orientation to priority school interventions – roles & responsibilities osi-approved personnel...
TRANSCRIPT
Orientation to Priority School Interventions – Roles & Responsibilities
OSI-Approved Personnel Institute
July 8-10, 2015
2
Session Overview
• Background and Orientation to Federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) Requirements
• Orientation to Virginia’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Requirements for Priority Schools
• Role of Lead Turnaround Partners in Priority Schools
• Role of VDOE Assigned Personnel in Priority Schools
3
Session Overview
• Background and Orientation to Federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) Requirements
• Orientation to Virginia’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Requirements for Priority Schools
• Role of Lead Turnaround Partners in Priority Schools
• Role of VDOE Assigned Personnel in Priority Schools
4
Session Overview
• Background and Orientation to Federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) Requirements
• Orientation to Virginia’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Requirements for Priority Schools
• Role of Lead Turnaround Partners in Priority Schools
• Role of VDOE Assigned Personnel in Priority Schools
5
Session Overview
• Background and Orientation to Federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) Requirements
• Orientation to Virginia’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Requirements for Priority Schools
• Role of Lead Turnaround Partners in Priority Schools
• Role of VDOE Assigned Personnel in Priority Schools
6
Background and Orientation to Federal School Improvement Grant (SIG)
Requirements
7
A Brief History of School Improvement Grants (SIG)
• Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides for the U.S. Secretary of Education to allocate funds to SEAs for the purpose of school improvement. Within the regulations and guidelines established by the Secretary, each SEA administers grants to LEAs to “enable the lowest-achieving schools” to meet accountability requirements.
• LEAs in restructuring could chose one of the following options for restructuring schools: – Close and reopen as a charter;– Contract with a private management company; – Replace all or most of the staff;– Fall under state management; or – The “other” option to instate major changes in governance structure.
Most schools in restructuring chose the last option, the “other” reform strategy.
8
Evolution of the SIG
• In 2009, under the Obama administration, and specifically US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the requirements to receive SIG funding were elevated so that efforts were focused on the lowest achieving schools across the country.
• The U.S. Department of Education announced a dramatic increase in the funds that would be provided to SEAs under section 1003(g) while issuing program requirements that charged the SEAs with channeling the funds to LEAs for the “persistently lowest-achieving schools” to support rapid improvement.
The “other” option is off the table and the reform strategy options are much more prescriptive and rigorous.
“ If we are to put an end to stubborn cycles of poverty and social failure, and put our country on track for long term economic ‐prosperity, we must address the needs of children who have long been ignored and marginalized in chronically low-achieving schools…Our goal is to turn around the 5,000 lowest performing schools over the next five years, as part of our overall strategy for dramatically reducing the drop-out rate, improving high school graduation rates, and increasing the number of students who graduate prepared for success in college and the workplace.”
Arne DuncanSecretary of Education
August 2009
9
10
Present Day SIG
School Improvement Grants (SIG) are grants to state educational agencies (SEAs) that SEAs use to make competitive subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to use the funds to provide adequate resources in order to raise substantially the achievement of students in their lowest-performing schools.
11
Purpose of School Improvement Grants
The SIG program…• Strongly amplifies the restructuring provisions of NCLB and commits a massive
surge of funding to rid the nation of its persistently lowest-achieving schools.• Makes it clear that change must be dramatic, improvement rapid, and results
significant.• Emphasizes changes in governance, structure, human capital, and practice in
order to effect rapid and substantial improvement of persistently low-achieving schools.
• Strengthens the capacity of states to carry out their program improvement responsibilities required under Sections 1116 and 1117 of Title I of the ESEA by:– Building state capacity to provide leadership in implementing effective school
improvement strategies for local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools that have been identified for improvement, are in corrective action, and are in the restructuring process; and
– providing resources to LEAs to support school improvement activities, including the development and implementation of effective restructuring plans.
