SIG Form 1—Application Cover Sheet
School Improvement Grant (SIG)
Application for Funding
APPLICATION RECEIPT DEADLINE
March 14, 2014, 4 p.m.
Submit to:
California Department of Education
Improvement and Accountability Division
School Turnaround Office
1430 N Street, Suite 6208
Sacramento, CA95814-5901
NOTE: Please print or type all information.
CountyName:SAN MATEOCOUNTY / County/District Code:
41-68940
Local Educational Agency (LEA) Name
LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT / LEA NCES Number:
0620220
LEA Address
360 BUTANO CUTOFF / Total Grant Amount Requested
$2,016,344.00
City
PESCADERO / Zip Code
94060
Name of Primary Grant Coordinator
AMY WOOLIEVER / Grant Coordinator Title
SUPERINTENDENT
Telephone Number
650-879-0286 / Fax Number
650-879-0816 / E-mail Address
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
650-879-0286
Superintendent or Designee Signature (Blue Ink) / Date
March 13, 2014
1
SIG Form 2—Schools to Be Served
Indicate 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 ) / 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 / 062022002422 / X / x
X
SIG Form 2a—Eligible, But not Served Schools
If 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 Name / NCES Code
(Available at ) / Reason For Not Serving
NOT APPLICABLE
1
SIG Form 3—District and School Improvement Team
The 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 Membership
Name / Title/Position / RepresentingAMY WOOLIEVER / SUPERINTENDENT / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
PATTY CRUICKSHANK / ASSESSMENT SPECIALIST / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
PAT TALBOT / PRINCIPAL / PESCADEROMIDDLE SCHOOL
ERICA HAYS / PRINCIPAL / PESCADEROELEMENTARY 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
SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis
As 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 Demographics
2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
Grade Levels Currently Served / K-8 / K-8 / K-8
Total Enrollment / 158 / 148 / 177
Percentage 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 Information
Home 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 MateoCounty. 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 servicesprior 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 CurrentSchool Improvement Reform Efforts
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 Successful / Reason
2010-2013 / SIG- Cohort 1 / X / Financial 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 SaturdaySchool 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 year
Knowledgeable 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 program
Enhancement of elective opportunities meeting student interests
Program flexibility allows staff to quickly meet changing needs.
Student Academic Performance Data
Please complete the table below regarding school academic performance data for the school years requested. School data reports may be found at CDE Dataquest:
API Data
2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
Growth—Schoolwide / 61 / 16 / -35
Met Growth Target—Schoolwide (yes or no) / YES / YES / NO
Met Growth Target—for all Subgroups(yes or no) / YES / YES / NO
AYP Data
2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
Percent 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 / NO
Met all Participation Rate Criteria (yes or no) / YES / YES / YES
SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis
California Standards Test Data by SchoolwideFor theschool 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
CST Data by Subgroup
For 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 Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 79% / NA / 14% / 23% / 17% / 25%
Mathematics / 79% / NA / 36% / 44% / 42% / 50%
Grade: 3
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 50% / NA / 23% / 27% / 25% / None
Mathematics / 90% / NA / 39% / 36% / 33% / None
Grade: 4
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 70% / NA / 25% / 20% / 8% / None
Mathematics / 90% / NA / 56% / 60% / 58% / None
Grade: 5
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 100% / NA / 50% / 44% / 33% / None
Mathematics / 100% / NA / 57% / 53% / 44% / 100%
Grade: 6
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 75% / NA / 15% / 31% / 9% / None
Mathematics / 76% / NA / 8% / 27% / 10% / None
Grade: 7
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 57% / NA / 35% / 45% / 36% / 50%
Mathematics / 28% / NA / 20% / 25% / 14% / None
Grade: 8
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 83% / NA / 19% / 28% / 6% / No tester CST
Mathematics / 33% GM
100% Alg / NA / 19% GM
71% Alg / 22% GM 78%Alg / 7% GM
50% Alg / No tester CST
SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis
2013 Graduation Rate Not Applicable
1
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 suspensions
Truancy rate (%) / 6% / 14% / 12%
High school dropout rate (%) –high schools only / NA / NA / NA
High school graduation rate (%) – high schools only / NA / NA / NA
Number 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% Satisfactory
15% Needs Improvement / 85% Satisfactory
15% Needs Improvement
SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis
Needs 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
Tool/Description / Roles and Responsibilities / Analysis Process / Findings
#1 PES/MS School Improvement Grant Sustainability Report- October 17, 2013 / SIG Coordinator- Group Lead
Principal and 1 PES/PMS teacher- Report developer
Superintendent and SIG Coordinator- Analysis of report / The team used CARA, a tool from the CharlesA.DanaCenter. 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 CCSS
Community 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 chats
Principals- Data chats Review and disseminate data to teachers
Teachers- Provide analysis of trends and areas of need
Superintendent- Review data and identify performance gap areas. / 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 graders
Title 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 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 Committee
Early Childhood Steering Committee- Select evidence-based practice to increase family engagement. / Early Childhood Steering Committee met with the JohnGardnerCenter 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 diploma
School 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 school
95% 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 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 levels
Early 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: