doe.sd.gov · Web viewHow many students have participated in extended day opportunities? What are the reading and math achievement levels of those who have participated? What are-the-end

School Improvement Grant

LEA (District) Application

Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

U.S. Department of EducationWashington, D.C. 20202

OMB Number: 1810-0682

1

South Dakota Department of EducationMacKay Office Building, Title I Office

800 Governors DrivePierre, SD 57501

School Improvement Grant (SIG)Cover page

ORIGINAL SENT VIA USPS

LEA Name: Rapid City Area Schools

LEA Mailing Address: 300 6th St.Rapid City, SD 57701

LEA Contact for the School Improvement Grant

Name: Valerie Seales

Position and Office:

Coordinator of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Staff Development

Contact’s Mailing Address: 300 6th St.Rapid City, D 57701

Telephone: 605-394-4067

Fax: 605-355-3074

Email address: [email protected]

LEA Superintendent (Printed Name): Lori J. Simon, EdD

Telephone: 605-877-6362

LEA Superintendent (Signature): Date:

ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

The LEA, through its authorized representative, agrees to comply with all requirements applicable to the School Improvement Grants program, including the assurances contained herein and the conditions that apply to any waivers that the State receives through this application. The LEA also assures the South Dakota Department of Education that these projects will be administered in compliance with the assurances contained in its current consolidated application for the Title I part A program, with state and federal laws and regulations applicable to the use of these funds, that the information contained in this application is accurate and complete, and that the Board has authorized me to sign this application on its behalf. Name of Authorized Representative (Type or Print): _____________________________________

2

Project Period

January 1, 2017 to

June 30, 2020

Due Date

October 11, 2016

Original Signature of Authorized Representative: _______________________________________

Date: ___________

An LEA must identify each priority and focus school the LEA commits to serve and identify the model that each priority and focus school will implement.

The models the LEA may include are: (1)turnaround; (2)restart; (3)closure; (4)transformation; (5) evidence-based whole school reform model; (6)early learning model.

SCHOOL NAME

NCES ID #

PRIORITY FOCUS INTERVENTION

MODELNorth Middle School,

Rapid City Area Schools4659820005

32

FOCUS TRANSFORMATION

B. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION: An LEA must include the following information in its application for a School Improvement Grant. Please answer these questions from a district perspective, taking into consideration each of the district’s priority and focus schools.

(1) The LEA has analyzed the needs of each school for the purpose of the SIG application and selected an intervention for each school. (Must be at the district level)

a) List the members and positions of the committee that conducted the needs analysis and determined the outcome.

For the purposes of this grant, two needs assessments have been conducted. The initial assessment occurred through a district-wide assessment contract during the Spring of 2016 when Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s (HMH) Education Services assessment team conducted both individual school and district-level Comprehensive Needs Assessments (CNAs). For these assessments, HMH staff visited classrooms at each school, interviewed staff, parents, and students.

The assessment team then provided CAN reports to each of the schools, including North Middle School, and synthesized findings for an Executive Summary for the school district. The North Middle School CAN and the Rapid City Area Schools Executive Summary are included as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively, with the SIG application materials.

3

Additionally, in August of 2016, a data analysis team from Technology and Innovation in Education (TIE), facilitated a district level collaborative data process retreat for administrators across the district.

Included in that retreat were the following:Superintendent: Lori J. SimonAssistant Superintendent of Administrative Services: Bradley BerensAssistant Superintendent for Fiscal & Support Services: David JanakCoordinator of Federal Programs: Indian Education: Jr. BettelyounCoordinator of Information Technology: Shane DanielCoordinator of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Staff Development: Valerie Seales

In addition, Board of Education members attended intermittently. All principals and assistant principals from the district schools participated. Teachers from each school were also represented.

