North Carolina School Improvement Fund State Application ...



School Improvement Fund State Application

Section 1003(g)

Fiscal Year 2007

CFDA#84.377A

(Cover Sheet)

State Education Agency: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Authorizing Representative: Lynn S. Warren, Director

[pic]

(Signature)

Date submitted: _November 20, 2007_____

Amended: January 30, 2008

Introduction

In the fall of 2007, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) initiated the Comprehensive Framework for Support to Schools and Districts, an ambitious plan to redefine and redesign the way we deliver assistance. This year, the NCDPI will be embarking on an organizational realignment, in part, to ensure that committed leadership and the right decision-making structures are in place for the Framework to be successful. Yes, our 2007-08 school assistance plan is developed to respond to low-performing school and districts where specifically mandated by state or federal legislation. But our ultimate goal, once the Framework is fully implemented, is to help school districts to build capacity to serve their schools and coordinate efforts and resources so that positive change will be more systemic and lasting.

The Boston Consulting Group, a management consulting firm with expertise in public education reform, was contracted to obtain feedback and to help develop a cohesive system of assistance that would leverage district and regional resources and customize assistance. Through the project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Group consulted with over 700 stakeholders including superintendents, district staff, principals, teachers and community leaders; reviewed the NCDPI’s existing assistance efforts; and researched best practices of other states, districts and countries.

We are shifting to a new way of working with cross-functional coordination and a more entrepreneurial and innovative approach. Even as we make this bold, new move, however, the NCDPI faces internal and external challenges in serving underperforming schools and districts and in addressing the root causes of underperformance. A key challenge is to serve schools and districts even as student academic achievement goals are shifted upward, thus, increasing the potential for even more schools to be identified as underperforming. Nevertheless, we must set academic goals that best reflect the knowledge and abilities that students need in the 21st century, and we must meet NCLB’s demands to increase AYP target goals.

The work outlined by the Framework defines our bottom line: To provide assistance to schools and to districts in such a way that student achievement improves. Section 1003 funds will help to extend the Framework for greater impact in improving student achievement.

Part A – Funds Retained by the SEA

1. North Carolina will retain $146,373 from section 1003 for State-level activities.

Response—Five percent of 1003(a) School Improvement funds are retained at the state level for administration. These 1003(a) funds are used in concert with 1003(g) funds to support NCDPI’s transition to a comprehensive system of support to schools and districts. Funds are used for working with designated school districts, in conducting observations and analyses of school practices, preparing and presenting reports, and providing direct technical assistance. The 1003(a) funds are also used for professional development in these districts. Districts and schools in corrective action send leaders to the UNC Center for School Leadership Development for professional development. The program provides access to research-based knowledge, skills, resources and practices to improve and sustain positive growth and achievement for students and teachers in the 21st century. The five sessions of training address leading and managing effective change, working collaboratively to improve the 2008-2009 school improvement plans, quality instruction, alignment and curriculum, assessment and resources, and research-based practices.

2. Describe the SEA’s current statewide system of support required under section 1117 and how the SEA will use funds available to the SEA under section 1003 to build capacity at the LEA and school levels to improve student achievement.

Beginning for the 2007-08 school year, North Carolina has revolutionized its statewide system of support and improvement for local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools receiving funds. This intensive Comprehensive Framework for Support to Schools and Districts is designed to increase the opportunity for all students to meet the State's rigorous academic content standards and to sustain those positive results. The Framework was developed over almost a year’s process in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group, a management consulting firm with expertise in public education reform, and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Framework was designed in consultation with over 700 stakeholders including superintendents, district staff, principals, teachers, and community leaders. National and international best practices were studied in the process.

The Framework currently assists 133 schools – 76 high schools, 38 middle schools and 19 elementary schools – and 25 LEAs. Schools were selected through a comprehensive, transparent screening process combining NCLB with North Carolina’s ABCs of Public Education criteria in order to best prioritize deployment of State resources for school and LEA assistance.

