Updates

Staff Resources

Navigation

    Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success Pilot Program (HB 2799)



    Introduction

    The 2012 Legislature passed legislation (ESHB 2799) that created the Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success Pilot program. The purpose of the act is to authorize pilot projects where colleges of education collaborate with school districts to establish collaborative schools for innovation and success serving particularly at-risk and low-achieving students. Each pilot collaboration is intended both to accelerate student achievement and deepen the knowledge and skills of current and future educators. The initial collaborations are to occur in elementary schools.

    The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) issued a Bulletin on May 4, 2012 to provide initial guidelines for the project. The Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) has created this webpage as a resource to provide information about the pilot programs.

    Link to HB 2799 -

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2799-S.SL.pdf

    Link to OSPI Memo 


    Collaborative Schools for Innovation and Success (CSIS) Awards announced:

    OSPI and PESB announce awards:

    PESB and OSPI have approved the following partnerships as funded CSIS sites:

    University of Washington Seattle and Seattle Public Schools- Roxhill Elementary
    Western Washington University and Mt. Vernon School District- Washington Elementary
    Gonzaga University and Spokane School District- Holmes Elementary


    Non-funded Designated Site:

    Heritage University and Yakima School District- Roosevelt Elementary have received designation as an unfunded CSIS site

    PDF versions of all four CSIS applications are attached below under 'additional resources'.


    Important Dates


    Date

    Activity

     March 15, 2013

     Due date for Innovation & Success Plan

     May 1, 2013

     Notification of plan approval

     2013-14 thru 2017-18

     Implementation Timeline

     Dec 1 of each year

     Annual Progress Reports due to OSPI/PESB



    CSIS Directory

     CSIS Contact- Name/Affiliation
    E-mail  Phone  Project website


    Maria Flores OSPI  School Success

    maria.flores@k12.wa.us

    360-725-6504

    Alexandra Manuel PESB Educator Pathways

    alexandra.manuel@k12.wa.us

    360-725-6276

    Tisha Hansen OSPI School Success

    IGrant administrator for CSIS project

    tisha.hansen@k12.wa.us

    360- 725-6424



    Bill Mason- OSPI School Success- Budget Administrator for CSIS

    bill.mason@k12.wa.us

    360-725-6108

    IGrants customer support:

    Terri Vatne
    IGrants System Administrator

    Jan Burt
    IGrants System Specialist


    EDS Customer Support:

    IGrants@k12.wa.us

    Terri.vante@k12.wa.us     360- 725-6423


    Jan.burt@k12.wa.us         360- 725-4956



    CustomerSupport@k12.wa.us   800- 725-4311 

    University of Washington Seattle Lead-
    Julie McCleery

    Roxhill Elementary Lead-Sahnica Washington, Principal

    juliemccleery@yahoo.com
    206-851-7923

    smwashington@seattleschools.org

    (206) 252-9570


    Project website: TBD

    Western Washington University Lead- Joanne Carney, Elementary Education Department Chair


    Washington Elementary School Lead-      Bill Nutting, School Principal

     
    joanne.carney@wwu.edu  360-650-2163


    bnutting@mv.k12.wa.us  360-428-6122







    Project website:https://sites.google.com/site/collaborativeschools4success/home


    Gonzaga Lead- John Traynor-Director, Master of Initial Teaching




    Holmes Elementary Lead-Steve Barnes School Principal




    Fred Schrumpf, Director of Graduation Improvement, Spokane Public Schools




    traynor@gonzaga.edu

    509-313-3632


    stevebar@spokaneschools.org

    509-354-2990




    freds@spokaneschools.org

    509-354-7970



    Project website: TBD
    Heritage  University/Roosevelt Elementary* Yakima School District  Lead

    Corrine McGuigan



    * Note: Heritage University/Roosevelt Elementary  is a Designated non-funded CSIS site


    mcguigan_c@heritage.edu 

    509-865-8563




    Project website: http://hu105.org/





    FAQ’s


    1) How many grants were awarded?

    Three projects are funded. There was one additional project selected as a designated non funded site.

    2) What is the level of funding appropriated for the Pilot program?

    1.5 million.for 3 sites for 2012-13.

    3) Will the $1.5M be split equally among each of the three funded applications?

    Grantees should assume an even split; that is, $ .5 million each. OSPI can reserve the right to consider minor distribution changes such as distribution based on student enrollment.

    Please note: currently the planning year is being funded. Once implementation plans have been developed and other variables are known, legislative appropriation requests might be adjusted. Also, please recall that the partnerships are to seek outside resources as well.


    4) Within what period should these funds be expended?

    Funding is for this biennium 2011-13. There would be additional money in the next biennium for this five year program. Districts should complete their expenditures by the end of this biennium June 30, 2013.

    5) Does elementary mean K-6 level schools only or are K-8 schools allowed?

    Elementary may include any school in which most students are in grades K-6.

    6) Can two Institutions of Higher Education, through their collaborative efforts, provide support to a district/school as co-applicants in this pilot program?

    One IHE has to be the lead. Other IHE's can be included in partnership profile. An added benefit of this type of model could be additional IHEs changing teacher and leader preparation programs as an outcome of this work.

    7) It seems that OSPI has resources as per RCW 28A.657.040. We understand we need to select a provider in consultation with OSPI and PESB. Is there a list of providers? Should we be seeking out potential providers and bringing them to PESB and OSPI?

    Under RCW28A.657.040- two evaluators have been used for performance audits. The BERC Group and the Center for Educational Effectiveness.
    Currently, they provide the needs assessments for the Priority, Focus and Emerging schools identified in by OSPI through the ESEA Flexibility Waiver.
    You could use some of your grant funds to contract with either for a needs assessment-or if you had a different research/evaluation team in mind that would also be acceptable.

    8) Some places in the funding package instructions it says the assessment is "of the students to be served," in other places the subject of the needs assessment seems to be the IHE and District/School. We assume this means assessing the needs of the students and how the district, school and IHE are/have the potential to meet those needs. True?

    True. The needs assessments provided through CEE/BERC will focus on the students in the school- with identified areas that would be revealed for the district/school/IHE to work on.

    9) What exactly are the boundaries of "comprehensive"? If that isn't clearly identified somewhere, who might help us consider those boundaries as we think about engaging in the process?

    Comprehensive in the authorizing legislation (SHB2799-section 5) “the needs assessment must use disaggregated student data and include a thorough evaluation of student needs as identified by the parents of students served by the school, as well as the levels of support within the school community and in the external community at large for students’ academic and social emotional needs. The needs assessment must also examine elements included in an academic performance audit under RCW 28A.657.040”

    The audit statute includes the following areas and must be conducted based on criteria developed by the superintendent of public instruction and must include but not be limited to an examination of the following:

    (a) Student demographics;
    (b) Mobility patterns;
    (c) School feeder patterns;
    (d) The performance of different student groups on assessments;
    (e) Effective school leadership;
    (f) Strategic allocation of resources;
    (g) Clear and shared focus on student learning;
    (h) High standards and expectations for all students;
    (i) High level of collaboration and communication;
    (j) Aligned curriculum, instruction, and assessment to state standards;
    (k) Frequency of monitoring of learning and teaching;
    (l) Focused professional development;
    (m) Supportive learning environment;
    (n) High level of family and community involvement;
    (o) Alternative secondary schools best practices; and
    (p) Any unique circumstances or characteristics of the school or district.

    10) How does the Academic Performance Audit fit into this?


    The audit is referenced to be part of the criteria necessary in the needs assessment. Both CEE and the BERC Group have constructed their needs assessments to align the RCW28A.657.040.


    Additional Resources