board communications date: september 9, 2016 · ... september 9, 2016 ... proposition 58, if...

José L. Banda, Superintendent

5735 – 47th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95824

(916) 643-9314

Board of Education

Christina Pritchett, President, Area 3

Jay Hansen, Vice President, Area 1

Jessie Ryan, 2nd Vice President, Area 7 Ellen Cochrane, Area 2

Gustavo Arroyo, Area 4

Diana Rodriguez, Area 5 Darrel Woo, Area 6

Natalie Rosas, Student Board Member

BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Date: September 9, 2016

SUPERINTENDENT – JOSÉ L. BANDA

BC NO. FROM REGARDING

S-165 José Banda School Services of California’s Sacramento Weekly Update

S-166 José Banda Highlights of Calendar for the Week of September 12

CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER – DR. AL ROGERS

BC NO. FROM REGARDING

CSO-43 Al Rogers California School Boards Association Panel Member

Participation by Jack Kraemer

CSO-44 Al Rogers Finalized Applications for LCAP Advisory Committees

CSO-45 Al Rogers School Improvement Grant (SIG)

Board Communication Form for 2015-16

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD COMMUNICATION

BC NO: S-165

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM - (Check a Box) No: ☒ Yes: ☐ Date: 9/9/2016

Approved by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

To the Members of the Board of Education

Prepared by: José L. Banda, Superintendent Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: School Services of California’s Sacramento Weekly Update

Attached is the weekly update from School Services of California for your review.

DATE: September 8, 2016

TO: Jose Banda

Superintendent

AT: Sacramento City Unified School District

FROM: Your SSC Legislative Team

RE: SSC’s Sacramento Weekly Update

With the legislative session behind us, and as we await Governor Jerry

Brown’s action on bills sitting on his desk, attention has quickly turned to the

impending November General Election, notably historic on several fronts. To

begin, for the first time in our nation’s history voters will consider electing a

female president. Second, California’s November ballot is crowded with 17

statewide measures—not including local ones—upon which voters are being

asked to make a broad range of policy decisions ranging from recreational

marijuana use to water issues to tax extensions and school facility financing.

Third, California’s electorate has never simultaneously faced a tax extension

that, in part, will benefit public education and a statewide school facilities

bond.

As many know, there are three specific ballot measures that relate to

education: Propositions 51, 55, and 58, which we highlight in this week’s

Update.

Additionally, as reported by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing

(CASH), there are approximately 180 local school bonds on the November

ballot, totaling more than $25 billion.

Proposition 51: Kindergarten through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016

Proposition 51, if approved, will authorize the state to sell $9 billion in

general obligation bonds to fund K-12 and community college facilities needs

through existing state programs funding both sectors. Bond funds would be

distributed across sectors and programs as follows:

Amount

K-12

New Construction $3 billion

Modernization $3 billion

Career Technical Education $0.5 billion

Charter Schools $0.5 billion

Subtotal (K-12) $7 billion

Community Colleges $2 billion

TOTAL $9 billion

http://cashfacilitiesnews.org/local-measures-on-november-ballot-proposition-51/

School Services of California, Inc. September 8, 2016

Sacramento Update Page 2

Traditionally, statewide school bonds have been placed on the ballot through legislative vehicles

historically authored by the leaders of the Senate and the Assembly. However, the Legislature has been

unsuccessful at placing a bond on the ballot since 2006 when the voters approved Proposition 1D.

Consequently, the state coffers are dry, which leaves local districts to bear the full cost of their facilities

needs.

Proposition 55: California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016

Proposition 55, if approved, will extend the personal income tax rates on the state’s highest income earners,

first established by Proposition 30, until 2030. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the extended

tax rates could generate between $4 billion to $9 billion in tax revenue, roughly half of which would fund

education for K-12 and community colleges, and a portion of which may fund increased Medi-Cal funding

based on a specific formula. Importantly, Proposition 55 would not extend the sales tax rate that was part of

Proposition 30, which expires on December 31, 2016. If voters do not approve Proposition 55, the personal

income tax rates from Proposition 30 expire on December 31, 2018.

Proposition 58: California Education for a Global Economy Initiative

Proposition 58, if approved, will repeal Proposition 227 (1998) that, for all intents and purposes, banned

bilingual education in California. The measure was placed on the November ballot through the legislative

process when Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) authored, and Governor Brown signed, Senate

Bill 1174 (Chapter 753/2014). In addition to repealing major provisions of Proposition 227 that prohibit

bilingual instruction, the measure would:

Require districts and county offices of education (COE), as part of the Local Control and

Accountability Plan process, to solicit input on, and provide to pupils, effective and appropriate

instructional methods, including, but not limited to, establishing language acquisition programs;

Require districts and COEs to, at a minimum, provide English learners with a structured English

immersion program for purposes of ensuring that English learners have access to the core academic

content standards, including the English language development standards, and become proficient in

English; and,

Permit parents to choose the language acquisition model that best suits their child by requesting a

specific language acquisition program and then requires a school that receives requests on behalf of 20

pupils within any given grade or 30 or more pupils per school, to offer that program, to the extent

possible.

The California School Boards Association provides sample board resolutions for Propositions 51, 55, and

58.

Nancy LaCasse Robert Miyashiro

http://csba.org/Newsroom/CSBANewsletters/2016/July/ElectronicOnly/2016_07_13ballotmeasureII.aspx



Note: As the November General Election looms, political advertising will intensify as illustrated by recent

campaign ads in support of Proposition 55.

Is Tax Extension Needed To Prevent $4 Billion In School Cuts?

By David Siders

The Sacramento Bee

September 6, 2016

Proponents of a ballot measure to extend higher taxes in California are running a TV ad arguing that the

measure is necessary to avoid significant school funding cuts.

The ad correctly states that schools will benefit from Proposition 55 – money that could help avoid school

funding reductions in future years. But the ad’s warning of $4 billion in cuts if the measure does not pass

relies on an optimistic assumption of how much money the tax will raise, as well as an overly simplistic

characterization of school funding estimates.

Text

It wasn’t that long ago. Years of devastating cutbacks to our schools. Thirty thousand teachers laid off.

Class sizes increased. Art and music programs cut. We can’t ever go back.

So vote ‘Yes’ on Proposition 55.

Prop. 55 prevents $4 billion in new cuts to our schools.

Simply by maintaining the current tax rate on the wealthiest Californians.

No new education cuts, and no new taxes.

Vote “Yes” on 55. To help our children thrive.

Analysis

Proponents of Proposition 30 – the tax increases voters approved in 2012 – said four years ago that the

higher taxes would be temporary. Now proponents of Proposition 55 want to extend one of the tax

increases, pointing to the severity of spending cuts to education during the last recession.

Proposition 55 would extend by 12 years temporary personal income tax increases on earnings over

$250,000 for single filers, raising an estimated $4 billion to $9 billion annually, according to the

nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Roughly half of that amount would go to K-12 schools and community colleges, according to the LAO,

while health care for poor people, budget reserves and debt payments would receive up to about $3.5

billion a year depending on the economy.

But the ad’s claim that the measure will prevent $4 billion in cuts to schools relies on an optimistic

assumption about how much money Proposition 55 will raise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qmcTfF3iNI&feature=youtu.be&rel=0



If roughly half of revenue goes to K-12 schools and community colleges, as the LAO estimates, schools

would receive $2 billion to $4.5 billion annually under the measure. Only in good economic years would

that revenue amount to $4 billion or more.

In addition, the ad’s characterization of the tax extension as a choice between increased funding and

$4 billion in cuts to schools is overly simplistic.

According to Department of Finance estimates, the state is projected to spend about $4 billion more than it

generates in revenue in the 2019-2020 budget year unless it takes “corrective action.” In addition, the

administration estimates that without the tax extension, money owed but not paid to schools under the

state’s school funding guarantee will grow to about $3.8 billion by 2020.

But even if Proposition 55 fails, school funding is still projected to increase – not decrease – in future

years. If the state budget falls into imbalance, it could take “corrective action” other than school funding

cuts to generate additional revenue or reduce spending.

State’s Role In Building Schools At Issue In Battle Over Prop. 51

Proposition 51 authorizes the sale of $9 billion in bonds for school building and modernization. Backers see huge need. Critics see massive inefficiency.