Turnaround
• Replace the principal and grant the new principal operational flexibility regarding staffing and budgeting
• Screen and rehire no more than 50% of the staff• Adopt a new governance structure• Commit to the use of instructional data• Implement comprehensive instructional reform,
including expanded learning time• Provide social-emotional and community-
oriented services and supports for students
Transformation
• Replace the principal (unless the principal was recently selected for reform purposes)
• Implement rigorous educator evaluations that include rewards for increasing student achievement and removal of those who do not improve their professional practice
• Implement comprehensive instructional reform, including increased learning time
• Facilitate ongoing community engagement• Provide operational flexibility regarding staffing
and budgeting
Restart• Convert a school or close and reopen it under a
charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization that has been selected through a rigorous review process
School Closure• Close a school and enroll the students who
attended that school in other schools in the district (within reasonable proximity) that are higher achieving
The Four 7 SIG Intervention Models
Early Learning ModelAn LEA that selects this model must: • Offer full-day kindergarten; • Establish or expand a high-quality preschool program; • Provide educators, including preschool teachers, with joint planning time; • Implement additional requirements that are the same as the transformation model (except no requirement for
increased learning time).
Evidence-Based Whole School Reform ModelAn LEA must implement this model in partnership with a whole-school reform model developer – an entity or individual that maintains proprietary rights for the model; or has a demonstrated record of success implementing a WSR model and is selected through a rigorous review process the determines likelihood to produce strong results.• The model must be evidence based• Must be a whole-school reform model• LEAs must choose a model identified by ED as meeting the applicable requirements
State Determined Model (Optional)SEAs may submit one State-determined model for review and approval by the Secretary. Review criteria for approval include: • must be a whole-school reform model: designed to improved student academic achievement/attainment;
implemented for all students in the school; address at minimum (a) school leadership, (b) T&L in at least one full academic content area, (c) student non-academic support, and (d) family and community engagement
• may include, at the SEA’s discretion, any other element or strategy that the SEA determines will help improve student achievement
3 New SIG Intervention Models
N/A for Virginia
For more information access SIG Frequently Requested Materials at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html .
14
Orientation to Virginia’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Requirements for
Priority Schools
15
ESEA Flexibility Waiver
• In 2012, The U.S. Department of Education (USED) invited SEAs to request flexibility regarding specific requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed to:– improve educational outcomes for all students, – close achievement gaps, – increase equity, and – improve the quality of instruction.
• In June of 2012, USED granted Virginia waivers from certain requirements of ESEA/NCLB.
16
Highlights of ESEA Flexibility• Replaces the AYP timeline for all students in each subgroup to meet or
exceed the SEA’s proficient level of academic achievement by the end of the 2013–2014 school year, with Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) set by VDOE in reading and mathematics for student subgroups that are ambitious, but achievable.
• Relieves LEAs from the school improvement requirements in ESEA section 1116(b) and their associated regulatory requirements: – identifying Title I schools as in need of improvement (INI), corrective action (CA),
or restructuring – developing and implementing school improvement plans– reserving funds for professional development (10% of Title I allocation), or – providing public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES)
(20% of Title I allocation).
• Replaces the requirement to identify schools as INI, CA, or restructuring with the requirement to identify priority and focus schools.
17
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
• Virginia’s AMOs represent the percentage of students within each subgroup that must pass SOL tests in reading and mathematics in order to substantially reduce the gap between students in high-performing and low-performing schools.
• Separate AMOs have been set for student subgroups, including Proficiency Gap Groups comprising students who historically have had difficulty meeting the commonwealth’s achievement standards.