Each of the schools identified as low performing in the ABCs program (less than 50 percent of their students performing at grade level on end-of-grade or end-of-course assessments and making less than expected growth) is receiving assistance.

High schools with performance composites of 60 percent or lower for 2005-06 and 2006-07 are receiving assistance. Middle schools with performance composites of 60 percent or lower for 2006-07 that feed students into a high school identified for assistance in 2005-06 are receiving assistance. Elementary schools that did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading or math or both and are identified for corrective action under NCLB are receiving assistance. (The performance composite for grades K-8 is based on end-of-grade tests in reading and math in grades 3-8, writing assessments in grades 4 and 7, computer skills tests at grade 8, and end-of-course (EOC) test results for students taking EOC tests. The performance composite at the high school level describes the percentage of student test scores that are at or above the proficient level in five core subjects: Algebra I, English I, Biology, US History, Civics and Economics.)

LEAs were selected on the basis of being in Year 3 of Title I LEA Improvement.

The 133 schools and 25 LEAs participating in the Framework have an assigned leadership facilitator, access to instructional facilitators, and professional development for school- and LEA-level leadership.

School leadership facilitators, distinguished educational administrators who have been especially successful in improving academic achievement at the particular level of their assigned school, spend the equivalent of a day each week in their assigned schools. In a high school, the leadership facilitator might work with the principal in a number of ways, such as helping to organize the master schedule to create a common planning time or to set up a schedule of instructional observations. When the Framework is fully implemented in 2008-09, these facilitators will become transformation coaches.

Instructional facilitators, most of whom are discipline-specific teachers, are on call to help with instruction. They provide such services as helping new teachers have a better understanding of the NC Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS), helping to develop pacing guides and better align the curriculum, and providing ideas on how to get more student engagement in the classroom. Distinguished teachers who have demonstrated success in discipline-specific areas serve as instructional facilitators.

Professional development for school- and LEA-based leaders is an important part of the Framework. High school leaders (principals and lead teachers), depending on their particular cohort, are participating in a two-year Balanced Leadership training led by Mid-Continent Research Education Laboratory (McREL), a nonprofit organization created to help educators bridge the gap between research and practice.

Other high school leaders (principals, lead teachers and central office representatives) are receiving professional development provided by the Center for School Leadership Development/Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The focus of this professional development, customized for each three-person team, is to develop a framework for action plan.

Participating schools develop a framework for action plan in response to challenges that are identified through a rigorous self-assessment process. This comprehensive, streamlined assessment process identifies the root causes of performance issues and key areas for capacity building.

The rigorous self-assessment process results in identified needs addressed by customized assistance. Program effectiveness is rigorously monitored, evaluated and measured through the specifically identified needs that, once addressed, lead to clearly-identifiable outcomes of success. All participating schools and LEAs receive coaching and support for conducting the self-diagnostic assessments.

The self-assessment process focuses on five areas used to determine the root causes of low student performance: instructional excellence and alignment, leadership capacity, professional capacity, planning and operational effectiveness, and family and community support. The assessments might examine the data as shown in the table on the next page, leading to the resulting questions and goal setting.

|Focus area |Data/monitoring results |Potential questions addressed |Potential goals set |Potential strategies employed|

|Instructional |- Student achievement by subgroup|What subgroups are lagging the most |- Increase the student |- Instructional facilitator |

|excellence and |- Achievement gap |and in what subjects? Why? |attendance rate for at-risk |assists in role development |

|alignment |- Student attendance | |subgroup populations. |and scheduling for school |

| |Graduation rates | | |counselor(s). |

|Leadership capacity |Principal background and |Is principal experienced in schools? |- Increase capacity of the |- Instructional facilitator |

| |experience |Has leadership created a healthy |building level principal by |develops appropriate training|

| |School climate/environment |environment for students/teachers? |addressing the inexperience |for school leaders, including|

