1 / 17

WRITING THE CEP Appendices

WRITING THE CEP Appendices. Sarah Kleinhandler, SDIL. APPENDICES MATIRX. NEW. NEW. 2. Appendix 7: School-Level Reflection and Response to System-wide Implications of Findings from Audits of the Written, Tested, and Taught Curriculum in ELA and Mathematics. Background

burton-nunez
Download Presentation

WRITING THE CEP Appendices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WRITING THE CEP Appendices Sarah Kleinhandler, SDIL

  2. APPENDICES MATIRX NEW NEW 2

  3. Appendix 7: School-Level Reflection and Response to System-wide Implications of Findings fromAudits of the Written, Tested, and Taught Curriculum in ELA and Mathematics Background From 2006 to 2008, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) and the New York State Education Department (NYSED) commissioned an “audit of the written, tested, and taught curriculum” to fulfill an accountability requirement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act for districts identified for “corrective action (DINI Year 3 Districts).” The focus of the audit was on the ELA and mathematics curricula for all students, including SWDs and ELLs. The audit examined the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment as well as other key areas—such as professional development and school and district supports. The collaborative process was intended not to find fault but to identify and barriers to student success that need to be overcome. The 7 KEY Audit Findings are not an end in themselves but will facilitate important conversations at (and between) the Central DOE, SSO, and school levels in order to identify and address potential gaps in ELA and math curriculum and instructional programs and to ensure alignment with the state standards and assessments.

  4. Appendix 7 KEY FINDING 1: CURRICULUM: There was limited evidence found to indicate that the ELA and mathematics curricula are fully aligned to state standards. There is a lack of understanding across teachers, schools, and audited districts regarding what students should understand and be able to do at each level in ELA and mathematics. 1A. English Language Arts - Alignment Issues: • Gaps in the Written Curriculum. Data shows that the written curriculum is not aligned with the state standards in terms of the range of topics covered and the depth of understanding required. • Curriculum Maps. The curriculum alignment analyses noted that curriculum mapping was done at a topical level and did not drill down to the cognitive demand level. Maps addressed topics not skills,strategies & outcomes. • Taught Curriculum. The Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) showed that the taught curriculum is not aligned to the state standards. For example, at the high school-level there was great disparity between what is taught and the depth to which it should be taught. ELA curriculum is broad but lacks depth in any one area. Although standards indicate that instruction should be focused on having students create written products and spoken presentations, SEC data shows there is little emphasis on speaking and listening and a moderately higher level of emphasis on writing. Also, critical reading in high schools should have much greater depth. • ELA Materials. Teachers said they have sufficient amounts of curriculum materials; however, materials are not adequate to meet the needs of all learners (i.e., ELLs, SWDs and struggling readers). Materials are not relevant to the students’ background knowledge -age appropriate and culturally relevant. • English Language Learners: There is great variation in curriculum and instruction for ELLs. Best instruction was found ELL classrooms at the elementary level. The contrast was ELL instruction at the secondary level. The auditors found that planning for ELL education at the city leveldid not percolate down to the school and teacher levels. Consequently, planning for ELL education generally occurred at the level of individual teachers or ELL program staff, contributing to the variations in curriculum and instruction observed across ELL and general education programs. There is a lack of awareness of Learning Standards for ESL. 1B. Mathematics - Alignment Issues: • Primary mathematics instruction for Grades K–8 (Everyday Mathematics [K–5] and Impact Mathematics [6–8]) are aligned with the New York state content strands except for some gaps at the middle school level in the areas of measurement and geometry and number sense and operations. The instructional materials at the HS level NYC Math A and B [8–12]) were aligned with the 1999 standards but not with the newer 2005 standards. There is a weak alignment to the New York state process strands for mathematics at all grade levels. • The SEC data for mathematics curriculum alignment shows that there is a lack of depth in what is being taught in the mathematics classroom as compared to what is required by the state standards.

