dsib-iad-sep16item01

Page 1of 2

California Department of Education
Executive Office
SBE-003 (REV.09/2011)
dsib-iad-sep16item01 / ITEM #07
/ CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
SEPTEMBER 2016AGENDA

SUBJECT

Elementary and Secondary Education Act: No Child Left Behind: Approvalof Local Educational Agency Plans, Title I, Section 1112. / Action
Information
Public Hearing

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S)

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides federal funding that may be available to local educational agencies (LEAs) (defined as districts, county offices of education, and direct-funded charter schools) for a variety of programs.Currently, three direct-funded charter schools submittedan LEA Plan as part of the application for ESEA federal funding. California Department of Education (CDE) program staff review LEA Plans for compliance with the requirements of ESEA before recommending approval to the State Board of Education (SBE).

While the ESEA has been reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 10, 2015, most of the provisions of the ESSA will not take effect until the 2017–18 school year.

RECOMMENDATION

The CDE recommends that the SBEapprove the three direct-fundedcharter school LEAPlans listed in Attachment 1.

BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES

The federal ESEA Section 1112(e)(2) states that the state educational agency (SEA) shall approve an LEA Plan if the SEA determines that the LEA Plan is designed to enable the LEA’s schools to substantially help children meet the academic standards expected for all children. As a requirement for receiving federal funding sub-grants for ESEA programs, the local governing board and the SBE must approve the original LEA Plan.Subsequent approval of revisions to LEA Plans is made by the local governing board and kept on file with the original LEA Plan. The LEA Plan includes specific descriptions and assurances as outlined in the provisions included in the ESEA.

The purpose of the LEA Plan is to develop an integrated, coordinated set of actions that LEAs will take to meet certain programmatic requirements, including student academic services designed to increase student achievement and performance, coordination of services, needs assessments, consultations, services to homeless students, and others as required.

CDE program staff review LEA Plans for compliance with the requirements of the ESEA including evaluation of goals and activities designed to improve student performance in reading and mathematics; improve programs for English learner students; and promote efforts regarding graduation rates, dropout prevention, and advanced placement. If an LEA Plan lacks the required information, CDE program staff work with the LEA to ensure the necessary information is included in the LEA Plan before recommendingapproval.

Following initial CDE review and SBE approval, all LEAs are expected to annually review their LEA Plan and update the LEA Plan as necessary. Any changes to an LEA Plan must be approved by the LEA’s local governing board.

SUMMARYOF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION

Since the current LEA Plan process was developed in July 2003, as a requirement of the ESEA, the SBE has approved 1,870LEA Plans.

FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE)

There is no fiscal impact to state operations.

ATTACHMENT(S)

Attachment 1:Direct-Funded Charter Schools Recommended for State Board of Education Approval (1 Page)

Attachment 2:Academic Performance for Direct-Funded Charter Schools Recommended for State Board of Education Approval of Local Educational Agency Plans (2 Pages)

10/16/2018 10:41 AM

dsib-iad-sep16item01

Attachment 1

Page 1of 1

Direct-Funded Charter Schools Recommended

for State Board of Education Approval

Local Educational Agency
Name / County-District-School
Code / Academic Performance
Data
California Connections Academy @ North Bay / 17 64055 0129601 / See Attachment 2.
Insight @ San Joaquin / 39 68627 0133116 / None available; opened in September 2015.
SIATech / 37 68452 0106120 / See Attachment 2.

10/16/2018 10:41 AM

dsib-iad-sep16item01

Attachment 2

Page 1of 2

Academic Performance for Direct-Funded Charter Schools Recommended for State Board of Education Approval

of Local Educational Agency Plans

LEA Name: California Connections Academy @ North Bay
CDS CODE: 17 64055 0129601 / Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Criteria / English-Language Arts / Mathematics / Academic Performance Index (API)***
Percent At or Above Proficient
(100.0%) / Met 2014 AYP Criteria** / Percent At or Above Proficient
(100.0%) / Met 2014 AYP Criteria** / 2013
Base API / 2014
Growth API / Met 2014 API Criteria
Student Groups
Schoolwide / Yes, met 3 of 3 / 66.7 / 19.0
Black or African American / -- / --
American Indian or Alaska Native / -- / --
Asian / -- / --
Filipino / -- / --
Hispanic or Latino / -- / --
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander / -- / --
White / 60.0 / 13.3
Two or More Races / -- / --
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / -- / --
English Learners / -- / --
Students with Disabilities / -- / --

--Indicates no data are available or there are too few students in this student group to be numerically significant.

**California received a one-year waiver from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that allows AYP determinations to exclude the percent proficient. However, the ED is requiring California to display the percent proficient data on the AYP Report. The AYP Report used only the participation information from the 2015 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments and California Alternate Assessment Field Test, not the assessment results. The results from the assessments will be displayed within the percent proficient but will not be used for AYP determinations.

***California’s education system went through landmark changes in 2014 with the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the transition to a new testing system, and the shift to develop a new state accountability system. Given these changes, at the March 2015 meeting, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (SSPIs) recommendation to not calculate the following Academic Performance Index (API) reports:

  • 2014 Base API
  • 2015 Growth API
  • 2015 Base API

As a result of suspending the APIs, the SBE also approved the removal of the API as an additional indicator for all schools for AYP reporting purposes.

Academic Performance for Direct-Funded Charter Schools Recommended for State Board of Education Approval

of Local Educational Agency Plans

LEA Name: SIATech
CDS CODE: 37 68452 0106120 / Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Criteria / English-Language Arts / Mathematics / Academic Performance Index (API)***
Percent At or Above Proficient
(100.0%) / Met 2014 AYP Criteria** / Percent At or Above Proficient
(100.0%) / Met 2014 AYP Criteria** / 2013
Base API / 2014
Growth API / Met 2014 API Criteria
Student Groups
Schoolwide / No, met 1 of 7 / 15.0 / 0.0
Black or African American / -- / --
American Indian or Alaska Native / -- / --
Asian / -- / --
Filipino / -- / --
Hispanic or Latino / 15.4 / 0.0
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander / -- / --
White / -- / --
Two or More Races / -- / --
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / 15.0 / 0.0
English Learners / -- / --
Students with Disabilities / -- / --

--Indicates no data are available or there are too few students in this student group to be numerically significant.

**California received a one-year waiver from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that allows AYP determinations to exclude the percent proficient. However, the ED is requiring California to display the percent proficient data on the AYP Report. The AYP Report used only the participation information from the 2015 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments and California Alternate Assessment Field Test, not the assessment results. The results from the assessments will be displayed within the percent proficient but will not be used for AYP determinations.

***California’s education system went through landmark changes in 2014 with the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the transition to a new testing system, and the shift to develop a new state accountability system. Given these changes, at the March 2015 meeting, the State Board of Education (SBE) approved the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (SSPIs) recommendation to not calculate the following Academic Performance Index (API) reports:

  • 2014 Base API
  • 2015 Growth API
  • 2015 Base API

As a result of suspending the APIs, the SBE also approved the removal of the API as an additional indicator for all schools for AYP reporting purposes.

10/16/2018 10:41 AM