WRITING THE CEP Appendices
Sarah Kleinhandler, SDIL
APPENDICES MATIRX
This chart can help you to
determine which appendices
your schools needs to
complete.
NEW
School Designation
(consider ALL types Applicable for determining appropriate Appendices)
Non-Title I
In Good
Standing
NonTitle I
SRAP
Title I
In Good
Standing
Title I
SINI/
CA/PFR/
Restructuring
NonTitle I
SURR/
SRAP
Title I
SURR
Appendix 1: Academic Intervention Services






Appendix 2: Program Delivery for
ELLs






Appendix 3: Language Translation and
Interpretation






Appendix 4: NCLB REQUIREMENT FOR ALL
TITLE I SCHOOLS



Appendix 4: Part C (SchoolWide Program
ONLY)



Appendix 4: Part D (Targeted Assistance
ONLY)



Appendix 5: NCLB/SED REQUIREMENTS FOR
SINI AND SRAP SCHOOLS


Appendix 6: SURR
NEW




Appendix 7: SCHOOL-LEVEL
REFLECTION AND RESPONSE
TO SYSTEMWIDE CURRICULUM
AUDIT FINDINGS






Appendix 8: CONTRACT FOR EXCELLENCE






2
Appendix 7: School-Level Reflection and Response to
System-wide Implications of Findings from
Audits of the Written, Tested, and Taught Curriculum in ELA
and Mathematics
Background
•
From 2006 to 2008, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) and the
New York State Education Department (NYSED) commissioned an “audit of the
written, tested, and taught curriculum” to fulfill an accountability requirement of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act for districts identified for “corrective action (DINI
Year 3 Districts).”
•
The focus of the audit was on the ELA and mathematics curricula for all students,
including SWDs and ELLs.
•
The audit examined the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment as
well as other key areas—such as professional development and school and district
supports.
•
The collaborative process was intended not to find fault but to identify and
barriers to student success that need to be overcome.
•
The 7 KEY Audit Findings are not an end in themselves but will facilitate important
conversations at (and between) the Central DOE, SSO, and school levels in order to
identify and address potential gaps in ELA and math curriculum and instructional
programs and to ensure alignment with the state standards and assessments.
3
Appendix 7
KEY FINDING 1: CURRICULUM: There was limited evidence found to indicate that the ELA and mathematics curricula
are fully aligned to state standards. There is a lack of understanding across teachers, schools, and audited districts
regarding what students should understand and be able to do at each level in ELA and mathematics.
1A. English Language Arts - Alignment Issues:
•
Gaps in the Written Curriculum. Data shows that the written curriculum is not aligned with the state standards in terms
of the range of topics covered and the depth of understanding required.
•
Curriculum Maps. The curriculum alignment analyses noted that curriculum mapping was done at a topical level and
did not drill down to the cognitive demand level. Maps addressed topics not skills, strategies & outcomes.
•
Taught Curriculum. The Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) showed that the taught curriculum is not aligned to
the state standards. For example, at the high school-level there was great disparity between what is taught and
the depth to which it should be taught. ELA curriculum is broad but lacks depth in any one area. Although standards
indicate that instruction should be focused on having students create written products and spoken presentations, SEC
data shows there is little emphasis on speaking and listening and a moderately higher level of emphasis on
writing. Also, critical reading in high schools should have much greater depth.
•
ELA Materials. Teachers said they have sufficient amounts of curriculum materials; however, materials are not
adequate to meet the needs of all learners (i.e., ELLs, SWDs and struggling readers). Materials are not relevant to
the students’ background knowledge -age appropriate and culturally relevant.
•
English Language Learners: There is great variation in curriculum and instruction for ELLs. Best instruction was
found ELL classrooms at the elementary level. The contrast was ELL instruction at the secondary level. The
auditors found that planning for ELL education at the city level did not percolate down to the school and teacher
levels. Consequently, planning for ELL education generally occurred at the level of individual teachers or ELL
program staff, contributing to the variations in curriculum and instruction observed across ELL and general education
programs. There is a lack of awareness of Learning Standards for ESL.
1B. Mathematics - Alignment Issues:
•
Primary mathematics instruction for Grades K–8 (Everyday Mathematics [K–5] and Impact Mathematics [6–8]) are
aligned with the New York state content strands except for some gaps at the middle school level in the areas of
measurement and geometry and number sense and operations. The instructional materials at the HS level NYC
Math A and B [8–12]) were aligned with the 1999 standards but not with the newer 2005 standards. There is a weak
alignment to the New York state process strands for mathematics at all grade levels.
•
The SEC data for mathematics curriculum alignment shows that there is a lack of depth in what is being taught in the
mathematics classroom as compared to what is required by the state standards.
4
Appendix 7
KEY FINDING 2: INSTRUCTION
•
