LEA District Survey and Poll - Appendix B and D

Integrated Evaluation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funding, Implementation and Outcomes

Att_1850-0877 4413 Appendix B LEA survey 4_1

LEA District Survey and Poll - Appendix B and D

OMB: 1850-0877

Document [docx]
Download: docx | pdf

OMB#: 1850-0877

Expiration Date:







Charting the Progress of Education Reform:

An Evaluation of the Recovery Act’s Role



District Survey

Spring 2011












Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1850-0877. The approximate time required to complete this data collection is estimated to be 75 minutes.  If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimates or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. If you have comments on concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208.


Notice of Confidentiality

Information collected for this study come under the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the Institute of Education Sciences (The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183).  Information that could identify an individual or institution will be separated from the survey responses submitted, kept in secured locations, and be destroyed as soon as they are no longer required. Survey responses will be used only for research purposes. The reports prepared for the study will summarize survey findings across individuals and institutions and will not associate responses with a specific district, school, or person. We will not provide information that identifies you or your district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

Introduction

This survey and the larger study of which it is a part are supported under a contract from the United States (U.S.) Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The overall purposes of the study are to examine (1) ongoing education reform efforts, (2) the uses of funds available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or the Recovery Act) to support these reforms, and (3) the challenges associated with the reforms.

  • This survey focuses on district reform efforts. The survey includes seven sections and covers the topics listed in the table below. Given the scope of topics covered in this survey, we anticipate that several different district staff will contribute responses to various items.

  • Your district’s responses are critical to drawing lessons to improve federal efforts to support education reform. In addition, your responses will help inform policy makers, educators and researchers at the local, state, and national levels of reform efforts underway and challenges being encountered.

  • All survey results will be presented as aggregate findings and no individual districts will be named or otherwise identified in any study reports or other communications that use survey data.

  • The study, including this survey, is being conducted by Westat and its partners, Policy Studies Associates, the University of Wisconsin, and Chesapeake Research Associates. IES is providing technical direction.

  • Once your district’s survey is complete, please provide the following information for the district administrator(s) who assisted with the completion of each section of the survey.

Survey Section

For Each Person(s) Who Responded to a Survey Section

Position Title

Number of Years in the Position

Estimated total minutes to respond

  1. Existence of Low-Performing Schools in Your District




  1. District strategies related to educator recruitment, hiring, and induction




  1. Educator performance evaluation and compensation systems




  1. District strategies related to restructuring or reorganizing schools to improve student learning




  1. District strategies related to state standards, curricula, and assessments




  1. District reform priorities for the

2011-2012 school year




  1. District spending of Recovery Act funds








  1. Existence of Low-Performing Schools in Your District

  1. Throughout this survey, we ask if your district targeted particular reform strategies to low-performing schools or educators in low-performing schools. For this survey, we define a low-performing school as:

    • any Title I eligible school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; and

    • any high school (regardless of Title I funding or status) that has had a cohort graduation rate (percent of 9th graders who graduate within 4 or 5 years) that is less than 60 percent over the last several years. 

Did your district have any schools identified as low-performing in the 2010-2011 school year?

Yes

No


If you checked “No” to item 1, you will be directed to skip subsequent topics related to low-performing schools.




II. District Strategies Related to Educator Recruitment, Hiring, and Induction

  1. Indicate whether your district used the strategies below to recruit new educators (i.e., those in their first year of teaching or principal experience) in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.

    • Report strategies that your district used. Do not report on any strategies that your state education agency (SEA) or schools are using independently of district strategies.

Strategies to recruit new educators

Strategy Used in 2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011

(Check one in each row.)

No Current District Plans to Use the Strategy

District Was Actively Planning or

Developing the Strategy

District Used the

Strategy

Focus recruitment efforts on new teachers from university-based preparation programs that:

Are aligned with state content standards





Specialize in preparing teachers for teaching in low-performing schools*





Have evidence of the effectiveness of its graduates based on their students’ achievement gains





Have established strong partnerships with your district





Use alternative teacher pipelines (e.g., Teach for America, local alternative program) as a source of teacher recruits





Provide financial or classroom supports to teachers with provisional or emergency certificates to obtain full certification in STEM or special education





Use non-traditional administrator training programs (such as New Leaders for New Schools or district-run programs) to recruit new principals





*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.