18
AMO Proficiency Gap Groups
Hispanic students, of one or more races, including those also counted in Proficiency Gap
Group 1
African-American students, not of Hispanic origin, including those also counted in
Proficiency Gap Group 1
Students with disabilities, limited-English proficient students and economically
disadvantaged students, regardless of race and ethnicity (unduplicated)
Gap Group 3
Gap Group 2
Gap Group 1
19
Reading AMO Benchmarks Year 1
AMO Year 2 AMO
Year 3 AMO
Year 4 AMO
Year 5 AMO
Year 6 AMO
Gap Points Closed
Accountability Year 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
2017-2018
Assessment Year 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
2016-2017
All Students 85 66 69 72 75 78 12Gap Group 1 (Combined) 76 52 59 65 72
78
26
Gap Group 2 (Black) 76 49 57 64 71 29
Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) 80 53 60 66 72 25
Students with Disabilities 59 30 42 54 66 48
English Language Learners 76 44 52 61 69 34
Economically Disadvantaged 76 52 59 65 72 26
White 90 74 75 76 77 4Asian
92 80 Continuous progress towards reducing proficiency gap within subgroup by half
20
Math AMO Benchmarks
Year 1 AMO
Year 2 AMO
Year 3 AMO
Year 4 AMO
Year 5 AMO
Year 6 AMO
Gap Points Closed
Accountability Year 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Assessment Year 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
All Students 61 64 66 68 70 73 12Gap Group 1 (Combined) 47 52 57 63 68
73
26
Gap Group 2 (Black) 45 51 56 62 67 28
Gap Group 3 (Hispanic) 52 56 60 65 69 21
Students with Disabilities 33 41 49 57 65 40
English Language Learners 39 46 53 59 66 34
Economically Disadvantaged 47 52 57 63 68 26
White 68 69 70 71 72 5
Asian 82 Continuous progress towards reducing proficiency gap within subgroup by half
Identification of Priority Schools
Criterion ASchools receiving School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds under Section 1003(g) of ESEA in Federal Fiscal Year 2009 (Cohort I) or 2010 (Cohort II) and identified and served as a Tier I or Tier II school
Criterion BTitle I high schools with a federal graduation indicator of 60 percent or less for two or more of the most recent consecutive years
Criterion C Title I schools based on the “all students” performance in reading and/or mathematics performance on federal AMOs.
Criterion D Title I schools failing to meet the 95 percent participation rate in reading and/or mathematics for three consecutive years
Five percent of Virginia’s Title I schools (currently 36) are identified as priority schools based on overall reading and mathematics achievement, and graduation rates in the case of high schools. Schools meeting one or more of the following criteria are identified as priority schools:
21
22
Priority School Cohorts
Cohort Year 1 – Identification
Year 3 – Anticipated Exit
I 2010-2011 2012-2013
II 2011-2012 2013-2014
III 2012-2013 2014-2015
IV 2013-2014 2015-2016
V 2014-2015 2016-2017
VI 2015-2016 2017-2018
23
Exit Criteria
Reason for Priority School Identification Exit Criteria
Criterion ASchools receiving SIG funds under Section 1003(g) of ESEA in Federal Fiscal Year 2009 (Cohort I) or 2010 (Cohort II) and identified
and served as a Tier I or Tier II school…
-Will exit priority status at the conclusion of implementation of the chosen three-year intervention model.
Criterion BTitle I high schools with a federal
graduation indicator of 60 percent or less for two or more of the most recent
consecutive years…
-Will exit priority status after full implementation of a three year intervention model and sustaining a 10 percent
reduction in the percentage of students not earning a standard or advanced diploma within a four year period for
two consecutive years.
Criterion CTitle I schools based on the “all students”
performance in reading and/or mathematics performance on federal
AMOs…
-Will exit priority status after full implementation of a three year intervention model and *meeting federal AMOs for
the “all students” category for two consecutive years.
Criterion DTitle I schools failing to meet the 95 percent participation rate in reading
and/or mathematics for three consecutive years…
-Will exit priority status after full implementation of a three year intervention model and meeting the participation rate
for the “all students” for two consecutive years.
24
ESEA Flexibility Waiver: Priority School Required Interventions
1. Select and implement one of the (7) turnaround models: Restart, Closure, Turnaround, Transformation, State Approved Model, Early Learning Model, Whole School Reform Model.
2. Hire a Lead Turnaround Partner to implement, at a minimum, all requirements of the USED turnaround principles.
25
ESEA Flexibility Waiver:Priority School Required Activities
• Establish annual goals for student achievement on the state’s assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics;
• Set leading and lagging indicators, including monitoring leading indicators quarterly and lagging indicators annually;
• Complete an analysis of data points for quarterly reports to ensure strategic, data-driven decisions are made to deploy needed interventions for students who are not meeting expected growth measures and/or who are at risk of failure and dropping out of school.
• Use a state-determined comprehensive planning tool.
26
ESEA Flexibility Waiver:Priority School Required Activities, cont’d.
• Use a state-approved electronic query system to provide principals with quarterly data needed to make data driven decisions at the school-level.
• Collect meeting minutes, professional development activities, strategies for extending learning opportunities, and parent activities as well as indicators of effective leadership and instructional practice.
• Use an adaptive reading assessment program approved by VDOE to determine student growth at least quarterly for any student who has failed the SOL assessment in the previous year, a student with a disability, or an English language learner.
