LCAP Addendum The Local Control and Accountability Plan Addendum (LCAP Addendum) is the mechanism by which local educational agencies will address local planning requirements of Every Student Succeeds Act programs within the LCAP development process. The addendum is intended to supplement the LCAP, just as ESSA funds are intended to supplement state funds. It addresses the local planning requirements for the following ESSA programs: Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students Title IV, Part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants
performance year after year and in light of the significant progress that some student groups need to make to meet the long-term goal and narrow performance gaps. For mathematics, only 15.5 percent of schools would currently meet or exceed this goal, making the goal ambitious. The SBE has established a seven-year timeline for schools and student groups to reach the goal. The SBE expects to revise the performance levels for state indicators every seven years based on new distributions and has established an annual review process to assess progress on all indicators statewide. The CDE has produced a report that indicates where schools and student groups are on the five-by-five colored grid, allowing schools to determine how much improvement is needed to reach the goal. These reports are available on the CDE California Model Five-by-Five Placement Reports & Data Web page at . Table 2. ELA – Academic Indicator (Grades 3-8) Levels Change: Declined Significantly 673 Schools by more than 15 points Change: Declined 2,449 Schools by 3 to 15 points Change: Maintained 1,697 Schools Declined by less than 3 point or Improved by less than 3 points Change: Increased 1,950 Schools by 3 to less than 15 points Change: Increased Significantly 469 Schools by 15 points or more Status: Very High 833 Schools 45 or more points above 35 (0.5%) Green 278 (3.8%) Green 232 (3.2%) Blue 256 (3.5%) Blue 32 (0.4%) Blue Status: High 1,284 Schools 10 to 44.9 points 79 (1.1%) Green 410 (5.7%) Green 333 (4.6%) Green 376 (5.2%) Green 86 (1.2%) Blue Status: Medium 720 Schools -5 points to +9.9 points 45 (0.6%) Yellow 234 (3.2%) Yellow 161 (2.2%) Yellow 218 (3.0%) Green 62 (0.9%) Green Status: Low 3,783 Schools 372 (5.2%) Orange 1,281 (17.7%) Orange 860 (11.9%) Orange 999 (13.8%) Yellow 271 (3.7%) Yellow
-5.1 to -70 points Status: Very Low 618 Schools -70.1 points or lower 142 (2.0%) Red 246 (3.4%) Red 111 (1.5%) Red 101 (1.4%) Orange 18 (0.3%) Orange # of schools Red Orange Yellow Green Blue 7,238 499 (6.9%) 2,632 (36.4%) 1,710 (23.6%) 1,791 (24.7%) 606 (8.4%) For all percentages calculated above, the total number of schools (7,238) was used for the denominator. Table 3. Math – Academic Indicator (Grades 3-8) Levels Change: Declined Significantly 492 Schools by more than 15 points Change: Declined 2,056 Schools By 3 to 15 points Change: Maintained 1,707 Schools Declined by less than 3 points or Increased by less than 3 points Change: Increased 2,330 Schools by 3 to less than 15 points Change: Increased Significantly 652 Schools By 15 points or more Status: Very High 741 Schools 35 points or higher 10 (0.1%) Green 159 (2.2%) Green 211 (2.9%) Blue 304 (4.2%) Blue 57 (0.8%) Blue Status: High 1,076 Schools zero to 34.9 points 19 (0.3%) Green 265 (3.7%) Green 266 (3.7%) Green 413 (5.7%) Green 113 (1.6%) Blue Status: Medium 40 (0.5%) 289 (4.0%) 282 (3.9%) 427 (5.9%) 143 (2.0%)
560 Schools 10 points above to less than 45 points above Green Green Green Green Blue Status: Medium 215 Schools 5 points below to less than 10 points above 57 (3.4%) Yellow 55 (3.3%) Yellow 31 (1.9%) Yellow 31 (1.9%) Green 41 (2.5%) Status: Low 321 Schools More than 5 points below to 70 points below 114 (6.8%) Orange 73 (4.4%) Orange 44 (2.6%) Orange 45 (2.7%) Yellow 45 (2.7%) Yellow Status: Very Low 31 Schools More than 70 points below (0.7%) Red 6 (0.4%) Red 4 (0.2%) Red 6 (0.4%) Orange 3 (0.2%) Orange # of schools Red Orange Yellow Green Blue 1,672 22 (1.3%) 231 (13.8%) 233 (13.9%) 636 (38.0%) 541 (32.4%) Number of Schools without a color: 380 Number of Schools with a color 1,672 Table 5. Math – Academic Indicator (Grade 11) Levels Change: Declined Significantly 407 Schools By more than 15 points Change: Declined 464 Schools By 3 to 15 points Change: Maintained 225 Schools Declined by less than 3 points or Increased by less than 3 points Change: Increased 341 Schools By 3 to less than 15 points Change: Increased Significantly 229 Schools By 15 points or more Status: Very High 122 Schools 17 (1.0%) Green 22 (1.3%) Green 16 (1.0%) Blue 34 (2.0) Blue 23 (1.4%) Blue
