San Diego City Schools

Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and

High Priority Schools Grant Program Action Plans

May 14, 2002

4

Page

SAN DIEGO CITY SCHOOLS

Institute for Learning

IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION/UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS PROGRAM AND HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAM SCHOOL SITE ACTION PLANS

May 14, 2002

Introductory Statement

The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (SB1X) and AB 961 require each school participating in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and/or the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) to prepare an action plan to address student achievement issues at the school. This report requests Board approval of the II/USP action plans for Birney, Cadman, Crown Point, Euclid, Horton, Marshall, Rowan, Valencia Park, Washington, and Webster Elementary Schools; Kroc, and Marston Middle Schools; and Darnall, Sojourner Truth Academy and Tubman Village Charter Schools. Additionally, this report requests Board approval of the HPSGP action plans for Baker, Balboa, Emerson/Bandini, Jackson, King, Logan, MacDowell Elementary Schools; Mann Middle School; Gompers Secondary School; Lincoln High School; Hoover High School from the City Heights Pilot; and Holly Drive, Kwachiiyoa, and Memorial Academy Charter Schools.

Background

In Fall 2001, twenty-two regular district schools, one pilot school, and six charter schools were selected to participate in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and/or the High Priority Schools Grant Program, as authorized under SB1X: The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA) and AB 961. The II/USP is open to schools in API deciles 1 through 5 that do not meet annual growth targets. The HPSGP is open to schools in decile 1 with an API below 500. II/USP and HPSGP grant awards provide selected schools an opportunity to participate in planning and implementation activities for improved student achievement. The legislation requires that an External Evaluator or other external entity assist schools with the planning process and development of the schools’ action plans. In November 2001, the Board approved contracts for The Pulliam Group to provide external evaluation/facilitation services for the district schools participating in these programs. The six charter schools and Hoover High School elected to select their own external evaluator and undertake this process independent of the district.

The II/USP is a three-year process consisting of a planning year followed by two years of implementation. During the first year, schools engage in an external evaluation and action planning process under the auspices of an external evaluator. The HPSGP is a four-year process consisting of a planning year followed by three years of implementation funding.

Between November 2001 and April 2002, II/USP and HPSGP district schools engaged in an external evaluation and action planning process that was specifically tailored to meet district needs as well as state legislative requirements. The evaluation process included parent and community input, classroom visitations, and analysis of student achievement and demographic data. The school staff, and the school site/community planning team and/or the School Site Council, then worked with the evaluator to translate the evaluation findings into an action plan that addresses the legislative requirements. The content requirements differ slightly between the two programs. The district selected to use the following HPSGP elements for all of the regular district schools’ action plans:

·  Includes ongoing data collection

·  Is grounded in findings from an initial needs assessment

·  Provides evidence of a commitment to implement the plan

·  Heightens the expectations at the schoolsite that ALL children can learn and succeed

·  Ensures an environment conducive to teaching and learning

·  Identifies additional resources to be used to implement the plan.

Hoover High School and the six charter schools engaged in a planning process appropriate to the schools’ pilot or charter. Plans developed by the pilot and charter schools address the same legislative requirements appropriate for the program under which they are applying.

PSAA specifies that II/USP action plans may request implementation grant funding of up to $200 per student for each of the two implementation years (2002-03 and 2003-04). AB 961 provides $400 per student for each of three implementation years (2002-03 through 2004-05). Schools qualifying for both programs would receive a maximum of $400 per student. School sites must identify matching funds from existing site and/or district resources. These matching funds are intended to support the alignment of school site programs and practices with the action plan, and promote institutionalization of the changes at the school so that they may be sustained following termination of the state grant funding.

This report brings forward, for Board approval, the funding applications for the twenty-two regular district schools, one pilot school, and six charter schools selected to participate in the II/USP and HPSGP. Attached are copies of the school documents to be submitted to the California Department of Education. (Copies of the complete implementation plan for each school will be available in the Board Recording Office by May 31, 2002.)

II/USP and HPSGP school site action plans must be approved by the local governing board then submitted to the state for review and approval by the State Board of Education. The district must submit the school action plans to the state by May 15, 2002.

State legislation calls for a local review of school performance at the end of each implementation year. For schools that fail to meet their API growth targets, the district Board of Education must hold a public hearing, consult with the external evaluator and school site/community planning team or School Site Council, and select from a range of possible interventions. At the end of the final implementation year, there will be a state review of school performance. Schools that meet or exceed growth targets will receive awards through the Governor’s Performance Award Program. Schools that fail to meet growth targets but demonstrate significant growth will continue in the II/USP or HPSGP for an additional year. Schools that fail to meet growth targets and fail to show significant growth will be subject to state sanctions.

Instructional Implications

The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Priority Schools Grant Program have significant implications for instructional improvement. A data-based needs assessment and collaborative development of a targeted action plan will help schools focus time and resources on student academic needs, and identify the instructional support structures necessary to meet those needs and improve achievement. Standards-based professional development for teachers and site administrators, high-quality instructional materials, and early and continuing interventions are core elements of the programs.

Facilities Implications

There are no facilities implications associated with this report.

Budget Implications

There are no general fund budget implications associated with this report.

Public Support and Engagement Implications

Each school participating in the II/USP formed a school site/community planning team to work collaboratively with the external evaluator and school staff to review site data and develop the action plan. As specified in SB1X, the majority of the planning team members are non-school site personnel and at least 20 percent of the members are parents. AB 961 designated the School Site Council (SSC) as the school planning team for the HPSGP plan development process which includes an equal number of school site staff and parent/community members. A signature page must be completed and submitted with each school action plan, signed by all planning team or SSC members to certify their involvement in development of the plan.

The school planning team, SSC, or charter governance group will continue to be involved in monitoring implementation of the site action plans during subsequent years. Also, the results of the local reviews at the end of each implementation year will be reported publicly at a Board of Education meeting.

Policy Implications

There are no district policy implications associated with this report.

Recommendation

The Superintendent recommends that the Board of Education approve: The II/USP action plans for Birney, Cadman, Crown Point, Euclid, Horton, Marshall, Rowan, Valencia Park, Washington, and Webster Elementary Schools; Kroc, and Marston Middle Schools; and Darnall, Sojourner Truth Academy and Tubman Village Charter Schools; and, the HPSGP action plans for Baker, Balboa, Emerson/Bandini, Jackson, King, Logan, MacDowell Elementary Schools; Mann Middle School; Gompers Secondary School; Lincoln High School; Hoover High School from the City Heights Pilot; and Holly Drive, Kwachiiyoa, and Memorial Academy Charter Schools.

Attachments:
A. / Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program Action Plan Summaries for:
Birney Elementary / Marshall Elementary / Kroc Middle School
Cadman Elementary / Rowan Elementary / Marston Middle School
Crown Point Elementary / Valencia Park Elementary / Darnall Charter
Euclid Elementary / Washington Elementary / Sojourner Truth Academy
Horton Elementary / Webster Elementary / Tubman Village
B. / High Priority Schools Grant Program Action Plan Summaries for:
Baker Elementary / Logan Elementary / Hoover High School
Balboa Elementary / MacDowell Elementary / Holly Drive
Emerson/Bandini Elem. / Mann Middle School / Kwachiiyoa
Jackson Elementary / Gompers Secondary / Memorial Academy
King Elementary / Lincoln High School

Report prepared by Sally Bennett and Sharon Jope.