the district understands parent engagement is critical to web viewthe application should be sent as...

-School Improvement Grants

Application for FY 2014 New Awards CompetitionSection 1003(g) of the

Elementary and Secondary Education ActFiscal Year 2014

District Name: Salem-Keizer School District

Oregon Department of EducationSalem, OR 97310

SUBMISSION INFORMATIONElectronic Submission:The Oregon Department of Education strongly prefers to receive a district’s FY 2014 SIG application electronically. The application should be sent as a Microsoft Word document, not as a PDF.

The district should submit its FY 2014 application to [email protected]

The cover page must be signed by the superintendent and school board chairperson. It can be electronically signed and submitted with the application, or the district may submit a paper copy of the cover page signed by the district superintendent and school board chairperson to the address listed below under “Paper Submission.”

Paper Submission:If a district is not able to submit its application electronically, it may submit the original and two copies of its SIG application to the following address:

Erica AndersonOregon Department of Education255 Capitol St NESalem, OR 97310

Due to potential delays in government processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, districts are encouraged to use alternate carriers for paper submissions.

Application DeadlineApplications are due on or before May 20, 2015.

For Further InformationIf you have any questions, please contact Erica Anderson at (503) 947-5880 or by e-mail at [email protected].

i

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

APPLICATION COVER SHEET

ii

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

iii

DISTRICT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

A. SCHOOLS TO BE SERVED: A district must include the following information with respect to the schools it will serve with a School Improvement Grant.A district must identify each school that it is applying to serve and that it commits to serve, and the district must identify the model that it will use in each school as applicable. Enter school information in the table below.

Intervention model districts may include are: (1) turnaround; (2) restart; (3) closure; (4) transformation; (5) evidence-based whole school reform model; and (6) early learning model.

SCHOOLNAME

NCES ID # STATESCHOOL ID #

Priority or Focus (Include ODE school

improvement tier assigned fall 2014)

INTERVENTION:

Example Elementary

SchoolXXXXXX XXXXXX Focus, Tier 3 Transformation

Richmond Elementary

School

4110820

411082000803 Focus, Tier 3 Transformation

B. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION: A district must include the following information in its application for a School Improvement Grant.

(2) For each priority and focus school that the LEA commits to serve, the LEA must demonstrate that the LEA has analyzed the needs of each school, such as instructional programs, school leadership and school infrastructure, based on a needs analysis that, among other things, analyzes the needs identified by families and the community, and selected interventions for each school aligned to the needs each school has identified. [Respond to parts 1A – 1C]

(1A) [Enter response here. Describe how family and community stakeholders have been engaged in identifying the needs of the school and selecting an intervention. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

Thank you for the opportunity to submit an application for SIG Cohort #4. It is our intent in the following narrative to provide the specific requested information to the reviewers about the year-long work of the Richmond Elementary School Principal and Leadership Team, family and community stakeholders, and the Salem-Keizer District staff that led to the decision to apply for the SIG Cohort #4 Transformation Model.

1

guaranteed and viable curriculum.

2. Continue to implement strategies designed to eliminate the student achievement gap in our schools with the goal of having no schools in Priority or Focus school status, as defined by the Oregon Department of Education.

3. Create a framework for a behavior support system for elementary schools.

4. Continue to improve evaluation processes to recognize and enhance employee growth, effectiveness, and performance.

5. Develop and implement a targeted professional development plan that focuses on high-quality learning followed by job-embedded opportunities through instructional coaching to build expertise.

6. Enhance strategies to recruit high-quality staff with a focus on diversity and difficult-to-fill positions.

7. Develop a plan to improve retention rates of staff at Title I schools.

The following items were added to the 2015-2016 District General Fund Budget to support and extend the best practices learned from the 13 Schools of Improvement:

1. Funding for textbook/instructional materials including literacy adoption for grades K-5 to support a guaranteed and viable curriculum.

2. Move 26 FTE Instructional Coaches from Title I Funds to general fund. Add 4.5 FTE so that all K-12 schools have .50 Effective Learning Teachers. Add 1 FTE to provide coordination.

3. Add behavior specialists at targeted elementary schools to help support high risk behaviors.

4. Add 2 FTE Assistant Principal for 4 elementary schools to help build internal capacity for Turnaround principals.

5. Add FTE for music teachers at 4th/5th grade to help Master Scheduling conflicts identified as one of the barriers to improvement.

6. Add an Elementary Level Director to help support 44 elementary schools.

Engaging Richmond Family and Community Stakeholders throughout the year

Salem-Keizer recognizes that the parent is the first teacher in a child’s life and the critical role that our parents and families play in supporting their children. There are systems in place at the school and district level to build capacity and learn from parents.

Richmond Elementary School hosted six Family Engagement Nights throughout the school year with the goal of providing resources, materials, and information to parents that would help them support their children at home. This included reading and writing strategies, math games, and

3

appropriate social behaviors for school. Parents were surveyed following these events in order to effectively plan the next events to target their stated needs. The Richmond Parent Club meets monthly with the principal and school counselor to discuss overall student progress, principal concerns, parent concerns and questions, and to plan events to support students and their families.

The Title IA District Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) meets monthly and five Richmond parents who have consistently attended and provided critical feedback to the Federal Programs Coordinator for the last three years. The PAC President is a Richmond father. This relationship between the district, the school, and the parents is further strengthened when parents see district staff at their child’s school. The Federal Programs Coordinator was a member of the ODE School Support Team and the District Walk-Through Team and provided other support to Richmond staff throughout the year. Feedback from all parents was critical in developing programs that parents had requested including English Now (English literacy and language class), and G.E.D. preparation class. The Title IA department piloted these district-wide classes at Richmond in 2013-2014. 25 parents attended both the English Now in the Fall and the G.E.D. class in the Spring. Parents provided positive survey information and the attendance rating was high enough to extend these classes the following year to McKay High, North High, and Waldo Middle Schools. This ongoing relationship with parents, especially Richmond parents, and survey information provides critical insight into the needs of our families. Likewise, the families provide support to our schools through their attendance at school events and during the day as volunteers. The information provided to the school and district staff was important and relevant to the selection of Richmond as the SIG school. When polled at the SIG Parent Information Meeting in May, 100% of the parents voted for the Transformation Model and were interested in serving on the Richmond SIG Planning Team.

The district understands parent engagement is critical to student success. Longitudinal research on parent involvement over the past decade found that, regardless of family income or background, students with involved parents are more likely to:

Earn higher grades and test scores, and enroll in higher-level programs

Be promoted, pass their classes, and earn credits

Attend school regularly

Have better social skills, show improved behavior, and adapt well to school

Graduate and go on to postsecondary education.

Salem-Keizer School District believes that the school plays an important role in determining the levels of parental involvement in school. When our schools engage families in ways that improve learning and support parent involvement at home and school, students make greater gains. When schools build partnerships with families that respond to parent concerns, honor their contributions, and share decision-making responsibilities, they are able to sustain connections that are aimed at improving student achievement.

4

3strong / thorough response

2average / partial response

1weak / minimal response

0not addressed

The LEA, in conjunction with school leadership from each school it commits to serve, has engaged family and community stakeholders in multiple ways and at multiple times to allow for assessment and review of the needs of the school and proposed intervention model.

The LEA or the school it is committing to serve, have engaged family and community stakeholders to allow for assessment and review of the needs of the school and proposed intervention model.

The LEA or the school it is committing to serve, has informed family and community stakeholders of the proposed intervention model.

No action was taken to engage family and community stakeholders.

(1B) [Enter response here. Describe how the needs analysis takes into account the current state of improvement efforts at the school. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

In preparation for writing the SIG application for Richmond Elementary School a SIG District Planning Team was created in February 2015. This team consists of the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, the Elementary Level Director, the Director of Instructional Services, Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, the Federal Programs Coordinator, and the Staffing and Budget Analyst. The purpose of this team was to review Focus school data and recommend schools for the SIG application.

Based on administrative hiring timelines, an extensive Comprehensive Needs Assessment and subsequent CAP revision was not possible prior to the SIG application deadline. However, a fairly extensive initial data analysis was completed in April 2015 by the District SIG Planning Team. The District Leadership Team will intentionally support the new Richmond Elementary School principal with the necessary resources and leadership throughout the course of the SIG, especially in the first implementation year, in order to meet the requirements of the Transformation model. Weekly Early Release time has been requested based on Richmond Staff input in order to review, discuss, and select specific tasks to support the SIG Transformational Model requirements.

The SIG District Planning Team first reviewed the SIG application, the model options and the requirements of each model. Members reviewed and disaggregated the past three years of Richmond Elementary School student achievement data, the state School Report Card data, ODE CAP feedback from the last two years, current ODE School Support Team (SST) information/minutes, notes from multiple District Team School Walk-throughs, Data Teams and Teachers Development Group (TDG) external consultant notes and information from Directors. In addition, they reviewed data from previous SIG schools including McKay High, Early College High/Roberts High, and Hallman Elementary School. This data included

5

teacher retention, academic achievement, and sustainable practices such as building capacity of staff to serve as district trainers in professional development and in moving critical grant funded staff (including Campus Monitors and Behavioral Specialists) into general funds.