Overall: Direct instruction and individual seatwork are the predominant instructional strategies used by teachers in audited districts; there
is limited use of best practices and research-based practices, including differentiated instruction. There is a lack of student engagement
particularly at the secondary level. There is limited evidence of implementation and monitoring of best practices. Teachers need more
support focused on differentiation of instruction for all learners.
2A – ELA Instruction
•
Direct instruction ( Teacher lecturing, questioning, explaining, reading, or guided practice) was the dominant instructional in 62% of K–8
and 54% of High Schools. High academically focused class time (educationally relevant activities) was 85% for K–8 and 75% in high schools.
Student engagement was high in 71% of K–8, but 49% in high schools. Independent seatwork (worksheets or assignments) observed
frequently in 32% K–8 classes and 34% in high school.
2B – Mathematics Instruction
•
Auditors noted high academically focused class time was observed either frequently or extensively in 80% of K–8 mathematics classes and 45 %
in high school. High level of student engagement was observed frequently in 52% of K–8 classes and 35% of HS classes. Direct instruction in
K-8 was frequently or extensively seen 75%of the time in Grades K–8 and 65% in Grades 9–12. Student activities other than independent
seatwork and hands-on learning in the elementary grades were rarely if ever observed. Technology use in mathematics classes also was
very low.
KEY FINDING 3: TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND STABILITY: Teacher turnover was high, with schools accommodating a relatively high percentage of
new and transfer teachers each year.
KEY FINDING 4: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
•
Professional development opportunities regarding curriculum, instruction, and monitoring progress for ELLs are being offered however, they are
not reaching a large audience. District administrators mentioned the presence of QTEL (Quality Teaching for English Learners) training, but
few classroom teachers seemed aware of this program. Although city, district and some school-based policies (e.g., Language Allocation
Policy) and plans for ELL instruction do exist, rarely were they effectively communicated to teachers through professional development, etc.
KEY FINDING 5: DATA USE AND MONITORING—ELL INSTRUCTION
•
There is very little specific monitoring of ELLs’ academic progress. Testing data for example, the NYSESLAT yearly scores, either are not
reported to all teachers involved in instructing ELLs or are not provided in a timely manner useful for informing instruction. When testing
data id provided it is not disaggregated by proficiency level of ELL student, students’ time in the U.S.A or type of ELL program.
KEY FINDING 6: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—SPECIAL EDUCATION
•
While the DOE and schools invested in professional development, many general education teachers, special education teachers, and school
administrators do not yet have sufficient understanding of or capacity to fully implement the range and types of instructional approaches
that will help to increase access to the general education curriculum and improve performance. General education teachers remain
unfamiliar with IEPs, accommodations and modifications to support SWDs, and are not knowledgeable regarding behavioral support plans.
KEY FINDING 7: INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS (IEPS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES)
•
Although IEPs clearly specify testing accommodations/modifications, they do not consistently specify accommodations and/or modifications
for the classroom environment (including instruction). There appears to be lack of alignment between the goals, objectives, and modified
promotion criteria on the IEPs and the content on which these students are assessed. Finally, IEPs do not regularly include behavioral plans—
including behavioral goals and objectives—even for students with documented behavioral issues and concerns.
5
Appendix 7
Important: For each of the 7 finding, schools must answer the first 3 questions.
KEY FINDING 1: CURRICULUM
Overall: There was limited evidence found to indicate that the ELA and mathematics curricula in use are fully aligned to
state standards. Although New York City is a standards-based system, teachers do not have the tools they need to
provide standards-based instruction to all students at all levels, particularly ELLs. There is a lack of understanding
across teachers, schools, and audited districts regarding what students should understand and be able to do at each
level in ELA and mathematics.
Please respond to the following questions for Key Finding 1A:
1A.1: Describe the process your school has or will engage in to assess whether this finding is relevant to your school’s
educational program.
1A.2: Indicate your determination of whether this finding is, or is not, applicable to your school.
 Applicable  Not Applicable
1A.3: Based on your response to Question 1A.2, what evidence supports (or dispels) the relevance of this finding to
your school’s educational program?
1A.4: If the finding is applicable, how will your school address the relevant issue(s)? Indicate whether your school will
need additional support from central to address this issue.
After completing the evaluative process for each finding, if it is determined that the
