, Cert Salary Schedule Col V, Step 14 June 2013: 13 days $67,293 x .35 FTE x 13/187 days

1900 3101 3301 3401 3501 3601

$ 1,638.00 $ - $ 212.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 157 $ 2,007

Total $ 1,638.00 $ - $ 212.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 157 $ 2,007


20



Local Educational Agency Form 4b—Budget Narrative

FY 2013–14 (Year 1)


CDS Code 41-68940

County San Mateo




Activity Number

(optional)

Component Number(required)

Expenditure Description

List Budget Sub-

Codes



Supplies

Services and Other


Total

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

II-SIG 17

Assessment Specialist - Certificated .35 FTE 187 Days, Cert Salary Schedule Col V, Step 14 $67,293 x .35 FTE

1900 3101 3301 3401 3501 3601

$ 23,553 $ - $ 6,198 $ 500 $ - $ - $ 2,502 $ 32,752

II-SIG 17

Assessment Clerk - Classified - Hourly Classified 180 Day Schedule - Range 5, Step 4 $15.31 x 265 hrs

2403 3202 3302 3502 3602

$ 4,057 $ 1,190 $ - $ - $ - $ 434 $ 5,681

II-SIG 18

SIG Coordinator - Certificated .35 FTE 210 Days, Principal Salary Schedule $91,848 x .35

1900 3101 3301 3401 3501 3601

$ 32,147 $ - $ 7,310 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,263 $ 42,720

II-SIG 19 Translate & Mailout of 1900 $ 280 $ - $ 37 $ - $ 294 $ - $ 50 $ 661 21


Parent & Community Information Materials Translation: $35/hr x 8 hrs Postage: 300 letters x $.49 x 2/yr

3101 3301 3501 3601 5900

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total $ 55,979 $ 4,057 $ 14,735 $ 500 $ 294 $ - $ 6,249 $ 81,815

California Dept. of Education

22

School Improvement Grant, Cohort 3School Form 5a—Budget Summary

District La Honda Pescadero Unified School DistrictSite Pescadero Elementary-Middle SchoolCDS Code 41-68940-6044085County San Mateo Resource: 3180

Contact Sandra Stent SACS Code: 8290

E-mail [email protected] Fed Award:

S377A130006

Telephone (650)879-0286 ext 201 alt: (530) 865-1486 GAN: 13-1234-00000

Object Code Series Line Item Description

Year 0(Pre-Imp.) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

FY 2013–14 FY 2014–15 FY 2015–16 FY 2016–17 1000-1999 Certificated Personnel Salaries $11,795.00 $ 209,298.00 $ 212,806.00 $ 216,314.00

2000-2999 Classified Personal Salaries $ 1,749.00 $ 75,596.00 $ 78,915.00 $ 80,470.00

3000-3999 Employee Benefits $ 2,039.00 $ 88,947.00 $ 90,375.00 $ 91,285.00

4000-4999 Books and Supplies $ 750.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,150.00

5000-5999 Services/Other Operating Expenses

$ 4,498.00 $ 146,759.00 $ 147,023.00 $ 147,285.00

6000-6999 Capital Outlay

7310 / 7350 Indirect Costs $ 1,723.00 $ 50,675.00 $ 51,379.00 $ 51,895.00

Subtotal $ 22,554.00 $ 573,425.00

Total $ 595,979.00 $ 582,648.00 $ 589,399.00

23



School Form 5b—Budget Narrative

FY 2013–14 (Pre-Implementation)


Site Pescadero Elementary-Middle School

CDS Code 41-68940-6044085

County San Mateo



Telephone (650)879-0286 ext 201 alt: (530) 865-1486

Activity Number

(optional)

Component Number(required) Expenditure Description

List Budget Sub-Codes



Supplies

Services and Other


Total

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

II-SIG 18

Summer School - Begins June 23, 2014 4 teachersx7hrsx7daysx$35/hr=$6,860 2 Language Strand Teachers: 2x7hrsx7daysx$35/hr=$3,430 Coordinator $6,000x6/26 days-$1,385 Sustitute Teachers 1daysx$120/day=$120 Clerk -6daysx6hrsx$16.08/hr=$579 Custodial/Bus Driver-6daysx5hrsx$21.01/hr=$630 Enrichment-6daysx$90/day=$540

1100 2200 2400 3101 3202 3301 3302 3501 3502 3601 3602

$ 11,795

$ 1,749

$ 2,039 $ - $

- $

1,289 $ 16,872

II-SIG 18

Summer SchoolInstructional Materials $125/classx6classes=$750 Puente Student Aides: 3 aidesx6hrsx6 daysx$11/hr+14%=$1354

4300 5800 $ - $

750 $

4,498 $ - $ 434 $

5,682

24


Busing: 6 daysx$524/day=$3,144

Total $

11,795 $

1,749 $

2,039 $

750 $

4,498 $ -

$ 1,723

$ 22,554


25


School Form 5b—Budget Narrative

FY 2013–14 (Year 1)


Site Pescadero Elementary-Middle School

CDS Code 41-68940-6044085

County San Mateo




Activity Number

(optional)

Component Number(required) Expenditure Description

List Budget Sub-

Codes



Supplies

Services and Other

Expenses

Capital Outlay

Indirect Costs Total

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

II-SIG 12

K-8 Teacher Incentives $750/FTE $750x17.125 FTE=$12,844 K-8 Instructional Aides $750/FTE $750 x2.875 FTE=$2,157

1100 2100 3101 3202 3301 3302 3501 3502 3601 3602

$12,844 $2,157 $2,295 $0 $0 $1,430 $ 18,726

II-SIG 14

External Provider Comprehensive Professional Development - $30,000 Specialized Professional Development - Common Core, ELD - $10,000 5800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $3,308 $43,308

26


II-SIG 16Preschool - Extend to Full Day Program ECE Training and Professional Development

5800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,400 $0 $116 $1,516

II-SIG 16

Curriculum Development Specialist .5 FTE Cert:Col III, Step 10 $56,125x.5=$28,063

1100 3101 3301 3401 3501 3601

$28,063 $0 $7,539 $0 $0 $0 $2,944 $38,546

II-SIG 16

Single Grades at Elementary 1 FTE Teacher:Col III, Step 6 $49,109 + benefits

1100 3101 3301 3401 3501 3601

$49,109 $0 $15,355 $0 $0 $0 $5,331 $69,795

II-SIG 17

ELD Specialist Certificated: Col IV, Step 10 $58,202+Benefits

1100 3101 3301 3401 3501 3601

$58,202 $0 $16,532 $0 $0 $0 $6,181 $80,914

II-SIG 17

Assessment Program & Materials NWEA Subscription Fee $2,050 Student Materials $150 4300

5800 $0 $0 $0 $150 $2,050 $0 $182 $2,382

II-SIG 18

Summer School Program 4 teachersx7hrsx26daysx$35/hr=$25,480 2 Language Strand Teachers: 2x7hrsx26daysx$35/hr=$12,740 Coordinator $6,000 Substitute Teachers 4daysx$120/day=$480 Clerk - 24daysx6hrsx$16.08/hr=$2,316 Custodial/Bus Driver-24daysx5hrsx$21.01/hr=$2,521 Enrichment-24daysx$90/day=$2,160

1100 2200 2400 3101 3202 3301 3302 3501 3502 3601 3602

$44,700 $6,997 $7,837 $0 $0 $4,923 $64,457

II-SIG 18

Summer SchoolInstructional Materials $250/classx6classes=$1,500 Puente Student Aides: 3 aidesx6hrsx24daysx$11/hr+14%=$5,417 Busing: 24daysx$534/day=$12,816

4300 5800 $0 $1,500 $18,233 $0 $1,632 $21,365

27

II-SIG 18

Experience-Based Learning Community Liaison - Included in Position ELD Consultant:10 Saturdaysx6hrsx$25/hr=$1500 Transportation: 10 trips x $250=$2,500 Fees: 10 x $100=$1,000 Instructional Materials - $500

4300 5800 $0 $0 $0 $500 $5,000 $0 $455 $5,955

II-SIG 18

Monday Morning Enrichment - 5 hourly teachers: 5x2hrsx36weeksx$35/hr=$12,600

1100 3101 3301 3501 3601

$12,600 $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $0 $1,177 $15,407

II-SIG 19

Community Liaison: 221 Days, $36,827 Community Engagement Coordinator: 187 Days, $29,615 Tutor Transportation $5000 Tutor Training $500

2900 3202 3302 3402 3502 3602 5800

$0 $66,442 $37,270 $0 $5,500 $0 $9,032 $118,244

II-SIG 19

Parent Outreach Activities: Parent Conference Translators 5x2/yrx$150/each+mileage $180each=$3,300 Home Visits: School Staff 3x3hrsx12visitsx$35/hr=$3,780 Visit Facilitation:Puente 5hrsx4/yrx$36/hr+14%=820

1100 3101 3301 3501 3601 5800

$3,780 $0 $489 $0 $4,120 $0 $694 $9,083

II-SIG 19Parent Literacy Program Provided by Puente - $60,456 5800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,456 $0 $5,000 $65,456

II-SIG 20

External Provider-$30,000 (Cost in Component II SIG-14) Project Based Ed Tech Consultant $10,000

5800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $8,270 $18,270

Total $209,298 $75,596 $88,947 $2,150 $146,759 $0 $50,675 $573,425


28

SIG Form 6—Demonstration of Capacity

The LEA must demonstrate that it has the capacity to use SIG funds to provide adequate resources and related support to each Tier I and Tier II school identified in the LEAs application in order to implement, fully and effectively, all required components of the school intervention model(s) it has selected. To do this, the LEA must analyze a number of factors, including, but not limited to district and school personnel; curriculum, assessment and instructional support; increased learning time, family and community engagement; social-emotional community-oriented services; school restart; and school closure.

