**Section 1003(g) Funds Application**

**Part A---Funds Retained by the SEA**

A-1. For the 2007-2008 school year, the Nevada Department of Education
(NDE) has retained \$131,616.68 in Section 1003(a) funds for state level
activities. Of the 1003(g) funds, NDE will retain \$38,564.55, an amount
equal to five percent of the funds available to the state. The amount
available for state level support activities under sections 1003(a) and
(g) will total \$170, 181.23.

A-2. Using 1003(a) funds, NDE has created a system of statewide support
for its Title I schools. Since the passage of NCLB in 2002, NDE has held
a series of summer institutes to train School Support Team Leaders
(SSTLs) in both the state's school improvement process, known as SAGE
(Student Achievement Gap Elimination) and in the processes necessary to
serve as either an external facilitator or as an SSTL. External
facilitators are assigned to work with Title I schools in years one and
two of improvement, while SSTLs are assigned to work with schools in
year three or beyond of improvement.

Typically, the summer institutes are week-long, intensive training
sessions to ensure that the external facilitators and the SSTLs have the
prerequisite knowledge and skills to meet the needs of the schools to
which they are assigned. For instance, during the summer of 2007, a
group of approximately 60 individuals received training in both the SAGE
process and on their roles and responsibilities as SSTLs. The first two
and a half days of the training focused on SAGE, including use of the
Data Analysis Guide (DAG), monitoring, and implementation of the SAGE
process, and evaluation of the school improvement plans. The remainder
of the week was spent on building the skills and knowledge that School
Support Team Leaders must possess in order to serve as effective
external change agents in the schools to which they are assigned. For
instance, the group worked on activities designed to build trust in
their assigned schools, to build collaboration at their school sites, to
build capacity for leadership in the personnel of the school, and to
build knowledge of skills and strategies that will assist students in
reaching proficiency.

With the additional funds available to NDE through the Section 1003(g)
funding, NDE will be able to expand its summer institute. With the
assistance of the additional funding, the training in summer 2008 can be
enhanced in order to train more SSTLs as more of the state's Title I
schools move into corrective action. In the past, NDE has not been able
to cover the travel expenses for potential SSTLs; with the additional
funding, we will now be able to do so, and we will require that all
current and aspiring SSTLs attend the summer institute.

Additionally, the Section 1003(a) funds have been used to support NDE
consultants as they serve as members of our school support teams. We
will continue this practice in the future. NDE will also use these funds
to contract with an outside evaluator who will examine the efficacy of
the funds in improving student achievement and assisting schools in
reaching their stated improvement goals.

A-3. The strategy that NDE will implement with the SEA portion of the
funds is #4: "Provide professional development to enhance the capacity
of school support team members and other technical assistance providers
who are part of the statewide system of support and that is informed by
student achievement and other outcome-related measures." NDE has chosen
this strategy because Nevada Revised Statute requires the appointment of
a school support team to any school that has not made AYP for four or
more years. The language of NRS is very specific about the duties and
roles of the school support team. The training we provide assists NDE
both in improving schools and in meeting the requirements of state and
federal law. NDE is proud of the evidence of effectiveness of our
statewide system of support. The following chart demonstrates the
success that the School Support Teams are having with their schools in
promoting growth and in moving the schools toward making adequate yearly
progress:

