SAN DIEGO CITY SCHOOLS Office of the Deputy Superintendent LOCAL REVIEW OF SCHOOLS IN STATE AND FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Introductory Statement The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 requires each local Board of Education to hold a public hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting to report on the progress of schools participating in certain state assistance programs, including the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP). The public hearing must be conducted after each year of implementation grant funding to inform the educational community of each school s progress toward meeting its state-established achievement targets and to initiate an intervention process for schools that have not met their targets. The district is also required to file an annual report with the California Department of Education (CDE) about each school and its implementation of the grant requirements. This report brings forward information about the progress of district schools participating in the II/USP and HPSGP. This report also presents evaluations for three district schools that participated in the federal Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program 1 during the school year. CSR was initiated by the U.S. Department of Education in 1998 to provide districts and schools the opportunity and support to develop and implement schoolwide reform. Background Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) II/USP was established to provide support for reform in schools in Deciles 1 through 5 on the Academic Performance Index (API). In September 1999, 18 district schools were selected to participate in the first cohort of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), as authorized under SB1X: The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. 2 In September 2000, 11 schools were selected for Cohort II; and in September 2001, 15 additional schools were selected for Cohort III. No new II/USP cohorts have been identified by the CDE since fall 2001. Program Requirements During the first year of each II/USP cohort cycle, participating district schools engaged in an external evaluation and action planning process under the auspices of an external evaluator, as required by state legislation. 3 Each school received $50,000 to support the planning year. The evaluation/planning process included opportunities for parent and community input, classroom visitations, and analysis of student achievement and demographic data, and resulted in the development of an improvement plan, which was approved by the district Board of Education. 1 Formerly the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program. 2 Sections 52053 to 52058 of the State Education Code delineate the II/USP requirements. 3 Annually, the Board approved a contract for ETS Pulliam, LLC to provide external evaluation services for the district-managed schools participating in the program.
Page 2 of 9 Following State Board of Education approval of the action plans, each school received an implementation grant of $200 per student for each year of implementation. Site staff and the School Site Council (SSC) were responsible for monitoring implementation of the plan and, when necessary, making revisions to ensure the plan continued to support the improvement of student academic achievement. During the second and third years of II/USP plan implementation, schools were required to review their plans, student achievement data, and budgets, and to make any changes necessary to ensure that students educational needs were being met. Program Timeline The following timeline applies to schools participating in the II/USP. Schools that met all Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets during the first two years of implementation exited the program. Schools that made progress, but did not meet targets, during at least one of the first two years of implementation were considered watch schools, and received a third year of implementation funding. After that third year of funding: o Schools that made all API growth targets for one year exited II/USP. o Schools that continue to make significant growth 4 remain under watch. o Schools that do not make significant growth in any given year (after the two implementation years) become state-monitored. Schools that did not make progress during their two implementation years were identified as statemonitored schools. Any watch school that does not make significant growth is also identified as state-monitored. All schools continuing in the II/USP are expected to continue to implement their approved plans and revised strategies. Report of II/USP School Progress Attachment A reports the progress of the 44 schools selected over the years for participation in II/USP. The chart on the following page gives the current achievement status for all of the identified II/USP schools, including those that have previously exited. The data clearly indicates that even after exiting II/USP, most of these schools are continuing to make progress and meet API targets. Of the 18 schools in Cohort I, 13 schools made significant progress in 2004-05, and all schools have exited II/USP. Of the 11 schools in Cohort II, seven made significant progress in 2004-05, with only 1 school making negative progress. Three schools have been closed in this cohort, and only one school remains in II/USP. For Cohort III, of the 15 schools identified, 13 made significant progress last year. All but three of the schools have exited the program. 4 Significant growth is defined as making positive growth on the schoolwide API.