The District and School Improvement Team will need to analyze each item and determine the degree to which the team strongly agrees or strongly disagrees with the statement. Discussion points are included to guide team leaders around possible barriers to implement a required component. Please answer all items to determine the best-fit intervention model for each school. (6 page limit per school.)

District Name: LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTSchool Name: PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE CDS: 41-68940-6044085

District and School Personnel Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to select a new principal for the school(s), with the experience, training, and skills to make school improvements. Discussion: Personnel policies and procedures, principal duty statement

☐ X ☐ ☐

Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to assign effective teachers and leaders to the lowest achieving schools.Discussion: Personnel policies and procedures, bargaining agreements

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Turnaround: Our LEA has the ability to grant the principal sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting). Discussion: District policies and principal’s duties

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Turnaround: Our LEA has the ability to use locally adopted competencies to screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent, and select new staff.Discussion: District policies, bargaining agreements/relationship with union and other stakeholders, current competencies/screening processes

☐ ☐ X ☐

29

Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to develop a rigorous, transparent, and equitable principal and teacher evaluation, designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement that takes into account data on student growth as a significant factor.Discussion: District policies/procedures, bargaining agreements/relationship with union and other stakeholders

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff that have increased student achievement. Discussion: District policies/procedures, bargaining agreements/relationship with union and other stakeholders

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to identify and remove school leaders, teachers, and other staff that have not increased student achievement, after ample opportunities to improve professional practice. Discussion: District policies, bargaining agreements, faculty handbook, MOUs

☐ X ☐ ☐

Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students. Discussion: District policies, bargaining agreements, faculty handbook, current MOUs

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Turnaround: Our LEA has the ability to adopt a new governance structure. Discussion: District policies, and current district and school reporting structure

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting). Discussion: District policies

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to ensure that the school(s) receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support. Discussion: District policies, service agreements with LEA/TA providers

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Curriculum, Assessment, and Instructional Support Strongly Agree


Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to provide staff ongoing, high quality job-embedded professional development that is

X ☐ ☐ ☐

30

designed by staff and aligned with the school’s instructional program. Discussion: District/school policies and procedures, current professional development being provided, current instructional program, analysis of needs/data/research Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with California’s adopted academic standards. Discussion: District/school policies, data infrastructure/system, professional development, analysis of needs/data/research; alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with standards

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to promote the continuous use of student data (such as formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students. Discussion: District/school policies, data infrastructure/system, professional development, teacher collaboration, analysis of needs and student data

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Increased Learning Time Strongly Agree


Turnaround/Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time in the following three areas: (A) Instruction in core academic subjects, (b) Instruction in other subjects and enrichment, (c) Time for teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects. Discussion: Current instructional minutes/school schedule, district/school policies, bargaining agreements, current teacher collaboration and instructional planning

X ☐ ☐ ☐

Social-Emotional and Community-Oriented Services Family and Community Engagement

Strongly Agree


Turnaround: Our LEA has the ability to provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students. Discussion: Current student support services provided, needs of students and families, involvement of community

X ☐ ☐ ☐

31

Transformation: Our LEA has the ability to provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement. Discussion: Current services and communication provided, needs of students and families, involvement of community

☐ X ☐ ☐

School Restart Strongly Agree


Restart: Our LEA has the ability to convert or close and reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization that has been selected through a rigorous process. Discussion: Potential qualified partners/providers, rigorous review process, community support, collective bargaining, contract procedures and provisions

☐ X ☐ ☐

Restart: Our LEA has the ability to enroll, within the grades it serves, all former students who wish to attend the school. Discussion: District policies/procedures, contract procedures and provisions

☐ ☐ X ☐

Restart: Our LEA has the ability to fulfill all California requirements for converting to a charter school. Discussion: Potential operators/organizations, contract/MOU with chartering authority, conversion process

☐ ☐ X ☐

School Closure Strongly Agree


Closure: Our LEA has the ability to close a school and enroll the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. Discussion: District policy/procedures, achievement data, identification of high achieving schools and proximity, collective bargaining, community support/involvement and communication, timeline

☐ ☐ ☐ X

Closure: Our LEA has the ability to support families and students in their transition to a new school. Discussion: District policy/procedures, student and family supports/communication

☐ ☐ ☐ X

Process and ImplementationThe LEA must briefly describe the process it used for completing the needs and capacity analysis (School Performance-

32

Form 4 and Demonstration of Capacity-Form 5) and how it plans to implement all required components fully and effectively by the beginning of the 2014–15 School Year, including required components that may be challenging.

LHPUSD has the capacity to implement required components of the Transformation Model by the start of the 2014-2015 school year. Structures and systems are in place from the Cohort 1 SIG program of 2010-2013. School and district understand the demands of the models and the barriers of implementation. The district and school team conducted a needs and capacity analysis to examine the model elements and determine the capacity of the school and LEA to use school improvement funds to support the needs identified. This needs and capacity analysis included:

1. Review and analysis of the successes and challenges of the Cohort 1 Transformation Model school reform. (See Needs Analysis, 3a for reference to the Sustainability Report)

2. Analysis of student performance data3. Family engagement impact project needs assessment report- John Gardner Center4. Academic Program Survey

5. Needs survey and analysis of PES/MS in 2014-2015. District leadership completed the Demonstration of Capacity (Form 6) in February 2013. Leaders completed the capacity inventory separately and then came together to examine as a team using the discussion points listed on Form 6. Each discussion area was examined and team came to a consensus on each item. Significant hurdles for implementation of the Turnaround, Restart or Closure exist due to the small size of the school district, lack of facility space in other schools, PES/PMS as the only school serving 6 th-8th grade students and distance between schools. Capacity analysis:

District and School Personnel:IN PLACE

Effective principal in place to lead school improvement. Effective, highly trained teachers and leaders are in place at PES/PMS Sufficient operational flexibility exists for school leadership Rigorous teacher evaluation is in place which takes into account student growth as a significant factor and is

supportive of teacher improvement. Identification and recognition of staff who work to improve student performance Small size of school makes efficient change of governance, staffing structures and policies possible

Barrier (Transformation/Turnaround): Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain high quality staffSolution: Continue to improve teacher salaries (lowest in San Mateo County) and provide financial incentives for working

33

in Pescadero. Salaries have been increased by 10% in the past three years. (General Fund funding)Barrier (Turnaround): Screen and rehire no more than 50%, and select new staff. District too small to replace 50% of staff. Only one 6-8 school in the district leaves no option to replace staff. Solution: No viable solution. Insufficient staff to screen and rehire only 50% of existing staff. Insufficient middle school staff in place to replace 50%. Collective Bargaining Agreement and tenure protects teachers’ right to employment in the district. Teachers are not seen as a barrier to success at PES/PMS.Barrier (Transformation): Student performance data is not incorporated into principal evaluation.Solution: Utilize data profile for school-wide performance and incorporate into principal evaluation using teacher evaluation as a model.

Curriculum, Assessment, Instructional Support High quality, job-embedded professional development model is in place with LEAD, The Charles A. Dana Center Regular and formative benchmarking is in place using CCSS-aligned NWEA assessment Data chats and class and student profiles generated after each benchmark and analyzed by staff

Increased Learning Time Saturday School, Intersession and Summer School were in place 2010-2013. The structure and associated policies

are in place to continue including job descriptions, pay schedules, curriculum.

Social-Emotional and Community-Oriented Services-Family EngagementLEA partnership with Puente de la Costa Sur for mental health, prevention, youth support is in place.Barrier (Transformation): Additional support needed for parent education, literacy and family engagementSolution: Partner with Puente to provide wraparound support services for families in the area of literacy development, family engagement and homework support.

School RestartNo ability to close a school or reopen as a charter. School is only K-8 in the district and the closest school is a 30 minute drive away. Barrier: Community support exists for the transition of Pescadero Elementary and Middle School to a district-led charter but the small size of the school and district are hurdles to implementation. No solution recommended. School ClosureBarrier: LHPUSD lacks facility space to enroll PES/MS in alternate district schools. No solution recommended.

34

C. Selection of Intervention Model(s) (Required) (Forms 7, 7a)

Based on the findings of the needs analysis, the LEA must describe its rationale for selecting the intervention model for each school and how specific findings from the needs analysis led to the LEAs selection of the intervention model for each school. Include collaborative partners involved and their roles in the selection process. The LEA must include the selected intervention model in the appropriate Implementation Chart (Form 10 for each Tier I and Tier II school) that the LEA intends to serve.

