Document 6525929

Transcription

Document 6525929

1500 Highway 36 West
T: (651) 582-8200
Roseville, MN 55113-4266
TTY: (651) 582-8201
Application Cover Sheet
473 - School Improvement Grants (SIG) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and Regular
Grant Opportunity
LEA Application Section
Note: This section only needs to be completed one time per LEA.
District/Agency/Organization
(legal name):
School/Site Name
(if applicable):
MN Tax ID Number:
Organization Information
CASS LAKE – BENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL
8001930
Federal Tax ID Number:
416000490
DUNS Number:
052803699
CCR Certification:
Organization Site Number:
Total Amount Requested:
_x__ Check here to certify registration has been completed and is valid
0115-01
Name
$1,077,062
Identified Official with Authority Information
CARL E. REMMERS
Title
SUPERINTENDENT, CASS LAKE – BENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Address
208 CENTRAL AVENUE NE
Name
(218) 335-2204 EXT. 6007
[email protected]
Program Contact Information
VICKY HOFFMANN
Title
GRANTS/TESTING COORDINATOR
Phone Number & E-mail
Address
Name
CASS LAKE – BENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
208 CENTRAL AVENUE NE
(218) 335-2204 EXT. 6006
[email protected]
Business Manager/Accounting Contact Information
GEORGE WELLS
(218) 335-2204 EXT. 6001
473 - SIG ARRA and Regular 2010
42
[email protected]
REMINDERS : Your application is not considered complete until it is uploaded and signed electronically in SERVS
Financial. Due date is: June 15, 2010
43
Assurances
The grantee (which refers to the applicant’s status after it has been awarded grant funds) by electronically signing the
application submitted to the state, agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations, public policies and all provisions stated herein in the performance of this award.
1. Survival of Terms
The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this award: 4(d). State and Federal Audits; 5. Liability; 6.
Ownership of Materials and Intellectual Property Rights; 7. Publicity; 8. Government Data Practices; 9. Data Disclosure;
and 12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue.
2. Use of Funds
The use of funds shall be limited to that portion identified in the Application Materials and the attached application and by
any applicable state or federal laws. Funds may not be used for gifts or novelty items (unless individually and specifically
approved by the state) or for payments to vendors displaying exhibits. Funds may not be used to pay for or support other
projects not identified in this application. Funds may not be used for the benefit of state employees, which includes, but is
not limited to, reimbursement for any expenditures, including travel expenses; costs of registration fees for training
sessions or educational courses presented or arranged; payments to state employees for presentations at workshops,
seminars, etc., whether on state time, vacation time, leave of absence or any other non-work time.
A. The grantee, in the conduct of activities under this award, shall submit such reports as may be required by written
instructions of the state within the times required by it. The state shall withhold funding if reporting requirements are
not met in a complete, accurate and timely manner.
B. The grantee shall present reports to the Commissioner of the Department of Education (COMMISSIONER) or State’s
Authorized Representative. At the COMMISSIONER’S discretion, the reports may be presented at departmental,
legislative, other state agency or public meetings where the grantee shall be available to explain the PROJECT and to
respond to questions.
C. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by grantee in performance of this
project will be paid provided that the grantee shall be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same
manner and in no greater amount than in the current “Commissioner’s Plan,” promulgated by the Commissioner of
Minnesota Management & Budget (MMB), and grantee will only be reimbursed for travel and subsistence outside the
State of Minnesota if it has received prior written approval for such out-of-state travel from the state.
3. Equipment
Upon termination of the award, all equipment purchased during the award period shall be returned by the grantee to the
state at the state’s discretion.
4. Financial and Administrative Provisions
I.
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS. For federal funds, allowability of costs incurred under this award shall be determined
in accordance with the procedures and principles given in the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
circulars, including, but not limited to, OMB A87. For all funds, no claim for materials purchased in excess of budget
categories or program services not specifically provided for in this award by the grantee will be allowed by the state
unless approved in writing by the state. Such approval shall be considered to be a modification of the award. There
may be additional limitations on allowable costs which shall be noted in the award.
II. RECORDS. The grantee shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence pertaining to the costs and
expenses of implementing this Application to the extent and in such detail as will accurately reflect all gross costs,
direct and indirect, of labor materials, equipment, supplies, services and other costs and expenses of whatever nature.
The grantee shall use generally accepted accounting principles. The grantee shall preserve all financial and cost
reports, books of account and supporting documents and other data evidencing costs allowable and revenues and other
44
applicable credits under this award which are in the possession of the grantee and relate to this award, for a period of
no less than six years and the respective federal requirements where applicable.
All pertinent records and books of accounts related to this award and subsequent awards shall be preserved by the
grantee for a period of six years subject to the following criteria:
1) The six-year retention period shall commence from the date of submission of the final expenditure report.
2) If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six-year period, the records shall be retained
until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved.
3) The grantee agrees to cooperate in any examination and audit under the provisions of this paragraph.
III. EXAMINATION AND AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS. The state or its representative or the federal
administering department (when applicable) shall have the right to examine books, records, documents and other
evidence and accounting procedures and practices, sufficient to reflect properly all direct and indirect costs and the
method of implementing the award. The grantee shall make available at its office and at all reasonable times before
and during the period of record retention, proper facilities for such examination and audit.
IV. STATE AND FEDERAL AUDITS. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the
grantee shall be subject to examination by the state or federal auditors, as authorized by law. Minnesota Statutes,
section 16C.05, subdivision 5, requires the state audit clause be in effect for a minimum of six years. Federal audits
shall be governed by requirements of federal regulations.
1) If the grantee (in federal OMB Circular language known as “subrecipient”) receives federal assistance from the
State of Minnesota, it will comply with the Single Audit Act of 1984 as amended and OMB circular A-133,
“Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations” for audits of fiscal years beginning after
June 30, 1996; or,
2) The grantee will provide copies of the single audit reporting package (as defined in A-133 section 320(c)),
financial statement audits, management letters and corrective action plans to the state, the Office of the State
Auditor, Single Audit Division or Federal Audit Clearinghouse, in accordance with OMB A-133.
5. Liability
Grantee agrees to indemnify and save and hold the state, its agents and employees harmless from any and all claims or
causes of action, including all attorneys’ fees incurred by the state arising from the performance of the award by grantees,
agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies grantee may have for the state’s failure
to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the award and subsequent awards.
6. Ownership of Materials and Intellectual Property Rights
A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS:
The state shall own all rights, title and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents,
trade secrets, trademarks and service marks in the works and documents created and paid for under the award. Works
means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports,
notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes and disks conceived, reduced
to practice, created or originated by the grantee, its employees, agents and subcontractors, either individually or jointly
with others in the performance of this award. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any
databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications,
materials, tapes, disks or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the grantee, its
employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this award. The Documents will be the exclusive property
of the state and all such documents must be immediately returned to the state by the grantee upon completion or
cancellation of the award. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United
States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works for hire.” The grantee assigns all right, title and interest it may have
in the works and the documents to the state. The grantee, at the request of the state, shall execute all papers and
perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the state’s ownership interest in the works and documents.
B. OBLIGATIONS:
1) Notification: Whenever any invention, improvement or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or
conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the grantee, including its
employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the award, the grantee will immediately give the State’s
45
authorized representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the authorized representative with
complete information and/or disclosure thereon.
2) Representation: The grantee must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual
property rights in the works and documents are the sole property of the state, and that neither the grantee nor its
employees, agents, or subcontractors retain any interest in and to the works and documents. The grantee
represents and warrants that the works and documents do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property
of other persons or entities. Notwithstanding Liability clause 5, the grantee will indemnify; defend, to the extent
permitted by the Attorney General; and hold harmless the state, at the grantee’s expense, from any action or claim
brought against the state to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the works or documents infringe
upon the intellectual property rights of others. The grantee will be responsible for payment of any and all such
claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs and damages, including but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a
claim or action arises, or in the grantee’s or the state’s opinion is likely to arise, the grantee, must at the state’s
discretion, either procure for the state the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace
or modify the allegedly infringing works or documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the infringement
claim. This remedy of the state will be in addition and not exclusive of other remedies provided by law.
7. Publicity
Any publicity given to the program, publications or services provided resulting from the award, including, but not limited
to, notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs and similar public notices prepared for the
grantee or its employees individually or jointly with others or any subawardees, shall identify the state as the sponsoring
agency. The publicity described may only be released with the prior approval of the state’s authorized representative. The
applicant/awardee must not claim that the state endorses its products or services.
Sample statement identifying the state as the sponsoring agency and must also identify the source of federal funds:
This initiative is made possible (or is funded in part) with a grant from the Minnesota Department of
Education using federal funding, CFDA #84.377A, for Title I, Part A Section 1003 (g) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Note: the CFDA and title of the funds – must reflect specific funding source as stated on award notification.
8. Government Data Practices
The grantee and the state must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
13, as it applies to all data provided by the state under the award, and as it applies to all data created collected, received,
stored, used, maintained or disseminated by the grantee under the award. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this paragraph by either the grantee or the state.
If the grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this paragraph, the grantee must immediately notify the
state. The state will give the grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data
is released.
9. Data Disclosure
Under Minnesota Statutes, section 270C.65, and other applicable law, the grantee consents to disclosure of its Social
Security number, federal employer tax identification number and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided
to the state, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These
identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring
the grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any.
10. Worker’s Compensation
Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 176.181, subdivision 2, pertaining to workers’
compensation insurance coverage. The grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered state employees. Any
claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made
by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the state’s
obligation or responsibility. (Exemption/Waiver as allowed under law.)
11. Antitrust
46
Grantee hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all claims for overcharges as to goods and/or services provided
in connection with the award resulting from antitrust violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States
and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota.
12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law and provisions, governs the award. Venue for all legal proceedings
arising out of the award, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
13. Lobbying
As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 34 CFR Part 82, for organizations granted an
award over $150,000, as defined at 34 CFR Part 82, Sections 82.100, 82.105 and 82.110, the grantee must certify that:
A. No federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of organization, to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any federal award,
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any federal award.
B. If any funds other than federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal award, the grantee shall complete
and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
C. The grantee shall require that the language herein shall be included in any award documents for all subawards at all
tiers (including subgrants, contracts under award, and subcontracts) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
14. Debarment, Suspension and other Responsibility Matters
As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, and implemented at 34 CFR Part 85, for prospective
participants in primary covered transactions, as defined at 34 CFR Part 85, Sections 85.105 and 85.110-A. The grantee certifies that it and its principals:
1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from
covered transactions by any federal department or agency;
2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application or award been convicted of or had a civil judgment
rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to
obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of
federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of
records, making false statements or receiving stolen property;
3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state or
local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (2)(b) of this certification; and,
4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transaction (federal, state or
local) terminated for cause or default.
15. Drug-Free Workplace (Awardees Other Than Individuals)
As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 34 CFR Part 84, Subpart B, for recipients other
than individuals, as defined at 34 CFR Part B, Sections 84.200, 854.205, 84.210, 84.215, 84.220, 84.225 and 84.230 –
A. The grantee certifies that it will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:
47
1) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or
use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken
against employees for violation of such prohibition;
2) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:
(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(b) The grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and
(d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;
3) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the award be given a copy of the
statement required by paragraph (1);
4) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (1) that, as a condition of employment under the
award, the employee will:
(a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and,
(b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring
in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;
5) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (4)(b) from an
employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide
notice, including position title, to: Director, Grants Policy and Oversight Staff, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, S.W. (Room 3652, GSA Regional Office Building No. 3), Washington, DC 20202-4248. Notice
shall include the identification number(s) of each affected award;
6) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (4)(b), with
respect to any employee who is so convicted:
(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination,
consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or,
(b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program
approved for such purposes by a federal, state or local health, law enforcement or other appropriate agency;
7) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of Paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).
16. Transferability
The grantee shall not transfer or assign to any party or parties any right(s), obligation(s) or claim(s) under the award
without the prior written consent of the state. It is understood, however, that grantee remains solely responsible to the state
for providing the products and services described.
17. Time
The grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in the application and award. In the performance of this
award, time is of the essence.
A. 18. Other Provisions, be it understood:
A. By filing of this application, the applicant has therefore obtained the necessary legal authority to apply for and receive
the proposed grant;
B. As the agency head (identified official with authority to sign) by using the electronic signature process, you
are granting approval to submit an application and agree to comply with all assurances and requirements as stated in
48
this grant opportunity. As the identified official with authority to sign on behalf of the organization, you are also
delegating a program contact representative to work with MDE in fulfilling the obligations of this grant opportunity.
The electronic signature (and agreement) replaces the ink signature and certifies that as an applicant/awardee your
organization shall/will in the performance of the grant opportunity comply with all applicable federal, state and local
laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, public policies and provisions stated in all applicable assurance(s) including
but not limited to standard and/or program specific, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and amendments thereto.
C. The grant application is written by the applying program. The source is cited appropriately on any material that is
paraphrased or copied. Language taken from a template is customized sufficiently to meet the needs of the program
that is applying. It is to be understood that failure to comply, may result in denial of the grant application.
