memo-dsib-iad-feb15item01
Page 2 of 7
California Department of EducationExecutive Office
SBE-002 (REV. 01/2014) / memo-dsib-iad-feb15item01
memorandum
Date: / January 29, 2015
TO: / MEMBERS, State Board of Education
FROM: / TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
SUBJECT: / Program Improvement Year 3 Corrective Action: Analysis of 2013–14 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 1–7 of Program Improvement (PI) Year 3. This accountability requirement is described in Item 15 located on the State Board of Education (SBE) Agenda for November 2014 Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr14/agenda201411.asp.
In a letter dated September 8, 2014, LEAs in Cohorts 1–7 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 14, 2014. (See Attachment 1.)
All evidence was to be submitted electronically in the California Accountability Improvement System (CAIS). LEAs in Cohorts 1–7 of PI Year 3 were also invited to access a Webinar on the CDE Program Improvement Year 3 Evidence of Progress Web page at [Note: Invalid link removed.]. This recorded presentation was posted to support LEAs in completing this reporting cycle. From October 2014 to January 2015, trained CDE reviewers received and reviewed the local evidence submitted by LEAs.
The total number of LEAs in Cohorts 1–7 of PI Year 3 is 410. To date, the number of LEAs that have submitted end-of-year local evidence of progress in CAIS is 410, 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 based on local assessment data.
· 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 1–7 of PI Year 3, Corrective Action
2013–14
1. Targeted Academic Interventions, including:
· Response to Intervention (RTI)
· Response to Intervention and Instruction (Rtl2)
· Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
· Read 180
· Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)
· Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) / 178
2. Professional Development, including:
· Coaching
· Administrator and leadership development programs / 233
3. Staff Development and Instruction to Meet the Academic Needs of English Learners, including:
· English Language Development (ELD)
· Systematic ELD
· Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)
· Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)
· Academic Language Development (ALD)
· Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) / 204
4. The Development and Implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), including:
· Data analysis teams
· Collaborative instructional planning
· Writing calibration / 289
5. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Adoption and Alignment, including:
· Professional development planned or conducted to support math CCSS implementation / 287
· Professional development planned or conducted to support English-language arts (ELA) CCSS implementation / 308
· General mention of CCSS preparation or implementation for math and/or ELA CCSS / 334
· No mention of CCSS preparation or implementation / 32
6. Formative Assessment and/or Benchmark Assessment / 308
7. Use of a Data Analysis Tool:
· Most common: Illuminate, Aeries, OARS / 159
8. Specific Instructional Methods, including:
· Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI)
· Effective First Instruction (EFI)
· Constructing Meaning
· Gradual Release of Responsibility
· Mind Maps
· Instructional Rounds
· Differentiated instruction
· Teach for Success (T4S) / 135
9. Extended School Day, including:
· After School Education & Safety Program
· California High School Exit Examination tutorials
· After School tutoring, interventions
· Accelerated Reader
· Odyssey Math
· Winter/Spring Intersession
· Saturday School
· Summer School
· Credit recovery, including online resources / 125
10. Increasing Use of Technology, including:
· Purchasing tablets with carts, laptops for students and staff
· Purchasing instructional software
· Upgrading existing infrastructure, including student information systems / 125
11. Parent and Community Education provided by the LEA: Many LEAs had 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 Accountability Plan (LCAP)
· Parent Nights
· Home Visits
· Parent Portal / 131
12. Types of monitoring protocols were reported, including:
· Walkthroughs, walk-arounds, and learning walks
· Classroom observation data collection and analysis, including with the use of dedicated software
· Instructional Rounds / 216
Examples of LEA Plan Implementation and Monitoring
To illustrate how these commonly reported strategies and actions are being implemented, the following is a brief overview of local evidence of progress that two LEAs provided for the 2013–14 end-of-year submission. In each case, the LEA developed 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 analysis of 2013–14 California High School Exit Examination proficiency rates program assessment results, this ninth through twelfth-grade district developed a road map for all seven of its schools by examining overall graduation pass rates, credit attainment, and success rates in intervention programs from grades eleven and twelve. They have been successful in the revising of curriculum, identifying essential components of the CCSS, creating organizational structures that support teachers, and implementing targeted instructional interventions and literacy support for struggling students.