By Jim Miller

The Sacramento Bee

September 6, 2016

California voters last saw a statewide school construction bond on their ballots a decade ago, but that’s not

for lack of interest by bond supporters.

The recession took bonds off the table as a viable electoral option. Bond backers then stood down in

2012 and joined Gov. Jerry Brown and others in the campaign to pass tax hikes to raise money for schools.

Two years later, a bill to place a school bond on the November 2014 ballot fizzled after Brown’s office

signaled its opposition.

This election cycle, school bond advocates didn’t wait for permission.

Home builders, school construction companies and others, bypassing the Capitol, spent millions to gather

signatures to qualify a $9 billion school bond for the ballot. Eleventh-hour Capitol negotiations to craft a

smaller substitute bond in June went nowhere, securing Proposition 51’s fall placement.

“It felt like the time for talk and debate was over,” said Rob Pierce, Elk Grove Unified School District’s

associate superintendent for facilities and planning.

Proposition 51 would kickstart a largely dormant state school construction and modernization program and

maintain the state’s major role in paying for it. It would prevent sharp increases in new-home construction

fees as well as preserve a local development planning process favored by home builders.



The billions secured by Proposition 51 would be allocated under a framework nearly 20 years old, when

California school enrollment was increasing and local school bonds needed to pass by a two-thirds vote,

instead of the current 55 percent.

The Brown administration has been among the biggest skeptics of more school borrowing, slamming the

current program as expensive, inefficient and one that should be retooled to help only the neediest districts.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Brown’s Department of Finance, said Proposition 51 “perpetuates the status

quo” while saddling the state with an additional $500 million a year in general fund debt service, on top of

more than $2 billion in debt service from earlier school borrowing.

Brown, though, has said little publicly about the measure in recent months and did not sign the ballot

arguments against it. He instead has focused his November energies on passing Proposition 57, which

would change parole rules, and defeating Proposition 53, which could undermine his administration’s Delta

tunnels project.

Proposition 51, supporters, meanwhile, have raised almost $9 million and locked up support from

lawmakers and other elected officials from around the state. An April public poll found that nearly two-

thirds of likely voters backed the idea.

Delaine Eastin, California’s state schools superintendent from 1995 until 2003, said the quality of school

buildings reflects a society’s values.

“Kids are young, but they’re not saps. They’ve been to the mall and they know what it’s like when

grown-ups think something is important,” Eastin said.

The number of school-age kids, though, has slipped since the last statewide bond in 2006, from about

6.3 million to 6.2 million, and state officials project a continued slide over the next decade. Yet

Proposition 51 allocates the same amount of money to building new K-12 classrooms – $3 billion – as to

modernizing existing ones.

“Proposition 51 wastes money favoring construction of new schools over remodeling existing schools,”

critics of the measure wrote in a voters ballot guide.

Supporters of Proposition 51, though, say there is still plenty of need for new-construction money. While

statewide enrollment is down, almost one-half of counties had enrollment increases during the past decade.

“There’s still a significant amount of growth,” longtime education lobbyist Dave Walrath said.

The bond also locks in place the school building program crafted in 1998 by Walrath and others. Known as

Senate Bill 50, the legislation ended years of argument about who paid for new school buildings. Under the

law, the costs generally are covered by a mix of local borrowing, new-home fees and state bonds.

A trio of Republican and Democratic governors – Pete Wilson, Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger –

embraced the approach, signing legislation putting school bonds on the 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006 ballots

totaling almost $45 billion.



But in his January budget proposal, Brown scolded the program as allocating money on a “first-come,

first-served basis, giving districts with dedicated facilities personnel a substantial advantage.”

A review of State Allocation Board data shows that the state’s largest districts, representing about 30

percent of total 2015-16 enrollment, received almost one-quarter of the new-construction money from the

last three school bonds. Those districts received about 36 percent of the modernization money, with the

largest share going to mammoth Los Angeles Unified, where many schools are decades old.

Motivating the unsuccessful talks on a substitute June bond was the goal by teachers unions and others to

keep the November ballot free of anything that could undermine a proposal to extend the 2012 tax hikes,

which became Proposition 55.

Both sides were far apart. “We never got past whether the state has a role or not,” said Richard Lyon,

senior vice president of the California Building Industry Association.

