Maryland State Department of Education



|Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG) I, section 1003(g), FY 2009 |

|MSDE SIG I Year 2 Onsite Monitoring Dates: February-March 2013 |

| |

|MSDE SIG I Year 3 Monitoring Teams’ Second Onsite Visit Feedback for: |

|Local Educational Agency (LEA): |

|Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS). |

|Turnaround Intervention Model SIG Schools: |

|Augusta Fells Savage institute of Visual Arts High School; and |

|Booker T. Washington Middle Schools |

|Restart Intervention Model SIG Schools: |

|Calverton Elementary/Middle School; |

|Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School; |

|Baltimore IT Academy (formerly Chinquapin Middle); |

|William C. March Middle School; and |

|Garrison Middle School. |

Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG) I, FY 2009:

The School Improvement Grant (SIG) Program, FY 2009, authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, provides funding through State educational agencies (SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the lowest-achieving schools that have the greatest need for the funds and demonstrate the strongest commitment to use the funds to raise significantly the achievement of students. The United States Department of Education (USDE) views the large infusion of Federal funds into the SIG program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a historic opportunity to address one of the most intractable challenges for America’s education system: turning around or closing down our Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. USDE approved Maryland’s Flexibility Plan in May 2012 which included Maryland’s SIG I schools as Priority Schools.

Purpose of the Priority SIG I Year 3 Monitoring Teams’ Second Onsite Visit:

As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each LEA that receives a School Improvement Grant to ensure that the LEA is implementing its intervention model fully and effectively in Maryland’s Tier I and Tier II schools. The purpose of the SIG I Year 2 Teams second onsite visit is to review documentation that substantiates the LEA’s implementation, both programmatic and fiscal, of its SIG I Grant, as approved by MSDE. Once all documentation provided by the LEA has been reviewed, SIG I Year 3 Monitoring Teams will determine a level of implementation for each section/component/strategy/action that consists of being MET, PARTIALLY MET, or NOT MET. For areas that are MET in this feedback, MSDE will continue to monitor sustainability of the level of implementation. Based on the SIG I Year 3 Teams’ Onsite Visit Feedback, MSDE expects the LEA to review and analyze the feedback and make adjustments to its approved SIG I application through the system’s internal controls and submission of programmatic and fiscal amendments to MSDE.

| |

|Table Organization of SIG I Year 3 Teams’ Second Onsite Visit Feedback |

|(Sections are based on the approved BCPSS SIG Application.) |

|Table 1 |Section 4: LEA Commitments and Capacity |

|Table 2 |Levels of Implementation At -a -Glance for SIG I Turnaround Schools |

|Table 3 |Section 2: Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School |

|Table 4 |Section 2: Booker T. Washington Middle School |

|Table 5 |Levels of Implementation At -a -Glance for SIG I Restart Schools |

|Table 6 |Section 2: Calverton Elementary/Middle School |

|Table 7 |Section 2: Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School |

|Table 8 |Section 2: William C. March Middle School |

|Table 9 |Section 2: Baltimore IT Academy (formerly Chinquapin Middle) |

|Table 10 |Section 2: Garrison Middle School |

|Table 11 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 Consolidated Budget |

|Table 12 |Section 5: SIG I LEA Budget for Year 1 and Year 2 |

|Table 13 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Augusta Fells Institute of Visual Arts High School |

|Table 14 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Booker T. Washington Middle School |

|Table 15 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Calverton Elementary/Middle School |

|Table 16 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School |

|Table 17 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for William C. March Middle School |

|Table 18 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Baltimore IT Academy (formerly Chinquapin Middle) |

|Table 19 |Section 5: SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Garrison Middle School |

|TABLE 1: Section 4—LEA Commitments and Capacity by Baltimore City Public Schools |

|MSDE SIG I Year 2 Monitoring Team Members: Jim Newkirk Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

| |

|Table 4.A: BCPSS Central Support Team Level of Implementation for Table 4.A: MET |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS presented Sign-ins, agendas, notes, and evaluations (SANE) of monthly Central Support Team meetings, inclusive of representatives from the Turnaround Office; Networks; Title I, and the Chief |

|Academic Officer (CAO) representative. |

| |

| |

|How often will the LEA 1003(g) central support team meet? Level of Implementation: MET |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS communicated that the Central Support Team meets monthly. They also stated the team meets individually with network representatives assigned to specific turnaround schools. |

|BCPSS presented SANE documentation of meetings from September 2013 to February 2013. |

| |

|How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III Level of Implementation: MET |