  1. Indicate whether your district used the strategies below to support school hiring and new teacher induction (i.e., help for teachers in their first year of teaching) in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these strategies were targeted to low-performing schools in 2010-2011.


Strategies to support school hiring and

new teacher induction

Strategy Used in

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Schools


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Strategy to Low-Performing Schools in

2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No*)

No Current District Plans to Use the Strategy

District Was Actively Planning or

Developing the Strategy

District Used the Strategy for…

Half of Schools or Fewer

More Than Half of Schools but Not All Schools

All Schools

Provide school leaders with the authority to hire more qualified transfer candidates without regard to district seniority status








Minimize the assignment of inexperienced teachers to low-performing schools*








Make available or provide ongoing professional development for principals on how they can identify, recruit, and hire effective teachers**








Provide first year teachers with a full year of mentoring and observation, feedback, and demonstrations by assigned mentors and/or skilled teachers








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.


**Effective teacher are those whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth.




  1. Indicate to what extent, if at all, your district encountered these challenges when recruiting, hiring, and supporting new educators in the 2010-2011 school year


Challenges when recruiting, hiring,

and supporting new educators

Extent of Challenge in 2010-2011

(Check one in each row.)

Not Applicable

Not a Challenge

Minor Challenge

Major Challenge

Insufficient funding to implement or sustain new educator induction programs





Lack of district staff capacity or expertise to:

Identify and recruit effective educators*





Train mentors/coaches to support new educators





Develop partnerships with alternative educator preparation programs





Restrictions in rules and regulations relating to:

How teachers can be hired or assigned to schools





How principals be hired or assigned to schools





Lack of clear SEA guidance/support concerning hiring and/or induction





Lack of information concerning quality of teacher training programs





Shortage of qualified applicants





*Effective teachers are those whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. Effective principals are those whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth.




III. Educator Performance Evaluation and Compensation Systems

  1. Indicate whether your district included the components below in the educator performance evaluation system in use in your district in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these components were targeted to educators in low-performing schools in 2010-2011.

Components of educator performance

evaluation system in your district

Component in the System in

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Educators


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Use of the Component to Educators in Low-Performing Schools in

2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No *)

No Current Plans to Include the Component

Was Actively Planning Use or

Developing the Component

The Component Was Used in the Evaluation of…

Half of Educators or Fewer

More Than Half of Educators but Not All Educators

All Educators

Teacher evaluation system

Uses a rating scale or rubric that defines three or more performance levels to evaluate classroom instruction or practice








Includes at least two yearly observations of classroom instruction with written feedback








Uses multiple observers (such as master teachers, coaches, or peers as well as school administrators)








Requires evaluators to be trained to conduct reliable and accurate classroom observations








Includes student achievement gains in NCLB grades/subjects in determining individual teacher performance ratings








Includes student achievement gains in other grades/subjects in determining individual teacher performance ratings








Provides teachers with specific suggestions for professional development activities designed to help them improve in the areas covered by the evaluation








Principal evaluation system

Includes student achievement gains or growth in determining principals’ performance ratings








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.





  1. Indicate whether your district included the components below in the educator compensation system in use in your district in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these components were targeted to educators in low-performing schools in 2010-2011.

