Page 1

2011 UPDATE PART I: THE CONTENT PART II: ATTACHMENTS Maryland’s Reform Plan Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Race to the Top Submitted By: Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Superintendent of Schools


BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY Verjeana M. Jacobs, Esq., Chair Donna Hathaway Beck, Vice-Chair Henry P. Armwood, Jr. Carolyn M. Boston Edward Burroughs, III Patricia Eubanks Peggy Higgins Rosalind A. Johnson Amber Waller Faith Jackson, Student Member William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools and Secretary/Treasurer


Table of Contents List of Tables, Charts, Figures, Forms, and Attachments, Part I Introduction: Integration of Race to the Top with Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Part I Submission Cover Sheet List of Local Planning Team Members Section A Executive Summary Introduction Finance Data Race to the Top Scope of Work Update

Page iv ix xi xii 2 3 24 74 111

Section B

Standards and Assessments Race to the Top Scope of Work Update Core Content Areas o Reading o Mathematics o Science o Social Studies o High School Assessments English High School Assessment Mathematics Biology o Graduation Requirements Cross-Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence o Educational Technology o Education that is Multicultural o English Language Learners o Career and Technology Education o Early Learning o Gifted and Talented Education o Special Education

114 115 119 120 128 134 139 142 142 151 158 164 168 168 182 197 206 218 229 242

Section C

Data Systems to Support Instruction Race to the Top Scope of Work Update

246 247

Section D

Great Teachers and Leaders Race to the Top Scope of Work Update Highly Qualified/Highly Effective Staff Professional Development Family Engagement Schools that are Safe, Drug-Free, and Conducive to Learning o Persistently Dangerous Schools

254 255 261 269 289 293 294

ii


Table of Contents Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation Suspensions Coordination with Community Mental Health Providers Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports Habitual Truancy Attendance Graduation and Dropout

Page 294 298 302 303 304 306 311

Section E

Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools Race to the Top Scope of Work Update Adequate Yearly Progress o School System Improvement o School Improvement o Persistently Low-Performing Tier I and Tier II Schools

318 319 323 323 327 337

Section F

General ƒ Race to the Top Scope of Work Update

339 340

Section G

Clarifying Questions

343

Part II

Attachment 7 ƒ C125 ƒ Assurances ƒ Appendices

367 391 398 402

Attachment 8 ƒ C125 ƒ Assurances

481 500 501

Attachment 10 ƒ C125 ƒ Assurances

502 519 520

Attachment 13 ƒ C125 ƒ Assurances Other Federal Required Reporting

531 542 543 544

o o o o o o o

iii


Table #

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Part I TABLES Title

Table A

SY2010-11 PGCPS Technology Goals by Area of Focus

Table B

Elementary, Middle, and High School MSA Reading Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11

Table C

Elementary, Middle, and High School MSA Mathematics Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11

Table 1.1A

Current Year Variance Table

Table 1.1B

Prior Year Variance Table

Table 1.1C

Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report

Table 2.1A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary

Table 2.1B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary

Table 2.1C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary

Table 2.2A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle

Table 2.2B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle

Table 2.2C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle

Table D

PGCPS Elementary MSA Mathematics Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011

Table 2.4A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - Elementary

Table 2.4B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – Elementary

Table 2.4C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - Elementary

Table E

PGCPS Middle School MSA Mathematics Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011

Table 2.5A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – Middle

Table 2.5B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – Middle

Table 2.5C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - Middle

Table F

SY2011-12 Elementary Mathematics Professional Development Schedule

Table G

SY2011-12 Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Schedule

Table 2.7A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Elementary (Grade 5)

Table 2.7B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Elementary (Grade 5)

Table 2.7C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Elementary (Grade 5)

Table H

Fifth and Eighth Grade MSA Science Performance for PGCPS and Statewide, SY2008-09 through SY2010-11

Table 2.8A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Middle (Grade 8)

Table 2.8B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Middle (Grade 8)

Table 2.8C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Middle (Grade 8)

Table I

PGCPS English HSA Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011

Table 2.3A

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – High (English II)

Table 2.3B

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – High (English II)

Table 2.3C

Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – High (English II)

Table J

PGCPS Algebra/Data Analysis HSA Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011

Table 2.6A

Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis)

Table 2.6B

Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis)

iv

Page 14 18 20 26 29 31 120 120 121 122 122 123 128 128 129 129 129 130 130 130 132 133 134 135 136 136 137 137 137 142 142 143 143 151 151 152


LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Table 2.6C

Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis) HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All

10 th

Grade Students

HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All

10th

Grade Students

Table 3.3C

HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All

10th

Grade Students

Table 3.4A

HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Table 3.4B

HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Table 3.4C

HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Table K

SY2011-12 Algebra Professional Development Schedule

Table 3.5A

HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

Table 3.5B

HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

Table 3.5C

HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

Table 3.6A

HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Table 3.6B

HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Table 3.6C

HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Table 3.9

Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HAS) Graduation Requirement by Option

Table 3.10

Bridge Projects Passed

Table 3.11

Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement

Table L

Technology Standards Addressed in the Netbook Project

Table M

Details on Initial iPad Pilot Schools

Table N

Apps in Support of Student Learning

Table O

Grade Configuration of STEP Participating Schools: SY2010-11

Table P

Participants Receiving Google Training

Table Q

Trainings Conducted 2010-2011

Table R

Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) Available Course Statistics

Table S

ERO Registrants Completing Courses

Table 4.1

System AMAO I, 2009-2010

Table 4.2

System AMAO II, 2009-2010

Table T Table 4.3

Percent of LEP Students, Meeting AMAOs 1 and 2 on the LAS Links English Proficiency Assessment by Grade Level, SY2010-11 System AMAO III, 2010-2011

Table U

Percent of ESOL Students Scoring at Levels 4 and 5 on LAS Links by School Year

Table V

Number and Percent of ESOL Students Making a 15-Scale Score Point Gain by Domain

Table W

Percent of ESOL Students Scoring at Levels 4 or 5 by School Level

Table X

State Assessment PGCPS LEP Data SY2011

Table Y

CTE Enrollment by Cluster Category, Prince George’s County, SY2008-09 and SY2009-10

Table Z

2009-10 CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS

TableZ-1

Three-Year CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS

Table AA

PGCPS Technical Academy Enrollment by Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10

Table AB

Enrollment in Work-Based Learning Activities, 2007 through 2009-10

Table AC

Workplace Readiness Preparedness, 2007-08 through 2009-10

Table 3.3A Table 3.3B

v

152 153 154 154 155 155 155 157 158 159 159 160 160 160 164 165 166 169 171 171 173 173 174 174 175 197 197 198 199 199 199 200 202 207 208 208 210 211 211


LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Table AD

Enrollment in BMF Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10

Table AE

BMF SY2009-10 Concentrators and Completers Results

Table AF

CTE Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Enrollment Data, 2007-08 to 2009-10

Table AG

CTE PQI Performance Results for Special Populations, SY2009-10

Table AH

Completers of CTE Programs of Study in FY2009-10

Table AI

PGCPS PQI Indicators That Did Not Meet 90 Percent Threshold, SY2009-10

Table 8.1

Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages

Table 8.2

Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience

Table AJ-1

Percent of Kindergarten Students Fully Ready by Race/Ethnic Sub-Group for SY2010-2011

Table AJ-2

Percent of Kindergarten Students Fully Ready by Selected Sub-Groups, SY2005-2006 to SY2010-2011

Table AK

Distribution of PGCPS Kindergarten Students among Prior Care Providers and Kindergarten Readiness, SY2010-11

Table 8.3

September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment

Table AL

PGCPS TAG Population Data Summary

Table AM

Summary of TAG Global Test Nominations

Table AN

Parent and Teacher Nomination Summary

Table AO

Number of Students Screened

Table AP

Number of New Students Identified

Table AQ

PGCPS and TAG Populations by Race/Ethnicity and Special Needs Status, SY2010-2011

Table AR-1

Distribution of TAG Students by Service Type and School Level, SY2010-2011

Table AR-2

Percentage Distribution of TAG Students by Service Type and School Level, SY2010-2011

Table AS

Distribution of Student Participation by Program Type and School Level, SY2010-11

Table AT

TAG Professional Development Highlights, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11

Table AU

TAG Center MSA and FAST Data Comparison, SY2010-2011

Table AV

Student Participation in Science Enrichment Program

Table AW

Gifted Students with Special Learning Needs Participation

Table AX

Budget Allocation SY2010-2011

Table AY

PGCPS Proposed Allocations, SY2011-12

Table 6.1

Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

Table AZ

HQT Status of CAS Classes by School Level, SY2010-11

Table BA

Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by Class Type

Table 6.2

Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools

Table 6.3A

Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

Table 6.3B

Percent of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

Table 6.4

Table 6.6A

Core Academic Subject classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools by Level Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools by Level and Experience Teacher Attrition by Subcategory

Table 6.6B

Percent Attrition by Subcategory

Table 6.7

Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

Table 6.5

vi

212 212 212 214 215 216 218 219 219 220 224 225 230 230 230 231 231 232 233 233 234 234 236 237 237 239 240 261 261 262 262 262 263 263 264 265 265 268


LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Table BB

Timeline for the eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute Review Process

275

Table BC

276

Table 7.1

Area and High School Consortium Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), 2010-2011 Meeting Dates Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools

Table 7.2

Probationary Status Schools

Table 7.3

Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time

Table 7.4

Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits

Table 7.5

Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS

Table 7.6

Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation

Table 7.7

Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying

Table 7.8

Number of Students Suspended – In School – by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count)

Table 7.9

Number of Students Suspended – Out of School – by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count)

Table BD

Proportionality of Student Suspensions, PGCPS, SY2010-11

Table 7.10

In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category)

Table 5.5

Attendance Rates

Table 5.6

Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

Table 5.7

Annual Dropout Rate Across Grades 9 –12

Table 5.1

Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

Table 5.2

Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

Table 5.3

Number of All Schools in Improvement

Table 5.4

Number of Title I Schools in Improvement

293 293 293 293 293 294 297 298 299 299 300 306 311 311 327 328 333 334

CHARTS Chart A

PGCPS Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12

Chart B

Data-Based Challenges and Proposed Interventions, Elementary and Middle School Science, SY2010-11

Chart C

Social Studies Professional Development

Chart D

English/Language Arts Professional Development Plan

Chart E

Biology Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12

Chart F

Accessibility Compliance Chart

Chart G

Examples of Multiculturalism in Reading/English Language Arts Grade Levels K-5

Chart H

English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan 2011-2013

Chart I

Interventions to Ensure Progress of Students who Begin Kindergarten either Not Ready or Approaching Readiness

Chart J

Plans to Work with Early Childhood Partners/Programs

Chart K

Professional Development Opportunities Using the Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework

Chart L

New Teacher Mentor Support by Type of Mentor

Chart M

Performance Measures for Mentoring and Coaching, 2010-2011

Chart N

New Teacher Induction and Support: School Year 2011-2012

Chart O

Highlighted Mentor Training and Preparation, 2011-2012

126 139 141 145 161 179 194 202 221 224 271 278 279 280 282

FIGURES Figure 1

Five-Year MSA Reading Performance by Grade Level, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11

Figure 2

Five-Year Elementary Level MSA Reading Performance by Subgroup, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11

vii

11 11


LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Figure 3

Five-Year MSA Mathematics Performance by Grade Level, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11

Figure 4

Five-Year Elementary MSA Mathematics Performance by Subgroup, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11

Figure 5

AMAO 1 Status by School, SY2010-11

Figure 6

AMAO 2 Status by School, SY2010-11

Figure 7

Enrollment by Career Cluster – Prince George’s County, SY2009-10

Figure 8

Technical Skill Attainment Rate by CTE Program, Prince George’s County. SY2010

Figure 9

Program Completion Rate by CTE Clusters, Prince George’s County, SY2010

Figure 10

Teacher Separation by Years of Service

Figure 11

Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation Incidents Reported to MSDE from PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11

Figure 12

Findings from Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Training Evaluation, PGCPS, SY2010-11

Figure 13

Campaign to Take a Stand Against Bullying in PGCPS

12 12 198 198 207 209 210 265 294 295 296

FORMS Form

Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form

180

ATTACHMENTS Attachment A

Professional Development Calendar Submission Form

Attachment B

Professional Development Calendar Guidelines ((RP, RI, and Title I Schools Only)

Attachment C

Section XI: Professional Development Calendar (RP, RI, and Title I Schools Only)

Attachment 4A/B

School Level Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2011

Attachment 5-A

Transferability of ESEA Funds [Section 6123(b)]

Attachment 5-B

Consolidation of ESEA Funds for Local Administration [Section 9203]

Attachment 7

Title I, Part A – Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies

Attachments 4A–6A

Tables and Worksheets

Attachment 7

Appendices

Attachment 8

Title II, Part A, Preparing, Training and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers and Principals

Attachment 10

Title III, Part A, English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement, SY2011-12

Attachment 13

Fine Arts Additional Federal and State Reporting Requirements SY2011-2012

viii

283 287 288


Integration of Race to the Top with Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Authorization Section 5-401, Comprehensive Master Plans, Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland Public Law 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Introduction Beginning in 2011 and continuing for the remainder of the Race to the Top (RTTT) grant period, Maryland will integrate the RTTT Local Scopes of Work with the existing Bridge to Excellence Master Plan (BTE) and will review and approve the Scopes of Work within the Master Plan review infrastructure in accordance with RTTT and BTE guidelines. The purpose of this integration is to allow Maryland’s Local Education Agencies to streamline their efforts under these programs to increase student achievement and eliminate achievement gaps by implementing ambitious plans in the four RTTT reform areas. This integration also enables the Maryland State Department of Education to leverage personnel resources to ensure that all Scopes of Work receive comprehensive programmatic and fiscal reviews. Background In 2002, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act. This legislation provides a powerful framework for all 24 school systems to increase student achievement for all students and to close the achievement gap. The Bridge to Excellence legislation significantly increased State Aid to public education and required each LEA to develop a comprehensive Master Plan, to be updated annually, which links school finance directly and centrally to decisions about improving student learning. By design, the legislation requires school systems to integrate State, federal, and local funding and initiatives into the Master Plan. Under Bridge to Excellence, academic programming and fiscal alignment are carefully monitored by the Master Plan review process. In August 2010, Maryland was awarded one of the Race to the Top education grants. The grant is worth $250 million over four years and will be used to implement Maryland’s Third Wave of Reform, moving the State from national leader to World Class. Local RTTT Scopes of Work have been developed by Maryland school systems and are closely aligned with the overall State plan to guide the implementation of educational reforms. In 2011, local Scopes of Work will be integrated and reviewed as part of the BTE Master Plan. New Master Plan Structure and Review To facilitate the integration of the BTE Master Plan and LEA Scopes of Work, the Master Plan Guidance, which is currently based on the five No Child Left Behind goals, has been reorganized to reflect the four RTTT reform areas. The No Child Left Behind goals – still integral to the Master Plan – are subsumed under the RTTT reform areas. Under the new Master Plan structure, local school systems will begin with an Executive Summary, which sets the stage by providing analysis of local data, highlighting academic and fiscal priorities, and summarizing local Scopes of Work under the four reform areas. The Executive Summary will be followed by sections for each reform area, each beginning with the Scope of Work narrative and detailed action plan accompanied by a detailed budget for the current implementation year. Included in each reform area section will be the local report on progress to the respective NCLB goal area. A comprehensive review of all 24 systems’ Master Plans occurs annually. The review process involves panelists from all 24 LEAs and from the Maryland State Department of Education. It requires all 24 systems to update the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Schools on the effectiveness of federal grant programs, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, and State Fiscal Stabilization Funds. In addition to the review of progress toward the NCLB goals, ix


each system receives a separate financial technical review by the Maryland State Department Office of Finance to ensure fiduciary responsibility. Beginning in 2011, as part of the Master Plan review process, local Scopes of Work narratives, action plans, and respective budgets will receive the same level of intense review to ensure that the goals of BTE and RTTT are being met, the components of the these programs are fully integrated, and to ensure fiscal accountability and responsibility. Ultimately, each local Master Plan must be reviewed by the State Board of Education and approved by the State Superintendent of Schools. For 2011, the review of the local Scope of Work, which must align with Maryland’s RTTT application, will focus on the approval of the narrative, action plan and budget for Year 2. Each local Master Plan and integrated Scope of Work will be unique based on the needs of the local school system.

x


2011 MASTER PLAN ANNUAL UPDATE (Include this page as a cover to the submission indicated below.)

Master Plan Annual Update Part I Due: October 14, 2011 Local School System Submitting this Report: PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Address: 14201 School Lane, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 Local Point of Contact: Mr. Frederick Hutchinson, Acting Director, Department Of Strategic Planning & Grants Development Telephone: 301-952-6361 E-mail: fhutch@pgcps.org WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, to the best of our knowledge, the information provided in the 2011 Annual Update to our Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is correct and complete and adheres to the requirements of the Bridge to Excellence and Race to the Top programs. We further certify that this Annual Update has been developed in consultation with members of the local school system’s current Master Plan Planning Team and that each member has reviewed and approved the accuracy of the information provided in the Annual Update. *Only participating LEAs need to complete the Race to the Top Scopes of Work documents that will now be a part of the Master Plan.

William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D.

October 14, 2011

Signature of Local Superintendent of Schools or Chief Executive Officer

Date

Mr. Frederick Hutchinson

October 14, 2011

Signature of Local Point of Contact

Date

xi


LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS

Use this page to identify the members of the school system’s Bridge to Excellence/Race to the Top planning team. Please include affiliation or title where applicable. Name

Affiliation/Title

Dr. William Hite

Superintendent

Dr. Bonita Coleman-Potter

Deputy Superintendent

Dr. Duane Arbogast

Chief Academic Officer

Mr. Briant Coleman

Communications Officer

Ms. Helen Coley

Assistant Superintendent Area 4

Mr. Keith Miles

Chief Operating Officer

Ms. Monica Goldson

Assistant Superintendent High School Consortium

Mr. Frederick Hutchinson

Acting Director, Strategic Planning & Grants Development

Ms. Karyn Lynch

Chief of Student Services

Ms. Lisa Price

Performance Officer

Ms. Synthia Shilling

Chief Human Resources Officer

Mr. Matt Stanski

Chief Financial Officer

Roger Thomas, Esq.

General Counsel

Mr. Wesley Watts

Chief Information Officer

Mr. Andrew Zuckerman

Assistant Superintendent Area 2

xii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section

Page

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

2 3 24 74

Introduction Finance Section Data Section Race To The Top Scope Of Work Update Section

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.

Introduction

For the Prince George’s County Public School System, what matters most is that all students graduate from high school ready to access and successfully matriculate through college, or to succeed in the world of work. The school system firmly believes that to succeed in college or in work, graduates must have 21st century skills, including: ; ; ; ;

Being successful communicators and collaborators; Being successful problem solvers; Being responsible people; and Being engaged global and domestic citizens.

Graduates are expected to master core academic content areas such as English, mathematics, science, social studies, fine arts, physical education, health, technology, and world languages. In short, graduates are expected to be competent and well-rounded human beings. The work of the school system is guided by the following five core beliefs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Children are our business, and they come first; Parents are our partners; Victory is in the classroom; Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership, and accountability is the key to our success; and Every member of the Prince George’s County community shares in the responsibility for successful schools.

From these core beliefs, the school system has developed a theory of action around teaching and learning which emphasizes the interaction between the teacher and the learner, improvement through reflection with colleagues and around practice, rigor and high expectations, and strong instructional leadership. To focus the work of the system, the Board of Education and the Superintendent have established five strategic goals, commonly referred to as Strive for Five. The five strategic goals of the system are as follows: 1. High Student Achievement (Ensure that all students graduate college and career ready); 2. Highly Effective Teaching (Develop and maintain a highly effective workforce); 3. Safe and Supportive Schools (Ensure a school environment that is conducive to teaching and learning); 4. Strong Community Partnerships (Strengthen the connections with constituents and stakeholders); and 5. Effective and Efficient Operations (Deliver high quality services to PGCPS customers). For each of the five goals, corresponding key performance indicators - and associated annual and strategic (SY2016-17) performance targets – are defined. Specific strategies and plans are in place to achieve the performance targets. A portfolio of key initiatives also supports the Strive for Five systemic goals. The table below illustrates the strategic initiatives established by PGCPS leadership and the initiatives’ alignment to the strategic goals.

1.

2.

PGCPS PORTFOLIO OF INITIATIVE – SY2011-12 Initiative Objective and Corresponding Systemic Goal Secondary School Reform To develop and implement strategies to increase student achievement and success in high school. To provide new opportunities, improve transition success for students, and empower school staff Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement Special Education Reform To improve the support provided to special education students from birth to post-graduate transition. Strategies will be developed and deployed to address state-identified issues, resolve disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates, and improve overall processes. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 2


3.

4.

5.

PGCPS PORTFOLIO OF INITIATIVE – SY2011-12 Initiative Objective and Corresponding Systemic Goal Implementation of Common Core To embrace the State of Maryland’s adoption of the national Common Core Standards and to develop and implement a multi-year plan to revise all Standards PGCPS curriculum documents to reflect those standards. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement Human Capital Reform To develop a strategic process for teacher recruitment, career development, and district-wide supports that create the conditions necessary to support effective human capital management, and sustained professional development and growth. Supports Goal 2 – Highly Effective Teaching Student-Based Budgeting To equitably allocate funds to students based on educational needs; to fairly and effectively allocate resources to support strategic priorities and reform efforts; to empower schools with increased flexibility in their budgetary and operational decisions. Supports Goal 5 – Effective and Efficient Operations

To ensure maximum transparency and accountability regarding the system’s progress toward meeting its strategic goals, PGCPS has embarked upon an ambitious performance management initiative – i.e. Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP). Under PMAPP, all schools and central office departments and divisions must develop annual improvement/performance plans to which they are held accountable. Accountability takes the form of quarterly reporting of progress being made toward meeting pre-approved performance targets before Associate Superintendents who have responsibility for oversight of schools. (Central Office staff and Associate Superintendents report semi-annually to an executive panel convened by the Superintendent. PMAPP is driving a culture shift within the school system as all schools, program offices, departments, and divisions have a heightened focus on data collection and analysis for use as tools to inform decision-making. The mission, core competencies, core beliefs, theory of action, strategic goals, strategic initiatives, key performance indicators, and accountability measures provide a comprehensive framework within which the Prince George’s County Public School System works diligently to provide each of its students with the highest quality education. The annual updates to the Bridge to Excellence (BTE) Master Plan provide a snapshot of the progress the school system is making toward reaching its goals and how that progress aligns with state- and federal-established student achievement goals. In addition to reporting on annual progress toward reaching the teaching and learning goals established by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, the State of Maryland is requiring local school systems to integrate reporting on progress made in SY2010-11 implementing the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant as well as activities planned for Year Two under the grant’s authority in the 2011-12 BTE Master Plan annual update. This new Master Plan reporting requirement serves three useful purposes: a) it assures the alignment of RTTT activity with the overall work of the school system; b) it eliminates a lot of duplication of effort at the local level – particularly regarding reporting requirements – while ensuring the state receives timely annual overviews of past and prospective RTTT activity; and c) it provides a high level of transparency for the public.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 3


II.

BUDGET NARRATIVE Alignment of Fiscal Resources

System Priorities Funding increases provided by the State through the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act, and resources provided by the Prince George’s County government in excess of amounts required to meet State Maintenance of Effort provisions, combined with responsible and accountable fiscal management, have enabled the system to invest funds in programs to improve student achievement in many areas during the 2010-2011 school year. The additional resources have been instrumental in developing a shared vision of how to improve student achievement and school effectiveness, with an emphasis on distributing resources equitably and eliminating the achievement gap; preserving fiscal stability; providing management and information systems that effectively and efficiently support instruction while maintaining operational and fiscal integrity; and working in partnership with the public school stakeholder community to ensure that all students graduate prepared for college or postsecondary/career options. PGCPS will ensure that its resources, programs, and services are strategically and operationally focused to support learning and improve performance in all areas, while addressing any challenges that arise. The FY 2012 Operating Budget continues effective programs and services, including maintaining optimal class sizes and fullday kindergarten programs, and maintains services in other areas to help improve teaching and learning, and to meet the goals of the Master Plan. The 2012 Operating budget includes very few new investments due to the reduction in revenue. Those improvements include support for the Middle College Program, Stipends, and Financial Incentives Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST)/Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). The economic outlook for subsequent years will require similar fiscal prudence with sound financial and instructional management to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to continue to improve the performance of our students. PGCPS has identified five strategic goals to guide its work over the next six years. These strategic goals include: 1) students achieving high academic standards in reading and mathematics and graduating; 2) improving the qualifications of all staff and helping teachers gain certification; 3) improving safety and security in our schools; 4) improving the system’s relationship with parents and community members; and 5) ensuring effective and efficient operations. The first two goals are system priorities, and decisions regarding the allocation and distribution of limited resources were driven by the budget and policy priorities. Thus, FY 2012 improvements are limited to the top two of the school system’s five strategic goals in the following manner: These FY 2012 improvements are limited to two of the school system’s five strategic goals in the following manner: GOAL 1:

GOAL 3:

High Student Achievement – Improvements in this goal of $1,506,018 supports $500,000 in stipends to support contractual obligations, $1,006,018 and 8.0 FTE for Middle College. Highly-Effective Teaching – Improvements in this goal of $ 4,000,000 supports Financial Incentives Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST)/Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). Safe and Supportive Schools

GOAL 4:

Strong Community Partnerships

GOAL 5:

Effective and Efficient Operations

GOAL 2:

These initiatives are critical to the system’s efforts to achieve Bridge to Excellence Master Plan goals and ensure that our students, teachers and support staff have the tools and resources necessary to help children learn and achieve. Climate Changes The FY 2012 Operating Budget totals $1,614,358,600. It is a decrease of ($19.2) million or (1.2%) less than the FY 2011 Approved Budget. Mandatory changes for expenditures that are required by law, support contract commitments, provide essential health/safety services, and support enrollment total $133.1 million. Resources redirected through reductions from amounts appropriated in FY 2011 for selected programs and services total ($95.3) million. These redirected resources increase funds available for mandatory changes and program improvements by a like amount. They also reflect reductions in programs and services due to decreases in revenue. These reductions are not linked to any specific mandatory change or

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 4


improvement, but instead are redirected to fund the total additional cost of mandatory changes and program improvements funded in the FY 2012 Operating Budget. Accordingly, additional resources budgeted for program and service improvements total $5.5 million, supporting the Master Plan goals to varying degrees based on need. Fiscal Outlook As we enter the 2012 fiscal year with limited resources, the system must continue to build on the important progress made in student achievement. This will have to be accomplished despite a rather bleak fiscal outlook. The decrease in funding for FY 2012 is primarily due to the slow economic growth in the County and the State, due in large measure to declining revenues from housing market dependent sources such as property, recordation, and transfer taxes. Other contributors to the stagnant fiscal climate are rising fuel costs and sharp increases in property foreclosures. These conditions are not unique to Prince George’s County or to the State of Maryland, but are manifested throughout every region and in most states in the United States. With limited financial resources forecasted for the foreseeable future, the school system will continue to be forced to strategically and efficiently appropriate funding into areas that will maintain the successes achieved in prior years. III.

