Los Angeles High School UTLA Newsletter

Budget Cuts Fight Back!

These proposed budget cuts mean potentially bad news for schools…unless we stand up against them!

What the District is Saying:

Yesterday, the Governor announced his revision of the state budget. While it professes to “fully fund education”, according to Proposition 98 requirements, it would actually cut state education funding by $3 billion (or about $300 million to LAUSD). UTLA along with LAUSD Superintendent and Board President denounced the new budget as unacceptable.

What are they NOT Saying?!

Deep cuts…if we don’t fight back now. Not just the kind we are used to (i.e. electives, field trips, conferences), but bigger – class size norm increases are definitely being talked about. A raise in the class size norm means that we would not have district funding for as many teachers.

It could mean cuts in health care coverage. The district attempts this in fat times – we are almost assured they will attempt it in lean times. And beyond education, it could mean cuts in public services that directly hurt our students and their families (as well as many of us!)

What have we DONE?!

On May 4th, there was a big caravan to the Governor’s house in Malibu to let him know that he wouldn’t be safe from angry teachers ANYWHERE!

May 14^th, the DAY OF THE TEACHER – We did amazing picketing!

What else do we need to DO?!

May 29th – Parent Leafleting at PHABAO/Parent Night. We need to build a relationship with parents that is on-going, not a one-time thing. Unfortunately, right now, we do not have a fully functioning parent center, so we have to get out there and let parents know what is going on and how it could impact their kids…especially in preparation for the June 6^th job action.

June 6th AM Job Action –

On that day, UTLA members across LAUSD will stay outside of school with our parent/community allies and picket for the first hour of school. Here’s what’s at stake if the budget cuts go through:

□ There will be NO RAISES for the foreseeable future.

□ LAUSD will aggressively move to cut your health care benefits.

□ Class sizes will increase dramatically.

□ LAUSD can and will declare a state of emergency, which allows them to lay off permanent teachers without notice.

□ The jobs of thousands of talented probationary teachers—the future of our profession—will be in jeopardy.

By standing strong on June 6^th, we can go a long way in pushing the district to back off their potential cuts. Let’s show them our strength NOW. For one hour, we can stand together, outside LAHS, together with students and parents, and then walk back inside in order to remind the district what life would be like without us. (more discussions to come on this – including at UTLA meetings)

Call Somebody!

Give ‘Em a Piece of Your Mind!

Tell a CA Assembly Person or Senator to oppose the $4.8 billion in budget cuts and to make sure they continue to support Prop 98 which guarantees funding for schools in the state budget!

Mark Ridley-Thomas 213-745-6656

senator.ridley-thomas@sen.ca.gov

Gilbert Cedillo 213 612 9566

senator.cedillo@sen.ca.gov

Karen Bass 323 937 4747

Assemblymember.bass@assembly.ca.gov

Coordinator Elections Context

Thursday morning a panel of arbitrators met with Jean Moore, Ms. Anthony, Ms. Solomon and Ms. Perez. The arbitrators were: 1 UTLA Retired Teacher & 1 LAUSD Retired Principal. They conducted individual interviews with the aforementioned parties and decided who our Title I Coordinator will be for the next year. During the interviews your UTLA Co-Chairs strongly aired opposition to the process by which our current Title I Coordinator was informed of not being put forth on the ballot by Ms. Anthony. The results of the elections and the poll gave us a strong sense that the faculty of LAHS are not going to stand for Local District influence on our staffing and a lack of administrative support. We heard that what we need is an administrative team that provides support and just punitive responses. We were told during the arbitration process that the panel would not tell us why they reached the decision that they did but that their ultimate decision would be final.

In the end their final decision was to support the principal’s nomination of Ms. Karla Spivey. She will be in the position for one year and then will need to be re-nominated for a 2 year term in the Spring of ‘09. Over the last few weeks the contract procedure has been discussed, but the question is how did this mess get started?

Sold away our rights
In the 90’s, in the midst of pay cuts and budget cuts, not unlike now, UTLA bargained away competitive elections for coordinators. As part of a deal to get raises, this was generally supported by the membership. After a 10% cut, many people were happy for something. Since then UTLA hasn’t negotiated around elections in a decade.

Timeliness

We are a year round multi-track school which causes all kinds of mess on a daily basis. In the case of elections, it’s worse. Due to reasonable B-track pressure on the Elections Committee, people had until 9AM on Friday, April 25^th, to turn in their letters of intent to be coordinators (and could have turned in letters as early as February). This was, not coincidentally, the first day of elections. As the principal had until noon to choose her candidate, no one knew her choice until the polls opened.

Timeliness Pt II

The administrator’s decision to wait until the last minute to make a choice about candidates threw everyone into confusion…and generated a lot of frustration and resentment. Many teachers have stated that the reason they registered a “NO” vote on election day was because they felt that there had been insufficient notice given to the current Title I Coordinator about his non-selection. Others stated concern that the Local District 3 High School Director was playing too large a role in the personnel decisions of LAHS. Many said that a “NO” vote was a rejection of a flawed process, not a person.

The Future

As a union, we need to press accountability, timeliness, and transparency with ourselves and our administrators. This kind of debacle cannot happen again.

The position of Title I Coordinator can have a powerful impact on a school – not just in making sure that copies are done right, though this is important too. It has the potential to be a location for parents to engage with the school and to offer creative tutoring and remediation programs, as well as interesting after-school opportunities.

These are priorities for our school in general, and Title I in particular. Too many students are not getting the outside-class academic support they need, too few parents are involved in the life of the school, and currently there is no fully-functioning campus-wide parent center. It has fallen on the SLCs to deal with these issues. However, a school-wide program like Title I can go a long way in coordinating that effort and offering resources and support services that SLCs do not have access to.

Title I should be about a lot more than copies, whoever fills that position.

UTLA Meetings on Wednesdays

at lunch in Room 259!!

Title One Issues and Election

TO: LA High Faculty & Staff
FR: Ms. PerezRE: Title I Coordinator Elections Procedure
DATE: 4/30/08


As many of you may know by now the Title I One Coordinator was not confirmed by the necessary 50%+1 needed votes. We are now in uncharted territory for LA High as this result is rather unprecedented. Our UTLA/LAUSD contract does spell out for us what is to happen next as a result of non-confirmation but it feels even less democratic than our initial non-direct election of a person for the position. Ms. Solomon and I would like to share with you our proposal for how best to go about representing the staff on this issue. We feel that we are not able to accurately assess what the vote meant so we are proposing that we all participate in an opinion poll about who of the candidates would be best for the position.


This opinion poll will help us make an accurate recommendation when we meet with the Principal to attempt to reach an agreement.

µ We will do our best to represent our entire staff and we will notify you of the details for how to participate in the poll by Friday.

µ Keep in mind again that any poll we conduct will be informal and will only be a guide to our part of the decision (the principal will be making up her own mind).

µ The final day to turn in nominations is Friday @ 3pm.

µ The opinion poll will start next week following a candidates panel that will take place at lunch in room 259 on Monday 5/5/08.

µ A mutual agreement must be reached no later than Wednesday May 7th – 3pm.

µ If we do not reach an agreement than a move on to the procedures laid out in #3 on the back.






c. Post-Election Procedures: (UTLA/LAUSD Contract p. 49-50)
(1) If a candidate selected by the site administrator receives a majority of the votes cast (50% + 1), the candidate is confirmed. The site administrator then need not declare the position vacant or submit a new nomination for up to two years (except that a coordinator’s first term shall be limited to one year.)

(2) If the candidate is not confirmed by a majority vote, the site administrator and chapter chair shall immediately inform faculty members that the coordinator position is still vacant. If the non-confirmed candidate received 40% - 50% of the votes, that candidate and other interested candidates may submit statements of interest within 24 hours in a single-track school or 72 hours in a multi-track school. The site administrator and chapter chair shall then seek to mutually agree upon the coordinator selection from among those candidates who submitted statements of interest within the time limits above. The coordinator who is selected will serve for up to two years except that the initial term shall be limited to one year.
*This is our current situation. Interest statements are due Friday @ 3pm. Principal & Chapter Chair try to agree on a candidate by no later than Wednesday May 7th.

(3) If the administrator and chapter chair do not reach agreement within a period of three (3) days following submission of the statements of interest, the selection authority will be delegated to a two member team from the District/UTLA Dispute Resolution Panel formed pursuant to Article V-A above. They will make the decision within an additional period of three (3) days. They shall review all statements of interest submitted, and be permitted to seek further information regarding the candidates from the site administrator, the chapter chair, and from the school faculty prior to making the final decision. The coordinator selected will serve for up to two years except that the initial term shall be limited to one year.
*In this instance an outside group of people make a decision about who should be in the position.

Developing OUR PLAN

There is some great stuff afoot! First of all, people should definitely check out the Single Plan for Student Achievement - yes, there are 149 pages. Yes, it is highly skimmable.

http://www.lahigh.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=42156&type=d&rn=9458902

However, you can much more easily check out the last lines of the Table of Contents attachment and see what the prioritized "strategies" are. Second, what we discussed at the Starbucks last week (backed up by comments at the UTLA meeting) was making sure that a. we had people ready to participate in that committee and have key goals in each of the seven sections that we believe LAHS should focus on. These goals can guide the input that people will make into the i) the amendments to the Single Plan, ii) the QEIA plan, and iii) the High Priority Schools Plan.

Why are all these things being mentioned together?

Because all of these are going to be due together on April 15th. Yes, that April 15th. Oh, and yes, the WASC visit is going to be happening that same week. Thanks a lot, LAUSD.b. we were ready with thoughts on what our responses should be to the district's needs assessment/Compliance Checklist. (please see attached). Supposedly, this 'needs assessment' will be on-line starting now and we need to, as a staff and parent community, complete it by March 6. What 'completing' it means is not exactly clear, and we don't even have the actual link yet. However, this does give us a chance to communicate with other staff before the assessment must be complete. It feels really important that people don't see this as just another survey.The District's needs assessment could potentially be used like a Stull Evaluation, especially around curriculum and instruction. If we are assessed to NOT be complying with district mandates (remember, these are not just for the 34 High Priority Schools, but for all LAUSD schools), this could be used against us as individuals and as a school. Additionally, if their needs assessment’s key findings become action steps that cost money and end up attached to our Single School Plan for Student Achievement then our money could be used for what Brewer and the Local District think are important, as opposed to what we might prioritize based on a REAL needs assessmentStarting Wednesday, with the creation of a School Site Council Subcommittee designed to move forward on these things, we will be able to move this plan forward. However, as Rey suggested at the UTLA meeting, we ought to be as prepared as possible walking into the first meeting.

Here is a suggestion how:

Pick a section and put together your thoughts on what would actually help LAHS. You can use the genuine LAHS needs assessment conducted last semester as inspiration (it was an attachment on the last email).
Reply all and tell folks which one you are thinking about.

Try and fit your thoughts into the High Priority Schools plan Action steps (see attached). This is a great place to start cause this is how we get our ideas that can later guide budgets in.
Also, think about how we can bring this to the staff in any kind of meaningful way to get input.
Make sure that you are on the subcommittee (many folks raised their hands at the UTLA meeting, but if you weren't there and want to get in on it - email me. There will be something put out to the staff, but get in their first.)

B-trackers, don't forget to check your email in order to see scheduled meetings of UT@LA and the subcommittee!

I am proposing Thursday March 6 to come together and discuss what's up with all of these pieces of a delightful LAHS puzzle! Let me know if this works for you!?Again, we discussed the real strengths that could come with choosing a few foci and really putting our brain and budget power into them. If we can't get them into the Single Plan, then we can't spend the money or use it as our back-up when we push back on any Local District alternate proposals. Also, without staff and community buy-in, it can't really go forward.

Thanks again for moving on this stuff

- Rebecca

SINGLE SCHOOL PLAN

The Single School Plan is available to ALL! Via this Link

SINGLE SCHOOL PLAN

The Single School Plans available HERE

Reflections on Single School Plans and District "Providers"

Hello, all!!!

So i spent all last Thursday at a meeting with a hundred + district people so they could tell us what we are supposed to do with this High Priority Schools Plan at our school. The district has already assigned us a provider, MGT of America. (I met the actual guy assigned to our school – he will be traveling back and forth from Roanoke City, VA for the 9 days that he will be spending with us at Los Angeles High School).

The meeting was stuffed full of talking head presentations that went on for hours. Unfortunately, one of the things that came out clearly was about the “needs assessment” associated with the HPSP. It became VERY clear that the “needs assessment” they were putting forward was not a needs assessment, It was rather, a compliance checklist to see how far along we are in our implementation of Superintendent Brewer’s plan. There was no discussion of what would happen to the school if we were found to be “far below basic” in reaching the benchmarks set by the district toward reaching goals set by the district using tactics created by the district. The most obvious example was the Curriculum Section: the “needs assessment’ asks how far LAHS has come in terms of implementation of pacing plans, content lessons, mandated assessments and ‘reducing’ the number of non-standards aligned materials. Based on how far we are, we are supposed to come up with a remedy and an action plan

This action plan is then to form part of our High Priority Schools Plan for LAHS and any monetary requirements are to be attached to the single school plan (so we can allocate the necessary funds – and if the funds are not there, we are supposed to go to the Local District, and if they are not there we are supposed to go to the Superintendent.) In a budget crisis this looks ridiculous and one of the district spokespeople on this issue even said so herself.

The Provider, in our case MGT of America, is supposed to facilitate the collaboration of our staff in
· conducting the “needs assessment”,

· selecting one key accountability or goal within each of the seven Plan Strategies (Curriculum, Instruction, Leadership, Parent/Community, Safety, Organizational and Support, Accountability) that we are going to be working on for the next school year Our goal must be related to their menu of potential overarching goals - see attached Accountabilities Sheet)

· and in in converting the information gathered in the “needs assessment” into an action plan around that goal, complete with benchmarks, responsible persons, expenditures and a timeline.
The district people were clear in saying that we had to choose a few goals to move on, and that they were not expecting us to achieve everything by the end of the 2009 school year (thank you very much).

At the meeting, many of the chapter chairs present pushed back on the plan (see the attached UTLA response that came out of the UTLA High Priority Schools Task Force: UTLA Position on High Priority Schools plan). We spoke from the podium and got our words in edgewise with our local district folks.

So what are the potential bad things that could come out of this and how can we counteract them? What are the things we might be able to push for in this process that might benefit our school in the long run?

Their needs assessment could potentially be used like a Stull Evaluation, especially around curriculum and instruction. If we are assessed to NOT be complying with district mandates (remember, these are not just for the 34 High Priority Schools, but for all LAUSD schools), this could be used against us as individuals and as a school.

If their needs assessment’s key findings become action steps that cost money and end up attached to our Single School Plan for Student Achievement then our money could be used for what Brewer and the Local District think are important, as opposed to what we might prioritize based on a REAL needs assessment.