|schools to the Superintendent? |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS communicated that Network Executive Directors and Facilitators have ongoing quarterly check-ins with the Superintendent. |

|BCPSS presented a sample memo as evidence which was addressed to Dr. Alonso reflecting the SIG/Turnaround Schools’ Quarterly Report that was dated October 9, 2012. |

| |

|How often will they report on their work and the work on Tier I, II and III schools Level of Implementation: MET to the Board of Education? |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS communicated that Quarterly Reports are provided to the Board of School Commissioners. |

|BCPSS presented evidence (dated October 9, 2012) of these quarterly updates to the Office of Teaching and Learning Committee and the Chief Academic Officer about the Turnaround Initiative. |

| |

| |

| |

|Level of Implementation: Not Applicable |

| |

|Has the LEA 1003(g) central support team met prior to the submission of the grant application to review the individual school descriptions and to discuss how it will coordinate and manage the support, |

|monitoring, and assessment outlined in those plans? |

|_____ Yes ____No |

| |

| |

|What role has or will the LEA 1003(g) central support team play in the creation of annual Level of Implementation: MET goals for student achievement and annual review/assessment of |

|progress based on these |

|goals described in sections 2 and 3 of this proposal? |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS communicated the school system changed the individual school goals for student achievement due to Maryland’s approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver which included new targets based on the new school AMOs |

|that are assigned to the schools. |

|BCPSS communicated the revised goals are included in each school’s School Performance Plan (SPP). |

| |

| |

|What steps will the LEA take to ensure that the school improvement Level of Implementation: MET |

|funds are utilized (1) in a timely way and (2) effectively and efficiently to support |

|the required components of the selected intervention? Specifically, what assurances |

|will the LEA make that schools and LEA support teams have access to these funds, |

|even during annual rollover processes? How will the LEA support principals’ |

|timely and effective use of these funds? |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS provided monthly reports regarding spend downs in collaboration with the Turnaround Business Manager. |

|BCPSS provided evidence of ongoing Budget/Fiscal monitoring of SIG I Priority Schools. |

|BCPSS provided evidence of a grants meeting with the Turnaround Office and Grants Administration staff for SIG schools on June 4, 2012. |

|BCPSS provided ongoing Grant Managers Team Meeting documentation with yearly calendars. |

|BCPSS provided ongoing monthly operators/principal meetings with the Turnaround Office reflected in SAN documentation from July 2012 to February 2013. |

| |

|Within this proposal, the LEA identified actions taken or in the planning to support Level of Implementation: MET |

|individual Tier I and Tier II schools’ implementation of the selected interventions. |

|Looking across the commitments made for the schools, and considering as well the strategies selected by the LEA for identified Tier III schools, what additional actions will the LEA take to ensure that |

|the selected interventions are implemented as designed and to make the other changes such as: (1) realignment of other resources; (2) removal of expectations that might run counter to the approach |

|outlined in the selected intervention; (3) timely modification of practices and policies (those anticipated ahead of time and those that will emerge during implementation); and (4) engaging in reflective |

|and sustained, collaborative conversation and planning to ensure that improvement efforts can be sustained once this funding ends? |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|BCPSS shared the school system modified its Restart Operators renewal protocol. |

|BCPSS shared it is using its School Effectiveness Review (SER) to establish our school monitoring. |

|BCPSS shared there has been discussion on how the school system will staff our priority schools; how school progress will be determined; and what the extended day will look like with the knowledge that |

|not all extended days are created equal. |

|BCPSS shared the school system is learning, based on the SIG experience, on how to push school leaders and to tie this push to the work at the school. |

|BCPSS stated that if the school system has a strong Restart Operator, it is easier to manage. As the school system is reviewing the work of our Restart Operators to determine renewal, the school system |

|uses the State feedback to assist in our school system decision. |

|BCPSS shared there was a realignment of resources for the system’s Turnaround schools. For example, an additional Human Capital staff person was assigned to one of the Network Teams. |

|BCPSS shared that the school system uses its RTTT Turnaround Project to support SIG schools. |

|BCPSS shared the Breakthrough Center Support was added in more schools in the school district. |

| |

| |

|What are the major challenges to full and effective implementation of all components Level of Implementation: N/A |

|of the SIG grant that the LEA 1003 (g) central support team has identified and how |

|will the team address these challenges in the early phases of the work? |

| |

|BCPSS Presented Evidence: |

|Helping principals align all the resources for the mission for the school and to be strategic. |

|There is a School Performance Plan (SPP) process in place. What is the system going to support with depth and at which breadth? |