**AYP Outcomes for Title I Schools with School Support Team
Leaders---2006-2007**

+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| *         | **AYP     | **AYP      | **%   | **%  | **%  | **Dif   |
| *School** | 05-06**   | 06-07      | Indic | In   | In   | ference |
|           |           | Des        | ators | dica | dica | in %    |
|           | **Desi    | ignation** | M     | tors | tors | Pro     |
|           | gnation** |            | ade** | Ma   | Ma   | ficient |
|           |           |            |       | de** | de** | 05-06   |
|           |           |            | **04  |      |      | to      |
|           |           |            | -05** | *    | *    | 06-07** |
|           |           |            |       | *05- | *06- |         |
|           |           |            |       | 06** | 07** |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Empire ES | Year 4    | Year       | 63%   | 91%  | 94%  | 0.7     |
|           |           | 4-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
|           |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Bridger   | Year 4    | Year 5     | 56%   | 66%  | 87%  | 4.7     |
| MS        |           |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Cambeiro  | Year      | Adequate   | 72%   | 87%  | 100% | 3.5     |
| ES        | 3-Hold    | (AP)       |       |      |      |         |
|           | (SH)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Carson ES | Year      | Year 4     | 57%   | 81%  | 92%  | 7.7     |
|           | 3-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
|           | (SH)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Cashman   | Year 3    | Year       | 55%   | 66%  | 95%  | 12.7    |
| MS        |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
|           |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Craig ES  | Year 3    | Year       | 53%   | 73%  | 88%  | 6.3     |
|           |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
|           |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Dailey ES | Year 3    | Year       | 55%   | 77%  | 94%  | 5.9     |
|           |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
|           |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| F         | Year 3    | Year       | 58%   | 58%  | 83%  | 7.3     |
| itzgerald |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
| ES        |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Fyfe ES   | Year 3    | Year       | 57%   | 62%  | 100% | 27.3    |
|           |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Herron ES | Year 4    | Year       | 61%   | 69%  | 86%  | 9.7     |
|           |           | 4-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
|           |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Lunt ES   | Year      | Adequate   | 46%   | 88%  | 85%  | 9.0     |
|           | 3-Hold    | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
|           | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Lynch ES  | Year      | Adequate   | 64%   | 89%  | 94%  | 6.8     |
|           | 3-Hold    | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
|           | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Manch ES  | Year 3    | Year 4     | 55%   | 53%  | 68%  | 6.6     |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| McCall ES | Year      | Adequate   | 53%   | 77%  | 100% | 8.9     |
|           | 3-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
|           | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Monaco MS | Year 3    | Year 4     | 62%   | 46%  | 64%  | 10.1    |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Park ES   | Year      | Adequate   | 59%   | 94%  | 100% | 5.1     |
|           | 3-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
|           | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Robison   | Year 3    | Year 4     | 28%   | 60%  | 64%  | 8.4     |
| MS        |           |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Ronnow ES | Year 4    | Year       | 64%   | 74%  | 94%  | 12.0    |
|           |           | 4-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
|           |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Tate ES   | Year 4    | Year 5     | 58%   | 56%  | 73%  | 5.8     |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| R Taylor  | Year 3    | Year 4     | 49%   | 78%  | 86%  | 7.2     |
| ES        |           |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Ullom ES  | Year 3    | Year       | 61%   | 77%  | 100% | 13.8    |
|           |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Von Tobel | Year 4    | Year 5     | 36%   | 72%  | 36%  | -1.3    |
| MS        |           |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| T         | Year 3    | Year       | 63%   | 57%  | 84%  | 6.1     |
| Williams  |           | 3-Hold     |       |      |      |         |
| ES        |           | (SH)       |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| W         | Year      | Adequate   | 55%   | 78%  | 100% | 6.8     |
| Williams  | 3-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
| ES        | (SH)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| West MS   | Year 4    | Year 5     | 59%   | 12%  | 49%  | 12.6    |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| West      | Year      | Year 4     | 70%   | 91%  | 77%  | 0.6     |
| Wendover  | 3-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
| ES        | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Yerington | Year      | Adequate   | 93%   | 100% | 100% | 18.1    |
| ES        | 3-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Amargosa  | Year      | Adequate   | 62%   | 84%  | 100% | 10.9    |
| ES        | 4-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
|           | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+
| Manse ES  | Year      | Adequate   | 93%   | 100% | 94%  | 16.7    |
|           | 4-Hold    |            |       |      |      |         |
|           | (AP)      |            |       |      |      |         |
+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+------+------+---------+

Note: Indicators are the results for the whole schools and for the
individual groups of students identified by NCLB (Whole school,
African-American, White, Hispanic, Native American, Students with an
Individualized Education Plan (Special Education), Limited English
Proficient students, and students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch
(FRL).

AP = Appeal was approved.