After the administrators had participated in the data analysis process which focused primarily on Smarter Balanced Assessment Scores and data found in STARS, administrators returned to their respective buildings and conducted school-wide data analysis trainings with staff.

b) Indicate the data sources that were analyzed as part of the district’s comprehensive needs assessment designed for the purpose of the SIG application.

The CNA team analyzed numerous data sources at each of the school that they assessed, including the following:SD Leap Focus School Progress Spring 2015 & 2015-16 Feedback FormGoals and Objectives Form SY2014-15SD Focus and Priority School Goal Monitoring WorksheetSchool Improvement Team DocumentsSchool Improvement PlanLearning Target Planning FormSchool Survey of Effective Practices SY2014-15 & 2015-162014-15 End-of-Year Math Results2014-15 End-of Year Reading Results

In addition, the assessment team addressed the four lenses of the Data Retreat process including student, professional practices, programs and structures, and family and community data. As noted previously, both the North Middle School CNA report and the Rapid City Area Schools report are available as Appendix A and B.

c) Describe the process used to complete the district's comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) conducted for the purpose of the SIG application.

HMH Education Services conducted the CNA during the Spring Semester of 2016 at the district wide and school levels.The CNA process determines how a school is performing in relation to the HMH Education Services’ Foundational Practices for School Improvement. The data-driven

4

process objectively identifies strengths as well as opportunities for improvement.

Methodology for each school consisted of pre-work, an on-site two-day visit, and a final report. Evaluators were members of the HMH School Improvement Division who were tasked with the job of collecting evidence and artifacts through multiple source.

Pre-work consisted of a review of documents and relevant data sets provided by each school. Online surveys were administered to teachers, 4-5 students and parents. Upon arrival, HMH Education Services worked with school leadership to develop a two-day visitation scheduled that included discussions with the principal, school leadership teams, classroom observations, and stakeholder interviews. Across the district schools 374 classroom walkthroughs were conducted, including 65 at North Middle School. After results were compiled, the final report was delivered onsite by the lead evaluator.

d) Broadly describe the results of that review (specifics for each school will be outlined in the school sections).

North Middle School CNA Results indicated needs in the following areas:1. Increased differentiation coupled an expectation of high standards by teaching staff2. Inclusion of high-impact, effective learning strategies3. A greater emphasis on time for reading and writing4. Focus on doing a few things really well rather than initiating numerous and wide-ranging initiatives5. Continuous walk-throughs (on a daily basis) by the three-person administrative team6. Development of a three-year professional leadership plan7. A well-articulated PLC/Data Team process

e) List the strengths and weaknesses for each school based on the results of the comprehensive needs assessment.

Strengths:Caring and talented staffSafe environmentTeachers act as facilitators and coachesVisible learning targetsStable learning environment with consistent routines and procedures Weaknesses:Lack of high impact, power strategies used consistently throughout the schoolNeed for increased rigor and expectationsToo many initiatives; select one or three key areas; focus on those areas and build common understandingLack of communication between building principal and assistant principalsNeed for daily walk-throughs with feedback by administratorsLack of sound lesson design used consistently among staffNeed for a systematic data reflection processParents want teachers to demonstrate increased caring. f) Describe how selected interventions are aligned to the needs of each school,

5

which were identified during the comprehensive needs assessment.

Selected intervention alignment:

Intervention: Training by HMH facilitators in the Data Teams for Learning process. Intervention: Workshop Model was selected as the Instructional Focus area of school improvement. All teachers are being trained in the model which structures the flow of the class period and the instructor’s role in the classroom. See North Middle School section for additional details.Intervention: Focused professional development designed to address concerns—both those evident in the HMH report and from data analysis (SBAC scores, for examples). PD is aligned with key initiatives of the school: PBIS, MTSS, the Workshop Model, differentiated instruction, and power strategies.Intervention: Extended Learning Time—Beyond the Bell and Beyond the School Year—provide students with the opportunity to focus on specific learning weaknesses and to hone skills in order to increase achievement levels.

(2) 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. Please describe the actions taken.