|Principals now have better informed consumers and can work with ED and can think about how to best align key resources. |

|One barrier was the lack of strategic thinking about resources. Now we have executive directors (ED) who work very closely with principals. We are using our human resources better. |

|Another huge challenge is the internal processes for our submission of programmatic and fiscal amendments and getting them through our internal process. BCPSS needs to get better at getting Turnaround |

|schools what they need. BCPSS has to be on top of that. |

|Also staffing those really difficult positions. BCPSS needs to recruit especially for turnaround. Schools need interesting and innovative staff and teachers. BCPSS can improve in these ways. The |

|system will be helping that happen. |

|Professional development that is aligned strategically. |

| |

|Presented and Communication Evidence: |

|BCPSS shared the school system assigned its most talented people on the Turnaround Network Teams. There has been full discussion with the school teams in terms of resource deployment. Early recruitment |

|of key staff is at the forefront of CAO and Human Capital Director. |

|BCPSS shared there have been challenges with some Restart Operators. The school system is determining which operators are effective; which operators will not be renewed; and which Turnaround Schools will|

|close. The school system is developing accountability measures for Restart Operators. We are determining how long will the school system will give the operator for changing a school and how much |

|financial support to give an operator to run a school. |

|Currently, the restart operators are going through a renewal process which has not been an easy process. |

|BCPSS shared the school system cannot react to State labels identified in Maryland’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver. |

|BCPSS shared there is internal discussion going on in terms of who will lead the school system’s Priority Schools. |

|BCPSS shared that the school system is learning how to maximize and support the schools. |

|There continues to be fiscal challenges. |

|BCPSS shared the work of Student Support Teams to enhance School Culture and Climate has been elevated. We have learned that it is important to develop skills in our students to help when life’s |

|challenges become difficult. |

|BCPSS shared they are targeting professional development in its schools. |

| |

|TABLE 2: |Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts High School, |Booker T. Washington |

|Levels of Implementation |Tier II |Middle School, Tier I |

|At-a-Glance on the | | |

|Requirements for the |Requirement Level of Implementation |Requirement Level of Implementation |

|Turnaround Intervention Model in |M-Met |M-Met |

|BCPSS’ SIG I Schools for |PM-Partially Met |PM-Partially Met |

|2010-2011 |NM-Not Met |NM-Not Met |

|2011-2012 | | |

|2012-2013 | | |

| | SIG I Year 1 |

| |2010-2011 |

|MSDE SIG Team: Valerie Ashton-Thomas, Walt Sallee, Annette Harris, Gary Hedges |Monitoring Dates: February 25-26, 2013 |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| | |Implementation | |

| |Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient operational |Met | |

|1 |flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to | | |

| |implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to substantially improve | | |

| |student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates | | |

| |Use locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who |Met | |

|2 |can work within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students | | |

| |(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; and (B) | | |

| |Select new staff | | |

| |Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities |Met | |

|3 |for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are | | |

| |designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to | | |

| |meet the needs of the students in the turnaround school | | |

| |Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional |Met | |

|4 |development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional | | |

| |program and designed with school staff to ensure that they are equipped to | | |

| |facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to | | |

| |successfully implement school reform strategies | | |

| |Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not limited to, |Met | |

|5 |requiring the school to report to a new “turnaround office” in the LEA or | | |

| |SEA, hire a “turnaround leader” who reports directly to the Superintendent | | |

| |or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into a multi-year contract with the LEA | | |

| |or SEA to obtain added flexibility in exchange for greater accountability | | |

| |Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is |Met | |

|6 |research-based and “vertically aligned” from one grade to the next as well | | |

| |as aligned with State academic standards | | |

| |Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim,|Met | |

|7 |and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order | | |

| |to meet the academic needs of individual students | | |

| |Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning|Met | |

|8 |time | | |

| |Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and |Met | |

|9 |supports for students | | |

|10 |Other allowable strategies |Met | |

|TABLE 4: Booker T. Washington Middle School |LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools |

|MSDE SIG Team: Valerie Ashton-Thomas, Walt Sallee, Annette Harris, and |Monitoring Dates: |

|Gary Hedges |February 11-12, 2013 |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of Implementation |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| |Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient operational|Met | |