  5. Appendix 7 KEY FINDING 2: INSTRUCTION • Overall: Direct instruction and individual seatwork are the predominant instructional strategies used by teachers in audited districts; there is limited use of best practices and research-based practices, including differentiated instruction. There is a lack of student engagement particularly at the secondary level. There is limited evidence of implementation and monitoring of best practices. Teachers need more support focused on differentiation of instruction for all learners. 2A – ELA Instruction • Direct instruction ( Teacher lecturing, questioning, explaining, reading, or guided practice) was the dominant instructional in 62% of K–8 and 54% of High Schools. High academically focused class time (educationally relevant activities) was 85% for K–8 and 75% in high schools. Student engagement was high in 71% of K–8, but 49% in high schools. Independent seatwork (worksheets or assignments) observed frequently in 32% K–8 classes and 34% in high school. 2B – Mathematics Instruction • Auditors noted high academically focused class time was observed either frequently or extensively in 80% of K–8 mathematics classes and 45 % in high school. High level of student engagement was observed frequently in 52% of K–8 classes and 35% of HS classes. Direct instruction in K-8 was frequently or extensively seen 75%of the time in Grades K–8 and 65% in Grades 9–12. Student activities other than independent seatwork and hands-on learning in the elementary grades were rarely if ever observed. Technology use in mathematics classes also was very low. KEY FINDING 3: TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND STABILITY: Teacher turnover was high, with schools accommodating a relatively high percentage of new and transfer teachers each year. KEY FINDING 4: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS • Professional development opportunities regarding curriculum, instruction, and monitoring progress for ELLs are being offered however, they are not reaching a large audience. District administrators mentioned the presence ofQTEL (Quality Teaching for English Learners) training, but few classroom teachers seemed aware of this program. Although city, district and some school-based policies (e.g., Language Allocation Policy) and plans for ELL instruction do exist, rarely were they effectively communicated to teachers through professional development, etc. KEY FINDING 5: DATA USE AND MONITORING—ELL INSTRUCTION • There is very little specific monitoring of ELLs’ academic progress. Testing data for example, the NYSESLAT yearly scores, either are not reported to all teachers involved in instructing ELLs or are not provided in a timely manner useful for informing instruction. When testing data id provided it is not disaggregated by proficiency level of ELL student, students’ time in the U.S.A or type of ELL program. KEY FINDING 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—SPECIAL EDUCATION • While the DOE and schools invested in professional development, many general education teachers, special education teachers, and school administrators do not yet have sufficient understanding of or capacity to fully implement the range and types of instructional approaches that will help to increase access to the general education curriculum and improve performance. General education teachers remain unfamiliar with IEPs, accommodations and modifications to support SWDs, and are not knowledgeable regarding behavioral support plans. KEY FINDING 7: INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS (IEPS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES) • Although IEPs clearly specify testing accommodations/modifications, they do not consistently specify accommodations and/or modifications for the classroomenvironment(including instruction). There appears to be lack of alignment between the goals, objectives, and modified promotion criteria on the IEPs and the content on which these students are assessed. Finally, IEPs do not regularly include behavioral plans—including behavioral goals and objectives—even for students with documented behavioral issues and concerns.

  6. After completing the evaluative process for each finding, if it is determined that the finding is relevant to the school, the school must respond to the fourth question indicating how the school will address the issue (this process must be completed for each of the 7 findings). Appendix 7Important: For each of the 7 finding, schools must answer the first 3 questions.

  7. Appendix 1: AIS Part A- AIS Summary Form Indicate the number of students receiving AIS in each required content area or student support service (i.e., guidance counselor, social worker). NOTE: Students in grades 4 – 12 require AIS in Science and Social Studies. Under NCLB, schools are required to provide Academic Intervention Services (AIS), to help students achieve State learning standards in English language arts and mathematics in grades K-12 and in social studies and science in grades 4-12. These services may include (1) additional supplemental instruction to the general curriculum (regular classroom instruction); and/or (2) student support services to address barriers to improved academic performance. AIS programs are designed to respond to student needs as indicated through State assessment results and/or the District-approved procedures that are consistent at each grade level. 7

  8. Appendix 1 Part B – Description of AIS Note: Refer to the District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP) for a description of district procedures for providing AIS. Schools are required to summarize AIS programs for each applicable content area (ELA, math, social studies and science for grades 4-12). Since AIS programs scheduled before and after school and on Saturdays is considered to be optional, SED requires that AIS services be scheduled during the school day. AIS services can include supplemental instruction or student support services (i.e., counseling or health related services) that address any barrier to improved academic performance. Schools should describe the method of service, when the service will take place, the length of each session and how often the service will be delivered. 8