GOAL PROGRESS

Race to the Top Scope of Work Race to the Top (RTTT) is the nation’s primary educational reform initiative. It is a $4 billion federal initiative over four years that was made available to states in a competition based on the quality of proposed educational reform plans ostensibly designed to achieve dramatic student achievement gains. Thirty-five (35) states participated in the competition, and Maryland was one of 10 winning states. Maryland was awarded a $250 million grant which will be divided among the state’s participating school districts. Twenty-two (22) of Maryland’s 24 school systems, including Prince George’s County, have chosen to participate in RTTT. Local school systems wishing to participate in RTTT must submit proposals to their respective state education agencies, which in turn, make awards to local systems based on need and the quality of their proposals. These proposals must be aligned with the state’s proposal, and, as such, must reflect the assurances made by the state to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) in its RTTT proposal. Even after receiving approval from the state education agency (MSDE), all proposed activities must be approved by USDE before the state can release funds to local school systems. RTTT proposals must address the following four reform areas: 1) standards and assessments; 2) data systems; 3) great teachers and leaders; and 4) turning around low-performing schools. RTTT scopes of work must incorporate assurances that are directly related to these reform areas. Alignment with State RTTT Plan The State of Maryland has established the following seven assurances for its Race to the Top Plan: ƒ Adopting an education reform agenda that establishes ambitious achievement goals as measured by student progress on a number of performance and participation measures, the closing and ultimate elimination of achievement gaps, and the preparation of all students to graduate college- and career-ready; ƒ Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in a global economy; ƒ Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; ƒ Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; ƒ Turning around the lowest-performing schools; ƒ Establishing conditions under which charter and other innovative schools can grow and operate, particularly as alternatives for low-performing schools; and ƒ Establishing a STEM focus throughout the state’s pre-K-12 curricula. The four main areas of Prince George’s County’s RTTT Plan are substantially aligned with the state’s plan. The state’s and the system’s area one reform plan focuses on preparing students for successful entry into and matriculation through college

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 5


upon high school graduation. PGCPS has embraced the State of Maryland’s adoption of the national Common Core Standards and is revising all curriculum documents to reflect such. In addition, the state has established ambitious academic achievement goals as measured through student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading and Mathematics assessments, state MSA Reading and Mathematics assessments, High School Assessments (HSAs), and graduation rate and college entry and matriculation targets. Prince George’s county ups the ante by establishing ambitious goals for high school student enrollment and success in Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses and exams. For the second area of reform, the state seeks to build a statewide technology infrastructure that links all data elements with analytic and instructional tools to monitor and promote student achievement. Similarly, PGCPS seeks to enhance and strengthen its current data systems by integrating them into a new data warehouse, substantially reducing the number of documented data errors, and substantially increasing the use of data at the school level to plan and improve instruction. For the third reform area, the state seeks to redesign models for the preparation, development, retention, and evaluation of teachers and principals. Most significantly, the state has assured USDE that its evaluation systems for teachers and principals will be revised to require student achievement growth to account for half of the evaluation outcome. This evaluation reform is scheduled to be in place for the 2012-13 school year. Prince George’s County is one of five school systems in the state that is piloting a new state-designed teacher evaluation model for the SY2011-12 school year. In the fourth reform area, the state proposes to fully implement the new, internally-developed, and innovative “Breakthrough Center” approach for transforming low-achieving schools and districts. The Breakthrough Center will coordinate, broker, and deliver support to school districts that are either in school improvement or on alert status. PGCPS proposes to contract with an education reform firm with an established and successful track record of turning around persistently low-performing schools in a culturally relevant manner to provide needed support to the system’s lowest performing schools. The system will also work with the Breakthrough Center, but this work will be funded by the system’s State Improvement Grant (SIG) and not RTTT. RTTT Reform Area 1: Standards and Assessments In the area of standards and assessments, PGCPS has embraced the state’s adoption of the Common Core Standards and has extended collaborations with partners such as the College Board, the Institute for Learning (IFL), and the Breakthrough Center in an effort to build a strong academic program with appropriate supports. The county’s RTTT focus is at the high school level through the Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate Ready (AP & IB Ready) Initiative and an enhanced emphasis on dual enrollment course participation1. The school system’s objective is to substantially increase the number of high school students – particularly students from historically underrepresented groups – who graduate prepared to gain admission and successfully matriculate through college by increasing the number of such students who enroll and meet with success in AP, IB, and dual enrollment courses while in high school. In SY2010-11, the percentage of county high school seniors who had AP or IB course history was 35%. By SY2016-17, the system seeks to increase that percentage to 75%. Successes ; A diagnostic analysis of the school system’s AP program was conducted and completed by the College Board, and recommendations were made for program improvement. ; PGCPS was honored by the College Board for being one of only 388 school systems nationwide that significantly expanded the pool of students taking AP courses, while at the same time, maintaining or improving the percentage of students earning a score of “3” or higher on AP exams. The percentage of seniors enrolled in AP courses increased from 27% in SY2009-10 to 35% in SY2010-11, and the percentage of exams passed with a score of “3” or higher increased from 24.6% to 26.3%. ; The school system developed its first College Board- and MSDE-approved in-house online AP courses. A cadre of teachers has been selected and trained to teach these courses beginning in SY2011-12.

1

Dual enrollment involves high school students enrolling in college level courses through a local college or university to receive college credit.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 6


Challenges ; Strategies need to be developed to continue to improve on the AP exam success rate, to identify additional teachers to prepare to teach AP courses online, and to increase the number of IB diplomas produced at the IB high school. ; The District AP diagnostic recommends training all elementary and middle school teachers on the level of expectation required (cultural shift) at their respective levels of work in order to prepare students to become career and/or college ready graduates. ; The need to improve student reading and writing skills as a prerequisite for raising AP exam scores. ; Finding the fiscal resources to train all AP teachers. ; The uneven access to technology which will have an adverse impact on student access to AP online courses and online SAT preparation. Year Two Plan of Action For year two (SY2011-12), PGCPS proposes the following activities: ƒ Develop college action plans for all middle and high school students as a part of each student’s Individualized Learning Plan (ILP); ƒ For all high schools with enrollments of at least 1,100 students, expand the standard number of AP course offerings at each high school from eight (8) to 16; ƒ Provide continued professional development for teachers, counselors, and administrators; ƒ Develop pre- and post-tests in AP Government as part of a multiple measure pilot; and ƒ Strengthen support for existing IB schools and expand one high school from a middle years program to a diploma granting program. RTTT Reform Area 2: Data Systems PGCPS recently implemented the first phase of a data warehouse in an effort to integrate student information from various information systems. Ultimately, the warehouse will integrate data from special instruction programs, special education programs, limited English proficiency (LEP) programs, early childhood programs, human resources, budget/finance, health, school boundaries, enrollment adjustments, and other relevant areas. The warehouse will be managed by a newly created Data Warehouse Office, the responsibility of which is to maintain system security while facilitating and ensuring access for instructional and administrative staff at the building level. In addition, the school system is taking aggressive steps to substantially upgrade the quality of data accessed and used by instructional and administrative stakeholders. To this end, the school system has provided the Data Quality Director with additional resources to employ systems that will identify data errors and provide corrective solutions. The full utilization of these resources will benefit not only internal stakeholders; but also external recipients of PGCPS data and reports (e.g., state and federal entities). Finally, the system piloted the Data Wise© 8-Step Cycle of collaborative planning to improve instruction. Data used in the planning process will be extracted from the Data Warehouse. Successes ; The first phase of the PGCPS Data Warehouse was launched during SY2010-11. Access to schools was provided as evidenced by their use of the warehouse to prepare required periodic performance reports. ; In June 2011, with the support of the system’s Data Quality Director, building principals began using Certify™, a software solution designed to identify and correct data errors. Within a three-day period, nearly 1,000 data entry errors had been resolved by schools and the data quality score for participating schools increased by 11 points. ; Ten schools in school improvement and alternative governance were selected to participate in the first year roll out of the Data Wise Implementation Process (DWIP). Challenges

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 7


; Developing the internal knowledge and technical skills required to efficiently manage the data warehouse and its feeder information systems. In addition, the data management personnel must learn to effectively communicate with prospective vendors about the system’s ongoing maintenance and “on-the-job training” requirements. ; Progress in expanding the use of Certify™ during the summer months was slow due to significant staff changes resulting from a substantial reduction in force. In all, 40 principalships transitioned between SY2010-11 and SY2011-12. ; The Harvard University Graduate School of Education’s Data Wise implementation staff was eliminated due to budget cuts. Year Two Plan of Action For year two (SY2011-12), PGCPS proposes the following activities: ƒ Enhance tools that use data to inform instruction and integration with the state’s longitudinal data system while ensuring fidelity of the school system’s performance management vision. ƒ Create a data set that is relevant to daily instructional planning and to long range school planning. ƒ Enhance instructional efficacy of superintendents, principals, and teachers through the identification of practices, programs, and policies that are linked to improved student academic performance. ƒ Provide students and parents access to key performance indicators so they can track the academic progress made by the school system in preparing all students for career and college readiness upon high school graduation. ƒ Continue to integrate internal and external systems such as SchoolMax™ ERP, the Statewide Longitudinal Data System as well as data from special instructional programs into the Data Warehouse. ƒ Implement at least 15 additional data rules per month to continue progress in enhancing data quality. A minimum of 100 new rules should be operational by December 2011. RTTT Reform Area 3: Great Teachers and Leaders PGCPS’ SY2010-11 Area 3 RTTT activities were concentrated in four sub-areas: a) teacher evaluation; b) the development of highly effective teachers; c) identifying and developing principal leadership; and d) the recruitment of highly effective teachers. With respect to teacher evaluation, PGCPS is one of seven (7) school districts in the state that is participating in the MSDE Pilot for Teacher Effectiveness for the purpose of determining which student achievement measures are correlated to teacher performance. This activity is aligned with the school system’s own work in piloting an alternative teacher evaluation model in its FIRST schools based on the Framework for Teaching (FFT). The school system has simultaneously launched three projects related to the development of highly effective teachers. The first project involves work geared toward shifting teacher compensation from the current credential and experience basis to one based on teacher effectiveness. The second project involves work around developing professional learning communities around problems of instructional practice, while the third project is focused on identifying and creating teacher leadership roles in schools. Complementing the development of highly effective teachers is the identification and development of principal leadership. Based on a body of research that correlates high student performance in high-poverty/high-minority schools with strong and effective instructional leadership, PGCPS is designing a leadership development program to produce principals and administrative support staff who are equipped to excel in chronically low-performing schools. This principal leadership program will draw on and expand existing partnerships with the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL), Leadership Education for Aspiring Principals Program (LEAPP), and New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS). The fourth sub-area involves the recruitment of highly effective teachers by continuing and enhancing current collaborations with local universities under Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Programs (MAAPPs), including the school system’s own Resident Teacher Program (PGCRT), the College of Notre Dame Dual Certification Program for special education teachers, and a new UMCP Maryland Science and Math Resident Teacher Program (MSMaRT) for middle school math and science teachers. Successes

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 8


; All principals and assistant principals have been trained in the use of the Framework for Teaching (FFT) teacher evaluation model; ; Plans to provide supplemental compensation for teachers who volunteer to work in low-performing schools and for teachers who teach critical shortage subjects such as STEM subjects (e.g. science, mathematics, and technology) and special education continue to progress; and ; PGCPS partnered with the School Leader Network (SLN) to assist with the development of professional learning communities, and partnered with Harvard University to provide coaching courses for teacher leaders. Challenges ; The need to develop an electronic platform for the FFT teacher evaluation tool; ; Finding the time required to effectively implement the newly developed FFT teacher evaluation model particularly in larger schools; ; Refining the teacher evaluation tool to enhance its multiple observer reliability; ; Reaching agreement with the teachers’ collective bargaining unit, the Prince George’s County Educators’ Association (PGCEA), on an acceptable supplemental compensation structure for teachers who teach in challenging environments in an austere budget climate; and ; Substantial budget reductions over the past several years have limited the extent to which the school system can invest its own-source revenues to supplement these activities. Year Two Plan of Action For year two (SY2011-12), PGCPS proposes the following activities: ; Contract with a consultant, ERS, to conduct research on the efficacy of various stipend and incentive options to attract teachers to low-performing schools; ; Establish a formalized framework to support teacher collaboration; ; Provide principals in low-performing schools with additional staff based on student academic performance and the number of new teachers; and ; Continue NISL and LEAPP training for existing principals (NISL) and aspiring principals (LEAPP); RTTT Reform Area 4: Low-Performing Schools The activities in RTTT Reform Area 4 are focused on the school system’s six (6) turnaround schools, i.e. the six county schools that are among the lowest performing five (5) percent of schools statewide. The system used its School Improvement Grant (SIG) to reorganize the central office – i.e. to establish a Turnaround Office – to provide more direct support for turnaround schools and to pursue partnerships with community organizations and social service agencies that provide a broad range of services to students. Successes ; Professional development for teachers provided on topics such as collaborative planning and instructional best practices; ; Professional development for principals provided on topics such as managing budgets, staffing, curriculum frameworks, and identifying resources from potential partners in support of students; and ; The school system has established a partnership with the Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection (HW-SC) in the Suitland community to provide a broad range of wraparound services (including before- and after-school services and weekend contact) to 32 selected students from Drew-Freeman Middle School, a turnaround school, and the adjacent Suitland High School. Challenges ; Resources, including time, necessary to conduct an appropriate needs assessment for each individual turnaround school; ; Constraints, such as budgetary and contractual, that prevent the school system from attracting and/or assigning appropriate staff for the reform effort;

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 9


; Relatively late start of HW-SC partnership activities during SY2010-11; and ; Finding community-based partnerships for the five other turnaround schools. Year Two Plan of Action ƒ Select an Educational Management Organization to help complete the needs assessment, develop metrics for success, identify the appropriate professional development necessary to change the culture of turnaround schools, and to manage two new turnaround schools; ƒ Provide training in pedagogical strategies and parent engagement; and ƒ Track and record the progress of students who transition out of middle school and into high school. CORE CONTENT AREAS The first goal of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is for all students to reach high standards, and at minimum, attain proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. As required by the law, the State of Maryland has established continuous and substantial growth targets, or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), such that by SY2013-14, all students (100%) across the state will reach proficiency or higher in reading/language arts and mathematics. States are required to test students annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8, and in science in grades 5 and 8. In addition, Maryland requires high school students to demonstrate proficiency in three academic content areas – i.e. High School Assessments (or HSAs) in Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology, and English – as a graduation pre-requisite. Prince George’s County students continue to improve their performance in MSA Reading and Mathematics testing each year across grade levels and accountability subgroups. This progress has been made despite substantial resource reductions over the past several years due to the state’s tenuous fiscal situation. Though steady and broad based, the pace of progress has not been sufficient to keep pace with the state’s ambitious annual growth schedule, however. Pertinent details of the school system’s status with regard to the state-established annual growth targets and its progress toward reaching the first federal educational goal are discussed below. Reading Successes ; County students continue to make steady progress in attaining reading proficiency over the past five years. At the elementary level, the aggregate reading proficiency rate improved 12.1 percentage points, from 69.8% in SY2006-07 to 81.9% in SY2010-11. Twenty-four (24) elementary schools had reading proficiency rates of 90 percent or higher in SY2010-11. ; The five-year improvement in reading proficiency was manifested across grade levels with the greatest improvement coming at the 5th and 8th grades (+22.1 and +17.8 percentage points respectively). Notable improvement was also made at the 3rd grade (+9.6 percentage points). In SY2010-11, reading proficiency was highest among fifth graders at 83.9% (see Figure 1). ; Over the past five years, at the elementary level, each of the three major non-racial/ethnic accountability subgroups improved its MSA reading proficiency level by double digits, with Limited English Proficient (LEP) students showing the greatest improvement (+24 percentage points). Last year (SY2010-11), almost 80 percent of these students (78.8%) scored at the proficiency or advanced level on the MSA Reading test (see Figure 2).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 10


Figure 1 Five-Year MSA Reading Performance by Grade Level, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 100% 90%

83.9%

82.8% 79.1%

80% 70%

78.2%

76.5%

75.1% 70.8%

69.7%

69.5%

67.7%

61.8%

60% 53.0%

50% 40%

30% 20% 10% 0% Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5 2007

2008

Grade 6 2009

2010

Grade 7

Grade 8

2011

Figure 2 Five-Year Elementary Level MSA Reading Performance by Subgroup, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 100% 90% 81.9% 78.8%

80% 70%

78.8%

69.8% 63.5% 60.4%

60%

54.8% 48.8%

50% 40%

30% 20% 10% 0% All Students

SPED 2007

2008

LEP 2009

2010

FARMs

2011

Challenges ; Because the state’s annual performance targets (AMOs) escalate at a faster pace than county student proficiency attainment, it becomes increasingly difficult for the school system to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) despite the steady proficiency rate growth. ; Despite modest but steady growth, at 60.4% proficiency, special education student performance remains well below the state’s SY2010-11 annual elementary level performance target (85.9%). Mathematics Successes ; Over the past five years (SY2006-07 through SY2010-11), student MSA mathematics performance at the elementary level improved by 7.5 percentage points, from 70.7% proficiency or above to 78.2% proficiency or above. Improvement was greatest at the seventh (+13.7 percentage points), fourth (+12.8 percentage points), and third (+9.5 percentage points) grade levels (see Figure 3).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 11


; At 84% proficiency or above, fourth grade performance was the highest among all tested grade levels in SY2010-11, falling just one-half a percentage point below the state’s annual elementary level performance growth target (AMO). ; For the SY2010-11 testing cycle, nine (9) elementary schools had 90 percent or more of their students score at the proficiency or above level. Figure 3

; Among the major non-racial/ethnic accountability subgroups, LEP students (+18 percentage points) and low-income students (+10.2 percentage points) improved their MSA mathematics proficiency the most over the SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 five-year time period. In SY2010-11, three-in-four (75%) of the students in each of these two subgroups scored at the proficiency or advanced level on the MSA mathematics test (see Figure 4). Figure 4 Five-Year Elementary MSA Mathematics Performance by Subgroup, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 100% 90% 78.2%

80%

75.0%

75.0%

70.7%

70%

64.8%

60%

57.0% 51.3%

50%

43.9%

40%

30% 20% 10% 0% All Students

SPED 2007

2008

LEP 2009

2010

FARMs

2011

Challenges ; In mathematics, student proficiency in MSA testing is highest at grade four (84.0%) and then begins to decline thereafter; and precipitously beginning in grade seven (7). Although reading proficiency similarly peaks (at grade five) before declining, the decline in reading performance is far more gradual than the decline in mathematics performance. ; Mathematics proficiency rates for elementary and middle school special education students, middle school students in the aggregate, Latino and African American middle school students, middle school limited English proficient (LEP) students, and middle school low-income students were 20 or more percentage points below the state’s SY2010-11 AMOs.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 12


Science The State of Maryland has not established any annual performance standards (AMOs) for science. As such, success can only be measured by improvement from one year to another. Successes ; Over the past three years (SY2008-09 to SY2010-11), elementary level (grade 5) science performance improved by 5.8 percentage points (from 49.7% to 55.1% proficiency or above), and middle school (grade 8) science performance improved by 11.7 percentage points (from 39.8% to 47.7% proficiency or above). Challenges ; Proficiency rates at both the elementary and middle school levels among the school system’s most populous accountability subgroups (i.e. African American, low-income, and Latino students) ranges between 40 and 60 percent. Meanwhile, proficiency rates for less populous special needs subgroups (i.e. special education and Limited English Proficient students) are considerably lower at both the elementary and middle school levels. High School Assessments and Maryland Graduation Requirements High School Assessments are graduation requirements in the State of Maryland. Students are tested in three content areas – i.e. English (Reading), Algebra/Data Analysis, and Biology. Prior to SY2011-12, students were also tested in Government; however, since they will not be tested in this subject henceforth, the state is not requiring local school systems to report SY2010-11 Government HSA results in the SY2011-12 Master Plan update. Students who do not pass all three tests can meet the HSA graduation requirement in one of three other ways: 1. They can pass two of the three tests while making an aggregate score of 1208 or higher; 2. They can successfully complete an Academic Validation (or “Bridge”) Project (AVP) in the subject area(s) that were not passed; or 3. They can receive a waiver from the state from having to take the tests. Successes ; The percentage of SY2011-12 rising seniors, who have met Maryland’s graduation requirement by passing HSAs or successfully completing AVPs (72.6%), has increased by 5.6 percentage points over the percentage of students entering their senior year of high school the previous school year (67.0%). ; In SY2010-11, the number of AVPs in English (2,019) decreased by 785 from the number required the previous school year (2,804). Challenges ; In SY2010-11, the percentage of seniors who met the state’s graduation requirement by passing all four HSA tests remained at slightly more than half (51.6%) of the graduating class. Moreover, the additional percentage of seniors who met the HSA testing requirement by passing three tests and making a composite score of at least 1602 across all four tests decreased by 4.2 percentage points. As a result, the percentage of seniors requiring an AVP to satisfy the state’s graduation requirement increased by 4.5 points. Cross-Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence Cross-cutting themes are elements of the educational process that are manifested across all academic content areas. For example, educational technology (e.g. computers) is used by teachers and students across all subject areas to support instruction and to enhance students’ learning experiences. Likewise, education that is multicultural (ETM) is applicable across all academic content areas including reading/English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, certain student groups have unique needs that are over and above what is required for students in general population that must be addressed if they are to emerge educationally whole from their public education experience. Such student groups include those enrolling and concentrating in various Career and Technology Education (CTE) programs, English Language Learners, gifted and talented students, early (pre-kindergarten) learners, and students requiring special needs. The BTE Master Plan must also address the extent to which school systems are providing educationally required

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 13


supportive services that cut across all academic content areas, as well as providing for the learning needs of unique student populations. Educational Technology PGCPS established six technology goals covering three broad areas of focus to guide its work around educational technology during SY2010-11. The areas of focus and related goals are reflected in Table A below. Table A. SY2010-11 PGCPS Technology Goals by Area of Focus Selected Technology Goals Increase access to instructional digital content. Provide a ubiquitous computing environment – anytime, anywhere computing. Professional Development Develop and track professional development of all staff Develop professional development courses in a variety of formats for instructional and administrative staff to obtain the skills necessary to meet the MTTS and MTSSA standards Provide staff access to equipment, applications, and information systems in order to enhance technology skills Productivity and Efficiency Expand functionality of current information systems with enhancements such as selfservice components Focus Area Student Learning

Successes ; PGCPS has established an Information Technology (IT) High School program at Fairmont Heights that will focus on core academic subjects and professional IT certification programs in areas such as computer repair, network and security engineering, and mobile applications. Currently, the program enrolls 95 students; ; The school district continues its Netbook and iPad pilot initiatives in selected schools. These projects are designed to increase student access to technology as well as teacher use of technology in the delivery of instruction. SY2010-11 was the second year for the Netbook pilot housed at Carmody Hills Elementary School, while the iPad pilot will be implemented at each of the system’s six turnaround schools. ; In SY2010-11, the IT division continued its offering of a wide range of technology focused training courses on it Moodle Learning Management System. Currently, there are more than 250 courses in varying stages set up in Moodle, and 865 staff members received online training in SY2010-11. Challenges 1. The main challenge for the IT Division is finding funding to meet the ever-growing technology needs of the school system. These needs include keeping schools and offices equipped with computer hardware that can support ever-changing software applications, and expanding the use of pilot-tested technologies such as Netbooks and iPads that prove to enhance classroom instruction. Education that is Multicultural Maryland’s Education that is Multicultural (ETM) initiative is designed to ensure equity, access, supports for success, academic achievement, and diversity in educational opportunity for all the state’s children (COMAR 13A.04.05). The ETM regulation requires school systems to develop and implement strategies to achieve the purposes of the initiative and to report annually on the status of such implementation efforts as part of the BTE Master Plan update. Successes 2. PGCPS offers curricula with diversity components across multiple subject areas; 3. The school system has developed administrative procedures supporting the implementation of ETM; 4. The school system seeks to incorporate instructional resources and materials in the classroom that present a multicultural perspective; and 5. The school system routinely provides translation support services for parents of limited English proficient families.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 14


Challenges ; The school system provides several courses related to ETM and cultural diversity, none of which are mandatory; ; The school system offers only a limited number of ETM-related and/or focused workshops or seminars over the course of the school year; and ; The school system has just begun to require teachers to allow students multiple opportunities to recover from failing assessments and/or assignments. English Language Learners Progress for English Language Learners (ELLs) in their efforts to become proficient in English is measured in three ways: a) the extent to which they make substantial progress on the LAS Links English Proficiency Assessment (AMAO 1); b) the extent to which ELLs attain English proficiency (AMAO 2); and c) whether or not Limited English Proficient (LEP) students meet MSA proficiency targets on reading and mathematics assessments (AMAO 3). The SY2009-10 proficiency target for AMAO 1 was 60%, while the target for AMAO 2 was 17%. Successes ; For the 2009-10 school year, 67.9% of ELL students increased their scale score on the LAS Links English Proficiency Assessment by at least 15 points more than the previous year’s score; ; The 15 point or more improvement on the LAS Links for SY2009-10 was manifested in 73% of the system’s schools and across 10 of 13 grade levels. Challenges ; Meanwhile only 14.6% of ELLs attained English proficiency, which is 2.4 percentage points below the state-established target percentage. ; In addition, because LEP students have failed to meet the proficiency targets for reading and mathematics on MSA tests for more than two years in succession, the school system is in corrective action for LEP students and as such, must submit a corrective action plan to MSDE. Career and Technology Education County students can select from 26 Career and Technology Education (CTE) programs of study within nine of the 10 stateapproved Career Clusters. The approved Career Clusters include: 1) Arts, Media, and Communication; 2) Business, Management, and Finance; 3) Construction and Development; 4) Health and Biosciences; 5) Consumer Services, Hospitality, and Tourism; 6) Human Resource Services; 7) Information Technology; 8) Manufacturing, Engineering, and Technology; and 10) Transportation Technologies. Program effectiveness is measured by student performance against local- and stateestablished performance targets across nine quality indicators (PQIs). Successes ; From SY2008-09 to SY2009-10, CTE enrollment increased by 21 percent. Growth was across the board with the Career Research Development (i.e. work-based learning) program more than doubling (+1,092 students or 104.6%), Human Resource Services programs growing by 445 students (or 17.3%), and Business, Management, and Finance programs growing by 1,343 students (or 14.9%); ; CTE students exhibited highest levels of success in graduation rate (99.3%) and program completer percentage (98.9%). High levels of success were also exhibited on the HSA English 76.7% assessment and the HSA Algebra assessment (76.7%). Challenges ; Passing rates on various technical skill assessments remain uneven. For example, pass rates in Construction Trades programs (e.g. masonry, carpentry, electrical, etc.) are above 90%, while passing rates in Family and Consumer Sciences cluster programs are much lower.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 15


Early Learning Providing pre-kindergarten services to income-eligible county children, as mandated by the Bridge to Excellence in Education Act of 2002, continues to result in increasingly higher percentages of students entering kindergarten fully ready across seven readiness domains. In SY2010-11, 79% of all children entering kindergarten were fully ready. Three-in-five (or 60.2%) of these children attended school system-provided pre-kindergarten, and the full readiness percentage among these children was 83%. Students who enter kindergarten fully ready are better prepared to perform well in accountability testing starting in the third grade. Successes ; In the one-year period from SY2009-10 to SY2010-11, the percentage of children entering kindergarten fully ready increased by 11 percentage points (i.e. from 68% to 79%); ; Since SY2005-06, PGCPS has seen a 28 percentage point increase in the number of children who enter kindergarten fully ready (i.e. from 51% in SY2005-06 to 79% in SY2010-11); ; The SY2010-11 increase in full readiness from the previous year (SY2009-10) was 10 or more percentage points for each of the following student subgroups: special education (+17 percentage points); low-income (FARMs -- +12 percentage points); and Limited English Proficient (LEP -- +10 percentage points); ; Since SY2005-06, full kindergarten readiness increased for special education students by 20 percentage points, for FARMs students by 31 percentage points, and for LEP students by 33 percentage points. Challenges ; Maintaining current kindergarten full readiness levels will be extremely difficult with system-provided pre-kindergarten being reduced from full-day to half-day due to budget cuts; ; A full 21.3% of all children entering kindergarten received informal, home-provided prior care. The full readiness among these children (between 61% and 70%) was substantially below the readiness percentages of children who received more formalized prior care. The school system should try to find ways to identify these children prior to entering kindergarten and encourage their parents to provide them with more formalized prior care, including system-provided pre-kindergarten for children who are income-eligible. Gifted and Talented Education PGCPS continues to grow the number of students identified as talented and gifted. Identified students are representative of all the major racial/ethnic, economic, and special needs accountability subgroups. Services are provided to students at each of the three major grade bands (elementary, middle, and high school) and take a variety of forms including TAG Centers, PullOut, TAG in the Regular Classroom at the elementary and middle school levels, and specialty programs, honors courses, and AP and IB courses at the high school level. Overall progress can be attributed to the program operating in accordance with the National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC) Standards for gifted student identification. Successes ; Over the past five years, i.e. SY2006-07 through SY2010-11, the percentage of students in grades 2-12 that has been identified as gifted has increased by approximately two percentage points – from 10.6% students in SY2006-07 to 12.5% of students in SY2010-11. ; Over the past several years, the school system has increasingly used the Naglieri Non-Verbal Assessment to screen students who have wide disparities between verbal and non-verbal scores on TAG identification assessments. Challenges ; The representation of low-income (FARMs) and special education students among the overall TAG student population remains substantially below their respective percentages of the overall system-wide student population. The school system must continue to increase its use of non-verbal assessments in an effort to increase the proportionality of these student populations among the overall TAG student population. Special Education

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 16


Special education student underperformance remains the school system’s most daunting academic challenge. In addition, for four years running, the school system has been in state-imposed Corrective Action for disciplinary disproportionality and secondary transitional planning. To coordinate the work around addressing the challenges of special education student achievement, the Superintendent and the Board of Education developed a Special Education Reform Initiative. In response to findings from an MSDE Comprehensive Review of Special Education operations and practices, the goals for Special Education Reform in SY2011-12 have been refined as follows: 1. Decrease the suspension rate for students with IEPs and ensure that FAPE is provided according to federal and State requirements during disciplinary removals that exceed 10 days in a school year. 2. Improve the postsecondary outcomes of students with IEPs by implementing strategies to ensure College and Career Readiness. 3. Continue to expand staff capacity to implement best practices for Response to Intervention (RtI) and differentiated instruction. The refined goals will enable reform activities to focus directly on areas where the school system has been in Corrective Action for several years, which in turn will lead to much improved educational outcomes for special education students. Specific strategies and activities derived from these refined goals include: ; The establishment of a Discipline Reform Charter to increase staff capacity to provide behavioral supports and decrease disciplinary removals of students with disabilities; ; An expansion of efforts to provide the legally-mandated Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) to special education students through Least Restricted Environment (LRE) reform with a shift in emphasis to College and Career Readiness; ; Establishing best practices for Response to Intervention (RtI) routines and procedures across the school system, the implementation and monitoring of Leveled Literacy, and Number Worlds, interventions for struggling K-3 students, and expanding professional development on differentiated instruction and the integration of the principles of Universal Design for Learning into daily instructional planning; ; Increased participation of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum; and ; Expanding inclusive learning opportunities for special needs students beginning in early childhood. CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP FOR STUDENTS: FARMS, African American Males, English Language Learners, and Special Education For the SY2011-12 BTE Master Plan Update, local school systems have been asked to take a focused look at differential achievement levels between students in the aggregate on the one hand, and historically underperforming and academically vulnerable subgroups. Although for the most part, reporting on the academic performance of No Child Left Behind-defined accountability subgroups has been a standard practice throughout the initial Master Plan cycle, for the SY2011-12 update, school systems are required to include African American male students. For Prince George’s County, the need to focus on the performance of African American males is particularly important as these students represent slightly more than one-third (35%) of the school system’s student population, and as such, they have a significant impact on the overall performance of the system. In Prince George’s County, the most pervasive and persistent performance gap is between special education students and students in the aggregate in MSA testing. The gap is manifested in both reading and mathematics across all three grade bands – i.e. elementary, middle, and high. Moreover, the size of the gap is at least 20 percentage points in each content area of testing, at each of the three grade bands, and has been that wide (or wider) for at least the past three years. Perhaps most troubling is that the size of the gap increases with each grade band. In SY2010-11, the size of the performance gap between special education students and students in the aggregate ranged from a low of 20.6 percentage points in elementary level reading to a high of 41.6 percentage points in high school Reading/English Language Arts. Secondarily, there are substantial performance gaps between English Language Learners and students in the aggregate at both the middle and high school levels. Performance gaps in MSA Reading and Mathematics between students in the aggregate and historically vulnerable accountability subgroups are presented below.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 17