|1 |flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) | | |

| |to implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to | | |

| |substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high| | |

| |school graduation rates | | |

| |Use locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of |Met | |

|2 |staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the | | |

| |needs of students | | |

| |(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; | | |

| |and (B) Select new staff | | |

| |Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased |Met | |

|3 |opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible | | |

| |work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain | | |

| |staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in| | |

| |the turnaround school | | |

| |Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional |Met | |

|4 |development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive | | |

| |instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure that | | |

| |they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and | | |

| |have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies| | |

| |Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not |Met | |

|5 |limited to, requiring the school to report to a new “turnaround | | |

| |office” in the LEA or SEA, hire a “turnaround leader” who reports | | |

| |directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter | | |

| |into a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added | | |

| |flexibility in exchange for greater accountability | | |

| |Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is |Met | |

|6 |research-based and “vertically aligned” from one grade to the next | | |

| |as well as aligned with State academic standards | | |

| |Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, |Met | |

|7 |interim, and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate | | |

| |instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual | | |

| |students | | |

| |Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased |Met | |

|8 |learning time | | |

| |Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services|Met | |

|9 |and supports for students | | |

|TABLE 5: |Calverton Elem/Middle |

|Levels of Implementation |Tier I |

|At-a-Glance on the | |

|Requirements for the |Met |

|Restart Intervention Model in BCPSS’ SIG I Schools for 2010-2011 |Partially Met |

|2011-2012 |Not Met |

|2012-2013 | |

|MSDE SIG Team: Donna Olszewski. Richard Scott, Martha Essenmacher, |Date: February 27-28, 2013 |

|Mary Cross | |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of Implementation |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| | |(M, PM, NM) | |

|1 |Student Profile |Met | |

|2 |Staff Profile |Met | |

|3 |Student Achievement |Met | |

|4 |Rigorous Curriculum |Met | |

|5 |Instructional Program |Met | |

|6 |Assessments |Met | |

|7 |School Climate & Culture |Met | |

|8 |Student, Family, Community Support |Met | |

|9 |Professional Development |Met | |

|10 |Organizational Structure and Resources |Met | |

|11 |Comprehensive and Effective Planning |Met | |

| | | | |

|12 |Effective Leadership |Met | |

|TABLE 7: |LEA: Baltimore City Public School System |

|Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School | |

|MSDE SIG Team: Donna Olszewski, Mary Cross, Martha Essenmacher |Date: February 13-14, 2013 |

|Paula McCoach | |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| | |Implementation | |

| | |(M, PM, NM) | |

|1 |Student Profile |Met | |

|2 |Staff Profile |Met | |

|3 |Student Achievement |Met | |

|4 |Rigorous Curriculum |Met | |

|5 |Instructional Program |Met | |

|6 |Assessments |Met | |

|7 |School Climate & Culture | Met | |

|8 |Student, Family, Community Support | Met | |

|9 |Professional Development |Met | |

|10 |Organizational Structure and Resources |Met | |

|11 |Comprehensive and Effective Planning |Met | |

| | | | |

|12 |Effective Leadership |Met | |

|TABLE 8: William C. March Middle School |LEA: Baltimore City Public School System |

|MSDE SIG Team: Barbara Scherr, Michael Ford, John McGinnis, |Date: February 13-14, 2013 |

|Betty Mack | |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of Implementation |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| | |(M, PM, NM) | |

|1 |Student Profile |Met | |

|2 |Staff Profile |Met | |

|3 |Student Achievement |Met | |

|4 |Rigorous Curriculum |Met | |

|5 |Instructional Program |Met | |

|6 |Assessments |Met | |

|7 |School Climate & Culture | Met |. |

|8 |Student, Family, Community Support | Met | |

|9 |Professional Development |Met | |

|10 |Organizational Structure and Resources |Met | |

|11 |Comprehensive and Effective Planning |Met | |

| | | | |

|12 |Effective Leadership |Met | |

|TABLE 9: Baltimore IT Academy |LEA: Baltimore City Public School System |

|(formerly Chinquapin Middle School) | |

|MSDE SIG Team: Cvieta Jovanovich, Sally Dorman, Kelly Coates, |Date: February 11-12, 2013 |

|John Grymes, and Nina Roa | |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of Implementation |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| | |(M, PM, NM) | |

|1 |Student Profile |Partially Met |1b. |

| | | |No evidence that specialized topic of interest, such as cyber security, software engineering, and |

| | | |computer science are integrated into the curricula |

| | | |Limited student enrollment information shared (retention data not provided, percentages rather than |

| | | |actual numbers, no profiles provided) |

|2 |Staff Profile |Partially Met |2a/h. |

| | | |No evidence of a formal partnership with Towson University. No Memorandum of Understanding detailing the|

