Montgomery County 2008 Final Update

Montgomery County Public Schools Clarifications for Final Submission

November 19, 2008 MSA/HSA ReadingDescribe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups. The final data and analysis are reflected in I.D.i MSA/HSA Mathematics Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups. The final data and analysis are reflected in I.D.i Graduation Rates and Dropout RatesIt is stated in number four that the dropout rate in MCPS has been positively impacted by the numerous strategies and programs implemented. Please clarify the correlation between this statement and data table 5.7, page 129. The data tables 5.6 and 5.7 have been corrected and the response to number four in section I.D.v reflects the corrected data Table 6.6 Attrition 2008-2009 (projected)Attrition data are not reported for the 2008-2009 (projected year). Attrition data has now been reported for 2008-2009 (projected year) in Table 6.6. Attrition table Data does not indicate with an X if it represents the entire teaching staff or the Core Academic Subject area teachers. An indicator has been added to reflect that the Attrition table represents the entire teaching staff. Gifted and Talented ProgramsDescribe the progress that was made in 2007-2008 toward meeting Gifted and Talented Program goals, objectives, and strategies for student identification and services. Identify the strategies, including resource allocations that appear related to the progress. Include supporting data as needed. Questions number one through four have been rewritten in order to reflect the requested revisions in the Gifted and Talented Programs section. Finance Section 1.3: Attachment 3 – Total Full-Time Equivalent Staff Statement This section has been corrected to reflect changes.

Local Planning Team Members

Use this page to identify the members of the school system’s Bridge to Excellence Master Planning Team. Where applicable, include their affiliation or title within the local school system.

Name Affiliation/Title with Local School System Larry A. Bowers Chief Operating Officer Frieda Lacey Deputy Superintendent of Schools Stephen Bedford Chief School Performance Officer Michael Perich Acting Director, Systemwide Continuous Improvement Carey Wright Associate Superintendent for Special Education and Student Services Susan Marks Associate Superintendent for Human Resources Jody Leleck Chief Academic Officer James Virga Associate Superintendent for Organizational Development Carol Mathews Budget Specialist, Department of Management, Budget, and Planning Marshall Spatz Director, Department of Management, Budget, and Planning Brian Edwards Chief of Staff Jody Silvio Executive Assistant to the Chief Academic Officer Holli Swann Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Special Education and

Student Services Karen Woodson Director, Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs Diane Mohr Executive Assistant, Office of School Performance Mary Ebert Assistant for Assessment and Data Collection, Office of School

Performance Nicola Diamond Assistant to the Chief Operating Officer Marianne Erickson Reports Specialist, Department of Reporting and Regulatory

Accountability Stephanie Williams Director, Department of Reporting and Regulatory Accountability Shelley Johnson Director, Division of Career and Technology Education Bruce Crispell Director, Division of Long-range Planning Marty Creel Director, Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs Melissa Woods Director, Department of Technology Innovation Betsy Brown Director, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Linda Adams Supervisor, Fine Arts Donna Hollingshead Executive Director, Office of the Deputy superintendent of Schools Rebecca Amani-Dove Acting Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Office of Shared

Accountability The Board of Education reviewed and approved the Master Plan update.

Executive Summary to the 2008 Annual Update The development of this fifth update to the Comprehensive Master Plan for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) reflects the ongoing use of key academic and organizational performance data in strategic planning and budgetary decision making, substantial participation of stakeholders, and the targeted deployment of resources to address specific areas of identified concern. In the five years since the initial submission of the Five-Year Comprehensive Master Plan, MCPS has expanded strategic planning efforts among all offices and schools, based on the organizational improvement principles of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. These efforts have contributed to greater internal and external collaboration among key stakeholders—particularly among employee associations and parent organizations. In turn, the system has gained greater organizational capacity to implement improvements that are transforming the school district and creating an environment where all students can achieve. The emphasis on professional development of teachers and other staff to improve instruction and student achievement has resulted in significant organizational changes and successes. MCPS continues to be a national leader in student performance, with the exceptional recognition of its schools in numerous national measures. MCPS is the only school district in America to have six of its high schools ranked in the top 100 in America, according to Newsweek magazine. In fact, all 23 of our eligible high schools are in the top 3 percent in the nation, according to the magazine. This is the fifth consecutive year that MCPS earned this distinctive honor. In an analysis conducted by Education Week, MCPS had the third highest graduation rate in the nation among the 50 largest school districts. The only two districts ahead of MCPS on the list are significantly smaller and do not have a student population nearly as diverse as that of MCPS. In addition, MCPS’ success has been studied and published by a variety of research organizations and foundations including Harvard University and the Panasonic Foundation. MCPS is also one of the leading organizations involved in setting national standards for school districts through the American Productivity and Quality Center in Houston. MCPS also continues to participate in an innovative program with the School of Business and Graduate School of Education at Harvard University to improve public education leadership. The effectiveness of the school system’s strategic planning, budget allocations, and performance assessment is evident in improved student achievement. In 2007, for example, the average combined SAT score of MCPS seniors was 1624, 113 and 126 points above national and state averages, respectively. The participation rate in 2007 increased to 79 percent (7,660 students). MCPS far exceeds the national and state average for participation and success on rigorous Advanced Placement (AP) exams. In fact, 60 percent of the Class of 2007 took at least one AP exam during high school, more than double the national average of 25 percent. As for results, 46 percent of the Class of 2006 scored a 3 or higher on at least one AP exam— triple the national average and double the Maryland average.

Performance gains have been made also on the Maryland School Assessments (MSA), consistent with the standards of the state’s compliance with the Bridge to Excellence in Public Education Act and the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Nonetheless, significant challenges remain. Disparities in student performance by race and ethnicity continue to occur, despite gains in student achievement by African American and Hispanic students. The enrollment—already the largest in the state, with more than 137,000 students—has continued to grow in a pattern that reflects greater student racial and ethnic, cultural, and economic diversity, as well as greater academic needs. Recent enrollment increases have been entirely among African American, Asian American, and Hispanic students, with more students challenged by limited English proficiency, economic impoverishment, and disabilities requiring special education. White student enrollment has continued to decline, representing about 40 percent of students in 2007–2008. The system has nearly half of Maryland’s entire enrollment of English language learners. About 26 percent of students in MCPS receive federal meal assistance, and more than one third have received federal meal assistance at some point in their education. The concentration of racial and ethnic diversity and poverty is located in schools within the county’s most urbanized areas, a geographic zone from Takoma Park to Germantown that includes more than 67,000 students—nearly half of the entire school district and larger than the District of Columbia school system. The school system’s strategic planning and budgetary initiatives are directing resources to address these key challenges. As detailed in the strategic plan, Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence, an update of which was approved by the Board of Education in July 2007, the school system is continuing to target improvement and intervention efforts in key areas, including early childhood education, class-size reductions, rigorous and accelerated course work, high school literacy, professional development of staff, student support, and formative assessments of student performance. These efforts reflect greater input from the community, which reflects an initiative to more closely align operating budget allocations with strategic planning decisions. While budgetary challenges will greatly limit new initiatives for the 2008–2009 school year, the system will continue to focus on expanding its efforts to improve the student performance at the middle school level. The system continues to focus with laser-like precision to enhance student achievement, particularly among African American and Hispanic students, by improving the structure and support for teaching and learning. MCPS continues to invest in equity training to assist staff address historical issues of bias that may be obstacles to improved student performance. In this fifth update of the Comprehensive Master Plan, the links between the strategic plan and the operating budget continue to be more clearly defined. In addition, specific progress toward meeting federal, state, and local goals are identified, along with details about specific resource allocations for initiatives designed to support continued improvements. Consistent throughout the update is the specificity of any program changes based on the most recent assessments of student performance. This reflects the inherent strength of the strategic planning process in MCPS. Publicly addressing difficult issues is a key strength of MCPS strategic planning. The system strives for unified and consistent implementation of improvements across the school system. The alignment reflects not only the structural improvements but also the collaboration among

key stakeholders. MCPS is one of the few school systems nationally in which the leaders of all employee unions actively participate in the leadership of the school system. Parent organizations, too, have an increasingly effective role as well. Along with the employee associations, the Montgomery County Council of PTA’s actually is involved in the development of the operating and capital budgets from inception to final passage. Their involvement gives voice to critical stakeholders in one of the most important discussions that takes place in the district. The district also continues to implement organizational changes designed to build a culture of respect for all participants and to increase parent and community involvement from the school level up to the district level. MCPS recognizes the importance of stakeholder involvement in creating a master plan to guide the system’s continued success.

I.D.i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessment

Reading

Based on the Examination of MSA AYP Proficiency Data in Reading (Tables 2.1 through 2.3):

1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade

band(s) and subgroups.

MSA Proficiency Rates Increases in MSA proficiency rates in reading for all students and for all NCLB subgroups have been observed yearly since 2005 (Tables 2.1, 2.2). Gaps in proficiency rates have narrowed every year, even as performance for all student groups continues to climb. Although gaps in proficiency rates continue to be large between students receiving special services and those not receiving special services, these gaps are narrowing as well.

Reading. Since 2005, the percentage of elementary and middle school students earning a proficient or advanced score in reading has increased steadily. Gains were seen in all NCLB subgroups, with gains of 15 percentage points or more noted among Hispanic, FARMS, special education, and LEP subgroups, as well as middle school African American students:

• In elementary school, reading proficiency rates overall grew 7.9 percentage points

(from 82.2 percent in 2005 to 90.1 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed for Hispanic students (15.0 percentage point increase from 67.9 percent in 2005 to 82.9 percent in 2008) and for African American students (12.3 percentage point increase from 69.9 percent in 2005 to 82.2 percent in 2008).

• For the LEP subgroup in elementary school, overall proficiency rates increased 15.9

percentage points (from 61.8 percent in 2005 to 77.7 percent in 2008.

• In elementary school, for those students receiving special education services, overall proficiency rates grew 15.5 percentage points (from 59.4 percent in 2005 to 74.9 percent in 2008.

• For the elementary school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services

subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 15.2 percentage points from 64.1 percent in 2005 to 79.3 percent in 2008.

• In middle school, reading proficiency rates overall grew 10.6 percentage points

(from 76.1 percent in 2005 to 86.7 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed for African American students (18.5 percentage point increase from 59.4 percent in 2005 to 77.9 percent in 2008) and for Hispanic students (18.1 percentage point increase from 55.8 percent in 2005 to 73.9 percent in 2008).

• In middle school, for those students receiving special education services, overall

proficiency rates grew 21.9 percentage points (from 41.9 percent in 2005 to 63.8 percent in 2008.

• For the middle school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services

subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 20 percentage points from 50.7 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2008.

• For the LEP subgroup in middle school, overall proficiency rates increased 15.1

percentage points (from 42.1 percent in 2005 to 57.2 percent in 2008. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations

to which you attribute the progress.

• Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning. The Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning is a major initiative to develop a research‐based tool for continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process. The Framework is being used by schools to deepen their understanding of the following six elements of improving teaching and learning: curriculum, instruction, evidence of student learning, planning, expectations, and building a professional learning community.

• The Early Success Performance Plan. This comprehensive plan provided a four‐year sequence or pathway for all students and focuses on addressing the opportunity gap facing the district’s most highly impacted students. The plan is built around the following five guiding principles of education reform:

o Focused and challenging curriculum. o Ongoing assessment of student progress. o Expanded instructional time (full‐day kindergarten and reduced class size). o Targeted professional development. o Meaningful family involvement.

• Development and Implementation of Standard‐Based Curriculum and Assessments.

Over the past seven years, the district has revised the reading, English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies curricula to align with state, national, and international standards and make explicit what students need to know and be able to do at each grade level. Additionally, formative assessments are integrated into all instructional guides.

• Curriculum Training and Development. To support the development and

implementation of the curriculum and new initiatives to improve teaching and learning, staff development is provided to staff members as new or revised curriculum, assessment, and grading and reporting tools are implemented. The focus of the training and development is on increasing teachers’ knowledge base of the content and/or

effective practices related to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and grading and reporting. Emphasis is placed on providing strategies to work with English Language Learners (ELL), students with disabilities, and highly able and/or motivated students.

• Reading Specialist. Each elementary school and 33 middle schools have reading

specialists who provides leadership for the implementation of the reading/language arts curricula under the direction of the principal. In 2007–2008, five middle schools had Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Literacy Coaches, nonteaching positions provided to help teachers develop literacy and critical thinking in all content areas. In 2008–2009, this position will be expanded to 11 middle schools. These roles reflect a balance of responsibilities in leadership, staff development, instructional expertise, and assessments.

• Staff Development Teacher. The district allocates a staff development teacher to every

school to support teachers to increase their knowledge, skills, and capacity to implement new strategies for teaching and learning.

• Extended Time. This initiative includes both extended‐day and extended‐year programs

for Title I schools and for all middle schools. • Ruth Rales Comcast Kids Reading Network. This joint community partnership provides

proven and effective supplemental reading support in those elementary schools that have the highest levels of student poverty and ELL.

• Monitoring Student Instructional Data. Currently there are two Web‐based monitoring

systems. Instructional Management System and Performance Matters are specifically designed for teachers, schools, and central office administrators to monitor student performance on formative and summative assessments. Performance Matters has the capability of predicting a student’s MSA achievement level based on lagging indicators.

• Formative Assessment and Data Monitoring. Grades 6–8 reading and English formative

assessments are required and monitored. Assessments were developed and professional development provided to all teachers and principals.

• English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Curriculum Development and

Alignment. Curriculum for instruction on English language proficiency for all students continues to be revised to align with the new Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) ESOL content standards.

• ESOL Proficiency Teachers. Class size in Title I schools continues to be reduced for ESOL

students at the lowest level of English language proficiency. This model continues to be studied to determine the extent to which it promotes improvement in English language proficiency and student learning outcomes.

• Classroom and Testing Accommodations for ESOL Students. The No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 requires that ESOL students take state assessments and meet the same proficiency standards set for all students. Therefore, it is necessary for ESOL and content teachers to identify and provide instructional and assessment accommodations for ESOL students by completing the state‐mandated ELL plans. School‐based interdisciplinary teams, known as ELL teams, complete the ELL plan annually. ELL teams also determine the scope of content and how ESOL students will be assessed in the content areas.

• ESOL Achievement Specialist. The achievement specialist ensures accurate reporting of

ESOL student proficiency levels and ESOL program participation, monitors ELL team data, and analyzes data collected through the online elementary ESOL services log to assist in identifying elementary ESOL instructional program models that best promote English language acquisition and student achievement.

• ESOL Counseling Team. ESOL counselors continue to provide itinerant bilingual and

cross‐cultural counseling services to ESOL students to enable them to achieve academically and adjust to a new social and cultural environment. The counseling team works countywide to provide counseling services to ESOL students that center on acculturation, conflict resolution, decision making, career/college planning, study skills, school rules and regulations, social skills, and school life.

• ESOL Parent Outreach Services. The ESOL parent outreach team consists of parent

specialists and parent community coordinators who use their bilingual and multicultural skills to minimize linguistic and cultural barriers and to encourage ESOL parents to participate in their children’s educational experiences. The parent outreach services team provides information concerning school programs and student progress; information to parents on ways they can support student learning and English language acquisition outside of school; assistance in involving parents of ESOL students in decision‐making processes at school; and referrals to community services for parents and students.

• Translation Unit. The translation unit provides professional, multilingual translation

services in multiple languages using various media to address the need to communicate essential information to a rapidly growing, linguistically diverse community. This unit enables MCPS to meet the Strategic Plan Goal 3: Strengthening Productive Partnerships for Education by meeting the objective of communicating information to parents and community members about curriculum, educational programs and services, assessments, and instruction with the same level of quality that is afforded to English‐speaking members of the community.

• Improving the Academic Performance of Students with Disabilities. Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) continues to make progress helping students with disabilities become proficient in reading as evidenced by the increase in the percentage of these students meeting proficiency levels in each grade level of the Maryland School Assessment (MSA). The system continues to explore and implement initiatives that ensure academic achievement of students with disabilities in reading. Expanding the implementation of research‐based reading interventions; hours‐based staffing; and Middle School Reform continues to improve student achievement in reading.

• Reading Interventions. MCPS is committed to expanding and supporting the

implementation of research‐based reading interventions that compliment the curriculum and address students’ needs by purchasing materials, providing professional development, coaching school‐based staff, and monitoring student progress. During the 2007–2008 school year, provision of reading interventions was expanded to additional elementary, middle, and high schools. Through a Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)‐awarded Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) grant, additional reading interventions and professional development for general and special educators were provided to five middle schools. MCPS has implemented and provides ongoing, job‐embedded support for the following interventions:

• Read Well at nine elementary schools. Read Well targets phonemic awareness and

phonics instruction using systematic and explicit instruction for nonfluent readers in Grades 1–3.

• Horizons at 20 elementary schools. Horizons is a direct instruction reading intervention to develop phonemic awareness, decoding skills, advanced word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, and basic comprehension strategies for struggling readers in Grades K–3.

• Corrective Reading at 24 elementary schools, 30 middle schools, and five high schools. Corrective Reading is a direct instruction intervention to improve decoding skills for struggling readers in Grade 4 through age 21.

• Read Naturally at three elementary schools, 15 middle schools, and four high schools. Read Naturally improves reading fluency for struggling readers. The program includes modeled reading of passages, repeated student readings, and progress monitoring of fluency and comprehension.

• Lexia—Reading Strategies for Older Students at four elementary schools, eight middle schools, and four high schools. This software program provides supplemental support for the development of an effective decoding system using activity‐based instruction.

• Edmark Reading at one elementary school, one middle school, and three high schools. This program develops sight vocabulary for students needing more functional reading development.

• Read 180 at all secondary schools. Read 180 is a computer‐based intervention for middle and high school students. After the initial whole group lesson, students

rotate in small groups to different stations that include individualized instructional software, audio books for modeled reading, and paperback books for independent reading. The DSES and DSEO contributed to the funding of this intervention in 16 middle schools and four high schools, and general education initiatives funded the other licenses and professional development so that all secondary schools could provide this intervention.

• Soliloquy Reading Assistant at six middle schools. This software program allows students to practice independent oral reading. The program combines speech recognition and verification technology to help students develop fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

• Wilson Reading System at four middle schools and one high school. The Wilson Reading System uses a multi sensory instructional sequence that teaches students Grade 3 to age 21 to decode and spell through increased understanding of language structure.

• Rewards at one middle school and 14 high schools. Rewards is a scripted decoding intervention that teaches students reading strategies beginning with multi syllabic words.

• Academic Intervention Instructional Specialists. Two academic intervention

instructional specialists, a special education supervisor of academic interventions, and two itinerant resource teachers coordinate the distribution of resources, provide the professional development and coaching, and monitor student progress with the interventions. Many schools have purchased and are implementing the reading interventions listed above and are able to access professional development and support from the DSES and DSEO.

• Ensure Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with Disabilities.

During the 2007–2008 school year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) expanded the Home School Model (HSM) to five elementary schools. This service delivery model provides students with disabilities greater access to the general education curriculum at their home school in the least restrictive environment which, in turn, improves academic outcomes for these students.

• Action Plan for Students with Disabilities. During the 2007–2008 school year, the

Department of Special Education Services (DSES) and Department of Special Education Operations (DSEO) forged ahead in their plan of action to foster student achievement in reading and mathematics, with a particular focus on middle school students. This plan of action addresses four areas: ensuring access to the general education curriculum and rigorous instruction, collecting and monitoring data to ensure academic progress, increasing the collaboration between general and special educators, and providing focused professional development to teachers, related service providers, and paraeducators.

• Hours‐Based Staffing. The hours‐based staffing model was implemented in an additional 11 middle schools during the 2007–2008 school year. This model provides an equitable staffing solution that allows schools to provide a continuum of special education services to support the diverse needs of students with disabilities within their home schools.

• Transition from Secondary Learning Centers. MCPS began the phase out of the

secondary learning centers during the 2007–2008 school year. Seventy‐one students returned to their home and/or consortia middle or high schools. Each student was provided with a central office case manager who facilitated the student’s transition back to the home or consortia school, supported the school in developing a master schedule that provided a continuum of special education services and access to instruction in the general education curriculum, and provided ongoing professional development and consultation to ensure student success.

• Data Collection and Monitoring Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities.

DSES and DSEO monitor the following data: individual student performance, group academic achievement, attendance, suspensions, and disproportionality.

• Collaboration between General and Special Education Staff. The 2007–2008 MSDE‐

awarded AYP grant provided general and special educators at five middle schools with professional development on topics including inclusive teaching practices, analysis of academic achievement data of students with disabilities, differentiation, assistive technology, instructional and assessment accommodations, and reading interventions.

Over the course of the 2007–2008 school year, DSES and DSEO, the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP), and the Office of Organizational Development (OOD) collaborated to develop professional development activities that focus on increasing the capacity of general and special educators to instruct students with disabilities in the general education classroom. In addition, all mandatory curriculum training included special education staff and provided further opportunities for collaboration between general and special educators. The FY 2009 budget added funds for mandatory professional development on best practices for co‐teaching for Grades 6, 7, and 9 general and special education teachers of students with disabilities. In collaboration with OCIP, Office of School Performance (OSP), and OOD, the Office of Special Education and Student Services (OSESS) works to ensure that service delivery models are uniform and the use of inclusive practices are consistent throughout county schools.

• Focused Professional Development for Teachers of Students with Disabilities. DSES and DSEO supervisors, instructional specialists, and Itinerant Resource Teachers (IRTs) supported school teams in the improvement of service delivery models to address the diverse needs of students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees,

school–based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings, and by developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for staff members who support students with disabilities.

During the 2007–2008 school year, staff members from the DSES and DSEO provided high‐quality professional development for over 5,000 participants at various levels and on a variety of topics that included the following:

ο Co‐teaching and inclusion best practices ο Reading interventions ο Mathematics interventions ο Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives ο Mod‐MSA/HSA eligibility ο Discipline policies for students with disabilities ο Encore Web‐based IEP System ο Accessibility planning ο Instructional and assessment accommodations ο Differentiation ο Behavior management ο Assistive technology ο Alt‐MSA ο Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of

grade band(s) and subgroups.

• The greatest challenge is reducing the achievement gap among subgroups while continuing to show progress in each subgroup for all grade level bands.

• For Grades 3 and 4, the Special Education subgroup continues to be the lowest performing.

• Challenges increase at Grade 5 with LEP, Special Education, and Free/Reduced Meals subgroups needing the greatest support.

• At Grades 6–8, the following subgroups provide the greatest challenge:

o LEP o Special Education o Free/Reduced Meals o Hispanic.

Central office special education staff members face the challenge of improving the MSA/HSA passing rate of students with disabilities at the elementary, middle, and high

school levels to meet the pass rate of their non‐disabled peers, particularly in Grades 4, 5, 7, 8, English II, and Algebra/Data Analysis. Schools need guidance and support in providing a continuum of special education services to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. More students with disabilities are being instructed in general education classes and are provided access to the curriculum as taught by highly qualified teachers with support from special educators. However, co‐teaching teams need assistance in planning for accessibility, incorporating assistive technology, utilizing diverse co‐teaching models, and differentiating formative assessments.

The national critical shortage of special education teachers and related service providers continues to be a challenge for MCPS. Staff members in the Office of Human Resources (OHR) work closely with universities to recruit teachers who are certified special educators. According to the OHR, there is great difficulty in staffing self‐contained special education classes. In addition, most graduates who are dually certified in general and special education request a general education assignment, thereby exacerbating the critical shortage of special education teachers.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding

resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

• Continue to implement and monitor the strategies cited in #2. During the 2008–2009 school year, three additional elementary schools will implement the Home School Model; three additional middle schools will implement hours‐based staffing; and nine middle schools have been proposed to participate in the MSDE‐awarded AYP grant that focuses on the implementation of reading and mathematics interventions, provides professional development and coaching and collaboration between general and special educators.

MCPS will continue the second year of phasing out the secondary learning centers and support the former Mark Twain day program students in their transition to their special education programs; provide enhanced instructional support and mental health services to high school programs for students with emotional disabilities; 11 high schools will implement reading and mathematics interventions to support students in English II and Algebra/Data Analysis; special education central office staff will continue to provide job‐embedded coaching and professional development to general and special educators to improve the academic performance of students with disabilities.

Critical Shortage of Special Educators. The critical shortage of special educators is typically covered by long‐term substitutes. DSES and DSEO supervisors, instructional specialists, and IRTs provide assistance to schools and to substitute teachers to ensure that the mandated functions related to the education of students with disabilities are completed.

Based on the Examination of the HSA English II Pass Rate Data (Table 2.4):

1. Provide information on interventions that are in place to support students required to pass this high school assessment in order to graduate. In your response, and where applicable, include:

• How students in danger of not passing are identified.

o Data Warehouse HSA Reports—These data reports are sent to district offices and all high schools each month. Student performance and attendance data can be filtered to identify students who are underperforming or who are in danger of underperforming.

o 9th and 10th Grade Verbal Reports—These data reports are accessed through the Instructional Management System (IMS) and include student performance data on the most recent MSA, PSAT, and Measures of Academic Progress‐Reading (MAP‐R) scores, and grades and exam scores for English 9 and English 10. Teachers and administrators use these reports to identify students who are underperforming and who may benefit from an intervention.

o Achievement Series. This scoring and data reporting tool contains student performance data on English exams and HSA practice tests. Student data can be disaggregated and analyzed to determine specific areas of need and to make instructional decisions, including matching appropriate interventions to address student needs.

o READ 180 Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). This report indicates student growth in reading and also provides information that can be used to determine if other interventions are needed.

• Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special

education services, Limited English Proficient students, and students with 504 plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the English II HSA

o HSA Prep Workshop—Offered at all high schools, this course is designed to

help prepare students to retake the HSA. The course includes materials to help students develop effective study skills and habits in reading, note‐taking, and analyzing documents. The course also provides practice in taking the HSA.

o HSA Prep Online—This is a collection of released MSDE and commercially developed HSA items that students can work through at their own pace to prepare for the HSA. The items include annotated explanations to help students understand the reasoning behind each question and each correct and incorrect answer.

o High School Literacy Coaches—In 2007–2008, all high schools had Literacy Coaches, non‐teaching positions provided to help teachers develop literacy and critical thinking in all content areas, including intervention practices to

support students who may be in danger of not passing the HSA. In 2008–2009, this position will become a part‐time teaching position, due to budget cuts.

o READ 180—This commercially developed reading intervention program is available in all high schools and helps students develop their literacy skills.

o Interventions —During the 2007–2008 school year, reading interventions were implemented and monitored in high schools.

o Achievement Steering Committees—Central office special education supervisors, instructional specialists, and IRTs supported school teams in the improvement of service delivery models to address the diverse needs of students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees, school‐based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings and by developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for staff members who support students with disabilities.

I.D. i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessment (continued)

Mathematics

Based on the Examination of MSA AYP Proficiency Data in Mathematics (Tables 2.5 through 2.7):

1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups.

Mathematics. The percentage of elementary and middle school students earning a proficient or advanced score in mathematics increased for all groups since 2006. Gains of more than five percentage points were seen among African American, Hispanic, FARMS, special education, and LEP subgroups at the elementary level and gains of more than 11 points were seen among African American, Hispanic, FARMS, special education, and LEP subgroups at the middle school level.

• In elementary school, mathematics proficiency rates overall grew 5.7 percentage points,

(from 82.0 percent in 2005 to 87.7 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed for African American students (10.6 percentage point increase from 65.5 percent in 2005 to 76.1 percent in 2008) and for Hispanic students (9.6 percentage point increase from 69.9 percent in 2005 to 79.5 percent in 2008).

• In elementary school, for those students receiving special education services, overall


• For the elementary school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services

subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 10.6 percentage points from 63.6 percent in 2005 to 74.2 percent in 2008.

• For the LEP subgroup in elementary school, overall proficiency rates increased 9.9


• In middle school, mathematics proficiency rates overall grew 10.6 percentage points (from 67.2 percent in 2005 to 77.8 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed for Hispanic students (17.3 percentage point increase from 44.7 percent in 2005 to 62.0 percent in 2008) and for African American students (16.4 percentage point increase from 42.9 percent in 2005 to 59.3 percent in 2008).

• In middle school, for those students receiving special education services, overall


• For the middle school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services

subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 18 percentage points from 38.0 percent in 2005 to 56.0 percent in 2008.

• For the LEP subgroup in middle school, overall proficiency rates increased 11.3


2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations

to which you attribute the progress.

• Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning—The Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning is a major initiative to develop a research‐based tool for continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process. The Framework is being used by schools to deepen their understanding of the following six elements of improving teaching and learning: curriculum, instruction, evidence of student learning, planning, expectations, and building a professional learning community.

• The Early Success Performance Plan—This comprehensive plan provided a four‐year sequence or pathway for all students and focuses on addressing the opportunity gap facing the district’s most highly impacted students. The plan is built around the following five guiding principles of education reform:

o Focused and challenging curriculum o Ongoing assessment of student progress o Expanded instructional time (full‐day kindergarten and reduced class size) o Targeted professional development o Meaningful family involvement

• Support for Most Highly Impacted Schools—A comprehensive model for funding, staffing, and programming was implemented at the 63 most highly impacted elementary schools in the county. In FY 2009, these schools include federally funded Title I schools and locally funded high‐needs schools. This model includes specific guidelines for the use of allocated positions; enhanced professional development; funding for family‐involvement programs and activities in federally funded Title I schools; alignment of the comprehensive school improvement process with the Baldrige‐Guided School Improvement Process; and implementation of an extended‐year and extended‐day program in the federally funded Title I schools.

• Math Content Coach (MCC)—To increase the content knowledge and instructional strategies of teachers of mathematics, MCC have been placed in Title I schools and additional high needs elementary schools. The MCC provides direct classroom support to teachers and paraprofessionals to effectively implement the mathematics curriculum and assessments; builds the content knowledge and teaching expertise of teachers of mathematics; and, as an instructional leader, facilitates the analysis of mathematics

assessment data to ensure that all students are appropriately challenged and the school improvement goals are achieved.

• Development and Implementation of Standard‐Based Curriculum and Assessments—Over the past seven years, the district has revised the reading, English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies curricula to align with state, national, and international standards and make explicit what students need to know and be able to do at each grade level. Additionally, formative assessments are integrated into all instructional guides. In Grades 6–8 mathematics formative assessments are required and monitored as part of the Middle School Reform Initiative.

• Curriculum Training and Development—To support development, implementation, and continuous improvement of teaching and learning, professional development is provided to staff members as new or revised curriculum, assessment, and grading and reporting tools are implemented. The focus of the training and development is increasing teachers’ knowledge base of the content and/or effective practices related to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and grading and reporting. Emphasis is placed on providing strategies to work with English Language Learners (ELL), students with disabilities, and highly able and/or motivated students.

• Staff Development Teacher—The district allocates a staff development teacher to every

school to support teachers as they increase their knowledge, skills, and capacity to implement new strategies for teaching and learning.

• Extended Time—This initiative includes both extended‐day and extended‐year

programs for Title I schools and for all middle schools.

• Monitoring Student Instructional Data—Currently, there are two Web‐based monitoring systems. Instructional Management System and Performance Matters are specifically designed for teachers, schools, and central office administrators to monitor student performance on formative and summative assessments. Performance Matters has the capability of predicting a student’s MSA achievement level based on lagging indicators.

• English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Curriculum Development and

Alignment—Curriculum for instruction on English language proficiency for all students continues to be revised to align with the new Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) ESOL content standards. All efforts to support the teaching and learning of ESOL students positively impact ESOL students learning of mathematics.

• ESOL Proficiency Teachers—Class size in Title I schools continues to be reduced for ESOL students at the lowest level of English language proficiency. This model continues to be studied to determine the extent to which it promotes improvement in English language proficiency and student learning outcomes.

• Classroom and Testing Accommodations for ESOL Students—The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that ESOL students take state assessments and meet the same proficiency standards set for all students. Therefore, it is necessary for ESOL and content teachers to identify and provide instructional and assessment accommodations for ESOL students by completing the state‐mandated ELL plans. School‐based interdisciplinary teams, known as ELL teams, complete the ELL plan annually. ELL teams also determine the scope of content and how ESOL students will be assessed in the content areas.

• ESOL Achievement Specialist—The achievement specialist ensures accurate reporting of ESOL student proficiency levels and ESOL program participation, monitors ELL team data, and analyzes data collected through the online elementary ESOL services log to assist in identifying elementary ESOL instructional program models that best promote English language acquisition and student achievement.

• ESOL Counseling Team—ESOL counselors continue to provide itinerant bilingual and cross‐cultural counseling services to ESOL students to enable them to achieve academically and adjust to a new social and cultural environment. The counseling team works countywide to provide counseling services to ESOL students that center on acculturation, conflict resolution, decision making, career/college planning, study skills, school rules and regulations, social skills, and school life.

• ESOL Parent Outreach Services—The ESOL parent outreach team consists of parent specialists and parent community coordinators who use their bilingual and multicultural skills to minimize linguistic and cultural barriers to encourage ESOL parents to participate in their children’s educational experiences. The parent outreach services team provides information concerning school programs and student progress; information to parents on ways they can support student learning and English language acquisition outside of school; assistance in involving parents of ESOL students in decision‐making processes at school; and referrals to community services for parents and students.

• Translation Unit—The Translation Unit provides professional, multilingual translation services in multiple languages using various media to address the need to communicate essential information to a rapidly growing, linguistically diverse community. This unit enables MCPS to meet the Strategic Plan Goal 3: Strengthening Productive Partnerships for Education, by meeting the objective of communicating information to parents and community members about curriculum; educational programs and services; assessments; and instruction with the same level of quality that is afforded to English‐speaking members of the community.

• Action Plan for Students with Disabilities —During the 2007–2008 school year, the Department of Special Education Services (DSES) and the Department of Special Education Operations (DSEO) forged ahead in their plan of action to foster student

achievement in reading and mathematics, with a particular focus on middle school students. This plan of action addresses four areas: ensuring access to the general education curriculum and rigorous instruction, collecting and monitoring data to ensure academic progress, increasing the collaboration between general and special educators, and providing focused professional development to teachers, related service providers, and paraeducators.

• Interventions — During the 2007–2008 school year, to support access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities, mathematics interventions were implemented in 19 elementary schools, 38 middle schools, and 11 high schools.

• Ensure Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with Disabilities—During the 2007–2008 school year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) expanded the Home School Model (HSM) to five elementary schools. This service delivery model provides students with disabilities greater access to the general education curriculum at their home school in the least restrictive environment which, in turn, improves academic outcomes for these students.

• Hours‐based Staffing Model —The hours‐based staffing model was implemented in an additional 11 middle schools during the 2007–2008 school year. This model provides an equitable staffing solution to that allows schools to provide a continuum of special education services to support the diverse needs of students with disabilities within their home schools.

• Phase‐out of Secondary Learning Centers—MCPS began the phase out of the secondary

learning centers during the 2007–2008 school year. Seventy‐one students returned to their home and/or consortia middle or high schools. Each student was provided with a central office case manager who facilitated the student’s transition to back to the home or consortia school, supported the school in developing a master schedule that provided a continuum of special education services and access to instruction in the general education curriculum, and provided ongoing professional development and consultation to ensure student success.

• Data Collection and Monitoring Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities—

MCPS monitors the following data: individual student performance, group academic achievement, attendance, suspensions, and disproportionality.

• Collaboration Between General and Special Education Staff—The 2007–2008 Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)‐awarded AYP grant provided general and special educators at five middle schools with professional development on topics including inclusive teaching practices, analysis of academic achievement data of students with disabilities, differentiation, assistive technology, instructional and assessment accommodations, and reading interventions.

• Increasing the Capacity of General and Special Educators to Instruct Students with Disabilities in the General Education Classroom—Over the course of the 2007–2008 school year, professional development activities were developed that focused on increasing the capacity of general and special educators to instruct students with disabilities in the general education classroom. In addition, all mandatory curriculum training included special education staff and provided further opportunities for collaboration between general and special educators. The FY 2009 budget added funds for mandatory professional development on best practices for co‐teaching. This professional development includes general and special education teachers of students with disabilities for Grades 6–9. All MCPS offices collaborate to ensure that service delivery models are uniform and the use of inclusive practices is consistent throughout county schools.

Focused Professional Development for Teachers of Students with Disabilities—special education supervisors, instructional specialists, and itinerant resource teachers (IRTs) supported school teams in the improvement of service delivery models to address the diverse needs of students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees, school based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings, and by developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for staff members who support students with disabilities. During the 2007–2008 school year, special education staff provided high‐quality professional development for over 5,000 participants at various levels and on a variety of topics that included the following:

Co‐teaching and inclusion best practices Reading interventions Mathematics interventions Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives Mod‐MSA/HSA eligibility Discipline policies for students with disabilities Encore Web‐based IEP System Accessibility planning Instructional and assessment accommodations Differentiation Behavior management Assistive technology Alt‐MSA Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of

grade band(s) and subgroups. The following challenges are evident:

• Developing and retaining highly qualified teachers of mathematics at all grade levels.

• Developing and retaining special educators who can work effectively in mathematics inclusion classrooms.

• Developing a systemwide culture of high expectations for all students that recognizes and overcomes individual and institutional beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions that are barriers to student achievement.

The DSES and DSEO faces the challenge of improving the MSA/HSA passing rate of students with disabilities at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to meet the pass rate of their non‐disabled peers, particularly in Grades 4, 5, 7, 8, English II, and Algebra/Data Analysis. Schools need guidance and support in providing a continuum of special education services to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. More students with disabilities are being instructed in general education classes and are provided access to the curriculum as taught by highly qualified teachers with support from special educators. However, co‐teaching teams need assistance in planning for accessibility, incorporating assistive technology, utilizing diverse co‐teaching models, and differentiating formative assessments.

The national critical shortage of special education teachers and related service providers continues to be a challenge for MCPS. Staff members in the Office of Human Resources (OHR) work closely with universities to recruit teachers who are certified special educators. According to the OHR, there is great difficulty in staffing self‐contained special education classes. In addition, most graduates who are dually certified in general and special education request a general education assignment, thereby exacerbating the critical shortage of special education teachers.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding


• See the strategies cited above. • Professional Development—The district maintains ongoing professional

development for teachers through job‐embedded staff development, Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses, and university partnerships that focus on strengthening teacher knowledge of mathematics content and pedagogy.

• Strategic Monitoring Plan—The district has implemented a Strategic Monitoring Plan

to support schools to engage in ongoing student monitoring. It is the expectation that all teachers, grade‐level teams, and course teams will use this data to make instructional decisions to drive student achievement and improve teaching and learning.

• Monitoring Student Instructional Data—Currently, there are two Web‐based

monitoring systems. Instructional Management System and Performance Matters

are specifically designed for teachers, schools, and central office administrators to monitor student performance on formative and summative assessments. Performance Matters has the capability of predicting a student’s MSA achievement level based on lagging indicators.

• Adjustments Made for 2008–2009—During the 2008–2009 school year, three

additional elementary schools will implement the Home School Model; three additional middle schools will implement hours‐based staffing; nine middle schools have been proposed to participate in the MSDE‐awarded AYP grant that focuses on the implementation of reading and mathematics interventions, provides professional development and coaching, and collaboration between general and special educators; MCPS will continue the second year of phasing out the secondary learning centers and support the former Mark Twain day program students in their transition to their special education programs; provide enhanced instructional support and mental health services to high school programs for students with emotional disabilities; 11 high schools will implement reading and mathematics interventions to support students in English II and Algebra/Data Analysis; staff members from DSES and DSEO will continue to provide job‐embedded coaching and professional development to general and special educators to improve the academic performance of students with disabilities.

• The critical shortage of special educators is typically covered by long‐term

substitutes. DSES and DSEO supervisors, instructional specialist, and IRTs provide assistance to schools and to substitute teachers to ensure that the mandated functions related to the education of students with disabilities are completed.

o Infuse diversity into curriculum, programs, and projects. o Design, implement, and evaluate diversity training and development that:

Raises awareness of individual and institutional beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions that are barriers to student achievement.

Ensures that staff members demonstrate the behaviors and practices that communicate high expectations to students.

Ensures that staff members can structure culturally sensitive learning environments and implement culturally responsive instruction.

Based on the Examination of the HSA Algebra/Data Analysis Pass Rate Data (Table 2.8): 1. Provide information on interventions that are in place to support students required to

pass this high school assessment in order to graduate. In your response, and where applicable, include:


• Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special education services, Limited English Proficient students, and students with 504 plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the English II HSA


o Previous Performance—Some students are identified for support as they enter the Algebra 1 course based on performance on prior course work and MSA data. Others are identified during the first semester as a result of performance in the course.

o Data Warehouse HSA Reports—These data reports are sent to district offices

and all high schools each month. Student performance and attendance data can be filtered to identify students who are underperforming or who are in danger of underperforming.

• Interventions that are in place to support students required to pass this high

school assessment in order to graduate. o Double Period Algebra—Double period Algebra 1 provides students with

additional time and instruction to master course content. o Co‐taught Classes—Co‐taught Classes by general and special education

teachers. o ESOL Support —Classes that are supported by ESOL teachers. o HSA Prep Workshop—HSA Prep Workshop is offered at all high schools; this

course is designed to help prepare students to retake the HSA. The course includes materials to help students develop effective study skills and habits in reading, notetaking, and analyzing documents. The course also provides practice in taking the HSA.

o HSA Prep Online—HSA Prep Online is a Web‐based collection of released MSDE and commercially developed HSA items that students can work through at their own pace to prepare for the HSA. The items include annotated explanations to help students understand the reasoning behind each question and each correct and incorrect answer.

o Algebra Online (MSDE)—Online course developed by MSDE. o After School Interventions —After school intervention programs, including

the use of: - George B. Thomas Learning Academy After School Program - Understanding Math Resource - Finish Line Resource - George B. Thomas Learning Academy Saturday School

o High School Plus—An extended‐day program at all local high schools where

students can retake a course, participate in classes for credit‐recovery, or take a class that will allow them to work on a Bridge Plan project.

o Math Interventions—During the 2007–2008 school year, mathematics interventions were implemented and monitored in 11 high schools.

o Achievement Steering Committees—Central office special education

supervisors, instructional specialists, and IRTs supported school teams in the improvement of service delivery models to address the diverse needs of students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees, school‐based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings and by developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for staff members who support students with disabilities.

I.D.i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessment (continued)

Science

Based on the Examination of Grade 5 and Grade 8 MSA Data in Science (Tables 2.9 through 2.11): 1. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations

designed to ensure progress. 2. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of

grade levels and subgroups. Curriculum and Assessment

• MCPS is in the process of revising its elementary and middle school science curriculum so that there is clear alignment to state standards. The MCPS revised curriculum is being developed through collaboration with special education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) staff members to ensure appropriate strategies for differentiation to meet all students’ needs are provided. Additionally, revised curriculum is being designed to better support students’ ability to make connections and synthesize ideas across science content so that learning can be applied to new experiences.

• Resources to support science instruction, as well as integration of science with other content areas, were purchased. Schools received a textbook aligned to Maryland standards, leveled readers aligned to science concepts, and ancillary materials to provide further support to English Language Learners (ELL) students, to reinforce the connections among reading, writing, and science and to provide additional instructional strategies to teach specific science concepts.

• Development and use of formative and unit assessments for elementary and middle school science units continues. These assessments allow for the monitoring of student progress against established learning goals.

Professional Development Several opportunities for professional development were provided during 2007–2008.

• Grade 5 Curriculum Training. Grade 5 teachers received training for two new science instructional units. Training focused on understanding of the learning goals, instructional methods, and resources.

• Grade 4 Chemistry Workshop. Grade 4 teachers attended a workshop as a follow‐up to 2006–2007 training. The workshop focused on building chemistry background and making connections to the learning goals established for Grade 4 instruction.

• Science Liaison Workshops. Elementary teachers serving in the role of science liaison at their schools attended workshops focusing primarily on understanding science learning goals and building literacy through science.

• Elementary Science Leadership Project. Two cohorts of elementary teachers participated in a two‐week summer academy as well as ongoing professional development throughout the school year that focused on understanding science content, learning goals, and leadership skills.

• Middle School Science Resource Teacher Meetings. The central office program supervisor and specialists held monthly meetings with science resource teachers to focus on instructional practices for student success. Topics included analysis and use of data, integration of technology in instruction, and understanding of specific learning goals.

• Alt‐MSA. MCPS central office science team collaborated with central office special education staff to design and deliver professional development workshops for special education teachers responsible for administering the Alt‐MSA. Focus of these workshops included science content and assessment of mastery of concepts.

• Co‐teaching. MCPS central office science team collaborated with central office special education staff to design and deliver professional development workshops for special education and science teachers who co‐teach middle school science. Focus of these workshops included science content and Universal Design for Learning.

• Differentiation. Presentation and discussion of instructional strategies and differentiation was an element of professional development opportunities. Specifically, Universal Design for Learning and use of technology to support concept mastery were ongoing topics for professional development during middle school resource teacher meetings.

As is evidenced by the data, challenges exist in ensuring that all subgroups perform at the same levels of success on state tests. Disaggregated data show a significant gap when the performance of White and Asian students is compared to that of other subgroups. Examination of instructional practices at the district and school levels has begun; however, professional development during the 2008–2009 school year will continue to address this gap. Instructional practices, scheduling, and instructional resources will be focus topics.

Based on the Examination of the HSA Biology Pass Rate Data (Table 2.12): 1. Provide information on interventions that are in place to support students required to


How students in danger of not passing are identified. Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special

education services, Limited English Proficient students, and students with 504 plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the Biology HSA.

A variety of interventions are in place to support student success on the Biology HSA. Interventions exist that support students who have already taken, but failed the HSA and students who are academically struggling prior to entering the Biology course. In addition to interventions for students, MCPS also has developed plans for supporting teacher use of data, building teacher content knowledge in biology, and increasing awareness of useful online resources. Curriculum and Courses The MCPS high school courses’ curriculum is being developed through collaboration with special education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) staff to ensure appropriate strategies for differentiation to meet all students’ needs are provided. MCPS has created courses and flexible course structures so that schools may develop appropriate interventions both before and after students take the Biology HSA.

• High School Plus. Many schools offer additional courses, including Biology, after the traditional school day in the High School Plus program. Students who have failed this course and have not been successful on the HSA are encouraged to retake the course through High School Plus when it is available at their school.

• High School Assessment Workshop. This high school course was created as an intervention for students needing support prior to retaking any of the four HSAs, including Biology. This course is intended for students who have passed the associated HSA course, but have not passed the HSA.

• Course Sequence. MCPS has a flexible course sequence to allow students to take Biology and other science courses when it is best for individual students. Matter and Energy is designed to provide a strong foundation prior to most students’ entry into Biology; however, with the flexible course sequence, students may opt to take another science course like Environmental Science or Chemistry to further their background in scientific concepts and processes prior to taking Biology.

Data Analysis MCPS provides schools with several tools for identifying students in danger of not passing the HSA.

• Matter and Energy Unit Assessments and Final Exams. The majority of students take Matter and Energy the year before taking the Biology course. Matter and Energy

provides a strong foundation for content and skills. Monitoring of performance against learning goals in Matter and Energy through unit assessments and semester exams support early identification of students who may need support during or prior to taking the Biology course.

• Achievement Series Biology Unit Assessments and Final Exams. In 2007–2008 all high schools began using Achievement Series, a data analysis system, for scoring Biology semester exams and end of unit assessments. Teachers use the instant analysis provided by Achievement Series reports to identify students who do not show understanding of key concepts assessed on the Biology HSA. Teachers can then provide reteaching and reassessment opportunities to students prior to taking the HSA.

• HSA Monitoring Reports. Every month, MCPS provides schools with a monitoring report, detailing individual student progress toward successful completion of the HSA requirements for graduation. Schools use the reports to identify which students need interventions. The reports also are disaggregated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 subgroups so that schools can quickly identify students in special populations that may need additional supports or interventions.


• High School Science Resource Teacher Training. Resource teachers received training on how to use Achievement Series to analyze student performance in order to provide targeted interventions. Additionally, resource teachers received professional development on how to support their school teams in making connections between the Matter and Energy and Biology courses to support student achievement. Resource teachers received data analysis tools to support professional development at their schools.

• Governor’s Academy for Biology. Biology teachers are encouraged to attend the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Governor’s Academy for Biology to deepen their understanding of the Biology HSA, utilize offering of MSDE Biology resources, and develop effective teaching strategies for students.

• Alt‐HSA. MCPS central office science team collaborated with central office special education staff to design and deliver professional development workshops for special education teachers responsible for administering the Alt‐HSA. Focus of these workshops included science content and assessment of mastery of concepts.

Resources Although there are many resources for teaching Biology content and concepts to students, the following online resource is available to students and teachers through the Internet and may be accessed from home or from school.

• HSA Prep Online. This MCPS created website generates short quizzes using MSDE public release items from the Biology HSA. Students can practice answering questions similar to what may be expected on the HSA. Feedback on student performance informs students and their parents of the content or concepts they may need to relearn.

• Differentiation. The resources purchased to support science included two different textbooks to further support special education and ELL students; to reinforce the connections among reading, writing, and science; and to provide additional instructional strategies to teach specific science concepts.

I.D.i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessment (continued)

Government

Based on the Examination of the HSA Government Pass Rate Data (Table 3.1): 1. Provide information on interventions that are in place to support students required to


How students in danger of not passing are identified. Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special

education services, Limited English Proficient students, and students with 504 plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the Government HSA.

A variety of interventions are in place to support student success on the Government HSA. Interventions exist that support students who have already taken, but failed the HSA and students who are academically struggling prior to entering the National, State, and Local Government course (NSL). In addition to interventions for students, the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) also has implemented plans for supporting teacher use of data, building teacher content knowledge in government, and increasing awareness of useful online resources. Curriculum and Courses

• Curriculum Development. As curriculum is revised and developed, the social studies team collaborates with Special Education and English as a Second Language staff to ensure appropriate strategies for differentiation to meet all students’ needs are provided. MCPS has created courses and flexible course structures so that schools may develop appropriate interventions both before and after students take the Government HSA.

• High School Plus. Many schools offer additional courses after the traditional school day in the High School Plus program, including the social studies course NSL Government. Students who have failed this course and have not been successful on the HSA are encouraged to retake the course through High School Plus when it is available at their school.

• High School Assessment Workshop. This high school course was created as an intervention for students during the school day needing support prior to retaking any of the four HSAs, including Government. This course is intended for students who have passed the associated HSA course, but have not passed the HSA exam.

Data Analysis

MCPS provides schools with several tools for identifying students in danger of not passing the HSA.

• United States History Final Exams. Students take U.S. History the year before taking the NSL Government course. The countywide semester exam is matched to indicators and allows schools to identify students that may show early signs of a poorly constructed understanding of government. School staff members use data from these semester exams to plan for needed interventions the following year.

• Achievement Series NSL Final Exams. In 2007–2008, all high schools began using Achievement Series, a data analysis system, for scoring NSL semester exams and end of unit assessments. Teachers use the instant analysis provided by Achievement Series reports to identify students who are not showing understanding of key concepts assessed on the Government HSA. Teachers can then provide reteaching and reassessment opportunities to students prior to taking the HSA exam.

• HSA Monitoring Reports. Every month, MCPS provides schools with a monitoring report, detailing by student, progress being made toward successful completion of the HSA requirements for graduation. Schools use the reports to identify which students need interventions. The reports also are disaggregated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 subgroups so that schools can quickly identify students in special populations that may need additional supports or interventions.

Support for Special Education and English Language Learner (ELL) Students

• ESOL United States History. A strong foundation in U.S. History, particularly the Constitution, is an essential component of success on the Government HSA. Many ESOL students lack this foundational knowledge, particularly if they did not complete the U.S. History course taught in Grade 8 social studies. The ESOL U.S. History course provides students with this foundational knowledge, building and strengthening their content knowledge, vocabulary, and conceptual understanding of democratic principles and practices.

• Social Studies Course Sequence for ESOL. Many schools delay the NSL course until the junior year for ESOL students. Implementing this new sequence enables ESOL students to build essential vocabulary prior to taking the HSA exam.


• New to NSL. Teachers who had not previously taught NSL were invited to attend three trainings throughout the school year. The trainings focused on content knowledge, data analysis, and access to resources for teaching and reteaching.

• Resource Teacher Training. Social Studies resource teachers received training on how to use Achievement Series to analyze student performance in order to provided targeted interventions.

• Governor’s Academy for Government. NSL teachers are encouraged to attend the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Governor’s Academy for Government to deepen their understanding of the Government HSA and effective teaching strategies

and to learn to use the MSDE Government online course. Although MSDE limits participation by county, 12 MCPS teachers were invited to attend.

• Focused Professional Development. Presentation and discussion of instructional strategies and differentiation was an element of professional development opportunities and were ongoing topics for professional development during high school and middle school resource teacher meetings.

Resources Although there are many resources for teaching government content and concepts to students, the following online resources are available to students and teachers through the Internet and may be accessed from home or from school:

• HSA Prep Online. This MCPS created web site generates short quizzes using MSDE public release items from the Government HSA. Students can practice answering questions similar to what may be expected on the HSA. Feedback on student performance informs students and their parents of the content or concepts they may need to relearn.

• MSDE Online Government Course. This online resource may be accessed by students and teachers. It provides lessons, explanations, vocabulary support, visual and auditory resources, and assessment opportunities. The resource has been shared frequently with social studies resource teachers and is highlighted at the New to NSL trainings.

I.D.ii

Limited English Proficient Students No Child Left Behind Goal 2: All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. No Child Left Behind Indicator 2.1: The percentage of limited English proficient students, determined by cohort, who have attained English proficiency by the end of the school year. This section reports the progress of Limited English Proficient students in developing and attaining English language proficiency and making adequate yearly progress. School systems are asked to provide information on Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs):

AMAO I is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students progressing toward English proficiency.

AMAO II is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students attaining English proficiency by end of each school year.

AMAO III represents Adequate Yearly Progress of LSSs for the Limited English Proficient student subgroup. Although progress of Limited English Proficient students in attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics is included in Section I.D.i, Maryland School Assessments/High School Assessments, and in Title III, Part A, school systems not making AMAO III will be required to provide additional discussion of progress toward attaining reading and math proficiency here.

Note: Where responses in this section are similar or linked to those provided under Section I.D.i, local school systems may reference with page numbers or copy and paste as appropriate.

A. Based on the Examination of Untested Students (Table 4.1):

1. Please explain the reasons students still enrolled as of March 31, 2008 (first day of testing window) did not complete the summative LAS test.

Of the 2,782 students in Worksheet 4.1.B, Column 3, 1,359 students were enrolled in prekindergarten and took the preLAS summative test. LAS Links is administered only to English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students enrolled in Grades K–12. In addition, there were 625 students who withdrew from Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) and 691 students who exited the ESOL program. The remaining 107 students, less than 1% of the students enrolled in ESOL on the first day of the testing window, were missing LAS Links scores due to absences.

B. Based on the Examination of AMAO I and AMAO II Data (Table 4.1 and 4.2): 1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade

band(s) and subgroups. In Grades K–5, 7,572 students met or exceeded the AMAO I target, representing 74 percent of the students reported to Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) as enrolled in the ESOL program on October 31, 2007. In Grades 6–8, 1,158 students met the AMAO I target, representing 64 percent of the students reported. In Grades 9–12, 1,360 students met the target, representing 51 percent of the students reported. These data reveal that while all students in elementary, middle, and high schools are exceeding the state target for AMAO I, elementary students are making the most progress in learning English, with secondary students making progress at a slightly slower rate than their elementary counterparts. A different trend is observed in the AMAO II data. In Grades K–5, 5,480 students met or exceeded the AMAO II target, representing 54 percent of the students reported to MSDE as enrolled in the ESOL program on October 31, 2007. In Grades 6–8, 967 students met the target, also representing 54 percent of the students reported. In Grades 9–12, 1,114 students met the target, representing 51 percent of the students reported. These data reveal that elementary and secondary ESOL students attain proficiency in English at relatively the same rate. Since AMAO I and II data are not presently reported by racial and participation subgroups, an analysis by subgroups is not available at this time.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency.

• Students Engaged in Pathways to Achievement (SEPA)—A program that helps Wheaton High School and Albert Einstein High School students ages 17–18 or older with limited or no formal education learn English and job and career skills. An innovative curriculum includes native language literacy, English language acquisition infused into entry level job skill and mathematics instruction, and support for acculturation and family reunification. A family involvement component will focus on the issues facing these students and their families. Outreach efforts include collaboration and partnerships with community agencies and organizations to build a safety net around families with students enrolled in the SEPA program. Cultural competence training will be provided to staff involved with SEPA program students and their families.

• Language Assistance Services Unit—Multilingual translation and interpretation services are provided in multiple languages using various media to address the need to communicate essential information to our rapidly growing, linguistically diverse community. Information is communicated to parents and community members about curriculum, educational programs and services, assessment, and instruction with the same level of quality that is afforded English‐speaking community members. A new translation management system is being

rolled out presently to schools to facilitate translations for central office and schools by creating a Web‐based bank of commonly translated words and phrases.

• Curriculum and Instruction—Pre‐K–12 ESOL curricula continue to be revised to align with the new Maryland ESOL Content Standards. Currently, MCPS has ESOL curriculum resources that are aligned for beginning, intermediate, and advanced ESOL students in pre‐K–5, as well as for advanced ESOL students in middle and high schools. Extensive training on ESOL curriculum implementation is provided to ESOL teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels on a quarterly basis.

• Bilingual Support Programs for ESOL Students and Families—To assist ESOL students and families in minimizing the linguistic and cultural barriers to academic achievement, the ESOL parent outreach and counseling teams provide bilingual, multicultural parent support and student counseling services to facilitate adjustment to a new academic, social, and cultural environment. 3. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient

students towards attaining English proficiency by each domain in Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing.

Since the progress MCPS ESOL students made in attaining English proficiency exceeded the state AMAO I target of 48 percent by 29.2 percent, challenges in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing are not evident at this time. Efforts will continue to develop and refine a standards‐based ESOL curriculum to ensure students continue to demonstrate progress in attaining English proficiency.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of

Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. Include timelines where appropriate.

Efforts to develop and implement standards‐based ESOL curricula will continue at all grade levels. Since MCPS ESOL curricula are aligned to the ESOL VSC, progress in listening, speaking, reading, and writing is expected to continue.

C. Based on the Examination of AMAO III Data (Table 4.3):

1. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient students.

At the county level, the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) subgroup made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading and mathematics at the elementary level, indicating that present practices in place in elementary schools are achieving targeted results. At the middle school level, the LEP subgroup made AYP in reading, but did not make AYP in mathematics. At the high school level, the LEP subgroup did not make AYP in reading, but did make AYP in mathematics.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of Limited English Proficient students in reading and math. Include resource allocations and timelines where appropriate.

According to MSDE, AMAO III in reading is not made if the LEP subgroup at the county level misses AYP in all three reading cells (elementary, middle, and high school reading). AMAO III in mathematics is not made if the LEP subgroup at the county level misses AYP all three mathematics cells (elementary, middle, and high school mathematics). Since Table 4.3 shows that the LEP subgroup missed AYP in only one of the three reading cells (high school reading) and one of the three mathematics cells (middle school mathematics), MCPS has met AMAO III. However, efforts will continue, particularly at the secondary level, to ensure that reading and mathematics teachers are trained to provide differentiated instruction to ESOL students and reclassified English language learners to ensure that their linguistic and academic content needs are addressed fully. English Language Learners Tables (4.1 – 4.3) pp 45+46 This section reports the progress of Limited English Proficient learners in developing and attaining English language proficiency and making adequate yearly progress. School systems are asked to provide information on Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO).

1. Table 4.1 – AMAO I – Progress towards English Proficiency (see attached tables)

Refer to Worksheets #4.1.A and #4.1.C to determine which students are to be included Provide the number of these students who met their target. Refer to Worksheet #4.1.C

for the target If applicable, complete Worksheet #4.1.B to account for untested students Using Worksheet #4.1.C, calculate the percentage of students who met their grade‐

specific target Is the result at least 48%? In order for each local school system to meet the AMAO I for

school year 2006‐2007, at least 48% of students must meet grade‐specific targets for English Language Proficiency

The total of Columns 2‐4 must equal Column 1

a. Accounting for Untested Students

Local school systems must assess all English Language Learners.1 In Worksheet #4.1.A. If Column 1 did not equal Column 2, then complete Worksheet 4.1.B, Accounting for Untested Students

1 Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act, Section 3116 (c)(2).

2. Table 4.2 – AMAO II – Attaining English Language Proficiency (see attached tables)

Refer to Worksheet #4.2.A to determine which students are to be included Provide the number of these students who met their grade‐specific target. Refer to

Worksheet #4.2.B for the targets for each grade Calculate the percentage of students who met their grade‐specific target Is the result at least 30%? In order for each local school system to meet the AMAO

II, at least 30% of students must meet grade‐specific targets for English Language Proficiency

Note: These tables represent system‐level accountability. A student must be withdrawn from the school system in order to be considered not continuously enrolled

3. Table 4.3 – AMAO III – Adequate Yearly Progress of Limited English Proficient Students (see attached tables)

Indicate whether or not the LSS made AYP in reading and math for the Limited

English Proficient student subgroup at the elementary, middle and high school levels for 2007‐2008.

I.D.iii

Adequate Yearly Progress This section requires that school systems in any phase of school system improvement update progress in specific areas. Additionally, all school systems must report the percentages of all schools making Adequate Yearly Progress, the percentages of Title I schools making Adequate Yearly Progress, Schools in Improvement and Title I Schools in Improvement.

School System Improvement

This section must be completed ONLY by local school systems in improvement or corrective action.1

Instructions:

1. Local school systems in corrective action must provide an update on how the school system has revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to execute the corrective actions taken by the State Board of Education. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will exit corrective action status. You may refer to other sections of this update as appropriate.

This section is not applicable to Montgomery County Pubic Schools (MCPS). School Improvement

No Child Left Behind Indicator 1.3: The percentage of Title I schools that make Adequate Yearly Progress.

Under No Child Left Behind, local school systems must review the progress of Title I schools primarily to determine (1) if each school has made adequate progress toward all students meeting or exceeding the standards by 2013‐2014, and (2) if a school has narrowed the achievement gap. In conjunction with the local school system, the State also reviews the effectiveness of each school’s actions and activities that are supported by Title I, Part A funds,2 including parental involvement and professional development.

A. Based on the Examination of School‐level AYP Data (Tables 5.1 and 5.2):

1. Identify the challenges, including those specific to Title I schools, in ensuring schools make Adequate Yearly Progress. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

It is important to note that no Title I schools in MCPS are identified for any level of school improvement, and only one school was identified for Local Attention. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data for other schools shows that only one elementary school and nine middle schools are identified for Year 1 or Year 2 of school improvement, or Corrective Action, and five elementary and two middle schools require Local Attention. In fact, seven middle schools and one elementary school exited school improvement in

1 Section 13A.01.04.08 of the Code of Maryland Regulations. 2 This information is included in Attachment 7 of this document.

the 2007–2008 school year. Six of the nine middle schools in school improvement achieved AYP. (NOTE: Final high school and kindergarten through Grade 12 special education school data is not yet available.) The most difficult challenge faced by Title I and other highly diverse schools relates to meeting the needs of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students who must take the state assessments, regardless of their English proficiency. Given that research shows that it takes from five to seven years to develop academic language, schools provide strategic support for our most vulnerable learners to ensure that each subgroup meets or exceeds the Annual Measurable Objective and the school achieves AYP. The Baldrige‐guided School Improvement Process (SIP), an ongoing and in‐depth analysis of student performance data and the strategic use of interventions based on data, are key factors in ensuring that all students meet state standards. MCPS provides formative course‐embedded assessments, as well as summative assessments, to monitor student progress and develops prediction models that are used to match the instructional needs of students. The Office of School Performance (OSP) works in collaboration with other offices to ensure that schools receive the training, technical support, and human and material resources necessary to improve student performance and meet AYP goals. For schools in local attention, improvement, or corrective action, the Enhanced School Improvement Team (ESIT) and the Achievement Steering Committee (ASC) are used to assist schools in achieving AYP. ASCs and ESITs are explained in B.1 and B.2 below. In addition, community superintendents and directors of school performance review and provide feedback on all school improvement plans.

B. Based on the Examination of Schools in Improvement Data (Tables 5.3 and 5.4):

1. Describe the actions that the school system is taking to ensure that the No Child Left Behind and Title I requirements for schools identified for Improvement (Year 1), Improvement (Year 2), Corrective Action, Restructuring (Planning), and Restructuring (Implementation) are being addressed.

Describe actions that the school system took during the 2007‐2008 school year.

During the 2007–2008 school year, MCPS coordinated school improvement assistance through a new position based in OSP. The director of Academic Support Initiatives was responsible for oversight of the Division of Title I Programs, including 21st Century Community Learning Center grants, the State School Improvement Grant (SSIG), and coordination of Baldrige‐guided School Improvement training for school teams and ASCs. In addition, technical assistance and direct school support were provided for schools as they worked to achieve AYP and meet NCLB requirements through a two‐tiered approach—an ESIT or an ASC. ESITs are deployed to address performance concerns of schools identified for Local Attention or those in Year 1 of School Improvement. School administrators, leadership team members, and staff from OSP, including academic achievement specialists funded through the SSIG, were included on the teams. The goals of an ESIT are to strengthen the local school’s ability to examine and analyze data, develop a comprehensive school improvement plan and action plans using Baldrige processes, and use the information to drive changes in instructional practices that will result in increased student performance. ESITs met on a monthly basis.

The purpose of an ASC is to provide consistent support for schools identified for Year 2 of School Improvement or Corrective Action to achieve AYP. (NOTE: MCPS does not have any schools at the Restructuring Planning or Restructuring stages of school improvement.) ASCs are a collaborative effort between OSP, various MCPS offices, and identified schools. Through regularly scheduled meetings, school and central office staff members work strategically together with the goal of implementing an effective instructional program which addresses performance concerns on the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) and High School Assessment (HSA). ASCs provide the forum for a structured monthly review of the school improvement action plans and provide focused support in the following four key areas:

• Identification of root causes • Identification of possible solutions • Implementation of solutions • Monitoring and evaluation of implemented solutions

As noted above, the Baldrige‐guided school improvement planning process was critical to the identification of those strategic actions that will enable schools to achieve AYP and exit school improvement. The ASC process is consistent with the recommended pathways of the Baldrige‐guided School Improvement Process:

• Student, stakeholder, faculty, and staff focus • Leadership • Strategic planning and process management

Managing the measurement and analysis of the data on performance targets were both Baldrige and ASC focus areas. Central office staff participated in ASCs to listen, learn, and provide strategic support for identified needs such as enhanced professional development, assistance with data analysis, or instructional resources. ASC meetings mirrored the “Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act” cycle of Baldrige‐guided school improvement planning and implementation.

Describe the actions that the school system will take once school improvement status is determined for the 2008–2009 school year.