| |Instructional planning | |of assistant principals and |teacher leaders. |

| | | |teachers. | |

|Professional |Teacher quality and experience |- Do instructional methods align and |- Increase collaborative |Transformation coach assists |

|capacity |Curriculum/instructional |adhere to curriculum? |planning time for teachers |in developing Professional |

| |alignment |- Is enough time spent on learning? |and address the purpose of |Learning Communities and |

| |Professional development |- Are teachers sufficiently |this time. |master schedule. |

| |Level of coaching and support |supported? | | |

|Planning and |Budgeting and resource allocation|- Is the budget appropriately |- Establish a structure to |- Transformation coach |

|operational |Personnel |allotted? |analyze the coordination of |assists in developing the |

|effectiveness |Student Support services |- Where are staff shortages? |funding sources relative to |comprehensive needs |

| |Physical infrastructure |- Is the building adequately |program objectives. |assessment to include |

| |Technology & data management |equipped? | |outcome, demographic, and |

| | | | |process data. |

|Family and community|- Parental/community involvement |- How/where are parents involved? |- Increased coordination of |- Leadership facilitator |

|support | |- Are community partnerships |services across community |identifies and assists in |

| | |coordinated at the school level? |partnerships. |training community |

| | | | |partnerships coordinator. |

The framework for action plan, developed with each school and its central office and school board, is similar to a school improvement plan, already in place at all schools, only more intense. High schools identified for assistance must select and adopt a research-based reform/redesign plan. The three approved models are America’s Choice, the New Schools Project or Talent Development High Schools. These models have a proven track record in improving high school performance.

The Framework provides support and assistance to identified LEAs by offering extensive professional development in aligning instruction to the curriculum (across grade levels and subject areas) and by providing regional support facilitators, as well as district and school transformation coaches.

In addition, two school districts will participate in a pilot of the Framework LEA Comprehensive Needs Assessment for 2007-08. The school districts are in a three-year contract and are assigned a transformation coach from the state assistance team as part of the program. Both of these districts are in the corrective action phase of Title I LEA improvement. Results from the pilot will be used to make adjustments to the Framework scheduled for roll out statewide in 2008-09.

To implement all aspects of the Framework, the NCDPI’s staff partners with experienced and successful contract educators, the University of North Carolina system, McREL, the Southern Regional Education Board, the Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center, the New Schools Project, and other groups to provide assessment visits, local guidance in change management, and extensive, ongoing professional development for Framework schools and LEAs.

3. From the list on page 3, describe the school improvement strategy or strategies the SEA will implement with section 1003(g) and 1003(a) funds, including a brief explanation of why each strategy was selected.

The number of schools and districts requiring assistance has increased dramatically and will continue to grow driven by NCLB improvement status and the raised standards of the ABCs designed to equip students to meet 21st century demands. In 2006-07, less than half (45 percent or 1,052 schools) of the 2,350 schools receiving an AYP designation made Adequate Yearly Progress. Almost one-fifth of our state’s schools, 458, are in Title I School Improvement. Sixty LEAs are in District Improvement. State resources are limited and must be placed strategically.

North Carolina proposes that, with these 1003 funds, the state extend its Framework program to intervene in additional schools at a time of highest impact. This proposal would extend the Framework from the existing 133 schools to include 35-38 additional schools in a three-tiered system as follows:

1) Tier I will consist of 9-11 elementary and middle schools in Year 4 or 5 of School Improvement that have shown progress in making AYP and aren’t currently receiving assistance through the Framework.

2) Tier II will consist of 6-9 middle schools in corrective action that have shown progress in making AYP and aren’t currently receiving assistance through the Framework.

3) Tier III will consist of 15-20 elementary schools in corrective action that have shown progress and aren’t currently receiving assistance through the Framework

Schools in all three tiers must show willingness to participate in the program and ability to succeed by demonstrating progress in meeting an increased number of target goals in 2006-07 and subsequent school years.