Page 3 of 9 Cohort I 04-05 API (Points) Cohort II II/USP Schools API (Points) Cohort III API (Points) Exited Exited Exited Balboa Elementary 644 23 Adams Elementary 688 34 Birney Elementary 723 18 Bayview Terrace Elementary 747 29 Baker Elementary 667 24 Cadman Elementary 728 28 Carson Elementary 699 9 Burbank Elementary 737 38 Crown Point Elementary 721 7 Carver Elementary 713 43 Crawford High Darnall Charter 706 29 Central Elementary 686-10 Kearny High Kroc Middle 697 31 Chollas/Mead Elementary 684 5 Lincoln Marston Middle 716 19 Clairemont High 673 13 Logan Elementary 655 28 Rowan Elementary 692 24 Emerson/Bandini Elementary 606 8 Madison High 655 25 Sojourner Truth Fremont Elementary (closed) N/A N/A O Farrell Community Charter 694 35 Tubman Village 746 12 Fulton Elementary 694 15 Taft Middle 686-12 Valencia Park Elementary 729 20 Gompers Secondary 542-4 Washington Elementary 668 54 Jefferson 714 8 Webster Elementary Continuing Elementary 755 61 Keiller Middle 637 9 Roosevelt Junior High 639 24 Kimbrough Elementary 690 24 Continuing Knox Elementary 666 37 Marshall Elementary 642 1 Mission Bay 649 27 High Montgomery 639-5 Middle State-Monitored Perkins Elementary 648 N/A Euclid Elementary 681-6 Horton Elementary 657 35 Schools in II/USP Cohort I Central Elementary and Clairemont High were identified as state-monitored schools in 2002-2003. Both schools made progress for two consecutive years and exited state-monitored status and II/USP in 2004-2005.
Page 4 of 9 Balboa and Fulton Elementary Schools were identified as II/USP state-monitored schools in 2003-2004. Both schools made progress for two consecutive years and exited state-monitored status and II/USP for 2005-2006. All II/USP Cohort I schools have now exited the program. Schools in II/USP Cohort II Roosevelt Middle and Madison Senior High schools did not meet the criteria for exiting II/USP during 2003-2004 and were under watch for 2004-05. Madison met all growth targets in 2004-05 and has exited the program. Roosevelt Middle school made progress in 2004-05 but did not meet all growth targets, and will continue to be under watch for 2005-2006. II/USP schools are funded for only three years, so Roosevelt will continue to implement the school plan without additional II/USP funding. If API targets are met for 2005-06, the school will exit II/USP. If progress is made, the school will remain under watch for an additional year. And, if no progress is made, the school will become state-monitored. O Farrell Community Charter was identified as state-monitored during 2003-2004. The school met all growth targets for 2003-2004 and and exited the program for 2005-2006. All other II/USP Cohort II schools have exited the program. Schools in II/USP Cohort III Three district schools will continue under II/USP for the 2005-06 school year. These schools include Euclid, Horton, and Marshall Elementary Schools. One Cohort III II/USP school, Horton Elementary, was identified as state-monitored in September 2004. Horton Elementary participated in an external School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) 5 review on November 1-3, 2004, and its Report of Findings and Recommended Corrective Actions: Horton Elementary School was adopted by the Board of Education on December 14, 2004. Progress reports for Horton were reviewed by the Board on April 26, July 26, and October 25, 2005. These progress reports indicate that Horton has made steady progress toward achieving a majority of its corrective action benchmarks. Horton met all of its API targets for 2004-05, and if the school makes progress in 2005-06, it will exit II/USP next year. Euclid Elementary School was identified as state-monitored in September 2005. 6 Euclid participated in an external SAIT review on November 1-2, 2005. The Report of Findings and Recommended Corrective Actions: Euclid Elementary School was adopted by the Board of Education on December 13, 2005. Euclid will continue as a state-monitored school for at least two years. Marshall Elementary School showed growth for ; however, the school did not meet all of its growth targets. In order to exit the program, Marshall Elementary will have to meet all growth targets for 2005-2006. All other II/USP Cohort III schools have exited the program. 5 On October 12, 2004, the Board approved a contract designating WestEd as the SAIT provider for Horton Elementary School. 6 On October 11, 2005, the Board approved a contract designating WestEd as the SAIT provider for Euclid Elementary School