finding is relevant to the school, the school must respond to the fourth question
indicating how the school will address the issue (this process must be completed for
each of the 7 findings).
6
Appendix 1: AIS Part A- AIS Summary Form
Under NCLB, schools are required to provide Academic Intervention Services (AIS), to help students achieve
State learning standards in English language arts and mathematics in grades K-12 and in social studies and
science in grades 4-12. These services may include (1) additional supplemental instruction to the general
curriculum (regular classroom instruction); and/or (2) student support services to address barriers to improved
academic performance. AIS programs are designed to respond to student needs as indicated through State
assessment results and/or the District-approved procedures that are consistent at each grade level.
ELA
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies
At-risk
Services:
Guidance
Counselor
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
# of Students
Receiving AIS
K
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
Gr
ad
e
At-risk
Services:
School
Psychologist
At-risk
Services:
Social Worker
At-risk
Health-related
Services
6
213
157
148
195
120
4
6
12
7
273
213
210
265
124
4
6
13
8
225
253
224
269
150
4
6
13
•
Indicate the number of students receiving AIS in each required content area or
student support service (i.e., guidance counselor, social worker).
•
NOTE: Students in grades 4 – 12 require AIS in Science and Social Studies.
7
Appendix 1 Part B – Description of AIS
Schools are required to summarize AIS programs for each applicable content area (ELA, math, social studies
and science for grades 4-12). Since AIS programs scheduled before and after school and on Saturdays is
considered to be optional, SED requires that AIS services be scheduled during the school day. AIS services
can include supplemental instruction or student support services (i.e., counseling or health related services)
that address any barrier to improved academic performance. Schools should describe the method of service,
when the service will take place, the length of each session and how often the service will be delivered.
Name of
Academic
Intervention
Services (AIS)
Description: Provide a brief description of each of the Academic Intervention Services (AIS) indicated in column one,
including the type of program or strategy (e.g., Wilson, Great Leaps, etc.), method for delivery of service (e.g., small
group, one-to-one, tutoring, etc.), and when the service is provided (i.e., during the school day, before or after school,
Saturday, etc.).
ELA:
AIS in ELA targets all at risk student including SWDs:
Tier I Intervention will be scheduled for one 45 minute period per week of differentiate instruction in all ELA
classes. The effectiveness of Tier I intervention will be determined through frequent content and skills based
data analysis and in put from the Inquiry Team findings. Students who are not benefiting from Tier I
interventions will be recommended for Tier II intervention.
Tier II Intervention will be scheduled for two- 45 minute periods per week in the new Achieve 3000 AIS Lab,
where a specific differentiated instructional plan will be tailored to target students’ unique academic needs.
AIS for English Language Learners:
Tier I Intervention will be scheduled for one 45 minute period per week of differentiate instruction during the
ESL period. Through frequent content and skills based assessment including Inquiry Team findings, the
effectiveness of Tier I intervention for ELLs will be determined.
Tier II Intervention will take place in the new ELL AIS Lab where ELLs will be pulled out for two or three- 45
minute periods per week so that ESL teachers can provide differentiated instructional plan that targets the
unique needs of English Language Learners.
Note: Refer to the District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP) for a description of
district procedures for providing AIS.
8
Appendix 2: Program Delivery for ELLs
NCLB/SED Requirement for All Schools
Part A: Language Allocation Policy (LAP): Attach a copy
Part B: CR Part 154 (A-6)Bilingual/ESL Program Description
•
Write a brief description of all Bilingual/ESL Instructional Programs (including # of
classes per program, language(s) of instruction, instructional strategies, etc)
•
Describe parent/community involvement initiatives
•
Summarize your Project Jump Start initiative including programs and activities to
assist newly enrolled ELL students
•
Briefly outline the differentiated staff development activities planned for ESL
teachers and teachers servicing ELLs
•
Complete the charts indicating the Number of LEP students served by each program
(See CEP Template pages 16-19)
Part C: Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students
•
Describe your school’s Language Instruction Programs funded under Title III, Part A
•
Summarize the school’s professional development program for teaches servicing LEPs
•
Complete the Title III LEP Program - School Building Budget Summary chart
Note: The ELL Compliance and Performance Specialist assigned to your school can provide
technical assistance in the updating or development of Appendix 2 and the LAP.
Refer to the District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP) for a description of Attachment
A: District Part 154 Plan.
9
Appendix 3: Language Translation and Interpretation