Table 16. High School Graduation Rate Indicator Levels Change: Declined Significantly 73 Schools Declined by greater than 5% Change: Declined 190 Schools Declined by 1% to 5% Change: Maintained 333 Schools Declined or increased by less than 1% Change: Increased 493 Schools Increased by 1% to 5% Change: Increased Significantly 275 Schools Increased by 5% or greater Status: Very High 520 Schools 95% or more N/A 39 (2.9%) Blue 203 (14.9%) Blue 224 (16.4%) Blue 54 (4.0%) Blue Status: High 354 Schools 90% to less than 95% 5 (0.4%) Orange 65 (4.8%) Yellow 71 (5.2%) Green 142 (10.4%) Green 71 (5.2%) Blue Status: Medium 164 Schools 85% to less than 90% 6 (0.4%) Orange 29 (2.1%) Orange 28 (2.1%) Yellow 55 (4.0%) Green 46 (3.4%) Green Status: Low 204 Schools 67% to less than 85% 28 (2.1%) Red 33 (2.4%) Orange 21 (1.5%) Orange 52 (3.8%) Yellow 70 (5.1%) Yellow Status: Very Low 122 Schools Less than 67% 34 (2.5%) Red 24 (1.8%) Red 10 (0.7%) Red 20 (1.5%) Red 34 (2.5%) Red # of schools N/A Red Orange Yellow Green Blue 1,364 N/A 150 (11.0%) 94 (6.9%) 215 (15.8%) 314 (23.0%) 591 (43.3%) For all percentages calculated above, the total number of schools (1,364) was used for the denominator. The statewide baseline data, which uses the 2014–15 cohort rate, for all students and each student group are provided below. The table shows the approximate average annual improvement necessary over the seven-year period for each student group to meet the long-term goal. The table displays the performance gaps at the state level among student groups who attend
non-alternative schools, and shows that some student groups will need to make significantly more progress than higher performing student groups to reach the statewide goal within seven years. <begin add> Table 17: State Level Graduation Rate by Student Group Student Group Grade Rate (Status) Change Color Average Annual Improvement to Meet Goal Status After Year 3 All Students 88.4 1.7 Green 0.2% 89.0 American Indian 82.9 0.6 Orange 1.0% 85.9 Asian 94.1 0.6 Green Increased from Baseline 94.2 Black or African American 81.5 3.1 Yellow 1.2% 85.1 Filipino 94.7 1.2 Green Increased from Baseline 94.8 Hispanic or Latino 86.3 2.6 Green 0.5% 87.8 Pacific Islander 88.8 2.9 Green 0.2% 89.4 Two or More Races 90.6 0.6 Green Increased from Baseline 90.7 White 92.0 0.5 Green Increased from Baseline 92.1 English Learner 77.7 5.5 Yellow 1.8% 83.1 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 85.3 2.5 Green 0.7% 87.4 Students with Disabilities 69.0 2.3 Yellow 3.0% 78.0 <end add> <begin delete> Table 17: State Level Graduation Rate by Student Group Student Group 3-Yr Avg. Grad Rate Grade Rate (Status) Change Color Average Annual Improvement to Meet Goal All Students 86.7 88.4 1.7 Green 0.2% American Indian 82.3 82.9 0.6 Orange 1.0% Asian 93.5 94.1 0.6 Green Increased from Baseline Black or African American 78.4 81.5 3.1 Yellow 1.2% Filipino 93.5 94.7 1.2 Green Increased from Baseline Hispanic or Latino 83.7 86.3 2.6 Green 0.5% Pacific Islander 85.9 88.8 2.9 Green 0.2% Two or More Races 90.0 90.6 0.6 Green Increased from Baseline
Table 21. School English Learner Progress Indicator Levels Change: Declined Significantly 928 Schools by greater than 10% Change: Declined 2,030 Schools by 1.5% to 10% Change: Maintained 834 Schools Declined or Increased by less than 1.5% Change: Increased 1,769 Schools by 1.5% to less than 10% Change: Increased Significantly 876 Schools by 10% or greater Status: Very High 266 Schools 85% or more 0 (0.0%) Yellow 49 (0.8%) Green 40 (0.6%) Blue 104 (1.6%) Blue 73 (1.1%) Blue Status: High 870 Schools 75% to less than 85% 24 (0.4%) Orange 184 (2.9%) Yellow 121 (1.9%) Green 288 (4.5%) Green 253 (3.9%) Blue Status: Medium 1,467 Schools 67% to less than 75% 85 (1.3%) Orange 369 (5.7%) Orange 209 (3.2%) Yellow 524 (8.1%) Green 280 (4.3%) Green Status: Low 1,772 Schools 60% to less than 67% 169 (2.6%) Red 634 (9.8%) Orange 244* (3.8%) Orange 532 (8.3%) Yellow 193 (3.0%) Yellow Status: Very Low 2,062 Schools Less than 60% 650 (10.1%) Red 794 (12.3%) Red 220 (3.4%) Red 321 (5.0%) Orange 77 (1.2%) Yellow