D. The grantee understands that no work should begin under this Award until all required signatures have been obtained;
an Official Grant Award Notification has been issued and the grantee is notified to begin work by the State’s Program
Contact. Expenditures must be for post-award projects; grant awards may not be used to pay for any costs incurred
before an award is made.
E. The activities and services for which assistance is sought under this grant will be administered by or under the
supervision and control of applicant.
F. Grant funds shall not be used to supplant salaries and wages normally budgeted for an employee of the
applicant/agency. Total time for each staff position paid through various funding streams financed in part or whole
with grant funds shall not exceed one Full Time Equivalent (FTE). The grantee must disclose all compensation from
all sources upon request including salary, extra pay, and/or payments for contracted work, made to employees
financed in part or whole with grant funds.
G. You are not delinquent on the repayment of any federal debt.
H. Fiscal control and accounting procedures will be used to ensure proper disbursement of all funds awarded;
I.
Every reasonable effort will be made by the applicant to continue the project after the termination of state/federal
funding, if applicable to the terms of this application.
J. The applicant’s Program Contact Representative will be named on the OGAN. If the Program Contact Representative
changes at any time during the grant award period, the applicant/grantee must immediately notify the state.
K. The State's Program Contact Representative, or his/her successor, named on the OGAN has the responsibility to
monitor the grantee’s performance and has the authority to accept the services provided under the grant award
opportunity.
L. All services provided by the grantee under an award must be performed to the state’s satisfaction, as determined at the
sole discretion of the State’s Program Contact Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The grantee will not receive payment for work found by the state to be
unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state or local law.
M. Any amendment to an award must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by
the same parties who executed and approved the original grant award, or their successors in office.
N. If the state fails to enforce any provision of an award, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it.
O. An award may be cancelled by the state or grantee at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written
notice to the other party. In the event of such a cancellation, grantee shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro
rata basis, for work or services performed to the state’s satisfaction. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the
event the reimbursement to the State from Federal sources or appropriations by the Minnesota Legislature are not
obtained and continued at an aggregate level sufficient to allow for the grantee’s program to continue operating, the
grant shall immediately be terminated upon written notice by the state to the grantee. In the event of such termination,
grantee shall be entitled to payment determined on a pro-rata basis, for services performed and liabilities already
accrued prior to such termination.
49
P. The state may cancel an award immediately if the state finds that there has been a failure to comply with the
provisions of an award, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were
awarded/granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The state may take action to protect the interests of the State of
Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already
disbursed.
Q. The applicant fully understands that if this is a competitive grant opportunity process, the application may not be
funded. The grant application process is designed to provide an equitable opportunity for eligible candidates to
compete. It is to be understood that one or more factors may result in a funding or a non-funded outcome. The review
process includes a consistent, impartial application review conducted for all applications that meet the requirements
set forth in the grant application instructions. As applications are evaluated based on the information provided by the
applicant and failure to comply with submission requirements, is solely the responsibility of the applicant. All
funding decisions made by MDE are final.
R. Awarded programs understand future funding opportunities may be hindered if reporting and/or performance
expectations per this or any grant opportunity/contract with MDE have not been met and/or reports are not submitted
in a timely fashion per requirements.
S. When a grant includes the production of a report or other publication and this publication will be posted on the MDE
Website or otherwise distributed as a work product of MDE that publication must adhere to all MDE Communications
policies, available upon request from the Communications Division. In addition, the publication must be reviewed
and proofread by Communications staff, in accordance with MDE policy, to ensure the document follows all agency
policies and is free of typographical and grammatical errors, and is formatted in a way that is professional and easy to
read. The grantee is responsible for making changes designated by the Communications Division prior to
dissemination of any kind and must provide a Web-ready copy of the document to MDE in electronic format. Note:
If the document is provided in PDF format only, the grantee agrees to make any additional changes necessary if future
review reveals errors in the document.
T. The grantee assures that if the award involves federal funding the reimbursement of expenditures is in compliance
with all program provisions, relevant provisions of the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101453) as amended by the CMIA of 1992 (Public Law 102-589), codified at 31 U.S.C. 6501 and 31 U.S.C. 6503; Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-87, Cost Principals for State, Local and Tribal Government; A-133
the Compliance Supplement; Education Department General Administrative Regulations, 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 76, 77,
79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 86, 97, 98, 99; or other applicable code of federal regulations applicable to this federal
reimbursement request.
U. Stimulus - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Assurances:
1) Overall ARRA Requirements:
a. Every dollar spent under the ARRA will be subject to the most stringent standards of accountability and
transparency.
b. Must maintain (accurate, complete, and reliable documentation) records that track separately the funds
received under each Stimulus ARRA grant award. Please note: the ARRA includes additional reporting
requirements for which guidance is forthcoming from the United States Department of Education (USDE).
c. In the reports for each of the Stimulus ARRA grant award(s) awardees must report to state (SEA) in a
manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Education, at a minimum on a quarterly basis, which include
but is not limited to:
(1) the use of funds provided under the program;
(2) the estimated number of jobs created or saved with program funds;
(3) estimated tax increases that were averted as a result of program funds;
(4) standing with respect to fulfilling the application assurances described above and/or
within; and
(5) progress of the program in meeting the goals, objectives, outcomes and its impact
(results) in showing how programs/school are performing and helping program/schools
improve.
d. The State (SEA) has important oversight responsibilities and must monitor grant and
subgrant activities to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal requirements. If a
grant recipient fails to comply with requirements governing use of stimulus funds the
50
state may, consistent with applicable administrative procedures, take one or more
enforcement actions, including withholding or suspending, in whole or in part, the
funds or recovering misspent funds following an audit.
V. Each grantee or sub-grantee awarded funds made available under the Recovery Act shall promptly refer to an
appropriate inspector general any credible evidence that a principle, employee, agent, contractor, sub-grantee,
subcontractor, or other person has submitted a false claim under the False Claims Act or has committed a criminal or
civil violation of laws pertaining to fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, gratuity, or similar misconduct involving those
funds.
W. Grantees will be expected to fully and effectively implement one of the following interventions in each of the grantee
LEA’s Tier I and Tier II school(s) (Appendix A) identified on the LEA grant application: (A) Turnaround Model; (B)
Restart Model; (C) School Closure; (D) Transformation Model.
X. Establish annual goals for student achievement on the state’s assessments in both reading/language arts and
mathematics and/or graduation rates and measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of the final
requirements in order to monitor each Tier I and Tier II school that it serves with school improvement funds.
Y. If a LEA implements a Restart Model in a Tier I or Tier II school, include in its contract or agreement terms and
provisions to hold the charter operator, charter management organization, or education management organization
accountable for complying with the final requirements.
Z. Report to the SEA the school-level data required under section III of the final requirements, including from the three
previous school years to allow for the analysis of trends in the data:
1) Number of minutes within the school year;
2)
Student participation rate on state assessments in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by
student subgroup;
3) Dropout rate/graduation rate;
4) Student attendance rate;
5)
Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early-college
high schools, or dual enrollment classes;
6) Discipline incidents;
7) Truants;
8) Distribution of teachers by performance level on an LEA’s teacher evaluation system; and
9) Teacher attendance rate
AA. For each Tier I and/or Tier II school identified in the LEA’s application, the LEA must hire at least a .5 FTE Site
Administrative Manager (SAM) at each such school. A SAM will be responsible for administrative duties at the
school not directly related to instruction.
BB. Each principal of each Tier I and/or Tier II school identified in the LEA’s application must successfully complete the
Minnesota Principals’ Academy led by the University of Minnesota.
CC. Establish an LEA-based Turnaround Officer(s) or Turnaround Office that will be responsible for taking an active role
in the day-to-day management of turnaround efforts at the school level in each identified Tier I and Tier II school to
be served by the application and for coordinating with the SEA.
51
DD. Add at least an hour of additional instruction time per day, or alternative/extended school-year calendars that add time
beyond the additional hour of instruction time per day for each identified Tier I and Tier II school to be served by the
application.
EE. Provide at least 90 minutes each week for each teacher dedicated to professional learning communities in identified
Tier I and Tier II schools to be served by the application.
FF.
Provide at least 10 days of site-based training as well as a 10-day teacher academy each school year for each teacher
in identified Tier I and Tier II schools to be served by the application.
GG. Provide training for new teachers that join turnaround schools after the process is underway in identified Tier I and
Tier II schools to be served by the application.
HH. Grantees that commit to serve one or more Tier I or Tier II school(s) that do not receive Title I, Part A funds are to
ensure that each of those schools receive all of the state and local funds it would have received in the absence of the
SIG funds.
II.
Grantees should include in any contracts with outside providers terms or provisions that will enable the LEA to ensure
full and effective implementation of the model.
JJ.
Grantees cannot use SIG funds to support district-level activities for schools that are not receiving SIG funds.
KK. Grantees with a school implementing a school improvement timeline waiver of section 1116(b)(12) of the ESEA or
Minnesota’s New School Policy would begin the improvement timeline anew, beginning the first year in which the
improvement model is being implemented. For example, with respect to SIG grants made using FY 2009 funds for
implementation in the 2010–2011 school year, the school would start the improvement timeline over beginning with
the 2010–2011 school year.
52
Agreement to Comply with Assurances Form
In regard to potential funding of an award, the following clauses are stated in their entirety in the application materials section titled ASSURANCES. For the purpose of this
form, said clauses are referenced only by their clause number and heading hereafter in this Agreement to Comply with Assurances form. You do not need to manually sign this
form.
The applicant/awardee must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, public policies and provisions stated therein and herein in
the performance of the award should grant funds be awarded.
1. SURVIVAL OF TERMS
2. USE OF FUNDS
3. EQUIPMENT
4. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PROVISIONS
5. LIABILITY
6. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. PUBLICITY
8. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES
9. DATA DISCLOSURE
10. WORKER’S COMPENSATION
11. ANTITRUST
12. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION AND
VENUE
13. LOBBYING*
14. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS*
15. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (AWARDEES
OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS)*
16. TRANSFERABILITY
17. TIME
18. OTHER PROVISIONS
Regarding clauses 13-15:
These provisions are required when the award involves federal funds. Applicants shall refer to the regulations cited to determine the certification to which they are required to
attest. Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this form. Signature of this form provides for compliance
with certification requirements under 34 CFR Part 82, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," 34 CFR Part 84, Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants) and
34 CFR Part 85 Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and the certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance
will be placed when the Minnesota Department of Education determines the award.
The title and finance code of this competitive grant opportunity is: Upon signing the application after submitting it to the state, you, the applicant, acknowledge that you have
read the assurances
in their entirety as
stated
within this application and
shall comply with all the
terms
and conditions.
53
IDENTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS TO SERVE
Identify the Tier I and/or Tier II school(s) the LEA commits to serve. Identify the intervention model the LEA will implement in each
Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve in the table provided. Expand the table as needed.
SCHOOL
NAME
Cass Lake
– Bena
High
School
NCES ID #
TIER
I
270807000331
TIER
II
X
Turnaround
INTERVENTION
Restart
Closure
Transformation
X
54
SELECTION OF WAIVERS TO BE IMPLEMENTED
Using the table provided, indicate which of the following waiver(s) the LEA plans to implement:
Extending the period of availability of school improvement funds to September 30, 2013.
“Starting over” in the school improvement timeline for Tier I and Tier II Title I participating schools implementing a
Turnaround or Restart Model.
• Implementing a schoolwide program in a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating school that does not meet the 40 percent
poverty eligibility threshold.
•
•
If the LEA does not plan to implement the selected waiver(s) in all of the indentified schools to be served by the application, list
which schools will implement each waiver.
X
Waiver
Extending the period of availability of school improvement funds to September 30, 2013.
Identify schools implementing this waiver (if not all to be served):
⁪
“Starting over” in the school improvement timeline for Tier I and Tier II Title I participating
schools implementing a Turnaround or Restart model.
⁪
Implementing a schoolwide program in a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating school that does not
meet the 40 percent poverty eligibility threshold.
55
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL
School Application Section
Note: This section must be duplicated and completed for each eligible school applying for funds.
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL SELECTION OF INTERVENTION MODEL
One intervention model must be chosen for the identified Tier I or Tier II school. Indicate in the below table which one intervention
model the school chooses to implement:
Select
⁪
⁪
⁪
X
School Intervention Model
Turnaround
Restart
School Closure
Transformation
56
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LEAs must address the following criteria with respect to analyzing the needs of the identified Tier I or Tier II school as well as
selecting an intervention model for the school:
I.
Incorporate multiple sources of data into the analysis of the needs of each Tier I and Tier II school identified in the
LEA’s application. This data must include, but is not limited to:
• Student demographics
• Student achievement results (based on state and local accountability results)
• Graduation rates, if applicable
• Truancy/attendance
• Instruction time
• Survey results
• Staffing needs
II.
Establish a clear relationship between the specific needs of each Tier I and Tier II school identified in the LEA’s
application and the respective intervention chosen. Address the needs of the LEA and the school in relation to the
applicable intervention model by considering factors that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The leadership skills, training and experiences needed to drive school improvement efforts.
• The optimal assignment of staff to meet student needs.
• The required operational flexibility to recruit and retain qualified staff.
• The adequacy of current LEA strategic planning processes to support implementation of the selected intervention
model.
• The other funding resources that must be brought into alignment with the selected intervention model.
I. CLBHS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Demographics: Cass Lake – Bena High School (CLBHS) is located on the Leech Lake Indian Reservation, in Cass Lake,
Minnesota. Longitudinal student enrollment data indicates fairly stable numbers at this grade 9 – 12 site, with enrollment ranging
from a low of 218 in 07-08 to a high of 245 in 2008-09. CLBHS serves a predominantly American Indian (81%), high poverty (67%
Free and Reduced Lunch), and high concentration of special education (23%) student population. Mobility is also a risk factor, with
recent four year data indicating anywhere from 10.45% to 14.67% of the student population transferring out of the district and
anywhere from 5.58% to 11.71% of students transferring into the district during the course of a school year.
Student achievement results: Cambridge Evaluators noted the need for more consistent and effective use of internal and external
data to drive both teacher planning and differentiated instruction to meet the diverse needs of the student body. These cited needs
are corroborated by a look at state assessment data.
Reading: 2005-06 Reading Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA test) results indicated that only 30.23% of grade 10
CLBHS students scored in the meets standards or exceeds standards categories (proficient). In each of the subsequent years CLBHS
proficient percentages have exceeded that baseline, showing significant gains.
School Year
Reading Proficiency Percentage
Change from Baseline Year
2005-06 (BASELINE)
30.23%
2006-07
43.10%
+ 42.57%
2007-08
61.90%
+ 104.7%
2008-09
45.16%
+ 49.39
While data indicates significant improvement over baseline testing, CLBHS classroom instruction needs to improve at a more
accelerated rate to increase student achievement levels to that of higher performing schools. In addition, when CLBHS student
MCA growth data is compared to state averages, available data reveals: (1) Not enough CLBHS students who scored proficient
made high growth compared to state averages, and (2) not enough CLBHS students scoring non-proficient made medium or high
growth and too many made low growth compared to state averages.
Mathematics: 2005-06 Math MCA results indicated that only 4.41% of grade 11 CLBHS students scored in the meets standards or