OSP will use the ASC and ESIT process as a way to implement and coordinate the system of supports required for schools to achieve success. Under the direction of the chief school performance officer, the director of Academic Support Initiatives will collaborate with community superintendents and offices in MCPS to assign central office staff to ASCs in relationship to the needs of the schools. Community superintendents will work directly with school administrators to identify school‐based members. We believe that the spirit of collaboration and shared responsibility is a vital component of successful school improvement. ASC and ESIT school improvement structures used in MCPS are flexible enough to meet the needs of schools in the various stages of school improvement as the work of the respective teams is aligned with identified school needs. The ASC focuses on the following processes:

1. Establishing the Purpose of an ASC and Sustaining a Positive Climate ASCs are first and foremost based on a spirit of collaboration with all stakeholders making a commitment to be accountable for student achievement. The climate of the meetings is one of collective inquiry with all participants bringing their particular expertise to the table. When analyzing student achievement data, data from classroom visits, or examining school processes, all ASC members are encouraged to actively engage in the discussions, to offer additional goal‐focused support, to identify resources, and to respectfully share ideas and suggestions that contribute to a climate of respect. 2. Expectations An ASC provides strategic support to enhance the school’s ability to achieve AYP by meeting the annual measurable objective in each subgroup, as measured by the MSA or the HSA. In order to achieve this outcome, the ASC:

• Meets regularly, usually monthly, to examine student performance data, drilling down to the individual student level with all stakeholders.

• Aligns to the BGSIP which is based on a thorough root cause analysis. • Reviews the BGSIP action plans regularly based on the established monitoring schedule. • Analyzes subgroup performance data to identify needs, recommend interventions, and review

their effectiveness on a systematic basis. Discusses instructional implications based on systematic reviews of relevant student data.

• Evaluates and discusses the effectiveness of the instructional program in order to guide teacher leaders and subject area teachers to strategically match day‐to‐day instruction and classroom interventions with individual student needs.

• Identifies areas of professional development that will enhance and support effective implementation of the instructional program and supports student achievement.

3. School and Central Office ASC Membership Community superintendents and directors of school performance have a key leadership role and are responsible for the facilitation and coordination of ASCs. Several factors are considered when determining the specific offices and individuals who will participate on an ASC. These factors include review of the subgroup(s) and content area(s) in which the school did not achieve AYP, identified needs of the school, and focused goals or objectives included in the BGSIP. The OSP staff works in collaboration with central office administrators to request and select the specific individuals who will serve on an ASC. When determining the membership of an ASC, planners are encouraged to base decisions on the consideration that smaller groups foster more focused discussion than larger groups and provide an opportunity to build trusting relationships and the sense of collaboration that will lead to success. We recommend that the group size be limited to 15 people, with modifications depending on the level and size of the school. ASC memberships are approved by the appropriate community superintendent, the chief school performance officer, and the associate superintendent for each of the respective offices.

Central office representatives may include the following offices, divisions, or departments but are not limited to this listing:

• Department of Communication o Division of Family and Community Partnerships (DFCP)

• Office of the Chief Academic Officer

• Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP) o Department of Curriculum and Instruction o Department of Instructional Programs

Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs

• Office of Organizational Development (OOD) o Diversity Training Unit o Staff Development Teacher Project

• Office of School Performance (OSP) o Department of Academic Support Initiatives

Division of Title 1 Programs State School Improvement Grant

• Office of Special Education and Student Services (OSESS) o Department of Special Education Services and Operations o Department of Student Services

School‐based ASC membership is determined in collaboration with the school administrative team, the community superintendent, and director of school performance and includes the following standing members:

o Principal o Assistant principal(s) o Staff development teacher

Additional school‐based ASC participants may include the following:

o Teacher leaders/resource teachers, reading specialists, mathematics content coaches or specialist, etc.

o Grade/subject area teachers o English for Speakers of Other Languages and special education teachers o Guidance counselor(s) o Supporting service staff members

It is recommended that parents are included as participants on ASCs. Employee organizations, including the Montgomery County Education Association, Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel, or the Service Employees International Union Local 500, may also be represented as ASC members. 4. Meeting Content and Procedures

Roles and Responsibilities School improvement status is identified during the summer by determining if the school achieved AYP. At this point, any subgroup in which the students did not achieve established state standards is identified. A root cause analysis is conducted in order to determine the areas of focus and the key components of the BGSIP. This in‐depth analysis is essential to effective school improvement planning, is a Maryland State Department of Education requirement, and is a required component of the peer review process. Central office staff members are available to assist with completing a root cause analysis. Other roles and responsibilities of ASC participants include:

School‐based Staff Central Office‐based Staff Principal selects participants in collaboration with school leadership, community superintendent, and director of school performance.

After collaborating with school staff members, the community superintendent and director of school performance submit requests for representation to the director of Academic Support Initiatives (ASI), who coordinates the requests with respective associate superintendents.

The director of ASI coordinates requests and forwards to the respective associate superintendent(s).

Attend and participate fully in ASC meetings. Attend and participate fully in ASC meetings. Conduct root cause analysis to guide development of BGSIP.

Support school in collecting and analyzing data for root cause analysis.

Collect, analyze, and present data at ASC meetings.

Support school with collection, analysis, and presentation of data at ASC meetings.

Collaborate with central‐based staff members in response to offers of support.

Provide expertise and offers of assistance.

Follow‐up on action items. Follow up on action items. Set up meeting space, light refreshments. Not applicable. Prepare any materials required for the meeting; provide agendas.

Not applicable.

Share problems the school is having.

Participate in collaborative discussions with staff members to problem solve.

Collaborate to determine when a recommendation becomes an action item.

Collaborate to determine when a recommendation becomes an action item.

5. Meeting Frequency ASCs meet on a regular basis, usually once a month. Dates are established for the school year in August in collaboration with OSP, the school, and other central office staff members.

6. Relationship of Peer Reviews to the BGSIP Both the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act—No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Code of Maryland (COMAR) require that a two‐year BGSIP be developed by schools as they enter school improvement, that the BGSIP include eight specified components, and that a peer review be conducted. One ASC meeting is scheduled as a peer review of the BGSIP early in the school year in compliance with these federal and state mandates. The peer review is repeated if there are significant changes to the BGSIP in the following year, or in any year when a school enters corrective action, restructuring planning, or restructuring. The purpose of the review is to assist schools as they establish a roadmap for all students to be proficient in reading and in mathematics by the 2013–2014 school year.

Before the Meeting Meeting Agenda

1. Agendas are set two weeks prior to the ASC in a meeting with the director of school performance, the principal, and any school‐based staff members the principal selects.

• At this meeting, the agenda is generated and sent to the community superintendent. Action items from the previous months and their current status are included along with future meeting dates.

• A review of relevant school improvement plan action plans should be included. • The community superintendent reviews the agenda and then electronically forwards the

agenda and a reminder to all members of the ASC. • The MCPS agenda format is used for ASC meetings.

2. Specific responsibilities noted in the agenda are: • Facilitator (generally the community superintendent) • Notetaker • Recorder for Action Items • Discussion leaders for the various components of the agenda

3. An ASC meeting is typically scheduled for two hours. Preparation of Materials/Logistics

1. ASC meetings are held at the school, typically in the media center or in another space large enough to comfortably accommodate meeting participants and limit interruptions.

2. At the first ASC meeting, all participants are provided with a binder in which all ASC documents can be maintained. Handouts are hole‐punched prior to the meeting.

3. The school generally provides light refreshments for ASC members.

During the Meeting 1. Ground rules—established at first ASC and included on subsequent meeting agendas 2. Consider using the following meeting structures that support collaboration:

• A room arrangement that is conducive to both whole and small group discussions as appropriate to the agenda.

• Ensure that seating is mixed among stakeholders (avoid one side of the table having all the school team and the other having all central office staff members).

• Include time and processes on the agenda for pairs or small groups to discuss what is being shared prior to the whole group discussion as this increases engagement from all participants.

• When appropriate, use strategies to promote equitable engagement/participation such as triads, being additive, not repetitive.

• Use visuals to increase engagement and ideas generated, such as small groups charting ideas, and posting for all to review.

3. Core meeting components—agenda items • Welcome and introductions. • Review of Action Items (action items always have due dates and identify the person

responsible). • Discussion of available data, with emphasis on subgroups of concern, in alignment with

BGSIP Action Plans with completed “Results” section. Specific results and conclusions are summarized according to the identified monitoring tools, data points, and/or strategic plan improvement targets, noting progress toward the action step or AYP goal. How do we know this action made a difference? Note if progress is or is not being made and the steps necessary to sustain the momentum or next steps to drill down and complete a root cause analysis, which is necessary to revise the action plan.

• Predictions for success on MSA/HSA using available data points. • Discussion built around instructional implications, professional development, and

connection to the BGSIP for each data point. • Focused classroom visits to briefly observe implementation of instructional strategies

recommended by the ASC and to enhance the connection between central office ASC members and the work of the school.

o Visits are followed by a discussion of general impressions. • Meeting evaluation.

After the Meeting In order for the work of the ASC to be integrated into the life of the school, a summary of the meeting and action items should be part of the next school leadership team/instructional council agenda. Leadership team/instructional council members will share information with instructional staff and gather updates to be presented at their next meeting. A progress update will then be shared at a subsequent ASC meeting. Thus a cycle of communication is established. Meeting notes, action items, and a summary of the meeting evaluation are sent out by the community superintendent within a few days of the ASC meeting.

Information about the status of action items is sent to the principal and the director of school performance. This information is included when the next meeting agenda is sent to all ASC members.

I.D.iv Attendance Rates

Attendance rates are an additional measure used in Maryland’s Adequate Yearly Progress calculations.

Based on the Examination of the Attendance Data (Table 5.5):

1. Describe where progress in increasing attendance rates is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups.

Countywide, since 2003‐2004, MCPS has met the MSDE satisfactory standard of 94 percent attendance rate for all students, as well as for African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Limited English Proficient, at all levels. The 2006–2007 school year was the first year that the American Indian/Alaskan Native student subgroup met the attendance standards for all levels. In 2007–2008, the attendance rate for this sub‐group was 0 .4 percent short of the standard at the middle school level while the standard was met for students at the elementary and high school levels. Since 2004–2005, the Hispanic student subgroup has met the attendance standard rate for all levels but high school. Since that time, the attendance rate has been over 93 percent and was just 0.7 percent below standard in 2007–2008. Since 2004–2005, when the FARMS subgroup met the attendance standard at all levels, this subgroup continues to meet the standard at both the elementary and middle school levels. During this time, high school attendance levels remained at or above 93 percent. Beginning in 2004–2005, elementary level special education students have continued to meet the attendance standard. In 2007–2008, students at the middle school level were just 0.3 percent below the standard and 1.1 percent below the standard at the high school level.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to

which you attribute the progress.

Since attendance is used at the elementary and middle levels to calculate AYP, schools actively monitor student attendance. Of particular concern are cases in which students are absent for 10–19 percent (attendance rates of 81–90 percent) of the school year. These students are in danger of being considered truant, which is a 20 percent or greater absence rate (attendance rate of 80 percent or less). Plans are in place to provide this information on the monthly attendance list currently sent to each school.

Each month, schools receive a list of all student attendance. Students whose absences have reached 20 percent or more are considered truant. School staff are to develop procedures to examine each case in order to verify if the absences are excused or

unexcused and to implement interventions to improve school attendance. If school‐level interventions are not successful in improving the student’s attendance, the case is referred to the pupil personnel worker who is a member of the school’s student services team.

If no improvement is achieved and the student absences are greater than 20 percent of the school year, the school administrator refers the case to the Interagency Truancy Review Board (TRB). The TRB is comprised of staff from offices within MCPS, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Police, the Housing Opportunities Commission, and the State’s Attorney’s Office. The purpose of the TRB is to motivate parents of habitually truant students to send their children to school and to develop a contract to ensure this happens or to recommend the case be referred directly to the State’s Attorney’s Office.

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups.

Schools monitor the attendance of all students and all subgroups. Because truancy is often related to other problems in a student’s life, families who are referred to the TRB often have many needs. For this reason, the TRB includes staff from the Pupil Personnel Services Unit and Court Liaison Unit of MCPS; the Child Welfare Services, School Health Services, and Adolescent Mental Health Units of the Department of Health and Human Services; a case worker from the Department of Juvenile Justice, an officer from the Department of Police, a case worker from the Housing Opportunities Commission, and an Assistant State’s Attorney from the State’s Attorney’s Office. This allows the TRB members to not only problem solve with the student/family but also to offer services and resources.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource

allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

Beginning with the 2007–2008 school year, the TRB has adjusted its schedule so that every case referred is scheduled that same month. This has required the TRB to meet for an extended day or to schedule an additional half‐day meeting each month. The TRB also considers completing a “Children with Intensive Needs” referral to the Montgomery County Collaboration Council for Children, Youth, and Families. If the referral is accepted, it brings mental health services and family support services to the student and family.

I.D.v Graduation Rates and Dropout Rates

No Child Left Behind Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school. No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.1: The percentage of students who graduate each year with a regular diploma.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.2: The percentage of students who drop out of school.

Graduation rate is an additional measure used in Maryland’s Adequate Yearly Progress calculations.

Based on the Examination of Graduation and Dropout Rate Data (Tables 5.6 and 5.7):

1. Describe where progress in moving toward the graduation/dropout target is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of subgroups.

In 2008, MCPS continues to meet the state satisfactory dropout standard for all students. Areas of challenge continue for the following subgroups: African America, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, FARMS, LEP, Special Education and Males. However, the rates of increase have slowed for these subgroups.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress.

The Montgomery County Public Schools utilizes a variety of instructional and intervention strategies to assist students in having positive and successful experiences in school.

Judy Centers, prekindergarten programs, and full‐day kindergarten are examples of programs that are in place to help students have a strong start in their educational programs.

Collaborative problem–solving strategies—All schools implement collaborative problem–solving strategies to address academic and behavioral issues that impact student learning. Through this process, staff members develop, implement, and evaluate interventions and monitor student progress.

Gateway to College (GTC)—The Gateway to College© program at Montgomery College serves at‐risk youth, 16‐to‐20 years old, who have stopped attending Montgomery County Public Schools and for whom high school completion is at risk. The program gives students the opportunity to earn a high school diploma while transitioning to a college campus. Students accumulate high school and college credits simultaneously, earning their high school diploma while progressing toward an associate degree or certificate. Gateway to College students learn how to succeed in an educational setting under the guidance of a caring team of instructors and student support specialists with experience and commitment to at‐risk youth. In their first term, students learn in a cohort (groups of students who take classes

together). The cohort experience builds their academic and personal skills, preparing them for college courses on the comprehensive college campus. In addition to reading, writing, and math, cohort students take a career development class to help focus their academic goals, and a college survival and success class to learn how to take effective notes, study for tests, and juggle school, work, and family life.

Student Services Support— All students have the benefit of a school counselor who monitors student progress in course completion and credit completion. Pupil personnel workers and psychologists provide consultation, support, resources, and direct services to students and their families. When appropriate, these staff members are instrumental in the completion of functional behavioral assessments and behavioral interventions plans. Student services staff members work to ensure a positive and successful school experience for every student.

Data Monitoring—MCPS monitors academic, attendance, and behavioral data to identify students in need of support. In addition to the monitoring done by classroom teachers on a daily basis, the Honors Advanced Placement Identification Tool (HAPIT) is an example of a tool developed by MCPS to examine a variety of data points for each student to determine/verify the appropriateness of course levels. Not only does this tool assist staff members in determining when more rigorous coursework is appropriate, it can also be used to reveal areas of need so that struggling students receive interventions and supports.

Extended Time and Extended Day Programs—These programs provide additional instructional time to students who are struggling with academic performance in order to accelerate students’ mastery of reading, language arts, and mathematics skills.

Alternative Programs—MCPS operates a continuum of intervention services for middle and high school students who are unsuccessful in their home/comprehensive schools.

Level 1 programs are provided in every secondary school. These programs

provide intervention strategies and supports to students in their home schools.

Level 2 programs are available for students who are not successful in their home schools, even with the support of a Level 1 program. These programs provide academic instruction as well as behavioral and social skills instruction. The goal of Level 2 programs is to provide students with the skills needed to successfully return to their home school.

Level 3 programs are available to students in lieu of expulsion.

High School Plus. High School Plus is a program that allows students who have failed a course required for graduation to retake that course for credit in their home school.

Truancy Review Board—The Truancy Review Board is an interagency group that works with students and their families to address truancy.

MCPS Student Withdrawal Interview—During the interview, school staff present instructional interventions and alternatives available to encourage the student to remain in school.

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups.

2008 Drop Out Rate (Percentage) African American 3.88

American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.40 Hispanic 5.77 FARMS 3.99

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 5.31 Special Education 3.17

Males 3.36

While the increase in dropout rates from 2006 to 2007 (0.71 percent) was greater than the increase from 2005 to 2006 (0.24 percent), the increase in dropout rates from 2007 to 2008 (0.15 percent) was less than that from 2006 to 2007 (0.71 percent). This slowing of increase in dropout rates was evident in all racial/ethnic subgroups and for special education students. The subgroups for which there was acceleration in the increase in dropout rates were FARMS and LEP students. For Hispanic students, the increase from 2006 to 2007 was 0.95 percent. From 2007 to 2008 the increase dropped to 0.43 percent. For African American students, the increase from 2006 to 2007 was 0.87 percent. From 2007 to 2008 the increase dropped to 0.30 percent. For White students, the increase from 2006 to 2007 was 0.54 percent. From 2007 to 2008 there was a drop of 0.11 percent. For Asian/Pacific Islander students, the increase from 2006 to 2007 was 0.29 percent. From 2007 to 2008 the increase dropped to 0.10%. The largest increases in dropout rates from 2007 to 2008 are clustered in a number of related subgroups. These subgroups are Hispanic, LEP, and Farms. The increases in dropout rates for these three groups from 2007 to 2008 were 0.43, 4.82, and 0.96 percent respectively. Hispanic students represent the largest subgroup within both LEP and FARMS students. The other area of interrelationship is between Hispanic, African American, and Special Education students. The increases in dropout rates for these three groups from 2007 to 2008 were 0.43, 0.30, and 0.46 percent respectively. However, these increases were less than those for 2006 to 2007.

These data show that continued efforts at drop out prevention targeted at specific student groups are required in order to have a greater impact on reducing the dropout rate.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

The dropout rate in MCPS has been positively impacted by the numerous strategies and programs implemented. The programs listed above in #2 provide a continuum of services that range from programs for all students to targeted programs for identified groups. MCPS will continue to support and enhance these programs in our effort to further reduce the number of students who drop out of school.

I.D.vi Highly Qualified Staff

No Child Left Behind GOAL 3: By 2005–2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.1: The percentage of classes being taught by “highly qualified” teachers, and in the aggregate and in “high poverty” schools. No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parental involvement assistants) who are qualified. Under NCLB, LSSs are required to report the percentages of core academic subject (CAS) classes being taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty schools compared to low‐poverty schools. High poverty schools are defined as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State and low poverty schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. The Act also requires that school systems ensure that economically disadvantaged and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out‐of‐field teachers.

Plans for Reaching the 100% Highly Qualified Teacher Goal

A. Based on the Examination of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teacher Data (Tables 6.1 – 6.3):

1. Describe where progress is evident.

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) continues to increase the percentage of core academic subject classes taught by HQ teachers annually and will continue to strive towards the goal of 100 percent compliance. As of December 1, 2007, 92.5 percent of MCPS core academic classes were being taught by teachers who are designated “highly qualified.” This is an increase from 90.5 percent of the classes taught by highly qualified teachers on December 1, 2006. MSDE has been able to compile more accurate information through the Educator Information System (EIS). Therefore, MCPS has fewer educators with expired certification or missing certificate information. As all remaining documentation is updated, the number of classes taught by HQ teachers will increase. By making principals aware of appropriate CAS assignments, and with the use of the MCPS data warehouse report which reflects each educator’s credentials, MCPS has fewer invalid grade assignments and out‐of‐field (invalid subject certification) assignments.

MCPS continues to decrease the number of conditionally certified teachers each year. Since 2005, the number of NHQ classes taught by conditionally certified teachers has been reduced by 55 percent. However, due to critical shortages in math, science, special education and foreign language conditionally certified staff are often teaching in these fields.

2. Identify practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocation to which you attribute the progress.

a. MCPS provided notification of requirements to all core academic subject teachers in March 2004. As the Maryland State Department of Education informed local school systems of updates or changes to NCLB allowances, this information was posted to teachers through local school system notices via the weekly Bulletin, the Montgomery County Education Association, the MCPS certification Web site, and specific individual notices and memoranda addressing targeted individuals and groups.

b. Workshops were held with special educators and ESOL teachers who are using the High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) rubric to meet requirements. Each audience group was formulated based on the grade level of students being taught, ensuring that relevant information was being provided for elementary, middle, and high school teachers.

c. Reminder notices about the testing option were provided to teachers. In addition, when the new content allowance was adopted in December 2005, teachers were provided with this information. The Office of Human Resources (OHR) Certification Unit also reviewed individual teacher records to determine if this option was suitable for those not yet HQ, thereby increasing the number of HQ designations. Many teachers have taken advantage of the testing and content allowance to become highly qualified.

d. The Office of Organizational Development (OOD) continues to offer an assortment of content/education continuing professional development (CPD) course offerings that are applicable toward the special education and ESOL HOUSSE rubrics.

e. In November 2006, an HQ work group was established to develop a plan/approach to assure that all teachers of core academic subjects become highly qualified. The work group analyzed circumstances of teachers who had not yet met the highly qualified requirements and identified ways to assist them in being designated HQ. The work group also addressed ways to help principals achieve the required goal of 100 percent HQ. Recommendations included the following:

i. training school leaders to support individual teachers by assigning teachers to subjects for which they are HQ. ii. enhancing technology to assist principals and master schedulers making well informed decisions about the assignment of teacher of teachers to core academic subjects. iii. meeting with teachers, principals, schedulers, and resource counselors to

clarify HQ requirements and to fully inform them of the steps needed to ensure that all teachers of CAS are HQ. This includes providing principals with pertinent information related to their specific schools that include a list of teachers who are not yet HQ, but continue to teach CAS. In addition, they are provided with copies of “fact sheets” that relate specifically to elementary, middle, high school, and special schools/alternative programs. iv. increasing partnerships with higher education institutions to expand the candidate pool in critical shortage areas.

f. MCPS continues to offer reimbursement for PRAXIS II content tests and for graduate course work that result in the HQ designation.

g. Conditionally certified teachers who fail to meet certification requirements as defined by MSDE are terminated.

h. Special education staff implemented more inclusion models, which result in shared teaching assignments with a special education teacher and regular educator who is HQ in the CAS.

i. ESOL staff developed strategies to ensure that only ESOL teachers with HQ designations in the appropriate CAS are teaching the CAS.

j. On a yearly basis, after the class membership report results are prepared and submitted to MSDE, the Office of Human Resources staff notifies and reminds each individual core academic subject teacher who is not yet designated HQ. When notified, each teacher is provided with the means by which they can become HQ.

k. A data warehouse report, created to assist the principals in assigning staff to the core academic subject in which they are certified and HQ, was created and is in use on a regular basis. With this information, teachers are being reassigned to appropriate areas wherever possible.

l. Currently, OHR continues to use various strategies to ensure that the number of highly qualified teachers teaching CASs increases yearly. i. Principals are provided data, updated weekly, showing each teacher’s

certification status and HQ designations, which assists them in making informed decisions about teacher assignments.

ii. The certification/highly qualified status of voluntary, involuntary, return‐from‐leave employees is shared with principals who work with OHR for appropriate placements.

iii. Conditionally certified teachers are no longer contracted unless the director of staffing grants approval, and only for critical shortage areas.

iv. Special educators who are not yet HQ are reviewed for compliance and encouraged to complete the necessary coursework or testing to be designated HQ.

v. Educators who are teaching out‐of‐area are informed of the necessary testing or coursework to become HQ.

vi. OHR scheduled targeted recruitment trips to colleges/universities whose graduates have completed programs that meet NCLB HQ requirements.

vii. OHR and OOD have developed and implemented university partnership programs to produce more HQ teachers in critical shortage areas.

3. Describe where challenges are evident

a. Special education teachers are teaching core academic subjects to special education students without the necessary content expertise. Although the special education staff continues to address these issues through inclusion models, this continues to be a concern since special education is a critical shortage area. It is difficult to hire enough special education teachers as well as find those who also have content certification because few special education teachers are dually certified. Therefore, most special education teachers are being expected to add one or more core academic subject areas through testing, content expertise or the HOUSSE rubric. Although the HOUSSE rubric is accommodating to experienced teachers, those newer to the local school system are unlikely to qualify. In addition, because most special education programs include course work related to assessment and strategies for teaching special education students rather than content expertise, it is difficult for special educators to pass content tests or to have already completed enough content course work to qualify under these options. MCPS continues to encourage the college partnerships applicants to obtain certification in both special education and at least one core academic subject.

b. The ESOL department strives to assign ESOL teachers to only those assignments for which the teacher is HQ; however, it may be necessary to assign an ESOL teacher to a subject for which he/she is not highly qualified due to the large ESOL population in MCPS. ESOL has made significant strides in avoiding these non‐HQ assignments.

c. Overall shortage in critical areas often creates the need for teachers to teach one or more core academic subjects out‐of‐field.

i. Due to a shortage of teachers in foreign languages, teachers are assigned to teach a foreign language class for which they are not certified or HQ. A certified and HQ Spanish teacher may be required to teach one or two periods of French, due to a shortage of French teachers. Although this teacher may have the proficiency to teach another language, he or she might not be able to pass the content test for the second language nor would they have the required content credits. However, due to the teacher shortage, principals make these informed decisions based on the Spanish teacher’s language background.

ii. Due to shortage in specific sciences such as physics and chemistry, teachers of one science area are sometimes expected to teach one or two periods of another science area. For example, a certified and HQ biology teacher may be required to teach one or two periods of chemistry, due to a shortage of chemistry teachers. Although this teacher may have the proficiency to teach another science, he or she might not be able to pass the content test for the second science nor have the required content credits. However, due to the teacher shortage in such areas, the principal makes this decision based on the science teacher’s background and with the knowledge that most science teachers

concentrate in one area of science, but often take additional science courses in other areas.

d. Overall teacher shortage in areas such as special education, foreign languages, some sciences, and math often results in the employing of substitute teachers who are not certified teachers. In these cases, the substitute is rarely HQ or certified to teach CAS to our students.

e. Since 2004, when MSDE established expectations for highly qualified (HQ) teachers as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, it continues to be a challenge in MCPS to persuade veteran teachers that they must meet HQ requirements. Of those who have yet to comply, each has received multiple reminders through phone calls, emails, and “paper” notifications. At this time, there are no sanctions for failure to meet HQ requirements.

e. Local school system reporting sometimes conflicts with the MSDE class membership information. Due to the manner in which our school system reports class assignments, changes, and updates, procedures are being established to accommodate these needs. For example, when a student attends a class at a site other than his or her home school, it is difficult to capture this information in the appropriate format. By using data collection, staff has developed a system to handle this discrepancy.

f. MSDE has resolved most of the crosswalk issues addressed by MCPS; however, the district is still unable to capture information related to an assignment in which a teacher could be certified in more than one area to comply. For example, if a teacher is teaching a course in biochemistry, a teacher certified in either chemistry or biology should be able to teach the course. However, MSDE can only apply one core academic subject area to each class.

g. Effective July 1, 2007, the HOUSSE rubric was discontinued/abolished by MSDE for inexperienced educators hired after that date (as mandated by the federal government) for educators hired after that date. In the past, any experienced new employee who qualified for the advanced professional certificate could be designated highly qualified with this option, and many were. This will impact any experienced educator who comes to our county and has not taken tests in the past to become certified in another state. Most secondary teachers will be able to use the content option, which is acceptable to be designated highly qualified, but most experienced elementary and early childhood teachers will be required to take additional testing in Maryland to become highly qualified. MCPS already experiences a shortage of early childhood teachers; therefore, this negatively impacts the highly qualified statistics.

h. Specific criteria that must be satisfied to achieve HQ designation varies from state to state. Therefore, a teacher coming to MCPS from outside the state of Maryland who was designated HQ in that non‐Maryland jurisdiction may or may not be designated HQ by Maryland standards.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were

made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

The Office of Human Resources (OHR) will continue to encourage all teachers not yet designated HQ in the CAS they are teaching to become HQ as soon as possible; however, it is unlikely that we will meet the 100 percent highly qualified designation by July 1, 2009. The largest numbers of teachers not yet HQ are in out‐of‐field assignments and in the fields of special education. OHR will meet with principals about the out‐of‐field assignment and with special education supervisors to identify strategies for class configuration, inclusion models, and other initiatives to support compliance.

During the past three years, the student teacher program was adjusted so that it would yield a more diverse pool of student teachers and graduate interns from approved teacher/intern‐training programs to teach in critical shortage areas. Student teachers are placed in professional development schools. MCPS compensates supervising teachers of student teachers. Criteria have been specified for selecting of supervising teachers. For example, a high school teacher who serves as a supervisor of a student teacher must be certified in the secondary content area taught by the student teacher. These changes have been introduced with the intent of attracting, recruiting, and supporting highly qualified teachers in areas of critical need. OHR and the Office of Organizational Development continue to collaborate in implementing these revised procedures.

MCPS partnerships are used to expand the pool of teacher candidates representing critical fields and to increase the percentage of classes taught by HQ teachers in all schools. During the last two years, terms for participation in existing partnerships were agreed upon to guarantee that future participants will be informed of the HQ requirements and the expectations to meet the requirements prior to entering the partnership program. Candidates who need to pass a test to complete the NCLB HQ requirements will be informed that they are expected to meet the testing requirement before they complete the first year of the two‐year Teachers 2000 partnership program. If a candidate does not pass the test during the first year, he or she will need to take the test again and pass it during the final year. If he or she does not pass the test during either year, they may not be offered a teaching position with MCPS.

Montgomery College and MCPS continues to offer an Alternative Certification for Effective Teachers (ACET) program. This Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program (MAAPP) offers resident teacher certification to a select group of candidates, specializing in the critical shortage areas of mathematics, chemistry, physics, Spanish, French, and technology education. Although MCPS continues to need computer science teachers, the area is no longer allowed because a content test is not offer for this field making it ineligible for inclusion.

B. Based on the Examination of the Equitable Distribution of Highly Qualified Teacher Data (Tables 6.4 – 6.5): 1. Describe where progress is evident.

MCPS is committed to ensuring that there is a high‐quality teacher in every MCPS classroom. The MCPS strategic plan, Our Call to Action, Pursuit of Excellence Goal 4 and Board Policy GAA focus on Creating a Positive Work Environment in a Self‐renewing Organization. As a result of the system commitment to high quality teaching for all students, and on‐going communication between the offices of Human Resources and School Performance and principals, there continues to be little disparity between HQT educators teaching in high versus low poverty schools. In addition, MCPS continues to develop and foster relationships with institutes of higher education though professional development schools (PDS) particularly in highly impacted schools. The additional resources and support provided to schools though the PDS partnership further assists with training, developing, and maintaining high quality teacher in high poverty schools.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which your attribute the progress. Your response must include examples of incentives for voluntary transfers, the provision of professional development, recruitment programs, or other effective strategies that low‐income and minority students are not taught at higher rates that other students by unqualified, out‐of‐field, or inexperienced teachers. What evidence does the school system have that the strategies in place are having the intended effect?

The system commitments emphasize the importance of having structures and processes in place to attract, recruit, hire, mentor, develop, evaluate, recognize, and retain high‐performing teachers. As a result, MCPS in collaboration with the MCEA has developed a career lattice. The goals of the career lattice are to do the following:

• Promote leadership skills among teachers both in the classroom and in the larger community of school, cluster, or district to the benefit of the instructional program.

• Attract and retain high‐performing teachers, especially in high‐need schools. • Promote teacher leadership for measurable educational improvements. • Promote and support collaborative and reflective practices that influence school culture

and student achievement. Within the proposed career lattice structure, lead teachers and lead teacher status can also be a gateway to the selection of certain opportunities in high‐need schools. The Career Lattice Joint Panel shall have the responsibility for approving guidelines for project leadership opportunities. Project leadership opportunities are to be approved and evaluated on an annual basis by the school’s leadership team. In order to involve more lead teachers in school improvement efforts, Project Leadership opportunities are available to lead teachers who have not already assumed the responsibilities of teacher leadership positions. High‐poverty schools are defined as those schools with the highest proportion of students in poverty (as measured by “now or ever in FARMS”). The cut‐off for what constitutes a high‐ poverty school will be determined based on the capacity of the district to support these projects. Lead teachers in a high‐need school can be allocated a designated level of funding to support locally designed school improvement projects. For each lead teacher in a high‐need

school, the school could receive a certain amount of money for projects. The purpose of this funding structure is to provide an incentive for high‐need schools to cultivate, retain, and attract lead teachers.

Supported school improvement projects must be aligned with the school improvement plan. Proposals for projects are developed by the school leadership team, in conjunction with the lead teacher. These project plans will be reviewed by the Career Lattice Joint Panel and the Office of School Performance. The projects will be monitored by the school’s leadership team. In order to take advantage of the enhanced skills and leadership of lead teachers, such school improvement projects should be implemented by lead teachers. However, lead teachers are not required to take on such additional responsibilities.

3. Describe what challenges are evident. Montgomery County Public Schools continues to be challenged by the national shortage of highly qualified special education teachers and related service providers such as speech pathologists. The system has established several partnerships with local colleges and universities to “grow our own” special education teachers. In addition to producing highly qualified staff in critical shortage areas, these partnerships have also increased the diversity of the teaching staff. According to the Office of Human Resources, MCPS experiences the greatest difficulty in staffing self‐contained special education classes, particularly autism, school community‐based classes, severe and profoundly handicapped and severely emotionally disabled. The MCPS Web site posts a list of critical shortage areas so that staff members who are considering working in a critical shortage field can take additional coursework in that field. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. During the spring involuntary transfer season, efforts are made to reduce the number of placements in the most highly impacted schools. C. Based on the Examination of Highly Qualified Teacher Retention Data (Tables 6.6): 1. Describe where progress is evident. For the past seven years, the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has been building a pathway to ensure success for every student. Comprehensive reforms have cultivated an environment where students and staff can thrive, where everyone expects the best—of themselves and each other. The results have been exceptional and solidify MCPS as one of the preeminent school systems in America. Each year newly hired teachers are contacted by the Office of Human Resources and asked to complete a customer feedback survey. Newly hired teachers report that the following factors positively influenced their decision to work in MCPS:

• School system reputation • Starting salary as high or higher than other school districts • Salary scale that provides annual step increases • Salary scale that provides increased pay for credits beyond bachelor of arts

degree

Recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers is influenced by excellent salaries and benefits. Effective July 1, 2007, MCPS and the Montgomery County Education Association negotiated a salary increase over the next three years, which includes 4.8 percent the first year, 5 percent the second year, and 5.3 percent the third year. During this period, teacher salaries will range from $44,200 to $96,528 (FY 2008) to $48,870 to $106,726 (FY 2010). Retention is supported by improved retirement benefits for employees. In May 2006, the Board of Education improved the supplemental benefit multiplier for all MCPS Employees Pension Plan participants from the current two‐tiered formula to a 0.2 percent of average final earning for each year of credited service after July 1, 1998. The net effect of changes is that the retirement benefit for an employee hired after July 1, 1998, who completes a 30‐year career with MCPS will equal 60 percent of average final earnings instead of the 45 percent benefit provided by the old formula. Employees hired prior to July 1, 1998, will see the improved benefit for service from July 1, 1998, forward. Employees are being asked to help support the higher cost of the benefit improvement by paying a higher contribution. By improving the supplemental benefit for pension plan participants, the Board of Education is providing MCPS employees with better overall pension benefits than school system employees elsewhere in the state of Maryland. The better pension benefits will attract and retain highly qualified teachers. A unique partnership with the three employee unions (Montgomery County Education Association, Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel, and SEIU Local 500) makes it possible for the school system to attract and retain a high‐caliber workforce, including highly qualified teachers. Working side by side with school leadership, the unions have played a critical role in developing the school system’s strategic plan and operating budget, as well as designing initiatives to support all staff in their professional development. The school system, as well as individual schools in MCPS, has established partnerships with many business and community organizations. These partnerships with businesses and community organizations provide support for teachers. For example, the Montgomery County Business Roundtable for Education (MCBRE) has played an important role in encouraging involvement by the business community. MCBRE supports the work of MCPS by providing teachers with professional development and links to real‐world applications. MCBRE, with the support of numerous community organizations, sponsors the annual Champions for Children Awards Gala. This event recognizes and honors outstanding educators. National Board Certified teachers exemplify excellence in the teaching profession. Certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is recognition of high levels of knowledge and skills, the ability for self‐reflection, and continuous improvement. During

2007, 74 Montgomery County teachers (out of 229 statewide) earned certification from the National Board, bringing the total number in MCPS to 363 out of 1,056 teachers in Maryland. MCPS provides support in a variety of ways to teachers in the process of becoming National Board Certified. MCPS and MSDE reimburse candidates for the $2,500 assessment fee. MCPS and MSDE contribute equally to a $4,000 yearly salary supplement for each National Board Certified teacher. MCPS has a National Board instructional specialist who provides standards‐based professional development and candidate support sessions as the candidates work through the process of National Board Certification. Two days of professional leave are granted for all candidates to provide time for these teachers to prepare for their certification. NBPTS has recognized the National Board instructional specialists for their work in focusing recruitment on minority teachers, and asked that MCPS apply to become an NBPTS DREAM Team (Direct Recruitment Efforts to Attract Minorities) site. MCPS currently has two NBCTs on the DREAM Team. MCPS boasts 21 university partnerships and more than 50 professional development schools that support staff. By providing opportunities for growth and building skills of teachers we are able to maintain a high‐quality workforce, especially in critical shortage areas. Support through partnerships is one of the factors that teachers indicate as a reason for remaining in MCPS. These university partnerships, along with the many other professional growth opportunities offered by MCPS, provide a sound system of supports for teachers. It is these supports that many teachers attribute to their decisions to come to and stay in MCPS. 2. Describe where challenges are evident. Retaining highly qualified, experienced teachers, particularly in critical fields continues to be a challenge across the State and for MCPS. 3. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. MCPS recognizes teacher quality as a fundamental element of a successful school system. Teacher quality is driven by the system’s ability to retain quality teachers. One of the contributing factors to retention is a comprehensive plan for professional development and support. By aligning the numerous professional growth efforts, MCPS has created a systems approach to the development and support of staff. As a result, teachers have aligned and comprehensive support throughout their tenure in MCPS. Support and professional development programs which lead to higher retention include but are not limited to a professional growth system for teachers, university partnerships, and tuition reimbursement. Professional growth systems, specifically the teacher professional growth system (PGS), serve as the cornerstone of our teacher quality efforts. These professional growth systems provide structures, supports, and processes to ensure that staff has the skills, knowledge, strategies, and beliefs to meet the needs of our diverse student populations. As a result, teachers are given the confidence and support they need to make them feel capable of meeting the needs of

students. The PGS for teachers has numerous components, including staff development teachers, consulting teachers, and skillful teaching course work. • The staff development teacher project places a position in every school that focuses on the

professional development of staff. This position, which is sometimes shared among several individuals at secondary schools, works with the school’s instructional staff to keep teachers informed and involved in effective teaching skills and practices and other efforts to improve student achievement. The staff development teacher (SDT) provides a consistent focus on instructional strategies and objectives for student achievement. Through collaboration and team development, the staff development teacher helps to guide staff in focusing on school needs, using data to improve instruction and establishing a collegial culture in support of high‐quality teaching. They also help teachers create individual professional development plans that link improved teaching to improved student learning.

• The consulting teacher program is an intensive approach to provide support and guidance

to novice and underperforming teachers in order to ensure that they meet standards of performance imbedded in the PGS. Consulting teachers, selected for their skills and ability to work well with other teachers, provide intensive, individualized instructional support and resources to teachers. Support includes the following:

• Observing teachers followed by coaching and support based on the observed needs • Assistance with lesson planning • Co‐teaching or lesson demonstration • Formal feedback on observations

• Research‐based skills for using and analyzing skillful teachers are provided through course work offered to teachers and required of administrators. These courses, based on the work of Research for Better Teaching, Inc, are an essential component of the PGS. Studying Skillful Teaching is a 36‐hour teacher‐level course that examines the knowledge base of teaching. All teachers are encouraged to participate in the course and new teachers are asked to complete the course within five years of their hire date. Through the course, teachers expand their repertoire of instructional strategies, learn skills for peer reflection and analysis, and identify skills and strategies that support effective effort. Administrators, resource teachers, and other staff involved in the evaluation of teachers are required to complete Observing and Analyzing Teaching (OAT) course work. This 39‐hour course provides an overview of the knowledge base of teachers and builds skills in writing and presenting observations.

Tuition reimbursement is also a factor that impacts retention. As part of the agreement between the Board of Education of Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Education Association, teachers are provided tuition reimbursement for courses they complete. The teacher tuition reimbursement program provides reimbursement to unit members, which enables them to continue their professional development and to maintain or increase their skills as education professionals in their employment with Montgomery County Public Schools

and to help them move to the next salary lane. Tuition reimbursement is available to full‐time and part‐time members who complete graduate courses. Reimbursement is for 50 percent of the current cost of in‐state tuition at the University of Maryland, College Park, up to a maximum of nine hours credit per fiscal year for graduate courses not currently offered by the in‐service program. Last year, MCPS reimbursed approximately $1.8 million to teachers. D. Describe how the school system identifies hard‐to‐staff schools and critical subject areas.

Critical subject areas are determined annually by MSDE. MCPS uses staffing projection and hiring trend data to further drill down to identify the most critical subject areas. MCPS utilizes strategies identified in B. 1 to address the equitable distribution of Highly Qualified teachers, however, MCPS does not have identified “hard‐to‐staff” schools.

Areas Most Difficult to Fill FY 2008–2009 School Year

HIGHEST NEED

Speech Pathologist

Special Education *Autism *Learning Disabled *School Community Based *Secondary Special Education *Seriously Emotionally Disturbed *Severely & Profoundly Disabled *Transition

Chemistry

Computer Science

Early Childhood Education

Foreign Language *Spanish *French

French/Spanish/Chinese Immersion (Elementary)

Mathematics

Media Specialist

Occupational Therapist

Physical Therapist

Physics

Reading Specialist (Elementary and Middle School)

Technology Education

SECOND HIGHEST NEED

Family and Consumer Sciences

Music, General

THIRD HIGHEST NEED

Physical Education/Health

School Psychologist

Vision

E. Based on the Examination of Qualified Paraprofessional Data (Table 6.7):

1. Describe the strategies that the local school system will use to ensure that all paraprofessionals working in Title I schools continue to be qualified.

New candidates or current employees who are applying for positions at Title I schools must meet the NCLB requirements. As Title I schools are identified, data is collected on existing paraeducators in those designated schools. Those who are not in compliance with NCLB will be moved to a non‐Title I location the following school year.

I.D. vi High Quality Professional Development

NCLB Goal 3: By 2005‐2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers; Indicator 3.2 The percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development (as defined in Section 9101(34) of ESEA and the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards). For purposes of this update, a professional development initiative is defined as a set of integrated professional development activities that (1) extend over a relatively long period of time, (2) include direct follow up in schools or classrooms, (3) provide opportunities for practice and feedback, and (4) require a substantial investment of resources. Consulting Teacher Team A discussion of the need for the initiative based on a review of student data and teacher needs: Because teacher performance is one of the most significant factors in student learning, the Consulting Teacher Team addresses student performance in all grade levels and subject areas by supporting novice and identified underperforming teachers in meeting the school system’s six teacher evaluation performance standards. By supporting the teachers in meeting standard and by documenting these teachers’ performance to inform the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Panel’s recommendations regarding continued employment, the Consulting Teacher Team helps ensure students receive high‐quality instruction in all classes. Description of which teachers will be targeted for participation in the initiative: Novice teachers and teachers identified as underperforming through evaluations by school‐based administrators receive consulting teacher (CT) support within the PAR Program. During the 2007–2008 school year, 603 teachers were included in the Consulting Teacher Team’s caseload for support. Based upon hiring projections and professional growth system data, 383 teachers are expected to receive program support in 2008‐2009.

Specification of the intended learning outcomes and related indicators: The Consulting Teacher Team’s primary goal is to help each teacher meet standard in order to increase student learning by ensuring a highly effective teacher in every classroom. When a teacher is unable to meet standard, the team’s work informs decisions regarding continuation of Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program support or removal of the teacher from the classroom. As a result, the team works to ensure that students receive effective instruction that reflects the system’s teacher performance standards, approved MCPS curriculum, and the pedagogical philosophy of Saphier and Gower’s The Skillful Teacher. Description of the planned professional learning activities, including follow‐up, the role of principals and other leaders, and the relationship to other professional development: The Consulting Teacher Team’s work conforms to the established processes for the PAR Program, as described in the Teacher‐Level Professional Growth System Handbook. The CTs provided differentiated support to the teachers on their caseload, including such activities as formal and informal classroom observations with feedback, development and implementation

of structured growth plans, planning assistance, peer visits with reflection, planning and co‐teaching of individual lessons, review of student performance data, and facilitation of evening workshops on best practices. In addition, the CTs provide data on the teachers’ performance to inform recommendations by the PAR Panel regarding release from the program, continuation of support for an additional year, or termination of employment. Principals and other school‐based staff collaborate with the CTs supporting teachers in their building to ensure support matches individual teachers’ needs. Principals review all formal documentation by the CT and convey to the PAR Panel their agreement with the CT’s final recommendation of whether a teacher meets standard.

Plan for evaluating the initiative to determine whether the activities took place as planned and whether the intended outcomes were achieved: Data regarding teachers’ success in meeting standard, as reflected by the PAR Panel recommendations and case outcomes will continue to be reviewed by the Teacher Professional Growth System Implementation Team. In addition, all client‐teachers and their principals are surveyed regarding Consulting Teacher support twice per school year; this data is reviewed by members of the PAR Panel and the co‐Leads of the Consulting Teacher Team. The aggregate survey data is shared with the Teacher Professional Growth System Implementation Team.

Budget For the 2007–2008 school year, there were 36 full‐time consulting teachers (CTs), including 2 co‐Leads who coordinate the work of the team, and one full‐time administrative secretary. For 2008–2009, 28 CTs have been approved. Each CT receives the same salary he or she would receive in a 10‐month classroom position, plus an additional stipend of $4,425 and an additional 160 hours during the summer paid at the individual’s hourly rate. Also, the CTs receive mileage reimbursement. In addition, this team receives funds for materials and supplies of approximately $20,000 to provide specific support for their clients as appropriate. Each CT is provided with a laptop computer and cubicle space in the Office of Organizational Development at the Upcounty Regional Services Center.

I.D.vii Safe Schools

No Child Left Behind Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug‐free, and conducive to learning. No Child Left Behind Indicator 4.1: The number of persistently dangerous schools, as defined by the state. NCLB requires states to identify persistently dangerous schools. In Maryland, a “persistently dangerous” school means a school in which each year for a period of three consecutive school years the total number of student suspensions for more than 10 days or expulsions equals two and one‐half percent (2½%) or more of the total number of students enrolled in the school, for any of the following offenses: arson or fire; drugs; explosives; firearms; other guns; other weapons; physical attack on a student; physical attack on a school system employee or other adult; and sexual assault. Schools are placed into “persistently dangerous” status in a given school year based on their suspension data in the prior year. Note: Information associated with Safe Schools is also included in Part II, Additional Federal and State Reporting Requirements and Attachment 11: Title IV Part A, Safe and Drug‐Free Schools and Communities.

A. Based on the Examination of Persistently Dangerous Schools Data (Table 7.1 – 7.3): • Where first‐time schools are identified, what steps are being taken by the school system to reverse

this trend and prevent the identified school(s) from moving into probationary status?

No first‐time schools are identified. Montgomery County Public Schools has no schools that meet the criteria for Persistently Dangerous Schools.

B. Based on the Examination of Suspension and Expulsion Data (Tables 7.4 and 7.5): • Identify the actions implemented by the local school system to prevent/reduce incidents of sexual

harassment, harassment, and bullying. Individual schools continue to have primary responsibility for creating a positive learning environment. Action coordinated by central services to support schools included the following:

a. Executed a communication plan for the school community and the school system staff members on implementation of the Safe Schools Act.

b. Implemented the Positive Behavior Intervention System (PBIS). c. Included strategies to recognize and address sexual harassment in the new counselor training. d. Provided counselors with in‐service training on issues related to bullying. e. Facilitated assistance from The Conflict Resolution Center to selected schools on peer mediation and

community conferencing. f. Maintained a countywide bullying resources page to assist communities and schools.

(www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org /info/bullying/)

C. Based on an Examination of In‐ and Out‐of‐School Suspensions Data (Tables 7.6 – 7.8): • Identify the system‐wide strategies that are being used to prevent/reduce suspensions. If

applicable, include the strategies that are being used to address the disproportionate suspensions among the race/ethnicity subgroups.

Staff members from Montgomery County Public Schools continue to monitor and analyze data on suspensions and practices at schools that have been successful in preventing and reducing suspensions. These practices include:

• Monthly monitoring and analysis of in‐school and out‐of‐school suspensions data. • Use of data analysis to identify and share preventive strategies. • Use of data analysis to identify preventive strategies • Identifying alternatives to out‐of‐school suspensions appropriate to elementary, middle, and high school

students. • Use of Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPS) for students who

are considered at‐risk for suspension because of patterns of behavior that may lead to suspension. • Equity targets and action plans for reducing suspensions that are integrated into school improvement

plans and monitored at the central office level. • Parents and community stakeholders that are engaged to create partnerships and establish shared

ownership for student success. • Comprehensive professional development focusing on building positive relationships with students. • Revised administrative decision‐making process.

D. Based on the Examination of Progress Toward Establishing and Maintaining a Safe Learning

Environment:

1. Describe the progress that the school system has made toward establishing and maintaining safe learning environments.

Montgomery County Public Schools has no schools that meet the criteria for Persistently Dangerous Schools.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress.

Not applicable—see above.

3. Describe the challenges that exist and the school system’s plans for overcoming those challenges along with corresponding resource allocations.


4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the related resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.


I. E Addressing Specific Student Groups Career and Technology Education

1. Describe the school system’s progress on the implementation and expansion of Career

and Technology Education (CTE) Programs of Study within Career Clusters as a strategy to prepare more students who graduate ready for entry into college and careers.

The mission of the MCPS Division of CTE is to “build a competitive and inspired future workforce.” Efforts are continuing in MCPS to increase the academic rigor of the 38 Career Pathway Programs (CPPs) that are organized within the 11 MCPS Career Clusters. CPPs and inquiry‐based curricula are designed to include not only rigor, but relevance and relationships as well. Students learn difficult academic content more easily as they apply their knowledge and skills to solving problems in project management teams. CPPs are continuously monitored and updated to ensure that students have seamless transitions to postsecondary education and careers. Staff members from the MCPS Division of CTE continue to focus on increasing the number of exemplary 2+2+2 programs that are specifically designed to encourage students to be prepared for both college and careers. Opportunities for students to obtain certifications that prepare them for employment or advanced placement in postsecondary institutions are a major focus of instruction. Research indicates that when students are ensured access to rigorous and relevant CPPs, the likelihood of future success improves, providing more and better options for all students to be successful. To help students progress in the world of work, MCPS pairs members from each of the 11 Career Cluster Advisory Boards with students who are completing their internship and mentoring experiences. These relationships encourage students to prepare for their futures, while enhancing their capacities to understand the requirements of their chosen career fields.

2. What strategies are in place to ensure access to CTE programs and success for every

student in CTE Program of Study, including students who are members of special populations?

To support progress toward success for every student, CTE staff studied strategic plans in several systems and reviewed past performance in MCPS. Two instructional goals resulted from this extensive strategic planning process focusing on achievement for all MCPS students.

By 2014: • Thirty percent of all MCPS graduates will complete a CPP. • Eighty percent of all CPP graduates will be prepared for college and careers.

To address the instructional goals, CTE staff and multiple stakeholders developed, implemented, and are monitoring the following two primary strategies.

• Redesign CPPs based on national models that are aligned with college and workplace readiness requirements. This strategy involves using the best practices and elements of research‐based national models to redesign MCPS CPPs. This redesign process includes related state and national credentials that prepare students for college and careers. In addition, coursework is being updated in middle school to ensure the seamless transition from middle to high school and from high school to college and careers. Program design is focused on value‐added components such as students interacting directly with business partners, completing a capstone experience, and earning college credit and industry/professional credentials while still in high school.

. • Dispel the “Vo‐Tech Myth”—Communicate How CPPs Benefit Students. This

strategy focuses on communicating and marketing the successes, benefits, and value‐added components of all career clusters and CPPs. Rebranding from the old CTE to the new CPP provides a way to demonstrate that instruction focuses on relevant 21st Century pathways for all students. Many parents still believe that career‐related programs are not rigorous and are not focused on preparing all students for college and careers. Outreach to the community regarding specific, value‐added benefits related to CPPs will dispel antiquated perceptions of CTE. Emphasis is placed on improving communication to middle school students, parents/guardians, and staff about the CPP opportunities available in high school and the related high‐wage, high‐demand college and career experiences available beyond secondary school.

Addressing Specific Student Groups Early Learning (continued)

Based on the Examination of the Performance Data:

1. Describe the school system’s plans for ensuring the progress of students who begin kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the Maryland Model for School Readiness Work Sampling system.

At both the prekindergarten and kindergarten levels, MCPS utilizes the MCPS Assessment Program (MCPS AP), a local assessment, to benchmark and monitor student progress in literacy and mathematics. MCPS AP Prekindergarten Reading and Mathematics is administered three times annually, in addition to the Early Childhood Observation Record. All kindergarten teachers participate in professional development prior to the administration procedures. The kindergarten assessment has a progress monitoring component that allows teachers to assess student performance between assessment windows to ensure targeted instruction. The MCPS AP Mathematics Kindergarten Performance Assessments are administered at the completion of each mathematics unit. Data gathered through these assessments is used to develop and implement an instructional program of both whole‐group and small‐group lessons to meet the specific needs of those students who enter kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness, as well as for all other kindergarten students. In addition, schools may choose to refer a child to the school’s Educational Management Team if the teacher feels that the child’s readiness profile may be impacted by a suspected disability and/or poor progress. Furthermore, school‐based technical and instructional support is provided to prekindergarten, Head Start, and kindergarten teachers by reading specialists, math content coaches, ESOL teachers, special education teachers, staff development teachers, and early childhood instructional specialists. These additional school system supports assist teachers in meeting the needs of those identified as not fully ready for kindergarten. Further, training on the revised protocols of the Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR) will be provided for all new kindergarten teachers and kindergarten team leader representatives from each school, as well as all preschool special education teachers and related staff that are responsible for entry data collection, using the preschool version of the MMSR, Work Sampling System.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to address those challenges,

along with the corresponding resource allocations. Include timelines where appropriate.

MCPS continues to provide a 10‐month prekindergarten/Head Start half‐day, high‐quality educational program for 2,293 children highly impacted by poverty, mobility, and limited English proficiency. This locally‐ and federally‐funded program reflects a diverse student population and includes a full complement of family support services. This program is

designed to help the most highly impacted children who traditionally may not have other learning opportunities. In FY 2008, full‐day Head Start programs were implemented in 13 classes at 10 Title I schools, serving 260 students. MCPS anticipates that providing students with a full‐day program that increases the time, intensity, and frequency of educational services will result in significant increases in the school‐readiness profiles. Participating students are highly impacted, with household income levels at or below the federal poverty level. MCPS implements a comprehensive prekindergarten and Head Start recruitment and registration plan to ensure educational services are provided to all eligible children. The recruitment and registration efforts are advertised on radio and television, and included in community outreach efforts with social service agencies, community forums, organizations, and ethnic communities. MCPS schedules prekindergarten/Head Start registrations during evenings and on Saturdays to accommodate the schedules of working parents. This current year, 30 percent of all children were not fully ready according to the composite readiness profile. Literacy and mathematics activity nights are scheduled throughout the school year for parents and children. At these events, parents learn ways they can support and enhance their children’s skills in these domains. Parents also receive materials to use at home with their children. Both domains, Language and Literacy and Mathematical Thinking, continue to show increases over the past two years—Literacy from 49 percent fully ready in 2005 to 61 percent fully ready in 2008, and mathematics from 59 percent fully ready in 2005 to 65 percent fully ready in 2008. MCPS Early Learning documents for parents, such as Getting Ready for Kindergarten, Parent Tips, and the Kindergarten Parent Handbook are translated in multiple languages and disseminated throughout the school year. These languages include English, Vietnamese, Amharic, Spanish, French, Korean, and Chinese to ensure that all parents have access to vital information to support their children’s learning and preparation for kindergarten. Existing and expanding community partnerships continue to increase provision of comprehensive early childhood services to highly impacted families with children from birth through age three at the Gaithersburg and Silver Spring Judy Centers. Targeted services include weekly play and learn literacy‐based and parent‐child activity sessions. Both provide developmental screenings clinics for infants and toddlers, as well as multiple series of literacy learning parties for parents and child care providers. Judy Center educators also help families with 4‐year‐old children access full‐year prekindergarten and/or MSDE accredited child care programs. Training also is provided for parents and child care providers in all MMSR domains. Training will continue to help ensure that providers are implementing a program that is aligned with MSDE standards and will support children’s development in all domains. Readiness data from the Judy Centers shows that these interventions are having a positive impact on the MMSR scores of Judy Center participants.

MCPS collaboration with community child care providers will continue to ensure that highly impacted children attending child care programs have access to a high‐quality curriculum that is aligned with the Voluntary State Curriculum. Participating child care providers attend MCPS training that supports implementation of the MCPS Prekindergarten Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics curriculum and resource materials. We anticipate that this will support gains in the language and literacy, and mathematical thinking domains on the MMSR. Additional child care providers are guided by MCPS staff through the MSDE accreditation/revalidation process. Providing more children with access to high‐quality child care programs that are aligned with the MMSR domains should have a positive impact on the overall readiness profiles of incoming MCPS kindergarten students. We have seen an increase in the composite readiness scores of our students since we have implemented these supports and anticipate further increases.

MCPS participated in the Leadership in Action Process, sponsored by the Montgomery County Collaboration Council for Children, Youth and Families and funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. As part of this process, MCPS collaborated with other county agencies, both public and private, to strengthen programs and resources to support young children’s development in all domains. As part of this group, the county’s Early Childhood Countywide Strategic Plan will be updated to reflect the most current activities and resources available to children and families and to ensure that future planning and efforts are aligned. The goal of this action‐oriented group is that “All of Montgomery County Children Will Enter School Ready to Learn.” The first Montgomery County Early Care and Education Congress was held on April 18, 2008, to gather community input on a developing action agenda that supports school readiness goals for Montgomery County’s children. The next session of the Congress is scheduled for October 14, 2008.

I.F.

Addressing Specific Student Groups Gifted and Talented Programs

1. Describe the progress that was made in 2007‐2008 toward meeting Gifted and Talented

Program goals, objectives, and strategies for student identification and services.

The MCPS strategic plan, Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence, includes a key goal critical for accelerating the achievement of gifted and talented students, Goal 2 Provide an Effective Instructional Program. In Goal 2, the milestone related to gifted and talented students is “All schools will increase enrollment and performance of all students in gifted, Honors, Advanced Placement, and other advanced programs.” Data points to measure the success of this milestone include the number of students identified as gifted and talented, the number of students enrolled in above‐grade‐level mathematics in Grade 5, the number of students enrolled in Honors and AP courses, and student performance in Honors and AP courses. In addition, MCPS has developed a strategic plan for the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction to address the challenges identified by system priorities as well as priorities identified in the recent report of the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on Gifted and Talented Education (DSAC). The plan includes the following four goals:

• Strengthen Accountability Measures • Improve and Expand Programs • Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data • Provide all Students with Equal Access to GT Programs and Services

While MCPS begins identifying students who can work at advanced levels as early as kindergarten, a screening of every child in Grade 2 and the opportunity for rescreening and screening new students in Grades 3–5 allows the system to—

• Recognize those students whose performance, motivation, or potential ability indicate the need for accelerated and enriched instruction.

• Match student strengths with instruction and programs that will support and extend these strengths.

The global screening process is conducted by local elementary schools with support and review from central office staff. The process consists of collecting multiple points of data on every student, review of the data by the school Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Committee, planning for instruction for each child, and a decision regarding identification.

Students who show potential but are not identified as “gifted and talented” may also receive accelerated and enriched instruction. A total of 3,688 Grade 2 students (39.4%) were identified as gifted and talented in 2006–2007, compared with 3,866 (39.5%) in 2005–2006. Analysis of the data disaggregated by student race and ethnicity shows that in 2006–2007 African American and Hispanic students continue to be underrepresented. While African American students represent 22.5% of all students screened, they account for 12.7% of students identified in 2006–2007, a decrease from 13.1% in 2005–2006. While Hispanic students represent 21.1% of all students screened, they represent 11.9% of students identified, an increase from 11.4% in 2005–2006. Middle schools use the elementary GT identification to help plan for instruction. In addition, students are re‐assessed locally for appropriate placement in challenging courses. At the beginning of the second semester in 2007–2008, students in one or more GT courses in middle school represent about 60.3% of the Grade 6 student population. In Grade 8, about 76.7% of students are enrolled in 1 or more GT course. In high schools, student profiles are reviewed for placement in Honors, International Baccalaureate (IB), or Advanced Placement (AP) courses by each school. MCPS also has created a data tool to search for students who may have potential but are not enrolled in courses that challenge them. A total of 5,820 students—60.0% of the class of 2007— took one or more AP exams, with 4,465 or 46.0% earning a score of 3 or better. In 2007‐2008 MCPS continued to make progress towards system Strategic Plan goals regarding the Gifted and Talented program services outlined in the response to Question 2 of section I.F. of the Master Plan. Specifically progress was made in the following areas using a number of strategies:

• Staff from the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) worked with community superintendents in the Office of School Performance (OSP) to monitor annual data points for accelerated and enriched instruction implementation, report individual school progress regarding provision of GT services, and to provide direct support to schools. The monitoring process is reviewed twice a year to provide timely data to OSP and schools, as well as targeted support.

• AEI began collecting stakeholder feedback in preparation for MCPS BOE review of Policy IOA Gifted and Talented Education.

• AEI staff supported development of the AEI Literacy Coach and the AEI Math Content Coach and Middle School Reform professional development sessions to establish expectations for schools on delivery of rigorous, advanced level instruction.

• AEI staff provided individual school support, consultation, and direct professional development on content and strategies that support advanced level instruction to 149 schools.

• System‐wide professional development was provided in rigorous course preparation for Middle School Reform, the William and Mary Reading/Language Arts program, Junior Great Books, Jacob’s Ladder, and continuing education courses RD40: Strategies for

Advanced Level Reading Language Arts Instruction and MA 68: Strategies for Advanced Level Mathematics Instruction.

• AEI developed a partnership with Towson University to offer a Master’s concentration in Gifted and Talented instruction. A cohort of MCPS teachers began the program in the fall of 2008.

• Office of Curriculum and Instructional Program (OCIP) staff worked with school principals to establish the Junior Great Books reading language arts program and the William and Mary Reading Language Arts program as a requirement as an additional expectation for students who have the ability, potential, or motivation to work at advanced levels in all elementary schools.

• The third unit of the Highly Gifted Centers integrated curriculum was piloted in eight centers and Unit One was piloted at a non‐Center elementary school and at the GT/LD Centers.

• The GT/LD WINGS Mentor Program supported GT/LD students at risk of failure by providing one‐to‐one support.

• The Center Program for the Highly Gifted opened Grade 5 at Oak View elementary this year, expanding the Blair, Einstein, Kennedy, and Northwood cluster Center an additional 25 seats.

• Local funds were allocated in the FY 09 budget to continue implementation of the successful Middle School Magnet Consortium after the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant ended.

• Preparations began to expand the advanced courses from the Middle School Magnet Consortium to schools participating in Phase I and Phase II of Middle School Reform as well as three other schools.

• The whole‐school magnet programs at Poolesville High School, including an expansion of the Montgomery Blair Science, Mathematics, and Computer Science Magnet Program and a new Humanities magnet program were expanded to Grade 10, with completion of the four‐year sequence projected for 2010.

• International Baccalaureate programs were expanded to John F. Kennedy and Seneca Valley high schools. The applications process and professional development were begun in preparation for hosting the Diploma Programs. If approved MCPS will host a total of eight Diploma Programs.

• Staff completed the final application and site visits for the Francis Scott Key Middle School/Springbrook High School Middle Years Program. Upon authorization, MCPS will have expanded the number of MYP programs to five middle schools and two high schools.

• MCPS expanded partnerships with higher education institutions to provide students with university courses and experiences while still in high school. 22 of 25 high schools now have college or university partnerships.

• Staff streamlined application processes, increased parental outreach, and maintained program development for secondary magnets, including developing, collecting and analyzing parent impressions of the programs through a survey.

• The Department of Shared Accountability conducted an analysis of the Grade 2 gifted identification process and published a report of the process, including recommendations for improving the process, the development of primary talent development, and communication to parents.

• The Office of School Performance conducted several action‐research reviews of acceleration in elementary mathematics and Advanced Placement participation and performance through the M‐STAT process.

• OCIP, including AEI staff, developed Grade 5 Literacy Benchmark, including an advanced level assessment. Preparations were made to pilot these new data points with 32 elementary schools in the 2008‐2009 school year.

• OCIP developed a Kindergarten Integrated Curriculum with a Primary Talent Development component for implementation in 2009‐2010. Work in 2008‐2009 will focus on pilot testing aspects of the curriculum and developing the online curriculum delivery model.

• AEI developed and delivered a new annual data report to all schools indicating students identified as GT/LD.

• AEI partnered with the Division of Family and Community Partnerships to help parents navigate the multiple acceleration and enrichment opportunities at local schools and throughout MCPS.

• A .5 bilingual parental outreach specialist staff helped raise parent awareness of programs for the highly gifted, specifically targeting traditionally underserved populations.

• Multiple information sessions, with translators on site, and two application workshops for were hosted for parents interested in special programs.

• MCPS published Options, an introductory guide to special programs on the MCPS web site. Approximately 60,000 copies will be mailed to parents of students in Grades K, 3, 5, and 8 in school year 2008‐2009.

• AEI staff met with all principals in quad‐clusters meetings to inform them of changes in application procedures and to share results of the Grade 2 identification process.

2. Identify the strategies, including resource allocations that appear related to the progress.

Include supporting data as needed.

MCPS offers a continuum of programs and services, including accelerated and enriched instruction at every school and center and magnet programs for the highly gifted and GT/LD students. At the elementary level, students are served primarily through opportunities for accelerated and enriched instruction in the MCPS curriculum. In the MCPS mathematics and reading/language arts programs, students can access work one to several years above grade level. Enrichment opportunities are included in programs during the school day such as William and Mary, Junior Great Books, and through after‐school enrichment such as Destination Imagination. Several specialty programs serve a limited number of students such as the early recognition of potential, the Program for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI) in 16 schools, the .5 GT Title I program in 22 schools, the Wings Mentor Program for GT/LD students, three GT/LD centers, the Takoma Park Primary Magnet, the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme, and seven centers for the highly gifted.