| | | |services that Towson will provide to the staff |

| | | |No evidence provided to show significant technology backgrounds for teachers (possessing IT related |

| | | |industry certifications) |

| | | |Very limited staff profile data provided (longevity and certification) |

| | | |2b. |

| | | |No evidence of individualized professional development for teachers |

| | | |2e/f |

| | | |Evidence that was provided lacked specificity (dates, time, content area, professional development |

| | | |topic, area of focus, and target staff) |

|3 |Student Achievement |Partially Met |3a. |

| | | |No evidence of the impact of the strategies are being monitored (benchmark assessments or authentic |

| | | |assessments) |

| | | |No evidence of two-way communication among team members |

| | | |No analysis of data provided |

| | | |3b. |

| | | |No evidence that the PRIDE Program is being implemented |

|4 |Rigorous Curriculum |Not Met |4a. |

| | | |No evidence that shows that any students gained skills in Microsoft Office |

| | | |No list of Advanced IT topics |

| | | |4b. |

| | | |No lesson plans based on NETS |

| | | |Did not provide student work reflecting NETS |

| | | |No academic curriculum provided |

| | | |Did not provide sufficient documentation to support NETS incorporated into instruction |

| | | |No evidence documented that showed how technology is being used to increase academic success |

| | | |4c-4g |

| | | |No evidence that they are incorporating the NETS standards across the curriculum |

| | | |4h. |

| | | |No evidence of individualized professional development plans aligned to state standards |

| | | |No evidence that current teachers were trained to develop and align annual plans |

| | | |4i. |

| | | |No evidence to support ongoing professional development identifying best utilization of technology tools|

| | | |(it is currently scheduled for March/April) |

| | | |4j. |

| | | |No evidence of the use of online resources by teachers |

|5 |Instructional Program |Partially Met |5a. |

| | | |Insufficient documentation of administrative meetings/observations showing continuous use of technology |

| | | |in classrooms |

| | | |5b. |

| | | |Insufficient documentation to show continuous use of technology in classroom lesson plans |

| | | |5c. |

| | | |No evidence to support professional development identifying best utilization of instructional program |

|6 |Assessments |Partially Met |6b. |

| | | |No evidence that assessment data is used to inform effective and successful instruction |

|7 |School Climate & Culture |Not Met |7a. |

| | | |No evidence of parent quarterly meetings |

| | | |No evidence that Board of Director developed an action plan based on survey results |

| | | |Climate survey is not dated |

| | | |Survey data is summarized but not analyzed |

| | | |No plan of action to address the concerns of parents/students/staff |

| | | |7b. |

| | | |No evidence indicating that parents provided feedback to the school using School Reach |

| | | |7c. |

| | | |No evidence of an organized PBIS program |

|8 |Student, Family, Community Support |Not Met |8a. |

| | | |Insufficient documentation to show ongoing Parent Task Force Meetings |

| | | |Insufficient documentation to show communication with parents |

| | | |No evidence of coordinating parent volunteering efforts |

| | | |8b. |

| | | |No evidence of parent survey data analysis |

|9 |Professional Development |Partially Met |9a. |

| | | |No evidence to show how data is used to build a culture of continuous learning |

| | | |9b. |

| | | |No evidence of individual growth plans for staff |

|10 |Organizational Structure and Resources |Partially Met |10b. |

| | | |No evidence of a new staffing model for the Board of Directors |

| | | |10c. |

| | | |No evidence of team teaching |

| | | |10d. |

| | | |No evidence of a five-year financial plan |

|11 |Comprehensive and Effective Planning |Partially Met |11b. |

| | | |No list of stakeholders that were provided leadership and training |

|12 |Effective Leadership |Not Met |12a. |

| | | |Insufficient documentation to show analyzed data to inform instruction |

| | | |No evidence of weekly meetings |

| | | |12b. |

| | | |No documentation to support that data was analyzed |

| | | |No documentation to support that analyzed data was shared with staff |

| | | |No documentation to support making data assessment a part of the evaluation process |

|TABLE 10: Garrison Middle School |LEA: Baltimore City Public School System |

|MSDE SIG Team: Barbara Scherr, Jeanne Paynter, |Date: February 27-28, 2013 |

|Michael Ford, John McGinnis, Betty Mack | |

|Comp # |Description |Requirement Level of Implementation |Insufficient Evidence by Component and Action Item |