35

SIG Form 7—Analysis and Selection of the Intervention ModelDescribe how specific findings from the needs and capacity analysis (School Performance-Form 3a and Demonstration of Capacity-Form 6) led to the LEA’s selection of the intervention model. The LEA must provide the analysis and rationale for selecting the intervention model for each school. In addition, the LEA must provide an analysis and rationale for not selecting the other three intervention models for each school. Enter the LEA’s intervention model selection on Form 2- List of Schools.

District Name: La Honda Pescadero Unified School DistrictSchool Name: Pescadero Elementary Middle School CDS: 41-68940-6044085

Model Selected Model Analysis and Rationale Analysis and Rationale for Models Not Selected

Turnaround Summary of findings: Turnaround Model lacks parent/community support as they do not see teachers as the “problem”. The small size of the district makes this model a less effective intervention for the school. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Ed Code does not allow for replacement of teachers. Transferring teachers between two elementary schools will destabilize both programs.With only one district program 6-8, no teacher replacement is possible.In needs assessment, staff reported as willing to implement new materials, new strategies and take part in professional development.

Transformation

Model allows the flexibility a small school needs to implement reform. Positive parent and community energy around components of model.Model addresses key finding of needs analysis including support for English learners and family engagement.Staff expressed willingness and openness to professional development and implementation of

36

new strategies.Staff has addressed contractual requirements of the evaluation component of Transformation model.Cons Identified:District negotiations would have to be in place to outline merit pay and evaluation procedures.Summary of Findings:Transformation Model addresses key needs of analysis – improving teacher/leader effectiveness, comprehensive instructional reform, promotion of use of data, meaningful family/community engagement and providing time for intensive instructional interventions.

Restart Summary of Findings: The small size of school and district are hurdles to implementation. Pros: Flexibility in state/federal regulations. LHPUSD could act as CBO. Cons Identified: Small size of school raises concerns about financial viability in charter model.Quick turnaround of charter application and petition and lack of necessary infrastructure to accomplish the necessary conversion to open school on day 1 under new charter.

Closure Alternate space does not exist in district to house students from Pescadero Elementary Middle School. No community or district support to close.

37

Form 8-Sustainment of Reforms

LEA: La Honda-Pescadero Unified School DistrictSchool: Pescadero Elementary and Middle School

Area of Sustainability 2017 - 18 2018 - 19 2019 - 20

Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness

may include, but not limited to: - staff replacement - teacher and principal evaluation - identifying and rewarding staff - ongoing professional development - recruit, place, and retain

July 2017:Convene a committee to evaluate effectiveness of the required components and make recommendations for continued key activities. Determine key areas for sustainability and align resources. This process was completed in October 2013 and key services and required components were supported through distict general funding for the current year. August 2017: Utilize Title II funding to provide coaching to principal to support leader effectiveness. February 2018-Evaluate effectiveness of External Provider through ongong teacher surveys. These surveys are currently in place and used to evaluate EP efectiveness yearly and determine focus areas for following year. April 2018:Align parcel tax funding for professional development to replace SIG funding. April 2018: Sunshine Article 12-Evaluation on a yearly basis to refine language and ensure that policy is being followed with fidelity.

October 2018: Complete MOU for teacher evaluation components (data inclusion) February 2019: Conduct teacher survey to evaluate professional development and instructional program. February 2019: Begin budget and LCAP process. Incorporate teacher input into budget priorities. April 2019: Align Title II and Parcel Tax funding with professional development plan. April 2019: Sunshine evaluation Article 12

October 2018: Complete MOU for teacher evaluation components (data inclusion) February 2019: Conduct teacher survey to evaluate professional development and instructional program. February 2019: Begin budget and LCAP process. Incorporate teacher input into budget priorities. April 2019: Align Title II and Parcel Tax funding with professional development plan. April 2019: Sunshine evaluation Article 12

38

Comprehensive instructional reform strategies

may include, but not limited to: - modified instructional program - use of student data

August 2017: Conduct review of Common Core aligned texts once released using established adoption process. August 2017: Analyze SBAC growth and determine areas in need of critical follow up. September- March 2018 Utilize SBAC formative assessments to gauge progress towards goals. Adjust interventions as required. Utilize general fund and supplemental funds to support instructional program.

August 2018: Conduct review of Common Core aligned texts once released using established adoption process. August 2018 Analyze SBAC growth and determine areas in need of critical follow up. September- March 2019 Utilize SBAC formative assessments to gauge progress towards goals. Adjust interventions as required.

August 2019: Conduct review of Common Core aligned texts

once released using established adoption process. August 2019: Analyze SBAC

growth and determine areas in need of critical follow up. September- March 20120

Utilize SBAC formative assessments to gauge

progress towards goals. Adjust interventions as required.

Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools

may include, but not limited to: - schedules and strategies that provide ILT - family and community engagement - social emotional support

July 2017-August 2017 Survey parents and teachers regarding the effectiveness of ILT. Ensure that Sustainability Report Team reviews this data to make sound recommendations for future ILT. Seek funding for continuing Panther Camp as deemed critical by data collection. Possible funding sources include private foundations, Parcel Tax, Supplemental Funding. September 2017: Review effectiveness of parent engagement efforts under SIG including but not limited to Community Liaison, Community Engagement, peer tutoring and parent education. Partner with Puente to gather data and develop funding model using shared funds. Incorporate key findings in the LCAP process.

July 2018 Review attendance data and achievement data for students attending ILT. Allocate resources for ILT that is producing positive results. Seek funding for continuing Panther Camp as deemed critical by data collection. Possible funding sources include private foundations, Parcel Tax, Supplemental Funding. September 2018 Review effectiveness of parent engagement efforts under previous year partnership with Puente. Renew MOU with Puente to provide shared services.

July 2019 Review attendance data and achievement data for

students attending ILT. Allocate resources for ILT that is producing positive results. Seek funding for continuing Panther Camp as deemed critical by data collection. Possible funding sources

include private foundations, Parcel Tax, Supplemental

Funding. September 2019 Review effectiveness of parent

engagement efforts under previous year partnership with

Puente. Renew MOU with Puente to provide shared

services.

39

Operational flexibility and sustained support

may include, but not limited to: - sufficient operating flexibility - ongoing, intensive, technical assistance

July-August 2017 Convene a committee to develop the sustainability report (see above). In the gap analysis, gather data in regards to the need for ongoing technical assistance and in what areas. Interview External Provider to gather data about district from outside provider. Conduct the District Assistance Survey (DAS) for clear, comprehensive needs assessment. August 2017: Hold meeting with school and district staff to ensure that school has sufficient support in the next three years. Support includes but is not limited to: Data collection and analysis, budgeting, scheduling interventions, maintaining EL services.

July-August 2018 Revierw the results of the previous year DAS and make any changes or updates. August 2018: Hold meeting with school and district staff to ensure that school has sufficient support for the year. Review performance results and ensure school and district resources are aligned to needs. Support includes but is not limited to: Data collection and analysis, budgeting, scheduling interventions, maintaining EL services.

July-August 2018 Revierw the results of the previous year DAS and make any changes or updates. August 2018: Hold meeting with school and district staff to ensure that school has sufficient support for the year. Review performance results and ensure school and district resources are aligned to needs. Support includes but is not limited to: Data collection and analysis, budgeting, scheduling interventions, maintaining EL services.

California Dept. of EducationNovember 20, 2013

40

SIG Form 7a—Consultation with Relevant StakeholdersThe LEA must consult with relevant stakeholders such as students, parents, educators, and the community regarding the LEA’s application. To fulfill this requirement, LEAs must hold at least two public meetings to consult with staff, parents, and the community regarding the LEAs application, and its selection and development of one of the four intervention models for its Tier I and II schools (per Education Code Section 53202(b)). Please include original copies of the confirmation form for each school for which the LEA is applying. The LEA must provide documentation that such meetings were held (e.g., meeting agenda or meeting minutes), provide a summary of input obtained through these meetings, indicate which input was incorporated into the LEA’s SIG application, and provide a rationale for not accepting any input that the LEA rejected. Please only provide documentation for two public meetings.

Consultation with Relevant Stakeholder Confirmation

District Name: LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTSchool Name: PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL CDS: 41-68940- 6044085Meeting Date: March 6, 2014 6:00-8:00 PM Meeting Location: Pescadero Elementary Middle SchoolMeeting Purpose: To collect parent input to be considered throughout the application process for the SIG 2014.