Components of the educator compensation

system in your district

Component in the System in

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Educators


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Use of the Component to Educators in Low-Performing Schools in

2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No*)

No Current Plans to Include the Component

Was Actively Planning Use or

Developing the Component

The Component Was Used in the

Compensation of …

Half of Educators or Fewer

More Than Half of Educators but Not All Educators

All Educators

Teacher compensation system

Provides base pay increases, add-ons, or stipends to teachers based in part on:

Ratings of classroom observations of teaching practice








Achievement gains of students in individual teachers’ classes








Demonstrating higher levels of instructional skills via National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification or a similar state or LEA performance assessment








Serving as master teachers or instructional specialists, or teacher coaches/mentors








Provides one-time bonuses for:

Achievement gains of students in individual teachers’ classes








Achievement gains of students served by teacher grade-level or other teams (e.g., same bonus provided to teachers of students in the same grade)








Average achievement gains of students school-wide (e.g., same bonus provided to all teachers in the school)








Provides higher starting salaries, add-ons, stipends, or signing bonuses for:

Teachers who move to teach in low-performing schools*








Science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics (STEM) teachers








Special education teachers








Teachers qualified to teach in other shortage areas








Provides loan forgiveness or tuition support for:

Teachers who move to low-performing schools*








Teachers qualified to teach in shortage areas, including STEM or special education








Provides non-financial incentives (e.g., smaller class size, planning time, reduced classroom hours) for teachers in hard-to-staff subjects, low-performing schools, or those serving as master teachers








Principal compensation system

Includes performance evaluation ratings in determining base pay increases








Includes bonuses or stipends in addition to base pay for remaining in or transferring to hard-to-staff or low-performing schools








Provides bonuses for improvements or gains in student achievement in their school








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.





  1. Indicate whether your district employs the approaches below to use student achievement data in decisions about educator tenure, assignment, and retention in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these uses of student achievement data were targeted to educators in low-performing schools in 2010-2011.

      • Report on how your district used these data. Do not report on how schools may use this information if they are responsible for decisions related to tenure and retention.

Uses of Student Achievement Data for Tenure,

Assignment, and Retention

Used in

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Educators


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Use of Student Achievement Data to Educators in Low-Performing Schools in

2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No *)

No Current District Plans to Use Data

District Was Actively Planning to Use

Data

Used for…

Half of Educators or Fewer

More Than Half of Educators but Not All Educators

All Educators

Use gains or growth in the achievement of teachers’ students in deciding teacher:

Tenure








Dismissal or non-retention with the district








Retention in the school or reassignment to another school








Use gains or growth in the achievement of students in the principal’s school in deciding whether:

The principal is retained as leader of the school or reassigned to another school








The principal ‘s contract is renewed or tenure given








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.







  1. Indicate to what extent, if at all, your district encountered these challenges when implementing educator evaluation and compensation systems in the 2010-2011 school year.

Challenges when implementing educator evaluation and compensation systems

Extent of Challenge in 2010-2011

(Check one in each row.)

Not Applicable

Not a Challenge

Minor Challenge

Major Challenge

Insufficient funding to:

Provide performance-based compensation to all eligible teachers





Provide differential compensation for teachers in high need areas (i.e., low performing schools, STEM subjects)





Lack of district staff capacity or expertise to:

Develop reliable approaches for rating educator performance based, in part, on student achievement





Conduct comprehensive educator performance evaluations





Identify professional development needs of teachers based on performance evaluations





Current data systems make linking student test data to individual teachers difficult





Restrictions in rules and regulations on:

How educators can be evaluated





How educators can be compensated





Lack of clear SEA guidance/support on educator compensation or evaluation system





Concerns or opposition from school staff/staff unions about:

Evaluating educators based, at least in part, on student achievement





Performance based compensation





Difficulty in Measuring student growth for teachers of non-tested subjects









IV. District Strategies Related to Restructuring or Reorganizing Schools to Improve Student Learning

  1. Indicate whether your district used the strategies below to support school restructuring or reorganization in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these strategies were targeted to low-performing schools in 2010-2011.