Page 5 of 9 The 2004-05 end-of-year evaluations for district II/USP schools were submitted to the California Department of Education (CDE) on November 30, 2005. Copies of the evaluations are available for review in the Board Agenda Office, Eugene Brucker Education Center, 4100 Normal Street, Room 2153, San Diego, CA 92103. High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) Nine district schools were selected to implement the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) during the 2002-03 academic year. First priority for participation in this program was given to schools with the lowest Academic Performance Index (API) decile rankings, starting with API Decile 1. District schools selected to participate in HPSGP and their API progress for are listed in the following table. HPSGP Schools 04-05 API (Points) Holly Drive Academy 697 37 Hoover High 580 29 Jackson Elementary 683 29 King Elementary (closed) 7 559 3 Kwachiiyoa MacDowell Elementary Mann Middle (closed) 7 584-13 Memorial Academy (closed) 7 577 13 Wilson Middle 628 15 Program Requirements The HPSGP was established to provide assistance to the very lowest performing schools regardless of their relative progress. The purpose of the program is to improve pupil performance in seven legislatively identified areas by offering additional resources of $400 per student, per year, for three years. The nine district schools that were selected to participate in this program began implementing their approved action plans in 2002-2003. As part of the HPSGP, each participating school district must submit an annual report to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction that describes how its HPSGP-funded schools are progressing toward meeting the goals developed in their school action plans. The 2004-05 end-of-year evaluations were submitted to the CDE on November 30, 2005. Copies of the evaluations are available for review in the Board Agenda Office, Eugene Brucker Education Center, 4100 Normal Street, Room 2153, San Diego, CA 92103. 7 Recent communication from the California Department of Education may change the status this school from closed to open.
Page 6 of 9 Program Timeline The following timeline applies to schools participating in the HPSGP. Schools that meet all Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets during each of the three implementation years will receive a fourth year of funding. Schools that do not meet growth targets each year but demonstrate significant growth 8 during the three implementation years will continue with a fourth year of HPSGP funding. Schools that do not meet growth targets during the first two years of implementation are subject to review by the State Board of Education. Schools that do not make significant growth in three years are deemed state-monitored. All schools continuing in HPSGP are expected to continue to implement their approved plans and revised strategies. Report of HPSGP School Progress Attachment A reports the progress of the nine schools selected for HPSGP. Hoover High School met all growth targets during the three implementation years and has exited the program. Two schools, MacDowell and Kwachiiyoa Elementary schools are closed. Three additional schools were closed, King Elementary, Mann Middle, and Memorial Academy Charter schools, but a recent communication from the California Department of Education may change the status of these schools for 2005-06. Remaining Schools in HPSGP Three schools will continue to implement their HPSGP plans during the school year. These schools include Jackson Elementary, Wilson Middle, and Holly Drive Charter schools. All of the district s HPSGP schools except King Elementary School and Mann Middle School showed positive API growth during each of the three years of program implementation. King showed positive growth in 2004-05, while Mann met all growth targets in 2003-2004, but did not show growth in 2004-2005. Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Program The intent of the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program is to stimulate schoolwide change through an integrated, coherent approach to reform using locally- or externally-developed research-based models. Schools selected through the competitive grant process receive funding for three years of implementation, contingent upon the availability of federal funding and continued school progress toward meeting achievement goals. Clark Middle School was selected for CSR and began implementing its approved plan during the 2002-2003 school year. The school based its application and model on the programs outlined in the City Heights Collaborative project. Kennedy Elementary School and King/Chavez Academy of Excellence were selected to participate in Cohort 4 of CSR, beginning in the academic year. Program Requirements Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) grants are awarded to local educational agencies in an amount of $200 per student in each funded school, with a minimum allocation of $50,000 per school. Grants are 8 Significant growth is defined as combined growth that is equal to or greater than ten Academic Performance Index points on the API over the last three years it participates in the program and also achieves positive API growth in two of the last three years.