The ODE School Support Team (SST) notes provided the district team information on both the work of the principal and Richmond’s Leadership Team over the course of the school year. Notes from the external consultants provided specific successes and challenges for teachers and the principal in the Data Team work and in the ongoing math Studio Cycles. “Next steps” were provided to the principal and teachers from all three external providers allowing the school and district team to examine if the consultants recommendations were applied and followed through as measured and noted in the next school SST/Data Team/Math Studio Cycle meeting.

Data Team site coaching was provided to Richmond every other week by Mickey Garrison of Educational Excellence beginning August 14, 2014 through the present. This school was identified by the consultant and district as a “High Needs” school.

Teachers Development Groups (TDG) Math Studio Cycles were held on June 23-26 as part of the Focus Summer School held at Richmond. 13 out of 24 (54%) Summer School teachers were from Richmond. In addition, Richmond teachers in Grades 3-5 participated in the Math Studio Cycle September 2014 – March 2015. Studio Cycles were provided for K-2nd grade teachers in 2013-2014. TDG Studio Cycles provide a consultant to work with one teacher’s class and provides intensive side-by-side coaching in foundational math theory, eliciting student discourse, and promoting inquiry and critical thinking through the CCSS Habits of Mind and Habits of Interaction. The remaining grade level teachers participate in the professional development and then observe the Studio teacher present the lesson. The lesson is then debriefed with the team.

Critical elements emerged from the April 2015 initial data analysis. These include a need for a change in leadership with a turnaround principal to lead Richmond and a refocus on the Literacy Squared instructional program and to add similar explicit instruction strategies for ESOL and English-only students. The district has prepared to provide this instructional support through the work of our Elementary Instruction department and our highly trained English Language Acquisition Specialists (ELAS) and with the support of Anita Archer as an external consultant.

The CAP review showed recommendations made by ODE to reduce the priorities from the original three to two in order to provide a focus and depth with high leverage indicators. These two indicators were the CAP Priorities for 2014-2015: DSC 1.4 (School staff identify students who need additional learning time to meet standards and provides timely and effective programs of assistance.) and EE2.2, (All teachers use instructional strategies and initiatives that are grounded in evidence-based practices, strengthen the core academic program, increase the quality and quantity of learning time, and address the learning needs of all students.) TL 4.4 (All instructional staff at the school will use assessment data in planning and delivering differentiated, standards based instruction.) was dropped as a priority. Other Focus schools have also identified these as priority indicators and focused and intentional district fiscal and staff support has been

6

provided to all Focus schools including Richmond Elementary. In our review of the ODE feedback the selected CAP priority tasks had not yielded progress and the evidence tied to student outcomes was deemed “unclear.” This was a negative change from the previous year CAP quarterly reviews. CAP quarterly reviews show a consistent and ongoing prompt to create/examine/use systems to monitor instruction in core and intervention and to adjust quickly. District, level director, principal and instructional coach walk-throughs and video recording of teachers have provided evidence of classroom practices and reflection of these should be included for the May 2015 CAP submission. As a result of the information from the CAP reviews for Richmond and the other four Focus schools, a system for frequent and ongoing monitoring of all Title IA schools will be developed in July 2015 for use beginning August 2015. Quarterly CAP reviews using the ODE model will be implemented for all current CAP schools. (20/29 K-12 Title IA schools) The remaining Title IA schools, including two new Targeted Assist Schools (TAS) will be developing CAP during the 2015-2016 school year using District CAP Development process.

2. School Report Card Data shows a marked decline in scores for all and in each sub-group over the past three year despite additional Focus fiscal and district staff support. The largest demographic groups include the Economically Disadvantaged (79.4%), Hispanic (58%), and White (42%). There are significant decreases in academic student achievement in Reading and Math OAKS scores from 2012 which is the year prior to Focus status and 2013 and 2014 scores for Focus Year 1 & 2 respectively. ELL students had the greatest academic loss in both Reading (-24.1%) and in Math (-36.8).

Please see Table 1 below for Richmond OAKS Scores 2012-2014.

Reading 2011-2012Pre-Focus

Status

2012-2013Year 1 Focus

% CHANGE


% CHANGE

Total % CHANGE

Economically Disadvantaged

65.7 59.6 -6.1 51.1 -8.5 -14.6

EL 59.4 45.1 -14.3 35.3 -9.8 -24.1

Hispanic 63.8 52.1 -11.7 41.1 -22.7

White 71.8 84.8 +13 71.4 -11.0 -0.4

MATH 2011-2012Pre-Focus

Status


% CHANGE


% CHANGE

Total % CHANGE

Economically Disadvantaged

66.4 51.8 -14.6 40.6 -11.2 -25.8

EL 65.2 51.4 -13.8 29.4 -22.0 -36.8

7

Hispanic 68.1 48.4 -19.7 33.7 -14.7 -34.4

White 64.1 63.6 -0.5 57.6 -6.0 -6.5

3. ODE School Support Team (SST) meeting notes provided critical information about how and the degree of success the Richmond principal and Leadership Team used SST data to plan for improvement. This information supported their selection for SIG Cohort #4. ODE School Support Team Meetings were held on November 3, 2014, December 18, 2014, February 24, 2015, and April 23, 2015. In the first SST Meeting in November 2014 the Richmond principal and School Leadership Team provided student demographic, achievement, behavioral, and attendance data. The issue that the Richmond staff felt most impacted their students was that the school is in the neighborhood known as “Felony Flats”. It is named this due to the high crime rate, regular and ongoing gang activity of which the Richmond playground is the center turf, and the nearby OR State Penitentiary. More than 35% of the students at Richmond have an incarcerated parent or family member and live in the neighborhood in order to visit this parent. The Leadership Team also acknowledged that Literacy Squared, the ELL literacy instructional program, was lacking previous fidelity and consistency across the grade levels. This program has been used for six years in 22 Salem-Keizer elementary schools and demonstrates a higher rate of academic success in closing the achievement gap in both English and Spanish compared to peers. Teachers noted that in general there are various literacy and math curriculum components in pace and none have a high rate of fidelity and consistency even from the beginning to the end of the year. Successes were listed as the new Master Schedule change (October 2014), the additional support in Data Teams from the external consultant, and the renewed PBIS program including Connections. The top three priorities selected by the Richmond principal and Leadership Team were:

1. Providing more opportunities to learn, more specific interventions with a special focus in ELA.

2. Implementation of successful PLC and Data teams K-5

3. Providing ongoing professional development in TGD-math instructional strategies and implementation of learned strategies

As the SST Team continued to meet with the Richmond principal and School Leadership Team and district members the priorities were reviewed and progress was noted. By April 2015 the following statements had been recorded by the school team regarding their priorities. Math as a priority appeared to be replaced by a greater need for strengthening the school-wide behavior plan and the need for additional staff to support the components of the plan including the twice daily Check In & Check-Out process.

1. Providing more opportunities to learn more specific interventions with a special focus in ELA.

1. Use identified research-based strategies observation format that was designed with help of teachers and the Leadership team.

2. Gather school-wide baseline information to determine consistent use of strategies.

3. Graphing results to look and big pictures trends.

8

4. Visit peer classrooms and observe anchor charts, Cognitive Content Dictionary, graphic organizers, sharing successes and failures of instructional targets and strategies helped increase student achievement as well as teacher professional growth.

5. Observation checklist for teachers when planning instruction as well as walk through feedback and refinement to assist Data Team during instructional planning.

6. Adjustments to PD timeline through Exit Ticket and PLC feedback.

7. Guided Reading walk-through to assist teachers in implementation and refinement for ELA instructional consistency.

8. Using Exit Ticket pin-pointing next steps for staff professional development needs.

9. Follow-up PD based on walk-through data on guided reading and Dictado, feedback and video-taping.

10. Viewing the video of their teaching teachers was powerful for teachers in making adjustments and changing to their teaching and instructional planning.

2. Implementation of successful PLC and Data teams K-5

1. School-wide PLC-Data Teams very helpful in grade level team sharing of successful instructional strategies, planning and teaching lesson around the power standards, analyzing data, identifying challenges, and determining next steps guided our instructional decision making.

2. Observation checklist for teachers when planning instruction as well as walk through feedback and refinement to assist Data Team during instructional planning.

3. Share ELA instructional strategies to be used consistently across classrooms.

3. Providing ongoing professional development in TGD-math instructional strategies and implementation of learned strategies.

TDG Math was not mentioned again after November although Math received the lowest score (4/28) on the Implementing Effective Practice: A System Self-Assessment given at the December 18, 2014 SST Meeting.