Strategies to Support School Restructuring or Reorganization

Strategy Used in

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Schools


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Strategy to Low-Performing Schools in

2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No*)

No Current District Plans to Use the Strategy

District Was Actively Planning or

Developing the Strategy

District Used the Strategy for…

Half of Schools or Fewer

More Than Half of Schools but Not All Schools

All Schools

District policies or programs that:

Extend the regular school day and/or week, including “Saturday” school or before/after school sessions (required for some students)








Extend the regular school year








Allow school leaders to deviate from standard district staffing or budgeting patterns to implement school-specific reforms








Improve teacher working conditions to attract and retain effective teachers**








Identify and screen qualified charter or education management organizations (CMOs or EMOs)








Contract with CMOs, EMOs, or community organizations to operate schools








Replace a substantial proportion of the teachers in individual low-performing schools*








Target chronically low-performing schools for closure*








Replace principals in low-performing schools*








Use longitudinal data to track success of school improvement models








Conduct district-organized parent information sessions tailored to individual school improvement efforts








District technical assistance to schools to help them:

Identify and screen potential school improvement models








Screen and select school improvement experts for low-performing schools*








Conduct a needs assessment








Convert to a charter school








Use additional budgeting or staffing flexibility provided by the district or SEA








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.


**Effective teacher are those whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth.







  1. Indicate whether your district used the strategies below to help individual schools improve instruction and related support activities in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these strategies were targeted to low-performing schools in 2010-2011.


Strategies to improve instruction

Strategy Used in

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Strategy to Low-Performing Schools in

2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No *)

No Current District Plans to Use the Strategy

District Was Actively Planning or

Developing the Strategy

District Used Strategy for…

Half of Schools or Fewer

More Than Half of Schools but Not All Schools

All Schools

Requires schools to:

Conduct a comprehensive needs assessment








Submit improvement plans that detail:

Implementation of a whole school improvement model (from a partner or an outside vendor)








Changes in curricula, instructional methods, or staffing that are not part of implementing a whole school improvement model








Use instructional coaches to support teacher learning








Provide one-on-one or small group instructional sessions for struggling students








Have smaller class sizes than typical for grade








Modify daily schedules to increase the amount of instructional time for reading/English language arts or mathematics








Purchase technology to support instruction (includes computers and software for teacher or student use in the classroom)








Partner with an organization that specializing in instructional improvement, e.g., local universities or outside vendors








Schedule common planning time for teachers








Implement school-level programs to:

Address students’ emotional and social needs








Encourage family and community involvement








Orient parents to school improvement efforts








Provide computers and software to schools for student use in classroom learning activities








Provide assistive technology to schools for special education students








Provide technical assistance to schools (either directly or through outside vendors) in using new computers and software








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.

















  1. Indicate whether your district made available or provided the professional development activities below related to supporting school restructuring and improving instruction in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these activities were targeted to teachers in low-performing schools in 2010-2011.

      • Report only in district-level plans and activities. Do not report on your state education agency (SEA) activities associated with professional development.






Professional development to support school restructuring/improvement


Professional Development Made Available or Provided in 2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Teachers


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted Professional Development to Teachers in Low-Performing Schools in 2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No*)


No Current District Plans to Make Available or Provide Professional Development

District Was Actively Planning to Make Available or Provide Professional Development

District Made Available or Provided Professional Development to:



Half of Teachers or Fewer

More than Half of Teachers but Not All Teachers





All Teachers

Focus of professional development provided or made available by district to teachers

Improving content knowledge in STEM








Specific school improvement models








Differentiating instruction








Literacy instruction








Using student summative assessment1 results for instructional planning








Using interim assessment2 results to adapt instruction








Using technology for instruction








Engaging the community/

parents in school efforts






































*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.

1A summative assessment summarizes learning as of a particular point in time and is used for evaluative purposes (e.g., a grade).  Examples of summative assessments include state or district standards-based assessments or an end of course assessment.

2 Interim assessments are tests given periodically to check student progress, including standardized and diagnostic assessments but not including teacher-developed tests.


  1. Indicate to what extent, if at all, your district encountered these challenges when supporting school restructuring and improvement in the 2010-2011 school year.

Challenges when supporting school restructuring and improvement

Extent of Challenge in 2010-2011

(Check one in each row.)