Real estate and development companies have contributed at least one-half of the money raised by the

Proposition 51 campaign, state filings show, with construction companies and other building-related donors

also giving heavily. The industry’s involvement has been singled out by Brown, who derided it as “the

developers’ $9 billion bond” earlier this year.

Lyon rejected that description, saying the bond simply helps pay for a school facilities program created by

the Legislature itself in 1998.

Yet real estate interests have a clear financial stake in Proposition 51’s success. The measure would prevent

districts from raising new-home fees to help pay for school construction – a prospect that lately has moved

much closer to reality

The state board that distributes school building money declared in May that the state bond pot was empty,

triggering a fee-hike provision in SB 50. The California Building Industry Association immediately sued,

but a judge last month ruled in favor of the state, and districts around California reportedly are weighing

fee increases.

Also, Proposition 51’s failure would activate a far-reaching provision of the 2006 bill that put the last

school bond on the ballot. If any future school bond failed after 2012, the measure read, then the state

would return to a pre-SB 50 world that home developers view as a particularly bad time for business.

“We had projects being held up. We had developers fighting with school districts, and local governments

were caught in the middle,” Lyon said.

The current facilities program could always be improved but it has worked well when the state puts money

into it, Walrath said. If Proposition 51 passes, another school bond may be proposed as soon as 2020, he

said.

“If you believe there is a state role and an equity responsibility, then you look at that and go, ‘we need to

have the state program continue,’ ” he said.



BC NO: S-166




Prepared by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Highlights of Calendar for the Week of September 12

Monday, September 12

Extended Cabinet Meeting

Cabinet Meeting

Meeting with Phil Serna

1:1 Meetings with Cabinet Members

Tuesday, September 13

Promise Zone Meeting

SCOE District Superintendents’ Meeting


Veggie of the Year Competition at Leataata

Floyd Elementary

Wednesday, September 14

Facilities/Maintenance & Operations

Appreciation Breakfast


Operations Cabinet Meeting

United Latinos Meeting (rescheduled from

last week)

Thursday, September 15

Board Meeting Day

Friday, September 16

School Visits (sites to be determined)

Board Meeting Debrief

Negotiations Prep Meeting

SCOE’s Teacher of the Year Banquet

Saturday, September 17

U-CAN – 17th

Annual Historically Black

College & Universities Recruitment Fair at

Kennedy H.S.



BC NO: CSO-43




Prepared by: Dr. Al Rogers, Chief Strategy Officer and Jack Kraemer,

Director of Innovative Schools and Charter Oversight

Contact Email: al-

[email protected]; jack-

[email protected]

Subject: California School Boards Association Panel Member Participation by Jack Kraemer

Board Member Woo is a member of the California School Boards Association (CSBA) Charter

Schools Task Force lead by Manuel Buenrostro.

On the recommendation of Board Member Woo, Manuel Buenrostro, Education Policy

Analyst for CSBA, extended an offer to Jack Kraemer to participate as a panel member to go over

issues related to charter petitions, oversight, facilities, enrollment and other relevant topics. The

framing of the conversation will be to discuss challenges, best practices and recommendations for

the task force to consider.

Dr. Al Rogers along with two staff from San Diego USD (Andra Donovan, General Counsel, and

Susan Park, Program Manager at the Charter Schools Office) have been extended an invitation to

participate as well.

As the Director of Innovative Schools and Charter Oversight, SCUSD in partnership and

collaboration with CSBA has much to benefit from Mr. Kraemer’s participation as a panel member

on September 15, 2016.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



BC NO: CSO-44




Prepared by: Al Rogers, Chief Strategy Officer Contact Email: al-

[email protected]

Subject: Finalized Applications for LCAP Parent Advisory Committees

The revised applications for the district’s LCAP Parent Advisory Committees are attached.

a. LCAP Parent Advisory Committee (Board appointed) application closes September 30, 2016.

The application may be completed online or on paper. The direct link to the online

application is: www.surveymonkey.com/r/LCAP-PAC. The application is also linked to the

LCAP page on the district website: www.scusd.edu/LCAP-PAC.

b. LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee application closes on November 3, 2016.