MSA Reading In SY2010-11, achievement gaps in reading at the elementary level between students in the aggregate, on the one hand, and historically vulnerable subgroups were relatively modest – i.e. less than 10 percentage points – with the exception of special education students. At the middle school level, the achievement gap between students in the aggregate and special education students was slightly wider than at the elementary level, but the gap between students in the aggregate and ELL students was dramatically wider. With the exception of ELL middle school students and, to a lesser degree, elementary special education students, performance differences between students in the aggregate and these historically vulnerable subgroups of students narrowed from SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 (see Table B). Elementary Level ; In SY2010-11, the percentages of both ELL and FARMs students scoring at the proficiency or above levels were 3.1 percentage points below that of students in the aggregate. ; The gap in proficiency and above percentages for students in the aggregate and African American male students was slightly wider (-7 percentage points). ; At (-21.5) percentage points, the reading proficiency gap between students in the aggregate and special education students was the widest for any of the historically vulnerable subgroups. ; Meanwhile, African American female students outperformed students in the aggregate (+3 percentage points) and African American male students (+10 percentage points). ; Between SY2008-09 and SY2010-11, the performance gap between students in the aggregate and FARMs students narrowed slightly (-1.5 percentage points), and more substantially between students in the aggregate and ELL students (6.9 percentage points). On the other hand, the performance gap between students in the aggregate and special education students widened by less than a percentage point. Middle School Level ; At the middle school level, performance gaps between accountability student subgroups and students in the aggregate were generally wider than such gaps at the elementary level, except for African American male students. The middle school performance gap for low-income students was 2.2 percentage points wider, while the gap for special education students was 6.4 percentage points wider. ; The performance gap between LEP students with students in the aggregate widened dramatically (+35.4 percentage points) at the middle school level over the size of the same gap at the elementary level. As such, the SY2010-11 proficiency percentage for these students is nearly 40 percentage points below (-38.5) that of students in the aggregate. ; Meanwhile, the reading proficiency gap between African American males students and students in the aggregate was slightly narrower (-0.7 percentage points) at the middle school level than at the elementary level. At the same time, African American females continued to outperform students in the aggregate (+5.7 percentage points). ; Between SY2008-09 and SY2010-11, the reading proficiency gaps between special education students and low-income (FARMs) students on the one hand, and students in the aggregate narrowed by 3.1 and 1.1 percentage points respectively. On the other hand, the reading proficiency gap between LEP students and students in the aggregate widened by 6.6 percentage points over the three-year time period. Table B: Elementary and Middle School MSA Reading Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 (Percent Scoring at or Above the Proficiency Level) 2009 2011 Change in Gap 2009 2010 2011 Performance Gap Performance Gap 2009 to 2011 (Percentage Point) (Percentage Point) (Percentage Point) Elementary All Students Special Education ELL FARMs African American Males

77.5% 56.9% 67.5% 72.9% N/A

78.4% 56.9% 71.5% 74.2% N/A

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

81.9% 60.4% 78.8% 78.8% 74.9%

N/A -20.6 -10.0 -4.6 N/A

N/A -21.5 -3.1 -3.1 -7.0

N/A +0.9 -6.9 -1.5 N/A

Page | 18


Table B: Elementary and Middle School MSA Reading Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 (Percent Scoring at or Above the Proficiency Level) African American Females N/A N/A 84.9% N/A +3.0

N/A

Middle All Students Special Education ELL FARMs African American Males African American Females High All Students Special Education ELL FARMs African American Males African American Females

71.3% 40.3% 39.4% 64.9% N/A N/A

72.9% 44.5% 43.0% 67.5% N/A N/A

74.6% 46.7% 36.1% 69.3% 68.3% 80.3%

N/A -31.0 -31.9 -6.4 N/A N/A

N/A -27.9 -38.5 -5.3 -6.3 +5.7

N/A -3.1 +6.6 -1.1 N/A N/A

75.4 22.0 52.3 71.4

68.9 28.9 30.5 64.1

70.5 28.9 30.5 67.1 62.5 77.3

N/A -53.4 -23.1 -4.0

N/A -41.6 -40.0 -3.4 -8.0 6.8

N/A -11.8 16.9 -0.6

; High School Level ; At the high school level, performance gaps for special education students and English language learners were at their widest – i.e. at (-41.6) and (-40.0) percentage points respectively. Although the size of the performance gaps between each of the two subgroups and students in the aggregate are similarly wide, over the past three years, the gaps have been moving substantially in opposite directions. As recently as SY2008-09, the performance gap between special education students and students in the aggregate was as high as (-53.4) percentage points. By SY2010-11, the size of this particular performance gap had narrowed by 11.8 percentage points. On the other hand, the size of the performance gap between English language learners and students in the aggregate grew from (-23.1) percentage points in SY2008-09 to (-40.0) percentage points in SY2010-11. ; Performance gaps in reading proficiency between low-income (FARMs) students and African American male students on the one hand, and students in the aggregate were (-3.4) and (-8.0) percentage points respectively. ; Meanwhile, African American female students outperformed students in the aggregate in high school Reading/Language Arts testing by 6.8 percentage points. MSA Mathematics As was the case with MSA Reading, with the exception of special education students, the mathematics proficiency gaps at the elementary level between students in the aggregate and historically vulnerable subgroups were relatively modest – i.e. less than 10 percentage points – in SY2010-11. At the middle school level, proficiency gap patterns remained consistent with the patterns at the elementary level except for limited English proficient students whose proficiency gap with students in the aggregate widened dramatically – from (-3.2) to (-22.9) percentage points. With the exception of limited English proficient students at the middle school level, mathematics proficiency gaps between students in the aggregate and historically vulnerable subgroups narrowed from SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 (See Table C). Elementary Level ; Similar to reading performance comparisons, in SY2010-11, the percentages of both LEP and FARMs students scoring at the proficiency or above levels in MSA mathematics testing were 3.2 percentage points below that of students in the aggregate.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 19


; The proficiency gap between African American male students and students in the aggregate was slightly wider (-5.8 percentage points); and the proficiency gap between special education students and students in the aggregate was substantially wider (-26.9 percentage points). ; Meanwhile, African American female students outperformed both their African American male counterparts (+6.4 percentage points) and students in the aggregate (+0.6 percentage points). ; Between SY2008-09 and SY2010-11, the proficiency performance level gaps between each of the historically vulnerable student subgroups and students in the aggregate narrowed slightly (see Table C). Middle School Level ; In SY2010-11, mathematics proficiency performance gaps between low-income (FARMs) students and African American male students on the one hand, and students in the aggregate were relatively modest (-5.3 and 6.6 percentage points respectively); but the gaps between special education and limited English proficient (LEP) students and that of students in the aggregate were much wider (-22.6 and -22.9 percentage points respectively). ; African American female students outperformed both their African American male counterparts (+8.1 percentage points) and students in the aggregate (+1.5 percentage points). ; Between SY2008-09 and SY2010-11, the proficiency performance gap narrowed ever so slightly between special education and FARMs students on the one hand and students in the aggregate, while the gap widened modestly between LEP students and students in the aggregate. High School Level ; The performance gap pattern that was manifested in reading holds true for mathematics. By far, the widest performance gaps in MSA testing are between special education and English language learners on the one hand, and students in the aggregate. The proficiency gap between special education students and students in the aggregate was (-40.9) percentage points in SY2011 testing. And like in reading, the size of the gap had been reduced by 11.6 percentage points since SY2009. ; Also, like in reading, the size of the proficiency gap between English language learners and students in the aggregate widened by 9.0 percentage points since SY2009. ; Meanwhile, the proficiency rate for FARMs students was only (-1.8) percentage points below the aggregate rate, and for African American males, only (-6.3) percentage points. ; Performance gaps in MSA mathematics testing between both special education and FARMs students, and students in the aggregate narrowed across the board since SY2009. Table C: Elementary and Middle School MSA Mathematics Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 (Percent Scoring at or Above the Proficiency Level) 2009 2011 Change in Gap 2009 2010 2011 Performance Gap Performance Gap 2009 to 2011 (Percentage Point) (Percentage Point) (Percentage Point) Elementary All Students Special Education ELL FARMs African American Males African American Females

74.7% 45.3% 69.4% 70.4% N/A N/A

77.5% 52.8% 74.9% 73.8% N/A N/A

78.2% 51.3% 75.0% 75.0% 72.4% 78.8%

N/A -29.4 -5.3 -4.3 N/A N/A

N/A -26.9 -3.2 -3.2 -5.8 +0.6

N/A -2.5 -2.1 -1.1 N/A N/A

Middle All Students Special Education ELL FARMs African American Males

54.5% 29.9% 37.7% 48.6% N/A

55.8% 34.0% 39.1% 50.6% N/A

58.5% 35.9% 35.6% 53.2% 51.9%

N/A -24.6 -16.8 -5.9 N/A

N/A -22.6 -22.9 -5.3 -6.6

N/A -2.0 +6.1 -0.6 N/A

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 20


Table C: Elementary and Middle School MSA Mathematics Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 (Percent Scoring at or Above the Proficiency Level) African American Females N/A N/A 60.0% N/A +1.5 N/A High All Students Special Education ELL FARMs African American Males African American Females

69.2 16.7 60.1 66.3

67.8 22.6 60.5 66.4

67.8 26.9 49.7 66.0 61.5 70.3

N/A -52.5 -9.1 -2.9

N/A -40.9 -18.1 -1.8 -6.3 2.5

N/A -11.6 9.0 -1.1

All matters considered, with the exception of limited English proficient students at the middle school level, PGCPS student performance in both reading and mathematics MSA testing has improved modestly over the past three academic years, while at the same time, proficiency performance gaps between historically vulnerable student subgroups and students in the aggregate have slightly narrowed. STRATEGIES FOR CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP FOR STUDENTS: FARMS, African American Males, English Language Learners, and Special Education Prince George’s County is a majority minority district. Collectively, African American (68.9%) and Latino (21.0%) students represent 90 percent of the school system’s student population. Consequently, a high percentage of these students are represented in multiple student groups. Moreover, and particularly with regard to African American students, their academic performance will closely approximate the aggregate performance level of the school system as a whole because they represent such a high percentage of the student population. Thus, deviations in academic performance by African American students from aggregate student performance will, by necessity, be within the 10 percentage point range. The same can be said to a slightly lesser degree for low-income students (FARMs) who represent 53% of the system’s student population. To this end, sizeable achievement gaps – i.e. those of 10 percentage points or more – will be restricted to smaller sized subgroups such as special education students (11.3%), English language learners (11.9%), and to a lesser degree, subgroups within gender such as African American males (35.2%) and African American females (33.7%). As such, specifically targeted interventions to narrow achievement gaps will be restricted to these smaller student subgroups. At the same time, interventions that target lagging performance in the general student population would proportionately benefit African American and low-income (FARMs) students. Special Education Reform Given the scope and magnitude of special education student underperformance in comparison with aggregate student performance in state accountability testing, and given the state’s placement of the school system in Corrective Action Status for student discipline and Secondary Transition Planning regarding special education students, PGCPS has taken an aggressive approach toward dramatically improving educational outcomes for special education students. This approach is conceptualized under the system’s Special Education Reform Initiative and has been summarized in the subsection of this executive summary immediately above. (See the Special Education subsection on page 17.) English Language Learners Likewise, PGCPS is in Corrective Action Status for Limited English Proficient students. Targeted interventions identified to improve educational outcomes of these students include intensive professional development for both teachers and administrators; intensive and focused instruction for newcomer students; twice-monthly collaborations among International Student Counseling Outreach counselors, school-based counselors, and ESOL teachers; and with the assistance of the Institute for Learning (IFL), the alignment of course sequence and curricula with the Common Core Standards. Teacher professional development will include the offering of seven (7) continuing professional development (CPD) courses, the provision of book study opportunities for ESOL staff, training on WIDA Standards that promote mastery of academic

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 21


language, training in the structured immersion model, and coaching support which includes lesson planning, professional development, and collaboration. Low-Income (FARMs) Students, African American Students, and Students in the Aggregate As was previously mentioned, African American students comprise almost 70 percent (68.9%) and low-income (FARMs) students comprise 53% of the school system’s student population. As such, variations in their performance in accountability testing with students in the aggregate will necessarily be limited to within 10 percentage points of the aggregate performance level. This reality suggests that the school district would do well to focus its efforts regarding the narrowing and ultimate elimination of these particular achievement gaps by looking at the overall instructional program. In other words, what would benefit African American and low-income students would benefit students in the aggregate and vice versa. Thus, progress in closing achievement gaps will be largely dependent upon refined curriculum alignment, adjustments to formative assessments, and improved instructional practice. Curriculum An analysis of the school system’s curriculum finds that it is aligned to the Maryland state standards. The assessment limits in the Voluntary State Curriculum are prominent in the guides. In addition, the scope and sequence are aligned to the timeline for state testing. The district did revise the eighth grade math curriculum to ensure that the critical standards are taught prior to the March administration of the MSA. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction is looking closely at the Biology scope and sequence. Formative assessments indicate that the attainment of critical skills and processes is compromised. The Science Office is working closely with the Assessment Office to ensure alignment. Assessments Prince George’s utilizes quarterly benchmarks in all tested areas. These formative assessments have a high correlation to state exams. This past year, the district saw an increase in performance from the October benchmark (FAS I) to the January benchmark (FAS II) in virtually all student groups. However, the increase was not reflected in the final performance on MSA. This suggests that the FAS II may need to be revised to address more rigor. In addition, the FAS II test, which previously had a high correlation to MSA and HSA may not be as sophisticated in construction to adequately predict growth from FAS I to FAS II. In terms of rigor, the FAS tests are written at the assessment limit and do not adequately address more challenging expectations. This year, the FAS will include items that are written above the assessment level to drive instructional expectations beyond the state expectations. The Assessment Office has created a mock MSA exam to be given in December that the system expects will accurately predict performance on the MSA. This will allow schools an opportunity to provide remediation to students who are in danger of poor performance on the state exams. Instructional Practice An analysis of instructional practice indicates that the delivery of instruction may be the culprit in the achievement gap, particularly since many schools failed to meet the AMO in the aggregate. Evidence derived from instructional walk-throughs suggests that teachers are teaching below the standard to address weaknesses in foundational skills. This is best addressed through four strategies: intensive collaborative planning, instructional walk-throughs, researched-based practices, and district accountability. The district has developed a protocol for collaborative planning that is both data driven and inclusive. Data from formative assessments and common assessments that are written to the standards set the tone for discussions. Teachers unpack the standard and create common assessments that allow teachers to monitor student progress on the standards. Teachers will analyze student work to determine areas of weakness and students who need additional supports. In terms of inclusion, critical personnel in special education and ELL are now included in the collaborative planning. In the past, these personnel were excluded due to scheduling issues. Now, principals are building master schedules to ensure participation of experts who are best able to address the needs of the special education and ELL student groups. In addition, the Department of Special Education and ELL have reorganized personnel to focus their efforts on instructional practices. This includes leadership in the training of the Universal Design for Learning training and collaboration with the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 22


The conversations at collaborative planning sessions must have an impact in the classroom. Principals and teacher leaders are now trained in instructional walkthroughs to assess the implementation of the plans developed in collaborative planning sessions. Principals are trained in assessing the level of cognitive demand and student engagement. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students may be well-behaved in the classroom, but the level of intellectual engagement and rigor is lacking. Principals will look at questioning techniques and student work. Principals will then hold teachers accountable for delivering instruction that is aligned to the expectations of the state standards. Best practices include the implementation of the Framework for Teaching developed by Charlotte Danielson and proven strategies such as the Universal Design for Learning, research based interventions such as Leveled Literacy, Read 180, and Number Sense, Response to Intervention and brain-based instructional practices. Of these strategies, the Framework for Teaching is the process linked to teacher performance. The district has also implemented Leveled Literacy in all elementary schools and is piloting a Response to Intervention tracking system in 50 elementary schools. Middle and high schools have an early warning tracking system that allows schools to identify potential risk factors and develop response plans. The district is examining intervention/enrichment scheduling to address the problem of students receiving interventions during instructional time when standards-based instruction is in place. This paradigm presents a lost opportunity to move lowperforming students to grade level expectations. By manipulating the master schedule, principals can create opportunities for remediation that do not demand a loss of standards-based instruction. The system holds schools accountable through the performance management process. Schools must present their data, disaggregated by student group, in a public forum that is designed to address specific issues around the achievement gap. In addition, principal performance goals are tied to student performance, again, with an eye towards student group performance. With these efforts to change instructional practice through data driven analysis, proven pedagogy, and close accountability, the district expects the achievement gap to continue to close.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 23


FINANCE SECTION Section

Page

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

26 27 33 38

Finance Section Supporting Budget Tables C-125s Race To The Top Project Budget Workbooks

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 24


I.B. FINANCE SECTION Introduction The Master Plan Annual Updates provide insight into the work that school systems engage in on a daily basis, demonstrating their commitment to accelerating student achievement and eliminating achievement gaps. The finance section, in conjunction with the budget narrative information in the Executive Summary, includes a Current Year Variance Table, a Prior Year Variance Table, a Prior Year ARRA Variance Table (for FY 11 only), Race to the Top Scope of Work grant documents and Project Budget workbooks, and analyzing questions. Together, these documents illustrate the local school system’s alignment of the annual budget with the Master Plan priorities. Background In FY 2009, the finance structure created through the Bridge to Excellence Act was fully phased-in. In August of 2010, Maryland was awarded a federal Race to the Top grant which is assisting the State and its participating LEAs implement Maryland’s third wave of education reform. For the 2011 Annual Update, the focus of the finance section will be the total budget and all budgetary changes (retargeted funds, redistributed resources, and new funds) as opposed to only looking at uses of new funds. This change in focus is indicated in the Executive Summary and the supporting tables.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 25


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 26

-

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders Reform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most. Expenditures: Source Amount Stipends Unrestricted $ 500,000 FIRST/Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Unrestricted $ 4,000,000

FTE

-

FTE

FTE 8.0 -

Section C - Data Systems to support instruction Reform Area 2: Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction. Expenditures: Source Amount Race to the Top - Data Warehouse 84.395 $ 269,814 Race to the Top - Data Quality 84.395 $ 118,042 Race to the Top - Data Wise 84.395 $ 537,476

1.1A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: Prince George's Revenue Category FY 12 Budget Local Appropriation $ 617,514,500 Other Local Revenue $ 11,855,100 State Revenue $ 874,349,600 Federal Revenue* 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance $ 84.010 Title I, Part A $ 25,033,387 84.027 IDEA Part B State Grant Passthrough $ 24,503,991 84.173 IDEA Part B Preschool Passthrough $ 586,012 84.386 Education Technology $ 84.387 Homeless Children and Youth $ 7,202 84.388 Title I 1003 (g) School Improvement Grant $ 8,492,937 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent $ 223,620 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through $ 3,314,846 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants $ 270,872 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families $ 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program $ 173,234 84.395 Race to the Top $ 8,801,337 84.410 Education Jobs Fund $ Other Federal Funds** $ 39,231,962 Other Resources/Transfers $ Total $ 1,614,358,600 Instructions: Itemize FY 2012 expenditures by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of doing business, and other. Section B - Standards and Assessments Reform Area 1: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy. Expenditures: Source Amount Middle College Unrestricted $ 1,006,018 Race to the Top - IB/AP 84.395 $ 2,444,081 Race to the Top - STEM 84.395 $ 387,544

Current Year Variance Table

SUPPORTING BUDGET TABLES


84.395 84.395 84.395 84.395 84.395

$ $ $ $ $

250,312 8,344 1,909,756 1,492,490 1,089,890

-

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 27

Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools Reform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools Expenditures: Source Amount FTE Title I 1003(g) School Improvement 84.388 $ 8,492,937 19.0 Mandatory Cost of Doing Business: Please itemize mandatory costs not attributable to an assurance area in this category. Refer to the guidance for items considered mandatory costs. Expenditures: Mandatory Cost of Doing Business Source Amount FTE Furlough-restoration of salaries Unrestricted $ 28,473,615 Part-Time Salary/Sick Leave Bank Unrestricted $ 9,201,808 Health Insurance Unrestricted $ 16,477,669 Health Insurance - Savings Unrestricted $ (10,363,107) FICA - Part-Time Unrestricted $ 760,487 Life Insurance Unrestricted $ 2,879,806 State Retirement Administrative Fee Unrestricted $ 2,216,408 Other Benefit Adjustments Unrestricted $ 3,408,895 Workers' Compensation Insurance - Part-Time Unrestricted $ 311,040 Stabilization - Utilities/Telephone Unrestricted $ 46,192,154 Stabilization - Textbooks Unrestricted $ 2,414,882 Stabilization - Other General LEA Expenses Unrestricted $ 2,614,130 Retirement of Prior year lease purchases Unrestricted $ (2,846,650) Energy Management Payment Unrestricted $ 8,394,156 Buses and Non-Bus Vehicles Unrestricted $ 3,601,872 Technology Refresh Unrestricted $ 2,705,705 Textbooks Unrestricted $ Plant Operations Equipment Unrestricted $ 411,652 Prior Year Prepaid Lease Purchase Unrestricted $ 948,884 Building Leases Unrestricted $ (306,109) Maintenance Supplies/M&R Vehicle Support Unrestricted $ 1,276,881 Instructional Technology/Enterprise system software licenses Unrestricted $ 602,004 State Charge for Students in State Custody Unrestricted $ 1,000,000 College & Career Ready/HS Graduation Unrestricted $ 955,550 SEED School Unrestricted $ 492,254 AVID, AP, Read 180 Materials in High Schools Unrestricted $ 1,076,325 In-House Printing Adjustment Unrestricted $ (735,388) New Charter Schools - 2 new and 1.0 Imagine Unrestricted $ 10,912,112 93.0 FY-2012 Core Service Requirement Base Unrestricted $ 1,449,763,772 17,505.8 FY-2012 Core Service Requirement Base Restricted $ 100,025,796 742.7

1.1A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: Prince George's Race to the Top - School Leader Network Race to the Top - Teacher Leadership Race to the Top - Pipeline of Administrators Race to the Top - Coaching Race to the Top - Teacher Pipeline


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

1.1A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: Prince George's Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Expenditures: Redirected Resources Source System-Wide Redirected Resources Unrestricted Homeless Children & Youth 84.387 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 84.387 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 84.391 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 84.392 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 84.394 Race to the Top - Hillside WSC 84.395 **Indicate non-ARRA IDEA and Title I funds by CFDA in Federal Funds. **all other federal funds can be consolidated in other federal funds. Amount $ (95,298,068) $ 7,202 $ 223,620 $ 3,314,846 $ 270,872 $ 173,234 $ 293,587

Page | 28

FTE (1,561.6) -


FY 2011 Original Budget 7/1/2010

FY 2011 Final Unaudited Budget 6/30/2011 Change

% Change

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 29

Local Appropriation 599,014,400 599,709,030 694,630 0.1% State Revenue 832,132,117 790,997,101 (41,135,016) -4.9% Federal Revenue Other Resources/Transfers 6,000,000 6,596,871 596,871 9.9% Other Local Revenue 14,289,488 13,643,972 (645,516) -4.5% Other Federal Funds 104,255,104 91,880,153 (12,374,951) -11.9% Federal ARRA Funds 77,835,432 114,363,928 36,528,496 46.9% Total 1,633,526,541 1,617,191,055 (16,335,486) -1.0% Change in Planned Expenditures NCLB Planned Expenditure Description Actual Expenditure Planned FTE Actual FTE Goal Expenditure QSPSP Goal 1: By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards in core curricular areas, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better for each ESEA subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics. 1 ESOL/ISCO - Testing Locations 71,099 71,099 1.0 1.0 1 Middle College 200,000 361,119 1.0 1.0 1 Secondary School Reform 500,000 500,000 Total 771,099 932,218 2.0 2.0 QSPSP Goal 3: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. 3 Central Garage Services 1,432,559 2,472,424 20.0 20.0 3 Pupil Accounting 126,888 126,888 1.0 1.0 Total 1,559,447 2,599,312 21.0 21.0 4 QSPSP Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. Translation services 136,000 136,000 Total 136,000 136,000 LEA Master Plan Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school. 5 Performance Management 50,000 50,000 5 Scheduler Pay 20,000 20,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business Changes: 10 Buses & Non-Bus Vehicles/Over Hires 346,461 5,392,316 106.00 10 Charter/Contract 4,376,368 3,980,779 43.00 36.50 10 Full-Time Salary/Wage Base 25,426,223 21,439,723 10 Lease Purchases 2,538,393 10,795,857 10 Health Insurance 8,775,098 4,968,338 10 Lease Buildings 219,110 273,810 10 Leave Payout 250,000 301,476 10 Local 2250 Position Agreement 9,976,285 9,976,285 180.99 180.99 10 New Schools 1,659,092 1,659,092 10.50 10.50

Revenue Category

1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's

Prior Year Variance Table


Total

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's 10 Nonpublic Placements 10 Part-Time Salary/Wage Base 10 Retirement of Prior Year Lease Agreement 10 Ridgley Bus Lot 10 SEED School 10 Special Education - MOE Requirement 10 Technology Refresh LP 10 Unemployment Insurance 10 Utilities 10 Workers' Compensation Insurance 10 System-Wide Reductions 10 Core Service and Other Base Requirements Additional Spending/Realigned Resources 10 Academics-Calculators 10 Accokeek Academy - Secretary 10 AP at Beltsville -EJF 10 Bowie High School (2.0) - EJF 10 Camp Schmidt food costs 10 Classroom Balancing 10 Classroom Teachers Parkdale HS - EJF 10 Contracted Agency Nurses 10 Education Jobs Fund Realignment - Benefits 10 Education Jobs Fund Realignment - Benefits 10 FEMA Reimbursement-February 2010 Snow Event 10 Fingerprinting/Criminal Background Checks 10 Greenbelt MS-Foreign Language Teacher - EJF 10 Hearing Officer Services - Appeals Office 10 Middle States Evaluation 10 Paraprofessional Educator 10 PG Regional Association of Student Government - Transportation 10 Project Lead the Way 10 Retirement Incentive -Terminal Leave payout 10 School Social Worker. Medicaid Grant 10 Stabilization Funds - Utilities/Telephone Savings 10 Student Services - Clerks transferred from BASCP 10 Suitland VPA Teachers (10.0) - EJF 10 Virtual High School Total

Difference

(77,701,439)

-

1,196,253 15,647,380 (8,988,067) 105,288 414,304 918,815 2,199,760 4,000,000 (1,039,263) (1,000,000) (111,905,605) (35,353,880)

(16,335,486)

300,000 57,044 126,287 185,793 45,000 5,242,349 185,793 125,082 25,326,447 (25,326,447) (611,826) 50,000 92,897 40,000 36,500 29,275 60,000 371,587 5,248,469 (7,721,895) 104,647 928,966 326,000 5,221,968 (61,365,953)

(9,907,987) 17,948,251 (8,988,067) 105,288 492,254 918,815 2,199,760 1,500,000 (2,199,979) (3,846,198) (110,410,252) (16,925,012)

Page | 30

(469.27)

38.00 (764.76)

-

56.50 2.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 63.00 (306.77)

1.00 1.00 -

38.00 (764.76)

-


90,000 90,000

FY 09 Budget

74,135,753

516,000 113,824 5,624,129 9,670,655 288,048 46,542,234 593,889

FY 10 Budget 74,435 16,763,241 15,621,091 284,680 51,047,932 734,000 3,272,431 2,029,831 31,656,058 121,483,699

FY 11 Budget 13,094 7,202 223,620 3,314,846 270,872 173,234 157,035 8,492,937 25,000 8,801,337 21,479,177

FY 12 Budget

90,000 529,094 195,461 22,610,990 28,606,592 843,600 97,763,400 1,484,924 11,765,368 25,000 10,831,168 31,656,058 206,401,655

Total ARRA Funds

CFDA

Planned Amount

Actual Amount

Planned FTE

Actual FTE

4,301,613.00 -

84.391 84.395

371,443.00

1,239,224.00

-

11.0

11.0

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 31

Assurance 4: Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and restructuring (turning around lowest performing schools).

Assurance 3: Make progress towards rigorous college and career-ready standards and high quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace). Funds supporting the expansion of course offerings in Advance Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs to 84.395 977,442.00 prepare students for college and career readiness.

Assurance 2: Establish and use a pre-K through college and career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices). Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. A waiver was approved for the 84.389 620,280.00 620,280.00 statutory grant set-aside for the Per Pupil Calculation for SES to allow the program funds to support the installation of a data repository system to monitor Title I students and staff that will allow the appropriate linkages between several data systems used in the district. Funds supporting the upgrade existing school district data systems to enable more powerful use 84.395 680,946.00 of data and collaboration to enhance insight at the classroom and district levels.

