memo-dsib-iad-feb16item01
Page 7 of 7
California Department of EducationExecutive Office
SBE-002 (REV. 01/2014) / memo-dsib-iad-feb16item01
memorandum
Date: / January 13, 2016
TO: / MEMBERS, State Board of Education
FROM: / TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
SUBJECT: / Program Improvement Year 3 Corrective Action: Analysis of 2014–15 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress of Local Educational Agency Plan Implementation.
Summary of Key Issues
This item presents a summary analysis of the end-of-year evidence of progress of local educational agency (LEA) Plan implementation for LEAs in Cohorts 1–8 of Program Improvement (PI) Year 3 Corrective Action. This accountability requirement is described in Item 15 located on the State Board of Education (SBE) Agenda for January 2016 Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/agenda201601.asp.
In a letter dated September 10, 2015, LEAs in Cohorts 1–8 of PI Year 3 received guidelines from the California Department of Education (CDE) for submitting end-of-year evidence of LEA Plan implementation and monitoring by October 30, 2015 (See Attachment 1).
All evidence was submitted electronically in the California Accountability Improvement System (CAIS) as it has been done in previous years. From October 2015 to January 2016, trained CDE staff reviewed the local evidence submitted by LEAs.
The total number of LEAs in Cohorts 1–8 of PI Year 3 is 409. To date, the number of LEAs that have submitted end-of-year local evidence of progress in CAIS is 409, representing 100 percent of those LEAs (See Attachment 2).
The end-of-year evidence of progress consists of:
· A summary description of the LEA’s progress towards implementation of the strategies and actions in the LEA Plan.
· An analysis of the LEA’s progress towards student achievement goals in the LEA Plan.
· Documentation of annual communication with the local governing board regarding the end-of-year evidence of progress.
The table below displays and categorizes the most commonly reported types of strategies and actions of LEA Plan implementation as reported by LEAs. An LEA may have reported multiple strategies or actions. The table also displays the most commonly reported types of protocols used to monitor the implementation of the LEA Plan strategies and actions and the total number of LEAs reporting the use of such a protocol.
Most Commonly Reported Strategies and Actions of LEA Plan Implementation
LEAs in Cohorts 1–8 of PI Year 3, Corrective Action
2014–15
1. Targeted Academic Interventions:
· Response to Intervention (RTI)
· Response to Intervention and Instruction (Rtl2)
· Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
· Read 180/System 44
· Accelerated Reader
· Odyssey Math
· English 3-D
· Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)
· Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
· Credit Recovery / 470
2. Professional Development:
· Coaching
· Administrator and leadership development programs
· Staff development and instruction to meet the academic needs of English learners (ELs):
o English Language Development (ELD)
o Systematic ELD
o Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)
o Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)
o Academic Language Development (ALD)
o Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) / 772
· Development and implementation of professional learning communities (PLCs):
o Data analysis teams
o Collaborative instructional planning
o Writing calibration
· Types of monitoring protocols reported:
o Walkthroughs, walk-arounds, and learning walks
o Classroom observation data collection and analysis, including with the use of dedicated software
o Instructional Rounds
3. California State Standards (CA Standards):
· CA Standards adoption and alignment:
o Professional development planned or conducted to support math CA Standards implementation / 593
o Professional development planned or conducted to support English-language arts (ELA) CA Standards implementation
o General mention of CA Standards preparation or implementation for math and/or ELA CA Standards
· California 2012 ELD Standards adoption and alignment:
o Professional development planned or conducted to support ELD implementation
4. Assessment:
· Interim assessments
· Formative assessments
· Summative assessments
· Benchmark assessments
· Local/site developed assessments / 436
5. Data Analysis:
· Most common assessments results in:
o Statewide assessments: California English Language Development Test (CELDT), California High School Exit Examination
o Locally developed assessments: benchmarks, unit assessments, performance tasks
o Off shelf assessments: Standardized Testing and Reporting reading and math, Scholastic Reading Inventory, Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Learning Skills, Renaissance
· Most common tools: Illuminate, Aeries, On-line Access Reporting System / 265
6. Specific Instructional Methods:
· Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI)
· Effective First Instruction (EFI)
· Constructing Meaning
· Gradual Release of Responsibility
· Mind Maps
· Instructional Rounds
· Differentiated instruction
· Teach for Success (T4S) / 112
7. Extended School Day:
· After School Education & Safety Program
· After school tutoring, interventions
· Winter/Spring Intersession
· Saturday school
· Summer school
· Before school tutoring
· Lunch tutoring
· Credit recovery, including online resources / 245
8. Increasing Use of Technology:
· Technology integration with instruction, assessments, and student progress monitoring
· Purchasing tablets with carts, laptops for students and staff
· Purchasing instructional software
· Implementing comprehensive student data tracking system
· Upgrading existing infrastructure, including student information systems / 374
9. Parent and Community Education: Many LEAs also mentioned parent and community collaboration via a District English Language Advisory Committee (DELAC), and/or English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC), as well as input on the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)
· Multiple channel/form communication
· Parent nights
· Home visits
· Parent portal / 413
Examples of LEA Plan Implementation and Monitoring
To illustrate how these commonly reported strategies and actions are implemented, the following is a brief overview of local evidence of progress that two LEAs provided for the 2014–15 end-of-year submission. In each case, the LEA implemented a plan to ensure students had a rigorous and comprehensive educational program. Each LEA focused on a particular group of students, a targeted academic intervention, and a protocol for monitoring the implementation of the plan.