Name Title/Position Representing DateYesenia Serratos Parent Family 3/6/2014

Vicente Vazquez Parent Family 3/6/2014

Dalia S. Parent Family 3/6/2014Maria S. Corona Parent Family 3/6/2014Shannon Webb Parent Family 3/6/2014Lucia Hernandez Parent Family 3/6/2014Olga Lopez Parent Family 3/6/2014Yadira Herrera Community Liaison LHPUSD 3/6/2014Marcela Vargas Parent Family 3/6/2014Patty Cruickshank Assessment Specialist LHPUSD 3/6/2014Patricia Talbot Principal LHPUSD 3/6/2014Lindsay Alsadir Parent PES 3/6/2014Shawnie Coffey Parent / Aide PES / PMS 3/6/2014Andy Lagow Staff LHPUSD 3/6/2014Erica Hays Admin PES 3/6/2014

41

Summary of meeting: Please provide brief summary of input obtained from meeting. Indicate input incorporated into LEA’s SIG application, and provide a rationale for not accepting any input that the LEA rejected. (1 page limit per meeting per school.)LHPUSD held two community meetings, one daytime and one evening to maximize community input and participation. Minutes are included in the Attachment. Additional meetings were held with staff and interviews with key stakeholders. The input from the two public meetings is included in this report per Form 7a directions. Parents were notified of the meetings through phone calls, e-mails and written notice. Dinner was served at the evening meeting to increase participation. Parents who could not attend, provided input through e-mail. Parents were in favor of the components of the Transformation Model due to the flexibility of the model. Parents recognized the difficulty of implementing Restart, Closure or Turnaround with the limited infrastructure and resources of LHPUSD. A summary of the input is below. Parents are positive about the reforms put in place during the past SIG Cohort 1 effort but designate family engagement, school schedules and class configurations, refinement of academic intervention for struggling students and differentiated learning for all students as areas of continued need. Summary of comments:School Structure: Single grade level classrooms, rather than the current combination class configuration, are needed to help focus on the basics and support teachers in learning/integrating the Common Core Standards. Ongoing technology maintenance and utilization is needed. Preparation time for teachers is crucial - parents liked the physical education and garden classes of Cohort 1. ILT: Parents support summer school in lieu of the Saturday and intersession as they were not rigorous enough. Some parents expressed a desire for essentially two programs – one for struggling students and one for enrichment with crossover activities for part of the day.Curriculum and Instruction: Parents want to see the reading and math interventions continue. They’d like intervention for social studies and science, too. Many said more support and supervision for this would be helpful – peer and community tutors, additional adults in the ASES programs, older students mentoring younger ones. Parents would like to see a broader curriculum reflecting different cultures. School Culture: Parents would like to see uniforms in the schools, especially middle school. Parents would like to continue the No Bully program as bullying is still occurring and negatively impacting students. Family Engagement: Overwhelming support for home visiting program conducted under SIG Cohort 1. Need for additional parent education and language classes to support parents support their children.

The following input was incorporated into the Transformation Model:Peer tutoring, single-grade classrooms, broader curriculum for all learners (project-based learning), home visiting, rigorous ILT, Reading intervention, ELD intervention, parent literacy education, continued strengthening of Middle School after-school program, low expectations, Panther Camp (ILT), homework support (Community Engagement Coord), Parent outreach and communication, technology support, community liaison, teacher prep time,

Not incorporated:Need for more space: District is converting unused space to classroom space. Bullying programs: District will continue funding No Bully.

42

La Honda inclusion: Funds not designated for La Honda Elementary

District Name: LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTSchool Name: PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL CDS: 41-68940Meeting Date: March 7, 2014 8:30-9:00 AM Coffee & Donuts Meeting Location:Pescadero Elementary Middle SchoolMeeting Purpose: To collect parent input to be considered throughout the application process for the SIG 2014.

Name Title/Position Representing DateElaine Bahr Parent / Teacher Family / PMS 3/6/2014

Maria Corona Parent Family 3/6/2014

D. Geraci. Teacher / Community member Self 3/6/2014

Maria S. Corona Parent Family 3/7/2014Andy Lagow Staff Self 3/6/2014

Patty Cruickshank Assessment Specialist LHPUSD 3/6/2014Patricia Talbot Principal LHPUSD 3/6/2014Erica Hays Admin PES 3/6/2014

Summary of meeting: Please provide brief summary of input obtained from meeting. Indicate input incorporated into LEA’s SIG application, and provide a rationale for not accepting any input that the LEA rejected. (1 page limit per meeting per school.)

On next page

43

Overall – Hire more tutors for increased focus on struggling students and less pullouts from the regular classroom for interventions. Strengthen the foundation (the basics) before adding any extras. Address GATE issues more fully (expand to all grade levels). Build in intervention time to master schedule, rework the schedule so that half an hour per day is allocated for intervention classes. Consolidate enrichment to a couple of days per week.

Public input Incorporated into SIGYes or No: Rationale for yes

Rationale for not incorporating

AL: Would like to see more tutors for one-to-one support

Peer-tutoring is a cost effective strategy for academic support. Additional instructional aides will be available for individual and classroom support. Community tutoring program will be planned

PB: Would like to see the 5th grades of Pescadero and La Honda continue to be integrated.

A district logistical issue due to facilities

PT: Would like to see 5th grade integrated in Pescadero

A district logistical issue due to facilities

EB: Would like to see increased family engagement.

The community liaison position created under SIG Cohort 1, will continue. In addition, the parent-school compact will be revised to reflect need for greater family engagement.

EB: Would like to see increased integration, project-based learning at middle school.

Yes: The master schedule will be revised to incorporate more support for all core subjects. ILT will have a greater emphasis on project-based learning and integration of all core subject areas.

EB: Would like to see more resources go to middle school science to engage students in learning.

Yes: The master schedule will be revised to incorporate more support for all core subjects. ILT will have a greater emphasis on project-based learning and integration of all core subject areas.

All: Would like to see increased services for students struggling in middle school.

Yes: The master schedule will be revised to incorporate more support for all core subjects.

CC: Would like more tutors for struggling students.

Peer-tutoring is a cost effective strategy for academic support. Additional instructional aides will be available for individual and classroom support. Community tutoring program will be planned for after-school and ILT.

EB: Would like to maximize technology to support students either on the bus during long commutes to school or in the classrooms.

Integration of technology will be a PD focus for teachers.

CC: Would like school to emphasize the basics before adding extras.

Yes: Basics of ELA and Math will be addressed. No: More integration of core subject support

PT: Would like to rework the master schedule to incorporate time for intervention

Yes: The master schedule will be revised to incorporate more support for all core subjects.

44

classes at 6th-8th so that all students get what they need.

45

D. Modify Local Educational Agencies Practices or Policies (Required)

Depending on the intervention model(s) selected, the LEA may need to revise some of its current policies, protocols, and practices to enable its schools to implement the interventions fully and effectively. These may include, but are not limited to: collective bargaining agreements, the distribution of resources among schools, parental involvement policies and practices, school attendance areas and enrollment policies, and agreements with charter organizations and other external service providers.

Instructions: If the LEA anticipates the need to modify any of its current practices, protocols, or policies in order to fully implement the selected intervention model(s), it must identify and describe which policies and practices need to be revised, the process for revision, and a description of the proposed revision, including timelines. Revised Policies, Protocols and/or practices

Description of and Process for the Revision

Timeline of the Revision

Length of day and year for PreSchoolPolices: PreSchool Contract with San Mateo County Office of Education

Board approved academic calendar.

Collective Bargaining Agreements (see below)

Consult with County Office of Ed to change current PreK contract from half-day programming to full-day programming.

Determine maximum number of days required under SMCOE contract and align with school calendar for 2014-2015. Board adopts calendarApply for ‘Full-Day’ PreK slots from California Dept of Ed.Inform parents of the change from half-day to full-day program.

March 2014

March-April 2014

March-June 2014

March-August 2014

Collective Bargaining Agreement- California Teachers’ Association

Increase the work year, salary and compensation for Early Childhood Educators from 175 days to 208

July 2014

Collective Bargaining Agreement- CSEA

Increase the work year, salary and compensation for Early Childhood Paraeducators

July 2014

Collective Bargaining Agreement-CTA

Increase the school year for teachers from 187-190

July 2014

Collective Bargaining Agreement- CSEA

Develop and submit for approval- Job description for Community Engagement position

August 2014

46

Successful applicants will be required to revise their LEA Plan and Single Plan for Student Achievement, as appropriate, for each funded school upon approval of the application by the SBE.

E. Align Other Resources with the Selected Intervention Models (Required)

The LEA must identify all federal, state, or private resources that are currently available to the school(s) that will be used to support implementation of the selected intervention model(s), including other district resources and services provided by the district and/or collaborative partners. The LEA must describe the LEAs process for ensuring that these resources will be coordinated with SIG funding to ensure maximum effectiveness in the use of all resources.

An LEA might use a number of other resources, in addition to its SIG funds, to implement the approved school intervention model(s). For example, an LEA might use school improvement funds it receives under Section 1003(a) of ESEA. The LEA might also use its general Title I, Part A funds as well as funds it receives under other ESEA authorities, such as Title II, Part A, which it could use for recruiting high-quality teachers, or Title III, Part A, which it could use to improve the English proficiency of English learner students.

Please use the table below to identify state, local, and other federal resources available for supporting full implementation of the selected intervention model.

Alignment of Other ResourcesAvailable Resources

that will Support School Improvement Grant

Implementation(Federal, State, Local)

Description of how School Improvement Grant funds

will Supplement, not Supplant Currently

Available Resources.

Alignment to Needs Analysis and Intervention

Model

Title I: $16,855 total

$8000.00 Academic interventions for 6th-8th grade students

$2300.00 Parent Communication

Academic intervention will continue during the school day through Title I and will be supplemented by Community-based and peer tutoring program during after-school and advisory programs.

Additional funds are sought from SIG to expand communication strategies

Tool # 2Needs Analysis Page 15Need for 6th-8th grade academic support

Specific Intervention Model Component:II-SIG17, II-SIG 19

Tool #3 page 16Specific Intervention Model Component: II SIG

47

Title II: $10,191Professional development for teachers and administrators

Title III: $14,458Language support for English Learners

using technology, provide adult education to strengthen parent literacy skills and strengthen home-to-school connections through home visiting program and trained interpretation

Title II funds will continue to support professional development. SIG funds are sought to expand external provider services and lengthen the school year by 3 professional development days to increased teacher training opportunity.