This application is available in paper form only, and is translated into Spanish, Hmong,

Vietnamese, Russian and Chinese. As a subcommittee of DELAC, parents will be recruited

through school ELAC committees, the Family and Community Engagement office’s Parent

Leadership Pathway and Parent Information Exchange, and through community partners who

work closely with parents of English learners.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LCAP-PAC

http://www.scusd.edu/LCAP-PAC

Overview

In 2013-14, the state of California implemented the Local Control Funding Formula

(LCFF). LCFF requires the development of a Local Control and Accountability Plan

(LCAP), which describes goals for student achievement and connects district spending

to those goals. One key aspect of the LCAP process is the engagement of

parents/guardians and students — including foster youth and those from low-income

and English Learner communities — in providing input and feedback.

What is the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee?

The LCAP Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) meets monthly to receive information

which helps them to understand the rules as well as the goals, actions, and services

contained in the LCAP. Also, members provide insight and opinions for the Board of

Education and the Superintendent to consider. Finally, committee members

communicate with their community, share their knowledge about the LCAP, and provide

feedback to the District. School districts must consult with all stakeholders (teachers,

principals, other school personnel, parents, and students) in developing the LCAP, but

the LCAP PAC will provide written comments to which the Superintendent responds

Why serve on the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee?

The LCAP Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) is a valued parent group with a front-row

seat to district decision-making. Members of the LCAP PAC will have the opportunity to

understand and impact the services provided to students across the district, but in

particular students targeted by the law: low income students, English learners, foster

youth and homeless.

Committee Demographics

Sixteen (16) PAC members will be appointed by the Board of Education. Community

members as well as SCUSD staff are welcome to apply, as PAC members will reflect

the demographics of the district.

The Board of Education will strive to ensure representation in all of the categories

below:

Parents/caregivers (in a strong majority)

Those who represent students in the LCFF designated

demographic groups (low income, English learners, foster youth

and homeless) as well as other significant demographic groups.

2016-17 SCUSD LCAP Parent Advisory Committee Application 2

LCAP Parent Advisory Committee Application

Submit the application to SCUSD Board of Education, Box 701, 5735 47th Ave., Sacramento, CA 95824. Deadline to apply is Friday, September 30, 2016 at 5 pm. Applications submitted after that time will not be processed. Please do not include attachments.

If you have questions or need assistance, please contact Anne Maretti at [email protected] or (916) 643-9314. Please note while we will maintain the privacy of personal identification information, answers to questions may be shared publicly.

Name: __________________________________________________________ Street Address: ___________________________________________________ City: ______________________________State: _____ Zip Code: ___________ Phone Number: ______________________Email: _______________________ Trustee Area (or Your School Board Member): __________________________

I am a (select all that apply):

Parent or Caregiver Former Parent or Caregiver

Student Staff Member / Role: ______________________

Community Member/Partner Organization Name, if applicable: ________________

Which school(s) do your student(s) attend / do you represent? To ensure representation of all student groups on this committee, we request that you check the boxes that best describe you/your student. Select all that apply. Low Income Hispanic/Latino English Learner Asian Students with Disabilities African American Homeless White Foster Youth Other _____________________ Decline to state


Please include information about your history of service (School Site Council, English Learner Advisory Committee, PTA/PTO, political or fraternal organization, neighborhood association, etc.). What interests you about serving on this committee? Whose voice do you represent? Give examples of how you have worked collaboratively in a group setting, including any experience with challenging dynamics. Please describe your understanding of, and comfort level with, the advisory role of the work conducted on this committee.


Committee Responsibilities Serving on the LCAP Parent Advisory Committee requires a significant commitment of time including, but not limited to, attending meetings and trainings as well as engaging in community outreach. Excessive unexcused absences will result in a member being replaced with an alternate. Please indicate your understanding of, and agreement with, the following LCAP committee responsibilities:

Check if Agree

I agree to commit to one evening per month from October – June. I agree to participate in a half-day orientation.

I agree to attend at least one district LCAP workshop (90 mins./evening).

I will consider serving a multi-year (2+) term. I agree to participate in outreach opportunities including, but not limited to,

gathering input from my stakeholder community as a Public Education Volunteer.