Not Applicable

Not a Challenge

Minor Challenge

Major Challenge

Insufficient funding to:

Implement whole-school/turn around intervention models





Make substantial changes to school day/year schedules





Support special programs for students and families





Support school-based experts (outside consultants, instructional specialists/coaches, mentors)





Lack of district staff capacity or expertise to:

Provide guidance/advice concerning whole-school/turn around intervention models





Screen or provide guidance/advice about EMOs and CMOs





Train instructional specialists, coaches, lead teachers, or school-based professional development staff





Current data systems make tracking the success of school improvement efforts difficult





Insufficient help from local social services and other community-based organizations in providing services to students and their families





Restrictions in rules and regulations regarding:

Number of schools that can be closed, opened as charters or restructured in other ways





Extension of school days/years





Extent of autonomy that schools can be granted in terms of staffing or budgets





Lack of clear SEA guidance/support focused on adoption of whole school-reform models





Concerns or opposition from parents or community groups about closing or restructuring schools





Lack of evidence about:

Effectiveness of school improvement models





Performance of CMOs/EMOs or other intervention experts





Unwillingness of high-performing teachers to move to low-performing schools*





*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.



V. District Strategies Related to State Standards, Curricula, and Assessments


  1. Has your state adopted the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics and/or English Language Arts?


Yes (Skip to Item 15)

No (Continue to Item 14)

Do Not Know (Continue to Item 14)


  1. Has your state adopted other new or revised content standards in Mathematics, Reading/English Language Arts, Science, and/or Social Studies in the 2009-10 or 2010-2011 school years?


Yes (Continue to Item 15)

No (Skip to Item 21)

Do Not Know (Skip to Item 21)


  1. Indicate for which subjects your district planned or implemented activities related to the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards for the 2010-2011 school year.


  • New content standards adopted by your state may include the Common Core State Standards or other state content standards adopted or revised in 2009-2010 or 2010-2011.


  • Report only district-level plans and activities for this school year. For example, enter a ‘No’ for mathematics under the Common Core State Standards if your state adopted these standards, but the district was not actively planning or implementing activities related to these mathematics standards in 2010-2011.


Subjects in Which District Was Planning or Implementing New or Revised State Content Standards

District Was Planning or Implementing Activities In 2010-2011

Related to…

Common Core State Standards


(Enter Yes or No)

Other New or Revised State Content Standards


(Enter Yes or No)

Mathematics



Reading/English language arts



Science



Social studies






  1. Indicate whether your district used the strategies below to implement any new or revised state content standards in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these strategies were targeted to low-performing schools in 2010-2011.


Strategies to implement the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards

Strategy Used

2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Schools


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Strategy to Low-Performing Schools in 2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No*)

No Current District Plans to Use the Strategy

District Was Actively Planning or

Developing the Strategy

District Used the

Strategy for…

Half of Schools or Fewer

More Than Half of Schools but Not All Schools

All Schools

Distribute to schools instructional materials (e.g., curriculum guides, curriculum frameworks, pacing guides) aligned with new or revised state standards in:

Mathematics








Reading/English language arts








Science and/or social studies








Distribute to schools instructional materials specifically designed to helping the following students master new or revised state content standards:

English language learners








Students with disabilities








Provide district criteria for schools to use when selecting a new curriculum aligned with the new or revised state standards for:

Mathematics








Reading/English language arts








Science and/or social studies








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.




  1. Indicate whether your district made available or provided the professional development activities below to educators who teach or mentor in that subject related to the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these activities were targeted to educators in low-performing schools in 2010-2011.

  • Report only district-level plans and activities. Do not report on SEA sponsored or organized professional development activities.