The Richmond principal and Leadership Team were directly involved with and made progress towards completing their SST goals for 2014-2015. Based on the formative and interim student assessment data the District SIG Planning Team felt that Richmond students were still in the position of greatest student academic and social-emotional need. While the principal and staff had had positively responded to the various levels of district and state support it was not enough to accelerate student growth. Our Turnaround Reform research demonstrated consistently that the most common factors and fundamental contributors to school-wide success included strong instructional and visionary leaders, leadership, direct focus on instruction, standards, and expectations; strong teachers, and; multiple support systems for students with various needs. Therefore the District SIG Planning Team felt that Richmond would most benefit from the advantages that SIG can offer based upon our previous work with SIG Cohort #1.

9

(1C) [Enter response here. Describe how the needs assessment takes into account the current state of the school. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

Using the data gained from the preliminary needs analysis the following indicators are described:

Curricular and instructional needs as determined through the ODE SST process and external consultant notes:

Limited time in the day to address high leverage CCSS in depth with the necessary re-teaching and extension as measured by classroom formative assessments.

Multiple blended grade classrooms due to the current instructional model of Literacy Squared and ESOL.

Limited coaching and external consultant support available for teachers to implement strategies they learn from professional learning opportunities.

Insufficient teacher fidelity and consistency across grade levels to the core curriculum and district instructional model for ELL students (Literacy Squared).

A guaranteed and viable literacy curriculum has been inconsistent. In 2015-2016, the district will pilot a new English Language Arts adoption in 22 elementary schools including Richmond. Processes, including a master schedule and consistent resources to support a guaranteed and viable curriculum have been implemented so that every student has the opportunity to learn a core literacy curriculum (guaranteed) and the necessary time to learn is available and protected (viable). Fidelity will be monitored and measured by the school and district.

Limited time for staff to create lessons that have sufficient academic and language support for students and include differentiated learning opportunities.

Status of the Comprehensive Assessment System: District lacks an efficient Universal Screener for reading and math as a key component of a

Comprehensive Assessment System. STAR 360 will be piloted next year at Richmond, the other four Focus schools, and two currently identified Targeted Other Title IA Schools (TOTS).

Use of Data Teams for decision-making: Inadequate time for training, job-embedded professional learning, and support for Data

Teams/PLC due to lack of early release. Limited time in Data Teams and assessment literacy to create and develop quality pretests,

formative, interim and summative assessments in both reading and math due to lack of early release.

Systemic lack of a clear and consistent vision for aligned vertical implementation as evidenced in Data Team notes and classroom walk-throughs.

Inconsistent use of data to inform appropriate instructional decisions and apply necessary interventions in a timely and efficient manner.

Capacity of Staff to implement the Transformation Model: All Staff have had the opportunity to transfer to another school with one teacher choosing to

transfer due to the SIG. The remaining teachers are optimistic about the changes that will

10

come as a result of the SIG. The Richmond Leadership Team wishes to continue in their role. Staff lacks the time and resources to fully realize and engage parents’ capacity to support

their child’s learning. A structured home visit professional learning has been used in other Focus and Title IA schools with success. This training has been extended to Richmond.




0not addressed

The needs analysis, conducted by the LEA, in conjunction with the school, articulates the strength of curricular and instructional needs, the status of the comprehensive assessment system and use of data teams for decision-making, and the capacity of the teaching staff to implement the intervention selected.

The needs analysis conducted articulates the strength of curricular and instructional needs, the status of the comprehensive assessment system and use of data teams for decision-making, and the capacity of the teaching staff to implement the intervention selected.

The needs analysis alludes to or references curricular and instructional needs, assessment systems and data teams, and the capacity of the teaching staff to implement the intervention selected.

The needs of the school were not addressed.

(3) For each priority and focus school that the LEA commits to serve, the LEA must demonstrate that it has taken into consideration family and community input in selecting the intervention. [Respond to parts 2A – 2B]

(2A) [Enter response here. Describe the process for garnering input from family and community stakeholders. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

When polled at the SIG Parent Information Meeting in May, 100% of the parents voted for the Transformation Model and were interested in serving on the Richmond SIG Planning Team.

Richmond Elementary School hosted six Family Engagement Nights throughout the school year with the goal of providing resources, materials, and information to parents that would help them support their children at home. This included reading and writing strategies, math games, and appropriate social behaviors for school. Parents were surveyed following these events in order to effectively plan the next events to target their stated needs. The Richmond Parent Club meets monthly with the principal and school counselor to discuss overall student progress, principal concerns, parent concerns and questions, and to plan events to support students and their families.

The Title IA District Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) meets monthly and five Richmond parents

11

who have consistently attended and provided critical feedback to the Federal Programs Coordinator for the last three years. The PAC President is a Richmond father. Topics of the PAC meetings have included the district budget, review of a school improvement plan, the role and rights of parents in the Title IA process, bullying, sex education in the high schools, the culture and climate of the school, how to talk to the principal, and surveys on what the parents feel would be of most value to them and to their child. The district supports both district-level and school level Community School Outreach Counselors (CSOCS) to provide additional support to families. District CSOCS represent the cultures of and speak Spanish, Russian, and Chuukese as well as English.

The relationship between the district, the school, and the parents is further strengthened when parents see district staff at their child’s school. The Federal Programs Coordinator was a member of the ODE School Support Team and the District Walk-Through Team and provided other support to Richmond staff throughout the year. Feedback from all PAC parents was critical in developing programs including English Now (English literacy and language class), and G.E.D. preparation class. The Title IA department piloted these district-wide classes at Richmond in 2013-2014. 25 parents attended both the English Now in the Fall and the G.E.D. class in the Spring. Parents provided positive survey information and the attendance rating was high enough to extend these classes the following year to McKay High, North High, and Waldo Middle Schools. This ongoing relationship with parents, especially Richmond parents, and survey information provides critical insight into the needs of our families. Likewise, the families provide support to our schools through their attendance at school events and during the day as volunteers. The information provided to the school and district staff was important and relevant to the selection of Richmond as the SIG school.




0not addressed

Family and community stakeholders were educated on the current report card ratings, current improvement efforts (CAP, Priorities, etc.) AND provided opportunities for dialogue and feedback with both the LEA and school leadership pertaining to the current state of the school and improvement efforts.

Family and community stakeholders were provided opportunities for dialogue and feedback with school leadership or LEA leadership pertaining to the current state of the school and improvement efforts.

Family and community stakeholders were made aware of the LEA’s intent to engage in the SIG process on behalf of the school.

No action was taken to engage family and community stakeholders.

12

(2B) [Enter response here. Describe the process for considering the input from family and community stakeholders. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.] Five SIG Information Meetings were held in May with various stakeholders including District leadership; Richmond licensed and classified staff, and parents. All members were provided specific information about the requirements of each model, had opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback, and were surveyed for their choice of model. The majority of respondents selected the Transformation Model and this information was shared with them at a weekly staff meeting in May. Additional meetings will be held in May with those stakeholders directly impacted by the Early Release Time/Day decision such as the Boys & Girls Club and neighborhood pre-schools and daycare to provide information and to receive feedback to be used in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment beginning in August, 2015. Parent and community stakeholder surveys will be developed for review and discussion in July 2015 for discussion at the August Richmond SIG Planning Team meetings. Additional feedback will be sought relative to what information to collect, how to collect it, and when to collect and how to monitor and use the data collected to improve student academic and behavioral outcomes.Meeting Schedule: April 15 – Superintendent and Elementary Level Director hold all-staff meeting at Richmond to announce the application for SIG and the required change of principal.

April 23 – Second all-staff meeting held to discuss each model, specific requirements, initial needs analysis findings and to survey staff for interest in serving on SIG Planning Team.

May 8 – Met with Richmond Parent Club to present and discuss SIG models and requirements and to survey them for preference.

May 13 – Meeting with remaining Richmond licensed and classified staff to discuss each model, specific requirements, share current needs analysis findings and to survey staff for interest in serving on SIG Planning Team.




0not addressed

LEA in collaboration with school leadership, analyzed and considered family and community stakeholder input in selecting the intervention and provided opportunities for final approval.

LEA in collaboration with school leadership, analyzed and considered family and community stakeholder input in selecting the intervention.

LEA and / or school leadership analyzed and considered family and community stakeholder input in selecting the intervention.

No action was taken to consider family and community stakeholder input.

(4) The LEA must describe actions it has taken, or will take, to design and implement a plan consistent with the final requirements of the turnaround model, restart model, school

13

closure, transformation model, evidence-based whole school reform model, or early learning model.

[(3)] Enter response here. Describe actions taken, or will take, to design and implement a plan for the selected model. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]Based on the work of the Richmond principal and School Leadership Team with the ODE SST team the following activities have been developed to support the Year 1 Implementation of SIG. Activities are subject to change based on the input of the TBD Strategy Provider and the new Turnaround Principal as well as input from our external consultants including the ODE SST. All required activities will be met as required. Systems are in place to fully support Richmond through the SIG process. We anticipate that the Strategy Developer will provide critical information to the district so that we may provide the necessary systems to support Richmond and all of our schools. Please see next table for dates of planning and implementation.