Funds to support increased teacher effectiveness by providing ongoing training in secondary transition planning for students with disabilities and assessing and promoting post traumatic growth in children. Funds supporting training and leadership development for principals, assistant principals, and teachers.

Assurance 1: Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals).

Description

Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds were used by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate the grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure.

1.1C Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report Revenue CFDA Grant Name 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 66.040 Maryland Clean Diesel Program 84.387 Homeless Children and Youth 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 93.708 Head Start ARRA COLA Quality Improvement Grant 84.388 Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grant 84.395 RTTT - Incentives for ESOL Teachers 84.395 Race to the Top 84.410 Education Jobs Fund Total ARRA Funds

ARRA Prior Year Variance Table


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Total *Indicate any other ARRA funds received by the school system, including the CFDA number

* Other Funds are supporting district-wide utilities, and other general expenses of LEA for instructional supplies, textbooks, and testing materials. Funds to support activities and programs that provide technology support and interventions that are designed to reduce referrals to Special Education for students without disabilities and outreach to support families of students with disabilities. Funds to support the improvement of service delivery and resource utilization. Funds will support the continued expansion of Head Start services to 60 additional children and families in center-based settings that will include more technical assistance training for teachers and paraprofessionals. Funds are supporting additional classroom positions in schools and applicable district-wide fringe benefits for school-based instructional personnel. Funds are supporting the acquisition of diesel particulate filters and crankcase ventilation systems to retrofit diesel school buses through an initiative and federal ARRA funding provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Funds will support the implementation of a Digital Learning Initiative in four middle schools that will increase teacher capacity to infuse technology into the curriculum to promote student achievement by engaging in hands on manipulation of content (reading, language arts, math and science) from various sources. Funds are supporting the enhancement and expansion of services to the homeless student population for uniforms, transportation, and personal hygiene items.

Funds to support Coordinated Early Intervention Services (Reading Recovery) to provide intensive support for struggling readers. Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. Waivers were approved for the statutory grant set-asides for SES/Choice Option and the LEA In Improvement for Professional Development to allow the program funds to support the implementation of a summer enrichment program and professional development for school leaders. Funds to support innovative educational reform strategies in targeted low performing turnaround schools that will ensure student achievement and success within four areas of priority that includes governance, attraction/selection of staff, rigor, and school climate.

1.1C Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report

74,435.00 121,483,699.00

421,800.00 551,820.00 -

-

77,803,577

84.392 93.708 84.410 66.040

84.389

84.387

3,565,244.00

-

31,656,058.00

734,000.00

284,680.00

11,846,200.00

7,623,419.00

51,047,932.00

3,272,431.00

84.391

-

84.388

12,577,717.00

51,221,166.00

10,685,215.00

84.389

2,535,667.00

84.394

2,378,264.00

84.391

Page | 32

272.0

-

-

-

68.0

8.0

1.0

52.0

-

19.0

85.0

28.0

255.0

68.0

8.0

1.0

40.0

19.0

80.0

28.0


RACE TO THE TOP SCOPE OF WORK GRANT DOCUMENTS Summary C-125

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 33


C-125 forms for Year 1

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 34


C-125 forms for Year 2

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 35


C-125 forms for Year 3

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 36


C-125 forms for Year 4

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 37


RACE TO THE TOP PROJECT BUDGET WORKBOOKS Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services

Project 1: AP/IB - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools AP/IB (B)(3) 1 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c) 0 419,244 371,744 634,688

456,460

312,340

1,653,488

-

78,440

65,220

81,220

224,880

672,128

1,224,208

1,142,446

1,179,006

4,217,788

-

-

-

-

-

30,892

87,501

87,483

81,743

287,619

953,020

2,444,081

2,123,352

1,984,053

7,504,507

5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Total (e) 1,120,732

250,000

3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges

Project Year 4 (d) $329,744

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 1: AP/IB - Budget Narrative Project Description: The expansion of offerings for AP and IB will provide more students with the courses to be college and career ready. A diagnostic of selected schools in the district will provide the data to develop an action plan to support, teachers, counselors, and administrators and to provide specific supports for students. Formative Assessments will be developed to add data for decision-making Funding: Race To The Top Funds will be used to support the diagnostic and the development of formative assessments. Vertical teaming will be implemented with selected schools in the district, providing information for a systemic rollout. A curriculum audit by the College Board will provide guidance for additional rigor. Year by Year Description: Project Year 2: Conduct diagnostic and develop a systemic action plan. The assessment fees will also be paid for each student to insure equitable access to the examinations. Summer programs will be provided for students in addition to workshops for all staff and middles will be involved in vertical teaming to support student readiness for AP courses. The number of classes available to each high school will increase to 12 per high school. Teachers will be trained to offer courses online. An application will be made for the diploma program for Frederick Douglass High School which currently has the middle years program. The assessment fees will also be paid for each student. Project Years 3-4: Continue the expansion of AP Offerings, provide fees for examinations for AP and IB and continue staff trainings and follow-up diagnostics.

Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Stipends-Middle School $0 $98,000 $49,000 $49,000 $196,000 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 38


Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category Implementation Stipends- Vertical Teaming IB/AP Stipends- AP Achievement workshop AP/IB/SAT Curriculum Writers Assessment Development Writers Curriculum Writers for AP assessment AP Online Instructors AP Course Tutors AP Summer Enrichment Teachers Camp IB IB Summer Arts Institute teachers Broad Fellows Total

$0

$21,000

$21,000

$21,000

$63,000

$63,000

$42,000

$20,000

$20,000

$20,000

$60,000

$35,000

$35,000

$35,000

$105,000

$17,500 $25,000 $50,000

$17,500 $25,000 $50,000

$17,500 $25,000 $50,000

$52,500 $75,000 $150,000

$23,744 $8,000

$23,744 $8,000

$23,744 $8,000

$71,232 $24,000

$13,000 $45,000 $419,244

$13,000 $67,500 $371,744

$13,000 $67,500 $329,744

$39,000 $180,000 $1,120,732

$105,000

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Stipends ($49,000) for Middle School Team Members to participate in workshops. 2 per school (guidance counselor and staff member) x 35 schools x 4 days at $175. Stipends ($49,000/yr) for Middle School Team Members to participate in workshops. 2 per school x 35 schools x 4 days at $175. Project Year 2-4: Stipends ($21,000/yr) for Vertical Teaming IB/AP to support student readiness. 2 one day workshops. 60 teachers x 2 days at $175. Project Year 2-4: Stipends Year 2 ($63,000) for AP Achievement workshop, includes English and Social Studies, leadership, counseling and data measuring. English/Social Studies -60 teachers x 2 days at $175, Counseling-60 counselors x 2 days at $175, and Data Measuring-60 counselors x 2 days at $175. Stipends Year 3 ($42,000) 60 teachers x 2 days at $175 and 60 counselors x 2 days at $175. Project Year 2-4: AP/IB/SAT Curriculum Writers ($20,000/yr) to revise curriculum to insure rigor as identified by the Diagnostic. 12 summer writers x 9 days at $185 stipend. Project Year 2-4: Assessment Development Writers ($35,000/yr) to assist with the development of AP Formative assessments. 10 writers x 20 days at $175. Project Year 2-4: Curriculum Writers ($17,500/yr) to revise and refine curriculum as identified through the AP Formative Assessments. 10 writers x 10 days at $175. Project Year 2-4: AP Online Instructors ($25,000/yr) to offer courses to those students whose locations enrollment is too low for an onsite teacher. This enables expanded offerings (16 classes) at every school. Cost per teacher is $2,500 stipend x 10 teachers. Project Year 2-4: AP Course Tutors ($50,000/yr) to assist student in courses. This enables schools to offer 10 AP courses. 25 high school teachers x 5 sessions at $400 stipend. Project Year 2-4: AP Summer Enrichment Teachers ($23,744/yr) to provide summer bridge instruction to strengthen student skills. 7 teachers x 16 days at $212. Project Year 2-4: Camp IB ($8,000/yr) provides students during the summer with skill building for IB programs. 8 teachers x 5 days at $200. Project Year 2-4: IB Summer Arts Institute Teachers ($13,000/yr) for middle year students at James Madison Middle School. 13 teachers x 5 days at $200. Project Year 2-4: Broad Fellows (1st yr - $45,000 2nd yr- $22,500) to support administration of AP/IB program during the grant period. Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total College Board Diagnostic $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 Vertical Teaming IB/AP $0 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 College Board Middle $0 $150,000 $60,000 $60,000 $270,000 School Workshops IB Consultant $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 National Student Clearing $0 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $33,000 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 39


Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category House College Board Diagnostic College Board Workshops Curriculum Audit AP Formative Assessments Transportation IB Field Trips Transportation IB Summer Arts Institute Catering - Middle School Workshops Catering - Camp IB Catering - IB Summer Arts Institute Catering - AP Achievement Workshop Catering - IB Workshops Catering - Curriculum Writers Parent Outreach Total

$250,000 $0 $0 $0

$0 $80,000 $150,000

$0 $80,000 $150,000

$0 $40,000 $60,000

$250,000 $200,000 $360,000

$150,000

$100,000

$83,000

$333,000

$0

$41,568

$10,000

$10,000

$61,568

$0

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

$6,000

$0

$7,560

$3,780

$3,780

$15,120

$0 $0

$2,500

$2,500

$2,500

$7,500

$2,500

$2,500

$2,500

$7,500

$5,760

$2,880

$5,760

$14,400

$0 $0

$1,800

$1,800

$1,800

$5,400

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

$9,000

$0

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

$6,000

$250,000

$634,688

$456,460

$312,340

$1,653,488

$0

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimation.

Project Year 2-4: Transportation for IB Field Trips ($31,569) for rental of vehicles. Students will participate in trips to events that focus on international affairs. Trips will be determined in consultation with IB North America. Transportation for IB Field Trips ($10,000/yr) for rental of vehicles. Project Year 2-4: Transportation for IB Summer Arts Institute ($2,000/yr). Rental of 2 buses to the Smithsonian. Project Year 2-4: Catering ($3,780) for middle school workshops. Cost per person $9 x 105 members x 4 days. Catering ($3,780/yr) for middle school workshops. Project Year 2-4: Catering ($2,500/yr) for Camp IB. Cost per student $10 x 50 students x 5 days. Project Year 2-4: Catering for IB Summer Arts Institute ($2,500/yr). Cost per student $10 x 50 students x 5 days. Project Year 2-4: Catering for Year 2 and 4 - AP Achievement Workshop ($5,760). Cost per staff $12 x 240 staff x 2 days. Year 3 ($2,880) Cost per staff $12 x 120 x 2 days. Project Year 2-4: Catering for IB Workshop ($1,800/yr). Cost per teacher $12 x 30 teachers x 5 days. Project Year 2-4: Catering for Curriculum Writers ($3,000). Project Year 2-4: IB Consultant ($5,000/yr) to assist workshop with vertical teaming of middle and high school teachers. Project Year 2-4: National Student ClearingHouse ($11,000/yr) will provide data on first year college enrollment and academic performance of AP/IB students for comparative purposes. Cost $500 per site x 22 high school sites Project Year 2-4: College Board will conduct Middle School Workshops ($90,000). The Workshops will involve: ƒ Advisory Development – working with either the District’s materials or College Board materials to develop advisories that set students up for high school and college success. ƒ Vertical Teaming – designed to support the pacing recommendations from curriculum coherence work. ƒ Data Usage – improving the use of data to guide instruction and training at the middle school level College Board will provide Year 2 - 4 workshops on AP Achievement includes English and Social Studies, leadership, counseling and data measuring. Year 3 - Workshops on AP Math and Science and Counseling. Year 4 - Workshops of AP achievement and Counseling. Cost per workshop $20,000. Project Year 2-4: Curriculum Audit Year 2 ($150,000) to be conducted by College Board to align English and Social Studies to college readiness standards. Year 3 ($150,000) to align Math and Science courses. Year 4 ($60,000). Project Year 2-4: AP Formative Assessment Year 2 ($150,000) will involve contracting for development of an assessment to be used with AP courses. Year 3 ($100,000) and Year 4 ($20,000). Project Year 2-4: Parent Outreach ($2,000/yr) will involve a contracted informational brochure. One for AP and one for IB. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 40


Year 1 IB Materials and Supplies IB-Postage Training materials Camp IB Supplies IB Summer Arts Institute AP Achievement Supplies Diploma Support Program Total Project Costs

$0

$0

Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category Year 2* Year 3* $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $14,440 $7,220 $4,500 $4,500 $2,500 $2,500 $12,000 $6,000 $15,000 $15,000 $78,440 $65,220

Year 4* $20,000 $20,000 $7,220 $4,500 $2,500 $12,000 $15,000 $81,220

Total $40,000 $60,000 $28,880 $13,500 $7,500 $30,000 $45,000 $224,880

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: College Ed training materials ($7,220). Cost per person $68.75 x 105 middle school members for resource materials. Training materials for middle school workshop ($7,220/yr). Project Year 2-4: IB Materials and Supplies ($10,000/yr) for classes. Cost per student $200 x 50 students. Project Year 2-4: IB Postage ($20,000/yr) for IB exams. 5 schools x $4,000. Project Year 2-4: Supplies for Camp IB ($4,500/yr). Cost per student $90 x 50 students. Project Year 2-4: Supplies for IB Summer Arts Institute ($2,500/yr). Cost per student $50 x 50 students. Project Year 2-4: Supplies for Year 2 and 4 - AP Achievement workshop ($12,000). Cost per staff $50 x 240 staff. Supplies for Year 3 . Cost per staff $50 x 120 staff. Project Year 2-4: Diploma Support Program (15,000/yr) provides instructional resources for the Frederick Douglass HS Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Fringe Benefits $0 $34,336 $30,446 $27,006 $91,788 IB Annual Dues $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $180,000 IB Application $10,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000 IB Exam Fees $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $270,000 AP Exam Fees $672,128 $1,027,872 $950,000 $1,000,000 $3,650,000 IB-MA (Annual Site Fee) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 Total Project Costs $672,128 $1,224,208 $1,142,446 $1,179,006 $4,217,788 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Fringe benefits include FICA, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. Fringe benefits in the amount of $30,323 that includes $4,013 carried forward from Amendment #2. Project Year 2 -4: The AP assessment fees in the amount of ($127,872) carried froward from Amendment #2, cost per student $70 - up to 1,827 additional students can take the AP exam. AP Exam Fees ($900,000 with an annual increment increase of $50,000). Year 2- up to 11,392 exams, Year 3-up to 12,025 exams and Year 4-up to 12,658 exams. Project Year 2-4: IB Annual Dues ($60,000/yr) for six school program sites. Project Year 2-4: IB Application ($10,000/yr) for Frederick Douglass to have a Diploma Program. Project Year 2-4: IB Exam Fees ($90,000/yr). Cost per exam $200 x 450 exams. Project Year 2-4: IB-MA ($2,000 Annual Site Fee) for middle years program. Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $30,892 $87,501 $87,483 $81,743 $287,619 Total Project Costs $30,892 $87,501 $87,483 $81,743 $287,619 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 41


Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $21,275 carried forward from Amendment #2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost.

Total Project Costs

Year 1 $953,020

Year 2* $2,444,081

Year 3* $2,123,352

Year 4* $1,984,053

Total $7,504,507

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 2: Data Warehouse - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Data Warehouse (C)(2) 2 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c)

$250,000 1,673 251,673

$252,640 17,174 269,814

$250,000 10,743 260,743

Project Year 4 (d)

$250,000 10,743 260,743

Total (e)

1,002,640 40,331 1,042,971

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 2: Data Warehouse - Budget Narrative Project Description: Prince George's County Public Schools is developing our existing data systems to enable more powerful use of data and collaboration to enhance insight and action at the classroom, school, district, and state level. Our plan includes the key components of collaboration, formative assessment, actionable reporting, and targeted instruction ÇŚ and supplements this with goalÇŚoriented management of the improvement process through performance management tools. We will expand our systems to include or integrate data from special instruction programs, special education programs, limited English proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human resources, budget/finance, health, school boundaries, enrollment adjustments, and other relevant areas. This expanded dataset will be managed by a data warehouse office to ensure that stakeholders are empowered in the use of data and will ensure strict security and privacy requirements are met, including compliance with personally identifiable information requirements. Funding: The Data Warehouse Contract provides for the second phase of implementation. The contractual services will include requirement services and training. For requirement services, the vendor will assist the school district in defining it computer systems and other technology requirement including complete data conversion, report development and generation of forms. The training involves the school district employees in operation technology and technology systems. Year by Year Description: 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 42


Project 2: Data Warehouse - Budget Narrative Years 2-4: The single year of funding will help implement the data warehouse. This warehouse will enable the school district to continue to provide formative assessments, use reliable data sources and provide stakeholders with decision making information. v1.1

Project 2: Data Warehouse - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE Salary Total Total Salaries and Wages Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Data Warehouse - Requirement Services Training, Documentation, and Change Management Services Total

Year 1

Year 2*

Year 3*

Year 4*

Total

$200,000

$200,000

$200,000

$200,000

$600,000

$50,000

$50,000

$150,000

$250,000

$250,000

$750,000

$50,000 $250,000

$52,640 $252,640

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: The various vendors (James Group, BounrTec, EiS Technologies, Oracle and others for specialty tasks) will assist with Requirement Services ($200,000) such as dashboard and report request of end-users to enhance the monitoring of performance management data and statistical reporting. The performance data will include teacher effectiveness and student achievement and progress. The contractual support includes pre-defined reports ($53,000), BI & ETL tools ($124,250), and database and portal ($22,750). Project Year 3-4: Vendors will continue to support ongoing implementation of data warehouse. Project Year 2: The various vendors will provide training ($52,640) on the new data warehouse technologies, assist in the knowledge transfer through documentation, and facilitate change management with end-users. The training support includes Power Users ($11,200), Multi-Media Users ($5,200), IT Support and Help Desk Staff ($11,200), Documentation ($16,800) and Train the Trainer ($8,240). Project Year 3-4: Vendors will continue to assist with the ongoing training needs associated with use of the data warehouse. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here. Fringe benefits include FICA, unemployment insurance, and health insurance.

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 43


Project 2: Data Warehouse - Details by Category item. Add rows if necessary

Total

Year 1

Year 2*

Year 3*

Year 4*

-

-

-

-

Total -

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Total $40,331 $0 Total $1,673 $17,174 $10,743 $10,743 $40,331 This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $9,070 carried forward from Amendment 2 to support anticipated 90 day encumbrance liquidation period relating to Project Year 1 obligations recorded as of September 30, 2011. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total $251,673 $269,814 $260,743 $260,743 $1,042,971 Total Project Costs Indirect Cost Recovery

Year 1 $1,673

Year 2* $17,174

Year 3* $10,743

Year 4* $10,743

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Project 3: Data Quality - Budget Summary Table

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Prince George's County Public Schools Data Quality C(3)(i) 3 Project Project Year 1 Year 2 (a) (b) $0 $415,090 13,906 428,996

$108,500 $910 8,632 118,042

Project Year 3 (c)

Project Year 4 (d) $0 $0 -

Total (e) $0 $0 -

108,500 416,000 22,538 547,038

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 3: Data Quality - Project Budget Narrative Project Description: Certica Solutions Software packages provide compliance and accountability solutions for education systems with between grade span K-12 which enables school districts or education agencies to maximize funding, optimize regulatory reporting, and ensure compliance with education policies and mandates. Funding: This initiative will be an estimated cost of $118,042 in project year 2 for contracted services associated with implementation assistance and training on data certification product, software license and materials cost to install and update the school district data systems.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 44


Project 3: Data Quality - Project Budget Narrative Year by Year Description: Years 2-4: In project year 2, Certica Solutions will continue implementation assistance and training on data certification product that will improve the quality of the current Student Information System, improve the accuracy of tracking student information and meet various mandated reporting requirements imposed by federal, state, and local authorities.

Project 3: Data Quality - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE Salary Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Contract Services: Expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Certica Software System $0 $108,500 $108,500 Implementation and Training $0 Total $0 $108,500 $0 $0 $108,500 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: Certica Solutions ($108,500 based on estimated 20 days) will provide one-time implementation assistance and training on data certification product Supplies and Materials: Expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Certica Software Data Certification $415,090 $910 $0 $416,000 Product - Certify Item $0 Total $415,090 $910 $0 $0 $416,000 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: Certica Solutions will grant access to its licensed data certification product - Certify that will improve data quality through the application of pre-populated data rules. The licensing cost is $3.25 per student (280 remaining students from FY 2011 at $3.25). The product requires users to enter data corrections directly into the source systems (e.g., SchoolMAX, Edu Soft, HRIS Payroll) and provides Data Integrity report cards. Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets inlcuding equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestmanet Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 45


Project 3: Data Quality - Details by Category Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Indirect Cost Recovery Total

Year 1 $13,906

Year 2* $8,632

$13,906

$8,632

Year 3*

Year 4*

$0

Total $22,538 $0

$22,538

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $8,632 carried forward from Amendment #2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $428,996 $118,042 $0 $0 $547,038 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 4 Data Wise - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Data Quality C(3)(ii) 4 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c) 315,000 189,000 23,428 267 6,081 3,174 152,284 15,479 22,500 9 18,184 8,923 276 537,476 216,576

Project Year 4 (d) 252,000 3,176 20,639 11,852 287,667

Total (e) 756,000 23,428 12,698 188,401 22,500 38,968 1,041,996

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 4 Data Wise – Budget Narrative Project Description: Contract with the Data WiseŠ consultants of Harvard Graduate School of Education to develop a collaborative planning: data inquiry model that will work in our schools. Funding: Contracted services and instructional pay for training time. Year by Year Description: Years 2-4: Each year there would be contracted services with a cohort of teachers, money to pay for training, materials and supplies and conference fees, evenly split over the remaining years. v1.1

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 46


Project 4 Data Wise – Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. Wages and Salaries: Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Stipends $0 $315,000 $189,000 $252,000 $756,000 FTE Salary Total Salaries and Wages

$0

$315,000

$189,000

$252,000

$756,000

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Stipends $315,000 includes (Project Year 2 original amount of $252,000 in addition to $63,000 carried from Amendment 2) to facilitate teacher participation in implementation planning for Data Wise. Stipend cost is $175 per day. Stipends will continue to be used to facilitate district-wide roll-out training in the 8 Step Cycle of DataWise to establish a culture of data use. DataWise uses collaborative training workshops on use of the data rubric to improve instructional planning. Three cohort groups will be established with a training schedule that will involve the school teams and teacher groups. Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Contracted Services - Harvard Data $0 $23,428 $23,428 Wise Program Total

$0

$23,428

$0

$0

$23,428

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: Contract with the Harvard Data Wise program $11,714 to develop a data inquiry model for collaborative planning in schools. The consultant will advise on the best course for implementation of the 8 Step Cycle for the district leadership teams and schools and provide ongoing monitoring and support of the training. Additional funds in the amount of $11,714 carried forward from Amendment 2 will allow for the continuation of the implementation support and assist in assessment of effectiveness of protocols usage in schools. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Training Supplies $267 $6,081 $3,174 $3,176 $12,698 Total

$267

$6,081

$3,174

$3,176

$12,698

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Provide training manuals and documentation materials on Data Wise rubric for participants, to include teacher workshops, in-service for principals, central and area office staff. Training materials to support district-wide rollout. Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Fringe Benefits $0 $25,799 $15,479 $20,639 $61,916 Conference $0 $126,485 $126,485 Total

$0

$152,284

$15,479

$20,639

$188,401

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here. Fringe benefits include FICA, unemployment insurance, and health insurance.

Project Year 2: Conference ($123,450); the first cohort group of principals and school teams will participate in Data Wise conference at Harvard University to finalize roll-out training and implementation plans. Fringe Benefits ($25,799) applicable to stipend payments. Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 47


Project 4 Data Wise – Details by Category property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Equipment Total

Year 1 $0

Year 2* $22,500

Year 3*

Year 4*

Total $22,500

$0

$22,500

$0

$0

$22,500

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: Acquire approximately 45 Laptops for training use during the implementation of Data Wise. Cost per computer $500. Transfers- (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $9 $18,184 $8,923 $11,852 $38,968 $0 Total $9 $18,184 $8,923 $11,852 $38,968 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 4.49% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $8,864 carried forward from Amendment #2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $276 $537,476 $216,576 $287,667 $1,041,996 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 5: Teacher Incentives - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Teacher Incentives (D)(2);(D)(3)(i) 5 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c) 351,023 28,749 17,051 396,823

Project Year 4 (d) 351,022 28,749 17,051 396,822

Total (e) 702,045 57,498 34,102 793,645

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 5: Teacher Incentives - Project Budget Narrative Project Description: This project will examine current stipends and the research around teacher incentives to work in low performing schools. Once identified, the district will work with the bargaining partners to establish stipends to support teacher incentives. Funding: The district will revise stipends and incentives in the contract and operating budget to bring incentives in line with the research. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 48


Year by Year Description: There will be no charge in years one and two as the investigation of stipends is part of the work ERS is doing under the Gates Grant and Teacher Effectiveness. After year two, the district will begin to provide incentives. At this point, it is difficult to know how the ERS study will turn out and the collaboration with the bargaining units. v1.1 Project 5: Teacher Incentives - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE Stipends $351,023 $351,022 $702,045 Total Salaries and Wages

-

-

$351,023

$351,022

$702,045

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Estimated Incentive Stipends for teachers in low performing schools: Estimated performance incentive based stipend pay for teachers working in low performing schools - Approximate stipend pay to be developed - ($2,500/teacher for approximately 140.41 teachers each year for two years). *The district will work and develop stipend incentives for this segment of teachers. Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials inlcuded with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Fringe Benefits $28,749 $28,749 $57,497 Total

$28,749 $28,749 $57,497 Applicable fringe benefits for incentive stipend payouts (Total stipend payout x 8.19% for FICA and Workmans Compensation). Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets inlcuding equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestmanet Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $17,051 $17,051 $34,102 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 49


Total

$0

Project 5: Teacher Incentives - Details by Category $0 $17,051

$17,051

$34,102

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 4.49% (Total project - equipment x rate / 1 + rate). The IDC amount is allocated across each project. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $0 $0 $396,823 $396,822 $793,644 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 6: School Leaders Network - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools School Leader Network (D)(3) (i) 6 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c) 241,266 120,000 9,046 5,156 250,312 125,156

Project Year 4 (d)

Total (e)

120,000 5,156 125,156

481,266 19,358 500,624

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 6: School Leaders Network - Budget Narrative Project Description: The School Leaders Network is an organization that provides training and leadership development experiences for principals. The goal of this organization is to create communities of practice for public school principals to work together, to solve real problems, and create change as the state school-b-school, so that all children in under-resourced communities graduate with college ready skills. The program uses and inquiry based network model led by experienced and trained facilitators. Principals form a network. The SLN then engages our principals in the process of identifying, analyzing and solving critical leadership issue that is co-constructed by the SLN. Principals then take the process model of inquiry back to their school community to solve the problems of student learning that are an impediment to student success. Funding: The project will use Race To The Top funds to provide contractual services for training that will include SLN facilitator training fees for program participants. Year by Year Description: The funds will support the development of professional learning communities among school leaders that include teachers and principals. Groups are constructed based on focus. Middle School principals and the work with Secondary School Reform constitute the first group. A second group of multi-cross level (ES, MS, and HS) principals will participate in a second group as well as other groups centered around teacher reform and evaluation. v1.1 Project 6: School Leaders Network - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 50


Project 6: School Leaders Network - Details by Category year. (Classification) FTE Salary Total Salaries and Wages

Year 1 -

Year 2* -

Year 3*

Year 4*

Total -

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total School Leaders Network Training $ $240,000 $120,000 $120,000 $480,000 $1,266 $ $ $1,266 Total $ $241,266 $120,000 $120,000 $481,266 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Professional development training for participating teachers and administrators: 2 cohorts of (3 groups of 20 participants) in year 2 @ $2,000/participant = $240,000 and 3 groups of 20 participants years 3&4 @ $2,000/participant per year = $240,000. Cohort original scheduled for year 1 moved to year 2. Estimated cost for 3 years = $160,000 x 3 years = $480,000. Estimated catering cost for Year 2 training sessions for the 2 cohorts - $1,266 (120 participants x $10.55/participant). Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets inlcuding equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestmanet Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $9,046 $5,156 $5,156 $19,358 Total

$0

$9,046

$5,156

$5,156

$19,358

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $5,156 carried forward from Amendment #2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $0 $250,312 $125,156 $125,156 $500,624 v1.1 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 51


Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories

Project 7: Teacher Leadership - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Teacher leadership (D)(3)(i);(D)(5)(i);(D)(2)(iv)(a) 7 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c)

Project Year 4 (d)

Total (e)

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

$0 $4,500 $2,250 $2,250 3,537 1,750 1,750 307 172 172 8,344 4,172 4,172 Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

9,000 7,037 651 16,688

Project 7: Teacher Leadership - Budget Narrative Project Description: The Teacher Leadership Initiative will allow teacher fellows to participate in a Pre Leadership Academy (PLA), which is a comprehensive approach to understanding the demands and nature of the role of the principal. The PLA will provide course work that will include evaluating case studies and projects, in addition to allowing the participants a principal shadowing experience. Funding: This project will use Race To The Top funds to purchase training materials, catering services and instructional resources for teacher fellows. Through participation in the ongoing training sessions, teacher leader fellows will become better prepared to support teaching and learning in diverse learning environments. Year by Year Description: For each year, this project will provide training for new cohorts of 25 Teacher Leader Fellows in the pre-Leadership Academy. v1.1 Project 7: Teacher Leadership - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE Salary Total Salaries and Wages Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Catering for Meetings & $0 $4,500 $2,250 $2,250 $9,000 Trainings Total

$0

$4,500

$2,250

$2,250

$9,000

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Catering costs for meals during meetings and staff development training sessions for participating teacher leader fellows: 25 participant 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 52


Project 7: Teacher Leadership - Details by Category fellows x average estimated meal cost $90.00/participant per year = $2,250. Estimated cost for 4 years = $2,250/year x 4 years = $9,000. Contracted Services - Catering in the amount of $2,250 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2, for a Year 2 total of $4,500. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Coursework/Staff Development $0 $3,537 $1,750 $1,750 $7,037 Training Materials Total $0 $3,537 $1,750 $1,750 $7,037 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Staff development materials for teacher fellows that will be used in the Pre Leadership Academy (PLA): 25 participant fellows x average estimated materials costs for books, manuals, and other training supplies $70.00/participant per year = $1,750. Estimated Year 2 incentive supplies for PLA $37.00. Estimated cost for 4 years = $1,750/year x 4 years = $7,000. Supplies & Materials in the amount of $1,750 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2, for a Year 2 total of $3,500. Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Item Item Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here. Fringe benefits include FICA, unemployment insurance, and health insurance.