Each of the following four strategies represents a different aspect of expanding the Framework to the identified schools.

1. Provide customized technical assistance and/or professional development that is designed to build the capacity of LEA and school staff to improve schools and is informed by student achievement and other outcome-related measures. An important quality of the Framework is its shift from exclusive focus on schools to a focus that includes building district capacity to support schools. The state is moving from providing temporary solutions to creating sustainable, lasting improvements. For instance, if a school’s self assessment reveals that not all teachers hold and communicate high expectations for all students, the leadership facilitator might help organize an offsite visioning session for the entire school community, e.g., teachers, leadership, district, parents, to clarify the school’s mission.

2. Utilize research-based strategies or practices to change instructional practice to address the academic achievement problems that caused the school to be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. At the heart of the Framework, is a move from “one size fits all” assistance to more customized assistance. A variety of assistance services are available depending on a school’s specific needs diagnosed, such as formative assessments, pacing guides, leadership training, resource allocation tools, tailored professional development program and brokered instructional coaches. For instance, if a school’s self assessment shows that student performance in math and science end-of-course tests are significantly below state averages, math and science instructional facilitators might work with department chairs to close gaps in curriculum and develop pacing guides. In another example, if a school’s self assessment reveals that student performance and achievement tracking and monitoring are limited to end-of-year testing results, the state might identify a formative assessment provider and broker that provider’s implementation and school-wide training services.

3. Create partnerships among the SEA, LEAs and other entities for the purpose of delivering technical assistance, professional development, and management advice. Key in the operation of the Framework is a system of brokering and providing better coordinated services for schools and districts. For instance, if a school’s self assessment shows that the principal’s effectiveness is decreased by a large workload caused by inexperienced of assistant principals and teachers, assistant principals could receive professional development training from McREL or UNC Center for School Leadership. Effective leadership methods for school leadership could be demonstrated at the site.

The NCDPI’s extensive partnerships allow it to directly offer or broker formative assessment development, curriculum development and alignment, organization redesign, training for senior district leadership and board members, district capabilities audit, training programs for principals, instructional technology training and development, and development of professional learning communities. In the area of planning and operational effectiveness, the NCDPI can direct or offer or broker resource allocation tools, financial/programs audit, comprehensive recruiting strategies, salaries and incentives studies, performance management system audits, facilities master plan/management and change management studies.

4. Provide professional development to enhance the capacity of school support team members and other technical assistance providers who are part of the statewide system of support and that is informed by student achievement and other outcome-related measures. Critical to the implementation of the new Framework is the collaborative redesign and repurposing of existing support systems throughout the agency (SEA). Cross-functional teams coordinate and facilitate training for existing agency staff to ensure the alignment of support services. The NCDPI staff will be provided with further training to support local school districts in their efforts to implement an annual comprehensive needs assessment process. In so doing, the LEA will be further empowered to assist schools in conducting the school level comprehensive needs assessment, resulting in brokered services that may be provided by district or SEA personnel. For instance, if a school’s 2007-08 School Comprehensive Needs Assessment shows that teachers need customized professional development, a leadership facilitator, provided by the SEA and working collaboratively with LEA personnel, could cultivate the creation of professional learning communities by creating a master schedule with common planning times.

Listed below is some of the research supporting these aforementioned instructional practices to address academic achievement problems:

The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement: Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning (2005) by Julie A. Marsh, Kerri /a. Kwerr, Gina S. Ikemoto, Hilary Darilek, Marika Suttorp, Ron W. Zimmer, and Heather Barney, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do to Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools, (2003), by Wendy Togneri and Stephen E. Anderson, Learning First Alliance, Washington, D. C.

Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes From Research (2004), by G. S. Shannon & P. Bylsma, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA.

Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students (2005), Education Trust, Washington, D. C.

