SIG Form 1—Application Cover Sheet

School Improvement Grant (SIG)

Application for Funding

APPLICATION RECEIPT DEADLINE

March 14, 2014, 4 p.m.

Submit to:

California Department of Education

Improvement and Accountability Division

School Turnaround Office

1430 N Street, Suite 6208

Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

NOTE: Please print or type all information.

County Name:
SAN MATEO COUNTY / County/District Code:
41-68940
Local Educational Agency (LEA) Name
LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT / LEA NCES Number:
0620220
LEA Address
360 BUTANO CUTOFF / Total Grant Amount Requested
$2,016,344.00
City
PESCADERO / Zip Code
94060
Name of Primary Grant Coordinator
AMY WOOLIEVER / Grant Coordinator Title
SUPERINTENDENT
Telephone Number
650-879-0286 / Fax Number
650-879-0816 / E-mail Address

CERTIFICATION/ASSURANCE SECTION: As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I have read all assurances, certifications, terms, and conditions associated with the federal SIG program; and I agree to comply with all requirements as a condition of funding.
I certify that all applicable state and federal rules and regulations will be observed and that to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this application is correct and complete.
Printed Name of Superintendent or Designee
AMY WOOLIEVER / Telephone Number
650-879-0286
Superintendent or Designee Signature (Blue Ink) / Date
March 13, 2014

22

SIG Form 2—Schools to Be Served

Indicate which schools the LEA commits to serve, their Tier designation, and the intervention model the LEA will implement for each Tier I and Tier II school. For each Tier I and Tier II Title I school, indicate which waiver(s) will be implemented at each school. Note: An LEA that has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools, including schools that are currently being served with SIG funds and those that are eligible to receive FY 2013 SIG funds, may implement the transformation model in no more than 50 percent of these schools. (Attach as many sheets as necessary.)
School Name / NCES Code
(Available at http://nces.ed.gov ) / TIER I / TIER II / INTERVENTION MODEL / WAIVER(S) TO BE IMPLEMENTED
Turnaround / Restart / Closure / Transformation / “Starting Over” in the School Improvement
Timeline (Restart and Turnaround Only) / Implement a School-Wide Program in a Title I Participating School that does not meet the 40 Percent Poverty Eligibility Threshold / Not Applying for Waiver
PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL / 062022002422 / X / x
X

SIG Form 2a—Eligible, But not Served Schools

If the LEA is not applying to serve all Tier I schools within its jurisdiction, the LEA must identify those schools and explain why it lacks the capacity to serve each Tier I school using SIG Form 2a. If the limitation is at the LEA level then the LEA must identify the specific barriers that preclude serving all of its Tier I schools. If the limitation is based on conditions at a specific school or schools, the LEA must describe those conditions. If there are additional limiting factors, the LEA must describe them. The SEA will review the description of the limitation and any supporting evidence provided by the LEA to determine whether the rationale provided supports the LEAs claim of lack of capacity. This section will also serve as the LEAs demonstration of capacity. Identify each Tier I school that is eligible to receive the SIG, but that the LEA is not applying to serve, and give the reason for their exclusion.
School Name / NCES Code
(Available at http://nces.ed.gov/) / Reason For Not Serving
NOT APPLICABLE

22

SIG Form 3—District and School Improvement Team

The role of the district and school improvement team is to organize and lead the needs assessment process. District leadership may assign additional roles to the team, such as developing, defining, and recommending actions necessary to accomplish the goals of the school improvement plan.

The team should be comprised of a cross-section of district staff, school staff and parents, or community members involved in school improvement, professional development, curriculum and instruction, assessment, Title I coordination, special education, student services, fiscal management, union representation, and the school board. If the district is working with a technical assistance (TA) provider, it may choose to have the TA provider serve on the team. It is suggested that the team identify a contact to serve as the team lead, e.g. the superintendent or superintendent’s designee. This person may serve as a liaison to the CDE, district leadership, external support providers, and other team members. The team lead has the full support of district leadership, is knowledgeable about the development of the SIG, and is comfortable leading and facilitating diverse groups of people.

