Program Improvement Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions were asked at the Rep. Council Meeting; April 23, 2006.
How do we get accountability for students who test far below their ability? Or for students who make huge improvements from year to year?
The API and AYP are calculated differently.
(1) AYP only gives credit for students reaching proficiency…this is calculated every year based on the previous spring’s testing in CST (gr. 2-8) and CAHSEE (gr.10); we don’t get ‘credit’ for students making huge improvements or testing far below their ability unless they reach ‘proficient’ (350 on CST; 380 on CAHSEE).
(2) API does give credit for students making huge gains; however students ‘testing far below their ability’ is relative to their ability. For example, a normally advanced student who tests at basic might be far below his ability on that given testing day; his scores would be calculated as basic; each year the percent scoring in each performance level (FBB to Advanced) on the previous springs’ CST, CAHSEE, and CAPA are calculated and weighted to determine the API
What is actually negotiable in this process? What comes from the federal level, the state level or the district level?Federal Level: Must make ‘adequate yearly progress’ on meeting standards and feds must approve California’s accountability design for AYP; State level: design for AYP, API, standards, cutpoint for proficiency, development of technical support and mandates when a school/district enters PI; 9 Essential Program Components : instructional minutes, state-adopted and approved texts, coaching, SB472 training for teachers and administrators; collaborative time; budget; need for assessment system and pacing calendars based on state adopted-approved texts; meeting; requirement to select external entity to provide technical support District Level: identification of research-based professional development based on needs identified in analysis; parent communication; design and development of pacing calendars; selection of assessment system (IDMS Pulliam); selection of external entity team
How much of this can be skipped altogether?We have to evaluate our district in terms of the 9 Essential Program Components and address the gaps. We can skip where there are no gaps (e.g., most sites met the need for collaboration time; we already had literacy coaches or literacy liaisons in place)
How have parents been consulted? Are the parents who don’t have e-mail or internet or don’t speak English involved in this process?Parents are required to be included in the parent component of the District Academic Survey. They represented both English speakers, English learners and SPEDs; all parents received at least two Connect Ed messages in English and Spanish; parents received notification of PI in English/Spanish via mail, newsletters or through school offices as required by law; board meetings with PI presentations are recorded and broadcast on Channel 27t; we provided information over KVON and through the Napa Valley Register; a series of parent meetings was held in January; a series of three community forum meetings was held in February ( with translators); Dr. Glaser’s Parent Advisory Committee includes both English and Spanish speakers and had at least two presentations on PI; parents have been emailing and calling the Ed Center with individual questions; district office has met with parent groups at several schools.
Studies have shown parental involvement is key to success in schools. Why did we leave them out?
We did not; see above.
Napa is able (and willing) to raise money – how hard would it really be for Parent Organizations to secure that kind of funding?It would be extremely difficult to raise several million dollars necessary to sustain jobs and services year after year.
Why did the district force us to do extra meetings (with Suzie Friday) when it was NOT state mandated?Our external entity (consulting team) IS state mandated. The district is ‘forced’ (or required) to work with an external entity. Part of the Napa/Solano/Contra Costa County Academic Intervention Team’s (our external entity)’ theory of action’ is to work closely with high school English departments in a series of meetings to develop a district theory of action around implementation of a core text, pacing calendar and assessment system that they have directly developed. Absent this opportunity to be involved in these “extra meetings,” the other option would be to implement the pacing calendar and assessments that come with the program without a chance for input on alignment with NVUSD essential standards. This team has had great success with other high schools and high school districts using this process. The remaining work will be addressed by a subcommittee of 5-7 teachers from each high school. Their work the remainder of this year and next will look different from the initial meetings.
