Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) SIG II Year 1 Monitoring and Fiscal Teams’ Third Onsite Visit Feedback Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG II), section 1003(g), FY 2010 Date Feedback Shared with BCPSS: June 28,2012

SIG II Year 1Monitoring and Fiscal Teams’ Third Onsite Visit Feedback

Maryland State Department of Education—Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG), section 1003(g)

LEA: Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) LEA Turnaround Director: Kim Ferguson
Date of SIG Team’s LEA Visit: May 15, 2012 Date of SIG Fiscal Team’s Visit: June 8, 2012
SIG Team Members: Gail Clark Dickson & Felicia Lanham Tarason SIG Fiscal Team Member: Geri Taylor Lawrence

Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG): The School Improvement Grant (SIG) Program, authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, provides funding through State educational agencies (SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the lowest-achieving schools that have the greatest need for the funds and demonstrate the strongest commitment to use the funds to raise significantly the achievement of students. The United States Department of Education (USDE) views the large infusion of Federal funds into the SIG program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a historic opportunity to address one of the most intractable challenges for America’s education system: turning around or closing down our Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools.

Purpose of the SIG II Year 1 Monitoring and Fiscal Teams’ Third Onsite Visit: As approved by USDE, MSDE, through SIG Monitoring Teams, will conduct three onsite monitoring visits annually in each LEA that receives a school improvement grant to ensure that the LEA is implementing its intervention model fully and effectively in Maryland’s Tier I and Tier II schools. As part of the third onsite visit, a SIG Monitoring Team will interview members of the LEA Central Support Team which is the leadership body for planning, implementing, supporting, monitoring, and evaluating the LEA’s approved SIG Plan. In addition and on a different day, a MSDE SIG Fiscal Team will monitor the LEA’s SIG budgets.

Table Organization of SIG II Year 1Monitoring and Fiscal Teams’ Third Onsite Visit Feedback
Table 1 / BCPSS Central Support Team Interview Questions and Responses
Table 2 / SIG II Year 1 LEA Budget for Baltimore City Public School Systemfor the 2011-2012 School Year
Table 3 / School Budget for Benjamin Franklin High School
Table 4 / School Budget for Cherry Hill Elem/ Middle School
Table 5 / School Budget Frederick Douglass High School
Table 6 / Consolidated Budget for Schools
TABLE 1 BCPSS Central Support Team Interview Questions and Responses
  1. Compare your previous school year to SIG II Year 1 Implementation in your system’s SIG II schools.
/ Benjamin Franklin High School @ Masonville Cove / Challenges with attendance, climate, leadership capacity and achievement
Now:
  • Creation of the 4 plus 1 program
  • Partnership with Towson University for teachers’ staff development
  • Created leadership team
  • Planning professional development on promethean boards & use of Blackboard for students’ use from home
  • Building leadership capacity
  • Executive Directors and Networks are building leadership capacity
  • Capturing Kids Hearts program has impacted schools culture & climate
  • Pushing technology integration
  • Focus on instruction, academics, communication & trust

Frederick Douglas High School / The need to build leadership capacity was great; there were achievement concerns;
there was a need for the leadership to connect with the community and the alumni association and to improve student attendance
Now:
  • Leadership makes a difference; the school governance board supports the principal’s vision and plan
  • The principal mobilized and articulated expectations to students and parents
  • The principal created the two academies: Global Leadership & Innovations
  • Established a partnership with EdWorks
  • Establishing an early college program in partnership with Coppin State University
  • The principal created a focus on learning and holds people accountable
  • Establishing a focus on attendance
  • The most challenging senior students are mentored by the principal
  • The leadership is creating a marketing campaign to re-brand the perception of Frederick Douglas High School
  • The principal has an effective leadership team built on communication and trust

Cherry Hill Elementary/Middle School / School was struggling to meet deadlines and lacked expectations; the climate was negative
Now:
  • Real Time coaching has been implemented to enhance instructional skills; there’s realignment with the curriculum framework
  • Implementing strategies for rigor and student engagement
  • Incorporating teacher voice on the leadership team
  • Creating a school-wide schedule a 90 minute planning blocks
  • Planning for school year 2012-2013 with greater alignment and consistent support from the network team