exceeds standards categories (proficient). In each of the subsequent years CLBHS proficient percentages have exceeded that
baseline, showing consistent gains.
57
School Year
2005-06 (BASELINE)
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Mathematics Proficiency Percentage
4.41%
7.69%
11.11%
14.80%
Change from Baseline Year
+ 74.4%
+ 151.9%
+ 235.6%
While Math MCA proficiency rates have showed strong improvement in each of the past four years, the rate of that improvement
needs to accelerate in order to reach the student achievement levels of higher performing schools. In addition, when CLBHS student
MCA growth data is compared to state averages, data reveals: (1) not enough CLBHS students scoring proficient made high growth
and too many students made low growth compared to state averages, and (2) not enough CLBHS students scoring non-proficient
made high growth and too many students made low growth compared to state averages.
Truancy/Attendance: Longitudinal CLBHS student attendance data indicates increasing attendance rates, from 85.67% average
daily attendance in 2004-05 to 87.25% in 2005-06, 89.49% in 06-07, and over 91% in 07-08. While daily average attendance rates
are steadily improving, truancy is an ongoing problem. In 2008-09 truancy was filed on 30 CLBHS students. In 2009-10 that
number has risen to 34 students.
Instruction time: The CLBHS school calendar is based upon 170 days of instruction. Classes run from 8:20 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., with
a 30 minute lunch break and 5 minutes between classes. The school calendar is a traditional one which generally runs Labor Day to
Memorial Day. Traditional extended day offerings are in place including athletics and a variety of clubs. Existing clubs engage
students in a variety of activities which draw attendees based on personal interest, including Speech, National Honor Society,
Cheerleading, eXtreme Science, etc. While clubs may have an academic component, direct ties to daily classroom instruction do
not exist in an authentic fashion. For the past several years a summer school program has been offered to incoming freshman, the
scope of which has consisted of math and reading remediation using a project based learning framework and to students receiving
Special Education services on an individualized basis (Extended School Year). In order to provide the academic instructional
support CLBHS students need, it must add afterschool and extended year standards based programming which expands classroom
instruction.
Survey Results – Family Surveys: CLBHS conducts an annual family qualitative survey to solicit family satisfaction with existing
instruction and programs. Most recent viable survey results (Fall 2008) indicate a high satisfaction with the school environment:
97% of families agreed that CLBHS is a good school. With regard to areas of identified need, school environment topped the list
with only 46% of families reporting an obvious respect for students who are different than they are. Classroom instruction was also
a high need, with 32% of families indicating student self-selection of projects was not evident and 29% stating school work is not
challenging enough and teachers do not make learning fun.
Survey Results – Staff: CLBHS participates in staff surveys utilized in the district’s comprehensive needs assessment. In the spring
of 2010, with Turnaround School (TAS) status being announced, CLBHS teachers participated in a locally developed staff survey.
21 of 24 staff completed the survey. The survey was created based upon 11 factors of successful schools. Home environment was
cited as the area least addressed by current programs and services. In addition to home environment, staff listed the following
practices as having the least implementation to date at CLBHS: (1) Student Goal Setting and Reflection (2) Schoolwide vocabulary
and reading programs; and (3) Student motivational training. Cambridge Evaluators noted goal setting as a significant need.
Staff Needs – Coursework and Class Size: CLBHS employs 20.37 Teachers, .50 Media Specialists and 3.17 other licensed
professionals. In addition, 11.97 other staff including non-licensed staff provides services to students and 4.52 paraprofessionals
provide instructional support. CLBHS staff turnover is minimal, with most turnovers resulting from teacher retirements. A
significant number of CLBHS students fail to pass required courses the first time which can create larger required class sizes.
CLBHS offers a variety of electives, many for-college-credit including Project Lead the Way® STEM, industrial technology, and
business courses. Cambridge Evaluators noted that CLBHS has a high number of electives compared to other schools – schools
with even greater population bases.
Staff Needs – Instructional Leadership: Cambridge Evaluators noted the lack of a definitive school improvement plan linked to
district and school goals with a structured program of monitoring progress towards goals, including regular classroom visits and
walkthroughs. The current CLBHS governance plan does not provide adequate time for the principal to provide the instructional
58
leadership needed to accomplish these tasks, as a great majority of the principal’s time is performing Dean of Student
responsibilities.
Professional Development: Cambridge Evaluators cited the need for teacher time to meet on a regular basis to collaborate on a
more formal basis, including reviewing research, revising instruction, developing cross curricular links and observing exemplary
instruction.
II. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLBHS AND TRANSFORMATION MODEL INTERVENTION
The CLBHS TAS Leadership Team (TAS Team) comprised of licensed representatives from all CLBHS content areas, the arts,
special education, and administration, carefully reviewed the comprehensive needs assessment data and results from the Cambridge
Evaluation Quality Review Report (QRR). With these needs before them, they carefully reviewed the four intervention models to
select the model which would be most effective in assisting them with achieving their goal of improving student achievement in
reading and math. The Team eliminated the Restart and School Closure model based upon data clearly indicating the existence of
the necessary solid and broad-based strengths in program and practice on which to build needed reforms. The Team then reviewed
and compared the Turnaround model. While many of the activities would have addressed identified schools needs, the existence of
the required firing of staff in the Turnaround Model was problematic based upon the existing certified local bargaining unit
agreement which would not allow for the reduction in staff outlined in the intervention model.
The Team then did a comparison of the Transformation model activities and CLBHS/Cambridge QRR cited areas for reform to
determine if it would be effective in meeting the identified needs:
CLBHS Need
1. Instructional Leadership: New governance which
allows the Principal the time to be the instructional leader.
2. Academic Achievement: Ongoing, job-embedded
professional development which will improve academic
achievement:
a. Implement reading and math research-based
instructional strategies into daily instruction to
improve classroom instruction and individualize
(differentiate) instruction
b. Provide time for teachers to do collegial research,
review student work, and collaborate.
c. Implement student, classroom, grade level and
school goal setting and reflection
d. Implement effective program to positively impact
student behavior outcomes
e. Integrate technology into daily instruction
f. Implement data driven decision making including
(1) goal setting and review for individual students,
classes, grade levels and the school as a whole; (2)
development and use of rubrics to assess student
work; and (3) implementation of pre/post/progress
monitoring assessment system.
3. Academic Achievement: Academic support programs
which provide needs-specific instruction and/or
remediation
a. 9th Grade Freshman Seminar
b. Reading and Math Skills Labs
c. Credit Recovery
4. Academic Achievement: Extended day/year learning
time which expands standards based classroom instruction
Cambridge QRR Cited Need
Readiness to Act: 3.1e
Readiness to Teach: 2.1d
a. Readiness to Teach: 2.2b, 2.2e
Transformation Component
• Remove the principal
• Hire a Site Administrative
Manager to handle noninstructional duties
• Hire a Turnaround Officer
to establish a local
Turnaround Office to
manage TAS efforts
• Provide ongoing, jobembedded professional
development
• Reserve 90 minutes per
week for teachers to meet in
PLCs
b. Readiness to Teach: 2.3a
c. Readiness to Teach: 2.1c 2.2c
d. Readiness to Teach: 2.1
Readiness to Learn: 1.2c
e. Readiness to Teach: 2.2e
f. Readiness to Teach: 2.1c,
2.2a,2.2b, 2.2c, 2,2e
a – c: Readiness to Teach: 2.2e
• Provide Increased Learning
Time
59
beyond the school day/school year.
5. Academic Achievement:
a. Implement a rigorous teacher and principal
evaluation program which includes classroom
observations three times per year
b. Create a program for identifying and rewarding
staff who improve classroom instruction which results
in improved student achievement. The program will
serve as an incentive to recruit, place and retain skilled
staff.
a. Readiness to Teach: 2.1a, 2.3b
b. Readiness to Teach: 2.1b
• Identify and reward leaders,
teachers, and other staff for
raising student achievement
• Use a rigorous evaluation
system for teachers and
principals
• Implement strategies to
recruit, place and retain
skilled TAS staff
a.
6. Increased Family Involvement: Meaningful
Close Student-Adult
opportunities for families to be involved in their CLBHS
Relationships: 1.3a
student’s education
The comparison indicated a clear relationship between CLBHS specific needs and the Transformation model. Support from the
Superintendent, School Board, and Local Bargaining Unit indicate a strong support system for model implementation. The
alignment of Title I, Title IIA, and district professional development funding will supplement SIG grant funds with additional
resources needed to fully implement the improvement plan.
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY
ISD 115 has thoroughly addressed the factors needed to demonstrate its capacity to fully and effectively implement the selected
intervention model in the identified Tier I or Tier II school:
Staff has been identified with the credentials and capability to implement the selected intervention model successfully.
CLBHS offers a comprehensive education for its students and has the number of staff needed to provide small class sizes for
required and elective courses. All CLBHS teachers are highly qualified and are operating within their area of licensure. The
Transformation Model requires the replacement of the Principal. A highly qualified Principal with the background and experience
needed to lead the reform effort will be hired by the district. To provide the principal with the time needed to be the school’s
instructional leader and the support needed to successfully implement the model, the district will hire a .5 FTE Site Administrative
Manager (SAM) and a .5 FTE Turnaround School Officer (OTASO).
The ability of the LEA to serve the overall number of Tier I and/or Tier II schools identified on the application has been
addressed. The ISD 115 School Improvement Grant (SIG) will serve one school – Cass Lake – Bena High School. ISD 115 has
experience successfully implementing school reform grants, including competitive Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
Grants awarded to Cass Lake – Bena Elementary and Cass Lake – Bena Middle School. ISD 115 has a fully staffed Business Office
which oversees grant financial management.
A commitment to support the selected intervention model has been indicated by: The teachers’ union, The school board,
Staff, and Parents. The teachers union, school board, staff, and parents have been involved in the development of the CLBHS
SIG from the very onset. All parties have been given updates on SIG progress through a minimum of two of the following
communication forms: U. S. Mail, Electronic Mail, group presentations, Q & A sessions, and availability of all information on a
weblink located on the district’s web page. Input from all partners has also been sought and included in the SIG development. A
letter to all district families (parents) provided them with multiple methods for contacting school staff with their input as well as a
TAS FAQ sheet designed to spur participation. To honor the American Indian culture we serve, a special day was set aside as a
listening day. All families were invited to attend and tell us what they thought … their ideas, concerns, etc. regarding the SIG and
improvement plan. No parent chose to participate. Since learning of TAS identification, all CLBHS staff have been involved in
program development through regularly scheduled updates on program progress delivered electronically or in building meetings.
The listening day referred to above was also set aside for any staff or students to share their ideas, concerns, etc. Their comments
were compiled and used in planning. Staff support has been unilateral throughout the planning and grant writing process. The
signatures of the School Board and Teachers Union on this application indicate their commitment for the model.
60
We have vigorously sought to provide parents and community members with information regarding the SIG, soliciting their support.
In addition to mailings, email and web information, parents and community support for the project was sought at end-of-year events
including the Senior Feast and Honors Breakfast (between 250 – 300 people attended this event). At these events parents and
community members received information about the SIG and were asked to speak to someone if they had ideas or concerns. What
we received was passive support – a community norm. Parents and community members in ISD 115 who have concerns have a
norm of speaking up, including writing letters to the editor, attending school board meetings and contacting teachers, the building
administrator or Local Indian Education Committee members. We have received no negative response to our plan.
CLBHS staff have been involved in project design from the onset. Representatives from each grade level participated in the TAS
Team. The TAS Team was charged with developing a SIG plan. Part of the planning process included having TAS Team members
bring the information back to teachers in their team/grade level for input or provide information in large group meetings where input
was solicited. Through the SIG creation CLBHS staff members gave input. All CLBHS staff members were provided with a copy
of the draft SIG and asked for final input. Teachers were always encouraged to express concerns or add ideas. No teacher concerns
for the final SIG were voiced.
A detailed and realistic timeline for getting the basic elements of the selected intervention model in place by the beginning of
the 2010-2011 school year has been provided. In order to implement the robust Transformation Model it has designed, the TAS
Team has developed a timeline which will ensure that it is ready to implement the model in the fall of the 2010-11 school year:
Transformation Component (What?)
Timeline (By When?)
Hire a new CLBHS Principal
July 21, 2010
Inform stakeholders of grant acquisition, including providing all stakeholders with a
summary of plan components and timelines.
July 21, 2010
Hire a .5 FTE SAM and .5 FTE OTASO
July 21, 2010
Finalize 2010-11 Professional Development Plan tied to SIG, contracting with
professional development providers
July 21, 2010
The CLBHS schedule will reflect the presence of weekly PLCs (90 minutes) to
begin SY 2010-11.
August 1, 2010
The 2010-11 CLBHS schedule will reflect an increase of a minimum of 170 hours
of available instructional programming, including extended day and year.
August 1, 2010
Inform families of additional programming options for students
August 15, 2010
Develop a teacher and principal evaluation system including reward system
August 15, 2010
Develop framework for PLCs, including content, collaboration and accountability
August 15, 2010
Begin implementing additional coursework
September 7, 2010
Begin weekly PLCs
Week of Sept. 7, 1010
Expanded family involvement – after school programming
September 15, 2010
Set and implement student, class, grade and school goals
September 15, 2010
A strategic planning process has already taken place that successfully supported the selection and implementation of the
intervention model. As described in the needs assessment portion of this application, The CLBHS TAS Leadership Team (TAS
Team) comprised of licensed representatives from all CLBHS content areas, the arts, special education, and administration,
carefully reviewed the comprehensive needs assessment data and results from the Cambridge Evaluation Quality Review Report.
The TAS Team then reviewed the four models to determine which would be the most effective vehicle for making the needed
educational reforms. Upon selecting the Transformation Model, the TAS Team created a strategic plan which identified activities to
be included in the various components of the model as well as a realistic and achievable timetable for implementing those activities.
TAS Team members were assigned specific tasks and met (and continue to meet) on a regular basis to review progress towards
61
achieving timelines/activities. The ISD 115 Superintendent is a member of the TAS Team and was/is responsible for ensuring that
the intervention model selected is appropriate and that the team created a rigorous plan and that the approved SIG is authentically
implemented.
The history of ability to recruit new principals with the credentials and capability to implement the model has been
described. Cass Lake – Bena Schools is located in greater Minnesota, on the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Recruiting highly
qualified principals to the district poses challenges. To date, ISD 115 has been successful in recruiting highly qualified
administrators. This is evidenced by the hiring three years ago of the existing highly qualified CLBHS Principal who we feel
compelled to argue that based upon CLBHS academic improvement trends has proven that if she had been given the opportunity to
operate under the Transformation Governance and would have had the support needed to have time to be the instructional leader of
our school would have been able to accomplish the kind of instructional reforms needed to accelerate student growth.
In order to recruit highly qualified new principals, ISD 115 offers a highly competitive salary and benefits package and advertises
locally, statewide, and throughout the region. To attract a large pool of highly qualified principal candidates, the district has cast a
broad net and has received applications from across Minnesota and from other states as well. The hiring committee will base its
selection on the candidate that best meets the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards (2008).
Determination of the candidate who bests meets ISLLC standards will be based upon (a) professional portfolio, (b) interview
process which requires candidate to address ISLLC standards, and (c) extensive background check which includes interviewing
stakeholders (teachers, community members, etc.) on the extent to which candidates have exhibited an ability to meet ISLLC
standards in their current position. To assist with determining the extent to which candidates are aware of and have proven capacity
to meet ISLLC Standards, the district has created a rubric which is being used in the hiring process. The Superintendent will ensure
that the hiring committee understands the standards and selection criteria and has practice/expertise in utilizing the interview rubric
which will be used in the interview process.
The ability of the LEA to successfully align federal, state and local funding sources with grant activities and to ensure
sustainability of the reform measures. ISD 115 is committed to aligning its resources to ensure that the Transformation Model is
successfully implemented and student achievement is accelerated to that of higher performing schools. To ensure that the CLBHS
Transformation Plan has the resources it needs the district has created 2010-11 Title I and Title IIA grant applications which provide
needed supplementary support for program components. In addition, ISD 115 is committed to providing the additional staff
development funds necessary for the robust training plan which is a foundational component of the SIG grant.
Plans to and barriers from adding at least an hour of additional instruction time per day, or alternative/extended school-year
calendars that add time beyond the additional hour of instruction time per day for each identified Tier I and Tier II school to
be served by the application have been outlined. The CLBHS plan for improving instruction includes adding more than one