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total item Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $307 $172 $172 $651 $0 Total $0 $307 $172 $172 $651 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 4.49% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $172 of additional recovery for expenditures that will occur in Project Year 2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $8,344 $4,172 $4,172 $16,688 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number:

Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Pipeline of Administrators (D)(3)(i);(D)(5)(ii);(D)(5)(i);(E)(2);(D)(2)(ii) 8

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 53


Budget Categories

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Budget Summary Table Project Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (a) (b) (c) (d) $0 $45,000 $22,500 $0 1,606,462 888,231 896,500 8,819 15,181 12,000 12,000 40,124 172,233 101,269 93,000 70,880 44,002 43,035 48,943 1,909,756 1,068,002 1,044,535

Total (e) 67,500 3,391,193 48,000 406,625 157,917 4,071,235

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Budget Narrative Project Description: This project is committed to using proven contractors and programs such as New Leaders for New Schools, the National Principal Leadership Institute (NPLI),Turnaround School, LEAPP, and NISL to attract talent, but also to develop the internal capacity of our current principals, assistant principals and aspiring principals. Funding: The project will use Race to The Top funds will be used to support training programs for school district administrators that comprise of current and aspiring principals including assistant principals. Year by Year Description: Each program has specific activities and materials that are associated with their cost and are replicated in design by the next cohort or group selected to go through the respective program over the four year period. v1.1

Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.75 Salary $0 $45,000 $22,500 $0 $67,500 Total $0 $45,000 $22,500 $0 $67,500 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimation.

Salary for Broad Fellow/Resident to assist in the management of the RTTT grant: .5FTE of $90,000 annual salary = $45,000 as reflected in the TBC contract. The Broad Center picks up other portion of salary $45,000 in year two. In year three, funds are being requested to cost share .25 FTE equal to $22,500. There will no request in year 4. Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total New Leaders New Schools $0 $943,000 $471,500 $471,500 $1,886,000 Univ. of Virginia $0 $260,000 $130,000 $130,000 $520,000 UVA-evaluation $25,000 $25,000 NISL $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 LEAPP $28,462 $36,731 $45,000 $110,193 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 54


LEAPP - Asst Principal Total

Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Details by Category $0 $200,000 $100,000 $0 $1,606,462 $888,231

$100,000 $896,500

$400,000 $3,391,193

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimation.

Professional development training contracts and evaluation services for participants: New Leaders for New Schools: (40 participants @ avg cost $23,575/participant = year 2 cost of $943,000 with 20 participants each for years 3 and 4) University of Virginia: (40 participants @ avg cost of $6,500/participant = year 2 cost of $260,000 with 20 participants each for years 3 and 4) UVA Evaluation: (Estimated cost for project evaluation services - $25,000) NISL: (15 participants @ avg cost $10,000/participant = yearly cost of $150,000 for training & curriculum costs per participant) LEAPP: (Estimated training services for three years per vendor quote...$28,462 (y2); $36,731 (yr3); $45,000 (yr4); LEAPP: (Assistant principals 40 @ avg cost of $5,000/AP = year 2 cost of $200,000). Professional development activities to occur in project year 2. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Materials - Electronic Portfolios $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $18,000 Staff Development Supplies $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $10,000 Training Materials $1,819 $8,181 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Total $8,819 $15,181 $12,000 $12,000 $48,000 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimation.

Supplies and Materials: Materials for electronic portfolios: (30 participants @ avg cost of $150/participant); Staff development supplies for trainings: (30 participants @ avg cost $75/participant each year); Other training materials: 30 participants @ avg cost $60.64/participant). Remaining funds for supplies realigned to project year 2 to accommodate 30 additional participants @ avg cost of $106.04/participant. Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Fringe Benefits $0 $16,538 $8,269 $0 $24,806 Certification $14,200 $35,619 $20,000 $20,000 $89,819 Travel $25,924 $74,076 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000 MASSP & NASSP Conference $0 $46,000 $23,000 $23,000 $92,000 Total $40,124 $172,233 $101,269 $93,000 $406,625 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimation.

Other Charges: National Principal Leadership Institute (NPLI) conference selected which better equips participants with necessary skills to meet organizational goals. (transportation, lodging, meals, conference fees $74,076). Conference travel balance in the amount of $24,076 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2 to attend NPLI in 2012. Certification: (Mentor principal certification cost through NAESP - 20 mentor principals @ $1,781/mentor principal), for a total of $35,619, in addition to $5,800 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2 with the possibility to accommodate additional mentor principal certification; MASSP & NASSP Conference travel $46,000 (MASSP -registration $5,750, lodging - $6,900, ground transportation - $3,492, Meals - $1,656) and (NASSP registration fees - $1,401, lodging - $2,250, Airfare $819, Meals - $432, conference materials - $300); in addition to $23,000 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2 with anticipating the ability to accommodate additional principals. Fringe costs associated with Broad Fellow @ approximately 37% of salary for FICA, Health, Life, Retirement, and Workers Comp. Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $70,880 $44,002 $43,035 $157,917 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 55


Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Details by Category Total $0 $70,880 $44,002 $43,035 $157,917 This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total project - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $34,656 of additional recovery for expenditures that will occur in Project Year 2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project.

Total Project Costs

Year 1 $48,943

Year 2* $1,909,756

Year 3* $1,068,002

Year 4* $1,044,535

Total $4,071,235

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 9: Coaching - Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Coaching (D)(2)(iii);(D)(2)(iv)(b);(D)(5)(i);(D)(5)(i-ii);(D)(5) 9 Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (a) (b) (c) $0 $1,197,557 $595,500 240,000 120,000 54,933 30,745 1,492,490 746,245

Project Year 4 (d)

Total (e)

$595,500 120,000 30,745 746,245

2,388,557 480,000 116,423 2,984,980

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 9: Coaching - Budget Narrative Project Description: Provide coaching and support to sitting principals and assistant principals through mentoring, professional learning communities, webinars, and seminars. Through a partnership with New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS), up to 20 principals in year 2 and a cohort of 10 principals in years 3 and 4 each will be trained to serve in high-needs schools, and a pipeline of candidates developed to fill school leader positions in high poverty and historically underperforming schools in PGCPS. Funding: The project will use Race To The Top funds for contracted services of New Leaders for New Schools, a program that identifies and develops administrators who demonstrate the potential to become effective and highly effective principals. Successful participants in the program will be prepared to serve in under-performing, traditionally hard-to-staff schools in PGCPS. Year by Year Description: The project will provide a structured learning experience for resident principals, allowing them opportunities to engage in reflective experiences over the four year period. v1.1 Project 9: Coaching - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 56


Salary Total Salaries and Wages

Project 9: Coaching - Details by Category -

-

-

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total School Leaders $0 $80,000 $40,000 $40,000 $160,000 NLNS $0 $200,557 $97,000 $97,000 $394,557 NLNS $0 $692,000 $346,000 $346,000 $1,384,000 NLNS $0 $225,000 $112,500 $112,500 $450,000 Total $0 $1,197,557 $595,500 $595,500 $2,388,557 Contract Services: Contract coaching for sitting principals with New leaders for New Schools and School Leader Network. School Leaders Network: Program training costs for facilitator services relating to the Building the Professional Community of Practice and Inquiry Process Programs that include designing and implementing program models and assisting the district in designing leadership professional development for sustainability beyond contract terms - (Per contract estimated 40 participants @ $2,000ea in year 2 = $80,000; 10 participants @$2,000 each for years 3 & 4 = $80,000). New Leaders New Schools: Training costs for up to 20 resident principals @ $10,028 in year 2 = $200,557; 10 resident principals each in years 3 and 4 that include residency fees, program coursework, six week summer leadership coach training, curriculum development and design, program evaluation and data collection costs 20 principals @ $34,600/yr = $692,000. Program interviews and recruitment costs 20 principals @$11,250/yr = $225,000). Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Training $0 $75,000 $37,500 $37,500 $150,000 Seminars $0 $95,000 $47,500 $47,500 $190,000 Webex $0 $70,000 $35,000 $35,000 $140,000 Total $0 $240,000 $120,000 $120,000 $480,000 Other Charges: Seminars, WebEx, conferences, certification. (WebEx: Training Sessions $2,370/mo x 12 months = $28,440. Toll call user fees $1,625 committed mins/mo x 12 months = $19,500. Web courses 4 courses @ $2,355/course =$9,420. Advance Training Web course 4 courses @ $3,160 = $12,640. Total Year 2 cost WebEx $70,000). (Seminars: *Average training and facility costs of $4,750 for 20 resident principals in year 2, for a total cost of $95,000, 10 resident principals in years 3 and 4 each by NLNS staff for entry planning and local context seminars for mid-year and year-end leadership assessment). (Training: *Average training cost of $3,750 for 20 resident principals in year 2, for a total Year 2 cost of $75,000 and 10 resident principals each in years 3 and 4 by NLNS staff and national faculty members attending national seminars centered around leadership training for first year principals). *(Facilitator fees for travel, marketing, and production are included). Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $54,933 $30,745 $30,745 $116,423 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 57


Project 9: Coaching - Details by Category $0 Total $0 $54,933 $30,745 $30,745 $116,423 This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total project - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $30,745 of additional recovery for expenditures that will occur in Project Year 2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $0 $1,492,490 $746,245 $746,245 $2,984,980 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Budget Summary Table

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories

1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Prince George's County Public Schools Teacher Pipeline (D)(2)(i-iv);(D)(5)(i);(D)(5)(i);(E)(2);(D)(3)(i,ii);(D)(5)(i,ii) 10 Project Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (a) (b) (c) (d) $322,500 322,500

118,900 $905,569 9,738 55,683 1,089,890

59,450 $900,281 4,869 41,449 1,006,049

Total (e)

59,450 $1,050,281 4,869 47,895 1,162,495

237,800 3,178,631 19,476 145,027 3,580,934

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Budget Narrative Project Description: The Teacher Pipeline project will develop a pipeline for instructors to work in low performing schools by contracting with Teach for America and the Danielson Group. The project will also demonstrate PGCPS's commitment to identifying and selecting individuals who have the skills to work in low performing schools. Through targeted professional development experiences, coaching, mentoring and participation in schoolbased leadership opportunities, we seek to develop a strong pool of teachers to serve with a particular focus on low performing schools. Funding: This project will use Race To The Top funds to provide stipends for teachers participating in the Framework for Teaching training sessions and contracted services for training provided by the Danielson Group and Teach For America. Year by Year Description: The key to this projects success is capacity building throughout a teacher’s career, beginning with new teacher induction and continuing as teachers advance in proficiency, and eventually consider leadership roles in the school system. Critical components of this framework and pathway are the opportunities for mentoring and coaching of resident teachers and instructional support in the schools they serve. Foundational training is based on the Framework for Teaching, and is facilitated by the Danielson Group over the four year period.

Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 58


(Classification) FTE Salary Stipends - After School Trainings Stipends - Saturday Trainings

Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Details by Category Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $18,900 $9,450

Total

$0

$118,900

Year 4*

$59,450

Total

$0 $0 $50,000 $9,450

$0 $0 $200,000 $37,800

$59,450

$237,800

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Payments to teachers attending workshops and seminars during the year at the current workshop rate of $175.00 (Year 2 570 teachers @ $175 = $100,000) (Years 3-4 - 285 teachers @ $175 = $50,000/each year, Supplemental weekend training seminars (Year 2 - 108 teachers @ $175 = $18,900) (Years 3-4 - 54 teachers @ $175 = $9,450). Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Danielson Group $0 $23,069 $10,281 $10,281 $43,631 TFA (Teach For America) $322,500 $882,500 $890,000 $1,040,000 $3,135,000 Total $322,500 $905,569 $900,281 $1,050,281 $3,178,631 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: Contractual Training for Participants: Danielson Group ($23,069 per vendor estimated quote); which includes $10,281 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Teach for America (112 corps members @ $7,500/(average) each = $842,500). Summer Leadership 20 corps members @ $2,000 = $40,000/year 2 cost. Years 2, 3, and 4 will also reflect an increase in corps members during the Summer Leadership Activity plus possible incentives. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total

-

-

-

-

-

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Fringe Benefits $0 $9,738 $4,869 $4,869 $19,476 Total

$0

$9,738

$4,869

$4,869

$19,476

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Fringe benefits for stipend payments: (8.19% for FICA and Workman's Compensation - $59,450 X .0819 = $4,869). Fringe benefits in the amount of $4,869 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $55,683 $41,449 $47,895 $145,027 Total

$0

$55,683

$41,449

$47,895

$145,027

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 59


Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Details by Category This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total project - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $21,038 of additional recovery for expenditures that will occur in Project Year 2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $322,500 $1,089,890 $1,006,049 $1,162,495 $3,580,934 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

v1.1

Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number: Budget Categories 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Contract Services 3. Supplies and Materials 4. Other Charges 5. Property 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6)

Project 11: Hillside –Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection (HW-SC) (E)(2) 11 Project Year 1 (a)

Project Year 2 (b) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -

$282,985 $0 $0 $0 $10,602 293,587

Project Year 3 (c) $143,005 $0 $0 $0 $6,145 149,150

Project Year 4 (d) $144,541 $0 $0 $0 $6,211 150,752

Total (e) 570,531 22,958 593,489

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Project 11: Hillside - Budget Narrative Project Description: Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection (HW-SC) is a nationally-recognized youth development program proven to significantly increase high school graduation rates for at-risk youth. HW-SC's evidence-based model provides comprehensive, 360 degree support to youth in grades 7 - 12 who possess two or more research-based risk factors for dropping out of school, including: low socio-economic status, failure in 2-3 core subjects, low standardized test scores, multiple school suspensions, below average attendance rates, and being over-age for grade level. HW-SC promotes learning and motivation through *year-round* academic advocacy and referral, parent engagement, life skills & character mentoring and enrichment, post-secondary planning services, career orientations and workforce readiness training with experiential placements - all coordinated and monitored by a full-time, professional Youth Advocate serving up to 32 students, from enrollment through graduation. Funding: HW-SC brings a twenty-three year track record of innovation and excellence in bridging the gap between the workforce recruitment and retention needs of leading employers and the career pathway achievements of at-risk youth. Funding for this initiative will expand HW-SC's ability to target and serve 32 additional students at Suitland High School, with a recruitment priority of eligible students entering the 9th grade. Recruited students will access full program offerings, including: individualized academic, personal, developmental, and career support services, robust after-school enrichment programming, summer academy offerings, youth employment training, professional job mentoring and placement services, as well as college exposure, preparation and navigation resources. An Individualized Graduation Plan (IGP) is developed and informed by youth, parent and school contribution; and, progress is measured against improvements in challenge areas annually. Performance and outcomes data is captured and analyzed via an Efforts Toward Outcomes (ETO) database. The Youth Advocate engages parents/guardians, teachers, and employers proactively and routinely so they can be an integral part of each student's success. The Youth Advocate will retain the same cohort of students in the initial [9th grade] group, providing a continuum of customized age and grade appropriate programming as students advance each year- with the goal of student graduation at the end of the 4th year (12th grade). Year by Year Description: Project Year 2: Hire Youth Advocate and recruit case load of 32 eligible 9th grade students. Initiate evidence-based Teen Outreach Program (TOP) curricular enrichments. Provide year-round programming with particular program emphasis on supporting transitions from middle to 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 60


Project 11: Hillside - Budget Narrative high school settings successfully; academic and personal goal-setting, and parent/guardian engagement. Provide year-round programming with program emphasis on practical college and career exposure, character development of youth empowerment principles in "choice" particular and "voice; and, community & civic service projects Project Years 3-4: Provide year-round programming with particular program emphasis on Youth Employment Training Academy (YETA/Jobs Institute), graduation transition for cohort, and Post-Secondary Preparation and engagement (PSPS).

Project 11: Hillside - Details by Category

Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total

-

-

-

-

-

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Hillside Work/Scholarship $0 $282,985 $143,005 $144,541 $570,531 Connection $0 Total $0 $282,985 $143,005 $144,541 $570,531 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2: Hillside Work Scholarship Connection ($140,000) will provide a youth development program for at-risk youth at Suitland HS to increase the graduation rate. The program will serve up to 32 selected students. The contractual costs include budgeted personnel estimated at $93,200 with fringe (Youth Advocate - $55,500, Employment Coordinator - $11,000, Admin Support - $4,200, Tutors - $2,800) and the remainder ($48,291) for the contractor's general operating expenses. These operating expenses include program supplies ($19,600) and local mileage ($2,794) for assigned staff. Services rendered in Project Year 1 in the amount of $140,000 will be paid in Year 2 as apart of grant amendment 2 submitted just prior to Project Year 1 ending. Project Year 3-4: The base cost of the Hillside Work Scholarship Connection ($140,000) will provide a youth development program for at-risk youth at Suitland HS to increase the graduation rate. The program will serve up to 32 selected students. The contractual costs include budgeted personnel estimated at $93,200 with fringe (Youth Advocate - $55,500, Employment Coordinator - $11,000, Admin Support $4,200, Tutors - $2,800) and the remainder ($46,800) for the contractor's general operating expenses. These operating expenses include program supplies ($19,600) and local mileage ($1,300) for assigned staff. Maintain the youth development program which will continue with the same cohort of students at Suitland HS. The contractual costs increase approximately 1.1% annually. This increase is applied only to the budgeted personnel expenses. The general operating expenses remain unchanged. Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here. Fringe benefits include FICA, unemployment insurance, and health insurance.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 61


Project 11: Hillside - Details by Category

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $10,602 $6,145 $6,211 $22,958 Total $0 $10,602 $6,145 $6,211 $22,958 This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $6,016 of additional recovery for expenditures that will occur in Project Year 2 . The IDC amount is allocated across each Project Year in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $0 $293,587 $149,150 $150,752 $593,489 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR – Budget Summary Table Prince George's County Public Schools STEM NCTAF SSR Emphasis on STEM Priority 12 Project Project Project Project Budget Categories Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1. Salaries and Wages 10,850 179,150 118,400 118,400 426,800 2. Contract Services $0 $150,086 $77,143 $77,143 304,372 3. Supplies and Materials 5,000 3,500 3,500 12,000 4. Other Charges $889 $27,006 $15,160 $15,160 58,215 5. Property $12,290 $12,710 $17,500 $17,500 60,000 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) $394 $13,591 $9,204 $9,204 32,394 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 24,422 387,544 240,907 240,907 893,781 Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years. Local School System: Project Name: Associated with Criteria: Project Number:

Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR – Budget Narrative Project Description: NCTAF’s primary goal of the project is to “support schools' efforts" to prepare students for STEM college readiness and workplace success by building cross-curricular teams which engage science, math, and technology teachers on the same team, focused specifically on STEM teaching and learning. These teams are then broadened to include adjunct experts from industry as fully participating members of the team. Industry content and expertise becomes an important piece of the project based learning modules co-created by the teams. NCTAF is currently working collaboratively with 3 schools in PGCPS in the creation of 21st Century Learning Teams through a grant with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. These 21st century learning teams engage both NASA Scientists and 5 interdisciplinary teachers (science, technology, math and special education) per team, in improving learning and teaching of Earth and Space Science concepts (Maryland State and the National Standards will drive choice of topics) through the development of high quality project based learning (PBL) STEM Modules that integrate real-world NASA resources and data. During this collaborative process, NASA scientists and NCTAF personnel work with our multidisciplinary teams at each of the three schools to deepen content knowledge and design learning 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 62


Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR – Budget Narrative experiences to engage our students in meaningful and extended inquiry activities while simultaneously providing our teachers with embedded professional development. These STEM Modules will be taught and their impact on increasing students’ STEM knowledge assessed during the school year. This model will be replicated in several other schools over a 3 year period. Year 2 will involve 5 schools with 5 interdisciplinary teachers each. Years 3 and 4 will involve 7 schools with the same model. With the different STEM Academies in the Clusters, we are hoping that NCTAFPGCPS collaborate with other Governmental agencies such as NIH, DOH, DOE, DOT, EPA, NOAA, Homeland Security etc. to support our STEM SSR in PGCPS. This will lead to the design, development and of multidisciplinary STEM Modules on Biomedical Sciences, Cybersecurity and Homeland Security Sciences, and Environmental Sciences. Funding: This project will use Race to the Top funds for Years 2-4. Year by Year Description: Years 2: Five high schools (25 teachers) each, will be selected to participate in this STEM NCTAF SSR Project. Each multidisciplinary team (5 teachers /school) will develop and teach 1 interdisciplinary module/quarter (4 modules/year). These Modules will range from Earth and Space Sciences, Biomedical Sciences, Homeland Security and Environmental Sciences. This will be in collaboration with NCTAF and several governmental agencies, mentioned above. Years 3-4: Same as above, but with 7 schools each year (35 teachers). Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR - Details by Category Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Coordinator - Part Time $0 $60,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 Curriculum Coaches - (2) $0 $8,000 4,000 4,000 16,000 Teacher Stipends -STEM workshops $8,350 $91,650 $70,000 $70,000 $240,000 Teacher Leader Stipends $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $10,000 Substitutes $0 $17,000 $11,900 $11,900 $40,800 Total $10,850 $179,150 $118,400 $118,400 $426,800 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Part-time Coordinator (PGCPS) to oversee project ($30,000), includes support of Teams and all STEM modules. Teacher stipends and 2 Curriculum Coaches stipends make up the yearly totals. Part-Time Coordinator continues to oversee project ($30,000/yr), Year 2 total costs is $60,000, which includes an additional $30,000 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year Project Year 2-4: Curriculum Coaches ($4,000) for STEM workshop. 2 coaches x 10 days at $200. Continue Curriculum Coaches for STEM workshops ($4,000/yr), Year 2 total costs is $8,000, which includes an additional $4,000 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Project Year 2-4: Teacher Stipends ($50,000) to continue the facilitation of STEM workshops (25 teachers x 10 days at $200), Year 2 total costs is $91,650, which includes $41,650 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2, the additional funding will allow additional participants. Continue Teacher Stipends for STEM workshops. Year 3-4 teacher participation increases to 35. Project Year 2-4: Teacher Leader Stipends - Continue with 5 Teacher Leaders ($2,500/yr) 5 teacher leaders @ $500/each. Project Year 2-4: Substitutes ($8,500) to facilitate the release of teachers, Year 2 total costs is $17,000, which includes $8,500 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. 25 substitutes x 4 days at $85. Continue to facilitate release of teachers with substitutes. Year 3-4 increase substitutes (additional 10) to match the additional teachers. Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are not on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total NCTAF Fiscal/Programmatic Oversight $0 $97,586 $48,793 $48,793 $195,172 Learning Team Specialist $0 $15,000 $7,500 $7,500 $30,000 Evaluator $0 $24,000 $12,000 $12,000 $48,000 Conference Presenters $0 $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 $6,000 Catering $0 $10,500 $7,350 $7,350 $25,200 Total $0 $150,086 $77,143 $77,143 $304,372 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 63


Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR - Details by Category Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Personnel NCTAF provides various staff ($48,793) to support programmatic elements and fiscal oversight, Year 2 costs total $97,586, which includes $48,793 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. The staff provides training/guidance to the district coordinator and seeks industry volunteers. NCTAF programmatic support and oversight ($48,793/yr) continues. Project Year 2-4: Learning Team Specialist ($7,500) will provide ongoing professional development to teachers on project-based learning and team-building, Year 2 total costs is $15,000, which includes $7,500 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. 3 training days at $2,500. Continue to use a Learning Team Specialist ($7,500/yr) for professional development. Project Year 2-4: Independent Evaluator ($12,000) will be engaged to provide formative and summative assessments of the program for use by the coordinator and NCTAF, Year 2 costs total $24,000, which includes $12,000 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Engage annually an independent evaluator (12,000/yr) to assess the student impact from STEM program. Project Year 2-4: Conference presenters ($1,500); speakers for various workshops, Year 2 total costs is $3,000, which includes $1,500 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Continue the use of speakers for workshops. Project Year 2-4: Catering ($5,250) for training/workshops, Year 2 costs total $10,500, which includes $5,250 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Estimated cost 7 days training x 30 teachers at $25 (to include breakfast and lunch). Continue providing food for the trainings/workshops. Year 3-4 cost increase to reflect an additional 12 teachers (42 in all). Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary.