At the middle school level, students are encouraged to enroll in above grade‐level mathematics courses and GT courses or cluster groups in English, science, and social studies. Additionally, students may enroll in high school level foreign language courses, also

considered advanced level courses. The curriculum for GT courses includes appropriate adaptations for accelerated and enriched learning for pursuing in‐depth studies that require abstract and higher‐order thinking skills. GT courses provide expectations and opportunities for students to work independently at an accelerated pace, to engage in more rigorous and complex content and processes, and to develop authentic products that reflect students' understanding of key concepts. Students who are highly capable and potentially high‐achieving students who are motivated to pursue rigorous, challenging instruction may enroll in GT courses.

Special programs for the middle school level include three centers for GT/LD students, centers for the highly gifted in humanities and mathematics, science, and computer science, the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme, and student choice magnets in technology, aerospace, and the creative and performing arts. Students at every level in MCPS high school may choose from a broad range of core and elective courses at the Honors and AP levels. Special programs are focused on serving students at two GT/LD centers, three application programs for the highly gifted, six International Baccalaureate programs, and a Visual Arts Center. Students may also choose from a variety of local and regional signature and academy programs.

As indicated in the list for question #1, MCPS employed a number of strategies to continue progress

towards system Strategic Plan goals regarding Gifted and Talented program services. The most frequently used strategies were system‐wide professional development, project management and expansion of initiatives, clarification of instructional expectations, communication with stakeholders, and direct support to schools in the form of consultation, curriculum planning, and professional development.

For FY 2009 MCPS allocated a budget of $1,884,669 to the Division of Accelerated and Enriched

Instruction to help meet system goals in this area. This does not include the resources dedicated in other offices, special programs housed at schools, or school programs focused on accelerated and enriched instruction.

3. Describe where challenges are evident in meeting Gifted and Talented Program goals, objectives, and strategies. MCPS continues its work to achieve the goals of the strategic plan, Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence, and specifically the goal critical for accelerating the achievement of gifted and talented students, Goal 2 Provide an Effective Instructional Program. The challenges for meeting these goals are articulated in the strategic plan for the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Programs, along with the following 18 strategies to address the challenges:

I. Strengthen Accountability Measures

A. Improve GT policy monitoring through alignment with the efforts of Office of School Performance to monitor schools.

B. Work with the Office of School Performance to develop key school data to publish regarding GT implementation, such as participation in professional development and number of students in advanced courses.

C. Develop performance criteria to evaluate key school‐based staff responsible for service delivery.

II. Improve and Expand Programs

A. Review the Global Screening process to focus on levels of service provided to students. B. Develop clear guidelines to differentiated levels of service in reading/language

arts/English, mathematics, science, and social studies. C. Refocus Title I, PADI, and Wings Mentor program into a primary talent development

initiative serving a maximum number of schools in need. D. Complete, implement, and disseminate highly gifted center curriculum. E. Complete and implement the Middle School Magnet Consortium programs curriculum. F. Develop a whole‐school magnet model for the Poolesville High School magnet

programs. G. Review middle school humanities and math/science programs and make

recommendations for improvement. H. Develop a strategic plan for expansion and implementation of IB programs.

III. Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data

A. Integrate data collected regarding accelerated and enriched instruction into individual student profiles provided in student data systems.

B. Include data on student accelerated and enriched instruction in parent‐reporting methods.

IV. Provide all Students with Equal Access to GT Programs and Services

A. Review instructional practices and articulation procedures to ensure that institutional barriers to access are identified and removed at all levels.

B. Review impact of Title I .5 position and report recommendations. C. Review access for GT/LD students through a program review. D. Develop consistent methods for parent outreach to ensure that all families are

knowledgeable about accelerated and enriched programs. E. Review the application procedures for all test‐in programs to ensure equitable access.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the corresponding


Progress continues on meeting the MCPS goal of providing an effective instructional program for all students, and in particular for students requiring acceleration and enrichment. Many measures in the MCPS strategic plan are being put into effect and funding is being provided to support implementation. The effort to strengthen accountability measures continues through collaboration with the Office of School Performance. Meetings for FY 2009 with community superintendents to discuss key data points related to GT implementation will occur on a regular basis. Based on

analysis of data, schools in particular need of professional development and support in providing effective accelerated and enriched programming will be identified and support provided. The Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction will support evaluation of effective implementation of advanced‐level programming in identified schools using previously created performance criteria. Additional K–12 benchmarks for reading language arts will be identified that will allow schools to monitor progress, similar to the current mathematics structure. Program expansion and improvement efforts include a continuation of the work to review, in collaboration with the Board of Education Policy Committee, the global screening process, as articulated in Policy IAO: Gifted and Talented Education, to focus on identifying advanced level services provided to students. Recommendations from the Deputy Superintendent’s Committee studying disproportionality will provide additional guidance in this effort. Primary talent development opportunities are being embedded in the new integrated digital kindergarten curriculum and staff members from the highly gifted centers are receiving professional development to accompany the newly created curriculum for students at the centers. Feedback from the teachers will result in further refinement of the curriculum. The whole school magnet at Poolesville High School continues to expand the course offerings, allowing the school to challenge both the students who applied and were selected countywide for advanced‐ programming opportunities and all students who normally attend this school. Two additional high schools will apply to institute International Baccalaureate programs in 2008–2009. As a part of the Middle School Reform initiative, MCPS is building on the success of the whole school magnet programs at three MCPS middle schools: Argyle, A. Mario Loiederman, and Parkland. The availability of highly engaging advanced‐level courses previously offered only to the three magnet consortium schools will be extended to additional middle schools, allowing students in more schools access to even more rigorous coursework, some of which will offer high school credit. Funding is included to expand this initiative to 18 schools in 2008–2009. In addition, the Board of Education assumed funding of the highly successful MSMC as the federal grant ended on July 30, 2008. A review of middle school humanities and math/science courses will continue, with teachers from the various sites collaborating to develop or refine curriculum documents. The recent hiring of an instructional specialist with enable the development of a strategic plan for expansion and implementation of IB programs to occur. Work to implement systematic collection and analysis of data continues in collaboration with the Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Data collected regarding accelerated and enriched instruction are now integrated into individual student profiles provided in student data systems at all grade levels. MCPS is working to make the data more easily accessible for teachers and administrators and available to parents.

An important challenge that remains is that of providing all students with equal access to GT programs and services. MCPS is working to build the capacity of staff to establish culturally sensitive learning environments and to develop culturally sensitive instruction. An outcome of the Middle School Reform initiative is that common articulation procedures be established to ensure that institutional barriers to access rigorous instruction are identified and removed at all levels. The Division of Family and Community Partnerships is collaborating with the Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs to develop consistent methods for parent outreach to ensure that all families are knowledgeable about accelerated and enriched programs. On‐going review of the application procedures for all test‐in programs to ensure equitable access continues. The Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction supports the Program for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI) in 16 elementary schools to identify and nurture the talents and skills of traditionally underrepresented populations. The division also supports the professional development of elementary GT Title 1 teachers in 22 schools and middle school Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Support Teachers who work to provide access to accelerated and enriched instruction in their schools to all students. Central office support is provided through the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, including systemwide instructional specialists, administrators, and additional staffing allocations to schools with special programs. Funding support also includes additional materials, textbooks, and professional development.

MCPS allocated additional funds to support the following initiatives in FY 2009:

• The Middle School Magnet Consortium, $1,222,934 • Expansion of Advanced Courses from MSMC to Other Middle Schools, $744,871 • Expansion of International Baccalaureate Programs, $79,310 • Expansion of the Poolesville Magnet Programs, $120,960

I.E. Addressing Specific Student Groups, Special Education

Improving the Academic Performance of Students with Disabilities Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) continues to make progress helping students with disabilities become proficient in reading as evidenced by the increase in the percentage of these students meeting proficiency levels in each grade level of the Maryland School Assessment (MSA). The system continues to explore and implement initiatives that ensure academic achievement of students with disabilities in reading. Expanding the implementation of research‐based reading interventions; hours‐based staffing; and Middle School Reform continues to improve student achievement in reading. The Department of Special Education Services (DSES) and the Department of Special Education Operations (DSEO) are committed to expanding and supporting the implementation of research‐based reading interventions that compliment the curriculum and address students’ needs by purchasing materials, providing professional development, coaching school‐based staff, and monitoring student progress. MCPS has implemented and provides ongoing, job‐embedded support for the following interventions:

• Read Well at nine elementary schools. Read Well targets phonemic awareness and phonics instruction using systematic and explicit instruction for nonfluent readers in Grades 1–3.

• Horizons at 20 elementary schools. Horizons is a direct instruction reading intervention to develop phonemic awareness, decoding skills, advanced word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, and basic comprehension strategies for struggling readers in Grades K–3.

• Corrective Reading at 24 elementary schools, 30 middle schools, and five high schools. Corrective Reading is a direct instruction intervention to improve decoding skills for struggling readers in Grade 4 through age 21.

• Read Naturally at three elementary schools, 15 middle schools, and four high schools. Read Naturally improves reading fluency for struggling readers. The program includes modeled reading of passages, repeated student readings, and progress monitoring of fluency and comprehension.

• Lexia—Reading Strategies for Older Students at four elementary schools, eight middle schools, and four high schools. This software program provides supplemental support for the development of an effective decoding system using activity‐based instruction.

• Edmark Reading at one elementary school, one middle school, and three high schools. This program develops sight vocabulary for students needing more functional reading development.

• Read 180 at all secondary schools. Read 180 is a computer‐based intervention for middle and high school students. After the initial whole group lesson, students rotate in small groups to different stations that include individualized instructional software,

audio books for modeled reading, and paperback books for independent reading. The DSES and DSEO contributed to the funding of this intervention in 16 middle schools and four high schools, and general education initiatives funded the other licenses and professional development so that all secondary schools could provide this intervention.

• Soliloquy Reading Assistant at six middle schools. This software program allows students to practice independent oral reading. The program combines speech recognition and verification technology to help students develop fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

• Wilson Reading System at four middle schools and one high school. The Wilson Reading System uses a multi sensory instructional sequence that teaches students Grade 3 to age 21 to decode and spell through increased understanding of language structure.

• Rewards at one middle school and 14 high schools. Rewards is a scripted decoding intervention that teaches students reading strategies beginning with multi syllabic words.

Academic Intervention Specialist. Two academic intervention instructional specialists—a special education supervisor of academic interventions and two itinerant resource teachers—coordinate the distribution of resources, provide the professional development and coaching, and monitor student progress with the interventions. Many schools have purchased and are implementing the reading interventions listed above and are able to access professional development and support from central office special education leadership staff.

Focus on Mathematics. MCPS continues to make progress helping students become proficient in mathematics as evidenced by the increase in the percentage of students with disabilities meeting proficiency levels in each grade level of the MSA, other than a slight decrease in Grade 3. MCPS has initiated the following efforts to ensure mathematics proficiency including the implementation of research‐based mathematics interventions; systemwide professional development focused on making mathematics instruction accessible for students with disabilities for elementary special educators, middle school mathematics, and high school algebra for general and special educators. Hours‐based staffing and Middle School Reform also are initiatives that MCPS is implementing to continue to improve student achievement in mathematics.

The following scientifically research‐based mathematics interventions have been implemented systemwide:

• FASTT Math for 18 elementary schools and 36 middle schools. FASTT Math is a

software program that helps struggling students develop fluency with basic mathematics facts in the four operations. It automatically differentiates instruction and practice based on each student’s individual fluency levels in customized, 10‐minute daily sessions for students in Grades 3–8.

• Above and Beyond with Digi Blocks for 11 middle schools, three high schools, and one special school with programs for students with significant cognitive impairments. Above and Beyond with Digi Blocks is a mathematics manipulative designed to support student understanding of number concepts. Its five strands address counting, place value, the four operations, and money concepts.

• Understanding Math Plus for 11 high schools. Understanding Math Plus is a computer‐ assisted program used with students in Grades 4–10. The program’s nine topics can be used to introduce concepts to a whole class, reteach concepts in a different way to a small group, or remediate individual students on specific skills. Each topic has interactive concept sections with step‐by‐step explanations, practice sessions, and off‐computer activities with lesson outlines/worksheets.

Professional Development and Collaboration with General Educators

AYP Grant for Middle School Improvement. Through a state‐funded Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) grant, MCPS has focused resources on professional development and ongoing support to nine middle schools that have failed to make AYP in reading or met AYP through Safe Harbor. The AYP project focuses on implementing a direct‐instruction, tiered reading intervention program to complement the existing interventions within the schools. MCPS also continues to provide additional staffing allocations for Intensive Reading Needs Programs at 16 middle schools and one high school. Hours‐based Staffing. MCPS has implemented hours‐based staffing in 13 middle schools and plans to expand this in three more middle schools for FY 2009. Hours‐based staffing is a service delivery model that provides equitable and appropriate staffing of special education teachers and paraeducators based on the total number of direct instructional service hours on student Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Hours‐based staffing provides resources for more flexible programming options such as co‐teaching. Co‐teaching. Professional development in December 2008 for elementary special educators, middle school math coteachers, Grade 6 reading teachers, high school algebra co‐teachers, and English 10 coteachers focused on strategies to make the curriculum more accessible to students with disabilities in a general education environment. Plans for summer 2008 include mandatory systemwide professional development for Grades 7 and 9 co‐teachers and paraeducators on best practices for co‐teaching. Middle School Reform Efforts Aligned with Special Education. Middle School Reform efforts are aligned with the DSES and DSEO’s goal of improving student outcomes in mathematics. Based on national research and extensive work of project teams, Middle School Reform addresses four key areas to meet the academic and developmental needs of middle school students in MCPS including collaborative and high quality leadership, teachers with strong content knowledge and teaching expertise; rigorous and challenging curriculum; instruction and assessments that require students to make connections across disciplines and apply information to real life; and strong parent and community engagement. Expectations for

academic excellence at the highest level with appropriate supports are the common thread that is woven through the goals and actions of Middle School Reform. Students with disabilities benefit from all of the goals and actions outlined in Middle School Reform including providing staffing allocations to support the inclusion of special education students in general education classes and implementing a comprehensive professional development plan for middle school instructional staff on topics such as differentiation, rigor, technology, and using data to drive instruction. Phase 1 of Middle School Reform was implemented in five middle schools who struggled with making AYP for the 2007–2008 school year. As these schools continue their efforts, pending budget approval, 10 additional schools will begin Middle School Reform for the 2008–2009 school year. Improving Access to the General Education Curriculum Home School Model. In FY 2008, the elementary Home School Model (HSM) provided special education services to students in general education classrooms in their home schools. In FY 2009, this model will be implemented in 60 elementary schools. By providing professional development and the required staff, home schools are able to provide a continuum of services so students do not have to access services in regional self‐contained classes. MCPS is committed to providing students with disabilities access to the general education environment to the maximum extent appropriate. MCPS has continued to make progress in increasing the number of students receiving special education services in general education (LRE A) as evidenced by increased percentages each year since 2004. Preschool Special Education. Providing preschool special education services in regular early childhood settings has been challenging due to the limited number of regular preschool programs and services available in MCPS. The Division of Preschool Special Education and Related Services (DPSERS) and the Division of Early Childhood Education Programs and Services are collaborating to colocate general and special education preschool classes to facilitate LRE options for preschool students. In FY 2008, MCPS continued to implement a preschool Collaboration Class Project in which general and special education teachers use a collaborative teaching model to instruct four‐year‐old students with and without disabilities together using flexible groupings. Currently, 12 locations are using this model and also have been expanded for three‐year olds at six locations. This program enables children with disabilities to attend school with their neighborhood nondisabled peers. As a result, children with disabilities are provided with greater access to the preschool curriculum and better preparation for general education kindergarten settings. Eight Itinerant Resource Teachers (IRTs) with a wide range of expertise in autism, behavioral and emotional support strategies, elementary and secondary instructional strategies, and reading and mathematics instruction, provide professional development and job‐embedded coaching to school staff to improve students’ success in the LRE, increase attendance, decrease suspension rates, and improve overall student outcomes.

MCPS has continued to make progress in reducing the number of students receiving special education services in self‐contained classrooms (LRE C) as evidenced by a decrease of approximately one percent each year since 2004. Comprehensive initiatives have been implemented throughout the county including the phasing out of secondary learning centers, systemwide mandatory professional development for Grade 6 co‐teachers, the expansion of home school model to additional elementary schools, and the continued effort of eight IRTs for support of LRE.

Phase‐out of Secondary Learning Centers. MCPS continues to implement its plan to phase out secondary learning centers. Currently, 70 students in Grades 6–12 who would have been recommended for secondary learning centers have transitioned to their home or consortia schools and are receiving a continuum of special education services. Currently, there are no Grade 6 learning center classes and for the FY 2009 there will be no Grades 6 or 7 learning center classes. In addition, since January 2007, students are no longer being referred to secondary learning centers. This initiative has contributed to the decrease in students being served in self‐contained settings and more students with disabilities being served in general education.

Access to Rigorous Curriculum. In another initiative designed to increase opportunities for students with disabilities to access rigorous instruction provided by highly qualified teachers, the Mark Twain program was identified for closure in June 2008. Mark Twain, a separate special education day program, had failed to make AYP for several consecutive years and was placed in the Corrective Action phase of school improvement during the 2006–2007 school year. The school failed to make AYP in Corrective Action and was identified for the restructuring phase of school improvement for the 2007–2008 school year. Through the Individualized Education Program decision‐making process, Mark Twain students will first be considered to receive academic, behavioral, and mental health supports within comprehensive high schools before more restrictive options are considered. This closing is considered to be in the best interest of the students and in alignment with all other LRE initiatives.

I.F CROSS-CUTTING THEMES

Educational Technology and Education That Is Multicultural Educational Technology In addition to including technology strategies across the Master Plan aligned to state and local technology plans, the local school system Master Plan Update should outline specifically how it will use all sources of funding in meeting No Child Left Behind Statutory Goals:

Improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary schools and secondary schools

A program of technology-based formative assessments is helping teachers assess student learning and adjust their teaching practices accordingly. Specifically, they can re-teach concepts not learned by their students and can differentiate instruction as needed by individual students.

To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is

technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the student’s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability.

Prior to the start of the 2008–2009 school year, a group of selected teachers are reviewing Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) curriculum and mapping the current MCPS curriculum and curriculum resources to the Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students. The next step, planned to begin the summer of 2009, is to add curriculum and resources where gaps are identified. Central office staff also will review the results of the 2008–2009 administration of the Student Technology Literacy assessment and create strategies to respond to results, both through changes in the curriculum and teacher staff development. The central office staff collaboratively leading this project includes the directors of curriculum, library and media services, and technology innovations.

To encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems with teacher

training and curriculum development to establish research-based instructional methods that can be widely implemented as best practices by State educational agencies and local educational agencies.

Central office staff will review the results of 2008–2009 administration of the student, teacher, and administrator technology literacy assessments (see above). Based on the findings of these reviews, MCPS will create strategies to respond to results through changes in the student curriculum and curriculum resources, and changes in teacher and administrator staff development. These strategies will incorporate methods of instruction that are based on valid research and are proven to increase student and teacher technology literacy.

Based on data from the Maryland Technology Inventory, local data and data from any other relevant sources, address the following questions: 1. Describe the progress that was made in 2007–2008 toward meeting educational

technology goals.

This description of the progress made toward meeting the district’s educational technology goals is based on a review of goals in the Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic Technology Plan: 2005–2008. Data includes MCPS trends and comparisons with statewide averages and other Maryland school districts. Plan Goals:

• Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis. • Technology will be fully integrated into instruction. • Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving results. • Technology will be used to overcome location and distance, as barriers to learning.

Unexpected Outcomes During the implementation of the strategic technology plan, a number of unexpected outcomes and benefits were achieved. Also, a number of targets were not achieved because of a lack of staff resources, lack of time, lack of funding, or lack of interest by schools. A summary of these unexpected outcomes follow.

Benefits

• Use of donated computers by nonpublic schools • Use of school and program funds to acquire additional funds when a 5:1 computer

replacement policy was adopted by the Montgomery County Council • Use of technology to support formative student assessment • Use of technology to track teacher participation in required training

Targets Not Yet Achieved

• A 3:1 students to computers ratio • Adoption of distance learning and video conferencing by high schools • Partnerships around technology-related initiatives with communities and businesses • The measurement of student technology literacy

Objective 1: Access to high performance technology and its rich resources is universal

Goal 1: Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis

Goal 1, Objective 1 MCPS will establish a ratio of students to computers of 3:1 and increase the number of computers; computer-related technologies; and handheld, portable, and assistive devices used in schools to meet this ratio and the instructional needs of students by 2008.

Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio Performance Measure 1.1.B: Computer projection devices per school

Performance Measure 1.1.C: Use of assistive technologies for students with disabilities Performance Measure 1.1.D: Technical support staff to computer ratios Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress:

Universal Access to High Performance Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Average Target

Student to computer ratio 3.8:1 3.4:1 5:1

Classrooms with Internet access 100% 98% 100%

Classrooms with 1+ student computers 91% 82% 100% Is assistive technology used by teachers for students with disabilities or with learning difficulties? • disabilities and learning difficulties • primarily disabilities • teachers lack awareness, have not

been trained, or have no clear way to obtain assistive technologies

45% 52% 3%

26% 28% 46%

n/a n/a n/a

Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective (see both the graph and the table).

Number of Students per Computer

3.8 3.9

4.2

5.25.2

6.0 6.0

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Better

2005 State Target

SOURCE: Maryland Online Technology Surveys completed in 2000 through 2006

Table 2. Students to Computer Comparisons

1 Talbot County 2.22 Garrett County 2.43 Worcester County 2.84 Caroline County 2.95 Prince George’s County 2.96 Howard County 3.17 Somerset County 3.18 Frederick County 3.29 St. Mary’s County 3.210 Wicomico County 3.211 Baltimore County 3.312 Cecil County 3.413 Charles County 3.414 Allegany County 3.515 Anne Arundel County 3.516 Carroll County 3.617 Kent County 3.718 Queen Anne’s County 3.719 Dorchester County 3.77320 Montgomery County 3.77521 Washington County 3.83722 Harford County 3.923 Calvert County 4.224 Baltimore City 4.5

3.4

MD District Rankings on Students per Computer

State Total

Performance Measure 1.1.B: Computer projection devices per school

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the progress toward meeting this objective, as shown on the two tables that follow.

Table 3. Equitable Access to Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Target Average number of projection devices per school 18.1 19.3 1 per classroom

Table 4. Maryland School District Comparisons

1 Worcester County 52.72 Prince George’s County 40.13 Wicomico County 27.44 Charles County 27.15 Harford County 25.96 Queen Anne’s County 22.87 Baltimore County 22.48 Frederick County 21.79 Carroll County 20.0

10 Howard County 19.311 Montgomery County 18.112 Kent County 14.113 Dorchester County 12.814 Anne Arundel County 12.415 Washington County 11.216 Calvert County 10.517 Cecil County 9.918 Allegany County 8.619 Garrett County 8.320 St. Mary’s County 8.321 Somerset County 8.122 Caroline County 7.823 Talbot County 5.924 Baltimore City 3.6

19.0

Average # of Projection Devices per School

State Total

Performance Measure 1.1.C: Use of assistive technologies for students with disabilities

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective (graph).

Assistive Technology—MCPS is compliant with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) governing the acquisition of accessible technology-based instructional products and with Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities that requires teacher-made instructional materials also are accessible. As part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Planning process, MCPS reports its accessibility compliance annually, including the process, implementation, and monitoring of these guidelines. The MCPS Web site is accessible to all users, including those with disabilities. In addition, school Web developers are trained in how to make their own sites accessible and give free tools to support this effort via http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/index.html. The following is an excerpt from this Web page:

A-Prompt Helps People with Disabilities Use the Internet

Web authors can use A-Prompt to make their Web pages accessible to people with disabilities. The A-Prompt software tool examines Web pages for barriers to accessibility, performs automatic repairs when possible, and assists the author in manual repairs when necessary. These enhanced Web pages are available to a larger Internet audience.

Percentage of Schools Using Assistive Technologies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Better


People who are blind can use the Internet by listening to synthesized speech from their computer. They do this by using a Screen Reader, software that vocalizes text by converting it to speech. Those with physical disabilities who have difficulty typing or using a mouse can browse the Internet by manipulating switches or wireless pointing devices attached to their heads. People who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading visible text and image captions. These are examples of technologies, known as Assistive Technologies, which improve the accessibility of the Internet to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, smooth operation of these technologies is often prevented by how a Web page is designed and created. Accessibility also can be improved directly by applying universal design techniques. For example, people who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading text captions and viewing supplemental illustrations. The ability to zoom and enlarge text allows those with low vision to read. Assistive Technologies and universal design make the Internet more accessible to everybody by providing convenient alternatives for small screens in mobile devices, text alternatives for low bandwidth connections, and other atypical situations. Performance Measure 1.1.D: Technical support staff to computer ratios There are 74 secondary Information Technology System Specialists (ITSS)—one in each middle and high school—and 36 ITSSs support 131 elementary schools and 5 special schools. With a total of 42,378 computers in the schools, this represents an average of 415 computers per ITSS. This average is 115 more than the 300:1 ratio recommended by the MSDE and adopted by MCPS. Goal 1, Objective 2 MCPS will facilitate the donation of 800 previously owned computers to community partnerships to help close the digital divide by 2008. Performance Measure: The total number of computers donated through MCPS to identified community groups. From July 2005 through December 2007, a total of 5,480 previously owned computers were donated to local community centers and nonpublic schools. Goal 1, Objective 3 MCPS computers and portable devices will continue to access online services and resources from any location with Internet access through 2008. Performance Measures: Percentage of schools and classrooms with Internet connectivity, comparison of school access to students with access to the Internet at home, and percentage of schools with medium/high Internet capacity.

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective.

Table 5. Student Home Access to Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Average Target Classrooms with Internet access 100% 98% 100% Students with Internet access at home 83% 73% 100% Schools with medium/high Internet capacity 100% Not Available 100%

Goal 2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction Goal 2, Objective 1 School-based and central services staff members will demonstrate competence relevant to their job function in using productivity software, instructional software, online services, the Internet, administrative applications, and decision support tools by 2007. Performance Measures: Technology use by staff to perform required job skills as measured by assessments identified through this planning process. Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective.

Table 6. Teacher Knowledge and Skills


Teacher knowledge and skills at least intermediate in: - computer use - Internet use - technology integration

80% 74% 80%

78% 72% 74%

100% 100% 100%

Goal 2, Objective 2 Ongoing staff development for technology will continue to be provided using a variety of formats and delivery methods through 2008. Performance Measures: Customer satisfaction with the variety of formats and delivery methods for technology staff development and increased staff knowledge and skills as measured by the evaluation standards and measures to be developed in the activities below.

[This objective was not fulfilled.]

Goal 2, Objective 3 All MCPS students will demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to use technology appropriately to support their learning by 2007. Performance Measure: Technology is used by students to perform skills emphasized by the state

Table 7. Student Use of Technology

(Percentages are answers of “a few times a month” and “every day or almost every day”)

Indicators of Progress Montgomery Maryland

1. Gather information and data from a variety of sources 93% 89% 2. Organize and store information 58% 50% 3. Perform measurements and collect data in investigations or lab

experiments 26% 30%

4. Manipulate/analyze/interpret information or data to discover relationships, generate questions, and/or reach conclusions

45% 39%

5. Communicate/report information, conclusions, or results of investigations

82% 64%

6. Display data/information 68% 54% 7. Communicate/interact with others in the classroom/ school/outside

of school 38% 38%

8. Plan, draft, proofread, revise, and publish written text 91% 78% 9. Create graphics or visuals 84% 63% 10. Plan, refine, produce multimedia presentations 53% 40% 11. Generate original pieces of visual art and/or musical composition 28% 23% 12. Perform calculations 41% 42% 13. Develop a more complete understanding of complex material or

abstract concepts 28% 29%

14. Connect auditory language to the written word and/ or graphic representations

82% 61%

15. Design and produce a product 19% 15% 16. Control other devices 7% 7% 17. Support individualized learning or tutoring 57% 60% 18. Remediate for basic skills 84% 79% 19. Accommodate for a disability or limitation 88% 69%

Goal 2, Objective 4 Partnerships are established with schools, communities, and businesses to enhance the effectiveness of technology-related initiatives in support of success for every child by 2007. Performance Measure: User and community satisfaction survey results.


Goal 2, Objective 5 The MCPS curriculum reflects the appropriate use of technology to support teaching and learning, and resources to support this curriculum are developed and made available electronically by 2008. Performance Measure: The percentage of newly designed and updated curricula that include integrated instructional technology support, alignment, and appropriateness. All new curricula integrate technology. In addition, assessments are being posted online in support of one of the district’s master plan strategies, which is Optimization of technology to support student achievement through analysis of formative assessment data, diagnosis of student learning needs, and analysis of reading and math achievement data. Goal 2, Objective 6 The implementation plans for MCPS instructional initiatives continue to include technology as one of the tools that is used to support increased student achievement through 2008. Performance Measure: The percentage of new instructional initiatives that includes technology as a support for increased student achievement in their implementation plans. Major instructional initiatives include technology as a support. Two examples are—

• magnet schools—the 2:1 student to computer ratios in the Argyle Middle School

magnets and the 3 student computers per classroom in the Pine Crest and North Chevy Chase elementary magnets, and

• Middle School Reform Initiative—the ACTIVClassroom focus for student

engagement.

Goal 3. Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving results Goal 3, Objective 1 Use multiple measures to assess the impact of technology on enhancing instruction and student learning by 2008. Performance Measure: A balanced technology evaluation plan has been created, implemented, and used to improve the use of technology to support instruction and student learning.


Goal 3, Objective 2 Implement an enterprise-wide Integrated Quality Management System that is comprised of a data warehouse system and a Web-based instructional management system by 2008.

Performance Measure: Percentage of teachers and administrators who use technology to maintain data on students.

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicate that progress was made toward meeting this objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.

Table 8. Administrator Use of Technology



1. Communicating with staff members and other colleagues 100% 99%

2. Communicating with parents/guardians of students 98% 88%

3. Posting/viewing/accessing school/district announcements or information

99% 94%

4. Participating in online discussion groups or collaborative projects

66% 41%

5. Diagnosing and placing students 84% 72%

6. Analyzing attendance and/or grades 91% 91%

7. Analyzing tests 83% 75%

8. Analyzing grades and progress reports 80% 74%

9. Maintaining data on students 96% 93%

10. Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data

80% 77%

11. Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations 84% 78%

12. Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the Internet or school system Intranet

92% 87%

13. Researching educational topics of interest 92% 91%

14. Handling inventory, lockers, field trips or bus schedules 69% 64%

Table 9. Teacher and Administrator Use of Technology (Percentages are answers of “a few times a month” and “every day or almost every day”)

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland

9. Teachers: Maintaining data on students 91% 79%

9. Administrators: Maintaining data on students 96% 93%

Goal 3, Objective 3 Develop and maintain high-quality information systems to help manage information, improve work efficiencies, and support instruction by 2003 and beyond. Performance Measure: Percentage of prioritized system requirements that are implemented in enterprise system development, upgrade, and maintenance projects. Customer satisfaction. Data from the FY 2009 Operating Budget indicate that progress was made toward meeting this objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.

Table 10. Quality of Information System

Indicator of Progress FY 2007 Data

Percentage of high priority enterprise system requirements implemented on- time

88%

Level of customer satisfaction with implemented enterprise technology solution (business systems)

80%

Percentage of users satisfied with the customer service provided (student systems)

75%

Goal 4. Technology will be used to overcome location and distance as barriers to learning Goal 4, Objective 1 MCPS students and teachers will continue to have access to online instructional resources to support teaching and learning through 2008. Performance Measure: The percentage growth in online teaching and instructional resources available to all MCPS students and teachers. The content on the MCPS Web page for students interested in online courses (January 11, 2008) follows. The information on this Web page indicates the number and variety of online course offerings now available for high school students in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS).

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/onlinelearning/

Student Online Learning—21st Century Learning for 21st Century Learners

Student Online Learning, through the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), is a way for high school students to take courses outside of the traditional classroom setting. For more information or to register for an online class, please see your school guidance counselor. Are You Ready for Online Learning?

• This is Student Online Learning Information about process and eligibility for online students.

• Success as an Online Student Rules of the road for success as an online student.

2008 Spring Courses - Registration OPEN for Spring FOT (click here)

• Foundations of Technology (FOT) This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include 3 required face-to-face lab sessions. The course runs from March 31 - June 7. A half credit option is available for seniors only, running from March 31 - April 25 and will include 2 face-to-face sessions.

Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunity (MVLO) AP Courses

• AP Art History • AP Calculus AB • AP English Lit and Comp • AP Macroeconomics • AP Microeconomics

• AP Physics B • AP Statistics • AP US Gov't and Politics • AP Computer Sci A

Summer Course Highlights 2008 - Registration Opens Jan. 17

• Foundations of Technology (FOT) This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include three required face-to-face lab sessions.

• Comprehensive Health and Wellness This .5 credit course runs in a 3 week format. This course requires attendance at two face-to-face sessions.

Goal 4, Objective 2 MCPS students will continue to have access to online courses for high school credit by 2004 and ongoing. Performance Measure: The availability of credit-bearing high school online courses.

[See above]

Goal 4, Objective 3 MCPS students and staff will have access to interactive video conferencing to enable real-time interaction with subject matter experts from around the block and around the world by 2008. Performance Measure: Access to interactive video conferencing in alternative centers, high schools, and middle school magnet programs. This objective was not fulfilled. Interactive video conferencing was placed in alternative centers. When the federal grant allocation that funded the project coordinator was cut; no further progress was made. Goal 4, Objective 4 Continue the ability to communicate and educate by enhancing Web applications and by improving e-mail through 2008. Performance Measure: Percent of classrooms with high-capability computers that can run up-to-date Web and e-mail software, as reported in the MSDEs annual technology inventory of resources in Maryland schools.


Table 11. Classroom with High Capability Student Computers


Classrooms with 1+ student computers 91% 82% 100% Classrooms with 5+ student computers 6% 10% n/a

2. Please identify the key practices, programs, or strategies that appear related to the

progress. Include supporting data and evaluation results as appropriate.

The key programs that appear related to the progress of our school system are as follows:

• Technology for Curriculum Mastery—This program supports the No Child Left Behind statutory goal to encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems into curriculum development. Evaluation results of this program, which provide teachers with electronic versions of formative tests, show that electronic tests take less time away from instruction, results are received on a more timely basis so that instruction can be differentiated based on individual student progress, test taking is faster, and teachers and students are highly satisfied with the technology.

• Technology Modernization—This program supports both state and local technology

plan goals and objectives by ensuring students have access to high-performance technology. Supporting data on the results of this program, which refreshes

technology in schools and provides professional development, can be found in the progress reports for Goal 1 above.

• Digital Divide—This program supports the goal of ensuring all students have access

to technology. The program is focused on addressing the gap between students and families who have access to technology at home and those who do not have access. During FY 20082008, a total of 4,835 computers were donated to local community programs.

• Integrated Quality Management System, Data Warehouse, Instructional Management

System, and Performance Matters—These technology applications support both state and local technology plan goals and objectives by using technology to improve school administrative functions and operational processes. The Integrated Quality Management System provides simplified access to relevant applications and the information from multiple sources that is needed by teachers, administrators, parents, and the community to improve the quality of education. The Data Warehouse organizes longitudinal data from multiple sources, providing reporting and data extracts to support data analysis and strategic decision-making across the school system. The Instructional Management System and Performance Matters are tools specifically designed for sharing curricula and curricular resources electronically and monitor student performance on formative and summative assessments.

• Student Technology Literacy Consortium—This grant-funded statewide consortium,

lead by MCPS, supports the No Child Left Behind Statutory Goal to ensure every student is technologically literate by the time he or she finishes eighth grade. Consortium members consistently report that the absence of a mandate to ensure students are technologically literate impacts the resources that are provided for educational technology. Results of the program are evidenced by the fact that the Maryland State Board of Education accepted the Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students, and MSDE will be measuring student achievement of these standards in FY 2009

3. Describe where challenges in making progress toward meeting educational technology

goals are evident.

MCPS is faced with several challenges in meeting the educational technology goals. The key challenge is obtaining funding for technology programs. The importance of student technology literacy and the need for high performance technology is are just beginning to be understood by the community.

4. Describe the plans for addressing those challenges and include a description of the

adjustments that will be made to the Master Plan and local Technology Plan. Please include timelines where appropriate.

Plans for addressing the funding challenge are included in Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, the MCPS strategic technology plan for fiscal years 2009–2011. The plans for funding educational technology goals are described as follows:

Because the administration of technology-supported initiatives is the responsibility of several offices, the implementation and funding for this strategic technology plan represents a highly collaborative effort. Likewise, the funding needed to support this strategic technology plan is spread throughout the school system and funding appears in both the operating and capital budgets. The plan also depends on receipt of federal program allocations passed through the state and rebates provided by telecommunication vendors through E-Rate.

I.F. Cross‐Cutting Themes

Education That Is Multicultural

The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act requires that each school system’s Master Plan and Master Plan Annual Update include goals and strategies for the cross‐cutting theme Education That Is Multicultural (ETM). The ETM Regulation1 defines Education That Is Multicultural as a “continuous, integrated, multiethnic multidisciplinary process for educating all students about commonality and diversity. It prepares students to live, learn, interact, and work creatively in an interdependent global society.” Education That is Multicultural supports academic achievement and positive interpersonal and intergroup relations and encompasses five areas—curriculum, instruction, staff development, instructional resources, and school climate. ETM initiatives rely on parent involvement and community support.

Instructions: Discuss the progress toward meeting Education That is Multicultural goals by responding to the following questions:

1. Please identify the major ETM goals that were addressed by the school system during the

2007–2008 academic year. In your response, be sure to address the following areas: • Curriculum • Instruction • Instructional Resources • Professional Development • Climate

Dramatic changes in the school system’s demographics and persistent disparities in student achievement based on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language require changes in educational practices. Although MCPS has made considerable progress toward closing achievement gaps, significant work remains to be done. The following goals were addressed during the 2007–2008 academic year:

• To infuse diversity into curriculum, programs, and projects.

• To design, implement, and evaluate diversity training and development that does the following: o Increases understanding of individual and institutional beliefs, values, attitudes,

expectations, and assumptions that are barriers to student achievement. o Build capacity of staff members to demonstrate the behaviors and practices that

communicate high expectations to students. o Build capacity of staff members to structure culturally sensitive learning

environments and implement culturally responsive instruction.

1 Code of Maryland Regulations13A.04.05.

o Engage, sustain, and deepen courageous conversations about race and equity to eliminate educational racial disparities in student achievement.

2. Describe the progress that was made toward meeting these goals and the programs, practices, strategies, or initiatives that appear related to the progress.

Curriculum, Instruction, and Instructional Resources

Social Studies The Pre‐K–12 Standards‐based social studies curriculum is explicitly designed to meet the following five tenets of multiculturalism.

• Within each unit of study, many perspectives are consistently included. • History is presented from multiple perspectives with no single “correct”

interpretation. • Students are asked to compare and contrast viewpoints respectfully. • Every effort is made to eliminate stereotypes. I from different races and ethnic

backgrounds are portrayed in a variety of settings, education, and professions. • The curriculum makes every effort to seek a balance between understanding the

similarities and differences of others with that of maintaining and broadening respect for specific cultures.

Multicultural materials are provided together with guidance and suggestions for aligning these resources to the curriculum. For example, in 2007–2008, materials to support understanding the Japanese‐American experience during World War II (WWII) were distributed to all high schools, Japanese‐American veterans were invited to speak at several high schools, and a DVD highlighting the experiences of this and other minority groups during WWII is being created for distribution to all schools in the 2008–2009 school year.

Instructional guides provide clear direction to teachers for planning and facilitating structured discussions in a respectful and open manner. Students are required to think in advance and research the topic so they have facts available to them before they begin discussion. Disrespect, personalization, and verbal abuse are never considered acceptable. Reading/English Language Arts The MCPS reading/language arts curriculum provides teachers with detailed lesson sequences to teach students the skills, strategies, and concepts they need to listen, speak, read, and write with proficiency. In elementary grades, multicultural literature is represented in genre and author studies and recommended during the study of biographies. Read aloud selections acknowledge cultural diversity and a variety of perspectives. Texts are selected to present a variety of cultures accurately and realistically.

At the secondary level, effective readers are able to realize that universal human experiences often serve as sources of literary themes. Readers are helped to understand that authors make conscious decisions to affect an audience. Students read, listen to, and view traditional and

contemporary works representing different times and cultures to examine how authors, speakers, and film directors use language, literary elements, and genres to provide their audiences with new insights and perspectives. The secondary curriculum promotes instruction that nurtures appreciation and understanding of diverse individuals, groups, and cultures. Selected texts and films represent a wide range of cultures, regions, and eras.

Science Beginning in elementary schools, the MCPS science curriculum provides teachers with detailed lesson sequences to teach students the skills and concepts they need to listen, speak, read, write, and think critically. Discussion skills are not left to chance. Students are taught, given practice and feedback on their performance, and assessed on the skills. Respect, active listening, and acknowledgment of different perspectives are considered key skills.

In addition, science has the following Goal 1 indicators that support diversity: • Identify that individuals are free to reach different conclusions provided that

supporting evidence is used (1.3.12). • Modify ideas based on new information from developmentally appropriate readings,

data, and the ideas of others (1.3.16). • Demonstrate that everyone can do science and invent things (1.2.27). • Explain how people from different cultures and times have made important

contributions to the advancement of science, mathematics, and technology in different cultures at different times (1.8.27).

• Explain that scientists are employed in various fields that are located in diverse places—ranging from laboratories to natural field settings—and their findings become available to everyone in the world (1.8.28).

Foreign Language Beginning in elementary grades, the Foreign Language Immersion Programs engage students in learning the MCPS curriculum through the medium of a language different from their own. This curriculum contains detailed lesson sequences to teach students the skills and concepts they need to listen, speak, read, write, and think critically. Discussion skills are not left to chance. Students are taught, given practice and feedback on their performance, and assessed on the skills. Respect, active listening, and acknowledgment of different perspectives are considered key skills. The culture, which is an integral part of any Foreign Language Immersion Program, provides students with multiple perspectives and an in‐depth understanding of cultural differences.

The MCPS 6–12 foreign language program is a standards‐based curriculum aligned with the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning. These standards integrate communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Students learn about the products, practices, and perspectives of the people whose languages they are studying and compare the target cultures with their own. In addition, students learn that there is no single culture that can be ascribed to any one language or group, but rather that cultures comprise many subcultures and points of view, all of which have their own distinctive products, practices, and perspectives.

Health Education Through the health education curriculum, students develop personal and social skills and practices that reflect attitudes respectful of diversity. Content objectives in mental health and family life and human sexuality units contain the following objectives:

• Recognize uniqueness and individual abilities. • Show respect for people and recognition of differences. • Describe how culture influences family practices. • Demonstrate how interpersonal behaviors help people feel comfortable with one

another.

In spring 2007, two lessons on respect for differences in human sexuality were field‐tested in Grades 8 and 10. Based on the results of the field test, the Board of Education approved the lessons for full implementation in school year 2007–2008. The enduring understanding of the Grade 8 lesson is: “Respecting differences in each other can promote positive interactions, which can lead to tolerance, understanding, and empathy,” and in Grade 10 is, “Learning about differences in human sexuality promotes understanding, tolerance, and respect.”

Physical Education

The goal of Pre‐K–12 physical education is to help students become responsible citizens who are both health literate and physically educated. Students learn to set and achieve personally challenging goals in physical activity, apply higher order thinking skills to human movement and design personal movement and fitness plans. Students are actively involved in physical education, learning tasks that emphasize application of knowledge, procedures, strategies, tactics, and concepts.

The physical education curriculum promotes instruction that values all learners as individuals and is differentiated for strengths, interests, and learning styles. Physical education is concerned with creating an educational environment in which students from a variety of micro cultural groups experience educational equality through the enjoyment of movement, sport, and dance. In the gymnasium, flexible and varied groupings are emphasized to encourage full inclusion and equal opportunities to learn movement skills and concepts. The MCPS physical education curriculum provides the learner with real world, authentic, interdisciplinary experiences that motivate students to engage in a lifelong, healthy, active lifestyle. Visual Art The MCPS Visual Art Frameworks are aligned with state of Maryland content standards. MSDE Content Standard II states that students will demonstrate an understanding of visual art as a basic aspect of history and human experience. Beginning in kindergarten, students are provided opportunities to explore and connect their lives to those of other cultures. In the middle school years, their exploration deepens with an enduring understanding that one gains insight into a culture by studying its art forms. Finally, in high school, students propose ways that visual art reflect significant historical, cultural, and social issues. Students will study art

from many historical periods, cultural periods, and styles in order to determine how works of art provide social commentary, document historical events, and reflect the values and beliefs of the society in which they are created.

The objectives of the art curriculum are met by infusing art from many cultures in the units of study. Elementary art instruction requires students to determine ways in which works of art express ideas about oneself, other people, places, and events. Artifacts, art prints and reproductions, visual aids, and background information that represent peoples and cultures from around the world are an integral part of each unit of instruction.

The objectives of the art curriculum are met by infusing art from many cultures in the units of study.

Middle School Grade 6

• Art of African Kingdoms • Native North American Art • The Art of India • The Art of China and Korea • The Art of Latin America • The Art of Japan • The Art of Southeast Asia

Grade 7 • A Community Connection • Telling

o Memorials (e.g., Maya Lin, “The Wall” {Vietnam Memorial}) o Early North American Art

• Community Messages o Communicating Beliefs and Values o African Art o Aztec Codices o Art of Mexico—Luis Jimenez o Anasazi Pottery

• Communicating with Symbols o The Art of Mesoamerica and South America

• Living o The Art of Colonial America

• Belonging o Art and Independence o Art shows community values and beliefs o Art honors heroes and leaders: Richmond Barthe—African American portrait

sculptor • Connecting to Place

o Hudson River School o Japanese Places in Art—Hokusai, Hiroshige

• Responding to Nature o Scandinavian Art

• Changing o Art of Naim June Paik o Artwork reflects scientific advances o Russian artist—Vera Mukhina o Lewis Hine

• Celebrating Diversity o “My Proud Culture”

General, Choral, and Instrumental Music Age‐appropriate music literature is taught and performed in bands, orchestras, choruses, and choirs. A varied repertoire representing many genres and cultures is presented and performed. In Grades 4 and 5, popular American and European tunes are used to link to social studies. In Grades 6–12, music literature written by composers representing American, European, Eastern, and Latin cultures are used.

Professional Development The Diversity Training and Development Team plans, designs, delivers, and evaluates diversity/equity training and development that builds capacity to eliminate educational racial disparities. The team works with school staff members, central office departments and divisions, and job‐alike groups of teachers and administrators. The following are examples of the work of the team:

• Conducted monthly training of Office of Organizational Development (OOD) staff members on understanding institutional racism and whiteness/white privilege as they impact teaching and learning. Feedback indicates that 94 percent of staff members have used content and processes from OOD meetings in their work with clients.

• Provided training to all principals and central office administrative staff at the Superintendent’s A&S meetings throughout the FY 2008 school year. The outcomes for the meetings were to:

o Build knowledge and understanding of the complexity of the institutionalized racism and whiteness/white privilege on student achievement.

o Build capacity to implement research‐based equitable practices in schools.

Participant feedback indicates that more than 95 percent of A&S staff has increased knowledge about institutionalized racism and have gained ideas about how to address racial disparities in schools. Plans are to continue this year‐long training in FY 2009.

• Conducted for principals and central office staff at A&S meetings was also implemented for all staff development teachers at their systems initiative trainings throughout the year. In addition, all staff development teachers are required to complete the two‐day Developing Culturally Competent Schools module. This requirement continues for all new staff development teachers.

• Provided training for the leadership team in the Office of Special Education and Student Services over the course of the school year. Outcomes focused on building capacity to lead for equity by increasing knowledge and understanding of racial identity and racial consciousness and by exploring the research of John Ogbu, Claude Steele, and other prominent anti‐racist scholars.

• Collaborated with the elementary and secondary leadership development programs to provide training focused on building the capacity of assistant principals to lead and coach for equity in their buildings. Participants studied racial consciousness and ways to build academic success through relationships.

• Revised the content and processes used in both human relations in‐services courses, HR17, Ethnic Groups in American Society, and HR21, Education That Is Multicultural. Now included in the courses are specific content and learning activities that examine institutional racism and bias as it impacts teaching and learning. All professional staff without a multicultural course in their teacher preparation program is mandated to complete one of these courses.

• Provided training designed to raise awareness of racial bias in the identification of students of color for rigorous course instruction for elementary and middle school staff members responsible for promoting gifted and talented education in schools.

• Provided training designed to examine institutionalized racism from a historical and scientific perspective and to explore the impact of whiteness and white privilege as it impacts students’ educational experiences for middle school counselors.

• Conducted multiple‐skill‐development workshops for administrators and school‐

based staff. Offerings included the following: o Developing Culturally Competent Schools o Rigor for All o Culturally Responsive Instruction o Communicating High Expectations to Students o Courageous Conversations About Race o Working with African Immigrants o Understanding Islam o The Color of Disproportionality o The Impact of Race on the Achievement of Latino Students

• Provided professional development support in 30 schools since July 2007. Support includes presentation, assistance in planning equity/diversity staff development activities, and locating and providing resources and materials.

• Continued to post new resources and materials on the Diversity Team Web page to

support staff members working to eliminate the disparities in student achievement by race and ethnicity. In FY 2008, the monthly tips for improving student achievement on the ListServ focused on equitable classroom practices.

3. Describe where challenges in meeting ETM goals are evident.

• The greatest challenge that MCPS faces in achieving the ETM goals is one of capacity. With a district of 200 schools and more than 21,000 employees, MCPS will continue to train cadres of staff at schools and in offices to ensure that all employees have the knowledge, understanding, and skills to demonstrate cultural competence and eliminate educational racial disparities in student achievement.

4. Describe the changes, adjustments, or revisions that will be made to programs or strategies for 2008–2009 to address identified challenges and ensure progress.

• Plans to develop a systemic framework for professional development to eliminate racial predictability and disproportionality have been drafted in collaboration with a nationally known anti‐racist educator. Implementation will begin in FY 2009.

• As part of the comprehensive professional development plan for the eleven schools selected for Phase 1 and 2 of Middle School Reform Initiative, the district will include training to raise awareness of racial identity development in adolescents.

• The Diversity Team has preliminary plans to develop a pilot for establishing and supporting equity teams in identified schools.

• The existing 3‐hour training on African immigrants will be expanded to two days and content on African Caribbean immigrants will be added. A series of modules on working effectively with African American males will be developed and offered to school staffs next year.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Strategic Technology Plan FY 2009–2011

Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning

January 31, 2008

(Revised)

Office of the Chief Technology Officer Montgomery County Public Schools

Suite 147, 850 Hungerford Drive Rockville, Maryland 20850

For further information, contact: [email protected]

Executive Summary This document, Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, was developed to guide technology-related decisions, priorities, resource allocations, and organization-wide management. It is a strategic, future-oriented document that describes the ways that Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) will support educational program needs and provide an engaging learning environment for students. A process was established to engage stakeholders in helping to formulate a strategic technology plan that aligns the school system’s technology efforts with its academic priorities. This version of the MCPS technology plan will be shared with key stakeholders, including the student government association, the principal’s advisory committee, district executive staff, central office teams, employee associations, parent organizations, business representatives, and the Board of Education. These key stakeholders will continue to be involved in reviewing and updating this plan as necessary over time. Summary of Vision and Goals This strategic technology plan is focused on the school system’s vision. It outlines four goals that summarize how technology will be used to support the educational program and improve teaching and learning.

Vision

A high-quality education is the fundamental right of every child. All children will receive the respect, encouragement, and opportunities they need

to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be successful, contributing members of a global society.

Goals

Goal 1: Students will use technology to become actively engaged in learning

Goal 2: Schools will address the digital divide through equitable access to technology

Goal 3: Staff will improve technology skills through professional development

Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results

This technology plan is intended to serve all children, including those with special needs. Therefore, when we refer to children or students we mean all students in all programs, including special education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and Home and Hospital Teaching. It is the intent to improve learning for all students by improving the integration of technology into every aspect of our instructional program.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………page 1

II. Technology Overview ………………………………………………..….…………page 4

III. Envisioning the Future ………………………………………………..….………page 11

IV. Vision, Goals and Objectives …………………………………………….....……page 15

V. Assessing Progress ……………………………..…………………………….……page 23

VI. Funding the Plan ……………………….……….…………..……………..…..…page 25

Appendices ……………………………….…………….………..……………………page 29

I. Introduction Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning provides information on the innovative 21st century classroom technologies being planned for implementation in the MCPS. This plan is the product of extensive collaboration with key stakeholders to identify technology solutions that will support educational program needs and provide an engaging learning environment for students. The strategic plan is based on the school system’s belief that technology is an essential tool for the future of teaching and learning in this county. In an information-rich, technology-driven society, school staff must be prepared to use the same types of 21st century tools in the classrooms that students are using in their everyday lives. Our school system remains committed and will continue to provide an outstanding education for every student—an education that will allow students to succeed in a global economy. An outstanding public education includes leveling the playing field for students without home access to technology tools that are essential in today’s world. What skills do business leaders say students will need in today’s world? Students must be able to work in teams, solve complex problems, interpret information, communicate effectively, connect learning across disciplines, think critically, and apply knowledge to real-life situations. The role of technology in supporting these needed skills is clear. Collaboration sites enhance team work. Complex problem-solving depends on the analysis of information. Interpretation of information requires quick access to online data. Effective business communication involves e-mail and collaboration sites. Digital simulation helps student connect learning, think critically, and apply knowledge. The goals and objectives contained in this plan support the district’s ongoing efforts to improve teaching and learning; and interactive technology tools will be integrated into instruction to more effectively engage students in the learning process. Student-centered classroom environments will use technology, both to deliver curriculum and instruction and to assess understanding. The interactive nature of technology tools help activate problem-solving and critical thinking skills. As a result, students are better prepared for success in the Information Age. The Technology Planning Process The process for developing the plan Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning is founded on engaging stakeholders and soliciting their input and feedback. To create this plan, an initiative was undertaken to involve internal stakeholders. This involved a five-month effort to interview members of the superintendent’s leadership team and to meet with key internal stakeholders, individually, in scheduled focus groups, or as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. The individuals and groups who were involved in the development of this plan are summarized in Table 1. Internal Stakeholder Input. The ideas resulting from this process of stakeholder engagement are included in Section II, Technology Overview.

1

Table 1. Internal Stakeholder Input

Stakeholder Category Individual or Group Organization/Office

Students Student Government Association Teachers Teachers/Media Specialists, Technology

Modernization Schools

School Library Media Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP)

Instructional Specialists OCIP Support Staff Information Technology Systems Specialists (ITSSs) Media Services Technicians President, SEIU 500 SEIU 500 (Employee Association) Principals School Technology Core Team Office of the Chief Technology (OCTO) Principal’s

Advisory Committee Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP)

Technology Modernization Schools Superintendent Leadership

Associate Superintendent OCIP

Associate Superintendent Special Education and Student Services (OSESS)

District Administrators

Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Director of Staff Development Initiatives, Director of Technology Consulting and Communication Systems

Organizational Development (OOD) /Professional Development

Performance Directors School Accountability/Community Superintendents.

School-Based Instruction and Achievement OCIP Enriched and Innovative Programs OCIP Career and Technology Education OCIP Director/Staff, Curriculum and Instruction OCIP Directors/Staff, Staff meetings agenda item OCIP Director/Staff, Special Education Services OSESS Director/Staff, Student Services OSESS Directors/Staff, special large-group meetings OSESS Facilities Planning Chief Operating Officer (OCOO) School Plant Operations OCOO Food and Nutrition Services OCOO Directors/OCTO Leadership OCOO This version of the MCPS technology plan will be shared with key stakeholders, including the student government association, the principal’s advisory committee, district executive staff, central office teams, employee associations, parent organizations, business representatives, and the Board of Education. These key stakeholders will continue to be involved in reviewing and updating this plan as necessary over time. Prior to including this plan in the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, there also is a more immediate process for further consultation. One activity is to go back to the individuals and groups who provided input into the plan to review this version of the plan and solicit additional feedback. A second activity includes soliciting input from external stakeholders, including—

•

Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic Technology Plan: 2009–2011 2

Parents—Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) • Business—Montgomery County Business Roundtable • Community—via the Board of Education and formal requests for public comment

To ensure stakeholders are aware of the plan and its objectives and activities, a stakeholder communication plan is being developed. This plan will include, at a minimum, communication via advisory committees, meetings with key stakeholders, and the documentation and dissemination of plan results. Stakeholders will continue to be involved through evaluating and revising the plan. As these efforts move forward, it is essential that the plans for technology integration are reevaluated to remain aligned with the curriculum and instructional program and to keep abreast of the latest technological advancements. Evaluation of plan results will be part of the focus of OCTO stakeholder advisory committees and will occur in other key stakeholder meetings. After results are evaluated, feedback will be solicited on how to improve the objectives and activities and to update the plan. Solicitation of input will include the creation of a Web-based learning community and collaboration site. This uses technology as an appropriate tool for communication with key stakeholders such as parents, business, and community members. Overview of Plan Contents The sections that follow provide the details of the MCPS Strategic Technology Plan. The remaining sections are as follows:

Section II. Technology Overview—the needs assessment

Section III. Envisioning the Future—a summary of stakeholder input

Section IV. Vision, Goals and Objectives—the strategic plan narrative

Section V. Assessing Progress—the process for assessing plan results

Section VI. Funding the Plan—the costs and sources of funding for plan implementation


II. Technology Overview Educational technology in MCPS has changed dramatically since the first system-wide technology program was implemented in 1994. The district has moved from providing three or four computers in the media center to creating collaborative, interactive classroom environments where technology has become an integral part of instruction. As technology has increased, there also has been a change in teaching and learning. When technology is available in the classroom, teachers become better facilitators of knowledge acquisition—giving student the skills they need to find information on their own and become life-long learners. The role of teaching has changed from teachers as providers of knowledge to teachers who facilitate students’ knowledge acquisition through print and digital media. MCPS has made considerable progress toward meeting its technology goals and objects. A report on the district’s progress toward meeting its educational technology goals is contained in Appendix A. This report gives a more thorough analysis of the current state of what has been accomplished to achieve the goals and objectives included in past strategic technology plans. The highlights of this report and benchmarks with other school districts in Maryland are presented here to provide the context for the stakeholder input. Needs Assessment: Current Hardware Computers Student computers 36,523 (3.8 per student)

School offices 5,855 School Total 42,378

Number of Students per Computer

3.8

3.94.2

5.25.2

6.06.0

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Better

2005 State Target



Table 2

1 Talbot County 2.22 Garrett County 2.43 Worcester County 2.84 Caroline County 2.95 Prince George’s County 2.96 Howard County 3.17 Somerset County 3.18 Frederick County 3.29 St. Mary’s County 3.210 Wicomico County 3.211 Baltimore County 3.312 Cecil County 3.413 Charles County 3.414 Allegany County 3.515 Anne Arundel County 3.516 Carroll County 3.617 Kent County 3.718 Queen Anne’s County 3.719 Dorchester County 3.77320 Montgomery County 3.77521 Washington County 3.83722 Harford County 3.923 Calvert County 4.224 Baltimore City 4.5

3.4


State Total Source: Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Online Technology Inventory, 2007

Assessment of the current state of computers: While MCPS has made significant progress in improving its student to computer ratio, it has yet to achieve the 3:1 student to computer target set in the current strategic technology plan. Further, a comparison to other school districts in the state indicates the district’s student to computer ratio ranks 20 of 24 districts. Expanded access to computers currently is not supported in the budget.


Servers Two rack-mounted file servers—Elementary and Middle Schools Three rack-mounted file servers—High Schools School servers—equipment is refreshed every four years Data Center—continue to collaborate with Facilities Management to resolve issues of air conditioning and power upgrades to meet industry standards in a location with aging infrastructure. Server consolidation continues in FY 2008 to reduce disparate hardware, including the implementation of a virtual server testing environment to lower the number of test servers. Several major systems were migrated from the legacy mainframe equipment, and migration is scheduled for the remaining printing and batch programs. Current plans are to be totally off the legacy mainframe by June 30, 2008. Assessment of the current state of servers: Server equipment in schools is satisfactory; but the data center facility issues continue to be a concern. Projection Devices: 3,611 projection devices in schools

18 projection devices (average) per school Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning

(Note: Projection devices include projectors and large television monitors connected to a computer and used to display what is on the computer screen.) Assessment of the current state of projection devices: Much of the equipment reported in the inventory is aging televisions (ten years old or older). Schools prefer to have televisions replaced with an appropriately configured computer and modern Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) projectors that serve more than one projection function. Expanded access to projection devices currently is not supported in the budget. Phones: 6,779 telephones in schools

1,926 telephones in classrooms (21 percent of classrooms have telephones)

Emergency cellular phones are located in each principal’s office and in all portable classrooms. Wireless voice/data devices are assigned to the superintendent’s executive staff, principals, and directors approved by an executive staff member. Telephone equipment for land lines is obsolete and, because parts have not been available for a number of years, it continues to require replacement. However, the school system is moving to a converged voice, video, and data system in place of standard land-line telephony; and Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communications is being field tested in new and modernized schools and offices. Assessment of the current state of telephones: With the increasing use of e-mail for communications, classroom telephones are less essential, except for the continuing need for emergency phones in portable classrooms. The availability of emergency cell phones and voice/data devices are satisfactory.


Needs Assessment: Connectivity Data circuits are primarily utilized to connect schools to the school systems Wide Area Network (WAN) and Internet services. These data circuits are on a replacement schedule under the county’s FiberNet initiative; however, the schedule of schools to be converted from data circuits to FiberNet has been delayed. The result is that 15 schools currently utilize the maximum capacity. In addition, new and modernized schools and selected office sites are on the schedule to adopt VoIP in place of traditional land lines for voice services. VoIP requires the use of additional data circuits to provide voice services to the site.

Table 3. Connectivity Overview

Services Explanation

Data Circuits (Frame Relay, Transparent Local Area Network (LAN Service, and DS-1)

Circuits for the WAN that carry data on the Intranet (data sharing among schools and offices) and provides access to Internet services via a central server.

Data Lines (Private Rate Interface)

Data lines to support VoIP sites.

Internet services

Internet service connecting our data lines to the World Wide Web.

Assessment of the current state of telecommunications: Data circuit capacity needs to be expanded for schools and offices that regularly use the full T-1 circuit capacity (1.5 megabytes) and are not yet scheduled to be transferred to the county’s FiberNet system. Also, additional Private Rate Interface circuits are needed for new and modernized schools and selected office sites that are converting to VoIP. These needs are supported in the budget. Needs Assessment: Applications and Software MCPS provides and supports a wide variety of enterprise-level, image and program applications and software. A list of enterprise applications appears in Appendix B. and educational software and online services appear in Appendix C. These applications include enterprise-level student and business information applications, productivity software (e.g., Microsoft Office Suite, Outlook, Filemaker), educational software applied to elementary/middle/high school computer images (e.g., Inspiration, Mighty Math, Macromedia Studio), content-specific software (e.g., Read 180, Fitnessgram, FASTT Math) and special education software (e.g., Kurzweil, Co:Writer), and district-wide online resources (e.g., SIRS Knowledge Source). Funds also are available for schools to buy software to meet their school community’s student-specific needs.


Regarding assistive technologies, MCPS complies with state requirements for acquisition and teacher development of accessible technology for all products and materials used in the district. The Department of Special Education also has its own technology staff, who works closely with schools and the CTOs staff to ensure there are appropriate technology supports for special needs students. The Accessible Technology Steering Committee focuses on continual identification of assistive technology needs and any new hardware and software products that could be used to support special needs students. This steering committee meets regularly and has expert representation from the offices responsible for special education, curriculum content, professional development, and technology. Assessment of the current state of software: As the ability to track software usage improves, instructional staff has been able to better assess the actual need to include instructional software on every desktop computer. This narrowing of system-wide support for instructional software titles has helped focus the school system’s development of curriculum resources, instructional technology training, and expenditure of funding for software. Software support in the budget is sufficient. Needs Assessment: Technology Access and Supports Technology Access The current practice in schools is to depend on computer labs to provide students with access to technology. Schools receive one computer specifically designated for each classroom. However, feedback from schools indicates that unless there are enough computers to work in groups (three to four computers), one or two additional classroom computers are largely ineffective. The result is that few classrooms have more than one computer. This single classroom computer is typically used solely by the teacher. The reason is that a classroom computer must be used increasingly for duties such as analyzing student data, reporting grades, and taking attendance. There is little opportunity for student use. The availability of computer labs also limits student access to computers for instructional uses, especially in elementary schools. Many elementary schools have one computer lab that serves from 25 to 40 classrooms. This means students are likely to be in the lab only once a week or, in larger elementary schools, only twice a month. Moreover, with the increasing use of computer labs for online assessment, even this assumed level of student access to computer labs for instructional use is not sustainable.

Table 4. Classrooms with High Capability Student Computers


Classrooms with 1+ student computers 91% 82% 100%

Classrooms with 5+ student computers 6% 10% n/a

Source: MSDE Online Technology Inventory, 2007


Assessment of the current state of technology access: Because student access to computers for instructional uses is primarily achieved through the use of computer labs, this access is not a part of a student’s daily instruction. In addition, the increasing use of the classroom computer for confidential administrative purposes further limits student access to technology on a regular basis. Expanded access to computers currently is not supported in the budget. Technology Support Professional development is a critical support for ensuring effective use of technology to support instruction. Teachers need to feel comfortable using technology before they incorporate it regularly into student lessons. Table 5 shows the current state of teachers’ technology knowledge and skills across the school system.



Teacher knowledge and skills at least intermediate in—

• computer use • Internet use • technology integration

80% 74% 80%

78% 72% 74%

100% 100% 100%

Source: MSDE Online Technology Inventory, 2007 As shown on the previous table, the proficiency of the district’s teachers in performing basic functions is better that the state average. However, if the teachers who are not proficient in technology are not using it to teach, then we can assume that in 20 to 26 percent of our classrooms students are not seeing technology used as a part of their day-to-day instruction. Unfortunately, there is limited professional development support for teachers to help improve their computer proficiency. MCPS has only 19 instructional technology specialists and 9,171 classroom teachers (classroom, ESOL, and special education), or a ratio of 483 teachers per instructional technology specialist. MSDE recommends a ratio of 200 instructional staff (including all teachers and administrators) per staff developer for instructional technology. Likewise, there is also insufficient technical support staff. IT system specialists (ITSS) assist teachers in loading software and using equipment, and they support the equipment to ensure it is working properly. There are 66 secondary ITSSs—1 in each middle and high school—and 38 ITSSs support 131 elementary schools and 5 special schools (or an average of 3.6 schools per employee). The accepted industry measure of technical support is the number of staff per workstation. The MSDE target for technical support is 300 computers per technical support staff. In MCPS, each ITSS supports an average 415 computers. This level of support has our technical staff supporting 115 more computers than recommended by the state.