hour per day of instruction by adding standards based extended day and extended year learning opportunities which are tied to and
expand classroom instruction which occurs during the regular school day/year.
School Day: The significant barrier to attracting students to academic programming after school is the presence of a strong and well
attended extra curricular program in which most CLBHS students participate and many CLBHS teachers act as advisors. In order to
ensure that students have the opportunity to attend and that highly qualified staff are available to act as instructional leaders, CLBHS
will add two days per week of afterschool academic-focused programming to the weekly schedule. Each session will be 2.5 hours in
length, allowing all participants to utilize take-home bussing provided free-of-charge by the district. This eliminates transportation
barriers.
School. Year: The CLBHS Improvement Plan includes the expansion of Summer School to include all CLBHS students. (Current
programming is limited to incoming Freshmen). CLBHS will offer 8 days, 7 hours per day, of project based learning which expands
instruction conducted during the school year and is culturally relevant. Transportation will be provided free-of-charge by the district,
eliminating potential transportation barriers.
A governance structure is described that includes an LEA-based Turnaround Officer(s) or Turnaround Office that will be
responsible for taking an active role in the day-to-day management of turnaround efforts at the school level and for
coordinating with the OTAS. A new CLBHS governance structure has been created to become operational upon notification of
SIG grant acquisition. The district has posted/advertised for the position of a CLBHS .50 FTE OTAS Officer (OTASO) and will hire
a highly qualified candidate to begin employment upon receipt of the properly executed SIG OGAN. The .50 FTE OTASO will
report directly to the superintendent and will work closely with the High School Principal and staff to ensure that the SIG is
implemented with fidelity. The OTASO will also serve as liaison between the Minnesota Department of Education and CLBHS.
The OTASO will be responsible for developing the Transformation Model at CLBHS, acting as liaison with State OTAS, providing
monitoring data to the State OTAS, monitoring the school improvement plan implementation at CLBHS and ensuring fidelity of
62
implementation, will provide implementation support, and will attend State OTAS meetings.
The LEA is prepared to hire at least a .5 FTE Site Administrative Manager (SAM) with the skills and experience to work
with diverse and/or challenging student populations at each identified school to be served on its application. The SAM will be
responsible for administrative duties at the school not directly related to instruction. The new CLBHS governance structure which
has been created includes the hiring of a .5FTE SAM with the skills and experience needed to work with the unique student
population at CLBHS. The job has been posted/advertised and the district will hire a highly qualified candidate to begin
employment upon receipt of the properly executed SIG OGAN. The SAM will report directly to and work closely with the new
High School Principal and will carry out all day-to-day non-instructional operations. When the SAM is not able to assume noninstructional duties the district will hire a substitute SAM to perform the duties of the SAM in his or her absence. The district has
established a working relationship with retired administrators in the area and utilizes two CLBHS administrator substitutes on a
regular basis to ensure familiarity with the school goals and activities as well as positive working relationships with staff and area
families.
One of the SAM’s responsibilities will be to monitor and improve attendance. In order to accomplish this the SAM will provide
administrative support to ensure that early intervention occurs. The SAM will schedule weekly Attendance Meetings. The
meetings will be run by the district Truancy Specialist who is responsible for early identification of at-risk student attendance and
coordinating district services, including home school advocates, to intervene early and get students back in school on a daily basis.
The Truancy Specialist will assign weekly workloads, home visits, etc., to attendance personnel. The SAM will meet with the
Truancy Specialist for followup to ensure that plans are implemented on a timely basis.
The LEA intends to take advantage of the provisions of Minnesota’s “District-created Site-governed Schools” state statute
(§123B.045) to provide additional operational flexibility to implement the selected intervention model. No additional
operational flexibility is required for ISD 115 to implement the model and so it will not, therefore, take advantage of these
provisions.
The LEA has detailed plans in place to implement a teacher evaluation system for all licensed staff that includes at least 3
observations per year by at least two different reviewers and that has robust measures to ensure inter-rater reliability. In
order to create a teacher evaluation system to be ready for implementation day one of the 2010-11 school year, a diverse team of
licensed teaching and administrative staff (TES Team) will be meeting weekly during summer 2010 to create a draft plan to be
approved by the district and local bargaining unit by August 15, 2010.
The evaluation plan will include increased accountability for all staff. The evaluation plan will include a minimum of 3 observationbased assessments conducted by two observers and ongoing collections of performance. The TES Team will develop an evaluation
rubric, reviewing current effective rubrics, (including rubrics by Charlotte Danielson), and select a rubric to be used for CLBHS
teacher evaluations. The TES Team will also develop a reward system which rewards teachers for improving student achievement
and links with the rubric used in classroom observations.
The two observers will utilize pre/post reflection and feedback as a professional development tool. To ensure inter-rater reliability,
the two observers will participate in an initial training to review the selected rubric and determine how to specifically interpret the
rubric in classroom settings. The two observers will conduct a minimum of 5 ‘practice’ observations and meet following the
observations to refine/align their interpretations. When the observer’s have aligned their rubric scoring, they will begin their Fall
2010 observations. Observations will be conducted Fall/Winter/Spring, with observers conducting ‘practice’ observations prior to
each observation window to ensure inter-rater reliability.
Pre/post data from classroom observations will be used to drive individual and group professional development sessions.
All teachers will be provided with initial training in Summer 2010 which clearly defines and explains the new teacher evaluation
system and the tools used in it.
In addition to formal evaluation, teachers will have additional observation opportunities. Professional Learning Communities will
provide teachers with job-embedded professional development designed to improve their capacity to deliver research-based
instruction. Best practices will be clearly defined and demonstrated during PLCs. PLC learning will also include the opportunity
for teachers to observe each other’s classes in person or via lesson videotaping, give each other feedback, and share ideas. Teachers
will be afforded the opportunity to observe in person or via lesson videotaping teachers who achieve master teacher status.
Principal Evaluation: A district administration team comprised of the CLBHS Principal, Superintendent or Designee, and a School
Board representative will develop a principal evaluation rubric to be utilized in the assessment of the performance of the CLBHS
63
principal. Utilizing the Principal Leadership Competencies developed in 2004 by New Leaders for New Schools, the rubric will be
organized around six domains covering all aspects of the principal’s job performance: Diagnosis and Planning, Priority
Management and Communication, Curriculum and Data, Supervision and Professional Development, Discipline and Family
Involvement, and Management and External Relations. The rubric will use a four-level rating scale with the following labels:
Expert, Proficient, Needs Improvement and Does Not Meet Standards. Timeline: The rubric will be completed by November 1,
2010.
The Superintendent will be in the school frequently throughout the year in order to be qualified to assess the Principal’s
performance. The Superintendent will administer the evaluation two times per year (Winter & Spring) in the first year and three
times per year in each of the subsequent year (Fall, Winter & Spring). Each evaluation will serve as an opportunity to communicate
where the Principal stands in all performance areas as well as detailed guidance for improvement. The final evaluation conducted
during each school year will serve as the end-of-the-year assessment from which the reward system will be tied.
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY
Provide basic information about the proposed governance structure at the LEA in relation to this school, including:
•
A brief list of duties for the SAM position to be created by the LEA that demonstrates how this individual will assume
administrative duties not directly related to instruction.
•
An organizational chart showing to whom the LEA Turnaround Office/Officer, the SAM, the principal and other school
administrators will report.
The 2010-11 CLBHS governance plan will provide the governance needed to successfully implement the SIG/Transformation
Model. The CLBHS Principal will report directly to the Superintendent, will supervise the SAM and work closely with the OTASO.
The.50 FTE OTASO will report directly to the Superintendent and work closely with the High School Principal and staff and will act
as a liaison with the State OTAS. The .50 FTE CLBHS SAM will report directly to and work closely with the CLBHS Principal to
carry out all day-to-day non-instructional operations. The following chart outlines basic position purposes and responsibilities within
the new governance structure.
CLBHS Site Administrative
Manager (SAM) .50FTE
CLBHS Office of Turnaround School
(OTAS) Officer .50FTE
CLBHS High School Principal
Report directly to and work closely
with the principal to carry out all
day-to-day non-instructional
operations. Responsibilities include
but are not limited to:
Report directly to the Superintendent and
work closely with the high school Principal
and staff to ensure that the School
Improvement Grant/Plan is implemented with
fidelity. Reports indirectly to the Minnesota
Department of Education. Responsibilities
include but are not limited to:
Report directly to Superintendent. Serve
as the instructional leader of the school.
Position supervises SAM and works
closely with OTAS Officer.
Responsibilities include but are not
limited to:
64
· Maintain a safe learning
environment by enforcing the school
and district discipline policy
· Monitoring and improving student
attendance
· Developing and monitoring school
safety planning with regard to
emergency drills, disaster
preparation and student health
· Managing school maintenance
projects
· Overseeing school schedules,
special events, field trips, common
areas and transportation operations
· Maintaining textbook and
equipment inventories.
· Develop selected intervention model
· Act as liaison with State OTAS
· Provide monitoring data to the State OTAS
· Monitor school improvement plan
implementation at the high school, ensuring
fidelity of plan implementation
· Provide implementation support
· Attend State OTAS meetings
· Conduct teacher observations three
times per year
· Conduct informal teacher observations
on an ongoing basis
· Assist teachers in goal setting (student,
class, content area, etc.)
· Assist each teacher in setting and
reviewing progress towards professional
goals
· Conduct pedagogical research on best
practices instruction, including sharing
results with staff
· Organize, arrange for, monitor and
evaluate professional development
activities including 10 days a year and
weekly 90 minutes PLCs
· Provide timely information and support
to OTAS officer
Governance of Cass Lake—Bena Public Schools High School 2010-11
The following organizational chart provides a quick overview of reporting relationships within the new governance at CLBHS which
will begin in the 2010-11 school year. One person will be hired as the .50 FTE OTASO/.50 FTE SAM.
Superintendent—ISD 115
OTAS Officer .50 FTE
MDE
OTAS
Site Administrative
Manager (SAM) .50 FTE
HS Principal
CLBHS
Teachers/Staff
65
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Describe actions the LEA has taken, or will take, to:
I. Design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements.
The LEA must have detailed plans in place to demonstrate how the interventions will be designed well in advance of the expected
implementation period. The LEA must demonstrate its commitment to design and implement interventions consistent with the final
requirements by providing information about a comprehensive and timely process to design and implement the basic elements of
such interventions by the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
Factors the LEA must use to establish a commitment to design and implement interventions consistent with the final requirements
must include, but are not limited to:
• The LEA has plans to regularly engage the school community to inform them of progress toward the design and implementation of
the interventions and to give them an opportunity to provide input.
• The LEA has staff in place with the expertise and experience to research and design the selected intervention as intended while still
meeting local needs.
• The LEA has set aside time and resources sufficient to facilitate the design and ongoing implementation of interventions.
• The LEA has successfully completed a strategic planning process that will guide the design of interventions.
• The LEA has undergone a comprehensive diagnostic process that will inform the design and implementation of intervention
strategies.
• The LEA has demonstrated adequate capacity to implement the selected intervention models.
• The LEA, if a charter school, has demonstrated support from its authorizer to design and implement the selected intervention
model.
ISD 115 has plans to regularly engage the school community to inform them of progress toward the design and
implementation of the interventions and to give them an opportunity to provide input. In order to develop a Transformation
plan that would be effective, buy-in and input from stakeholders throughout project design was essential. To that end the TAS Team
continually informed the school community (including district families, teachers, administration, and the Cass Lake area community)
of progress during the design phase of the SIG. Letters to all families informed them of Turnaround School identification and the
steps CLBHS was taking to develop an effective plan. The letter provided families with a TAS FAQ sheet designed to answer a
number of common questions and spur interest in the project, and provided them with multiple methods for providing input including
contact phone numbers and email addresses as well as informing them of the listening day – the purpose, place and time where
families could come and share their thoughts. Families were also informed of the weblink on the district homepage which has been
continually updated with new information as the plan design has been formalized.
All school district employees received electronic messages regarding progress of the SIG design and were also invited to attend a Q
& A session and to participate in the listening day by providing their input and recommendations. They were also informed of the
weblink and received a copy of the family letter and FAQ sheet developed for the project.
Cass Lake area residents have also been informed of the TAS project through an initial newspaper story. Follow-up stories are
scheduled throughout the summer to keep all interested readers informed of SIG plans and implementation progress.
CLBHS will continue to utilize the district weblink to keep everyone informed of SIG implementation, making copies of the final
grant document and timelines and regularly updating the information throughout implementation.
CLBHS will provide families with an overview of the project and an implementation timeline and staff will be available to answer
any questions on the first day of school open house. Opportunities for families to provide input into the project will be ongoing, with
annual qualitative surveys and listening days as well as parent/teacher conferences affording formal opportunities for input which
will be used in project implementation. In addition, as attendance at special meetings held for CLBHS parents has been historically
poor, CLBHS will utilize school events where parents and community members are already attending as opportunities to engage
them during the process of SIG implementation. A five – ten question survey designed to solicit satisfication with project
development and implementation will be created and given out at a well-attended fall event. Data from this survey will serve as
baseline data. The survey will again be administered in the winter and spring of each grant year, at well attended evening events, with
the results being compared to baseline to determine continuing support for project tenets. Survey results will be used by the TAS
Team to improve project services and communication. In order to improve attendance at listening days, the district will work with
the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe to explore locating listening days at tribal offices, sites and/or community centers located throughout
the district.
CLBHS staff will be provided with opportunities to provide input throughout grant implementation during regularly scheduled staff
66
meetings, during principal/teacher goal setting and observation debriefing/reflection, through post professional development surveys,
and qualitative surveys created and conducted by the OTASO.
ISD 115 has staff in place with the expertise and experience to research and design the selected intervention as intended while
still meeting local needs. The TAS Team which met to design the selected intervention has the expertise and experience needed to
develop a research-based model. The TAS Team consists of one highly qualified teacher from each content area, a highly qualified
specialist and highly qualified special education teacher, the current high school principal, the District Literacy Coordinator, the
District Grants/Testing Coordinator, the District Special Education Coordinator, the District Indian Education Director, and the ISD
115 Superintendent. Highly qualified teachers selected for TAS Team membership bring a wealth of knowledge of best practices in
the areas in which they provide instruction.
The District Literacy Coordinator (DLC), whose original licensure was 9-12 Reading, brings an extensive background in bestpractices classroom practices and instructional methods to the design effort, having served as Literacy Coordinator during the
district’s 4 year Reading First Project. In this capacity, the DLC did action research on best practices for classroom instruction,
including improving literacy and student engagement. This action research was then implemented while establishing, leading and
monitoring weekly PLCs, including creating format, selecting content and ensuring accountability. The DLC has most recently been
providing literacy coaching to identified district staff, grades K – 9 and has been coordinating tri-annual data retreats in all sites. Her
familiarity with best practices, PLCs and data driven decision making have been invaluable in project design.
The District Grant/Testing Coordinator has extensive experience in developing effective grant plans, budgets and timelines and was
extremely helpful in assisting the TAS Team develop a comprehensive plan with realistic goals and timelines.
Citing the importance of the work done by the TAS Team, the Superintendent arranged for substitute teachers for TAS Team
meetings held during the 2009-10 school year, to ensure that CLBHS instructional needs were met.
ISD 115 has set aside time and resources sufficient to facilitate the design and ongoing implementation of interventions.
Initial project design work will conclude in June 2010. ISD 115 has set aside the financial resources necessary for the TAS Team to
complete their work in developing a comprehensive and aggressive Transformation plan. Costs for implementing the plan are built
into the SIG budget. Additional costs required over and above available SIG funds will be supported through available district staff
development funds.
ISD 115 has successfully completed a strategic planning process that will guide the design of interventions. The ISD 115