• Use the Algebra Readiness Diagnostic Test (ARDT), or other state-approved mathematics growth assessment, for all schools with grade 6 or higher for all students who have failed the SOL assessment in the previous year, a student with a disability, or an English language learner (fall, mid-year, and spring at minimum).
27
ESEA Flexibility Waiver:Priority School Required Activities, cont’d.
• Attend OSI technical assistance sessions provided for school principals, division staff, and LTPs;
• Collaborate with assigned OSI-approved personnel to ensure the LTP, division, and school maintain the fidelity of implementation necessary for reform.
• Provide an annual structured report to a panel of VDOE staff and turnaround leaders detailing the current action plan, current leading and lagging indicators, and modifications to be made to ensure the reform is successful; and
• Report to the state the school-level data required under the final requirements of this grant.
28
Role of Lead Turnaround Partners in Priority Schools
29
• In June 2013, VDOE issued a new Request for Proposals (RFP) process for Lead Turnaround Partners for "Full Management" and "Excluding Management” services that replaced the previous contracts.
Lead Turnaround Partners (LTP)
*Full ManagementThe LTP provides full management services under the authority of the local school division or other state or local public educational body to lead the reform effort and be given increased ability to act and the authority to make choices for one or more persistently low-achieving Virginia public schools.
Excluding Management
The LTP shall develop and implement an academic program for one or more of the core discipline areas of math, science, history/social science and language arts using VDOE approved approaches to increase student achievement in persistently low-achieving public schools
• Through the rigorous RFP review process, Virginia selected eight LTPs for the state contract:– American Institutes for Research– Cambridge Education– Community Training and Assistance Center– Innovative Educational Programs– *Mosaica Turnaround Partners– NCS Pearson– Newton Alliance– Public Consulting Group
Role of the Lead Turnaround Partner
The role of the LTPs assigned to low-performing schools is to increase student achievement and the graduation rate by providing deep, systemic instructional reform. For priority schools, LTP responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
Building local capacity with targeted and differentiated supports and interventions as determined by diagnostic reviews of student performance and practices; Build internal capacity within the schools and by extension, the division
Providing deep, systemic instructional reform and student support services for the school division and its affected priority school(s)
Maintain an embedded, consistent, and intense relationship with each school, requiring weekly presence in each school
1 2
3 4
Lead Turnaround Partners (LTP):
CAPACITY BUILDING INCREASED RESOURCES
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACCOUNTABILITY
Bringing increased resources to the schools and students in low-performing schools, including increased human capital (people), time, money and programs
Practices must be well-coordinated, and delivered with quality and accountability.
LTPs sign an SOW with the division that:• Assigns the Lead Partner responsibility for a school
for system and programs alignment• Holds the Lead Partner accountable for improving
student achievement
30
Role of the Lead Turnaround PartnerLead Turnaround Partners in priority schools are required to implement, at a minimum, all requirements of the USED turnaround principles.
31
Turnaround Principles: Meaningful interventions designed to improve the academic achievement of students in priority schools aligned with all of the following, and selected with family and community input:
• Providing strong leadership
• Ensuring that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction
• Redesigning the school day, week, or year to include additional time for student learning and teacher collaboration
• Strengthening the school’s instructional program based on student needs and ensuring that the instructional program is research-based, rigorous, and aligned with State academic content standards
• Using data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement, including by providing time for collaboration on the use of data
• Establishing a school environment that improves school safety and discipline and addressing other non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’ social, emotional, and health needs
• Providing ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement31
32
Identify needs and set goals
Develop an action plan
Implement strategies
Collect and analyze data
Employ interventions
Role of the Lead Turnaround Partner
33
Reporting RequirementsRole of the Lead Turnaround Partner
Each contractor (LTP) shall submit a written progress report to the school division detailing the following listed items:
1. Cumulative enrollment data for each student by student testing identifier (ID) and by name. Such data must include daily attendance information including number of absences, tardiness, discipline referrals, out-of-school suspensions and in-school suspensions by infraction and by teacher, and parental request meetings by infraction and by teacher. Data should be transmitted quarterly through the Single Sign-on Web System (SSWS) provided by the VDOE.
2. Quarterly, aggregate student achievement data including grades for the grading period, diagnostic data, benchmark assessment data, progress monitoring assessment data, and SOL assessment data, if available, by student ID and by aggregate by tiered intervention.