The following was submitted as evidence of the implementation of these strategies:
· Alignment of curriculum to the CCSS: ELA, literacy components of core content area, and math pathways
· Professional development for administration and teachers provided in-depth study of ELA and math CCSS
· Aligned special education and curriculum department and instructional structures in ELA and math
· Created formative assessments for each course in all content areas and used technology to advance instructional practices
· Explicit language development instruction assisted students in becoming English proficient. A research-based professional development initiative trained all teachers in Secondary Construction Meaning, which included vocabulary instruction, sentence frames, and structured academic talk. Parent Leadership Training for DELAC members was conducted
· Creation of PLCs at sites, focused on student learning and implementation of research-based instructional strategies was completed and expanded with certified teachers and Language & Literacy Coaches
· Dropout interventions used a Blended Learning Model for both On-Site Credit Recovery and Summer School
LEA #2: This LEA operates 25 schools, which includes 17 elementary schools, 2 charter elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 1 Community Day School. This district focused on two strategies: Districtwide English Language Development Published Curriculum for Elementary Schools and Power Literacy for the Middle Schools. This district was focused on using data to improve student achievement in ELA and math.
Evidence to document this work consists of:
English Language Development
· Trained two teachers per grade level from each school in the LEA
· Differentiated Instruction to ensure all students received the same rigorous content standards regardless of English proficiency
· Focused on writing standards in ELA/ELD as a vehicle to accelerate English learner (EL) students to achieve mastery
· Literacy coaches modeled and co-taught ELD curriculum alongside teachers
Power Literacy
· Middle school science and social studies teachers trained in Power Literacy strategies to help ELs access grade level text by using features and structures of text to access and respond to text
· Outside consultants facilitated and spent 25 days at each school site supporting coaches, providing staff development, and modeling lessons
· Teachers and coaches collaborated to analyze and score students’ writing in order to adjust instruction
Benchmark Testing
· Benchmark testing for grades two through eight was conducted three times a year; testing data was used to inform instruction
· Every six to eight weeks, grade level Data Teams identified strategies and tactics and created a common formative assessment
Integrated System of Student Support Framework (ISSSF)
· The ISSSF highlighted four key areas: Attendance, Safety, Instruction, and Intervention
· Data driven interventions allowed students to practice skills identified as their next area of need
Conclusion
Based on a review of local evidence, most LEAs in Cohorts 1–7 of PI Year 3 placed a high priority on implementing academic interventions for targeted students during 2013–14, with a particular emphasis on the needs of English learner 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 410 reports submitted, 287 indicated that professional development supported math CCSS implementation and 308 indicated that professional development supported ELA CCSS implementation. Overall, of the 410 submissions, 334 mentioned CCSS implementation in some way, while 32 made no mention of the CCSS. These data appear to indicate that the majority of these LEAs are continuing to focus on a successful transition to CCSS implementation in math and ELA.
Attachment(s)
Attachment 1: September 8, 2014, 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 2013–14 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress for Local Educational Agencies in Corrective Action (2 Pages)
Attachment 2: 2013–14 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress Submitted by Local Educational Agencies in Cohorts 1–7 of Program Improvement, Year 3 (15 Pages)
3/16/2018 3:49 PM
memo-dsib-iad-feb15item01
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
September 8, 2014
Dear Select County and District Superintendents:
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING 2013–14 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 1–7 of Program Improvement (PI) Year 3 with guidance for completing the 2013–14 submission of evidence of progress.
The 2013–14 end-of-year evidence of progress deadline is Tuesday, October 14, 2014. 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 based on local assessment data.
· 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). Attachment 1 is the CAIS Guide for The PI Year 3 LEA Plan Evidence of Progress that includes step-by-step instructions for accessing the PI Year 3 Evidence of Progress monitoring instrument and uploading documentation in CAIS.
You may access a video presentation, titled “Evidence of Progress 2014, Cohorts 1–7,” on the CDE Resources for LEAs in PI Years 1–3 Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/pilearesources.asp. This recorded presentation is posted for the benefit of LEAs who need guidance with completing the end-of-year evidence of progress.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Jacqueline Matranga, Education Programs Consultant, District Innovation and Improvement Office, by phone at 916-445-4905 or by e-mail at .
Sincerely,
/s/
Bob Storelli, Director
Improvement and Accountability Division
BS:jm
Attachment
3/16/2018 3:49 PM
memo-dsib-iad-feb15item01
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 15
2013–14 End-of-Year Evidence of Progress Submitted by Local Educational Agencies in Cohorts 1–7 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 / 2 / 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