Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
LEA (District) Improvement Year 3 – Corrective Action Year 4 – Corrective Action II PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
LEA (District) Improvement Year 3 – Corrective Action Year 4 – Corrective Action II

LEA (District) Improvement Year 3 – Corrective Action Year 4 – Corrective Action II

312 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

LEA (District) Improvement Year 3 – Corrective Action Year 4 – Corrective Action II

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. LEA (District) Improvement Year 3 – Corrective ActionYear 4 – Corrective Action II

  2. What is Corrective Action? How did our district (LEA) receive the label of CorrectiveAction II? What are the requirements for our district (LEA)?

  3. Progression of LEA (district) Improvement AYP not achieved for two consecutive years in same subject AND in all grade spans OR in the other academic indicator (AZ has chosen graduation rate as the other indicator) LEA (district) Improvement Third year of district improvement Corrective Action Fourth year of district improvement Corrective Action II

  4. Graduation Rate Reading Math 3-5 6-8 10 3-5 6-8 10 NO 8th ELL SPED NO 3rd ELL SPED NO 8th ALL Hisp. ELL SPED NO ELL SPED NO 3rdSPED 5thSPED 2004 SPED YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Imp Yr 1 NO SPED NO 3rdELL SPED NO ELL SPED NO 3rd SPED NO 8th ELL YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2005 Imp Yr 2 NO 3rd SPED 4th SPED 5th SPED NO 6th ELL SPED 7th SPED 8th ELL SPED NO ELL, SPED NO 4th SPED NO 6th ELL SPED 7thSPED NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2006 CA NO ELL SPED White Low SES NO 3rdSPED 4th SPED NO 6th ELL NO NO SPED YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES 2007 6th ELL SPED 7th ELL 8th ELL CA II

  5. Sunnyside is one of 24 total school districts in the state identified for Corrective Action

  6. Districts in Corrective Action

  7. REQUIREMENT I Select Corrective Action Option AZ redirects the use of our federal funds (Title I, Title II, Title III, etc.) Option # 1 Institute and fully implement a new curriculum that is based on state and local academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students Option # 2

  8. Corrective Action Option #2 (continued) …appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students. who? what?

  9. Requirement II: Parent Letter by October 1 • Notify parents about LEA (District) Improvement Status • Corrective Action II • Describe AYP indicator for which the LEA (District) is in Corrective Action (i.e., graduation rate) • Provide suggestions for parental involvement and participation

  10. Requirement III:Professional Development • 10% “set aside” from Title I Funds • Can be combined with individual school site Improvement “set aside” • Must address the reasons AYP was missed and Corrective Action Option • Complete year-long professional development timeline • ADE Staff Development Survey online at ADE’s website

  11. Requirement IV: Complete at the district level the New LEA (district) Standards and Rubrics and the LEA (district) Self-Assessment • District steering committee • Larger committee representing district • (include teachers, parents, etc.) • Compile data from Rubric and Self-Assessment • to develop Corrective Action plan

  12. Requirement V • Develop LEA (District) Corrective Action Plan • Submit Corrective Action Plan on-line to • State by December 3

  13. LEA Executive Committee Dr. Manuel Isquierdo, Supt. Peggy Weber, Federal Programs Jeannie Favela, Student Services Alex Duran, Research Dawn Maddock-Pea, Secondary Curriculum David Sanders, IT Asst. Supt. for C & I Director of Elementary Curriculum Ed Dawson, Improvement Facilitator

  14. LEA/School Improvement Steering Committee Executive Committee Members Sue Tillis, SPED SPED Specialist LAD Director ELL Specialists Staff Development Director Howard Carlson, Asst. Supt. for Education Services Frank Morales, Prevention Raul Nido, SSHS Principal Alissa Mott, AP, SSHS Carmela Levy, AP, DVHS Bob Miranda, Lauffer Principal John Robertson, CC Principal Great Schools Workshop Rep. Middle School Facilitator Elementary School Facilitator District Education Specialists (Language Arts, Math) Site Facilitators (Title I, Math, Science Department Heads, SSHS & DVHS Anna Marquez, HR Director Elementary School Parent Middle School Parent High School Parent Community Members NAEP Coordinator NAEP Parent Committee member Career Ladder SUN Program Director Jacquie Croteau, JTED/CTE SEA Representative Greg Copeland (ADE/NCLB) Brian Williams (ADE/AZ LEARNS Mary Grace Wendel, HR Richard Oros, Maintenance Director

  15. Timeline September: Completion of District Self-Assessment October 1: Send parent notification letter Submit copy of parent notification letter to ADE October 3: ADE Resource Team visit to District November 1: Complete re-evaluation of Self-Assessment December 3: Submit LEA (District) Corrective Action Plan on-line January – May: Implement LEA (District) Corrective Action Plan May: Submit Progress Report to ADE

  16. District Challenges • Reading and literacy gaps • Need for greater alignment, coordination, and monitoring of curriculum, instruction and resources across K-12 • Previous district structure for ELL (ELL merged into • Instructional Support) • Need greater focus on needs of ELL students • Need to implement a consistent ELL model for language and content development • Need greater coordination and alignment of instruction, materials, and resources

  17. Inconsistent staff development models • Need alignment, coordination and classroom support at all grade levels • Need a staff development model to identify and address varied needs of district • Achievement gaps among SPED students • Need for professional development in teaching students with diverse learning needs • Need greater collaboration among regular education and special education in order to provide more effective service delivery models • Need analysis of student data to develop better instructional plans • Low graduation rate • Need for greater alignment, coordination, and monitoring of activities for promoting graduation