I agree to work collaboratively with other members of the committee and

district staff throughout the process. Signature: _____________________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________________________________

Overview

In 2013-14, the state of California implemented the Local Control Funding Formula

(LCFF). LCFF requires the development of a Local Control and Accountability Plan

(LCAP), which describes goals for student achievement and connects district spending

to those goals. One key aspect of the LCAP process is the engagement of

parents/guardians and students — including foster youth and those from low-income

and English Learner communities — in providing input and feedback.

What is the LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee?

The LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee (EL PAC) meets monthly to

receive information which helps them to understand the rules as well as the goals,

actions, and services contained in the LCAP. Also, members provide insight and

opinions for the Board of Education and the Superintendent to consider. Finally,

committee members communicate with their community, share their knowledge about

the LCAP, and provide feedback to the District. School districts must consult with all

stakeholders (teachers, principals, other school personnel, parents, and students) in

developing the LCAP, but the LCAP EL PAC will provide written comments to which the

Superintendent responds

Why serve on the LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee?

The LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee (EL PAC) is a valued parent

group with a front-row seat to district decision-making. Members of the LCAP EL PAC

will have the opportunity to understand and impact the services provided to students

across the district, but in particular students targeted by the law: low income students,

English learners, foster youth and homeless.

Committee Demographics

To be sure that the LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee reflects the

diverse community we serve, the group must include a minimum number of

representatives in key demographic areas:

At least two-thirds (2/3) parents/caregivers of English Learners attending

SCUSD schools

Balanced representation across the geographic area of SCUSD

Balanced representation of the SCUSD language community

Balanced representation of elementary, middle school and high school

No more than three (3) staff members

SCUSD English Learner LCAP Parent Advisory Committee Application 2

LCAP English Learner Parent Advisory Committee Application

Submit the completed application and any supporting documents to SCUSD Board of Education, Box 701, 5735 47th Ave., Sacramento, CA 95824. Deadline to apply is Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 5pm. Applications submitted after that time will not be processed. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact Anne Maretti at [email protected] or (916) 643-9314. Please note while we will maintain the privacy of personal identification information, answers to questions may be shared publicly.

Name: __________________________________________________________ Street Address: ___________________________________________________ City: ______________________________State: _____ Zip Code: ___________ Phone Number: _______________________Email: _______________________ Describe your role (parent of current student, parent of former student, student, staff member, parent advocate, community partner or other qualified representative):


Which school(s) do your children attend or do you represent? ____________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Home Language: _______________________________________________________ School Board Trustee Area (or home zip code): _______________________________ Do you represent Low Income (LI), English Learner (EL), Special Education, Homeless or Foster Youth students? Select all that apply. Low Income (LI) English Learner (EL) Special Education Homeless Foster Youth None of the above

Please write a brief summary of why you are interested in serving on this committee:


Committee Responsibilities Serving on the LCAP EL Parent Advisory Committee requires a significant commitment of time including, but not limited to, attending meetings and trainings as well as engaging in community outreach. Please indicate your understanding of, and agreement with, the following LCAP committee responsibilities:

Check if Agree

I agree to commit to one evening per month from November – June. I agree to participate in a half-day orientation.

I agree to attend at least one district LCAP workshop (90 mins./evening).

I agree to participate in outreach opportunities including, but not limited to,

gathering input from my stakeholder community as a Public Education Volunteer. I agree to work collaboratively with other members of the committee and

district staff throughout the process.

Signature: _____________________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________________________________



BC NO: CSO-45




Prepared by: Al Rogers, Chief Strategy Officer Contact Email: al-

[email protected]

Subject: School Improvement Grant (SIG)

SCUSD’s School Improvement Grant (SIG) was submitted to the California Department of

Education (CDE) on Thursday, September 8. Nine schools -- Hiram Johnson, A.M. Winn, Harkness,

Parkway, John Still, Leataata Floyd, Susan B. Anthony, John Sloat and Woodbine -- were included

in the application.

Funds are intended to support research-based, effective and sustainable school improvement

activities that increase the academic performance and progress of all students. The district will be

notified by November 2016, and funds will be available immediately following the decision. CDE

may choose to fund one or all schools named in the District’s application, based on their proposed

implementation plans and budgets.

Each SCUSD school requested between $5 million and $8 million over the five-year funding period.

board communications date: september 9, 2016 · ... september 9, 2016 ... proposition 58, if...

Documents