Lori Laughlin, South Dakota Parent Information and Resource Center Director, will provide leadership and facilitation for family engagement activities for RCAS Title I schools. She will facilitate a process that will engage families and the community in the review of district and school level policies and compacts in accordance with requirements from the Every Student Success Act (ESSA). In addition, she will work collaboratively with Rapid City Area School's Title I School Principals to increase family and community engagement in schools. Laughlin will also design materials and training on topics requested by families and/or schools.

Morgan VonHaden, North Rapid Community School Coordinator, works with RCAS to coordinate activities and facility usage among primary North Rapid Community School Partners: Community Health Care Center, Public Library, and Discovery Center. In addition, she facilitates the development of North Rapid Community School policies and procedures as identified by the Management Team. She studies, compares and combines Study, operational policies for Rapid City Area Schools and Community Health of the Black Hills. When appropriate, VonHaden seeks external resources for continued support and growth of the North Rapid Community Schools. She works directly with North Rapid Community Schools principals to implement and monitor community school goals.

(3) 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 closure, transformation model, evidence-based whole school reform model, early learning model, or state-determined model.

Valerie Seales, Coordinator of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment & Staff Development, has met and worked with the North Middle School planning team, particularly with Lori Laughlin and Jackie Talley in order to ensure fidelity to the selected model.

6

In addition, the district will contract with an outside evaluator, John Swanson, Midwest Alliance for Professional Learning and Leadership (MAPLE). Swanson, who has extensive experience as an evaluator and also serves as the Evaluation Services Coordinator at TIE, will work with district administration, in particular with Jackie Talley, in order to maintain adherence to the Transformation criteria.

The purpose of the evaluation is to monitor progress toward meeting grant goals and objectives and to improve and strengthen the student learning opportunities. The evaluation results will be used to justify the program and ensure ongoing financial support; by staff to make decisions about modifying and continuously improving the program; by collaborative partners to determine activities.

The evaluation will seek to answer questions similar to the following: How many student, parent, and community members were involved? How many parents attended parent event/trainings? How many students have participated in extended day opportunities? What are the reading and math achievement levels of those who have participated? What are-the-end of year reading and math achievement levels of participants who attended at a rate of 90% or better?

The evaluation plan will be used to improve and strengthen the program by focusing program staff on key indicators of program progress at natural transition points in the project.

(4) The LEA must describe actions it has taken, or will take, to determine its capacity to provide adequate resources and related support to each priority and focus school, identified in the LEA’s application in order to implement, fully and effectively, the required activities of the school intervention model it has selected on the first day of the first school year of full implementation.

Since the SIG application and support will be focused on one district in the school, few challenges exist that threaten the district’s ability to support the transformation model. District level administrators have been involved in discussions regarding North Middle School’s intervention strategies.

Based on feedback from the CNA staff at North Middle School is geared up for embarking on an endeavor that should provide students with additional learning opportunities.

The district will contract with the following consultants:John Swanson, MAPLE, evaluationSally Crowser, TIE, SIG consultantLori Laughlin, South Dakota Parent and Information Center Morgan VonHaden, North Rapid Community Coordinator Brett Gies, HMH Education Services (principal support)

In addition, funding has been requested for specific, targeted professional development opportunities to support staff in areas like Data Teams for Learning, Power Strategies, and the Workshop Model.

7

Seales will provide oversight at the district level.

(5) 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. Note: Schools must follow the Methods of Procurement found in EDGAR (2CFR 200.320)

Since only one school is involved in the SIG application, the need for an outside evaluator, although important, is not as costly ($10,000 per year) as it may have been if more schools were involved with the application. However, the evaluator will meet (10 times each grant year) with Seales; Talley; Mary R. Duncan; RCAS Accounting Manager; and other school or district staff, if needed to ensure that data is being collected in order to validate school improvement efforts.

(6) The LEA must describe actions it has taken, or will take, to align other resources (for example, Title I funding) with the selected intervention.