Page 7 of 9 renewable for two additional years, contingent on federal funding and substantial progress toward meeting the school's goals and benchmarks. Report of School Progress Attachment A reports the progress of Clark Middle, Kennedy Elementary, and King/Chavez Academy Charter schools. Kennedy and King/Chavez schools met their schoolwide and subgroup growth targets. Clark Middle School met its schoolwide and all subgroup growth targets, except for the Hispanic subgroup. Clark Middle School completed implementation of its CSR plan at the end of the school year. Kennedy (Porter) and King/Chavez will continue to implement their CSR plans during the 2005-2006 school year. The end-of-year evaluations were submitted to the California Department of Education on November 30, 2005. Copies of the evaluations are available for review in the Board Agenda Office, Eugene Brucker Education Center, 4100 Normal Street, Room 2153, San Diego, CA 92103. Discussion Review and Reporting Requirements for II/USP, HPSGP, and CSR The Public Schools Accountability Act requires that the local Board of Education conduct a public hearing after 12 months, and again every 12 months, following the receipt of implementation funding to report each district school s progress toward their growth targets. Legislation requires discussion of the impact, benefits, and costs of implementing the program. Additionally, strategies that helped schools to meet the established Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets or factors that may have kept them from meeting targets must be reported. To prepare for this year s review, staff from the Planning and Accountability Department gathered information from each school relative to: Instructional Materials; Parent Involvement; Afterschool, Tutoring, and Homework Assistance Programs; Advanced Placement/UC/CSU Requirement Course Completion; Teacher Training; Principal Experience; and Impact of Program Implementation. II/USP Cohort II End-of-Year Evaluations, II/USP Cohort III End-of-Year Evaluations, HPSGP End-of-Year Evaluations, and CSR End-of-Year Evaluations were submitted to the California Department of Education on November 30, 2005. Copies of each school s evaluation are available in the Board Agenda Office, Eugene Brucker Education Center, 4100 Normal Street, Room 2153, San Diego, CA 92103. The majority of schools that participated in the II/USP, HPSGP, and CSR programs have continued to achieve academic success after exiting the program. Nine of the 56 schools that participated in these programs have closed and did not receive growth data for the school year. Of the 47 schools
Page 8 of 9 that remained, 30 (64%) achieved all growth targets for ; and 11 (23%) made growth but did not achieve all growth targets. Instructional Implications II/USP and HPSGP According to state legislation, the external evaluator and the School Site Council shall develop an action plan to improve the academic achievement of the pupils enrolled at the school. The action plans developed and implemented by each school are intended to supplement the instructional strategies and support structures in place at the school, and further focus school efforts on improving the teaching and learning process. For those schools not meeting growth targets, the review and district intervention process will devote concentrated attention to the areas of greatest need, and identify instructional strategies and student supports that need to be modified or supplemented to further improve student achievement. CSR CSR has significant implications for instructional improvement. Applicants must establish strong and direct links between professional development and student acquisition of skills and knowledge, as defined in the California content standards for reading/language arts and mathematics, and State Board-adopted instructional materials. Professional development must be tied directly to what teachers do in the classrooms. Measurable results of student gains in reading/language arts and mathematics must be documented through the Local Education Agency (LEA) and school evaluation components. Facilities Implications There are no facilities implications associated with this report. Budget Implication School II/USP, HPSGP, and CSR budgets can be adjusted as needed to cover costs associated with modified or new strategies identified through the annual review process. Other site funds, especially categorical funds, are used to assist in implementing and maintaining the plan. Public Support and Engagement Implications II/USP and HPSGP Parents and community members have an inherent interest in the improvement of student achievement at all district schools, and particularly at those schools identified for the II/USP or the HPSGP. State legislation requires the Board of Education to hold a public hearing to report to the school community on the progress of participating schools. Both the II/USP and HPSGP provide for significant involvement of the entire educational community in the school review, development of plans, and monitoring of progress.
Page 9 of 9 CSR The Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program requires parent and community involvement in the implementation and evaluation of the school improvement/reform activities. The school s comprehensive program must address parent and community engagement and recruitment strategies to involve the community and parents in the on-going planning, implementation, and evaluation of the program. Home/school communication and parent education activities that strengthen the skills of school personnel and parent/community members to participate effectively together to meet improvement goals are emphasized in the program. Policy Implications The program evaluations described in this report are consistent with Board of Education Policy F-8800. Recommendations There are no recommendations for this report. It is for Board discussion and community information only. Attachment: A. API Cycles for II/USP, HPSGP and CSR Schools Report prepared by Linda Dusharme, Director, Planning and Accountability Department.