Nine Characteristics 0f High-Performing Schools: A Research-Based Resource for Schools and Districts to Assist with Improving Student Learning (2007), by G. S. Shannon & P. Bylsma, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington.

Part B – Funds Awarded to LEAs

1. The NCDPI will allocate $2,781,090 of its section 1003 funds to LEAs serving selected low-performing Title I schools that have been identified as high need schools with the strongest commitment.

a. For the purposes of this application, “greatest need” is defined as Title I schools that are in Year 4 or 5 of School Improvement; or are in corrective action but not receiving state assistance. The rationale for this definition is that these schools are in the greatest need of assistance for improvement, since they are so far along the trajectory of improvement sanctions and further, they are not receiving other state assistance under the Framework described in Part A. This “need” definition is also appropriate because the State and LEAs must provide assistance first to the corrective action schools, according to NCLB guidance on school and LEA improvement, issued in July 2006, D-9 stating that:

i. The first priority must be (a) LEAs with schools in corrective action, and (b) schools for which an LEA has not carried out its statutory and regulatory responsibilities regarding corrective action or restructuring.

ii. The second priority must be LEAs with schools identified as in need of improvement.

iii. The third priority must be Title I LEAs and schools that need additional support and assistance. §§1116(b)(14); §1117(a)(2); §200.49(b) ).

b. Strongest commitment, for the purpose of this application, is defined as a school’s commitment to improvement by having stabilized or improved student academic performance, as evidenced by either not escalating in school improvement status in reading or math, or having attained more Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets in reading or math in 2006-07 than in the previous year.

NCDPI will select LEAs in Corrective Action for at least one year that have shown the strongest commitment to improvement. These NCDPI-selected LEAs will apply on behalf of their schools meeting the previously-defined criteria. Schools are selected to provide three tiers of assistance, based on greatest need and strongest commitment:

• Tier I schools will consist of elementary and middle schools in restructuring (Year 4 or 5 School Improvement) that showed progress in improving student performance and that are not being served through the Framework.

• Tier II schools will consist of middle schools in corrective action that showed progress in improving student performance and that are not being served through the Framework.

• Tier III schools will consist of elementary schools that are in corrective action that showed progress and that are not currently receiving assistance through the Framework.

c. NCDPI has revised the criteria for determining the size of the grant to eligible schools to ensure that schools with the greatest need receive sufficient funding. Four factors will be weighted to determine the size of grant awards: average daily student membership, level of School Improvement, poverty, and the number of AYP targets. Schools in deeper levels of School Improvement, such as restructuring, schools with high poverty levels, and schools with greater diversity will qualify for a higher level of funding.

d. Funds will be integrated with other funds by supporting the reform efforts identified in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment and resulting School Improvement Plans. Strategies to support student achievement are identified in the revised School Improvement Plans that are reviewed by the district. Grant funds 1003(g) will enhance school efforts to increase student achievement funded by Title I allotments, School Improvement funds 1003(a) and other state and federal resources.

e. The NCDPI fully supports multi-year funding, and would ensure that the grants would be renewed for up to two additional years if schools in the LEA are meeting the goals for improvement under section 1116.

2. The NCDPI will provide funds to the LEAs of the schools that meet the criteria indicated above, and will require:

a. Implementation of the school improvement strategies described in Part A. All services to these schools will be based on a comprehensive needs assessment that is data driven. Strategies are specifically selected to target performance of students in the schools not already receiving state assistance, to increase the numbers of students performing at or above grade level.

b. The LEAs and the NCDPI will ensure that professional development and other strategies employed in these schools (Please see Part A.) address the particular needs of subgroups of students that are not attaining proficiency. In this way, the schools can improve their student performance strategically to exit improvement.

3. The NCDPI will disaggregate data from the schools participating to show where improvement was made. The schools will report their outcomes at the annual North Carolina Association of Compensatory Educators’ conference, and will submit a proposal to the national Title I conference. These schools will also be featured at regional trainings and workshops held across the state in 2008-09. Their experiences will also inform the Framework as it is fully implemented statewide in 2008-09.