Title III funds will continue to be allocated for ELD pull out and support. Additional SIG funds are sought to supplement services with an ELD Specialist to provide:Analysis of student data to plan increased services to English Learners and high quality, job-embedded professional development for teachers working with English Learners through workshops, model lessons and co-teaching.

After-school programming will continue using existing ASES funds. SIG funds are sought to enhance the after-school program through integration of subject matter, community-based and peer tutoring.

II-SIG 19

Needs Analysis Page 16 Tool #4

Specific Intervention Model Component: II-SIG 14

Needs Analysis Page #:15-16 Tools #2 and 4 Additional language support necessary to meet AMAO’sSpecific Intervention Model Component: II SIG-14, IISIG-16

Needs Analysis Page #15 Tool 1

Specific Intervention Model Component: II SIG-16, II SIG-19

Needs Analysis Page #: 15 Tool 2

48

EPA: $66,880Release teacher and instructional support for K-5

The 2014-2015 funds for EPA will continue to support a teacher over the ratio to provide collaboration time for teachers. Additional SIG funds are sought to provide additional staff over the ratio to reduce class sizes and provide single grade classrooms K-5. Proposed budget plans for one SIG-funded teacher over the ratio for reducing class size and combo classes and one LHPUSD funded position for same reason. Both are new positions.

Needs analysis Page 15. Tool #2Specific Intervention Model Component: II SIG-16

F. Annual School Goals for Student Achievement (Required) Each participating LEA must establish clear, measurable, and challenging goals for student achievement in reading/language arts, mathematics, and high school graduation rates (if applicable). In lieu of CST scores from STAR tests that will not be administered in 2014, LEAs and schools should use multiple local measures to evaluate how SIG goals are being met. These local measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: district ELA, math and other subject benchmark assessments; curriculum-imbedded assessments; performance measures imbedded in supplemental technology-based instructional programs and applications; local pilot measures for Common Core standards being implemented in classrooms; and other valid and reliable assessments of reading acquisition skills, writing skills, and math skills, and meaningful performance assessments of student learning. This may include other State assessments, where available. Use the format below to describe annual goals that will be used to monitor Tier I and Tier II school(s) identified in this application.

Annual Goals for Mathematics

49

School-wide, Grade Level or

Subgroup

Current Proficiency

Rate

Goal for2014–15

School Year

Goal for2015–16

School Year

Goal for2016–17

School YearKindergarten No baseline 25% 35% 45%

1st No baseline 30% 40% 50%2nd No baseline 35% 45% 55%3rd 38% 48% 58% 68%4th 50% 60% 70% 80%5th 37% 47% 57% 67% 6th 45% 55% 65% 75%7th 48% 58% 68% 78%8th 11% 21% 31% 41%

Local Measure: Measure of Academic Progress-Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Fall 2013 (GradesK-8)

Annual Goals for English-Language Arts/Reading

School-wide, Grade Level or Subgroup

Current Proficiency Rate

Goal for2014–15

School Year

Goal for2015–16

School Year

Goal for2016–17

School YearKindergarten DRA (no baseline)

SixTraits 5% 25%15%

35%25%

45%35%

1st DRA 61%Six Traits 39%CELDT 100%

71% 49%100%

81% 59% 100%

91% 69%100%

2nd DRA 47%Six Traits 50%CELDT 21%

57% 60%31%

67% 77%41%

77% 87%51%

3rd NWEA 19%DRA 53%

SixTraits 77%CELDT 42%

29% 53%87%52%

39% 63%97%62%

49% 73%100%72%

4th NWEA 43%DRA 57%

SixTraits 29%%CELDT 30%

53% 67%39%40%

63%77%49%50%

73% 87%59%60%

5th NWEA 37%SixTraits 42%CELDT 73%

52% 83%

62%93%

72%100%

6th NWEA 32%SixTraits (no baseline)

CELDT 0%

42% 25%10%

52%35%20%

62%45%30%

7th NWEA 33%SixTraits (no baseline)

43%30%

53%40%

63%50%

50

CELDT 58% 68% 78% 88%8th NWEA 14%

SixTraits (no baseline)CELDT 13%

24%35%23%

34%45%33%

44%55%43%

Local Measure: Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Grades K-2 NorthWest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Grades 3-8 Six Traits Writing Grades K-8 (Proficiency is measured by a jury-scored writing

with a score of 3.5 or higher) California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Grades 1-8 for ELs

only (Proficiency means students have progressed one or more levels in a year) AMAO 1- Percentage of ELs making progress in learning English. AMAO 2-Percentage of ELs attaining English proficient level on CELDT. 2013-14 Targets: AMAO 1 = 59% AMAO 2 = 22.8% (Less than 5 yr cohort); 49% (5 yr or more cohort)

Annual Goals for Graduation Rate (if applicable)

School-wide or Subgroup

Current Graduation

Rate

Goal for2014–15 School

Year

Goal for2015–16 School

Year

Goal for2016–17

School Year

NA

Local Measure:

G. Sustain the Reforms After the Funding Period Ends (Required) (Form 8)

SIG funding provided through this application must be expended by September 30, 2017. Each applicant must demonstrate how it plans to sustain the selected intervention(s) after the funding period ends and include all the resources that will be used to support sustainability efforts for each participating school. Form 8 Sustainability of the Reforms should be accessed at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp

H. Recruitment, Screening, and Selection of External Providers(Sections I and/or II)

51


Section I (Restart Model Only- Required). If the LEA wishes to contract with a charter school operator, a CMO, or an EMO to implement the restart model, it must select that charter school operator, CMO, or EMO through a “rigorous review process.” In addition, the LEA must be able to demonstrate, as part of its commitment to obtain SIG funds, that it can sustain the services of the CMO or EMO and any attendant fee after the SIG funds are no longer available (Sections I.A.4(a)(vi) and II.A.2(a)(iv)) and include a budget for each school it intends to serve that identifies any fee (Section II.A.2(a)(vi)). Please use the table below to complete this section.

Instructions: Describe the rigorous review process the LEA used, or will use to ensure that the charter school operator, CMO, or EMO is qualified to assist the LEA in making meaningful changes and implementing comprehensive reform. In demonstrating its rigorous review process, this description should explain how the LEA:

Examined, or plans to examine prospective plans and strategies; Will ensure that the provider has a meaningful plan for contributing to the

reform efforts in the target school; Will determine whether or not the proposed plan demonstrates full capacity to

(1) implement strategies and services proposed, and (2) begin full implementation at the start of the 2014-15 school year; and

Will sustain the services of the CMO or EMO and any attendant fee after the SIG funds are no longer available.

Response:

Not Applicable

Additional suggested supporting document(s), or attachments include, but are not limited to, evidence of a pool of potential partners that have expressed an interest in and have exhibited an ability to restart a school in which the LEA proposes to implement the restart model; letter(s) of intent from potential partners; recruitment, screening, and selection criteria; Request for Proposal (RFP); provider evaluation plan; timelines, etc.

Resources that may be used to assist the applicant with this section:

Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (see sections C-1,2,3,4,5,9,10; H-19; j-8,9,12).

Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 208/Thursday, October 28, 2010. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-28/pdf/2010-27313.pdf.

Guide to Working with External Providers, American Institute for Research: http://www.air.org/files/External_Providers_Guide.pdf.

52

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-28/pdf/2010-27313.pdf

Section II (All Models-If Applicable, can Include Restart). If the LEA intends to use external entities to provide technical assistance in selecting, planning, developing, and implementing any component of the four intervention models, it must describe its process for ensuring their quality.

Instructions: Describe the actions the LEA has taken, or will take to recruit, screen, and select external providers. Include in this description the following elements:

Specific selection criteria used, such as experience, qualifications, and record of effectiveness in providing support for school improvement.

An indication of whether or not the external provider has previously provided support to the LEA and/or school, or whether this is a new external provider to the LEA.

A brief description of the scope of work, or services the LEA will receive from the external provider.

Applicants planning to continue with the same external provider should include evidence of the provider’s effectiveness to date. This evidence should be based on local measures, policies, practices, and/or protocols.

Please use the table below to complete this section.1. Specific selection criteria used to recruit, screen, and select external providers:

In the 2010-2011 school year, LHPUSD formed a External Provider Selection Committee of three administrators and five teachers. This committee was responsible for the recruitment, screening and selection of an external provider. The LEA employed the process as outlined by the SIG ToolKit from the Center on Innovation and Improvement and the Guide to Working External Partners from Learning Point Associates.

The characteristics of successful external providers were carefully analyzed. To ensure that the LEA selected the most appropriate provider, the LEA adopted the following research-based characteristics of successful providers. As identified by Hassel, B.H., & Steiner, L. (2004) in the Guide to working with external providers. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/ExternalProviders.pdf [Note: the preceding Web address is no longer valid.]these five characteristics show up most frequently in the research regarding high quality providers:

Aligned with established goals. All plans and activities should be aligned with goals that were established by the school or district during the needs assessment and school or district improvement processes.