District and School Improvement Team Membership

Name / Title/Position / Representing
AMY WOOLIEVER / SUPERINTENDENT / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
PATTY CRUICKSHANK / ASSESSMENT SPECIALIST / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
PAT TALBOT / PRINCIPAL / PESCADERO MIDDLE SCHOOL
ERICA HAYS / PRINCIPAL / PESCADERO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
KERRY LOBEL / DIRECTOR / PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR
YADIRA HERRERA / COMMUNITY LIAISON / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
ADRIANNA BALENTINE / KINDERGARTEN TEACHER / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
JACKIE MUNOZ / PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAD / DAIT LEAD
PETER BOHACEK / BOARD MEMBER / LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED
RITA MANCERA / PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION / PESCADERO ELEMENTARY

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis

As part of the needs assessment process, the district must provide school performance data and analysis. Please complete the information requested on the forms below. (8 page limit per school.)

District Name: LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
School Name: PESCADERO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL / CDS: / 41-68940-6044085
School Demographics
2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
Grade Levels Currently Served / K-8 / K-8 / K-8
Total Enrollment / 158 / 148 / 177
Percentage of Special Education Students / 10% / 11% / 10%
Percentage of English Language Learners / 63% EL 15% RFEP / 67% EL 9% RFEP / 62% EL 10% RFEP
School Background Information
Home languages of English Language Learners (please list up to three primary languages):
·  SPANISH
Briefly describe the community served by the school.
Pescadero Elementary and Middle School (PES/MS) is a small, rural, K-8 school in San Mateo County. Located in the town of Pescadero, PES/MS is one of three schools in the PreK-12 La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District (LHPUSD.) LHPUSD serves a large geographical area spanning approximately 160 square miles. PES/MS serves 163 full-day students and an additional 18 preschool students in two half-day programs.
Our demographics are diverse. The K-5 program draws children primarily from Pescadero while the 6-8 program incorporates students from both the towns of La Honda and Pescadero. Students from La Honda are primarily Caucasian while 77% of Pescadero students are Hispanic.
Briefly describe the background of the school prior to implementing SIG reform efforts (within the last three years) and include climate, culture, instructional practices, data use, and school staffing.
In 2010, PES/MS was identified by the California Department of Education as a Persistently Low Achieving School. At the time of designation, LHPUSD was emerging from a construction and facility crisis due to management of a 2008 district bond program in which led to county fiscal oversight from 2009 to 2010. Morale was low and teacher turnover high. In the spring of 2010, a successful Cohort 1 State Improvement Grant application was developed. The Board believed so strongly in the strength of the transformation model program that the school commenced the services prior to confirmation of funding by the CDE. While the funding ended in 2013, a Sustainability Report generated in October identified key components of the program to retain using one-time state funding sources. Data-driven decision making, job embedded professional development, stable and collaborative staffing, and consistent, standards-based practices have been established. The data, instructional practice, and Prof. Dev. protocols put in place under SIG Cohort 1 remain and are being used to transition to Common Core. Areas identified as not sufficiently addressed in the Cohort 1 SIG results are family engagement, middle school engagement and achievement and best practices for English Language Learners.
Prior and Current School Improvement Reform Efforts
Please complete the table below on prior and current reform efforts (within the last five years) at the school. Indicate if the reform effort was successful in school improvement or not successful and the reason.
Year / Reform Effort / Successful / Not Successful / Reason
2010-2013 / SIG- Cohort 1 / X / Financial resources adequate to deliver necessary services.
Ability to hire and retain high quality teachers to increase the learning week/year. Inclusive hiring process which included teachers, staff and admin.
Regularly scheduled/monitored professional development and structured collaboration. Restructured school calendar, high quality external provider selected and regular coaching for leadership and teachers.
Teacher evaluation adopted which incorporates student data. New evidence-focused teacher evaluation rubric adopted (Danielson). Flexible hours opportunity, benchmark testing, “I Can” Power standards.
2010-2013 / SIG-Cohort 1 / X / Difficulty hiring a qualified Community Liaison which delayed implementation of parent engagement efforts. Parent- school engagement building slowly. School climate continues to be an area of concern with parents. Adequate progress in learning English. Interventions need to start earlier language interventions to bridge the 0-5 achievement gap influenced by poverty. Families resisted Saturday School but fully engaged in intersession and Summer School.
2013-2014 / 0-5 planning with community-based organization / X / Support from Puente de la Costa Sur to do long range planning for youngest students.
Outside support for planning year
Knowledgeable and highly qualified external resources
2013-2014 / Expanded After-School program for middle school students / X / Greater participation by students leading to higher profile of program.
Modification of bus schedule encouraged students to stay and participate in program
Enhancement of elective opportunities meeting student interests
Program flexibility allows staff to quickly meet changing needs.
Student Academic Performance Data
Please complete the table below regarding school academic performance data for the school years requested. School data reports may be found at CDE Dataquest: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
API Data
2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
Growth—Schoolwide / 61 / 16 / -35
Met Growth Target— Schoolwide (yes or no) / YES / YES / NO
Met Growth Target—for all Subgroups (yes or no) / YES / YES / NO
AYP Data
2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
Percent of Students at or Above Proficient / ELA 41% MATH 44% / ELA 39% MATH 53% / ELA 37% MATH 41%
Met AYP Schoolwide Criteria (yes or no) / YES / NO/YES / NO
Met all Participation Rate Criteria (yes or no) / YES / YES / YES

