california department of education – reviewed on 8-may-12. the content was not modified. jack...

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – Reviewed on 8-May-12. The content was not modified.

Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Quality Education Investment Act of 2006

February 13, 14, and 15, 2007

San Diego, Sacramento, and Fresno

JACK O’CONNELLState Superintendent of Public Instruction

2

Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 (QEIA)

Fred Balcom, Ph.D.Administrator

High Priority Schools OfficeSchool Improvement Division

California Department of [email protected] (916) 324-3456

This presentation is being co-sponsored by California County Superintendents Educational

Services Association (CCSESA), The Hewlett Foundation, the California Department of

Education, andAmerican Institutes for Research (AIR)


3

Settlement Details

• Established in Senate Bill 1133 (Torlakson)• Enacts agreement for use of “Proposition 98

Full Minimum Funding Guarantee.” • Intended for school improvement activities,

primarily class size reduction, high quality staff development, experienced teacher distribution, and reduction of student-to-counselor ratios in high schools.

• Total funding $2.7 billion to selected schools over a seven year period.

• Up to two county offices will be funded to provide technical assistance.

• All QEIA-funded schools will participate in ongoing monitoring by county offices.


4

Eligible Schools• Schools, including charter schools, ranked in state decile

ranks 1 or 2 per 2005 base Academic Performance Index (API) are eligible.

• Schools currently participating in the High Priority Schools Grant Program are eligible, provided they agree to meet requirements for both programs.

• High Priority schools in state monitoring are eligible, provided that they pass a “rigorous review” concerning their progress while in that process.

• A list of all potentially eligible schools has been posted on the California Department of Education (CDE) Web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r16/qeia07rfa.asp.

• 1,455 schools are listed, but available funds will serve only about one-third of those schools.


5

Selection Process

• The selection process was developed based on substantial stakeholder input.

• All eligible and applying schools will be included in a random selection process.

• Individual schools will be selected based on each district’s prioritization of all of its QEIA-eligible schools.

• The resulting process provides an objective selection process that includes a measure of local control.


6

Regular vs. Alternative Application Option

Schools must apply under either the regular or alternative application option. They should consider:

• Whether class size reduction and reduction of student-to-counselor ratios (the regular QEIA process) would be an effective improvement effort.

• Whether an alternative improvement activity would be more effective, and what that activity would be. Also, is the alternative activity based on solid research that demonstrates its effectiveness?

• The possibility that applying under the alternative option will reduce the school’s chance of being selected for participation. A maximum of 15% of students may be served via the alternative option. Schools serving grade 9 with facilities issues have priority for selection under the alternative option.


7

Regular Option

Regular option allows for instituting class size reduction, and reduction of student-to-counselor ratios in high schools. Schools must ensure the following by the end of the third year of full funding:

• Class sizes of 25 per class or 5 less than in the 2005-06 school year

• A student-to-counselor ratio no more than 300 to 1

• Each teacher in the school is highly qualified in accordance with the California plan under NCLB

• The average experience of classroom teachers in the school is equal to or exceeds the district average

• The school meets or exceeds its API growth target averaged over the first three full years of funding


8

Alternative Option

Alternative option allows districts to propose an alternative approach to school improvement to the class size reduction/counselor increase required in the standard application process. The approach under the alternative option must include:

• A description of the specific activities proposed to be taken, and how these activities will provide a higher level of pupil academic achievement than the regular program requirements.

• Evidence that the proposal is based on reliable data and school improvement research that meets current and confirmed standards of scientifically based practices.

• How schools will involve stakeholders, districts, schools, parents, and external entities in the planning, implementation, and monitoring process.


9

Alternative OptionConsiderations for Districts

• The alternative program being considered should align with the district’s vision, mission and goals.

• To ensure successful implementation of the alternative plan, the district must plan to provide support to the school.

• Under the alternative program, the school must achieve improved API as required by statute. Specifically, it must exceed the school’s API growth target averaged over the first three years of full funding and annually thereafter.


10

Priority for Funding

Schools serving any of grades 9 – 12 can apply for priority approval under this alternative application option. To receive priority, the school must explain an inability to implement class size reduction due to either:

• Extraordinary issues relating to the school’s facilities, or

• Adverse impact that the QEIA program might have on eligibility of the school district for state school facility funding.


11

Schools Currently in the High Priority Schools Grant Program

Schools participating in the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP) are eligible to participate, provided:

• They agree to meet all accountability requirements of both programs

• State-monitored schools undergo a rigorous review by the State Superintendent of Public

Instruction

• They agree to revise their school action plan to reflect expanded school improvement activities they will undertake as QEIA participants


12

QEIA Implications for Districts

• Prior school improvement programs have been based at the school site.

• QEIA expects districts to take the lead in the school improvement process.

• Successful districts will be prepared to address the challenges of QEIA implementation.


13

QEIA Implications for Districts

A district that is well-prepared to implement the program in its schools will have assessed current school conditions:

• Student demographics, performance levels, transiency rates, academic challenges

• Teacher and administrator recruitment, retention, experience, pending retirements

• School culture and physical conditions

• School’s instructional context, curriculum, history of improvement efforts, lessons learned


14

QEIA Implications for DistrictsIn deciding whether QEIA participation is appropriate for your schools:

• Determine whether the needs of the school are aligned with QEIA benefits.

• Determine whether the culture and attitudes of the school are conducive to QEIA

implementation requirements.

• Determine whether the physical and resource capacity of the school is sufficient for

successful implementation.

• In addition, determine whether there is sufficient district capacity to support successful QEIA implementation in its participating schools.


15

County Role – Regional Technical Support

QEIA provides one-time funding of $5 million for up to two county offices of education to provide technical assistance, including:

• Regional technical support to participating districts and schools during initial QEIA implementation

• Documentation of successful school improvement practices

• Sharing information on successful practices with schools, districts and chartering authorities in the region


16

County Role – Ongoing School and District Monitoring

QEIA provides $2 million annually to COEs in counties with participating schools to conduct required annual monitoring activities.

• COEs will monitor requirements for:– Class size reduction– Student-to-counselor ratios– Teacher and counselor qualifications – Average teaching experience – Success in meeting API growth targets– Professional development requirements– Williams v. CA requirements– Meeting requirements within statutory timelines

• COEs will also monitor schools participating under alternative option using school-specified measures.


17

QEIA Work Plan Timeline

Activity Date Eligible Schools Identified November 2006

Regulations Developed & Approved February 2007 Application Instructions Released February 2007

School Applications Due March 2007RFA for COEs to Provide Regional

Technical Assistance ReleasedMay 2007

Participating Schools Selected May 2007COE Applications to Provide

Regional Technical Assistance DueMay 2007

COEs to Provide Regional Technical Assistance Selected

June 2007

Initial Funding Released July 2007


18

Form Orientation

• Form 1: Two Signatures.

• Form 2:

i. Apply or not?

ii. Prioritize Schools?

iii. Regular or Alternative?

iv. If alternative, can priority consideration be established?


19

Prioritizing Schools

Sample

For

m

Sample

For

m


20

Form Orientation

• Form 3: Initial (and do) all items and include all three required signatures.

• Form 4: Complete at school level

i. Confirm application option

ii. Two signatures.

• Form 5: Download and Sign.

• Form 6: If applying under the alternative option, complete these items and include this cover page.

california department of education – reviewed on 8-may-12. the content was not modified. jack...

Documents