What can we do within this process to get something for ourselves?

a) Use this as a way to jump start an actual collaborative process between the faculty to build common goals and a few things we might work on as a staff.

b) Using the process we discussed at the Starbucks on Wednesday, participate in the School Site Plan subcommittee to build into the SSP the key things we have gotten from the faculty that they want to see our school do. These are the things we believe the faculty wants to focus on, that we could get buy in on, etc.

c) Heavily promote/advertise/’brand’ those few key areas or goals to the faculty so that all instructional leaders (slc, depts, all of us) and other folks are very familiar with the main things we all feel our school should be working on.

d) Use that revised plan to guide our budget creations and hold administrators accountable in spending, as well as use the plan to guide policy decisions in all areas including SSC, SBM, etc.
Some thoughts on what do we have to do now:

Get ourselves familiar with whatever the hell the Single Plan is

Create our goals in each of the key areas (it seems like we have already said at least one of the goals is reorganizing Professional Development/Collaboration. That fits in in the Instruction area. It is also linked to the Curriculum section, as we are saying that a big reason to do this is to develop meaningful locally developed (rigorous, blah blah) curriculum that we can implement.
Make sure that we speak up and push that these goals are reflected even in a false needs assessment.

Make sure that we set up a subcommittee of SSC where we have a formal route to get input into the Single Plan

Push to have the Provider do a real needs assessment that uses existing structures like SLCs and departments, as opposed to creating anything new or artificial (or, even worse, temporary). We can start with what we have already done when we collected data from parents, teachers, and students last year. We even gave this to LD3 in October (see attached Information passed on at the OCT3 )

What is missing here? What is over the top? What is good? What is weak? Please reply all so we can dialogue.

D Rabinowitz Comment

I like your idea of

Push to have the Provider do a real needs assessment that uses existing structures like SLCs and departments, as opposed to creating anything new or artificial (or, even worse, temporary).

We can start with what we have already done when we collected data from parents, teachers, and students last year.

Create our goals in each of the key areas
That way if these folks are forced on us, they become our supporters not our adversaries.

SUPERINTENDENT’S STRATEGIC PLAN #10

Superintendent’s Strategic Plan

for High Priority Schools

[July 2008 to June 2013]

December 1, 2007

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Page iii

Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles Page 1

Introduction Page 2

Process for Developing the Strategic Plan Page 7

Application of the Strategic Plan Page 12

Strategic Overview Page 16

Improvement Strategies Page 19

Strategies and Tactics

· Strategy One: Curriculum Page 20

· Strategy Two: Instruction Page 24

· Strategy Three: Leadership Page 30

· Strategy Four: Parent and Community Engagement Page 34

· Strategy Five: Physical and Emotional Safety Page 38

· Strategy Six: Organizational and Support Structures Page 41

· Strategy Seven: Performance Reporting, Accountability, and Incentives Page 46

Conclusion Page 52

Appendix A: High Priority Schools Page 53

Appendix B: Facilities Page 55

Appendix C: Characteristics of High Performing Schools Page 60

David L. Brewer III, Superintendent

Los Angeles Unified School District

333 South Beaudry Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90017

T: (213) 241-7000 – F: (213) 241-8442

Superintendent’s Strategic Plan

for High Priority Schools

[July 2008 to June 2013]

Executive Summary

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has made significant progress over the last six years. The District already has 111 schools with an 800 or higher on the State’s Academic Performance Index (API), with 19 of those schools with a 900 or higher API. Overall, District elementary schools are exceeding the State’s API progress rate. Yet, LAUSD has 309 Program Improvement schools (not meeting U.S. Department of Education No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandated adequate yearly progress goals), with 95 schools in Program Improvement status for five or more years.

In fact, 98,000 students go to school in 34 of the most challenged and lowest performing secondary schools – 17 middle schools and 17 high schools. These 34 schools have failed to demonstrate adequate yearly progress on both the NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements and the State’s API. These schools are also classified as Program Improvement Year 5 schools, are in NCLB Restructuring Status, and have been unable to surpass 600 on the API. Anywhere from 42% to 75% of 59,900 students in these 17 high schools and 46% to 65% of 38,200 students in each of these 17 middle schools scored Far Below or Below Basic on the California Standards Test (CST) in the 2006-07 school-year.

There is a greater challenge looming on the horizon. Beyond these 34 schools, another 61 schools are in Program Improvement Year 5 but have APIs over 600, 43 schools are in Program Improvement Year 4, 32 are in Program Improvement Year 3, 75 are in Program Improvement Year 2, and 65 are in Program Improvement Year 1. In all, these 309 LAUSD schools serve 395,443 students.

On September 17, 2007, the District received a letter from the Office of the Superintendent of the State of California notifying it of being classified in Program Improvement Year 3 status. At the District level, the District met 43 of 46 AYP criteria, but did not reach the graduation rate requirements, or reach the annual measurable objectives for English language arts for both English learners and students with disabilities or the annual measurable objectives for mathematics for students with disabilities. Consequently, the district is now subject to Corrective Action by the State and the sanctions authorized under the No Child Left Behind laws.

It is in the best interests of the Board of Education, the District, the schools, students, parents, and community to be proactive in assisting the schools to meet the API and AYP standards. Not only is there a moral and professional responsibility to assist these schools and provide a roadmap for improvement, but also a legal obligation under NCLB to take some, specific actions in accordance with the law.

This Strategic Plan for High Priority Schools represents a roadmap for improvement. It provides seven strategies and hundreds of tactics to be used, first with the 34 middle and high schools serving 98,000 students, and then to an increasing number of secondary schools each year. This Strategic Plan is the framework that will be used to shape work in the District so that all schools significantly improve students’ opportunities for learning and academic achievement. It is not a single plan that is mandated for all schools to implement in a lock step manner. Instead, it is an umbrella under which each school, in collaboration with its Local District, is expected to create and drive a differentiated approach to improvement. The approach taken by each school will be predicated on an assessment of its needs, its progress to date, what approaches and/or programs have worked and what have not been working well, how resources are being utilized, and the possibilities for improvement offered by the Strategic Plan. Each school will also continually examine and gauge its own plan for improvement over time to make modifications or changes as it goes forward.

The process to develop the Strategic Plan has been quite inclusive of many, key stakeholders, involving hundreds of people and hundreds of hours in meetings. Throughout this process there has been an incredible level of interest and many ideas about how to improve, not only the 34 schools, but also all of the schools in the entire district. Naturally, not all of the tactics could be incorporated into this Strategic Plan. What has been included are those tactics that shall either be required of the schools or those tactics that shall serve as thoughtful options for the schools as they proceed with school improvement planning efforts in the months leading up to the implementation of their plans for the start of the 2008-09 school year.

The Strategic Plan is predicated on seven (7) strategies for whole school and whole District improvement:

Strategy 1: Use a research-based, coherent, and rigorous standards-based curriculum that meets the needs of diverse learners as a tool that ensures they will be college-prepared and career-ready

Strategy 2: Build learning communities in which teachers, and those who support them, use data in a reflective cycle of continuous improvement to develop their skills in delivering high-quality, personalized instruction that ensures learning for all students in all classrooms

Strategy 3: Build school and District leadership teams that share common beliefs, values, and high expectations for all adults and students and that support a cycle of continuous improvement to ensure high-quality instruction in their schools

Strategy 4: Build at each school a community of informed and empowered parents, teachers, staff, and community partners who work collaboratively to support high-quality teaching and learning

Strategy 5: Build personalized school environments where students and adults are physically and emotionally safe and secure and, as a result, where learning opportunities and personal achievement can be optimized for all

Strategy 6: Design and implement District and school organizational and support structures to improve school performance

Strategy 7: Design and implement systems of reporting, accountability, and incentives as ways to measure outcomes and promote continuous improvement

These seven strategies share and reflect the common needs of all schools and not just the high priority schools. These common elements, all fundamental to any school’s success, serve as the structure for all schools in the District and, expressly for the High Priority Schools. The Strategic Plan has identified a number of tactics to support each of the strategies. These tactics are elements that advance each of the strategies and serve to both apply to all schools or, as appropriate and approved, apply to some of the schools. Some of the tactics are offered as a specific roadmap to be used by all of the schools in their journey toward success, while some of the tactics may be seen as optional pathways that are not determined to be appropriate or useful to the individual school. This Strategic Plan is a living document. Tactics will be added or changed over time.

This Strategic Plan will serve as the guiding document for all schools as they go forward to create their Single Plan for Student Achievement. Each school, with all of their stakeholders represented, is expected to use the needs assessment process as an opportunity to ensure that its single plan is the comprehensive site plan for improvement. Consequently, part of the work will be to integrate all of the other plans that might exist (e.g., SAIT, QEIA, Program Improvement plans, WASC, etc.) at the school, making appropriate adjustments and integrating any new tactics that result from their needs assessment, and revise it by March 2008. A support structure to help facilitate the needs assessment, developing and establishing student outcomes and benchmarks, improvement targets, and revisions to the school plan will be provided by the District to guide the school planning process. Each of the schools will present its revised plan to their Local District Superintendent for review and approval in March, 2008. Once the plans are approved, along with approval of any budgetary needs, by the Superintendent then the school will go forward with the readiness to implement the plans for school year 2008-09. The Local Districts will provide infrastructure support and oversight to the schools to ensure the implementation of the plan. It is planned that the Local Districts and the District will collaborate to ensure that coaches/facilitators are provided to the schools to assist with the implementation. Monthly progress reports will be submitted to the Superintendent regarding each school’s steps and readiness for implementation.

The key to the endeavor of school improvement is recognizing that a “one size fits all solution” just does not work. The High Priority Schools Strategic Plan honors the differentiated needs of schools, all of which are on some point of the continuum towards improvement. However, there will be a number of elements held in common and required at all of these schools.

In summary, The Strategic Plan:

· serves as the transformative model for district reform for all secondary schools;

· serves as part of the response to LAUSD’s corrective action status and the PI 5 schools’ restructuring status;

· offers a blend of required strategies and tactics for all schools and the individualization/customization of tactics that are tailored to individual school’s needs;

· balances site-based and centrally driven tactics; the more improvement that a school demonstrates, the greater the autonomy the school has with its plans – earned autonomy;

· places responsibility for planning, allocation of resources to school-based initiatives, and risk taking in the hands of schools and their stakeholders, but the Local District Superintendents and the General Superintendent maintain ultimate authority for approval of plans and allocation of resources;

· offers not only a guiding direction, but a roadmap with specific landmarks and mileage markers to chart progress and to report to the public that progress, school by school, in a transparent fashion for many years;

· Creates incentives and rewards for schools and stakeholders;

· focuses on recruitment of highly qualified and effective staff for the schools, mentoring of new staff, and the retention of staff so as to ensure staff stability and continuity;

The success of the Strategic Plan rests on a tightly coupled and collaborative relationship among school sites, Local Districts, Central Office leadership and support systems, the community, and the Board of Education;

School improvement is hard work. School improvement is a difficult process, and takes time. It is a student by student, classroom by classroom, grade by grade, school by school endeavor. A work plan, such as this Strategic Plan – and there have been many – is only as valid and meaningful as how the plan is implemented fully with painstaking attention to detail, and with full transparency and reporting of successes and misses. What distinguishes this plan from so many other well intentioned efforts must be its implementation and capacity building at the school sites and Local Districts so as to maintain the efforts relentlessly and to assure the resources are adequate and sustainable.

The schools, Local District Superintendents, the Central Office support and leadership staff as well as the Board need to face the future together – mutually supporting, interdependent, and accountable. Without a tightly coupled and collaborative relationship, implementation and success will be spotty. Going forward in a unified manner to improve the conditions for teaching and learning in the schools as a whole is imperative.

At the end of the journey, the LAUSD is committed to seeing that all students have an educational experience that is rigorous, have access to outstanding staff, that the curriculum prepares all students well for a career choice, and that each school has improved measurably.

These outcomes are our legacy. Otherwise, we default to the status quo. Failure is not an option: This is non-negotiable.

Vision

Every LAUSD student

will receive a state-of-the-art education

in a safe, caring environment,

and every graduate

will be college-prepared and career-ready.

Mission

Los Angeles Unified School District

will provide high quality instruction and a coherent and rigorous curriculum

in every classroom to facilitate student learning and achievement.

Guiding Principles

Guiding Principle #1

Improve our use of research and evaluation to hold us accountable to an improvement cycle

Guiding Principle #2

Improve the knowledge, skills, ability, and ethical and professional performance of employees on a continual basis

Guiding Principle #3

Improve the use of internally and externally derived innovations to drive a substantial and sustainable organizational change

Guiding Principle #4

Improve our engagement of parents and community in the work of teaching and caring for our children

Guiding Principle #5

Continually improve the physical and emotional safety of the learning environment

For children and adults to enhance learning and achievement

Introduction

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has made significant progress over the last six years. The District also is home to some of the best schools in the nation and the State of California. One of our high schools is ranked in the top 50 nationally. In addition, one of our elementary schools ranks 10th in the State; and we have the only school in the State to win the triple crown – the Title I Distinguished School, the California Distinguished School, and the U.S. Department of Education No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Blue Ribbon Award. LAUSD already has dual language and international schools that teach languages such as Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish. We also have schools that are already meeting the State’s Academic Performance Index (API) goal for the year 2014.[1] The District already has 111 schools[2] with an 800 API or higher, with 19 of those schools with a 900 or higher[3] API. Overall, District elementary schools are exceeding the State’s API progress rate. Urban school districts from around the country regularly visit LAUSD to learn from the work we are doing in our elementary schools.

Yet, LAUSD has 309 Program Improvement schools (not meeting NCLB mandated adequate yearly progress goals), with 95 schools in Program Improvement status for five or more years. We’re not alone. All across the country, large urban districts are struggling with the same challenge: how to create schools and classrooms where learning occurs for all students – English learners, standard English learners, students with disabilities, underperforming students, students performing at grade level, and gifted students. Researchers have written for decades about the difficulty in improving academic achievement. Over and over again, they say what we know; the way to improve student achievement is by fundamentally improving the conditions in which teaching and learning take place. In fact, 98,000 of our students go to school in 34 of our most challenged and lowest performing secondary schools – 17 middle schools and 17 high schools. These 34 schools have failed to demonstrate adequate yearly progress on both the NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements and the State’s API.[4] These schools are also classified as Program Improvement Year 5 schools,[5] are in NCLB Restructuring Status, and have been unable to surpass 600 on the API. Anywhere from 42% to 75% of our 59,900 students in these 17 high schools and 46% to 65% of our 38,200 students in each of these 17 middle schools scored Far Below or Below Basic on the California Standards Test (CST) in the 2006-07 school-year. We have a greater challenge looming on the horizon. Beyond these 34 schools, another 61 schools are in Program Improvement Year 5 but have APIs over 600, 43 schools are in Program Improvement Year 4, 32 are in Program Improvement Year 3, 75 are in Program Improvement Year 2, and 65 are in Program Improvement Year 1. In all, these 309 LAUSD schools serve 395,443 students. On September 17, 2007, we received a letter from the Office of the Superintendent of the State of California notifying us of our Program Improvement Year 3 status. At the District level, we met 43 of 46 AYP criteria, but did not reach our graduation rate requirements, or reach our annual measurable objectives for English language arts for both English learners and students with disabilities or our annual measurable objectives for mathematics for our students with disabilities. Consequently, we are now subject to Corrective Action by the State.