Why do you think removing electives & novels from our schools would help our students in ANY way? It kills students, parents, teachers and even school communities. This is a generalization. Per our LEA Plan (see district web site) novels are not being removed for 11 th and 12 th graders or for advanced 9 th and 10 th graders; novels are included in the core text in limited number (e.g., Romeo and Juliette and Julius Caesar); novels can be included for outside reading or extensions. An anthology includes carefully selected pieces of literature that teach a particular standard(s) well through direct instruction allowing 9 th and 10 th grade students to master skills so they are able to access a novel-based curriculum in 11 th and 12 th grades; novel-based instruction tends to focus heavily on literary analysis and word analysis/vocabulary standards (as well as some writing standards), but omits the reading comprehension standards which focus exclusively on expository text (as do the expository writing standards) and the type of writing required in junior/senior year and post-secondary work – as well as across content areas. Electives will not be removed from master schedules; they are still part of the ‘a-g’ requirements for the UC/CSU system; however, some students may take electives later in their high school careers in order to concentrate on improving reading or basic math skills at the 9 th and 10 th grades. Electives will continue to be offered and encouraged as an important part of students’ schedules.
How is it reasonable to expect the English departments at the high schools to restructure everything when we only missed by three students? NVUSD missed targets two years in a row both district wide and at each level (elementary, middle, high) for English learners and students with disabilities. It doesn’t matter if targets are missed by 3 or 300 students; with targets increasing each year, the ‘reasonable’ assumption is that we will likely continue to miss targets if systemic changes aren’t implemented.
Can this program work if students don’t show up? The graduation rate will drop, the rate of students who show up to the tests will drop as well. Won’t our district fall further into PI, if we fail to meet these requirements as well as API? This has not been the experience in California ‘to date’ with districts that have gone before us. This is speculation at this point. We will fall further into PI if we do not meet all our 42 targets this year; we will advance to Year 2 which requires full implementation of the LEA Plan. In Year 3, (unless things change) the state must take further action directly with the district (to be determined). If such trends (as you are speculating) do occur, the state and federal lawmakers will have to grapple with the ramifications of their accountability legislation.
Who was responsible for the 9 Essential Program components? At the state level? We need to understand this – specifically – Who did it?The 9 essential program components are based on extensive research as cited in the state mathematics and language arts frameworks. You need to reference the references cited in these documents. They were first articulated in the” Introduction to the Frameworks” section and first released in 1996 and 1997(after standards were adopted) and included again in the 2005 and 2006 math and ELA framework editions. The introduction includes a section called “Key Components of an Effective Language Arts (or Math) Program.” The state department of education assigns the writing of the frameworks to a task force. Their names are listed in the forward. Please see your site administrator if you do not have a copy of the framework or go online to www.cde.ca.gov – Curriculum and Instruction; Frameworks
See recent scandal re: reading program, conflict of interest.
Not sure what this means.
Why subgroups if targets are the same. Some subgroups are meeting (or surpassing) targets; others aren’t; disaggregation by subgroups helps identify subgroups (and schools) needing more interventions as a whole in order to help direct funding resources.
Does the district plan to keep the new policy goal –all college prep- while we work on PI?The resolution passed by the board in spring 2006 is actually called “College and Career Readiness For All.” The feedback from the trades industry strongly recommends more rigorous math and reading/analysis skills in incoming workforce. The policy will require interventions as part of the plan if ‘for all’ means ‘for all’ and not ‘for some.’ To this end, we are already working towards that important part of the plan. Ed Trust West is very encouraged by our systemic changes to allow more students to be successful in the core. Yes, we will keep working on both. Specifically, will all 9 th & 10 th graders students continue to be given college prep English classes? Many will; others may have to learn to read first. It seems disingenuous to label an intensive reading class for students reading more than twoyears below grate level (some as low as 3 rd or 4 th grade) as “ college prep English.” However, students should be given the opportunity once reading skills have been strengthened to have access to college prep English classes.
Why do we care? Because the mission of educators is to educate all – not some. Some need more time, money, opportunity and support than others.
Why is the state/feds pushing so quickly? To help students access the full range of core content and curriculum, we need to accelerate reading and math skills rather than remediate. What we’ve tried to date still leaves more than half our students below proficient.
Should we update the “framework”? 1996The frameworks for math were updated in 2005 and for language arts in 2006. You are correct, they ‘should be updated’ and they have been. Access on www.cde.ca.gov under Curriculum and Instruction for a closer looks. (Also available: Health, P.E., Visual and Performing Arts, Science and History/Social Science). They are updated on a regular cycle as are adoptions for texts.