strategic planning process utilized data driven decision making which began with utilization of multiple diagnostic needs assessment
data sources and solicitation of input from a variety of stakeholders. The team utilized the data to determine which of the four models
would best serve CLBHS in its reform effort. With the model selected, the team used the data to determine instructional and
programmatic areas which needed to be improved in order to improve outcomes. With these areas identified, the team reviewed
current best practices instructional methods and determined which methods were already in place at CLBHS and needed to be
expanded/enhanced and also additional methods and practices which needed to be incorporated into daily instruction in order to
accelerate student learning to that of higher achieving schools.
ISD 115 has undergone a comprehensive diagnostic process that will inform the design and implementation of intervention
strategies. ISD 115 utilized a comprehensive diagnostic process that relied upon multiple data sources. CLBHS compiled a
comprehensive needs assessment which included longitudinal data on student MCA-II proficiency and growth rates, attendance rates,
graduation rates, discipline referral numbers, and family/staff/student survey data. This needs assessment diagnosed areas of
weakness and concern.
In addition to the CLBHS needs assessment, Cambridge Evaluators conducted a two day site visit which resulted in a Quality Review
Report. The report findings clearly pointed to specific practices which needed to change in order for the school to move forward.
To assist CLBHS with determining what specific classroom practices needed to be changed, the district hired the services of John
Froehlich, a consultant/creator of the Looking at Learning classroom student engagement measurement tool. Utilizing the software
program he created, Mr. Froehlich is able to conduct a classroom observation and determine the extent to which best practices
classroom instruction is occurring. Mr. Froehlich did an observation in each CLBHS classroom during the month of May. He then
compiled a CLBHS profile which identified specific areas of classroom teaching which needed to improve building-wide.
Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde’s (2005) compilation of best practice gives insight into what educational researchers recommend we
should see in high performing classrooms. Looking at Learning offers a way for teachers to know what mix of these best practice
67
instructional activities is currently in place in their classrooms and it allows teams of teachers to plan for a more engaging mix of
instructional activities and then verify the results of those strategies.
Looking at Learning is a measurement tool designed to capture what students are being asked to do in the classroom. Class
configuration, leadership, student activities, the cognitive purpose for the activities and the level of participation are measured
minute-to-minute and summarized. The tool is designed to be flexible and easily used by the observer. The data obtained is used for
professional dialog, staff development and team planning. Changes in instruction and their effects on student achievement can be
monitored over time giving teachers the ability to choose more effective instructional practices for their students.
Looking at Learning measurements are based on school improvement principles and recommendations described by others.
Specifically, Looking at Learning is reflective of the work done by Marzano (2004; 2007), McTighe (2005) and Wiggin (2005).
The diagnostic data from all these sources was utilized to select strategies and professional development activities to be included in
the plan.
The LEA has demonstrated adequate capacity to implement the selected intervention models. ISD 115 has demonstrated that it
has the capacity to implement the Transformation Model and plan it has created. This is evidenced by the district’s:
• willingness to establish and provide ongoing support for new governance at CLBHS
• provision of the necessary resources for the TAS Team to research and develop a plan design and implementation timetable,
including funding and district personnel
• development of a robust, comprehensive improvement plan
• alignment of additional resources to support the improvement plan, including Title I, Title IIA and district funds
• availability of business office personnel to oversee grant budget and expenditures.
II.
Recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable, to ensure their quality.
An external provider will only be effective insofar as it is closely matched with the needs and local conditions of the
school(s) it serves. The SEA expects LEAs that seek to engage external providers to demonstrate in their applications that
they have gone through a thoughtful and inclusive process to select the external provider. Note that this section only needs
to be completed by schools selecting the Restart Model.
The LEA must demonstrate its commitment to recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable, to ensure their
quality by providing information about:
•
•
Reasonable and timely steps it will take to recruit and screen providers to be in place by the beginning of the 20102011 school year that may include, but are not limited to:
o Analyzing the LEA’s operational needs.
o Researching and prioritizing the external providers available to serve the school.
Consider and analyze the external provider market.
Contact other LEAs currently or formerly engaged with the external provider regarding their
experience.
o Engaging parents and community members to assist in the selection process.
o Delineating clearly the respective responsibilities and expectations to be assumed by the external provider
and the LEA.
o Listing providers that have passed the screening process and may be considered for a contract.
Detailed and relevant criteria for selecting external providers that take into account the specific needs of the Tier I
and/or Tier II schools to be served by external providers that may include, but are not limited to:
o A proven track record of success working with a particular population or type of school. For example,
success in working with high schools or English Language Learners.
o Alignment between external provider services and existing LEA services.
68
o
o
Willingness to be held accountable to high performance standards.
Capacity to serve the identified school and its selected intervention model.
Not applicable to our application. We have selected the Transformation Model.
III.
Align other resources with the interventions.
While funding sources and opportunities for alignment will vary by LEA, it is critical that all relevant areas for alignment of
resources are identified in the LEA application. The SEA will carefully assess the LEA’s commitment to align ALL school
resources with the SIG funds by determining the extent to which it demonstrates the ability and willingness to effectively integrate
various activities funded at the federal, state and local level with SIG-funded activities.
Funding sources the LEA must cite to demonstrate its commitment to align other resources to the SIG interventions include, but are
not limited to: Title I; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; and state and local revenues as well as State Fiscal
Stabilization Funds.
For “schoolwide” plans, describe how the consolidated funds such as Title I Part A, Title II Part A and other federal and state funds
will be used to support the selected intervention model. If other key resources are not currently aligned with proposed SIG
interventions, explain how they will be brought into alignment. The LEA must demonstrate, through various pieces of evidence,
such as strategic plans, board minutes, district policies and staffing structure, that other funding sources are aligned with SIGfunded activities.
The district has aligned the resources needed to ensure that the Transformation Model has the foundational support needed
to succeed.
Title I Part A: CLBHS does not receive Title 1 funds, as the district has targeted these funds towards its elementary and middle
school sites. Both sites are schoolwide projects with approved schoolwide plans in place. The district has, however, utilized its
District AYP setaside funds in previous years to support high school improvement activities.
District AYP funds were utilized in 2009-10 to fund a .40 FTE of the District’s Literacy Coordinator. (Title IIA funded the remaining
.60 FTE of this position.) Her position was district wide. Less than 10% of her time in 2009-10 was spent on coaching high school
staff. In 2010-11 the district’s Title I Part A application states that the district will continue to utilize a portion of its District AYP
funds to support .40 FTE of the salary and fringe of the Literacy Coordinator, however all of the .40 FTE ($30,538.00) will be
dedicated to (1) providing individualized Reading Coaching to CLBHS high school staff and (2) providing support for PLC
development and implementation at CLBHS. Improved reading skills have been shown to improve mathematics test scores, an area
clearly lagging behind state averages. In addition, longitudinal Grade 10 Reading data indicates the lack of a trend of continual
improvement in the area of reading. Proficiency rates were 43.10 in 06-07, rose to 61.90 in 07-08, dropped back to 45.16 in 08-09
and rose again to 63.64 in 09-10. This lack of consistency indicates the presence of instructional strategies in some CLBHS
classrooms that work for some students. There is a clear need for professional development which provides all CLBHS licensed staff
with the skills needed to provide classroom instruction which embeds reading research best practices to meet the diverse learning
styles of all students, thereby making all teachers effective teachers of reading strategies. The presence of a Litercy Coach to provide
best practices modeling and debriefing in these areas, as well as being a resource in PLCs will provide teachers with the onsite
resources needed to improve reading instruction on a systemic basis.
The 2010-11 ISD 115 Title I Part A application also states that district AYP funds will be used to fund a portion of the consulting
fees required for ongoing Looking at Learning classroom observations which will be conducted three times per year in each CLBHS
classroom. These observations will provide teachers with ongoing diagnostic assessment of their classroom instruction from which
to determine the impact of professional development daily instruction and to pinpoint continuing needs for individual and group
training.
69
Title II Part A: A significant portion of the district’s 2010-11 Title II Part A funds ($42,817.00) will be utilized to fund the
remaining salary and fringe associated with the .60 FTE for the Literacy Coordinator position. The district’s 2010-11 Title IIA
application states that .40 FTE ($28,559.00) of the .60 FTE supported by Title IIA funds will be assigned to CLBHS to supports it
TAS improvement plan.
In addition to Title IIA support for the Literacy Coordinator position, a portion of Title IIA funds ($3,664.00) have been set aside to
purchase the books and materials required for CLBHS PLCs.
STAR Grant – Office of Indian Education/U. S. Department of Education: CLBHS was awarded a Demonstration Grant for Indian
Children (STAR Grant) and 2010-11 will be the final year of the grant. Through this competitive grant CLBHS has been providing
training to math and science teachers in Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) instructional delivery methods. The STAR Grant
provided initial training to CLBHS math and science teaching staff in this best practices model and has provided quarterly
observation and coaching of staff by a highly qualified consultant.
CLBHS Math MCA-II longitiduinal test results indicate that the infusion of CGI in classroom instruction is having the impact of
steadily improving outcomes, and in 2009-10 showed a significant gain over the previous year, 5.2%, vs. the State of Minnesota gain
of 1.7%. In addition, CLBHS American Indian students which comprise over 90% of the 2010-11 Grade 11 testing cohort surpassed
state American Indian proficiency averages by 3%. The trend of ever increasing proficiency percentages in each of the past three
years indicates that what we are doing in working.
Grade 11 MCA-II Math: Percent of Proficiency Increase by School
Year Over Time
CLBHS
State of MN
8
7
%Increase
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
CLBHS
3.42
3.69
5.2
State of MN
2.13
7.24
1.7
The improvement, however, must be accelerated in order for CLBHS to reach the achievement levels of higher performing schools.
To that end the district has applied to the Office of Indian Education and has received notification of approval to reallocate year
2010-11 funds to support a more rigorous coaching model to include math and special education staff. This reallocation of funds
will provide $33,600 for the consulting fees required for intensive August 2010 training and monthly coaching during 2010-11.
Current CGI professional development offerings which have resulted in the trend of increasing performance have been provided on a
quarterly basis. The SIG will accelerate the training to monthly modeling, coaching and debriefing, with an initial 3 day training
which will bring all identified staff to a foundational understanding of CGI best practices which need to be in place for mathematics
achievement to improve.
It should be noted that CGI ongoing and sustained professional development is a significant professional development piece, but that
grant activities for mathematics improvement are not limited to CGI. In addition to CGI, mathematics teachers (regular and special
education) will participate in weekly PLCs which will build their capacity to provide research based classroom instruction.
Technology Integration which increases student engagement and addresses the needs of visual learners is also a component of
transforming classroom instruction (see below).
Rural and Low Income Funds: In the past, a portion of annually awarded Rural and Low Income Funds have been allocated to
CLBHS to expend on improvement activities. In 2009-10 funds were used to support the planning and curriculum development of
the June 2010 freshman summer school program. Funds are awarded to districts based upon availability. The district has tagged any
2010-11 Rural and Low Income funds it receives to provide supplemental support for the 2011 CLBHS Summer School Program.
The average amount of Rural and Low Income funds received by the district in the past five years is $22,000.00.
Transportation Funds: Students participating in TAS implemented extended day and/or year academic programming will be
provided take-home bussing free-of-charge by the district. The district utilizes a portion of its transportation funds to pay for this
barrier-removing service.
70
State Stabilization Funds: The district’s State Stabilization Funds are utilized to pay for transporting students to and from school, a
service necessary for daily instruction to occur.
District Resources: The district will support the infusion of best practices technology integration into daily CLBHS mathematics
and reading instruction through the purchase of SMARTBoard technology which will be installed into reading, mathematics and
special education classrooms in year one of the SIG. The district will employ the services of the District Technology Integrationist
to provide initial and ongoing monthly training in the use of the technology tool to improve classroom instruction. Individiualized
modeling and coaching will also be available to CLBHS staff.
SUMMARY: 2010-11 Aligned District Resources
Transformation Activity
Aligned Resources
Amount
Individualized Literacy Coaching,
Professional Learning Communities, and Data
Retreat support provided by Literacy Coach
to CLBHS Staff: .40 FTE
Title I Part A – District AYP: Salary and Fringe
$30,538.00
Individualized Literacy Coaching,
Professional Learning Communities, and Data
Retreat support provided by Literacy Coach
to CLBHS Staff: .40 FTE
Title II A: Salary and Fringe
$28,559.00
Extended time for the Literacy Coordinator to
prepare PLC format and materials and to
prepare/present August 2010 training
Title II A: Extended Time Salary and Fringe
$3,664.00
Individualized Coaching and Small Group
Training in Cognitively Guided Instruction
STAR Grant: Consulting Fees
$33,600.00
Expanded 2010 CLBHS Summer School
Programming
Rural and Low Income Grant Funds allocated to
ISD 115 in 2010-11 will be used to provide
supplemental resources for CLBHS summer school
$22,000.00
Professional Development: Extended School
Year
Local Funds: District funds will be used to
supplement SIG funds for professional development
efforts as needed
-
Addition of extended day/year academic
Transportation Funds: Provide take-home bussing
for participating students. (Students will ride on take-
-
(ISD 115 has
received an average
of $22,000 per year
in the past 5 years.)
71
programs
home buses which are contracted by the district at an
average annual cost of $40,000.)
Technology Integration
SMARTBoard Technology: Installation of a
SMARTBoard into identified CLBHS classrooms as
well as the purchase of a laptop for the classroom
teacher. ($48,600) The District Technology
Integrationist will also support the project through
large group, small group, and individualized
instruction.
$48,600
TOTAL Aligned Funds
$118,361.00
$166,961.00
The district is committed to aligning funds throughout the entire grant cycle. The district business office will work with the High
School Principal and OTAS Officer to develop fund alignment for each subsequent budget year.
IV.
Modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable it to implement the interventions fully and effectively.
Given the extraordinary needs of students in our lowest-performing schools, it is essential to have a more flexible approach to
staffing and scheduling of teachers. To succeed, the LEA must invest in teachers who can bring the proper instructional
strategies and cultural competency to challenge and motivate students in turnaround schools. To succeed, turnaround schools
must have flexibility to increase instructional time and the way the school day and year are organized to best meet the needs
of students.
The LEA must demonstrate its commitment to modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable it to implement the
selected intervention fully and effectively in the identified Tier I or Tier II school by providing information about the extent
to which it has the ability and willingness to implement:
•
•
•
•
•
Teacher hiring outside of typical seniority rules (e.g., principal-determined, mutual consent or teacher-led
council input at site-governed schools).
Stability for effective teachers working in turnaround schools (including, but not limited to protection from
bumping and layoffs for at least two staffing cycles or three full school years).
A low-stakes, low-barrier transfer process for teachers struggling to be effective in turnaround schools (e.g.,
move to another school at request of management/labor committee). Local LEAs can also decide to fund “soft
landing” (e.g., providing one year of severance) packages for teachers displaced during the turnaround
process, if approved by the local teachers union.
Adding at least an hour of additional instruction time per day for Tier I and Tier II schools.
Alternative or extended school-year calendars that add time beyond the additional hour of instruction time per
day for Tier I and Tier II schools.
72
Current district policies and practices provide the framework within the CLBHS Transformation Model can be fully implemented.
Teacher hiring outside of typical seniority rules (e.g., principal-determined, mutual consent or teacher-led council input at
site-governed schools). The district does not need to modify their existing policies or practices, as CLBHS has selected the
Transformation Model and all existing staff are being retained.
Stability for effective teachers working in turnaround schools (including, but not limited to protection from bumping and
layoffs for at least two staffing cycles or three full school years). The existing local bargaining unit agreement protects teachers
based on seniority vs. effectiveness. The intent of the district is to protect effective teachers working at CLBHS. During the next
negotiations, which will begin during 2011, the district will revisit the current contract language and seek language which protects
teachers based on effectiveness.
A low-stakes, low-barrier transfer process for teachers struggling to be effective in turnaround schools (e.g., move to another
school at request of management/labor committee). Local LEAs can also decide to fund “soft landing” (e.g., providing one
year of severance) packages for teachers displaced during the turnaround process, if approved by the local teachers union.