This information, reflecting the state of our educational system – our collective desire but inability to meet the needs of many of our students – should challenge us to take some time for self-reflection. The data captures the efforts of many people at all levels of the system working very hard to meet the needs of our students. And it summarizes our successes and our failures as we attempt to educate our children. We can rightly celebrate many successes. There are many instances where we have taken the right steps towards transforming the system. There have been many attempts made at all levels of the system to enact the District’s agenda to improve student learning and achievement. These attempts take the shape of central district activities, local district activities, school level activities, and classroom level activities. But it also captures many instances of our working hard but not always working smart. It reflects the results of decades of accepted norms playing themselves out daily in our schools and administrative offices within the Local Districts and Central offices. It demonstrates that much will still have to change if we believe that the answer to improved student learning and achievement lies with improving the quality of the pedagogy provided to students as they struggle to learn to read and write and become life long learners. It should cause us to demand that something be done to shake the system and chart a new course. Not only do we have a moral obligation to significantly improve the learning environments for our students, we have a legal responsibility to do so as well. Thus, this Strategic Plan is a call to action, a call for systemic change.

The challenge of significantly improving learning conditions at 309 schools is daunting. We will need to improve in all of the areas within our control: instruction, curriculum, leadership, parent and community engagement, safety, organization, accountability, and budget alignment. We must change the way we operate in our classrooms, in our schools, in our local districts, at the central offices, and in our communities; and we must do it on an enormous scale. Richard Elmore, a professor at Harvard University, writes, “The problem of scale in educational innovation can be briefly stated as follows: Innovations that require large changes in the core of educational practice[6] seldom penetrate more than a small fraction of U.S. schools and classrooms, and seldom lasts for very long when they do” (p. 1-2). He goes on to note that what U.S. schools and districts generally focus on as innovation at the secondary level is,

. . . the way they arrange the schedule that students are expected to follow – lengthening or shortening class periods, distributing content in different ways across periods and days, increasing and decreasing class size for certain periods of the day, etc. These changes are often justified as a way to provide space in the day for teachers to do a kind of teaching they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do, or to develop a different kind of relationship with students around knowledge (p. 3).

The limitation of these types of innovation is that they are not

. . .explicitly connected to fundamental changes in the way knowledge is constructed, nor to the division of responsibility between the teacher and the student, the way students and teachers interact with each other around knowledge, or any of the variety of other stable conditions in the core. Hence, changes in scheduling seldom translate into changes in the fundamental conditions of teaching and learning for students and teachers. Schools, then, might be “changing” all the time – adopting this or that new structure or schedule or textbook series or tracking system – and never change in any fundamental way what teachers and students actually do when they are together in classrooms (p. 3, emphasis added).

Thus, we must choose a course that will allow us to change the “fundamental conditions of teaching and learning for students and teachers” (Elmore, 1997, p. 3) and scale up change so that it takes hold and is sustainable over time. As a result, the question that I have been confronting is, “where do we start?” We are going to begin with the 34 middle and high schools serving 98,000 students. Not only do these schools face tremendous difficulties, they are also required to implement specific types of prescribed interventions for the 2008-09 school year as a result of their Program Improvement Year 5 status. We will begin our work with these schools but rapidly expand our efforts to support additional schools, i.e., feeder middle and elementary schools, while ensuring that we do not overextend ourselves beyond our capacity to be successful or our ability to dedicate adequate resources, fiscal and personnel, to this very difficult work.

In addition to considering which schools should be the first to receive focused support as we implement our High Priority Schools strategy, I also spent a significant amount of time examining the organizational structure that would best support our work. Initially, I looked at the efforts underway in other districts around the country. I saw that San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Miami-Dade had all chosen to establish new organizational and governance structures. In most cases, schools were pulled out of their traditional support structures and separated into new configurations. I brought this idea forward to my Cabinet. I proposed that we create a High Priority Schools District with a new Superintendent governing the schools. Together, we examined these other districts to determine whether this type of approach would be a good fit with our District. We spent several weeks considering the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies embedded in these other districts’ approaches to system and school change. In addition, we heard from many different stakeholders in LAUSD, teachers, principals, administrators, parents, community members, Board members, and others about the strengths and weaknesses associated with creating a separate district to support our High Priority Schools. In the end, I decided that separating out any of our schools was not the right choice. I determined that it would be a mistake to pull high schools and middle schools away from their elementary schools or to impact the families of schools structure in place within the local districts. I also concluded that we needed to be able to apply our strategies and tactics in the other feeder middle schools and elementary schools within each Local District. Additionally, I considered the fact that we do not reclassify 50% of our English learners (approx 250,000 students) in grades K-5, or adequately equip our English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities with the skills and strategies they need to be academically successful before they leave elementary school. I also believe we must work together to build capacity within our current structure so that we can expand our efforts more rapidly into the other 275 schools in Program Improvement status. Moreover, we are a Corrective Action district because we have not ensured that our students graduate and that our English learner students and Students with Disabilities are able to reach proficiency in English language arts and mathematics. Additionally, when we analyzed the Annual Measurable Objectives[7] (AMO) trends through 2014, it became obvious that the vast majority of our schools were not on a progress trend to meet future year AYP. Therefore, we must extend our work to all of our schools over time. Given that every school in our District will be affected by our work with our High Priority Schools, it made no sense to remove any school from its current organizational and governance structure.

I believe that it is in the best interests of the Board of Education; the District; and our schools, students, parents, and community to be proactive in assisting our schools to meet the API and AYP standards. I do not believe that state officials know better than we do what must be done to meet the needs of our students and schools. Not only do we have a moral and professional responsibility to assist these schools and provide a roadmap for improvement, but we also have a legal obligation under NCLB to take specific actions in accordance with the law. This strategic plan represents our roadmap for improvement. It provides us with the seven strategies and hundreds of tactics that we will use to guide us over the next five years as we begin our efforts, first with 34 middle and high schools and their feeder schools, and then to an increasing number of schools each year, until every school in the District is working with the strategies and tactics provided herein.

Process for Developing the Strategic Plan

In July of this year, I challenged my Cabinet to develop a comprehensive approach to address our Program Improvement schools. We began this work in two phases. First, a committee was formed to consider an approach to redesigning Program Improvement 5+++[8] high schools. This committee, the PI5+++ High School New Design Committee, was comprised of members of my Cabinet.[9] Two meetings were held in the month of July. During the first meeting, the committee worked with local district directors of school services and analyzed two high school case studies. They looked at the schools’ current conditions, barriers to improvement, what might be working at the schools, similarities between the two schools, and issues of school culture. They also looked at the lessons we might learn from these two schools. At the second meeting, the committee heard from one principal who had helped his school to become a Program Improvement Year 5 “in hold status” school and a second principal who had helped his school exit Program Improvement Year 4. The principals shared the specific actions they had taken to meet their target goals and exit criteria. They discussed the structures and resources they had needed and used. They talked about the barriers they had faced and how they had overcome these barriers. The information gathered during these two committee meetings was then compiled into a set of recommendations that were to be presented to the entire Cabinet.

The second phase of this work was to initiate a series of Cabinet Advances[10] and create a process for engaging stakeholders in the discussion. Our goal was to design a strategic plan that represented the best thinking of all stakeholders – District, Local District, administrators, teachers, parents, and community members. We began this effort in August with our first Cabinet Advance. During our two days together, we engaged in a series of activities that set the stage for this Strategic Plan. We reviewed challenges facing Program Improvement schools.[11] We learned about the approaches being used by four other urban districts in the United States: New York City, Miami-Dade, Chicago, and San Francisco. Then we heard the recommendations from the PI 5+++ High School New Design Committee. Once we had developed a common framework for our discussions, we set about identifying the critical strategies we believed we would need to have in place in order to create fundamental improvement in our High Priority Schools. These five strategies were developed in alignment with our Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles. They focused on instruction, curriculum, leadership, parent and community engagement, and physical and emotional safety.

Next, on September 14th, I set forth an ambitious timeline for the completion of this planning process. I determined that we would engage as many stakeholders that we could – the Task Force, administrators, teachers, parents, the Board, and others – over the next month and a half and provide the Board with a Strategic Plan for discussion by mid November 2007. I chose this ambitious timeline so that we can meet the NCLB requirement of implementing this plan for the 2008-09 school year. Therefore, I provided the Board with an overview of my plans at our Board retreat on September 18th.

I then established the High Priority Schools Task Force. The Task Force is comprised of the presidents of both UTLA and AALA and other union leaders, parent leaders, and many other external community stakeholders from education and business. I invited the Task Force to meet with me on September 19th. At our first meeting together I shared my overall vision to create major change in our High Priority Schools. I shared my perception that we might need to pull out our High Priority Schools and place them in a separate district so that they would receive focused attention and assistance – support and pressure – to change. I used this time with the Task Force members as a venue for engaging them with the opportunity to talk and for me to listen. I solicited their input as stakeholders in the lives and educations of our children. I asked them to help us think differently, audaciously, about the types of change we would need to make in order to improve learning conditions for our children at our High Priority Schools. I heard their concerns that we had tried reform many times before and little or nothing had changed in our schools. I acknowledged their cynicism, but I asked them to suspend disbelief and work with me to create something fundamentally different and to hold me accountable to carrying it through.

On September 20th and 21st we held our second Advance as a Cabinet. Here, each Local District Superintendent spent time presenting the efforts underway in each of their Local Districts to improve learning and achievement at their Program Improvement Schools. We reviewed the input we received from the first Task Force meeting and began the work of developing tactics for each of the five strategies. Our charge was to identify the most “audacious” tactics we could conjure. Nothing was to be left out of consideration. Through this process, we identified 185 “audacious” tactics and ideas within the framework of the overarching strategies. The tactics fell into the following broad categories:

§ Governance structures

§ Instructional strategies

§ Leadership strategies

§ Approaches to engaging parents and community

§ Approaches to improving physical and emotional safety

§ Approaches to improving facilities and increasing space

There were hundreds of tactics offered to be considered for inclusion in the strategic plan. These tactics were collected by our facilitators and turned into a survey. Each member of the Cabinet was then asked to answer the survey online, ranking the tactics in terms of their level of priority.

On October 3rd, I invited all of the directors and principals in the High Priority Schools to meet with me in separate meetings. At these meetings, I shared my overall vision to create major change in our High Priority Schools. As I had with the Task Force members, I shared my perception that we might need to pull out our High Priority Schools and place them in a separate district so that they would receive focused attention and assistance – support and pressure – to change. Similarly, I solicited feedback from the principals regarding the barriers they face in making profound change occur in their schools and what they need to be more successful. Their feedback was collected so that it could be integrated into the work the Cabinet was doing as it developed the Strategic Plan.

I met again with the High Priority Task Force on October 4th. During this meeting, I brought forward the work we had done to date and we discussed the strategies and tactics that would best serve to support our students and our schools. I listened to Task Force members, collected their feedback and brought it back to the work we were doing.

On October 5^th, I held another Cabinet Advance to review all of the ideas, tactics offered to date in preparation for the October 9th Board overview and presentation.

On October 9th I made a presentation to the Board. I shared with the Board and the public our work up until that point in developing the Strategic Plan. I provided an overview of the work we were doing, the stakeholders involved, when the High Priority Task Force met again.

Each Local District Superintendent also held a meeting with teachers from the High Priority Schools in their Local Districts in order to solicit their feedback, ideas, suggestions, and perspectives with respect to the barriers and the approaches they would recommend for improving teaching and learning in their schools.

A series of additional meetings were held to further develop tactics, measure feedback, and to generally discuss perceived needs and barriers to reform. These meetings were held as follows:

October 17 – High Priority Schools Task Force Meeting

October 19 – Cabinet Advance

October 24 – District Advisory Council, District English Learners’ Advisory Council, Parent Community Services Branch, Community Advisory Council, Special Education Multicultural Advisory Council Meeting

October 25 – Secondary Directors Meeting

October 26 – Teachers Meeting

October 26 – Cabinet Meeting

October 29 – High Priority Schools Principals

October 30 – High Priority Schools Task Force Meeting

November 13 – Meeting with UTLA

November 14-Meeting with AALA

November 15 – Focus on Achievement

November 15 – High Priority Schools Task Force Meeting

November 30-Cabinet Meeting

November 30 – Meeting with UTLA

December 3 – High Priority Schools Task Force Meeting

As these meetings took place, we continuously integrated the feedback we received from each stakeholder group. The plan became more complex and more nuanced over time. We found a great deal of overlap in the feedback we received. We came to recognize that we needed to add two additional strategies to the plan. Thus, we expanded from five to seven strategies. The two new strategies focused us on Organizational and Support Structures and Performance Reporting, Accountability, and Incentives. One of the powerful parts of this process was that we were able to see how much consistency there was across role groups as to which tactics were most likely to improve the teaching and learning at these 34 schools and eventually all of our schools. Eventually, based on our deep analysis and feedback from stakeholders, the plan evolved to leaving the 34 high priority secondary schools in the Local District structure and to include the feeder middle and elementary schools. This strategy would also better facilitate the rapid expansion of the High Priority Schools strategies and tactics to all schools.

In closing, this process has been quite inclusive of many, key stakeholders. What emerged from this process is an incredible level of interest and many ideas about how to improve, not only the 34 schools and feeders, but also all of our schools in the entire district. Naturally, not all of the tactics could be incorporated into this Strategic Plan. What has been included are those tactics that shall either be required of the schools or those tactics that shall serve as thoughtful options for our schools as they proceed with school improvement planning efforts in the months leading up to the implementation of their plans for the start of the 2008-09 school year.

Application of the Strategic Plan

This High Priority Schools Strategic Plan is the framework that we will use to shape our work in the District so that all schools significantly improve students’ opportunities for learning and academic achievement. It is not a single plan that is mandated for all schools to implement in a lock step manner. Instead, it is an umbrella under which each school, in collaboration with its Local District, is expected to create and drive a differentiated approach to improvement. The approach taken by each school will be predicated on an assessment of: its needs, its progress to date, what approaches and/or programs have worked and what have not been working well, and the possibilities for improvement offered by the Strategic Plan. Each school will also continually examine and gauge its own plan for improvement over time to make modifications or changes as it goes forward.

Clearly, the seven strategic goals (curriculum, instruction, leadership, engagement, security and safety, organizational support structures, incentives and accountability) share and reflect the common needs of all schools and not just the high priority schools. These common elements, all fundamental to any school’s success and listed as required for successful schools in current research (Appendix C), serve as the structure for all schools in the District and, expressly for the High Priority Schools. The Strategic Plan has identified a number of tactics to support each of the strategies. These tactics are elements that advance each of the strategies and serve to both apply to all schools or, as appropriate and approved, apply to some of the schools. Some of the tactics are offered as a specific roadmap to be used by all of the schools in their journey toward success, while some of the tactics may be seen as optional pathways that are not determined to be appropriate or useful to the individual school. For example, it may be important as a District initiative affecting all High Priority Schools to offer incentives to attract and maintain the highest quality staff at the schools. On the other hand, specific tactics to reduce school size and classroom ratios may not be possible at each school site, despite best efforts to reduce size due to lack of space. This Strategic Plan is a living document. Tactics will be added or changed over time.