Professional development area and delivery mode

Professional Development Made Available or Provided in 2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Educators


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted Professional Development to Applicable Educators in Low-Performing Schools in 2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No*)

No Current District Plans to Make Available or Provide Professional Development

District Was Actively Planning to Make Available or Provide Professional Development

District Made Available or Provided Professional Development to…

Half of Applicable Educators or Fewer

More Than Half of Applicable Educators but Not All Educators

All Applicable Educators

In-person professional development provided or made available by district on:

The new or revised state standards for teachers who teach:

Mathematics








Reading/English language arts








Science and/or social studies








Instructional strategies for teachers specifically designed to help the following students

master new or revised state content standards:

English language learners








Students with disabilities








The new or revised state standards for instructional coaches and/or mentors in:

Mathematics








Reading/English language arts








Science and/or social studies








Instructional strategies for instructional coaches and/or mentors specifically designed to help

the following students master new or revised state content standards:

English language learners








Students with disabilities








Internet-based professional development provided or made available by district on:

The new or revised state standards for educators who teach or mentor in:

Mathematics








Reading/English language arts








Science and/or social studies








Instructional strategies for educators specifically designed to help the following students master new or revised state content standards:

English language learners








Students with disabilities
































*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.









  1. Indicate to what extent, if at all, your district encountered these challenges when planning or implementing the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards in the 2010-2011 school year.

Challenges planning or implementing any new or revised state content standards

Extent of Challenge in 2010-2011

(Check one in each row.)

Not Applicable

Not a Challenge

Minor Challenge

Major Challenge

Insufficient funding to:

Provide adequate training to teachers on the content and use of the standards





Purchase new instructional materials aligned with new standards





Support instructional specialists or coaches to help educators implement new standards





Lack of district staff capacity or expertise to:

Develop new curricula guides and instructional materials aligned with new standards





Provide guidance about or train educators on using new standards for their instruction





Lack of clear SEA guidance/support on:

Specific content of new standards





Expectations concerning when and how standards should be implemented





Inadequate quality or availability of state-developed instructional materials aligned with standards





Concerns or opposition focused on new standards from:

School staff/staff unions





Parents or other community groups





Current assessments are not aligned with the new standards











  1. Did your district use new summative assessments aligned with the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards in the 2010-2011 school year?

Yes Continue to Item 20

No Skip to Item 21


  1. Indicate for which subjects your district used new summative assessments aligned with the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards in the 2010-2011 school year.


Subjects of New Assessments Aligned with Common Core or other new or revised state content standards

Used New Summative Assessment in 2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No)

Mathematics


Reading/English language arts


Science


Social studies






  1. Indicate whether your district used the strategies below to implement new or existing assessments and to use data systems for storing, reporting, and using assessment results in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Indicate whether any of these strategies were targeted to low-performing schools in 2010-2011

  • Report on strategies related to assessments in use in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. These may or may not include new assessments aligned with the Common Core State Standards or other new or revised state content standards.

  • Report only district-level plans and activities. Do not report on SEA activities associated with these strategies.

Strategies related to new or existing assessments and data systems

Strategy Used

in 2009-2010


(Enter Yes or No)

Status in 2010-2011 for Schools


(Check one in each row.)

Targeted the Strategy to Low-Performing Schools

in 2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No *)

No Current District Plans to Use the Strategy

District Was Actively Planning or

Developing the Strategy

District Used the Strategy for…

Half of Schools or Fewer

More Than Half of Schools but Not All Schools

All Schools

Implement summative assessments1 in:

Non-NCLB-tested grades








Non-NCLB-tested subjects








Implement interim assessments2








Use longitudinal data to track student achievement gains:

For individual teachers








For schools








Provide teachers with on-line access to individual student results from:

State summative assessments








District summative assessments (not state required)








Interim assessments








Use tests that are aligned across grades to better measure student growth








Provide teachers with on-line access to individual students’ demographics information, attendance, or discipline data linked to student assessment data








Provide computers or funds for computers for teacher and principal use in accessing and analyzing student data








Provide educators with key aggregate student and school indicators through report cards, data dashboards, or other feedback and analysis systems








*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.

1A summative assessment summarizes learning as of a particular point in time and is used for evaluative purposes (e.g., a grade).  Examples of summative assessments include state or district standards-based assessments or an end of course assessment.

2 Interim assessments are tests given periodically to check student progress, including standardized and diagnostic assessments but not including teacher-developed tests.