How much is this costing to the district? The state has given us $200,000 for two years to support the PI process. This covers consulting with our external team, released time for teachers to attend the series of meetings, stipends for teachers who have helped create benchmarks and pacing calendars, printing costs, etc. Our other categorical funds will be redirected in part to address other components of the plan. The expenses are included in the LEA Plan which is available on the district web site or NVEA website for your review.
Why do I have to be trained 5 years later?
You would only have to be re-trained when a new core text is adopted.
We need above grade level sets of books from H.M. in the elementary grades to provide “fidelity” with the program.
They are available and part of what a text company must include in order to be state-approved. Ask your principal to order some from the HM order form.
What about teachers who were job sharing and told they could not take the whole 40 hours of instructions? Do they have to take it again or make up the hours that they did not take? Or not take anymore of the hours?
Our directions on SB472 training and funding come from CDE and are strictly audited. Direct questions about SB472 to through your site administrator to the Director of Instruction.
Just say no? ELA – SWD – Students with disabilities.
SB472 – driven by NCLB?
We have always provided professional development with new adoptions; however, SB472 goes beyond what is typically provided in that the trainers are classroom teachers and the training is concentrated on ELA and math.
How much $$ comes from Feds?
Between $7 and $8 million dollars annually is what was reported at the NVEA/NVUSD Program Improvement meeting.
Houston voted it down?
Haven’t seen this information, nor could I find it on the internet. Please send to the office of instruction.
The pay for training is insulting. Why are we being “offered” only $12.50 an hour for “training” and only $6.25 for follow-up meetings? What’s professional about this?
Regarding the 40 hours: NOTE: You will not receive the stipend if you opt to take the training for university credit on the salary scale. (This has long been the case with professional development.) The 40 hours training requires a tuition of $750 - $1000 per participant that is funded through the state grant; the remaining $500 stipend goes to the teacher if the training is done in the summer; if done during the year, the stipend pays the cost of the sub. Therefore, there are two options the state allows for SB472 – during the summer or during the year, but the $500 is either given to the teacher or pays for the sub. The 80 hours of practicum are part of your regular workday – as such you are already drawing your full salary; this is an additional stipend to encourage completing the practicum (much of this is what you already do in collaboration time; the difference is tracking the activities and turning in the paperwork.) So in effect, if you were to take the summer option and complete the practicum, you would be receiving $1000 plus your regular salary during the time spent on the practicum. Administrators do not receive the stipend for their training or practicum.
Previous Program Improvement Questions
1. What is the difference between API and AYP?
API Academic Performance Index is part of California’s accountability system and uses the CSTs (grades 2-11) and California High School Exit Exam (passing grades 10-12) to assign an index from 200-1000 with 800 as a target. Schools (and districts) receive “credit” for moving students through all the levels from Far Below Basic to Advanced.
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress is part of the federal No Child Left Behind accountability system. It uses results from the CSTs at elementary and middle schools and only the 10 th grade passing scores on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to determine whether students are meeting proficiency. (For the CAHSEE a score of 350 is passing, but a score of 380 is needed to be considered “proficient” for AYP purposes.) Schools (and districts) only receive “credit” for students scoring at Proficient or Advanced – and only make “AYP” when all subgroups reach established targets.
2. How did we get into PI?
If a school or district does not meet federal AYP targets for two years in a row in the same content area (ELA or math) and same subgroup, it meets the first of two tests before the official “PI” identification is made. The second test is to look at each of the three levels in a district separately – elementary, middle and high school. If all three levels also missed the targets in the same content area and same subgroup, the district is identified as PI. NVUSD did not meet the EL and Students with Disability subgroups in all three levels in ELA for two years in a row. (There are additional criteria that are applied to the Students with Disability subgroup that would have excluded NVUSD from PI designation if this had been the only subgroup we did not meet).
As a district we have ten subgroups and 42 targets to meet. We met 40 of 42 targets. We met all targets for math as a district.