| | |(M, PM, NM) | |

|1 |Student Profile |Met | |

|2 |Staff Profile |Met | |

|3 |Student Achievement |Met | |

|4 |Rigorous Curriculum |Met | |

|5 |Instructional Program |Met | |

|6 |Assessments |Met | |

|7 |School Climate & Culture |Met | |

|8 |Student, Family, Community Support |Met | |

|9 |Professional Development |Met | |

|10 |Organizational Structure and Resources |Met | |

|11 |Comprehensive and Effective Planning |Met | |

| | | | |

|12 |Effective Leadership |Met | |

|Table 11 Priority SIG I Consolidated Budget (Year 3) LEA: Baltimore City Public School System |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|SIG 1003(g) ARRA |SIG 1003(g) Title I, Part A |

|Total Allocation |$ 5,672,325 |Total Allocation |$ 1,838,605 |

|Amount Spent |$ 1,740,864 |Amount Spent |$ 0 |

|Percent Spent |29 % |Percent Spent |0% |

|Amount Encumbered |$ 576,944 |Amount Encumbered |$ 0 |

|Spend Down Data as of : |March 4, 2013 |Spend Down Data as of : |March 4, 2013 |

|Table 12 Priority SIG I LEA Budget for Year 3 LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|LEA Year 3 Allocation: |LEA Year 3 Budget Spent: |Percent LEA Year 3 |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 1,838,605 |$ 0 |Budget Spent: 0 % |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 230,000 |Budgeted: $ 1,074,193 |Budgeted: $ 52,000 |Travel Budgeted : $ 6,525 |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 0 | |

| | | |Travel Encumbered : $ 0 |

|Spent (amount) : $ 0 |Spent (amount) : $ 0 |Spent(amount) : $ 0 |Spent( amount) : $ 0 |

|Spent (%) : 0 % |Spent (%) : 0 % |Spent (%): 0 % |Spent (%) : 0 % |

|How much of the LEA SIG 1003(g) ARRA budget, based on your system’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and percent)? The LEA does not have funds allocated in the ARRA budget. |

|How much of the LEA SIG 1003(g) Title I Part A, budget has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that indicated that the LEA has spent $ 0. This amount is 0% of the LEA SIG I year 3 budget. There are no encumbered funds for this grant. |

|Is the LEA spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that spending for the LEA grant is not consistent with the budget timeline. The LEA is currently using funds from their year 2 allocation. |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the LEA budget? |

|BCPSS explained that the LEA is supporting schools with their extended day programs but the funds for the teacher stipends are being captured on general funds and will be transferred to the grant at the |

|end of the school year. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for the LEA? |

|BCPSS indicated that there will be a grant amendment submitted to MSDE in March 2013. The amendment will increase salaries by |

|$1, 9500, 626. This amount will provide $143,000 to support the two academic content liaisons, $201,000 for teacher stipends for professional development, and $100,000 for temporarily salaries for closing|

|out the SIG grant activities (i.e. inventory and transfer for closing schools.) Funds will be added for teacher stipends for extended day programs in SIG schools. Additionally in this amendment, |

|contracted services (New Leaders New Schools contract) will be decreased by 1.5 million. |

|How often are LEA expenditures monitored? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that district financial analyst met with Turnaround Office staff on Dec. 4, Dec. 17, 2012; Jan. 6, Jan. 8, and Feb. 5, 2013 to plan, discuss, and revise the district SIG I |

|budget. |

|Table 13 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Augusta Fells Savage High School , Tier II |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIG I Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 25% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 1,404,453 |$ 346,086 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 948,098 |Budgeted: $ 164,000 |Budgeted: $ 29,999 |Travel Budgeted: $2,500 |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 13.00 |Travel Encumbered: $ 0 |

|Spent (amount): $ 248,405 |Spent (amount): $ 420.00 |Spent (amount): $ 8,256 |Travel Spent(amount): $ 0 |

|Spent (%): 26 % |Spent (%): 0 % |Spent (%): 28 % |Spent (%): 0% |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed Augusta Fells Savage has spent $346,086. This amount is 25% of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 13.00 has been encumbered. Expended |

|amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that the spending for Augusta Fells is not on target but the Turnaround staff will continue to work with the school to expend funds. |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS explained that the contract with Family League had to be rewritten and therefore no funds have been used for this contract. Additionally, the contract with Capturing Kids Hearts had to be changed to|

|another vendor. Stipends for extended day will be transferred from general funds to the grant at the end of the school year. The principal incentive and differential are posted to the grant at the end of |

|the school year. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that they will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 that will extend the grant period. This amendment will enable the school to fully implement the program and expend all funds. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring for Augusta Fells was conducted on Nov.28, 2012; Jan. 4, Feb. 7, Feb.13, and Feb. 27, 2013. BCPSS explained on a bi-weekly basis, the Turnaround |