Assessment of the current state of technology support: There is insufficient professional development support for technology (483 teachers on average per instructional technology specialist) and insufficient technical support (415 computers on average per technology support specialist). Expanded support for technology currently is not supported in future budgets. Conclusions Based on this assessment of the current state of technology in MCPS, the key barriers to the use of technology to support teaching and learning are—

1) Access to computer technology, both in terms of student to computer ratios and the regularity with which students have technology infused into classroom learning, and

2) Technology support, including the lack of professional development opportunities that

support the use of technology in student learning and the lack of technical support as teachers use technology in their instruction.


III. Envisioning the Future This section, Envisioning the Future, presents the results of stakeholder input. In the previous section, the process for obtaining stakeholder input was outlined. In each interview or meeting stakeholders were asked to envision what technology would look like in classrooms, schools, offices, and school communities. To ensure strategic thinking, participants were told to think of how things might look ten years in the future—the year 2017. What follows is a high-level summary of input and feedback that was received. These descriptions of the future are the ideal, presented without consideration of the school district’s ability to fund or support this vision. To be clear, this is not the district’s strategic plan. It is a future direction envisioned by our stakeholders—a direction that is helpful to keep in mind as the technology components are being built to ensure we move toward the desired future state. A Shared Vision of the Future Many ideas were repeated across all groups. These ideas have been combined into a shared vision of the future, which follows. Most ideas are focused on having the ability to provide every student with engagement and the opportunity to bring the world into the classroom. In addition, administrators focused on the need for technology to help them improve productivity and results.

A Vision for Classrooms


What would classroom and school technology look like in the future? • More student computers, ideally one per student • Teacher laptops • Interactive whiteboard and student response systems • Projection devices in every classroom • Wireless access throughout every school • Mobile computer labs • Electronic textbooks

What would support and administrative systems look like in the future? • Online curriculum, resources, lessons • Online course options and distance learning • Enhanced professional development • On-site instructional and technical assistance • Easy access, “one-stop shopping,” for needed information and data • Data analysis menu options for data to retrieve and compare • Staff access to files from any location

What would the school community look like? • Enhanced communication, interaction with parents • More parent information (beyond grade) • Ability to collaborate with experts for more in-depth student learning diagnostics

Technology Enabled Learning Community


A Vision by Stakeholder Group This section provides a summary of the future desired by selected stakeholder groups. While theirs might have been the only voice speaking to an issue, each group selected represents an important constituency. This “role-based” view provides insights into some of the other interests that were expressed related to expanding technology and technology supports. Students (as the key customer of technology, all input was summarized)

• Every student needs to have a computer. • LCD projectors in every classroom. • Interactive boards in most classrooms—exciting, students can participate, easier to take

notes. • Consider student owned computers having access to school networks. • Mandatory computer programming skills classes. • Classroom sets of ultra-portable computing devices for word processing. • Graphing calculators for all students who need them. • Ability for students to store data/files on jump drives or iPods. • Updated science microscopes and probes. • Scanners and/or free copying of student assignments. • Update television studio equipment. • Video cameras for student use on presentations. • Podcasts, including videotaped classes for missed classes. • Access to Facebook. • Ability for school to unblock sites for a limited time related to instruction (e.g., “drugs”). • In ten years: every student would have a “laptop” (Blackberry/Sidekick-type device), the

school would be wireless, and there would be an electrical hookup at each student desk.

Exploring Future Technologies

Wireless Mobile Cart

Internet Appliance E-Book Document Camera


Principals • Consolidate technologies (resulting in fewer devices to save classroom space). • Technology will need to enhance (not interfere with) interpersonal skills. • Research on how students are using social networking, including inappropriate uses and

educating students about dangers and consequences. Media Centers • Minimum of 30 computers in media center. • Interactive whiteboard in media center. • Student equipment to loan (e.g., laptops). • Inexpensive headphones. • Cameras, camcorders for multimedia presentations.

Special Education and Student Services • As learning centers close, parents want intervention in every classroom—technology is ideal

for supporting inclusion of special education students into classroom instruction. • Access to at least three computers in every classroom for intervention (e.g., FASTT Math)

and unlimited software licenses so resources are on every school computer. • Increased collaboration on evaluation and selection of technologies, including Web 2.0 tools. • Online textbook access and accessible materials build into the curriculum. • A broad array of technology training options, especially around universal design for learning. • Technology-based interventions for all students, not just those with an Individualized

Education Program (IEP). • For students in self-contained classrooms, provide mobile laptops and Promethean boards. • Ensure accessibility, including classroom materials like teacher worksheets. • Laptops for pupil personnel workers and psychologists.

Curriculum and Instruction • Curriculum to support technologies, especially Promethean boards in middle schools • Space/equipment for students taking online college courses • Technology appropriate to the subject area, for example, camcorders for multimedia,

accelerometers for energy expenditure in physical education, high capacity computers for art projects, tutorial software for individual music performance

• Access to distance learning and virtual tours, for example, museum tours • Need four computers per classroom for gifted and talented centers

Community Superintendents • Mobile labs—testing takes all the lab time. • Interactive whiteboards in high schools for students exposed in middle schools. • The educational program is impacted when schools lose old equipment that cannot be

replaced by Technology Modernization program funding. • Differentiation of technology for schools that are in the “needs improvement” category and

require additional student interventions which are technology dependent. Professional Development • Ability to deliver training in alternate ways, for example, podcasts. • Adequate learning management system. • Implement text messaging (students think e-mail is outdated technology).


IV. Vision, Goals, and Objectives The Plan—Educational Technology in the 21st Century In MCPS, technology is viewed as a resource that supports the entire organization and its instructional programs. Technology initiatives are integral to the district’s strategic plan, Our Call To Action: Pursuit of Excellence, 2007–2012, and there are technology initiatives that support each of its goals. Because of this close relationship between district planning and technology planning, the district’s vision for this technology plan is the same as the vision for the school system.

Vision

A high-quality education is the fundamental right of every child. All children will receive the respect, encouragement, and opportunities they need

to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be successful, contributing members of a global society.

Review and analysis of stakeholder input provided the district with a clearer picture of the direction educational technology school take in the future. With this input in mind, the goals in our current strategic technology plan were reviewed and the following goals were developed.

Goals




Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results Goals 2 and 4 are continuing goals using slightly modified language. Goals 1 and 3 were formerly strategies under one goal (technology will be fully integrated into instruction) that were separated to provide a clearer focus. These goals are aligned with Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence, 2007–2012 (the district’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan) and support The Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millennium: 2007–2012 (the Maryland Plan for Technology in Education). Once the goals were established, realistic objectives and activities were considered. Because everything could not be done at once, further input was sought from key stakeholders on what technologies should be prioritized over the next three years. The objectives and activities that follow build on the school system’s educational priorities and set the stage for continued growth.


Student Learning Goal 1: Students will use technology to become actively engaged in learning

Measures: Percentage of students demonstrating they are technologically literate by eighth grade and the increase in the number of online high school courses

Objective 1: To integrate technology into the curriculum and instruction Activity 1 Online curriculum for a collaborative learning community Description Develop a curriculum management system—including curriculum, standards,

resources, and lesson plans—to enhance the sharing of ideas and classroom strategies

Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines 2009—implement online curriculum, standards, and resources

By 2011—expand online curriculum resources and lesson plans Activity 2 Infuse technology into the curriculum and student learning Description Make technology an integral part of the MCPS curriculum and curriculum

resources and ensure student learning connects students to their local and global communities. Explore electronic textbooks, distance and virtual learning, multi-media equipment, and other content appropriate software and devices.

Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines Ongoing* Activity 3 Online student assessments Description Expand and improve online formative assessments and develop assessments

for use with student response systems in middle schools Responsibility Office of the Chief Academic Officer (CAO), OCIP, and OCTO Timelines Ongoing—expand/improve online formative assessments

By 2011—implement middle school assessments that utilize student response systems

Activity 4 Online information resources Description Expand access to online information resources through collaborative

purchasing, transitioning from the Maryland K-12 Digital Content grant Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines 2009 Activity 5 Student Technology Literacy Description Administer the student technology literacy measures adopted by MSDE by

infusing the Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students into the curriculum, administering any related student measures, and teaching the dangers and consequences of social networking (cyber-security, cyber-safety and cyber-ethics).

Responsibility OCAO, OCIP, OCTO Timelines 2009 (baseline measurement)

*See Attachment B for timelines, per the FY 2002–FY 2012 Curriculum Revision Delivery Plan


Goal 1: Students will use technology to become actively engaged in learning (continued) Objective 2: To use technology to improve student academic achievement Activity 1 Universal design for learning (accessible and assistive technologies) Description Improve educators understanding and use of universal design for learning,

which includes accessible and assistive technologies, by developing curriculum content that supports and addresses the needs of all students

Responsibility OSESS, OCIP, OCTO Timelines Ongoing Activity 2 Online courses Description Expand online courses and resources, including High School Assessment

(HSA) online Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines Ongoing Activity 3 Middle school reform Description Expand curriculum supports for new technologies being installed in middle

schools that provide an engaging classroom learning environment Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines Ongoing Activity 4 Elementary technology model Description Implement an elementary school learning model for increased access to

technology to individualize instruction and provide learning interventions Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines 2009 Activity 5 High School technology model Description Implement a high school model for increased access to technology that

simulates how technology is used in college and employment and that enables equitable participation in secondary and college online courses by all students

Responsibility Schools, OCIP, OCTO Timelines By 2010

KEY to the acronyms used in this section:

OCIP – Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs

OCOO – Office of the Chief Operating Officer

OCTO – Office of the Chief Technology Officer

OHR – Office of Human Resources

OOD – Office of Organizational Development

OSESS – Office of Special Education and Student Services


School Technology Goal 2: Schools will address the digital divide through equitable access to technology

Measures: student to computer ratio, average number of projection devices per school, computer to technical support staff

Objective 1: To improve student access to technology Activity 1 Student access to computers Description Target a 3:1 student to high capacity computer ratio in every school by

continuing the Technology Modernization program and implementing a project to upgrade and support older computers needed for learning programs

Responsibility OCTO Timelines By 2011, implement in 20 percent of schools Activity 2 Model increased classroom access to computers Description Provide four workstations per classroom in elementary school technology

magnets using thin client technologies; maintain 2:1/3:1 ratios when refreshing middle school magnets

Responsibility OCIP, OCTO Timelines By 2011, implement in five elementary technology magnets and two middle

school magnets Activity 3 Model increased student access to computers Description Expand use of mobile computer labs and initiate field tests of low-cost

computing options, e.g., thin client devices in secondary school computer labs and ultra-mobile PC learning sets in high poverty elementary schools

Responsibility Schools, OCIP, OCTO Timelines By 2011, expand mobile labs to at least 15 percent of schools; implement thin

client labs in at least five secondary schools; implement ultra-mobile PC learning sets in at least five high poverty elementary schools

Activity 4 Classroom access to projection devices Description Double the computer projection devices available for classrooms (currently

18 per school average) Responsibility OCTO Timelines By 2011, implement in 28 percent of schools Activity 5 School access to interactive whiteboards Description Provide 18 interactive whiteboards per middle school, introduce interactive

whiteboards into feeder high schools Responsibility OCIP, OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2011, implement in all middle schools and 70 percent of high schools Activity 6 School access to wireless connectivity Description Provide wireless in middle and new and modernized schools Responsibility Facilities Management, OCTO Timelines By 2011, implement in all middle schools and new and modernized schools


Goal 2: Schools will address the digital divide through equitable access to technology (continued) Objective 2: To improve school staff access to technology

Activity 1 Computers for classroom teachers Description Provide one computer per classroom capable of audio visual support Responsibility OCTO Timelines By 2009 Activity 2 Laptops/tablets for principals Description Provide one laptop/tablet to principals completing student data analysis

professional development to analyze data, perform school “look fors,” and complete teacher observations

Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2009 Activity 3 Laptops for staff assigned to multiple schools Description Provide one laptop per pupil personnel workers, psychologists, instructional

technology specialists, and elementary IT systems specialist Responsibility OSESS, OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2011

Objective 3: To improve technical support for technology in schools and offices

Activity 1 Technical support for computers Description Provide at least one full-time technical support person per 300 computers

(currently 1:415) Responsibility Schools, OCTO Timelines By 2011, reduce ratio to 1 per 400 computers Activity 2 Technical support for LAN/WAN Description Target at least 1 full-time LAN administrator per 40 servers (currently 1:69)

and 1 full-time WAN administrator per 25 sites ( currently 1:35) Responsibility Schools, OCTO Timelines By 2011, one LAN administrator per 60 servers and one WAN per 30 sites Activity 3 Help Desk services Description Continue to train Help Desk staff to respond to a wide range of technical

issues; improve systems to support accepting, assigning, resolving, tracking and reporting technology issues within established service response times

Responsibility OCTO Timelines Ongoing Activity 4 Technical support for IT safety and security Description Ensure the continuation of safe access through a secure computing

environment as technologies change and access expands Responsibility OCTO Timelines Ongoing


Professional Development Goal 3: Staff will improve technology skills through professional development

Measures: Percent of principals and teachers who meet Maryland technology skill standards and percentage of school technology support employees participating in skill training

Objective 1: To adopt Maryland teacher and administrator technology standards

Activity 1 Communicate standards Description Communicate the knowledge and skills needed to meet the Maryland

technology standards for teachers and administrators Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines 2009 Activity 2 Provide professional development Description Infuse technology concepts into all professional development for

educators, including curriculum development, universal design for learning, and digital citizenship (students’ safe and responsible use)

Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines 2010 Activity 3 Improve professional development resources Description Create and disseminate online learning resources to support self-

improvement (e.g., podcasts, online courses, electronic materials) Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2011 Activity 4 Develop assessment tools Description Develop online assessment tools for pre- and post-assessment of

knowledge, skills, and attitudes on instructional technology Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines 2011

Objective 2: To increase professional development and training for support staff

Activity 1 Train school technology support staff Description Provide training to maintain and update technology skills Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines Ongoing Activity 2 Implement job banding Description Expand self-directed career advancement within identified IT job bands Responsibility OHR, OCTO Timelines 2009 Activity 3 Train support staff on enterprise systems Description Provide more staff with training during rollout of enterprise systems Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2011


Administrative Productivity Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results

Measures – percentage of customer satisfaction with administrative systems and percentage of key requirements implemented for major enterprise systems

Objective 1: To enhance collaboration and communication tools

Activity 1 Web portal Description Use Web 2.0 tools to create an environment for enhanced electronic

collaboration and communication Responsibility OCTO Timelines 2009 Activity 2 Parent outreach Description Expand parent access to student grades and other resources, data, and

information via the Classroom to Home Communication system Responsibility Schools, OCTO Timelines 2010, expand to elementary schools Activity 3 Improve ease of access to information Description Upgrade user access and interfaces such as single sign-on; password

self-service; and Web access to resources, data, and information Responsibility OCTO Timelines By 2011

Objective 2: To continuously improve student systems

Activity 1 Student data input Description Continue and improve system-wide implementation of online

attendance and online grading and reporting Responsibility OCIP, OOD, OCTO Timelines 2010 Activity 2 Data access and analysis Description Enhance student data management and data warehouse systems by

continuing to expand student achievement data and simplify how it is accessed

Responsibility OCTO Timelines By 2011 Activity 3 Upgrade learning management systems Description Assess, procure, and upgrade a learning management system and other

course tools to better support delivery of online student courses, student resources, and professional development

Responsibility OCIP, OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2011


Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results (continued) Objective 3: To continuously improve business systems

Activity 1 Staff information – electronic identification Description Implement the use of electronic identification for system security (e.g.,

secure computer log-in) and staff attendance (beginning with professional development and transportation)

Responsibility Department of Transportation, OOD, OCTO Timelines 2011 Activity 2 Applicant tracking Description Upgrade the system for online access to applicant information, which

allows principals and directors to view candidates application files without leaving their offices

Responsibility OHR, OCTO Timelines 2009 Activity 3 Professional Development Online Description Enhance the system for online management of professional

development services, moving from enrollment (“Did they enroll in required sessions?”), to attendance (“Did they actually attend the session?”), and to follow-up evaluation of the impact on performance (“Did it make a difference?”)

Responsibility OOD, OCTO Timelines By 2011 Activity 4 Improving business processes Description Enhance support for improving business systems by modernizing legacy

information systems and selecting multiuse application systems that integrate user needs. Functional areas supported include the departments responsible for association relations; facilities management; financial services; human resources; management, budget, and planning; materials management; reporting and regulatory accountability; school safety and security; and transportation

Responsibility OCOO, Department/Division Directors, OCTO Timelines Ongoing


V. Assessing Progress MCPS will regularly assess progress toward implementing the plan. The performance measures, metrics for calculation, sources of information, and frequency of review and reporting are shown for each of the four plan goals on the charts below. The report process and formats will conform to the guidelines established for the OCTO (e.g., the Project Management Report).


Measure Metric Source Frequency

Student technology literacy Passing as percent of taking MSDE Annual

Online high school courses Number available Career Tech Ed Annual



Student to computer ratio # of computers/# of students MSDE Annual

Projectors per school County-wide average MSDE Annual

Staff to computer ratio # of staff/# of computers MCPS data Annual



Principals assessing skills Taken as percent of staff MCPS data Annual

Teachers assessing skills Taken as percent of staff MCPS data Annual

ITSS skill training # of staff enrolled in 1+ course MCPS data Annual

Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results


Customer satisfaction satisfied as percent of total MCPS data Annual

Requirements implemented Implemented as percent of total MCPS data Annual


Impact of Technology on Student Learning The district also will evaluate how the use of technology is impacting student learning. This aspect of the assessment of progress will look at use of technology and whether its presence is related to progress on achieving targets in the Maryland Content Standards, including the Voluntary State Curriculum, High School Core Learning Goals, Maryland School Assessment, and High School Assessment. These measures will be accessed and reported in schools where new technologies are introduced. Assurances of Alignment with Technology Related Laws, Regulations, and Guidance MCPS procurement and purchasing processes require that equipment, software, and online resources are centrally evaluated and that are requests for purchased are reviewed by staff in the Office of the Chief Technology Officer. These processes ensure that all technology purchases are accessible for all students per COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H: Accessibility of Technology-Based Instructional Products; Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities. MCPS professional development is aligned with the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and the Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework. To measure the outcomes of the professional development to support this plan, the technology skills of teachers and principals will be measured against the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards and the Maryland Technology Standards for School Administrators. MCPS governs the acceptable use of computers and Internet safety, as specified under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, through MCPS Regulation IGT-RA, User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and Network Security. The stated description and purposes for this regulation are as follows:

• To ensure the security of all elements of MCPS computer systems, related technology, and electronic information

• To delineate appropriate uses for all users of MCPS computer systems • To promote intellectual development through the use of computer systems, related

technology, and electronic information in a safe environment • To ensure compliance with relevant state, local, and federal laws

The complete text of Regulation IGT-RA, User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and Network Security, appears in Appendix I or can be accessed via the following Web page:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/sect-i.shtm


VI. Funding the Plan This strategic technology plan describes technology initiatives that are administered and funded throughout the school system. For example, technical support for secondary schools is administered and funded by individual schools, assistive technologies by the Department of Special Education, and technology professional development by OOD. OCTO administers and funds development and operation of enterprise student and business applications; systems architecture and central server support; planning and implementation of telecommunications and network infrastructure; planning and installation for the refreshment of obsolete technology; and research, development, piloting, and dissemination of new technologies that support teaching and learning. Because the administration of technology-supported initiatives is the responsibility of several offices, the implementation and funding for this strategic technology plan represents a highly collaborative effort. Likewise, the funding needed to support this strategic technology plan is spread throughout the school system and funding appears in both the operating and capital budgets. The plan also depends on receipt of federal program allocations passed through the state and rebates provided by telecommunication vendors through E-Rate. This section of the plan outlines the costs and estimated funding for equipment, software, and connectivity (e.g., wiring and telecommunications) that are needed to implement the goals and objectives. Costs are based on current pricing estimates and funding is based on the school system’s capital and budget requests for fiscal year 2009 and beyond. Overall costs and funding follow. In addition, the documents in Appendices C to H provide more detail on the three-year projection of technology replacement and enhancement in MCPS.

Appendix C Software and Online Services Appendix D Telecommunication and Internal Connection Services Appendix E Equipment and Infrastructure Model for Technology Modernization Appendix F Equipment, Infrastructure, and Software for Middle School Reform Appendix G Other New Equipment and Infrastructure Initiatives Contemplated Appendix H Schedule of Schools to Be Served


Costs to Implement the Plan The chart below provides an estimate of the costs of funding this plan. It includes both the acquisition of equipment and materials (hardware, infrastructure, and software) and support (planning, installation, and support).

Summary of Estimated Costs: Acquiring and Supporting Technology

(Dollars in 000’s)

Category Projected Costs

Replacement equipment $ 15,511

Replacement wiring/electronics 805

Replacement software 648

New wiring/electronics 172

New equipment 336

New software 1,322

Supplies and materials 5,486

Full-time, part-time, and contractual staff support 21,498

Online resources 1,297

Telecommunications 3,248

Contractual and maintenance 8,396

Professional development (30.1 percent of equipment costs) 5,364

Cost Totals: $ 64,083


Adequate Funding The charts below provide an estimate of requested funding that, if approved, would be available to fund this plan. As shown in the subsequent information, these funding sources represent a combination of local, state/federal, and E-Rate funding.

Operating Budget—FY 2009 Request and FY 2010–2011 Projections of Total (000’s)

Cost Category FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Online Resources $1,297

Telecommunications 3,248

Technology Administration 2,750

Technology Project Management 742

Technology Planning 467

System Architecture and Operations 5,264

Student Systems 7,936

Business Systems 3,699

Technology Support 6,027

Field Operations 2,791

Professional Development 5,664

Total $39,885 $41,879 $43,973

Federal Funds/State Pass-Through—FY 2009–2011 Projections (000’s)

Cost Category FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Title II-D Educational Technology $213 $200 $200

Title V-A Innovative Programs 225 0 0

Professional Development 18 15 15

Total $456 $215 $215


Capital Improvement Program – Technology Modernization Request (000’s)

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

$19,643 $20,807 $20,862 $21,830 $21,911 $22,213

E-Rate Rebates – Based on past receipts from vendors (000’s)

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

$1,900 $1,995 $2,095

Total Estimated Funding – (000’s)

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

$59,884 $63,175 $65,740 Accessibility of Technology-Based Product Purchases MCPS is compliant with the MSDE regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) governing the acquisition of accessible technology-based instructional products and with Education Article §7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities that require teacher-made instructional materials also are accessible. As part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Planning process, MCPS reports its accessibility compliance annually to the MSDE, including the process, implementation, and monitoring of these guidelines.


29

Appendices

Appendix A: Progress in Achieving Previous Technology Plan Goals and Objectives Appendix B: FY 200–-FY 2012 Curriculum Revision Delivery Plan Appendix C: Software and Online Services Appendix D: Telecommunication and Internal Connection Services Appendix E: Equipment and Infrastructure Model for Technology Modernization Appendix F: Equipment, Infrastructure, and Software for Middle School Reform Appendix G: Other New Equipment and Infrastructure Initiatives Contemplated Appendix H: Schedule of Schools to Be Served Appendix I: User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and Network Security (IGT-RA)

30

Progress in Achieving Previous Technology Plan Goals and Objectives

Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic Technology Plan: 2005–2008 This report summarizes the progress that has been made toward meeting the district’s educational technology goals. Data includes Montgomery County Public Schools trends and comparisons with statewide averages and other Maryland school districts. Plan Goals:

1. Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis 2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction 3. Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving results 4. Technology will be used to overcome location and distance as barriers to learning

Unexpected Outcomes During the implementation of the strategic technology plan, a number of unexpected outcome and benefits were achieved. Also, a number of targets were not achieved because of a lack of staff resources, lack of time, lack of funding, or lack of interest by schools. A summary of these unexpected outcomes follow. Benefits

• Use of donated computers by nonpublic schools • Use of school and program funds to acquire additional funds when a 5:1 computer

replacement policy was adopted by the Montgomery County Council • Use of technology to support formative student assessment • Use of technology to track teacher participation in required training

Targets Not Yet Achieved

• A 3:1 students to computers ratio • Adoption of distance learning and video conferencing by high schools • Partnerships around technology-related initiatives with communities and businesses • The measurement of student technology literacy

Goal 1: Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis Goal 1, Objective 1 MCPS will establish a ratio of students to computers of 3:1 and increase the number of computers; computer-related technologies; and handheld, portable, and assistive devices used in schools to meet this ratio and the instructional needs of students by 2008.

Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio Performance Measure 1.1.B: Computer projection devices per school Performance Measure 1.1.C: Use of assistive technologies for students with disabilities Performance Measure 1.1.D: Technical support staff to computer ratios

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress.

Appendix A

31



Student to Computer Ratio 3.8:1 3.4:1 5:1

Classrooms with Internet Access 100% 98% 100%


Is assistive technology used by teachers for students with disabilities or with learning difficulties? • disabilities and learning difficulties • primarily disabilities • teachers lack awareness, have not been

trained, or have no clear way to obtain assistive technologies

45% 52% 3%

26% 28% 46%

n/a n/a n/a

Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective (see both the graph and the table).

Number of Students per Computer7.0

6.0 6.0 Better

6.0 5.2 5.2

5.0 2005 State Target 4.2

3.94.0 3.8

3.0

2.0

1.0

- 2000 2001 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005


Appendix A

32

Table 2. Students to Computer Comparisons

1 Talbot County 2.22 Garrett County 2.43 Worcester County 2.84 Caroline County 2.95 Prince George’s County 2.96 Howard County 3.17 Somerset County 3.18 Frederick County 3.29 St. Mary’s County 3.2

10 Wicomico County 3.211 Baltimore County 3.312 Cecil County 3.413 Charles County 3.414 Allegany County 3.515 Anne Arundel County 3.516 Carroll County 3.617 Kent County 3.718 Queen Anne’s County 3.719 Dorchester County 3.77320 Montgomery County 3.77521 Washington County 3.83722 Harford County 3.923 Calvert County 4.224 Baltimore City 4.5

3.4


State Total Performance Measure 1.1.B: Computer projection devices per school Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the progress toward meeting this objective, as shown on the two tables that follow.


Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Target

Average number of projection devices per school 18.1 19.3 1 per Classroom

Appendix A

33

Table 4. Maryland School District Comparisons

1 Worcester County 52.72 Prince George’s County 40.13 Wicomico County 27.44 Charles County 27.15 Harford County 25.96 Queen Anne’s County 22.87 Baltimore County 22.48 Frederick County 21.79 Carroll County 20.0

10 Howard County 19.311 Montgomery County 18.112 Kent County 14.113 Dorchester County 12.814 Anne Arundel County 12.415 Washington County 11.216 Calvert County 10.517 Cecil County 9.918 Allegany County 8.619 Garrett County 8.320 St. Mary’s County 8.321 Somerset County 8.122 Caroline County 7.823 Talbot County 5.924 Baltimore City 3.6

19.0

Average # of Projection Devices per School

State Total

Appendix A

34

Performance Measure 1.1.C: Use of assistive technologies for students with disabilities Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective (graph).

Percentage of Schools Using Assistive Technologies 100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Better50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005


Assistive Technology—MCPS is compliant with the MSDE regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) governing the acquisition of accessible technology-based instructional products and with Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities that requires teacher-made instructional materials also are accessible. As part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Planning process, MCPS reports its accessibility compliance annually, including the process, implementation, and monitoring of these guidelines. The MCPS Web site is accessible to all users, including those with disabilities. In addition, school Web developers are trained in how to make their own sites accessible and give free tools to support this effort via http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/index.html. The following is an excerpt from this Web page:

A-Prompt Helps People with Disabilities use the Internet Web authors can use A-Prompt to make their Web pages accessible to people with disabilities. The A-Prompt software tool examines Web pages for barriers to accessibility, performs automatic repairs when possible, and assists the author in manual repairs when necessary. These enhanced Web pages are available to a larger Internet audience.

Appendix A

35

People who are blind can use the Internet by listening to synthesized speech from their computer. They do this by using a Screen Reader, software that vocalizes text by converting it to speech. Those with physical disabilities who have difficulty typing or using a mouse can browse the Internet by manipulating switches or wireless pointing devices attached to their heads. People who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading visible text and image captions. These are examples of technologies, known as Assistive Technologies, which improve the accessibility of the Internet to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, smooth operation of these technologies is often prevented by how a Web page is designed and created. Accessibility can also be improved directly by applying universal design techniques. For example, people who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading text captions and viewing supplemental illustrations. The ability to zoom and enlarge text allows those with low vision to read. Assistive Technologies and universal design make the Internet more accessible to everybody by providing convenient alternatives for small screens in mobile devices, text alternatives for low bandwidth connections and other atypical situations. Performance Measure 1.1.D: Technical support staff to computer ratios There are 74 secondary ITSSs—one in each middle and high school—and 36 ITSSs support 131 elementary schools and 5 special schools. With a total of 42,378 computers in the schools, this represents an average of 415 computers per ITSS. This average is 115 more than the 300:1 ratio recommended by the MSDE and adopted by MCPS. Goal 1, Objective 2 MCPS will facilitate the donation of 800 previously owned computers to community partnerships to help close the digital divide by 2008. Performance Measure: The total number of computers donated through MCPS to identified community groups. From July 2005 through December 2007, a total of 5,480 previously owned computers were donated to local community centers and non-public schools. Goal 1, Objective 3 MCPS computers and portable devices will continue to access online services and resources from any location with Internet access through 2008. Performance Measures: Percentage of schools and classrooms with Internet connectivity, comparison of school access to students with access to the Internet at home, and percentage of schools with medium/high Internet capacity.

Appendix A

36

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective.

Table 5. Student Home Access to Technology


Classrooms with Internet Access 100% 98% 100%

Students with Internet Access at Home 83% 73% 100%

Schools with medium/high Internet capacity 100% Not Available 100% Goal 2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction Goal 2, Objective 1 School-based and central services staff members will demonstrate competence relevant to their job function in using productivity software, instructional software online services, the Internet, administrative applications, and decision support tools by 2007. Performance Measures: Technology use by staff to perform required job skills as measured by assessments identified through this planning process. Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward meeting this objective.


Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Avg. Target

Teacher knowledge and skills at least intermediate in: - computer use - Internet use - technology integration

80% 74% 80%

78% 72% 74%

100% 100% 100%

Goal 2, Objective 2 Ongoing staff development for technology will continue to be provided using a variety of formats and delivery methods through 2008. Performance Measures: Customer satisfaction with the variety of formats and delivery methods for technology staff development and increased staff knowledge and skills as measured by the evaluation standards and measures to be developed in the activities below.


Appendix A

37

Goal 2, Objective 3 All MCPS students will demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to use technology appropriately to support their learning by 2007. Performance Measure: Technology is used by students to perform skills emphasized by the state

Table 7. Student Use of Technology (Percentages are answers of “a few times a month” and “every day or almost every day”)


1. Gather information and data from a variety of sources 93% 89% 2. Organize and store information 58% 50% 3. Perform measurements and collect data in investigations or lab

experiments 26% 30%

4. Manipulate/analyze/interpret information or data to discover relationships, generate questions, and/or reach conclusions

45% 39%

5. Communicate/report information, conclusions, or results of investigations

82% 64%

6. Display data/information 68% 54% 7. Communicate/interact with others in the classroom/

school/outside of school 38% 38%

8. Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text 91% 78% 9. Create graphics or visuals 84% 63% 10. Plan, refine, produce multimedia presentations 53% 40% 11. Generate original pieces of visual art and/or musical composition 28% 23% 12. Perform calculations 41% 42% 13. Develop a more complete understanding of complex material or

abstract concepts 28% 29%

14. Connect auditory language to the written word and/ or graphic representations

82% 61%

15. Design and produce a product 19% 15% 16. Control other devices 7% 7% 17. Support individualized learning or tutoring 57% 60% 18. Remediate for basic skills 84% 79% 19. Accommodate for a disability or limitation 88% 69%

Goal 2, Objective 4 Partnerships are established with schools, communities, and businesses to enhance the effectiveness of technology-related initiatives in support of success for every child by 2007. Performance Measure: User and community satisfaction survey results.


Appendix A

38

Goal 2, Objective 5 The MCPS curriculum reflects the appropriate use of technology to support teaching and learning, and resources to support this curriculum are developed and made available electronically 2008. Performance Measure: The percentage newly designed and updated curricula that include integrated instructional technology support, alignment, and appropriateness. All new curricula integrate technology. In addition, assessments are being put online in support of one the district’s master plan strategies, which is Optimization of technology to support student achievement through analysis of formative assessment data, diagnosis of student learning needs, and analysis of reading and math achievement data. Goal 2, Objective 6 The implementation plans for MCPS instructional initiatives continue to include technology as one of the tools that is used to support increased student achievement through 2008. Performance Measure: The percentage of new instructional initiatives that includes technology as a support for increased student achievement in their implementation plans. Major instructional initiatives include technology as a support. Two examples are—

• Magnet schools—the 2:1 student to computer ratios in the Argyle Middle School Magnets and the 3 student computers per classroom in the Pine Crest and North Chevy Chase elementary magnets, and

• Middle School Reform Initiative—the ACTIVClassroom focus for student engagement.

Goal 3. Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving results Goal 3, Objective 1 Use multiple measures to assess the impact of technology on enhancing instruction and student learning by 2008. Performance Measure: A balanced technology evaluation plan has been created, implemented, and used to improve the use of technology to support instruction and student learning.

[This objective was not fulfilled.] Goal 3, Objective 2 Implement an enterprise-wide Integrated Quality Management System that is comprised of a data warehouse system and a Web-based instructional management system by 2008. Performance Measure: Percentage teachers and administrators who use technology to maintain data on students.

Appendix A

39


Table 8. Administrator Use of Technology (Percentages are answers of “a few times a month” and “every day or almost every day”)


1. Communicating with staff members and other colleagues 100% 99%

2. Communicating with parents/guardians of students 98% 88%

3. Posting/viewing/accessing school/district announcements or information

99% 94%

4. Participating in online discussion groups or collaborative projects

66% 41%

5. Diagnosing and placing students 84% 72%

6. Analyzing attendance and/or grades 91% 91%

7. Analyzing tests 83% 75%

8. Analyzing grades and progress reports 80% 74%

9. Maintaining data on students 96% 93%

10. Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement data

80% 77%

11. Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations 84% 78%

12. Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the Internet or school system Intranet

92% 87%

13. Researching educational topics of interest 92% 91%

14. Handling inventory, lockers, field trips or bus schedules 69% 64%

Table 9. Teacher and Administrator Use of Technology


Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland

9. Teachers: Maintaining data on students 91% 79%

9. Administrators: Maintaining data on students 96% 93%

Appendix A

40

Goal 3, Objective 3 Develop and maintain high-quality information systems to help manage information, improve work efficiencies, and support instruction by 2003 and beyond. Performance Measure: Percentage of prioritized system requirements that are implemented in enterprise system development, upgrade, and maintenance projects. Customer satisfaction. Data from the FY 2009 Operating Budget indicate that progress was made toward meeting this objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.

Table 10. Quality of Information System

Indicator of Progress FY 2007 Data

Percentage of high priority enterprise system requirements implemented on-time

88%

Level of customer satisfaction with implemented enterprise technology solution (business systems)

80%

Percentage of users satisfied with the customer service provided (student systems)

75%

Goal 4. Technology will be used to overcome location and distance as barriers to learning Goal 4, Objective 1 MCPS students and teachers will continue to have access to online instructional resources to support teaching and learning through 2008. Performance Measure: The percentage growth in online teaching and instructional resources available to all MCPS students and teachers. The content on the MCPS Web page for students interested in online courses (January 11, 2008) follows. The information on this Web page indicates the number and variety of online course offerings now available for high school students in Montgomery County Public Schools.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/onlinelearning/

Student Online Learning—21st Century Learning for 21st Century Learners

Student Online Learning, through the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), is a way for high school students to take courses outside of the traditional classroom setting. For more information or to register for an online class, please see your school guidance counselor.

Appendix A

41

Are You Ready for Online Learning?

• This is Student Online Learning Information about process and eligibility for online students.

• Success as an Online Student Rules of the road for success as an online student.

2008 Spring Courses - Registration OPEN for Spring FOT (click here)

• Foundations of Technology (FOT) This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include 3 required face-to-face lab sessions. The course runs from March 31 - June 7. A half credit option is available for seniors only, running from March 31 - April 25 and will include 2 face-to-face sessions.

Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunity (MVLO) AP Courses

• AP Art History • AP Calculus AB • AP English Lit and Comp • AP Macroeconomics • AP Microeconomics

• AP Physics B • AP Statistics • AP US Gov't and Politics • AP Computer Sci A

Summer Course Highlights 2008 - Registration Opens Jan. 17

• Foundations of Technology (FOT) This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include three required face-to-face lab sessions.

• Comprehensive Health and Wellness This .5 credit course runs in a 3 week format. This course requires attendance at two face-to-face sessions.

Goal 4, Objective 2 MCPS students will continue to have access to online courses for high school credit by 2004 and ongoing. Performance Measure: The availability of credit-bearing high school online courses.

[See above] Goal 4, Objective 3 MCPS students and staff will have access to interactive video conferencing to enable real-time interaction with subject matter experts from around the block and around the world by 2008. Performance Measure: Access to interactive video conferencing in alternative centers, high schools, and middle school magnet programs.

Appendix A

This objective was not fulfilled. Interactive video conferencing was placed in alternative centers. When the federal grant allocation that funded the project coordinator was cut; no further progress was made. Goal 4, Objective 4 Continue the ability to communicate and educate by enhancing Web applications and by improving e-mail through 2008. Performance Measure: Percent of classrooms with high-capability computers that can run up-to-date Web and e-mail software, as reported in the MSDEs annual technology inventory of resources in Maryland schools. Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicate that progress was made toward meeting this objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.

Table 11. Classroom with High Capability Student Computers

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Avg. Target


Classrooms with 5+ student computers 6% 10% n/a

42

Appendix B

43

FY 2002–FY 2012 Curriculum Revision Delivery Plan

Appendix B

School Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Pre-K

RKindergarten Grade 1 RGrade 2 RGrade 3 RGrade 4 Grade 5 English 6 REnglish 7 REnglish 8 RReading 6 RReading 7 RReading 8 REnglish 9

REnglish 10English 11 English 12

Blueprint (K-8)/Outline (HS) Guides (distrib. to all schools, all quarters) Integrated Curriculum

R Revision

Curriculum Framework

Text/Instr. Res. Formative Assess ███ Classroom UseProf. Development Tier 1

English/Language Arts

44

Appendix B

School Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Pre-K RKindergarten R Grade 1 RGrade 2 RGrade 3 RGrade 4 RGrade 5 RMath 6 RMath 7 RAlgebra Prep RIM RAlgebra I R Geometry RAlgebra II RPre-Calculus RQuantitative LiteracyBridge to Algebra 2


R Revision

Mathematics


Text/Instr. Res. Prof. Development Tier 1 ███ Classroom Use Formative Assess

45

Appendix B

Social StudiesSchool Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Pre-KKindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 RGrade 3 RGrade 4 RGrade 5 RGrade 6 RGrade 7 RGrade 8 RNSL RUS History (2000) R RModern World


R Revision



46

Appendix B

ScienceSchool Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Kindergarten

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Matter & Energy Biology Chemistry Physics Earth & Space


R Revision



47

Appendix B

48

Physical EducationSchool Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-5 Grades 6-8Grades 9-12


Health EducationSchool Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Kindergarten Grades K-2Grades 3-5Grades 6-8Grades 9-12


R Revision





Appendix C

49

Software and Online Services All Workstations Productivity Software: Windows XP Accessibility Wizard:

Magnifier Narrator On-Screen Keyboard

Acrobat Reader Adobe Acrobat Calculator Citrix Explorer

Active X Ipix Authorware Flash Journal Viewer QuickTime Real One Player Rss Reader Shockwave eWebEditPro +XML Windows Media Player

Host Explorer (mainframe) McAfee Virus Software Microsoft Office Access Excel Outlook PowerPoint Publisher Word Movie Maker MS Paint Notepad Patron's catalog Pinnacle studio (limited machines) Roxio Smart FTP Sound Recorder Spectrum circ/cat Volume Control Word Pad Elementary Only Productivity Software: MClass Quicken (1 copy) Zen for handhelds

Appendix C

50

On Elementary Palm Pilots: Palm OS

All Workstations Instructional Software: Filemaker Inspiration IrfanView Elementary Only Instructional Software Bailey’s Book House Clicker 5 Graph Club Imagination Suite

Pixie Image Blender Web Blender

Kidspiration Mighty Math Calculating Crew (1) Mighty Math Carnival Countdown (3) Mighty Math Number Heroes (4) Mighty Math Zoo Zillions (2) Pair-It Books Stage 1 Pair-It Books Stage 2 Pair-It Books Stage 3 Pair-It Books Stage 4 Pair-It Books Stage 5 Type to Learn 3 Standalone CDs:

Instant Reader My First Amazing and Incredible Dictionary

Middle Only Instructional Software Graph Master Studio MX. Contribute Dreamweaver Fireworks Flash Flash Paper Flash 8 Video Encoder Home Site+ Turbo Typing High Only Instructional Software Studio MX. Contribute Dreamweaver Fireworks Flash Flash Paper Flash 8 Video Encoder

Appendix C

Home Site+ Turbo Typing Eclipse Special Ed Software Boardmaker IntelliTools Suite Solo / co-writer Writing with Symbols IntelliTools Overlay Maker Intellikeys USB drivers Kurzweil 3000 client

Online Services

Product Level(s) Purchased For CompanyAmerica's Historical Newspapers MS NewsBankAnnals of American History ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia BritannicaCulture Grams ES, MS, HS ProQuestEnciclopedia Universal en Espanol ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia BritannicaEncyclopedia Britannica ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia BritannicaFacts for Learning ES (grades 1-5) Facts on File News ServiceIssues and Controversies MS, HS Facts on File News ServiceKidsPage ES, MS NewsBankMerriam Webster Dictionary ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia BritannicaNetTrekker ES, MS, HS ThinkronizeNoodleTools ES,MS,HS NoodleTools, Inc.Opposing Viewpoints HS Thomson GaleProfessional Education Journals Staff ProQuestProQuest Historical Newspapers HS ProQuestProQuest Platinum HS ProQuestScience Resource Center MS, HS Thomson GaleSIRS ES, MS, HS ProQuestStudent Resource Center: Gold HS Thomson GaleStudent Resource Center: Junior MS Thomson GaleTeaching Books ES, MS, HS Teaching Books, LLCUS History Resource Center Grades 8-9 Thomson Gale World Book Web School and Library ES (grades 3-5), MS, HS World BookWorld Data Annals ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia Britannica

51

Appendix D

Telecommunication and Internal Connection Services

Telecommunications • Local voice and data services, including POTS, Centrex, ISDN, DID, BRI, PRI, point to

point T-1, frame relay T-1's & T-3's and DS1, trunk lines, and custom calling features (e.g., voicemail and toll free service)

• Basic cellular phone services

• Cellular phone services with enhanced features including, but not limited to, pooled

minutes, nationwide roaming, push to talk, unlimited data/email/Internet, text messaging, caller ID, call forward, voicemail, and long distance

• Cellular services with two-way radio and group call and including, but not limited to,

pooled minutes, nationwide roaming, push to talk, unlimited data/email/internet, text messaging, caller ID, call forward, voicemail, and long distance

• Long distance phone services

• VoIP, including self-maintained and hosted

• Alarm circuits (point to point voice grade data lines for alarm circuits)

• Paging service with custom features including numeric, text, and two-way text pager

services

• Transparent LAN Service/Tie lines/Trunks Tie Lines, including tie (FX-or foreign exchange) lines to the Baltimore metro calling area accessible from MCPS lines in the Rockville CO via coded input and tie (FX or foreign exchange) lines from the Rockville metro calling area directly

• Radio loop circuits (point to point, voice grade radio circuits)

• Circuits, including door/gate announce circuits

• High speed data circuits district wide

• Internet access, district-wide for all instructional and administrative areas

Internal Connections

• Network equipment for internal connections, including Cisco routers and switches • Wireless Access Points and controllers • Cisco security devices and software • Installation of equipment and related circuit/wiring connections

52

Appendix E

53

Equipment and Infrastructure Model for Technology Modernization

Appendix E

Technology Modernization: Allocation of Hardware, Infrastructure, and Software for Each School Item Description Tech Mod Service Model

Student and Teacher Computers

Computers used by students and teachers, calculated at a 5:1 student to computer replacement ratio

Five students per computer based on school enrollment (rounded up) using the March 1 projections for the following September. Unit price includes installation and four-year warranty. One AV computer per classroom/learning cottage is included. In addition, schools receive computers for head start, special education, and other special programs that are not part of the 5:1 ratio. Head start computers not funded by CIP.

Admin Computers

Computers in non-teaching locations Formula is ES = 13(includes 1 cafeteria); secondary schools formula is 1 per 47 students (minimum of 16) plus 1 for cafeteria. Principals: 1 tablet. NSBO: 450 total.

School LAN & Rack Surge

School Local Area Network (LAN) routers and switches in wiring closets

Upgrade switches by adding Gig ports and powered ports for future technology capacity (e.g., wireless remote access and VoIP). One rack-mounted UPS per wire closet for switches and router

Projection Devices

Computer projection display for classrooms Two in ES; Secondary budgeted at 1 per 20 classrooms.

Printers Printers for administrative and instructional areas

ES = 2 networked color laser (1 smaller capacity for data analysis), 2 networked workgroup B&W laser printers, 2 “personal” laser B&W printers, and 1 color inkjet per classroom. (Current departmental printers stay.) MS = 2 networked color laser (1 smaller capacity for data analysis), 1 per 250 students networked B&W laser (3 minimum) 1per 600 students networked workgroup B&W laser printer + 1, 5 “personal” laser B&W printer, and 3 color inkjets for teacher use. (Current departmental printers stay.) HS = 1 networked color laser, 1 per 300 students networked B&W laser (3 minimum), 1 per 500 students networked workgroup B&W laser printer +2, 10 “personal” laser B&W printer, 4 color inkjets for teacher use.

Servers File servers, integration, and licenses ES = Rack-mounted: 2 fileservers, 1 with back-up tape +1Domain Controller and 2 UPS surge protection devices. MS = Rack-mounted: 2 fileservers, 1 with back-up tape+1Domain Controller and 2 UPS surge protection devices. HS = Rack-mounted: 3 2 fileservers, 1 with back-up tape + 1Domain Controller and 2 UPS surge protection devices.

Image Software Instructional software per computer $100 per CPU in elementary and $60 per CPU in middle and high. Library Circulation

Handheld scanner and Spectrum One replacement handheld scanner for each school and Spectrum software for new schools

Peripherals Peripherals for instructional use Conversion Patch cables at $7 per computer. S-video cables, 1 per AV computer Surge Protection

Electrical surge protection 1 power strip surge protector for every 2 computers.

54

Appendix E

55

ALLOCATION DETAILS

Special education schools computer allocations are as follows: (allocations are based on the official March 1 projections for student enrollment for the following September)

• Student computers—Five students per computer based on school enrollment (rounded up) • Computer labs—In addition to the 5:1 ratio computers, special education schools receive one computer per every ten students

(rounded up) for computer lab(s)

• Teacher computers—One computer per Special Ed teacher

• Administrative computers—Elementary special education schools receive 13 administrative computers (including 1 cafeteria) and secondary special education schools receive 1 administrative computer per 47 students (or a minimum of 16) plus 1 for cafeteria.

Technology Modernization: Additional Information on Allocation of Printers for Each School

High Schools Middle Schools Elementary Schools

New

printers

Existing printers with life expectancy of 4 additional years

New printers

Existing printers with life expectancy of 4

additional years New printers

Existing printers with life expectancy of 4

additional years Large format network color laser 0 1 0 1 0 1 Network color laser 1 1.5 2 0 2 0 Large format network B&W laser 0 1 0 1 0 1 Network B&W laser 6 10.5 3 6 0 3 Network workgroup B&W laser 5.5 2 2.5 2 2 0 "Personal" B&W laser 10 4 5 3 2 0 Color inkjet (teacher use) 4 3 3 0 1 per classroom 0 NOTE: Network laser printers have life expectancy of eight years

Appendix F

Equipment, Infrastructure, and Software for Middle School Reform

Summary of School Hardware, Infrastructure, and Software in Technology Modernization Middle Schools

Item Description Tech Mod Service Model

Interactive White Boards

Promethian ACTIVClassroom model includes the following for each classroom: 1 ACTIVboard, 2 ACTIVtablets, 32 ACTIVotes, 1 ACTIVslate XR, bracket, video splitter, display extender, projector and USB A-A cable

18 classrooms per school

School LAN School LAN enhancements include wireless controller, wireless access points, and wiring to connect access points

One wireless controller and 35 access points per school plus needed wiring

Software ACTIVStudio Installed building-wide

Audio Enhancement

Classroom set includes wireless microphones, speakers, and amplifiers


.

Summary of Added School Hardware, Infrastructure, and Software in Selected Middle School Reform Pilot Schools

(10 Schools in FY09)

Item Description Pilot Service Model

Teacher Laptops Laptop computers for core content area teachers

4 teachers per school

Mobile Labs Mobile laptop cart with sixteen laptops, one color printer per cart, three surge protectors/power strips, and a wireless access point

Two carts (16 computers/one printer each) per school

Document Camera Elmo manipulative and document camera with cart and spare bulb


Software SynchronEyes for classroom management Installed building-wide

Audio Enhancement

Classroom set includes wireless microphones, speakers, and amplifiers


56

Appendix G

Other New Equipment and Infrastructure Initiatives Contemplated

Item Description

Classroom LCD projectors One LCD projector per classroom

Additional ACTIVboards in designated classrooms

Additional designated ACTIVclassrooms, including ACTIVboard , 2 ACTIVtablet, 32 ACTIVote, 1 ACTIVslate, 2 wireless microphones, speakers, and amplifiers

Promethean boards and ACTIVclassrooms with audio enhancements

Install ACTIVclassroom in Media Centers, with ACTIVboard, 2 ACTIVtablet, 32 ACTIVote, 1 ACTIVslate, 2 wireless microphones, speakers, and amplifiers

Thin client Use of several end-user workstations (screens, mice, and keyboards) driven by a single computer processor, in order to provide student computers at a lower cost

Ultra Mobile PCs Use of low-cost ultra-mobile PCs in low-income schools, focusing first on elementary schools

TV tuners Installed TV tuner cards in each classroom computer to receive cable TV signal. Projection would be through classroom LCD projectors. (This would replace existing, outdated televisions.)

“Elmo” document cameras One document camera per classroom for full class document and manipulative viewing. . Projection would be through classroom LCD projectors.

Full wireless capability Wireless access points installed building-wide

Mobil Carts Mobil cart containing 8–10 wireless laptop computers, access points, and a printer

Teacher Laptops One laptop per teacher to facilitate mobility and collaboration

57

Appendix H

Schedule of Schools to Be Served

Secondary Schools

FY 09 FY 10 FY 11

Walter Johnson - 2 yrsBlair Kennedy Bethesda - Chevy ChaseBlake Churchill

Einstein ClarksburgNorthwest GaithersburgNorthwood

Quince OrchardRockvilleSherwood

Watkins MillWhitman

Edison10 2.5 4

FY 09 FY 10 FY 11Key - 5 yrs

Argyle Lakelands Park Newport MllBaker Loiderman

Banneker North BethesdaBriggs Chaney Pyle

Cabin John RedlandFarquhar Ridgeview

Gaithersburg Rosa ParksHoover Shady Grove

Neelsville SligoRobert Frost Silver Spring International

Rocky Hill Takoma ParkTilden

White OakWood

11 15 1

Note: schools listed in boldface type above the double line are new or modernized

58

Appendix H

Elementary and Special Schools

FY 09 FY 10Galway - 2.5 yrs Clarksburg/Damascus #8

Bells Mill - 5 yrsCashell - 3 yrs

Barnsley Brown Station Asburton LuxmanorBethesda Chevy Chase Bannockburn Marshall

Canon Road Clopper Mill Belmont MatsunagaCarderock Springs Daly Beverly Farms McAuliffe

Cresthaven East Silver Spring Bradly Hills McNairGaithersburg Flower Hill Brooke Grove MonocacyGlen Haven Fox Chapel Burning Tree Okland Terrace

Harmony Hills Garret Park Burtonsville OlneyHighland Glenallan Candlewood Poolesville

New Hampshire Estates Greencastle Cedar Grove PotomacRitchie Park Highland View Clearspring Rachel CarsonRock View Kensington Parkwood Cloverly Rock Creek Forest

Seven Locks Maryvale Clarksburg Rock Creek ValleySligo Creek Meadow Hall Cold Spring RockwellSummit Hall Mill Creek Town Darnestown Roscoe NixTwinbrook Montgomery Knolls Diamond Rosmary HillsWestover Piney Branch Drew Sequoyah

Wheaton Woods Resnik DuFief SherwoodWyngate Ride Fairland Shriver

Rolling Terrace Fallsmead SteadwickSomerset Fields Road Stonegate

Strathmore Forest Knolls Stone MillStrawberry Knolls Goshen Travilah

Watkins Mill Great Seneca WaysideWeller Road Greenwood Wood AcresWhetstone Jones Lane Woodfield

Washington Grove Laytonsville WoodlinLittle Bennett Waters LandingLake Seneca

20 30FY 09 FY 10

Rock Terrace LongviewStephen KnollsSandberg

3 0

60FY 11

1

FY 11Carderock Springs - 2 yrs

Cresthaven - 2 yrsTakoma Park - 5 yrs

Note: schools listed in boldface type above the double line are new or modernized

59

Appendix I

Regulation IGT-RA User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and Network Security

60

ATTACHMENT 4-A and B SCHOOL LEVEL BUDGET SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2009

Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools

Enter the Amount of Funds Budgeted for Each School by ESEA Programs and Other Sources of Funding. Expand Table as needed.

SCHOOL NAME Rank Order All Schools by Percentage of Poverty – High to Low Poverty After School Name Indicate as appropriate: • (SW) for T-I

Schoolwide Schools • (TAS) for Targeted

Assistance T-I Schools

• (CH) for Charter Schools

School ID

Percent Poverty

Based on Free and Reduced

Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems

Title I-D Delinquent and Youth At Risk of Dropping

Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund

Title II-D Ed Tech Formula Grants

Title III-A English

Language Acquisition

Title IV-A Safe and

Drug Free Schools and

Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts

Other Total ESEAFunding by

School

Broad Acres ES (SW) 0304

88.59%

$504,499

Harmony Hills ES (SW) 0797 76.77% $471,800

Highland ES (SW) 0774 75.61% $471,133

Oak View ES (SW) 0766 73.14% $236,234

Wheaton Woods ES (SW) 0788 71.79% $383,713

New Hampshire Estate ES (SW)

0791 71.50% $355,685

Summit Hall ES (SW) 0563 70.48% $398,394

Sargent Shriver ES (SW)

0779 70.23% $567,896





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Arcola ES (SW) 0533 70.03% $324,321

Viers Mill ES (SW) 0772 67.46% $390,386

Kemp Mill ES (SW) 0805 67.13% $366,363

Weller Road ES (SW) 0777 66.74% $391,054

South Lake ES (SW) 0564 66.48% $451,781

Georgian Forest ES (SW) 0786 61.49% $355,685

East Silver Spring ES (SW) 0756 61.23% $166,164

Gaithersburg ES (SW) 0553 60.91% $368,365

Roscoe Nix ES (SW) 0307 60.64% $316,980

Clopper Mill ES (SW) 0100 60.18% $319,650

Montgomery Knolls ES (SW)

0776 59.59% $276,273

Glen Haven ES (SW) 0767 59.57% $425,087





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Cresthaven ES (SW) 0808 57.94% $262,927

Burnt Mills ES (SW) 0309 57.59% $242,240

Brookhaven ES (SW) 0807 57.40% $281,612

Washington Grove ES (SW) 0552 57.26% $251,582

Jackson Road ES (SW) 0305 56.03% $372,369

Twinbrook ES (SW) 0206 55.88% $371,701

Rolling Terrace ES (SW) 0771 55.02% $423,753

Watkins Mill ES 52.36%

Capt. James E. Daly ES 51.53%

Bel Pre ES 51.46

Strathmore ES 51.41%

Greencastle ES 51.33%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Glenallen ES 50.81%

Brown Station ES 50.66%

Rosemont ES (SW) Grandfathered

50.00% $295,626

Whetstone ES 47.61%

Flower Hill ES 47.29%

Cannon Road ES 47.19%

Stedwick ES 46.88%

Galway ES 46.10%

Pine Crest ES 45.09%

Sequoyah ES 44.68%

Fox Chapel ES 44.63%

Highland View ES 44.38%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Judith A. Resnik ES 41.91%

Fairland ES 41.89%

Rock View ES 41.18%

Strawberry Knoll ES 40.98%

Maryvale ES 37.82%

S. Christa McAuliffe ES 37.81%

Meadow Hall ES 36.99%

Piney Branch ES 35.33%

Oakland Terrace ES 34.63%

William Tyler Page ES 34.51%

Dr. Charles R. Drew ES 33.64%

Forest Knolls ES 32.02%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Lake Seneca ES 31.87%

Waters Landing ES 31.32%

Dr. Sally K. Ride ES 30.94%

Beall ES 30.17%

Goshen ES 29.55%

Mill Creek Towne ES 29.52%

Rock Creek Valley ES 28.76%

Burtonsville ES 28.75%

Germantown ES 27.78%

Sligo Creek ES 23.99%

Great Seneca Creek ES 23.02%

Lucy V. Barnsley ES 22.24%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Woodlin ES 21.65%

Takoma Park ES 21.21%

Clarksburg ES 20.68%

Jones Lane ES 20.43%

Fields Road ES 20.15%

Ronald A. McNair ES 19.89%

Rock Creek Forest ES 19.80%

Clearspring ES 19.33%

Thurgood Marshall ES 18.11%

Westover ES 17.84%

Garrett Park ES 17.71%

Brooke Grove ES 16.63%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Cashell ES 16.56%

Damascus ES 16.38%

Little Bennett ES 15.60%

College Gardens ES 14.98%

Rosemary Hills ES 14.81%

Flower Valley ES 14.45%

Lois P. Rockwell ES 14.29%

Cedar Grove ES 13.84%

Poolesville ES 13.83%

Monocacy ES 13.73%

Diamond ES 13.47%

Ritchie Park ES 13.32%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Stonegate ES 13.25%

Spark M. Matsunaga ES 12.77%

Olney ES 12.29%

Candlewood ES 12.21%

Luxmanor ES 12.00%

Rachel Carson ES 11.51%

Sherwood ES 11.43%

Ashburton ES 11.32%

Laytonsville ES 11.06%

Chevy Chase ES 10.93%

Cloverly ES 9.94%

North Chevy Chase ES 9.49%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Bells Mill ES 8.62%

Bethesda ES 7.38%

Fallsmead ES 7.25%

Travilah ES 7.02%

Belmont ES 6.62%

Woodfield ES 6.47%

DuFief ES 6.44%

Greenwood ES 6.22%

Kensington-Parkwood ES 5.81%

Somerset ES 5.54%

Stone Mill ES 5.30%

Burning Tree ES 3.69%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Beverly Farms ES 3.59%

Farmland ES 3.34%

Darnestown ES 3.14%

Potomac ES 2.59%

Westbrook ES 2.38%

Lakewood ES 2.34%

Wayside ES 2.16%

Bannockburn ES 2.04%

Wyngate ES 1.97%

Seven Locks ES 1.93%

Bradley Hills ES 1.42%

Carderock Springs ES 1.34%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Wood Acres ES 1.14%

Cold Springs 0.49%

Total Elementary

Newport Mill MS 50.31%

Col. E. Brooke Lee MS 49.89%

Francis Scott Key MS 49.59%

Loiederman MS 48.27%

Silver Spring International MS

47.90%

White Oak MS 44.77%

Parkland MS 44.60%

Sligo MS 44.26%

Argyle MS 44.03%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Neelsville MS 43.97%

Montgomery Village MS 42.84%

Eastern MS 41.92%

Forest Oak MS 40.05%

Benjamin Banneker MS 37.43%

Gaithersburg MS 33.61%

Martin Luther King Jr. MS 32.28%

Shady Grove MS 31.19%

Briggs Chaney MS 31.07%

Earle B. Wood MS 28.82%

Redland MS 28.49%

Roberto W. Clemente MS 28.36%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Julius West MS 27.90%

Takoma Park MS 25.61%

Ridgeview MS 18.89%

Rocky Hill MS 16.27%

Lakelands Park MS 15.84%

Kingsview MS 14.75%

Westland MS 11.79%

John T. Baker MS 11.61%

William H. Farquhar MS 11.31%

Tilden MS 11.17%

John H. Poole MS 8.79%

Rosa M. Parks Ms 7.27%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

North Bethesda MS 5.56%

Robert Frost MS 4.62%

Cabin John MS 4.41%

Herbert Hoover MS 2.11%

Thomas W. Pyle MS 1.53%

Total Middle

Wheaton HS 47.71%

John F. Kennedy HS 36.49%

Albert Einstein HS 36.01%

Watkins Mill HS 33.10%

Montgomery Bair HS 31.37%

Springbrook HS 30.89%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Northwood HS 30.33%

Gaithersburg HS 27.33%

Seneca Valley HS 23.87%

Clarksburg HS 22.36%

Paint Branch HS 20.91%

Col. Zadok A. Magruder HS 19.20%

Rockville HS 19.10%

James Hubert Blake HS 16.51%

Northwest HS 16.37%

Richard Montgomery HS 16.34%

Quince Orchard HS 16.01%

Sherwood HS 11.57%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School

Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Damascus HS 9.45%

Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS 8.48%

Walter Johnson HS 6.37%

Thomas S. Wootton HS 4.65%

Poolesville HS 3.85%

Winston Churchill HS 2.81%

Walt Whitman HS 1.88%

Total High

Mark Twain School 58.06%

Alternative Programs 47.17%

Rock Terrace 38.20%

Carl Sandburg Center 33.64%





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Stephen Knolls School 30.43%

Regional Inst. for Children & Adolescents (RICA)

22.32%

Longview School 20.83%

MCPS Transitions School 16.67%

Gateway to college Program 8.07%

Total Alternative and Special

Total Public school allocations (For Title I, Should add up to the total number from Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet Column I.)

$10,043,272

$10,043,272

School System Administration (For Title I, Use # on Table 7-8 LINE 5)

$2,212,217

$5,774

$1,042

$9,472

$2,964

$2,231,469

System-wide Programs and School System Support to Schools (For Title I, Use # on Table 7-8 LINE 13)

$7,637,128

$114,051

$4,149,085

$166,593

$3,169,528

$439,312

$170,076

$15,845,773





School ID

Percent Poverty


Price Meals

Title I-A Grants to

Local School Systems


Out

Title II, Part A

Teacher and

Principal Training

and Recruiting

Fund


Title III-A English


Title IV-A Safe and


Communities

Title V-A

Innovative Programs

Other

Fine Arts


School

Nonpublic Costs (Column J) (For Title I, Use # on Table 7-10 LINE 5)

156,306

$128,436

$10,905

$37,284

$24,831

$357,762

TOTAL LSS Title I Allocation (Should match # presented on C-1-25)

$20,048,923

$114,051

$4,277,521

$183,272

$3,207,854

$473,615

$173,040

$28,478,276

ATTACHMENT 5-A TRANSFERABILITY OF ESEA FUNDS [Section 6123(b)] Fiscal Year 2009


Local school systems may transfer ESEA funds by completing this page as part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual Update submission, or at a later date by completing and submitting a separate Attachment 5-A form. Receipt of this Attachment as part of the Annual Update will serve as the required 30 day notice to MSDE. A local school system may transfer up to 50 percent of the funds allocated to it by formula under four major ESEA programs to any one of the programs, or to Title I (Up to 30 percent if the school system is in school improvement)1. The school system must consult with nonpublic school officials regarding the transfer of funds. In transferring funds, the school system must: (1) deposit funds in the original fund; (2) show as expenditure – line item transfer from one fund to another, and (3) reflect amounts transferred on expenditure reports. 50% limitation for local school systems not identified for school improvement or corrective action. 30% limitation for districts identified for school improvement. A school system identified for corrective action may not use the fund transfer option.

$ Amount to be transferred into each of the following programs Funds Available for Transfer

Total FY 2008 Allocation

$ Amount to be transferred out of each program

Title I-A

Title II-A

Title II-D

Title IV-A

Title V-A

Title II-A Teacher Quality

None

Title II-D Ed Tech

None

Title IV-D Safe and Drug Free Schools &Communities

None

Title V-A Innovative Programs

None

1 A school system that is in school improvement may only use funds for school improvement activities under sections 1003 and 1116 (c) of ESEA.

ATTACHMENT 5-B CONSOLIDATION OF ESEA FUNDS FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION [Section 9203] Fiscal Year 2009


Section 9203 of ESEA allows a local school system, with approval of MSDE, to consolidate ESEA administrative funds. In consolidating administrative funds, a school system may not (a) designate more than the percentage established in each ESEA program, and (b) use any other funds under the program included in the consolidation for administrative purposes. A school system may use the consolidated administrative funds for the administration of the ESEA programs and for uses at the school district and school levels for such activities as – • The coordination of the ESEA programs with other federal and non-federal programs; • The establishment and operation of peer-review activities under No Child Left Behind; • The dissemination of information regarding model programs and practices; • Technical assistance under any ESEA program; • Training personnel engaged in audit and other monitoring activities; • Consultation with parents, teachers, administrative personnel, and nonpublic school officials; and • Local activities to administer and carry out the consolidation of administrative funds.

A school system that consolidates administrative funds shall not be required to keep separate records, by individual program, to account for costs relating to the administration of the programs included in the consolidation.

If the school system plans to consolidate ESEA administrative funds, indicate below the ESEA programs and amounts that the school system will consolidate for local administration. Provide a detailed description of how the consolidated funds will be used.

Title I-A

(Reasonable and Necessary)

Title II-A


Title II-D


Title III-A

(Limit: 2 Percent)

Title IV-A

(Limit: 2 Percent)

Title V


Total ESEA

Consolidation (Reasonable and

Necessary) $ None

$ None

$ None

$ None

$ None

$ None

$ None

ATTACHMENT 6-A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION FOR ESEA PROGRAMS Fiscal Year 2009


Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use the optional “Comments” area to provide additional information about ESEA services to nonpublic school students, teachers, and other school personnel. For example, if Title I services are provided through home tutoring services or by a third party contractor, please indicate that information under “Comments.” NOTE: Complete Attachment 6-A for Title I-A, Title II-A, Title II-Ed Tech, and Title III services. Complete Attachment 6-B for Title IV-A and Title V-A services. Use separate pages as necessary.