Part of a long-term strategy. The provider’s services should be offered as part of a long term strategy for improved student learning. The

53

provider should be candid about the fact that making changes to affect student learning is a complex and difficult task that takes time.

Customized. The provider should be prepared to tailor its approach to the school or district’s unique circumstances and needs. It should have a viable plan to get buy-in from key stakeholders.

Research-based. The provider’s approach should be backed by evidence that it gets the desired results in similar circumstances. Ideally, this evidence should come from scientific research, but often no such research exists. In such cases, evidence could take the form of strong anecdotes of effectiveness, references from successful users of the approach, and other indications the approach is “best practice.”

Capacity building. All services should be delivered with a strategy for training the school or district to be able to practice and assess these skills independently. The provider should have a plan for building capacity at the school or district level and evidence that it has accomplished this goal in the past. These capacity-building services could take the form of a trainer-of-trainers model, annual “brush-up” trainings, and/or co development of services with a site-based professional development design team.

Over the course of three months, the committee worked together to: Review the research and determine needs Develop an RFP reflective of the needs of the school Screen applicants Develop the interview and selection protocol Select an External Provider-LEAD in April 2011

LEAD was selected out of a field of five other interviewed providers and over 20 applications. Each application was read by at least all members and scored against rubric criteria. It was established at the start of the process that each committee member would have an equal voice and vote in the process. The Superintendent then negotiated the contract with the provider and set a calendar of service.

2. LEA actions it has taken, or will take to recruit, screen, and select external providers:The LEA will continue with the services that LEAD has provided over the past three years.

3. External Provider

Brief Description of the Proposed Scope of Work, or Services to be Provided

Contract or Service

Agreement Status

*Evidence of Effectiveness

to Date

LEAD-Leading for Equity and

The LEAD Team’s work is researched-based (M. Schmoker, R. DuFour, R.

Continuing Increased subject-matter integration in

54

Achievement Design

Marzano, L. Ainsworth). LEAD conducts:-Monthly professional development sessions with teachers focused on developing units of study for Common Core instruction. -Classroom observations with principals (at least twice a year)-Facilitation of peer classroom observations (at least once a year),-Teacher and administrator interviews (once a year), and, -Feedback at all staff development meetings (monthly) allowing the Team to gather essential information.

Information analysis by LEAD is ongoing to ensure strengthening instructional strategies to increase student achievement. The LEAD Team also gives further support by coaching the school principals and the District superintendent on a weekly to monthly basis.

lesson presentation.

Development of Power Standards and formative assessments.

Increased structured ELD instruction and lesson study. Development of ELD “I Cans”.

Increased student engagement as evidenced by classroom observations.

Increased use of checking for understanding and reteaching strategies as observed by LEAD and principals.

Increased use of on-going monitoring of student mastery as observed by “I Can” walls.

Increased use of formative assessments as observed by “I Can” walls.

55

Additional suggested supporting document(s), or attachments include, but are not limited to, evidence of a pool of potential partners that have exhibited an ability to assist the LEA/school(s) with selecting, planning, developing, and implementing any component of the four intervention models; letter(s) of intent from potential partners; RFP; provider evaluation documents and/or evaluation plan; timelines, etc.Resources that may be used to assist the applicant with this section:

Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (see sections E-13; H19, 19a; J-9,12).

Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 208/Thursday, October 28, 2010. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-28/pdf/2010-27313.pdf.

Guide to Working with External Providers, American Institute for Research: http://www.air.org/files/External_Providers_Guide.pdf.

56

http://www.air.org/files/External_Providers_Guide.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-28/pdf/2010-27313.pdf

SIG Form 10.2 - Transformation Implementation Chart for a Tier I or Tier II School

LEA: La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District Date: March 14, 2014

School: Pescadero Elementary and Middle School

Required Components Strategies Start & End Dates

(MM/YYYY) Oversight Description of Evidence

II-SIG 10: Replace the principal who led the school prior to the commencement of the transformation model. COMPLETE

Principal Replacement*

March 2010- LEA replaced Principal Able with Principal Pat Talbot as a required component of the SIG Cohort 1 Transformation Model. In March of 2012 Principal Talbot was reassigned to another school in the district as part of a separate reform effort but worked with incoming Principal Erica Hays (as Director) for the 2012-2013 school year to transition leadership. In 2013-2014, Principal Erica Hays was promoted to the position of Principal

03/2010 to the present

Sup'tBoard Minutes from the meeting of 03/2010

Principal namePat Talbot 2010-2013 Erica Hays 2012-current- 1 year overlap to provide necessary support.

Hire date 7/1/2010 7/1/2012

Original Hire Date: 8/20/2002 Promotion to Principal: 8/1/2013

57

*LEAs that retain a principal hired within the last 2 years should be able to demonstrate that: (1) the prior principal in the school at issue was replaced as part of a broader reform effort, and (2) the new principal has the experience and skills needed to implement successfully a turnaround, restart, or transformation model.

II-SIG 11: Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor that are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement. - COMPLETE

Principal and teacher

involvement

LHPUSD Teachers' Association and District sunshine negotiating initial proposals. District opens Article 12-Evaluation

Apr-10CTA Leadership,

Sup't Initial proposal

LHPUSD Teachers' Association and district hold negotiations

May-10CTA Leadership,

Sup't Meeting agenda

New article drafted which incorporates the use of data on student growth as a significant factor

05/2010 to 11/2010CTA Leadership,

Sup't Article 12

LHPUSD Teachers' Association proposes The Danielson Group, Framework for Teaching as a new evaluation framework replacing existing teaching standards.

05/2010 to 11/2010CTA Leadership,

Sup't Article 12

Article 12 approved by teachers and Board

May-12CTA Leadership,

Sup't Tentative Agreeement

58

Article 12 reopened by district in 2012-2013 negotiations for language refinement

Dec-12CTA Leadership,

Sup't Initial proposal

Article 12 ratified by teachers and district with language revisions

Aug-13CTA Leadership,

Sup't Tentative Agreeement

Data on student growth Data profile for use in evaluation developed using CST data

Nov-11 Sup't Data Profile

Data profile developed for school achievement to be used for Principal evaluation

May-14 Sup't School Data Profile

Multiple observation-

based assessments

Danielson Group Framework for Teaching adopted

May-12 Board Article 12

Principals trained in Framework for Teaching rubric

Sep-13 Sup't/ Principals

Principals completed the Teachscape training which includes a 3 hour exam at the completion. Certification of Completion

Initial observations conductedDec-13

Principals and teachers Observation schedule

Observable teaching evidence collected by administrator conducting evaluation including student engagement, assessment and questioning techniques, management of student procedures

Dec-13 to presentPrincipals and

teachers Observation notes

59

Evaluation conferences held between principal and teacher02/2014 to 05/2014

Principals and teachers Summary evaluations

Evaluation handbooks developed and disseminated to staffNov-13 Sup't Eval handbook

Subscriptions for teacher training purchased for all staff.Nov-13 Sup't invoice and purchase order

Meet with all principals and district staff to debrief first year of implementation of new rubric and determine data points for following year.

Aug-14 Sup't Meeting agenda

Ongoing collections of professional

practice

Implement Danielson Group Framework for Teaching. As a significant part of the evaluation process, observers collect and document observable evidence of teaching practice inclusing but not limited to student achievement, student engagement, questioning strategies, student management.

Dec-13Principals and

teachers Eval handbook

II-SIG 12: Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates; and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so.

Identify and reward

Teacher Data Profiles are analyzed and teachers who have increased student achievement are recognized in a public meeting.

2012-2013 Sup't Board agenda

Convene a teacher committee, outside of the bargaining process, to develop a process for determining financial incentives to recruit and retain quality staff.

Aug-14 SIG Coordinator Meeting agenda

60

Determine whether the process will be included as a Collective Bargaining amendment or a district policy

Oct-14CTA Leadership

and Sup't Board agenda approval

Develop signing bonus policy for teachers working at the Transformation School and/or difficult to fill positions.

May-14CTA Leadership

and Sup't CBA

Determine whether the policy will be included as a Collective Bargaining amendment or a district policy

May-14CTA Leadership

and Sup't CBA

Negotiate financial incentives and/or signing bonus with La Honda-Pescadero Teachers' Association and LHPUSD

present- Aug 2014CTA Leadership

and Sup't CBA

Recognizing that state testing data is not yet in place, designate achievement goals related to benchmark assessment (NWEA) which will be used for determining increased student achievement per Article 12 of the CBA and IISIG-14.

Aug-14Sup't/

Princ/Teacher MOU in Article 12

Communicate achievement goals to teachers and staff.August-September

2014 Sup't / Principal Staff meeting agenda

Provide financial incentives to teachers who increase student achievement per financial incentive policy.

Aug-15 Sup't Financial Incentive Policy

opportunities to improve

professional practice

Develop improvement plans for teachers who are not meeting the satisfactory level in the evaluation process including the Framework for Teaching and the Data Profile.

Jun-14Principal and

teacher Eval rubric

61

Specify specific improvement goals and resources to reach the goal in the teacher improvement plan. Resources to include professional development, academic coaching, additional classroom support and/or counseling.