Level Change: Increased Significantly by greater than 4.0% Change: Increased by 0.3% to 4.0% Change: Maintained Declined or increased by less than 0.3% Change: Declined by 0.3% to less than 3.0% Change: Declined Significantly by 3.0% or greater Status: Very Low 0.5% or less N/A Green Blue Blue Blue Status: Low Greater than 0.5% to 2.0% N/A Yellow Green Green Blue Status: Medium Greater than 2.0% to 8.0% Orange Orange Yellow Green Green Status: High Greater than 8.0% to 12.0% Red Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Status: Very High Greater than 12.0% Red Red Red Orange Yellow Table 25. Suspension Indicator (High School) Level Change: Increased Significantly by greater than 3.0% Change: Increased by 0.3% to 3.0% Change: Maintained Declined or increased by less than 0.3% Change: Declined by 0.3% to less than 2.0% Change: Declined Significantly by 2.0% or greater Status: Very Low 0.5% or less N/A Green Blue Blue Blue Status Low Greater than 0.5% to 1.5% N/A Yellow Green Green Blue Status: Medium Greater than 1.5% to 6.0% Orange Orange Yellow Green Green
LCFF and broader school improvement strategies for schools identified for comprehensive and targeted supports. A description of the three key areas of technical assistance and support is provided below. Needs Assessment and Root Cause Analysis A well-designed and executed needs assessment lays the foundation for a strong improvement plan with interventions that are not only evidence-based but have been proven effective. California will provide resources and tools to support LEAs as they design and complete needs assessments for various school improvement efforts. Information will include a process for engaging stakeholders and examining student, school, and educator needs, as well as potential root causes of gaps between current practice and desired outcomes for student performance and progress. Technical assistance will focus on helping school districts understand the relationship between school-level needs assessments and root cause analysis and the connection to broader system-wide improvement. This understanding will strengthen improvement planning, implementation, and performance and progress monitoring. Improvement Planning and Evidence-based Decision-making California will provide resources to support LEAs in developing improvement strategies based on evidence-based interventions and determining whether specific evidence-based strategies meet the specific needs and context of the school. This will include providing access to planning tools and guidance documents, and highlighting promising or proven planning strategies and interventions being implemented by LEAs. In addition, California will direct LEAs to databases, clearinghouses, and guidance documents that outline processes for reviewing and selecting interventions on the basis of their evidence and relevance to local context and needs. Performance and Progress Monitoring California will provide school districts with opportunities to participate in meetings and trainings focused on monitoring and evaluating the impact of evidence-based interventions. To support this work, California will make available resources to support ongoing evaluation and program review that LEAs can use to conduct interim progress checks. Additional Optional Action. If applicable, describe the action the State will take to initiate additional improvement in any LEA with a significant number or percentage of schools that are consistently identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement and are not meeting exit criteria established by the State or in any LEA with a significant number or percentage of schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans.