Part C – Monitoring

School site visits and qualitative and quantitative data collection will be essential for monitoring the effectiveness of the strategies selected and implemented with funds from section 1003. The NCDPI plans to conduct site visits and provide technical assistance to the 35-38 additional schools served under this Section.

School report card annual data and quarterly benchmarking data will be collected to determine student achievement performance indicators. An NCDPI-administered evaluation, survey and interview and user-generated feedback will be used to determine the effectiveness of the operational aspects of the extended Framework assistance made possible through Section 1003 funds.

Schools, along with the NCDPI, will determine what level of improvement defines success. That determination will consider AYP goals, 2007-08 as a year in which target goals increase significantly, ABCs goals, an increase in Grades 3-8 reading expectations due to a new test edition to be administered in 2007-08, and possibly increase in grade 10 math expectations due to a new test edition.

Below is the matrix that will create the basis for performance indicators for:

1) Tier I, the 9-11 elementary and middle schools in Year 4 or 5 of School Improvement;

2) Tier II, the 6-9 middle schools in corrective action; and

3) Tier III, the 15-20 elementary schools in corrective action.

|School level |#/% target goals met 06/07 |#/% target goals met 07/08 |#/% target goals met 08/09 |#/% target goals met |

| | | | |09/10 |

|Tier I | | | | |

|Tier II | | | | |

|Tier III | | | | |

|School level |#% schools achieving School of |#% schools achieving School |#% schools achieving School |#% schools achieving School of |

| |Progress status (60-79% proficiency) |of Progress status (60-79% |of Progress status (60-79% |Progress status (60-79% |

| |or higher 06/07 |proficiency) or higher 07/08 |proficiency) or higher 08/09|proficiency) or higher 09/10 |

|Tier I | | | | |

|Tier II | | | | |

|Tier III | | | | |

|School level |#% schools making expected or high |#% schools making expected or|#% schools making expected |#% schools making expected or high |

| |growth 06/07 |high growth 07/08 |or high growth 08/09 |growth 09/10 |

|Tier I | | | | |

|Tier II | | | | |

|Tier III | | | | |

|School level |Achievement gap 06/07 (difference in %|Achievement gap 07/08 |Achievement gap 08/09 |Achievement gap 09/10 (difference |

| |students meeting Level III proficiency|(difference in % students |(difference in % students |in % students meeting Level III |

| |levels) |meeting Level III proficiency|meeting Level III |proficiency levels) |

| |Afr. American vs. Caucasian |levels) |proficiency levels) |Afr. American vs. Caucasian |

| |Hispanic vs. Caucasian |Afr. American vs. Caucasian |Afr. American vs. Caucasian |Hispanic vs. Caucasian |

| |LEP vs. average |Hispanic vs. Caucasian |Hispanic vs. Caucasian |LEP vs. average |

| |SWD vs. average |LEP vs. average |LEP vs. average |SWD vs. average |

| | |SWD vs. average |SWD vs. average | |

|Tier I | | | | |

|Tier II | | | | |

|Tier III | | | | |

In addition, all programs provided or brokered through the NCDPI Framework will be evaluated. The NCDPI will create an evaluation template for all program offered (internal and external). Evaluations will be administered at the end of service provided or yearly. The NCDPI will ensure that we are awarding grants to schools that are show growth in student academic achievement and that the current funding is supporting positive change.

Consultants will be assigned to monitor grant schools’ progress to determine if the schools are following through with their school improvement plans and using grant funds as committed in those plans. If a grant school does not show increased student achievement, the school will lose its funding if that failure to achieve is a result of not following the prescribed plan for improvement as determined by the consultant working with the school. If, however, the school has not improved student achievement but has followed the school improvement plan, the consultant will, in collaboration with the school leadership, develop an action plan to address the failure to achieve.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download