Once adopted by the Board of Education, this Strategic Plan will serve as the guiding document for all schools as they go forward to create their individual strategic plan for improvement. Each school, with all of their stakeholders represented,[12] is expected to use the needs assessment process as an opportunity to ensure that its single school plan is the strategic plan for improvement. Consequently, part of the work will be to integrate all of the other plans that might exist (e.g., SAIT, QEIA, Program Improvement plans, WASC, etc.) at the school, making appropriate adjustments and integrating any new tactics that result from their needs assessment, and revise it by March 2008. A support structure to help facilitate the needs assessment, developing and establishing student outcomes and benchmarks, improvement targets, and revisions to the school plan will be provided by the District to guide the school planning process. Each of the schools will present its revised plan to their Local District Superintendent for review and approval in March, 2008. I will then review them for my approval. Once the plans are approved, along with approval of any budgetary needs, then the school will go forward with the readiness to implement the plans for school year 2008-09. The Local Districts will provide infrastructure support and oversight to the schools to ensure the implementation of the plan. It is planned that the Local Districts and the District will collaborate to ensure that coaches/mentors/facilitators [13] are provided to the schools to assist with the implementation. Monthly progress reports will be submitted to me regarding each school’s steps and readiness for implementation.

It is required that all schools will implement their plans for the start of the new school year. Some of the schools may demonstrate significant changes in a variety of ways. Some of the schools whose current plans hold promise of progress and success may not show evidence of significant change, but will benefit from ongoing monitoring and performance reporting to ensure continuous success.

The key to the endeavor of school improvement is recognizing that a “one size fits all solution” just does not work. The High Priority Schools Strategic Plan honors the differentiated needs of schools, all of which are on some point of the continuum towards improvement. However, there will be a number of elements held in common and required at all of these schools. As required by NCLB, there will be a required common core curriculum for grades 6-12 in the subjects of English language arts, English as a second language, mathematics, science and social studies, anchored to the California Standards to be implemented by all of these schools. In addition, there will be professional development anchored in improving the instruction in the core subjects of the mandated core curriculum as well as improving instruction for English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities. Additional examples of mandated actions for all of the High Priority Schools would be the required implementation of the District Discipline Foundation Policy (March 2007) as well as the Coordinated Safe and Healthy School Plan (CSHS revised 07/07) by each school, but customized at each school site; the use of District periodic assessments and intervention programs; as well as the full implementation of Small Learning Communities and Personalized Learning Environments consistent with recent Board policy actions and currently underway in many schools.

Below is the timeline we intend to follow for the application of the Strategic Plan:

Needs Assessment and Planning (January through March)

Each school will engage in a “needs assessment” conducted with a partner assigned by the Local District from a bench contract.[14] These partners will be comprised of Local District staff as well as outside providers who will work with the schools to conduct a needs assessment focusing on the seven strategic goals.

The purpose of the assessment and planning phase is to integrate all existing school plans into Single Plan for Student Achievement – a school strategic plan document. Included shall be the tactics to be implemented in the months prior to school year 2008-2009, the tactics to be implemented during school year 2008-2009, the budget implications and resources required to implement the school’s plans and recommended tactics. The plans will also contain the qualitative and quantitative process indicators and achievement outcomes that will be used to determine improvement at the school with respect to the conditions of and for teaching and learning. Leadership is also important. Therefore, an assessment of the school’s leadership team will also be conducted. These plans and budgets shall be presented to the Local District and Superintendent for review and approval prior to any implementation.

Preparation for School Year 2008-2009 March through July

Once approval is granted, then each school will take the actions to implement its approved plan and tactics in preparation for the start of the new school year. It is intended that each school will be provided support to assist with this endeavor and to report monthly on the school’s progress.

Implementation (July 2008 through June 2009)

Each of the schools will implement its school specific strategic plan with the support and guidance from their Local District. It is intended that each school will be provided support to assist with this endeavor, to ensure capacity for the school’s sustainable improvements, and to report on the school’s progress. An evaluation of the progress of the implementation using data will shape the next steps for the 2009-10 school year and to improve the school reform model for next round of schools. In the fall of 2008, criteria will be determined for the next round of schools to participate.

School improvement is hard work. It is also a classroom by classroom, school by school process. We are committed to assuring that not only each of the identified High Priority Schools improves and meets the API/AYP targets set for them but also that a foundation is built District-wide so that all schools improve.

The LAUSD Board of Education has taken a number of actions by way of resolutions to accelerate academic growth and success in its lowest performing schools. Most notably, a series of resolutions in 2006-07 were authored. The Board of Education’s Policy Director, Dr. Randy Ross has provided a summary memo on Sept 27, 2007 of past Board resolutions in an effort to inform and assist with the development of a Framework for Strategic Planning for High Priority Schools.

I have used the Board’s guidance and past actions to help with focusing the development of my thinking and this plan. In fact, the seven strategies and their accompanying tactics in the Strategic Plan are consistent with the thrust of each of the Board’s past actions.

Strategic Overview

The Strategic Plan is directly aligned with the LAUSD Board Resolutions, as detailed in the Dr. Ross memorandum of September 27, 2007 and, the Strategic Plan addresses those resolutions passed prior to 2006; hence, the congruence between Board’s direction and the Strategic Plan.

The Strategic Plan serves as part of the response to the District’s Corrective Action status and the schools’ restructuring status, per the NCLB designation and the letter from the California Department of Education received September 17, 2007.

The Strategic Plan serves as the prototype for whole district reform for all schools, but specifically in 2008-09 for the 34 High Priority high schools and middle schools.

The Strategic Plan’s system of accountability – the reporting by each school, on a quarterly basis, of their progress toward achieving the school plan and meeting specific performance targets – serves to initiate the District’s Accountability model at the most significant level – the school.

The Strategic Plan builds capacity within the Local District’s Family of Schools level and builds the capability to sustain improvements over time.

The Strategic Plan is predicated on 7 strategies for whole school and whole District improvement:

· A core curriculum that is California Standards aligned

· Focused professional development to advance instruction

· Leadership development and training

· Parent and community engagement

· Safe and secure environments

· Organizational and support structures

· Performance reporting, accountability, and incentives

A centerpiece of the Strategic Plan focuses on recruitment of appropriate staff for the schools, mentoring of new staff, retention of staff so as to ensure staff quality and continuity.

The Strategic Plan is a blend of required strategies and tactics for all schools and the individualization/customization of tactics that are tailored to individual school’s needs.

Some examples of the required strategies and tactics include:

· Core curriculum based on the California Standards in English Language Arts, English as a Second Language, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies

· Professional development anchored in improving delivery of the core curriculum for English learners, standard English learners, students with disabilities, and all others

· Administration and analysis of periodic assessments

· Professional development anchored in improving instructional leadership of administrators

· Small Learning Communities and Personalized Learning Environments

· District Foundation Discipline Policy and District Comprehensive Safe and Healthy Schools Plan

· Parent engagement

· School accountability and quarterly reporting

· Priority schools staffing: recruitment, mentoring, and retention programs

· On demand, on time, quick response for provision of support services at the District and Local District level

· Reducing school size and classroom size where possible

· Incentives and rewards

The Strategic Plan is a balance of the site-based and centrally driven tactics; the more improvement that a school demonstrates, the greater the autonomy the school has with its plans – earned autonomy.

The Strategic Plan places responsibility for planning, allocation of resources to school-based initiatives, and risk taking in the hands of schools and their stakeholders, but the Local District Superintendents and the General Superintendent maintain ultimate authority for approval of plans and allocation of resources.

The success of the Strategic Plan rests on a tightly coupled and collaborative relationship among school sites, Local Districts, Central Office leadership and support systems, the community, and the Board of Education.

The Strategic Plan offers not only a guiding direction, but a roadmap with specific landmarks and mileage markers to chart progress and to report to the public that progress, school by school, in a transparent fashion for many years.

Improvement Strategies

Strategy 1: Use a research-based, coherent, and rigorous standards-based curriculum that meets the needs of diverse learners as a tool that ensures they will be college-prepared and career-ready

Strategy 2: Build learning communities in which teachers, and those who support them, use data in a reflective cycle of continuous improvement to develop their skills in delivering high-quality, personalized instruction that ensures learning for all students in all classrooms

Strategy 3: Build school and District leadership teams that share common beliefs, values, and high expectations for all adults and students and that support a cycle of continuous improvement to ensure high-quality instruction in their schools

Strategy 4: Build at each school a community of informed and empowered parents, teachers, staff, and community partners who work collaboratively to support high-quality teaching and learning

Strategy 5: Build personalized school environments where students and adults are physically and emotionally safe and secure and, as a result, where learning opportunities and personal achievement can be optimized for all

Strategy 6: Design and implement District and school organizational and support structures to improve school performance

Strategy 7: Design and implement systems of reporting, accountability, and incentives as ways to measure outcomes and promote continuous improvement

Strategy One: Curriculum

Strategy 1: Use a research-based, coherent, and rigorous standards-based curriculum that meets the needs of diverse learners as a tool that ensures they will be college-prepared and career-ready (Required)

Rationale: (No Child Left Behind Section 1116(c) (10) (C) and California Education Code Section 52055.57(c) (1). There is a legal requirement (cited above) which specifies “…the instituting and fully implementing of a new curriculum that is based on state academic content and achievement standards…” for districts that have advanced to Year 3 of Program Improvement (PI) status and are subject to corrective action. Strategy One and the required tactics for districts and schools (see below) address the legal mandate. The optional tactics offered below are some examples of opportunities for schools to consider when reviewing and revising their Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) and/or, for senior high schools, their Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) “Self Study.”

Tactics:

a. Adopt a California Standards-based, Research-supported Core Curriculum in English Language Arts, English as a Second Language, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies (grades 6-12) Instituting and fully implementing the District’s curriculum that is based on state academic, content, and achievement standards, and A-G requirements. (Required)

Responsibility: District Action Steps (Required)

· Provide rigorous and relevant content for all students

· Embed standards tested on California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) in all courses 6-10

· Embed a tiered approach to instruction addressing the instructional needs of at-risk learners (Response to Intervention; Modified Consent Decree, Outcome 2)

· Align primary source materials to content (e.g., historical documents, original texts, letters, interview transcripts, photographs, art, political cartoons, advertisements) and theme/career

· Create concept lessons across all content areas (e.g., English Language Arts units and unit lessons, science immersion units and model lessons, mathematics concept lessons, social studies model lessons) that also address the instructional needs of English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

· Adopt pre-teach, re-teach, and challenge materials for accessing core curriculum

· Address content, cognitive and academic language, and the instructional needs of English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

· Adopt, curriculum-aligned periodic assessments

b. Implement the California Standards-based, Research-supported Core Curriculum in English Language Arts, English as a Second Language, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies (grades 6-12) (Required)

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and “WASC Self Study” (Required)

· This tactic is required at all schools and in all classrooms (unless qualitative and quantitative data demonstrating existing program(s) and teaching meet the curricular requirements and ensure performance for all sub-groups)

o Use of Instructional Guides

o Use of concept lessons (e.g., ELA units and unit lessons, science immersion units and model lessons, mathematics concept lessons, social studies model lessons)

o Use of explicit rubrics defining expectations for quality work products and for grading student work

o Use of quality formative and summative written and oral feedback

o Use of curriculum-aligned periodic assessments and additional curriculum-based measures

o Use of state adopted, standards-aligned textbook (e.g., Holt, Prentice Hall, McDougall-Littell)

c. Ensure all supplementary materials in English Language Arts, English as a Second Language, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies are aligned to state standards (Required)

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and “WASC Self Study” (Required)

· Required at all schools and in all classrooms (unless qualitative and quantitative data demonstrating existing program(s) and teaching meet the curricular requirements and ensure performance for all sub-groups)

o Remove non-California standards-aligned texts and supplementary materials from use during regular classroom instructional time and after school programs provided at the school site

o Remove non-California standards-aligned worksheets and materials from regular classroom instructional time and after school programs provided at the school site

d. Adopt and Implement Additional Curricular Supports to Meet the Needs of Diverse Learners (Required)

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and “WASC Self Study” (Required)

· Implement intervention programs and tactics aligned to the core that specifically target underperforming students not making adequate progress in core subjects, including English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities (English learner: A student for whom English is a second language and who is not proficient enough in the English language to succeed in the school's regular instructional programs and who qualifies for extra help. (Formerly referred to as Limited English Proficient/LEP.) (Ed Source/Ed-data) (Standard English learner: A student for whom English is a first language but whose dialect may impede success in the regular instructional program and who qualifies for extra help.)

o Implement targeted, research-based literacy and mathematics intervention programs for students with disabilities (Modified Consent Decree, Outcome 2)

o Implement annual student , parent, teacher conferences for grades 7-12 for academic counseling with emphasis on at risk students (Modified Consent Decree, Outcomes 3 & 4)

§ Justification: Consistent application of required actions contained in the MCD Outcomes need to be assured in all schools in order to meet requirements. This is to ensure that LAUSD is in compliance with all statutes and regulations.

· Embed Culturally Relevant and Responsive pedagogy into core content instruction and professional development

· Implement culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy that addresses the needs of English learners, Standard English learners, Students with Disabilities, and underperforming students.

· Implement the English as a Second Language Program as designed following the curriculum guidelines and the assessment and ELD Portfolio requirement

o Implement English Language supports for EL students that build oral and written academic language

o Implement the scheduling and placement policies regarding English Learners in middle and high school

o Implement the supports for English Learners no longer in ESL

o Justification: Detailed policies are spelled out in reference guides and memoranda. These policies assure that appropriate master schedules are developed for English Language Development student needs and their access to core content. These policies must be consistently implemented in and across schools.

· Implement CAHSEE preparation programs at middle and high school

Justification: All students must pass the CAHSEE in order to graduate. We currently offer intervention after students fail the test.

e. Provide Expanded Curricular Opportunities for Students

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study (Required)

· Increase educational alternative options for students at risk of school failure

o Access to continuation schools and/or Adult Education Alternative Work Centers (AEWC)

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

Justification: The following options are program opportunities/offerings that are found in most high performing schools. These options expand the learning experiences beyond the traditional walls of the secondary school, enrich students’ education, and provide rigor to the schools’ offerings.

· Exploratory and/or elective programs (e.g., Career and Technology Education, visual and performing arts)

· College preparation program alternatives:

o Community College, University, and College courses offered on campus and/or via technology

o Dual enrollment opportunities (e.g., high school and community college)

o Advanced Placement and Honors preparation programs for middle school students

o Expansion of Advanced Placement courses for high school students

o International Baccalaureate programs for families of schools: one-strand feeder patterns of pre-kindergarten to elementary to middle to high school.