Teacher/Instructional Materials Total

Year 1 $ $

Year 2* $5,000

Year 3* $3,500

Year 4* $3,500

Total $12,000

$5,000

$3,500

$3,500

$12,000

-

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Supplies and Materials Year 2 costs total $5,000, which includes $2,500 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Teacher materials are allocated at $500/school (5 schools in year 2 -- 7 schools in years 3 and 4). A description of the material to be purchased is not known at this time for it will reflect, once determined, the STEM Module selected at each school. Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 NCTAF and Other Consultant Travel Teachers Travel Phone -conference calls Fringe Total

$0 $0 $0 $889 $889

Year 2* $6,200 $3,176 $2,958 $14,672 $27,006

Year 3* $3,100 $1,863 $500 $9,697 $15,160

Year 4* $3,100 $1,863 $500 $9,697 $15,160

Total $12,400 $6,902 $3,958 $34,955 $58,215

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project 2-4: Provide travel allowance for NCTAF staff and others in the amount of $3,100 participating in the development of STEM modules, including conference presenters. Year 2 costs total $6,200, which includes $3,100 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Project Year 2: Other charges to provide a local travel allowance for teachers to attend design process workshops. Year 2 costs total $3,176, which includes $1,588 carried forward from Amendment #2 for Year 2. Project 3-4: Continue the use of local travel allowance for teachers. Project Year 2: Provide access to conference calls ($2,958) for cross-site collaboration. Project Year 2-4: Travel and Phone Expenses remain constant in support of the program. Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets including equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Laptops $12,290 $12,710 $17,500 $17,500 $60,000 $0 Total $12,290 $12,710 $17,500 $17,500 $60,000 Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Project Year 2-4: Continue to purchase laptops for STEM participants. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 64


Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR - Details by Category Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $394 $13,591 $9,204 $9,204 $32,394 Total

$394

$13,591

$9,204

$9,204

$32,394

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

This item represents the indirect costs recovery at the MSDE approved rate of 3.35% (Total grant - equipment x rate / 1 + rate) in addition to $7,578 of additional recovery for expenditures that will occur in Project Year 2. The IDC amount is allocated across each project in the grant on a percentage basis of direct project cost. Total Project Costs

$24,422

$387,544

$240,907

$240,907

$893,781

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2-4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 65


REVENUE ANALYSIS 1. Did actual FY 2011 revenue meet expectations as anticipated in the Master Plan Update for 2011? If not, identify the changes and the impact any changes had on the FY 2011 budget and on the system’s progress towards achieving master plan goals. Please include any subsequent appropriations in your comparison table and narrative analysis. Revenues received by the school system in FY 2011 from federal, state, local, and Board sources totaled $1,610,594,184. An additional $6,596,871 in carried over prior year fund balance brought total revenue for FY 2011 to $1,617,191,055. This amount is ($16.3) million less than the original FY2011 Approved Budget of $1,633,526,541. The revenue shortage resulted from receiving ($13.2) million less in Special Education – Nonpublic Placements funds than anticipated, a reduction of ($ 0.8) million in State Aid resulting from the MSDE Enrollment Audit, and receiving ($2.9) million less than was anticipated from grants and other Board source revenues. These reduced amounts were marginally offset by a $0.6 million fund balance that was carried over from the prior year. The Board of Education’s operating budget required supplemental appropriations totaling $5,350,898 to support a series of one-time critical expenditure needs as well as to offset a ($2,435,522) reduction in the initial appropriation. The State shifted ($25,326,447) in SY2011 Foundation Aid into a reserve for SY2012 and offset that reduction with a $25,326,447 second portion of funding from the Federal Education Jobs Fund. In addition, a decrease of ($3.0 million) in Board Source revenue combined with a $5.3 million increase in grant funding above anticipated amounts and the use of the $0.6 million of the prior year’s fund balance resulted in a net increase of $2,915,376 in the Board’s overall operating budget. The additional $2.9 million in net supplemental appropriations raised total revenue appropriations to $1,636,441,917. The FY2011 approved local appropriation of $599,014,400 was $694,630 higher than anticipated due to increased restricted grants received during the fiscal year. These restricted grant fund increases included: $412,040 in DSS Child Care; $198,573 in ASPP Panda Program; and $ 84,017 in other restricted grants. Board Source revenue, budgeted at $14,289,488, was ($645,516) below projected levels, despite an increase of $455,909 in Interested Earned and an increase of $789,657 in Other Miscellaneous Revenue and new restricted grants (e.g. Performance Management, Gates Foundation, Breakfast in the Classroom and other grants). The shortage was primarily due to less-than-anticipated revenue from Nonresident Tuition and Textbooks ($1,690,208) and Reimbursements for Use of Buildings and Vehicles of ($200,874). At $832,132,117, State funding was ($41,135,016) below the FY2011 budgeted amount. This categorical shortage was due primarily to four factors: 1) the State’s decision to shift ($25,326,447) in State Foundation Aid into a reserve for use in FY2012; 2) a decrease of ($13,164,537) in Special Education – Nonpublic Placements funds due to a reduction in the number of special education students needing special nonpublic placements; 3) a forfeiture of ($ 809,081) as a result of an MSDE Enrollment Audit; and 4) a reduction of ($ 1,834,951) in unallocated appropriations for future grants not realized in FY2011. Federal funding, projected at $182,090,536, was $24,153,545 above projection primarily due to the replacement by the State of the ($25,326,447) in shifted FY2011 Foundation Aid with $25,326,447 in second portion Federal Education Jobs Fund monies. This shifted amount was marginally offset by slight reductions in anticipated federal grant awards.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 66


ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 2. Please provide a comparison of the planned versus actual expenditures for each local goal provided in the Prior Year Variance Table. Indentify changes in expenditures and provide a narrative discussion of the impact of the changes. The Board of Education’s FY 2011 Original Approved Operating Budget for Prince George’s County Public Schools totaled $1,633,526,541. This amount represented a net reduction of ($77,701,439) or (4.5%) below the FY 2010 Approved Budget. The net reduction included the following four categorical improvements and reductions: 1) Program Improvements totaling $2,536,546; 2) Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business changes totaling $67,021,500; 3) Intra-County Transfer Payment and Core Service reductions totaling ($35,353,880); and 4) Redirected Resources totaling ($111,905,605). Program Improvements fund instructional programs, facilities and services that, consistent with the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, enhance teaching and learning for all students and strengthen accountability and support systems. The FY2011 budget included $2,536,546 in Program Improvements. Actual expenditures for program improvements exceeded the budgeted amount by $1.2 million (or 147.3%). The additional $1.2 million was expended to meet central garage gas and middle college requirements. PGCPS Master Plan Goal 1: High Student Achievement An additional $161,119 was needed to ensure adequate preparation for the Summer Bridge Program component of the Middle College Program in support Goal 1. This summer program is mandatory for all prospective Middle College freshmen. PGCPS Master Plan Goal 2: Highly-Effective Teaching No expenditures under this goal. PGCPS Master Plan Goal 3: Safe and Supportive Schools An additional $ 1,039,865 was needed above planned expenditures for Central Garage Services to support Goal 3. The funds were required to support fuel cost associated with adding additional bus drivers with increased routes. PGCPS Master Plan Goal 4: Strong Community Partnerships Funds supporting Translation Services in Goal 4 were fully expended. PGCPS Master Plan Goal 5: Effective and Efficient Operations Funds supporting Performance Management and Scheduler Pay in Goal 5 were fully expended. Mandatory changes reflect expenditures that are required by law, support contract commitments, and provide essential health/safety services. These expenditures support costs to cover employer obligations, including social security, retirement, and unemployment insurance; funding existing employee contracts covering compensation, employee and retiree benefits for health insurance, and other employee benefits; managing risk for the school system through selfinsured programs supporting workman’s compensation, general liability and excess property claims and expenses; funding utilities; and funding internal services program supporting printing and vehicle maintenance operations. In FY2011, these Mandatory Cost of Doing Business changes totaled $67,021,500, but the school system realized a substantial savings of ($10,011,633) thus reducing actual spending in this category to $57,009,813 (or to 85.06% of the planned expenditures). The ($10,011,633) net savings in Mandatory Cost of Doing Business expenses was realized through the following combination of cost cutting and efficiency expenditures in delivering services: 1) $5,045,855 was needed to chore up buses and non-bus vehicles to include hiring 106 FTE to maintain schedules and route requirements; 2) a savings of ($395,589) was realized from Charter and Contract Schools; 3) a savings of ($3,986,500) was realized through a reduction in full-time salary and wages; 4) an additional $8,257,464 was needed to support energy contracts; 5) a savings of ($3,806,706) was realized in Health Insurance; and 6) lease buildings and leave payout needed $54,700 and $ 51,476

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 67


respectively. In addition, the number of special education students requiring placement in nonpublic placements have declined significantly over the last two years allowing the school system to save ($11,104,240). Part-time salaries were up $2,300,871 due to substitutes and second assignments. An additional $77,950 was needed to support Prince George’s County students at the SEED School, and the school system realized savings of ($2,500,000 in unemployment insurance and ($2,846,198) in workers’ compensation insurance. Finally, a savings of ($1,160,716) was realized from reduced utility costs as a result of lower gas prices the reduced use of electricity. Redirected Resources reflect net reductions totaling ($110,410,252) from amounts appropriated in FY2011 for selected programs and services. The net amount represented 98.7% of the planned ($111,905,605) reduction resulting from the elimination of (764.76) positions. Additional expenditures of $0.3 million for the Food and Nutrition Services Subsidy, $1.1 million in Maintenance, and $ 86,846 in Homeless Education to support a Case Management Coordinator were needed to meet program and systemic needs. Core Service and other base requirements produced additional savings as a result of costs avoided through normal work force turnover and systemic reductions. Collectively, these additional expenditures offset $1,495,353 of the projected ($111,905,605) savings. Additional Spending/Realigned Resources in the amount of $ 5,221,968 above planned expenditures was needed as follows: $300,000 for the purchase of calculators for students; $7,098,051 to support classroom rebalancing, the Camp Schmidt Environmental Center, foreign language, advanced placement, and other school based positions and material in an effort to reach academic goals; $125,082 to support a nursing contract; Education Jobs Funds were realigned from unrestricted ($25,326,447) to restricted $25,326,447; ($611,826) for an anticipated FEMA reimbursement from February 2010 snow events; $50,000 for fingerprinting/criminal background check for volunteers; $36,500 to support additional schools efforts to achieve Middle States accreditation; $371,587 to support Project Lead the Way; $5,248,469 in Terminal Leave payout to support retirement incentives provided by the district; a ($7,721,895) savings in Utilities/Telephone due to efficiencies measures put in place to lower energy cost; and $326,000 to support the online service provider for the Virtual High Schools Program. A portion of the final expenditures was estimated for the above categories. The current financial system in which the system operates does not capture all expenses by these specific defined activities. Final expenditures for full-time salary related changes were estimated based on the number of employees, actual salaries, and vacant positions for the fiscal year. Final expenditures for compensation improvements were based on preliminary estimates for negotiated increases and based on prior year history for increments provided to employees on an annual basis. The majority of all other areas, with the exception of salary related increases, reflect actual expenses derived from the Oracle General Ledger Financial Module. This was extracted from the system by using “downloads” from specific program areas or actual financial reports.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 68


ANALYZING QUESTIONS Questions 1-4 below are based on the school system’s use of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds. Question 5 is based on all ARRA funds. Please respond to the following questions using the information provided in the ARRA Prior Year Variance Table. 1. Please describe what the influx of flexible ARRA SFSF funds has allowed the school system to accomplish this year, regardless whether or not the SFS funds were directly used to fund an initiative. (For example: A school system plans to use SFS funds to pay for utilities, and that decision, in turn, is allowing the district to allocate funds to a different program or initiative.) In fiscal year 2011, state sources of revenue included the second disbursement of federal targeted State Fiscal Stabilization pass-through funds (SFSF) initiated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These supplemental educational resources were awarded to stimulate the economy in the short term and invest in education and other essential public services to ensure long-term economic stability. Despite very limited revenue growth, the influx of $51.2 million flexible ARRA SFSF funds has allowed the Prince George’s County School System to continue effective programs and services that focus on the mission of advancing the achievement of a diverse student body through community engagement, sound policy governance, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. SFSF funds were used for utilities, textbooks, and instructional and testing materials, thus limiting the number of staff positions that would have had to be eliminated and minimizing the impact of a district-wide furlough that was imposed on employees in order to bring the budget into balance. 2. If the State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds are being used for specific construction projects, please provide a list of the specific construction projects (ARRA Division, A, Section 14008) and the corresponding resource allocations. N/A – State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) Funds are not being used for specific construction projects. 3. Please describe, if applicable, one-time uses of SFSF funds. Include individual activities and corresponding resource allocations in your description. After the ARRA funds run out, is there a plan of sustainability? If so, please briefly describe the plan. The one-time uses of SFSF funds in fiscal year 2011 supported district-wide utility costs, textbooks, instructional and testing materials, and other general expenses incurred by the school district. There are preliminary indications that state and local revenues will continue to fall below pre-stimulus levels going forward into fiscal year 2012. Therefore, in order to provide for fiscal sustainability, budgeted costs for activities previously supported by SFSF dollars have been realigned back into unrestricted general operating funds that are used to support mandatory operations of doing business. This realignment will substantially limit the impact of the loss of SFSF funds on classroom instruction and complementary academic services provided to students. 4. Please describe the steps that the school system proposes to take to permit students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries to overcome barriers that impede access to, or participation in, a program or activity. The Bridge to Excellence Master Plan provides a guide for all Prince George’s County public school personnel including the Board of Education, parents/guardians, community stakeholders, as well as elected and government officials to work in partnerships to ensure that all students are prepared to meet the challenges of an economically competitive, technologically advanced and culturally diverse 21st century society. It is imperative that the school system’s personnel and resources are strategically and operationally focused on achieving a shared vision to improve student achievement and school effectiveness, with special emphasis on eliminating the achievement gap. Through identified goals, the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is designed to present a realistic and achievable roadmap for success within the context of the constraints identified in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. Specifically, the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan also provides the organizing framework from which the school system’s administration will develop measurable standards and

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 69


accountability measures for each school and the system as a whole. The Prince George's County Board of Education vows to close achievement gaps while raising achievement for all students in Prince George’s County by ensuring “equitable access” to a high quality education that guarantees that every child graduating from the Prince George's County Public School System is “college ready” and “work ready” as indicated in the Core Beliefs and Commitments statement that declares: ; ; ; ; ;

Children are our business and they come first; Parents are our partners; Victory is in the classroom; Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership and accountability is the key to our success, and; EVERY member of this community shares the responsibility for successful schools.

The theory of action chosen to execute the principles contained in the Core Beliefs and Commitment Statement is the notion of managed performance/empowerment, which essentially embraces many partial theories of action, including adequate resources distributed through an equitable system, effective management, small learning communities, and highly qualified teachers. The managed performance/empowerment theory provides a framework to drive forward and align goals, strategic plans, policies, budget, administrative actions, and the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan to create a high performing school district that educates all children. To this end, a high performing school district is one that sets high academic standards and eliminates the achievement gap and other potential barriers that could impede access to, or participation in, academic programs or activities designed to enhance student achievement. Management of the district’s core business, i.e. teaching and learning, by central administration using flexible parameters that balance accountability with empowerment according to the needs and performance of individual schools is a critical element of ensuring that each student and teacher has access to the required resources that will enable them to be efficient and effective both in and out of the classroom. 5. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The potential funding cliff for ARRA funds have impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions in the following ways: 10.579 – National School Lunch – Equipment Assistance: The National School Lunch Equipment Assistance ARRA Grant will not impact the district with the potential funding cliff as the funds were used for one-time costs that facilitated the purchase food service equipment to improve the efficiency of the lunch rooms in five (5) targeted schools. 66.039 – Maryland Clean Diesel Program: The Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA funds will not impact the district with the potential funding cliff as the funds were used for one-time costs sanctioned by the Maryland Department of the Environment for the acquisition of diesel filters and crankcase ventilation systems to retrofit school buses district-wide. 84.387 – Homeless Children and Youth: The Homeless Education ARRA Funds will not impact the district with the potential funding cliff as the funds were used to expand the current services allowable under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Grant such as the acquisition of school uniforms and school supplies. 84.389 – Title I – Grants to LEA’s, Neglected and Delinquent: The Title I Department expects minimal impact from the potential funding cliff as positions created and supported by ARRA funds are classified for only two year terms. A reorganization of the Title I Office into the Department of State and Federal Programs has taken effect in an attempt to streamline and maximize program operations starting in FY2012. Sustainability for some chosen activities and positions will be considered in the fiscal year 2012 Title I Basic Part A grant which will be outlined in Attachment 7 located in Part II of the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan document.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 70


84.394 – State Fiscal Stabilization Grant: It is expected that there will be minimal impact to the one-time uses of SFSF funds used to support district-wide utility costs, textbooks, and other general expenses of the school district that comprised of instructional and testing materials. Therefore, in terms of a sustainability plan, budgeted costs for activities previously supported by SFSF dollars have been realigned back to unrestricted general operating funds that are necessary to support expenditures associated with sustaining mandatory operations of doing business within the school system. 93.708 – Head Start ARRA COLA Quality Improvement Grant: The Head Start Program has received an expansion grant to continue the services support by ARRA funds that provides additional classrooms for 60 Head Start students coupled with increased training and technical assistance for teachers and paraprofessionals to strengthen student achievement in targeted economically disadvantaged communities. 84.391/84.392/84.393 – Special Education Grants: The Special Education Department expects minimal impact to the district as ARRA funds supported the expansion of many existing programs and activities targeted for students with disabilities. Investments were made in professional development, assistive technology, and academic interventions that are forecasted to continue through the support of other IDEA Part B., Special Education Grants. 84.395 – Race To The Top: Currently, in the opening year of RTTT funding, it is anticipated that there will be minimal impact from the potential funding cliff in fiscal year 2014 when RTTT funding will end. Future discussions will transpire regarding resources that will be considered to absorb the sustainability of chosen activities earmarked to support education reform models and strategies to consistently improve student achievement. 84.410 – Education Jobs Fund: It is expected that there will be minimal impact as a result of the funding cliff pertaining to the Education Jobs Fund. The district utilized these funds to support additional classroom positions in schools and applicable district-wide fringe benefits for school-based instructional personnel. There will be strategies discussed and implemented to balance classroom personnel by the possible creation of an instructional teacher pool, a restructuring of the (enrollment-based) classroom personnel formula, and/or a conversion of possible vacant positions from administrative to instructional. Race to the Top Monitoring Questions 1. Please provide the reason for the balance of unused funds at the conclusion of Project Year 1. Where the reason is project-specific, please include this information at the project level. Active projects in the Race To The Top grant were recently amended requesting unused funds at the conclusion of Project Year 1 be moved forward into Project Year 2 anticipating that the majority of the funds would be obligated by September 30, 2011. The standing amendment series will not change the scope of work and the intent is to implement outstanding activities in each project with fidelity per the original Project Year 1 submission. In most cases, unused funds across the various projects exist as a result of delayed implementation of grant activities pending application approval. The projects, and the corresponding amounts of forwarded funding are illustrated in the table below. RTTT Unused Year One (1) Funds Forwarded to Year Two via Amendment, PGCPS Total Project Year 1 Unspent Funds Moved Project No. RTTT Project Name To Project Year 2 Per Amendment Project 1 AP/IB 313,159 Project 2 Data Warehouse 9,070 Project 3 Data Quality 118,042 Project 4 Data Wise 237,595 Project 5 Teacher Incentives -Project 6 School Leader Network 125,156

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 71


RTTT Unused Year One (1) Funds Forwarded to Year Two via Amendment, PGCPS Total Project Year 1 Unspent Funds Moved Project No. RTTT Project Name To Project Year 2 Per Amendment Project 7 Teacher Leadership 4,172 Project 8 Pipeline of Administrators 792,213 Project 9 Coaching 746,245 Project 10 Teacher Pipeline 188,138 Project 11 Hillside – WSC 146,016 Project 12 STEM 181562 Total $2,861,368

2. How did the availability of unused funds at the conclusion of Project Year 1 impact the LEA’s planning for Project Year 2 and beyond? The availability of unused funds at the conclusion of Project Year 1 had minimal impact on the various projects. Some programs will be able to expand services in Project Year 2 as it relates to professional development, coaching, school based leadership, and conference opportunities for existing and aspiring teachers and administrators. Those programs geared toward instructional activities will allow expansion of services for students seeking Advance Placement testing and participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) models. The continuation of systemic software and computer hardware enhancements that optimize regulatory reporting and create data inquiry models that will be utilized in schools. Most of the remaining work and deliverables should occur within the next several months. 3. What programmatic changes or accelerations have been made to ensure that activities and goals are met within the grant period? Invoices that have been accelerated for several existing obligations are scheduled to be processed in the normal payables cycle which allows unliquidated obligations to continuously decrease within the financial system. Project Coordinators will be asked to provide the Finance Office spending plans that will help monitor the implementation progress of each project to ensure timely obligation of grant resources and outcomes. There will be monthly meetings facilitated by the Chief Financial, Academic, and Performance Management Offices to discuss timelines, spending, and implementation challenges as it relates to the RTTT grant. 4. What will the LEA do differently in Project Year 2 as a result of lessons learned in implementing Project Year 1? There will be several accountability measures put into action that make certain all services and activities are maximized to their fullest extent in the effort to successfully continue the execution of education reform and high student achievement. It has been proposed that each project undergo periodic comprehensive assessments in an effort to ensure all spending for approved activities are on track in accordance to the grant requirements. This action should be a prime indicator whether further amendments to the projects within the grant in Project Year 2 and beyond will be required. 5. Does the LEA anticipate any challenges in implementing Project Year 2? If so, please identify the challenges at the grant and project level, if applicable. Currently, there are no foreseeable challenges moving into Project Year 2. It is anticipated that the additional accountability measures outlined in question 4 will be implemented and, as such, will produce favorable results across each project. At this time, since the scopes of work remain unchanged, the approved activities will move forward as planned. There could be some variance in vendors selected to provide training services and/or slight modification in conference selections for projects that support teacher and administrative leadership coaching and mentoring.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 72


MSDE Clarifying Question(s): 1. There is a discrepancy between the Race to the Top budget allotment which Prince George’s received of $23,571,891 and what was reported in the Master Plan (C-125 and the Race to the Top project budgets) of $21,542,060. The variance is $2,029,831. Please provide corrected Race to the Top Project Budgets and C-125 documents for the Race to the Top Project to align with the proposed budget plans. The Race to the Top projects described did not coincide with the submitted budget. When correcting, please review the Current Year variance table and make sure the correct Year 1 Race to the Top amount is shown. MSDE can provide the areas of discrepancy in need of reconciliation. 2. The indirect cost rate used in Year 2 Race to the Top project budgets was reported at 4.49%, the approved MSDE indirect cost rate is 3.35%. Please clarify and correct the Year 2 project budget documents. 3. The Current Year Section B thru E lists itemized expenditures. Expenditures should be noted by Source / CFDA for ARRA funds. Please review and correct where necessary. The responses to these questions can be found in Section G, on page 343. The Race to the Top Project Budgets and the corresponding C-125 documents have been corrected and placed in the appropriate place in the Finance Section.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 73


Data Tables Tables 1.1-1.6: Finance Tables 2.1-2.12: MSA Tables 3.1-3.15: HSA Tables 4.1-4.3: AMOA Tables 5.1-5.4: AYP, Schools In Improvement, (SII) Title I SII 5.5-5.7: Attendance, Graduation Rate, Dropout Tables 6.1-6.7: Highly Qualified Staff Tables 7.1-7.10: Dangerous, Incidents, Suspensions Tables 8.1-8.3: Early Learning

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 74


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 75

-

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders Reform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most. Expenditures: Source Amount Stipends Unrestricted $ 500,000

FTE

-

FTE

FTE 8.0 -

Section C - Data Systems to support instruction Reform Area 2: Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction. Expenditures: Source Amount Race to the Top - Data Warehouse 84.395 $ 269,814 Race to the Top - Data Quality 84.395 $ 118,042 Race to the Top - Data Wise 84.395 $ 537,476

1.1A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: Prince George's Revenue Category FY 12 Budget Local Appropriation $ 617,514,500 Other Local Revenue $ 11,855,100 State Revenue $ 874,349,600 Federal Revenue* 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance $ 84.010 Title I, Part A $ 25,033,387 84.027 IDEA Part B State Grant Passthrough $ 24,503,991 84.173 IDEA Part B Preschool Passthrough $ 586,012 84.386 Education Technology $ 84.387 Homeless Children and Youth $ 7,202 84.388 Title I 1003 (g) School Improvement Grant $ 8,492,937 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent $ 223,620 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through $ 3,314,846 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants $ 270,872 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families $ 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program $ 173,234 84.395 Race to the Top $ 8,801,337 84.410 Education Jobs Fund $ Other Federal Funds** $ 39,231,962 Other Resources/Transfers $ Total $ 1,614,358,600 Instructions: Itemize FY 2012 expenditures by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of doing business, and other. Section B - Standards and Assessments Reform Area 1: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy. Expenditures: Source Amount Middle College Unrestricted $ 1,006,018 Race to the Top - IB/AP 84.395 $ 2,444,081 Race to the Top - STEM 84.395 $ 387,544

TABLES 1.1-1.6: FINANCE

DATA SECTION


Unrestricted 84.395 84.395 84.395 84.395 84.395

$ $ $ $ $ $

4,000,000 250,312 8,344 1,909,756 1,492,490 1,089,890

-

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 76

Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools Reform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools Expenditures: Source Amount FTE Title I 1003(g) School Improvement 84.388 $ 8,492,937 19.0 Mandatory Cost of Doing Business: Please itemize mandatory costs not attributable to an assurance area in this category. Refer to the guidance for items considered mandatory costs. Expenditures: Mandatory Cost of Doing Business Source Amount FTE Furlough-restoration of salaries Unrestricted $ 28,473,615 Part-Time Salary/Sick Leave Bank Unrestricted $ 9,201,808 Health Insurance Unrestricted $ 16,477,669 Health Insurance - Savings Unrestricted $ (10,363,107) FICA - Part-Time Unrestricted $ 760,487 Life Insurance Unrestricted $ 2,879,806 State Retirement Administrative Fee Unrestricted $ 2,216,408 Other Benefit Adjustments Unrestricted $ 3,408,895 Workers' Compensation Insurance - Part-Time Unrestricted $ 311,040 Stabilization - Utilities/Telephone Unrestricted $ 46,192,154 Stabilization - Textbooks Unrestricted $ 2,414,882 Stabilization - Other General LEA Expenses Unrestricted $ 2,614,130 Retirement of Prior year lease purchases Unrestricted $ (2,846,650) Energy Management Payment Unrestricted $ 8,394,156 Buses and Non-Bus Vehicles Unrestricted $ 3,601,872 Technology Refresh Unrestricted $ 2,705,705 Textbooks Unrestricted $ Plant Operations Equipment Unrestricted $ 411,652 Prior Year Prepaid Lease Purchase Unrestricted $ 948,884 Building Leases Unrestricted $ (306,109) Maintenance Supplies/M&R Vehicle Support Unrestricted $ 1,276,881 Instructional Technology/Enterprise system software licenses Unrestricted $ 602,004 State Charge for Students in State Custody Unrestricted $ 1,000,000 College & Career Ready/HS Graduation Unrestricted $ 955,550 SEED School Unrestricted $ 492,254 AVID, AP, Read 180 Materials in High Schools Unrestricted $ 1,076,325 In-House Printing Adjustment Unrestricted $ (735,388) New Charter Schools - 2 new and 1.0 Imagine Unrestricted $ 10,912,112 93.0 FY-2012 Core Service Requirement Base Unrestricted $ 1,449,763,772 17,505.8

1.1A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: Prince George's FIRST/Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Race to the Top - School Leader Network Race to the Top - Teacher Leadership Race to the Top - Pipeline of Administrators Race to the Top - Coaching Race to the Top - Teacher Pipeline


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

1.1A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: Prince George's FY-2012 Core Service Requirement Base Restricted Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category. Expenditures: Redirected Resources Source System-Wide Redirected Resources Unrestricted Homeless Children & Youth 84.387 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 84.387 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 84.391 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 84.392 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 84.394 Race to the Top - Hillside WSC 84.395 **Indicate non-ARRA IDEA and Title I funds by CFDA in Federal Funds. **all other federal funds can be consolidated in other federal funds.

FTE (1,561.6) -

Amount $ (95,298,068) $ 7,202 $ 223,620 $ 3,314,846 $ 270,872 $ 173,234 $ 293,587

Page | 77

742.7

100,025,796

$


FY 2011 Original Budget 7/1/2010

FY 2011 Final Unaudited Budget 6/30/2011 Change

% Change

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 78

Local Appropriation 599,014,400 599,709,030 694,630 0.1% State Revenue 832,132,117 790,997,101 (41,135,016) -4.9% Federal Revenue Other Resources/Transfers 6,000,000 6,596,871 596,871 9.9% Other Local Revenue 14,289,488 13,643,972 (645,516) -4.5% Other Federal Funds 104,255,104 91,880,153 (12,374,951) -11.9% Federal ARRA Funds 77,835,432 114,363,928 36,528,496 46.9% Total 1,633,526,541 1,617,191,055 (16,335,486) -1.0% Change in Planned Expenditures NCLB Planned Expenditure Description Actual Expenditure Planned FTE Actual FTE Goal Expenditure QSPSP Goal 1: By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards in core curricular areas, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better for each ESEA subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics. 1 ESOL/ISCO - Testing Locations 71,099 71,099 1.0 1.0 1 Middle College 200,000 361,119 1.0 1.0 1 Secondary School Reform 500,000 500,000 Total 771,099 932,218 2.0 2.0 QSPSP Goal 3: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. 3 Central Garage Services 1,432,559 2,472,424 20.0 20.0 3 Pupil Accounting 126,888 126,888 1.0 1.0 Total 1,559,447 2,599,312 21.0 21.0 4 QSPSP Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. Translation services 136,000 136,000 Total 136,000 136,000 LEA Master Plan Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school. 5 Performance Management 50,000 50,000 5 Scheduler Pay 20,000 20,000 Total 70,000 70,000 Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business Changes: 10 Buses & Non-Bus Vehicles/Over Hires 346,461 5,392,316 106.00 10 Charter/Contract 4,376,368 3,980,779 43.00 36.50 10 Full-Time Salary/Wage Base 25,426,223 21,439,723 10 Lease Purchases 2,538,393 10,795,857 10 Health Insurance 8,775,098 4,968,338 10 Lease Buildings 219,110 273,810 10 Leave Payout 250,000 301,476 10 Local 2250 Position Agreement 9,976,285 9,976,285 180.99 180.99 10 New Schools 1,659,092 1,659,092 10.50 10.50 10 Nonpublic Placements 1,196,253 (9,907,987) -

Revenue Category

1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's


Total

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's 10 Part-Time Salary/Wage Base 10 Retirement of Prior Year Lease Agreement 10 Ridgley Bus Lot 10 SEED School 10 Special Education - MOE Requirement 10 Technology Refresh LP 10 Unemployment Insurance 10 Utilities 10 Workers' Compensation Insurance 10 System-Wide Reductions 10 Core Service and Other Base Requirements Additional Spending/Realigned Resources 10 Academics-Calculators 10 Accokeek Academy - Secretary 10 AP at Beltsville -EJF 10 Bowie High School (2.0) - EJF 10 Camp Schmidt food costs 10 Classroom Balancing 10 Classroom Teachers Parkdale HS - EJF 10 Contracted Agency Nurses 10 Education Jobs Fund Realignment - Benefits 10 Education Jobs Fund Realignment - Benefits 10 FEMA Reimbursement-February 2010 Snow Event 10 Fingerprinting/Criminal Background Checks 10 Greenbelt MS-Foreign Language Teacher - EJF 10 Hearing Officer Services - Appeals Office 10 Middle States Evaluation 10 Paraprofessional Educator 10 PG Regional Association of Student Government - Transportation 10 Project Lead the Way 10 Retirement Incentive -Terminal Leave payout 10 School Social Worker. Medicaid Grant 10 Stabilization Funds - Utilities/Telephone Savings 10 Student Services - Clerks transferred from BASCP 10 Suitland VPA Teachers (10.0) - EJF 10 Virtual High School Total

Difference

(77,701,439)

-

15,647,380 (8,988,067) 105,288 414,304 918,815 2,199,760 4,000,000 (1,039,263) (1,000,000) (111,905,605) (35,353,880)

(16,335,486)

300,000 57,044 126,287 185,793 45,000 5,242,349 185,793 125,082 25,326,447 (25,326,447) (611,826) 50,000 92,897 40,000 36,500 29,275 60,000 371,587 5,248,469 (7,721,895) 104,647 928,966 326,000 5,221,968 (61,365,953)

17,948,251 (8,988,067) 105,288 492,254 918,815 2,199,760 1,500,000 (2,199,979) (3,846,198) (110,410,252) (16,925,012)

Page | 79

(469.27)

38.00 (764.76)

-

56.50 2.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 63.00 (306.77)

1.00 1.00 -

38.00 (764.76)

-


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 80

Assurance 3: Make progress towards rigorous college and career-ready standards and high quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace). Funds supporting the expansion of course offerings in Advance Placement (AP), 84.395 977,442.00 International Baccalaureate (IB), and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math

Assurance 2: Establish and use a pre-K through college and career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices). Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. A waiver was approved for the statutory grant set-aside for the Per Pupil Calculation for SES to allow 84.389 620,280.00 620,280.00 the program funds to support the installation of a data repository system to monitor Title I students and staff that will allow the appropriate linkages between several data systems used in the district. Funds supporting the upgrade existing school district data systems to enable more powerful use of data and collaboration to enhance insight at the classroom and district 84.395 680,946.00 levels.