Number of Nonpublic School Participants (Students, Teachers, and Other School Personnel)

Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Tech**

Title III-A

NONPUBLIC SCHOOL NAME AND ADDRESS

Number nonpublic T-I students to be

served at the following locations:

Students Reading/Lang.

Arts (Can be a duplicated

count)

Students Mathematics

(Can be a duplicated

count)

Staff Students Staff Students Staff

Private School

Public School

Academy Child Development Center @ Academy Hills of Rockville

10107 Darnestown Road

Rockville, MD 20850 Neutral Site

5

Private School

Public School

Academy of the Child

19711 Waters Road

Germantown, MD 20874 Neutral Site

** In process of identifying participants for FY 2009


Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Tech Title III-A






count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Academy of the Holy Cross

4920 Strathmore Avenue

Kensington, MD 20895 Neutral Site

50

Private School

Public School

Butler School

15951 Germantown Road

Darnestown, MD 20874 Neutral Site

1

Private School

Public School

Calvary Lutheran School

9545 Georgia Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20910 Neutral Site

Private School

Public School

Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School—Lower School

1901 East Jefferson Street


20

Private School

Public School

Charles E. Smith Jewish Day Care

11710 Hunters Lane


12

Private School

Public School

Children’s Learning Center, The

4511 Bestor Drive


1








count)



count)


Private School Public School

Childway

4058 Blackburn Lane

Burtonsville, MD 20866 Neutral Site

Private School

Public School

Christ Episcopal Day School

109 South Washington Street


1

Private School

Public School

Concord Hill School, Inc.

6050 Wisconsin Avenue

Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Neutral Site

1

Private School

Public School

Connelly School of the Holy Child

9029 Bradley Boulevard

Potomac, MD 20854 Neutral Site

3

Private School

Public School

Damascus Community Preschool

23425 Spire Street

Clarksburg, MD 20871 Neutral Site

1

Private School

Public School

Ets Chaiyim

20301 Pleasant Ridge Drive Montgomery Village, MD 20886 Neutral

Site








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Forcey Christian School

2130 East Randolph Road


Private School

Public School

Forcey Christian School

10625 Galway Drive


14

Private School

Public School

Foundation School of Montgomery County

220 Girard Street, Suite 300

Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Neutral Site

45

Private School

Public School

Fourth Presbyterian School, The

10701 South Glen Road


2

Private School

Public School

Geneva Day School, the

11931 Seven Locks Road


50

Private School

Public School

Georgetown Preparatory School

10900 Rockville Pike


150








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

German School Washington, D.C.

8617 Chateau Drive


50

Private School

Public School

Hebrew Day Institute, Inc.

1840 University Boulevard West


2

Private School

1

Public School

Hebrew Day School of Montgomery County, Inc.

1401 Arcola Avenue


1

Private School

Public School

The Heights School



150

Private School

Public School

Holton Arms School, Inc., The

7303 River Road

Bethesda, MD 20817 Neutral Site

3

Private School

Public School

Holy Cross School


Garrett Park, MD 20766 Neutral Site

10








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Holy Redeemer School

9715 summit Avenue

Kensington, MD 20895 Neutral Site

2

Private School

Public School

Ivymount School, The



1

Private School

Public School

Jamon Montessori School

52 Randolph Road


1

Private School

Public School

Jefferson Montessori School

8507 Emory Grove Road


Private School

Public School

John Nevins Andrews School

117 Elm Avenue

Takoma Park, MD 20912 Neutral Site

1

Private School

Public School

Lone Oak Montessori School

10100 Old Georgetown Road


1








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Lycee Rochambeau (French International School)

9600 Forest Road


4

Private School

Public School

Mary of Nazareth Roman Catholic School

14131 Seneca Road


9

Private School

Public School

Mater Amoris School, The

18501 Mink Hollow Road – P.O. Box 97

Ashton, MD 20861 Neutral Site

Private School

Public School

Mater Dei School



1

Private School

Public School

Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy

13300 Arctic Avenue


11

Private School

Public School

Mother of God School

20501 Goshen road


2

18








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Muslim Community School, The

7917 Montrose Road


2

Private School

Public School

NIH Preschool and Kindergarten

9000 Rockville Pike Bldg. 64


1

Private School

Public School

Norwood School, Inc., The

8821 River Road


Private School

Public School

Our Lady of Good Counsel High School

17301 Old Vic Boulevard

Olney, MD 20832 Neutral Site

93

1

Private School

Public School

Our Lady of Lourdes School

7500 Pearl Street


2

Private School

Public School

Our Lady of Mercy School

9222 Kentsdale Drive


6








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Pathways School—Edgewood, The



1

Private School

Public School

The Ridge School

14915 Broschart Road


1

Private School

Public School

Seneca Academy

15601 Germantown road


16

Private School

Public School

Silver Spring Day School



Private School

Public School

Sligo Adventist School

8300 Carroll Avenue

Takoma Park, MD 20912-7344 Neutral

Site

13

Private School

Public School

Spencerville Adventist Academy

15930 Good Hope Road









count)



count)


Private School

Public School

St. Andrew Apostle School

11602 Kemp Mill Road


2

Private School

Public School

St. Bartholomew’s School

6900 River Road


18

Private School

Public School

St. Bernadette School

80 University Boulevard East


9

17

Private School

13

Public School

St. Camillus School

1500 St. Camillus Drive


8

5

30

51

Private School

12

Public School

St. Catherine Laboure School

11811 Claridge Road

Wheaton, MD 20902 Neutral Site

12

5

38

Private School

Public School

St. Elizabeth School

917 Montrose Road


10








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

St. Francis Episcopal Day School

10033 River Road


Private School

Public School

St. Jane de Chantal School

9525 Old Georgetown Road


7

Private School

3

Public School

St. John the Baptist School

12319 New Hampshire Avenue


3

7

Private School

Public School

St. John the Evangelist School

10201 Woodland Drive


2

Private School

Public School

St. John’s Episcopal

3427 Olney-Laytonsville Road


1

Private School

3

Public School

St. Jude School

4820 Walbridge Street


3

3

36








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

St. Martin’s School

115 South Frederick Avenue


5

34

Private School

Public School

St. Mary’s School

600 Veirs Mill Road


5

Private School

16

Public School

St. Michael’s School

824 Wayne Avenue


12

4

13

30

Private School

Public School

St. Peter’s School

2900 Sandy Spring Road


45

Private School

Public School

St. Raphael School

1590 Kimblewick Road


1

Private School

Public School

Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart

9101 Rockville Pike


8








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Takoma Academy

8120 Carroll Avenue

Takoma Park, MD 20912 Neutral Site

18

Private School

Public School

Thornton Friends Middle School

13925 New Hampshire Avenue


25

Private School

25

Public School

Torah School of Greater Washington

2010 Linden Lane


20

10

26

Private School

Public School

Washington Christian Academy

P.O. Box 9847


5

Private School

Public School

Washington Episcopal School

5600 Little Falls Parkway


36

Private School

Public School

Washington Hebrew Congregational ECC/PS

11810 Falls Road


18








count)



count)


Private School

Public School

Washington Waldorf School

4800 Sangamore Road


Private School

Public School

Woods Academy

6801 Greentree Road


15

Private School

Public School

Yeshiva of Greater Washington

2010 Linden Lane


3

Private School

Public School


1216 Arcola Avenue


ATTACHMENT 6-B NONPUBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION FOR ESEA PROGRAMS Fiscal Year 2009

Local School System : Montgomery County Public Schools

Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use separate pages as necessary.


Title IV-A Title V-A


Students Staff Students Staff

Comments (Optional)

Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School—Lower School

1901 East Jefferson Street

Rockville, MD 20852

793 11

Holy Cross School


Garrett Park, MD 20766

217 14

Lycee Rochambeau (French International School)

9600 Forest

Bethesda, MD 20814

1,009 40

Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy

13300 Arctic Avenue

Rockville, MD 20853

594 24

ATTACHMENT 6-B NONPUBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION FOR ESEA PROGRAMS Fiscal Year 2009

Local School System : Montgomery County Public Schools

Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use separate pages as necessary.


NONPUBLIC SCHOOL NAME AND ADDRESS Title IV-A Title V-A

Comments (Optional) Our Lady of Good Counsel High School

17301 Old Vic Boulevard

Olney, MD 20832

1,160 85

Pathways School—Edgewood, The


Silver Spring, MD 20902

135 54


1216 Arcola Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20902

424 37

ATTACHMENT 7 TITLE I, PART A – IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Local School System: Montgomery Fiscal Year 2009

Title I-A Coordinator: Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason

Telephone: 301-230-0660 E-mail: [email protected]

I. TITLE I THEMES IN THE BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE MASTER PLAN - –Describe the school

system's strategies to provide high quality sustained support to all Title I elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Label each question and answer. Be sure to address each lettered and/or bulleted item separately. ALL REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE LABELED AND PROVIDED AS AN APPENDIX AFTER THE BUDGET PAGES IN ATTACHMENT 7.

A. SCHOOLS IN IMPROVEMENT:

1. DESCRIPTION of the process the school or school system follows to inform parents of each student enrolled in a Title I school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that the school is in improvement. Sec. 1116 (b)(6)(A-E) Throughout the school improvement process, the appropriate entity-the SEA, LSS, or school—must communicate with the parents of each child attending a school identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The information must be provided to parents directly, by such means as regular mail or e-mail. If the SEA does not have access to individual student addresses, it may provide the information to the LSSs or schools for distribution to parents. The SEA, LSS, or school must also provide information to parents during the school improvement process by broader means of dissemination such as the Internet, media, or public agencies that serve the student population and their families. All communications must respect the privacy of students and their families. [Section 200.36 of the Title I Regulations and Section 1116, ESEA.]

a. Based on the 2008 administration of the Maryland School Assessment, does the LSS have any Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring? ______ Yes X No

If “No”, proceed to Highly Qualified. b. Describe the methods used to inform parents about the status of their child’s school if it is in improvement,

corrective action, or restructuring. Include in this description the timeline and the names/positions/departments/schools responsible.

c. Describe how parents who enroll their child/children later in the school year are notified.

2. DOCUMENTATION: Include sample copies of letters that will be used for school year 2008-2009

documentation to support that items a-f below have been included in the parent notification letter(s). a) what the identification means; b) the reasons for the identification; c) what the school is doing to address the problem of low achievement; d) how the LSS and MSDE are helping the school address the achievement problem; e) how parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that caused the school to be identified

for school improvement; and, f) how the school compares to others. (Academic achievement data must be included to ensure parents are

fully informed)

3. DESCRIPTION of the process including specific timelines/dates that the local school system will use to inform parents of students attending a Title I school in school improvement about student transfer and supplemental educational services options. Sec. 1116 (b)(6)(F)

a. What date(s) were parents notified about their choice options? Not Applicable b. Will the LSS be offering SES this year? ______Yes X No c. What date(s) were parents notified about the SES option? Not applicable, no Title I MCPS schools in Year 2

of School Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring d. What is the projected start-up date for these services? Not applicable. e. Describe how parents who enroll their child/children later in the school year are notified of their School

Choice and SES options.

4. DOCUMENTATION: Include sample of the letters of English and translated notification letters and their attachments for School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services options the local school system will use for the 2008–2009 school year. Attachment should include supporting information for parents, i.e. profiles of test scores for the home school and receiving schools, provider profiles, etc.

ALL REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE LABELED AND PROVIDED AS AN APPENDIX AFTER THE BUDGET PAGES IN ATTACHMENT 7.

5. Describe the process to ensure that the 10 Requirements for School Improvement are part of the development,

implementation, and monitoring of School Improvement Plans.

6. If any of the 10 Requirements are not adequately addressed, what steps does the LSS take to ensure that modifications to the school improvement plans occur in a timely manner?

B. HIGHLY QUALIFIED: Section 1119(c) NEW PARAPROFESSIONALS

1. DESCRIBE the process including specific timelines/dates used to notify parents whose children attend Title I schools about the qualifications of their teachers by addressing each lettered item separately. Sec. 1111 (h)(6)(A)

a. Describe how and when (date) the school or school system notified the parents of each student attending any

Title I schools that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of their student’s classroom teacher (known as “Parent’s Right to Know”).

The MCPS Office of Human Resources (OHR) and the Office of School Performance (OSP) distribute a memorandum to principals of Title I schools in August informing them about the parental notification process. Each Title I school includes this information in the school newsletter at the start of the school year. In MCPS, OHR responds to parental requests for information regarding their child’s teacher or paraprofessional in writing. A draft newsletter item is included (Attachment A). b. Describe the process of providing timely notice (letter) to parents when their child has been assigned or

taught for 4 consecutive weeks by a teacher or substitute teacher who is not highly qualified.

Title I school administrators are responsible for informing parents if their child’s teacher does not meet the highly qualified (HQ) standard set by MSDE. A letter is sent home to families within the prescribed time period of four consecutive weeks. Title I instructional specialists work with the school to meet the requirement and provide the Division of Title Programs (DTP) with copies of letters sent home and a list of families who received the notification (Attachment A).

c. Identify by name, title and department the person(s) responsible for ensuring compliance with Section

1111(h)(6)(A)? Office of Human Resources

Mrs. Susan F. Marks, associate superintendent

Department of Recruitment and Staffing Elementary Mrs. Jane L. Woodburn, director

Ms. Linda S. Adams, elementary specialist Mrs. Pearl M. Drain, elementary specialist

Mr. Duane A. Merson, Support Services Team, staffing analyst Mrs. Sandra E. Sengstack, certification specialist

Office of School Performance

Community Superintendents Dr. Ursula A. Hermann Dr. Laverne G. Kimball Dr. Sherry Liebes Dr. Heath E. Morrison Dr. Frank H. Stetson Mr. Adrian B. Talley

Directors of School Performance Mr. Pat D. Abrunzo Mr. Sean W. Bulson Dr. Kathy L. Brake Dr. Renee A. Foose Ms. Denise C. Greene Ms. Bronda L. Mills Dr. Edward Newsome Ms. Myra J. Smith Ms. Elizabeth B. Strubel

Division of Title I Programs

Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director Ms. Joyce H. Colbert, supervisor

Title I instructional specialists Ms. Rosemary E. Garr Ms. Eunice M. Gerring

Ms. Susan J. Ginsberg Ms. Carol L. Hylton Ms. Kathleen A. MacGillivray Ms. Nichelle Owens-Jones Ms. Anita C. Shapiro Ms. Natalie S. Thomas

d. Describe how the LSS coordinates Highly Qualified notification between Human Resources, the Title I

Office, and school administration. DTP and OHR staff members will meet twice yearly to review the HQ notification to school staff. The Title I Allocation Grid, which lists all Title I funded staff members, requires principals to check on a monthly basis the HQ status (Attachment B). Principals are required to sign the Allocation Grid monthly. A copy of the signed allocation grids are sent to OHR by DTP. e. How does the LSS ensure the Highly Qualified status of teachers assigned to Title I schools is maintained? DTP instructional specialists check the Allocation Grid monthly to verify that all Title I funded teachers are HQ. In addition, the OHR Department of Staffing checks the HQ status of all core academic area teachers in Title I schools. OHR Department of Staffing communicates directly with principals when a HQ issue arises in the school. It is the responsibility of the OHR Department of Staffing to notify DTP when the HQ status of a teacher in a core academic area in a Title I school changes.

2. DOCUMENTATION: Include sample copies of English and translated letters that will be used to accomplish item a and item b for school year 2008–2009.

3. Are all paraprofessionals in Title I schoolwide schools qualified?

Yes X No ____ Not Applicable The MCPS OHR is in the process of identifying which paraeducators in the five new Title I schools and the school that changed from a targeted assistance to schoolwide program do not meet qualifying standards. Paraeducators not meeting qualifying standards will be moved from the school before the 2008–2009 school year begins.

4. Are all paraprofessionals paid with Title I funds in targeted assistance schools qualified? __Yes __ No X Not Applicable; No MCPS Title I schools will operate a targeted assistance program during the 2008–2009 school year.

C. SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS: If the LSS does not have any Title I Schoolwide programs, proceed to Section D - Targeted Assistance.

1. For LSSs with Title I schoolwide programs, DESCRIBE the steps taken to help the Title I schools make effective

use of schoolwide programs by addressing each lettered item separately. Reg. 200.25-28 and Sec. 1114

a. Describe how the system will assist schools consolidate funds for schoolwide programs. If the system is not consolidating funds, describe how the system coordinates financial resources to develop programs.

Staff members from DTP and the Department of Management, Budget, and Planning (DMBP) met with Title I principals in July 2008 to review the option to consolidate funds. Principals were informed that there are no existing district fiscal or accounting barriers to consolidation of funds. They were provided with the names of the DMBP and DTP staff members to contact if additional information was needed or they wished to consolidate funds. No Title I schools are consolidating funds for the 2008–2009 school year. The MCPS coordinates resources from a variety of programs to support academic progress in Title I schools in alignment with the district’s strategic plan. Local funds are used to reduce class size in Grades K–3. Reading First funding is used to provide supplemental training, materials, and a reading coach in four Title I schools. A 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) grant provides an afternoon component to the Extended Learning Opportunities Summer Adventures in Learning (ELO SAIL) morning academic program in 10 Title I schools. The MCPS Head Start and local prekindergarten classes are located in Title I schools. Title I funds support 13 full-day Head Start classes in 10 Title I schools. Linkages to Learning and Judy Center programs also support selected Title I schools.

b. Describe the process to ensure that the 10 Components of a Schoolwide Program are part of the

development, implementation, and monitoring of Schoolwide/School Improvement Plans.

DTP is organized to assist Title I schools with the development of a comprehensive School Improvement Plan (SIP) which include the 10 Components of a Schoolwide Program. Title I schools in MCPS use the Baldrige-guided School Improvement Process to ensure that input from stakeholders is included in the development and continuous review of the SIP. Training on the 10 schoolwide components is offered to school administrators and leadership teams. DTP also provides templates, definitions, samples, and checklists to ensure the inclusion of all components. Plans are developed in coordination with system initiatives related to staff development, curriculum implementation, and district assessments so that Title I schoolwide components are aligned with the district’s comprehensive strategic plan. Title I instructional specialists are active members of the school-based teams that develop and monitor improvement plans

All SIPs are peer reviewed by Title I instructional specialists to ensure that the 10 components are included. Each SIP has a table of contents which specifically identifies the location of the 10 components in the plan. Title I instructional specialists use a checklist to help evaluate the information pertaining to the 10 components.

OSP reviews plans and provides feedback on at least a periodic basis.

c. If any of the 10 components are not adequately addressed, what steps does the LSS take to ensure that

modifications to schoolwide plans occur in a timely manner?

Title I instructional specialists are primarily responsible for ensuring that schools revise sections of the SIP if any of the 10 components are not adequately addressed. SIPs must receive written final approval from the DTP director or supervisor before school plans are accepted.

d. Describe specific steps to be taken by the LSS to review and analyze the effectiveness of schoolwide

programs.

Analysis of the effectiveness of schoolwide programs is an ongoing process. Appropriate changes are made to the design of the schoolwide program as student data is reviewed. School improvement teams meet in the summer to review summative data and use their analysis to develop plans for the following school year. Data points include, but are not limited to Maryland School Assessment, staff members and parent surveys, Terra Nova Second Edition (TN-2) test results, MAP-R, mClass primary reading assessments, and end-of-unit math assessments as samples of information that can be obtained from the MCPS Instructional Management System and data warehouse. This information can be disaggregated and analyzed at the school, grade, and classroom levels.

School improvement teams meet throughout the year to assess the effectiveness and progress toward goals and objectives identified in SIPs. School improvement teams provide periodic updates to OSP on the effectiveness and progress toward meeting goals and objectives. If school improvement teams determine that mid-course corrections need to be made, plans are adjusted to reflect such changes. As members of the school improvement teams, Title I instructional specialists can monitor changes and are responsible for updating plans in Title I documentation notebooks.

e. Describe how the system and/or schools provide extended learning time, such as an extended school

year, before- and after-school, and summer program opportunities.

A comprehensive ELO SAIL extended-year model is in place for rising kindergarten through Grade 5 students. All students enrolled in Title I schools, eligible private school students, and elementary school level homeless students are invited to attend ELO SAIL, which offers a preview of the upcoming school year as well as a review of those skills essential to academic success. Title I schools have the option of implementing its own research-based before-school, after-school, or Saturday academic program during the school year using Title I and/or local funds. In addition, during the summer 10 schools participate in a 21st CCLC grant program that is offered in the afternoon following ELO SAIL. This program aligns academics with cultural arts and enrichment classes for students.

f. In addition to the Title I coordinator, identify other central office staff by name, title, and department

responsible for monitoring the ten components in schoolwide plans, the effectiveness of schoolwide program implementation, fiduciary issues, and program effectiveness.

Administrators who supervise staff who are responsible for monitoring of the 10 components in schoolwide plans Division of Title I Programs Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director

Mrs. Joyce H. Colbert, supervisor Mrs. Chrisandra A. Richardson, director, Department of Academic Initiatives

Title I instructional specialists who provide technical assistance: Ms. Rosemary E. Garr Ms. Eunice M. Gerring


Coordinating federal, state, and local funds for schoolwide programs: Mr. Larry A. Bowers, Chief Operating Officer Mr. Stephen L. Bedford, Chief School Performance Officer

Mrs. Chrisandra A. Richardson, director, Academic Support Initiatives Dr. Marshall C. Spatz, director, Department of Management. Budget, and Planning

Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director, DTP Ms. Patricia A. Callahan, accountant, DTP Ms. Carol J. Mathews, budget specialist, Division of Management, Budget, and Planning Mr. Li Qi, budget specialist, Division of Management, Budget, and Planning

D. TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS:

If the LSS does not have any Title I Targeted Assistance programs, proceed to Section E - Parent Involvement.

1. DESCRIBE the step-by-step process including timelines/dates used to identify eligible children most in need of services.

There are no targeted assistance programs in the MCPS for the 2008–2009 school year. 2. Describe the step-by-step process used to rank students using multiple selection (academic) criteria to identify

eligible children most in need of services. (NOTE: Children from preschool through grade 2 must be selected solely on the basis of such criteria as teacher judgment, parent interviews, and developmentally appropriate measures.) Section 1115(b)(1)(B)

3. DESCRIBE how the school system helps targeted assistance schools identify, implement and monitor effective

methods and supplemental instructional strategies for small groups of identified students. These strategies must be based on best practices and scientific research to strengthen the core academic program of the school. Describe how the system/school will address the following: Section 1115(c)(1)(C). a) Giving primary consideration to providing extended learning time, such as an extended school year, before-

and after-school, and summer program opportunities. b) Helping provide an accelerated, high-quality curriculum, including applied learning; and c) Minimizing the removal of children from regular classroom instruction for additional services.

4. Describe how the system/school provides additional opportunities for professional development with Title I

resources, and, to the extent practicable, from other sources, for teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals, including, if appropriate other staff.

5. Describe the process for developing (with peer review), implementing, and monitoring Targeted Assistance

Requirements in Targeted Assistance/School Improvement Plans. 6. Describe specific steps to be taken to review and analyze the effectiveness of Targeted Assistance programs.

7. In addition to the LSS Title I coordinator, identify by name, title, and department the person/s responsible for

monitoring activities a-e. 8. DOCUMENTATION: Attach weighted criteria used to select and rank children for Targeted Assistance

Services. 9. Identify the school(s) by name and MSDE school ID number that are implementing a Targeted Assistance

program in 2008–2009 and are planning to become Schoolwide programs for the 2009–2010 next school year.

E. PARENT INVOLVEMENT: To encourage parent involvement, school systems and schools need to communicate frequently, clearly, and meaningfully with families, and ask for parents’ input in decisions that affect their children. [Section 1118(a)(2)] Parent involvement strategies should be woven throughout each system’s Master Plan.

1. Local School System Parent Involvement Policy Review

a. Date of current LSS Parent Involvement Policy adoption: July 21, 2003

b. Date of last review: July 21, 2003

The LSS parent involvement policy is currently being reviewed by school system staff and parents. c. Describe how parents from Title I schools were involved in the annual review process.

DTP will solicit parent feedback regarding the LSS Parent Involvement Policy during back-to-school meetings from parents in Title I schools and report feedback to the district’s Parent Involvement Policy committee. 2. DOCUMENTATION: Attach a copy of the school system’s most current distributed Parent Involvement Policy.

Discuss and explain any changes that have been made since the last Master Plan submission (Attachment C) No changes were made in the school system’s Parent Involvement Policy since the last Master Plan submission. However, MCPS is currently in the process of revising their Parent Involvement Policy. Stakeholder input will be gathered during the 2008–2009 school year. The attached LSS policy revision timeline details the process being used to update the policy, specifically identifying when stakeholder feedback will be obtained (Attachment D). 3. School Level Parent Involvement Policy and Plan Review

a. How does the LSS ensure that each Title I school has adopted (as is or with additions) the system-level

Parent Involvement Policy?

Each Title I school in MCPS has a school-level parent involvement plan, which includes the following statement to ensure that the school policy/plan is aligned with the LSS parent involvement policy, “__________________ Elementary School accepts the Montgomery County Public Schools family involvement policy and has aligned its school level parent involvement plan accordingly” (Attachment E).

b. How are Title I parents involved in the joint development, implementation, and annual review of the school

level parent involvement plans?

The MCPS parental involvement policies require that parents be included as members of the SIP Team. This process is in full alignment with Section 1112 and 1116. All schools use the Baldrige-guided School Improvement Process to develop and continuously monitor the SIP. At least one parent from each school was required to attend Baldrige training which focused on implementation of the process. It also is the expectation that parents attend SIP planning and review meetings. Schools establish parent involvement committees to assist with the development and review of the parent involvement components. Each Title I school develops a parent involvement budget and parent involvement activities as a part of the development of the SIP and the school’s Title I parent involvement policy/plan and budget. These plans are developed with input from parents and staff members. Title I instructional specialists assigned to each Title I school use a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the school’s parent involvement program. This tool is based on Epstein’s (1995) framework used by the National Network of Partnership Schools.

c. How does the LSS verify that Title I parents are involved in the development of the plans?

Title I schools are required to have a sign-in sheet, agenda, notes, and evaluation for every parent involvement meeting. This process serves to document parental participation in the development and review of the school level parent involvement policy/plan. Title I instructional specialists are members of the parent involvement committees. They, in turn, ensure that all documentation is collected and archived for auditing purposes. A sample copy of a school level parent involvement policy/plan is included in Attachment F. 4. School/Parent Compact

a. How does the LSS ensure that each Title I school has a School/Parent Compact that meets statutory requirements?

All MCPS schools that participated in the Title I program during the 2007–2008 school year have School/Parent Compacts that meet requirements set forth by MSDE. Each year these schools review and update their School/Parent Compacts by soliciting stakeholder feedback. Schools new to Title I develop School/Parent Compacts with input from stakeholder groups. Newly formed parent involvement committees at each school facilitate the process of developing the compacts. DTP provides technical assistance to the family involvement committees to ensure that the compacts meet the guidelines set forth by the MSDE. A sample copy of a School/Parent Compact is provided in Attachment G.

b. How were Title I parents involved in the joint development and implementation of the School/Parent

Compact? Parent involvement committees at the school level also assist with the development of the School/Parent Compact as a part of their responsibilities. The implementation plan for use and distribution of the School/Parent Compact is prepared in compliance with Title I guidance and regulations. Parents have opportunities at Parent Teacher Association meetings and parent conferences to review, discuss, and revise the compact. Schools use various Baldrige tools such as consensograms at school-sponsored events that are aligned with the MCPS publication, My Job, Your Job, Our Job, to gather suggestions from parents regarding responsibilities of schools, students, and parents.

5. Monitoring Parent Involvement

a. Describe LSS process for monitoring parent involvement requirements in Title I schools.

The Title I instructional specialists work in collaboration with the parent involvement committee to support and monitor school-level parent involvement programs. A checklist of requirements and supporting data for completion of each requirement is maintained in a notebook in the DTP office. The community superintendent approves the parent involvement budget, and the DTP director ensures that all expenses are in alignment with the NCLB Act. Mid-and end-of-year family involvement surveys are completed to gather feedback and make changes in the plan as appropriate. Title I schools develop parent involvement action plans as part of the school improvement planning process. These action plans detail information pertaining to the requirements of the parent involvement including dates of required meetings and activities is described in the plan. A sample of a school action plan is provided in Attachment H.

b. In addition to the LSS Title I coordinator, identify by name the person(s), title, or department responsible for monitoring parent involvement.

Office of School Performance

Community superintendents Dr. Ursula A. Hermann Dr. Laverne G. Kimball Dr. Sherry Liebes Dr. Heath E. Morrison Dr. Frank H. Stetson Mr. Adrian B. Talley

Directors of School Performance Mr. Pat D. Abrunzo

Dr. Kathy L. Brake Mr. Sean W. Bulson Dr. Renee A. Foose Ms. Denise C. Greene Ms. Bronda L. Mills Dr. Edward Newsome Ms. Myra J. Smith Ms. Elizabeth B. Strubel

Division of Family and Community Partnerships

Mr. Eric A. Davis, director

Mrs. Gina C. Anazco, instructional specialist Mrs. Kimberly A. Bloch Rincan, partnership manager Mrs. Lynn M. De Groff, instructional specialist Mrs. Nan P. Iuculano, parent community coordinator Mr. Trevor A. Liburd, instructional specialist Ms. Sylvia C. Jarquin, parent community coordinator Mrs. Beatriz E. Mendoza, parent community coordinator Mrs. Denise B. Stultz, supervisor Mrs. Laurene S. Thomas, parent community coordinator Mrs. Marcia S. Vogel, partnership manager

Mrs. Gail S. Woolf, partnership manager Division of Title I Programs Mrs. Joyce H. Colbert, supervisor

Title I instructional specialists Ms. Rosemary E. Garr Ms. Eunice M. Gerring


6. Distribution Of Parent Involvement Funds

a. Describe how the LSS distributes 95% of the 1% reservation to its Title I schools for family involvement activities.

The total amount of the 95 percent of one percent is distributed to each school and the private school program based on a per pupil allocation. Distribution is based on the number of students who qualify Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS).

b. Does the LSS reserve more than 1% of its total allocation for parent involvement?

X YES ___ No

c. How does the LSS verify that Title I parents have input in the use of funds at the school level?

Title I school parent involvement committees are responsible for ensuring that parents have input regarding the use of how school-based parent involvement funds are spent. Title I instructional specialists are members of the parent involvement committees. Sign-in sheets, agendas, notes, and evaluations are required documentation that shows how parents are involved in the process.

F. EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS [SECTION 1120]:

1. Participating private schools and services: COMPLETE INFORMATION IN ATTACHMENT 6 A regarding

the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will benefit from the Title I-A services. Refer to the Title I Services to Eligible Private School Children Non-Regulatory Guidance, October 17, 2003.

2. DESCRIBE the school system's process of ongoing consultation to provide equitable participation to students in

private schools and attach the timeline for consultation. The MCPS hosted a meeting of eligible private schools in the district to explain Title I and the process for participation in the program.

Individual letters were sent to each interested private school and the assistant superintendent of the Archdiocese of Washington Schools representing Catholic schools. The purpose of the letter was to invite the principals or other school administrators to participate in Title I services. Administrators are invited to a series of meetings to discuss the proposed allocation process and to review the design, delivery, and evaluation of services provided to Title I students. At the initial meeting, all participants agreed on the frequency and schedule of meetings for the remainder of the school year (Attachment I). 3. DOCUMENTATION: Attach a timeline for consultation with private schools. Attachment J

4. Delivery of Service

a. Will LSS staff be providing the services directly to the students?

X YES __ NO If yes, when will services begin?

Services will begin on the first day of school in each participating private school. Services are provided to students who did not exit the Title I program at the end of the year until new assessments are administered.

b. Will the LSS enter into a formal agreement with other LSSs to provide services to students who attend private schools beyond the district’s boundary lines? X YES ___ NO If yes, when will services will begin? (If applicable, attach a copy of the agreement.)

As soon as information is available, MCPS will enter into a formal agreement with any school district that provides services to eligible MCPS residents who attend private school in their district.

c. Will the LSS enter into a third party contract to provide services to participating private school children? ______ YES X NO If yes, when will services begin? __________________

5. DOCUMENTATION: Attach copies of written affirmation and, if applicable, letters of agreement between school

districts Attachment K

II. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS

[Section 1113]:

Table 7-1 SOURCE(S) OF DOCUMENTED LOW-INCOME DATA FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN FROM LOW-INCOME FAMILIES A local school system must use the same measure of poverty for:

1. Identifying eligible Title I schools; 2. Determining the ranking of each school; 3. Determining the Title I allocation for each school.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

CHECK the data source(s) listed below that the school system is using to determine eligible Title I schools. The data source(s) must be applied uniformly to all schools across the school system. A child who might be included in more than one data source may be counted only once in arriving at a total count. The data source(s) must be maintained in the applicant's Title I records for a period of three years after the end of the grant period and/or 3 years after the resolution of an audit – if there was one. Public School Systems must only check one.

Free Lunch

X Free and Reduced Lunch Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Census Poor (Children ages 5-17 based on 2000 Census Data) Children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program A composite of any of the above measures (explain):

_____ A weighted process has been used as follows: _____ An unduplicated count has been verified.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS: A local educational agency shall have the final authority to calculate the number of children who are from low-income families and attend private schools. According to Title I Guidance B-4, if available, an LSS should use the same measure of poverty used to count public school children, e.g., free and reduced price lunch data. CHECK (all that apply) the data source(s) listed below that the school system is using to identify private school participants: (Reg. Sec. 200.78) More than one may be checked.

X A. Use FARMS to identify low-income students;

B. Use the same poverty data the LSS uses to count public school children; C. Use comparable poverty data from a survey of families of private school students that, to the extent

possible, protects the families’ identify; D. Extrapolate data from the survey based on a representative sample if complete actual data are

unavailable E. Use comparable poverty data from a different source, such as scholarship applications; F. Apply the low-income percentage of each participating public school attendance area to the number of

private school children who reside in that school attendance area; (proportionality)or G. Use an equated measure of low-income correlated with the measure of low-income used to count public

school children.

Table 7-2 METHOD OF QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE ATTENDANCE AREAS (TITLE I SCHOOLS) Section 1113 of Title I contains the requirements for identifying and selecting eligible schools that will participate in the Title I-A. The following points summarize these requirements:

1. The school system must first rank all of its schools by poverty based on the percentage of low-income children.

2. After schools have been ranked by poverty, the school system must serve in rank order of poverty, schools

above 75% poverty, including middle and high schools. 3. Only after the school system has served all schools above 75% poverty, may lower-ranked schools be

served. The school system has the option to (a) continue on with the district-wide ranking or (b) rank remaining schools by grade span groupings.

4. If the school system has no schools above 75% poverty, the system may rank district-wide or by grade

span groupings. For ranking by grade span groupings, the school system may use (a) the district-wide grade span poverty average noted in Table 7-4, or (b) the district-wide grade span poverty averages for the respective grade span groupings.

CHECK the appropriate box below to indicate which method the school system is using to qualify attendance areas. The school system must qualify Title I schools by using percentages or other listed eligible methods. Percentages -- schools at or above the district-wide average noted in Table 7-2 above. Schools must be served

in rank order of poverty. Title I-A funds may run out before serving all schools above the district-wide average. Schools below the district-wide average cannot be served. Complete Table 7-3.

Grade span grouping/district-wide percentage -- schools with similar grade spans grouped together, and any school at or above the district-wide percentage in each group is eligible for services. Schools must be served in rank order of poverty within each grade-span grouping. Complete Tables 7-3 and 7-4.

35% rule -- all schools at or above 35% are eligible for services. Schools must be served in rank order of poverty. Title I –A funds may run out before serving all schools above 35%. Complete Tables 7-3.

Grade-span grouping/35% rule -- schools with similar grade spans grouped together, and any school at o`r above 35% in each group is eligible for services. Schools must be served in rank order of poverty within each grade-span grouping. Complete Tables 7-3 and 4.

Special Rule: Feeder pattern for middle and high schools. Using this method, a school system may project the number of low-income children in a middle school or high school based on the average poverty rate of the elementary school attendance areas that feed into the school. Complete Tables 7-3 and 7-4.

NOTE REGARDING GRADE-SPAN GROUPING: The same rule must be used for all groups if grade-span grouping is selected. If there are three grade-span groups, the school system must use the 35% rule for all three or the district-wide average for all three. The district may not have three groups with one group using the 35% rule and one group using the district-wide average. Schools above 75% poverty must be served before lower ranked schools.

X

Table 7-3 DISTRICT-WIDE PERCENTAGE OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN

The local school system may rank schools using the district-wide poverty average or the district-wide grade span poverty averages for the respective grade span groupings. Based on the data source(s) noted in Table 7-1, CALCULATE the district-wide average of low-income children below. Use the official number of students approved for FARM as of October 31, 2007 to complete this table along with the September 30, 2007 enrollment data. Pre-k must be included in these numbers and counted as one child.

35,580

Total Number of Low-Income Children

Attending ALL Public Schools (October 31, 2007)

÷

137,717

Total Local School System Student Enrollment

(September 30, 2007)

=

25.83

District-Wide Average (percentage)

of Low-Income Children

Table 7-4 DISTRICT-WIDE GRADE SPAN POVERTY AVERAGES OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN BY GRADE SPAN GROUPINGS (Complete only if using grade span averaging.) A school system’s organization of its schools defines its grade span groupings. For example, if the district has elementary schools serving grades Pre-K-5, middle schools serving grades 6-8, and high schools serving grades 9-12, the grade span groupings would be the same. To the extent a school system has schools that overlap grade spans (e.g. Pre-K-6, K-8, 6-9) the school system may include a school in the grade span in which it is most appropriate. Based on the data source(s) noted in Table 7-1 and the district-wide average in Table 7-3, INDICATE below the district-wide grade span poverty averages for each grade span groupings.

DISTRICT-WIDE GRADE SPAN POVERTY AVERAGE CALCULATIONS

Grade Span

Write Grade Spans in Spaces Below.

Total Grade Span Enrollment of Low Income Students.

÷ Total Grade Span Enrollment

District-wide grade span poverty average

Elementary (_________) NA ÷

Middle (_________) ÷

High (_________) ÷ Table 7-5 CALCULATING THE MINIMUM ALLOCATION -- FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS WHERE THE PERCENT OF THE DISTRICT POVERTY IS BELOW 35% AND THAT SERVE SCHOOLS BELOW 35% POVERTY (125% RULE) __________________

Local School System Title I-A Allocation

(Taken from Table 7-10) (Should match # on C-1-25)

÷

____________________Total Number Of Low-Income

Public and Private Students (Add the total public students presented above and the private student number

presented on Table 7-9.)

=

$________________

Per Pupil Amount

Per-Pupil Amount $__________X 1.25 = Minimum Per Pupil Allocation $_________________ MULTIPLY the minimum per pupil allocation by the number of low-income students in each school to calculate the school's minimum Title I allocation.

Table 7-6 CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY Section 1113(b)(1)(C) includes a provision that permits the school system to designate and serve for ONLY ONE additional year a school that is not eligible, but was eligible and served during the preceding fiscal year. LIST below any school(s) that the school system will grandfather for one additional year. Schools must be served in rank order.

Name of School(s)

Preceding Fiscal Year

Percent Poverty

Current Fiscal Year

Percent Poverty Rosemont Elementary School

57.58

50.00

Table 7-7 TITLE I SKIPPED SCHOOLS This table should only be completed if the LSS has received prior written approval from MSDE. Section 1113(b)(1)(D) of ESEA includes a "skipping provision" that permits the school system not to serve an eligible Title I school that has a higher percentage of low-income students if the school meets all three of the following conditions:

The school meets the comparability requirements of section 1120(A)(c). The school is receiving compensatory funds from other state and local sources that are spent in accordance with

the requirements of Sections 1114 and 1115. (Services must be Title I-like.) The funds expended from these other sources equal or exceed the amount that would be provided by Title I.

Name of School(s) Fill in the name of the schools not being served even though they may fall within rank order. (Refer to Attachment 4 A)

Percent Poverty

Title I Allocation Fill in the amount of Title I funding the school would have received if it continued to be served. Complete the Skipped School

Allocation Worksheet.

Amount and Source of

Compensatory Funding

Funds must be earmarked for skipped schools and evident in the district budget.

No Skipped Schools

III. BUDGET INFORMATION Table 7-8 LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM RESERVATIONS FROM TITLE I ALLOCATION1 Before allocating funds to schools, a school system MUST reserve funds for certain services. Reservations (set asides) should be made for reasonable and necessary expenditures to provide services to children in participating Title I schools. Because the reservation of funds will reduce the amount of funds available for distribution to public schools as well as the program for private school students, consultation with teachers, principals, parents, and private school officials must include discussion on why the reservations are necessary. Equitable share for private schools must be identified in lines 1 and 2. LIST (calculate) the amount of reservations the district will set-aside from the Title I allocation for activities authorized by ESEA. Provide a bulleted, budget description that explains how the reserved Title I funds will be used to support each activity. All fixed charges and fringe benefits must accompany the salaries and wages on whatever line they might appear in Table 7-8.

Total Title I 2008-2009 Allocation

$20,048,923 (Taken from the C-1-25)

ACTIVITY RESERVATION DETAILED BUDGET DESCRIPTION

(including how, where, and for what purpose these funds were reserved)

Res

erva

tions

Req

uiri

ng E

quita

ble

Serv

ices

for

N

on-P

ublic

Sch

ools

U

se th

ese

num

bers

in T

able

7-9

.

1 District-wide Title I Instructional Program(s) Reservation Federal Register (Reg). Sec. 200.64. (See Attachment 7 Guidance Document for examples.)

$7,272,162

Extended Learning Opportunities: Extended Year and Day Programs Salaries: • Professional Part Time $1,005,042 • Substitutes $16,404 • Instructional Materials $56,312 • Transportation $128,800

Reading Recovery Leader (.5 FTE) $53,421 Supplemental Head Start Program • Head Start teachers (5.2 FTEs) $409,958 • Head Start paraeducators (3.575 FTEs)

$128,671 • Head Start substitutes (teachers and

paraeducators) $9,897 • Head Start paraeducators – Temporary

Part-time $122,200 • Head Start Professional Part time

Curriculum Development Training $9,000

Gifted and Talented (GT) and Math Content Coach (MCC) teachers training $7,425 Districtwide teacher program (Attachment L) • GT Teachers (13.0 FTE) $1,072,331 • MCC Teachers (15.0 FTE) $1,237,305 • Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support

Teachers (18.0 FTEs) $1,364,886 Benefits $1,650,510

1 References for all of these reservations may be found in the NCLB law, the Federal Register, and Non-Regulatory Guidance as presented on each line in Table 7-8 and in the Non-Regulatory Guidance, Local Educational Agency Identification and Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and Schools, August 2003. Question 5, Pages 9-11.

2 Parent Involvement (not less than 1%) Sec. 1118 (a)(3)(A)

$307,766 • Instructional Specialist to support Family Involvement (.0657 FTE) $7,326

• Parent Community Coordinator (2.725 FTEs) $104,643

• Parent Outreach paraeducator (.125 FTE) $4,570

• Stipends $80,395 • Instructional Materials $59,762 • Consultant $2,098 • Transportation $4,196 • Benefits $44,776

3 Professional Development to train teachers to become highly qualified (not less than 5%) Sec. 1119 (1) If a lesser amount or no monies are needed, a description as to why should be provided. Reg. Sec. 200.60 (a) 2 and Non-Regulatory Guidance on Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, C-6 and Appendix A.

No Longer Applicable, due to NCLB Highly Qualified Deadline.

4 TOTAL reservations requiring equitable services. (Present this number in Table 7-10 LINE 2.)

$7,579,928

5 Administration (including mid-

level) for services to public and private school students and non-instructional capital expenses for private school participants Reg. Sec. 200.77 (f) (Present this number in Table 4-A School System Administration.)

$2,212,217 • Administrative Fees $1,570,380 • Audit $17,082 • Contractual Maintenance $5,520 • Office Materials $20,000 • Local Travel $15,000 • Equipment $3,000 • Out-of-State Travel $5,900 • Dues, Fees, and Registration $2,875 • Facilities $500 • Benefits $571,960

6 School Improvement Initiatives under NCLB (not less than 20%- of which 5% is for Choice and 5% for SES) Sec. 1116 (b)(10)(A) and Sec. 1116 (e)(6)

N/A

7 Support to Low Performing Title I Schools Sec. 1116 (b)(4) A-B Local discretion. This reference describes required technical assistance.

N/A

Res

erva

tions

Not

Req

uiri

ng

Equ

itabl

e Se

rvic

es

8 Services to Neglected Children Sec. 1113(c)(3) (B)(C)

Must reserve funds if N & D programs exist in the LSS.

$27,200 National Center for Children and Families • Instructional Materials $6,400

MCPS Alternative Programs • Salaries $7,560 • Benefits $605 • Consultant $12,619 • Instructional Materials $16

9 Services for Homeless Children in Title I and Non-Title I Schools (must) Sec. 1113(c)(3)(A) and Non-Regulatory Guidance, Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, July 2004, M-3. Note: Please include a description of how the funds and service plan is coordinated with the McKinney- Vento Homeless Education Act funds.

$30,000 Provide tutoring for after school academic support and ELO SAIL

• Salaries $23,148 • Benefits $1,852 • Transportation for summer school

program $5,000

Professional Development for a LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM in Improvement (not less than 10%) (must) Sec. 1116 (c) (7)(A)(iii)

N/A 10

Note: 1. If there are no Title I schools identified for improvement in a system identified for improvement, the LSS must still set aside 10% for professional development for any Title I school to help them remain out of improvement status. Please provide an explanation. 2. School level PD funds can be included when factoring the 10%.

11 Incentives for Title I Teachers (Local Discretion) (not more than 5%) for schools in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring. Sec. 1113(c)4

N/A

12

Total Reservations Not requiring Equitable Services (Use this number in Table 7-10 LINE 3.)

$2,269,417

13 Total of Equitable and Non-Equitable Reservations minus Administration. (Present this number in Table 4-A System-wide Program and School System Support to Schools.)

Total Non-Equitable LINE 12 $2,269,417 Plus Equitable Reservations LINE 4 $7,579,928 Equals $9,849,345 Minus Administration – LINE 5 $2,212,217 Equals: $7,637,128

Table 7-9 COMPLETE the following formulas to identify monies allocated for equitable services to private school participants, their families, and their teachers (see Section 1120(a) of NCLB and Sec 200.64 & 200.65 of Regs.) Monies calculated for equitable services to private school participants, their families, and their teachers.

District-wide Instructional Program(s) Reservation

69 Total # of private school children

from low-income families including those going to schools in

other LSSs

Use figure in Column K of the Title I Allocation Excel

Worksheet.

÷

7,986

Total # of children from low-income families in Title I Public Schools

Use figure in Column I of the Title I Allocation Excel

Worksheet.

=

0.009

Proportion of reservation

0.009


x

$7,272,162

reservation (Use the amount from Table

7-8, Line 1)

=

$65,449

Total Proportional monies available for equitable services to private school

participants

Parental Involvement Reservation

69 Total # of private school children

from low-income families including those going to schools in

other LSSs

Use figure in Column K of the Title I Allocation Excel

Worksheet.

÷

7,986 Total # of children

from low-income families in Title I Public Schools

Use figure in Column I of the

Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet.

=

0.009 Proportion of reservation

0.009


x

$307,766 reservation7

(Use the amount from Table 7-8, Line 2)

=

$2,770 Total Proportional monies for equitable

services to parents of private school participants

Total proportional monies for equitable instructional services and parent involvement activities for private school children. (Place this amount in Table 7-10, Line 3.) $68,219

Table 7-10 BUDGET SUMMARY – CALCULATION OF PER PUPIL ALLOCATION (PPA) 1 Total Title I Allocation (Use the amount shown on the C-1-25) ----- $20,048,923 2 Total reservations requiring equitable services. (Present final figure in

Table 7-8, LINE 4) minus $7,579,928

3 Private School Equitable Share (Total from Table 7-9) minus $68,2194 Total Reservations not requiring Equitable Services (Use number

presented in Table 7-8 LINE 12.)

minus $2,269,417

Total Title I LSS allocation minus all reservations: Title I allocation (LINE 1 above) minus all Reservations (LINES 2, 3 and 4 above). (All LSSs, except for those serving schools below the 35% poverty line, should use this number to determine the per pupil allocation.) This number should equal the total of columns N and O on the Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet.

equals

$10,131,359

5 Total PPA Allocation (set aside for instructional services) for private

eligible school children. This total comes from the Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet Column 0. (Present this number in Table 4-A Nonpublic Cost.)

---- $88,087

Use the attached Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet to determine public and private school Title I allocations. If the LSS applies different PPA amounts to schools, the amounts must always be applied in descending order.

THE TITLE I ALLOCATION EXCEL WORKSHEET MUST BE SUBMITTED TO MSDE AS PART OF THE LSS MASTER PLAN.

If APPLICABLE, THE TITLE I SKIPPED SCHOOL ALLOCATION EXCEL WORKSHEET MUST BE SUBMITTEDTO MSDE AS PART OF THE LSS MASTER PLAN. Table 7-11 ESTIMATE OF TITLE I CARRYOVER

Section 1127(a) of ESEA permits a school system to carryover not more than 15% of Title I funds from one fiscal year to the next. The amount of carryover is calculated based on the initial 15-month expenditure period (e.g., July 1, 2006 - September 30, 2007). LSSs have two options for the use of carryover funds: 1) add carryover funds to the LSS’s subsequent year’s allocation and distribute them to participating areas and schools in accordance with allocation procedures that ensure equitable participation of non-public school children; 2) designate carryover funds for particular activities that could best benefit from additional funding. (Non-Regulatory Guidance, LEA Identification and Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to those Areas and Schools, August 2003, Question 3, page 8.) 1. Total amount of Title I 2007-2008 allocation: $ 22,922,953 2. The estimated amount of Title I funds the school system will carryover as of September 30, 2008: $ 513,509 (includes family involvement $16,205)

3. The estimated percentage of carryover Title I funds as of September 30, 2008 .022% 4. Explain why this Carryover may occur. This carryover may occur because school-based and administrative salary and fringe costs were less than estimated. 5. Within the past 3 years, has the system been granted a waiver? _____Yes X No _______Year

School systems with more than 15% projected carryover should contact their MSDE point of contact for further instructions.

NOTE: FINAL CARRYOVER REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WITH THE OCTOBER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUBMISSION. IF APPROPRIATE, THE CARRYOVER BUDGET, ANY AMENDMENTS AND REVISED NARRATIVE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUBMISSION.

PROPOSED BUDGET FORM AND NARRATIVE FOR FY08 1. Complete a detailed budget on the MSDE Title I, Part A proposed budget form (C-1-25). The proposed budget

must reflect how the funds will be spent and organized according to the budget objectives. MSDE budget forms are available through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan web site at www.marylandpublicschools.org.

2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative for Individual

Grants.” (pp. 10-12 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative should: a) detail how the school system will use Title I-A funds to pay only reasonable and necessary direct

administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title I-A program, and b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective. .

ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B Be certain to complete all appropriate templates in Part II: Attachment 4 & B: School Level “Spreadsheet” Budget Summary

Attachment 5 & B: Transferability of ESEA Funds & Consolidation of ESEA Funds for Local Administration

Attachment 6 & B: Nonpublic School Information for ESEA Programs FY ‘09

Object 01 - Salaries & Wages Item description Calculation Amount

Administration - Business Support

01 Budget Specialist Dept. of Management, Budget, and Planning

.500 FTE x $87,654 43,827$

$ 43,827

Mid-Level Administration - Inst. Admin. & Supv.

02 Director-Division of Title I Programs 1.000 FTE x $139,696 139,696$

02 Supervisor - Division of Title I Programs 1.000 FTE x $130,680 130,680$

02 Instructional Specialist (Program Evaluation) 1.000 FTE x $88,384 88,384$

02 Instructional Specialist - Division of Title I Programs 7.9343 FTEs x $111,510 884,754$

02 Instructional Specialist - to support family involvement

.0657 FTE x $111,510 7,326$

02 Administrative Secretary 1.000 FTE x $58,104 58,104$ 02 Fiscal Assistant II 1.000 FTE x $59,743 59,743$ 02 Data Systems Operator II 1.000 FTE x $48,391 48,391$ 02 Secretary II 1.000 FTE x $45,792 45,792$ 02 Accountant 1.000 FTE x $71,009 71,009$

$ 1,533,879

Instruction Categories - Regular Prog.

03 Private school allocationPrivate School Teachers - provide instruction to eligible private school students in reading and mathematics

1.400 FTEs x $85,546 119,764$

03 Reading Recovery Teacher Leader - provide training and consultation for Reading Recovery teachers and programs

.500 FTE x $106,843 53,421$

03 School-based allocationReading Recovery Teachers - school-based teachers providing direct support to students

2.500 FTEs x $85,546 213,865$

03 Math Content Coaches (MCC) - provide coaching to teachers in instructional practices

15.000 FTEs x $82,487 1,237,305$

03 Gifted and Talented Teacher - provide services for gifted and talented students and to support classroom teachers

13.000 FTEs x $82,487 1,072,331$

03 Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support Teachers - provide services for reclassified English Language Learners and ESOL students - 18.0 FTEs centrally allocated for districtwide teacher program

18.000 FTEs x $75,827 1,364,886$

03 School-based allocationSupplemental ESOL/ESOL Support Teachers - provide services for reclassified English Language Learners and ESOL students (0.8 FTEs)

.800 FTE x 75,827 60,662$

03 School-based allocationTeacher allocations for mathematics and reading, mentor teachers, and to reduce class size in the upper grades

62.800 FTEs x $85,546 5,372,289$

03 School-based allocationReading Specialist - additional reading specialist to support intervention model in Reading First schools

2.000 FTEs x $85,546 171,092$

03 Head Start Teachers - supplemental allocation to support 13 full-day classes

5.200 FTEs x $78,838 409,958$

03 School-based allocationParent Community Coordinators - promote family and community involvement

6.600 FTEs x $38,401 253,446$

03 Parent Community Coordinators - promote family and community involvement

2.725 FTEs x $38,401 104,643$

Sub Total

Sub Total

Attachment 7: Title I AFY 2009 Budget Narrative

Category/Program


Item description Calculation Amount

Instruction Categories - Regular Prog. (continued)

03 School-based allocationParaeducators to support reading and mathematics instruction

24.401 FTEs x $36,559 892,076$

03 Paraeducator - promote family and community involvement

.125 FTE x $36,559 4,570$

03 Paraeducators Head Start - supplemental allocation tosupport 13 full-day classes

3.575 FTEs x $35,992 128,671$

03 Substitutes Head Start - staff development activities for teachers

13 teachers x 4.5 days x 117.17/day 6,854$

03 Substitutes Head Start - staff development activities for paraeducators

13 paraeducators x $14.63/hour x 4 hours x 4 days

3,043$

03 School-based allocationSubstitutes - schoolwide initiatives to support planning and curriculum implementation

13 schools x 71.458 days x $117.17/day 108,846$

03 School-based allocationSubstitutes - professional development activities to support the implementation of reading and mathematics curriculum

1 school x 63.99 days x $117.17/day 7,498$

03 Substitutes - ELO SAIL program 28 school x 7.11 substitutes x $16.48 per hour x 5 hours

16,404$

03 Professional P/T - after school instruction for homeless students

5 tutors x 10.22 weeks x 2 hours/week x $45/hour

4,599$

03 Professional P/T - ELO SAIL salaries for instruction for homeless students

4.122 teachers x 5 hours x 20 days x $45 per hour

18,549$

03 Professional P/T ELO SAIL - salaries for summer school teachers

5 hours x 20 days x 223.3426 teachers x $45 per hour

1,005,042$

03 Professional P/T - professional development training for Title I Gifted and Talented, Math Content Coach teachers

28 teachers x $20/hour x 13.259 hours 7,425$

03 Professional P/T Head Start - curriculum development for full-day program

6 teachers x $25/hour x 6 hours x 10 days 9,000$

03 Professional P/T Private School Family Involvement- to conduct required family involvement activities

2 teachers x 28 hours x $20/hour 1,120$

03 Professional P/T Alternative Programs - provide tutoring for neglected students

1 teachers x 7 hours x 54 hours x $20/hour 7,560$

03 Professional P/T School Family Involvement Activities - to conduct activities such as family literacy and parent ESOL classes

24 schools x 12 teachers x 13.763 hours x $20/hours

79,275$

03 School-based allocationProfessional P/T Professional Development - trainingfor teachers to support the implementation of reading

d th ti i l

2 schools x 52 teachers x 5.269 hours x $20/hours

10,960$

03 School-based allocationProfessional P/T Schoolwide Initiatives - school-based team and data analysis meetings

8 schools x 35 teachers x 8.6765 hours x $20/hour

48,588$

03 Supporting Services P/T - provide additional support for full-day Head Start to meet program requirements

13 paraeducators x $25 per hour x 188 days x 2 hours

122,200$

03 School-based allocationStipend ELO Extended Day - provide academic after school student instructional programs

6 schools x 8 teachers x 2 hours x 19.1492 weeks x $14/hour

25,737$

$ 12,941,679 Total of Object 01 - Salaries and Wages 14,519,385$

Sub Total

Category/Program


Object 02 - Contract Services Item description Calculation Amount

Administration - Business Support

01 General Accounting Audit 1 audit at $17,082 17,082$

$ 17,082


05 Consultants - family involvement activities to support students in reading/mathematics

7 schools x $299.72 2,098$

05 School-based allocationConsultants for professional development activities to support the implementation of the reading/mathematics curriculum

1 school x $12,500 12,500$

05 School-based allocationConsultant - schoolwide initiatives to support the implementation of the reading/mathematics

2 schools x $4,250 8,500$

05 Consultant - Alternative Programs and National Center for Children & Families - provide tutoring for neglected students

1 x $12,619 12,619$

05 Contractual Maintenance - Service on office equipment (fax machine, 2 copiers)

3 x 1,840 5,520$

$ 41,237 Total of Object 02 - Contract Services 58,319$

Object 03 - Supplies & MaterialsItem description Calculation Amount


04 Instructional Materials - ELO SAIL 28 schools x $2,011.14 56,312$

04 School-based allocationInstructional Materials - ELO Extended Day after school programs

4 schools x $620.75 2,483$

04 Instructional Materials - school-based family involvement that supports the required NCLB activities, including family literacy

26 schools x $2,132.04 55,433$

04 Instructional Materials - private school family involvement activities that support parent training workshops in reading and mathematics

7 schools x $618.43 4,329$

04 School-based allocationInstructional Materials to support reading and mathematics curriculum

27 schools x $4,081.04 110,188$

04 Private school allocationInstructional Materials for use in private schools

$11,564 11,564$

04 Instructional Materials Neglected Program - support services for neglected students in reading/language arts (Alternative Programs & National Center for Children and Families)

2 x $3,208 6,416$

04 School-based allocationInstructional Materials for professional development programs that support teachers and administrators (Professional Growth System for Teachers and Administrators)

2 schools x $3,111 6,222$

04 School-based allocationInstructional Materials for schoolwide initiatives

4 schools x $1,331 5,324$

04 School-based allocationInstructional Materials for Extended Day

4 schools x $620.75 2,483$

04 Office supplies for mailing to support office operations

1 office @ $20,000 20,000$

$ 280,754 Total of Object 3 - Supplies & Materials 280,754$

Sub Total

Category/Program

Category/Program

Sub Total

Sub Total


Object 04 - Other ChargesItem description Calculation Amount


05 Local Travel - provide technical assistance to Title I schools

Mileage for Title I staff 15,000$

05 Travel Out - professional development activities for national and state conferences, including Reading Recovery and National Title I conferences

National Title I conference (3 staff x $1,200 = $3,600)MSDE Spring conference (3 staff x $250= $750)National Reading Recovery Conference (1 staff x $900= $900)Reading Recovery Teacher Institute (1 staff x $650= $650)

5,900$

05 Dues, Fees, and Registration - professional development activities for national and state conferences including National Title I and Reading Recovery conferences

National Title I conference (3 staff x $595 = $1,785)National Reading Recovery Conference (1 staff x $565= $565)Reading Recovery Teacher Institute (1 staff x $525= $525)

2,875$

05 Facility Rental Title I administrator training (Professional Growth System for Administrators)

500$

$ 24,275

209 - Student Transportation

09 School-based allocationStudent Transportation - provide after school

5 schools x $1,709.40 8,547$

09 Student Transportation ELO SAIL - provide student transportation for the summer program

28 schools x $4,600 128,800$

09 Student Transportation - provide transportation for families to attend evening and Saturday school-based family involvement activities

9 schools x $466.22 4,196$

09 Student Transportation to ELO SAIL program for homeless students

25 students x $200 5,000$

$ 146,543

212 - Fixed Charges 12 Employee BenefitsFull-time employees

Full-time @ 0.375558%($13,036,685 x .375558

4,896,031$

12 Employee BenefitsPart-time employees

Part-time @ 8%($1,482,700 x 8%)

118,616$

$ 5,014,647 Total of Object 04 - Other Charges 5,185,465$

Object 05 - EquipmentItem description Calculation Amount


05 Equipment 2 computers for Title I office staff to support Title I schools @ $1,500

3,000$

05 School-based allocationEquipment - purchased to support instruction

1 school x $2,000 for Promethean boards 2,000$

$ 5,000 Total of Object 05 - Equipment 5,000$

TOTAL 20,048,923$

Sub Total

Category/Program

Category/Program

Sub Total

Sub Total

Sub Total

Title I FY 09 Allocation WorksheetSchool Year 2008-2009

Local School System Note: 1/2 day Pre-K equals .5 FTE

D E F G H I J K L M N O

N or C or R or S

SW or

TASMSDE

Sch ID #

Public School Name (Rank order by % highest

to lowest)

Charter school(s) place * after school name

Specific Numeric Grade Span

(public)

Percent of Poverty (I/H=G)

Public School

Enrollment (as of

9/30/07)

Number of Low

Income- Public School

Children (as of

10/31/07)

FTELow

Income Public School

Children (10/31/07)

Number of Low- Income

Private School

Children Residing in

this School's Attendance

Area.

FTELow Income

Private School

Children Residing in

this School's

Attendance Area.

Per Pupil Allocation

(PPA)

Public School Allocation (J x M =N)

Allocation for Private School

Children (L x M =O)

1 SW 0304 Broad Acres PreK-5 88.59% 447 396 378.0 2 2.0 $1,334.65 $504,499 $2,6692 SW 0797 Harmony Hills PreK-5 76.77% 495 380 353.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $471,800 $03 SW 0774 Highland PreK-5 75.61% 488 369 353.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $471,133 $04 SW 0766 Oak View 3-5 73.14% 242 177 177.0 5 5.0 $1,334.65 $236,234 $6,6735 SW 0788 Wheaton Woods PreK-5 71.79% 436 313 287.5 2 2.0 $1,334.65 $383,713 $2,6696 SW 0791 New Hampshire Estates PreK-2 71.50% 386 276 266.5 2 1.5 $1,334.65 $355,685 $2,0027 SW 0563 Summit Hall PreK-5 70.48% 454 320 298.5 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $398,394 $1,3358 SW 0779 R. Sargent Shriver PreK-4 70.23% 618 434 425.5 7 6.5 $1,334.65 $567,895 $8,6759 SW 0790 Arcola 70.03% 347 243 243.0 2 1.5 $1,334.65 $324,321 $2,002

10 SW 0772 Viers Mill PreK-5 67.46% 464 313 292.5 2 2.0 $1,334.65 $390,386 $2,66911 SW 0805 Kemp Mill PreK-5 67.13% 435 292 274.5 19 19.0 $1,334.65 $366,363 $25,35812 SW 0777 Weller Road PreK-5 66.74% 466 311 293.0 1 0.5 $1,334.65 $391,054 $66713 SW 0564 South Lake PreK-5 66.48% 549 365 338.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $451,781 $014 SW 0786 Georgian Forest 61.49% 457 281 266.5 4 3.5 $1,334.65 $355,685 $4,67115 SW 0756 East Silver Spring PreK-2 61.23% 227 139 124.5 3 2.5 $1,334.65 $166,164 $3,33716 SW 0553 Gaithersburg PreK-5 60.91% 481 293 276.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $368,365 $017 SW 0553 Roscoe Nix 60.64% 404 245 237.5 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $316,980 $4,00418 N SW 0100 Clopper Mill 60.18% 442 266 239.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $319,650 $019 SW 0776 Montgomery Knolls PreK-2 59.59% 386 230 207.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $276,273 $020 N SW 0767 Glen Haven 59.57% 564 336 318.5 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $425,087 $4,00421 N SW 0808 Cresthaven 57.94% 340 197 197.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $262,927 $022 SW 0309 Burnt Mills PreK-5 57.59% 349 201 181.5 4 4.0 $1,334.65 $242,240 $5,33923 N SW 0807 Brookhaven 57.40% 392 225 211.0 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $281,612 $1,33524 SW 0552 Washington Grove PreK-5 57.26% 372 213 188.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $251,582 $025 N SW 0305 Jackson Road 56.03% 539 302 279.0 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $372,369 $4,00426 SW 0206 Twinbrook PreK-5 55.88% 519 290 278.5 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $371,701 $1,33527 SW 0771 Rolling Terrace PreK-5 55.02% 618 340 317.5 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $423,753 $1,33528 SW 0555 Rosemont PreK-5 50.00% 478 239 221.5 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $295,626 $4,004

Total 7986 7525.0 69 66.0 $10,043,272 $88,087Table 7-9 Table 7-9 Table 4 A & B Table 4 A & B

Table 7-10 /5

Notations:

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

4/16/08 SY 08-09

Attachment B

Elementary School: Principal:

School # Community Superintendent:

Budgeted Authorized (List all FTEs using the authorized allocation column only)

Professional Teaching Positions-FTE

Position Class FTE FTE Project *Central Employee IDReading Recovery 1010 TRDNG

TRDNGPos Class Code 1010 Sub Total 0.000 0.000

Gifted and Talented Teacher 1031 0.500 XMath Content Coach 1031 0.500 XESOL Support 1031 0.500 XFocus Teacher 1031 #REF!

1031103110311031

Pos Class Code 1031 Sub Total #REF! 0.000ESOL Teacher 1032 TESOL

Pos Class Code 1032 Sub Total 0.000 0.000Reading Specialist 1033 TRDNG

Pos Class Code 1033 Sub Total 0.000 0.000Head Start Teacher 1101 0.400 X TRDNG

Pos Class Code 1101 Sub Total 0.400 0.000TOTAL PROFESSIONAL TEACHING POSITIONS #REF! 0.000

Budgeted Authorized (List all FTEs using the authorized allocation column only)Clerical/Other Support Staff-FTE

Position Class FTE FTE Project *Central Employee IDParent Community Coordinator 6500 #REF! INSTS NA

Pos Class Code 6500 Sub Total #REF! 0.000

Educational Assistant-FTE

Position Class FTE FTE Project *Central Employee IDFocus Paraeducator 6600 #REF! INSTS

INSTSINSTS

Pos Class Code 6600 Sub Total #REF! 0.000*Head Start Paraeducator 6700 0.525 X INSTS

INSTSPos Class Code 6700 Sub Total 0.525 0.000

TOTAL CLERICAL/OTHER SUPPORT STAFF #REF! 0.000

SUBMITTED BY

Principal Signature DTP, Director Signature OSP, Community Superintendent Signature

Date Date Date

□ Change

□ No Change

* Central vs School based allocation**Refer to Certified Employee List (Data Warehouse) to confirm highly qualified***Please verify with staffing specialist

Please return by ____________________ to ____________________ at ____________________

Subject or Grade

Subject or Grade

Subject or Grade


**Highly Qualified (HQ) / Certified

**Qualified

***Qualified

Personnel Change- date sent to theOffice of Human Resources:

Assigned

Monthly Changes:Position Change- date sent to the Department of Management, Budget & Planning :

Title I Allocations for Fiscal Year 2009

Assigned

Assigned

Notes: *Head Start Paraeducators extra hours (.250 FTE) for each position is temporary part-time.