Current district policy allows for a teacher struggling to be effective in one building to be reassigned to another building within the
district, within their area of licensure. The district will utilize this practice in working with CLBHS teachers who are struggling to be
effective.
Adding at least an hour of additional instruction time per day for Tier I and Tier II schools.
Extended Day Instructional Programming: The district will work within its existing policies and practices for extended day
programming. Article VI, Section 6, page 7 of the local bargaining unit agreement requires that teachers who participate in extended
day instructional programming with students will be paid at their hourly rate. The CLBHS SIG has built this into the budget.
Extended Day Professional Development: The district will work within its existing policies and practices for extended day
professional development activities. Article VI, Section 6, page 7 of the local bargaining unit agreement requires teachers who
participate in professional development beyond the work day be compensated at the agreed upon rate of $25.00 per hour. The CLBHS
SIG has built this into the budget.
Use of Teacher Preparation Time for 90 minute per week PLCs: The district will work within its existing policies and practices to
compensate teachers for daily teacher preparation time which is used for training purposes. Article VII, Section 4, page 15 of the
agreement requires hourly rate compensation. The CLBHS SIG has built this into the budget.
Alternative or extended school-year calendars that add time beyond the additional hour of instruction time per day for Tier I
and Tier II schools.
Extended Year Summer School: The district will work within its existing policies and practices to compensate teachers who volunteer
to teach extended year summer school, paying teachers at their hourly rate as agreed upon in the local bargaining unit agreement –
Article VI, Section 6, page 7.
Extended Year Professional Development: Article VI, Section 6, page 7 of the local bargaining unit agreement requires teachers who
participate in professional development beyond the school board agreed upon school calendar will be compensated at the agreed upon
rate of $25.00 per hour. The CLBHS SIG has built this into the budget.
73
V. The LEA will demonstrate its commitment to sustaining reforms in the identified Tier I or Tier II school after the funding
period ends by providing information about, as applicable, the extent to which:
Criteria
Model(s)
The school staff and wider communities share reform leadership in the planning phase as well as
All
throughout implementation.
There are plans in place to deal with staffing and funding changes, including transitions in leadership.
All
A strategic planning process is in place at the LEA that supports the long-term implementation of
educational reforms and built in checkpoints along the way to monitor levels of implementation and
progress toward outcomes.
All
The “schoolwide” Title I, Part A plan sustains critical elements of the reform. A budget analysis is
planned to consolidate federal, state and local funding sources towards sustaining critical reform
elements.
All
A comprehensive system of formative and summative data collection is in place to track progress and
results and to drive decision making.
All
Plans are in place to sustain the intervention model when the SIG funding for external providers,
including CMOs, EMOs, Minnesota Principals’ Academy and others, expires.
All
Other funding sources are under consideration to enable the school to continue offering additional
instructional time or alternative/extended school-year calendars.
All
A system for measuring the fidelity of classroom-level implementation of evidence-based instructional
practices is operational.
Turnaround, Restart,
Transformation
Time has been reserved and protected for educators to collaborate in order to sustain initiatives.
Measures, including training, are taken to ensure that new staff will understand and take part in
improvement initiatives.
Turnaround, Restart,
Transformation
Turnaround,
Transformation
Professional development is job-embedded to assist educators in implementing reform initiatives in
their classrooms.
Turnaround,
Transformation
The school staff and wider communities share reform leadership in the planning phase as well as throughout implementation.
The development of the CLBHS improvement plan/SIG has been a collaborative effort from the start. All CLBHS staff have been
involved in the reform effort from the very onset of TAS identification. Preparations for the Cambridge Education site visit included
participation of CLBHS Site Team members in the needs assessment/data gathering process and keeping all CLBHS staff informed
of the parameters and expectations of the visit and resulting quality review report (March and April 2010).
CLBHS staff continued to be involved throughout project design including participation in information sharing and input gathering
sessions which were held from the very onset of TAS identification. Formal plan development began in earnest in Mid-May upon
receipt of the MDE Quality Review Report prepared by Cambridge Education. The TAS Team was convened with the task of
leading the project design, utilizing available diagnostic data and gathering input from vested partners in the process. They were also
charged with keeping all staff members informed of and soliciting input into plan development. In order to accomplish these tasks in
a timely fashion, a transformation plan timeline was created with time-sensitive specific activities delegated to members of the TAS
Team. The timeline included multiple venues and opportunities for staff information and input (May and June 2010) and was
successfully met. A copy of the SIG grant submitted to MDE will be posted upon successful upload of this document through the
SERVS system.
CLBHS staff will continue to share reform leadership through participation in SIG activities, participation in qualitative surveys
following training sessions, involvement in regularly scheduled staff meetings designed for ongoing input and information
dissemination, and representation on the TAS Team, which will transition from a plan design role to a support team for the new high
school principal upon plan approval.
74
There are plans in place to deal with staffing and funding changes, including transitions in leadership. ISD 115 has posted the
positions of .5FTE SAM/.5FTE OTASO and High School Principal. The positions will be filled by July 15, 2010. The district has
arranged for the current High School Principal to provide transition support to the new Principal, including support needed for the
SAM, and this will occur as requested by the incoming administrator. Upon notification of approval of SIG grant, the business office
will implement a local budget aligned with the approved SERVS application. The Title I Part A and Title II Part A local budgets
aligned with the SERVS application will be created for implementation July 1, 2010.
A strategic planning process is in place at the LEA that supports the long-term implementation of educational reforms and
built in checkpoints along the way to monitor levels of implementation and progress toward outcomes. Monitoring levels of
implementation and progress toward outcomes is a key component to lasting reform. With this in mind, ISD 115 and CLBHS have
established a progress monitoring plan.
What will be Monitored
Progress Toward School
Level Goals
Achievement of School
Level Goals
Progress Toward Student,
Class, and Grade Level
Goals
Achievement of Student,
Class and Grade Level
Goals
When will it be
Monitored?
Pre and Post (Fall, Winter,
and/or Spring)
Spring
Measurement Tool(s)
Who is Responsible?
NWEA MAP assessment
data
MCA test data
Principal reports to CLBHS staff
and School Board
Principal reports to CLBHS Staff
and School Board
CLBHS Staff; Principal reports to
School Board
Fall/Winter/Spring
STAR Reader; STAR Math;
Fluency Tests
Spring
MCA test data; STAR
Reader; STAR Math;
Fluency Tests; and other
data selected by students
PLC minutes, logs &
content documentation;
PLC Observation
Coaching Logs; Coaching
observations
Informal and Formal
Classroom Observations
Fidelity of PLC
implementation
Weekly
Fidelity of Coaching
implementation
Fidelity of implementation
of Professional
Development
Fidelity of Extended Day
Programming
Weekly
Fidelity of Extended Year
Programming
Daily
Monthly and on as-needed
basis; (Informal); Three
times per year (Formal)
Weekly
Attendance Logs;
Class syllabus;
Afterschool program
observations
Attendance Logs;
Class syllabus;
Extended Day program
observations
CLBHS Staff; Principal reports to
School Board
Principal; monthly report to
CLBHS staff and School Board
Principal and Consultant Observer;
monthly report to CLBHS staff and
School Board
Principal; report to CLBHS staff
and School Board upon completion
of summer school
Sustainability: It is anticipated that the educational reforms which are put into place through the SIG will be continued beyond the
grant cycle, including changes to classroom instruction and professional development support provided by the District Literacy
Coach. In order to ensure that new staff receive the training and support needed to provide the CLBHS research-based model, the
CLBHS Teacher Mentoring Program will be revised to include mentoring of new staff by teachers proficient in the various
instructional methods included in the project. New staff will also have priority for site staff development funds to participate in
initial off or on campus trainings in the evidence-based practices included in the SIG. To ensure funds are available for continuing
the transformation model at CLBHS, the district will commit funding from its reserves to sustain the reform efforts when grant
funding expires. The district will also continue utilizing available Title I and IIA funds to support continued reform.
The “schoolwide” Title I, Part A plan sustains critical elements of the reform. A budget analysis is planned to consolidate
federal, state and local funding sources towards sustaining critical reform elements. The Superintendent will ensure that all
available funds are aligned to support the CLBHS SIG reform efforts. The District Grant Coordinator will conduct an annual budget
analysis of the alignment of available district funds to sustain critical reform elements included in the SIG grant and will provide this
analysis to the Superintendent for his dissemination to the School Board.
75
Other funding sources are under consideration to enable the school to continue offering additional instructional time or
alternative/extended school-year calendars. ISD 115 actively seeks competitive grants to support its instructional programs and
will seek competitive grant funding which will allow it to continue to offer additional instructional time and extended year classes for
students.
A system for measuring the fidelity of classroom-level implementation of evidence-based instructional practices is
operational. A component of the CLBHS SIG reform plan is the implementation of a licensed teacher evaluation plan. This
evaluation plan will utilize observation rubrics designed to measure the implementation of evidence-based instructional practices at
the classroom level. Domains included in the classroom teacher evaluation rubric include:
• Planning and Preparation: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students, Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy,
Designing Coherent Instruction, Assessing Student Learning
• Classroom Environment: Managing Classroom Procedures, Managing Student Behavior
• Instruction: Communicating Clearly and Accurately, Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques, Student Learning,
Providing Feedback to Students, Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
• Professional Responsibilities: Reflecting on Teaching, Maintaining Accurate Records, Communicating with Families,
Contributing to the School and District, Growing and Developing Professionally.
An initial observation will occur in the Fall 2010 and data from this observation will serve as baseline data from which to measure
the impact of professional development on classroom instruction and the overall fidelity to which evidence-based practices are
utilized in each classroom.
In order to gather reliable data, CLBHS will utilize two classroom observers. A plan for establishing initial inter-rater reliability is
set, with initial training for both observers and a minimum of 5 shared ‘practice’ observations. Practice observations will be
followed by time for reflection and alignment of scoring by the two observers. When scoring practices are aligned, the baseline
observation will occur. ‘Practice’ scoring will occur prior to each of the three formal observations occurring during each school year
to establish inter-rater reliability before formal observations occur.
Time has been reserved and protected for educators to collaborate in order to sustain initiatives. Beginning in the Fall 2010
CLBHS staff will participate in 90 minute per week Professional Learning Community professional development. Each week will
consist of one 60 minute session and one 30 minute session. Sessions will occur during the regularly scheduled workday, with SIG
funds being utilized to compensate teachers for the use of their contracted preparation time for PLC sessions. These PLC sessions
will provide teachers with time for the ongoing and sustained training needed to implement and sustain initiatives.
Measures, including training, are taken to ensure that new staff will understand and take part in improvement initiatives. In
order to ensure that all staff, including new staff, will understand and take part in improvement initiatives, all staff (existing and new)
will be required to attend extended day and year training, as well as the job-embedded PLCs. In addition CLBHS will rely on a
strong coaching model which is designed to individualize training to meet individual staff professional development needs. Best
practices reading coaching will be available to all teachers, regular and special education. Best practices math coaching will be
available to math and special education teachers. Solution Focused Practices coaching will be available to all teachers and
paraprofessionals on a monthly basis. (See Appendix for Professional Development Plan.)
Professional development is job-embedded to assist educators in implementing reform initiatives in their classrooms. The
professional development model utilized by the CLBHS SIG is a job-embedded model utilizing (1) initial training which occurs on
an extended year calendar and builds the necessary background knowledge and (2) ongoing training which builds
knowledge/supports instructional reform and occurs during PLCs and individual coaching sessions which are scheduled on a weekly
basis. Data from the teacher evaluation rubric used in classroom observations and from individual coaching sessions allows for
individualization of coaching efforts to meet individual teacher training needs. The utilization of onsite coaching ensures that
training is directly related to practice.
In order to build system-wide effectiveness, CLBHS paraprofessionals will participate in professional development which directly
improves their capacity to support teachers in their work and contribute to the success of students (Solution Focused Practices).
Paras will participate in monthly coaching designed to improve their capacity to implement the research based model. Coaching
sessions will be embedded in the workday.
76
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL GOALS
I.
Provide the following information for the identified Tier I or Tier II school:
• A three-year student achievement SMART goal for reading using MCA-II/MTAS data.
• A three-year student achievement SMART goal for mathematics using MCA-II/MTELL/MTAS data.
• A one-year student academic achievement SMART goal for both reading and mathematics to be used to track
•
II.
progress for the first year of the grant.
Rationale and trend data to demonstrate successful completion of the goal-setting process.
Provide the following information only if the school was identified with a graduation rate below 60
percent:
•
•
•
A three-year SMART goal for graduation rate.
A one-year graduation rate SMART goal to be used to track progress for the first year of the grant.
Rationale and trend data to demonstrate successful completion of the goal-setting process.
The School Goals section does not have to be completed for schools implementing the School Closure model.
Duplicate/expand templates as needed. See Definitions section for more information about SMART goals.
See Appendix B for guidelines and examples of setting schoolwide SMART goals.
Reading
Cass Lake – Bena High School MCA-II/MTAS Reading SMART Goal
Three-Year Goal: The percentage of students in grade 10 at CLBHS who earn achievement levels of meets the standards or exceeds
the standards for reading MCA-II (III) will increase from 45.16 in 2008-09 to 72.00 in 2013.
First-Year Goal: The percentage of students in grade 10 at CLBHS who earn achievement levels of meets the standards or exceeds
the standards for reading MCA-II (III) will increase from 45.16 in 2008-09 to 50% in 2011.
Process and Rationale: Change in instruction will reap a smaller increase in year one of the project, as mastering new instructional
practices and programming requires time. By year three of the project, with CLBHS having fully implemented its multi-faceted
reform effort, and teachers having progressed significantly toward mastery of evidence-based practices and teaching strategies,
academic achievement should reach the level of higher performing schools (three year goal).
77
Identify grade levels included: Grade 10
District trend data for all grades
Trend Data for Reading
Goal
Measure of student
achievement - %
proficient on state test
School trend data
District trend data
06-07
07-08
08-09
06-07
07-08
08-09
06-07
07-08
08-09
43.10
61.9
45.16
42.25
45.55
34.61
52.01
53.14
51.41
Mathematics
Cass Lake – Bena High School MCA-II/MTELL/MTAS Mathematics SMART Goal
Three-Year Goal: The percentage of grade 11 students at CLBHS who earn achievement levels of meets or exceeds the standards for
MCA II mathematics will increase from 14.8 in 2008-09 to 42.00 in 2013.
First-Year Goal: The percentage of grade 11 students at CLBHS who earn achievement levels of meets or exceeds the standards for
MCA II mathematics will increase from 14.8 in 2008-09 to 25.00 in 2011.
Process and Rationale: Change in instruction will reap a smaller increase in year one of the project, as mastering new instructional
practices and programming requires time. By year three of the project, with CLBHS having fully implemented its multi-faceted
reform effort, and teachers having progressed significantly toward mastery of evidence-based practices and teaching strategies,
academic achievement should reach the level of higher performing schools (three year goal).
Identify grade levels included: 11
District trend data for all grades
Trend Data for
Mathematics Goal
Measure of student
achievement - %
proficient on state test
School trend data
District trend data
06-07
07-08
08-09
06-07
07-08
08-09
06-07
07-08
08-09
7.69
11.11
14.8
5.26
8.45
12.69
48.15
47.85
51.38
Graduation Rate - NOT APPLICABLE
78
The CLBHS SIG Grant has created a comprehensive timeline which serves as a checkpoint for timeliness of activity implementation.
CASS LAKE – BENA HIGH SCHOOL WORKPLAN
Demonstrate that the LEA’s plan is sufficient to implement the basic elements of the selected intervention model by the
beginning of the 2010-2011 school year by:
•
•
Creating an overall timeline of all major grant activities for the first year of the award period with a measurement of
implementation for each.
Providing staff assignments, activities/strategies, measurements, timelines and rationale for all of the elements of the
selected intervention model.
Duplicate/expand templates as needed.
79
CASS LAKE – BENA SCHOOL WORKPLAN – OVERALL TIMELINE Page 1
Activities/Strategies (Development, Implementation, Follow-up)
All activities are the responsibility of the CLBHS Principal except where noted
New Governance – Remove the Principal: Post for and hire new CLBHS Principal
(Superintendent)
Measurement of
Implementation
Timeline
Completed by:
Signed Contract
7/19/10
New Governance – Hire a Site Administrative Manager at CLBHS (Superintendent)
Signed Contract
7/19/10
New Governance – Hire a district Office of Turnaround School Officer (Superintendent)
Signed Contract
7/19/10
Provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development: Finalize 2010 CLBHS
Professional Development Calendar
Provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development: Finalize 2010 CLBHS
Professional Development Calendar
Provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development: CLBHS August 2010
Professional Development Occurs)
Reserve 90 minutes per week for teachers to meet in PLCs: Infuse weekly PLCs (90
minutes) into daily schedule