1.1C Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report Revenue FY 09 Budget FY 10 Budget FY 11 Budget FY 12 Budget Total ARRA Funds CFDA Grant Name 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 90,000 90,000 66.040 Maryland Clean Diesel Program 516,000 13,094 529,094 84.387 Homeless Children and Youth 113,824 74,435 7,202 195,461 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 5,624,129 16,763,241 223,620 22,610,990 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 9,670,655 15,621,091 3,314,846 28,606,592 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 288,048 284,680 270,872 843,600 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 46,542,234 51,047,932 173,234 97,763,400 93.708 Head Start ARRA COLA Quality Improvement Grant 593,889 734,000 157,035 1,484,924 84.388 Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grant 3,272,431 8,492,937 11,765,368 84.395 RTTT - Incentives for ESOL Teachers 25,000 25,000 84.395 Race to the Top 2,029,831 8,801,337 10,831,168 84.410 Education Jobs Fund 31,656,058 31,656,058 Total Arra Funds 90,000 74,135,753 121,483,699 21,479,177 206,401,655 Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds were used by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate the grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure. Description CFDA Planned Amount Actual Amount Planned FTE Actual FTE Assurance 1: Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals). Funds to support increased teacher effectiveness by providing ongoing training in secondary transition planning for students with disabilities and assessing and promoting 84.391 4,301,613.00 1,239,224.00 11.0 11.0 post traumatic growth in children. Funds supporting training and leadership development for principals, assistant 84.395 371,443.00 principals, and teachers.


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Total *Indicate any other ARRA funds received by the school system, including the CFDA number

* Other Funds are supporting district-wide utilities, and other general expenses of LEA for instructional supplies, textbooks, and testing materials. Funds to support activities and programs that provide technology support and interventions that are designed to reduce referrals to Special Education for students without disabilities and outreach to support families of students with disabilities. Funds to support the improvement of service delivery and resource utilization. Funds will support the continued expansion of Head Start services to 60 additional children and families in center-based settings that will include more technical assistance training for teachers and paraprofessionals. Funds are supporting additional classroom positions in schools and applicable districtwide fringe benefits for school-based instructional personnel. Funds are supporting the acquisition of diesel particulate filters and crankcase ventilation systems to retrofit diesel school buses through an initiative and federal ARRA funding provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Funds will support the implementation of a Digital Learning Initiative in four middle schools that will increase teacher capacity to infuse technology into the curriculum to promote student achievement by engaging in hands on manipulation of content (reading, language arts, math and science) from various sources. Funds are supporting the enhancement and expansion of services to the homeless student population for uniforms, transportation, and personal hygiene items.

74,435.00 121,483,699.00

7,623,419.00 421,800.00 551,820.00 -

-

77,803,577

84.391 84.392 93.708 84.410 66.040

84.389

84.387

3,565,244.00

-

31,656,058.00

734,000.00

284,680.00

11,846,200.00

51,221,166.00

84.394

51,047,932.00

Page | 81

272.0

-

-

-

68.0

8.0

1.0

52.0

-

255.0

68.0

8.0

1.0

40.0

Assurance 4: Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and restructuring (turning around lowest performing schools). Funds to support Coordinated Early Intervention Services (Reading Recovery) to 84.391 2,378,264.00 2,535,667.00 28.0 28.0 provide intensive support for struggling readers. Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. Waivers were approved for the statutory grant set-asides for SES/Choice Option and the LEA In 84.389 10,685,215.00 12,577,717.00 85.0 80.0 Improvement for Professional Development to allow the program funds to support the implementation of a summer enrichment program and professional development for school leaders. Funds to support innovative educational reform strategies in targeted low performing turnaround schools that will ensure student achievement and success within four areas 84.388 3,272,431.00 19.0 19.0 of priority that includes governance, attraction/selection of staff, rigor, and school climate.

1.1C Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report (STEM) programs to prepare students for college and career readiness.


6,964

78.8 78.8

2,889 12,581

3,668 15,971

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

All Students

Subgroup

27,652

2009

19,709

26,890

19,608

72.9

13,743

24

18,546

27

608

63

91 709

3,558

19,450

5,020

26,061

2011

88.9

74.1

85.8

69.2

70.9

74.6

14,100

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

71.3

2010

All Students 2009

9,289

65.9

13,764

2010

9,270

67.3

13

9,543

377

46

2,578

13,345

59.8 77.7 74.3

1,213 1,550 6,047

12

6,518

310

31

1,769

9,305

92.3

68.3

82.2

67.4

68.6

13,551

6,841

85.1

296

69.7

1,482

88.2

522

2011

847

87.5

21

2009

10,420

76.9

2010

10,338

Page | 82

13,126

78.8

7,836

78.7

5,904

7,498

77.3

5,288

8,135

69.7

5,313

7,621

68.7

4,781

74.2

11,217

15,119

72.9

10,069

13,805

1,673

60.4

1,701

348

592

24

8,979

387

48

Female

1,672

74.4

1,168

1,570

69.7

1,033

1,996

69.0

1,253

1,816

65.6

1,097

71.5

2,421

3,386

67.5

2,130

3,155

1,953

87.9

615

700

Male

786

58.7

487

830

59.1

501

2,030

56.2

1,136

2,021

55.9

1,092

2,816

56.9

1,623

2,851

56.9

1,593

2,800

90.6

1,031

1,138

85.0

79.8

13,955

17,491

34

93.7

725

774

40

71.9

64

89

14

9,003

332

45

2,442

12,715

352

546

16

8,512

387

41

93.2 90.6 62.1 80.1 83.4

509 319 488 1,339 6,534

2011

81.3

13

84.9

25,976

# Tested

7,229

20,139

# Tested

# Prof.

74.9

77.5

# Prof.

% Prof.

6,726

25,787

% Prof.

# Tested

95.9

20,209

# Tested

# Prof.

371

78.4

# Prof.

% Prof.

91.5

5,101

26,277

% Prof.

# Prof.

354

84.4

21,525

# Tested # Tested

Table 2.2: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - Middle

Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

81.9

# Prof.

% Prof.

82.9

13,342

% Prof.

# Tested

34

9,787

# Tested

# Prof.

62.5

73.4

# Prof.

# Prof.

30

86.8

2,568

13,163

% Prof. % Prof.

# Prof.

2,958

82.1

2,533

9,741

# Tested # Tested

% Prof.

3,087

74.0

# Prof.

# Tested

6,045

86.2

11,043

12,812

82.9

10,468

12,624

81.9

10,352

12,634

77.8

10,482

13,465

% Prof. % Prof.

# Prof.

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

# Tested # Tested

# Prof.

All Students

# Prof.

2011

% Prof.

2010

# Tested

12

7,225

298

32

1,789

10,145

# Prof.

Subgroup

Female

# Prof.

2009 % Prof. % Prof.

2011 # Tested # Tested

2010

Male

# Prof.

2009 % Prof. % Prof.

2011

# Tested # Tested

2010

All Students

# Prof.

2009

Table 2.1: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - Elementary

TABLES 2.1-2.12: MSA

% Prof. 85.7

80.3

89.8

71.1

73.3

79.8

% Prof.


547

9,073

1,389

13,984

# Tested

1,256

# Prof.

3,120

% Prof.

64.9

39.4

40.3

# Tested

14,935

1,394

3,183

10,076

599

1,416

# Prof.

% Prof. 67.5

43.0

44.5

# Tested 14,765

1,321

3,110

633

1,034

10,228

477

1,453

559

895

% Prof. 69.3

36.1

46.7

88.3

86.6

# Tested 7,118

767

2,123

2009

4,230

281

841

% Prof. 59.4

36.6

39.6

7,586

759

2,177

# Tested

Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

All Students

Subgroup

116

78

1,786

149

2,503

6,032

527

8,003

# Tested

2009 # Prof.

71.4

52.3

22.0

75.4

% Prof.

2,100

89

322

6,254

64.1

30.5

28.9

68.9

% Prof

34 322 89

2,348

40 1,113 292

3,499

361

--

--

438

5,113

7,318

238

33

44 277

703

6,482

1,080

9,197

# Tested

2011 # Prof.

67.1

30.5

28.9

85.0

82.4

--

69.9

85.9

75.0

65.1

70.5

% Prof

1,098

73

389

3,807

# Tested

672

31

80

2,574

2009 # Prof.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

3,276

292

1,113

9,078

All Students 2010 # # Tested Prof.

61.2

42.5

20.6

67.6

% Prof.

1,524

143

763

4,502

# Tested

Table 2.3: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - High (English II)

Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

# Prof.

2011 # Prof.

2010

2010

858

36

217

2,757

# Prof.

Male 2010

4,669

305

963

# Prof.

2009 % Prof.

56.3

25.2

28.4

61.2

% Prof

61.5

40.2

44.2

# Tested

1,691

158

807

13

235

--

3,677

142

23

549

4,639

# Tested

7,466

705

2,135

280

508

2011

1,041

43

237

10

183

--

2,297

122

15

336

2,963

2011 # Prof.

4,791

253

971

240

425

# Prof.

Subgroup % Prof.

61.6

27.2

29.4

76.9

77.9

--

62.5

85.9

65.2

61.2

63.9

% Prof.

64.2

35.9

45.5

85.7

83.7

# Tested

1,405

76

138

4,195

# Tested

6,866

622

997

2009

1,114

47

36

3,458

2009 # Prof.

4,843

266

415

# Prof.

Male

% Prof.

79.3

61.8

26.1

82.4

% Prof.

70.5

42.8

41.6

# Tested

1,242

53

105

3,497

Female 2010 # Prof.

5,407

294

453

Page | 83

1,752

149

350

4,575

# Tested

7,349

635

1,006

2010

Female

# Prof.

All Students

% Prof.

70.9

35.6

30.0

76.4

% Prof.

73.6

46.3

45.0

# Tested

1,808

131

346

27

203

--

3,641

135

21

531

4,558

# Tested

7,299

616

975

353

526

2011

1,307

37

108

24

178

--

2,816

116

18

367

3,519

2011 # Prof.

5,437

224

482

319

470

# Prof.

Table 2.2: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - Middle

72.3

28.2

31.2

88.9

87.7

--

77.3

85.9

85.7

69.1

77.2

% Prof.

74.5

36.4

49.4

90.4

89.4

% Prof.


2009 # Prof. 19,374

1,264

2,189

9,703

# Tested 25,948

2,792

3,156

13,787

70.4

69.4

45.3

% Prof. 74.7

15,097

3,375

2,843

11,144

2,529

1,502

73.8

74.9

52.8

All Students 2010 # # % Tested Prof. Prof. 25,752 19,962 77.5

67 725 13,196

35 1,010 587

6,039 89 775 17,472

40 1,135 698

15,951

3,665

11,963

2,749

1,440

4,903

# Tested 26,248

2,806

2011 # Prof. 20,523

75.0

75.0

51.3

84.1

89.0

87.5

75.5

93.5

75.3

81.2

% Prof. 78.2

6,953

1,674

1,946

# Tested 13,323

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Subgroup

2009 # Prof. 15,012

925

523

6,772

# Tested 27,570

3,093

1,387

13,937

48.6

37.7

29.9

% Prof. 54.5

7,535

545

1,078

50.6

39.1

34.0

632

14,720

1,319

7,824

470

1,111

781 482

1,030

3,091

18

27

84.9

601 10,333

708

88

18,503

62.5

55

5,006

53.2

35.6

35.9

76.3

75.8

66.7

55.8

58.4

2,926

# Tested 25,994

% Prof. 58.5

2011 # Prof. 15,196

7,090

764

2,100

# Tested 14,056

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

14,896

1,393

3,173

All Students 2010 # # % Tested Prof. Prof. 26,834 14,983 55.8

Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Middle

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Subgroup

3,194

290

643

2009 # Prof. 7,117

4,736

1,152

916

2009 # Prof. 9,616

Table 2.4: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Elementary

Table 2.4- 2.5 MSA Math Elementary & Middle

45.0

38.0

30.6

% Prof. 50.6

68.1

68.8

47.1

% Prof. 72.2

7,559

757

2,167

# Tested 13,723

7,608

1,812

2,016

# Tested 13,141

3,598

289

748

Male 2010 # Prof. 7,241

5,468

1,355

1,082

Male 2010 # Prof. 9,901

47.6

38.2

34.5

% Prof. 52.8

71.9

74.8

53.7

% Prof. 75.3

7,442

704

2,122

280

506

13

9,526

377

45

2,563

# Tested 13,310

8,123

1,996

2,025

348

590

24

8,967

388

48

3,084

# Tested 13,449

3,745

262

760

204

357

8

4,947

308

28

1,492

2011 # Prof. 7,344

5,906

1,504

1,072

282

521

21

6,492

361

34

2,479

2011 # Prof. 10,190

50.3

37.2

35.8

72.9

70.6

61.5

51.9

81.7

62.2

58.2

% Prof. 55.2

72.7

75.4

52.9

81.0

88.3

87.5

72.4

93.0

70.8

80.4

% Prof. 75.8

6,847

623

993

# Tested 13,514

6,834

1,482

846

# Tested 12,625

3,578

233

282

2009 # Prof. 7,895

4,967

1,037

348

2009 # Prof. 9,758

7,337

636

1,006

# Tested 13,110

7,489

1,563

827

# Tested 12,611

Page | 84

52.3

37.4

28.4

% Prof. 58.4

72.7

70.0

41.1

% Prof. 77.3

3,937

256

330

Female 2010 # Prof. 7,742

5,676

1,174

420

Female 2010 # Prof. 10,061

53.7

40.3

32.8

% Prof. 59.1

75.8

75.1

50.8

% Prof. 79.8

7,278

615

969

352

524

14

8,977

331

43

2,443

# Tested 12,684

7,828

1,669

781

350

545

16

8,505

387

41

2,955

# Tested 12,799

4,079

208

351

278

424

10

5,386

293

27

1,434

2011 # Prof. 7,852

6,057

1,245

368

305

489

14

6,704

364

33

2,424

2011 # Prof. 10,333

56.0

33.8

36.2

79.0

80.9

71.4

60.0

88.5

62.8

58.7

% Prof. 61.9

77.4

74.6

47.1

87.1

89.7

87.5

78.8

94.1

80.5

82.0

% Prof. 80.7


Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

All Students Hispanic/Latin o of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

Subgroup

94

89

1,634

148

2,464

5,438

# Prof.

563

# Teste d 7,861

2009

66.3

60.1

16.7

69.2

% Prof.

2,167

173

272

6,118

# Prof.

66.4

60.5

22.6

67.8

% Prof.

29

42

3,450

286

1,195

39

2,276

142

322

33

360

--

--

434

4,731

7,184

233

742

1,071

264

6,128

# Teste d 9,034 # Prof.

2011

66.0

49.7

26.9

84.6

82.9

--

65.9

88.3

69.0

69.3

67.8

% Prof.

1,097

72

411

# Teste d 3,766

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

3,264

286

1,202

# Teste d 9,026

All Students 2010

699

\44

72

2,496

# Prof.

2009

63.7

61.1

17.5

66.3

% Prof.

1,525

140

821

# Teste d 4,524

995

86

193

2,967

# Prof.

Male 2010

Table 2.6: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis)

Table 2.6 HSA Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis)

65.2

61.4

23.5

65.6

% Prof.

1683

158

829

16

227

--

3635

133

23

544

# Teste d 4578

1081

81

243

11

185

--

2235

119

15

381

2946

# Prof.

2011

64.2

51.3

25.7

68.8

81.5

--

61.5

89.5

65.2

70.0

64.4

% Prof.

1,367

76

152

# Teste d 4,095

935

45

22

2,942

# Prof.

2009

68.4

59.2

14.5

71.8

% Prof.

1,172

87

79

3,150

# Prof.

Page | 85

1,739

146

381

# Teste d 4,501

Female 2010

67.4

59.6

20.7

70.0

% Prof.

1,767

128

366

207

--

3,549

131

19

527

# Teste d 4,456

1,195

61

109

175

--

2,496

114

14

361

3,182

# Prof.

2011

67.6

47.7

29.8

95.0

84.5

--

70.3

87.0

73.7

68.5

71.4

% Prof.


215

207

1,907

828

4,631

4,373

# Prof.

2009

949

8,793

# Tested

41.2

25.0

22.7

49.7

% Prof.

4,910

830

983

8,573

# Tested

2,216

214

258

4,566

# Prof.

2010

45.1

25.8

26.2

53.3

% Prof.

5,295

953

1,100

238

2,524

308

270

163

290

8

12 374

3,147

5,948

224

21

30 286

997

4,850

# Prof.

2011

1,918

8,806

# Tested

47.7

32.3

24.5

68.5

77.5

66.7

52.9

78.3

70.0

52.0

55.1

% Prof.

2,363

447

658

4,522

# Tested

956

134

152

2,194

# Prof.

2009

Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

All Students

Subgroup

112

62

1,412

494

4,561

3,677

# Prof.

2009

911

9,229

# Tested

4,953

435

974

9,149

# Tested

1,733

55

126

4,039

# Prof.

2010

35.0

12.6

12.9

44.1

% Prof.

12

4,960

463

1,020

173

1,948

41

127

119

267

5

9 363

2,935

6,407

176

30 239

740

4,254

# Prof.

2011

1,704

8,925

# Tested

39.3

8.9

12.5

68.8

73.6

55.6

45.8

73.6

40.0

43.4

47.7

% Prof.

2,310

284

613

4,668

# Tested

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

31.0

12.6

12.3

39.8

% Prof.

All Students

707

39

80

1,798

# Prof.

2009

Table 2.8: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Middle (Grade 8)

Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

All Students

Subgroup

All Students

30.6

13.7

13.1

38.5

% Prof.

40.5

30.0

23.1

48.5

% Prof.

Table 2.7: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Elementary (Grade 5)

Table 2.7 – 2.9 MSA Science Grades 5th, 8th, & 9th

2,524

243

635

4,671

# Tested

2,458

436

664

4,323

# Tested

894

34

98

2,052

# Prof.

2010

Male

1,109

129

188

2,250

# Prof.

2010

Male

35.4

14.0

15.4

43.9

% Prof.

45.1

29.6

28.3

52.0

% Prof.

2,490

239

692

75

186

2

3,253

123

16

873

4,528

# Tested

2,738

534

783

123

197

6

3,140

133

14

996

4,609

# Tested

953

23

99

52

130

2

1,413

89

7

399

2,092

# Prof.

2011

1,302

170

212

90

150

4

1,610

111

10

525

2,500

# Prof.

2011

38.3

9.6

14.3

69.3

69.9

100.0

43.4

72.4

43.8

45.7

46.2

% Prof.

47.6

31.8

27.1

73.2

76.1

66.7

51.3

83.5

71.4

52.7

54.2

% Prof.

2,251

210

298

4,561

# Tested

2,268

381

291

4,265

# Tested

705

23

32

1,879

# Prof.

2009

951

73

63

2,178

# Prof.

2009

31.3

11.0

10.7

41.2

% Prof.

41.9

19.2

21.6

51.1

% Prof.

839

21

28

1,985

# Prof.

2010

Female

1,107

85

70

2,315

# Prof.

2010

Page | 86

2,429

192

339

4,474

# Tested

2,452

394

319

4,246

# Tested

Female

34.5

10.9

8.3

44.4

% Prof.

45.1

21.6

21.9

54.5

% Prof.

2,470

224

328

98

177

7

3,154

116

14

831

4,397

# Tested

2,557

419

317

115

177

6

2,808

153

16

922

4,197

# Tested

995

18

28

67

137

3

1,522

87

5

341

2,162

# Prof.

2011

1,222

138

58

73

140

4

1,537

113

11

472

2,350

# Prof.

2011

40.3

8.0

8.5

68.4

77.4

42.9

48.3

75.0

35.7

41.0

49.2

% Prof.

47.8

32.9

18.3

63.5

79.1

66.7

54.7

73.9

68.8

51.2

56.0

% Prof.


Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

White

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Asian

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

All Students

Subgroup

117

70

1,423

147

2,480

5,007

# Prof.

2009

496

7,896

# Tested

3,258

272

1,141

9,043

# Tested

1,864

124

314

5,553

# Prof.

2010

57.2

45.6

27.5

61.4

% Prof.

3,450

278

1,148

42

437

--

7,259

276

42

1,074

9,130

# Tested

2,072

141

331

34

358

--

4,504

231

30

666

5,823

# Prof.

2011

60.1

50.7

28.8

81.0

81.9

--

62.0

83.7

71.4

62.0

63.8

% Prof.

1,087

71

367

3,744

# Tested

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

57.4

47.6

23.6

63.4

% Prof.

All Students

613

33

84

2,286

# Prof.

2009

Table 2.9: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Science - High (Biology)

56.4

46.5

22.9

61.1

% Prof.

1,524

136

792

4,519

# Tested

867

67

233

2,741

# Prof.

2010

Male

56.9

49.3

29.4

60.7

% Prof.

1,666

156

801

15

232

--

3,640

143

22

548

4,601

# Tested

1,033

80

237

11

192

--

227

122

13

357

2,922

# Prof.

2011

62.0

51.3

29.6

73.3

82.8

--

61.2

85.3

59.1

65.1

63.5

% Prof.

1,393

76

129

4,152

# Tested

810

37

33

2,721

# Prof.

2009

58.1

48.7

25.6

65.5

% Prof.

997

57

81

2,812

# Prof.

2010

Page | 87

1,734

136

349

4,524

# Tested

Female

57.5

41.9

23.2

62.2

% Prof.

1,784

122

347

27

205

--

3,617

133

20

526

4,528

# Tested

1,039

61

94

23

166

--

####

109

17

309

2,901

# Prof.

2011

58.2

50.0

27.1

85.2

81.0

--

63.0

82.0

85.0

58.7

64.1

% Prof.


59.5

17.2

11.9

50.1

8,449

860

472

3,759

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,883

56

148

5,031

Number Passed

37.1

23.7

69.8

31.2

% Taken and Not Passed

All Students

1,393

112

600

2,632

Number Not Passed

Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

28.7 28.4

62.1

2,966

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

641 341

69.4

7,386

Subgroup

Two or more races

% Taken and Passed

Number of Students

35.3

66.1 66.9

27.6

1,046

424 228

2,042

Number Not Passed

2.7

5.1 4.7

3.0

% Not Taken

12.8

64.4

13.0

9.3

% Not Taken

79

33 16

219

Number Not Taken

483

304

112

786

Number Not Taken

1,375

414 192

3,473

Number of Students

1,811

247

579

4,118

Number of Students

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

1,841

184 97

5,125

Number Passed

% Taken and Not Passed

All Students

Table 3.2: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

% Taken and Passed

Number of Students

Subgroup

Table 3.1: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

TABLES 3.1-3.15: HSA

55.8

29.5 28.6

63.7

% Taken and Passed

45.7

13.8

18.1

55.3

% Taken and Passed

767

122 55

2,212

Number Passed

827

34

105

2,278

Number Passed

41.1

64.7 67.2

32.9

% Taken and Not Passed

Male

40.8

22.3

69.3

34.7

% Taken and Not Passed

Male

565

268 129

1,141

Number Not Passed

738

55

401

1,429

Number Not Passed

3.1

5.8 4.2

3.5

% Not Taken

13.6

64.0

12.6

10.0

% Not Taken

43

24 8

120

Number Not Taken

246

158

73

411

Number Not Taken

1,591

227 149

3,913

Number of Students

1,948

225

281

4,331

Number of Students

67.5

27.3 28.2

74.4

% Taken and Passed

54.2

9.8

15.3

63.6

% Taken and Passed

30.2

68.7 66.4

23.0

% Taken and Not Passed

Female

33.6

25.3

70.8

27.8

% Taken and Not Passed

Page | 88

1,074

62 42

2,913

Number Passed

1,056

22

43

2,753

Number Passed

Female

481

156 99

901

Number Not Passed

655

57

199

1,203

Number Not Passed

2.3

4.0 5.4

2.5

% Not Taken

12.2

64.9

13.9

8.7

% Not Taken

36

9 8

99

Number Not Taken

237

146

39

375

Number Not Taken


74.4

39.7

32.8

68.3

7,793

630

247

2,825

Subgroup

All Students Hispanic/Latin o of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,929

81

250

5,801

Number Passed

31.6

67.2

60.2

25.5

% Taken and Not Passed

All Students

894

166

379

1,984

Number Not Passed

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.1

% Not Taken

2

0

1

8

Number Not Taken

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more

Subgroup

% Taken and Passed

58.7

Number of Students

8,339

35.2

2,937

6.0

503

Number Not Taken

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed Number Passed

38.9

74.4

59.7

31.8

4,063

57.1

2,322

36.0

% Taken and Not Passed

% Not Taken

775

30

167

2,503

Number Passed

% Taken and Not Passed

Male

Male Number Not Passed

61.0

25.6

40.3

68.0

% Taken and Passed

% Taken and Not Passed

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

4,899

Number Passed

1,271

117

414

3,680

Number of Students

All Students

Table 3.3: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

% Taken and Passed

Number of Students

Table 3.12: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2010 Population: All 12th Grade Students

1,461

Number Not Passed

495

87

247

1,171

Number Not Passed

6.9

% Not Taken

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.2

% Not Taken

280

Number Not Taken

1

0

0

6

Number Not Taken

4,276

Number of Students

1,554

130

216

4,113

Number of Students

60.3

% Taken and Passed

74.3

39.2

38.4

80.2

% Taken and Passed

34.5

% Taken and Not Passed

Female

25.7

60.8

61.1

19.8

% Taken and Not Passed

Page | 89

2,577

Number Passed

1,154

51

83

3,298

Number Passed

Female

1,476

Number Not Passed

399

79

132

813

Number Not Passed

5.2

% Not Taken

0.1

0.0

0.5

0.0

% Not Taken

223

Number Not Taken

1

0

1

2

Number Not Taken


17.6

27.7

53.0

860

469

3,739

Number of Students

1,981

130

151

Number Passed

42.0

62.3

74.5

1,570

292

641

5.0

10.0

7.9

% Not Taken

188

47

68

Number Not Taken

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Subgroup

% Taken and Passed

68.9

28.7

48.4

63.1

Number of Students

7,246

635

341

2,936

33.6

48.1

66.6

27.2

% Taken and Not Passed

All Students

986

164

423

1,972

Number Not Passed

3.3

3.5

4.7

3.9

% Not Taken

98

12

30

280

Number Not Taken

1,363

193

411

3,415

Number of Students

1,802

247

579

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

1,852

165

182

4,994

Number Passed

Number of Students Number Passed

61.1

51.3

28.7

66.9

% Taken and Passed

51.9

32.0

19.7

833

99

118

2,286

Number Passed

936

79

114

35.4

45.6

66.7

29.0

% Taken and Not Passed

Male

42.1

59.1

72.4

% Taken and Not Passed

Number Not Passed

Male

% Taken and Not Passed % Taken and Passed

All Students

Table 3.4: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Subgroup

% Taken and Passed

Table 3.3: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

483

88

274

989

Number Not Passed

759

146

419

Number Not Passed

3.4

3.1

4.6

4.1

% Not Taken

5.9

8.9

7.9

% Not Taken

47

6

19

140

Number Not Taken

107

22

46

Number Not Taken

1,573

148

224

3,831

Number of Students

1,937

222

281

Number of Students

64.8

44.6

28.6

70.7

% Taken and Passed

53.9

23.0

13.2

% Taken and Passed

32.0

51.4

66.5

25.7

% Taken and Not Passed

Female

41.9

65.8

79.0

% Taken and Not Passed

Page | 90

1,019

66

64

2,708

Number Passed

1,045

51

37

Number Passed

Female

503

76

149

983

Number Not Passed

811

146

222

Number Not Passed

3.2

4.1

4.9

3.7

% Not Taken

4.2

11.3

7.8

% Not Taken

51

6

11

140

Number Not Taken

81

25

22

Number Not Taken


74.4

35.3

64.2

71.4

7,653

629

240

2,795

1,997

154

222

5,696

Numbe r Passed

28.5

35.8

64.4

25.5

797

86

405

1,952

Number Not Passed

All Students % Taken and Not Passed

Subgroup All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

8,423

55.7

33.3

2,806

11.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.1

% Not Taken

924

1

0

2

5

Number Not Taken

4,105

1,257

113

412

3,634

Number of Students

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

4,693

All Students

Table 3.5: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

All Students Hispanic/Latin o of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Subgroup

% Taken and Passed

Number of Student s

Table 3.13: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 12th Grade Students

55.9

71.4

65.5

37.9

74.3

% Taken and Passed

2,294

897

74

156

2,699

Number Passed

32.2

Male

28.6

34.5

62.1

25.7

% Taken and Not Passed

1,321

360

39

256

933

Number Not Passed

11.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

% Not Taken

Male

490

0

0

0

2

Number Not Taken

4,318

1,538

127

217

4,019

Number of Students

55.6

71.5

63.0

30.4

74.6

% Taken and Passed

34.4

Female

28.4

37.0

68.7

25.4

% Taken and Not Passed

Page | 91

2,399

1,100

80

66

2,997

Numbe r Passed

1,485

437

47

149

1,019

10.1

0.1

0.0

0.9

0.1

% Not Taken

Female Number Not Passed

434

1

0

2

3

Number Not Taken


22.0

19.1

46.3

860

470

3,749

1,737

90

189

39.7

21.5

64.3

All Students

1,487

101

553

65.1

29.7

47.4

57.4

7,362

637

342

2,954

1,695

162

189

4,795

39.3

47.1

65.1

31.4

All Students

1,160

161

415

2,314

Subgroup All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

7,735

5,158

33.2

All Students 2,567

0.1

3.4

5.6

5.2

3.4

14.0

59.4

13.7

10

99

19

33

253

525

279

118

3,663

1,372

193

413

3,468

1,808

247

579

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

66.7

Table 3.14: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 12th Grade Students

Subgroup All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Table 3.6: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students

Subgroup Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Table 3.5: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students

67.6

58.5

48.2

30.8

65.6

47.5

22.3

26.4

2,478

802

93

127

2,276

859

55

153

32.2

Male

38.4

47.2

63.9

30.7

Male

38.1

21.5

60.6

Male

1,180

527

91

264

1,064

688

53

351

0.1

3.1

4.7

5.3

3.7

14.4

56.3

13.0

5

43

9

22

128

261

139

75

4,072

1,582

149

224

3,894

1,941

223

281

65.8

56.4

46.3

27.7

64.7

45.2

15.7

12.8

34.1

Female

40.0

47.0

67.4

32.1

Female

41.2

21.5

71.9

Page | 92

2,680

893

69

62

2,519

878

35

36

Female

1,387

633

70

151

1,250

799

48

202

0.1

3.5

6.7

4.9

3.2

13.6

62.8

15.3

5

56

10

11

125

264

140

43


37.3

49.1

61.5

632

230

2,797

1,719

113

236

38.4

50.9

62.3

All Students

1,075

117

394

0.1

0.0

0.3

3

0

2

1,262

111

415

61.6

51.4

40.5

Female

Male

All Students

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

School Year

2,340

1,997

53.9

49.2

Passing Scores on Four HSAs # % 4,013 53.5 4,219 4,337 51.6

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

1,299

1,343

Algebra # 1,925 2,493 2,642

1,063

1,071

24.5

26.4

25.4

% 29.4

1602 Option # 2,203 2,442 2,134

778

57

168

1,162

1,041

Biology # 1,701 2,035 2,203

865

868

# 983 1,323 1,733

483

54

247

875

1,144

English # 2,605 2,804 2,019

19.9

21.4

20.6

% 13.1

Bridge Projects

38.3

48.6

59.5

Male

HSA Graduation Requirement Options

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Female

Male

All Students

School Year

Table 3.10: Bridge Projects Passed

4,341

4,056

# 7,496 8,241 8,397

Enrolled

Table 3.9: Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HSA) Graduation Requirement by Option

Subgroup Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Table 3.14: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 12th Grade Students

33

27

# 211 153 60

1

0

0

0.8

0.7

0.7

% 2.8

1,535

119

217

965

964

Government # 1,230 1,671 1,929

Waivers

0.1

0.0

0.0

4,301

3,963

# 7,410 8,137 8,264

61.3

47.1

31.3

99.1

97.7

98.4

% 98.9

Total

38.6

52.9

67.7

Page | 93

4,301

4,492

Total # 7,461 9,003 8,793

Met

941

56

68

Female

40

93

# 86 104 133

0.1

0.0

0.9

Not Met

592

63

147

0.9

2.3

1.6

% 1.1

2

0

2


Female

Male

All Students

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

School Year

3,020

2,805

# 5,210 5,652 5,825

Met

74.8

70.4

% 71.1 67.0 72.6

Needing to Pass 4 # % 775 10.6 1,183 14.0

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

4,038

3,985

# 7,329 8,436 8,023

Enrolled

Table 3.11: Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement

498

661

12.3

16.6

Needing to Pass 3 # % 642 8.8 788 9.3 1,159 14.4

336

320

8.3

8.0

Not Yet Met Needing to Pass 2 # % 450 6.1 515 6.1 656 8.2

184

199

Page | 94

4.6

5.0

Needing to Pass 1 # % 252 3.4 298 3.5 383 4.8

1,018

1,180

# 2,119 2,784 2,198

Total

25.2

29.6

% 28.9 33.0 27.4


TABLES 4.1-4.3: AMOA

Number Who Met Target 2,114

Number Who Met 9,437

% 14.6

% 67.9

In order for a local school system to meet the System AMAO I, 2010-2011, at least 60% of students must make a 15 scale score point increase on the 2011 LAS administration as compared to last year's administration

N 14,489

N 13,919

Reading

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

% Proficient 2008 Not Met 2009 Not Met 2010 Not Met 2011 Not Met Indicate Met or Not Met for Each Column.