LEA 1: Based on the CELDT and locally administered Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) results, this LEA implemented a plan that focused on improving the achievement of all students and specifically, ELs in its 38 elementary schools and 13 high school and specialty schools. The LEA’s plan included professional development in CA Standards, effective teaching strategies, developing and implementing Units of Study (UOS) and assessments, and monitoring high quality teaching delivery and students’ learning progress.
The following was submitted as evidence of the district’s program improvement progress:
· Ongoing writing, revising, and implementing UOS
· Increased the number of sites that provide daily ELD instruction
· More sites administered the ELD assessments
· Implemented the K-2 ELD UOS
· Implemented AVID and research-based best instructional strategies
· Professional development on 2012 ELD Standards and SDAIE
· SDAIE core classes in high schools
· EL student monitoring/interventions
· After school programs targeting long term EL students
· Strengthened student placement procedures using CELDT/MAP data
· Increased parent participation over 40 percent for all schools from 2012–13 to the 2014–15 school year
LEA 2: This LEA is a high school district, which operates seven schools, consisting of four comprehensive high schools, one adult school, one community day school, and one independent study school. The district focused on using formative assessments to improve teaching and learning and monitor progress. It developed a districtwide data protocol used by teachers to analyze Common Formative Assessment (CFA) student results. It also used CELDT results to guide its support for improving EL learning outcomes. In addition, the district implemented RTI and PBIS to increase students’ engagement and reduce suspension and expulsion rates.
The following was submitted as evidence of the implementation of these strategies:
· Professional development for teachers on CA Standards as well as effective teaching strategies
· Professional development on the newly adopted 2012 ELD Standards and effective teaching strategies
· Common Summative Assessments (CSAs), revised curriculum maps, and CA Standards focused lesson plans developed at the district level
· CFAs developed at site levels
· Analyses of classroom-level assessment data through CFA results
· Training on AVID to support the delivery of research-based ELD instruction
· Fully executed EL Student Intervention Plans
· PLCs trainings
· A multi-tiered pyramid of both academic and behavioral intervention developed by the RTI team
· Reduced suspension and expulsion rates by 1.9 percentage points (from 5 percent in 2013–14 to 3.1 percent in 2014–15), and 0.7 percentage points (from 1 percent to .3 percent), respectively
Conclusion
Based on the review of local evidence, most LEAs in Cohorts 1–8 of PI Year 3 placed a high priority on implementing academic interventions for targeted students during 2014–15, with a particular emphasis on the needs of EL students. A wide variety of professional development activities supported strategic interventions, many of which strengthened professional learning communities at the school or district level. Furthermore, of the 409 reports submitted, 278 indicated that professional development supported math CA Standards implementation and 219 indicated that professional development supported ELA CA Standards implementation. In addition, 167 indicated that professional development supported 2012 ELD Standards implementation. These data appear to indicate that these LEAs focused on continuing CA Standards implementation in their classrooms.
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1: September 10, 2015, letter from Bob Storelli, Director, Improvement and Accountability Division, to Select County and District Superintendents of Local Educational Agencies in Program Improvement Year 3, regarding Guidelines for Submitting 2014–15 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress for Local Educational Agencies in Corrective Action (2 Pages)
Attachment 2: 2014–15 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress Submitted by Local Educational Agencies in Cohorts 1–8 of Program Improvement, Year 3 (15 Pages)
2/17/2016 11:52 AM
memo-dsib-iad-feb16item01
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
September 10, 2015
Dear Select County and District Superintendents:
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING 2014–15 END-OF-YEAR EVIDENCE OF PROGRESS FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES IN CORRECTIVE ACTION
The purpose of this letter is to provide local educational agencies (LEAs) in Cohorts 1–8 of Program Improvement (PI) Year 3, Corrective Action, with guidance for completing the 2014–15 submission of evidence of progress.