SH = School made AYP by making Safe Harbor.

Fast Facts:

-   19 of the 29 Title I schools with School Support Team Leaders made
    AYP.

-   25 of the 29 schools increased the percentage of indicators for
    which they made adequate yearly progress. Of the four that did not
    show an increase, one school was already at 100% indicators met, and
    consequently could not improve; two of the schools showed a slight
    decrease in percentage of indicators met, and the fourth school
    showed a significant decrease.

-   28 of the 29 schools increased the percentage of proficient students
    from the 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 school years.

    -   9 of these 28 schools increased by 10 or more percentage points.

    -   24 of these 28 schools increased by 5 or more percentage points.

**Part B - Funds Awarded to LEAs**

B-1: Ninety-five percent of Section 1003(g) funds will be awarded on a
competitive basis to LEAs with one or more Title I schools identified as
In Need of Improvement (INOI). Currently, 95% of Section 1003(a) funds
are allocated on a formula basis to all Title I schools identified as
INOI; combined with State-funded remediation grants available to all
public schools in Nevada, such funds provide significant fiscal
resources to assist schools in the implementation of school improvement
plans as required by state and federal law.

An analysis of Nevada's AYP data indicates that a majority of Title
I-served schools which are identified as INOI received this designation
because of low performance by students who are in specific special
populations (IEP, LEP, FRL). For instance, of Nevada's Title I-served
schools, 60 of 143 schools are identified as INOI. Of that total, 23
schools (38%) failed AYP in ELA in the IEP special population, while 46,
or 76.6%, failed AYP in math in the IEP special population. Similarly,
the LEP special population accounted for 26, or 43%, of the failures in
ELA and for 30, or 50%, of the failures in math. The FRL special
population accounted for 10, or 16.6% of the failures in ELA and for 21,
or 35%, of the failures in math.

This data will be used to identify those schools which NDE classifies as
demonstrating "greatest need." The highest priority will be the 15% (9
schools) of Title I schools designated INOI because both the entire
school and a majority of the identified special populations (IEP, LEP,
FRL) did not meet the AYP targets. Next highest priority will be given
to schools in which the whole school may have reached its targets but
where all three of the special populations did not make AYP. Similarly,
the next priority will be given to schools in which two of the
identified special populations missed their AYP targets, and the lowest
priority will be given to schools in which only one of the identified
special populations missed AYP targets

Nevada has defined "strongest commitment" as documentation of specific
actions previously taken by an LEA that support systemic changes
designed to improve student achievement at the LEA's highest need
schools. Such actions might include modifying teacher and administrator
assignments to help ensure equitable distribution of the LEA's most
effective teachers and administrators to its lowest achieving schools.
The development and implementation of a tiered intervention system for
students performing below grade level might also be considered evidence
of an LEA's commitment to systemic change.

Criteria to be used in giving priority to LEAs with the lowest achieving
schools that demonstrate the greatest need and the strongest commitment
are as follows:

-   Priority 1: an LEA has at least one of its Title I schools
    identified INOI based on the entire school failing AYP and has other
    Title I schools identified INOI based on students failing AYP in all
    three identified populations (IEP, LEP, FRL). Additionally, the LEA
    provides evidence of previous actions taken by the LEA to support
    systemic changes designed to improve student achievement;

-   Priority 2: an LEA has all or most of its Title I schools identified
    INOI based on students failing AYP in all three identified
    populations (IEP, LEP, FRL) and provides evidence of previous
    actions taken by the LEA to support systemic changes designed to
    improve student achievement;

-   Priority 3: an LEA has all or most of its Title I schools identified
    INOI based on students failing AYP in two of the three identified
    populations (IEP, LEP, FRL) and provides evidence of previous
    actions taken by the LEA to support systemic changes designed to
    improve student achievement;

-   Priority 4: an LEA has all or most of its Title I schools identified
    INOI based on students failing AYP in one of the three identified
    populations (IEP, LEP, FRL) and provides evidence of previous
    actions taken by the LEA to support systemic changes designed to
    improve student achievement.