  1. Indicate to what extent, if at all, your district encountered these challenges when implementing assessments and using data systems for storing, reporting, and using assessment results in the 2010-2011 school year.

Challenges implementing assessments and using data systems

Extent of Challenge in 2010-2011

(Check one in each row.)

Not applicable

Not a Challenge

Minor Challenge

Major Challenge

Insufficient funding to:

Train educators in how to administer and use assessments





Support data systems that store and provide access to assessment information





Lack of district staff capacity or expertise to:

Provide guidance about or train educators on how to administer assessments





Provide guidance about or train educators on how to use assessments to improve instruction





Maintain and facilitate educators’ access to assessment data systems





Restrictions in rules and regulations relating to what can be included in state or district data systems and how to access them





Lack of clear SEA guidance/support on using state assessment data systems





Concerns or opposition from:

Parents or other community groups to additional assessments





School staff about additional assessments





Standardized assessments not available for enough subjects or grades





Delays in transmission of assessment results to schools or teachers













VI. District Reform Priorities for the 2011-2012 School Year

  1. We realize that districts may need to make choices about their emphasis on particular reform areas. In the table below, indicate the priority level of each district reform area below for the 2011-2012 school year.

  • Select only one “highest” priority reform area.

School Reform Priorities for 2011-2012

Level of Priority for 2011-2012
(Check one in each row.)

Highest Priority

High Priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority

Implementing reforms to increase educator quality:

Improved ways to recruit and hire effective educators1





Improved educator induction programs





Performance evaluation systems that hold educators accountable for improved student outcomes





Performance-based compensation systems for educators





Incentives or programs to attract and retain effective educators in the district’s low-performing schools1,*





Restructuring or reorganizing schools to improve student learning:

Increasing the school day, week or year





Providing additional budgeting or staffing flexibility





Increasing oversight of low performing schools





Closing low-performing schools or converting them to charters*





Implementing reforms to improve instruction:

Strategies for improving instruction or related student services





Targeting strategies for improving instruction or related student services to low-performing schools*





Implementing new or revised state content standards in:

Reading/English/language arts and/or mathematics





Other subjects





Administering assessments:

New summative assessments2





New interim assessments3





Using technology:

On-line data systems that provide information on student learning growth or gains





Use of computers and other technologies for classroom instruction





*Note if your district does not have any low-performing schools (as defined in Section I), skip to the next row.

1Effective teachers are those whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. Effective principals are those whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth.

2A summative assessment summarizes learning as of a particular point in time and is used for evaluative purposes (e.g., a grade).  Examples of summative assessments include state or district standards-based assessments or an end of course assessment.

3 Interim assessments are tests given periodically to check student progress, not including teacher-made tests.

  1. District Spending of Recovery Act Funds

In this section, we ask about how districts generally spent education funds received through the Recovery Act. A district may have received Recovery Act funds through one or more programs, such as the:

  • State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,

  • the Title I Supplemental Appropriation,

  • the IDEA Supplemental Appropriation,

  • Race to the Top,

  • the Teacher Incentive Fund,

  • a School Improvement Grant, and/or

  • the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3).


A district may receive these funds directly as a grant recipient, through formula funding from the SEA, or as a sub-recipient to an SEA grant. We are interested in Recovery Act funds your district received through any of these mechanisms. Note that we are not asking you to report on Education Job Funds which your district may have received.



  1. Thinking about all of the Recovery Act funds your district received in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, estimate the percentage of those funds that your district allocated for:

    1. staff position expenditures (including new jobs created and existing jobs maintained, at both the district and school levels)

    2. expenditures for data systems and classroom or instructional technology

      • (this includes expenditures for data systems that: track student achievement over time, link students to teachers of record, and track educator quality. Also include expenditures for computers and software for educator or student use in classroom learning activities, assistive technology for special education students, other informational technology materials and equipment (e.g., smart boards, telecommunications)); and

    3. all other non-staff expenditures.