Increase available instructional programming by 170 hours, including after school
programming and summer school: Set after school academic coursework schedule
programming and summer school: Post, recruit and hire afterschool academic course
teachers
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Post for and hire
Classroom Observer (Superintendent & CLBHS Principal)
Identify and reward leaders, teachers, and other staff for raising student achievement &
Implement Strategies to recruit, place and train skilled staff: Develop a reward system
linked to student achievement and teacher and principal performance (CLBHS
Principal/CLBHS Teacher & Union Team/Admin)
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Select evaluation rubrics to
be used in evaluating CLBHS licensed staff and CLBHS Principal (CLBHS
Principal/CLBHS Teacher & Union Team/Admin)
programming and summer school: Inform families of academic afterschool options
Program Fidelity: TAS Team meets with Principal and OTAS to provide support for SIG
implementation
Calendar Approved by
School Board
Signed Contracts for
Consultants
Attendance Logs; Exit
Surveys
7/19/10
7/19/10
8/1 – 9/1/10
Teacher Schedules
8/1/10
Completed Schedule
8/1/10
Letters of Commitment
from Teachers hired
8/15/10
Signed Contract
8/15/10
Reward system approved
by School Board; Reward
system training for staff
8/15/10;
Rubrics selected; Rubric
training for staff
8/15/10;
8/31/10
Letter sent to families
8/16/10
8/31/10
Goal Setting: Revisit student/grade/class goals
Checklist completed and
submitted
Monthly
beginning 9/10
Monthly
beginning 9/10
Goal Setting: Class Goal setting is completed by CLBHS Teachers using a growth model
Formal class goals
9/7/10
Formal grade level goals
9/7/10
Goal Setting: Grade level Goal setting is completed by Grade Level Teams using a
growth model
Expand family involvement: Provide families with overview of SIG/Plan and family
involvement opportunities at Back-to-School Family Day
Reserve 90 minutes per week for teachers to meet in PLCs: Weekly PLCs begin (continue
throughout the school year)
Provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development: CLBHS teachers participate
in ongoing coaching throughout the school year: Reading, Math, Solution Focused
Practices, Technology Integration, Looking at Learning (see Appendix)
Minutes; Sign-in logs
Handouts;
Sign in Sheets
Minutes, sign-in sheets &
content records
Attendance records
9/7/10
Begin week of
9/7/10
Begin week of
9/7/10
80
All activities are the responsibility of the CLBHS Principal except where noted.
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: CLBHS Principal and hired
Observer participate in initial training in the rubric
programming and summer school: Enroll students in afterschool programming
Measurement of
Implementation
Timeline
Completed by:
Sign-in Log
9/10/10
Enrollment Forms
9/15/10
Expand Family Involvement: Family involvement embedded in extended day programs
Syllabus
9/15/10
Goal Setting: Individual Student Goal Setting is done by Reading, Math and Special
Education Teachers
programming and summer school: Afterschool academic programming begins
programming and summer school: Afterschool academic programming informal
observations begin (continue throughout school year)
Data Driven Decision Making: Collection of Baseline Assessment Data – NWEA, STAR
and Fluency Assessments
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: “Practice” classroom
observations to align rubric scoring by observers
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Fall Teacher
Observations/Debriefing occur
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Fall Principal
Observation/Debriefing/Goal Setting occurs (Superintendent)
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Teacher Goal Setting with
Principal Occurs
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Winter “Practice”
observations for rubric scoring alignment by observers
Data Driven Decision Making: Collection of Progress Monitoring Assessment Data –
NWEA, STAR and Fluency Assessments
Data Driven Decision Making: Use of Progress Monitoring Assessment Data – NWEA,
STAR and Fluency Assessments in PLCs
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Winter Teacher
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Winter Principal
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Teacher Progress Towards
Goal Meetings with Principal Occurs
programming and summer school: Develop summer school programming
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Spring “Practice”
observations for rubric scoring alignment by observers
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Spring Teacher
Use a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals: Spring Principal
programming and summer school: Post for and hire Summer School staff
Formal student goals in
place
Letters of Commitment
from Teachers hired
9/16/10
9/22/10
Observation Records
9/22/10
Data Reports
9/23/10
Practice Observation
Records
9/30/10
Observation Records
10/20/10
Observation Records
10/1/10
Sign-in logs
10/30/10
Observation Records
1/20/11
Data Reports
1/24/11
Minutes
2/10/11
Observation Records
2/15/11
Observation Records
2/15/11
Sign-in logs
2/28/11
Minutes from
organizational meetings
3/30/11
Observation Records
4/1/11
Observation Records
4/15/11
Observation Records
4/15/11
Signed contracts
4/20/11
81
All activities are the responsibility of the CLBHS Principal except where noted.
programming and summer school: Advertise, recruit and finalize student enrollment in
summer school.
Measurement of
Implementation
Timeline
Completed by:
Fliers; completed
enrollment forms
5/20/11
Family Involvement embedded in extended year programs
Syllabus
5/20/11
Data Driven Decision Making: Collection of Progress Monitoring Assessment Data –
NWEA, STAR and Fluency Assessments
Data Reports
5/20/11
Data Driven Decision Making: State test results announced to families
Letter to Families
5/20/11
Data Driven Decision Making: Data Retreat to analyze success of the project activities;
determine strengths and weaknesses; create 2011-12 professional development calendar to
address ongoing needs
Family and Community Involvement: Families and community receive written
notification of progress toward project outcomes
Identify and reward leaders, teachers, and other staff for raising student achievement &
Implement Strategies to recruit, place and train skilled staff: Staff and Principal receive
reward incentives earned through reward system.
Minutes; Professional
Development Calendar;
Final Report Created
Newspaper article; letters
to families
Completed Reward
Option Forms
6/15/11
6/20/11
6/30/11
Years 2 and 3 of the SIG will follow the same formatted calendar and will include:
• Annual End-of-School Year Data Retreats which utilize the data collected by the program to
determine progress towards goals and to drive the creation of professional development plans and
continuous improvement to SIG services for the coming year
• Extended Year Professional Development driven by program performance data
• Weekly 90 minute PLCs
• Ongoing Coaching
• Formal Observations three times per year by two observers
• Teacher Goal setting with Principal
• Student/Class/Grade Level Goal Setting and Revisiting
• Fall/Winter/Spring Data Collection and use of Data in PLCs
• Use of Reward System
• OTASO coordination with MDE
• Data Driven Decision Making
82
Intervention Model
Component(s)
Provide ongoing, job-embedded professional development
Responsible District/School/
Turnaround Office(r)
School – High School Principal
1. Provide a minimum of ten (10) days of site based professional development:
Provide initial professional development in evidence-based instructional practices
designed to accelerate student growth in Reading and Math a. Solution Focused Practices (2 days)
b. Cognitively Guided Instruction in Mathematics (3 days)
c. Technology Integration SMARTBoards (3 days)
d. Data Driven Decision Making: (NWEA- 1 day; Viewpoint Data
Warehouse – 1 day) and
e. Looking at Learning (2 days)
(Professional development calendars for years 2 and 3 of the grant will be
developed based upon end-of-year data analysis of progress toward goals and
targets.)
2. Provide ongoing and sustained professional development in evidence-based
instructional practices (1a. – e. and evidence based best practices classroom
instruction) utilizing 90 minute per week PLCs. Weekly PLCs will engage
teachers in collaborative work focused on understanding what and how students
learn and on how to address student learning needs.
3. Provide individualized coaching in evidence-based instructional practices
based on identified individual needs.
4. Provide Principal with ongoing and sustained professional development
through the MDE Principal’s Academy.
Measurement of
Implementation
Timeline
Attendance Logs;
Exit surveys
By 9/2/10
Minutes, sign-insheets, content
records
Begin week of 9/7/10;
Continues during each of
the 3 grant years.
Attendance records
Begins 9/8/10; Continues
during each of the 3 grant
years
Completed travel
forms and attendance
record
Begins summer 2010;
occurs each of the 3 grant
years
Rationale
CLBHS will implement a minimum of a 10 day per year, rigorous and comprehensive training program for all licensed teachers
followed by ongoing and sustained training through weekly PLCs and individualized and small group coaching. It has selected evidence
based professional development based upon the needs identified in the local needs assessment and Cambridge Evaluation QRR.
83
1. Evidenced Based Strategies Selected for the Project:
a. Solution Focused Practices: CLBHS will accelerate reading and math by incorporating student goal setting into its instructional
program. In order to implement an effective student goal setting program, CLBHS will provide training in and use Solution Focused
Practices when setting goals with students. Solution Focused Practices is a strengths-based approached to developing positive
relationships with students by emphasizing students’ goals & creating a solution-oriented alliance where the student is an equal partner
in finding solutions and in the goal setting process. Solution Focused Practices has been demonstrated as an effective evidence-based
school prevention model (Pfolhl, 2006) that teachers can be effectively trained in a school-wide application (Franklin, C., Streeter, C. L.,
Garner, J., Kim, J. S., & Hopson, L.M., 2003). (CLBHS Need #2c: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.1c 2.2c)
Solution Focused Practices has also been demonstrated effective with a variety of school related problems including oppositional and
behavioral problems (Conoley et. A., 2003, Corocan, 2006), impulse control (Corcoran & Stephenson, 2000), disruptive behavior
(Murphy, 1997), and internalizing concerns such as depression & Anxiety (Kelly, Kim & Franklin, 2008). CLBHS will utilize this
effective student engagement approach when problem solving with students, including student discipline. This will decrease the amount
of time students spend out of the classroom due to discipline problems, resulting in more time in the classroom and ultimately higher
student achievement. (CLBHS Need #2d: QRR Readiness to Learn: 1.2c)
All instructional staff (licensed and non-licensed) will participate in initial and ongoing training/coaching in use of solution focused
practices.
b. Cognitively Guided Instruction: For the past three years CLBHS Math teachers have been involved in Cognitively Guided
Instruction in Mathematics professional development with a focus on creating improved math instruction and curriculum resources at
CLBHS. Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI ) is an evidence/standards-based problem-solving approach which has been proven to
increase students’ ability to understand mathematical ideas and topics (Loucks-Horsley, & Matsumoto, 1999; Carpenter, Fennema,
French, Levi, Empson, 2000). CGI utilizes students' prior knowledge to construct deeper understandings of challenging and rigorous
concepts (Essential Understanding Series, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2010; Final Report, National Mathematics
Advisory Panel 2008). (CLBHS Need #2a: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.2b, 2.2e)
CGI Training has been delivered on a quarterly basis and the change in instruction has resulted in an MCA-II Math trend percentage
change of 74.24% from the year prior to implementation. Based upon this success, CLBHS will accelerate the math achievement of its
students by intensifying and expanding CGI training. Math and Special Education Teachers will be provided with initial as well as
ongoing and sustained monthly training/coaching in the integration of this classroom instructional method into CLBHS daily math
instruction.
c. Technology Integration: SMART® Technology: Many studies have shown that there are greater proportions of visual information
processors (as opposed to verbal) among American Indian groups of students than among other groups (e.g., Rougas, 2000; Morton,
Allen, & Williams, 1994). The integration of SMART® technology will effectively engage students and meet the needs of visual
learners (Becta, 2003; Somekkh, Underwood, Convery, Dillon, Lewin, Mavers, Saxon & Woodrow, 2004). With the instructional needs
of all learners met, proficiency will increase and growth will accelerate. (CLBHS Need #2e: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.2e)
d. Data Driven Decision Making: Data driven decision making is a key to differentiating instruction and to school improvement
(Johnson, 2000). It is also a key component to the development of a culture of educator inquiry (Jerald, 2006). CLBHS will infuse data
driven decision making into weekly PLCs, utilizing a variety of student data sources to inform instruction. In addition to test results,
data driven decision making which occurs in PLCs will include using/creating rubrics to assess student work. Data driven decision
making which occurs in PLCs will address the diversity of learning levels and learning styles of ISD 115 students and, thereby,
accelerate student achievement. (CLBHS Need #2a: QRR Readiness to Teach 2.2b, 2.2e; CLBHS Need #2b: QRR Readiness to Teach:
2.1c, 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.2c, 2.2e)
e. Looking at Learning: In order for CLBHS teachers to meet the identified needs and for students to become more actively engaged in
their education, it is important for teachers to know what is currently happening that has led to the current student achievement
(Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde 2005). The implementation of “Looking at Learning” – an observation tool – will allow teachers to
receive feedback three times per year about classroom instruction content and the level of student engagement in the various classroom
activities. It is with this critical knowledge of both the delivery and the student results that schools can make real gains in their student’s
performance on state and national standards. (CLBHS Need #5a: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.1a, 2.3b)
2. Professional Learning Communities: Successful school reform involves teachers meeting together as a whole staff or in team
professional development that has children’s learning as its purpose (Peterson, McCartney, and Elmore, 1996; Jalongo 1991; Brandt
1996). The development and continuation of professional learning communities (PLCs) which specifically address best practice
instruction in reading and classroom learning environment and the participation of all licensed district staff, (regular and special
84
education), in collaborative-learning PLCs will provide the framework and support necessary for change to occur and standards to be
addressed effectively and innovatively. (CLBHS Need #2a: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.2b, 2.2e; CLBHS Need #2b: QRR Readiness
to Teach: 2.3a)
3. Coaching: Individual and small group coaching sessions in all of the evidenced-based strategies used in the project (1a – 1e) will
occur at a minimum of a monthly basis. Training will provide teachers with the support needed to accelerate instruction through the
differentiation of classroom instruction and addressing the different learning styles of students (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Cress, 2004;
Neufeld, B. & Roper, 2003). Literacy Coaching Training will be aligned to research on building reading proficiency and will include:
motivating students to learn (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998); building decoding skills (McCormick & Becker, 1996; Gaskins, Cuncelli,
& Satlow, 1992); improving language comprehension through building linguistic knowledge (Templeton & Morris, 2000); building
inferencing skills (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer & Kintsch, 1996); and building self-regulated comprehension (Snow, et al, 1998).
(CLBHS Need #2a: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.2b, 2e; CLBHS Need #2b: QRR Readiness to Teach: 2.3a)
4. Principal’s Academy: The CLBHS will increase his/her capacity to lead instruction at the CLBHS through participation in the 20
day per summer Principal’s Academy developed and delivered by the Minnesota Department of Education.
85
CASS LAKE- BENA HIGH SCHOOL WORKPLAN
Intervention Model
Component(s)
Implement a rigorous, transparent, and equitable teacher and principal evaluation system that
takes into account data on student growth, rewards a teacher/principal who meets goals, and
identify those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve professional
practice, have not done so. This system will serve as a strategy to recruit, place and retain skilled
staff.
District; School
Measurement of
Implementation
Timeline
Rubrics selected; All teachers
trained
8/15 selection
8/31 staff training
Observation Records
Fall/Winter/Sprg
School Board minutes noting
approval of SIG
8/15/10 School
Board Approval
4. Reward a teacher/principal who achieves their goal.
Completed Reward Option
Form
6/30 of each of
the 3 grant years
5. Identify teachers who do not meet their goals and provide professional
practice opportunities designed to improve performance.
Individual Teacher
Improvement Plans developed
and on file
6/30 of each of
the 3 grant years
1. Select, provide training in, and implement a teacher and principal evaluation
rubric to be used in classroom observations of all licensed staff.
2. Teachers will be observed a minimum of 3 times per year using the approved
rubric. The observation will include observation by multiple observers followed
by reflection/goal setting sessions.
3. Create and implement an incentive program which rewards a teacher/principal
who achieves goals, one of which is improving student achievement.
Rationale
There is increasing recognition, nationally and internationally, that career paths and pay systems can be, and need to be, linked to
evidence of increasing capacity to promote valued student learning outcomes and, thereby, stronger levers for ensuring professional
development and quality learning outcomes for all students (Sclafani & Tucker, 2006; OECD, 2005b). To that end CLBHS will create
and implement a teacher and principal evaluation and reward program that encompass the full scope of what each is expected to know
and be able to do. The assessment program will draw on several types of evidence (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational
Evaluation, 1988; Shulman, 1988; Scriven, 1994; Pearlman, 2000; Stronge, 1997) and will employ two observers to ensure inter-rater
reliability. (CLBHS Need #5)
86
Intervention Model
Component(s)
Provide increased learning time
School
1. Add two days per week of extended day math- and language arts-focused academic
programming to the schedule. Programming will be tied to standards based instruction
occurring during the school day and will be offered to all students.
Measurement of
Implementation
Enrollment forms,
Attendance Records
2. Add two week, four day per week (56 hours) Summer School program which expands
classroom instruction learned during the school year and expands students’ exposure to
culturally relevant content. Summer School programming will be offered to all students.
Enrollment forms,
Attendance Records
3. Expand family involvement through the incorporation of meaningful opportunities in
extended day/year programs.
Attendance Records,
qualitative surveys
Timeline
Programming
Begins 9/22 and
continues twice
weekly during
each of the 3 grant
years
Programming
Begins 5/31/10
and is offered
each summer of
each of the 3 grant
years
Programming
Begins 9/15/10
and is offered
each year of the 3
year grant
Rationale
Increased Learning Time: In the past 3 years CLBHS has offered an average of 170 days of classroom instruction. Implementation of
the SIG will result in a minimum of an additional 170 hours of extended day/year instruction available to all students. CLBHS has built
in extended day and year coursework in the core academic areas of language arts and math which expand/build upon learning which