ABC

1 of 4

POLICY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Related Entries: ABA, ABA-RA, ACG, BMA, FAA, IEA, IEB, IED, IFB, IGP-RA, IRB-RA Responsible Office: Deputy Superintendent

Parental Involvement A. PURPOSE

1. To reaffirm the Montgomery County public school system’s strong commitment to the role of parents as valued partners in their children’s education and to promote and increase effective, comprehensive parental involvement

2. To ensure that parental involvement efforts reflect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of

local school communities

B. ISSUE

Family involvement in a child’s learning is a critical link to achieve academic success and to ensure a safe and disciplined learning environment.

C. POSITION

1. Definition

In this policy, “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling. In this policy, “comprehensive parental involvement” is intended to include the research-based, Six National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs as follows: a) Communicating b) Parenting c) Student Learning

Attachment C

ABC

2 of 4

d) Volunteering e) School Decision-Making and Advocacy f) Collaborating with Community

2. Achievement of the purpose will be sought through a variety of efforts including:

a) Effective two-way communication between all parents and schools regarding

school system policies, practices and regulations, local school policies, and an individual child’s progress

b) Activities to encourage parental volunteer opportunities in schools both in the

classroom and in other areas of the school including attendance at local school programs and events

c) Information and programs for parents on how to establish a home environment to

support learning and appropriate behavior

d) Information and programs for parents about how they can assist their own children to learn

e) Assistance to develop parental involvement in educational advocacy through PTAs

and other organizations, including school system task forces and advisory committees

3. While each division, office, and school must assess its role and plan of action to meet these

goals, all MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parental involvement. a) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are expected to:

1) Provide an inviting and welcoming environment where parent involvement

is respected and valued 2) Develop activities and materials that provide for effective two-way

communication between parents and the school on local school policies and practices and individual student progress

3) Support and encourage parental volunteer opportunities including

participation in the development of school improvement plans

Attachment C

ABC

3 of 4

4) Provide programs that assist parents in learning how they can help children learn, including activities that are connected to what children are learning in the classroom

5) Work with PTA, other parent organizations, and parent outreach

personnel to ensure parental input from a broad range of culturally and linguistically diverse groups

b) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are encouraged, in collaboration

with their parent community, to develop a local school statement which articulates a shared responsibility and strategies to support: student learning and high achievement; effective, frequent, two-way communication between school and home; and family, school, community partnerships aligned with school improvement plan goals

4. In addition, appropriate staff in central offices are expected to support local school efforts

and, where relevant:

a) Communicate with parents on school system policies and regulations

b) Provide for the development of parenting programs and materials, including the use of cable television, pamphlets, adult education courses, parent resource centers, and programs designed to orient new parents to MCPS

c) Support and encourage the use of interpretation and translation services whenever

feasible

d) Maintain and support parental volunteer opportunities with appropriate information and training

e) Assist in the development of parental leadership through PTAs and other

recognized groups

f) Work with businesses, organizations, and other government agencies which by their policies and activities can provide support and assistance for parental involvement efforts

Attachment C

ABC

4 of 4

g) Provide appropriate teacher and staff training to support effective parental involvement; conduct staff and parent training in ways to communicate and work together including problem solving, conflict resolution skills, and outreach strategies

h) Identify and publicize promising programs and practices related to parental

involvement i) Work with colleges and universities that prepare teachers and administrators to

support the inclusion of school and family connections in their training programs

j) Develop methods to accommodate and support parental involvement for all parents, including those with special needs, limited English proficiency, limited financial resources and individuals with disabilities

k) Develop mechanisms for local schools to use in order to assess the effectiveness of

their parental involvement efforts D. DESIRED OUTCOME

Schools and families will work together to ensure that the educational process includes quality learning at home, in school, and in the community.

E. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

1. The superintendent will assess the status of parental involvement, review existing policies and procedures, and develop necessary regulations and procedures to support this policy, including a review of staff and budget support.

2. The Board of Education will seek parental input on school system policies, including

curriculum, facilities, and funding issues from a broad spectrum of our culturally and linguistically diverse community.

F. REVIEW AND REPORTING

This policy will be reviewed on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Board of Education policy review process.

Policy History: Adopted by Resolution No. 669-90, November 13, 1990; reformatted September 1996; amended by Resolution 489-02, October 28, 2002.

Attachment C

Attachment D

Policy ABC, Parental Involvement Revision Timeline

June 11, 2008

Date Event Purpose

May and June 2008 Establish workgroup / point people

Put together the core workgroup and establish meeting dates

September–November 2008 Workgroup meetings Receive feedback on new drafts Charge members to share policy with their constituencies

September–November 2008 Writing group meeting Incorporate feedback to create a new draft

September and October 2008 Parent Academy Groups Open invitation to all parents to share feedback and thoughts on the policy

December 2008 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy

December 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback of Board Policy Committee and create new draft

January 2009 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy

February 2009 Board of Education Tentative Action

The writing group will consist of MCPS staff from the Department of Reporting and Regulatory Accountability, Department of Communications, and Title I Programs.

Attachment E

__________________ Elementary School accepts the Montgomery County Public Schools family involvement policy and has aligned its school level parent involvement plan accordingly. POLICY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY Related Entries: ABA, ABA-RA, ACG, BMA, FAA, IEA, IEB, IED, IFB, IGP-RA, IRB-RA Responsible Office: Deputy Superintendent A. PURPOSE

1. To reaffirm the Montgomery County public school system’s strong commitment to the role of parents as valued partners in their children’s education and to promote and increase effective, comprehensive parental involvement

2. To ensure that parental involvement efforts reflect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of local school communities

B. ISSUE Family involvement in a child’s learning is a critical link to achieve academic success and to ensure a safe and disciplined learning environment. C. POSITION

1. Definition In this policy, “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling. In this policy, “comprehensive parental involvement” is intended to include the research based, Six National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs as follows:

a) Communicating b) Parenting c) Student Learning d) Volunteering e) School Decision-Making and Advocacy f) Collaborating with Community

2. Achievement of the purpose will be sought through a variety of efforts including: a) Effective two-way communication between all parents and schools regarding school system policies, practices and regulations, local school policies, and an individual child’s progress b) Activities to encourage parental volunteer opportunities in schools both in the classroom and in other areas of the school including attendance at local school programs and events c) Information and programs for parents on how to establish a home environment to support learning and appropriate behavior d) Information and programs for parents about how they can assist their own children to learn e) Assistance to develop parental involvement in educational advocacy through PTAs and other organizations, including school system task forces and advisory committees

3. While each division, office, and school must assess its role and plan of action to meet these goals, all MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parental involvement.

a) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are expected to: 1) Provide an inviting and welcoming environment where parent involvement is respected and valued 2) Develop activities and materials that provide for effective two-way communication between parents and the school on local school policies and practices and individual student progress 3) Support and encourage parental volunteer opportunities including participation in the development of school improvement plans

Attachment E

4) Provide programs that assist parents in learning how they can help children learn, including activities that are connected to what children are learning in the classroom 5) Work with PTA, other parent organizations, and parent outreach personnel to ensure parental input from a broad range of culturally and linguistically diverse groups

b) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are encouraged, in collaboration with their parent community, to develop a local school statement which articulates a shared responsibility and strategies to support: student learning and high achievement; effective, frequent, two-way communication between school and home; and family, school, community partnerships aligned with school improvement plan goals

4. In addition, appropriate staff in central offices are expected to support local school efforts and, where relevant:

a) Communicate with parents on school system policies and regulations b) Provide for the development of parenting programs and materials, including the use of cable television, pamphlets, adult education courses, parent resource centers, and programs designed to orient new parents to MCPS c) Support and encourage the use of interpretation and translation services whenever feasible d) Maintain and support parental volunteer opportunities with appropriate information and training e) Assist in the development of parental leadership through PTAs and other recognized groups f) Work with businesses, organizations, and other government agencies which by their policies and activities can provide support and assistance for parental involvement efforts g) Provide appropriate teacher and staff training to support effective parental involvement; conduct staff and parent training in ways to communicate and work together including problem solving, conflict resolution skills, and outreach strategies h) Identify and publicize promising programs and practices related to parental involvement i) Work with colleges and universities that prepare teachers and administrators to support the inclusion of school and family connections in their training programs j) Develop methods to accommodate and support parental involvement for all parents, including those with special needs, limited English proficiency, limited financial resources and individuals with disabilities k) Develop mechanisms for local schools to use in order to assess the effectiveness of their parental involvement efforts

D. DESIRED OUTCOME Schools and families will work together to ensure that the educational process includes quality learning at home, in school, and in the community. E. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

1. The superintendent will assess the status of parental involvement, review existing policies and procedures, and develop necessary regulations and procedures to support this policy, including a review of staff and budget support. 2. The Board of Education will seek parental input on school system policies, including curriculum, facilities, and funding issues from a broad spectrum of our culturally and linguistically diverse community.

F. REVIEW AND REPORTING

This policy will be reviewed on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Board of Education policy review process. Policy History: Adopted by Resolution No. 669-90, November 13, 1990; reformatted September 1996; amended by Resolution489-02, October 28, 2002.

Attachment E

__________________ Elementary School accepts the Montgomery County Public Schools family involvement regulation and has aligned its school level parent involvement plan accordingly. REGULATION MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Related Entries: ABA, ABA-RA, ABC, BMA, FAA, IEA, IEB, IED, IFB, IGP-RA, IRB-RA Responsible Office: Deputy Superintendent Parent Involvement

I. PURPOSE To ensure a strong home-school partnership, promote and increase effective, well structured, and comprehensive parental involvement practices, and ensure that parental involvement efforts reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of local school communities.

II. RATIONALE Involving parents in their children’s education results in mutually supportive relationships among students, parents, and staff that will guide and enhance the intellectual and social development of students.

III. DEFINITION

The term “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling. In this regulation, “comprehensive parental involvement” is intended to include research based, Six National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs as follows:

A. Communicating B. Parenting C. Student Learning D. Volunteering E. School Decision-making and Advocacy F. Collaborating with Community

IV. PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOLS

All MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parent involvement. School staff are expected to take the initiative to reach out to parents in a variety of ways to encourage parent participation. In addition, local schools are encouraged, in collaboration with their parent community, to develop a local school statement which articulates a shared responsibility and strategies to support: student learning and high achievement; effective, frequent two-way communication between school and home; and family, school, community partnerships aligned with school improvement plan goals.

A. Each local school will include on its school improvement team: school staff, parents, and students (when appropriate) who reflect the rich linguistic and cultural diversity of the local school community.

B. The school improvement team should consider how parental involvement is incorporated into its School Improvement Plan.

C. Each local school should work in cooperation with parents, parent groups and PTAs, to develop and maintain a clear, regular two-way communication system that:

i. Provides information on issues such as: local school and school system policies, practices and regulations, including discipline procedures, instructional programs, opportunities for collaboration, school or system initiatives, regular student progress reports, assessments, and parent-teacher conferences, through a variety of traditional and non-traditional means such as, but not limited to, newsletters, school-parent orientation programs, checklists, web sites, and list serves

ii. Solicits and considers parent comments and concerns, and makes use of parent talents iii. Strives to ensure that staff are accessible for parent-teacher communications iv. Uses the resources of the community and central offices

D. Work in cooperation with the PTA and other parent groups to support programs for parents to learn how to create and sustain a home learning environment by:

i. Sharing information, materials, and programs about how parents can:

Attachment E

a) Recognize that they have an essential role to play in their children’s education by supporting, encouraging, and assisting their children to learn

b) Get information on “parenting” topics such as nutrition, health, self esteem, parent/child communication, motivation, discipline, child development, and other topics relevant to the specific population

ii. Providing space for parent training and parent materials, as feasible iii. Ensuring that parenting information is provided to parents on a regular, systematic basis by

using such forums as parenting sections in newsletters, discussion groups, conferences, workshops, web sites, and list serves, etc.

iv. Parenting information should be translated, as appropriate and feasible. E. Assist parents in playing an integral role in student learning by:

i. Providing appropriate information for staff to work effectively with parents in order to support the concept of learning at home, including such topics as:

a) How to support academic and behavioral expectations b) How to share curriculum content with parents c) How to facilitate parent participation in children’s learning at home

ii. Providing materials on what their child is learning and how to expand on school learning at home, as well as suggestions about available resources

iii. Suggesting ways that parents can enrich and support the curriculum F. In accordance with regulation IRB-RA Use of Volunteer Services, encourage parents to volunteer in

the classroom, in other areas of the school, and/or at home by: i. Providing information for staff use in the development of jobs for volunteers

ii. Maximizing opportunities for parent volunteer participation, including the participation of parents with special needs or limited English proficiency, and parents of students with special needs or limited English proficiency

iii. Providing orientation and training for parent volunteers, seeking support from central office personnel when appropriate

iv. Identifying a member of the school staff to work cooperatively with the PTA, and other parent groups to encourage parent participation

G. Respect the right of parents to serve as advocates and support this advocacy by: i. Recognizing that advocacy requires that people understand issues, and have information

about the processes for addressing these issues, including due process rights ii. Encouraging parents to participate in the development, monitoring, and evaluation of the

school improvement plan iii. Providing leadership/advocacy information for parents iv. Encouraging the growth and development of parent groups, PTAs, and other community

groups that reach out within the school community, as well as participating in county, state and national efforts for children and for education

H. Collaborate with local community resources and informing families about those resources by: i. Identifying resources that serve families within the community

ii. Informing school staff of the resources for families available in the community iii. Involving community members in school volunteer and mentor programs iv. Providing information about community agencies that provide family support services and

adult learning opportunities v. Developing partnerships with local business and service groups to advance student learning

and to assist schools and families V. PROCEDURES FOR CENTRAL OFFICES

All MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parent involvement and demonstrate respect for parent involvement. To support this commitment and to ensure implementation of the parent involvement policy and regulation, appropriate staff in central offices will encourage and assist:

A. Local schools in their comprehensive parent involvement efforts and in the use of interpreter and translation services whenever feasible

B. Communication with parents about school system policies, practices, regulations, and other general information

C. Development of parenting programs and materials for all parents including those who are English language learners or have special needs. This may include the use of cable television, pamphlets, adult

Attachment E

education courses, parent resource areas, parent information centers, and programs designed to orient new parents to MCPS by:

i. Providing materials and resources to inform staff and parents ii. Helping parents with school-related issues, resolving problems, and finding resources

iii. Informing parents about the organization and function of the MCPS system iv. Disseminating information about school and community resources to parents and staff v. Identifying and sharing successful parent involvement programs, plans, and activities for

use by local schools D. Countywide volunteer opportunities by providing appropriate information E. The development of parent leadership through PTAs and other recognized groups F. Collaboration with businesses, organizations, and other government agencies to gain support and

assistance for parent involvement efforts G. Information and training by:

i. Providing information for staff and parents to enable them to understand and support effective parent involvement

ii. Providing training for parents and staff to develop positive communication skills, including cultural competence and collaboration skills, and parent outreach strategies

iii. Including rationale for parent involvement in A & S training, as well as new principal and new staff training

H. Work with colleges and universities that prepare teachers and administrators to support the inclusion of school and family involvement practices in their training programs

I. Development of methods to accommodate and support parent involvement for all parents with special circumstances, including those who are English language learners, those with disabilities, and those living in poverty

J. Local schools to use the data obtained from a variety of sources, including such things as the MCPS parent surveys to develop their school improvement plans

Regulation History: New Regulation, August 21, 1991; revised July 21, 2003.

Attachment E

Policy ABC, Parental Involvement Revision Timeline

May 8, 2008

Date Event Purpose

May 20, 2008 Parent Involvement Cross Functional Team Review the revision process

June 11, 2008 Board Policy Committee Review draft of the revision timeline

May and June 2008 Establish workgroup / point people

Put together the core workgroup and establish meeting dates

September 2008 Workgroup meeting

Explain the revision process, get initial feedback on the policy, charge members to share policy with their constituencies and bring feedback to next meeting

September 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback into new draft of policy

October 2008 Workgroup meeting Share new draft of policy and receive additional feedback

October 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback into new draft of policy September and October 2008 Parent Academy Groups Open invitation to all parents to share

feedback and thoughts on the policy

November 2008 Workgroup meeting Share new draft of policy and receive additional feedback

November 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback into new draft of policy December 2008 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy

December 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback of Board Policy Committee and create new draft

January 2009 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy February 2009 Board of Education Tentative Action February and March 2009 Public Comments

April 2009 Small workgroup meeting Review public comments and create new draftMay 2009 Board Policy Committee Share new draft June 2009 Board of Education Final Action

Constituencies to be represented on the workgroup include: Early Childhood MCPS Staff MCCPTA Elementary Secondary OSP MCAASP MCEA Special Education SEIU ESOL Linkages to Learning GT Title I NCAAP

The small workgroup will consist of MCPS staff from the Department of Reporting and Regulatory Accountability, Department of Communications, and Title I Programs.

Attachment F

(School Name) Parent Involvement Policy _________________________ supports the involvement of all parents/families. We believe that when parents are involved, students will be more successful. (In this policy, “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling.) I. Parent Information Once a year, our school will hold a Title I meeting that will provide information about the Title I program, parental rights, and the important role you play in your child’s education. In additional, the school will:

• schedule annual conferences at convenient times • hold meetings that review the curriculum and state and local assessments • provide opportunities for you to suggest ideas and be a part of the decisions that

relate to school success • explain the grade level curriculum • review and explain the district and State academic assessments • provide opportunities for you to suggest ideas that relate to student success • involve you in the planning and review of our schoolwide School Improvement

Plan (SIP) including this Parent Involvement Policy (PIP) • invite you to share comments that you want added to the School Improvement

Plan

II. Parent Outreach We support a strong, positive partnership with you and the community. We believe our parent outreach program will improve student achievement by providing:

• assistance to parents to help improve understanding of the MCPS curriculum and its relationship to the Voluntary State Curriculum (VSC) and assessments

• training and materials for parents to improve student achievement • information and training for staff on the important role of parents as equal

partners in teaching and learning • parent programs that strengthen connections between home and school

opportunities to attend programs and activities with Head Start, Judy Centers, Pre-Kindergarten Programs, Linkages to Learning, etc.

• support, training, and information from the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Division of Family and Community Partnerships and the parent activities, programs, and services they provide

Revised 8/22/2008

Attachment F

III. Communication Ongoing communication will occur through:

• annual parent conferences and follow-up conferences as needed • a variety of school events, classes, and meetings held at times that are convenient for

parents • meetings that focus on how parent can help their child succeed in school • frequent reporting of student progress • opportunities to volunteer, observe, and talk with staff • interpreters for conferences and meetings • translation of the principal’s newsletter and other important notices

To further enhance our successful partnership, we will provide additional support for parents who speak English as a second language, parents with disabilities, or parents who are in homeless situations. This support will include providing translations, written documents, and ensuring that we meet the need of individuals with disabilities.

IV. Staff Training Staff training will be held at our school to: • provide training for staff about how to work with parents as equal partners • to show how to start and maintain parent outreach and involvement programs • communicate the value of reaching out to and working with parents

****See Lesson Plan #3 (“My Job, Your Job, Our Job”: Establishing Responsibilities) from My Job, Your Job, Our Job (Baldrige)

Revised 8/22/2008

Attachment G (School Name) Elementary School – Parent Compact

Effective schools are a result of families and school staff working together to ensure that children are successful in school. A compact is a voluntary agreement between these groups that firmly unites them. You are invited to be involved in this partnership.

: Standard I: Communicating; Standard II: Parenting; Standard III: Student Learning; Standard IV: Volunteering; Standard V: School Decision Making and Advocacy; Standard VI: Collaborating with Community revised: 8/22/2008

National PTA Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs

Shared Responsibilities for: School Staff Parent Student

Having high achievement expectations

As a school, we expect all students to meet or exceed the MCPS grade level standards and the Maryland Voluntary State Curriculum (VCS). We will: • review assessment results to

determine strengths and needs of students

• plan instruction that helps to improve students’ academic success

• give students many opportunities to show what they know

• give students timely feedback • help students succeed in all

academic areas

As a parent, I will support education and believe that my child can reach high goals. I will: • talk to my child about what is

happening in school and about the importance of working hard in school

• make sure my child goes to school every day

• make sure my child does homework and schoolwork regularly

• make sure my child gets to school on time

As a student, I will do my best. I will: • work hard • come to school on time • have books and materials that I

need • pay attention in class • make sure I understand my

assignments • complete my class work and my

homework • follow the rules of the school

∇ Good Instruction that Works for Children (Providing and supporting sound instruction)

As a school, we will: • teach the Montgomery County

Public Schools curriculum • support each student’s learning • assist parents in learning about

ways they can help their children with homework and learning

As a parent, I will: • attend meetings about what my

child is learning • know what my child learning • check homework and look at

schoolwork • ask questions about how I can

help my child at home

As a student, I will: • know what is expected of me in

all of my subjects • ask questions

~ Communicating

As a school, we will: • communicate with families about

high academic standards, student progress and the school’s overall performance

• communicate with families in a language that they can understand, when possible

• make the school a friendly place for parents to meet, talk, and learn about their child’s education

As a parent, I will: • attend Back-to-School events,

parent-teacher conferences and other school-sponsored programs

• tell the school about anything that might effect my child’s learning

• tell the teacher or school when I do not understand something that is sent home

As a student, I will: • talk to my family about things I

like about school • talk to my family about things I

am learning in school • ask my teacher for help when I

have problems with my schoolwork/homework

Attachment G (School Name) Elementary School – Parent Compact

Effective schools are a result of families and school staff working together to ensure that children are successful in school. A compact is a voluntary agreement between these groups that firmly unites them. You are invited to be involved in this partnership. ♦ Learning New Skills through Volunteering and Training (Building capacity through volunteering and training)

As a school, we will: • encourage all families to

volunteer and be involved in the school

• show parents ways they can help their children with homework and learning at home

As a parent, I will: • volunteer for at least one activity

during the school year (helping in the classroom, supporting special activities at school, chaperoning a field trip)

• attend PTA meetings, parent trainings, and other special activities

• join school committees, such as the Parent Involvement Committee or the School Improvement Plan Committee.

As a student, I will: • help other students • get involved in projects that will

help my school and community

Note to Schools: See Lesson Plan #3 (“My Job, Your Job, Our Job”: Establishing Responsibilities) from My Job, Your Job, Our Job (Baldrige)

National PTA Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs: Standard I: Communicating; Standard II: Parenting; Standard III: Student Learning; Standard IV: Volunteering; Standard V: School Decision Making and Advocacy; Standard VI: Collaborating with Community revised: 8/22/2008

Attachment H 2007-2008 Parent Involvement Action Plan

Action steps/objectives/ processes

Timeline Person(s)

Responsible Resources

Needed Monitoring tools or

data points (formative & summative)

Monitoring: Date and by whom

Results (include evaluation of processes for

effectiveness and efficiency)

Conduct parent meeting to disseminate information about the school’s Title I schoolwide program/targeted assistance program status and parents’ parental rights. (Times and locations may vary to better accommodate parents.)

Title I Instructional Specialist

Training Plan Sign in Agenda Notes Evaluation (SANE documents)

October/November Division of Title I Programs

Communicate information to parents about school programs, meetings, and other activities in multiple languages as appropriate. (i.e., school newsletters, flyers, meeting notices, etc.)

Develop/revise school-parent compact which identifies actions in which the parents, school staff, and students will engage to share the responsibility for improved student improvement.

Disseminate school-parent compact

Involve parents as active participants in the planning, review, and revision of the School Improvement Plan.

Update family involvement policy/plan periodically to meet the changing needs of the parents in the school.

Review and/or revise the parent involvement program annually.

The term “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling.

Attachment H 2007-2008 Parent Involvement Action Plan

Action steps/objectives/ processes Timeline

Person(s) Responsible

Resources Needed

Monitoring tools or data points

(formative & summative)

Monitoring: Date and by whom

Results (include evaluation of processes for

effectiveness and efficiency)

Provide training to staff on effective practices in conducting parent-teacher conferences

Provide training to staff on importance of family involvement

Involve parents in the decision making process regarding how funds reserved for family involvement are being spent.

Plan and implement parent information meetings on the following topics:

• Maryland School Assessment Program

• Maryland and MCPS Standards and Curriculum

• How to Support Reading and Math at Home

The term “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling.

Attachment I

10-5-07

Division of Title I Programs Title I Private School Partners Meeting

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Title I Conference Room

1:00 p.m.–3:30 p.m.

Outcomes

By the end of the meeting, we will have: o Reviewed the outcomes and the agenda o Received a summary of 2006–2007 Title I services o Discussed the results of the Private School Title I Program Evaluation o Discussed the program model for Title I services o Received information about the Complaint Process o Received an overview of the assessment process and criteria for services o Reviewed the 2007–2008 budget o Discussed plans for Family Involvement training for 2007–2008 o Heard administrative updates o Identified next steps

Time (Minutes)

What (Content)

How (Process)

Who (Leader)

1:00–1:10 10 minutes

Welcome and Introductions Outcomes and Agenda Overview of the Title I Program—2006–2007

Present Discuss

Felicia Lanham

Tarason Joyce Colbert

1:10–1:30 20 minutes

Title I Program Evaluation • Share results from 2006–2007

Present Discuss

Joyce Colbert

1:30–1:45 15 minutes

Title I Program Model

Present Decide

Felicia Lanham Tarason

Joyce Colbert 1:45-2:00

15 minutes Complaint Process

Present Discuss

Joyce Colbert Eunice Gerring

2:00–2:30 30 minutes

Assessment Information • Assessment Process • Criteria for receiving service

Present Discuss

Joyce Colbert

2:30–3:00 30 minutes

Budget Items

• PG County funds • Family Involvement Training

Present Discuss Clarify Decide

Felicia Lanham Tarason

Patricia Callahan Joyce Colbert

3:00–3:15 15 minutes

Administrative Updates

• Meeting Dates • When (day and time)? How often?

Present Discuss Clarify

All 3:15–3:30 15 minutes

Questions/Answers Next steps Evaluation meeting

Present Discuss

All

•

•

Division of Title I ProgramsMONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Rockville, Maryland

October 9, 2007

Rabbi David SerkinHebrew Day School1401 Arcola AvenueSilver Spring, Maryland 20902

Dear Rabbi Serkin:

The first nonpublic administrators' meeting for the 2007-2008 school year has been rescheduledfrom Tuesday, October 9, 2007, to Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at Rocking Horse RoadCenter, Room 206, from 1:00-3:30 p.m. An e-mail message was sent to you last week with thisinformation. We have also scheduled an alternate date for the meeting on Tuesday,October 23, 2007, from 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. to accommodate anyone who cannot attend onOctober 17,2007.

An agenda for each meeting is enclosed for your review. As indicated, we will be discussingcritical components of the Title I services provided at your school. Your input on decisions thatneed to be made for this year is critical, especially those regarding the program and budget. Wewill also establish the meeting schedule for the remainder of the year. If you cannot attend, werespectfully request that you designate a representative to come in you place.

Please confirm your attendance with Mrs. Ana Gudiel, secretary, Division of Title I Programs(DTP), via e-mail to Ana [email protected], or by telephone at 301-230-0660. Again, wemust stress the importance of coming to this initial meeting so that we can identify the ways tobest support the needs of your Title I students. Thank you to those of you who have alreadyreplied to the e-mail message.

We appreciate your understanding and patience in working through the several scheduleschanges. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Mary Rapp, coordinator, orMrs. Joyce Colbert, instructional specialist, DTP at 301-230-0660.

• FLT:agEnclosuresCopy to:

Mrs. ColbertMrs. Gudiel

Ms. RappMrs. Richardson

Attachment I

mailto:[email protected],

Attachment J Private Schools Timeline

2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed July 2007

Obtain list of private schools—church-exempt and State approved (Check MSDE website)

Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Ana Gudiel

State income guidelines for Free and Reduced Lunch meals Mrs. Ana Gudiel Prepare labels for all of the private schools serving grades PreK-5 students Mrs. Ana Gudiel Update poverty survey letter and all of the forms for final approval Mrs. Joyce Colbert Review and approve the survey letter and forms Ms. Mary Rapp Develop a grid for monitoring the receipt of the Title I Participation Form from

each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel

Create a filing system for Title I Participation Forms Mrs. Ana Gudiel Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan

administrators’ meeting Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Update and maintain the Private Schools documentation notebook Mrs. Joyce Colbert August 2007

Send poverty survey information by certified mail—all church exempt and state approved private schools in Mont. Co

Mrs. Ana Gudiel

Maintain a notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel Develop Title I teachers’ schedules Mrs. Colbert

Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Update and maintain the Private Schools documentation notebook Mrs. Joyce Colbert Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan

administrators’ meeting Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Record data on monitoring grid to indicate return of survey information Mrs. Ana Gudiel September 2007

Record data on monitoring grid to indicate return of survey information Mrs. Ana Gudiel Maintain a notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel Begin providing Title I services for eligible students identified during the

previous spring Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Record data on monitoring grid to indicate return of survey information Mrs. Ana Gudiel Plan parent involvement trainings for Session 1 (Nov. and Dec.) Mrs. Joyce Colbert


Share the complaint process with the private school administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Share the results of the end-of-the-year evaluation from the previous year Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Review new referrals for potential students needing reading and/or math support


Assess eligible students to determine need for reading and/or math support Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Update and maintain the Private Schools documentation notebook Mrs. Joyce Colbert Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly

administrators’ meetings Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Monthly consultation meeting with private school administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

October 2007 Send a reminder notice to all schools that have not responded to the survey

information (early October)—indicate October 31st deadline

Mrs. Ana Gudiel

Deadline for submitting survey information—October 31st All Mont. Co. church- exempt or State approved private schools

Maintain a notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel 10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Review new referrals for potential students needing reading and/or math

support Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer





November 2007 Maintain a notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel Verify addresses from the notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from

each private school Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Ana Gudiel

Count the number of address eligible students from all of the private schools Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Ana Gudiel

Title I Parent Information Meeting Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Parent interest survey for parent training topics Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Parent involvement training Mrs. Joyce ColbertMrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Consult with the administrators about the service model for the upcoming

school year Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer







December 2007 Maintain a notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel Verify addresses from the notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from

each private school Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Ana Gudiel

Count the number of address eligible students from all of the private schools—for budget purposes





Update and maintain the Private Schools documentation notebook Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly administrators’ meetings


10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Monthly consultation meeting with private school administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason

Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

January 2008 Share information about Title I schools for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason


Winter Assessment—student progress monitoring Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Mid-year evaluation of the Title I program—parents and school staff Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Plan parent involvement trainings for Session 2 (March and April) Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer






10-5-07


2007-2008



February 2008 Share with the administrators the results of the mid-year Title I Program

evaluation Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Share information about the upcoming ELO summer program--administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Share information about the upcoming ELO summer program--parents Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer





10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly



March 2008 Continue to share information about the upcoming ELO summer program--

parents Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Notify private schools that they will be receiving Title I services and the number of students generating funds

Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Parent involvement training Mrs. Joyce ColbertMrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer





10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly



April 2008 Parent involvement training Mrs. Joyce Colbert


Send invitation letters to students eligible to attend ELO Mrs. Joyce Colbert Plan parent involvement trainings for summer activities session Mrs. Joyce Colbert







10-5-07


2007-2008



May 2008 Spring Assessment—student progress monitoring Mrs. Lori Duke

Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Discuss assessment materials for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Discuss the purchase of instructional materials for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason Ms. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Parent involvement training—summer activities Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

End-of-the-year Title I Program evaluation—parents and school staff Dr. Lanham TarasonMs. Mary Rapp Mrs. Joyce Colbert

10-5-07


2007-2008

Month Task Person Responsible Completed Schedule the first administrators’ meeting for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason





Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly administrators’ meetings



June 2008 Update all assessment data and file student folders Mrs. Lori Duke

Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

Compile end-of-the-year Title I Program evaluation data Mrs. Joyce Colbert Meet with administrators and Title I teachers to identify students who will

receive Title I support at the beginning of the upcoming school year Mrs. Joyce Colbert Mrs. Lori Duke Mrs. Jan Gutman Ms. Diane Frommer

10-5-07

• 1\ FFlI{i\) ,\'I10i\' OF COi\Sl' LTATIONI'/\nTICIPATING TITLE II'RI\'r\ I I':SCIIOOLS

I am an administrator of The Torah School, Ii privale school willI qualified students living within attendance

buuudaries QfTitic I schools of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCf'S). I hereby affinn that in a series of

meetings, MCPS and The Ton1h School engaged in meaningful consultation about Till~ I, Parr A oftbe No Child

Left Behind Act uf2001 (NCl..B Act) For the 2008-2009 school year;

•

•

TOPICS DISClISSLD

How MCPS will detetmin" the number or privateschool children who will receive 5crvice,:

• Every year, parent income surveys will bemailed to all private schools in MontgomeryCounty

• Schools will return income data and attendancearea informalion by the deadline established bythe Maryland State Department of Bducalion.October 31, 2008

• The nmount of services to be provided [0 theschools is based on the number of student'l fromlow. income fornilie.~ who live within theboundaries of MCPS Tirle I llChools

• Services will be provided to students whodemonstrate ::Lcademie need and live within thehound:uics of MCfS Tille 1 schools

How MCPS wlllidentiry student 1l~lldeml~need:Selection of students will be based on multiple criteria:

• Classroom 1eacher recommendation withprincipal sign-off

• Report card dl\tn• Agreed upon 88scssmenlS to detennine

academic needs as defined in this document• Rcview of aSScSliment data and other criteria

>It ilh a team comprised of principal, Title rteacher, and Division of Title I Programsinstructional specialist

Huw alld when MCPS will make decision. about thedelivery uf 5ervlces:

• School lluminislralOrS will be invited to attendregularly scheduled rnecliu¥li (minimum of S) todiscuss the types and amount of' sc:rvices to theirschools will be Uillcusscd

• Collaborative effort by MCPS andadministrators of private schools to finl1li:£cdecisions about Title I scrvic~ fur the nextschool year

Row, where, and by whom MCPS will pruvide5crvicC5, iucluding whether. third party will providethem:

• Highly qualified MCPS teachcrs will providescrvicc:s 10 iucnuficd sludc:nlS throusJI directinstruction, individually or in :;mall groups

• Services will be provided l\1 the private schoolsite

• Schedules will be developed wilb tbe individualschools to determine thc amount of time rorservices at me schools based on the processd<:scribe in thiS document

• Tbe llse of third·party providers to d;eliverSCI'\Iiccs wag dilicUSlled by MCPS and privateschools and both parties agreed by consensusnot to pursue this option at this time

-

How MCrS will academically usess the services, andhow M(;P~ will use the results of tbat IS5e8Sment toimprove Title I services:

• Assessments for ReadinglLanguage ArtsGrades KFoundational Skills

"'Letter identification"'Conccpls About Print*High Frequency Word!'l'"Phonemic Awareness·Dictation/Writing Vocabulary"Rulming Records

Grades I-SHarcourt Benchmark AssessmenlS

"'Oral Reading Fluency*Reading Comprehension"'Vocabulary 8nd Word Analysis"Writing Conventions·Writing to a Prompt

• Assessments for MathematicsGrades K Math Achiellers

"'Number Sense>-to demonstrate anunderstanding of" general numberknow ledge"Basic Operations-understanding ofmathematiool operations·addition,

I

l"d 1759121I21E21I21E:0.1 SSL52951121E ~3~~ ~O lOOHJS H~~Ol:WO~~ E2:21 i 81211212-9-Nnr

Attachment K

•

•

•

subtraction, multiplication, anddivision

Gradl: 1-5 Mlllhlclicli PrcIPost Assessments'"Number SenselilBasicOperations

• Frequency of AssessmentsReading: twice per year (fall and spring); winterllSscssments given when neededMathematics: two times per year (fall andspring)

• Maintain portfolio for each identi lied studentand collect work samples to show progress overtime

• Dab reviewed by Title I teachers, classroomteachers and administrators at regularlyscheduled meetings

• Work with classroom teachers to alio'TITitle Isupport with classroom instruction at regularlyscheduled meerings

The size aDd scope of the sllnices that MCPS willprovlde, :lRd the proportioD of funds that MCPS willallocate for those services:

• The services provided to the private schools willbe based on the amount of available fundsgenerated by eligible studenL~, based onresidency in a Title I public school attendancearea and income eligibiliry

• Assessments will be wed to determine theacademic: need of recommended students whomust still meet the residency requirement

• The MCPS teacher(s) will provide in~l:ruetiontothe identified Title J students as individual!; orin small groups

• Students who receive Title J services will beeligible to ntrend an Extended LearningOpportunities Program Summer Adventures inLc;J.ming(HLO-SAIL) in July of2009

What inlilrudional maferlals will MCPS utilize;• Reading-Grndes 1(·3: Phonemic

Awareness/Phonics (Phonic.<;/Wo1'd Study)• Readins.........<Jrades1-5 Vocabulary/

Fluency/Comprohension (Eal'/Y Suct.:ess andSoar To Succe.\·.\~

• Mntherrultics-Gradell K.5: Number Sense,Basic Operations, Algebrn, Geomctry, MentalMilth. Meosurcmcnt, Problem Solving(Math/cries an4 Houghton Mifflin)

The .Yervic:es MCPS will give teachcrs or participatingstudents:

• Title I tcachers will share in:ltructional strategieswith the privatc lSCboolclassroom teachers

The senic:es MCPS will give families of participatingstudents;

• Regular parent meetings including Title Iinformation and strategies on how to help theirchildren at home with general study habitS inre.1.dinglll1nguagearts and mathematics

• Regular parent meetings will begin with theparents of currently identified Title J students

(001'1- le\ riOI' In SCIIOOLBy choosing to p;J.rtieiplIlein Title J. Pan A of the NCLBAct, thc private school a,,"'ee~to provide all imormationnecessary to comply wilh program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and (iddresses of'the eligible srudentll enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundarie~. J also agree to developsuch plans and give s\lch other reports lIS Inandated bythe program in which we will participate.

~1t;~A Il RE(W Al IIIOIHZFI) 01-1It 1.\1

Dill:

Tor.,/...~~,( (J ~ 6"",~~(j,J'~NlIm~ or:S~lIool

~I:) 1- '1' r7Jt? p~Tcillphone Number

2"d 176900E210E:01 ££L629610E ~3~8 ~O lOOHJS H~~Ol:WO~~ 172:21 8002-9-Nnr

•

•

•


Grade 1-5 Mathletics Pre/Post Assessments*Number Sense*Basic Operations

• Frequency of AssessmentsReading: twice per year (fall and spring); winterassessments given when neededMathematics: two times per year (fall andspring)

• Maintain portfolio for each identified studentand collect work samples to show progress overtime

• Data reviewed by Title I teachers, classroomteachers and administrators at regularlyscheduled meetings

• Work with classroom teachers to align Title Isupport with classroom instruction at regularlyscheduled meetings

The size and scope of the services that MCPS willprovide, and the proportion of funds that MCPS willallocate for those services:

• The services provided to the private schools willbe based on the amount of available fundsgenerated by eligible students, based onresidency in a Title I public school attendancearea and income eligibility

• Assessments will be used to determine theacademic need of recommended students whomust still meet the residency requirement

• The MCPS teacher(s) will provide instruction tothe identified Title I students as individuals orin small groups

• Students who receive Title I services will beeligible to attend an Extended LearningOpportunities Program Summer Adventures inLearning (ELO-SAIL) in July of 2009

What instructional materials will MCPS utilize:• Reading-Grades K-3: Phonemic

Awareness/Phonics (Phonics/Word Study)• Reading-Grades 1-5 Vocabulary/

Fluency/Comprehension (Early Success andSoar To Success)

• Mathematics-Grades K-5: Number Sense,Basic Operations, Algebra, Geometry, MentalMath, Measurement, Problem Solving(Mathletics and Houghton Mifflin)

The services MCPS will give teachers of participatingstudents:

• Title I teachers will share instructional strategieswith the private school classroom teachers

The services MCPS will give families of participatingstudents:

• Regular parent meetings including Title Iinformation and strategies on how to help theirchildren at home with general study habits inreading/language arts and mathematics

• Regular parent meetings will begin with theparents of currently identified Title I students

COOPERATION BY SCHOOLBy choosing to participate in Title L Part A of the NCLBAct, the private school agrees to provide all informationnecessary to comply with program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and addresses ofthe eligible students enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to developsuch plans and give such other reports as mandated bythe program in which we will participate.

SIG:\'xrURE OF ALTHORIZEI> OFFICIAL

eM Ca(L(IName of Private School Official

{p/qJ....=:...-c:D'6 _Date tS2r. MirheA. I ~ '/feY Spdna_Name of School f '--J--COI- 5'6~-(pg 73

Telephone Number

••subtraction, multiplication, anddivision









COOPERATlO:\ BY SCHOOLBy choosing to participate in Title L Part A of the NCLBAct, the private school agrees to provide all informationnecessary to comply with program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and addresses ofthe eligible students enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to developsuch plans and give such other reports as mandated bythe program in which we will participate.

SICl\A1TRE OF AllTHORIZED OFFICIAL

Name of Private School Official

Telephone Number

e of Authorized Private School Official

~J,~ ts.)~,-h::1---1}" 1

Date

~T C041 ,) / "'..(Name of School






•What instructional materials will MCPS utilize:

• Reading-Grades K-3: PhonemicAwareness/Phonics (Phonics/Word Study)

• Reading-Grades 1-5 Vocabulary/Fluency/Comprehension (Early Success andSoar To Success)


•The services MCPS will give teachers of participatingstudents:


•

•

•











• Students who receive Title I services will beeligible to attend an Extended LearningOpportunities Program Summer Adventures inLearning (ELO-SAIL) in July of2009










COOPER,\TlON BY SCIIOOLBy choosing to participate in Title !, Part A of the NCLBAct, the private school agrees to provide all informationnecessary to comply with program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and addresses ofthe eligible students enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to developsuch plans and give such other reports as mandated bythe program in which we will participate.

SIG:\XITRE OF ALTIIORIZED OFFICIAL

MR-~V f..t..l,f tJ \J6'< DAA1Name of Private School Official

-!Uf\e q I ZOOc:&Date

5-1. \Jude <SchoolName of School

3c>\" qy~"195g )t qTelephone Number

•

•

•





















COOPEIUTIO\ BY SCHOOLBy choosing to participate in Title !,Part A of the NCLBAct, the private school agrees to provide all informationnecessary to comply with program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and addresses ofthe eligible students enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to developsuch plans and give such other reports as mandated bythe program in which we will participate.

SIG\,\Tl'RE OF Al;THORIZED OFFICIAL

f~~O A J tJ 1)11'y1~,P?YJ1:t~-VL,Signatu e of Authorized Private School Official

M It 12./Ii N r0'f, H00 f.,£Name of Private School Official

roff/lf) BDate

Sf. J0 h}ll ---rhL BccetL-ctName of School

3:J/~ 1022- ,~n7(oTelephone Number

I

__I

•

•

•

•





















COOPERATIO:\' BY SCHOOLBy choosing to participate in Title !,Part A of the NCLBAct, the private school agrees to provide all informationnecessary to comply with program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and addresses ofthe eligible students enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to developsuch plans and give such other reports as mandated bythe program in which we will participate.

SIG:\'ATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL

L ()

t,/<t!Of('Date

st. C a.th.e.. t"" ~ '" e.., L c...b OUre (Name of School

( 3D t) ~ t/-tc - ('7, 7Telephone Number

,

•

•

•











• Students who receive Title I services will beeligible to attend an Extended LearningOpportunities Program Summer Adventures inLearning (ELO-?AIL) in July of2009










COOPERATION BY SCHOOLBy choosing to participate in Title L Part A of the NCLBAct, the private school agrees to provide all informationnecessary to comply with program requirementsincluding, but not limited to, the names and addresses ofthe eligible students enrolled in the school who residewithin the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to developsuch plans and give such other reports as mandated bythe program in which we will participate.

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL

'~~~5> 5e"~,,JName of Private School Official

~,,~ '-t ~9I

Date

Na~~~ ~ S-~.l30 t--b ~q-)1{OQ

Telephone Number

Attachment L

Districtwide Title I Programs Math Content Coach, Gifted and Talented Teacher, and Supplemental English Speakers of

Other Languages/English Speakers of Other Languages Support Teacher Projects 2008–2009 School Year

Districtwide teacher position application process and memorandum of understanding

• Title I principals participated in an information meeting on Friday, May 30, 2008, to review updated guidance regarding the Math Content Coach (MCC), Gifted and Talented Teacher (GT), supplemental English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)/ESOL support teacher project and options available through the districtwide program.

• Title I principals will meet with their school improvement plan (SIP) team to develop/review the school’s needs assessment based on an analysis of school data to determine if the school wishes to participate and which combination of districtwide MCC and GT teacher positions best meet the needs of their students

• Districtwide program–principals were asked to select one of the following options based on data and input from SIP team: o 0.5 full time equivalent (FTE) MCC and 0.5 FTE GT teacher o 1.0 FTE MCC o 1.0 FTE GT teacher o Elect not to participate in the districtwide teacher program

Principals will complete the letter of agreement which will be used to notify the Division of Title I Programs (DTP) of their decision. Districtwide Title I positions will be allocated to schools based on the information in the agreement. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) detailing roles and responsibilities will be prepared by DTP and signed by the principals, MCC, GT teacher, supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher and Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director, DTP. If schools choose not to participate in the program, the reserved funds will be redistributed to all schools on a per Free and Reduced-Price Meals Systems pupil basis. MCPS Districtwide Program The MCPS Title I districtwide teacher program supports schools with very high poverty rates, from 55.02 percent to 88.59 percent, along with one maintenance of effort school at 50.0 percent. In order to meet the significant needs of our highly diverse student population, including record numbers of English language learners, the model focuses on the impact of poverty, language barriers, and high mobility rates. The Title I districtwide teacher program is a key factor in the sustained success of our Title I schools and, most importantly, of our students, as demonstrated by achievement data. There have been no Title I schools in improvement for the past three years.

Attachment L

For the 2008-2009 school year only, districtwide Title I staffing is allocated as follows:

• Base allocation of 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions • Differentiated allocation of an additional 0.5 position aligned with ESOL student

enrollment

DTP uses a proficiency based formula to allocate supplemental ESOL or ESOL support teachers as a component of the districtwide teacher program.

• Each beginning ESOL student (Level 1) is counted twice. • Each intermediate ESOL student (Level 2) and advanced ESOL student (Level 3) is

counted once. • All three levels are totaled to achieve the ESOL proficiency number. • The ESOL proficiency total is divided by 52 to achieve a ratio of 52:1. • The base supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is 0.5 FTEs. • Schools with a total of more than 52 receive an additional 0.5 FTE.

The Title I ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is provided in addition to the district's ESOL teacher allocation. The district allocation is also formula based, but counts only the actual number of ESOL students and is not linked to proficiency levels. Districtwide allocations are used as math content coaches, gifted and talented teachers, ESOL, or ESOL support teachers. Schools review data and determine how to allocate positions, with a minimum of a 0.5 FTE assigned to support English language learners. Professional development, mentoring, and supplemental support are provided for individual teachers as well as for cohort groups. Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support teachers provide additional small group English language instruction for students included in the limited English proficient subgroup on the Maryland State Assessment. DTP uses a proficiency based formula to allocate supplemental ESOL or ESOL support teachers as a component of the districtwide teacher program.

• Each beginning ESOL student (Level 1) is counted twice. • Each intermediate ESOL student (Level 2) and advanced ESOL student (Level 3) is

counted once. • All three levels are totaled to achieve the ESOL proficiency number. • The ESOL proficiency total is divided by 52 to achieve a ratio of 52:1. • The base supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is 0.5 FTEs. • Schools with a total of more than 52 receive an additional 0.5 FTE.

The Title I ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is provided in addition to the district's ESOL teacher allocation. The district allocation is also formula based, but counts only the actual number of ESOL students and is not linked to proficiency levels.

Attachment L

Staffing • Principals will notify DTP of MCC, GT teacher, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support

teacher vacancies • DTP administrator will post vacancies on the Montgomery County Public Schools

(MCPS) Vacancy Database • Applicant resumes will be reviewed by DTP, principal, and appropriate administrators

from the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP) • An interview panel consisting of representatives from DTP, OCIP and school based

administrators and teachers will be convened • Interview panel members will rank candidates • DTP director will assign staff in collaboration with school administrators • If there are not enough highly qualified candidates to fill vacancies in districtwide

positions, the highly qualified candidates will be assigned to the highest poverty schools in rank order

Processing of payroll for districtwide MCC, GT teacher, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher positions

• Ms. Ana Gudiel, DTP secretary, will send timesheets for all districtwide teacher positions to principal or designee at the beginning of the pay period via pony.

• Principal or designee will distribute the timesheets to the MCC, GT teacher, and/or supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher.

• Principals are responsible for ensuring that timesheets are completed accurately. The principal will initial the completed timesheets. All timesheets for districtwide positions must be faxed to the Title I office by Thursday noon prior to the end of the pay period.

• Principal or designee will send an email to Ms. Gudiel and Mr. Tung Do, data systems operator, indicating that the timesheets were faxed. An acknowledgement reply email will be sent when fax is received.

• Principal or designee is responsible for sending the original timesheets to Ms. Gudiel via pony following the end of the pay period, preferably on the Monday following the end of the pay period. Upon receipt, Ms. Gudiel will send a confirmation email.

Distribution of pay vouchers for districtwide Title I staff members who do not participate in direct payroll deposit will be distributed at the DTP office at Rocking Horse Road Center. Leave slips

• MCC, GT teachers, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teachers submit leave slips to the principal or designee for initial approval

• Principal or designee will initial all leave slips and return to the teacher • MCC, GT teachers, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teachers will fax leave slips

to the attention of Ms. Gudiel • Dr. Lanham Tarason, or designee, will sign the leave slip • Ms. Gudiel will send an email to the teacher when the leave is approved • Original hard copies of leave slips signed by the MCC, GT teacher, and supplemental

ESOL/ESOL support teachers and initialed by the principal, must accompany the original timesheets sent in the pony

Attachment L

Observations/Evaluations Central office representatives, including staff in the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, OCIP, and DTP, will work in collaboration with school administrators to conduct observations and complete evaluations of Title I MCCs, GT teachers, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teachers. The MCPS Professional Growth System will serve as the basis for teacher observations and evaluation. Documentation School based training and coaching sessions for the MCC, GT and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teachers must be documented.

• MCC and GT teachers will collect and maintain documentation for training conducted at the school

• Documentation needed for group school based training sessions includes a Sign-in sheet, Agenda, Notes or handouts, and Evaluation (SANE)

• Ongoing coaching sessions must be documented in plan books or on logs and be available for audits by MSDE or United States Department of Education

• MCC or GT teachers will regularly provide required documentation to the Title I instructional specialists

• School documentation notebooks maintained in the DTP office will include documentation related to the work of the MCC or GT teacher

• Title I instructional specialists will be responsible for placing documentation in the documentation notebooks maintained in DTP

• A calendar for observations and evaluations by DTP administrators and content area supervisors will be developed in order to monitor the districtwide positions in the schools

School Improvement Plan Schools participating in the districtwide program will include information regarding the focused use of the positions in relationship to the needs of students, staff, and parents in the school improvement plan. Information regarding training, duties, and/or activities of staff in these positions may be included in the action plans, the professional development plan, in the family involvement plan, or in other appropriate areas.

Attachment L

ACTION DUE: June 2, 2008


Principal Intent to Participate in the Districtwide Title I Optional Program

2008–2009 School Year

School: ________________________________ Principal: ________________________________ The Montgomery County Public Schools Division of Title I Programs (DTP) will implement an optional districtwide program for the 2008–2009 school year. This program is funded through a Title I central reservation and is available to all schoolwide Title I schools. In order to participate in the districtwide Title I program, schools must agree to the roles and responsibilities and processes described in the attached job specific Memoranda of Understanding. Participation in the program is voluntary. Please check one box below indicating which districtwide teacher position(s) your school is requesting. School requests should be based on an analysis of school data, and a school improvement team decision.

0.5 FTE math content coach and 0.5 FTE gifted and talented teacher

1.0 FTE gifted and talented teacher

1.0 FTE math content coach

I do not wish to participate. If you request a MCC or GT teacher, the attached job specific Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) needs to be completed and submitted to Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director, DTP prior to the position being allocated to the school. _______________________________ _________________________ Signature of School Principal Signature Date

ATTACHMENT 8 TITLE II, PART A PREPARING, TRAINING AND RECRUITING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

Local School System: Montgomery County Fiscal Year 2009

Title II-A Coordinator James J Virga

Telephone: : 301-601-0300 E-mail: [email protected]

A. PERFORMANCE GOALS, INDICATORS, AND TARGETS. In the October 1, 2003 submission of the

five-year comprehensive master plan, school systems provided an analysis of the teacher quality performance indicators detailed in Table 8-1. MSDE has established performance targets as part of the September 2003 Consolidated State Application submission to the United States Department of Education (USDE). Although local school systems do not need to respond to this section as part of the Master Plan Annual Update, local planning teams should review the teacher quality information to determine progress in meeting State and local performance targets. School systems should use the annual review of the teacher quality data to determine allowable Title II, Part A activities as well as to revise goals, objectives, and/or strategies in the Master Plan that relate to improving teacher quality.

Table 8-1 IMPROVING TEACHER CAPACITY AND QUALITY PERFORMANCE GOALS, INDICATORS, AND TARGETS

Performance Goal Performance Indicators Performance Targets Performance Goal 3: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

3.1 The percentage of classes being taught by

"highly qualified" teachers (as the term is defined in section 9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in "high poverty" schools (as the term is defined in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA.

3.2 The percentage of teachers receiving

"high-quality professional development” (as the term "professional development" is defined in section 9101(34).

3.3 The percentage of paraprofessionals

who are qualified (See criteria in section 1119(c) and (d).

Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers State Aggregate* 2002-2003 Baseline: 64.5 2003-2004 Target: 65 2004-2005 Target: 75 2005-2006 Target: 100 Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in High Poverty Schools* 2002-2003 Baseline: 46.6 2003-2004 Target: 48 2004-2005 Target: 65 2005-2006 Target: 100 Percentage of Teachers Receiving High-Quality Professional Development* 2002-2003 Baseline: 33 2003-2004 Target: 40 2004-2005 Target: 65 2005-2006 Target: 90 Percentage of Qualified Title I Paraprofessionals* 2002-2003 Baseline: 21 2003-2004 Target: 30 2004-2005 Target: 65 2005-2006 Target: 100

*Note: MSDE will collect data. The local school system does not have to respond.

ATTACHMENT 8 TITLE II, PART A PREPARING, TRAINING AND RECRUITING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS Local School System: Montgomery County Fiscal Year 2009

B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2123]. For all allowable activities that will be implemented,

(a) provide a brief description of services, (b) timelines or target dates, (c) the specific goals, objectives, and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, and (d) the amount of funding for services to public and nonpublic students and teachers. Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.

1. Strategies and Activities to Recruit and Hire Highly Qualified Teachers and Principals

Allowable Activities

Brief Description of Specific Services, Timelines or Target Dates, and Specific Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Detailed in the 5-year Comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, and Any Revisions to the Plan As Part of This Annual Update, Including Page Numbers

Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

1.1 Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist schools to effectively recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, principals, and specialists in core academic areas (and other pupil services personnel in special circumstances) [section 2123(a)(1)].

1.2 Developing and implementing strategies and activities to recruit, hire, and retain highly qualified teachers and principals. These strategies may include (a) providing monetary incentives such as scholarships, signing bonuses, or differential pay for teachers in academic subjects or schools in which the LEA has shortages*; (b) reducing class size; (c) recruiting teachers to teach special needs children, and (d) recruiting qualified paraprofessionals and teachers from populations underrepresented in the teaching profession, and providing those paraprofessionals with alternative routes to obtaining teacher certification [section 2123(a)(2)].

*Note: Because the purpose of Title II-A is to increase student achievement, programs that provide teachers and principals with merit pay, pay differential, and/or monetary bonuses should be linked to measurable increases in student academic achievement produced by the efforts of the teacher or principal [section 2101(1)].

1.3 Hiring highly qualified teachers, including teachers who become highly qualified through State and local alternative routes to certification, and special education teachers, in order to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades [section 2123(a)(7)].


B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2123], Continued.

2. Strategies and Activities to Improve the Quality of the Teaching Force



Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

2.1 Providing professional development activities that improve the knowledge of teachers and principals and, in appropriate cases, paraprofessionals, in: (a) Content knowledge. Providing training in one or more of the core academic subjects that the teachers teach; (b) Classroom practices. Providing training to improve teaching practices and student academic achievement through (a) effective instructional strategies, methods, and skills; (b) the use of challenging State academic content standards and student academic achievement standards in preparing students for the State assessments. [section 2123(a)(3)(A)].

In an effort to meet the needs of our teachers, MCPS has committed to improve the quality of teaching by implementing a professional growth system. One of the key components of the system is the Skillful Teacher Coursework, a thirty-six hour course offered to all of our teachers. The coursework focuses on research-based strategies that address both the science and the art of the teaching practice and on meeting the goal of a quality teacher in each and every classroom. Specifically, the Skillful Teaching Course focuses on: • Providing participants with the

time to examine and understand the knowledge base of teaching

• Provide opportunities to cultivate collegiality and experimentation in the areas of motivation, personal relationship building, beliefs, and expectations.

• Expanding the repertoire of instructional strategies and skills for effective peer support to support student learning.

$476,487 $128,436





Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

2.2 Provide professional development activities that

improve the knowledge of teachers and principals, and, in appropriate cases, paraprofessionals, regarding effective instructional practices that – • Involve collaborative groups of teachers and

administrators; • Address the needs of students with different

learning styles, particularly students with disabilities, students with special needs (including students who are gifted and talented), and students with limited English proficiency;

• Provide training in improving student behavior in the classroom and identifying early and appropriate interventions to help students with special needs;

• Provide training to enable teachers and principals to involve parents in their children’s education, especially parents of limited English proficient and immigrant children; and

• Provide training on how to use data and assessments to improve classroom practice and student learning [section 2123(a)(3)(B)].






Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

2.3 Carrying out professional development programs that are designed to improve the quality of principals and superintendents, including the development and support of academies to help them become outstanding managers and educational leaders [section 2123(a)(6)].

3. Strategies and Activities to Retain and Provide Support to Highly Qualified Teachers and Principals

3.1 Developing and implementing initiatives to promote retention of highly qualified teachers and principals, particularly in schools with a high percentage of low-achieving students, including programs that provide teacher mentoring, induction, and support for new teachers and principals during their first three years; and financial incentives for teachers and principals with a record of helping students to achieve academic success [section 2123(a)(4)].

As outlined under section 2.1 above, the professional growth system in MCPS utilizes a number of strategies to improve teaching and learning. The Consulting Teacher Program seeks to support teachers as follows: The Consulting Teacher Team works as part of the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program within the Teacher Professional Growth System. Consulting Teachers are assigned to support novice and underperforming teachers in meeting the system’s six Teacher Evaluation Performance Standards. The normal period of support is one school year, but the PAR Panel has the option of authorizing a second year when appropriate. The Consulting Teachers’ primary responsibilities are:

• Providing intensive, individualized instructional support and resources to teachers.

• Documenting teachers’ performance relative to the performance standards.

• Presenting data to inform the PAR Panel’s employment recommendations.

$3,672,598 28 FTE teachers including benefits

3.2 Carrying out programs and activities that are designed to improve the quality of the teaching force, such as innovative professional development programs that focus on technology literacy, tenure reform, testing teachers in the academic subject in which teachers teach, and merit pay programs. [section 2123(a)(5)].

3.3 Carrying out teacher advancement initiatives that promote professional growth and emphasize multiple career paths (such as paths to becoming a mentor teacher, career teacher, or exemplary teacher) and pay differentiation [section 2123(a)(8)].

TOTAL TITLE II-A FUNDING AMOUNTS $4,149,085 $128,436


C. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

1. Given your school system’s analysis of data on highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects, describe how these strategies and activities will directly contribute to attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers in the core academic subjects at the elementary and secondary level. See Attachment A 2. If applicable, describe how these strategies and activities will contribute to

reducing the gap between high poverty and low poverty schools with respect to the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers.

See Attachment B

D. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE (NONPUBLIC) SCHOOLS [ESEA, SECTION 9501]:

1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6 regarding the names of participating private schools and the number of private school staff that will benefit from the Title II-A services.

Services are made available to all non-public schools in Montgomery County. See Attachment 6A for a listing of participating schools.

2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private

schools:

a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all phases of the development and design of the Title II-A services;

Consultations include the following activities:

• Orientation meeting for all non-public schools • Distribution of survey of interests and needs to all non-public schools • Mailing of informational and administrative materials for participation in the program to all

non-public schools • Telephone and written contacts for follow-up with interested schools

b) The basis for determining the professional development needs of private school teachers and other staff;

Each private school determines their staff development activities based on their student and staff needs. We provide all schools with a survey to assist in the identification of their needs. MCPS uses the survey to plan for the Title II-A services to schools.

c) How services, location of services, and grade levels or areas of services were decided and

agreed upon; and

Services for private schools are provided based on the request(s) of each school.

d) The differences, if any, between the Title II-A services that will be provided to public and

private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the same Title II-A services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to Title II-A services provided to public school children.)

Each private school determines its own needs as does each of the public schools through school improvement planning. Title II-A funds are determined by the number of students served by the school. Therefore, no differences exist between services offered by public and non-public schools.

D. BUDGET INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE E. ATTACHMENTS 4-A and B, 5-A and B, and 6-A and B

Please see Attachment 5 for the transfer of funds from Title IV to Title II A

C. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS Bridge To Excellence - Attachment 8 Attachment A Title II A 1. In Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Title II A grant activities focus on two primary areas, the Consulting Teacher Project and professional development provided through the Center for Skillful Teaching, both of which are projects under the umbrella of the Office of Organizational Development (OOD). OOD works to pursue the goals of the MCPS Strategic Plan through building the capacity of all staff. Primary among these efforts are projects that are designed to support excellent instruction delivered by highly-qualified teachers. The Consulting Teacher Team works as part of the MCPS Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program within the Teacher Professional Growth System. Consulting Teachers are assigned to support novice and underperforming teachers throughout the district in meeting the system’s six Teacher Evaluation Performance Standards. The normal period of support is one school year, but the PAR Panel has the option of authorizing a second year when appropriate. The Consulting Teachers’ primary responsibilities are:

• Providing intensive, individualized instructional support and resources to teachers. • Documenting teachers’ performance relative to the performance standards.

The consulting teachers present data to inform the PAR Panel’s employment recommendations. The annual client satisfaction feedback from teachers is highly favorable. Goal 4 of the Call to Action Plan includes strategies to “create a positive work environment in a self-renewing organization.” One element under this goal is the implementation of three professional growth systems, one of which is the Teacher Professional Growth System. MCPS believes that providing support is a key strategy for attracting and retaining highly-qualified teachers. Offering a comprehensive new educator induction program entices teachers to work in MCPS and encourages them to remain in the district. In addition to the Consulting Teacher project described previously, new MCPS teachers are eligible for other types of support, new educator orientation, mentoring support, continuing professional development courses, and tuition reimbursement. MCPS invests funds in these programs outside of the grant because the programs support our strategic plan and contribute to the goal of attracting and retaining a quality workforce. The efforts of the Consulting Teacher Project and the Center for Skillful Teaching are clearly having a positive impact on teacher retention. Table 8.3 shows the retention data for new teachers in MCPS. The percentage of new teachers leaving the system has steadily declined since FY 2001. The decline in the turnover rate coincides with the MCPS implementation of the consulting teacher and skillful teaching projects in FY 2001. Since the inception of the consulting teacher program, every novice teacher in MCPS has received consulting teacher support and data shows that the program is helping teachers to be successful. Since the consulting teacher program was instituted: 4051 new teachers received PAR support from September 2000-June 2008.

C. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS Bridge To Excellence - Attachment 8 Attachment A Title II A 3385 of these teachers were successfully released to the Professional Growth Cycle at the end of their first year. These data indicate that more than 83% of new teachers are successfully meeting standard, with consulting teacher support, after the first year. The teachers that are not meeting standard after year one are provided with additional support. The skillful teacher project has provided Studying Skillful Teaching 1 (SST1) to 5,278 teachers and Studying Skillful Teaching 2 (SST2) to 1174 teachers. The data on course effectiveness shows that the course and the participants are meeting the objectives.

• Consistently, more than 90 percent of participants are satisfied with the course. • Summarizers indicate that participants are mastering the objectives of the course. In order

to successfully complete each course, participants must demonstrate job-embedded application of the content.

The grant activities mentioned above are further supplemented and strengthened through inter-project collaboration under the Office of Organizational Development umbrella. For example, there is extensive collaboration between the Consulting Teacher and the New Educator Orientation projects. The CPD Project provides a variety of opportunities for continuing professional development. Tuition Reimbursement provides financial support for personal professional development and the Skillful Teacher Project supports a standards-based professional growth system for teachers and administrators. Further details on the Skillful Teacher Project can be obtained at the following link: http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/development/teams/skillful/skillful.shtm As a whole, the comprehensive strategies in the MCPS Call to Action Plan continue to show results. The number of classes taught by highly qualified teachers continues to increase year by year as shown in Tables 8.1 and 8.2. In FY 2009 we will continue to refine and expand our strategies. We will further seek to foster and expand our alliance with our university partners, showing preference to programs that will produce candidates with dual certification in high priority areas.

C. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS Bridge To Excellence - Attachment 8 Attachment A Title II A

Table 8.1: Highly Qualified Teachers

School Year % of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Teachers Not Highly

Qualified 2003-2004 74.5 25.5

2004-2005 80.3 19.7

2005-2006 85.5 14.5

2006-2007

90.5 9.5

2007-2008 92.5 7.5

Table 8.2: Number of CLASSES not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

Expired Certificate

Invalid Grade

Level(s) for Certification

Testing Requirement

Not Met

Invalid Subject for

Certification

Missing Certification Information

Conditional Certificate

Total School Year

#

% # % # % # % # % # % NHQ Classes

All Classes

2005-2006

156 .6 65 .2 341 1.3 1344 5.2 1218 4.7 589 2.3 3713 25569

2006-2007

97 .3 40 .1 140 .5 559 2.1 1233 4.8 338 1.3 2407 25455

2007-2008

63 .3 23 .1 79 .4 461 2.3 592 2.9 324 1.6 1542 20444

C. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS Bridge To Excellence - Attachment 8 Attachment A Title II A

Retention of Teachers

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

% o

f new

sta

ff te

rmin

atio

ns

Table 8.3

n=115

FY2001
n=112
FY2002

n=89

FY2003

F

n=80

FY2004

iscal Year

n=72

FY2005
n=44
FY2006

n=20

FY2007

Attachment 8, Title II, Part A Attachment B C. Highly Qualified Teachers MCPS does not have a significant gap between high poverty and low poverty schools in terms of highly qualified teachers. As a result, our grant activities are not specifically targeted to reduce the gap described. However, our activities are differentiated in a way that does offer strong support to high poverty schools. The high poverty schools often have numerous beginning teachers. Even though most of the new teachers are highly qualified, they receive a tremendous about of support from our comprehensive teacher induction program described in the previous question. Specifically, those new teachers are coached by consulting teachers who differentiate support based on the needs of the school and the students. The skillful teacher course is often taught in locations convenient for teachers teaching in high poverty schools. Making the course more readily available encourages teachers to participate in a course that supports the pedagogy of instruction. There have been past examples of all teachers in a high poverty school being required to take the Studying Skillful Teacher coursework. The supports provided to the teachers will contribute to their success in the classroom and therefore encourage them to remain in those classrooms. Teacher turnover is typically higher in high poverty schools. Creating programs and processes that support highly qualified teachers staying in the classrooms of high poverty schools is clearly aligned with the MCPS strategic plan.

FY 2009 Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive PlanBudget Narrative: Title II-A

Activity 2.1

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation Amount

3 Skillful Teacher Stipend 144 participants x $120 x 6 days 103,6803 Skillful Teacher Professional Part-time 1 coordinator x 508.6 hours x $40 20,3443 Substitutes 359 suns @ 120 per day = $43,006 43,006

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 167,030

Contracted ServicesCat. Item description Calculation Amount

5 Research for Better Teaching licenscing 1336 participants x $143.90 each 192,250and contractual services


Supplies and MaterialsCat. Item description Calculation Amount

4 Skillful Teacher Books and materials 1336 participants x $92.91 each 124,129


Other Instructional Costs (show fixed charges with salaries and wages)Cat. Item description Calculation Amount

5 Non-Public allocations 23,088 students x $4.73 each 109,20512 Benefits 7.4 % of $167,030 = $12,309 12,309


EquipmentCat. Item description Calculation Amount

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 05 0

TOTAL for Activity 604,923

FY 2009 Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive PlanBudget Narrative: Title II-A

Activity 3.1


3 Consulting Teachers Salary 28 participants x $93,996.25 each $2,631,895

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 2,631,895






12 BenefitsSalary amount of $2,631,895 times the average budgeted benefits rate of 39.5% $1,040,703

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04 1,040,703



TOTAL for Activity 3,672,598

ATTACHMENT 9 TITLE II, PART D, SUBPART 1 -- FORMULA FUNDING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STATES GRANTS PROGRAM

Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools Fiscal Year 2009

Title II-D Technology Coordinator: Melissa J. Woods


A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2416]. For all allowable activities that will be implemented,

(a) provide a brief description of services, (b) timelines or target dates, (c) the specific goals, objectives, and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan or Update, and (d) the amount of funding for services to public and nonpublic students and teachers. Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.



Public School Costs

Nonpublic Costs

1. Strategies and Activities to Provide Ongoing, Sustained, and Intensive High-Quality Professional Development. Note: Each Ed Tech recipient must use at least 25% of its funds to provide ongoing, sustained, and intensive high-quality professional development OR, through an Ed Flex waiver request to MSDE, satisfactorily demonstrate that it already provides, to all teachers in core academic subjects, such professional development, which is based on a review of relevant research.

1.1 Providing professional development in the integration of advanced technologies, including emerging technologies, into curricula and instruction and in using those technologies to create new learning environments, such as professional development in the use of technology to: a) access data and resources to develop curricula and instructional materials, b) enable teachers to use the Internet and other technology to communicate with parents, other teachers, principals, and administrators and to retrieve Internet-based learning resources, and c) lead to improvements in classroom instruction in the core academic subjects [section 2416(a)(1)].

To provide teachers and instructional specialists with professional development in using technology and student data to improve classroom instruction in core academic subjects, with a focus on integration of critical thinking framework into classroom instruction and building the capacity of school instructional teams in interpreting achievement data using technology systems. Provide professional development, including classes and job-skill coaches, for public school IT system support staff in using advanced technologies to create new learning environments in schools. Alignment to Master Plan and Local Tech Plan (Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, Pg. 20)

$151,859

2. Strategies and Activities to Integrate Technology into the Educational Process

2.1 Developing and adapting or expanding applications of technology to enable teachers to increase student academic achievement, including technology literacy, through teaching practices that are based on the review of relevant research and through use of innovative distance learning strategies [section 2416(b)(2)].

Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.): Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):

2.2 Acquiring proven and effective courses and curricula that include integrated technology and are designed to help students meet challenging state academic content and student achievement standards [section 2416(b)(3)].




A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2416], Continued.



Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs


2.3 Utilizing technology to develop or expand efforts to connect schools and teachers with parents and students to promote meaningful parental involvement, to foster increased communication about curricula, assignments, and assessments between students, parents, and teachers, and to assist parents to understand the technology being applied in their child's education, so that parents are able to reinforce at home the instruction their child receives at school [section 2416(b)(4)].


2.4 Preparing one or more teachers in schools as technology leaders who will assist other teachers, and providing bonus payments to the technology leaders [section 2416(b)(5)].


3. Strategies and Activities to Improve Access to Technology

3.1 Establishing or expanding initiatives, particularly initiatives involving public-private partnerships, designed to increase awareness to technology for students and teachers, with special emphasis on the access of high-need schools to technology [section 2416(b)(1)].

Provide public and nonpublic schools with increased access to technology. Selected public schools will field test the use of innovative technologies, such as “thin client” solutions and ultra-mobile computers. Nonpublic schools receive technology materials that support the educational programs of each school. Alignment to Master Plan and Local Tech Plan (Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, Pg. 18)

$15,000 $10,905

3.2 Acquiring, adapting, expanding, implementing, repairing, and maintaining existing and new applications of technology to support the school reform effort and to improve student academic achievement, including technology literacy [section 2416(b)(6)].


ATTACHMENT 9 TITLE II, PART D, SUBPART 1 -- FORMULA FUNDING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STATES GRANTS PROGRAM Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools Fiscal Year 2009




Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs


3.3 Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and services (including the acquisition of hardware and software and other electronically delivered learning materials) for use by teachers, students, academic counselors, and school library media centers, in order to improve student academic achievement [section 2416(b)(7))].


3.4 Developing, enhancing, or implementing information technology courses [section 2416(b)(10)].


4. Strategies and Activities to Assess/Evaluate Effectiveness of Technology (At least 3 percent of Ed tech funds must be used to assess/evaluate effectiveness of technology)

4.1 Using technology to collect, manage, and analyze data to inform and enhance teaching and school improvement efforts [section 2416(b)(8)].


4.2 Implementing performance measurement systems to determine the effectiveness of education technology programs funded under Title II-D Ed Tech, particularly in determining the extent to which Ed Tech activities are effective in integrating technology into curricula and instruction, increasing the ability of teachers to teach, and enabling students to meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards [section 2416(b)(9)].

Provide an independent evaluation of grant strategies and activities. Timeline – written reports to be submitted with grant progress reports and the final report Alignment to Master Plan and Local Tech Plan (Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, Pg. 23)

$5,508

TOTAL TITLE II-D ED TECH FUNDING AMOUNTS $172,367 $10,905


B. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE

(NONPUBLIC) SCHOOLS [ESEA, SECTION 9501].

1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6-A on page 30 regarding the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will benefit from the Title II-D Ed Tech services.

2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools (or

reference the page numbers if this information has been included elsewhere in the Master Plan Update)

a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all phases of the development and design of the Title II-D Ed Tech services;

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) holds regular meetings with nonpublic school representatives where this program and the use of funds are discussed. For nonpublic schools that cannot attend all of these meetings, nonpublic school support information can be accessed through the community page of the MCPS Web site. Meetings also are held to specifically consult with nonpublic schools on participation in Title II-D programs. Invitations to these meetings are mailed to the director of each nonpublic school. As a follow-up step, meeting materials (including a description of Title II-D programs) are sent to all nonpublic schools that do not send a representative to this consultation meeting. This year’s meeting was held on March 6, 2008.

b) The basis for determining the needs of private school children and teachers;

As follow-up to the consultation and planning meeting, nonpublic schools wishing to participate in any of the No Child Left Behind federally funded programs, including Title II-D, are asked to complete a form provided at the meeting or included in their mailing that indicates their interest. These forms are collected, distributed to program coordinators and used to determine the level of services to be provided to nonpublic schools.

c) How services, location of services, and grade levels or areas of services were decided and agreed upon;

and

Services are based on input from nonpublic school representatives. Locations of service and grade levels or areas of service are determined through applications submitted by nonpublic schools that are interested in participating in the Title II-D program.

d) The differences, if any, between the Title II-D Ed Tech services that will be provided to public and

private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the same Title II-D Ed Tech services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to Title II-D Ed Tech services provided to public school children.)

Nonpublic school services involve the purchase of needed educational technology materials that will provide students with improved access to technology. These same services also are provided to public schools. The only difference in public and nonpublic school services is the professional development provided to IT system support staff that serve public schools and support the school system’s infrastructure. The reason for this difference in services is that due to size and funding, nonpublic schools do not have a comparable staff position.


C. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE

On December 4, 2001, the Maryland State Board of Education approved a regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) concerning accessible technology-based instructional products. This regulation requires that accessibility standards be incorporated into the evaluation, selection, and purchasing policies and procedures of public agencies. Subsequently, Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities was passed during the 2002 General Assembly session and further requires that all teacher-made instructional materials be accessible also. MSDE is charged with monitoring local school systems’ compliance with the regulation and the law. For more information on the regulation and the law, visit the following Web sites: http://cte.jhu.edu/accessibility/Regulations.cfm; http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0


Please review the information submitted with the October 16, 2007 Annual Update and use the chart on the following page to address additional progress on or changes to the items below related to accessibility compliance. If you choose to use last year’s chart with this Update, please bold or underline any changes. 1. Process:

a) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that invitations to bids, requests for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants shall include the notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

b) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that the equivalent access standards (Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended) are included in guidelines for design specifications and guidelines for the selection and evaluation of technology-based instructional products.

c) Describe how you are addressing the requirement that any teacher-developed materials (web sites, etc.) are accessible.

2. Implementation:

a) Describe how you are ensuring that all educators are being provided information and training about Education Article 7-910 of the Public Schools - Technology for Education Act (Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities). Include who, to date, has received information and/or training (e.g. all teachers, teachers at select schools, special education teachers only, building level administrators, etc.) and any future plans for full compliance.

3. Monitoring:

a) Describe how you are monitoring the results of the evaluation and selection of technology-based instructional products set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, including a description of the accessible and non-accessible features and possible applicable alternative methods of instruction correlated with the non-accessible features.

b) Describe how you are ensuring that teachers and administrators have a full understanding of the regulation and law and how you are monitoring their adherence to the process and/or procedures governing accessibility.



PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Key technology purchases include desktop and portable computers and software applications and operating systems. These purchases are made under the state bid contract and MEEC agreement, both of which ensure accessibility compliance.

The procedures for addressing accessibility compliance for other technology products in invitations to bid, requests for proposals, and procurement contracts are set forth in the MCPS Procurement Manual. This manual includes notice of equivalent access requirements for technology-based instructional products.

Staff responsible for selection, evaluation, and purchase approval of technology-based instructional products attended MSDE/Center for Technology in Education training; and the evaluation and selection procedures used by MCPS address equivalent access in the purchase of technology-based instructional products.

To be approved curriculum resources, teacher-developed materials must be reviewed; and staff that approves these materials participated in the workshop sponsored by MSDE and Center for Technology Education.

MCPS does central evaluation and selection of technology software, materials, and equipment approved for use in schools. To be accepted, school purchases must come from the list of approved products.

Staff training was provided to staff with central responsibility for technology selection, evaluation and purchasing approval. To date, those trained include directors, supervisors, and specialists, including special education representatives, involved in material and equipment evaluation and selection.

MCPS provides educators with online information on equivalent access and MCPS compliance. Future plans for full compliance include training teachers in how to ensure that the electronic curriculum resources and teaching aids are accessible; or where this is not feasible, that alternative resources are available to students who need this assistance.

Accessible curriculum resources have been developed using grant funding from the Maryland Consortium for Student Technology Literacy by Grade 8. These accessible curriculum resources will be available for use by all Maryland school systems.

The directors that were trained (see implementation column) monitor the results of evaluation and selection of technology-based instructional products. Where appropriate, descriptions of accessible and non-accessible features are reviewed and alternative methods of instruction are determined.

Information on accessibility is shared with school-based staff as part of the Online Technology Inventory process. Initial responses and questions help to monitor the extent to which teachers and administrators are aware of equivalent access requirements. Even though the responsibility for compliance rests mainly with central office administrators, the inventory and its questions on accessibility compliance p an opportunity to educate school staff on the regulation and law.


D. Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form NOTE: Complete only if there have been changes to your last certification submitted to MSDE.

X Check here if there are no changes to your CIPA certification status.

Any Local Education Agency seeking Ed Tech funds must certify to its State Education Agency that schools have adopted and are enforcing Internet safety policies. It is the intent of the legislation that any school (or district) using federal money (ESEA or E-rate) to pay for computers that access the Internet or to pay for Internet access directly should be in compliance with CIPA and should certify to that compliance EITHER through E-rate or the Ed Tech program. Please check one of the following:

Our local school system is certified compliant, through the E-rate program, with the Children’s Internet Protection Act requirements.

Every school in our local school system benefiting from Ed Tech funds has complied with the

CIPA requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the ESEA.

The CIPA requirements in the ESEA do not apply because no funds made available under the

program are being used to purchase computers to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet.

Not all schools have yet complied with the requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the

ESEA. However, our local school system has received a one-year waiver from the U.S. Secretary of Education under section 2441(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA for those applicable schools not yet in compliance.

______________________________ _________________________ _______________ School System Authorizing Signature Date


F. BUDGET INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE

1. Provide a detailed budget on the MSDE Proposed Title II-D Ed Tech Budget Form. The Proposed Budget must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and correlated to the activities and costs detailed in Part C, Allowable Activities. MSDE budget forms are available in Excel format through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Web Site at www.marylandpublicschools.org.

2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative

for Individual Grants.” (pp. 11-13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative should: (a) detail how the school system will use Title II-D funds to pay only reasonable and necessary direct administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title II-D program; and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.

[Included on the pages that follow]

G. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B

Be certain to complete all appropriate templates in Part II: Attachment 4: School Level Budget Summary Attachment 5: Transfer of ESEA Funds

Attachment 6: Consolidation of ESEA Funds for Local Administration

Category and Object Line Item Calculation AmountIn-

KindTotal

Activity 1.1 - Staff Development, Goal 1, Activity 1.1

Instructional Staff Development, Salaries and Wages

Instructional specialist salary to provide staff development on integrating critical thinking framework in classroom instruction and interpreting achievement data using technology systems

Salary of $6,950 per month x 12 months, assumes July 1, 2008 hire date

$83,400 $8

Instructional Staff Development, Fixed Charges

Fringe benefits for instructional specialist

37% of total salary $30,858 $30,858

Instructional Staff Development, Part-Time

Wages for IT system support staff coaches

8 coaches at $600 each (12 hours x $25 per hour)

$4,800 $4,800

Instructional Staff Development, Fixed Charges

Fringe benefits for IT system support staff coaches

8% of total wages $ 384 $384

Instructional Staff Development, Travel

Travel costs for instructional specialist and Title II-D technology coordinator

Includes local travel and professional development, including MICCA and national conference

$2,460 $2,460

Instructional Staff Development, Contracted Services

Agreements to provide technology training for IT system support staff that serve changing user needs and support infrastructure

$2,000 per seat x 12 seats for participants

$ 24,000 $24,000

Activity 3.1 - Technology Access, Goal 1, Access of High Needs Schools to Technology

Regular Programs, Supplies and Materials

Instructional technologies Funds for innovative instructional technologies in public schools. Selected public schools will field test the use of innovative technologies, such as ultra-mobile computers.

$15,000 $1

Regular Programs, Transfers Instructional technologies $183,272 divided by total enrollment of 162,753 public and non-public students = $1.13 per student x 9,650 students in nonpublics interested in Title II-D

$10,905 $1

Activity 4.2 - Performance Measurement Systems, Goal 2, Evaluation

Regular Programs, Salaries & Wages

Temporary part-time funds used to provide independent evaluation of grant activities

Evaluation specialist - 150 hours x $34 per hour (3% of total funding)

5,100$ $5,100

Fixed Charges FICA at 8% 8% of total wages $408 $408 Overall grant administrationAdministration, Business Support Services, Contractual

Contribution to audit of federal funds

0.1% of total grant $183 $183

Administration, Business Support Services, Transfers

Indirect Costs 3.47% of direct costs ($183,272 - $10,905 for nonpublics = $172,367)

$5,774 $5,774

TOTAL $ 183,272 $ 183,272

FY 2008 Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive Plan

Budget Narrative: Title II-D

3,400

5,000

0,905



Title II-D Technology Coordinator: Melissa J. Woods


A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2416]. For all allowable activities that will be implemented,

(a) provide a brief description of services, (b) timelines or target dates, (c) the specific goals, objectives, and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan or Update, and (d) the amount of funding for services to public and nonpublic students and teachers. Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.



Public School Costs

Nonpublic Costs

1. Strategies and Activities to Provide Ongoing, Sustained, and Intensive High-Quality Professional Development. Note: Each Ed Tech recipient must use at least 25% of its funds to provide ongoing, sustained, and intensive high-quality professional development OR, through an Ed Flex waiver request to MSDE, satisfactorily demonstrate that it already provides, to all teachers in core academic subjects, such professional development, which is based on a review of relevant research.

1.1 Providing professional development in the integration of advanced technologies, including emerging technologies, into curricula and instruction and in using those technologies to create new learning environments, such as professional development in the use of technology to: a) access data and resources to develop curricula and instructional materials, b) enable teachers to use the Internet and other technology to communicate with parents, other teachers, principals, and administrators and to retrieve Internet-based learning resources, and c) lead to improvements in classroom instruction in the core academic subjects [section 2416(a)(1)].

To provide teachers and instructional specialists with professional development in using technology and student data to improve classroom instruction in core academic subjects, with a focus on integration of critical thinking framework into classroom instruction and building the capacity of school instructional teams in interpreting achievement data using technology systems. Provide professional development, including classes and job-skill coaches, for public school IT system support staff in using advanced technologies to create new learning environments in schools. Multiple sessions and ongoing support at seven (7) schools by the specialist. Participation in each school is voluntary. It is open to all grades. MCPS will provide sub time; sessions will be both in-service and after schools. Alignment to Master Plan and Local Tech Plan (Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, Pg. 20)

$151,859


2.1 Developing and adapting or expanding applications of technology to enable teachers to increase student academic achievement, including technology literacy, through teaching practices that are based on the review of relevant research and through use of innovative distance learning strategies [section 2416(b)(2)].


2.2 Acquiring proven and effective courses and curricula that include integrated technology and are designed to help students meet challenging state academic content and student achievement standards [section 2416(b)(3)].







Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs


2.3 Utilizing technology to develop or expand efforts to connect schools and teachers with parents and students to promote meaningful parental involvement, to foster increased communication about curricula, assignments, and assessments between students, parents, and teachers, and to assist parents to understand the technology being applied in their child's education, so that parents are able to reinforce at home the instruction their child receives at school [section 2416(b)(4)].


2.4 Preparing one or more teachers in schools as technology leaders who will assist other teachers, and providing bonus payments to the technology leaders [section 2416(b)(5)].



3.1 Establishing or expanding initiatives, particularly initiatives involving public-private partnerships, designed to increase awareness to technology for students and teachers, with special emphasis on the access of high-need schools to technology [section 2416(b)(1)].

Provide public and nonpublic schools with increased access to technology. Selected public schools will field test the use of innovative technologies, such as “thin client” solutions and ultra-mobile computers. Nonpublic schools receive technology materials that support the educational programs of each school. Alignment to Master Plan and Local Tech Plan (Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, Pg. 18)

$15,000 $10,905

3.2 Acquiring, adapting, expanding, implementing, repairing, and maintaining existing and new applications of technology to support the school reform effort and to improve student academic achievement, including technology literacy [section 2416(b)(6)].






Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs


3.3 Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and services (including the acquisition of hardware and software and other electronically delivered learning materials) for use by teachers, students, academic counselors, and school library media centers, in order to improve student academic achievement [section 2416(b)(7))].


3.4 Developing, enhancing, or implementing information technology courses [section 2416(b)(10)].


4. Strategies and Activities to Assess/Evaluate Effectiveness of Technology (At least 3 percent of Ed tech funds must be used to assess/evaluate effectiveness of technology)

4.1 Using technology to collect, manage, and analyze data to inform and enhance teaching and school improvement efforts [section 2416(b)(8)].


4.2 Implementing performance measurement systems to determine the effectiveness of education technology programs funded under Title II-D Ed Tech, particularly in determining the extent to which Ed Tech activities are effective in integrating technology into curricula and instruction, increasing the ability of teachers to teach, and enabling students to meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards [section 2416(b)(9)].

Provide an independent evaluation of grant strategies and activities. Timeline – written reports to be submitted with grant progress reports and the final report Alignment to Master Plan and Local Tech Plan (Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, Pg. 23)

$5,508

TOTAL TITLE II-D ED TECH FUNDING AMOUNTS $172,367 $10,905




1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6-A on page 30 regarding the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will benefit from the Title II-D Ed Tech services.

2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools (or

reference the page numbers if this information has been included elsewhere in the Master Plan Update)

a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all phases of the development and design of the Title II-D Ed Tech services;

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) holds regular meetings with nonpublic school representatives where this program and the use of funds are discussed. For nonpublic schools that cannot attend all of these meetings, nonpublic school support information can be accessed through the community page of the MCPS Web site. Meetings also are held to specifically consult with nonpublic schools on participation in Title II-D programs. Invitations to these meetings are mailed to the director of each nonpublic school. As a follow-up step, meeting materials (including a description of Title II-D programs) are sent to all nonpublic schools that do not send a representative to this consultation meeting. This year’s meeting was held on March 6, 2008.


As follow-up to the consultation and planning meeting, nonpublic schools wishing to participate in any of the No Child Left Behind federally funded programs, including Title II-D, are asked to complete a form provided at the meeting or included in their mailing that indicates their interest. These forms are collected, distributed to program coordinators and used to determine the level of services to be provided to nonpublic schools.


and

Services are based on input from nonpublic school representatives. Locations of service and grade levels or areas of service are determined through applications submitted by nonpublic schools that are interested in participating in the Title II-D program.

d) The differences, if any, between the Title II-D Ed Tech services that will be provided to public and

private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the same Title II-D Ed Tech services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to Title II-D Ed Tech services provided to public school children.)

Nonpublic school services involve the purchase of needed educational technology materials that will provide students with improved access to technology. These same services also are provided to public schools. The only difference in public and nonpublic school services is the professional development provided to IT system support staff that serve public schools and support the school system’s infrastructure. The reason for this difference in services is that due to size and funding, nonpublic schools do not have a comparable staff position.


C. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE

On December 4, 2001, the Maryland State Board of Education approved a regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) concerning accessible technology-based instructional products. This regulation requires that accessibility standards be incorporated into the evaluation, selection, and purchasing policies and procedures of public agencies. Subsequently, Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities was passed during the 2002 General Assembly session and further requires that all teacher-made instructional materials be accessible also. MSDE is charged with monitoring local school systems’ compliance with the regulation and the law. For more information on the regulation and the law, visit the following Web sites: http://cte.jhu.edu/accessibility/Regulations.cfm; http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0


Please review the information submitted with the October 16, 2007 Annual Update and use the chart on the following page to address additional progress on or changes to the items below related to accessibility compliance. If you choose to use last year’s chart with this Update, please bold or underline any changes. 1. Process:

a) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that invitations to bids, requests for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants shall include the notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

b) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that the equivalent access standards (Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended) are included in guidelines for design specifications and guidelines for the selection and evaluation of technology-based instructional products.

c) Describe how you are addressing the requirement that any teacher-developed materials (web sites, etc.) are accessible.

2. Implementation:

a) Describe how you are ensuring that all educators are being provided information and training about Education Article 7-910 of the Public Schools - Technology for Education Act (Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities). Include who, to date, has received information and/or training (e.g. all teachers, teachers at select schools, special education teachers only, building level administrators, etc.) and any future plans for full compliance.

3. Monitoring:

a) Describe how you are monitoring the results of the evaluation and selection of technology-based instructional products set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, including a description of the accessible and non-accessible features and possible applicable alternative methods of instruction correlated with the non-accessible features.

b) Describe how you are ensuring that teachers and administrators have a full understanding of the regulation and law and how you are monitoring their adherence to the process and/or procedures governing accessibility.



PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Key technology purchases include desktop and portable computers and software applications and operating systems. These purchases are made under the state bid contract and MEEC agreement, both of which ensure accessibility compliance.

The procedures for addressing accessibility compliance for other technology products in invitations to bid, requests for proposals, and procurement contracts are set forth in the MCPS Procurement Manual. This manual includes notice of equivalent access requirements for technology-based instructional products.

Staff responsible for selection, evaluation, and purchase approval of technology-based instructional products attended MSDE/Center for Technology in Education training; and the evaluation and selection procedures used by MCPS address equivalent access in the purchase of technology-based instructional products.

To be approved curriculum resources, teacher-developed materials must be reviewed; and staff that approves these materials participated in the workshop sponsored by MSDE and Center for Technology Education.

MCPS does central evaluation and selection of technology software, materials, and equipment approved for use in schools. To be accepted, school purchases must come from the list of approved products.

Staff training was provided to staff with central responsibility for technology selection, evaluation and purchasing approval. To date, those trained include directors, supervisors, and specialists, including special education representatives, involved in material and equipment evaluation and selection.

MCPS provides educators with online information on equivalent access and MCPS compliance. Future plans for full compliance include training teachers in how to ensure that the electronic curriculum resources and teaching aids are accessible; or where this is not feasible, that alternative resources are available to students who need this assistance.

Accessible curriculum resources have been developed using grant funding from the Maryland Consortium for Student Technology Literacy by Grade 8. These accessible curriculum resources will be available for use by all Maryland school systems.

The directors that were trained (see implementation column) monitor the results of evaluation and selection of technology-based instructional products. Where appropriate, descriptions of accessible and non-accessible features are reviewed and alternative methods of instruction are determined.

Information on accessibility is shared with school-based staff as part of the Online Technology Inventory process. Initial responses and questions help to monitor the extent to which teachers and administrators are aware of equivalent access requirements. Even though the responsibility for compliance rests mainly with central office administrators, the inventory and its questions on accessibility compliance are an opportunity to educate school staff on the regulation and law.



1. Provide a detailed budget on the MSDE Proposed Title II-D Ed Tech Budget Form. The Proposed Budget must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and correlated to the activities and costs detailed in Part C, Allowable Activities. MSDE budget forms are available in Excel format through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Web Site at www.marylandpublicschools.org.

2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative

for Individual Grants.” (pp. 11-13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative should: (a) detail how the school system will use Title II-D funds to pay only reasonable and necessary direct administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title II-D program; and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.

[Included on the pages that follow]

G. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B

Be certain to complete all appropriate templates in Part II: Attachment 4: School Level Budget Summary Attachment 5: Transfer of ESEA Funds



In-Category and Object Line Item Calculation Amount Total

KindActivity 1.1 - Staff Development, Goal 1, Activity 1.1

Instructional Staff Instructional specialist salary Salary of $6,950 per month x 12 $83,400 $83,400 months, assumes July 1, 2008 hire Development, Salaries and to provide staff development

Wages on integrating critical thinking dateframework in classroom instruction and interpreting achievement data using technology systems

Instructional Staff Fringe benefits for 37% of total salary $30,858 $30,858 Development, Fixed Charges instructional specialist

Instructional Staff Wages for IT system support 16 coaches at $300 each (12 hours x $4,800 $4,800 Development, Part-Time staff coaches $25 per hour)

Instructional Staff Fringe benefits for IT system 8% of total wages $ 384 $384 Development, Fixed Charges support staff coaches

Instructional Staff Travel costs for instructional Includes local travel and professional $2,460 $2,460 Development, Travel specialist and Title II-D development, including MICCA and

technology coordinator national conferenceInstructional Staff Agreements to provide $2,000 per seat x 12 seats for $ 24,000 $24,000 Development, Contracted technology training for IT

Services system support staff that serve participants

changing user needs and support infrastructure

Activity 3.1 - Technology Access, Goal 1, Access of High Needs Schools to Technology Regular Programs, Supplies and Instructional technologies Funds for innovative instructional $15,000 $15,000 Materials technologies in public schools.

Selected public schools will field test the use of innovative technologies, such as ultra-mobile computers.

Regular Programs, Transfers Instructional technologies $183,272 divided by total enrollment $10,905 $10,905 of 162,753 public and non-public students = $1.13 per student x 9,650 students in nonpublics interested in Title II-D

Activity 4.2 - Performance Measurement Systems, Goal 2, Evaluation $ Temporary part-time funds 5, 100 $5,100 Regular Programs, Salaries & Evaluation specialist - 150 hours x

Wages $34 per hour (3% of total funding) used to provide independent evaluation of grant activities

Fixed Charges FICA at 8% 8% of total wages $408 $408 Overall grant administration Administration, Business Contribution to audit of 0.1% of total grant $183 $183 Support Services, Contractual federal funds

Indirect Costs Administration, Business 3.47% of direct costs ($183,272 - $5,774 $5,774 Support Services, Transfers $10,905 for nonpublics = $172,367)

TOTAL $ 183,272 $ 183,272

Budget Narrative: Title II-D

ATTACHMENT 10 TITLE III, PART A ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, LANGUAGE ENHANCEMENT, AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Local School System: __Montgomery County Public Schools ___________ Fiscal Year 2009

A. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES [Section 3115 (c)]: For all required activities that will be implemented,

(a) provide a brief description of services, (b) timelines or target dates, (c) the specific goals, objectives, and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, (d) the amount of funding for services to public and nonpublic students and teachers, and e) any revision to the plan as part of this annual update (including page numbers). Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.

1. To increase the English proficiency of ELL children by providing high-quality language instruction educational programs that are based on scientifically based research demonstrating effectiveness of the programs in increasing English proficiency and student academic achievement in the core academic subjects. [section 3115 (c)(1)]

Authorized Activities

Descriptions

a) brief description of the services b) timelines or target dates c) specific goals, objectives, and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan d) services to non public schools e) any revision to the plan as part of this annual update (including page numbers).

Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

1.1 Upgrading program objectives and effective instructional strategies [section 3115(d)(1)].

Provide an early childhood English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) instructional specialist to develop and revise MCPS pre-K–2 ESOL curriculum (ongoing).

$108,778

Improve instruction for newcomer ESOL students by providing a pre-K–12 newcomer ESOL instructional specialist to develop curricula and instructional materials to address the unique linguistic and academic needs of newcomer ESOL students (ongoing).

$108,778

Continue to align all MCPS pre-K–12 ESOL curricula to the state ESOL voluntary state curriculum (ongoing).

$25,000

1.2 Improving the instruction program for ELL children by identifying, acquiring, and upgrading curricula, instructional materials, educational software, and assessment procedures [section 3115(d)(2)].

Item Description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 1.2 Calculation Amount Early childhood ESOL instructional specialist

1.0 FTE x $108,778 $108,778

Pre-K–12 newcomer ESOL instructional specialist

1.0 FTE x $108,778 $108,778

Professional part-time for curriculum development (stipend)

8 curriculum writing teams totaling 1,000 hours x $25 per hour

$25,000

Supporting services part time to provide temporary assistance to support the administration of the LAS Links Placement Test during peak enrollment periods

1,857 hours x $14 per hour

$25,998 Administer the Language Assessment System (LAS) Links placement test for newly enrolling international students during peak enrollment periods (ongoing).

$25,998

Employee benefits $84,576

Purchase ESOL instructional, LAS Links testing materials, and educational software to identify and provide services to ESOL students (ongoing).

$88,990 $13,567

Employee benefits FTEs = $217,556 x .37 = $80,496. Non-FTEs = $50,998 x .08 = $4,080.

$84,576

Total Salaries and Wages including Fixed Charges:

$353,130

Totals: $442,120 $13,567

1.3 Providing intensified instruction for ELL children [section 3115(d)(3)(B)].

Provide opportunities to accelerate ELL into honors, AP, and other upper level courses by providing transition services at two high schools (August 2008–June 2009).

$157,588

Provide continuing English language instruction for ESOL students through the summer months by providing ESOL summer school (July 2008–August 2008).

$140,436


Contract with a consultant to develop a Spanish language literacy curriculum to help ESOL students with interrupted formal education develop literacy skills in Spanish to support the acquisition of literacy skills in English (July 2008–August 2008).

$12,440

Provide transportation for ESOL students with interrupted formal education enrolled in the ESOL Students Engaged in Pathways to Achievement (SEPA) Program (ongoing).

$2,500

1.4 Improving the English proficiency and academic achievement of ELL children [section 3115(d)(5)].

Item Description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 1.4 Calculation Amount ESOL transition teachers 2.0 FTEs x $78,794 $157,588

SSE (ESOL summer school) teachers

12 elementary teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $50,760. 13 high school teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 28 days = $76,986. 3 SEPA teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $12,690.

$140,436


$69,542


$367,566

Totals: $382,506 $0



A. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES [Section 3115(c)], Continued.

2. To provide high-quality professional development to classroom teachers (including teachers in classroom settings that are not the setting of language instruction educational programs), principals, administrators, and other school or community-based organizational personnel. [section 3115(c)(2)]


Note: High quality professional development shall not include activities such as one-day or short-term workshops and conferences. Also, high quality professional development shall not apply to an activity that is one component of a long-term, comprehensive professional development plan established by a teacher or the teacher's supervisor based on an assessment of needs of the teacher, supervisor, the students of the teacher, and any school system employing the teacher [section 3115(c)(2)(D)]

Descriptions


Public School Costs

Nonpublic Costs

Provide substitutes to enable ESOL teachers to attend training (September 2008–May 2009).

$19,919


Professional development for teachers: training, books, and training video (ongoing).

$1,842

2.1 Providing for professional development designed to improve the instruction and assessment of ELL children [section 3115(c)(2)(A)].

Item Description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 2.1

Calculation Amount

Substitutes for ESOL teachers

170 x $117.17 per day

$19,919

Employee benefits

Non-FTEs = $19,919 x .08

$1,593


$21,512

Totals: $21,512 $1,842

Contracted services for training non-ESOL teachers to work with ELL in the content areas (ongoing).

$6,700 2.2 Providing for professional development designed

to enhance the ability of teachers to understand and use curricula, assessment measures, and instruction strategies for ELL children [section 3115(c)(2)(B)].

Totals: $0 $6,700

2.3 Providing for professional development to substantially increase the subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skills of teachers [section 3115(c)(2)(C)].



B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 3115(d)]: An eligible entity receiving funds under section 3114

(a) may use the funds to achieve one or more of the following activities:

3. To provide community participation programs, family literacy services, and parent outreach and training activities to ELL children and their families. [section 3115(d)(6)]


Descriptions


Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

Provide after-school tutoring and educational software to improve English language skills (ongoing).

$11,607 3.1 Providing programs to improve the English

language skills of ELL children [section 3115(d)(6)(A)]. Totals: $0 $11,607

Provide parent community coordinators to provide outreach and training opportunities for parents to support navigating the school system and the academic achievement of ELL (ongoing).

$935,153

Hire a communication specialist to provide translation services in Korean to ESOL families (ongoing).

$59,236

Provide interpretation and translation services to involve non-English-speaking parents in school activities (ongoing).

$36,000

3.2 Providing programs to assist parents in helping their children to improve their academic achievement and becoming active participants in the education of their children [section 3115(d)(6)(B)].

Item Description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 3.2 Calculation Amount Parent community coordinators

14.8 FTEs x $63,186 $935,153

Communication specialist

1.0 FTE x $59,236 $59,236

Professional part-time to provide interpretation and translation services

1,440 hours x $25 per hour

$36,000


Provide access to a translation memory system to enable schools and offices to produce multilingual translations for frequently used parental communication, such as newsletters, fliers, and notes (ongoing).

$15,005

Provide pagers to enable itinerant parent outreach and counseling staff to enhance the provision of urgent services to ELL and their families. The plan is for itinerant staff to use these pagers during specific events to serve ESOL students and families in crisis on an as-needed or ongoing basis (ongoing).

$8,772

Provide professional development for parents (ongoing).

$400


$370,804


$1,401,193

Totals: $1,424,970 $400

4. Improving the instruction of limited English Proficient children by providing the following: [section 3115(d)(2)(3)]

4.1 Providing tutorials and academic and vocational education for ELL children [section 3115(d) (3) (A)].

Purchase computers and/or related technology hardware to improve instruction for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) children (August 2008).

$3,168 4.2 Acquisition or development of educational technology or instructional materials [section 3115(d)(7)(A)].

Totals: $0 $3,168

4.3 Providing for access to, and participation in electronic networks for materials, training and communication [section 3115(d)(7)(B)].

4.4 Incorporation of educational technology and electronic networks into curricula and programs [section 3115(d)(7)(C)].

Develop and implement extended school day and extended school year programs to support ESOL students by working with established and relevant community-based organizations and the ESOL parent outreach and counseling teams (ongoing).

$122,307


4.5 Developing and implementing elementary or secondary school language instruction educational programs that are coordinated with other relevant programs and services [section 3115(d)(4)]. Item description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 4.5 Calculation Amount Coordinator of bilingual student support programs

1.0 FTE x $122,307 $122,307

Employee benefits FTEs = $122,307 x .37

$45,254


$167,561

Totals: $167,561 $0



C. OTHER ACTIVITIES [section 3115(b)]: Each eligible entity receiving funds under section 3114(a) for a fiscal

year may not use more than 2% for the cost of administering this subpart.

5. To carry out other activities that are consistent with the purpose of Title III, Part A, No Child Left Behind. (Specify and describe below.) [section 3115(b)]:

Other Activities

Descriptions


Public

School Costs

Nonpublic Costs

Allowable administrative costs:

Fiscal assistant to conduct all financial transactions and prepare budget (ongoing).

$45,452


Audit (ongoing) $1,042

5.1 Administrative expenses may not use more than 2% for the cost of administering this subpart [section 3115(b)].

Item description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 5.1 Calculation Amount Fiscal Assistant 0.7 FTE x $64,932 $45,452

Employee benefits FTEs = $45,452 x .37 $16,817


$62,269Totals: $63,311

$0

Use bilingual therapeutic counselors to provide itinerant counseling to ESOL students, including those with limited formal education, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels (ongoing).

$477,073 5.2 Providing programs to assist ESOL students in addressing the social, cultural and environmental factors that may present barriers to academic achievement.

Item description for Salaries (FTEs) and Wages (non-FTEs) on Activity 5.2

Calculation Amount Employee benefits $176,517

Bilingual therapeutic counselors

7.9 FTEs x $60,389

$477,073

Employee benefits FTEs = $477,073 x .37

$176,517


$653,590

Totals: $653,590 $0

Purchase maintenance agreements on all copiers, faxes, and printers that support services to ESOL students and their families (ongoing).

$15,000 5.3 Provide office machines that facilitate provision

of services to ESOL students and families.

Totals: $15,000 $0

TOTAL ELL TITLE III-A (FUNDING) AMOUNT $3,170,570 $37,284



D. IMMIGRANT ACTIVITIES [section 3115(e)]: Activities by agencies experiencing substantial increases in immigrant children and youth

1. An eligible entity receiving funds under section 3114 (d) (1) shall use the funds to pay for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth. [section (e)(1)]


Descriptions a) brief description of the services b) timelines or target dates c) specific goals, objectives, and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan d) services to non public schools e) any revision to the plan as part of this annual update (including page numbers).

Public School Costs

Nonpublic

Costs

1.1 Providing for family literacy, parent outreach, and training activities designed to assist parents to become active participants in the education of their children [section 3115(e) (1) (A)].

1.2 Supporting personnel including teacher aides who have been specifically trained or are being trained to provide services to immigrant children and youth [section 3115(e) (1) (B)].

1.3 Providing tutorials mentoring and academic or career counseling for immigrant children and youth [section 3115(e) (1) (C)].

1.4 Identifying and acquiring curricular materials, educational software, and technologies to be used carried out with these funds [section 3115(e) (1) (D)].

1.5 Providing basic instructional services that are directly attributable to the presence in the school district of immigrant children and youth, including the payment of costs of providing additional classroom supplies, cost of transportation or such other costs [section 3115(e) (1) (E)].

1.6 Providing other instructional services that are designed to assist immigrant children and youth to achieve in elementary schools and secondary schools in the USA, such as programs of introduction to the educational system and civics education [section 3115(e) (1) (F)].

1.7 Providing activities, coordinated with community based organizations, institutions of higher education, private sector entities, or other entities with expertise in working with immigrants, to assist parents of immigrant children and youth by offering comprehensive community services [section 3115(e) (1) (G)].

1.8 Other activities (that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth).

1.9 Administrative expenses may not use more than 2% for the cost of administering this subpart [section 3115(b)].

TOTAL IMMIGRANT TITLE III-A (FUNDING) AMOUNT


(NONPUBLIC) SCHOOLS [ESEA, Section 9501]: 1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6-A on page 9 regarding

the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will benefit from the Title III-A services.

Name of School Number of LEP

Students Good Counsel High School 1 Mother of God 18 St. Bernadette School 17 St. Camillus 51 St. Catherine Laboure 38 St. Martin’s School 34 St. Michael’s School 30 Total 189

2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools:

a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all phases of the development and design of the Title III-A services;

All private schools in Montgomery County were invited to a nonpublic schools meaningful consultation meeting convened by the budget office in April 2008 to learn about available resources. During this meeting, an invitation to consult on Title III was distributed to all nonpublic schools in attendance and mailed to all nonpublic schools not in attendance by the budget office. The invitation to consult on Title III invited all nonpublic schools to a May 13th meeting convened by the ESOL office specifically for those schools interested in consulting on Title III. The ESOL office met with all interested nonpublic schools during the May 13th meeting to review and have input into the FY 09 Title III grant. For those schools unable to attend the May 13th meeting, an additional meeting was held on May 29th to provide the same information that was provided during the May 13th meeting. Subsequent communication via e-mails and telephone assisted nonpublic schools in fully understanding the allowable activities under Title III that were discussed during the May meetings and to lead them through the budgeting process.


All interested nonpublics were trained on administering a test of English language proficiency to determine the number of LEP students enrolled. The number of eligible LEP students in nonpublic schools was added to the number of LEP students in MCPS. The total number was divided into the grant award, yielding a per pupil amount for all private and MCPS LEP students. Based on this amount, nonpublic schools were trained on submitting a budget narrative to request funds at nonpublic participation meetings convened by the Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs.


and The agendas, e-mails, and materials used at each meaningful consultation meeting are on file in the Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs. These meetings were held to assist nonpublic schools in deciding which services they would access under Title III.

d) The differences, if any, between the Title III-A services that will be provided to public and private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the same Title III-A services the district provides to the public school children.)

The nonpublic schools participating in Title III have decided to use their allotment for training and instructional materials at this time. All nonpublic schools are informed fully that they are eligible to participate in the same activities in which MCPS participates at the meaningful consultation meetings.

3. ATTACH WRITTEN AFFIRMATION (meeting dates, agenda, sign-in sheets, letters/ forms,) for the

school year 2008-2009 signed by officials at each participating nonpublic school and/or their designee that consultation regarding Title III services has occurred. DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE LABELED AND PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT AFTER THE BUDGET PAGES IN ATTACHMENT 10.


Local School System: __________________________________ Fiscal Year 2009

B. BUDGET INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE

1. Provide a detailed budget on the MSDE Proposed Title III-A Budget Form. The Proposed Budget

must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and correlated to the activities and costs detailed in Part C, Allowable Activities. MSDE budget forms are available in Excel format through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Web Site at www.marylandpublicschools.org.

2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the attached “Guidance for Completion of the Budget

Narrative for Individual Grants.” (pp. 11-13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative should (a) detail how the school system will use Title III-A funds to pay only reasonable and necessary direct administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title III-A program and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.

C. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B Be certain to complete all appropriate templates in Part II: Attachment 4: School Level Budget Summary Attachment 5: Transfer of ESEA Funds


Attachment 7: Affirmation of Consultation (with nonpublic schools) documentation

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide an early childhood instructional

specialist to develop MCPS pre-K–2 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) curriculum (ongoing). Activity 1.2

1.0 FTE instructional specialist x $108,778 $108,778

Special Programs Improve instruction for newcomer ESOL students by providing a pre-K-12 newcomer instructional specialist to develop curricula and instructional materials to address the unique linguistic and academic needs of newcomer ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 1.2


Special Programs Hire teachers to develop ESOL curriculum (ongoing). Activity 1.2


$25,000

Special Programs Temporary assistance to support the administration of the Language Assessmennt System (LAS) Links Placement Test during peak enrollment periods (ongoing). Activity 1.2

1,857 hours x $14 per hour $25,998

Special Programs Provide transition teachers to accelerate English language learners (ELL) into honors, advanced placement, and other upper level courses by providing transition services at two high schools (August 2008–June 2009). Activity 1.4

2.0 FTE ESOL transition teachers x $78,794 $157,588

Special Programs Provide supplemental summer employment for ESOL teachers to continue English language instruction for ESOL and Students Engaged in Pathways to Achievement (SEPA) students through the summer months (July 2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4

12 elementary teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $50,760.13 high school teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 28 days = $76,986. 3 SEPA teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $12,690.

$140,436

Special Programs Provide substitutes to enable teachers to attend training during countywide ESOL teachers’ meetings on the instruction and assessment of ESOL students (September 2008–May 2009). Activity 2.1

170 substitutes x $117.17 per day $19,919

Special Programs Provide parent community coordinators (PCC) to assist with parent outreach and training opportunities to help ESOL parents navigate the school system and to support the academic achievement of ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 3.2

14.8 FTE PCC x $63,186. (0.3 FTE PCC will be moved from the local budget to the grant to offset the 0.3 FTE fiscal assistant position (funded by Title III in FY 08) that must be moved to the local budget for FY 09, since the FY 09 fiscal assistant salary and benefits exceeds the allowable 2% administrative cost under Title III.)

$935,153

Special Programs Hire a communication specialist to provide translation services in Korean to ESOL families (ongoing). Activity 3.2

1.0 FTE communication specialist x $59,236 $59,236

Special Programs Provide interpretation and translation services to involve non-English-speaking parents in school activities (ongoing). Activity 3.2

1,440 hours x $25 per hour $36,000

Special Programs Hire a coordinator of ESOL/Bilingual support programs to develop and implement extended school day and extended school year programs to support ESOL students by working with established and relevant community-based organizations and the ESOL parent outreach and counseling teams (ongoing). Activity 4.5.

1.0 FTE coordinator x $122,307 $122,307

Business Support Fiscal assistant to conduct the financial transactions and prepare budget (ongoing). Activity 5.1

0.7 FTE fiscal assistant x $64,932 $45,452

Special Programs Use bilingual therapeutic counselors to provide itinerant counseling to ESOL students, including those with limited formal education, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels (ongoing). Activity 5.2

7.9 FTE bilingual therapeutic counselors x $60,389 $477,073

Fixed Charges Other Charges

Employee Benefits FTEs = $2,014,365 x .37 = $745,315. non-FTEs = $247,353 x .08 = $19,788.

$765,103

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 $3,026,821

FY 2009 Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive PlanBudget Narrative: Title III-A LEP Portion


Contracted ServicesCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Hire a consultant to develop a Spanish

language literacy curriculum to help ESOL students with interrupted formal education develop literacy skills in Spanish to support the acquisition of literacy skills in English (July 2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4

Two payments will be made for invoices dueJuly 1, 2008 for $6,220 and August 1, 2008, for $6,220

$12,440

Special ProgramsTransfer

Quarterly training for teachers (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

2 teachers x 4 trainings x $129 $1,032


Professional development(Mother of God) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

1 session $200


Professional development for teachers. Six Traits Writing Workshop (St. Bernadette) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

6 x $283.40 $1,700


Professional development for teachers(St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

10 teachers x $390 $3,900


Professional development for teachers to enhance their ability to work with ELL students. (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

1 session $900


After-school tutoring. (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 3.1

$25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for PK-5.$25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for 6-8.

$5,850

Special Programs Provide access to a translation memory system to enable schools and offices to produce multilingual translations for frequently used parental communication, such as newsletters, fliers, and notes (ongoing). Activity 3.2

WorldServer annual maintenance and support for 1 server, and up to 2 CPUs. Includes 1 non-production server and 1 SQL db connector. Licenses for 300 named users, unlimited licenses for Desk Workbench and Desk Users. For the period of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.

$15,005

Special Programs Provide pagers to enable itinerant parent outreach and counseling staff to enhance the provision of urgent services to ESOL students and their families (ongoing). Activity 3.2

43 pagers x $17 per month x 12 months $8,772


Professional development for parents (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 3.2

10 sessions x $40 $400

Business Support Audit fees (ongoing). Activity 5.1 $1,042Special Programs Purchase maintenance agreements on all

copiers, faxes, and printers that support services to ESOL students and their families (ongoing). Activity 5.3

12 machines x $1,250 each $15,000

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 02 $66,241

Supplies and MaterialsCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Purchase ESOL instructional and testing

materials to identify and provide services to ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 1.2

11,865.33 students x $7.50 per student(Remaining students paid for by MCPS)

$88,990


IPT testing materials (Good Counsel HS) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

$197


IPT testing materials (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

39.4 students x $5.00(Remaining students paid for by school)

$197


IPT testing materials (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

28 students x $5.00(Remaining students paid for by school)

$140


IPT testing materials (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

$350


Instructional materials and educational software to support the instructional program for ELL students (Mother of God) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

TBD $3,351


Instructional materials and Read Naturally Master Edition educational software to support the instructional program for ELL students (St. Bernadette) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

Educational software = $1,498Testing materials: 31 x $5.00 = $155

$1,653


Books for ESOL levels 2-5 (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

80 books x $27.51 $2,201


Educational software to support ELL students (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

Contracted price $3,000


Educational software to support ELL students (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 1.2




Books for teachersASCD: Summarization in Any Subject: 50 Techniques to Improve Student Learning by Rick Wormeli (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

20 books x $33 $660


ASCD: Strategies for Success for English Language Learners-Action Tool (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

1 video program $150


Leapfrog Schoolhouse educational software (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 3.1


SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03$108,146

Other Instructional Costs (show fixed charges with salaries and wages)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide transportation for ESOL students

with interrupted formal education enrolled in the ESOL SEPA Program (ongoing). Activity 1.4

4 hours per day x $20.70 per hour x 20 days = $1,65649.65 miles per day x $0.85 per mile x 20 days = $844

$2,500


EquipmentCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial ProgramsTransfer

Two Dell computers (St. Camillus) (August 2008). Activity 1.2

2 x $489 $978


Computers and/or other related technology hardware (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 4.2

4 x $792 $3,168


TOTAL $3,207,854

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide an early childhood instructional

specialist to develop MCPS pre-K–2 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) curriculum (ongoing). Activity 1.2


Special Programs Improve instruction for newcomer ESOL students by providing a pre-K-12 newcomer instructional specialist to develop curricula and instructional materials to address the unique linguistic and academic needs of newcomer ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 1.2


Special Programs Hire teachers to develop ESOL curriculum (ongoing). Activity 1.2


$25,000

Special Programs Temporary assistance to support the administration of the Language Assessmennt System (LAS) Links Placement Test during peak enrollment periods (ongoing). Activity 1.2

1,857 hours x $14 per hour $25,998


Employee Benefits FTEs = $217,556 x .37 = $80,496. non-FTEs = $50,998 x .08 = $4,080.

$84,576



SUBTOTAL OBJECT 02 $0

Supplies and MaterialsCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Purchase ESOL instructional and testing

materials to identify and provide services to ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 1.2

11,865.33 students x $7.50 per student(Remaining students paid for by MCPS)

$88,990


IPT testing materials (Good Counsel HS) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

$197


IPT testing materials (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

39.4 students x $5.00(Remaining students paid for by school)

$197


IPT testing materials (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

28 students x $5.00(Remaining students paid for by school)

$140


ELL testing materials (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

$350


Instructional materials and educational software to support the instructional program for ELL students (Mother of God) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

TBD $3,351


Instructional materials and Read Naturally Master Edition educational software to support the instructional program for ELL students (St. Bernadette) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

Educational software = $1,498Testing materials: 31 x $5.00 = $155

$1,653


Books for ESOL levels 2-5 (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

80 books x $27.51 $2,201


Educational software to support ELL students (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 1.2



Educational software to support ELL students (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 1.2




SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04$0


Two Dell computers (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 1.2

2 x $489 $978


TOTAL for Activity $455,687


Activity 1.2

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide ESOL transition teachers to

accelerate ELL into honors, advanced placement, and other upper level courses by providing transition services at two high schools (August 2008–June 2009). Activity 1.4

2.0 FTE ESOL transition teachers x $78,794 $157,588

Special Programs Provide supplemental summer employment for ESOL teachers to continue English language instruction for ESOL students through the summer months (July 2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4

12 elementary teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $50,760. 13 high school teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 28 days = $76,986. 3 SEPA teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $12,690.

$140,436


Employee Benefits FTEs = $157,588 x .37 = $58,307; non-FTEs = $140,436 x .08 = $11,235

$69,542


Contracted ServicesCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Hire a consultant to develop a Spanish

language literacy curriculum to help ESOL students with interrupted formal education develop literacy skills in Spanish to support the acquisition of literacy skills in English (July 2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4

Two payments will be made for invoices dueJuly 1, 2008, for $6,220 and August 1, 2008, for $6,220

$12,440




Other Instructional Costs (show fixed charges with salaries and wages)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide transportation for ESOL students

with interrupted formal education enrolled in the ESOL SEPA Program (ongoing). Activity 1.4

4 hours per day x $20.70 per hour x 20 days = $1,65649.65 miles per day x $0.85 per mile x 20 days = $844

$2,500






Activity 1.4

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide substitutes to enable teachers to

attend training during countywide ESOL teachers’ meetings on the instruction and assessment of ESOL students (September 2008–May 2009). Activity 2.1

170 substitutes x $117.17 per day $19,919


Employee Benefits non-FTEs = $19,919 x .08 = $1,593. $1,593


Contracted ServicesCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial ProgramsTransfer

Quarterly training for teachers (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

2 teachers x 4 trainings x $129 $1,032


Supplies and MaterialsCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial ProgramsTransfer

Books for teachersASCD: Summarization in Any Subject: 50 Techniques to Improve Student Learning by Rick Wormeli (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

20 books x $33 $660


ASCD: Strategies for Success for English Language Learners-Action Tool (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

1 video program $150








Activity 2.1




Professional development(Mother of God) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

1 session $200


Professional development for teachers. Six Traits Writing Workshop (St. Bernadette) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

6 x $283.40 $1,700


Professional development for teachers(St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

10 teachers x $390 $3,900


Professional development for teachers to enhance their ability to work with ELL students. (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 2.2

1 session $900










Activity 2.2




After-school tutoring. (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 3.1

$25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for PK-5.$25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for 6-8.

$5,850


Supplies and MaterialsCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial ProgramsTransfer

Leapfrog Schoolhouse educational software (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 3.1









Activity 3.1

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Provide parent community coordinators

(PCC) to assist with parent outreach and training opportunities to help ESOL parents navigate the school system and to support the academic achievement of ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 3.2

14.8 FTE PCC x $63,186. (0.3 FTE PCC will be moved from the local budget to the grant to offset the 0.3 FTE fiscal assistant position (funded by Title III in FY 08) that must be moved to the local budget for FY 09, since the FY 09 fiscal assistant salary and benefits exceeds the allowable 2% administrative cost under Title III.)

$935,153

Special Programs Hire a communication specialist to provide translation services in Korean to ESOL families (ongoing). Activity 3.2

1.0 FTE communication specialist x $59,236 $59,236

Special Programs Provide interpretation and translation services to involve non-English-speaking parents in school activities (ongoing). Activity 3.2

1,440 hours x $25 per hour $36,000


Employee Benefits FTEs = $994,389 x .37 = $367,924. non-FTEs = $36,000 x .08 = $2,880.

$370,804

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 $1,401,193


Professional development for parents (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity 3.2

10 sessions x $40 $400

Special Programs Provide access to a translation memory system to enable schools and offices to produce multilingual translations for frequently used parental communication, such as newsletters, fliers, and notes (ongoing). Activity 3.2

WorldServer annual maintenance and support for 1 server, and up to 2 CPUs. Includes 1 non-production server and 1 SQL db connector. Licenses for 300 named users, unlimited licenses for Desk Workbench and Desk Users. For the period of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.

$15,005

Special Programs Provide pagers to enable itinerant parent outreach and counseling staff to enhance the provision of urgent services to ESOL students and their families (ongoing). Activity 3.2

43 pagers x $17 per month x 12 months $8,772








TOTAL for Activity $1,425,370


Activity 3.2










Computers and/or other related technology hardware (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 4.2

4 x $792 $3,168




Activity 4.2

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Hire a coordinator of ESOL/Bilingual

support programs to develop and implement extended school day and extended school year programs to support ESOL students by working with established and relevant community-based organizations and the ESOL parent outreach and counseling teams (ongoing). Activity 4.5.

1.0 FTE coordinator x $122,307 $122,307


Employee Benefits FTEs = $122,307 x .37 $45,254












Activity 4.5Budget Narrative: Title III-A LEP Portion

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountBusiness Support Fiscal assistant to conduct the financial

transactions and prepare budget (ongoing). Activity 5.1

0.7 FTE fiscal assistant x $64,932 $45,452




Contracted ServicesCat. Item description Calculation AmountBusiness Support Audit fees (ongoing). Activity 5.1 $1,042










Activity 5.1

Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)Cat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Use bilingual therapeutic counselors to

provide itinerant counseling to ESOL students, including those with limited formal education, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels (ongoing). Activity 5.2

7.9 FTE bilingual therapeutic counselors x $60,389 $477,073














Activity 5.2



Contracted ServicesCat. Item description Calculation AmountSpecial Programs Purchase maintenance agreements on all

copiers, faxes, and printers that support services to ESOL students and their families (ongoing). Activity 5.3

12 machines x $1,250 $15,000










Activity 5.3

ATTACHMENT 11 TITLE IV, PART A SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

Local School System: _Montgomery County Public Schools______ __ Fiscal Year 2009

Title IV, Part A, SDFSCA Coordinator: Rita Rumbaugh_________________________

Telephone: _301-279-3041________ Email: [email protected]_____

A-1 PERFORMANCE GOAL, INDICATORS, and TARGETS. At a minimum, each local school

system (LSS) must adopt the performance goal, indicators, and targets outlined in Table A-1.

Table A-1 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Performance Goal,

Indicators, and Targets Performance Goal

Performance Indicators Performance Targets

Performance Goal 4: All schools will be safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.

4.1 The number of persistently dangerous

schools. 4.2 The level of substance abuse in middle

and high schools as measured by the Maryland Adolescent Survey.

4.3 The number of suspensions and

expulsions by offense.

NOTE: Indicator 4.1 has been moved to the Safe Schools section of the Annual Update. By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce “cigarettes,” “any form of alcohol,” and “any drug other than alcohol or tobacco” use (Last 30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 by 10%. By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruptions, insubordination, and refusal to obey school policies/regulations by 10%. NOTE: SY 2002-03 is the baseline year.

ATTACHMENT 11 TITLE IV, PART A SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES Local School System: _Montgomery County Public Schools______ _______________________________ Fiscal Year 2009

A-2 PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE TARGETS:

Table A-2 Performance Indicator

Baseline (2002 MAS) & SY 2009-10 Performance

Targets

Actual Performance (2004 MAS)



4.2 The level of substance abuse in middle and high schools as measured by the Maryland Adolescent Survey (Last 30 Days).

By the end of SY 2009-10: Reduce cigarette use in: 6th grade (from 0.2 % to 0.18 %) 8th grade (from _2.4 to 1.16 %) 10th grade (from 9.1_% to 8.19 %) 12th grade (from 16.6_% to 15.9 %) Reduce any form of alcohol use in: 6th grade (from 2.0_% to 1.8_%) 8th grade (from 8.6_% to 7.7_%) 10th grade (from 30.9 % to 27.8_%) 12th grade (from 39.1_% to 35.2_%) Reduce any drug other than alcohol or tobacco use in: 6th grade (from 2.9_% to 2.6_%) 8th grade (from 7.8_% to 7.0_%) 10th grade (from 18.9_% to 17.0_%) 12th grade (from 26.9_% to 24.2_%)

Cigarette use in: 6th grade: 0.6_% 8th grade: 2.6_% 10th grade: 5.4_% 12th grade: 18.9 % Any form of alcohol use in: 6th grade: 3.8_% 8th grade: 12.0_% 10th grade: 25.9_% 12th grade: 43.9_% Any drug other than alcohol or tobacco use in: 6th grade: 3.4_% 8th grade: 7.0_% 10th grade: 14.7_% 12th grade: 26.6_%

Cigarette use in: 6th grade: 1.3% 8th grade: 2.9% 10th grade: 4.9% * 12th grade: 12.4% * Any form of alcohol use in: 6th grade: 2.9%8th grade: 10.3%10th grade: 22.3% *12th grade: 40.9% Any drug other than alcohol or tobacco use in: 6th grade: 3.8% 8th grade: 7.0% * 10th grade: 11.3% *12th grade: 22.0% *

Provide an analysis of the LSS’s progress toward meeting each substance abuse Performance Target and identify the actions that will be taken if adequate progress is not being made. The 2007 Maryland Adolescent Survey shows progress in meeting or exceeding substance abuse performance targets in six categories-- cigarette use in grades 10 and 12, alcohol use in grade 10 and any other drug than alcohol or tobacco use in grades 8, 10 and 12. Other categories show consistent reductions in use, with the notable exception of 12th grade alcohol use. Since the performance target from baseline 2002 MAS to the present was unrealistic, a better performance target should be 37% for 12th grade students, rather than the 25% percent noted in the 2008 report. While an unacceptable level of use, the 37% target is within the scope of the SDFS program and CMCA countywide prevention and intervention efforts targeted to grade 12 students. Small increments in 6th and 8th grade students’ reports of alcohol use will need to be carefully monitored in future iterations of the MAS.

Table A-2 (Continued) Performance Indicator

Baseline (SY 2002-03) & SY 2009-10 Performance

Targets

SY 2005-06 Performance (%)



4.3

The percentage of out-of-school school suspensions and expulsions by offense.

Reduce the percentage of suspensions and expulsions for: Classroom disruptions (from .0018% to .0015%) Insubordination (from .0046% to .0040%)

Refusal to obey school policies/regulations

(from .0053% to .0047%)

Actual Performance: .0026% Actual Performance: .0054 %

Actual Performance: .0044%







Provide an analysis of the LSS’s progress toward meeting each suspension Performance Target and identify the actions that will be taken if adequate progress is not being made. (Use additional space as needed). The MCPS suspension performance target was met in the area of classroom disruption while suspensions for insubordination and refusal to obey school policies have increased. In this school district of over 138,000 students, these increases may be statistically insignificant. However, increases are of major concern. Careful monitoring and further attention to suspension data in targeted schools will be a priority of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools project. What actions the LSS will take to assure the SY 2008-09 Performance Target is met: For SY 2008-09, Montgomery County Public Schools Safe and Drug-Free Schools will better allocate services, support schools and implements activities and programs based on need. To achieve reductions in insubordination and refusal to obey school policies and regulations, MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools will partner with the local management board, the Collaboration Council, to create and expand a United States Department of Education Drug and Violence Prevention Web Courses for Schools” research-based program for building “School Connectedness” among students in three high risk areas of Montgomery County.

Specific schools and neighborhoods will be targeted based on the Collaboration Council’s “Children’s Agenda” Neighborhood Index of Risk and factors as the impact of extreme economic deprivation and linguistic and cultural isolation in areas of Montgomery County. MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools will dedicate Title IV, Part A. Safe and Drug-Free Schools resources for programs and activities in the schools associated with those neighborhoods, especially the Silver Spring, Germantown and Wheaton area schools. Moreover, these targeted schools and neighborhoods will be coordinated through collaborative partnerships with the School Community Action team coordinators, the schools’ Violence and Drug Prevention staff,, the Montgomery County Police Department Gang Investigators, HHS Gang Prevention Initiative (GPI) outreach workers. Maryland CHOICES for wrap around services, Montgomery County Recreation Department and other partners and agencies.

ATTACHMENT 11 TITLE IV, PART A SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools___________ Fiscal Year 2009

B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 4115(b)(2)] - Provide the following for all Title IV, Part A

activities that will be implemented: (a) A brief description of the services (b) How the services will be targeted to schools and students with the greatest need, and (c) Timelines for when the services will be completed; (d) Cost of services for public schools; and (e) Cost of services to nonpublic schools.

B-1 Programs and Activities to Promote Drug and Violence Prevention


Brief description of specific services, Targeting of services to schools and students with the greatest need, and Timelines

Public School Costs

Nonpublic

School Costs

1.1 Age appropriate and developmentally based activities that – • Address the consequences of violence and the

illegal use of drugs, as appropriate; • Promote a sense of individual responsibility; • Teach students that most people do not

illegally use drugs; • Teach students to recognize social and peer

pressure to use drugs illegally and the skills for resisting illegal drug use;

• Teach students about the dangers of emerging drugs;

• Engage students in the learning process; and • Incorporate activities in secondary schools that

reinforce prevention activities implemented in elementary schools [section 4115(b)(2)(A)].

*School wide Discipline Policies: Policies are developed in accordance with the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) policy to set clear behavioral standards and consequences. The local school disciplinary policy addresses the consequences of alcohol and other drug use are developed, revised and disseminated on a continuing cycle with the assistance of the School Community Action Coordinators and school-based drug and violence staff in each secondary school.

Target Population: Universal prevention.

Implemented by: Administrators, teachers, and counselors.

Timeline: September 2008 through July 2009.

*Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA):

CMCA is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) model program, science-based proved to be effective. CMCA is implemented in Montgomery County by a coalition of community, school and agency partners. The CMCA curriculum provides three hours of instruction to selected high risk high school students regarding the law and consequences of drug use and underage drinking. Held ten times yearly for a total of 350 students, the program is coordinated and funded through

In-kind

$4,135. 50

In-kind

$4,135.50

SDFS with the assistance of The Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD), the Phoenix Schools, and CMCA. Funds are used to provide bus transportation for students and substitute coverage and mileage for staff.