Efforts have been made not to integrate interventions and/or programs that do not already connect with identified priorities of the district and the school. For example, North Middle School staff are already invested in MTSS. If funded, this grant will allow the school to provide additional supports that were not previously supported.

No new full-time staff will be added as a result of the grant. However, staff wishing to participate in extended hour options would result in additional contracts at the rate of $20 an hour (for work done outside of the contracted day).

(7) The LEA must describe actions it has taken, or will take, to modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable it to implement the selected intervention fully and effectively.

While the LEA will not be required to adjust policies and practices, there does need to be a district level awareness and acceptance of extended school day endeavors.

Based on the negotiated agreement, pay is set at $20 an hour for any staff who choose to provide professional development to peers, share PBIS strategies with families or teach one of the extended day programs.

(8) The LEA must describe how it will provide effective oversight and support for implementation of the selected intervention for each school it proposes to serve (for example, by creating an LEA turnaround office).Crowser will provide support to Principal Talley and the district. In addition to her

experiences as a classroom instructor and a school administrator, Crowser is instrumental in facilitating data retreats at schools throughout the state and has been actively involved in developing the collaborative retreat process ($1,000 a day for five days, Year 1, and 10 days for each of the subsequent grant years).

8

As a SIG Support Consultant, Crowser will provide the following services: Assist district in meeting SIG guidelines and requirements as required by the SD DOE. Provide leadership support to high school principal, both virtually and face-to-face. Monitor specified SIG grant activities, both virtually and face-to-face. Attend and facilitate meetings, both virtually and face-to-face, as needed. Prepare documentation reports of consultant activities, as requested. Communicate with district SST and SD DOE, as needed.

At the district level, Seales, Director of Staff Development, Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, will provide Talley with additional support at the minimum of once a month throughout the duration of the grant. In addition, she will serve as a contact person for Crowser in order to ensure that all aspects of the SIG are being addressed.

(9) The LEA must describe how it will meaningfully engage families and the community in the implementation of the selected intervention on an ongoing basis.

The LEA provides its support and approval to efforts being made by Talley and the BLT members as they have already identified the need for family involvement. In addition, contracts with Laughlin and VonHaden will provide support to North Middle School staff as they work to engage parents and family members in student learning lives and school activities.

(10) The LEA must describe in detail how it will sustain the reforms after the funding period ends.

Beginning in Year 3 of the grant, the LEA and various school officials will begin to continue sustainability options. A possible grant opportunity would be the 21st Century Grants. In addition, since the Math and Reading/ELA focus is predominant, there may be a possibility of seeking Title 1 support.

If the extended day programs prove successful and are supported by data, the district could choose to allocate funds toward these programs based on the data points.

At this point in the grant’s development, the activities/interventions which have the most direct and immediate impact on students, extended day programs, for example, would be the priority for fund allocation.

(11) The LEA must describe how it will implement, to the extent practicable, in accordance with its selected SIG intervention model(s), one or more evidence-based strategies.

Because the North Middle School process is grounded in evidence-based strategies and interventions, the LEA’s role in implementation will be somewhat limited. Among the evidence-based interventions will be extended school day, MTSS, PBIS, and differentiated instruction.

(12) The LEA must describe how it will monitor each priority and focus school, that

9

receives school improvement funds:

Student achievement goals will be monitored and documented in SD LEAP. Both the district and the school have developed goals based on data analysis.

North Middle School Goals:

Goal #1: All North Middle School Students will demonstrate growth in Reading Proficiency from 24.3% to 32.45% as measured by the SBAC. This will be accomplished by using data to inform instruction and interventions. (For a complete explanation of data, instruction, and interventions, see Appendix F.)

Goal #2: All North Middle School Students will demonstrate growth in Math Proficiency from 13.9% to 25.90% as measured by the SBAC. This will be accomplished by using data to inform instruction and interventions. (For a complete explanation of data, instruction, and interventions, see Appendix F.)