3. Quarterly, teacher recruitment activities, teacher professional development activities (including agendas of all staff meetings), and teacher absenteeism.
34
Reporting Requirements, cont’d.Role of the Lead Turnaround Partner
4. Monthly, for schools classified as persistently low-achieving schools, completed teacher evaluations and observations. Monthly, for all other schools, completed teacher observations and recommendations made to the principal regarding teacher observations.
5. Monthly, core SOL curriculum taught including all essential skills and knowledge in each of the four two [priority] core content areas.
6. Quarterly, number of minutes provided for extended learning opportunities.
7. Quarterly, report on the development and coordination of supporting partnerships.
8. Monthly, line item budget expenditures.
9. Quarterly, report of parental development activities.
10. Any other report requested by the local school division or other state or local public educational body.
35
Role of OSI Approved Personnel in Priority Schools
Each priority school is provided with OSI approved personnel to monitor the alignment of efforts from the division, Lead Turnaround Partner and school to ensure supported efforts meet identified needs.
36
Role of OSI Assigned Personnel
Meetings/Training • Attend monthly school leadership team meetings (September 2015 – June 2016)• Attend scheduled cohort training with the school team• Participate in OSI technical assistance sessions
On-site Visits/Monitoring
• Conduct Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE) Inter-rater reliability walkthroughs and observations• Conduct monthly unannounced school visits to monitor the implementation of the LTP’s
SOW with division and school identified needs.• Monitor the implementation of the Lead Turnaround Partner’s Scope of Work that was
approved by VDOE Procurement and the Office of School Improvement• Review the quarterly data reports• Visit school(s) a ½ day each month to monitor alignment of division, Lead Turnaround
Partner and school’s support efforts with identified needs
Reporting • Complete the Priority School OSI approved personnel monthly report • Review and provide feedback on the school improvement plan• Review the alignment of tasks in the school’s improvement plan with identified needs
including essential actions from the academic review• Review and provide feedback on school-level reports prior to submission, to include
quarterly data analysis and leading and lagging indicator reports
37
The principal leads the meeting and reviews the meeting agenda.The LTP contributes to the meeting, provides status updates, etc.The OSI Approved Personnel monitors the implementation of the
LTP’s SOW utilizing the OSI Approved Personnel Transformation Team Agenda
Determine next steps for providing follow-up/supports needed based on the information shared in the meeting
Update the LTP Monitoring Tool – Monthly ReportMaintain consistent communication with the priority school
Confirm meeting date/time/location with priority school principalReview LTP SOW and priority school transformation/SI planReview agenda/minutes from previous meeting
Role of OSI Approved Personnel at School Leadership Team Meetings
Before the
Meeting
During the
Meeting
After the
Meeting
38
OSI Approved Personnel Transformation Team Meeting Agenda
What are the on-the-ground, day-to-day roles/responsibilities of the LTP within the school as indicated in the Scope of Work (SOW)?
What is the LTP working on in English and Math, by teacher and grade level? Is this work aligned with the efforts outlined in the SOW?
What processes/procedures are in place to ensure the LTP is doing the work indicated and/or outlined in the SOW? (schedules/calendars, agendas, reports, observations, etc.)
What is the goal of the task, step or phase in the process as related to the school’s improvement plan?