NYSED and Central require schools to communicate whenever feasible with non-English speaking parents
in their home language in order to support shared parent-school accountability, parent access to information
about their children’s educational options, and parents’ capacity to improve their children’s achievement.
Requirement under Chancellor’s Regulations – For All Schools
Part A - Needs Assessment
•
Describe the data and methodologies used to assess your school’s written
translation and oral interpretation needs Summarize the major findings
and describe how the findings were reported to the school community.
Part B – Strategies and Activities (outside vendor, in-school staff, volunteer)
•
Describe the written translation services that the school will provide to meet
its needs.
•
Describe the oral interpretation services that the school will provide to meet
its needs.
•
Describe how the school will fulfill Section VII of Chancellor’s Regulations A663 regarding parental notification requirements for translation and
interpretation services for non-English speaking parents.
Note: The full text of Chancellor’s Regulations A-663 (Translations) is available via
the following link: http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document151/A-663%20Translation%203-27-06%20.pdf.
10
Appendix 4: NCLB Requirements for Title I Schools
All Title I schools Must Complete This Appendix
Part A TITLE I ALLOCATIONS AND SET-ASIDES
•
Record your anticipated Title I allocations and set-asides ((i.e. – Total anticipated Title I
allocation, 1% Parental Involvement allocation and - 5% set aside for HQT allocation)
•
Enter the % of high quality teachers. If the percentage of HQTs is less than 100% describe
activities and strategies the school is implementing to insure that the school will have 100%
Part B: TITLE I SCHOOL PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT POLICY & SCHOOL-PARENT
COMPACT (All Title I, Part A Schools must develop these documents jointly with
parents)
•
Attach the Title I Parent Involvement Policy & the School-Parent Compact.
Note: Title I Parent Involvement Guidelines and Templates are available in the eight major
languages on the NYCDOE website at:
http://schools.nyc.gov/Parents/NewsInformation/TitleIPIG.htm.
Part C: Schoolwide Program School (SWP) complete this section and describe there SWP
plan
•
Allows a school to address the needs of ALL At Risk students
Part D: Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) complete this section and describe their TAS
plan.
•
Targets only those students who are Title I eligible as based on poverty index.
Note: The SGO or ISC Budget Officer can assist you in determining your school’s Title I allocations
and your school’s status as an SWP or Targeted Assistance school.
11
SWP vs. TAS Summary
SWP
TAS
•
Comprehensive Needs Assessment
(Refer to pages in CEP)
•
Use of program resources for TA
students
•
Schoolwide reform strategies
•
•
Instruction by HQ staff
Incorporate planning time for TA
served students into school
planning
•
Provide PD
•
•
Strategies to attract HQTs
•
Strategies to increase Parent Involvement
•
Methods and Strategies including
extending school day/year,
accelerated curriculum, minimize the
removal of students form classroom
during school day.
PK Transitioning to Elementary School
•
•
Use of Academic Assessment by
teachers to improve achievement
Coordinate with and support the
regular educational program
•
Additional academic assistance for
students having difficulty mastering
proficiency or advanced academic
levels.
•
Instruction by HQ teachers
•
Provide PD
•
Strategies to increase Parent
Involvement
•
Coordination and integration of Federal
State and Local services.
•
Coordination of Federal State and Local
services.
12
Appendix 5: NCLB/SED Requirements for SINI/SRAP
Part A: For all School Improvement Schools (SINI and SRAP)
•
Describe school findings regarding specific academic issues for each area of school
improvement identification.
Note: You can reference the pages of your needs assessment, if applicable.
•
Describe the focused intervention(s) and strategies the school will implement to support
improved achievement for each disaggregated group that failed to make AYP
Note: If addressed in CEP you can refer to the pages.
Part B: Title I Schools that Have Been Identified for School Improvement (SINI)
Note: SRAPs do not complete this section because they do not receive Title I, Part A funds.
•
Record your anticipated Title I allocation and 10% Title I Professional
Development allocation.
•
Describe how the 10% PD allocation will be used to remove the school from
school improvement status.
•
Describe the teacher-mentoring program to support HQ professional
development
•
Describe parent notification process regarding the school’s status?
13
Appendix 6: SED Requirements for Schools Under
Registration Review (SURR)
For SURR Schools Only
• List SURR area(s) of
identification, Group/Phase,
Identification year and
Deadline year.
• List types of reviews or
monitoring visits,
• Record SURR
Recommendations
APPENDIX 6: SED REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOLS UNDER REGISTRATION REVIEW (SURR).
All SURR schools must complete this appendix.
SURR Area(s) of Identification:
SURR Group/Phase:
Year of Identification:
Deadline Year:
Part A: SURR Review Team Recommendations – On the chart below, indicate the categorized recommendations for improvement resulting