District Goals:

The percentage of all students scoring proficient in ELA will increase from an average of 48.7% to 53.7%.

The percentage of all students scoring proficient in Math will increase from an average of 52.19% to 57.19%.

The percentage of the four-year cohort grad rate will increase from 71.62% to 76.62%. The percentage of attendance rate will increase from 71.04% to 76.04%.

Clearly, the district goals tend to be more rigorous than the North Middle School goals. As a result, the middle school’s will be considered the primary indicator of success. In addition to the SBAC scores, a variety of other assessments will be used to monitor student achievement levels. These assessments could include pre- and post-tests for summer school, benchmark assessments, formative assessments, and teacher-created exams.

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

Does not apply

(14) An LEA must include a description of the activities to be started during the planning year, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how those activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention.

The LEA’s primary role has been instrumental in providing advice and direction regarding stipends and extra pay as they apply to negotiated agreements.

Planning Year 1 activities include:

Developing a plan for both the Beyond the Bell and Beyond the School Year extended learning interventions. A planning group will meet once a week for 2 hours in order to

10

develop a process for each intervention. Beyond the School Year will be the top concern for planning since the summer school program will begin in June of 2017. The addition of these programs will lead to improvement in student achievement by directly targeting and addressing student needs in the areas of Reading, English-Language Arts and Mathematics.

Professional development opportunities:

ASCD Conference, March; PBIS Conference, March; staff recruitment fairs, February-May

(15) 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.

Does not apply

(16) 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

Does not apply

(17) 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.

Does not apply

(18) 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.

Since only one school, North Middle School, is applying for SIG resources, the implementation steps will be taken primarily at the school level. A complete descriptor/timeline detailing all interventions and professional development options, is available in the school application/documentation.

LEA administrators have met with Talley and supported the planning and initial first steps for both the Beyond the Bell and Beyond the School Year interventions.

11

C. BUDGET: An LEA must include a budget that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the LEA will use each year in each priority and focus school it commits to serve.The LEA must provide a budget that indicates the amount of school improvement funds the LEA 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

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 and focus school the LEA commits to serve. Any funding for activities during the planning period must be included in the first year of the LEA’s budget plan. An LEA may not receive more than four academic years of SIG funding to serve a single school.

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

Example: LEA Budget for One or More SchoolsLEA BUDGET

Year 1 Budget

(Planning)

Year 2 Budget(Full

implementation)

Year 3 Budget (Full

implementation)

Year 4 Budget

(Implementation of

Sustainable activities)

Four - Year Total

Priority ES #1 $ 15,000 $ 156,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 471,000Priority ES #2 $ 19,250 $ 290,500 $ 295,000 $ 150,000 $ 754,750Priority HS #1 $ 10,000 $ 95,750 $ 60,000 $ 40,000 $ 205,750Focus MS #1 $ 30,000 $ 170,000 $ 175,000 $ 50,400 $ 425,400LEA-level Activities $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $300,000Total Budget $ 74,250 $ 712,250 $ 880,000 $ 490, 400 $2,156,900

12

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

The LEA must assure that it will—

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) Ensure that each school completes and submits reports requested by the SEA to be used as a means of monitoring by the given deadline dates

13

Rapid City Area School District Budget Information

Title I School Improvement 1003(g)

Budget Summary

Schools(Planning Period)

Project Year 11/1/17 – 6/30/17

Project Year 27/1/17 - 6/30/18

Project Year 37/1/18 – 6/30/19

Project Year 47/1/19 – 6/30/20

Total

Include dates of planning period 1/1/17-6/30/17 7/1/17-6/30/18 7/1/18-6/30/19 7/1/19-6/30/20

North Middle School $83,798 $270,080 $270,489 $271,897 $896,264

Rapid City Area Schools $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000

Total Costs $93,798 $280,080 $280,489 $281,897 $936, 264

*Use restricted indirect cost rate (same rate as regular Title I program)

14

Reviewer: District:

Submitted By: School(s):

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTSCORING RUBRIC

LEA APPLICATIONS

Questions within LEA SIG Application

B. (1) The LEA has analyzed the needs of each school for the purpose of the SIG application and selected an intervention for each school. (Must be at the district level.)