  1. How have you continued to build the internal capacity at the district level during SIG II Year 1Implementation to sustain the reforms introduced this year?
/
  • District support is focused on the needs of the schools
  • The need is great in getting the right people on the bus
  • They learned much from SIG 1 implementation

  1. What were your greatest SIG II Year 1 implementation successes as a district team?
/
  • School received their funding early
  • Time was available to conduct pre-planning activities
  • More interest in examining student data

  1. What were the SIG II Year 1 implementation challenges across the district?
/
  • Principals were new and needed training and support to develop budgets for their schools
  • Changes were made in the school budget to reflect actual salaries vs. average salaries
  • There was a need to adjust the plan and continue open dialogue
  • It was challenging to staff key positions; there were long term substitutes
  • Hiring was based on isolated needs instead of systemic needs

  1. Which SIG II Year 1challenges did you overcome and how?
/
  • The district office focused on providing funding to schools in a timely fashion
  • The instructional framework assisted in bringing focus and vision for principals
  • Principals learned that instruction and school climate are interrelated
  • Results are more outcomes based which link to data

  1. Discuss the lessons learned. What advice would you give to the other districts?
/
  • It is important to have a strategic focus around the initiative
  • Incorporate an academic focus with pre-planning and support
  • Community involvement should be a natural component of the process

  1. What are your key priorities for SIG II Year 2? What’s next?
/
  • Improve capacity of network teams in the schools;
  • encourage cross school initiatives;
  • realize the direct links to school plans to create student achievement gains;
  • Advance student achievement based on the assessments;
  • Incorporating summer learning centers;
  • Establish rigor through common core curriculum; and
  • Focus on attendance at the high school level

  1. What would you like to tell us that we have not asked?
/
  • Amendment requests will be based on instructional strategies which will be implemented in the schools