  9. Appendix 2: Program Delivery for ELLs • NCLB/SED Requirement for All Schools • Part A: Language Allocation Policy (LAP): Attach a copy • Part B: CR Part 154 (A-6)Bilingual/ESL Program Description • Write a brief description of all Bilingual/ESL Instructional Programs (including # of classes per program, language(s) of instruction, instructional strategies, etc) • Describe parent/community involvement initiatives • Summarize your Project Jump Start initiative including programs and activities to assist newly enrolled ELL students • Briefly outline the differentiated staff development activities planned for ESL teachers and teachers servicing ELLs • Complete the charts indicating the Number of LEP students served by each program (See CEP Template pages 16-19) • Part C: Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students • Describe your school’s Language Instruction Programs funded under Title III, Part A • Summarize the school’s professional development program for teaches servicing LEPs • Complete the Title III LEP Program - School Building Budget Summary chart Note: The ELL Compliance and Performance Specialist assigned to your school can provide technical assistance in the updating or development of Appendix 2 and the LAP. Refer to the District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP) for a description of Attachment A: District Part 154 Plan. 9 9

  10. Appendix 3: Language Translation and Interpretation NYSED and Central require schools tocommunicate whenever feasible with non-English speakingparents in their home language in order to support shared parent-school accountability, parent access to information about their children’s educational options, and parents’ capacity to improve their children’s achievement. Requirement under Chancellor’s Regulations – For All Schools • Part A - Needs Assessment • Describe the data and methodologies used to assess your school’s written translation and oral interpretation needs Summarize the major findings and describe how the findings were reported to the school community. • Part B – Strategies and Activities (outside vendor, in-school staff, volunteer) • Describe the written translation services that the school will provide to meet its needs. • Describe the oralinterpretation services that the school will provide to meet its needs. • Describe how the school will fulfill Section VII of Chancellor’s Regulations A-663 regarding parental notification requirements for translation and interpretation services for non-English speaking parents. Note: The full text of Chancellor’s Regulations A-663 (Translations) is available via the following link:http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-151/A-663%20Translation%203-27-06%20.pdf. 10 10

  11. Appendix 4: NCLB Requirements for Title I Schools All Title I schools Must Complete This Appendix Part ATITLE I ALLOCATIONS AND SET-ASIDES Record your anticipated Title I allocations and set-asides ((i.e. – Total anticipated Title I allocation, 1% Parental Involvement allocation and - 5% set aside for HQT allocation) Enter the % of high quality teachers. If the percentage of HQTs is less than 100%describe activities and strategies the school is implementing to insure that the school will have 100% Part B: TITLE I SCHOOL PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT POLICY & SCHOOL-PARENT COMPACT (All Title I, Part A Schools must develop these documents jointly with parents) Attach the Title I Parent Involvement Policy & the School-Parent Compact. Note: Title I Parent Involvement Guidelines and Templates are available in the eight major languages on the NYCDOE website at:http://schools.nyc.gov/Parents/NewsInformation/TitleIPIG.htm. Part C: Schoolwide Program School (SWP) complete this section and describe there SWP plan Allows a school to address the needs of ALL At Risk students Part D: Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) complete this section and describe their TAS plan. Targets only those students who are Title I eligible as based on poverty index. Note:The SGO or ISC Budget Officer can assist you in determining your school’s Title I allocations and your school’s status as an SWP or Targeted Assistance school.

  12. SWPvs.TASSummary TAS • Use of program resources for TA students • Incorporate planning time for TA served students into school planning • Methods and Strategies including extending school day/year, accelerated curriculum, minimize the removal of students form classroom during school day. • Coordinate with and support the regular educational program • Instruction by HQ teachers • Provide PD • Strategies to increase Parent Involvement • Coordination and integration of Federal State and Local services. SWP • Comprehensive Needs Assessment (Refer to pages in CEP) • Schoolwide reform strategies • Instruction by HQ staff • Provide PD • Strategies to attract HQTs • Strategies to increase Parent Involvement • PK Transitioning to Elementary School • Use of Academic Assessment by teachers to improve achievement • Additional academic assistance for students having difficulty mastering proficiency or advanced academic levels. • Coordination of Federal State and Local services.