3. My school is not designated a PI school. Why do I have to implement changes if our student scores do not help?
The two subgroups district-wide did not meet targets. This means that if you have students in either or both subgroups at your school, their scores “roll over” into the district results even if you don’t have enough students at your site to have a large enough subgroup to count. Students at all schools contribute to the district subgroups.
Student scores in these subgroups must be raised in order to get the entire district out of PI.
4. How do we exit PI status?
We must meet targets in any of the levels for two years in a row to exit PI. This means that any level - elementary, middle or high – that meets the target for ELs in ELA will help us move toward exiting Program Improvement for two years in a row. It does not have to be the same level two years in a row – just the same content area and subgroup. For example, elementary could hit the target this year for EL’s in ELA and middle schools the next year. Then we would exit PI status.
5. Once we are out of PI are we safe?
As long as we meet the targets established for that year. The targets remain the same this spring, then increase 10% a year until 2014. We need to continue to meet those targets to stay out of PI. The lowest targets to meet to exit Program Improvement will be this spring and next spring.
6. How do PI and A-G (requirements for implementing a more rigorous curriculum to increase the number of students academically prepared for entrance into CSU/UC) mesh? Are they complimentary?
Our work with Ed Trust West to create a blueprint to increase opportunities for more students to graduate” college and work-force ready” will require a system of interventions including differentiated support in the classroom as well as intervention classes through the master schedule to provide more sections of reading and math support classes. The work we are doing with PI is already establishing a framework for the intensive and strategic interventions that will be part of our College and Career Readiness initiative. PI will support the A-G plan and will, in fact, move us more quickly toward the goal.
6. Can we use novels in high school English classes?
It depends on the grade level and reading level of the students. Currently, the PI plan addresses only 9 th and 10 th graders to prepare all students to successfully pass the CAHSEE in their sophomore year. Some districts in PI are required to use nothing but state-adopted core texts aligned to the standards for 9 th and 10 th grade students. NVUSD was allowed to write an exception into our LEA Plan that allows students with CST scale score of 375 or above in certain 9 th and 10 th grade sections to use novels with a core text as a supplement. Students with CSTs at 350-375 will use a core text with novels as a supplement. Students scoring below proficient will be using a core text. Other students will be using a text or program designed to accelerate reading. English Learners will be provided with daily ELD from a text designed to teach the English Language while teaching language arts skills. The district is drafting a waiver process that may allow some exceptions to this process.
7. How is district PI different from site PI?
Sites enter program improvement for the same reason as a district – not meeting targets. Schools in PI must meet targets for two years in a row to exit. Sanctions increase each year for PI schools until Year 5 when a major restructuring is required. In our district that has taken the form of an Alternate Governance Team making decisions for the school. District sanctions are for a 3-year period only before major restructuring occurs. However, each year a district does not meet targets, the sanctions affect all schools and the options (such as described in question 6) become more restricted.
8. If a site does not get out of PI how will what they are doing change? What does PI look like from year to year?
Under NCLB the following apply:
Year 1: Notify all parents of PI status; rewrite the school plan; set aside 10% Title 1 money for professional development; offer choice to attend another school (the district also provides consulting support and technical assistance).
Year 2: All of Year 1, plus offer Supplemental Educational Services (after school programs from state-approved providers)
Year 3: All of Year 1 and 2, plus one of the following additional sanctions:
Year 4: All of Year 1, 2 and 3 plus prepare plan foralternative governance of school. Select oneof the following:
Year 5: All of Year 1, 2, 3 and 4 plus
9. What is the relationship between Holt publishing and the test designers? Why them? I heard that Holt is involved in writing the tests and therefore the tests are manipulated to ensure that districts continue to buy materials.
No relationship. Holt was approved through the ABC process by both high schools and the Board of Education for use as a standards-aligned text. No textbook company is used to design the California Standards Tests or the California High School Exit Exam. They are designed each year by the California Department of Education and Educational Testing Service. Holt was evaluated by English teachers in our district and selected over another standards-aligned series.
Have more Program Improvement questions? Email us your questions and we will add your question, and the answer, to our Program Improvement FAQ [submit a question for the FAQ]