SIG Requirements for the Turnaround and

Transformation Models

KEY:X = Required

O = Permissible

TransformationModel was selected by survey of

Richmond Staff and Parents

Activities and Timeline Cross-walk to CAP and District

Improvement Plan

Indicators

Replace the principal. XMay 2015

Turnaround Principal posting DTAL 3.5

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

O

Permissible Activity

TBD by District SIG Leadership Team

DDSC 1.8

14

SIG Requirements for the Turnaround and

Transformation Models

KEY:X = Required

O = Permissible

TransformationModel was selected by survey of

Richmond Staff and Parents

Activities and Timeline Cross-walk to CAP and District

Improvement Plan

Indicators

Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for

principals and teachers that take into account data on student growth as a

significant factor as well as other factors and are designed and

developed with teacher and principal involvement.

X

Developed in collaboration with licensed staff, building principal, association

leadership, and district administration, the LEGENDS evaluation framework is an InTASC-based professional growth

and learning cycle. A full year's LEGENDS cycle begins with educator self-reflection and the setting of both

professional and student learning goals. During the cycle, the administrator

receives multiple points of observation feedback; participates in three

collaborative performance conferences; and reviews an end-of-year summative performance assessment. The end-of-year performance assessment tracks

performance in the domains of professional practice, responsibilities, and student growth and achievement.

The LEGENDS evaluation framework and cycle is reviewed annually by all licensed and administrative staff, and feedback from this review is used to

inform process and rubric changes for the following academic year.

TL 4.4

EE 2.6

Identify and reward school leaders, teachers and other staff who, in implementing this model, have

increased student achievement and high school graduation rates.

X

May 8 & 26, 2015 –

Initial meetings with representatives from the licensed and classified Associations to discuss possible incentive scenarios.

To be finalized Spring 2016 after discussion and feedback from staff and district leadership as part of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment.

LDR 5.8

15

consultant to provide explicit teaching to the Focus Schools and in more depth to Richmond. The Explicit Instruction strategy is very similar to the Literacy Squared model and will fit within our existing district Balanced Literacy framework and can be supported as Richmond and 21 other elementary schools implement the new English/Language Arts K-5 adoption beginning in September 2015.

John Hattie’s meta-analysis found in Visible Learning has provided additional information about the effect sizes of specific strategies. It is the plan of the district to provide more professional learning opportunities around the list using current Instructional Services staff.

The strategies will be supported through the weekly Data Team meetings, additional professional development, and will be monitored through regular classroom observations by the principal and the District Walk-through team. This team consists of representatives from content areas (math, science literacy, talented and gifted) in Instructional Services/Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment; Student Services (Special Education), Level Directors, and Coordinators from Title IA, II, and III.

Richmond teachers will be provided additional opportunities to review, reflect, and receive feedback on their instruction and student engagement through the filming of their lessons.




0not addressed

The LEA, in conjunction with school leadership, has described the process used to determine how the strategies to be implemented are evidence-based and align to the needs of the school.

The LEA has described the process used to determine how the strategies to be implemented are evidence-based and align to the needs of the school.

The LEA has described the process used to determine how the strategies to be implemented are evidence-based but has not described alignment to the needs of the school.

The LEA has not describe a process to determine how the selected strategies are evidence-based.

[(10B) Enter response here. Describe the implementation of evidence-based strategies. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.] In order to better support our ESOL and English Only (EO) teachers Anita Archer has been selected as an external consultant to provide explicit teaching to the Focus Schools and in more depth with additional support to Richmond. The Explicit Instruction evidence-based strategy was selected because it is very similar to the Literacy Squared model and will fit within our district Balanced Literacy framework.

On August 12-14, 2015 Dr. Archer will be providing a three-day workshop to Focus school teachers, including Richmond which has been allotted additional spaces. The district is currently in negotiations with Anita on her work for 2015-2016 with the focus on Richmond as a SIG school. As with all external providers this work will be monitored and measured against predetermined milestones/indicators. It is the intent of

39

the district to share the information and best practices developed through the work with our Focus and other Title I Schools of Improvement with the intent to scale this work out to the remaining schools. As the work progresses next year at Richmond other evidence-based strategies may be researched, review, and vetted using the enhanced district process.

The Salem Keizer Education Association has invited a Richmond Team to attend the Regional Summer TURN (Teacher Union Reform Network) Conference on Poverty, Proficiency, and Professional Practice on July 9-10, 2015. Team members include an Association Rep, the new Richmond principal four Richmond teachers, the Elementary Level Director, and the Federal Programs Coordinator.




0not addressed

The LEA, in conjunction with school leadership, has described a plan to implement the selected strategies, supported by evidence of effectiveness.

The LEA has described a plan to implement the selected strategies, supported by evidence of effectiveness.

The LEA has not described a plan to implement the selected strategies or the implementation plan does not describe how the strategies are supported by evidence of effectiveness.

The LEA does not describe a strategy to implement.

(12) The LEA must describe how it will monitor each priority and focus school, that receives school improvement funds including by-

a) Establishing annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics; and,

b) Measuring progress on the leading indicators as defined in the final requirements.

[(11A) Enter response here. Describe the annual goals for improved student achievement. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.

Academic Growth Goals (per Report Card Rating Detail Sheet)2013-14

2014-15

Year 1

(2015-16)

Year 2

(2016-17)

Year 3

(2017-18)

Year 4

(2018-19)

Year 5

(2019-20)

Reading State Report Card Median Growth Target was 41% with Level 1 rating

The State Report Card Median Growth Target will be a baseline measure from which

Baseline data from current year State Report Card Academic Growth Combined Median Growth Target.

Meet or exceed growth target and attain Level 2 in this category.



Attain Level 5 status.

40

goals can be set

Math State Report Card Median Growth Target was 45% with Level 1 rating

The State Report Card Median Growth Target will be a baseline measure from which goals can be set

Baseline data from current year State Report Card Academic Growth Combined Median Growth Target.





Academic Achievement Goals (per Report Card Rating Detail Sheet)2013-14 2014-15 Year 1

(2015-16)

Year 2

(2016-17)

Year 3

(2017-18)

Year 4

(2018-19)

Year 5

(2019-20)

Reading State Report Card Achievement Combined % Met was 55% with a Level 2 rating

The State Report Card Academic Achievement Combined % Met will be a baseline measure from which goals can be set

Baseline data from current year State Report Card Academic Achievement Combined Percent Met.

Meet or exceed combined percent met target and attain Level 2 in this category.




Math State Report Card Achievement Combined % Met was 46.3% with a Level 2 rating

The State Report Card Academic Achievement Combined % Met will be a baseline measure from which goals can be set

Baseline data from current year State Report Card Academic Achievement Combined Percent Met.





41

All student data is used as part of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. Student academic growth and achievement progress is shared formally with parents at the September Annual Title IA Parent Meeting, and during October and March Parent Conferences. The Elementary Level Director supports the principal in reviewing and interpreting all student data.

Formative Measures and goals: Student growth is assessed and monitored with formative measures that are utilized at ongoing and regular intervals at the classroom, grade level, school, and district levels. Teachers administer ongoing informal assessments through the course of a lesson including exit tickets, use of white boards to show an answer, etc. Grade level team teachers create and discuss pre, post and formative assessments as part of their Data Team cycle with measures showing a student growth to an overall target of 80% or more of students meeting proficiency as defined by the formative assessment for each cycle. This data provides teachers evidence of effective strategies and informs instruction for the individual and grade level team.

STAR 360 will be piloted at Richmond and the other four Focus schools next year and is expected to provide more immediate data to teachers to inform instruction and intervention/extensions. Principals and Instructional Coaches use classroom data to inform the need for professional learning for the teacher, the grade level and/or the school. DRA and its Spanish counterpart EDLA is used K-5 district-wide. STAR and/or DRA reading data is administered four times a year with the goal that 80% or more students K-5 are on their recommended growth trajectory with 80% or more on grade level by end of the year and the other 20% on 2 year catch-up trajectory.

Interim measures and goals:

The district developed District Interim Assessment (DIA) through Edusoft is administered twice times a year and is connected to the curriculum map and units of study outline with the goal of at least 80% of students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will be on track for meeting proficiency on priority standards as per the maps and assessments.

Summative measures and goals:

SBAC measures for reading and math in grades 3, 4 and 5 to compare between years growth in overall achievement, identified sub group growth (identify the groups with achievement gaps and call them out), identified sub group overall achievement, and individual student growth. The 2014-15 scores will be a baseline for year to year comparison. OAKS data from previous years can be used for longitudinal data analysis with whatever formula ODE develops as a crosswalk between assessments.

100% of incoming Kindergarten students will be reading on grade level by their 3rd grade year.