Justification: The International Baccalaureate World Schools offer three programs of international education for students aged 3 to 19. The Primary Years Program focuses on the development of the whole child in the classroom and in the world outside. The Middle Years Program provides a framework of academic challenge and life skills, achieved through embracing and transcending traditional school subjects. The Diploma Program is a demanding two-year curriculum leading to final examinations and a qualification that is recognized by leading universities around the world for college credit. Each program includes a curriculum and pedagogy, student assessment appropriate to the age range, professional development for teachers and a process of school authorization and evaluation. Currently, none of the LAUSD schools offers these highly regarded, rigorous programs.

o Summer residency opportunities at local universities and colleges

o University and college campus visits

· Field trips, field experiences, internships and work-based learning opportunities

· Peer mentoring and tutoring; financial literacy programs

· Single gender classes/academies

Justification: African-American and Latino males are the lowest performing subgroups in LAUSD. Two LAUSD schools have successfully implemented single sex classes for boys with a reduction in discipline problems, higher CAHSEE pass rates, higher retention, and higher academic performance. Research also suggests that girls in single sex classes are more likely to take and perform better in math, science, and technology classes. Where there is a significant disparity in the academic and social success between genders, schools should consider single gender classes or academies with the appropriate, staff professional development.

Strategy Two: Instruction

Strategy 2: Build learning communities in which teachers and those who support them use data in a reflective cycle of continuous improvement to develop their skills in delivering high-quality, personalized instruction that ensures learning for all students in all classrooms (Required)

Rationale: (California Department of Education letter September 17, 2007). There is a legal requirement (cited above) that requires not only “the instituting and fully implementing of a new curriculum that is based on state academic content and achievement standards…”, but also “providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high priority pupils.” for districts that have advanced to Year 3 of Program Improvement (PI) and subject to corrective action. Strategy Two and the required district and schools’ tactics (see below) address this legal mandate.

Tactics:

a. Build Capacity for Effective Teaching (Required)

Justification: Provide appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high priority pupils (CDE letter September 17, 2007). In addition, there is a critical need to assure all teachers and administrators have the necessary and expanded training not only in their subject matter field, but also in pedagogy for all learners with diverse needs. Currently, there are many programs in effect; however, the thrust of the tactics identified below is to bring focus and coherence to the ongoing and new professional development efforts of these schools.

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Provide teachers with training and support in the use of process and tools for examining quantitative data (i.e., periodic and other assessment data) and qualitative data (i.e., student work and classroom practice) as a means to improve instructional practice to address the needs of diverse learners and improve learning opportunities for English learners, standard English learners, students with disabilities and all other students

o Promote the formation of professional learning communities (PLCs) at schools, Local Districts, and Central District

Justification: The term professional learning community describes a collegial group of administrators and school staff who are united in their commitment to student learning. They share a vision, work and learn collaboratively, visit and review other classrooms, and participate in decision making (Hord, 1997b). The benefits to the staff and students include a reduced isolation of teachers, better informed and committed teachers, and academic gains for students. Hord (1997b) notes, "As an organizational arrangement, the professional learning community is seen as a powerful staff-development approach and a potent strategy for school change and improvement."

§ Provide frequent opportunities (e.g., weekly or bimonthly) and support for staff to learn about how to become a Professional Learning Community and focus on student learning and results

§ Create expanded PLCs across schools and Districts through the use of technology (small learning communities and personalized learning environments, magnets, and content area groups utilizing, e.g., video conferencing, pod casts, blogs, and other forms of distance learning and technology driven communication)

o Ensure all teachers are members of content-specific (e.g., mathematics) learning teams that meet regularly (e.g., weekly or bimonthly) to engage in collaborative inquiry toward improved instructional practice to monitor the implementation of the standards based instructional program

§ Learn, and consistently use, effective processes for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data in order to focus on student learning

§ Examine and learn from student work to improve student learning opportunities

§ Examine and learn from observing teaching practice to improve student learning opportunities

§ Examine own practice to determine how instructional choices support and/or impede student learning for all or some students

§ Address the instructional needs of English learners, standard English learners, students with disabilities and all other students

§ Work collaboratively to address students’ instructional needs to improve student learning opportunities

o Ensure all teachers are members of small learning community or personalized learning environment teams that meet regularly to engage in collaborative inquiry toward improved instructional practice to

§ Examine own practice to determine how instructional choices support and/or impede student learning for all or some students

§ Address the instructional needs of English learners, standard English learners, students with disabilities and all other students

§ Carry over discussion related to pedagogy and student learning held during content-specific learning teams for application in the small learning community or personalized learning environment

§ Address the application of culturally responsive teaching as a key methodology for scaffolding diverse students’ access to core content curricula

o Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of research-based, content-appropriate instructional strategies for

§ Pre-teach

§ First teach

§ Re-teach

· Implement the Board adopted resolution, “English Learners: Hope on the Horizon”, (7/10/2007) which calls for a comprehensive plan to meet the needs of English learners, immigrant students, standard English learners, homeless students and all low performing subgroups. This required plan will provide specific action steps to improve instruction for special needs students.

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding of and sensitivity to issues of race, class, gender, language and disability and the way they impact classroom instruction and learning opportunities for students

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding of content area concepts and skills

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of instructional strategies for English learners, standard English Learners, students with disabilities

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of instructional strategies for underperforming students including English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of best practices for at-risk students

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of instructional strategies for gifted students

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of project-based learning activities

· Expand and deepen teacher and administrator understanding and use of portfolios

· Develop teacher and administrator understanding of the District’s framework for implementing all policies practices and procedures:

o Vision

o Mission

o Curriculum

o Pedagogy

o Culturally relevant and linguistically responsive instruction

o Adult learning

o High expectations for all students

o Expectations for academic mastery for all students

o Attitude and motivation strategies appropriate to adolescents

b. Build Capacity Across Roles to Support Effective Teaching (Required)

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Identify and use a set of processes and materials to ensure that those who serve in a coaching and/or supervisory role develop knowledge of and ability to engage in

o Assessing the quality of instruction provided to English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

o Assessing the quality of the learning environment provided English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

o Reducing the disproportionate number of African-American students identified as students with disabilities with the eligibility of Emotional Disturbance (Modified Consent Decree, Outcome 4)

o Quantitative and qualitative data analysis

o Establishing standards for high quality instruction for English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities and all other students

o Developing professional learning communities

o Facilitation

o Culturally relevant and linguistically responsive instruction

o Questioning

o Coaching approaches

o Inquiry process

o Providing formative and summative feedback

o Classroom observations

· Ensure that administrators, facilitators for learning teams and members of learning teams are trained and supported in developing skills to

o Build trust

o Negotiate complex issues which surface multiple points of view

o Work through disagreements to develop conditions for collaborative culture

o Develop collaborative adult learning environments

o Ensure that schools have multidisciplinary teams to focus on students at-risk of dropping out of school

§ Develop Coordination of Services Teams (COST) Coordination of services is a systematic process that collects and reviews a variety of information, identifies problems, develops solutions, creates intervention plans, and utilizes tracking and monitoring procedures to ensure effective delivery of services to students. Coordination of services should be thought of as a process rather than an intervention.

§ Implement Student Success Teams (SST) The Student Success Team (SST) process is a strength-based inquiry and treatment pedagogy. It is a problem-solving and coordinating approach that helps students, families, teachers, counselors, and administrators to seek positive solutions for maximizing a student’s potential.

o Assess existing services to identify service gaps

c. Build Student Capacity to Self-monitor, Apply Learning Strategies and Sustain Learning (Required)

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Student Accountability

o Prepare students to be accountable for their own learning

§ Learn and consistently use effective processes for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data

§ Teach and use effective data processes with students

§ Use rubrics to understand learning expectations and guide own learning

· Develop student understanding and skills toward

o A-G Requirements

o Passing CAHSEE

o Self-autonomy

o Self-advocacy

o Student-led conferences

o Collaborative and team learning

o Demonstrating proficiency

Strategy Three: Leadership

Strategy 3: Build school and District leadership teams that share common beliefs, values, and high expectations for all adults and students and that support a cycle of continuous improvement to ensure high-quality instruction in their schools (Required)

Rationale: Effective school improvement depends upon individuals and teams having, learning, and exhibiting strong leadership skills honed through professional development; leaders modeling desired behaviors for their colleagues; leaders providing and experiencing mentoring and on-going, meaningful coaching; leaders creating systemic career paths for professionals and implementing comprehensive staffing plans.

Tactics

a. Build Capacity of Administrative and Other School Leaders (Required)

Justification: Transformational leaders need a strongly focused program to define, sharpen and apply critical skill sets in their everyday work with staff, students and stakeholders. Many of our current administrators and other school leaders have had limited experience and focused training to best meet the needs and challenges faced each day. It is essential that the District generate the time and specific training modules to assist these leaders with their development and application of expanded skill sets.

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Ensure that administrators are provided with the time and expectation that they will engage in intensive leadership training to improve teaching and learning through the following components

o Improving the quality of instruction

o Collaborating with directors, other administrators, teachers, students, parents and community leaders

o Modeling and coaching so leadership teams can come together to form and perform as a genuine team

o Assisting in developing school and District meeting schedule and processes to enhance communications with and engagement of the entire school community

o Sharing of best practices

o Articulating with families of schools

o Teambuilding

· Expand and deepen administrators’ understanding and ability to

o Build a shared culture and philosophy of

§ High expectations for all

§ Honesty

§ Trust

§ Ethical behavior

§ Self-discipline

§ Integrity

§ Openness

§ Quality

§ Collaboration

§ Achievement

§ Feedback

§ Internal accountability

§ Reciprocal accountability

o Model instructional leadership

§ Develop and sustain an expectation for improvement in instructional practice by all members of the school community including staff, teachers, students, and parents

o Distribute leadership responsibility and accountability across all members of the school community including staff, teachers, students, and parents

· Provide and require professional development for administrators on

o Supervision of instruction

§ Assessing the quality of instruction provided to English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

§ Assessing the quality of the learning environment provided to English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities

§ Quantitative and qualitative data analysis

§ Establishing standards for high quality instruction for English learners, standard English learners, and students with disabilities and all other students

§ Developing professional learning communities

§ Facilitation

§ Questioning

§ Coaching approaches

§ Inquiry process

§ Providing formative and summative feedback

§ Classroom observations

o Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Strategies

§ Understanding how graduation rates are calculated and how they affect API.

§ How to identify and assess students who are exhibiting academic and behavioral indicators of potential school failure

§ Increase knowledge of academic and support systems available such as Diploma Project Advisers

§ Increase awareness of Educational Alternative options for students not finding success at the traditional school

§ The importance of recovering students that have left school without earning a diploma (students on potential dropout lists)

o Evaluation of staff using the District’s Stull Evaluation Procedures

o Implementation of all necessary operational matters, differentiating between good management and effective leadership

· Provide coaches for leadership teams

· Promote professional work attire for all administrators, teachers, and staff to serve as role models for students

b. Create a Career Path and Staffing Plan for Effective School Administrative Leadership (Required)

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Assign Principals and Assistant Principals to high priority schools who possess a clearly defined skill set and experience and who focus on

o Improving the quality of instruction

o Creating adult learning communities

o Engaging the community

o Fostering school-wide improvement

· Establish career pathways that include multiple experiences with demonstrated candidate capacity to significantly improve student achievement

· Build explicit, formalized non-administrative paths to leadership opportunities for teachers who want to remain teachers

· Build explicit, formalized career and leadership pathways for teachers who do want to become administrators

Strategy Four: Parent and Community Engagement

Strategy 4: Build at each school a community of informed and empowered parents, teachers, staff, and community partners who work collaboratively to support high-quality teaching and learning (Required)

Rationale: High priority schools with students at-risk benefit from a strong infrastructure of community resources and available services, supportive and informed extended family structures, as well as a melding of school, family, and students into a caring community of learners. Schools must provide environments that invite and nurture parents and other stakeholders to become active partners in their children’s learning. The National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs include the areas of Communicating, Parenting, Student Learning, Volunteering, School Decision Making, and Collaborating with the Community.

Tactics:

a. Move Beyond Parent Involvement to Authentic Parent Engagement (Required)

Justification: The benefit of engaged parents to student achievement is documented in numerous studies. Decades of research show that when parents are involved students have higher grades, test scores, and graduation rates, better school attendance, increased motivation, better self-esteem, lower rates of suspension, decreased use of drugs and alcohol and fewer instances of violent behavior. In lower performing schools there is a correlation with parents lacking authentic engagement.

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

• Expand and deepen administrators’ and staffs’ knowledge and ability to

o Create a customer service driven, warm and welcoming environment at the school

o Interface between internal and external constituents

o Build at each school a community of informed stakeholders, including parents, teachers, administrators, and the community

o Create parent accountability to support student learning and academic success

· Implement a variety of modes for improved communication between schools and families

· Provide training and opportunities for parents to

o Be effective participants in the leadership, governance and decision-making of the school

o Provide effective support to their children in the learning process including but not limited to the following

§ Parent/teacher/student compacts

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

· Create a parent-community liaison position to coordinate volunteers and optimize the sharing of parent and community assets across the entire school community

· Provide a Parent Center and support service personnel to meet the identified needs of the school community with options including but not limited to the following

o Provide parent classes (adult education, university outreach, community organizations)

o Expand school based health clinic programs and/or provide mobile medical/dental services

o Provide CAHSEE information classes for parents

o Provide courses to enable parents to support the instructional needs of their children such as graduation requirements

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Hold monthly Parent/Community Advisory Council (PCAC) meetings with Local District staff

· Ensure School Site Council and other standing school committees are in place, meet regularly, and have adequate parent representation

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

· Hold twice a year parent conference (guest speakers, workshops, professional development)

· Create a formal parent volunteer program

· Invite parents to school to participate in a classroom lesson at least once each semester to experience how and what students are learning

· Provide “office hours” with posted times for parents and students to meet with teachers, counselors, and administrators

· Provide resource guidebooks listing on and off campus resources

· Provide parents information on the various alternative educational options available to their children

b. Provide Parent and Community Engagement Support to Teachers and Administrators (Required)

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Provide school staff with required training on effective parent engagement

· Provide teachers and administrators with an opportunity to learn additional languages and cross cultural communication skills in order to better communicate with students and families

· Make available translation services, both oral and written, that are adequate to meet District-wide requirements

· Implement I-Parent as a component of Integrated Student Information System (ISIS)

Justification: I-Parent is a portal into ISIS wherein parents can access pertinent student information, e.g. student attendance, student assignments, etc.

c. Provide Structure for Community-based Support

Justification: Students who attend low performing schools often benefit from strong infrastructure of resources and available services. There is a correlation between improving student achievement and assuring social service needs are met.

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

o Develop and implement mentor relationships, especially for students who may be in foster homes and other “non-traditional” family settings, to support improved student achievement

o Build partnerships with institutions of higher education to create skill training, certification, advanced course credit opportunities

o Develop, either at the Local or Central district level, a map of community resources, including programs and services provided by all sectors (e.g. map all health care, DMH mental health contractor sites, information on accessing care, etc.)

o Create multi-agency wrap around health and human service and parent service one-stop support environment at each family of schools

o Create events that bring community organizations, service providers, and parents to schools to learn about services in the school and the community

o Create a parent blog on the individual school websites where issues can be addressed

o Partner with organizations that build parent capacity and provide appropriate training

Strategy Five: Physical and Emotional Safety

Strategy 5: Build school environments where students and adults are physically and emotionally safe and secure and, as a result, where learning opportunities and personal achievement can be optimized for all (Required)

Rationale: School environments must be safe and secure at all times so that staff and students have the appropriate setting for effective teaching, learning, and co-curricular activities. Students need to be in school on a regular basis and on time so as to maximize their learning, to develop personal discipline, and to be prepared for workforce demands.