  13. Appendix 5: NCLB/SED Requirements for SINI/SRAP Part A: For all School Improvement Schools (SINI and SRAP) Describe school findings regarding specific academic issues for each area of school improvementidentification. Note: You can reference the pages of your needs assessment, if applicable. Describe the focused intervention(s) and strategies the school will implement to support improved achievement for each disaggregated group that failed to make AYP Note: If addressed in CEP you can refer to the pages. Part B: Title I Schools that Have Been Identified for School Improvement (SINI) Note: SRAPs do not complete this section because they do not receive Title I, Part A funds. Record your anticipated Title I allocation and 10% Title I Professional Development allocation. Describe how the 10% PD allocation will be used to remove the school from school improvement status. Describe the teacher-mentoring program to support HQ professional development Describe parent notification process regarding the school’s status?

  14. Appendix 6: SED Requirements for Schools Under Registration Review (SURR)For SURR Schools Only List SURR area(s) of identification, Group/Phase, Identification year and Deadline year. List types of reviews or monitoring visits, Record SURR Recommendations Describe the actions the school has taken or will take to address SURR recommendations. 14

  15. Appendix 8: Contract for Excellence (C4E) I. Class Size Reduction: Schools can reduce class size by one or both of the following strategies: Creation of additional classrooms to reduce teacher-student ratios through the implementation of Collaborative Team Teaching strategies so that instruction can be more individualized and differentiated. New & Expanded Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Classrooms II. Time on Task: Schools can increase student time on task via one or more strategies: Lengthen the school day by providing after school and Saturday classes as a means of achieving their goal which is to significantly increase the graduation rates and college readiness of their over-age and under-credited high school students. Schools can offer new and enhanced programs designed specifically for older students who may be truant, thinking about dropping out, or are looking for another educational option. ELL Summer School Program: Lengthen the school year by utilizing C4E funds to establish an ELL Summer School program, specifically designed to address the needs of newly arriving LEP students. Summer School Program: Lengthened the school year by providing a summer school program for Level 1 and 2 students and students at risk of not meeting standards. Dedicated instructional time Individualized tutoring III. Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives: Provides for professional development opportunities via implementation of one or more of the following strategies: Programs to recruit/retain Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) Professional mentoring for beginning teachers and principals Instructional coaches for teachers School leadership coaches for principals IV. Middle and High School Restructuring: This initiative is intended for schools with middle or high school grades only. Schools may allocate C4E funding to implement instructional changes that improve student achievement or instructional changes paired with structural changes to the school’s organization. Instructional Changes: May be designed to provide challenging academic and learning opportunities to students and may include implementation of academic intervention programs Structural Changes to Organization must also include instructional changes such as changes to grade offerings, creation of “academies”, schools within schools, etc. V. Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten Programs: C4E funds can be used to expand the instructional hours for existing half-day pre-Kindergarten programs so that they last for a full school day (the schools have sufficient space). This utilization of funds provided opportunities for the integration of students with disabilities into existing full-day pre-kindergarten programs. VI. Model Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency (English Language Learners) This new program area was introduced by State law in April 2008 and is intended to support schools in adopting “best practices” for raising achievement among ELLs. The SED has issued a guidance memo on eligible programs and activities that may be accessed through the SED website. All Schools that Received C4E funding in FY’09 Completed a Web-Based Survey. Schools used the May 2008 version of Appendix 8 as a worksheet in preparation for the online submission, which described how they planned to use C4E funding for 2008-09. Schools indicated how they would use C4E funds to address the needs of ELLs, SWDs, Economically Disadvantaged students and lowest achieving students. Use of funds is limited to one or more of the following categories: Note:The SGO or ISC Budget Officer can provide additional support regarding C4E.

  16. Directions for Accessing a Print ONLY Version of C4E Web-Based Survey • Write Go to the Contract for Excellence Webpage through the following link: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/BudgetsFairStudentFunding/ContractsforExcellence/0809plan.htm • Sroll down to the heading "School-Level C4E Spending Plans", • Click on one of the two additional links – “Districts 1-16” or “Districts 17-32”. • Click on the applicable district link, which will take you to a C4E spreadsheet containing your school’s information. • Put the cursor on Column A and scroll down to your school. • Column A contains a unique web address for each school. For Example: http://www.keysurvey.com/rbr/207706/0/30590038/2435/ • This web address will take you to a print-only version of the school’s C4E web-based survey. • The print only-version of the C4e survey should be attached to your school’s CEP. 16

  17. FOR MORE INFORMATION Name: Sarah Kleinhandler, SDIL Work:212.356.3809 Cell: 917-513.5648 Email: skleinh@schools.nyc.gov 17 17

More Related