|Business Manager meets with the principal to discuss spending, encumbrances, and barriers to spending. |

|Table 14 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Booker T. Washington Middle School , Tier I |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIGI Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 43% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 1,002,144 |$ 543,106 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 712,351 |Budgeted: $ 33,722 |Budgeted: $6,242 |Budgeted Travel, Conferences: N/A |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 25,886 |Encumbered: $ 514.00 |Encumbered: N/A |

|Spent (amount): $ 314,183 |Spent (amount): $ 5,386 |Spent (amount): $ 5,723 |Spent: N/A |

|Spent (%): 44 % |Spent (%): 16 % |Spent (%): 92 % | |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed Booker T. Washington has spent $ 543,106 This amount is 43% of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 26,400 has been encumbered. |

|Expended amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that spending for Booker T. Washington is on target. |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS explained that teacher stipends for extended day programs will be transferred from general funds to the grant at the end of the school year. Additionally, the principal incentive and differential |

|will be posted to the grant at the end of the school year. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that they will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 that will extend the grant period. This amendment will enable the school to fully implement the program and expend all funds. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring was conducted on Jan. 4, Jan. 8, Jan. 17, Feb. 7, Feb.12 and Feb. 25, 2013. BCPSS explained that the school principal and assistant principal, business |

|manager review expenditures on a monthly basis. The Turnaround Business Manager meets with the principal to review expenses, encumbrances and barriers to spending. |

|Table 15 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Calverton Elem/Middle School , Tier I |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIG I Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 31% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 959,315 |$ 299,203 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 498,654 |Budgeted: $ 285,150 |Budgeted: $ 85,983 |Budgeted: N/A |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 206,757 |Encumbered: $ 5,873 |Encumbered: N/A |

|Spent (amount): $ 191,517 |Spent (amount): $ 68,009 |Spent (amount): $ 21,774 |Spent: N/A |

|Spent (%): 38 % |Spent (%): 24 % |Spent (%): 25 % | |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed Calverton has spent $ 299,203. This amount is 31% of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 212,630 has been encumbered. Expended amounts |

|for fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that Calverton is a little behind the budget timeline. Turnaround Office staff will continue to work with the schools to expend funds. |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS explained that the school has a substantial amount of funds in teacher stipends that will be used for teachers in the summer. The Turnaround Office has made a recommendation to the principal to |

|begin some of the teacher professional development before summer. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that they will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 that will extend the grant period. This amendment will enable the school to fully implement the program and expend all funds. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring for Calverton occurred on Nov. 9, Dec. 6, 2012; Jan. 11, Jan. 13, Jan. 25, Feb. 7, and Feb. 27, 2013. BCPSS explained that expenditures are monitored by|

|the principal, school based business manager. The Turnaround Business Manager meets with the principal and school business manager to review expenses, encumbrances and barriers to spending. |

|Table 15 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Calverton Elem/Middle School , Tier I |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIG I Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 31% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 959,315 |$ 299,203 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 498,654 |Budgeted: $ 285,150 |Budgeted: $ 85,983 |Budgeted: N/A |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 206,757 |Encumbered: $ 5,873 |Encumbered: N/A |

|Spent (amount): $ 191,517 |Spent (amount): $ 68,009 |Spent (amount): $ 21,774 |Spent: N/A |

|Spent (%): 38 % |Spent (%): 24 % |Spent (%): 25 % | |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed Calverton has spent $ 299,203. This amount is 31% of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 212,630 has been encumbered. Expended amounts |

|for fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that Calverton is a little behind the budget timeline. Turnaround Office staff will continue to work with the schools to expend funds. |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS explained that the school has a substantial amount of funds in teacher stipends that will be used for teachers in the summer. The Turnaround Office has made a recommendation to the principal to |

|begin some of the teacher professional development before summer. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that they will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 that will extend the grant period. This amendment will enable the school to fully implement the program and expend all funds. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring for Calverton occurred on Nov. 9, Dec. 6, 2012; Jan. 11, Jan. 13, Jan. 25, Feb. 7, and Feb. 27, 2013. BCPSS explained that expenditures are monitored by|

|the principal, school based business manager. The Turnaround Business Manager meets with the principal and school business manager to review expenses, encumbrances and barriers to spending. |

|Table 17 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for William C. March Middle School , Tier I |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIG I Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 25% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 605,754 |$ 151,551 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 253,781 |Budgeted: $ 233,009 |Budgeted: N/A |Budgeted: N/A |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 222,705 |Encumbered: N/A |Encumbered: N/A |

|Spent (amount): $ 107,000 |Spent (amount): $ 0 |Spent (amount): N/A |Spent Amount: N/A |

|Spent (%): 42 % |Spent (%): 0 % |Spent (%): N/A |Spent (%): N/A |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed William March has spent $ 151,551. This amount is 25 % of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 222,705 has been encumbered. Expended |

|amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that spending for William C. March is not consistent with the budget timeline. The EMO contract has a substantial amount encumbered that has not gone to actual which is affecting the low |

|amount and percent spent for this school. However, on the day of the monitoring, an invoice for $174,275 had been posted to the grant. This amount will be captured in the monthly report submitted to MSDE.|

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS explained that even though the spending is a little low all planned activities have taken place. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that they will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 that will extend the grant period. This amendment will enable the school to fully implement the program and expend all funds. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring for William March occurred on Nov. 9, Dec. 6, 2012; Jan. 14, Feb. 4, Feb. 7, Feb. 14, and Mar. 1, 2013. BCPSS explained that the school principal and |

|school business manager meet on a weekly basis to review the status of the budget. The Turnaround Business Manager meets with the principal to review expenses, encumbrances and barriers to spending. |

|Table 18 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Baltimore IT Academy Middle School , Tier I |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIGI Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 40% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 463,572 |$ 186,637 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $237,946 |Budgeted: $ 181,454 |Budgeted: $ N/A |Travel Budgeted: N/A |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 75,606 |Encumbered: N/A |Travel Encumbered: N/A |

|Spent (amount): $ 65,353 |Spent (amount): $ 105,848 |Spent (amount): N/A |Travel Spent (amount): N/A |

|Spent (%): 27 % |Spent (%): 58 % |Spent (%): N/A |Travel Spent (%): N/A |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed Baltimore IT Academy has spent $ 186,637. This amount is 40% of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 75,606 has been encumbered. Expended |

|amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that spending for Baltimore IT is on target. |

| |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS indicated that summer professional development is planned and the schools will be expending funds for teacher stipends at this time. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that they will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 that will extend the grant period. This amendment will enable the school to fully implement the program and expend all funds. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring for Baltimore IT was conducted on Nov. 13, Dec. 6, 2012; Jan.7, Jan. 18, and Feb.21, 2013. BCPSS explained that the expenditures are monitored by the |

|principal, Operator and school based business manager. The Turnaround Business manager meets with the school leadership and the business manager to review expenses, encumbrances and barriers to spending. |

|Table 19 Priority SIG I Year 3 School Budget for Garrison Middle School , Tier I |

|MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: March 5, 2013 |

|Total SIG I Year 3 Allocation: |School Budget Spent: |Percent of School Budget Spent: 51% |Spend Down Data as of: |

|$ 678,365 |$ 342,792 | |February 28, 2013 |

|Salaries & Wages |Contractual Services |Supplies & Materials |Other |

|Budgeted: $ 284,297 |Budgeted: $ 285,300 |Budgeted: $ 16,391 |Budgeted: N/A |

|Encumbered: $ 0 |Encumbered: $ 128,042 |Encumbered: $ 370.00 |Encumbered: N/A |

|Spent (amount): $ 134,430 |Spent (amount): $ 150,973 |Spent (amount): $ 990.00 |Spent: N/A |

|Spent (%): 47 % |Spent (%): 53 % |Spent (%): 6 % | |

|How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed Garrison has spent $ 342,792. This amount is 51% of their approved SIG I year 3 budget. An additional amount of $ 128,412 has been encumbered. Expended amounts for |

|fixed charges are included in the total spent. |

|Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned? |

|BCPSS indicated that spending at Garrison is on target. BCPSS is ensuring that this spending is completed because Garrison will be closing at the end of the school. |

|What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget? |

|BCPSS explained that all planned activities for Garrison are occurring on time. |

|Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school? |

|BCPSS indicated that BCPSS will submit to MSDE an amendment in March 2013 but Garrison will not be affected by this amendment. |

|How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors? |

|BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring occurred on Nov. 9, Dec. 6, Dec. 10, 2012; Feb. 12, and Feb 27, 2013. BCPSS explained that the principal and educational associate and operator review all |

|expenditures on a monthly basis to ensure all funding is appropriately expended. The Turnaround Business Manager meets with the principal and operator monthly to review expenses, encumbrances and barriers to|

|spending. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download