Each year the school will improve by 10% of the total percent of students that did not meet the year prior as measured by state assessments in Math (3rd - 5th), Reading/Writing (3rd -

42

5th), Science (5th), and the District Writing Assessment.

Attendance goals:

100% of each grade will attend 90% of the school year.

Parent Involvement Goals: (first year provides a baseline measure for comparison with an overall initial target of 30%)

20% increase of attendance at conferences.

20% increase of attendance at events or trainings.

Student Learning Growth Goals:

30 % of teachers meeting SLGs (first year is baseline data)

Each year the school will improve by 10% of the total percent of students that did not meet the year prior as measured by state assessments in Math (3rd - 5th), Reading/Writing (3rd - 5th), Science (5th), and the District Writing Assessment.




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership, has described annual goals based on reading and mathematics student data, as well as periodic check-in measures, to ensure improved achievement for students.

The LEA has described annual goals based on reading mathematics student data, as well as quarterly check-in measures, to ensure improved achievement for students.

The LEA has described annual goals to ensure improved achievement for students.

The LEA did not describe annual goals.

[(11B) Enter response here. Describe the strategies for monitoring progress. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.] Student academic growth is measured throughout the year using a comprehensive assessment system. The district system is also monitored and evaluated in order to ensure that the necessary and appropriate data is collected and available in a timely manner. STAR 360 will be piloted at Richmond and the other four Focus schools next year and is expected to provide more immediate data to teachers to inform instruction and intervention/extensions. This pilot resulted because Four Corners, another district Focus school, used STAR 360 in 2014-2015. The principal and Instructional Coach shared the capability of the system and the level of data available immediately to teachers. In addition, the schools that will pilot STAR 260 this year will have access to and pilot the developing Spanish component which is critical to serving the needs of our bilingual students. DRA is currently used and while useful is time consuming to administer and there are questions about the reliability and validity of the data. In addition, Spanish speaking EL students are

43

assessed with the EDLA version creating lengthy testing windows with a loss of instruction during the school year. Building upon the Superintendent’s vision, it is our intention that the work at Richmond will inform and shape the school and the district. We believe that Richmond Elementary School will become a model to be replicated in other schools.

Student Assessment Monitoring Schedule: Please see attached Salem-Keizer School Assessment Plan (K-5), Elementary Testing Calendar, and the outline of required assessment sin 2014-2015.




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership, has described detailed periodic progress monitoring structures, strategies, and benchmarks to ensure successful implementation of the final requirements of the selected intervention.

The LEA has described periodic progress monitoring structures, strategies, and benchmarks to ensure successful implementation of the final requirements of the selected intervention.

The LEA has somewhat described monitoring structures and benchmarks to ensure successful implementation of the final requirements of the selected intervention.

The LEA did not described plans for monitoring progress.

(13) The LEA must include a timeline delineating the steps it will take to implement the selected intervention in each school identified in the LEA’s application.

[(12) Enter response here. Describe the timeline for implementing the selected intervention. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]For the timeline I have included the three criterion listed in the rubric under “strong response/thorough response” in order to indicate for the application and for the LEA and school that all required components were present and were evenly distributed through the timeline. This will help us monitor the proposed work.

Date Task Assigned Rubric1. Specific monitoring

and review opportunities conducted by the LEA

2. Opportunities for family and community

stakeholder updates and review,

3. Specific measures aligned to the final requirements of the

selected intervention and the planned activities.

Sept 2014 The Superintendent announces a new model to support the elementary schools in improvement status as

Superintendent

44

measured by a “2” or “1” on the State School Report Card. Included in this restructuring is the option for the principal to have their determined barriers to success dealt with in a priority status. Changes as a result of this restricted model include the October 2014 master calendar revision to align the schools and to provide consistent time in reading and math blocks. These principals were given operational flexibility to support student and staff needs based on data.

District Leadership Team

May 2015 Consult with District Communication Department to prepare Richmond Elementary School Early Release Time/Day Communication Plan for use at the district and at Richmond announcing the schedule change and the information delivery method (web page, social media, auto-dialer, etc.)

Develop “Talking Points” for staff to explain Early Release information purpose, process, and timeline to stakeholders and the community at large.

Federal Programs Coordinator


Karma Krause - District Communications Dept.

2

2

May 8

May 26

Meet with Licensed and Classified Association Representatives to preview reception to and listen to questions about SIG Cohort #4 requirements including extended day and staff incentives.


HR Assistant Superintendent

2,3

May 2015 Consult with District Communication Department to prepare SIG Communication Plan for use at the district and at schools announcing the successful SIG application and the information delivery method (web page, social media, auto-dialer, etc.)

Develop “Talking Points” for staff to explain SIG purpose, process, and timeline to stakeholders and the community at large.



Karma Krause - District Communications Dept.

1,2

May 2015 Meet with Boy’s & Girls’ Club currently providing after-school childcare to Richmond students to coordinate for 2015-2016 Early Release day.

Federal Programs Coordinator 2

45

May 18, 2015

Research and cost out extended time scenarios including extended day, week, and year.

Grants Staffing & Budget Analyst 3

May 30, 2015

New Richmond principal hired

Determine level of mentoring necessary for new principal to be successful. Select school peer and district turnaround mentor to directly support the new Richmond principal.

Superintendent

District SIG Leadership Team. Team includes Superintendent, Assistant, Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent - HR, Elementary Level Directors, ISCIA Director, Federal Programs Coordinator, Grants Staffing and Budget Analyst.

3

June 1, 2015 Survey Richmond staff for interest in ODE Summer Academy to be held August 3-7 in Eugene.


June 15, 2015

Receive SIG grant and notify stakeholders via Communications Plan. (see above)


June 15, 2015

Richmond Leadership Team Meeting – Review and revise current master schedule developed in Oct 2014, in order to gain additional extended learning time for 2015-2016. Master schedule major revision completed in October 2014 as part of the Superintendent’s District Restructuring to support Schools of Improvement.

Elementary Level Director

1,3

June 2015 New principal meeting with District SIG Planning Team to apprise him/her of history of school improvement at Richmond, current instructional programs, recent needs analysis, Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool, share and discuss SIG Plan, and to schedule meetings with Richmond SIG Planning Team.

District SIG LeadershipSIG Team

1,3

June 2015 Review ODE SAT Staff and Parent Surveys and other options for possible use for Comprehensive Needs Assessment.

District SIG LeadershipTeam

1,3

June 2015 Establish Richmond SIG Planning Team including licensed and classified

New Richmond Principal 2

46

staff, parents, and District leadership.Elementary Level Director

July 2015 Review, discuss, revise current school monitoring system and develop more detailed monitoring tools including goals and timelines.

Request feedback from external stakeholders including ODE School Improvement Department, Educational Excellence (Data Teams), TDG, ODE Leadership Coaches, and ODE SST members.

District SIG LeadershipTeam

1,2,3

July 9-10, 2015

Richmond Team to attend the Regional TURN Summer ConferencePoverty, Proficiency & Professional Practice The Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN) Regions are partnering with the Consortium for Educational Change to sponsor a summer conference to strengthen teacher leadership in building communities of practice linked to issues related to poverty, proficiency, professional practices and partnerships.

Richmond Team including new principal, 4 teachers, Level Director, Federal Programs Coordinator, and Salem-Keizer Teachers Association (Union) rep.

1,2,3

July 2015 Hold initial Richmond Elementary SIG Planning meeting with identified key stakeholders including district leadership, school leadership, and parent leaders. Present Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool (CNAT) keyed to Comprehensive Achievement Plan (CAP).

New Richmond Principal



3

July 2015 Continue to research potential Strategy Developers for contract for 2015-2016.

Continue and extend contracts with current external providers Educational Excellence (Data Teams) and Teachers Development Group (TDG)



Grants Staffing & Budget Analyst

3

3

August 3-7 Staff members to attend ODE Summer Academy & Summer Assessment Institute, Eugene

Selected Richmond staffRichmond PrincipalFederal Programs Coordinator

3

August 26-27, 2015

Use currently scheduled Buy-Back days for presentation to Richmond staff of Richmond SIG Planning Team,

Elementary Level Director 2

47

SIG timeline and key points for 2015-2016.


August 2015 Parent and community meeting to meet the new principal and begin initial surveys for baseline data.

New Principal 2

Sept 2015 Schedule monthly district walk-throughs for 2015-2016 using 2014-2015 process.

Develop a ‘Look Fors” form to use to gather data.

Debrief, discuss, and share this data including “Next Steps” with Richmond principal, Richmond SIG Planning Team, and District Leadership Team as part of an ongoing monitoring and review process.

Follow through on “Next Steps” as outlined in the data narrative.

Richmond Principal

Federal ProgramsCoordinator


Extended District SIG Leadership Team to include Curriculum Program Assistants, Elementary Instruction Coordinator, Title II Coordinator, Testing and Assessment Coordinator, Talented and Gifted Coordinator and other staff as determined by Planning Teams. Richmond Principal

1

Year 1 - 2015-2016 Planning/ImplementationDate Task Assigned Rubric

1. Specific monitoring and review opportunities conducted by the LEA

2. Opportunities for family and community

stakeholder updates and review,

3. Specific measures aligned to the final requirements of the

selected intervention and the planned activities.