TABLE 2
Section 5: SIG II Year 1 LEA Budget LEA: Baltimore City Public Schools
MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: June 8, 2012
Total SIG II Year 1 Allocation:
$933,756 / LEA Budget Spent:
$ 104,765 / Percent of LEA Budget Spent:
11% / Spend Down Data as of:
June 8, 2012
Salaries & Wages / Contractual Services / Supplies & Materials / Other
Budgeted: $414,797 / Budgeted: $ 37,100 / Budgeted: $ 42,459 / Travel, Conference, etc.Budgeted:
$ 17,894
Encumbered:$ 0 / Encumbered: $ 0 / Encumbered: $ 1,869 / Encumbered:
Travel: $60
Spent (amount): $ 72,103
Spent (%): 17 % / Spent (amount): $ 0
Spent (%): 0 % / Spent (amount): $ 1,532
Spent (%): 3 % / Spent (amount): $ 0
Spent (%): 0 %
  1. How much of the LEA SIG 1003(g) Title I Part A, budget has been expended to date (amount and %)?
BCPSS provided documentation that the district has spent $104,765 This amount is 11% of the SIG II year 1 budget. An additional amount of $1,869 has been encumbered. Expended amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
  1. Is the LEA spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned?
BCPSS indicated that the LEA spending is slow. BCPSS will be submitting an amendment requesting that the grant period be extended until December 30, 2012.
  1. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the LEA budget?
BCPSS explained that consultant services for professional development ($9,600) have not occurred; and consultant services for Project Management in the amount of $25,000 have not occurred.
  1. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for the LEA?
BCPSS indicated that a budget amendment will be submitted to MSDE in June 2012 for this grant.
  1. How often are LEA expenditures monitored? Who monitors?
BCPSS indicated that district leadership met on March 14, April 24, 25, 30, May 7, 22, 30, 31, and June 5, 7, 2012 to discuss, plan and revise the district SIG II budget. BCPSS explained that the Grants Administration Office provides monthly reports as a part of the monitoring process. These reports are disseminated to Turnaround Office staff, and Title I Coordinator. The reports are color coded and categories that have spending concerns are denoted in red. If recipients have questions or concerns they contract designated staff in the Grants Administration Office.
TABLE 3
SIG II Year 1 School Budget for Benjamin Franklin High School , Tier II
MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: June 8, 2012
Total SIG II Year 1 Allocation:
$ 1,174,711 / School Budget Spent:
$ 641,624 / Percent of School Budget Spent: 55% / Spend Down Data as of:
June 8, 2012
Salaries & Wages / Contractual Services / Supplies & Materials / Other
Budgeted: $ 701,657 / Budgeted: $ 207,504 / Budgeted: $ 22,000 / Conference Budgeted: $19,788
PD/Conference Budgeted: $15,000
Encumbered: $ 0 / Encumbered: $ 86,136 / Encumbered: $ 0 / Conference Encumbered: $ 0
PD/Conference Encumbered: $0
Spent (amount): $ 376,489
Spent (%): 54 % / Spent (amount): $ 117,118
Spent (%): 56 % / Spent (amount): $ 0
Spent (%): 0% / Conference Spent (amount): $ 0
PD /Conference Spent (amount): $ 0
  1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)?
BCPSS provided documentation that showed Benjamin Franklin has spent $ 641,624. This amount is 55 % of their approved SIG II year 1 budget. An additional amount of $ 86,136 has been encumbered. Expended amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
  1. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned?
BCPSS explained that the spending for Benjamin Franklin is slightly off target. The district will be submitting an amendment to extend the grant period to December 31, 2012.
  1. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget?
BCPSS indicated that even though spending is a little off target all planned activities have taken place.
  1. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school?
BCPSS indicated that Benjamin Franklin has been included in the pending budget amendment that has been submitted to MSDE. Salary adjustments ($205,000) will occur for most positions to reconcile the budgeted amount to the actual salary amount. Supplies and materials will be reduced by $13,000 and this amount will be added to technology.
  1. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors?
BCPSS provided documentation that showed that monitoring was conducted on April 11, 23, and May 1, 2, 16, 17, 2012. BCPSS explainedthat the Grants Administration Office provides monthly reports as a part of the monitoring process. These reports are disseminated to the Turnaround Office staff, school principal, Title I Coordinator, and EMO operator if applicable. The reports are color coded and categories that have spending concerns are denoted in red. If the school principal has questions or concerns, they are addressed by the Turnaround Office business manager. BCPSS indicated that the business manager continues to meet regularly with school leadership to reconcile and plan.
TABLE 4
SIG II Year 1 School Budget for Cherry Hill Elem/ Middle School , Tier I
MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: June 8, 2012
Total SIGII Year 1 Allocation:
$ 1,141,506 / School Budget Spent:
$ 261,123 / Percent of School Budget Spent: 23% / Spend Down Data as of:
June 8, 2012
Salaries & Wages / Contractual Services / Supplies & Materials / Other
Budgeted: $ 291,282 / Budgeted: $ 699,500 / Budgeted: $ 40,541 / Mileage/Conference Budgeted: $28,622
Equipment Budgeted: $40,000