JunePrincipal and

teacher Improvement plan

Identify and remove

Place teachers receiving an unsatisfactory performance evaluation on an Improvement Plan developed and monitored by the school principal. The improvement plan shall also designate resources available to support improvement. As necessary by

June of each year Principal Improvement plan

Teachers on improvement plans hold regular meetings with the school principal to evaluate progress.

MonthlyPrincipal and

teacher Agenda

Teachers who do not make significant growth in the improvement year shall enter PAR per Collective Bargaining Agreement. As necessary by

June of each yearPrincipal and

sup't PAR process

Remove teachers who do not make significant growth in the PAR year. As necessary by

June of each yearPrincipal and

sup't PAR process, data profile

II-SIG 13: Implement strategies that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the transformation school.

Recruitment Develop policy for signing bonuses for teachers assigned to PES/MS or filling difficult to hire positions.

Jun-14CTA Leadership

and Sup't Board policy

62

Provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development which supports good teaching practice. April 2011 to the

presentPrincipal, Sup't,

peersProfessional Development Calendar

Provide release time for staff collaboration and planning April 2011 to the present Principal, Sup't Master schedule

Provide financial incentives subject to negotiations Aug-14 and ongoing Sup't/ CTA Salary schedule

Placement Allow for teacher input regarding placement for following year.

March of each year Sup't/ Principal

Intent to return form which includes teacher feedback on placement

Allow principal to determine teacher placement according to the needs of the school and the strengths of the teacher.

June of each year Sup't/ Principal

Board action on teacher placement as presented by principal

Retention Provide single-grade classrooms for K-5 teachers. Add 2 teachers- 1 SIG proposed funding, 1 district

2014-2015 Sup't/ PrincipalBoard action to approve additional staffing.

Provide time for collaboration. Add additional 3 professional development days for teacher professional development and structured collaboration.

2014-2015 Sup't/ PrincipalBoard action to approve three additional calendar days.

Provide small class sizes and flexible work environment. Add K-5 teacher to reduce class sizes and combination classes.

2014-2015 Sup't/ PrincipalBoard action to approve additional staffing.

Provide flexibility of hours with after-school hours as well as Increased Learning Time such that teachers have the opportunity to earn additional income.

2014-2015 Sup't/ Principal

Job descriptions for extra hours opportunities and in-house flyers.

63

Provide leadership opportunities. Add new curriculum development and ELD specialist positions such that teachers can assume leadership opportunities and see career flexibility.

2014-2015 Sup't/ PrincipalJob descriptions for new positions

II-SIG 14: Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development that is aligned with the school's comprehensive instructional program. COMPLETED in 2010-2013 BUT EXPANDED 2014-2017

Recruit and retain an External Provider (LEAD)- See II SIG-20 for process

Jan-April 2011Teachers and

admin

RFP, Meeting minutes, Professional Development agendas

Provide ELD Specialist to support good teaching methods of language acquisition. Develop job description. Recruit and hire.

Jul-14Sup't and Principal Job Description

LEAD continues to provide job-embedded professional development including structured collaboration to develop I Can statements and assessments, Common Core transition, ELD support, principal and administrative coaching, program evaluation and feedback.

Jan-April 2011 Teachers and admin

RFP, Meeting minutes, Professional Development agendas

Provide additional 3 days of Professional Development for teachers. Increase year from 187 days to 190 days.

Aug 2014-June 2017

Sup't Academic Calendar

Plan and deliver a two-day Language Acquisition workshop (Professional Development release days in August and September) to all teachers to support best practices and develop and implement strategies to increase student achievement in ELD.

Aug 2014- October 2014

SIG Coordinator Workshop agenda and sign in sheets

64

Provide co-teaching support in ELD and Math. Add ELD Specialist + District-funded Math Specialists (1.5 FTE) in place from Cohort 1 SIG funding.

October 2010 to the present

Sup't/ SIG Coordinator

Job Description of Math Specialist and ELD Specialist

Conduct yearly classroom visitations and interviews to inform professional development program and plan for teacher needs.

March 2012- present

LEAD/Princ. Visitation and interview schedule.

Continue structured collaboration time twice monthly with LEAD.

Aug-14 to Jun-15 LEAD Professional Development agendas

II-SIG 15: Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates.

Implement an extended day (one-day/week) for project-based learning, integrated core curriculum, culturally relevant arts and extended language development.

August 2014 and ongoing

Principal/staff Master schedule, Board minutes reflecting action to extend the day.

Revise master schedule to reflect student and family needs including but not limited to advising period (6th-8th), weekly extended day for project-based learning, extended day and year for PreK.)

May 14-Aug 15 Principal/ Teachers

Master schedule, instructional minutes

Provide flexibility for school staffing to fall below the established teacher: student ratio in order to reduce combination classes. Add 2 over the ratio teachers (1 SIG, 1 LHPUSD proposed funding.

2014-2015 Sup't Board action authorizing additional teaching staff at PES/MS to address student needs

65

Sup't continues to provide principal operational flexibility in the following areas: hiring staff, planning and directing professional development, budgeting of school and district-allocated funds, setting instructional schedules within required minute allocations, developing school calendars, purchasing supplemental materials and supplies.

ongoing Principal/ Sup't Cabinet meeting agendas, Employee handbook

II-SIG 16: Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with California's adopted academic standards.

Develop screening criteria LHPUSD establishes Common Core as instructional focus 2012

Sup't/Staff Board agenda

LHPUSD implements Common Core aligned Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA) to gather data around progress to CCSS.

2012

Sup't/Staff Board approved contract

LHPUSD establishes Common Core as focus of job-embedded, ongoing professional development and seeks funding through passage of 2013 Parcel Tax and Common Core Block Grant Funding.

May-13

Sup't/Board Parcel Tax resolution

Professional Development mapping completed to ensure that subject areas are being addressed in CCSS transition Nov-13

Sup't/ PrincipalBoard reports September 2013- present

Criteria and a template developed for teachers to develop units of study in ELA and Math. Nov-13 to 02/2014

Principal / Teachers Template

Writing curriculum: Units of Study by Lucy Caulkins piloted for ELA-Writing Nov-13 to 02/2014

Teachers Purchase order

66

Convene a committee to review math curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education. Jun-14 to Aug-14

Teachers Meeting minutes/ sign in sheets

Develop rubric for screening materials. Jun-14 to Aug-14Teachers rubric

Evaluate research base

and alignment of current program

Convene a committee to review core literature lists in 6-8 and align with Common Core. Jun-14 to Aug-14


Convene a committee to review alignmnent of ELA materials K-5 Jun-14 to Aug-14


Develop Gap analysis of current program in Math and Common Core Standards Jun-14 to Aug-14

Teachers/ Principal Gap Analysis

Develop Gap analysis of current program in ELA and Common Core Standards Jun-14 to Aug-14


Identify a new instructional

program or revise current program

Curriculum specialist to work in small grade level teams to develop units of study in ELA to address gap standards using the template criteria and the gap analysis.

Jun-14 to Dec-14

Teachers/ Principal

Units of Study Template, sign in sheets

Evaluate and pilot SBE adopted math curriculum using the Charles A. Dana Center protocol for evaluating a Guaranteed Viable Curriculum.

Aug- 14 to Feb-15Teachers/ Principal Charles A. Dana Center rubric

67

Evaluate and pilot SBE adopted ELA curriculum using the Charles A. Dana Center protocol for evaluating a Guaranteed Viable Curriculum (existing partner)

When State-Adopted curriculum is released.

Teachers/ Principal Charles A. Dana Center rubric

Implement new or revised

instructional program

Analyze results from Measures of Academic progress (NWEA) to identify gaps in student achievement. Correlate with appropriate research-based instructional strategies and materials.

Jun-14 to Dec-14


Develop peer-coaching calendar for teachers to be able to observe and coach peers in lesson delivery. Peer-coach lessons that were subject of lesson study.

Aug- 14 to Feb-15Teachers/ Principal Calendar

Integrate lesson study into professional development using the Charles A. Dana protocol for lesson study.

Aug- 14 to Jun-15Teachers/ Principal Sign in sheets

Utilize the following tools to determine instructional effectivesness: Student academic growth on the Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA), observable evidence collected using the Framework for Teaching, adherence/fidelity to the piloted materials and lessons of study and data chats with principal, teacher interviews.

Dec-14 to Feb-15Teachers/ Principal

Meeting agenda for the data chat

Convene a committee to analyze the program effectiveness and develop professional development plans for following year.

15-Mar Sup't/ Teachers/

Principal Sign in sheets

68

II-SIG 17: Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students. COMPLETE 2010-2013. To continue 2014-2017.

Develop Assessment calendar yearly to include benchmarking, jury-scored writing, CELDT,data chats, SBAC, reporting and evaluation deadlines as they pertain to SIG.

Jun-14 to Aug-15 SIG Coordinator Staff development calendar, Assessment calendar

Conduct benchmark assessments using Common Core aligned Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA) three times/year.

Sept, Dec, May SIG Coordinator Assessment calendar

Utilize data system to track local and standardized assessments. Develop profiles: Class profile, school profile and modify after each benchmark assessment. Present profiles to principal and staff.

Sept, Dec, May SIG Coordinator/ Assessment

School profile, class profile

Analyze profiles to revise target student lists for academic interventions including: after-school program, summer school, pull out reading, math or language, parent support and education.