Participation Rate Met Met Met Met

% Proficient Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met

Table 4.3: System AMAO III, 2010-2011 AYP Status for Limited English Proficient Students Mathematics

Page | 95

Participation Rate Met Met Met Met

*Note: In order for a local school system to meet the System AMAO II, 2010-2011, at least 17% of students must meet grade-specific targets for English Language Proficiency.

Note:

Total

Table 4.2: System AMAO II, 2009-2010*

Total

Table 4.1: System AMAO I, 2009-2010


139

140

136

140

142

139

126

128

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

57

75

85

124

106

87

83

99

62

#

44.5

59.5

61.2

87.3

75.7

64.0

59.3

71.2

44.9

%

Schools Making AYP

7

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total # of Schools

6

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

#

85.7

50.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

%

Schools Making AYP

Elementary/Middle

48

47

48

49

50

50

50

53

56

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

5

29

24

38

34

23

19

26

6

#

8.9

54.7

48.0

76.0

68.0

46.9

39.6

55.3

12.5

%

Title I Schools Making AYP

3

3

Total # of Schools

0

0

#

0.0

0.0

%

Schools Making AYP

Elementary/Middle

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Total # of Title I Schools

School Year

Elementary

4

4

3

2

1

3

3

3

2

Total # of Title I Schools

29

25

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

Total # of Schools

Table 5.2: Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

138

Total # of Schools

2002-2003

School Year

Elementary

Table 5.1: Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

TABLES 5.1-5.4: AYP, SCHOOLS IN IMPROVEMENT, (SII) TITLE I SII

3.4

4.0

7.4

14.8

14.8

14.8

25.9

25.9

11.1

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

#

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

%

Title I Schools Making AYP

Middle

1

1

2

4

4

4

7

7

3

#

Schools Making AYP

Middle

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total # of Title I Schools

22

22

22

22

22

21

21

21

21

Total # of Schools

13.6

22.7

63.6

40.9

13.6

14.3

14.3

9.5

9.5

%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

#

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

%

Title I Schools Making AYP

High

3

5

14

9

3

3

3

2

2

#

Schools Making AYP

High

Page | 96

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5

1

1

0

#

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

#

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

%

Title I Schools Making AYP

71.4

100.0

100.0

0.0

%

Schools Making AYP

Special Placement Total # of Title I Schools

7

13

1

1

1

Total # of Schools

Special Placement


Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total

Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

14 4 2 8 0 0 28

Year 1

2 1 0 1 0 1 5

Year 1

12 1 0 0 13

Year 1

9 2 1 0 12

Year 1

2005-2006 Level of Improvement (based on 2005 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 12 4 3 2 10 0 2 5 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 4 5 7 2007-2008 Level of Improvement (based on 2007 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 9 4 6 3 3 1 10 7 0 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 21 10 2009-2010 Level of Improvement (based on 2009 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 4 4 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 16 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 6 28 2011-2012 Level of Improvement (based on 2011 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 12 1 4 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 15 2 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 16 2 6 31

Table 5.3: Number of All Schools in Improvement

1 0 0 0 1

Exiting in 2005 11 0 7 0 18

Exiting in 2007 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

Exiting in 2009 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Exiting in 2011

Year 1

12 0 3 1 0 0 16

Year 1

4 1 0 0 5

Year 1

14 2 1 0 17

Year 1

Page | 97

2006-2007 Level of Improvement (based on 2006 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 12 9 2 4 2 10 0 7 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 29 2 11 2008-2009 Level of Improvement (based on 2008 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 6 4 1 8 2 2 1 17 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 8 6 5 29 2010-2011 Level of Improvement (based on 2010 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 1 5 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6 6 27 2012-2013 Level of Improvement (based on 2012 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 4 1 0 0 5

Exiting in 2006 14 0 3 0 17

Exiting in 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Exiting in 2010 Exiting in 2012


Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total

Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total

Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total

0 N/A N/A N/A 10

0 N/A N/A N/A 1

0 N/A N/A N/A 2

4 N/A N/A N/A 9

2 0 6 2011-2012 Level of Improvement (based on 2011 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 10 1 2 5

2

3 5 1 2009-2010 Level of Improvement (based on 2009 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

6

2 1 1 2007-2008 Level of Improvement (based on 2007 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 6 3 3 1 0 0 2 0

9

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

5 3 0 N/A N/A N/A 8

Year 1

1

1 0 0

Year 1

9

9 0

Year 1

11

Year 1

2005-2006 Level of Improvement (based on 2005 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation

Table 5.4: Number of Title I Schools in Improvement

1

1 0

Exiting in 2005 8

8 0

Exiting in 2007 1

1 0 0

Exiting in 2009 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 0

Exiting in 2011

Year 1

8

8 0 0

Year 1

3

3 0

Year 1

10

Year 1

Page | 98

2 2 7 2012-2013 Level of Improvement (based on 2012 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation

1

3 0 5 2010-2011 Level of Improvement (based on 2010 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

3

6 0 4 2008-2009 Level of Improvement (based on 2008 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 2

9

2006-2007 Level of Improvement (based on 2006 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Restructuring Year 2 CA Planning Implementation

4

4 0

Exiting in 2006 11

11 0

Exiting in 2008 0

0 0 0

Exiting in 2010 Exiting in 2012


Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

Special Education

Two or more races

White

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Black or African American

Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

Hispanic/Latino of any race

All Students

90.4

High

87.5

93.5

94.7

90.4

95.6

95.7

87.5

92.9

90.2

94.8

95.1

91.0

96.6

96.2

88.8

93.3

88.5

94.6

94.8

89.6

96.0

95.8

86.5

93.4

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

93.9

93.9

Elementary

Middle

91.9

High

95.0

Elementary 95.3

88.8

Middle

92.5

High

88.9

94.9

94.9

87.6

96.0

95.8

86.0

93.4

93.9

Elementary

Middle

93.8

High

95.3

Elementary 95.8

91.7

High

Middle

94.1

94.9

Elementary

Middle

89.3

High

94.7

Elementary 95.3

90.6

High

Middle

95.6

95.4

Elementary

Middle

93.8

High

96.8

Elementary 96.9

88.0

High

Middle

94.9

Middle

94.8

Elementary

95.6

90.2

95.5

94% 20102011 95.4

87.1

93.8

90.0

95.3

90%* 20092010 95.4

High

94.0

91.4

95.3

94% 20082009 95.5

All Students

95.4

94.3

89.0

94.3

94% 20072008 95.2

Middle

92.6

91.5

Elementary

94.6

High

94% 20062007 94.6

Middle

Elementary

Subgroups by Level

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO):

Table 5.5: Attendance Rates

5.5-5.7: ATTENDANCE, GRADUATION RATE, DROPOUT

90.4

93.5

93.7

92.3

95.2

94.8

88.8

92.2

92.6

91.6

94.2

94% 20062007 94.4

87.1

93.2

94.5

90.1

95.5

95.7

87.2

92.4

94.0

88.9

93.9

94% 20072008 95.1

90.0

94.5

94.9

91.3

96.7

96.1

88.6

93.2

94.1

91.1

95.1

94% 20082009 95.4

Male

88.3

94.2

94.8

90.4

95.9

95.8

86.3

93.4

93.8

89.7

95.0

90%* 20092010 95.3

88.7

94.7

94.7

88.3

96.1

95.8

85.9

93.4

93.8

93.3

95.6

95.1

91.8

93.9

94.7

87.2

93.2

94.9

90.2

95.4

95.2

93.1

96.7

96.7

89.4

94.6

94.7

87.3

95.3

95.5

89.9

95.4

94% 20102011 95.3

90.4

94.4

94.0

91.5

95.4

95.2

88.8

93.1

92.6

91.5

95.1

94% 20062007 94.7

90.5

95.1

95.3

90.7

96.6

96.2

89.1

93.6

93.7

91.7

95.6

94% 20082009 95.6

Female

Page | 99

87.8

93.9

94.8

90.6

95.7

95.7

87.8

93.7

94.6

89.2

94.7

94% 20072008 95.3

88.7

94.9

94.9

88.5

96.2

95.7

86.9

93.5

93.6

90.3

95.6

90%* 20092010 95.5

89.0

95.0

95.1

86.7

95.8

95.8

86.4

93.4

94.0

94.2

96.0

95.4

91.7

94.2

95.0

93.5

97.2

94.3

91.0

95.7

95.5

94.5

97.1

96.9

86.5

95.1

95.0

86.9

95.5

95.7

90.5

95.7

94% 20102011 95.6


55.5 68.2 70.6

73.3 62.0 78.4 85.8 74.3

74.5

54.8 59.6 68.9

79.1

2009-2010

2008-2009

All Students

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Table 5.7: Annual Dropout Rate Across Grades 9 – 12 All Students Subgroup 2009-2010 2010-2011 All Students ≤3.00 5.82 Hispanic/Latino of any race 8.22 American Indian or Alaska Native 5.26 Asian ≤3.00 Black or African American 5.49 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 8.11 Islander White 5.17 Two or more races 4.61 Special Education ≤3.00 6.48 Limited English Proficient (LEP) ≤3.00 6.03 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) ≤3.00 5.27

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

Special Education

Two or more races

White

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Black or African American

Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

Hispanic/Latino of any race

Subgroup All Students

Table 5.6: Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

≤3.00 ≤3.00 ≤3.00

2009-2010 3.39

53.0 62.6 62.7

67.9

Male

2008-2009

51.5 53.1 61.9

72.0

67.1 56.3 70.0 85.3 67.9

2009-2010

62.4 67.4 75.8

86.9

79.7 67.8 88.2 86.3 80.9

2009-2010

Page | 100

4.43 4.17 5.39 6.14 4.61

5.83 5.15 7.01 5.95 5.90

≤3.00 ≤3.00 ≤3.00

14.29

Female 2009-2010 2010-2011 ≤3.00 4.71 7.46 3.49 ≤3.00 4.28

60.5 73.9 77.5

81.0

2008-2009

Female

4.35

2010-2011 6.85 8.90 6.73 ≤3.00 6.64

Male


51.4 38.0 37.9 33.7 27.0 18.0 11.3 9.3

48.6

62.0

62.1

66.3

73.0

82.0

88.7

90.7

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

648

802

583

216

266

132

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

105

119

56

67

79

161

4.3

4.0

2.4

1.9

1.7

2.4

392

445

207

274

181

445

# classes

16.1

14.8

8.8

8.0

3.8

6.6

%

Testing Requirement Not Met

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

5.4

8.9

9.2

17.0

17.1

9.7

%

# classes

%

# classes

2005-2006

School Year

Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification

Expired Certificate

Table 6.3: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

School Year

Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

TABLES 6.1-6.7: HIGHLY QUALIFIED STAFF

1,316

1,673

657

647

810

1,542

# classes

62.4

55.7

27.9

18.8

17.2

23.0

%

209

302

349

842

1,332

1,453

# classes

8.6

10.1

14.8

24.5

28.3

21.7

%

75

199

869

1,026

1,499

2,455

# classes

2,429

3,004

2,354

3,439

4,703

6,704

# classes

Total

96.6

94.4

91.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

%

% of Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools taught by HQT

Page | 101

3.1

6.6

36.9

29.8

31.9

36.6

%

Conditional Certificate

4,777

5,280

1,411

Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

Missing Certification Information

4,946

5,592

1,540

Total Number of Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools

Invalid Subject for Certification

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

School Year

Table 6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools. Include Title I Schools Funded With ARRA Funds.


1,091 1,890 1,001 2,249 1,200 2,660 1,188 2,531 4,200 4,894 4,128 5,060

1,379 3,900 1,500 3,800 1,286 2,970 4,412 5,447 4,260 5,546

#

1,672 3,496

#

%

96.9 91.2

95.2 89.8

92.4 85.2

80.0 70.0

72.6 57.7

65.3 59.1

Taught by HQT

229 229

135 194

46 112

65 0

62 0

127 0

#

Total Classes

201 194

125 166

41 89

59 0

50 0

89 0

#

%

87.8 84.7

92.6 85.6

89.1 79.5

90.0 0.0

80.6 0.0

70.1 0.0

Taught by HQT

Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary

Level

Low Poverty Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Experienced HQT* Inexperienced HQT # % # % 37 90.2 4 9.8 78 87.6 11 12.4 121 96.8 4 3.2 162 97.6 4 2.4 193 96.0 8 4.0 189 97.4 5 2.6

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 102

* Some local school systems will not have schools that qualify as "high poverty". ** "Experience" for the purposes of differentiation in accordance with No Child Left Behind, is defined as two years or more as of the first day of employment in the 2009-2010 school year.

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

School Year

Core Academic Subject Classes High Poverty* Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Experienced HQT* Inexperienced HQT # % # % 1,031 86.8 157 13.2 2,430 87.2 358 12.8 3,735 89.4 445 10.6 4,353 89.4 516 10.6 3,928 95.2 200 4.8 4,421 87.4 639 12.6

Table 6.5: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools By Level and Experience

2005-2006 Elementary Secondary 2006-2007 Elementary Secondary 2007-2008 Elementary Secondary 2008-2009 Elementary Secondary 2009-2010 Elementary Secondary 2010-2011 Elementary Secondary

Total Classes

Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by HQT High Poverty* Low Poverty

Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level


185

191

186

191

420

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

8,459

8,976

9,077

9,200

8,955

Denominator

Retirement

5

2.1

2

2.1

2.1

%

345

383

700

750

778

Numerator

8,459

8,976

9,077

9,200

8,955

Denominator

Resignation

4.1

4.3

7.7

8.2

8.7

%

44

70

240

240

254

Numerator

8,459

8,976

9,077

9,200

8,955

Denominator

Dismissal/Non-renewal

Table 6.6: Attrition Rates

0.5

0.8

2.6

2.6

2.8

%

119

218

190

220

241

Numerator

8,459

8,976

9,077

9,200

8,955

Denominator

Leaves

1.4

2.4

2.1

2.4

2.7

%

928

862

1,316

1,401

1,458

Numerator

C

A d

h

395 442 398 261

395 442 398 261

2008-2009

2009-2010

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2011-2012*

2010-2011

#

Total Number of Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

Page | 103

*As of July 1, 2011

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

%

Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

Table 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools. Include Title I Schools Funded With ARRA Funds.

i S bj

____Entire teaching staff or

8,459

8,976

9,077

9,200

8,955

Denominator

Total Overal Attrition

Use the data available as of September 1st following each of the school years to be reported. Report data for the entire teaching staff or for teachers of Core Academic Subject areas if those data are available. Indicate the population reflected in the data:

Numerator

Attrition Due To (Category):

11.0

9.6

14.5

15.2

16.3

%


0

2003-2004

9/30/2010 Enrollment NA

* Add rows when necessary

School* NA

9/30/2010 Enrollment NA

2005-2006 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 18% 0

School year in which the suspension rate was exceeded NA

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

0

2007-2008

2007-2008 54

NA

2008-2009 77

0

2010-2011

2009-2010 562

2009-2011 452

Page | 104

NA

Provide a timeline for compliance

2009-2010 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 10% 0

Percentage of Enrollment NA

Percentage of Enrollment NA

0

2009-2010

2008-2009 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 12% 0

0

2008-2009

Provide reason for noncompliance

2007-2008 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 14% 0

# of Suspensions and Expulsions NA

Table 7.6 Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation 2005-2006 2006-2007 Number of Incidents 52 24

* Add rows if necessary

NA

School*

0

2006-2007

# of Suspensions and Expulsions NA

2006-2007 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 16% 1

Table 7.5: Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS

2004-2005 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 18% 0

Table 7.4: Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits

# of Schools

0

2005-2006

Table 7.3: Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time

School* NA

0

2004-2005

Table 7.2: Probationary Status Schools

# of Schools

Table 7.1: Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools

TABLES 7.1-7.10: DANGEROUS, INCIDENTS, SUSPENSIONS

2009-2011 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 10% 0


Sexual Harassment 100 76 155 144 143 126 199 150

Harassment 0 0 0 0 0 48 74 76

# 2,456 4,235 3,582 1,582 2,599 2,188 863 1636 1,394 223

321

544

#

16.0

14.7

15.2

%

Hispanic/Latino of any race

3

10

13

#

0.2

0.5

0.4

%

American Indian or Alaska Native

8

14

22

#

Asian

0.6

0.6

0.6

%

Female

Male

All Students

# 7,720 10,426 9,793 5,086 6,888 6,458 2,634 3,538 3,335 399

718

1,117

#

12.0

11.1

11.4

%

Hispanic/Latino of any race

9

21

30

#

0.3

0.3

0.3

%

American Indian or Alaska Native

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

School Year

Enrolled

24

41

65

#

Asian

0.7

0.6

0.7

%

Table 7.9: Number of Students Suspended - Out of School - by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count)

Female

Male

All Students

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

School Year

Enrolled

Table 7.8: Number of Students Suspended - In School - by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count)

Offense 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

80.4

81.3

80.9

%

2,818

5,472

8,290

#

84.5

84.7

84.7

%

Black or African American

1,121

1,778

2,899

#

Black or African American

52 60 63 120 500 492

0. 0

0.0

0.0

1

2

3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander # %

0

1

1

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander # %

Bullying

50

143

193

#

20

38

58

#

White

White

TOTAL 100 76 207 204 206 294 773 718

Table 7.7: Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying

1.4

1.2

1.3

%

34

61

95

#

1.0

0.9

1.0

%

Two or more races

19

26

45

#

Page | 105

1.5

2.2

2.0

%

1.4

1.7

1.6

%

Two or more races

# 7,720 10,426 9,793 5,086 6,888 6,458 2,634 3,538 3,335

%

223

321

544

%

399

718

1,117

Total

# 2,456 4,235 3,582 1,582 2,599 2,188 863 1636 1,394

Total


Female

Male

All Students

Refusal to Obey School Rules Refusal to Obey School Rules N/A N/A Refusal to Obey School Rules N/A N/A Refusal to Obey School Rules

Classroom Disruption

#1

Insubordination

N/A N/A

Classroom Disruption

N/A N/A

Classroom Disruption

Classroom Disruption

N/A N/A

Insubordination

N/A N/A

Insubordination

Insubordination

Disrespect

Loitering/Cutting Class/Truancy Classroom Disruption

#3

#2

In-School Suspensions

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2010-2011

2008-2009 2009-2010

2010-2011

2008-2009 2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

School Year

Table 7.10: In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category

Loitering/Cutting Class/Truancy Refusal to Obey School Policies Refusal to Obey School Policies N/A N/A Refusal to Obey School Policies N/A N/A Refusal to Obey School Policies

#1

Page | 106

Fighting

N/A N/A

Insubordination

N/A N/A

Insubordination

Insubordination

Fighting

#2

Out-of-School Suspensions

Insubordination

N/A N/A

Fighting

N/A N/A

Fighting

#3


75.0

2010-2011

70.0

41.0 44.0 48.0 50.0 59.0 57.0

LL

73.0

39.0 41.0 49.0 49.0 62.0 59.0

MT

70.0

25.0 27.0 40.0 44.0 57.0 54.0

ST

74.0

34.0 36.0 44.0 49.0 60.0 58.0

SS

85.0

64.0 67.0 69.0 73.0 78.0 76.0

TA

89.0

67.0 71.0 73.0 76.0 82.0 81.0

PD

79.0

48.0 51.0 59.0 63.0 71.0 68.0 19.0

33.0 33.0 30.0 30.0 26.0 24.0

SP

23.0

44.0 42.0 39.0 39.0 32.0 33.0

LL

20.0

43.0 43.0 38.0 39.0 30.0 31.0

MT

24.0

52.0 51.0 46.0 45.0 35.0 36.0

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

MT 46.0 51.0 56.0 56.0 69.0 65.0 77.0

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Accokeek Academy Adelphi Allenwood Andrew Jackson Apple Grove

School

13.0

31.0 28.0 25.0 24.0 19.0 20.0

TA

LL 43.0 39.0 36.0 36.0 29.0 30.0 21.0

MT 43.0 39.0 35.0 37.0 27.0 29.0 19.0

% Approaching Readiness

20.0

50.0 47.0 44.0 43.0 33.0 34.0

SS

9.0

29.0 25.0 23.0 21.0 15.0 16.0

PD

17.0

43.0 33.0 34.0 33.0 24.0 26.0

Composite

Prince Georges Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 Half Day Total Students Income Eligible Students or Full Day Enrolled 9.30.10 (Priority 1) Full Day 22 22 Full Day 19 19 Full Day 43 43 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 43 43

Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment

LL 48.0 51.0 56.0 57.0 66.0 63.0 74.0

% Fully Ready

ST

% Approaching Readiness

Table 8.2: Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience

57.0 58.0 61.0 63.0 67.0 68.0

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SP

% Fully Ready Composite

Table 8.1: Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages

TABLES 8.1-8.3: EARLY LEARNING

7.0

17.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 8.0 9.0

MT

6.0

22.0 22.0 14.0 10.0 8.0 10.0

ST

6.0

16.0 17.0 12.0 8.0 7.0 8.0

SS

Page | 107

2.0

6.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0

TA

MT 12.0 11.0 9.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 5.0

% Developing Readiness LL 10.0 9.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 5.0

8.0

16.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 9.0 10.0

LL

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0

5.0

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0

SP

% Developing Readiness

1.0

4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

PD

4.0

10.0 9.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 5.0

Composite


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Ardmore Arrowhead Avalon Baden Barack Obama Barnaby Manor Beacon Heights Beltsville Academy Bladensburg Bond Mill Bradbury Heights Brandywine Calverton Capitol Heights Carmody Hills Carole Highlands Carrollton Catherine T. Reed Cesar Chavez Chapel Forge ECC Cherokee Lane Chillum Clinton Gove Columbia Park Concord Cool Springs Cooper Lane Cora L. Rice Deerfield Run District Heights Dodge Park Doswell E. Brooks Flintstone Forest Heights Fort Foote Fort Washington Forest Francis Fuchs ECC Francis S. Key Francis T Evans Gaywood Gladys N. Spellman Glassmanor Glenarden Woods

School

Prince Georges Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 Half Day Total Students Income Eligible Students or Full Day Enrolled 9.30.10 (Priority 1) Full Day 44 44 Full Day 21 21 Full Day 19 19 Full Day 19 19 Full Day 39 39 Full Day 41 41 Full Day 57 57 Full Day 43 43 Full Day 88 88 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 35 35 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 20 20 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 86 86 Full Day 88 88 Full Day 20 20 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 19 16 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 110 110 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 22 18 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 121 111 Full Day 56 56 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 22 22

Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment

Page | 108

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Glenridge Greenbelt Greenbelt Children's Center H. Winship Wheatley High Bridge Highland Park Hillcrest Heights Hollywood Hyattsville Indian Queen James Harrison James McHenry James Ryder Randall John Bayne Judge S. Woods Kenilworth Kenmoor Kettering Kingsford Lake Arbor Lamont Langley Park McCormick Laurel Lewisdale Longfields Magnolia Marlton Mary Harris “Mother” Jones Mattaponi Melwood Montpelier Mt. Rainier North Forestville Northview Oakcrest Oakland Overlook Oxon Hill Paint Branch Panorama Patuxent Perrywood Phyllis E. Williams

School

Prince Georges Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 Half Day Total Students Income Eligible Students or Full Day Enrolled 9.30.10 (Priority 1) Full Day 65 65 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 18 18 Full Day 71 63 Full Day 17 17 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 40 40 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 20 20 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 66 66 Full Day 29 23 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 42 42 Full Day 15 15 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 66 66 Full Day 83 83 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 88 88 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 19 19 Full Day 88 88 Full Day 21 21 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 41 41 Full Day 21 21 Full Day 44 44 Full Day 19 19 Full Day 27 27 Full Day 60 60 Full Day 20 20 Full Day 17 17 Full Day 22 22 Full Day 19 19

Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment

Page | 109

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 110

Prince Georges Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 Half Day Total Students Income Eligible Students Students Enrolled Under Other School or Full Day Enrolled 9.30.10 (Priority 1) Criteria (Priority 2) Pointer Ridge Full Day 14 14 0 Port Towns Full Day 110 110 0 Potomac Landing Full Day 22 22 0 Princeton Full Day 34 34 0 Ridgecrest Full Day 60 60 0 Riverdale Full Day 66 66 0 Robert Frost Full Day 22 22 0 Robert Gray Full Day 35 35 0 Rockledge Full Day 22 22 0 Rogers Heights Full Day 66 66 0 Rosa Parks Full Day 44 44 0 Rosaryville Full Day 20 20 0 Rose Valley Full Day 19 19 0 Samuel Chase Full Day 44 44 0 Samuel Massie Academy Full Day 41 41 0 Scotchtown Hills Full Day 40 40 0 Seabrook Full Day 44 44 0 Seat Pleasant Full Day 22 22 0 Skyline Full Day 22 22 0 Suitland Full Day 41 41 0 Tayac Full Day 21 21 0 Templeton Full Day 66 66 0 Thomas Claggett Full Day 21 21 0 Thomas S Stone Full Day 44 44 0 Tulip Grove Full Day 22 22 0 University Park Full Day 44 44 0 Valley View Full Day 22 22 0 Vansville Full Day 44 44 0 Waldon Woods Full Day 43 43 0 William Beanes Full Day 39 39 0 William Hall Academy Full Day 23 23 0 William Paca Full Day 41 41 0 Woodmore Full Day 21 21 0 Woodridge Full Day 44 44 0 Yorktown Full Day 22 22 0 TOTAL 4848 4817 31 Income eligible families can apply to any elementary school with available space. There is no waiting list for Priority 1 students.

Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment


BTE 2011 Master Plan Part 1  

Submitted By: Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Superintendent of Schools Maryland’s Reform Plan Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Race to the...

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you