Encumbered: $ 0 / Encumbered: $ 359,743 / Encumbered: $ 21,277 / Mileage/Conference Encumbered: $ 0
Equipment Encumbered: $ 907
Spent (amount): $ 131,192
Spent (%): 45 % / Spent (amount): $ 51,631
Spent (%): 7 % / Spent (amount): $ 5,809
Spent (%): 14 % / Mileage etc. Spent: (amount): $ 300 , 1%
Equipment Spent: (amount): $ 34,669 , 86%
  1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)?
BCPSS provided documentation that showed Cherry Hill has spent $ 261,123. This amount is 23% of their approved SIG II year 1 budget. An additional amount of $ 381,927 has been encumbered. Expended amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
  1. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned?
BCPSS explained that the spending for Cherry Hill is not consistent with the budget timeline. District leadership has met with Cherry Hill to amendment their plan. The district will be submitting an amendment to extend the grant period to December 31, 2012.
  1. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget?
BCPSS indicated that the professional conferences have not taken place. The EMO is very slow in submitting invoices therefore; spending in contracted services is low.
  1. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school?
BCPSS indicated that Cherry Hill ES is included in a pending budget amendment. The school plans an increase in technology resources which will allow teachers to effectively utilize Compass Learning. Increases are also planned in the category of materials / supplies and a slight increase in the amount of dollars allocated for student school uniforms.
  1. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors?
BCPSS provided documentation that showed monitoring was conducted on May 16, 2012. BCPSS explained that the Grants Administration Office provides monthly reports as a part of the monitoring process. These reports are disseminated to the Turnaround Office staff, school principal, Title I Coordinator, and EMO operator if applicable. The reports are color coded and categories that have spending concerns are denoted in red. If the school principal has questions or concerns, they are addressed by the Turnaround Office business manager. BCPSS indicated that the business manager continues to meet regularly with school leadership to reconcile and plan.
TABLE 5
SIG II Year 1 School Budget Frederick Douglass High School , Tier II
MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: June 8, 2012
Total SIG II Year 1 Allocation:
$ 1,452,501 / School Budget Spent:
$ 1,322,557 / Percent of School Budget Spent: 91% / Spend Down Data as of:
June 8, 2012
Salaries & Wages / Contractual Services / Supplies & Materials / Other
Budgeted: $ 902,645 / Budgeted: $ 344,694 / Budgeted: $ 29,350 / Budgeted: N/A
Encumbered: $ 0 / Encumbered: $ 115,797 / Encumbered: $ 5,028 / Encumbered: N/A
Spent (amount): $ 902,645
Spent (%): 100% / Spent (amount): $ 193,706
Spent (%): 57 % / Spent (amount): $ 25,756
Spent (%): 81 % / Spent: N/A
  1. How much of the school budget, based on the LEA’s approved application, has been expended to date (amount and %)?
BCPSS provided documentation that showed Frederick Douglass has spent $ 1,322,557. This amount is 91% of their approved SIG II year 1 budget. An additional amount of $120,825 has been encumbered. Expended amounts for fixed charges are included in the total spent.
  1. Is school spending consistent with budget timeline? If not, what steps are being taken to expend the funds as planned?
BCPSS indicated that Frederick Douglass is on target with spending in all categories. The district will be submitting an amendment to extend the grant period to December 31, 2012 for all schools.
  1. What action steps or planned activities have not taken place that would impact the budget?
BCPSS explained that there are no planned activities at Frederick Douglass that have not occurred that would impact the school budget.
  1. Has a budget amendment been submitted? If yes, what budget changes were requested for this school?
BCPSS indicated that Frederick Douglass has been included in the pending budget amendment that has been submitted to MSDE. Salary adjustments of ($ 178,885) will occur for some positions to reconcile the budgeted amount to the actual salary amount. The funds will be realigned into contracted services and materials.
  1. How often are school expenditures monitored by the LEA? Who monitors?
BCPSS provided documentation that showed that monitoring was conducted on April 16, 19, 30 and May 1, 8, 2012.BCPSS explained that the Grants Administration Office provides monthly reports as a part of the monitoring process. These reports are disseminated to the Turnaround Office staff, school principal, Title I Coordinator, and EMO operator if applicable. The reports are color coded and categories that have spending concerns are denoted in red. If the school principal has questions or concerns, they are addressed by the Turnaround Office business manager. BCPSS indicated that the business manager continues to meet regularly with school leadership to reconcile and plan.
TABLE 6
Section 5: SIG II Year 1 Consolidated Budget for Schools LEA:Baltimore CityPublic Schools
MSDE Fiscal Reviewer: Geri Taylor Lawrence Monitoring Date: June 8, 2012
SIG II 1003(g) Title I, Part A
Total Allocation
Amount Spent
Percent Spent
Amount Encumbered
Spend Down Data as of : / $ 3,768,719
$ 1,978,719
53 %
$ 849,079
June 8, 2012

Program Improvement and Family Support Branch

Division of Student, Family, and School Support

Maryland State Department of EducationPage1