48

August-September 2015

Inventory current technology to include infrastructure capability, current devices, SMART Boards, WAP’s, and applications.

Title IA Educational Technology Program Assistant.

1

August 2015

Investigate potential professional leaning opportunities for Fall 2015.


Title II Coordinator

Elementary Level DirectorExternal Consultants

3

August-December 2015

Comprehensive Needs Assessment using current district process and tool (CNAT)

Richmond SIG Planning Team 1

August 2015

Schedule regular and ongoing meetings with tentative agendas for groups including parents, community stakeholders, and staff.


September 2015

Annual Parent Title IA Meeting

Present and discuss current SIG work to date.

Solicit feedback from parents.

Invite parents to complete survey for baseline data (same tool presented at August “Meet the Principal” Meeting.


New Principal

Richmond SIG Planning Team

2

October 2015

Research and evaluate best practices in our district and in other SIG schools relative to student incentives.


October-November 2015

Select Strategy Developer.Future work and timelines may be adjusted based on this collaboration and learning.


October 2015

Parent-Teacher ConferencesSurvey parents about what services or information the school and district can provide to support their child.Survey parents about what information and knowledge they can provide to the school to strengthen the home-school connection.


October 2015

Quarterly CAP Review

Use this feedback to inform CAP Development revisions to CAP. Use ODE CAP Review, current CAP

ODE


2

49

revisions, and external providers’ feedback to provide ongoing feedback to SIG Planning Team.

District SIG Leadership Team 1

November-December 2015

Meet with Association Representatives to discuss incentives and extended time.

Richmond PrincipalDistrict SIG Leadership Team

1

January 2016

Use Comprehensive Needs Assessment data to begin the “Assess” section of CAP in Indistar.


January 2016

Consider spring and summer professional learning opportunities including PBIS, based on current CAP Comprehensive Needs Assessment data.


January 2016

Consider summer school options Richmond SIG Planning Team

February 2016

Quarterly CAP Review

Use this feedback to inform CAP Development revisions to CAP.

ODE


1

February 2016

Finalize Extended Day planned schedule.

Create a Communication Plan for Extended Day.

Richmond SIG Planning TeamKarma Krause District Communications Department

32

February 2016

Begin “Create” section of CAP in Indistar Richmond SIG Planning Team 1

March 2016

Finalize incentive plans and announce to staff.


March 2016

Use ODE CAP Review, current CAP revisions, and external providers’ feedback to provide ongoing feedback to SIG Planning Team.

District SIG Leadership Team 1

Prior to March 21, 2016

Determine and announce mandatory summer professional learning to staff prior to spring break. (March 21-25).


Richmond Principal

3

March 2016

Plan Summer Jump Start Kindergarten Richmond SIG Planning Team

Richmond PrincipalMay 2016 Complete new CAP and new budget

worksheet and submit to ODE using current data and feedback from the work with the monthly walk-throughs, Strategy Developer and the other external consultants including ODE, EdNorthwest, Educational Excellence, (Data Teams) and Teachers Development Group (TDG).


Richmond Principal

Federal ProgramsCoordinator

1

50

May 2016 Plan timeline for 2016-2017 Implementation Year 2 using current data and feedback from the work with the Monthly Walk-throughs, Strategy Developer and the other external consultants including ODE, EdNorthwest, Educational Excellence, (Data Teams) and Teachers Development Group (TDG).


Richmond Principal

District SIG Leadership Team

1

May 2016 Final Parent Survey for Year 1 using thesame tool presented at August “Meet the Principal” Meeting.

Determine if survey is generating useful and necessary data. Revise if necessary.


Richmond Principal

1,2

June 2016 Professional learning for summer school staff

District Program Assistants

External Providers

Others TBD

3

2015-2016 Year 1 Planning/Implementation2016-2017 Year 2 Implementation2017-2018 Year 3 Implementation2018-2019 Year 4 Sustaining (reduced funds)2019-2020 Year 5 Sustaining (reduced funds)

A new timeline and budget will need to be developed based on current data and feedback from the work with the Strategy Developer and the other external consultants including ODE, EdNorthwest, Educational Excellence, (Data Teams) and Teachers Development Group (TDG).




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership, has described a timeline that includes specific monitoring and review opportunities conducted by the LEA, opportunities for family and community

The LEA has described a timeline that includes monitoring opportunities conducted by the LEA and measures aligned to the final requirements of the selected intervention and the planned

The LEA has described a timeline that includes monitoring opportunities and measures aligned to the planned activities.

The LEA has not described a timeline that supports the implementation of the selected intervention.

51

stakeholder updates and review, and specific measures aligned to the final requirements of the selected intervention and the planned activities.

activities.

(14) The LEA must describe actions it has taken, or will take, to recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable, to ensure their quality, and regularly review and hold accountable such providers for their performance.

[(13A) Enter response here. Describe the actions taken to screen and select external providers. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

The Salem-Keizer School District uses a Quality Assurance Model (QAM) as part of our continuous improvement process that supports staff engagement, setting benchmarks, and achieving the stated goals. Work Instruction and Procedures documents are reviewed every six months or sooner as needed. The QAM documents for contracts detail the following inclusions:

Milestones or indicators used to measure the work Desired outcomes of the services Qualifications and references of contractor

While useful at some point in the process of hiring based on research and best practices in school turnaround additional information and a more articulated system will need to be considered as we consider how an external service provider can best meet our needs. It is the intent of the district to select an external provider that will support the reform measures and SIG requirements at Richmond Elementary School and can that inform the district about best practices around structures, processes, and procedures to support Richmond and all schools.

In order to plan for this change the School Turnaround & Transformation at American Institute for Research Third Edition Guide to Working With External Providers: Partnership to Improve Teaching and Leaning was reviewed and will be used to guide our work. The “Toolkit” section provides useful documents that can be completed or used as a point of discussion.

Critical questions to consider are does the provider: offer services that are aligned with established goals, are part of a long-term strategy, customized, research based, and capacity building

The work of the provider will be monitored and measured against the predetermined milestones/indicators.

52

[13B) Enter response here. Describe the processes and timelines for review and accountability of external providers. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

Monthly meetings will be held with the Richmond SIG Planning Team and the District SIG Planning Team to discuss Richmond’s progress in order to be monitor and evaluate the work of the external provider. Milestones/indicators would be reviewed and next steps created with clearly articulated tasks for the external provider, the district, and Richmond. Monthly meetings will provide timely and specific feedback and allow for a more rapid monitor and adjust cycle.




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership, has developed and communicated a plan to review regularly the external provider’s contract that holds accountable services and performance of the external provider.

The LEA has developed and communicated a plan to review regularly the external provider’s contract that holds accountable services and performance of the external provider.

The LEA has somewhat developed timelines or protocols for reviewing the external provider’s ongoing work with the school.

The LEA has not described timelines and protocols for monitoring the progress of the external provider.

Score will not be given if not applicable and will not count against the school’s overall score.

(15) An LEA must hold the charter school operator, CMO, EMO, or other external provider accountable for meeting these requirements, if applicable.

[(14) Enter response here. Describe accountability plans for external providers here. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

Monthly meetings will be held with the Richmond SIG Planning Team and the District SIG Planning Team to discuss Richmond’s progress in order to be monitor and evaluate the work of the external provider. Parents are members of the Richmond SIG Planning Team. Milestones/indicators would be reviewed and next steps created with clearly articulated tasks for the external provider, the district, and Richmond. Monthly meetings will provide timely and specific feedback and allow for a more rapid monitor and adjust cycle.

The milestones and indicators will be clearly articulated and mutually agreed upon in the external provider’s contract during the negotiation process. In addition, the contract will specify a calendar for progress monitoring of the work of the provider, the school, and the district. The monthly meetings will provide an opportunity to review, discuss, and revise the work if necessary. In addition, protocols for failure on the part of the external provider to fulfill mutually agreed upon milestones/indicators will have been established prior to the start of the contract.

53




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership and family and community members, has developed a plan to review regularly the external provider’s contract that holds accountable services and performance, as well as protocols responding to if the external provider is not fulfilling their responsibility within the contract.

The LEA has developed a plan to review regularly the external provider’s contract that holds accountable services and performance, as well as protocols responding to if the external provider is not fulfilling their responsibility within the contract.

The LEA has developed a plan to review the external provider’s contract that holds accountable services and performance.

The LEA did not describe plans for monitoring external providers.