Tactics:

a. Engage People in Productive and Supportive School Cultures that demonstrate respect for all (Required)

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Build relationships and sense of ownership for all students’ learning for the members of the Board of Education, the Local District Superintendents and Central Office administrators, remembering that the individual and collective environment of emotional and physical safety is modeled by all of our behaviors, including those at the top of the organization

• Support administrators, teachers, staff, students, and parents in identifying and solving safety issues and receiving training to address safety issues
• Develop and implement a school to home connection with foster and group homes that will provide a safety net for the students and provide immediate information to new sites if the students move around within the district

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

• Fully implement the LAUSD District Foundation Policy: School-wide Positive Behavior Support (adopted 03/07) at school site level
• Fully implement Dropout Prevention and Recovery Strategies (bulletin 3720.0)
• Fully implement behavioral support strategies and alternatives to suspension for at risk learners (Modified Consent Decree, Outcome 5)
• Fully implement the Consolidated Safe and Healthy School Plan (CSHS Rev. 07/07) at school site level
• Integrate students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers (Modified Consent Decree, Outcome 6 & 7)
• Improve student and staff attendance
• Design and implement protocols that ensure seamless, articulated transitions for students from elementary to middle and from middle to high school
• Address conflicts that underlie the interactions among students and between students and adults
• Include timely and clear information processes so that adults who have referred students out for services receive communication of where the student is in the process
• Provide structured advisory periods
• Move the role of counselors beyond “student program schedulers” by having them team with teachers to promote the mental health and social well-being of students
• Develop and implement
• Human relations programs (be certain to address issues of stereotyping, bias, and diversity), and race relations programs
• Effective relationships/expectations between school police and school staffs

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

• Redesign the process and delivery of student support services, including communications and coordination, roles and responsibilities

• Ensure adequate safety and security personnel, identified by uniform with defined roles

o Security guards

o Campus aides

· Require student uniforms

b. Seek additional partners to expand services and supports to schools

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Develop a student mentoring program with community partners that include private sector organizations

· Assign adults – including community/business volunteers/mentors – to students who will continue with them through their high school career

· Engage private sector organizations and businesses to formally align with LAUSD’s small learning communities

· Work with the City and County to ensure safe student passage to and from school

Strategy Six: Organizational and Support Structures

Strategy 6: Design and implement District and school organizational and support structures to improve school performance (Required)

Rationale: The district needs to provide adequate and timely support to the schools and to the students in order to ensure that the school site plans, new strategies and tactics are implemented fully, and that progress is measured and reported on a scheduled basis.

Tactics:

a. Implement Organizational Structures that Support Teaching and Learning

Responsibility: District Action Steps (Required)

Overarching District Governing Structure (Required)

· The schools remain in the Local District “family of schools” to assure articulation, coordination, and ongoing support as provided by the Local Districts

· A supervisory ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 (director to principals) shall be established and dedicated to these schools

o Build the capacity of principals to provide leadership that leads to improved teaching and student learning

o Work in a close, collaborative and supervisory relationship with each school to assure that the SPSA plans are customized for each school based on the differential needs of each school and all plans are implemented

o Ensure the specific needs of the school are met by working directly with identified point people in each major department (e.g., procurement, human resources, maintenance, professional development) in Central Office and Local District for specific on-demand, and on-time services to be delivered

· Appoint a Senior Deputy Superintendent to

o Build the capacity of Local District Superintendents to provide leadership to principals that leads to improved teaching and student learning

o Lead, coordinate, and supervise the Local District Superintendents through implementation and accountability of the District and school reforms on a daily basis

o Establish growth models and standards in each of the High Priority schools with individualized metrics used to measure progress

§ Use objectives that are measurable to monitor each school

§ Report progress of the schools in the District to the community and General Superintendent on a quarterly basis

School Level Structure (Required)

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

• Fully implement Small Learning Communities and Personal Learning Environments at the school sites
• Implement a high priority schools staffing program at all identified schools
• Ensure consistency of selection of highly qualified teachers, administrators and staff

o Stakeholders, faculty, staff, parents, and students participate in interviews of prospective school administrators

• Ensure stability of high performing teachers, administrators, and staff
• Ensure all positions are filled with highly qualified and effective personnel on a timely basis, avoiding vacancies

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

· Create a classified position that functions as a Business Manager, where appropriate, to handle operational support at school sites

Justification: Some principals in complex schools spend an inordinate amount of time on operational issues other than instruction. A business manager could provide some relief in this area.

· Provide for the differentiated staffing and support of High Priority schools along a continuum of school needs

b. Use Time to Support Teaching and Learning

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Structure meeting time for teachers who share students to ensure that they can work collaboratively to address the emotional, behavioral, and instructional needs of students

· Ensure building administrators, staff, and teachers are on site during school day and off campus infrequently

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

· Provide for flexibility in the school calendar, bell schedule, and collaboration time for teachers, appropriate to the school site needs

• Early or staggered starting times
• Block scheduling
• Mandatory coaching days
• 4X4 scheduling
• Multiple lunch periods
• Provide extended day opportunities for but not limited to the following
• Professional development
• Teacher collaboration
• Parent engagement
• Ensure that students are provided with maximum learning time by
• Ending the year-round schedule, where possible (Include utilizing available space at neighboring schools)
• Implementing multi-flex schedules (school days that begin and end at different times for different sets of students)
• Extending the school day so as to reduce class sizes in core areas
• Extending the school year to reduce learning loss
• Scheduling organized athletics after school in order to avoid taking students out of class during the day
• Providing multiple opportunities for intervention by scheduling it before, during, and after school
• Implementing 9th grade houses, where feasible, for students to have the personalized attention they need for attention to their learning needs
• Providing a formal transition program for all entering 6th and 9th grade students at all middle and high schools

c. Implement Organizational Structures to Support Teaching and Learning

Responsibility: School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

• Implement the Dropout Recovery Program for middle and high school students (Modified Consent Decree, Outcomes 3 & 4)

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

· Provide department chairs with a period off in order for them to provide academic support

• Provide full-time school support personnel such as nurses, school psychologists, PSA Counselors, and Diploma Project Advisors to support students at-risk
• Improve counselor ratios to students with special attention to the needs of English learners, standard English learner, students with disabilities, and at-risk students
• Provide new teachers with mentors to assist them in achieving excellence as quickly as possible
• Provide coordinators at each school to assist in the collection and use of data to improve instruction and student learning and achievement
• Design and implement protocols that ensure seamless, articulated transitions for students from elementary school to middle school and middle school to high school

d. Provide Facilities that Support Teaching and Learning

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

• Provide on-time, on demand maintenance and operations response and completion times
• Improve condition of facilities
• Ensure custodial staff maintain the cleanliness of the school campus

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

• Create local schools of choice (satellite small learning communities, super magnets, small schools) to reduce overcrowding in schools by attracting students to locations where feasible
• Increase availability of athletic facilities to support after school sports events and practices

e. Ensure the Strategic Use of Financial Resources are anchored in the Strategic Plan for High Priority Schools

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

• Make the budget/spending reports transparent to stakeholders
• Align all sources of revenue with priorities in the Strategic Plan for High Priority Schools

f. Use Technology to Support Learning and Promote Organizational Effectiveness

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required

• Use available data systems to collect data to identify and serve at-risk students
• Develop a student tracking mechanism to accurately measure the number of students graduating
• Fully implement ISIS to track students pre-K through Adult School
• Provide professional development to ensure accurate input of student data

Responsibility: Options for School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Optional)

• Provide a telecommunications system that enables school administrators and teachers to provide specific information to parents in a timely manner
• Use I-Parent component of ISIS to communicate with parents
• Use technology more to support instruction, including the possibility of distance learning opportunities
  Strategy Seven: Performance Reporting, Accountability, and Incentives

Strategy 7: Design and implement systems of reporting, accountability, and incentives as ways to measure outcomes and promote continuous improvement (Required)

Rationale: There is a critical need to attract and maintain strong, effective staff and to provide the necessary incentives to assist with the recruitment, retention and professional growth of staff at these priority schools. Progress needs to be measured against specified targets so as to assure that the schools are meeting expectations and standards set at the federal, state, and district levels. Frequent reporting of the schools’ progress toward meeting their set targets makes the process of accountability transparent to the stakeholders. The quarterly reporting system allows for mid course corrections and long term growth.

Tactics:

a. Build on and Ensure the Use of Systems of Reporting and Accountability (Required)

Justification: The cornerstone of this plan is the development of school specific indicators of progress with measurable targets and regular, quarterly public reporting of the school’s status. Currently, no such specific, quarterly, transparent reporting system is in effect. Analysis of data, the ongoing modification of action steps based on the data, and monitoring student and school progress while providing feedback to stakeholders ensures a focus on results and the processes leading to those results.

Responsibility: District Action Steps (Required)

· Report publicly, on a quarterly basis, the progress of each school on specific indicators of achievement pertinent to the school single plan (supported by the Division of Accountability and System-wide Performance)

· Develop accountability measures/indicators for each school that will use qualitative and quantitative data to measure change in teaching and learning (supported by the Performance Measurement and Accountability System)

o Internal, reciprocal, and external forms of accountability will be applied

o Data to be examined may include but will not be limited to

§ Instruction

§ Professional learning opportunities for adults

§ School environment

§ Parent opportunities for engagement

§ Community engagement

§ Graduation data disaggregated by all subgroups

§ CAHSEE disaggregated by all subgroups

§ California Standards Test disaggregated by all subgroups

§ Course availability for A-G

§ Lunch participation rates and student satisfaction

· Develop accountability measures/indicators of impact for the partnering agencies whom LAUSD engages for support (supported by the Performance Measurement and Accountability System)

· Define the standards for determining successful mastery of content/skills and to learn multiple ways to demonstrate mastery (provided by the Research and Evaluation Branch and the Division of Accountability and System-wide Performance)

· Create an accountability system to measure the effectiveness of parent engagement (provided by the Division of Accountability and System-wide Performance)

· Develop a system to track the causes and consequences of teacher attrition to survey and report on the conditions of teaching in LAUSD High Priority schools leading to attrition at school sites

· Develop and implement recommendations on how to improve the conditions for effective teaching and retention on teachers at the High Priority Schools (provided by the Research and Evaluation Branch and the Division of Accountability and System-wide Performance)

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Utilize ongoing multiple assessments and data analysis to inform decisions and practices to address the learning needs of all students. The multiple data sources include formal and informal assessments, formative and summative assessments, reflection, observation, and dialogue

· Expect, support, and monitor a continuous cycle of improvement, and include evaluation as part of the teaching/learning process (supported by the Performance Measurement and Accountability System)

b. Attract and Retain Personnel – Administrators

Justification: The current average length of tenure for secondary principals in the high priority schools is less than 4 years. The average amount of experience as an administrator prior to the principal position is less than 5 years. There is a need for highly experienced principals who have demonstrated success in improving lower performing schools. There is a need for sustained commitment and on-going record of the success in the school so as to bring continuity to the school site. The role of principal of a high priority school is exceptionally challenging. To attract and retain the type of individuals to lead these schools, there is a need for an aggressive campaign of recruitment, incentives, and rewards.

Responsibility: District Action Steps (Required)

• Recruit administrators

o Provide incentives that attract highly-qualified and experienced principals who have demonstrated significant improvements in secondary schools

Recommended: $5,000 “signing” bonus for newly appointed principals

o Place all Principals and Assistant Principals at High Priority Schools on A-basis to allow ample time for planning, preparation, and curriculum development

• Retain administrators

o Provide incentives to ensure that the principal maintains a long-term commitment to the school

Recommended: $5,000 bonus at the end of three years of continual service and a $3,000 bonus at the end of five years as a principal at a High Priority School

o Assuming satisfactory progress on District-identified performance indicators

• Reward administrators

o Provide incentives to all High Priority School administrators to improve school performance and student achievement

Recommended: $1,000 bonus to each administrator

o If the school makes Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and reaches its goals

• Additional incentives for administrators

o Tuition Reimbursement

o Tuition Reimbursement for administrators at a High Priority School who enroll in and earn a doctorate in an education-related degree at an accredited university and program

Recommended: a flat rate, up to $6,000, payable in three steps:

o $2,000 at the start of the degree program, with verification of enrollment

o $2,000 at advancement to candidacy, with verification from the university

o $2,000 at graduation, with diploma verification

Conditions:

o The University program must be approved in advance

o A satisfactory grade level must be maintained

o Continuous matriculation must be demonstrated

o Remain in the High Priority School for a minimum of three years; if the administrator leaves the High Priority School before the completion of three years (unless reassigned by LAUSD), for another LAUSD school, 50% must be repaid; if the administrator leaves the District, 100% must be repaid to LAUSD

c. Attract and Retain Personnel – Teachers

Justification: There is a need to assure that each school has highly qualified, highly effective teachers in all subject areas with a passion to serve in lower-performing and challenging school. Further it is essential that there is stability in the staffing with limited turnover and absenteeism in order to sustain school improvement, to build relationships between and among staff, students, and the community. This type of environment builds a culture of trust, respect and collaboration that is cultivated over time and with continuous interactions. Currently the high priority schools are characterized by frequent turnover of staff, individuals who may not be highly qualified to teach a core subject or may not be well trained or well-matched to teach in a high priority school’s culture. To attract and retain the type of individuals to teach in these schools, there is a need for an aggressive campaign of recruitment, incentives, mentoring, and rewards.

Responsibility: District Action Steps (Required)

• Expand the Priority Staffing Program to all High Priority Schools
• Ensure consistency of selection of highly qualified teachers, administrators and staff
• Ensure stability of high performing teachers, administrators, and staff
• Ensure all positions are filled with highly qualified and effective personnel on a timely basis, avoiding vacancies

• Provide incentives that attract highly-qualified teachers in critical areas of need in all schools in High Priority Schools

o $5,000 “signing” bonus for teachers with specialties in mathematics, science, and special education in all schools in low-performing status

• Provide incentives that retain highly-qualified teachers in critical areas of need

o Recommended: $5,000 bonus at the end of three years of continual service and who have demonstrated success as a teacher at a High Priority School

· Additional Incentives for Teachers

o Tuition Reimbursement

o Tuition Reimbursement for teachers at a HPS who enroll in and earn a doctorate in an education-related degree at an accredited university and program

Recommended: a flat rate, up to $6,000, payable in three steps:

o $2,000 at the start of the degree program, with verification of enrollment

o $2,000 at advancement to candidacy, with verification from the university

o $2,000 at graduation, with diploma verification

Conditions:

o The University program must be approved in advance

o A satisfactory grade level must be maintained

o Continuous matriculation must be demonstrated

o Remain in the HPS for a minimum of three years; if the teacher leaves the HPS before the completion of three years (unless reassigned by LAUSD), for another LAUSD school, 50% must be repaid; if the teacher leaves the District, 100% must be repaid to LAUSD

d. Implement school-wide incentives and recognition programs for all personnel, i.e., administrators, teachers, administrative staff, aides, cafeteria workers, custodians, students, parents, etc.

