LEA (District) Improvement

Year 3 – Corrective ActionYear 4 – Corrective Action II

What is Corrective Action?

How did our district (LEA) receive the label of Corrective Action II?

What are the requirements for our district (LEA)?

Progression of LEA (district) Improvement

AYP not achieved for twoconsecutive years in same subject AND in all grade spans OR in the other academic indicator (AZ has chosen graduation rate as the other indicator)

LEA (district)Improvement

Third year of district improvement Corrective Action

Fourth year of district improvement

Corrective Action II

Math Graduation Rate

3-5

2004

3-5 6-8 10

Reading

6-8 10

NO3rd ELLSPED

YES NO8th ALLHisp.ELLSPED

YES NOELLSPED

YES NO3rd SPED

5th SPED

YES NONO8th ELLSPED

YES SPED YES

ImpYr 1

2005YESNO

3rd ELLSPED

NO8th ELL

YES NOELLSPED

YES NO3rd SPED

YES YESNOSPED

YES YES

ImpYr 2

2006NO3rd SPED4th SPED5th SPED

YES NO6th ELLSPED7th SPED8th ELLSPED

YES NOELL,SPED

YES NO4th SPED

YES NO6th ELLSPED7th SPED

YES YES YES NO

CA

2007NO3rd SPED4th SPED

YES6th ELL

SPED

7th ELL

8th ELL

NO YES YES YES YES YES NO6th ELL

NOELLSPEDWhiteLowSES

YES NOSPED

NO

CA II

YES

Sunnyside is one of 24 total school districts in the state identified for

Corrective Action

Alhambra Elem. Dist.

Cartwright Elem.Dist.

Coolidge Unified Dist.

Crane Elem Dist.

Creighton Elem. Dist.

Dysart Unified Dist.

Ganado Unified Dist.

Glendale Elem. Dist.

Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Dist.

Isaac Elem. Dist.

Kingman Unified Dist.

Maricopa Regional Dist.

Mesa Unified Dist.

Murphy Elem. Dist.

Omega Alpha Academy

Paradise Valley Unified Dist.

Roosevelt Elem. Dist.

Sacaton Elem. Dist.

San Carlos Unified Dist.

Sunnyside Unified Dist.

Tucson Unified Dist.

Washington Elem. Dist.

White River Unified Dist.

Yuma Elem. Dist.

Districts in Corrective Action

REQUIREMENT I

Select Corrective Action Option

Option # 1 AZ redirects the use of our federal funds (Title I, Title II, Title III, etc.)

Option # 2Institute and fully implement a new curriculum that is based on state and local academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students

Corrective Action Option #2

(continued)

…appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research

for all relevant staff,

that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students.

Requirement II: Parent Letterby October 1

•Notify parents about LEA (District) Improvement StatusCorrective Action II

•Describe AYP indicator for which the LEA (District) is in Corrective Action (i.e., graduation rate)

•Provide suggestions for parental involvement and participation

Requirement III:Professional Development

10% “set aside” from Title I Funds Can be combined with individual school site

Improvement “set aside” Must address the reasons AYP was missed

and Corrective Action Option Complete year-long professional

development timeline ADE Staff Development Survey online at

ADE’s website

Requirement IV:

Complete at the district level the New LEA (district) Standards and Rubrics and the LEA (district) Self-Assessment

•District steering committee •Larger committee representing district(include teachers, parents, etc.)•Compile data from Rubric and Self-Assessmentto develop Corrective Action plan

Requirement V

Develop LEA (District) Corrective Action Plan

•Submit Corrective Action Plan on-line to State by December 3

Dr. Manuel Isquierdo, Supt.Peggy Weber, Federal ProgramsJeannie Favela, Student Services

Alex Duran, ResearchDawn Maddock-Pea, Secondary

CurriculumDavid Sanders, IT

Asst. Supt. for C & IDirector of Elementary Curriculum

Ed Dawson, ImprovementFacilitator

LEA Executive Committee

Executive Committee MembersSue Tillis, SPED SPED SpecialistLAD DirectorELL SpecialistsStaff Development DirectorHoward Carlson, Asst. Supt. forEducation ServicesFrank Morales, PreventionRaul Nido, SSHS PrincipalAlissa Mott, AP, SSHSCarmela Levy, AP, DVHSBob Miranda, Lauffer PrincipalJohn Robertson, CC PrincipalGreat Schools Workshop Rep.Middle School FacilitatorElementary School FacilitatorDistrict Education Specialists(Language Arts, Math)

Site Facilitators (Title I, Math, ScienceDepartment Heads, SSHS & DVHS

Anna Marquez, HR DirectorElementary School Parent

Middle School ParentHigh School Parent

Community MembersNAEP Coordinator

NAEP Parent Committee memberCareer Ladder

SUN Program DirectorJacquie Croteau, JTED/CTE

SEA RepresentativeGreg Copeland (ADE/NCLB)

Brian Williams (ADE/AZ LEARNSMary Grace Wendel, HR

Richard Oros, Maintenance Director

LEA/School Improvement Steering Committee

Timeline

September: Completion of District Self-Assessment

October 1: Send parent notification letterSubmit copy of parent notification letter to ADE

October 3: ADE Resource Team visit to District

November 1: Complete re-evaluation of Self-Assessment

December 3: Submit LEA (District) Corrective Action Plan on-line

January – May: Implement LEA (District) Corrective Action Plan

May: Submit Progress Report to ADE

District Challenges

Reading and literacy gaps•Need for greater alignment, coordination, and monitoring of curriculum, instruction and resources across K-12

Previous district structure for ELL (ELL merged intoInstructional Support)•Need greater focus on needs of ELL students•Need to implement a consistent ELL model for language and content development•Need greater coordination and alignment of instruction, materials, and resources

Inconsistent staff development models•Need alignment, coordination and classroom support at all grade levels•Need a staff development model to identify and address varied needs of district

Achievement gaps among SPED students•Need for professional development in teaching students with diverse learning needs•Need greater collaboration among regular education and special education in order to provide more effective service delivery models•Need analysis of student data to develop better instructional plans

Low graduation rate•Need for greater alignment, coordination, and monitoring of activities for promoting graduation