Sub Questions to Review Score Strong -3 points Moderate-2 points Limited-1 point Not Evident-0 points

a. List the members and positions of the committee that conducted the needs assessment and determined the outcome.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the committee including the members and positions.

Response included details of the committee including the members and positions.

Response was missing details of the committee such as the members and/or positions.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of a committee that conducted the needs assessment.

b. Indicate the data sources that were analyzed as part of the district’s comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) designed for the purpose of the SIG application.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the data sources analyzed as part of the CNA.

Response included details of the data sources analyzed as part of the CNA.

Response was missing details of the data sources analyzed as part of the CNA.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence that data sources were analyzed as part of the CNA.

c. Describe the process used to complete the district’s comprehensive needs assessment.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the district’s CNA process.

Response included details of the district’s CNA process.

Response was missing details of the district’s CNA process.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of the district’s CNA process.

d. Broadly describe the results of the review. (Summarize the results of the CNA for each eligible SIG school that is applying.)

Response was thorough and included specific details of the district’s CNA results, including a summarization of each school’s results.

Response included details of the district’s CNA results, including a summarization of each school’s results.

Response was missing details of the district’s CNA results or the school’s summarization.

Response was unclear and lacked details of the district’s CNA results and each school’s summarization.

e. List the strengths and weaknesses for each eligible SIG school that is applying based on the results of the CNA.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the strengths and weaknesses for each eligible SIG school.

Response included details of the strengths and weaknesses for each eligible SIG school.

Response was missing details of the strengths and weaknesses for each eligible SIG school.

Response was unclear and lacked details of the strengths and weaknesses for each eligible SIG school.

f. Describe how selected interventions Response was thorough Response included Response was missing Response was unclear

2

are aligned to the needs of each school, which were identified during the CNA.

and included specific details of how the selected interventions are aligned for each school.

details of how the selected interventions are aligned for each school.

details of how the selected interventions are aligned for each school.

and lacked details of how the selected interventions are aligned for each school.

Needs Analysis Comments:

3


B. The LEA must describe actions it has taken , or will take to---Sub Questions to Review Score Strong- 3 points Moderate- 2 points Limited- 1 point Not Evident-0 points

(2) Describe how the school analyzed school improvement needs identified by families and the community and took into consideration family and community input in selecting intervention into each school

Response was thorough and included specific details that include the consideration of family and community needs during the data analysis and selection of interventions for each school.

Response included details that include the consideration of family and community needs during the data analysis and selection of interventions for each school.

Response was missing details that includes the consideration of family and community needs during the data analysis and selection of interventions for each school

Response was unclear and lacked details that includes the consideration of family and community needs during the data analysis and selection of interventions for each school

(3) Design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements of the one of the six models.

Response was thorough and included specific details of what has taken place to date to design and implement a model in the eligible schools.

Response included details of what has taken place to date to design and implement a model in the eligible schools.

Response was missing details of what has taken place to date to design and implement a model in the eligible schools.

Response was unclear and lacked details of what has taken place to date to design and implement a model in the eligible schools.

(4) Describe the LEA’s capacity to provide adequate resources and related support to each school it commits to serve in order to implement fully and effectively the selected intervention on the first day of the first year of full implementation.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the LEA’s capacity to serve the identified SIG schools effective the first day of the first year of full implementation.

Response included details of the LEA’s capacity to serve the identified SIG schools effective the first day of the first year of full implementation.

Response was missing details of the LEA’s capacity to serve the identified SIG schools effective the first day of the first year of full implementation.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of the LEA’s capacity to serve the identified SIG schools effective the first day of the first year of full implementation.