The 2014–15 end-of-year evidence of progress deadline is Friday, October 30, 2015. The end-of-year evidence of progress consists of:
· A summary description of the LEA’s progress towards implementation of the strategies and actions in the LEA Plan.
· An analysis of the LEA’s progress towards student achievement goals in the LEA Plan.
· Documentation of annual communication with the local governing board regarding the end-of-year evidence of progress.
All evidence of LEA Plan implementation and monitoring will be submitted to the California Department of Education (CDE) electronically via the California Accountability and Improvement System (CAIS). The documentation will be compiled in a summary report for review by the State Board of Education (SBE). For reference, please review the PI Year 3 Corrective Action Analysis of 2013–14 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress of LEA Plan Implementation, located on the SBE February 2015 Information Memoranda Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/infomemofeb2015.asp.
Please note that The CAIS Guide for The PI Year 3 LEA Plan Evidence of Progress is provided in Attachment 1. This Guide includes step-by-step instructions for accessing the PI Year 3 Evidence of Progress monitoring instrument and uploading the documentation to CAIS.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Jane Liang, Education Programs Consultant, District Innovation and Improvement Office, by phone at 916-319-0259 or by e-mail at . For technical assistance with CAIS, please contact Chris Aban, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, District Innovation and Improvement Office, by phone at 916-319-0254 or by e-mail at .
Sincerely,
Bob Storelli, Director
Improvement and Accountability Division
BS:jl
Attachment
2/17/2016 11:52 AM
memo-dsib-iad-feb16item01
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 15
2014–15 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress Submitted by Local Educational Agencies in Cohorts 1–8 of
Program Improvement, Year 3
CDS / County / Local Educational Agency / TechnicalAssistance / Cohort / Submitted
Evidence /
19642120000000 / Los Angeles / ABC Unified / Light / 5 / Yes
36675870000000 / San Bernardino / Adelanto Elementary / Light / 3 / Yes
01100170000000 / Alameda / Alameda County Office of Education / Light / 4 / Yes
19757130000000 / Los Angeles / Alhambra Unified / Light / 5 / Yes
27659610000000 / Monterey / Alisal Union / Moderate / 1 / Yes
43693690000000 / Santa Clara / Alum Rock Union Elementary / Moderate / 2 / Yes
33669770000000 / Riverside / Alvord Unified / Moderate / 2 / Yes
03739810000000 / Amador / Amador County Unified / Light / 7 / Yes
30664230000000 / Orange / Anaheim City / Moderate / 2 / Yes
30664310000000 / Orange / Anaheim Union High / Moderate / 4 / Yes
45698560000000 / Shasta / Anderson Union High / Moderate / 4 / Yes
19642460000000 / Los Angeles / Antelope Valley Union High / Moderate / 1 / Yes
07616480000000 / Contra Costa / Antioch Unified / Moderate / 4 / Yes
36750770000000 / San Bernardino / Apple Valley Unified / Moderate / 4 / Yes
16638750000000 / Kings / Armona Union Elementary / Moderate / 4 / Yes
15633130000000 / Kern / Arvin Union / Intensive / 1 / Yes
24656310000000 / Merced / Atwater Elementary / Light / 1 / Yes
31667870000000 / Placer / Auburn Union Elementary / Moderate / 6 / Yes
19642790000000 / Los Angeles / Azusa Unified / Moderate / 5 / Yes
36738580000000 / San Bernardino / Baker Valley Unified / Moderate / 4 / Yes
15633210000000 / Kern / Bakersfield City / Moderate / 1 / Yes
19642870000000 / Los Angeles / Baldwin Park Unified / Moderate / 4 / Yes
33669850000000 / Riverside / Banning Unified / Light / 1 / Yes
36676110000000 / San Bernardino / Barstow Unified / Moderate / 2 / Yes
19642950000000 / Los Angeles / Bassett Unified / Light / 3 / Yes
15633390000000 / Kern / Beardsley Elementary / Light / 7 / Yes
49706150000000 / Sonoma / Bellevue Union Elementary / Moderate / 2 / Yes
19643030000000 / Los Angeles / Bellflower Unified / Light / 7 / Yes
41688660000000 / San Mateo / Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary / Light / 7 / Yes
01611430000000 / Alameda / Berkeley Unified / Other / 1 / Yes
43693770000000 / Santa Clara / Berryessa Union Elementary / Moderate / 6 / Yes