Grant award amounts will be flexible as there are only seven of Nevada's
17 school districts that currently have Title I schools identified as
INOI. Of these seven school districts, four have only one school in that
category and one district has three Title I schools INOI. Of the
remaining two districts, one has 12 Title I schools INOI and the other
district has 40. Criteria used to determine grant award amounts will be
based on documentation of resources needed for implementation of
identified School Improvement Strategies. Such documentation should
include all current funding sources, including Title I, Part A and any
other ESEA awards, to support implementation of the identified
strategies. Section 1003(g) awards will not be less than \$50,000 or
more than \$500,000 for each participating school.

Section 1003(g) awards to an LEA will be renewable for up to two
additional one-year periods if schools in the LEA are meeting their
identified goals and objectives as stated in their school improvement
plans.

B-2: NDE's Section 1003(g) application will list the School Improvement
Strategies outlined within the federal application with a focus on
meeting the needs of the previously identified special populations. Each
LEA will be required to determine which of the strategies is most
applicable for its schools. If an LEA has three or fewer Title I schools
INOI, the strategy (ies) chosen must address the academic needs of each
eligible school based on data documented through a comprehensive needs
analysis and subsequent inquiry process. For example, a comprehensive
needs assessment may indicate that one school requires professional
development for teachers to improve instruction for LEP students, while
a needs assessment at another school indicates that staff need further
training in co-teaching strategies for regular and special education
teachers to better meet the needs of IEP students. If an LEA has more
than three Title I schools INOI, the strategy (ies) must address common
needs identified through the same process described above in all of its
Title I schools INOI or in a subset of such schools. For example, an LEA
may have a subset of schools in which lack of vocabulary for FRL
students has been identified as an area to be addressed; strategy(ies)
chosen must focus on the identified need.

LEAs will be required to document the impact of such school improvement
strategies on schools by showing an increase in the number of schools
achieving the annual measurable objectives in school improvement plans.

B-3: The SEA currently monitors the implementation of school improvement
strategies at Title I schools in corrective action, planning for
restructuring, or restructuring through monthly monitoring visits
conducted at such schools by SEA-appointed School Support Team Leaders
(SSTLs) and follow up reports by the SSTLs on these visits. Such
monitoring visits include analysis of interim data to document student
progress. The SEA will require semi-annual monitoring reports on
implementation of identified strategies at all schools served with these
funds. Monitoring will be conducted by an independent contractor hired
by the SEA for this purpose.

Nevada currently provides opportunities for dissemination of information
on successful school improvement strategies through its annual Mega
Conference that showcases Nevada schools that have made significant
academic progress as well as through Best Practices fairs that have
allowed schools to share success stories in raising student achievement.
These formats will be utilized for dissemination of successful practices
identified through use of this funding.

**PART C -- Monitoring**

In order to monitor the effectiveness of the strategies selected and
implemented with funds from section 1003(g) and 1003(a), the Nevada
Department of Education will contract with an independent evaluator to
conduct all LEA monitoring activities. The selected evaluator will be
required to provide the following information relative to each LEA's
selected strategies under 1003(g) and their effectiveness:

-   Identification of strategies the district selected to increase
    student academic achievement

-   Identification of the impact of the selected and implemented
    strategies

-   If strategies are individualized at the school level, the district
    will identify each school and the selected strategy

-   Provision of data relative to the school improvement strategies

-   Statistical and qualitative analysis regarding the impact of the
    school improvement initiative

To ensure all projects are monitored/evaluated on an ongoing basis NDE
will require that the independent evaluator submit a six-month and an
end of year monitoring reports on each of the funded LEA programs. If at
the 6 month report it is revealed through the monitoring that the school
improvement strategies are not contributing to increased student
achievement, the evaluator will be required to submit recommendations in
order to assist LEAs on how to meet their intended outcomes and
objectives. If, upon receipt of the end of the year report, NDE
determines that the project outcomes are not being met, NDE may require
LEAs to make substantial changes to their applications or may consider
reallocating funds to programs that are providing services with greater
impact on student achievement.