(5) Recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable, to ensure their quality, and to review and hold accountable

Response was thorough and included specific details of the LEA’s process to select

Response included details of the LEA’s process to select external providers.

Response was missing details of the LEA’s process to select external providers.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of a process to select external providers

4

such providers for their performance.

external providers. in the LEA.

(6) Align other resources with the interventions.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the how other LEA resources are aligned to support interventions.

Response included details of the how other LEA resources are aligned to support interventions.

Response was missing details of the how other LEA resources are aligned to support interventions.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence that the LEA has aligned resources to support interventions.

(7) Modify its practices, procedures, or policies, if necessary, to enable its schools to implement the interventions fully and effectively.

Response was thorough and included specific details of any policies, procedures, or practices that need modification.

Response included details of any policies, procedures, or practices that need modification.

Response was missing details of any policies, procedures, or practices that need modification.

Response was unclear and lacked details of any policies, procedures, or practices that need modification.

(8) Provide effective oversight and support for implementation of the selected intervention for each school that it will serve, such as creating an LEA turnaround office.

Response was thorough and included specific details of effective oversight and support for implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

Response included details of effective oversight and support for implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

Response was missing details of effective oversight and support for implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

Response was unclear and lacked details of effective oversight and support for implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

(9) Meaningfully engage families and the community in the implementation of the selected intervention on an ongoing basis

Response was thorough and included specific details of meaningful engagement of families and the community in the implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

Response included details of meaningful engagement of families and the community in the implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

Response was missing details of meaningful engagement of families and the community in the implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

Response was unclear and lacked details of meaningful engagement of families and the community in the implementation of the selected interventions for each school.

(10) Sustain the reforms after the funding period ends.

Response was thorough and included specific details and evidence of

Response included details and evidence of how the LEA plans to

Response was missing details and evidence of how the LEA plans to

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of how the

5

how the LEA plans to sustain efforts after the grant ends.

sustain efforts after the grant ends.

sustain efforts after the grant ends.

LEA plans to sustain efforts after the grant ends.

(11) Implement one or more evidence-based strategies in accordance with the selected intervention model

Response was thorough and included specific details of implementation of one or more evidence based strategies in accordance with the selected model for each school.

Response included details of implementation of one or more evidence based strategies in accordance with the selected model for each school.

Response was missing details of implementation of one or more evidence based strategies in accordance with the selected model for each school.

Response was unclear and lacked details of implementation of one or more evidence based strategies in accordance with the selected model for each school.

(12) The LEA must review and monitor and support each Priority and Focus school that receives School Improvement Grant funds.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the LEA’s process to review and monitor each eligible SIG school, including student achievement goals.

Response included details of the LEA’s process to review and monitor each eligible SIG school, including student achievement goals.

Response was missing details of the LEA’s process to review and monitor each eligible SIG school, including student achievement goals.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of the LEA’s process to review and monitor each eligible SIG school, including student achievement goals.

(13) N/A

(14) The LEA included a description of the activities to be started during the planning year, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how those activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the activities started during the planning year, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a

Response included details of the activities started during the planning year, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how those

Response was missing details of the activities started during the planning year, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how

Response was unclear and lacked details of the activities started during the planning year, the timeline for implementing those activities, and a description of how those

6

description of how those activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention.

activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention.

those activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention.

activities will lead to successful implementation of the selected intervention.