Justification: Stakeholders who through their actions exemplify a commitment to excellence and a steadfast and measurable advancement of the strategies and tactics in the High Priority Schools Strategic Plan will be publicly recognized for their dedication and hard work.

Responsibility: District and School Action Steps to be specified in “Single Plan for Student Achievement” and WASC “Self Study” (Required)

· Create models of recognition programs

o Acknowledge, celebrate and reward schools and stakeholders who meet and/or exceed the school’s annual indicators of progress

o Acknowledge, celebrate and reward schools and stakeholders who make substantial progress towards meeting goals in their Single Plans for Student Achievement

Conclusion

As stated in the Introduction, school improvement is a difficult process, requires hard work, and takes time. It is a student by student, classroom by classroom, grade by grade, school by school endeavor. A work plan, such as this Strategic Plan – and I am aware that there have been many – is only as valid and meaningful as how the plan is implemented, fully with painstaking attention to detail, and with full transparency and reporting of successes and misses. What distinguishes this plan from so many other well intentioned efforts must be its implementation and capacity building at the school sites and Local Districts so as to maintain the efforts relentlessly and to assure the resources are adequate and sustainable.

The schools, Local District Superintendents, the Central Office support and leadership staff as well as the Board need to face the future together – mutually supporting, interdependent, and accountable. Without a tightly coupled and collaborative relationship, implementation and success will be spotty. Going forward in a unified manner to improve the conditions for teaching and learning in our schools as a whole is imperative. The outcomes are our legacy. Together we go forward to the future. Otherwise, we default to the status quo. This is non-negotiable.

Appendix A

High Priority Schools

High Schools	API 2007	PI Status
Bell Senior High	580	5*H
Belmont Senior High	524	5***
Crenshaw Senior High	524	5***
Dorsey (Susan Miller) Senior High	514	5***
Fremont (John C.) Senior High	492	5****
Garfield (James A.) Senior High	553	5***
Huntington Park Senior High	543	5***
Jefferson (Thomas) Senior High	457	5****
Jordan (David Starr) Senior High	526	5***
Lincoln (Abraham) Senior High	593	5**
Los Angeles Senior High	549	5***
Manual Arts Senior High	513	5***
Roosevelt (Theodore) Senior High	557	5****
South Gate Senior High	565	5
Sylmar Senior High	587	5***
Washington (George) Preparatory High		5***
Wilson (Woodrow) Senior High	582	5****

Middle Schools	API 2007	PI
Audubon Middle	568	5***
Bethune (Mary McLeod) Middle	570	5***
Carver (George Washington) Middle	549	5***
Clay (Henry) Middle	535	4
Cochran Middle	580	5****
Drew (Charles) Middle	522	5***
Edison (Thomas A.) Middle	542	5
Gage (Henry T.) Middle	561	5***
Gompers (Samuel) Middle	541	5****
Harte (Bret) Preparatory Intermediate	557	5***
Hollenbeck Middle	589	5***
Los Angeles Academy Middle	578	5***
Mann (Horace) Junior High	521	5****
Markham (Edwin) Middle	519	5***
Muir (John) Middle	552	5***
Stevenson (Robert Louis) Middle	593	4
Virgil Middle	585	5***

Appendix B

Facilities

Summary

The New School Construction Program is a multi-year capital improvement program that is the major component of Los Angeles Unified School District’s mission to create neighborhood schools and relieve overcrowding by ending involuntary busing and returning students to a traditional two-semester calendar. The program will deliver over 132 new schools and 66 additions by 2012. To date, the New School Construction Program has completed 68 new schools and 57 additions. State and local bond measures as well as other funding sources finance this program.

Twenty-three of the schools that are to receive long-term relief from their multi-track calendars are also “High Priority Schools” due to their PI5 status. All twenty-three reside in five of the eight local Districts. Over the past two weeks, Planning and Development held meetings to identify any short-term opportunities that would allow any of the multi-track High Priority Schools to convert to a traditional two-semester calendar by the 2008/2009 academic year until the long-term relief was constructed. The meetings were attended by the local District superintendent, the local District directors of education, School Management Services, Master Planning and Demographics, Existing Facilities and New Construction. In all, only five such opportunities exist. The results summarized below.

Local District 3

Previous discussions with Local District 3 administrators have taken place to help L.A. High School achieve a single track calendar.

o L.A. HS (-732)

· The Innovation Fund will set aside $300,000 to help fund the creation of an SLC for L.A. HS on the campus of Wilshire Crest ES. The initial estimate for this project is $1.1 million dollars.

· This SLC will house up to 150 students, solving for part of L.A. High School’s seat shortage.

· An additional (-580) are needed to take L.A. High School to single track.

· Through boundary changes with surrounding high schools, such as Fairfax HS or Crenshaw HS, L.A. High School could potentially go single track.

NEXT STEPS

· Existing Facilities is working with Local District 3 to bring this project to the board and execute this plan. The Innovation Fund is a participant on this project.

· Existing Facilities will consult with School Management Services Master Planning and Demographics to assess whether the boundary changes can be achieved.

Local District 4

Meeting took place October 18, 2007

• Reviewed Belmont HS; Franklin HS; Virgil MS
• Belmont HS (-797)
• Franklin HS (-200)
• Virgil MS (-475)

• If Vista Hermosa opens with 2,500 seats then Belmont HS, reconfigured for 6^th—12^th grades can potentially go single track.
• Staff will need to evaluate the number of kids in the area that opt out with permits (PWT) to ensure that there are enough seats set aside in case those students return to the Belmont HS and/or Vista Hermosa HS attendance areas.
• Additionally, Virgil MS can potentially go single track if the 6^th and maybe 7^th graders attend Belmont Secondary School.
• Franklin HS may get relief through boundary changes with Lincoln HS, when Lincoln HS gets relief from Central LA HS #9 (450 North Grand site).
• Although unpopular, Franklin HS can also go single track if the magnet program is relocated to another site.

NEXT STEPS

• Local District 4 staff and LDFD will walk the Belmont HS campus to assess what improvement need to take place to accommodate middle school students.
• Local District 4 staff will follow up with School Management and Master Planning and Demographics to assess whether boundary changes can be achieved for Franklin HS.

Local District 5

Meeting took place October 15, 2007

• Reviewed Garfield HS; Jefferson HS; Lincoln HS; Roosevelt HS; Santee HS; Carver MS: Hollenbeck MS; L.A. Academy MS; and Stevenson MS
• Garfield HS (-1755)
• Jefferson HS (+115)
• Lincoln HS (-206)
• Roosevelt HS (-1440)
• Santee HS (-1469)
• Carver MS (-574)
• Hollenbeck MS (-149)
• L.A. Academy MS (-540)
• Stevenson MS (-359)

• There are no facilities solutions or opportunities to bring any of these schools to a single-track calendar by 2008-2009.
• Staff discussed an instructional calendar option of providing a morning and afternoon programs however; it is not a favorable solution for Local District 5.

NEXT STEPS:

None

Local District 6

Meeting took place October 16, 2007

• Reviewed Bell HS; Huntington Park HS; and Gage MS
• Bell HS (-1755)
• Huntington Park HS (-1635)
• Gage MS (-758)

• There are no facilities solutions or opportunities to bring any of these schools to a single-track calendar by 2008-2009.
• The Local District staff discussed the pros and cons for Bell HS and Huntington Park HS to have two administrations, one for Track A and another for Tracks B & C, and operate two schools on the campus at different times of the year, with a slight over-lap during part of the school year.
• Gage MS will get relief in 2010 and then again in 2012
• Local District 6 staff inquired whether secondary school charters could potentially provide for additional seats in the short term to allow for the LAUSD schools to go single track next year.

NEXT STEPS:

None

Local District 7

Meeting took place October 18, 2007

· Reviewed Fremont HS, Manual Arts HS, Bethune MS, Drew MS, Edison MS, and Muir MS

o Fremont HS (-1816)

o Manual Arts HS (-1209)

o Bethune MS (-607)

o Drew MS (-673)

o Edison MS (-402)

o Muir MS (-540)

· There are no facilities solutions or opportunities to bring Fremont HS; Manual Arts HS; Bethune MS; Drew MS; and Edison MS to a single-track calendar by 2008-2009.

· OPTION 1: Muir MS can expand its campus to the adjacent Budlong ES as long as the charter school currently housed at the Budlong ES campus is noticed a year in advance and relocated elsewhere.

o The Parks/Huerta PC can potentially house all of the Kinder and 1^st graders from Budlong; Budlong ES can serve 2^nd-5^th, and then Muir MS can extend onto that campus to serve 6^th-8^th.

NEXT STEPS:

· Local District 7 staff and LDFD will visit the Muir MS, Budlong ES, and Parks/Huerta PC sites to address the scope and budget of OPTION 2.

Appendix C

Common Characteristics of High Performing Schools: What the Research Tells Us

Clear and Shared Focus High Standards and Expectations Effective School Leadership High Levels of Collaboration and Communication Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Aligned with Standards Frequent Monitoring of Teaching and Learning Focused Professional Development Supportive Learning Environment High Levels of Community and Parent Involvement

Becoming a high-performing school takes many years of hard work. There is no silver bullet - no single thing a school can do to ensure high student performance. Research has found that high-performing schools have a number of common characteristics. A school may be doing well in some areas but need help in others. Nine characteristics are discussed in the following resource list following the brief descriptions of the common characteristics of high performing schools. This resource list provides the names of key websites, books, reports, and articles that can be used to help schools improve in each of the characteristics of high-performing schools.

The resources in this list address the key characteristics of high-performing schools. They provide an effective starting point for busy educators, parents and partners who have limited time for reading. These resources are also useful for school study groups.

A Clear and Shared Focus

Everybody knows where they are going and why. The focus is on achieving a shared vision, and all understand their role in achieving the vision. The focus and vision are developed from common beliefs and values, creating a consistent direction for all involved.

SAMPLE INDICATORS: All participants can articulate the common purpose. The use of time, materials, and professional development activities are aligned with common focus. Learning goals are developed and prioritized according to district guidelines. There is a commitment to long-range, continuous improvement. The common focus is directly related to assignment of staff time and resource allocation. All staff can articulate how the school is improving student learning. Staff study test results and establish a plan to attack areas of weakness. Professional development reflects the National Staff Development Council Standards. There is a sustained emphasis on learning.

High Standards and Expectations Teachers and staff believe that all students can learn and meet high standards. While recognizing that some students must overcome significant barriers, these obstacles are not seen as insurmountable. Students are offered an ambitious and rigorous course of study. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Instruction is focused on high expectations that implements powerful teaching and learning strategies including action inquiry, in-depth learning, and performance assessments. Instruction is focused on high expectations that implements powerful teaching and learning strategies including action inquiry, in-depth learning, and performance assessments. Staff is consistent and purposeful in cross-grade-level conversations that result in an alignment of the curriculum within and among the content areas. Staff focuses on commonalities that cut across grades and subjects. All students participate in and can master academically rigorous courses. There is a clear link between student assessment and instructional activities. Teachers focus on competence, not coverage. Students are aware of expectations, produce quality work, and present to real audiences. Expectations connect to the real world, and students are role models and peer educators. Staff and students articulate their belief in their capacity for success. Instruction is personalized and encompasses a broad, concerted, and systematic emphasis on motivation as well as knowledge and skills. All participants can articulate the common purpose. The use of time, materials, and professional development activities are aligned with common focus. Learning goals are developed and prioritized according to district guidelines. There is a commitment to long-range, continuous improvement. The common focus is directly related to assignment of staff time and resource allocation. All staff can articulate how the school is improving student learning. Staff study test results and establish a plan to attack areas of weakness. Professional development reflects the National Staff Development Council Standards. There is a sustained emphasis on learning.

Effective School Leadership

Effective instructional and administrative leadership is required to implement change processes. Effective leaders are proactive and seek help that is needed. They also nurture an instructional program and school culture conducive to learning and professional growth. Effective leaders can have different styles and roles-teachers and other staff, including those in the district office, often have a leadership role. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Administrative Leaders Facilitate the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. Advocate, nurture, and sustain a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. Ensure management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Collaborate with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. Understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. Facilitate development and implementation of the school improvement plan with aligned professional development that supports vision and operational philosophy. Teacher Leaders Use research-based instructional program models researched-based practices. Model team learning approach with a focus on planning lessons, assessing students, and group problem solving. Mentor other teachers. Support a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Collaborate with parents, families, and other community members involved in the student learning environment. Student Leaders Students work to remove barriers to learning. Students are role models and peer tutors.

High Levels of Collaboration and Communication

There is strong teamwork among teachers across all grades and with other staff. Everybody is involved and connected to each other, including parents and members of the community, to identify problems and work on solutions. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Structure and time for collaboration are determined and allocated. Staff is highly involved in the school improvement effort. Models for decision making, problem solving, and conflict resolution are commonly known, used, and evident in the school. Schools and community members work together. School teams reflect the diversity of the school community. School teams collaborate with parents and community to support student learning.

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Aligned with Standards

The planned and actual curriculum is aligned with the essential academic learning requirements. Research-based teaching strategies and materials are used. Staff understands the role of classroom and state assessments, what the assessments measure, and how student work is evaluated. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Curriculum is aligned with state and local requirements. Adopted curriculum materials and models are research based. Instruction is focused on high expectations. Instruction is personalized and encompasses broad, concerted curriculum materials and models are research based. Instruction is focused on high expectations. Instruction is personalized and encompasses broad, concerted systematic emphasis on motivation as well as knowledge and skills. Instruction is modified based on student achievement data. There is a clear link between student assessment and instructional activities. Students are directly involved in the assessment of their learning.

Frequent Monitoring of Teaching and Learning

A steady cycle of different assessments identify students who need help. More support and instruction time is provided, either during the school day or outside normal school hours, to students who need more help. Teaching is adjusted based on frequent monitoring of student progress and needs. Assessment results are used to focus and improve instructional programs. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Monitoring of Teaching: Teachers modify classroom practice based on student achievement data. Classroom assessment is aligned with the curriculum. The adopted curriculum is taught and assessments are used to identify needs. Instruction is aligned to needs. Teachers are assigned to areas in which they are endorsed. Experienced teachers are paired to mentor Jess-experienced teachers. Teachers demonstrate high skill proficiency as outlined in the National Board Standards. Principal is in the classroom often to evaluate implementation of best practice (Anderson, et al.). Teaching and learning are the major focus areas of the staff supervision and evaluation process. There is adequate time for reflection and review. Teachers/schools implement a record-keeping system for student achievement data to assist with short- and long-range planning. Teachers allocate all instructional minutes to instruction. Monitoring of Student Learning: Goals for achievable education outcomes are clear and explicit. Teachers have been trained and use periodic assessment to make instructional decisions. Student progress and areas for improvement are shared regularly with parents. Specific test results are closely analyzed to guide improvement efforts. Students who are in need of extra help are identified. Multiple assessments are used to measure student progress. Every student has a strong personal relationship with at least one adult in the school. Students are engaged in active participation, exploration, and research.