Sept, Dec, May SIG Coordinator/ Assessment

Staff meeting agenda reflecting data analysis

Participate in Field Testing for SBAC Apr-14 SIG Coordinator/ Assessment

Assessment calendar

Train teachers in the MARS (MAC) Assessment developed by Silicon Valley Math Initiative.

Apr-14 Curriculum Specialist

Training agenda, Leave requests from teachers being trained

Conduct MARS/MAC assessment. Spring 2014 and ongoing

Teachers MARS assessment schedule

69

Conduct data chats with district leadership and principal after each benchmarking to formalize discussion of data used to determine school and student needs.

ongoing Sup't/ Principal Meeting agenda for data chats

Provide assessment data to the Board of Trustees and community- September, January and June

Sept, Jan, JuneSup't/ SIG

CoordinatorBoard reports and Board agendas

II-SIG 18: Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time. COMPLETED IN 2010-2013- To be continued in 2014-2017

Increase by Day Increase by Week Increase by Year

Core

Extended Day: 120 min/week

@ 100% CORE = 4320 min

Panther Camp:5.5 hours/day= 9570 minutes @ 75% CORE= 7178 min

70

Enrichment

Panther Camp: 5.5 hours/day= 9570 25% ENRICHMENT= 2,392 minutes

Collaboration

3 additional Professional Development Days= 1,350 min

Total Unduplicated

Time 4320 10,920 minutes Total 15,240

II-SIG 19: Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

Develop MOU with community-based organization to provide adult literacy programming to increase parent literacy. See letter of support in Appendix.

July-September 2014

Sup't/ Board/ Executive Director of Puente

MOU

71

Conduct parent literacy sessions 2x/week utilizing best practices in ELD/adult literacy. Puente de la Costa Sur, Resource Center on South Coast, to recruit parents, provide transportation and instruction.

August 2014-July 2015 and ongoing

Puente de la Costa Sur/ Community Engagement Coordinator

Agendas, lesson plans, participation sheets, MOU

Recruit Community Liaison to provide family support and greater access to school personnel, services and activities

June 2014 to August 2014

SIG Coordinator Results of communty surveys (John Gardner Parent Engagement Project)

Develop job description for Community Engagement Coordinator to develop and implement community-based and peer tutoring, culturally relevant activities, culturally relevant staff trainings and home visiting program. Secure CSEA and Board support and approval.

June 2014 to August 2014

Sup't Board approved job descriptoin

Recruit, interview and hire a Community Engagement Coordinator. Develop interview questions, protocol and process involving staff, community and Puente.

July-September 2014

Job postings and interview questions.

Select homes and families in the community to host home visits. Conduct 12 home visits yearly to bridge home and school communications and share expectations. Ensure that home visits include an administrator, teacher, Community Engagement Coordinator and Puente liaison

September 2014 to June 2015 and ongoing

Community Engagement Coordinator

Home visit schedule, Board reports on home visits

Revise Parent-School Compact. Conduct parent meetings to review and revise compact to reflect shared understandings of home and school expectations. Conference with parents individually and in groups as needed.

September 2014 to June 2015 and ongoing

Principal, teachers, Community Liaison

Parent-School Compact, flyers for meetings, conference schedules

72

Develop and implement survey to gather yearly information regarding family engagement.

Mar-15 Sup't, principal, Community Engagement Coordinator

Survey results and analysis as compared to the John Gardner Center results.

II-SIG 20: Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO).

External Provider Selection Committee (EPSC) formed and first meeting held. Committee comprised of teachers and administrators.

Jan-11 SIG Coordinator Meeting agenda

EPSC develops RFP and establishes process for selection

Jan-11 SIG Coordinator Meeting agenda

SIG Coordinator posts the RFP online and sends it list of DAIT providers in California

Jan-11 SIG Coordinator RFP

EPSC meets to review proposals and establish interview process and questions.

Feb-11 EPSCMeeting agenda and Interview questions

EPSC selects top proposals and interviews are scheduled.

Mar-11 EPSC List of interviewees

73

EPSC interviews candidates

Mar-11 EPSC Timeline of interviews

EPSC selects top candidate through a vote- LEAD

Mar-11 EPSCMeeting agenda and rating sheets

Sup't negotiates contract and brings to the Board for approval

Apr-11 Sup't/ Board Board agenda

LEAD conducts monthly coaching sessions with administration

ongoing LEAD/Staff

LEAD Conducts monthly professional development sessions with staff

ongoing LEAD/Staff PD Agendas

LEAD conducts yearly teacher and admin interviews and classroom observations to ensure instructional practices are in place

ongoing LEAD/Staff Observation schedule

Sup't and LEAD refine scope of work.

Apr-14 Sup't/ LEAD Contract

Sup't and LEAD meet monthly to review progress, refine goals and define scope of work.

ongoing Sup't/ LEAD Contract renewals

74

I. Attachments (20 Page Limit–Not Scored)

The SIG program must be designed, implemented, and sustained through a collaborative organizational structure that may include students, parents, representatives of participating LEAs and school sites, and private and/or public external technical assistance and support providers. The LEA may also attach documents from these collaborative partners that indicate support of its application. Please include a table of contents with this section if supporting documents are included.

Attachments may include, but are not limited to, letters of support and/or involvement from the LEAs collaborative partners. Please include a table of contents and identify the type of attachment (e.g., parent letter) in the upper right-hand corner and number each page. All attachments must be submitted in English or include an English translation.

All letters of support, additional meeting minutes, and any other additional documents must be submitted as a Portable Document Format (PDF). Provide a link to the local board meeting Web site. Do not attach copies of local board minutes.

Applicants may also provide Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) describing commitments in support of the LEA SIG application from private and/or public external technical assistance and support providers. Though not legally binding, the purpose of the MOUs is to clearly describe the specific commitments of staff, services, minor facilities upgrades, equipment, and roles of responsible persons or entities in the delivery of services or resources provided by each partner, including the estimated monetary value of these contributions.

Submission of Applications

LEAs responding to this RFA must submit a complete application packet and provide all original signatures required, as noted on each application form. Applications must be submitted with all forms compiled in the order listed on the SIG Application Checklist provided as Appendix A located on page 57 of this RFA.

Applicants must submit an original, three hard copies, and one electronic Microsoft Word 2003 or later copy (all single spaced in 12 point Arial font using one inch margins) of each application and ensure that the original and copies are received by the School Turnaround Office on or before (not postmarked by) 4 p.m., March 14, 2014. Implementation charts, budgets, and sustainability plans should be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2003 or later. Applicants must submit an electronic copy to [email protected] on or before March 14, 2014. Mailed documents must arrive on or before the March 14, 2014, deadline and should be sent to the following address:

75


California Department of EducationImprovement and Accountability Division

School Turnaround Office1430 N Street, Suite 6208

Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

Applicants may personally deliver the sub-grant application package to the School Turnaround Office on or before (not postmarked by) 4 p.m., March 14, 2014, at the following location:

California Department of EducationImprovement and Accountability Division

School Turnaround Office1430 N Street, Suite 6208

Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

To comply with Federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Regulations, please adhere to the following guidelines:

Submit text based documents only (no scanned images) If images are included, also include alternative text for that image Do not use color to convey information Do not include images of handwritten signatures for privacy reasons

76

*REVISED-2/12/14* Appendix A: School Improvement Grant Application Checklist

Required Components

The following components must be included as part of the application. Check or initial by each component, and include this form in the application package. These forms can be downloaded from the California Department of Education’s School Improvement Grant Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig09rfa.asp [The preceding link is no longer active.]. Please compile the application packet in the order provided below.

Include this completed checklist in the application packet

__x__ Form 1 Application Cover Sheet (Must be signed in blue ink by the LEA Superintendent or Designee)

___x__Form 2 Schools to Be Served

___x__Form 2a Eligible, but Not Served Schools

___x__Form 3 District and School Improvement Team

__x___Form 3a School Performance Data and Analysis

__x___Form 4a LEA Budget Summary (all budget forms must be accessed here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp

___x__Form 4b LEA Budget Narrative

__x___Form 5a School Budget Summary

__x___Form 5b School Budget Narrative

__x___Form 6 Demonstration of Capacity

__x___ Form 7 Analysis and Selection of the Intervention Model

___x__ Form 7a Consultation with Relevant Stakeholders

___x__ Form 8 Sustainability of the Reform after the Funding Period Ends

The following required sections should be responded to in Microsoft Word 2003 or later and inserted between SIG Forms 8 and 10:

D. Modify Local Educational Agencies Practices or PoliciesE. Align Other Resources with the Selected Intervention Models

77


F. Annual School Goals for Student Achievement H. Recruitment, Screening, and Selection of External Providers

______Form 10 Implementation Chart(s) for a Tier I or Tier II School Summary (Form 10 must be accessed here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp)

Form 10.1 Turnaround Implementation Chart

x Form 10.2 Transformation Implementation Chart

Form 10.3 Restart Implementation Chart

Form 10.4 Closure Implementation Chart

__NA___ Form 11 Implementation Chart(s) for a Tier III School, if applicable. (California will not run a competition for Tier III schools until all LEA applications to serve all Tier I and Tier II schools are funded. Form 11 must be accessed here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/regsig13rfa.asp.)

78



sig cohort 3 la honda pescadero application - title i (ca ... · web viewapplicants must submit...

Documents