Rank for Title I of Total Student Minority Student Percent of Minority Student Total Number of Teachers Percent of Teachers 1 1,616 777,822 400,462 51.5% 40,914 4,874 11.9% 2 1,611 849,284 83.5% 48,509 5,978 12.3% 3 1,614 95.1% 49,811 5,916 11.9% 4 1,613 98.9% 48,882 6,236 12.8% Title I Total 6,454 84.3% 23,004 12.2% Total 75.5% 35,525 11.8% Table 32. 2014–15 Out of Field Teachers for Title I Schools by Minority Student Enrollment Quartile Rank for Title I Schools of Total Student Minority Student Percent of Minority Student Total Number of Out of Field Percent of Out of Field Quartile 1 1,616 777,822 400,462 51.5% 40,914 226 0.6% Quartile 2 1,611 1,017,172 849,284 83.5% 48,509 327 0.7% Quartile 3 1,614 1,052,844 1,000,984 95.1% 49,811 327 0.7%
School Type of Total Student Student Enrollment Percent of Student Enrollment Total Number of Percent of Teachers Title I 6,454 2,946,492 76.0% 2,940 1.6% I 3,574 814,077 34.7% 1,555 1.4% Total 3,760,569 60.4% 4,495 1.5% Table 36. 2014–15 Out of Field Teachers by Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Student Enrollment School Type of Total Student Student Enrollment Percent of Student Enrollment Total Number of Out of Field Percent of Out of Field Title I 6,454 2,946,492 76.0% 1,234 0.7% I 3,574 814,077 34.7% 719 0.6% Total 10,028 3,760,569 60.4% 1,953 0.6% School Conditions (ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(C)): Describe how the SEA agency will support LEAs receiving assistance under Title I, Part A to improve school conditions for student learning, including through reducing: (i) incidences of bullying and harassment; (ii) the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom; and (iii) the use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety. California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)-based system sets eight priorities for school districts and charter schools (ten for county offices of education) and places significant emphasis on the improvement of school conditions for student learning. State Priority 6 specifically focuses on School Climate and requires local educational agencies school 7
to allow for data-based problem solving in instruction and decision making. MTSS aids systematic change through intentional design and redesign of services and supports that quickly identify and match the needs of all students in general education contexts. California has awarded a grant to two collaborating county offices of education with the intent of developing and scaling up a MTSS framework statewide. This framework will continue the state’s work to support implementation of MTSS as critical strategy to improve school conditions for student learning and will provide resources for Title I LEAs. California has established several work groups focused on developing policy recommendations and tools to support implementation of programs and evaluating the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce incidences of bullying and harassment, the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom, and the use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety. The CDE formed the School Conditions and Climate Working Group (CCWG) to explore options for the further advancement of school conditions and climate measures and support tools. The CDE has joined a group of eight states that share information, best practices, and promising tools and ideas in the interest of building strong Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) in schools across their states. The CDE has developed and promotes a Family Engagement Framework and convened an Ad Hoc Family Engagement Work Group to foster regular, meaningful two-way communication between the CDE and family engagement stakeholders to inform statewide family engagement initiatives and improve technical assistance to LEAs. Strategies to Reduce Incidences of Bullying and Harassment The CDE has produced and promotes a variety of tools and resources for parents, administrators, and students about bullying and harassment. Resources include examples of bullying, a description of the key elements of a bullying prevention program, frequently asked questions and answers, sample policies and implementation plans to address bullying, publications, and links to national resources. More information is available on the CDE Bullying and Hate-Motivated Behavior Prevention Web page at . Strategies to Reduce the Overuse of Discipline Practices that Remove Students from the Classroom The CDE promotes specific strategies to reduce the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom, including information regarding keeping high-risk students in school, improving student engagement, and the importance to replacing punitive discipline practices with positive interventions. More information is available on the CDE Behavioral Intervention Strategies and Supports Web page at . Strategies to Reduce the Use of Aversive Behavioral Interventions that Compromise Student Health and Safety The CDE maintains and promotes a Web page that provides extensive information regarding Positive Behavioral Supports and Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Levels Declined Significantly by more than 15 points Declined by 3 to 15 points Maintained Declined by less than 3 point or Improved by less than 3 points Increased by 3 to less than 15 points Increased Significantly by 15 points or more Very High 45 or more points above Green Green Blue Blue Blue High 10 to 44.9 points Green Green Green Green Blue Medium -5 points to +9.9 points Yellow Yellow Yellow Green Green Low -5.1 to -70 points Orange Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Very Low -70.1 points or lower Red Red Red Orange Orange Table 41. Math – Academic Indicator Change Levels Declined Significantly by more than 15 points Declined By 3 to 15 points Maintained Declined by less than 3 points or Increased by less than 3 points Increased by 3 to less than 15 points Increased Significantly By 15 points or more Very High 35 points or higher Green Green Blue Blue Blue