from the SED Registration Review Visit/Report and all external review and monitoring visits since the school was first identified as a SURR.
Indicate the specific actions the school has taken, or will take, to address each of the recommendations.
Type of Review or Monitoring Visit
(Include agency & dates of visits)
Review Team Categorized
Recommendations (e.g., Administrative
Leadership, Professional Development, Special
Education, etc.)
Actions the school has taken, or
plans to take, to address review
team recommendations
• Describe the actions the
school has taken or will take
to address SURR
recommendations.
14
Appendix 8: Contract for Excellence (C4E)
All Schools that Received C4E funding in FY’09 Completed a Web-Based Survey.
Schools used the May 2008 version of Appendix 8 as a worksheet in preparation for the online submission, which described
how they planned to use C4E funding for 2008-09. Schools indicated how they would use C4E funds to address the needs of
ELLs, SWDs, Economically Disadvantaged students and lowest achieving students. Use of funds is limited to one or more of
the following categories:
I. Class Size Reduction: Schools can reduce class size by one or both of the following strategies:
>
Creation of additional classrooms to reduce teacher-student ratios through the implementation of Collaborative Team Teaching strategies so
that instruction can be more individualized and differentiated.
>
New & Expanded Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Classrooms
II. Time on Task: Schools can increase student time on task via one or more strategies:
>
Lengthen the school day by providing after school and Saturday classes as a means of achieving their goal which is to significantly increase the
graduation rates and college readiness of their over-age and under-credited high school students. Schools can offer new and enhanced
programs designed specifically for older students who may be truant, thinking about dropping out, or are looking for another educational option.
>
ELL Summer School Program: Lengthen the school year by utilizing C4E funds to establish an ELL Summer School program, specifically
designed to address the needs of newly arriving LEP students.
>
Summer School Program: Lengthened the school year by providing a summer school program for Level 1 and 2 students and students at
risk of not meeting standards.
>
Dedicated instructional time
>
Individualized tutoring
III. Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives: Provides for professional development opportunities via implementation of one or more of the following
strategies:
>
Programs to recruit/retain Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
>
Professional mentoring for beginning teachers and principals
>
Instructional coaches for teachers
>
School leadership coaches for principals
IV. Middle and High School Restructuring: This initiative is intended for schools with middle or high school grades only. Schools may allocate C4E
funding to implement instructional changes that improve student achievement or instructional changes paired with structural changes to the
school’s organization.
>
Instructional Changes: May be designed to provide challenging academic and learning opportunities to students and may include
implementation of academic intervention programs
>
Structural Changes to Organization must also include instructional changes such as changes to grade offerings, creation of “academies”,
schools within schools, etc.
V. Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten Programs: C4E funds can be used to expand the instructional hours for existing half-day pre-Kindergarten programs
so that they last for a full school day (the schools have sufficient space). This utilization of funds provided opportunities for the integration of
students with disabilities into existing full-day pre-kindergarten programs.
VI. Model Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency (English Language Learners) This new program area was introduced by State
law in April 2008 and is intended to support schools in adopting “best practices” for raising achievement among ELLs. The SED has issued a
guidance memo on eligible programs and activities that may be accessed through the SED website.
Note: The SGO or ISC Budget Officer can provide additional support regarding C4E.
15
Directions for Accessing a Print ONLY
Version of C4E Web-Based Survey
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Write Go to the Contract for Excellence Webpage through the
following link:
http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/BudgetsFairStudentFunding/Contract
sforExcellence/0809plan.htm
Sroll down to the heading "School-Level C4E Spending Plans",
Click on one of the two additional links – “Districts 1-16” or “Districts
17-32”.
Click on the applicable district link, which will take you to a C4E
spreadsheet containing your school’s information.
Put the cursor on Column A and scroll down to your school.
Column A contains a unique web address for each school. For
Example: http://www.keysurvey.com/rbr/207706/0/30590038/2435/
This web address will take you to a print-only version of the school’s
C4E web-based survey.
The print only-version of the C4e survey should be attached to your
school’s CEP.
16
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Name: Sarah Kleinhandler, SDIL
Work:212.356.3809
Cell: 917-513.5648
Email: skleinh@schools.nyc.gov
17