(16) For an LEA that intends to use the first year of its School Improvement Grants award for planning and other pre-implementation activities for an eligible school, the LEA must include a description of the activities, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how those activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention. If the district selects the turnaround or transformation model for any of its 2014-15 SIG eligible schools, the district also must submit a letter from the union or association in support of the SIG requirements associated with the selected model (see Appendix B for a sample letter). [respond to 15A, 15B and 15C]

[(15A) Enter response here. Describe the activities, timeline, and description of implementation in the planning year (where applicable). See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

As a result of the SIG District Leadership preliminary analysis and determination of priority needs, it is clear that our first step is to build school and district-level leadership capacity to strategically address teaching and learning. This includes best practices for classroom management and a deeper understanding of the impact of poverty on the social-emotional health of our students and families. Due to low achievement among all subgroups, our first step is a deeper examination of the growth-mind set among staff. Embedded throughout this work is staff commitment to deep implementation of proven best practices and processes. Staff members who have both the requisite skills and desire for this commitment need time and resources for sustained, job-embedded professional learning to develop and sustain a positive, rigorous learning environment where substantial gains are realized.

Our next step is to build on and deepen the existing Data Team/PLC structure with district and

54

external consultant support. Staff must strengthen their understanding of how to select and implement high leverage instructional strategies, deepen their assessment literacy through the Data Team process, and reflect on their practice using a self and peer monitor process, including classroom walk-throughs.

With the current instructional model of Literacy Squared in grades K-3 instruction supports the language development of all students. In order to accelerate positive growth in student achievement, both district and school leadership and staff need accountability in reviewing, revising, and/or developing school and classroom systems that promote effective classroom practices with clear and consistent monitoring through a cycle of Sustainable School Improvement. This cycle includes building readiness in stakeholders, collecting and analyzing data, setting goals based on current data, investigating research /evidence based school and classroom practices, creating an action plan, implementing and monitoring, evaluating effectiveness, sustaining effective practices yielding desired results, and eliminating ineffective low leverage instructional systems and practices that create barriers to student achievement and building staff capacity.

Current successful initiatives include the work with Data Teams supported by Mickey Garrison at Educational Excellence and the foundation math instructional practices supported by Teachers Development Group. (TDG).

It is our current plan to continue and to deepen the Richmond staff’s opportunity for professional leaning in these two areas. Other emerging best practices and systems to meet student and staff needs will be discussed and vetted at the monthly Richmond SIG Planning Team meetings and will be evaluated for further consideration. These discussions will benefit the other Focus schools as information and progress is shared at the monthly Focus School Principal meetings.




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership, has described a plan (including activities and timelines) to preserve current improvement efforts while supporting the pre-implementation and planning for the selected intervention.

The LEA has described an intent to preserve current improvement efforts while supporting the pre-implementation and planning for the selected intervention.

The LEA has described a plan to support the pre-implementation and planning for the selected intervention.

The LEA has selected a pre-implementation year, but does not include a plan or timeline.


[(15B) Enter response here. Describe how the newly hired principal will be introduced and transitioned to the SIG plan. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

At this time the District SIG Planning Team is responsible for the pre-implementation tasks of the

55

Richmond SIG and when the new turnaround principal is hired tasks the District Team will continue to provide support as needed. The Federal Programs Coordinator and the Elementary Level Director will provide the day to day immediate support for the new principal. Upon hiring the new principal a meeting with District SIG Planning Team will be held to apprise him/her of the history of school improvement at Richmond, current instructional programs, recent needs analysis, the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool, SIG Plan, and Communication Plan and to schedule meetings to create the Richmond SIG Planning Team and District SIG Team.

The process for revising the SIG plan will be to follow the district model of CAP Development. This model provides direct support to principals and Leadership Teams creating their CAP plans. The district Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool (CNAT) is reviewed and discussed as the data gathering tool in order to complete the “Create” and “Assess” sections of the Indistar CAP. This process was developed for use during the 2014-2015 year with the nine schools moving into CAP from the previous school improvement plan. The process was developed in order to provide an efficient tool to support the plan based upon the previous work of SIG and the Focus schools CAP. Besides Richmond 10 Salem-Keizer schools will be working through the yearlong CAP Development process. Feedback from the principals involved in this process has been instrumental to this work. 50 additional hours were given to the schools in order to support additional staff hours.

The Federal Programs Coordinator will apply the ODE CAP Quarterly Review monitoring process to all CAP’s in order to provide the same level of quality feedback that the Focus school principals receive. Current CAP Development Principals have asked to continue to meet next year as a group in order to monitor and adjust their CAP based on the feedback.

The Richmond SIG Planning Team that will be working with the CAP Development process in 2015-2016 will include representatives from the district, licensed and classified staff as well as parents and external experts such as the OSSS Leadership Coach Liaison.

The principal will be reviewing the current CAP and will use this as a starting point for the pre-implementation and planning for 2015-2016. This CAP may be revised as deemed necessary by the Richmond SIG Planning Team with support from the District SIG Planning Team. Additional hours will be funded through the district for this work.

Building upon the Superintendent’s vision and the Restructuring Plan implemented on September 15, 2015, it is our intention that the work at Richmond will inform and shape the school and the district. We believe that Richmond Elementary School will become a model to be replicated in other schools. More details about the Superintendent’s Restructuring Plan can be found in section 1B on page 9.




0not addressed

The LEA has described structures, timelines and expectations for the newly hired principal to review the SIG plan and the expectations

The LEA has described timelines for the newly hired principal to review the SIG plan described a process for revising the SIG plan based on the newly

The LEA has described timelines for the newly hired principal to review the SIG plan described.

The LEA plans to rehire a turnaround principal, but does not address the transition to SIG implementation.

56

communicated therein and has described a process for revising the SIG plan based on the newly hired principal’s input, honoring the input from stakeholders as described in 2A & 2B.

hired principal’s input, honoring the input from stakeholders as described in 2A & 2B.


[(15C) Acknowledge inclusion of the letter of support from the local teachers’ association.] Attached is the letter of support from the Salem-Keizer Education Association.

In addition to the letter of support, the Salem Keizer Education Association has invited a Richmond Team to attend the Regional Summer TURN (Teacher Union Reform Network) Conference on Poverty, Proficiency, and Professional Practice on July 9-10, 2015. Team members include an Association Rep, the new Richmond principal four Richmond teachers, the Elementary Level Director, and the Federal Programs Coordinator.

57




0not addressed

n / a The LEA has included a letter of support from the local teachers’ association in support of the SIG requirements associated with the selected intervention.

n / a No letter is included in the application.


(17) For an LEA eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title VI of the ESEA (Rural Education Assistance Program) that chooses to modify one element of the turnaround or transformation model, the LEA must describe how it will meet the intent and purpose of that element.

58

[(16) Enter response here. Describe the intent of the element being modified and a plan for meeting the intent. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

N/A




0not addressed

The LEA has thoughtfully articulated the intent of the element it is choosing to modify and has described a plan to meet the intent of the element, including specific goals / measures aligned to the element and timelines and protocols for adjusting implementation activities if / when those goals aren’t met.

The LEA has referenced the intent of the element it is choosing to modify and has described a plan to meet the intent of the element, including specific goals / measures aligned to the modified element.

The LEA described a plan to meet the intent of the element, including specific goals / measures aligned to the modified element.

The LEA has not described a plan to meet the intent of the modified element.


(18) For an LEA that applies to implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in one or more eligible schools, the LEA must describe how it will

a. Implement a model with evidence of effectiveness that includes a sample population or setting similar to the population or setting of the school to be served; and

b. Partner with a strategy developer, as defined in the final SIG requirements.

[(17A) Enter response here. Describe implementation of an evidence-based, whole-school reform model with evidence of effectiveness that includes a sample population or setting similar to the population or setting of the school to be served. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

The Comprehensive Needs Assessment will be conducted by the Richmond SIG Leadership in September 2015-December 2015 with the new turnaround principal in place. At that time the Team will review the current evidence-based models as determined by the US Department of Education, including Success For All, ISA Whole School Reform, Positive Action Strategy, and Small Schools of Choice. An evidence-based, whole-school reform strategy is defined as a strategy that (1) is designed to improve student academic achievement or attainment; (2) is implemented for all students in a school; and (3) addresses, at a minimum and in a comprehensive and coordinated manner, school leadership, teaching and learning in at least one full academic content area (including professional learning for educators), student non-academic support, and family and community engagement. Common themes in all four of the models include:

59

1. Rigorous engaging instructional program based on CCSS that emphasize higher-order skills.2. Instruction that explicitly teaches habits of mind and habits of work (organization, time

management, etc.).3. School-wide schedule with longer blocks of instructional time including extended school

day/week/year.4. Time for collaborative team planning and embedded continuous professional learning in academics

and social-emotional strategies for staff within the school day.5. Building systems to provide a consistent non-academic support network to students including 1-1

adult-student support, a school-wide behavior system and additional counseling opportunities.6. Family engagement and capacity building in order for families to provide additional support to their

children.