GUIDING QUESTIONS :
39
Role of OSI Approved Personnel in Monitoring the LTP
Meetings/ Training
• Attend monthly school leadership team meetings• Attend scheduled cohort training with the school team• Participate in OSI technical assistance sessions
On-site Visits/Monitoring
• Conduct Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE) Inter-rater reliability walkthroughs and observations• Conduct monthly unannounced school visits to monitor the implementation of
the LTP’s SOW with division and school identified needs.•Monitor the implementation of the Lead Turnaround Partner’s Scope of Work
that was approved by VDOE Procurement and the Office of School Improvement
• Review the quarterly data reports• Visit school(s) a ½ day each month to monitor alignment of division, Lead
Turnaround Partner and school’s support efforts with identified needs
Reporting • Complete the Priority School OSI approved personnel monthly report • Review and providing feedback on the school improvement plan• Review the alignment of tasks in the school’s improvement plan with identified
needs, including essential actions from the academic review• Review and provide feedback on school-level reports prior to submission, to include
quarterly data analysis and leading and lagging indicator reports
40
Role of OSI Approved Personnel in Monitoring the LTP
Meetings/ Training
• Attend monthly school leadership team meetings• Attend scheduled cohort training with the school team• Participate in OSI technical assistance sessions
On-site Visits/Monitoring
• Conduct Aligning Academic Review and Performance Evaluation (AARPE) Inter-rater reliability walkthroughs and observations• Conduct monthly unannounced school visits to monitor the implementation of
the LTP’s SOW with division and school identified needs.•Monitor the implementation of the Lead Turnaround Partner’s Scope of Work
that was approved by VDOE Procurement and the Office of School Improvement
• Review the quarterly data reports• Visit school(s) a ½ day each month to monitor alignment of division, Lead
Turnaround Partner and school’s support efforts with identified needs
Reporting • Complete the Priority School OSI approved personnel monthly report • Review and providing feedback on the school improvement plan• Review the alignment of tasks in the school’s improvement plan with identified
needs, including essential actions from the academic review• Review and provide feedback on school-level reports prior to submission, to include
quarterly data analysis and leading and lagging indicator reports
41
LTP Monitoring Tool–Monthly Report
LTP Monitoring – Monthly Report
Stop-lighting Exercise: Following the directions on the LTP Monitoring Tool – Monthly Report, utilize the sample documentation to complete the report for one Turnaround Principle. Think about the following questions to guide your work. • Is the LTP implementing its reform plan with fidelity? Why or why not?
• Which strategies are completed or in-progress? Which strategies are off track? Why?
• Which strategies are showing promising results? Which strategies appear to be less promising? What midcourse corrections are needed?
• Which strategies should the school team start, stop, and continue doing?
• What additional supports does the school/divisions need from the OSI?
TurnaroundPrinciple 2:
Ensure that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction by: (1) reviewing the quality of all staff and retaining only those who are determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the turnaround effort; (2) preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools; (3) providing job-embedded, ongoing professional development based on the teacher evaluation and support systems and tied to teacher and student needs; (4) working with the school division or other state or local public educational body to recruit and recommend teachers and a leader(s) who have a proven record of success of increasing student achievement; and (5) recommending necessary restructuring of teacher and leader contracts.
Responsibility: Improvement Strategy: Evidence: Implementation Status:Aligned with School / Division-level Needs
LTP Strategy 1: Complete YES
Strategy 2: In-progress YES
Strategy 3: Off-track NO
Recommendation(s):
TASK
42
LTP Monitoring – Monthly Report
Small Group Discussion:
Find the group with the same LTP SOW as the one in your packet (by color).
First, find a partner(s) with the same turnaround principle and share similarities/difference in what you discovered.
Next, as a whole group, discuss the following:
• Discuss some things you noticed in reviewing the SOW, school transformation plan, the LTP monitoring/reporting tool?
• Pose any questions you have about this process to the group for discussion.
• Talk about how will this process help the school/division.
43
LTP Monitoring – OSI Approved Personnel Monthly Report
Reports are due to VDOE-OSI by the 5th of each month for the previous month beginning October 5, 2015. The May/June report is due on July 1, 2016.
September
Su M Tu W Th F S
Report is approved by the OSI POC, returned to OSI approved personnel as a PDF.
The OSI approved personnel sends the PDF report to the building principal, the division POC and the superintendent, with a copy to the OSI POC.
44
Website Scavenger Hunt
Log on to http://www.doe.virginia.gov/From the VDOE homepage utilize the main menu
(left side), submenus (right side) and links embedded in each page to find the following:1. ESEA Flexibility Waiver2. AMO FAQ3. Priority School SIG applications4. LTP RFP 5. Indistar User Guide
45
For more information see… http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/flexibility/index.shtml
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/priority_schools/index.shtml
46
Cohort Materials & Resources (Checklists, Contractor Resources, Transformation Toolkit , Using Indistar, etc.)
Guidance and Implementation Resources (Intervention Models, LTPs, USED Guidance, etc.) SIG Applications
Priority School Guidance Document
Coming Soon!
47
Contact Information
Kristi D’SouzaESEA Lead Coordinator
(804) [email protected]
Natalie Halloran, Ed. D.ESEA Lead Coordinator
(804) [email protected]
48