Focused Professional Development

A strong emphasis is placed on training staff in areas of most need. Feedback from learning and teaching focuses extensive and ongoing professional development. The support is also aligned with the school or district vision and objectives. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Professional development is based on a needs assessment and sustained over time. Deliberate decisions are made to ensure resources are allocated to maintain and sustain professional development. Leaders have focused much of their time in planning, implementing and monitoring professional development activities. Professional development engages all stakeholders. Professional development reflects the National Staff Development Council standards. Professional development models best practice instruction. A variety of professional development offerings are customized and based on individual and organizational needs.

Supportive Learning Environment

The school has a safe, civil, healthy and intellectually stimulating learning environment. Students feel respected and connected with the staff and are engaged in learning. Instruction is personalized and small learning environments increase student contact with teachers. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Increases in student's bonding to school (opportunities, recognition, skills). There is a warm and friendly atmosphere. There is a reduction in discipline referrals (number, severity). Test scores are improving (norm and criterion-referenced). There is low staff turnover. Students and teachers are listening to others; respectful and courteous. Students take personal responsibility for their learning and behavior. Each student is supported by an adult advocate. Each student is part of a learning community where s/he is well known by the adults and other students in the community.

High Level of Parent and Community Involvement There is a sense that all have a responsibility to educate students, not just the teachers and staff in schools. Parents, businesses, social service agencies, and community colleges/universities all play a vital role in this effort. SAMPLE INDICATORS: Parents and community members have an active voice and involvement in the school improvement process. Staff understands the importance of parent and community involvement in the school and creates opportunities for their involvement. Staff creates and uses business partnerships to expand the curricula. Parents are assisted with understanding child and adolescent development and child-rearing skills. Parents and community members are recruited, trained, and provided a variety of activities. There is frequent and ongoing communication using a variety of means (e.g., newsletters, meetings, conferences, electronic). Diverse opportunities exist for parent involvement (e.g., committees, volunteering, monitoring homework). A high degree of parent participation and involvement are noted at open houses, PTA events, and other school activities. Parents and community members have an active voice and involvement in the planning and implementation of the parent training program.

RESOURCES

Adelman, H. and Taylor, L. (1999) New Directions in Enhancing Educational Results: Policymaker's Guide to Restructuring Student Support Resources to Address Barriers to Learning, The Center for Mental Health in Schools, UCLA, Los Angeles Baker, E., Herman, J., and Bain, J. What Makes a Good School? A Guide for Parents Seeking Excellence in Education. (undated) Los Angeles, CA: The Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards & Student Testing. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. See chapter 11, Visions of Good Schools. Berliner, D. C. and Casanova, U. (1993). Putting Research to Work in Your School. New York: Scholastic. (1996 Renewal. Arlington, Heights, IL: IRI Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.) Bernhardt, V. L. (1998). Data Analysis for Comprehensive Schoolwide Improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. Bernhardt, V. L. (2000). Designing and Using Databases for School Improvement. Larchmont, NY. Eye on Education, Inc. Blase, J. and Kirby, P. C. (1992). Bringing Out the Best in Teachers: What Effective Principals Do. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading with Soul: An Uncommon Journey of Spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brandon. R. (2000). Impact of Peer Substance Use on Middle School Performance in Washington, Washington Kids Count, Human Services Policy Center, Evans School of Public Affairs, Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century. Report of Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carr, J. F. and Harris, D. E. (2001). Succeeding with Standards: Linking Curriculum, Assessment, and Action Planning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Conley, D. T. and Goldman, P. (1994). Facilitative Leadership. How Principals Lead without Dominating. Oregon School Study Council. 37(9). Conzemius, A. and O'Neill, J. (2001). Building Shared Responsibility for Student Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Cotton, K. (1995). Research You Can Use to Improve Results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD and Portland, OR: NWREL. Cunningham, W. G. and Gresso, D. W. (1993). Cultural Leadership. The Culture of Excellence in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Daniels, H. and Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that Matter: Six Structures for Best Practice Classrooms. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. DePorter, B., Reardon, M. and Singer-Nourie, S. (1999). Quantum Teaching: Orchestrating Student Success. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. See chapter 4, Orchestrating a Supportive Environment; chapter 9, Orchestrating Life Skills. Dietel. R. (2001, March). How is My Child Doing in School? Ten research-based ways to find out. Our Children Magazine. National Parent Teacher Association. Drake, S. M. (1993). Planning Integrated Curriculum. The Call to Adventure. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Full-Service Schools: A Revolution in Health and Social Services for Children, Youth, and Families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Education Series. Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Safe Passage: Making It Through Adolescence in a Risky Society. New York: Oxford University Press. DuFour, R. and Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work. Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington, Id.: National Educational Service and Alexandria, VA:ASCD. See chapters 4-5 on Mission and Vision/ Values and Goals. Elias, M. J. et. al. (1997). Promoting Social and Emotional Learning. Guidelines for Educators. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Freiberg, J. (Ed.) (1999). School Climate: Measuring, Improving and Sustaining Healthy Learning Environments. New York: The Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. New York: The Falmer Press. See chapter 7, The Individual and the Learning Society. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Guskey. T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press. Hawkins, J. D. (1999). Preventing Crime and Violence Through Communities That Care, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 443-458. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., and Hill, D. G. (1999). Preventing Adolescent Health-Risk Behaviors by Strengthening Protection During Childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153(3), 226-239. Henderson, A. T. and Berla, N. (Ed.) (1994). The Family is Critical to Student Achievement: A New Generation of Evidence. (4th printing 1997) Washington D. C: Center for Law and Education. Hill, B. C., Ruptic, C., and Norwick, L. (1998). Classroom-Based Assessment. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Holcomb, E. L. (2001). Asking the Right Questions. Techniques for Collaboration and School Change. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement. Rev. Ed. Austin. Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Irvin, J. L. (Ed.) (1997). What Current Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioners. Columbus, OH. National Middle School Association. Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Jenkins, L. (1997). Improving Student Learning: Applying Deming's Quality Principles in Classrooms. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality. See section II, Improving Learning; section IV, Enthusiasm Maintained; and section V, Decision Making for Improved Student Learning. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (1995). Reducing School Violence through Conflict Resolution. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Kaplan, L. S. and Owings, W. A. (2001, November). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Recommendations for Principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 85(628). Keefe. J. W., Valentine, J., Clark, D. C., and Irvin, J. L. (1994). Leadership in Middle Level Education: Leadership in Successfully Restructuring Middle Level Schools. Columbus, OH: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Kushman, J. (Ed.) (1997). Look Who's Talking Now: Student Views of Learning in Restructuring Schools. Portland. OR: Regional Educational Laboratory Network by the Restructuring Collaborative. Lewin. L. and Shoemaker, B.J. (1998). Great Performances: Creating Classroom-Based Assessment Tasks. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Lewis, A. C. and Henderson, A. T. (1998). Urgent Message: Families Crucial to School Reform. Washington, D. C. Center for Law and Education. Lieberman, A. (Ed.) (1995). The Work of Restructuring Schools: Building from the Ground Up. New York: Teachers College Press. Louis, K. S. and Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the Urban High School. What Works and Why. New York: Teachers College Press. Lynn, L. (Ed.). Powerful Designs: New approaches ignite professional learning. (1999, Summer). National Staff Development Journal. National Staff Development Council. 20(3). Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., and Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies For Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano. R. J. and Kendall, J. S. (1998). Implementing Standards-Based Education. Washington D. C.: National Education Association. McNeil, J. (1995). Curriculum: The Teacher's Initiative. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill. McTighe, J. and Ferrara, S. (1998). Assessing Learning in the Classroom. Washington D. C.: National Education Association. Merenbloom, E. Y. (1990). The Team Process: A Handbook for Teachers. (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Morrow, L. M. (Ed.) (1995). Family Literacy: Connections in Schools and Communities. International Reading Association, Inc. NASSP. (1996). Breaking Ranks. Changing an American Institution. Report of NASSP in partnership with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching on the high school of the 21st century. Alexandria, VA: NASSP. Newmann, F. M. and Associates. (1996). Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. O'Neil J. and Willis, S. (Eds.) (1998). Revitalizing the Disciplines. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Payne, R. K. (1998). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Baytown, TX: RFT Publishing Co. Payne, R. K., DeVo, P., and Smith, T. D. (2001). Bridges Out of Poverty: Strategies for Professionals and Communities. Highlands, TX: aha! Process, Inc. Popham, W. J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sagor, R. (1996). Local Control and Accountability. How to Get It, Keep It and Improve School Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. See chapter 3, The Three Building Blocks of Accountability: Vision Setting, Action Research, and Performance Assessment. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking Up the School House: How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Senge, P. et al. (2000). Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares about Education. New York: Currency / Doubleday. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency. See Part III, The Core Disciplines: Building the Learning Organization. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-Added Leadership: How to Get Extraordinary Performance in Schools. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers Shockley, B., Michalore, B., and Allen, J. B. (1995). Engaging Families: Connecting Home and School Literacy Communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sparks, D. and Hirsh, S. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD and Oxford, CA: National Staff Development Council. Starkman, N. et. al (1999). Great Places to Learn: How Asset-Building Schools Help Students Succeed. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Stiggins, R. and Knight, T. (1997). But Are They Learning: A Commonsense Parents' Guide to Assessment and Grading in Schools. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute. Stiggins, R. J. (1998). Classroom Assessment for Student Success. Washington D.C.: National Education Association. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-Involved Classroom Assessment. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Stigler, J. W. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas From the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: The Free Press Stockard, J. and Mayberry, M. (1992). Effective Educational Environments. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA. ASCD. Wilson, S. M. and Peterson, P. L. (1997, September). Theories of Learning and Teaching: What Do They Mean for Educators? U. S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., and Hyde, A. (1998). Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Staff Development: Practices that Promote Leadership in Learning Communities. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education

Web Sites

• A report from McREL's diversity roundtable. Including at-risk students in standards-based reform.
• Add It Up: Using Research to Improve Education for Low-Income and Minority Students.
• Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics (2001)
• Addressing the Challenges: What We Are Learning
• American Association of School Administrators
• American Educational Research Association
• American Federation of Teachers
• Another look at high school restructuring
• Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
• Authentic Pedagogy: Standards that Boost Student Performance
• Brief for Practitioners: Turning Around Low Performing Schools -- Implications at the School, District, and State Levels.
• Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships
• Class Size and Students At Risk; Instructional Practice and Student Behavior
• Committing to Class-Size Reduction and Finding the Resources to Implement It: A Case Study of Resource Reallocation
• Council for Exceptional Children
• Designing a Sustainable Standards-Based Assessment System
• effectiveschools.com
• Every Child Learning: Safe and Supportive Schools
• Family Involvement Guide (Washington State PTA)
• Finding Time For Professional Development; Evaluating Professional Growth And Development
• Harvard Review, past issues. September/October 1997. Six types of involvement.
• International Reading Association
• Leadership and Change Process, "Asking the Right Questions."
• Leadership and organizational vitality
• Leading Learning Communities: What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do
• National Association of Education of Young Children
• National Association of Elementary School Principals
• National Association of Secondary School Principals
• National Council of Social Studies
• National Council of Teachers of English
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
• National Education Association
• National High School Association
• National Middle School Association
• National Parent Teacher Organization
• National Resource Center for Safe Schools; National Mentoring Center
• National Science Teachers Association National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs
• NCCSR Publications. Bookmark. November 2001. Improving School Climate
• Newsletters. Policy Brief 4 Assessment and accommodation for English language learners
• Phi Delta Kappa International
• Policy Brief 23, Class Size Reduction: Lessons Learned from Experience
• Professional Development. Learning from the Best
• Professional Learning Communities: What Are They and Why Are They Important?
• Reinventing the Middle School, Middle School Journal, Sept. 2001
• Research - U.S. Department of Education Cross-Site Indexing Project
• Research you can use
• Results-oriented professional development by Thomas Guskey
• School based reform. Role of parents and community in school reform
• School Improvement Pathways Family and Community. Supporting Ways Parents and Families Can Become Involved in Schools.
• School Mental Health Project, Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor
• Social Development Research Group, U of W., David Hawkins and Richard Catalano
• Staff development. Adult Learning and Change by Jocelyn Butler
• Standards For Staff Development (revised)
• Students at the Center. School, Family, and Community Partnerships
• Studies in Education Reform: Parent and Community Involvement in Education
• Teachers of English to speakers of Other Languages
• Teachers.net
• WestEd.org

---

[1] The goal for the State is that all schools will have an API of 800 or higher by the year 2014.

[2] There are 120 schools with an API of 800 or higher when we include the independent charter schools in the District.

[3] There are 24 schools with an API of 900 or higher when we include the independent charter schools in the District.

[4] Attached, as Appendix A, is a list of the 17 middle and 17 high schools.

[5] Two of the middle schools are in Program Improvement 4 status but have APIs below 600 and are feeder middle schools for two Program Improvement 5 high schools.

[6] Elmore defines core educational practice as, “how teachers understand the nature of knowledge and the student’s role in learning, and how these ideas about knowledge and learning are manifested in teaching and classwork.” It also “includes structural arrangements of schools, such as the physical layout of classrooms, student grouping practices, teacher’s responsibilities for grouping of students, and relations among teachers in their work with their students, as well as processes for assessing student learning and communicating it to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and other interested parties” (p. 2).

[7] Annual Measurable Objectives are used to determine whether schools and districts have made their AYP pursuant to NCLB. The California AMOs are calculated by the percent of students that is required to be proficient or advanced in every subgroup on the California Standards Test in English language arts and mathematics. For high schools, the AMO is calculated based on the 10th grade CAHSEE passage rate.

[8] Program Improvement 5+++ schools are schools that have been in Program Improvement Year 5 for two years or more.

[9] Committee members included two local district superintendents, the Deputy Superintendent for Professional Learning, Development, and Leadership, the Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Accountability, the Director of the Research and Evaluation Branch, the General Counsel, and the Executive Director of the iDivision.

[10] I have moved from the language of retreat to the language of advance as our goal is to move forward aggressively in our effort to create system change.

[11] Time did not permit us to engage students in a meaningful way in this initial process. They will be involved in the implementation phase.

[12] Stakeholders should include: Teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community representatives. It may be, but should not be limited to, members of the School Site Council and other standing committees at the school.

[13] These coaches, mentors, and/or facilitators might be the same team who works with the school during the needs assessment process. It may also be that the Local District Superintendent identifies support from within the Local District or from the Central Offices. The teams or individuals will be specifically trained to support the school as it builds capacity to implement the school’s strategic plan.

[14] We will conduct a Request for Proposal process wherein we will solicit proposals from universities, foundations, and other organizations that may be selected to work with our schools in collaboratively conducting a needs assessment. They will become partners in the work at the school and will not be traditional providers who come and “do” something to the school and then leave. In some instances, these partners will stay to assist the school in building its capacity to implement the efforts derived from the needs assessment process.