It is the intent to use these themes to select a school-reform model in partnership with the input of the to-be determined strategy developer. The comprehensive needs assessment will offer details on which model will best serve the immediate needs of the school, can be expanded as the staff and students demonstrate ongoing proficiency, and can be sustainable over time. It will be necessary that the model selected takes into account the current instructional program (Literacy Squared) for the 44% of ELL students currently at Richmond. In addition, the current staff believes that the largest barrier for the students and for effective instruction is the social-emotional needs of many of their students.




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership, has selected a reform strategy aligned to the needs of the school (as determined by the needs assessment) as well as aligned to the population / setting of the selected school.

The LEA has selected a reform strategy aligned to the needs of the school as well as aligned to the population / setting of the selected school.

The LEA has selected a reform strategy aligned to the population / setting of the selected school.

The LEA has not selected a reform strategy aligned to the population / setting of the school.


[(17B) Enter response here. Describe the LEA partnership with a strategy developer. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

Based on research and best practices in school turnaround additional information and a more articulated system will need to be considered as we consider which strategy developer will best meet our needs. It is the intent of the district to select an strategy developer that will support the reform measures and SIG requirements at Richmond Elementary School and can that inform the district about best practices around structures, processes, and procedures to support Richmond and all schools.

In order to plan for this change the School Turnaround & Transformation at American Institute for

60

Research Third Edition Guide to Working With External Providers: Partnership to Improve Teaching and Leaning was reviewed and will be used to guide our work. The “Toolkit” section provides useful documents that can be completed or used as a point of discussion.

Critical questions to consider are does the provider: offer services that are aligned with established goals are part of a long-term strategy customized research base capacity building - Is the provider offering a service that will need to be continued for several years,

or do they use a gradual release model where school staff takes more responsibility over time?

An important factor we will use when selecting a provider is the extent to which they can build the capacity of the district and Richmond Elementary school staff to sustain reforms. The work of the provider will be monitored and measured against the predetermined milestones/indicators.




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership and family and community members, has developed a rigorous process to evaluate and select a strategy-developer, ensuring the developer has the capacity and experience to implement the reform strategy and to meet the articulated achievement goals and final requirements.

The LEA has developed a rigorous process to evaluate and select a strategy-developer, ensuring the developer has the capacity and experience to implement the selected intervention and to meet the articulated achievement goals and final requirements.

The LEA has developed a process to select a strategy-developer, but has deferred evaluation of capacity and experience to implement the selected intervention and to meet the articulated achievement goals and final requirements to said developer.

The LEA has not selected a reform strategy aligned to the population / setting of the school.


(19) For an LEA that applies to implement the restart model in one or more eligible schools, the LEA must describe the rigorous review process (as described in the final requirements) it has conducted or will conduct of the charter school operator, CMO, or EMO that it has selected or will select to operate or manage the school or schools.

[(18) Enter response here. Describe the review process of the charter school operator, CMO, or EMO. See the evaluation rubric below for guidance.]

61

N/A




0not addressed

The LEA, in collaboration with school leadership and family and community members, has developed a rigorous review process to select and monitor the operator selected that takes into account research-based strategies, performance, and continued evaluation and monitoring of implementation.

The LEA has developed a rigorous review process to select and monitor the operator selected that takes into account research-based strategies, performance, and continued evaluation and monitoring of implementation.

The LEA has developed a process to select or monitor operators of the school.

The LEA did not address a rigorous review process.


The district must provide a budget that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the district will use in each school it proposes to serve and the funds it will use to –

Conduct LEA-level activities designed to support implementation of the selected school intervention models in the LEA’s priority and focus schools.

Fill in the Table below and submit a copy of the Budget Template for each school for which the district is applying (see LEA Appendix A for the budget template). The budget template aligns the SIG requirements with the 34 CAP Indicators. Each SIG requirement must be present in the budget as it will be the starting point for the school’s improvement plan (CAP) for the 2015-16 school year. If funds other than SIG funds will be used for a SIG requirement, indicate the source of funds in the budget template. If the district expects a school will meet one or more SIG requirements without any associated costs (from SIG funds or other funds), or will not expend any funds on a particular requirement during Year 1, indicate as much on the budget template on an expenditure line with a cost of zero. All SIG requirements, as listed on the indicator sheet of the budget template, must appear on the expenditure sheet of the budget template.

Note: : An LEA’s budget should cover three years of full implementation and be of sufficient size and scope to implement the selected school intervention model in each priority or focus school the LEA commits to serve. Any funding for activities during the pre-implementation period must be included in the first year of the LEA’s budget plan. Additionally, an LEA’s budget may include up to one full academic year for planning activities and up to two years to support sustainability activities. An LEA may not receive more than five

62

years of SIG funding to serve a single school.

An LEA’s budget for each year may not exceed the number of the number of priority and focus schools it commits to serve multiplied by $2,000,000.

Example: LEA Proposing a Planning Year for One or More SchoolsLEA XX BUDGET

Year 1 Budget

(Planning)

Year 2 Budget (Full

implementation)

Year 3 Budget(Full

implementation)

Year 4 Budget (Full

implementation)

Year 5 Budget (Sustainability

Activities)

Five- Year Total

Priority ES #1 $30,000 $240,200 $231,000 $220,000 $150,000 $871,200Focus MS #1 $82,000 $355,000 $310,000 $294,000 $110,000 $1,151,000District-level Activities and/or indirect $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $80,000Total Budget $112,000 $595,200 $571,000 $544,000 $280,000 $2,102,200

Example: LEA Proposing to Implement a Model in One or More Schools on the First Day of the Upcoming School Year

LEA XX BUDGETYear 1 Budget

Year 2 Budget(Full

implement-tation)

Year 3 Budget(Full

implemen-tation)

Year 4 Budget

(Sustain- ability

Activities)

Year 5 Budget

(Sustain-ability

Activities)Five-Year Total

Pre-implementa

tion

Year 1(Full

Implementation)

Priority ES #1 $51,000 $265,000 $231,000 $190,000 $130,000 $90,000 $957,000Focus MS #1 $106,000 $392,000 $355,000 $294,000 $160,000 $110,000 $1,471,000District-level Activities and/or indirect $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $20,000 $200,000Total Budget $ 864,000 $ 636,000 $ 534,000 $320,000 $220,000 $2,628,000

Note: A District may fill out both charts if it is applying for a planning year for some, but not all, of the schools it proposes to serve.

Planning Year Budget for One or More Schools[DISTRICT NAME] BUDGET

Year 1 Budget

(Planning)

Year 2 Budget (Full

implementation)

Year 3 Budget(Full

implementation)

Year 4 Budget (Full

implementation)

Year 5 Budget (Sustainability

Activities)

Five- Year Total

[School Name][School Name]District-level Activities and/or indirectTotal Budget

63

Budget for One or More Schools Implementing a Model on the First Day of the Upcoming School Year:SALEM-KEIZER PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET

Year 1 Budget

Year 2 Budget(Full

implement-tation)

Year 3 Budget(Full

implemen-tation)

Year 4 Budget

(Sustain- ability

Activities)

Year 5 Budget

(Sustain-ability

Activities)Five-Year Total

Pre-implementa

tion

Year 1(Full

Implementation)

RICHMOND 287,265 359,490 346,960 242,260 231,630 1,467,605[School Name]District-level Activities and/or indirect 15,369 19,233 18,562 12,961 12,392 78,517Total Budget 302,633 378,723 365,522 255,221 244,022 1,546,122

D. ASSURANCES: A district must include the following assurances in its application for a School Improvement Grant.

By submitting this application, the district assures that it will do the following (check each box):

Use its School Improvement Grant to implement fully and effectively an intervention in each Priority and Focus school, that the LEA commits to serve consistent with the final requirements;

Establish annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics and measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of the final requirements in order to monitor each Priority and Focus school that it serves with school improvement funds, and established goals (approved by the SEA) to hold accountable its Tier III schools that receive school improvement funds;

Report to the SEA the school-level data required under section III of the final requirements, including baseline data for the year prior to SIG implementation;

Ensure that each Priority and Focus school, that it commits to serve receives all of the State and local funds it would receive in the absence of the school improvement funds and that those resources are aligned with the interventions.

64

A complete application includes:

Completely fill out cover sheet with superintendent’s signature and school board chairperson’s signature.

Part A of application: Fill in the Schools to be Served table.

Part B of application:

Use the 34 Comprehensive Achievement Indicators within Indistar to provide the district and school a basis for the needs assessment.

For the Transformation and Turnaround Models only, submit a letter of support from the Superintendent regarding hiring a turnaround principal (see Appendix C for an example).

Respond to Part B, numbers one through twelve.

Respond to Part B, numbers thirteen through eighteen where applicable.

Number 15C includes a letter of support from the Association regarding support for the SIG requirements.

Part C of application:

Fill in the District Budget table.

Submit a budget for each school by completing a separate SIG Budget Template for each school.

Part D: Check the assurance boxes.

65

the district understands parent engagement is critical to web viewthe application should be sent as...

Documents