(15) Describe how the LEA will meet the intent and purpose of services under sub part I or II of part B of Title VI of ESEA (Rural Education Assistance Program) that proposes to modify one element of the turnaround or transformational model, if applicable

Response was thorough and included specific details how the LEAwill meet the intent and purpose of services under sub part I or II of part B of Title VI of ESEA (Rural Education Assistance Program) that proposes to modify one element of the turnaround or transformational model

Response included details how the LEAwill meet the intent and purpose of services under sub part I or II of part B of Title VI of ESEA (Rural Education Assistance Program) that proposes to modify one element of the turnaround or transformational model

Response was missing details how the LEAwill meet the intent and purpose of services under sub part I or II of part B of Title VI of ESEA (Rural Education Assistance Program) that proposes to modify one element of the turnaround or transformational model

Response was unclear and lacked details how the LEA will meet the intent and purpose of services under sub part I or II of part B of Title VI of ESEA (Rural Education Assistance Program) that proposes to modify one element of the turnaround or transformational model

(16) Demonstrate that (A) the evidence supporting the whole school, evidence based reform model includes a sample population or setting similar to that of the school being served; and (B) it has partnered with a whole school reform model developer that meets the definition of “Whole School Reform Model Developer” in the SIG requirements, if applicable

Response was thorough and included specific details how the LEAwill demonstrate that the evidence supporting the whole school, evidence based reform model includes a sample population or setting similar to that of the school being served and it has partnered with a whole school reform model developer that meets the definition of

Response included details how the LEAwill demonstrate that the evidence supporting the whole school, evidence based reform model includes a sample population or setting similar to that of the school being served and it has partnered with a whole school reform model developer that meets the definition of “Whole School Reform

Response was missing details how the LEAwill demonstrate that the evidence supporting the whole school, evidence based reform model includes a sample population or setting similar to that of the school being served and it has partnered with a whole school reform model developer that meets the definition of

Response was unclear and lacked details how the LEA will demonstrate that the evidence supporting the whole school, evidence based reform model includes a sample population or setting similar to that of the school being served and it has partnered with a whole school reform model developer that meets the definition of

7

“Whole School Reform Model Developer” in the SIG requirements

Model Developer” in the SIG requirements



(17) N/A

(18) The LEA must include a timeline delineating the steps it will take to implement the selected intervention in each priority and focus school identified in the application.

Response was thorough and included specific details of the timeline needed to implement the chosen interventions in each school.

Response included details of the timeline needed to implement the chosen interventions in each school.

Response was missing details of the timeline needed to implement the chosen model in each school.

Response was unclear and lacked details and evidence of the timeline needed to implement the chosen interventions in each school.

8

Actions Taken Comments:

9

10


C. Budget Narrative and Budget Table

Questions to Review Score Strong- 3 points Moderate- 2 points Limited- 1 point Not Evident-0 points

A budget has been completed in the format requested in the application.

Budget was thorough with all columns completed correctly and included funds for all three years in the format requested for each school.

Budget was completed and included funds for all three years in the format requested for each school.

Budget was completed but was missing details and/or did not included funds for all three years in the format requested for each school.

Budget was not completed and/or did not included funds for all three years in the format requested for each school.

The LEA has requested sufficient funds to fully implement interventions selected for each school, including pre-implementation costs, if applicable.

Amount requested is appropriate and necessary to fully implement the chosen model within each school, including pre-implementation costs, if applicable.

Amount requested is satisfactory to fully implement the chosen model within each school, including pre-implementation costs, if applicable.

Amount requested is inadequate and or unreasonable to fully implement the chosen model within each school, including pre-implementation costs, if applicable.

Amount requested does not justify evidence to fully implement the chosen model within each school, including pre-implementation costs, if applicable.

Budget Narrative Comments:


B. Assurances and Approvals

Questions to Review Score Strong- 3 points Not Evident-0 points

LEA marked all the assurances

All boxes checked Not all boxes are checked

LEA Superintendent and Authorized Representative have signed off on the proposal

Signatures are present Signatures are missing

Comments:

Total Score:__________ out of possible 75 points. A value in the Limited or Not Evident column will require a revision before the grant can be awarded. Applications will be ranked according to percent of possible points.

Decision: O Award grant O Award grant with revisions O Do Not Award Grant

Overall Application Comments:

11