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis

California Standards Test Data by Schoolwide
For the school years listed below, please enter the percentage of all students who tested proficient or above on the California Standards Test for English-language arts and mathematics. You will need to provide data for each grade level tested at school. Add grade levels to table, as needed.
GRADE: 2 / 2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
English Language Arts / 25% / 59% / 27%
Mathematics / 63% / 75% / 53%
GRADE: 3 / 2010–11 / 2011–12 / 2012–13
English Language Arts / 43% / 14% / 46%
Mathematics / 71% / 85% / 54%
GRADE: 4 / 2010-11 / 2011-12 / 2012-13
English Language Arts / 44% / 59% / 21%
Mathematics / 72% / 66% / 64%
GRADE: 5 / 2010-11 / 2011-12 / 2012-13
English Language Arts / 35% / 50% / 50%
Mathematics / 43% / 72% / 50%
GRADE: 6 / 2010-11 / 2011-12` / 2012-13
English Language Arts / 19% / 39% / 41%
Mathematics / 12% / 43% / 38%
GRADE: 7 / 2910-11 / 2011-12 / 2012-13
English :Language Arts / 69% / 32% / 41%
Mathematics / 42% / 36% / 23%
GRADE 8 / 2010-11 / 2011-12 / 2012-13
English Language Arts / 47% / 50% / 38%
Mathematics / 8% Gen Math / 27% Algebra / 21% Gen Math 83% Alg
CST Data by Subgroup
For the 2012–13 school year, please indicate the percentage of student in each of the listed subgroups represented at your school who tested proficient or above on the ELA and Math. You will need to provide data for each grade level tested at school. Add grade levels to table, as needed.
Grade: 2
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 79% / NA / 14% / 23% / 17% / 25%
Mathematics / 79% / NA / 36% / 44% / 42% / 50%
Grade: 3
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 50% / NA / 23% / 27% / 25% / None
Mathematics / 90% / NA / 39% / 36% / 33% / None
Grade: 4
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 70% / NA / 25% / 20% / 8% / None
Mathematics / 90% / NA / 56% / 60% / 58% / None
Grade: 5
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 100% / NA / 50% / 44% / 33% / None
Mathematics / 100% / NA / 57% / 53% / 44% / 100%
Grade: 6
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 75% / NA / 15% / 31% / 9% / None
Mathematics / 76% / NA / 8% / 27% / 10% / None
Grade: 7
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 57% / NA / 35% / 45% / 36% / 50%
Mathematics / 28% / NA / 20% / 25% / 14% / None
Grade: 8
Content Area / White, Non-Hispanic / Black or African-American / Hispanic or Latino / Socioeconomically Disadvantaged / English Language Learners / Special Education
ELA / 83% / NA / 19% / 28% / 6% / No tester CST
Mathematics / 33% GM
100% Alg / NA / 19% GM
71% Alg / 22% GM 78%Alg / 7% GM
50% Alg / No tester CST

SIG Form 3a—School Performance Data and Analysis

2013 Graduation Rate Not Applicable