Target Population: Data show that 1250 alcohol citations are issued to Montgomery County youth each year. The CMCA program helps prevent youth access to alcohol.

Implemented by: Montgomery County Circuit Court Judiciary, SDFS, CMCA coordinator.

Timeline: September 2008 through June 2009.

Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Target 4.2, “By 2009-2010, reduce any form of alcohol use ( last 30 days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10%.

By the end of the year, 2008–2009, 315 students will have correctly identified the risks and laws related to underage alcohol use and drug use in Montgomery County, as documented by the CMCA student evaluations.

1.2 Activities that involve families, community sectors (which may include appropriately trained seniors), and a variety of drug and violence prevention providers in setting clear expectations against violence and illegal use of drugs and appropriate consequences for violence and illegal use of drugs [section 4115(b)(2)(B)].

CMCA: *School Community Action Groups:

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA), a research-based SAMHSA model program, is designed to reduce youth access to alcohol by changing community policies and practices. The CMCA curriculum provides parent-targeted programs and monthly training meetings on how to assist School Community Action Groups lead alcohol and other drug prevention and violence prevention through parent education and citizen advocacy. Funds are used to provide stipend* salaries and travel reimbursement to coordinators who are MCPS employees to attend training meetings which are held outside of the duty day and to provide salaries and fringe benefits for professional part time MCPS employees to train and support the coordinators. *Stipends are used to pay MCPS employees for work beyond the regular duty day. This activity is limited to MCPS employees since they are fingerprinted and undergo FBI clearance prior to employment.

Target Population: In Montgomery County, the Board of Liquor Control estimates 55% of youth who use

$19, 414

$4072

alcohol have access to alcohol from their homes. The 2007 Maryland Adolescent Survey (MAS) data show 1.3% of 6th graders, 10.3% of 8th graders, 22.3% of 10th graders and 40.9% of 12th graders have used alcohol in the last 30 days.

Implemented by: Parent representatives trained by SDFS.

Timeline: September 2008 through July 2009

Outcomes: This program supports MSDE’s Performance Target 4.2 “By the end of SY2009-10, reduce any form of alcohol use ( Last 30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10%”.

By June 30, 2009, 90% of the parents attending a parent education community event will report increased knowledge of consequences for the providing of and the illegal use of alcohol and other drugs and violence among youth, as measured by the CMCA parent education surveys.

*Post-Prom Activities: Post-Prom committee chairs work annually on a Post-Prom event, as part of the drug-free alternatives developed in each high school.

Target Population: Universal Prevention: High school—juniors and seniors.

Implemented by: Post-Prom Committee and SDFS.


*Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Association (MCCPTA) and Local Parent Teacher Association (PTA): SDFS maintains a liaison with MCCPTA for parent education.

Target Population: Universal Prevention.

Implemented by: Parents.


*Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression:

The OJJDP model for Gang prevention is a research-based, model program developed through

SDFS staff in cooperation with CMCA “Drawing the Line” on Underage Alcohol Use

the Department of Justice. The curriculum provides parent education and outreach through School Community Action groups and the local PTAs, including parent seminars, newsletters, and community prevention fairs and activities, sponsored by parents and partially funded through SDFS. Funds are used to reproduce and disseminate materials on gang awareness.

Target Population: Montgomery County Police Department ( MCPD) Gang Investigators report juvenile arrests for gang related criminal behavior has markedly increased, from 35% of the 2004 arrests to nearly 56% of the arrests in high risk areas of Montgomery County. According to the investigators, most of these arrests are as a result of conflict in schools carried into the communities.

Implemented by: Counselors, Collaborative Supervision & Focused Enforcement leaders (CSAFE) administrators, teachers, community, and SDFS.


Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Target 4.3 By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruptions, insubordination and refusal to obey school policies/ regulations by 10%.

By June 30, 2009, school staff, parents and community members will report an increased awareness of gang signs and behavior. They will be able to recognize and name at least three community resources for gang intervention and assistance, as measured by the OJJDP Gang Awareness Comprehensive survey.

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA ) is a science-based program designated by SAMHSA as a model program.

Implement Drawing the Line on Under 21 Alcohol Use which is staffed and funded through a governor’s grant to the Family Support Center. School Community Action Coordinators take a lead role in the convening and facilitating of the Drawing the Line initiatives in county schools, through SDFS stipends for coordinators’ leadership and participation.

$1200

SDFS staff

$400

Same service through metro area parents’ council.


Implemented by: Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Timeline: September 2008 through August 2009.

*Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol

(CMCA) a science-based SAMHSA model program, is implemented to provide Student Seminars at targeted schools and provides two day alcohol and other drug prevention programs in high schools to include parents, police, hospitals, fire department, elected officials, and the entire student body of the high schools for a mock automobile crash due to a drinking student driver. An overnight student seminar and parent eulogies are components of this school and community led program. CMCA pre- and post-assessments are administered for evaluation of this program. Funds are used to support the cost of materials and the retreat center for the overnight student seminar.

Target Population: The 2007 MAS Montgomery County data show that high school students in grades 10 and 12 report 30 day use of alcohol at 22.3% for grade 10 and 40.9% at grade 12.students. Montgomery County Police Department alcohol citation data indicate youth access to alcohol is from parents’ homes. This programs will help to reduce youth access to alcohol from homes.

All high schools are eligible for this program but priority targeted schools are determined by the 2006-2007 MCPS Survey of School Environment school climate data.

Implemented by: Police, parents, and school staff.


Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Target 4.2, “By the end of 2009-2010 SY, reduce any form of alcohol use in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10%.

$11,298

Nonpublic schools have not yet responded to the invitation to participate.

1.3 Disseminating information about drug and violence prevention to schools and the community [section 4115(b)(2)(C)].

*Parent Education/Outreach: Community forums, PTA meetings and seminars, held in collaboration with the MCCPTA and local PTAs,

SDFS staff support in partnership with the local

SDFS staff with Parents Council

and the assistance of the MCCPTA liaison to the SDFS Advisory Council, assure a comprehensive, energetic and cohesive approach to the alcohol and other drug and violence issues and programs in the school community. Parent materials are procured and disseminated through the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Other Drug Information in Rockville and the local CSAFE police districts.

Target Population: Universal Prevention and targeted high risk areas.

Implemented by: Administrators, counselors, teachers, polices, and community.


PTAs and other parents’ groups.

1.4 Communitywide planning and organizing activities to reduce violence and illegal drug use, which may include gang activity prevention [Section 4115(b)(2)(E)(i)].

*The Local Management Board:

The Collaboration Council and SDFS have provided parent education and community advocacy for prevention in Montgomery County. Working with legislators and private nonprofit advocacy groups, alcohol and other drug legislation is conveyed to local partners through School Community Action Coordinators. Additionally, violence prevention materials are disbursed to the local PTAs, parents at back-to-school nights, and to school-based drug and violence prevention staff for inclusion in PTA newsletters. Further, community seminars such as the forums for violence/gang prevention, have resulted in discussion and action groups in private and public schools.

Target Population: Indicated prevention: Schools at highest need are selected based on demographics on crime and violence in the community including increased gang crime and gang related violence. High risk neighborhoods are defined by Collaboration Council data.

Implemented by: Regional representatives trained by SDFS, SDFS and Community, and partners.


* Red Ribbon Campaign: Red Ribbon Campaign is held annually as a reminder of the dangers of alcohol and other drug use and violence. All elementary and middle schools sponsor a drug-free and safe pledge signing activity. Red Ribbon ceremonies and pledge signing have taken on a celebratory

SDFS staff support in partnership with the Local Management Board and the Montgomery County Community Partnership (MCCP)

Staff support and in-kind funding

Pledge cards printed by MCPS

SDFS staff support

SDFS staff support, celebrations and mailings to nonpublic schools

air, as students realize others are not using drugs and subscribe to the social norm that “most kids don’t” (use). The lead person at the school for the Red Ribbon campaign may be a parent or school staff person.

Target Population: Universal prevention: Pre-K through Grade 8.

Implemented by: SDFS, school staff, and Educational Facility Officers (EFOs).

Timeline: October and November 2008.

*The Collaboration Council “Gang Subcommittee”:

The SDFS staff works with the MCPD District Gang Coordinators to provide school staff with updated and accurate information on gang activity in Montgomery County, particularly as the activity impacts schools and school neighborhoods. The MCPD Gang Coordinators conduct school staff training through the SDFS Symposium. The officers also provide staff in-service at selected schools through the SDFS Student Assistance team at the school. Staff is represented on the MCPS Gang Awareness Task Force.

Target Population: Indicated prevention targeted to schools in “high risk” neighborhoods or greatest need as defined by the police arrest data and the Department of Juvenile Justice juvenile arrest data.

Implemented by: Police Gang Coordinators, State’s Attorneys Office, SDFS, Collaboration Council, CSAFE, and community leaders.


SDFS staff support as mandated partner to the local management board

SDFS staff support only

1.5 Providing professional development and training for, and involvement of, school personnel, pupil services personnel, parents, and interested community members in prevention, education, early identification and intervention, mentoring, or rehabilitation referral, as related to drug and violence prevention [section 4115(b)(2)(D)].

*Workshops and Trainings:

The United States Department of Education Safe and Drug- Free Schools Drug and Violence Prevention Web Courses for Schools is a series of science-based continuing education courses for staff development.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools uses this science-based curriculum to conduct annual SDFS drug and violence prevention and intervention Symposium and workshops for school personnel, including

$17,680

$6,224 for participating private school staff

counselors, psychologists, security, and Pupil Personnel Workers (PPWs), on topics identified through year-end data collection and other needs assessments. Funds are used to provide stipends*, travel reimbursement, and fringe benefits for counselors, PPWs, psychologists, and other staff to participate in the SDFS Symposium which is held outside of the duty day and to support the cost of the facility and consultants for the symposium and workshops. * Stipends are used to pay MCPS employees for work beyond the regular duty day.

Target Population: MCPS School climate data show that nearly 60% middle and high school staff respondents report “drug use is a problem in this school” and “alcohol use is a problem in this school”.

Implemented by: Department of Student Services (DSS) and SDFS and community partners including the Local Management Board, the Collaboration Council.

Timeline: June 2009.

Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Goal 4: All schools will be safe, drug free and conducive to learning, MSDE Performance Target 4.2 and Performance Target 4.3.

By July, 2009, 100% of MCPS participating staff will use the Principles of Effectiveness to measure the efficacy of the Symposium. Further, the participants will be able to define how each will apply the prevention and intervention information to their job roles in schools.

*National Safe and Drug Free Conference:

Provide funds for SDFS staff attend and present at U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) and National Student Assistance Association (NSAA) conferences annually.

Target Population: Safe and Drug-Free Schools national evaluation data show the successful outcomes of the federal financing for Safe and Drug-Free Schools projects in each school system depend on a well-trained, full time coordinator dedicated to this effort.

Implemented by: SDFS.

Timeline: July 2009

$1,175 registration and travel for staff

No nonpublic school staff presently participate

Outcomes: This supports MSDE’s Performance Goal 4: All schools will be safe, drug free and conducive to learning.

By August 2009, SDFS staff will have been recognized as national prevention leaders through presentations at this national conference.

*Drug and Violence Prevention and Intervention Training for Public and Non-Public School Staff:

The United States Department of Education Safe and Drug- Free Schools Drug and Violence Prevention Web Courses for Schools is a series of science-based continuing education courses for staff development in violence and drug prevention and intervention.

Staff representing each secondary school will be trained on drug and violence prevention and intervention. Using this curriculum, mental health professionals will provide training for school-based staff in drug and violence identification, intervention and referral. for both private and public secondary schools. Violence and drug prevention staff, representing each secondary school, will attend a training session for two hours each month to collect data on drug and violence in schools, develop and update drug and violence community activity, and identify community and school resources for prevention. All trainings are held outside of the duty day. SDFS will provide the training fee for 100 school representatives to attend the state-sponsored conference for Maryland Student Assistance Program Professional Association (MSAPPA) in February.

Funds are used to provide school staff with a stipends *for the monthly trainings and to provide the training fee for the state-sponsored Maryland Student Assistance Program Professional Association (MSAPPA).

* Stipends are used to pay MCPS employees for work beyond the regular duty day.

Target Population: The MCPS 2006-2007 Survey of School Environment school climate data

$35,291

$5,000 for training for six nonpublic schools participating

Same services for nonpublic including each school’s prevention representative for stipends, training materials and support

indicate 40% to 60% school staff report drugs, safety and students’ behaviors a problem in middle and high schools.

School staff will assist high risk students at each school.



Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Goal 4: “All schools will be safe, drug free and conducive to learning” and Performance Targets 4.2 and 4.3: “By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce any form of alcohol use by 10% in grade 12 and any drug other than alcohol and tobacco” use (Last 30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10% and “By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruptions, insubordination and refusal to obey school policies/regulations by 10%.”

Moreover, MCPS Survey of School Environment 2008-2009 school climate data will reflect a decrease in grade 6, 8, 10 and 12 students reporting concerns on drug use in school, alcohol use in schools and teasing other students in a hurtful way in school.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Courses:

The USDOE Web Base Courses for Schools science-based drug and violence staff development curriculum is used for staff CPD courses. MSDE has approved these CPD courses for school staff. The courses includes information on how drug use and violence by school age youth affects students’ school performance and how to prevent student drug use and violence. Five CPD courses are offered annually including Juvenile Justice and the Schools, Intervention through Student Assistance, Support for Resilient Children, Summer Symposium, and Drug and Violence Prevention Staff Symposium. A USDOE Web based course (ed.gov) on school-related violence, is pending review by Maryland State Department of Education and will be offered when approved. Funds are used to pay stipends for MCPS instructors of CPD courses and to pay the registration fee for the International Association for

$1,278

Non-public school staff participate with the public schools.

Continuing Education and Training (IACET) in order to award support service personnel, social workers, and school psychologists with accreditation for their course completion. *Stipends are used to pay MCPS employees for work beyond the regular duty day.

Target Population: According to the MCPS 2006-2007 Survey of School Environment, as few as 34% of school staff agree that “students teasing other students in a hurtful way is a not a problem”, “student drug use is a not a problem” and “student drug use is not a problem” .



Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Goal 4: All schools will be safe, drug-free and conducive to learning and Performance Targets 4.2 and 4.3.

By June 30, 2009, 90 school-based staff will have completed all course requirements to earn 1 or 2 MSDE approved continuing professional development credits in drug and violence prevention in schools. All participating school staff will have been able to apply course objectives and learnings to school roles, using the Principles of Effectiveness.

1.6 Evaluating any of the allowable activities and collecting objective data to assess program needs, program implementation, or program success in achieving program goals and objectives [section 4115(b)(2)(F)].

*SDFS biennially participates in the MAS: Data on student responses are used for program priorities.

*Process data: Data is collected annually from each SDFS Student Assistant team and compiled to assess ongoing program effectiveness.

*SDFS school climate data: Data is collected annually through student’s reports.

Target Population: Schools participating in the MAS are selected by MSDE using a cluster stratified model with criteria such as Free and Reduced-Price Meals System (FARMS), minority population, and school size.


Timeline: September 2008 through December 2009.

SDFS staff support

No nonpublic schools participate

1.7 Expanded and improved school based mental health services related to illegal drug use and violence, including early identification of violence and illegal drug use, assessment, and direct or group counseling services provided to students, parents, and school personnel by qualified school based mental health service providers [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(vii)].

*Comprehensive School Counseling Program: K–12 school counseling program is a developmental program providing skills in the areas of academic, interpersonal, personal, career, and healthy development for all students as well as responsive counseling, individual planning, and school support.

*Co-occurring Disorder Steering Committee: This agency and nonprofit staff are dedicated to integrating substance abuse and mental health services.

*Assessment Services: Assessments for mental health and drug use are now provided to all schools through county government and several private treatment agencies.

Target Population: School staff and agency staff are selected through DSS. Students at highest need are identified according to students Emotionally Disturbed (ED) code and manifestation of both substance and mental health problems.

Implemented by: DSS and SDFS staff with county’s DHHS.


MCPS Student Service staff and SDFS staff support

SDFS staff support

SDFS staff support

SDFS staff support

1.8 Conflict resolution programs, including peer mediation programs that educate and train peer mediators and a designated faculty supervisor, and youth anti-crime and anti-drug councils and activities [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(viii)].

1.9 Alternative education programs or services for violent or drug abusing students that reduce the need for suspension or expulsion or that serve students who have been suspended or expelled from the regular educational settings, including programs or services to assist students to make continued progress toward meeting the State Academic Achievement Standards and to reenter the regular education setting [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(ix)].

*Alternative Education:

SDFS implements the science-based curriculums, “Get Real About Violence” and the model program from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression to provide a training model for alternative school staff in alcohol and other drug prevention and intervention and violence prevention and intervention These science based programs are proved to reduce violence in targeted communities and schools.

Funds are used to provide salary, fringe benefits, and local travel for professional part time staff to support training, to provide contractual money for national

$20,678 materials and training

Training available to nonpublic schools as requested

No nonpublic alternative school has requested services

consultants, and to provide contractual money for updating prevention and recovery materials.

Target Population: Montgomery County Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) reports most adjudicate youth are assigned to alternative schools. Students identified as “greatest need” are referred to alternative schools through the referral process at field office level. Alternative schools selected are identified using appropriate instruments at school site.

Implemented by: Alternative schools and DHHS

Timeline: September 2008 through August 2009

Outcomes: This program supports the MSDE Performance Goal 4 and the Performance Target 4.3 “by the end of 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruption, insubordination and refusal to obey school policies and regulations by 10%”.

Additionally, by July, 2009, 8 alternative programs will have participated in drug and violence training at each of the alternative school sites. Staff will be able to correctly identify local resources for family support, mental health services and wrap around services for alternative school students and their families.

*Collaboration Council Youth Strategies:

The UDSDOE Drug and Violence Prevention Web Courses for Schools is a science-based curriculum for staff development. The “School Connectedness and Meaningful Student Participation” science-based course is a prevention course based on the longitudinal Adolescent Health Research conducted by Dr. Robert Blum. Montgomery County’s local management board, the Collaboration Council, has dedicated Youth Strategies and prevention funds to partner with SDFS to develop “School Connectedness” at schools to help students connect positively to school. Funds are used to provide materials for 14 middle schools to implement the program.

Target Population: The MCPS 2006-2007 Survey of School Environment indicates about 20% of

$9, 022 materials

Private schools receive same materials as requested

students do not feel safe at school. The 2004 MAS validates this data and includes students’ feelings of safety to and from school and in neighborhoods.

School communities are identified by the Collaboration Council as “greatest need” through a compilation of local data including arrests, citations, linguistic isolation and FARMS data. A referral process and nonattendance criteria has been developed by DSS. Students and families are evaluated and provided case management through DSS and the Truancy Review Board.

Implemented by: State’s Attorney Office, Police, Collaboration Council Local Management Board, Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and DSS.


Outcomes: This program supports MSDE Performance Goal 4 and Performance Target 4.2 “By the end of 2009-2010, reduce “cigarettes,” “any form of alcohol” and “drug other than alcohol or tobacco” use (last 30 days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10% and Performance Target 4.3 “By the end of 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruptions, insubordination, and refusal to obey school policies/ regulations by 10%.

By July, 2009, 14 identified schools in high risk areas of the county will show an increase in feelings of safety and “School Connectedness” as measured through student reports in “Youth Speak-Outs” forums at each of the schools. Youth Speak-Out reports will be compiled and disseminated to the MCPS BOE, the County Council and others through the local management board in partnership with SDFS.

1.10 Drug and violence prevention activities designed to reduce truancy [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xii)]. *SHARP Suspension Programs:

The SHARP Suspension Program coordinators are trained annually. SDFS resources, training, and assistance have been made available through the project to support the suspension program.

Target Population: Indicated Prevention: Students identified as “greatest need” through a referral process which includes suspension or expulsion from secondary schools. Family and school supports are necessary for student’s placements.

SDFS staff support for training provided through SDFS, CPD and Symposium

SDFS staff support

Implemented by: Training for community volunteers provided by SDFS staff.


1.11 Programs that encourage students to seek advice from, and to confide in, a trusted adult regarding concerns about violence and illegal drug use [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xi)].

*Confidential and Anonymous “Concern Cards” are provided in schools with school-base violence and drug prevention representative staff: This referral process is used by students.


Implemented by: School staff trained in violence and drug prevention and intervention.


MCPS in-kind and SDFS support through school-based training for violence and drug prevention staff

SDFS staff support

1.12 Counseling, mentoring, referral services, and other student assistance practices and programs, including assistance provided by qualified school based mental health services providers and the training of teachers by school based mental health services providers in appropriate identification and intervention techniques for students at risk of violent behavior and illegal use of drugs [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(x)].

*********

*Referral services, practices and programs and school staff training by mental health providers in identification and intervention techniques: The USDOE Drug and Violence Web Courses for Schools is a science-based staff development series of continuing education issue related courses, effective strategies and data driven decision-making courses to reduce violence and drug use in schools. SDFS with mental health providers use this curriculum with secondary school staff to help identify and refer students at high risk of violent behavior and illegal use of drugs. Funds are used to provide stipends, substitutes, fringe benefits, and contractual for training conducted during the school day and after school for non-public and public school staff.

Target Population: The 2006-2007 MCPS Survey of School Environment staff survey indicates areas of concern among school staff, namely student drug and alcohol use, particularly in high school, and students’ behavior inside and outside the classroom. Students at highest need are identified using behavioral indicators. Appropriate referrals are made which may include mental health and drug assessments, counseling, school-based alt level 1 support or access to community supports and resources.

Implemented by: School based

$43, 381

SDFS staff support

$5000 for participating non-public school staff

mental health providers, SDFS staff, DSS staff and consultants.


Outcomes: This program supports the MSDE Performance Goal 4 and Performance Targets 4.2 “By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce any form of alcohol” and “any form of drug other than alcohol or tobacco” use (Last 30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10%, and Performance Target 4.3, “By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruptions, insubordination, and refusal to obey school policies/ regulations by 10%”.

1.13 Age appropriate, developmentally based violence prevention and education programs that address victimization associated with prejudice and intolerance, and that include activities designed to help students develop a sense of individual responsibility and respect for the rights of others, and to resolve conflicts without violence [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xiii)].

*MCPS Safety and Security Steering Committee: This committee develops strategies to achieve “Safe Schools”.

Target Population: Universal Prevention: All schools.

Implemented by: DSS, Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs, Office of School Performance, School Safety and Security Steering Committee.

Timeline: Dates scheduled as needed 2008–2009 school year.

MCPS in-kind and partnership in-kind no SDFS funding

SDFS staff support

1.14 Emergency intervention services following traumatic crisis events, such as a shooting, major accident, or a drug-related incident that have disrupted the learning environment [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xv)].

*Crisis Response: This service addresses physical safety and mental health needs during and after a crisis.

*Distribution of Safe Schools Materials: “Safe and Sound” and appropriate and approved resources.

Target Population: Universal Prevention: all public and private schools.

Implemented by: DSS, School Safety and Security.


School Safety and Security with SDFS support

Same services as requested

1.15 Establishing or implementing a system for transferring suspension and expulsion records, consistent with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), by a local school system to any public or private elementary school or secondary school [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xvi)].

1.16 Community service, including community service performed by expelled students, and

service learning projects [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xix].

1.17 Developing and implementing character education programs, as a component of drug and violence prevention programs, that consider the views of students and parents of the students for whom the program is intended, e.g., a program described in subpart 3 of part D of Title V [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xvii)].

*Second Step, a research-based program for character education and violence prevention:

SDFS has provided Second Step training and materials for middle schools, 63 elementary schools, and the students with severely emotional disabilities (SED) in middle and elementary schools. School based staff training will be implemented in six schools.

Second Step is an evidence and research based violence prevention and social skills pre-K through Grade 8 curriculum, proven to be effective in reducing violence in schools. The student learnings are anger management, impulse control, and problem solving. A family/parent component is designed for parent group use. Funds are used to provide salary, fringe benefits, and local travel for professional part time staff to support training and to purchase materials for use in schools.

Target Population: The MCPS 2006-2007 Survey of School Environment shows students’ concerns for their belongings, their personal safety, classroom behavior, teasing and drug and alcohol use. The students’ perceptions range from a composite factor score of 67% at elementary schools to 47 % at high schools.

Schools with greatest need are selected through analysis of quality index data on school climate. Staff for the SED coded students in six elementary schools will be provided materials and trainings for Second Step implementation. (Note change).

Implemented by: DSS, teachers, counselors, and SDFS.


Outcomes: This program supports the MSDE Performance Target 4.3 “By the end of 2009-2010, reduce suspensions and expulsions for classroom disruptions, insubordination, and refusal to obey school policies and procedures by 10%.

By July 2009, newly trained staff will complete the Second Step Evaluation Data. School staff will report a 25% decrease in school

$21,779 materials and training

No nonpublic schools have accepted invitation to participate

disruption and a 20% increase in behaviors which indicate good character. School climate data will indicate “I feel safe here” and “My things are safe here” on climate survey responses. The SED schools measure the success of the Second Step program implementation through school staff reports and staff accountability for program implementation at designated grade levels.

1.18 Conducting a nationwide background check of each local school system employee regardless of when hired, and prospective employees for the purpose of determining whether the employee or prospective employee has been convicted of a crime that bears upon the employee's fitness [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xx)].

1.19 Programs to train school personnel to identify warning signs of youth suicide and to create an action plan to help youth at risk of suicide [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xxi)].

*Revised Suicide Guidelines and On-going Training: The Suicide Risk Reporting Form is distributed and training takes place at regularly scheduled meetings. The Red Flag program is in five middle schools.

Target Population: Indicated prevention: Students with the greatest need identified by DHHS nurses and guidance staff.

Implemented by: DSS and SDFS.


Student Services with SDFS staff support

SDFS staff support

1.20 Programs to meet the needs of students faced with domestic violence or child abuse [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xxii)].

*Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and Appropriate Training: Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) and MCPS requires reporting.

Target Population: Students with the greatest need identified by school staff and DHHS nurses.

Implemented by: DSS, Office of School Performance, and school staff.


Student Services with SDFS staff support

No SDFS funding

1.21 Establishing and maintaining a school safety hotline [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xviii)].

* School Safety Hotline: The school safety hotline is an anonymous reporting hotline for use by students, parents, and community.


Implemented by: School Safety and Security.


School Safety and Security with SDFS staff support

Same services for Maryland Hotline

SUBTOTAL -- TITLE IV-A FUNDING AMOUNTS

FOR PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES

$186,331.50

$24, 831.50

ATTACHMENT 11 TITLE IV, PART A SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools__________ Fiscal Year 2009

B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 4115(b)(2)], Continued.

B-2 Specific Programs to Promote and Implement Security Measures. Note: No more than 40 percent of the Title IV, Part A funds may be used to carry out activities identified with an asterisk (*). Of this 40 percent, not more than 50 percent (i.e., no more than 20 percent of the total Title IV-A distribution) may be used for security measures or activities identified with a plus (+), only if funding for these activities is not received from other federal agencies.


Brief description of specific services, Targeting of services to schools and students with the greatest need, and Timelines

Public

School Costs

Nonpublic

School Costs

2.1 *+Acquiring and installing metal detectors, electronic locks, surveillance cameras, or other related equipment and technologies. [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(ii)].

N/A

2.2 *+Reporting criminal offences committed on school property [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(iii)].

N/A

2.3 *+Developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans or obtaining technical assistance concerning such plans, which may include obtaining a security assessment or assistance from the School Security and Technology Resource Center at the Sandia National Laboratory located in Albuquerque, New Mexico [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(iv)].

N/A

2.4 *+Supporting safe zones of passage activities that ensure that students travel safely to and from school, which may include bicycle and pedestrian safety programs [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(v)].

N/A

2.5 *The hiring and mandatory training, based on scientific research, of school security personnel (including school resource officers) who interact with students in support of youth drug and violence prevention activities under this part that are implemented in the school [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(vi)].

N/A

TOTAL FOR SECURITY MEASURES


Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools__________ Fiscal Year 2009

C. DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES: Provide the information

requested below for the Drug & Violence Prevention Programs/Activities that will be used during SY 2007–2008. Complete Table D-1 to request a waiver for programs/activities funded by Title IV, Part A that do not meet the scientifically based research criteria.

TABLE C-1 Drug & Violence Prevention Programs/Activities

Grade Programs/Activities (i.e., Life Skills, Here’s Looking At

You, Second Step, etc.)

Scientifically Based

Researched (Yes/No)

SDFSCA Funds Used to

Support Program/Activity (Yes/No)

K Second Step Yes Yes

1 Second Step Yes Yes





6 Second Step

Communities Mobilizing for Change

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression

Get Real About Violence

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

7 Project TNT




Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

8 Project ALERT Yes Yes




Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9 Local Curriculum




No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

10 Choosing Health High School and Personal and Social Skills




No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

11 Local curriculum




No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

12 Local curriculum




No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Percentage of schools using scientifically based researched programs (SBRPs) to reduce disruption. 100 %

All schools trained through Title IV funding use SBRP to reduce disruption.

Percentage of schools using SBRPs to reduce disruption in which the staff is trained to implement the SBRP. 100 %.

All Title IV Part A Safe and Drug-Free Schools’ funded training is directed towards implementation of SBRP programs.

Does the LSS conduct school climate surveys? YES NO. If YES, what percentage of students reports a positive connection to school? ____% See chart below

Students rate their schools in the following broad areas:

Mean Percentage of Positive Perceptions of Students by Broad Area

Broad Area Elementary School Students Middle School Students High School Students

Student Leaning 94.5 87.3 84.4

School Climate 87.5 72.1 64.7

Safe and Drug-Free Schools 90.2 77.8 75.0

Physical Setting 74.1 75.0 77.3

Satisfaction 85.3 70.0 74.0


Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools________ Fiscal Year 2009

E. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE


1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6-B on page 31 regarding the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will benefit from the services.

Secondary school staff representing the Academy of the Holy Cross, Our Lady of Good Counsel High School, Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, Thornton Friends School, The Pathways Schools (4 sites), Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy, Sandy Spring Friends School, the Yeshiva of Greater Washington, and the Berman Jewish Academy participate in secondary school training for violence and drug reduction, prevention education and early intervention and referral, drug and violence prevention and intervention activities and programs. School staff is compensated for drug and violence activities scheduled after school hours on a contractual basis, to maintain the staff development and mental health focus. These schools are also invited to network at the Safe and Drug-Free Schools monthly staff meetings for violence and drug prevention. Non-public school staff receives stipends at the same rate as public school staff.

Most county private schools regularly receive same service in terms of mailings and distribution of material from Safe

and Drug-Free Schools. Following a March, 2008, non-public school meeting with the MCPS Budget office, the following non-public schools

have requested staff support for other Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs and activities: Montessori Crossway Community Mary of Nazareth Catholic Elementary NIST Child Care Center Our Lady of Mercy Forcey Christian School Grace Episcopal Day School St Catherine Laboure Georgetown Hill Early Childhood St John the Baptist Ivymont School Pending a meeting with each of these schools to determine program supports needed, data will be forthcoming

regarding the number of students to be served

2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools:

a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all

phases of the development and design of the Title IV-A services;

The private schools within our county are annually notified of their eligibility to receive services. The MCPS budget office and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools director send a letter annually. Services provided to participating private schools are comparable to public schools; there are no appreciable differences.


Montgomery County has over 150 private schools serving 40,000 private school students. Thus, representation from the Parents Councils of these schools helps determine the needs of the schools’ children and teachers.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Council representative of the Parent Council of Washington for private school networking and support meets monthly with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools staff to identify interested schools.

To comply with the MSDE’s suggested “Local Implementation Guidance” for improvement recently distributed to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinators, additional representatives from non-public schools will be invited to participate on the SDFS Advisory Council.

c) How services, location of services, and grade levels or areas of services were decided and agreed

upon; and

A letter of preference is sent to the private school’s chief from the MCPS budget office. The reply indicates the area of concentration. Grade levels of services and the location of the services are decided with the consultation of the school’s contact person.

d) The differences, if any, between the Title IV-A services that will be provided to public and private

school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the same Title IV-A services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to Title IV-A services provided to public school children.)

The same services are provided to public and private schools alike.

DRAFT LETTER TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS Montgomery County Public Schools

Safe and Drug-Free Schools families, communities and schools working together to promote

EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE THROUGH PREVENTION PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAM RESPONSE FORM

2008–2009 1. ___________________________ will participate in the alcohol and other drug use

(Name of School) and violence prevention program activities with MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools

______________________________ __________________________________________

(Date) (Chief School Administrator)

Contact Person for Program Support _______________________________________________

Number of Students_________________

Number of School Staff______________ 2. ________________________________ will NOT participate in the alcohol and other

drug (Name of School) use and violence prevention activities with MCPS

Safe and Drug-Free Schools ________________________________ __________________________________________

(Date) (Chief School Administrator) I request that the school’s contact person, named above, be notified and given the opportunity to participate in the following MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools training and program implementation activities:

1._____ Alcohol and Other Drug Policy Development and /or Review

2._____ Alcohol and Other Drug and Violence Prevention Curriculum 3._____ Student Leadership, such as Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) 4._____ Drug and Violence Prevention/ Reduction Training for School Staff 5._____ Mental Health Conducted Training for Early Intervention and Referral 6._____ Parent and Community Education 7._____ Special Events, such as Red Ribbon, Post-Prom, and Communities Mobilizing

Against Alcohol Use ( CMCA) Student Seminars

Please sign and return this form in the accompanying addressed envelope to:

Rita Rumbaugh, Substance Abuse Prevention Specialist MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools 14501 Avery Road Rockville, Maryland 20853 E-mail: [email protected], phone 301-279-3041.


1. Complete a detailed budget on the MSDE Title IV-A Proposed Budget Form. The Proposed Budget must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and correlated to the activities and costs detailed in Part C, Allowable Activities. MSDE budget forms are available in Excel format through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Web Site at www.marylandpublicschools.org.

2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the attached “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative

for Individual Grants”. (pp. 11–13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative should (a) detail how the school system will use no more than 2% of the funds for administrative costs, and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.

G. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A and B, and 6-A and B Be certain to complete all appropriate templates in Part II: Attachment 4: School Level Budget Summary. Attachment 5: Transfer of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Funds



Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools________ Fiscal Year 2009

TRANSFER OF TITLE IV, PART A ESEA FUNDS [Section 6123(b)]

A local school system (LSS) may transfer up to 50 percent of the funds allocated to it by formula under four major ESEA programs to any one of the programs, or to Title I (Up to 30 percent if the LSS is in school improvement). The LSS must consult with nonpublic school officials regarding the transfer of funds. In transferring funds, the LSS must: (1) deposit funds in the original fund; (2) show as expenditure – line item transfer from one fund to another, and (3) reflect amounts transferred on expenditure reports.

Amount ($) to be transferred into each of the following programs Total FY 2008

Allocation

Amount ($) transferred from Title IV, Part A

Title I-A

Title II-A

Title II-D

Title V-A

$545,845

$87,820

$________

$87,820

$_________

$_________

Briefly describe how the transfer of funds most effectively addresses the unique needs of the LSS. The transfer supports consulting teachers in the schools who, in turn, supports each school in their mission and activities that include the objectives as noted in this attachment. NOTE: 50% limitation for local school systems not identified for school improvement or corrective action. 30% limitation for districts identified for school improvement. A school system identified for corrective action may not use the fund transfer option.

Budget Summary Public Private Total Programs and Activities

$ 186,331.50 $ 24,831.50 $ 211,163

Security Measures

$ None $ None $ None

Salaries (for full and part-time SDFSCA – include all benefits)

$ 252,980

2% Administrative Cost

$ 9,472

Carryover to FY 2009 (See NOTE 1 below)

$ None

Transfers under Section 6123(b)

$

Total FY 2008 Title IV, Part A Expenditures

$ 473,615

NOTE 1: 75% of the FY 2008 allocation must be spent by June 30, 2009. A LSS may not carryover more than 25% of its allocation into the next fiscal year unless it can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the SEA, that it has “good cause” for such a carryover. [Section 4114(a)(3) of the SDFSCA].

Category/Object Line Item Calculation Amount Activity 1.1 Address the Consequences and Illegal Use

of Drugs

Contractual Bus transportation for 35 students and staff for 10 non-public and public schools

$524 x 10 trips $5,240

Substitutes

Phoenix teachers and participating school staff substitutes for CMCA

20 days @ $117.17 $2343

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of substitute costs $187 Local Travel for Staff

Reimbursement for mileage mileage reimbursed @ $.505 per mile $500

Total Activity 1.1 $8,271 Activity 1.2 Family and Community Prevention

Programs

Professional Part Time

Staff support for School Community Action training and support for family and community prevention programs at designated public and private schools

$25 per hour x 185 hours $4,625

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of professional part time salaries $370

Stipends School Community Action MCPS coordinators’ stipends

654 hours @ $25 per hour $16,350

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipend salaries $1,308 Local Travel for MCPS Coordinators


Materials Gang Awareness

Reproduction and dissemination of locally produced materials on gang awareness

10 middle school communities at $160 per school

$1,600

Materials CMCA Student Seminar

Materials for CMCA Student Seminar for 7 schools

$664. per school $4,648

Contractual Facility Support for CMCA Student Seminar

Cost for retreat center for overnights for students in seven schools

$950 per night x 7 nights $6,650

Total Activity 1.2 $36,384 Activity 1.5 Professional Development Facility Use Safe and Drug-Free Schools annual

Symposium /cost of training facility at Univ. of MD, Shady Grove

$4,024 per day x 3 days auditorium and classrooms

$12,072

Consultants Cost for national drug and violence consultant

$750/ day x 8 days $6,000

Stipends Stipends for MCPS staff to attend Drug/ Violence Prevention Symposium

45 leaders @ $120 per day $5,400

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipend salaries $432

Travel National Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Conference 1 meeting for Project Specialist and 1 meeting for part-time professional

$1,175

Stipends Cost of stipends for MCPS school-based staff to attend drug and violence prevention training in after-school hours

1233 hours @ $25 $30,825

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipends $2,466 MSAPPA Registration

Registration fees for MSAPPA Conference @ $70 per person x 100 non-public and public school staff

Registration Fee $7,000

Registration IACET Registration for CEU Certification Registration Fee $500 Stipends Stipends for MCPS CPD Instructors 24 hours @ $30 $720 Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of $720 $58 Total for Activity 1.5

$66, 648

Activity 1.9 Alternative Education Programs and

Services

Professional Part Time

Staff Support for Alternative Education school staff training and support at designated alternative schools

185 x $25 /hour $4,625


Contractual Cost of consultants for Get Real About Violence and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression programs

12 programs x 7 days x 100 per day

$8,400

Local Travel for Staff


Contractual Cost of graphics and updated designs for prevention and recovery materials

107.5 hours @ $60 per hour for graphics design

$6,450

Materials Cost of "School Connectedness", violence and drug prevention materials for school and community use and distribution in areas designated as high risk

"School Connectedness" materials @ $595 per 14 middle schools + $692 shipping

$9,022

Total Activity 1.9 $29, 700

Activity 1.12 Mental Health Referral, Identification, and Intervention Techniques

Stipends Cost for training of staff by mental health providers in appropriate identification and intervention techniques for drugs and violence

85 professional staff x $20 X 11 hours

$18,700

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipends for school staff training $1,496

Substitutes Cost of substitutes training at identified schools in high risk areas

20 days @ $117.17 $2,343

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of substitute costs $187 Stipends Cost of stipends for 4 resource staff to

provide mental health training for early identification and referral with Staff Development and School Safety and Security

mental health providers resource staff $25 x 765 hours $19,125

Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipend salaries $1,530

Contractual Private school staff training for early identification and referral

$25 per hour x 200 hours $5,000

Total Activity 1.12 $48,381 Activity 1.17 Character Education and Activities Professional Part Time

Support for Second Step training and support at designated public and private schools

100 hours x $25.00/hr $2,500


Materials Cost of "Second Step" kits and "Get Real" bullying prevention materials for 20 schools kits

22 x $795 + shipping $756 $18,246

Local Travel for Staff


Total Activity 1.17 $21,779 TOTAL Activities $211, 163

Administrative Costs

Audit fees & Indirect Costs at the rate of 2.0%

$9,472

Salary/Benefits Specialist Salary for Program Specialist $118,786.00 $118,786 Secretary Salary for full time secretary for clerical

support of program $48,386.00

$48,386

Part Time Tobacco Prevention Specialist

.2 FTE to manage Project TNT and Project ALERT for middle school tobacco prevention

$17,485.00 $17,485

Fringe Benefits 37% of position salaries ($184,657) $68,323.00 $68,323 Total Salary/Benefits $252,980 Total Safe and Drug Free Schools $473,615

ATTACHMENT 12 TITLE I, PART D PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR AT-RISK


TITLE I-D COORDINATOR: Martha Young


A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 1424]: For all allowable activities that will be implemented under

Title I-D, (a) provide a brief description of services, (b) how the services will be coordinated with local institutions for neglected and delinquent youth and/or correctional institutions, and (c) timelines or target dates. Provide the amount of funding for the Title I-D services. Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.



Public School Costs

1.1 Programs that serve children and youth returning to local schools from correctional facilities, to assist in the transition of such children and youth to the school environment and help them remain in school in order to complete their education [section 1424(1)].

1.2 Dropout prevention programs which serve at-risk children and youth, including pregnant and parenting teens, children and youth who have come in contact with the juvenile justice system, children and youth at least one year behind their expected grade level, migrant youth, immigrant youth, students with limited English proficiency, and gang members [section 1424(2)].

Provide social work support at seven alternative school programs. Approximately 40 percent of these students are in contact with the juvenile justice system. Services will be available for all students enrolled in these programs, approximately 486 students. Provide instructional support, including transportation for educational field trips and student incentives for increased attendance and academic achievement.

$101,171

1.3 The coordination of health and social services for such individuals if there is likelihood that the provision of such services, including day care, drug and alcohol counseling, and mental health services, will improve the likelihood such individuals will complete their education [section 1424(3)].



TITLE I-D COORDINATOR: Martha Young


A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 1424]: For all allowable activities that will be implemented under

Title I-D, (a) provide a brief description of services, (b) how the services will be coordinated with local institutions for neglected and delinquent youth and/or correctional institutions, and (c) timelines or target dates. Provide the amount of funding for the Title I-D services. Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.



Public School Costs

1.4 Special programs to meet the unique academic needs of participating children and youth, including vocational and technical education, special education, career counseling, curriculum-based youth entrepreneurship education, and assistance in securing student loans or grants for postsecondary education [section 1424(4)].

Provide textbooks and/or instructional materials as well as to support special education related services at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility. To provide educational support services at the National Center for Children and Families.

$12,880

1.5 Programs providing mentoring and peer mediation [section 1424(5)].



B. LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAMS

1. Provide a description of the characteristics (including learning difficulties, substance abuse problems, and other special needs) of the children and youth who will be returning from correctional facilities, and an accounting of these individuals. Also include the number of individuals returning to the system. Describe what services are provided.

Characteristics of students enrolled in Alternative Programs include the following:

• students at least one year behind expected reading and math levels • students in high school at least one year behind in credits • students involved in the juvenile justice system • students involved in gang activities • students placed through the expulsion process • students with substance abuse issues • students with a history of truancy • students with history of multiple suspensions

When a student returns from a correctional facility, the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Interagency Student Transition Team, which includes MCPS staff as well as Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) staff, reviews that student’s case to determine what services are needed. The student may be placed back at the home school or referred to an alternative program. In addition, connections are made to interagency supports such as family counseling, anger management class, and substance abuse outpatient programs. Last school year 64 students returned from long-term incarceration. Students placed by DJS at the National Center for Children and Families group home receive educational support services to supplement the formal MCPS educational program that the students are enrolled in. Students under 21 who are inmates at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility (MCCF) and who want to continue coursework toward a high school diploma receive instruction by MCPS staff as part of the Model Learning Center at MCCF.

2. Provide a description of how the programs will involve the parents in efforts to improve the education achievement of their children.

The social workers involve the parents in their children’s education by periodically reporting progress to the parents, both by telephone and in written form. In addition, parent meetings and trainings are held during the school year, including intake and transition meetings as well as problem-solving meetings. The social workers are a part of the problem-solving team (Educational Management Team), and they also do home visits with the pupil personnel worker.

3. Provide a description of how the Neglected or Delinquent Program will be

coordinated with other federal, state, and local programs.

The social workers work in the alternative programs and thus team with Alternative Programs teaching staff to provide services for all students enrolled. For students involved in the juvenile justice system, the social workers contact the appropriate probation officers, family counselors, and other outside agencies involved with the family. They work together to provide coordinated services to the family.

4. Provide a description of the steps the local school system will take to find

alternative placement for children and youth interested in continuing their education, but unable to participate in the regular public school program.

The alternative placements served through this grant are for students enrolled in Montgomery County Public Schools. Placement in and transition out of these programs are coordinated with the comprehensive middle and high schools in Montgomery County through an established referral process involving parents, students, home school staff, and alternative programs staff. Students who are unable to participate in the comprehensive public school program are referred to and placed in one of the alternative programs until they meet the criteria to return to their schools. Students are referred by their home schools or through a serious incident that involves placement through the expulsion process. Students who have been expelled are sometimes re-entered into the school system through an alternative program.

5. Report by charting the last three years the progress the local school system is

making in dropout prevention. [Section 1426]

The MCPS dropout rate has been under the state’s target of 3 percent for the past several years: a. 2008 2.71% (estimate) b. 2007 2.71% c. 2006 2.01%

d. 2005 1.76%

6. Provide annually the number served during the period of the grant. The “period” is described as the school year or period of funding from July 1 to September 30 the following year. [Section 1412 – Eligibility]

The number of students served under this grant: 486 in 2008, 378 in 2007, and 490 in 2006.



C. EVALUATION OF TITLE I-D PROGRAM ACTIVITIES: The local school system

must evaluate the program at least once every three years, disaggregating data on participation by gender, race, ethnicity, and age to determine the program's impact on the ability of participants — Student Progress will be collected and analyzed at the end of each semester. • To maintain and improve educational achievement;

All high school students will improve their grade point average after enrollment in alternative programs for at least one semester.

• To accrue school credits that meet State requirements for grade promotion and secondary school graduation; After enrollment in alternative programs for two semesters, all middle school students will earn promotion to the next grade level. For each semester enrolled, all high school students will accrue at least 2 credits that meet state requirements for secondary school graduation.

• To make the transition to a regular program or other education program operated by

the school system; After enrollment in alternative programs for two semesters, 80 percent of the students will graduate from high school, transition to a regular school program, or enroll in a GED program.

• To complete secondary school (or secondary school equivalency requirements) and

obtain employment after leaving the correctional facility or institution for neglected or delinquent children and youth; and N/A

• As appropriate, to participate in postsecondary education and job training programs.

N/A

At a minimum, the evaluation must include information and data on the use of funds, the types of services provided, and the students served by the programs. However, the evaluation should contain sufficient information for the services that were provided and the effect on academic achievement.

In conducting each evaluation, the school system must use multiple and appropriate measures of student progress. Because the new requirements under No Child Left Behind began in 2002, the first evaluation will be due to MSDE on October 1, 2005, as part of the annual update to the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan. The school system will use the results of the evaluation to plan and improve subsequent programs for participating children and youth.

Title I, Part D Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, Or At -RiskActivity 1.2

Category/Object Line Item Calculation Amount In-Kind Total

Salaries & Wages instructional and 30,418 30,418transition support inalternative programs

special education 4,000 4,000support at Mont. Co.Correctional Facility(MCCF)

Fixed Charges FICA 8% x $34,418 2,753 2,753

Contract Services Social Work Support 60,000 60,000 2.0 SW, 6 on-siteSW interns

Educational support by 8,880 8,880National Center forChildren and Families(NCCF)

Supplies & Materials instructional materials 4,000 4,000for diploma-boundstudents at MCCF;student incentives forincreased attendanceand academic achieve-ment in alternativeprograms

Other Charges transportation for 4,000 4,000educational field trips

TOTAL $114,051 $114,051

Bridge to Excellence Update - Fine Arts Question 1: Describe the progress that was made in 2007–2008 toward meeting Programs in Fine Arts goals, strategies, and objectives articulated in the system’s Bridge to Excellence (BTE) Master Plan. The funding of the following services and products listed under the goals and objectives of the Fine Arts Grant permitted teachers to design and implement curriculum and assessments in fine arts with appropriate instructional support, to ensure success for every student. Goal 1: Ensure “Success for Every Student.” 1.1 To provide services and an environment that each student needs for intellectual

challenge as well as social and emotional development. • The development and implementation of curriculum and assessments for art,

general/choral music, and instrumental music ensured that all students were provided an equal opportunity for a challenging and rigorous fine arts education.

• The purchase of the curricular resources for all secondary schools provided teaching strategies for culturally responsive instruction.

Goal 2: Provide an effective instructional program 2.1 To revise and implement revisions to the MCPS Program of Studies and Curricula,

to meet state standards outlined in the Voluntary State Curriculum to promote student achievement.

• Stipends were provided to teachers who wrote curriculum for the following instructional

guides: Elementary Art Instructional Guide for Grade 3; Elementary Art Instructional Guide Identified Assessments in Grades 1, 2, 3; Elementary General Music Instructional Guide for Grades 1 and 2; Middle School Art Instructional Guide for Grade 6; Foundations of Art A and B Instructional Guide for high school art; Digital Art A and B, and Ceramics IA and 1B Instructional Guides have been completed and will be published in 2008–2009.

• Stipends will be provided to curriculum writers for the following work that will be

initiated during the summer of 2008: 2-D and 3-D Design Blueprints; Dance as a Fine Art 1, 2; and Theatre 1.

2.2 Explore new arts initiatives, implement changes to the curricula, and provide

information to teachers regarding these revisions.

• The three Arts Integration model elementary schools (AIMS) are continuing to pursue staff development in arts integration through professional learning communities.

• The AIMS schools have provided curriculum maps, teaching strategies, and curriculum documents to other interested schools in the county during six training workshops.

• Four Arts Integration training workshops were presented to school leaders and teachers interested in pursuing an arts integration program enhancement. Approximately 39 participants attended each session.

• Stipends were provided to art teachers who provided the arts integration training. • Stipends were used to allow teachers to participate in the development of standards-based

assessments, grading and reporting rubrics, and curriculum documents. • Travel funds and substitute teacher stipends were provided to classroom and arts teachers

to conduct workshops in arts integration at local and national conferences. • Stipends were provided to teachers in the Grading and Reporting pilot schools to review

new instructional resources supporting the administration of the countywide assessments. 2.3 To identify and purchase major equipment and instructional materials for fine arts

programs that support implementation of the revisions to the curriculum.

• Equipment and instructional materials were purchased to support implementation of the art curriculum, K–12 (e.g., kilns, visual art prints, and textbooks).

• Adobe Creative Suite software was purchased for one high school and one middle school to support the infusion of technology into the curriculum.

• Instructional materials were purchased to support implementation of the general/choral music curriculum (sheet music, recordings, and instruments).

• Band and orchestra instruments were purchased to provide instruments to financially disadvantaged students participating in the instrumental music program.

• Software was purchased for general music teachers to support assessment design and digitization of student work (Sound Forge 8).

• Keyboards and World Music drums were purchased to support the implementation of the elementary general music curriculum in three schools.

Goal 3: Strengthen Community Partnerships and Commitments to Arts Education. 3.1. To promote partnerships that will increase student involvement and participation in

the arts and provide access to fine arts programs and activities for students in low socio-economic groups.

• The Fine Arts Grant provided substitutes for elementary school music teachers who

attended the symphony at Strathmore Hall with all Grade 2 and Grade 5 students. • The Fine Arts Grant provided support to the Superintendent’s Performing Arts Awards

program that is an ongoing collaboration with Montgomery College, to recognize school and individual student accomplishments in the performing arts, and to promote participation in theatre and dance countywide.

Goal 4: Workforce Excellence 4.1 To implement a comprehensive staff development plan that addresses the professional

learning needs of teachers and administrators in the arts.

• Training was provided to teachers on music and art standards-based assessment practices at the elementary and secondary level to support the implementation of the new MCPS grading and reporting policy.

• Information was provided to elementary and middle school fine arts teachers on the use of the curriculum frameworks and outlines for the purpose of planning standards-based instructional activities and using standards-based assessments.

• Technology training was provided to elementary school art teachers as part of best instructional practices.

• Arts coordinators attended State and National conferences to research best practices in curriculum development, assessments, arts integration practices and the use of new technology in the fine arts classroom (MAEA, NAEA, ASCD, USDE, CAFE, MMEA, MENC).

• Participation by teachers in a collaborative project with MSDE, for the development and pilot of Portfolio Plus, a series of on-demand assessment items and tasks in each of the fine arts content areas.

Question 2: Identify the programs, practices or strategies and related resource allocations that are related to the progress reported in prompt #1. Elementary art and music teachers attended six “Arts-Integration Professional Development” training sessions.

• Consultants provided training on “Assessment in the Fine Arts.” • Funds were used to support “arts-integration programming” through allocations to local

arts-related organizations for professional development of teachers. • Software was purchased to support assessment design and digitization of students’ work

in general music. • Student learning in the elementary general music classroom was supported by the

purchase of technical equipment. Question 3: Describe which goals, objectives, and strategies included in the BTE Master Plan were not attained and where challenges in making progress toward meeting Programs in Fine Arts goals and objectives are evident.

• Voluntary meetings are attended sparsely by art, music, theatre, and dance teachers. This impacts the dissemination process and does not ensure even implementation of new curriculum and assessment practices in all schools.

• There is limited funding for co-curricular music programs that give students opportunities to perform (e.g., honors chorus, orchestra, and band, programs, festivals, etc.).

Maryland’s Fine Arts goal for 100% of the student population to participate in fine arts programs yearly has been impacted by No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 as schools address scheduling challenges to offer reading and math interventions.

• Some art and chorus programs for sixth Grade students have been reduced, eliminated, or replaced in schools that are part of the MCPS Middle School Reform Initiative. The new elective offering, Arts Investigations, does not address what all students should know or be able to do by the end of Grade 6 in either art, music, theatre, or dance, as defined by the Voluntary State Curriculum. This elective supplants the appropriate curriculum that meets the indicators and objectives established in the Voluntary State Curriculum for art, music, theatre, and dance.

Question 4: Describe the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be implemented during 2008–2009 and plans for addressing the challenges identified in prompt #3. Include a description of the adjustments what will be made along with related resources to ensure progress toward meeting identified goals, objectives, and strategies. Where appropriate, include timelines. • Increase the number of opportunities for professional development for teachers of fine arts by

maintaining the budget in the stipend category (FY09) and increasing the budget in the substitute category (FY09).

• Increase the allocation in the stipend category to include co-curricular music programs for all students (FY09).

• Allocate stipend and substitute funds to support emerging arts integration programs in middle and elementary schools, and provide consultant fees for professionals in the theatre and dance to work with students and teachers in the classroom.

• Allocate funds to support artist in residencies in the schools. • Work with the stakeholders who are coordinating Middle School Reform Initiative to ensure

that all middle school students are enrolled yearly in a fine arts program that is aligned with the Voluntary State Curriculum to meet the Requirements for Fine Arts Instructional Programs for Grades K–12 as provided by COMAR—§13A.04.16.01.

Fine Arts Grant FY09 Bridge to Excellence Budget Narrative

Category/object Line item Calculation Amount In kind Total Administration Business Support Services/Transfers

Indirect Costs 2% x $148,200 $2,964 $2,964

Indirect Costs $4,081Substitutes/ Instructional Staff

Substitutes for instructional staff to attend curriculum training in arts integration Strategy # 4.1

28 substitutes x $117.17 per day

$3,281 $3,281

Substitutes/ Instructional Staff

Substitutes for instructional staff to attend workshops on Creating Original Opera Strategy # 4.1


$1,757 $1,757

Substitutes/ Instructional Staff

Substitutes for professional staff to attend Strathmore Hall Concert with all Grade 2 students Strategy # 3.1


$1,992 $1,992

Substitutes $7,030Stipends/ Instructional Staff

Stipends for teacher facilitators of the theatre and dance arts showcase in partnership with Montgomery College Strategy # 3.1

2 teachers x $25 per hour x 15 hours

$750 $750

Stipends/ Instructional Staff

Stipends for art teachers trainers on arts integration curriculum and best practices Strategy # 4.1

6 teachers x 2 hours x $25 per hour x 4 workshops

$1,200 $1,200


Stipends for art teachers to participate in professional development workshops on arts integration curriculum and best practices Strategy # 4.1

34 teachers x 2 hours x $20 per hour x 4 workshops

$5,440 $5,440


Stipends for art teacher trainers on Explorations in Art (e-books) Strategy # 4.1

4 trainers x 2 hours x $20 per hour x 5 workshops

$800 $800


Stipends for secondary art teachers working on curriculum development: Design Instructional Guide + Grade 7 Art Instructional Guide Strategy # 2.2

Design: 2 teachers x 80 hours x $25 per hour = $4,000 Grade 7 Art: 2 teachers x 80 hours x $25 per hour = $4,000

$8,000 $8,000

Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for elementary art teachers working on curriculum development for Pre-K and K art Strategy # 2.2

3 teachers x 80 hours x $25 per hour

$6,000 $6,000


Stipends for teachers: instrumental music curriculum development Strategy # 2.2


$2,100 $2,100


Stipends for teachers: instrumental festivals Strategy # 1.1


$1,120

$1,120


Stipends for teachers: instrumental honors activities Strategy # 1.1


$1,600

$1,600


Stipends for teachers: instrumental Web site development Strategy # 2.1


$2,000

$2,000


Stipends for Honors Chorus adjudicators and festival managers Strategy # 2.3

20 teachers x 5 hours x $20 per hour = $2,000 6 teachers x 10 hours x $20 per hour = $1,200

$3,200 $3,200


Stipends for middle school general music curriculum development by instructional staff Strategy # 2.1


$7,200 $7,200


Stipends for elementary general music curriculum development Strategy # 2.1


$9,000 $9,000


Stipend for webmaster to create and maintain Web site for choral general music and disseminate program information countywide Strategy # 2.2

1 teacher x 40 hours x $25 per hour

$1,000 $1,000


Stipend for teacher/ program manager: Creating Original Opera Strategy # 2.1

1 teacher x 50 hours x $20 per hour

$1,000 $1,000

Stipends Instructional Staff

Stipends for teachers to attend training: Creating Original Opera Strategy # 4.1 Strategy # 2.1


$1,500 $1,500

Stipends $51,910Instructional Materials/ Instructional Program

Replacement of drying racks in 12 schools Strategy # 2.3

12 drying racks x $155 each

$1,860 $1,860

Instructional Materials/ Instructional Program

Replacement flat file cabinet for artist prints and student artwork storage Strategy # 2.3

2 flat files x $582.35 each

$1,165 $1,165


Replacement of 10 paper cutters in 10 schools Strategy # 2.3

10 paper cutters x $496.83 each = $4,968 + 2 paper cutters x $103 each = $206

$5,174 $5,174


Purchase inkjet printer for elementary art program at 1 school Strategy # 2.3

1 printer x $135 each

$135 $135


Purchase scanner/copier/ printer for 1 high school program Strategy # 2.3

1 x $284.78 each

$285 $285


Purchase scanner for elementary art program at 1 school Strategy # 2.3

1 x $253 each $253 $253


Purchase small printing press for 1 middle school art program Strategy # 2.3

1 x $419 each $419 $419


Purchase Adobe PhotoShop software for 1 middle school digital art lab to support new initiative in art Strategy # 2.3

35 schools x $152 each + media $45

$5,365 $5,365


Purchase pottery wheels for 1 middle school and 2 high school art programs Strategy # 2.3

3 x $824.61 each

$2,474 $2,474


Purchase rotary trimmer for 1 high school art program Strategy # 2.3

1 x $495 each $495 $495


Purchase clay extruder for 1 high school ceramics art program Strategy # 2.3

1 x $405.27 each

$405 $405


Purchase 2 large format inkjet printers for 2 high school digital art programs Strategy # 2.3

2 x $400 each $800 $800


Books, prints, posters for art departments in 135 elementary schools Strategy # 2.3

135 schools x $95 each

$12,825 $12,825


Supplies for art exhibits, professional staff trainings, curriculum development Strategy # 2.2

Supplies

$578 $578

Instructional Materials/ Instructional Supplies

Materials for countywide art

10 x $9.75 each

$98 $98

displays and program dissemination to the public Strategy # 2.2

Instructional Materials/ Instructional Supplies

CDs used to provide curriculum resources to all high school art teachers Strategy # 2.2

3 packs x $12 each

$36 $36

Instructional Materials/Instrumental Music Program Equipment Under $1000

Bb Soprano Clarinet Elementary instrumental music program–school TBD based on need Strategy # 2.3

24 x $309 each $7,417 $7,417


Violin ½ size Elementary instrumental music program–school TBD based on need Strategy # 2.3

12 x $200 each $2,400 $2,400


Violin ¾ size Elementary instrumental music program–school TBD based on need Strategy # 2.3

8 x $200 each $1,600 $1,600


Cello ½ size Elementary instrumental music program–school TBD based on need Strategy # 2.3

4 x $699 each $2,796 $2,796


Cornet Elementary instrumental music program–school TBD based on need Strategy # 2.3

4 x $431 each $1,724 $1,724


Honors Medals (awards) Strategy # 2.3

200 x $7 each $1,400 $1,400


Big Band Festival CDs for 16 schools to support instructional program Strategy # 2.3

16 x $22 each $352 $352


District Band and Orchestra Festival CDs for 65 schools to support instructional program Strategy # 2.3

65 x $22 each $1,430 $1,430

Instructional Materials $51,486Instructional Equipment / Musical Instruments

Tuba, 4 valve, Conn 5JW Strategy # 2.3

1 x $3,432 each

$3,432

$3,432

Instructional Equipment / Musical Instruments

Tuba, 3 valve, King 1140W Strategy # 2.3

2 x $2,505 each

$5,010 $5,010

Equipment/ Instructional Program

LCD projector for use with the e-books in 2 elementary schools Strategy # 2.3

2 x $1,000 each

$2,000 $2,000

Equipment Print dryer for Whitman HS

1 x $1,185 each

$1,185 $1,185


Pugmill at Quince Orchard HS Strategy # 2.3

Pugmill $4,796 each + stand $174 each

$4,970 $4,970


Kiln replacement at 2 high schools Strategy # 2.3

2 x $2,146.58 each

$4,293 $4,293


Film Drying Cabinet for 1 high school

1 x $986 each $986 $986

Equipment $21,876Contractual and Consultant Services/Program Support

Music technology consultant, working

2 days x $750 per day +

$2,500

$2,500

with the development of countywide assessments for the high school Music Technology Course Strategy # 2.2

expenses

Contracted Services/Program

Clinician- Secondary guitar methods Strategy # 1.1

1 day x $750 per day + expenses

$1,000

$1,000

Contracted Services/Program Support

ICB: Facility rentals for student music concerts Strategy # 2.3

5 days x $400 per day

$2,000 $2,000


Production costs for CD recordings Strategy # 2.3

70 CDs x $20 each = $1,400 + 6 days x $100 per day = $600

$2,000

$2,000


Interact Theatre Artist residency x 3 schools

3 schools x 50 hours x $20 per hour

$3,000 $3,000

Contracted Services/ Facilities Rental

Meeting room for curriculum writers at MCAASP for 5 days

5 days x $50 per day

$250 $250

Contracted Services/ Program Support

Curriculum editor for Pre-K , K, and Grades 4–5 guides

200 hours x $40 per hour

$8,000 $8,000

Contracted Services/ Program Support

Curriculum editor for Grade 7 curriculum guide, design curriculum guide

80 hours x $40 per hour

$3,200 $3,200

Contracted Services $21,950Registration/Dues Professional Development for Art Teachers

Arts Integration Network Conference Strategy # 4.1

8 professional staff x 4 nights x $168 per night + air transportation x 8 x $490 + conference registration $350 x 3 schools Grant will

$4,500 $4,500

support maximum of $4,500

Registration/Dues Professional Development Arts Administrators

NAEA conference x 2 arts administrators Strategy # 4.1

Registration 2 x $183 = $366 5 nights x $250 = $1,250 + airfare 2 x $558 = $1,116

$2,732 $2,732

Registration/Dues Professional Development Instructional Staff

NAEA conference x 4 teacher/presenters Strategy # 4.1

Registration 4 x $183 = $732 + 5 nights x $182.60 night (quad room) = $913 + airfare 4 x $558 = $2,232

$3,877

$3,877

Travel, Registration, Dues $11,109 Employee Benefits Substitutes

Stipends $7,030 x 8% = $562 $51,910 x 8% = $4,153

$4,715

$4,715

Employee Benefits $4,715 Total $173,040

Victims of Violent Criminal Offenses in Schools (VVCO) Report for School Year 2007-08

Violent Criminal Offenses

Number of VVCOs (Note 1)

VVCOs Requesting Transfers (Note 2)

Transfers Granted Prior to Final Case

Disposition (Note 3)

Abduction & attempted abduction

Arson & attempted arson in the first degree

Kidnapping & attempted kidnapping

Manslaughter & attempted manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter

Mayhem & attempted mayhem

Murder & attempted murder

Rape & attempted rape

Robbery & attempted robbery 2 1

Carjacking & attempted carjacking

Armed carjacking & attempted armed carjacking

Sexual offense & attempted sexual offense in the first degree

Sexual offense & attempted sexual offense in the second degree

Use of a handgun in the commission or attempted commission of a felony or other crime of violence

Assault in the first degree 1

Assault with intent to murder

Assault with intent to rape

Assault with intent to rob

Assault with intent to commit a sexual offense in the first degree

Assault with intent to commit a sexual offense in the second degree

TOTAL 3 1

NOTE: See attached guidance for completing the VVCO in Schools Report.

Attachment

Gun-Free Schools Act Report

School Year 2007-08

Status as of August 29, 2008 Student 0000742454 was expelled for the remainder of the current school year and the first semester of the next school year, rather than for a full calendar year. This decision was made based upon the information regarding the individual student and his participation in the incident. Student 0000763418 has been incarcerated since the incident and has not yet had the opportunity for a hearing to be held. Student 0000769894 has been hospitalized in a mental institution since the incident and has not yet had the opportunity for a hearing to be held. Student 0000933294 was tried as an adult and received a two year prison sentence. There has not been an opportunity for a hearing to be held.

Montgomery County Public Schools

Additional Federal and State Reporting Requirements Facilities to Support Master Plan Strategies

A. Overall Facilities Plan There are no changes to the school system’s overall plan to provide facilities in support of Bridge to Excellence Master Plan strategies.

B. Full-day Kindergarten for All Students and Full or Half-Day Prekindergarten

Programs: New kindergarten classrooms are provided at all schools that have capital projects including additions, new school projects, and modernizations. Additions at elementary schools are considered when a school has at least a 92 seat deficit (four classrooms) projected for the 2012–2013 school year. At schools without a planned capital project, the kindergarten program is accommodated within the existing building and relocatable classrooms are utilized as needed.

Prekindergarten programs are located at elementary schools based on the need of the community and transportation travel times on a yearly basis.

Documents

Montgomery County 2008 Final Update