occurs during the school day/school year. Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed programs that expand learning time; in
particular those that are aligned with standards based classroom instruction (Frazier, J.A & Morrison, F.J, 1998). Research also
indicates that high school students seem to reap strong benefits from out-of-school programming ( Lauer, P.A., Akikba, M., Wilkerson,
S.B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, 2004.) A summer school program of 56 hours will expand language arts and math
instruction beyond the school year, within the number of hours research indicates as most effective in increasing achievement (Lauer,
etc. 2004). (CLBHS Need #4)
87
Family Involvement: Research is clear. Study after study has shown that the involvement of parents and families in the schooling of
their children makes a significant difference. Students with parents involved are more likely to earn high grades and test scores, enroll
in higher level programs, and be promoted (Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Epstein, Sanders, Simon, Rodriguez
& VanVoorhis, 2002). The CLBHS will expand family involvement and by doing so will enhance participating students’ capacity to
accelerate learning and achieve individual goals. CLBHS will focus its expanded family involvement on extended day and extended
year programs. Each of the extended day/year programs implemented by the SIG will include the requirement of a family involvement
component. Family involvement options for teachers creating coursework will include but are not limited to adult family members
attending sessions with students, adult family members participating in a portion of the coursework (i.e. reading the same book that
students are reading so that they can discuss it with their student), or families being invited to presentations or end-of-course student
demonstrations/events. (CLBHS Need #6)
88
Intervention Model
Component(s)
Establish New Governance at CLBHS
District
Measurement of
Implementation
1. Remove the Principal – hire a New Principal
Signed Contract
7/19/10
2. Hire a Site Administrative Manager (SAM) to handle non-instructional duties
Signed Contract
7/19/10
3. Hire a Turnaround Officer (OTASO) to establish a local Turnaround Office to
manage TAS efforts
Signed Contract
7/19/10
Timeline
Rationale
The current governance structure at CLBHS has not provided the necessary time for the principal to assume the role of instructional
leader. The hiring of a .50 FTE SAM to handle all non-instructional, day-to-day duties will free up the principal to assume instructional
leadership/authentically implement the SIG. The hiring of an OTASO will provide the principal with the support needed to ensure that
the SIG is implemented with fidelity. (CLBHS Need #1; QRR Readiness to Act: 3.1e)
89
473 - SCHOOL BUDGET NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION WORKSHEET
School Improvement Grants (SIG) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and Regular Grant
Opportunity
Note: Complete one school budget for each school applying for funds.
Overview
The attached Budget Narrative/Justification Worksheet must be submitted as part of the application for the School Improvement
Grants (SIG) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and Regular Grant Opportunity. The worksheet is organized in
accordance with the allowable Uniform Financial Accounting and Reporting Standards (UFARS) object code dimensions under
this grant.
In order to accurately complete this worksheet, it is essential to work closely with your school or district’s business office as this
is vital to the overall use of funds and management of funds. It is imperative that budgets are built using the proper UFARS
account structure and that activity is reported consistently in UFARS. The UFARS dimensions used in the budget will be the
basis for draw requests and monitoring activities.
UFARS Dimensions
The Uniform Financial Accounting and Reporting Standards (UFARS) are standards developed to provide guidance on
accounting procedures and identify the financial reporting requirements of local educational agencies (LEAs) in Minnesota.
UFARS financial data must be reported to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) in a prescribed format.
The UFARS account structure is multi-dimensional. Each expenditure account requires the use of codes in six dimensions, each
of which has a distinct purpose. The UFARS account structure is as follows:
Fund
Organization
Program
Finance
Object
Course
For more information on each of these dimensions, please refer to the UFARS manual at
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Accountability_Programs/Program_Finance/Financial_Management/UFARS/index.html.
This grant opportunity has been assigned a specific UFARS finance code 473 and it must be used to record all grant activity. In
UFARS, the finance code is used to restrict the use of funds to allowable activities of the grant. This is done by limiting the
permitted code combinations of the six dimensions. The permitted code combinations (also referred to as the Restricted Grid)
may be found in Chapter 10 of the UFARS manual.
UFARS Dimensions in SERVS Financial
SERVS Financial is the system used to manage the financial activities of this grant. Approved budget, draw requests, payments
and fund availability will be maintained in SERVS Financial. The draw requests are requests for reimbursements based on
expenditures reported in UFARS. Though UFARS reporting requires the use of all six dimensions for a given expenditure,
SERVS Financial will only require the reporting of three UFARS dimensions for that same expenditure – the finance, object and
course code dimensions.
The grant opportunity and/or award will be identified by the finance code. The most detailed dimension (object code) is required
to identify the use of the funds and the course code will identify to which federal award year the activity relates.
Required Dimensions for SERVS Financial:
Finance
Object
Course
90
UFARS Dimensions in the Budget Narrative/Justification Worksheet
For purposes of this worksheet, the object code detail is all that is required. The finance code has already been assigned, as
mentioned above. A course code will be assigned based on the federal award year.
Required Dimensions for Budget Narrative/Justification Worksheet:
Object
The boxes designated Justification will expand to allow for additional space as you complete the brief narrative on the allocation
of funding for each UFARS object code. Your completed budget narrative/justification worksheet should only reflect the
object codes under which you intend to allocate funds. Please delete unused object code rows as necessary.
Requested Information Regarding Consultant Contracts
Contracts: All consultant contracts funded by the SIG grant are below the $25,000 identified funding level requiring bidding.
All contracts offered to project consultants are done so on a one year basis. Consultants are not guaranteed more than one year of
contractual services.
Criteria for Consultant Selection: Proven expertise in the research based model, proven experience in successfully delivering
professional development in that model, experience working with schools with significant at-risk populations, and willingness to
travel to and work in our remote school district are the criteria that will used to select project consultants as demonstrated in the
applicant resume.
Consultant selection: The consultant will be selected based on their successfully meeting all criteria.
Nature of the consultant work: The consultants hired for the project will provide initial training in their identified best practice.
This initial training will build a foundation of common vocabulary and knowledge for all CLBHS staff. The consultants will
also provide ongoing monthly training which expands the knowledge base of the best practice. The consultants will also provide
monthly small group and individual coaching which will provide the training each staff member needs to become proficient in
utilizing the best practice in daily instruction. The consultant will also be responsible for regular communication with the SAM
and Principal to ensure administration is aware of the level of implemention occurring on the mastery continuum as well as
problem solving obstacles to implementation as they occur.
Consultant Evaluation: The district will utilize a coaching rubric in the evaluation of the consultant. The rubric will be
administered by the Principal. The Principal and Consultant will review the evaluation rubric and discuss improvements that
need to be made to project services if applicable.
91
100 - SALARIES AND WAGES
Please identify the applicable UFARS (line item) object code for each position funded with this opportunity and identify the amount of time you will charge to this grant for
each position. Example: Object code: 140 Licensed Classroom Teacher FTE: .50%
UFARS Object
Code
110
140
143
145
Object Code Description and Justification Narrative – Please use additional space as necessary.
FTE
Administration/Supervision
Justification: Salary for a .50 FTE Site Administrative Manager/.50 FTE Office of Turnaround School Officer.
FTE:
1.0
Licensed Classroom Teacher
Justification:
FTE:
Licensed Instructional Support Personnel
Justification:
FTE:
Substitute Teacher-Licensed Personnel Salaries
Justification: Substitute teachers to allow math and reading teachers to meet individually with students to do
goal setting: 5 substitute teachers @ $125 a day * 5 days = $3,125
FTE:
Funding Amount
Per Object Code
$75,000.00
$6,500.00
Substitute teachers to allow teachers to participate in formative observations in other teachers classrooms:
3 days per month * 9 months = 27 days @ $125 day = $3,375
92
185
Other Salary Payments
Justification: Extended time for the following SIG activities:
$16,576 for eight licensed teachers to provide extended year (56 hours) of summer school June 2010;
$17,760 for 4 licensed teachers to provide extended day academic-focused programming two days per week
for 32 weeks;
$1,184 for the District Technology Integrationist to provide 4 days of SMARTBoard training to identified
CLBHS staff;
$12,800 for CLBHS licensed staff to participate in two days of Solution Focused Practices training August
2010;
$6,200 for CLBHS licensed staff to participate in one day of NWEA MAPS training August 2010;
$6,400 for CLBHS licensed staff to participate in one day of Viewpoint Data Warehouse Training August
2010;
$2,400 for identified CLBHS licensed teachers to participate in SMARTBoard Training August 2010;
$4,200 for CLBHS math and special education teachers to participate in Cognitively Guided Instruction in
Math training August 2010;
$28,836 for the purchase of teacher daily prep time so that weekly 90 minute PLCs can be built into the daily
schedule;
$6,400 for licensed staff participation in a one day end-of-year data retreat June 2011;
FTE:
$102,756
93
200 - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Identify total benefits for each position identified above (in Salaries). Justification example: Benefits are calculated using a rate of 10% of total salary costs of
$20,000 = $2000
UFARS Object
Code
210
FICA/Medicare
Justification: .0765% of 110 and 185 budgeted items:
110: .0765% of SAM/TASO salary of $75,000 = $5,738
185
.0765% of $16,576 for eight summer school teachers = $1,268
.0765% of $17,760 for 4 licensed teachers to provide extended day academic-focused programming = $1,359
.0765% of $1,184 for the District Technology Integrationist to provide 4 days of SMARTBoard training =$91
.0765% of $12,800 for CLBHS licensed staff to participate in two days of Solution Focused Practices training = $979
.0765% of $6,200 for CLBHS licensed staff to participate in one day of NWEA MAPS training = $474
.0765% of $6,400 for CLBHS licensed staff to participate in one day of Viewpoint Data Warehouse Training =$490
.0765% of $2,400 for identified CLBHS licensed teachers to participate in SMARTBoard Training August 2010 = $183
.0765% of $4,200 for CLBHS math and special education teachers to participate in Cognitively Guided Instruction in
Math training = $321
.0765% of $28,836 for the purchase of teacher daily prep time so that weekly 90 minute PLCs can be built into the daily
schedule = $2,206
.0765% of $6,400 for licensed staff participation in a one day end-of-year data retreat = $490
Funding Amount
Per Object Code
$13,598
94
218
220
230
235
240
TRA (Teacher Retirement Association)
Justification: .055% of 110 and 185 budgeted items for licensed staff
110: .055% of SAM/TASO salary of $75,000 = $4,125
185
.055% of $16,576 for eight summer school teachers = $912
.055% of $17,760 for 4 licensed teachers to provide extended day academic-focused programming = $977
.055% of $4,200 for CLBHS math and special education teachers to participate in Cognitively Guided Instruction in Math
training = $231
schedule = $1,586
Health Insurance
Justification: $7,800 for health insurance for the .5 FTE SAM/.5 FTE TASO
$9,777
$7,800
Life Insurance
Justification:
Dental Insurance
Justification:
Long Term Disability Insurance
Justification:
95
250
251
252
270
Tax Sheltered Annuities/Minnesota Deferred Compensation Plan
Justification: $1,000 for TSA for .5 FTE SAM/.5 FTE TASO
$1,000
Employer-Sponsored Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA)
Justification:
Other Post Employment Benefits (Up to an equal to ARC)
Justification:
Workers Compensation
Justification: .005% for 110 and 185
110: .005% of SAM/TASO salary of $75,000 = $375
185
.005% of $16,576 for eight summer school teachers = $83
.005% of $17,760 for 4 licensed teachers to provide extended day academic-focused programming = $89
.005% of $4,200 for CLBHS math and special education teachers to participate in Cognitively Guided Instruction in Math
training = $21
schedule = $144
$889
96
280
299
Unemployment Compensation
Justification:
Other Employee Benefits
Justification:
97
300 - PURCHASED SERVICES
UFARS Object
Code
303
Federal Sub Awards and Contracts, up to $25,000
Identify each subaward, subcontract and purchase of service agreement up to $25,000. Justification examples:
Subcontract with outside Evaluator to develop evaluation forms and collect data - $7,000 for services only (no benefits all allocated under Object Code 303); Purchase of service agreement with (named organization) for xyz – total amount
$30,000 (first $25,000 allocated under Object Code 303, remaining $5,000 allocated under Object Code 304). $28,000
Subcontract with (named organization) for development of curriculum (first $25,000 allocated under Object Code 303,
remaining $3,000 allocated under Object Code 304)
Justification: Consultants: The lack of available ISD 115 qualified staff to provide professional development in the
research based strategies selected for the project requires ISD 115 to hire qualified consultants. The overarching goal of
the training provided by the consultants is to build the capacity of all staff through initial and ongoing professional
development. Ongoing training on a monthly basis will including an expanding of the knowledge best of the best practice
as well as individual and small group coaching and reflection. The CLBHS SIG build internal capacity of turnaround
staff in two other ways. First of all, in year two of the SIG the district will identify CLBHS staff who have a passion and
proficiency in the model and will recruit those staff to participate in a train-the-trainer capacity, working alongside the
consultant to become a local expert available as a resource beyond grant funding. Secondly, consultants providing
training in research based instructional practices will work with CLBHS to develop a video library of exemplars –
examples of exemplary implementation of the model/strategies occurring at CLBHS.
Funding Amount
Per Object Code
$87,925
Classroom Observer: The role of the Classroom Observer will be to provide inter-rater reliability for teacher classroom
observations. The Principal and Classroom Observer will jointly observe classroom teacher instruction and will
collaborate to determine appropriate rating on the evaluation rubric. The Principal will then use the collaboratively
agreed upon rubric in teacher evaluation meetings. The district selected to bring in an outside observer in order to
ensure that all CLBHS staff perceived the evaluators as highly qualified - with the administrative licensure, knowledge
and background to evaluate teacher performance. In addition the district is depending on the interaction of all classroom
teacher, especially local master teachers, to learn from each other during the implementation of reform efforts. To
identify a master teacher in the evaluator role would be counterproductive to that effort. It is the intention of the district
that during the course of the three year grant the SAM will be trained and assume an increasing role in teacher evaluation
so that at the end of the grant cycle, the SAM will have acquired the training and earned the trust of CLBHS staff to
effectively assume evaluation duties.
98
John Froehlich – Looking at Learning Consultant to provide initial and ongoing training/coaching for CLBHS staff in
evidence based classroom instructional practices: 17 days @ $1,350 per day = $22,950
Doug Anderson – Solution Focused Practices Consultant to provide initial and ongoing training/coaching in Solution
Focused Practices: 3 days @$2,500 and 9 days @ $1750 = $23,250
Viewpoint Trainer: Training in use of Viewpoint Data Warehouse 1 day @ $1,000 = $1,325
NWEA Trainer: NWEA data boot camp 1 day @ $1,200 = $1,200
Classroom Observer: Classroom Observer to act as additional Observer in licensed teacher evaluation (in addition to
CLBHS Principal): 40 days @ 8 hours a day @ $75.00/hour = $24,000
Transportation: Summer School Student Contracted Travel = $2,000
Transportation: Teacher Reward Option linked to Teacher Evaluation - Field Trip Contracted Travel $1,200 per teacher
* 13 teachers = $13,200
304
366
Federal Sub Awards and Contracts, amount that exceeds $25,000
Identify each subaward, subcontract and purchase of service agreement over $25,000
Justification example: Purchase of service agreement with (named organization) for xyz - total amount $30,000 (first
$25,000 allocated under Object Code 303, $5,000 remaining balance allocated under Object Code 304). $28,000
Subcontract with (named organization) for development of curriculum (first $25,000 allocated under Object Code 303,
$3,000 remaining balance allocated under Object Code 304)
Justification:
Travel, Conventions And Conferences
Identify estimated travel costs that grant staff (not contractors) are expected to incur while performing the duties of the
grant. Justification example: In-state Travel costs to Training Sites - $1,000
Registration to in-state conference (identify conference) - $250
Justification:
OTAS officer travel – 4 mandatory OTAS meetings at MDE, meals, motel, mileage: $2,106
20 Day Principal Academy travel for Principal: motels, meals, mileage = $4,436
Teacher Reward: Stipend to be used to pay for postsecondary coursework which allows the teacher to acquire
knowledge toward obtaining distinguished statuson the teacher evaluation and are tied to educational advancement in
the salary schedule @ $1,200.00 a stipend. Total: $12,000.00.
Principal Reward: Stipend to be used to pay for postsecondary education coursework which allows the principal to
acqure knowledge toward obtaining distinguished status on the principal evaluation. $1,200.00.
$19,742
99
400 - SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
UFARS Object
Code
430
Supplies And Materials - Non-Individualized Instructional
Justification:
Instructional Supplies for Extended Year Summer School $300 * 8 teachers = $2,400
Instructional Supplies for Extended Day Academic-Focused classes $300 * 12 classes = $3,600
Instructional Supplies to Implement PLC/SD $200 * 31 = $6200
Books and Materials for weekly PLCs: 43 staff * $75 = $3,225
Books will serve as a resource, not the content of PLC training. CLBHS will use books which provide training in
research-based best practices as a springboard for developing a common knowledge base and vocabulary from which to
move reform efforts systemically forward.
Teacher Reward Option linked to Evaluation Program $1200 per teacher * 10 teacher = $12,000
Instructional Supplies for Family Involvement = $600
Funding Amount
Per Object Code
$28,025
800 - OTHER EXPENDITURES
UFARS Object
Code
895
Funding Amount
Per Object Code
Federal and Nonpublic Indirect Cost (Chargeback)
Indirect - Identify restricted or approved rate used to calculate indirect charges to the grant. Indirect = total direct costs X
the approved/restricted indirect rate.
100
101

Document 6525929

Transcription

Similar documents

Open to ALL NSA Members at ALL Locations!

Michael Pachelo

Math Tier 2

Sig P210 (GunFacts)

VU Meter Me

P226 DARK ELITE TB P226

How to manually update the pav.sig in Retail 2008/2007/2006/2005 products.

P226®

In2m pr1 - Home of Kelly McNulty

Help is Really Needed!!!