Spending of Recovery Act funds

Percentage

Staff position expenditures


Expenditures on data systems and classroom or instructional technology


Other non-staff expenditures


Total Recovery Act funds

100%



  1. Thinking about all of the Recovery Act funds your district received in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, estimate the percentage of those funds that your district used to support low-performing schools (as defined in Section I).

Percentage of Recovery Act Funds Used to Support Low-Performing Schools

(Check one)

0


1-25%


26-50%


51-75%


76-100%




  1. Identify whether your district spent Recovery Act funds to support the seven reform areas below in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Among those reform areas where your district spent Recovery Act funds, identify the 3 reform areas where your district spent the largest portion of these funds during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.


  • Enter a ‘1’ for the reform area where your district devoted the largest amount of its Recovery Act funds; a ‘2’ for the second largest amount of funds; and a ‘3’ for the third largest amount of funds. Each number should be used once.

  • Include professional development activities funded by the Recovery Act under the appropriate reform area. For example, funds used to train teachers on the Common Core State Standards would be included under New or Revised Content Standards.

Reform Areas for Recovery Act Spending

District Spent Recovery Act Funds to Support the Reform Area in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011


(Enter Yes or No)

Among the Areas Where the District Spent Recovery Act Funds, Top Three Areas of District Recovery Act Spending

in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011


(Enter 1, 2, and 3 once in the table)

Data systems

Include expenditures for systems that:

  • track student achievement over time

  • link students to teachers of record

  • track educator quality



Classroom or instructional technology

Include expenditures for:

  • computers and software for student use in classroom learning activities

  • assistive technology for special education students

  • other informational technology materials and equipment (e.g., smartboards, telecommunications)



New or Revised Content Standards

Include expenditures for implementing:

  • new or revised standards in mathematics, reading/language arts, science, and/or social studies



Assessments

Include expenditures for implementing:

  • interim and summative student assessments in mathematics, reading/ language arts, science, and/or social studies



Differentiated Educator Compensation

Include expenditures for implementing systems for:

  • performance-based compensation for teachers and principals

  • additional compensation for serving as master teachers or instructional specialists, teaching in hard-to-staff subjects, or working in high- need schools



Educator quality

Include expenditures for implementing systems for:

  • recruitment

  • hiring

  • induction

  • performance evaluation activities



Restructuring and reorganizing schools

Include expenditures such as:

  • costs of partnering with an outside organization

  • placing lead teachers and instructional coaches in schools

  • lowering class sizes

  • short terms costs of restaffing the school





  1. Enter the following district revenue amounts for last three school years.

    • Revenue amounts should be the sum of revenues from local sources (including private contributions), state sources, federal sources through the state government, and federal sources directly.


School/fiscal year

Total Revenues


Total Revenues for Operating Purposes

Total Revenue for Capital Outlays and Debt Service

2010-2011

(fiscal year 2011)




2009-2010

(fiscal year 2010)




2008-2009

(fiscal year 2009)1




1The total revenues value for the 2008-2009 school year should be the sum of the local revenue, state revenue, and federal revenue values reported by the district for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 2009 Survey of Local Government Finances: School Systems.


  1. Indicate the cumulative revenues from Recovery Act programs available to each school in your district listed below. Include actual dollar amounts available to the school for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.

  • If Recovery Act funds support centrally funded positions (e.g., an instructional coach) that provide assistance to a school listed below, estimate the dollar amount of that position for that school based on the amount of time the staff member is providing direct services or assistance. Include that estimate in the totals below.

School

School Improve-ment Grant

Race to the Top

Teacher Incentive Fund

Investing in Innovation Fund

Title I ARRA

Supplement

IDEA ARRA Supplement

Other Recovery Act Funds1

  1. LEA Sample School A








  1. LEA Sample School B








  1. LEA Sample School C








1 Other programs that received additional funding through the Recovery Act are: Education Technology State Grants (Title II, Part D or “Ed Tech”), McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth, Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities (IDEA Part B, Section 619), and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.



File Typeapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
AuthorPatty Troppe
File Modified0000-00-00
File Created2021-01-31

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy