BTE 2011 Master Plan Part 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

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

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

Table of Contents

ii

Page List of Tables, Charts, Figures, Forms, and Attachments, Part I iv Introduction: Integration of Race to the Top with Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan ix Part I Submission Cover Sheet xi List of Local Planning Team Members xii Section A Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Finance 24 Data 74 Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 111 Section B Standards and Assessments 114 Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 115 Core Content Areas 119 o Reading 120 o Mathematics 128 o Science 134 o Social Studies 139 o High School Assessments 142 English High School Assessment 142 Mathematics 151 Biology 158 o Graduation Requirements 164 Cross-Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence 168 o Educational Technology 168 o Education that is Multicultural 182 o English Language Learners 197 o Career and Technology Education 206 o Early Learning 218 o Gifted and Talented Education 229 o Special Education 242 Section C Data Systems to Support Instruction 246 Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 247 Section D Great Teachers and Leaders 254 Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 255 Highly Qualified/Highly Effective Staff 261 Professional Development 269 Family Engagement 289 Schools that are Safe, Drug-Free, and Conducive to Learning 293 o Persistently Dangerous Schools 294

Table of Contents

iii

Page o Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation 294 o Suspensions 298 o Coordination with Community Mental Health Providers 302 o Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports 303 o Habitual Truancy 304 o Attendance 306 o Graduation and Dropout 311 Section E Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 318 Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 319 Adequate Yearly Progress 323 o School System Improvement 323 o School Improvement 327 o Persistently Low-Performing Tier I and Tier II Schools 337 Section F General 339 � Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 340 Section G Clarifying Questions 343 Part II Attachment 7 367 � C125 391 � Assurances 398 � Appendices 402 Attachment 8 481 � C125 500 � Assurances 501 Attachment 10 502 � C125 519 � Assurances 520 Attachment 13 531 � C125 542 � Assurances 543 Other Federal Required Reporting 544

iv

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Part I TABLES Table # Title Page Table A SY2010-11 PGCPS Technology Goals by Area of Focus 14 Table B Elementary, Middle, and High School MSA Reading Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 18 Table C Elementary, Middle, and High School MSA Mathematics Achievement Gaps, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 20 Table 1.1A Current Year Variance Table 26 Table 1.1B Prior Year Variance Table 29 Table 1.1C Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report 31 Table 2.1A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary 120 Table 2.1B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary 120 Table 2.1C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary 121 Table 2.2A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle 122 Table 2.2B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle 122 Table 2.2C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle 123 Table D PGCPS Elementary MSA Mathematics Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 128 Table 2.4A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - Elementary 128 Table 2.4B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – Elementary 129 Table 2.4C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - Elementary 129 Table E PGCPS Middle School MSA Mathematics Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 129 Table 2.5A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – Middle 130 Table 2.5B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math – Middle 130 Table 2.5C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Math - Middle 130 Table F SY2011-12 Elementary Mathematics Professional Development Schedule 132 Table G SY2011-12 Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Schedule 133 Table 2.7A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Elementary (Grade 5) 134 Table 2.7B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Elementary (Grade 5) 135 Table 2.7C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Elementary (Grade 5) 136 Table H Fifth and Eighth Grade MSA Science Performance for PGCPS and Statewide, SY2008-09 through SY2010-11 136 Table 2.8A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Middle (Grade 8) 137 Table 2.8B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Middle (Grade 8) 137 Table 2.8C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Science – Middle (Grade 8) 137 Table I PGCPS English HSA Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 142 Table 2.3A Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – High (English II) 142 Table 2.3B Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – High (English II) 143 Table 2.3C Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – High (English II) 143 Table J PGCPS Algebra/Data Analysis HSA Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 151 Table 2.6A Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis) 151 Table 2.6B Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis) 152

v

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Table 2.6C Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results – Math – High (Algebra/Data Analysis) 152 Table 3.3A HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students 153 Table 3.3B HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students 154 Table 3.3C HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students 154 Table 3.4A HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students 155 Table 3.4B HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students 155 Table 3.4C HSA Test Participation and Status – Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students 155 Table K SY2011-12 Algebra Professional Development Schedule 157 Table 3.5A HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students 158 Table 3.5B HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students 159 Table 3.5C HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students 159 Table 3.6A HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students 160 Table 3.6B HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students 160 Table 3.6C HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students 160 Table 3.9 Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HAS) Graduation Requirement by Option 164 Table 3.10 Bridge Projects Passed 165 Table 3.11 Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement 166 Table L Technology Standards Addressed in the Netbook Project 169 Table M Details on Initial iPad Pilot Schools 171 Table N Apps in Support of Student Learning 171 Table O Grade Configuration of STEP Participating Schools: SY2010-11 173 Table P Participants Receiving Google Training 173 Table Q Trainings Conducted 2010-2011 174 Table R Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) Available Course Statistics 174 Table S ERO Registrants Completing Courses 175 Table 4.1 System AMAO I, 2009-2010 197 Table 4.2 System AMAO II, 2009-2010 197 Table T Percent of LEP Students, Meeting AMAOs 1 and 2 on the LAS Links English Proficiency Assessment by Grade

Level, SY2010-11 198 Table 4.3 System AMAO III, 2010-2011 199 Table U Percent of ESOL Students Scoring at Levels 4 and 5 on LAS Links by School Year 199 Table V Number and Percent of ESOL Students Making a 15-Scale Score Point Gain by Domain 199 Table W Percent of ESOL Students Scoring at Levels 4 or 5 by School Level 200 Table X State Assessment PGCPS LEP Data SY2011 202 Table Y CTE Enrollment by Cluster Category, Prince George’s County, SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 207 Table Z 2009-10 CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS 208 TableZ-1 Three-Year CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS 208 Table AA PGCPS Technical Academy Enrollment by Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10 210 Table AB Enrollment in Work-Based Learning Activities, 2007 through 2009-10 211 Table AC Workplace Readiness Preparedness, 2007-08 through 2009-10 211

vi

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Table AD Enrollment in BMF Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10 212 Table AE BMF SY2009-10 Concentrators and Completers Results 212 Table AF CTE Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Enrollment Data, 2007-08 to 2009-10 212 Table AG CTE PQI Performance Results for Special Populations, SY2009-10 214 Table AH Completers of CTE Programs of Study in FY2009-10 215 Table AI PGCPS PQI Indicators That Did Not Meet 90 Percent Threshold, SY2009-10 216 Table 8.1 Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages 218 Table 8.2 Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience 219 Table AJ-1 Percent of Kindergarten Students Fully Ready by Race/Ethnic Sub-Group for SY2010-2011 219 Table AJ-2 Percent of Kindergarten Students Fully Ready by Selected Sub-Groups, SY2005-2006 to SY2010-2011 220 Table AK Distribution of PGCPS Kindergarten Students among Prior Care Providers and Kindergarten Readiness, SY2010-11 224 Table 8.3 September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment 225 Table AL PGCPS TAG Population Data Summary 230 Table AM Summary of TAG Global Test Nominations 230 Table AN Parent and Teacher Nomination Summary 230 Table AO Number of Students Screened 231 Table AP Number of New Students Identified 231 Table AQ PGCPS and TAG Populations by Race/Ethnicity and Special Needs Status, SY2010-2011 232 Table AR-1 Distribution of TAG Students by Service Type and School Level, SY2010-2011 233 Table AR-2 Percentage Distribution of TAG Students by Service Type and School Level, SY2010-2011 233 Table AS Distribution of Student Participation by Program Type and School Level, SY2010-11 234 Table AT TAG Professional Development Highlights, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 234 Table AU TAG Center MSA and FAST Data Comparison, SY2010-2011 236 Table AV Student Participation in Science Enrichment Program 237 Table AW Gifted Students with Special Learning Needs Participation 237 Table AX Budget Allocation SY2010-2011 239 Table AY PGCPS Proposed Allocations, SY2011-12 240 Table 6.1 Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 261 Table AZ HQT Status of CAS Classes by School Level, SY2010-11 261 Table BA Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by Class Type 262 Table 6.2 Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools 262 Table 6.3A Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason 262 Table 6.3B Percent of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason 263 Table 6.4 Core Academic Subject classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty

Schools by Level 263 Table 6.5 Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools by

Level and Experience 264 Table 6.6A Teacher Attrition by Subcategory 265 Table 6.6B Percent Attrition by Subcategory 265 Table 6.7 Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools 268

vii

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Table BB Timeline for the eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute Review Process 275 Table BC Area and High School Consortium Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), 2010-2011

Meeting Dates 276 Table 7.1 Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools 293 Table 7.2 Probationary Status Schools 293 Table 7.3 Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time 293 Table 7.4 Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits 293 Table 7.5 Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS 293 Table 7.6 Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation 294 Table 7.7 Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying 297 Table 7.8 Number of Students Suspended – In School – by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count) 298 Table 7.9 Number of Students Suspended – Out of School – by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count) 299 Table BD Proportionality of Student Suspensions, PGCPS, SY2010-11 299 Table 7.10 In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category) 300 Table 5.5 Attendance Rates 306 Table 5.6 Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate 311 Table 5.7 Annual Dropout Rate Across Grades 9 –12 311 Table 5.1 Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress 327 Table 5.2 Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress 328 Table 5.3 Number of All Schools in Improvement 333 Table 5.4 Number of Title I Schools in Improvement 334

CHARTS Chart A PGCPS Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12 126 Chart B Data-Based Challenges and Proposed Interventions, Elementary and Middle School Science, SY2010-11 139 Chart C Social Studies Professional Development 141 Chart D English/Language Arts Professional Development Plan 145 Chart E Biology Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12 161 Chart F Accessibility Compliance Chart 179 Chart G Examples of Multiculturalism in Reading/English Language Arts Grade Levels K-5 194 Chart H English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan 2011-2013 202 Chart I Interventions to Ensure Progress of Students who Begin Kindergarten either Not Ready or Approaching Readiness 221 Chart J Plans to Work with Early Childhood Partners/Programs 224 Chart K Professional Development Opportunities Using the Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework 271 Chart L New Teacher Mentor Support by Type of Mentor 278 Chart M Performance Measures for Mentoring and Coaching, 2010-2011 279 Chart N New Teacher Induction and Support: School Year 2011-2012 280 Chart O Highlighted Mentor Training and Preparation, 2011-2012 282 FIGURES Figure 1 Five-Year MSA Reading Performance by Grade Level, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 11 Figure 2 Five-Year Elementary Level MSA Reading Performance by Subgroup, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 11

viii

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS Figure 3 Five-Year MSA Mathematics Performance by Grade Level, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 12 Figure 4 Five-Year Elementary MSA Mathematics Performance by Subgroup, PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 12 Figure 5 AMAO 1 Status by School, SY2010-11 198 Figure 6 AMAO 2 Status by School, SY2010-11 198 Figure 7 Enrollment by Career Cluster – Prince George’s County, SY2009-10 207 Figure 8 Technical Skill Attainment Rate by CTE Program, Prince George’s County. SY2010 209 Figure 9 Program Completion Rate by CTE Clusters, Prince George’s County, SY2010 210 Figure 10 Teacher Separation by Years of Service 265 Figure 11 Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation Incidents Reported to MSDE from PGCPS, SY2006-07 through SY2010-11 294 Figure 12 Findings from Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Training Evaluation, PGCPS, SY2010-11 295 Figure 13 Campaign to Take a Stand Against Bullying in PGCPS 296 FORMS Form Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form 180 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Professional Development Calendar Submission Form 283 Attachment B Professional Development Calendar Guidelines ((RP, RI, and Title I Schools Only) 287 Attachment C Section XI: Professional Development Calendar (RP, RI, and Title I Schools Only) 288 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

ix

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,

x

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.

xi

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: [email protected] 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

xii

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

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update Page | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section Page

� Introduction 2 � Finance Section 3 � Data Section 24 � Race To The Top Scope Of Work Update Section 74


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. Children are our business, and they come first; 2. Parents are our partners; 3. Victory is in the classroom; 4. Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership, and accountability is the key to our success; and 5. 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.

PGCPS PORTFOLIO OF INITIATIVE – SY2011-12 Initiative Objective and Corresponding Systemic Goal

1. 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

2. 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


PGCPS PORTFOLIO OF INITIATIVE – SY2011-12 Initiative Objective and Corresponding Systemic Goal

3. Implementation of Common Core Standards

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 PGCPS curriculum documents to reflect those standards. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement

4. 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

5. 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.


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 full-day 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: 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. GOAL 2: Highly-Effective Teaching – Improvements in this goal of $ 4,000,000 supports Financial Incentives Rewards for

Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST)/Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). GOAL 3: Safe and Supportive Schools GOAL 4: Strong Community Partnerships GOAL 5: Effective and Efficient Operations

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


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: � 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;

� Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in a global economy;

� Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;

� Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most;

� Turning around the lowest-performing schools; � Establishing conditions under which charter and other innovative schools can grow and operate, particularly as

alternatives for low-performing schools; and � 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


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.


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:

� Develop college action plans for all middle and high school students as a part of each student’s Individualized Learning Plan (ILP);

� 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;

� Provide continued professional development for teachers, counselors, and administrators; � Develop pre- and post-tests in AP Government as part of a multiple measure pilot; and � 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


� 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: � 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. � Create a data set that is relevant to daily instructional planning and to long range school planning. � Enhance instructional efficacy of superintendents, principals, and teachers through the identification of practices,

programs, and policies that are linked to improved student academic performance. � 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. � 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. � 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


� 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;


� 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 � 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;

� Provide training in pedagogical strategies and parent engagement; and � 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).


Figure 1

Figure 2

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).

69.5%

76.5%

61.8%

69.7%67.7%

53.0%

79.1%82.8% 83.9%

78.2%75.1%

70.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

69.8%

48.8%

54.8%

63.5%

81.9%

60.4%

78.8% 78.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Students SPED LEP FARMs

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


� 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

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.

70.7%

43.9%

57.0%

64.8%

78.2%

51.3%

75.0% 75.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Students SPED LEP FARMs

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


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


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 Focus Area Selected Technology Goals Student Learning 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 self-service components

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.


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 state-approved 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 state-established 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.


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, Pull-Out, 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


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.


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 2010 2011 2009

Performance Gap (Percentage Point)

2011 Performance Gap (Percentage Point)

Change in Gap 2009 to 2011

(Percentage Point) Elementary All Students 77.5% 78.4% 81.9% N/A N/A N/A Special Education 56.9% 56.9% 60.4% -20.6 -21.5 +0.9 ELL 67.5% 71.5% 78.8% -10.0 -3.1 -6.9 FARMs 72.9% 74.2% 78.8% -4.6 -3.1 -1.5 African American Males N/A N/A 74.9% N/A -7.0 N/A


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 71.3% 72.9% 74.6% N/A N/A N/A Special Education 40.3% 44.5% 46.7% -31.0 -27.9 -3.1 ELL 39.4% 43.0% 36.1% -31.9 -38.5 +6.6 FARMs 64.9% 67.5% 69.3% -6.4 -5.3 -1.1 African American Males N/A N/A 68.3% N/A -6.3 N/A African American Females N/A N/A 80.3% N/A +5.7 N/A High All Students 75.4 68.9 70.5 N/A N/A N/A Special Education 22.0 28.9 28.9 -53.4 -41.6 -11.8 ELL 52.3 30.5 30.5 -23.1 -40.0 16.9 FARMs 71.4 64.1 67.1 -4.0 -3.4 -0.6 African American Males 62.5 -8.0 African American Females 77.3 6.8 � 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.


� 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 2010 2011 2009

Performance Gap (Percentage Point)

2011 Performance Gap (Percentage Point)

Change in Gap 2009 to 2011

(Percentage Point) Elementary All Students 74.7% 77.5% 78.2% N/A N/A N/A Special Education 45.3% 52.8% 51.3% -29.4 -26.9 -2.5 ELL 69.4% 74.9% 75.0% -5.3 -3.2 -2.1 FARMs 70.4% 73.8% 75.0% -4.3 -3.2 -1.1 African American Males N/A N/A 72.4% N/A -5.8 N/A African American Females N/A N/A 78.8% N/A +0.6 N/A Middle All Students 54.5% 55.8% 58.5% N/A N/A N/A Special Education 29.9% 34.0% 35.9% -24.6 -22.6 -2.0 ELL 37.7% 39.1% 35.6% -16.8 -22.9 +6.1 FARMs 48.6% 50.6% 53.2% -5.9 -5.3 -0.6 African American Males N/A N/A 51.9% N/A -6.6 N/A


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 69.2 67.8 67.8 N/A N/A N/A Special Education 16.7 22.6 26.9 -52.5 -40.9 -11.6 ELL 60.1 60.5 49.7 -9.1 -18.1 9.0 FARMs 66.3 66.4 66.0 -2.9 -1.8 -1.1 African American Males 61.5 -6.3 African American Females 70.3 2.5

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


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.


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 low-performing 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.


FINANCE SECTION

Section Page

� Finance Section 26 � Supporting Budget Tables 27 � C-125s 33 � Race To The Top Project Budget Workbooks 38


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

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

26

SUPP

ORTI

NG B

UDGE

T TA

BLES

Cu

rrent

Year

Var

iance

Tab

le 1.1

A: C

urre

nt Y

ear V

arian

ce T

able

Lo

cal S

choo

l Sys

tem

: Prin

ce G

eorg

e's

Re

venu

e Cat

egor

y

FY 12

Bud

get

Lo

cal A

ppro

priat

ion

$

617

,514,5

00

Ot

her L

ocal

Reve

nue

$

11

,855,1

00

St

ate R

even

ue

$

874

,349,6

00

Fe

dera

l Rev

enue

* 10

.579

Natio

nal S

choo

l Lun

ch -

Equip

ment

Assis

tance

$

-

84.01

0 Tit

le I, P

art A

$

25,03

3,387

84

.027

IDEA

Par

t B S

tate G

rant

Pass

throu

gh

$

24

,503,9

91

84.17

3 ID

EA P

art B

Pre

scho

ol Pa

ssthr

ough

$

5

86,01

2

84

.386

Educ

ation

Tec

hnolo

gy

$

-

84

.387

Home

less C

hildr

en an

d You

th

$

7

,202

84.38

8 Tit

le I 1

003 (

g) S

choo

l Impr

ovem

ent G

rant

$

8,49

2,937

84

.389

Title

I - G

rants

to LE

As, N

eglec

ted a

nd D

elinq

uent

$

2

23,62

0

84

.391

IDEA

Par

t B -

Gran

ts to

State

s-Pas

s-Thr

ough

$

3,31

4,846

84

.392

IDEA

Par

t B -

Pres

choo

l Gra

nts

$

270

,872

84.39

3 ID

EA P

art C

- Inf

ants

and F

amilie

s $

-

84.39

4 St

ate F

iscal

Stab

ilizat

ion F

und E

duca

tion P

rogr

am

$

173

,234

84.39

5 Ra

ce to

the T

op

$

8

,801,3

37

84.41

0 Ed

ucati

on Jo

bs F

und

$

-

Othe

r Fed

eral

Fund

s**

$

39

,231,9

62

Ot

her R

esou

rces/T

rans

fers

$

-

Tota

l

$

1,6

14,35

8,600

Instru

ction

s: Ite

mize

FY

2012

expe

nditu

res b

y sou

rce (C

FDA

for A

RRA

funds

, res

tricte

d or u

nres

tricted

) in ea

ch of

the a

ssur

ance

area

s, ma

ndato

ry co

st of

doing

busin

ess,

and o

ther.

Se

ctio

n B

- Sta

ndar

ds an

d As

sess

men

ts

Refo

rm A

rea 1

: Ado

ptin

g st

anda

rds a

nd as

sess

men

ts th

at p

repa

re st

uden

ts to

succ

eed

in co

llege

and

the w

orkp

lace a

nd to

com

pete

in th

e glo

bal e

cono

my.

Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

Mi

ddle

Colle

ge

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,006

,018

8

.0

Race

to th

e Top

- IB

/AP

84.39

5 $

2,4

44,08

1

-

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

STEM

84

.395

$

387

,544

-

Sect

ion

C - D

ata S

yste

ms t

o su

ppor

t ins

truct

ion

Refo

rm A

rea 2

: Bui

ldin

g da

ta sy

stem

s tha

t mea

sure

stud

ent g

rowt

h an

d su

cces

s, an

d in

form

teac

hers

and

prin

cipals

abou

t how

they

can

impr

ove

inst

ruct

ion.

Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

Data

War

ehou

se

84.39

5 $

2

69,81

4

-

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

Data

Quali

ty 84

.395

$

118

,042

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Da

ta W

ise

84.39

5 $

5

37,47

6

-

Sect

ion

D: G

reat

Tea

cher

s and

Lea

ders

Re

form

Are

a 3: R

ecru

iting

, dev

elopi

ng, r

ewar

ding

, and

reta

inin

g ef

fect

ive te

ache

rs an

d pr

incip

als, e

spec

ially

wher

e the

y are

nee

ded

mos

t. Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

St

ipen

ds

Unre

stric

ted

$

500

,000

-

FIRS

T/Te

ache

r Inc

entiv

e Fun

d (T

IF)

Unre

stric

ted

$

4,000

,000

-

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

27

1.1A:

Cur

rent

Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le

Loca

l Sch

ool S

yste

m: P

rince

Geo

rge's

Race

to th

e Top

- Sc

hool

Lead

er N

etwor

k 84

.395

$

250

,312

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Te

ache

r Lea

dersh

ip 84

.395

$

8

,344

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Pi

pelin

e of A

dmini

strato

rs 84

.395

$

1,909

,756

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Co

achin

g 84

.395

$

1,492

,490

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Te

ache

r Pipe

line

84.39

5 $

1,0

89,89

0

-

Sect

ion

E: T

urni

ng A

roun

d th

e Low

est A

chiev

ing

Scho

ols

Refo

rm A

rea 4

: Tur

ning

arou

nd o

ur lo

west

-ach

ievin

g sc

hool

s Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

Ti

tle I 1

003(

g) S

choo

l Impr

ovem

ent

84.38

8 $

8,4

92,93

7

19.0

Ma

ndat

ory C

ost o

f Doi

ng B

usin

ess:

Plea

se it

emize

man

dato

ry co

sts n

ot at

tribu

tabl

e to

an as

sura

nce a

rea i

n th

is ca

tego

ry. R

efer

to th

e gui

danc

e for

item

s con

side

red

man

dato

ry

cost

s. Ex

pend

iture

s: M

anda

tory

Cos

t of D

oing

Bus

ines

s So

urce

Amou

nt

F

TE

Furlo

ugh-

resto

ratio

n of s

alarie

s Un

rest

ricte

d $

28,4

73,61

5

-

Pa

rt-Tim

e Sala

ry/Si

ck Le

ave B

ank

Unre

stric

ted

$

9,201

,808

-

Healt

h Ins

uran

ce

Unre

stric

ted

$

1

6,477

,669

-

Healt

h Ins

uran

ce -

Savin

gs

Unre

stric

ted

$

(1

0,363

,107)

-

FI

CA -

Part-

Time

Unre

stric

ted

$

760

,487

-

Life I

nsur

ance

Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,8

79,80

6

-

St

ate R

etire

ment

Adm

inistr

ative

Fee

Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,2

16,40

8

-

Ot

her B

enefi

t Adju

stmen

ts Un

rest

ricte

d $

3,4

08,89

5

-

W

orke

rs' C

ompe

nsati

on In

sura

nce

- Par

t-Tim

e Un

rest

ricte

d $

3

11,04

0

-

St

abiliz

ation

- Ut

ilities

/Tele

phon

e Un

rest

ricte

d $

46,1

92,15

4

-

St

abiliz

ation

- Te

xtboo

ks

Unre

stric

ted

$

2,414

,882

-

Stab

ilizat

ion -

Othe

r Gen

eral

LEA

Expe

nses

Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,6

14,13

0

-

Re

tireme

nt of

Prior

year

leas

e pur

chas

es

Unre

stric

ted

$

(

2,846

,650)

-

En

ergy

Man

agem

ent P

ayme

nt

Unre

stric

ted

$

8,394

,156

-

Buse

s and

Non

-Bus

Veh

icles

Un

rest

ricte

d $

3,6

01,87

2

-

Te

chno

logy R

efres

h Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,7

05,70

5

-

Te

xtboo

ks

Unre

stric

ted

$

-

-

Pl

ant O

pera

tions

Equ

ipmen

t Un

rest

ricte

d $

4

11,65

2

-

Pr

ior Y

ear P

repa

id Le

ase P

urch

ase

Unre

stric

ted

$

948

,884

-

Build

ing Le

ases

Un

rest

ricte

d $

(3

06,10

9)

-

Maint

enan

ce S

uppli

es/M

&R V

ehicl

e Sup

port

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,276

,881

-

Instru

ction

al Te

chno

logy/E

nterp

rise s

ystem

softw

are l

icens

es

Unre

stric

ted

$

602

,004

-

State

Cha

rge f

or S

tuden

ts in

Stat

e Cus

tody

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,000

,000

-

Colle

ge &

Car

eer R

eady

/HS

Grad

uatio

n Un

rest

ricte

d $

9

55,55

0

-

SE

ED S

choo

l Un

rest

ricte

d $

4

92,25

4

-

AV

ID, A

P, R

ead 1

80 M

ateria

ls in

High

Sch

ools

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,076

,325

-

In-Ho

use P

rintin

g Adju

stmen

t Un

rest

ricte

d $

(7

35,38

8)

-

New

Char

ter S

choo

ls - 2

new

and

1.0 Im

agine

Un

rest

ricte

d $

10,9

12,11

2

93.0

FY

-201

2 Cor

e Ser

vice R

equir

emen

t Bas

e Un

rest

ricte

d $

1,

449,7

63,77

2

17,5

05.8

FY

-201

2 Cor

e Ser

vice R

equir

emen

t Bas

e Re

stric

ted

$

10

0,025

,796

742

.7

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

28

1.1A:

Cur

rent

Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le

Loca

l Sch

ool S

yste

m: P

rince

Geo

rge's

Othe

r: Pl

ease

item

ize o

nly t

hose

expe

nditu

res n

ot at

tribu

tabl

e to

an as

sura

nce a

rea o

r man

dato

ry co

sts i

n th

is ca

tego

ry.

Ex

pend

iture

s: R

edire

cted

Res

ourc

es

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

Sy

stem-

Wide

Red

irecte

d Res

ourc

es

Unre

stric

ted

$

(9

5,298

,068)

(1,5

61.6)

Ho

meles

s Chil

dren

& Y

outh

84

.387

$

7

,202

-

Title

I - G

rants

to LE

As, N

eglec

ted a

nd D

elinq

uent

84

.387

$

223

,620

-

IDEA

Par

t B -

Gran

ts to

State

s-Pas

s-Thr

ough

84

.391

$

3,314

,846

-

IDEA

Par

t B -

Pres

choo

l Gra

nts

84.39

2 $

2

70,87

2

-

St

ate F

iscal

Stab

ilizat

ion F

und E

duca

tion P

rogr

am

84.39

4 $

1

73,23

4

-

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

Hills

ide W

SC

84.39

5 $

2

93,58

7

-

**I

ndica

te no

n-AR

RA ID

EA an

d Title

I fun

ds by

CFD

A in

Fede

ral F

unds

.

**a

ll othe

r fed

eral

funds

can b

e con

solid

ated i

n othe

r fed

eral

funds

.

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

29

Prio

r Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le 1.1

B Pr

ior Y

ear V

arian

ce T

able

(Com

paris

on o

f Prio

r Yea

r Exp

endi

ture

s)

Loca

l Sch

ool S

yste

m: P

rince

Geo

rge's

FY 20

11 O

rigin

al

Budg

et

FY 20

11 F

inal

Una

udite

d Bu

dget

Reve

nue C

atego

ry

7/1/20

10

6/30/2

011

Chan

ge

% C

hang

e

Loca

l App

ropr

iation

59

9,014

,400

5

99,70

9,030

6

94,63

0 0.1

%

St

ate R

even

ue

832,1

32,11

7

790

,997,1

01

(4

1,135

,016)

-4

.9%

Fede

ral R

even

ue

Othe

r Res

ource

s/Tra

nsfer

s

6,00

0,000

6

,596,8

71

596

,871

9.9%

Othe

r Loc

al Re

venu

e

1

4,289

,488

13,64

3,972

(

645,5

16)

-4.5

%

Ot

her F

eder

al Fu

nds

104,2

55,10

4

91

,880,1

53

(1

2,374

,951)

-1

1.9%

Fede

ral A

RRA

Fund

s

7

7,835

,432

1

14,36

3,928

36,5

28,49

6 46

.9%

Tota

l

1,63

3,526

,541

1,61

7,191

,055

(1

6,335

,486)

-1

.0%

Ch

ange

in P

lanne

d Ex

pend

iture

s

NCLB

Go

al Ex

pend

iture

Des

crip

tion

Plan

ned

Expe

nditu

re

Actu

al Ex

pend

iture

Pl

anne

d FT

E Ac

tual

FTE

QSPS

P Go

al 1:

By 2

013-

2014

, all s

tude

nts w

ill re

ach

high

stan

dard

s in

core

curri

cular

area

s, at

a m

inim

um at

tain

ing

prof

icien

cy o

r bet

ter f

or ea

ch E

SEA

subg

roup

in

read

ing/

langu

age a

rts an

d m

athe

mat

ics.

1 ES

OL/IS

CO -

Testi

ng Lo

catio

ns

71,0

99

7

1,099

1

.0

1.

0 1

Midd

le Co

llege

20

0,000

361,1

19

1.0

1.0

1 Se

cond

ary S

choo

l Refo

rm

500,0

00

50

0,000

Tota

l

77

1,099

932,2

18

2.0

2.0

QSPS

P Go

al 3:

By 2

005-

2006

, all s

tude

nts w

ill be

taug

ht b

y hig

hly q

ualif

ied te

ache

rs.

3

Centr

al Ga

rage

Ser

vices

1,43

2,559

2

,472,4

24

20.0

2

0.0

3 Pu

pil A

ccou

nting

12

6,888

126,8

88

1.0

1.0

Tota

l

1,55

9,447

2

,599,3

12

21.0

2

1.0

4 QS

PSP

Goal

4: A

ll stu

dent

s will

be ed

ucat

ed in

lear

ning

envir

onm

ents

that

are s

afe,

drug

free

, and

cond

ucive

to le

arni

ng.

Tran

slatio

n ser

vices

13

6,000

136,0

00

To

tal

136,0

00

13

6,000

LEA

Mast

er P

lan G

oal 5

: All s

tude

nts w

ill gr

adua

te fr

om h

igh

scho

ol.

5

Perfo

rman

ce M

anag

emen

t

5

0,000

50,0

00

5

Sche

duler

Pay

2

0,000

20,0

00

To

tal

70,0

00

7

0,000

Mand

ator

y/Cos

t of D

oing

Bus

ines

s Cha

nges

:

10

Bu

ses &

Non

-Bus

Veh

icles

/Ove

r Hire

s

34

6,461

5

,392,3

16

-

106

.00

10

Char

ter/C

ontra

ct

4,37

6,368

3

,980,7

79

4

3.00

36.50

10

Fu

ll-Tim

e Sala

ry/W

age

Base

2

5,426

,223

21,43

9,723

-

-

10

Le

ase P

urch

ases

2,53

8,393

10

,795,8

57

-

-

10

Healt

h Ins

uran

ce

8,

775,0

98

4,96

8,338

-

-

10

Le

ase B

uildin

gs

219,1

10

27

3,810

-

-

10

Le

ave P

ayou

t

25

0,000

301,4

76

-

-

10

Loca

l 225

0 Pos

ition A

gree

ment

9,97

6,285

9

,976,2

85

18

0.99

1

80.99

10

Ne

w Sc

hools

1,65

9,092

1

,659,0

92

1

0.50

10.50

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

30

1.1B

Prio

r Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le (C

ompa

rison

of P

rior Y

ear E

xpen

ditu

res)

Lo

cal S

choo

l Sys

tem

: Prin

ce G

eorg

e's

10

Nonp

ublic

Plac

emen

ts

1,19

6,253

(9

,907,9

87)

-

-

10

Part-

Time S

alary/

Wag

e Bas

e

1

5,647

,380

17,94

8,251

-

-

10

Re

tireme

nt of

Prior

Yea

r Lea

se A

gree

ment

(

8,988

,067)

(8

,988,0

67)

-

-

10

Ridg

ley B

us Lo

t

10

5,288

105,2

88

10

SE

ED S

choo

l

41

4,304

492,2

54

-

-

10

Spec

ial E

duca

tion -

MOE

Req

uirem

ent

918,8

15

91

8,815

38.0

0

38

.00

10

Tech

nolog

y Refr

esh L

P

2,19

9,760

2

,199,7

60

-

-

10

Unem

ploym

ent In

sura

nce

4,

000,0

00

1,50

0,000

-

-

10

Ut

ilities

(

1,039

,263)

(2

,199,9

79)

-

-

10

Wor

kers'

Com

pens

ation

Insu

ranc

e

(

1,000

,000)

(3

,846,1

98)

-

-

10

Syst

em-W

ide R

educ

tions

(11

1,905

,605)

(110

,410,2

52)

(7

64.76

)

(76

4.76)

10

Co

re S

ervic

e and

Oth

er B

ase R

equi

rem

ents

(3

5,353

,880)

(16

,925,0

12)

Addi

tiona

l Spe

ndin

g/Re

align

ed R

esou

rces

10

Ac

adem

ics-C

alcula

tors

-

30

0,000

-

10

Acco

keek

Aca

demy

- Se

cretar

y

-

57,0

44

1.00

10

AP

at B

eltsv

ille -E

JF

-

12

6,287

1

.00

10

Bowi

e High

Sch

ool (2

.0) -

EJF

-

18

5,793

-

10

Camp

Sch

midt

food c

osts

-

4

5,000

10

Clas

sroom

Bala

ncing

-

5

,242,3

49

56

.50

10

Clas

sroom

Tea

cher

s Par

kdale

HS

- EJF

-

185,7

93

2.00

10

Co

ntrac

ted A

genc

y Nur

ses

-

12

5,082

-

10

Ed

ucati

on Jo

bs F

und

Reali

gnme

nt - B

enefi

ts

-

25

,326,4

47

-

10

Ed

ucati

on Jo

bs F

und

Reali

gnme

nt - B

enefi

ts

-

(

25,32

6,447

)

-

10

FEMA

Reim

burse

ment-

Febr

uary

2010

Sno

w Ev

ent

-

(61

1,826

)

-

10

Finge

rprin

ting/C

rimina

l Bac

kgro

und C

heck

s

-

50,0

00

-

10

Gr

eenb

elt M

S-Fo

reign

Lang

uage

Tea

cher

- EJ

F

-

92,8

97

1.00

10

He

aring

Offic

er S

ervic

es -

Appe

als O

ffice

-

4

0,000

-

10

Midd

le St

ates E

valua

tion

-

3

6,500

-

10

Para

profe

ssion

al Ed

ucato

r

-

29,2

75

0.50

10

PG

Reg

ional

Asso

ciatio

n of S

tuden

t Gov

ernm

ent -

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

-

60,0

00

-

10

Pr

oject

Lead

the W

ay

-

37

1,587

-

10

Retire

ment

Incen

tive -

Term

inal L

eave

payo

ut

-

5

,248,4

69

-

10

Sc

hool

Socia

l Wor

ker.

Medic

aid G

rant

-

-

1

.00

10

Stab

ilizat

ion F

unds

- Ut

ilities

/Tele

phon

e Sav

ings

-

(7,72

1,895

)

-

10

Stud

ent S

ervic

es -

Cler

ks tr

ansfe

rred f

rom

BASC

P

-

10

4,647

-

10

Suitla

nd V

PA T

each

ers (

10.0)

- EJ

F

-

928,9

66

-

10

Vi

rtual

High

Sch

ool

32

6,000

-

Tota

l

-

5

,221,9

68

-

63

.00

Tota

l

(77,7

01,43

9)

(

61,36

5,953

)

(469

.27)

(

306.7

7)

Diff

eren

ce

(

16,33

5,486

)

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

31

ARRA

Prio

r Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le 1.1

C P

rior-Y

ear A

RRA

Varia

nce R

epor

t Re

venu

e

FY 09

Bud

get

FY 10

Bud

get

FY 11

Bud

get

FY 12

Bud

get

Tota

l ARR

A Fu

nds

CFDA

Gr

ant N

ame

10.57

9 Na

tiona

l Sch

ool L

unch

- Eq

uipme

nt As

sistan

ce

90

,000

-

-

-

90,00

0 66

.040

Maryl

and C

lean D

iesel

Prog

ram

-

5

16,00

0

-

13,0

94

529

,094

84.38

7 Ho

meles

s Chil

dren

and Y

outh

-

1

13,82

4

74

,435

7,202

1

95,46

1 84

.389

Title

I - G

rants

to LE

As, N

eglec

ted a

nd D

elinq

uent

-

5,6

24,12

9

16

,763,2

41

22

3,620

22,6

10,99

0 84

.391

IDEA

Par

t B -

Gran

ts to

State

s-Pas

s-Thr

ough

-

9,6

70,65

5

15

,621,0

91

3,31

4,846

28,6

06,59

2 84

.392

IDEA

Par

t B -

Pres

choo

l Gra

nts

-

288

,048

2

84,68

0

270,8

72

843

,600

84.39

3 ID

EA P

art C

- Inf

ants

and F

amilie

s

-

-

-

-

-

84.39

4 St

ate F

iscal

Stab

ilizat

ion F

und E

duca

tion P

rogr

am

-

4

6,542

,234

51,04

7,932

173,2

34

9

7,763

,400

93.70

8 He

ad S

tart A

RRA

COLA

Qua

lity Im

prov

emen

t Gra

nt

-

593

,889

7

34,00

0

157,0

35

1,484

,924

84.38

8 Tit

le I 1

003(

g) S

choo

l Impr

ovem

ent G

rant

-

3,272

,431

8,492

,937

1

1,765

,368

84.39

5 RT

TT -

Incen

tives

for E

SOL T

each

ers

-

-

25

,000

25

,000

84.39

5 Ra

ce to

the T

op

-

2,0

29,83

1 8,8

01,33

7

10,8

31,16

8 84

.410

Educ

ation

Jobs

Fun

d

-

31,65

6,058

-

3

1,656

,058

Tota

l ARR

A Fu

nds

90

,000

74,1

35,75

3

121

,483,6

99

2

1,479

,177

20

6,401

,655

Instr

uctio

ns: F

or e

ach

of th

e fo

ur a

ssur

ance

s, ple

ase

ident

ify h

ow A

RRA

fund

s wer

e us

ed b

y ite

mizi

ng e

xpen

ditur

es fo

r eac

h as

sura

nce.

Indic

ate

the

gran

t CFD

A nu

mbe

r as t

he so

urce

of th

e fu

nds f

or th

e ex

pend

iture

.

Desc

riptio

n CF

DA

Plan

ned

Amou

nt

Actu

al Am

ount

Pl

anne

d FT

E Ac

tual

FTE

Assu

ranc

e 1:

Incr

ease

teac

her e

ffect

ivene

ss an

d ad

dres

s ine

quiti

es in

the d

istrib

utio

n of

hig

hly q

ualif

ied te

ache

rs (r

ecru

iting

, dev

elopi

ng, a

nd re

tain

ing

effe

ctive

teac

hers

and

prin

cipals

). Fu

nds

to su

ppor

t inc

reas

ed t

each

er e

ffecti

vene

ss b

y pr

ovidi

ng o

ngoin

g tra

ining

in

seco

ndar

y tra

nsitio

n pla

nning

for s

tuden

ts wi

th dis

abilit

ies a

nd a

sses

sing

and

prom

oting

po

st tra

umati

c gro

wth i

n chil

dren

. 84

.391

4

,301,6

13.00

1,23

9,224

.00

11.0

11.0

Fund

s su

ppor

ting

traini

ng a

nd l

eade

rship

deve

lopme

nt for

pr

incipa

ls, a

ssist

ant

princ

ipals,

and t

each

ers.

84.39

5

-

37

1,443

.00

-

Assu

ranc

e 2: E

stab

lish

and

use a

pre

-K th

roug

h co

llege

and

care

er d

ata s

yste

m to

trac

k pro

gres

s and

fost

er co

ntin

uous

impr

ovem

ent (

build

ing

data

syst

ems t

hat m

easu

re st

uden

t suc

cess

and

info

rm

teac

hers

and

prin

cipals

how

they

can

impr

ove t

heir

prac

tices

). Fu

nds

will

be u

sed

to co

ntinu

e the

imple

menta

tion

of str

ategie

s de

signe

d to

impr

ove

stude

nt ac

hieve

ment

throu

gh s

choo

l imp

rove

ment

and

refor

m pr

ojects

and

sup

port

early

chil

dhoo

d int

erve

ntion

s an

d sc

hool-

base

d ex

tende

d lea

rning

pro

gram

s. A

waiv

er w

as a

ppro

ved

for th

e sta

tutor

y gr

ant s

et-as

ide fo

r the

Per

Pup

il Ca

lculat

ion fo

r SES

to a

llow

the p

rogr

am fu

nds

to su

ppor

t the

insta

llatio

n of

a da

ta re

posit

ory

syste

m to

monit

or T

itle I

stude

nts a

nd s

taff t

hat w

ill all

ow th

e app

ropr

iate l

inkag

es be

twee

n sev

eral

data

syste

ms us

ed in

the

distric

t.

84.38

9 6

20,28

0.00

620,2

80.00

-

-

Fund

s su

ppor

ting

the u

pgra

de e

xistin

g sc

hool

distric

t data

sys

tems

to en

able

more

pow

erful

use

of

data

and c

ollab

orati

on to

enha

nce i

nsigh

t at th

e clas

sroom

and d

istric

t leve

ls.

84.39

5

-

68

0,946

.00

-

Assu

ranc

e 3: M

ake p

rogr

ess t

owar

ds ri

goro

us co

llege

and

care

er-re

ady s

tand

ards

and

high

qua

lity a

sses

smen

ts th

at ar

e vali

d an

d re

liabl

e for

all s

tude

nts,

inclu

ding

limite

d En

glish

pro

ficie

nt st

uden

ts

and

stud

ents

with

disa

bilit

ies (a

dopt

ing

inte

rnat

iona

lly b

ench

mar

ked

stan

dard

s and

asse

ssm

ents

that

pre

pare

stud

ents

for s

ucce

ss in

colle

ge an

d th

e wor

kplac

e).

Fund

s su

ppor

ting

the e

xpan

sion

of co

urse

offe

rings

in A

dvan

ce P

lacem

ent (

AP),

Inter

natio

nal

Bacc

alaur

eate

(IB),

and

Scien

ce, T

echn

ology

, Eng

ineer

ing, a

nd M

ath (

STEM

) p

rogr

ams

to

prep

are s

tuden

ts for

colle

ge an

d car

eer r

eadin

ess.

84.39

5

-

97

7,442

.00

-

Assu

ranc

e 4: P

rovid

e tar

gete

d, in

tens

ive su

ppor

t and

effe

ctive

inte

rven

tions

to tu

rn ar

ound

scho

ols i

dent

ified

for c

orre

ctive

actio

n an

d re

stru

ctur

ing

(turn

ing

arou

nd lo

west

per

form

ing

scho

ols)

.

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

32

1.1C

Prio

r-Yea

r ARR

A Va

rianc

e Rep

ort

Fund

s to

supp

ort

Coor

dinate

d Ea

rly I

nterve

ntion

Ser

vices

(Re

ading

Rec

over

y) to

prov

ide

inten

sive s

uppo

rt for

stru

gglin

g rea

ders.

84

.391

2

,378,2

64.00

2,53

5,667

.00

28.0

28.0

Fund

s wi

ll be

use

d to

conti

nue

the im

pleme

ntatio

n of

strate

gies

desig

ned

to im

prov

e stu

dent

achie

veme

nt thr

ough

sch

ool i

mpro

veme

nt an

d re

form

proje

cts a

nd s

uppo

rt ea

rly c

hildh

ood

inter

venti

ons

and

scho

ol-ba

sed

exten

ded

learn

ing p

rogr

ams.

Waiv

ers

were

app

rove

d for

the

statut

ory

gran

t set

-asid

es fo

r SES

/Cho

ice O

ption

and

the

LEA

In Im

prov

emen

t for

Pro

fessio

nal

Deve

lopme

nt to

allow

the

prog

ram

funds

to su

ppor

t the

imple

menta

tion

of a

summ

er e

nrich

ment

pr

ogra

m an

d pro

fessio

nal d

evelo

pmen

t for s

choo

l lead

ers.

84.38

9

10,68

5,215

.00

12

,577,7

17.00

85

.0 80

.0

Fund

s to

supp

ort i

nnov

ative

edu

catio

nal r

eform

stra

tegies

in ta

rgete

d low

per

formi

ng tu

rnar

ound

sc

hools

that

will

ensu

re s

tuden

t ach

ievem

ent a

nd s

ucce

ss w

ithin

four

area

s of

prior

ity th

at inc

ludes

gove

rnan

ce, a

ttrac

tion/s

electi

on of

staff

, rigo

r, an

d sch

ool c

limate

. 84

.388

-

3

,272,4

31.00

19

.0 19

.0

* Ot

her

Fund

s ar

e su

ppor

ting

distric

t-wide

utili

ties,

and

other

gen

eral

expe

nses

of L

EA fo

r ins

tructi

onal

supp

lies,

textbo

oks,

and t

estin

g mate

rials.

84

.394

51

,221,1

66.00

51

,047,9

32.00

-

Fu

nds

to su

ppor

t acti

vities

and

pro

gram

s tha

t pro

vide

techn

ology

sup

port

and

inter

venti

ons

that

are

desig

ned

to re

duce

refe

rrals

to Sp

ecial

Edu

catio

n for

stud

ents

witho

ut dis

abilit

ies a

nd

outre

ach t

o sup

port

familie

s of s

tuden

ts wi

th dis

abilit

ies.

84.39

1

7,62

3,419

.00

11

,846,2

00.00

52

.0 40

.0

Fund

s to s

uppo

rt the

impr

ovem

ent o

f ser

vice d

elive

ry an

d res

ource

utiliz

ation

. 84

.392

421

,800.0

0

28

4,680

.00

1.0

1.0

Fund

s wi

ll sup

port

the c

ontin

ued

expa

nsion

of H

ead

Star

t ser

vices

to 6

0 ad

dition

al ch

ildre

n an

d fam

ilies

in ce

nter-b

ased

sett

ings

that w

ill inc

lude

more

tech

nical

assis

tance

train

ing fo

r tea

cher

s an

d par

apro

fessio

nals.

93

.708

551,8

20.00

73

4,000

.00

8.0

8.0

Fund

s are

supp

ortin

g ad

dition

al cla

ssro

om p

ositio

ns in

scho

ols a

nd a

pplic

able

distric

t-wide

fring

e be

nefits

for s

choo

l-bas

ed in

struc

tiona

l per

sonn

el.

84.41

0

-

31,65

6,058

.00

68.0

68.0

Fund

s are

supp

ortin

g the

acqu

isitio

n of d

iesel

partic

ulate

filter

s and

cran

kcas

e ven

tilatio

n sys

tems

to re

trofit

diese

l sch

ool b

uses

thro

ugh

an in

itiativ

e an

d fed

eral

ARRA

fund

ing p

rovid

ed b

y the

Ma

rylan

d Dep

artm

ent o

f the E

nviro

nmen

t. 66

.040

-

-

-

Fund

s wi

ll sup

port

the im

pleme

ntatio

n of

a Di

gital

Lear

ning

Initia

tive

in fou

r midd

le sc

hools

that

will

incre

ase

teach

er c

apac

ity t

o inf

use

techn

ology

into

the c

urric

ulum

to pr

omote

stud

ent

achie

veme

nt by

eng

aging

in h

ands

on

manip

ulatio

n of

conte

nt (re

ading

, lang

uage

arts

, math

and

sc

ience

) fro

m va

rious

sour

ces.

84.38

9

-

3,56

5,244

.00

-

Fund

s ar

e su

ppor

ting

the e

nhan

ceme

nt an

d ex

pans

ion o

f ser

vices

to th

e ho

meles

s stu

dent

popu

lation

for u

nifor

ms, tr

ansp

ortat

ion, a

nd pe

rsona

l hyg

iene i

tems.

84

.387

-

74,4

35.00

-

To

tal

7

7,803

,577

121

,483,6

99.00

27

2.0

255.0

*In

dicate

any o

ther A

RRA

funds

rece

ived b

y the

scho

ol sy

stem,

inclu

ding t

he C

FDA

numb

er


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


C-125 forms for Year 1








RACE TO THE TOP PROJECT BUDGET WORKBOOKS Project 1: AP/IB - Budget Summary Table

Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: AP/IB Associated with Criteria: (B)(3) Project Number: 1

Budget Categories Project Project Project Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1. Salaries and Wages 0 419,244 371,744 $329,744 1,120,732

2. Contract Services 250,000 634,688 456,460 312,340 1,653,488

3. Supplies and Materials - 78,440 65,220 81,220 224,880

4. Other Charges 672,128 1,224,208 1,142,446 1,179,006 4,217,788

5. Property - - - - -

6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 30,892 87,501 87,483 81,743 287,619

7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 953,020 2,444,081 2,123,352 1,984,053 7,504,507

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


Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category Implementation Stipends- Vertical Teaming IB/AP $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $63,000 Stipends- AP Achievement workshop $63,000 $42,000 $105,000 AP/IB/SAT Curriculum Writers $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 Assessment Development Writers $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $105,000 Curriculum Writers for AP assessment $17,500 $17,500 $17,500 $52,500 AP Online Instructors $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 AP Course Tutors $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000 AP Summer Enrichment Teachers $23,744 $23,744 $23,744 $71,232 Camp IB $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $24,000 IB Summer Arts Institute teachers $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $39,000 Broad Fellows $45,000 $67,500 $67,500 $180,000 Total $0 $419,244 $371,744 $329,744 $1,120,732

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 School Workshops $0 $150,000 $60,000 $60,000 $270,000

IB Consultant $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 National Student Clearing $0 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $33,000


Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category House College Board Diagnostic $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 College Board Workshops $0 $80,000 $80,000 $40,000 $200,000 Curriculum Audit $0 $150,000 $150,000 $60,000 $360,000 AP Formative Assessments

$0 $150,000 $100,000 $83,000 $333,000

Transportation IB Field Trips $0 $41,568 $10,000 $10,000 $61,568

Transportation IB Summer Arts Institute $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000

Catering - Middle School Workshops $0 $7,560 $3,780 $3,780 $15,120

Catering - Camp IB $0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500 Catering - IB Summer Arts Institute

$0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500

Catering - AP Achievement Workshop

$0 $5,760 $2,880 $5,760 $14,400

Catering - IB Workshops $0 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $5,400 Catering - Curriculum Writers

$0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $9,000

Parent Outreach $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 Total $250,000 $634,688 $456,460 $312,340 $1,653,488

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: � 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. � Vertical Teaming – designed to support the pacing recommendations from curriculum coherence work. � 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.


Project 1: AP/IB - Details by Category Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total IB Materials and Supplies $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $40,000 IB-Postage $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 Training materials $0 $14,440 $7,220 $7,220 $28,880 Camp IB Supplies $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $13,500 IB Summer Arts Institute $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $7,500 AP Achievement Supplies $12,000 $6,000 $12,000 $30,000 Diploma Support Program $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000 Total Project Costs $0 $78,440 $65,220 $81,220 $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


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. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $953,020 $2,444,081 $2,123,352 $1,984,053 $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.

Project 2: Data Warehouse - Budget Summary Table

Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Data Warehouse Associated with Criteria: (C)(2) Project Number: 2


(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1. Salaries and Wages - - - - - 2. Contract Services $250,000 $252,640 $250,000 $250,000 1,002,640 3. Supplies and Materials - - - - - 4. Other Charges - - - - - 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 1,673 17,174 10,743 10,743 40,331 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 251,673 269,814 260,743 260,743 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 and supplements this with goal oriented 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:


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. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Data Warehouse - Requirement Services $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $600,000

Training, Documentation, and Change Management Services $50,000 $52,640 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000

Total $250,000 $252,640 $250,000 $250,000 $750,000 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: 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


Project 2: Data Warehouse - Details by Category 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 $1,673 $17,174 $10,743 $10,743 $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 Total Project Costs $251,673 $269,814 $260,743 $260,743 $1,042,971

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: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Data Quality Associated with Criteria: C(3)(i) Project Number: 3 Budget Categories Project Project Project Project

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

1. Salaries and Wages - - - - - 2. Contract Services $0 $108,500 $0 $0 108,500 3. Supplies and Materials $415,090 $910 $0 $0 416,000 4. Other Charges - - - - - 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 13,906 8,632 - - 22,538 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 428,996 118,042 - - 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.


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 - Implementation and Training $0 $108,500 $108,500

$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 Product - Certify $415,090 $910 $0 $416,000

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.


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. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Indirect Cost Recovery $13,906 $8,632 $22,538 Total $13,906 $8,632 $0 $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


Project 4 Data Wise - Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Data Quality Associated with Criteria: C(3)(ii) Project Number: 4 Budget Categories Project Project Project Project


1. Salaries and Wages - 315,000 189,000 252,000 756,000 2. Contract Services - 23,428 - - 23,428 3. Supplies and Materials 267 6,081 3,174 3,176 12,698 4. Other Charges - 152,284 15,479 20,639 188,401 5. Property - 22,500 - - 22,500 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) 9 18,184 8,923 11,852 38,968 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 276 537,476 216,576 287,667 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 Wise© 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


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 Wise Program $0 $23,428 $23,428

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


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


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. Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Equipment $0 $22,500 $22,500 Total $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


Project 5: Teacher Incentives - Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Teacher Incentives Associated with Criteria: (D)(2);(D)(3)(i) Project Number: 5 Budget Categories Project Project Project Project


1. Salaries and Wages - - 351,023 351,022 702,045 2. Contract Services - - - - - 3. Supplies and Materials - - - - - 4. Other Charges - - 28,749 28,749 57,498 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - - 17,051 17,051 34,102 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) - - 396,823 396,822 793,645 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.


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


Project 5: Teacher Incentives - Details by Category Total $0 $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


Project 6: School Leaders Network - Budget Summary Table

Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: School Leader Network Associated with Criteria: (D)(3) (i) Project Number: 6 Budget Categories Project Project Project Project


1. Salaries and Wages - - - - - 2. Contract Services - 241,266 120,000 120,000 481,266 3. Supplies and Materials - - - - - 4. Other Charges - - - - - 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - 9,046 5,156 5,156 19,358 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) - 250,312 125,156 125,156 500,624 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 pr incipals. 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


Project 6: School Leaders Network - Details by Category 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 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


Project 7: Teacher Leadership - Budget Summary Table

Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Teacher leadership Associated with Criteria: (D)(3)(i);(D)(5)(i);(D)(2)(iv)(a) Project Number: 7


(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1. Salaries and Wages - - - - - 2. Contract Services $0 $4,500 $2,250 $2,250 9,000 3. Supplies and Materials - 3,537 1,750 1,750 7,037 4. Other Charges - - - - - 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - 307 172 172 651 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) - 8,344 4,172 4,172 16,688 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 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 & Trainings $0 $4,500 $2,250 $2,250 $9,000

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


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 Training Materials $0 $3,537 $1,750 $1,750 $7,037

- 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 - - - - -


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

Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Pipeline of Administrators Associated with Criteria: (D)(3)(i);(D)(5)(ii);(D)(5)(i);(E)(2);(D)(2)(ii) Project Number: 8


Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Budget Summary Table Budget Categories Project Project Project Project


1. Salaries and Wages $0 $45,000 $22,500 $0 67,500 2. Contract Services - 1,606,462 888,231 896,500 3,391,193 3. Supplies and Materials 8,819 15,181 12,000 12,000 48,000 4. Other Charges 40,124 172,233 101,269 93,000 406,625 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - 70,880 44,002 43,035 157,917 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 48,943 1,909,756 1,068,002 1,044,535 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


Project 8: Pipeline of Administrators - Details by Category LEAPP - Asst Principal $0 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 Total $0 $1,606,462 $888,231 $896,500 $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


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.

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Total Project Costs $48,943 $1,909,756 $1,068,002 $1,044,535 $4,071,235


Project 9: Coaching - Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Coaching Associated with Criteria: (D)(2)(iii);(D)(2)(iv)(b);(D)(5)(i);(D)(5)(i-ii);(D)(5) Project Number: 9


(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1. Salaries and Wages - - - - - 2. Contract Services $0 $1,197,557 $595,500 $595,500 2,388,557 3. Supplies and Materials - - - - - 4. Other Charges - 240,000 120,000 120,000 480,000 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - 54,933 30,745 30,745 116,423 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) - 1,492,490 746,245 746,245 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 - - -


Project 9: Coaching - Details by Category 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 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


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


Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Teacher Pipeline Associated with Criteria: (D)(2)(i-iv);(D)(5)(i);(D)(5)(i);(E)(2);(D)(3)(i,ii);(D)(5)(i,ii) Project Number: 10 Budget Categories Project Project Project Project


1. Salaries and Wages - 118,900 59,450 59,450 237,800 2. Contract Services $322,500 $905,569 $900,281 $1,050,281 3,178,631 3. Supplies and Materials - - - - - 4. Other Charges - 9,738 4,869 4,869 19,476 5. Property - - - - - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - 55,683 41,449 47,895 145,027 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) 322,500 1,089,890 1,006,049 1,162,495 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 school-based 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.


Project 10: Teacher Pipeline - Details by Category (Classification) Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Salary $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Stipends - After School Trainings $0 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000 Stipends - Saturday Trainings $0 $18,900 $9,450 $9,450 $37,800 Total $0 $118,900 $59,450 $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



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


Project 11: Hillside –Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection (HW-SC) Associated with Criteria: (E)(2) Project Number: 11


(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1. Salaries and Wages - - - - - 2. Contract Services $0 $282,985 $143,005 $144,541 570,531 3. Supplies and Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 - 4. Other Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 - 5. Property $0 $0 $0 $0 - 6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) $0 $10,602 $6,145 $6,211 22,958 7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) - 293,587 149,150 150,752 593,489

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


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 Connection $0 $282,985 $143,005 $144,541 $570,531

$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



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


Project 12: STEM NCTAF SSR – Budget Summary Table Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Project Name: STEM NCTAF SSR Associated with Criteria: Emphasis on STEM Priority Project Number: 12


(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.

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


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 NCTAF- PGCPS 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


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.

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total Teacher/Instructional Materials $ - $5,000 $3,500 $3,500 $12,000 Total $ - $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 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total NCTAF and Other Consultant Travel $0 $6,200 $3,100 $3,100 $12,400 Teachers Travel $0 $3,176 $1,863 $1,863 $6,902 Phone -conference calls $0 $2,958 $500 $500 $3,958 Fringe $889 $14,672 $9,697 $9,697 $34,955 Total $889 $27,006 $15,160 $15,160 $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.


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



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.


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 self-insured 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


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.


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


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.


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 Project No. RTTT Project Name Total Project Year 1 Unspent Funds Moved

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


RTTT Unused Year One (1) Funds Forwarded to Year Two via Amendment, PGCPS Project No. RTTT Project Name Total Project Year 1 Unspent Funds Moved

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.


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.


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

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

75

DATA

SEC

TION

TA

BLES

1.1-

1.6: F

INAN

CE

1.1A:

Cur

rent

Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le

Loca

l Sch

ool S

yste

m: P

rince

Geo

rge's

Reve

nue C

ateg

ory

FY

12 B

udge

t

Loca

l App

ropr

iation

$

6

17,51

4,500

Othe

r Loc

al Re

venu

e $

11,85

5,100

State

Rev

enue

$

8

74,34

9,600

Fede

ral R

even

ue*

10.57

9 Na

tiona

l Sch

ool L

unch

- Eq

uipme

nt As

sistan

ce

$

-

84

.010

Title

I, Par

t A

$

25

,033,3

87

84.02

7 ID

EA P

art B

Stat

e Gra

nt Pa

ssthr

ough

$

24,50

3,991

84

.173

IDEA

Par

t B P

resc

hool

Pass

throu

gh

$

586

,012

84.38

6 Ed

ucati

on T

echn

ology

$

-

84.38

7 Ho

meles

s Chil

dren

and Y

outh

$

7,20

2

84

.388

Title

I 100

3 (g)

Sch

ool Im

prov

emen

t Gra

nt

$

8

,492,9

37

84.38

9 Tit

le I -

Gra

nts to

LEAs

, Neg

lecte

d and

Deli

nque

nt

$

223

,620

84.39

1 ID

EA P

art B

- Gr

ants

to St

ates-P

ass-T

hrou

gh

$

3

,314,8

46

84.39

2 ID

EA P

art B

- Pr

esch

ool G

rants

$

2

70,87

2

84

.393

IDEA

Par

t C -

Infan

ts an

d Fam

ilies

$

-

84

.394

State

Fisc

al St

abiliz

ation

Fun

d Edu

catio

n Pro

gram

$

1

73,23

4

84

.395

Race

to th

e Top

$

8,80

1,337

84

.410

Educ

ation

Jobs

Fun

d $

-

Ot

her F

eder

al Fu

nds*

* $

39,23

1,962

Othe

r Res

ource

s/Tra

nsfer

s $

-

To

tal

$

1,614

,358,6

00

Ins

tructi

ons:

Itemi

ze F

Y 20

12 ex

pend

iture

s by s

ource

(CFD

A for

ARR

A fun

ds, r

estric

ted o

r unr

estric

ted) in

each

of th

e ass

uran

ce ar

eas,

mand

atory

cost

of do

ing bu

sines

s, an

d othe

r.

Sect

ion

B - S

tand

ards

and

Asse

ssm

ents

Re

form

Are

a 1: A

dopt

ing

stan

dard

s and

asse

ssm

ents

that

pre

pare

stud

ents

to su

ccee

d in

colle

ge an

d th

e wor

kplac

e and

to co

mpe

te in

the g

loba

l eco

nom

y.

Expe

nditu

res:

So

urce

Am

ount

F

TE

Midd

le Co

llege

Un

rest

ricte

d $

1,0

06,01

8

8.0

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

IB/A

P 84

.395

$

2,444

,081

-

Race

to th

e Top

- ST

EM

84.39

5 $

3

87,54

4

-

Sect

ion

C - D

ata S

yste

ms t

o su

ppor

t ins

truct

ion

Refo

rm A

rea 2

: Bui

ldin

g da

ta sy

stem

s tha

t mea

sure

stud

ent g

rowt

h an

d su

cces

s, an

d in

form

teac

hers

and

prin

cipals

abou

t how

they

can

impr

ove

inst

ruct

ion.

Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

Data

War

ehou

se

84.39

5 $

2

69,81

4

-

Ra

ce to

the T

op -

Data

Quali

ty 84

.395

$

118

,042

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Da

ta W

ise

84.39

5 $

5

37,47

6

-

Sect

ion

D: G

reat

Tea

cher

s and

Lea

ders

Re

form

Are

a 3: R

ecru

iting

, dev

elopi

ng, r

ewar

ding

, and

reta

inin

g ef

fect

ive te

ache

rs an

d pr

incip

als, e

spec

ially

wher

e the

y are

nee

ded

mos

t. Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

St

ipen

ds

Unre

stric

ted

$

500

,000

-

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

76

1.1A:

Cur

rent

Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le

Loca

l Sch

ool S

yste

m: P

rince

Geo

rge's

FIRS

T/Te

ache

r Inc

entiv

e Fun

d (T

IF)

Unre

stric

ted

$

4,000

,000

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Sc

hool

Lead

er N

etwor

k 84

.395

$

250

,312

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Te

ache

r Lea

dersh

ip 84

.395

$

8

,344

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Pi

pelin

e of A

dmini

strato

rs 84

.395

$

1,909

,756

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Co

achin

g 84

.395

$

1,492

,490

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Te

ache

r Pipe

line

84.39

5 $

1,0

89,89

0

-

Sect

ion

E: T

urni

ng A

roun

d th

e Low

est A

chiev

ing

Scho

ols

Refo

rm A

rea 4

: Tur

ning

arou

nd o

ur lo

west

-ach

ievin

g sc

hool

s Ex

pend

iture

s:

Sour

ce

Amou

nt

FTE

Ti

tle I 1

003(

g) S

choo

l Impr

ovem

ent

84.38

8 $

8,4

92,93

7

19.0

Ma

ndat

ory C

ost o

f Doi

ng B

usin

ess:

Plea

se it

emize

man

dato

ry co

sts n

ot at

tribu

tabl

e to

an as

sura

nce a

rea i

n th

is ca

tego

ry. R

efer

to th

e gui

danc

e for

item

s con

side

red

man

dato

ry

cost

s. Ex

pend

iture

s: M

anda

tory

Cos

t of D

oing

Bus

ines

s So

urce

Amou

nt

F

TE

Furlo

ugh-

resto

ratio

n of s

alarie

s Un

rest

ricte

d $

28,4

73,61

5

-

Pa

rt-Tim

e Sala

ry/Si

ck Le

ave B

ank

Unre

stric

ted

$

9,201

,808

-

Healt

h Ins

uran

ce

Unre

stric

ted

$

1

6,477

,669

-

Healt

h Ins

uran

ce -

Savin

gs

Unre

stric

ted

$

(1

0,363

,107)

-

FI

CA -

Part-

Time

Unre

stric

ted

$

760

,487

-

Life I

nsur

ance

Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,8

79,80

6

-

St

ate R

etire

ment

Adm

inistr

ative

Fee

Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,2

16,40

8

-

Ot

her B

enefi

t Adju

stmen

ts Un

rest

ricte

d $

3,4

08,89

5

-

W

orke

rs' C

ompe

nsati

on In

sura

nce

- Par

t-Tim

e Un

rest

ricte

d $

3

11,04

0

-

St

abiliz

ation

- Ut

ilities

/Tele

phon

e Un

rest

ricte

d $

46,1

92,15

4

-

St

abiliz

ation

- Te

xtboo

ks

Unre

stric

ted

$

2,414

,882

-

Stab

ilizat

ion -

Othe

r Gen

eral

LEA

Expe

nses

Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,6

14,13

0

-

Re

tireme

nt of

Prior

year

leas

e pur

chas

es

Unre

stric

ted

$

(

2,846

,650)

-

En

ergy

Man

agem

ent P

ayme

nt

Unre

stric

ted

$

8,394

,156

-

Buse

s and

Non

-Bus

Veh

icles

Un

rest

ricte

d $

3,6

01,87

2

-

Te

chno

logy R

efres

h Un

rest

ricte

d $

2,7

05,70

5

-

Te

xtboo

ks

Unre

stric

ted

$

-

-

Pl

ant O

pera

tions

Equ

ipmen

t Un

rest

ricte

d $

4

11,65

2

-

Pr

ior Y

ear P

repa

id Le

ase P

urch

ase

Unre

stric

ted

$

948

,884

-

Build

ing Le

ases

Un

rest

ricte

d $

(3

06,10

9)

-

Maint

enan

ce S

uppli

es/M

&R V

ehicl

e Sup

port

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,276

,881

-

Instru

ction

al Te

chno

logy/E

nterp

rise s

ystem

softw

are l

icens

es

Unre

stric

ted

$

602

,004

-

State

Cha

rge f

or S

tuden

ts in

Stat

e Cus

tody

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,000

,000

-

Colle

ge &

Car

eer R

eady

/HS

Grad

uatio

n Un

rest

ricte

d $

9

55,55

0

-

SE

ED S

choo

l Un

rest

ricte

d $

4

92,25

4

-

AV

ID, A

P, R

ead 1

80 M

ateria

ls in

High

Sch

ools

Unre

stric

ted

$

1,076

,325

-

In-Ho

use P

rintin

g Adju

stmen

t Un

rest

ricte

d $

(7

35,38

8)

-

New

Char

ter S

choo

ls - 2

new

and

1.0 Im

agine

Un

rest

ricte

d $

10,9

12,11

2

93.0

FY

-201

2 Cor

e Ser

vice R

equir

emen

t Bas

e Un

rest

ricte

d $

1,

449,7

63,77

2

17,5

05.8

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

77

1.1A:

Cur

rent

Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le

Loca

l Sch

ool S

yste

m: P

rince

Geo

rge's

FY-2

012 C

ore S

ervic

e Req

uirem

ent B

ase

Rest

ricte

d $

100,0

25,79

6

7

42.7

Ot

her:

Plea

se it

emize

onl

y tho

se ex

pend

iture

s not

attri

buta

ble t

o an

assu

ranc

e are

a or m

anda

tory

cost

s in

this

cate

gory

.

Expe

nditu

res:

Red

irect

ed R

esou

rces

So

urce

Am

ount

F

TE

Syste

m-W

ide R

edire

cted R

esou

rces

Un

rest

ricte

d $

(95,2

98,06

8)

(

1,561

.6)

Home

less C

hildr

en &

You

th

84.38

7 $

7,20

2

-

Tit

le I -

Gra

nts to

LEAs

, Neg

lecte

d and

Deli

nque

nt

84.38

7 $

2

23,62

0

-

ID

EA P

art B

- Gr

ants

to St

ates-P

ass-T

hrou

gh

84.39

1 $

3,3

14,84

6

-

ID

EA P

art B

- Pr

esch

ool G

rants

84

.392

$

270

,872

-

State

Fisc

al St

abiliz

ation

Fun

d Edu

catio

n Pro

gram

84

.394

$

173

,234

-

Race

to th

e Top

- Hi

llside

WSC

84

.395

$

293

,587

-

**Ind

icate

non-

ARRA

IDEA

and T

itle I f

unds

by C

FDA

in Fe

dera

l Fun

ds.

**all o

ther f

eder

al fun

ds ca

n be c

onso

lidate

d in o

ther f

eder

al fun

ds.

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

78

1.1B

Prio

r Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le (C

ompa

rison

of P

rior Y

ear E

xpen

ditu

res)

Lo

cal S

choo

l Sys

tem

: Prin

ce G

eorg

e's

FY 20

11 O

rigin

al

Budg

et

FY 20

11 F

inal

Una

udite

d Bu

dget

Reve

nue C

atego

ry

7/1/20

10

6/30/2

011

Chan

ge

% C

hang

e

Loca

l App

ropr

iation

59

9,014

,400

5

99,70

9,030

6

94,63

0 0.1

%

St

ate R

even

ue

832,1

32,11

7

790

,997,1

01

(4

1,135

,016)

-4

.9%

Fede

ral R

even

ue

Othe

r Res

ource

s/Tra

nsfer

s

6,00

0,000

6

,596,8

71

596

,871

9.9%

Othe

r Loc

al Re

venu

e

1

4,289

,488

13,64

3,972

(

645,5

16)

-4.5

%

Ot

her F

eder

al Fu

nds

104,2

55,10

4

91

,880,1

53

(1

2,374

,951)

-1

1.9%

Fede

ral A

RRA

Fund

s

7

7,835

,432

1

14,36

3,928

36,5

28,49

6 46

.9%

Tota

l

1,63

3,526

,541

1,61

7,191

,055

(1

6,335

,486)

-1

.0%

Ch

ange

in P

lanne

d Ex

pend

iture

s

NCLB

Go

al Ex

pend

iture

Des

crip

tion

Plan

ned

Expe

nditu

re

Actu

al Ex

pend

iture

Pl

anne

d FT

E Ac

tual

FTE

QSPS

P Go

al 1:

By 2

013-

2014

, all s

tude

nts w

ill re

ach

high

stan

dard

s in

core

curri

cular

area

s, at

a m

inim

um at

tain

ing

prof

icien

cy o

r bet

ter f

or ea

ch E

SEA

subg

roup

in

read

ing/

langu

age a

rts an

d m

athe

mat

ics.

1 ES

OL/IS

CO -

Testi

ng Lo

catio

ns

71,0

99

7

1,099

1

.0

1.

0 1

Midd

le Co

llege

20

0,000

361,1

19

1.0

1.0

1 Se

cond

ary S

choo

l Refo

rm

500,0

00

50

0,000

Tota

l

77

1,099

932,2

18

2.0

2.0

QSPS

P Go

al 3:

By 2

005-

2006

, all s

tude

nts w

ill be

taug

ht b

y hig

hly q

ualif

ied te

ache

rs.

3

Centr

al Ga

rage

Ser

vices

1,43

2,559

2

,472,4

24

20.0

2

0.0

3 Pu

pil A

ccou

nting

12

6,888

126,8

88

1.0

1.0

Tota

l

1,55

9,447

2

,599,3

12

21.0

2

1.0

4 QS

PSP

Goal

4: A

ll stu

dent

s will

be ed

ucat

ed in

lear

ning

envir

onm

ents

that

are s

afe,

drug

free

, and

cond

ucive

to le

arni

ng.

Tran

slatio

n ser

vices

13

6,000

136,0

00

To

tal

136,0

00

13

6,000

LEA

Mast

er P

lan G

oal 5

: All s

tude

nts w

ill gr

adua

te fr

om h

igh

scho

ol.

5

Perfo

rman

ce M

anag

emen

t

5

0,000

50,0

00

5

Sche

duler

Pay

2

0,000

20,0

00

To

tal

70,0

00

7

0,000

Mand

ator

y/Cos

t of D

oing

Bus

ines

s Cha

nges

:

10

Bu

ses &

Non

-Bus

Veh

icles

/Ove

r Hire

s

34

6,461

5

,392,3

16

-

106

.00

10

Char

ter/C

ontra

ct

4,37

6,368

3

,980,7

79

4

3.00

36.50

10

Fu

ll-Tim

e Sala

ry/W

age

Base

2

5,426

,223

21,43

9,723

-

-

10

Le

ase P

urch

ases

2,53

8,393

10

,795,8

57

-

-

10

Healt

h Ins

uran

ce

8,

775,0

98

4,96

8,338

-

-

10

Le

ase B

uildin

gs

219,1

10

27

3,810

-

-

10

Le

ave P

ayou

t

25

0,000

301,4

76

-

-

10

Loca

l 225

0 Pos

ition A

gree

ment

9,97

6,285

9

,976,2

85

18

0.99

1

80.99

10

Ne

w Sc

hools

1,65

9,092

1

,659,0

92

1

0.50

10.50

10

No

npub

lic P

lacem

ents

1,

196,2

53

(9,90

7,987

)

-

-

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

79

1.1B

Prio

r Yea

r Var

iance

Tab

le (C

ompa

rison

of P

rior Y

ear E

xpen

ditu

res)

Lo

cal S

choo

l Sys

tem

: Prin

ce G

eorg

e's

10

Part-

Time S

alary/

Wag

e Bas

e

1

5,647

,380

17,94

8,251

-

-

10

Re

tireme

nt of

Prior

Yea

r Lea

se A

gree

ment

(

8,988

,067)

(8

,988,0

67)

-

-

10

Ridg

ley B

us Lo

t

10

5,288

105,2

88

10

SE

ED S

choo

l

41

4,304

492,2

54

-

-

10

Spec

ial E

duca

tion -

MOE

Req

uirem

ent

918,8

15

91

8,815

38.0

0

38

.00

10

Tech

nolog

y Refr

esh L

P

2,19

9,760

2

,199,7

60

-

-

10

Unem

ploym

ent In

sura

nce

4,

000,0

00

1,50

0,000

-

-

10

Ut

ilities

(

1,039

,263)

(2

,199,9

79)

-

-

10

Wor

kers'

Com

pens

ation

Insu

ranc

e

(

1,000

,000)

(3

,846,1

98)

-

-

10

Syst

em-W

ide R

educ

tions

(11

1,905

,605)

(110

,410,2

52)

(7

64.76

)

(76

4.76)

10

Co

re S

ervic

e and

Oth

er B

ase R

equi

rem

ents

(3

5,353

,880)

(16

,925,0

12)

Addi

tiona

l Spe

ndin

g/Re

align

ed R

esou

rces

10

Ac

adem

ics-C

alcula

tors

-

30

0,000

-

10

Acco

keek

Aca

demy

- Se

cretar

y

-

57,0

44

1.00

10

AP

at B

eltsv

ille -E

JF

-

12

6,287

1

.00

10

Bowi

e High

Sch

ool (2

.0) -

EJF

-

18

5,793

-

10

Camp

Sch

midt

food c

osts

-

4

5,000

10

Clas

sroom

Bala

ncing

-

5

,242,3

49

56

.50

10

Clas

sroom

Tea

cher

s Par

kdale

HS

- EJF

-

185,7

93

2.00

10

Co

ntrac

ted A

genc

y Nur

ses

-

12

5,082

-

10

Ed

ucati

on Jo

bs F

und

Reali

gnme

nt - B

enefi

ts

-

25

,326,4

47

-

10

Ed

ucati

on Jo

bs F

und

Reali

gnme

nt - B

enefi

ts

-

(

25,32

6,447

)

-

10

FEMA

Reim

burse

ment-

Febr

uary

2010

Sno

w Ev

ent

-

(61

1,826

)

-

10

Finge

rprin

ting/C

rimina

l Bac

kgro

und C

heck

s

-

50,0

00

-

10

Gr

eenb

elt M

S-Fo

reign

Lang

uage

Tea

cher

- EJ

F

-

92,8

97

1.00

10

He

aring

Offic

er S

ervic

es -

Appe

als O

ffice

-

4

0,000

-

10

Midd

le St

ates E

valua

tion

-

3

6,500

-

10

Para

profe

ssion

al Ed

ucato

r

-

29,2

75

0.50

10

PG

Reg

ional

Asso

ciatio

n of S

tuden

t Gov

ernm

ent -

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

-

60,0

00

-

10

Pr

oject

Lead

the W

ay

-

37

1,587

-

10

Retire

ment

Incen

tive -

Term

inal L

eave

payo

ut

-

5

,248,4

69

-

10

Sc

hool

Socia

l Wor

ker.

Medic

aid G

rant

-

-

1

.00

10

Stab

ilizat

ion F

unds

- Ut

ilities

/Tele

phon

e Sav

ings

-

(7,72

1,895

)

-

10

Stud

ent S

ervic

es -

Cler

ks tr

ansfe

rred f

rom

BASC

P

-

10

4,647

-

10

Suitla

nd V

PA T

each

ers (

10.0)

- EJ

F

-

928,9

66

-

10

Vi

rtual

High

Sch

ool

32

6,000

-

Tota

l

-

5

,221,9

68

-

63

.00

Tota

l

(77,7

01,43

9)

(

61,36

5,953

)

(469

.27)

(

306.7

7)

Diff

eren

ce

(

16,33

5,486

)

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

80

1.1C

Prio

r-Yea

r ARR

A Va

rianc

e Rep

ort

Reve

nue

FY

09 B

udge

t FY

10 B

udge

t FY

11 B

udge

t FY

12 B

udge

t To

tal A

RRA

Fund

s CF

DA

Gran

t Nam

e 10

.579

Natio

nal S

choo

l Lun

ch -

Equip

ment

Assis

tance

90,00

0

-

-

-

90

,000

66.04

0 Ma

rylan

d Clea

n Dies

el Pr

ogra

m

-

516

,000

-

1

3,094

5

29,09

4 84

.387

Home

less C

hildr

en an

d You

th

-

113

,824

74,43

5

7,2

02

195

,461

84.38

9 Tit

le I -

Gra

nts to

LEAs

, Neg

lecte

d and

Deli

nque

nt

-

5,624

,129

16,76

3,241

223,6

20

2

2,610

,990

84.39

1 ID

EA P

art B

- Gr

ants

to St

ates-P

ass-T

hrou

gh

-

9,670

,655

15,62

1,091

3,

314,8

46

2

8,606

,592

84.39

2 ID

EA P

art B

- Pr

esch

ool G

rants

-

2

88,04

8

284

,680

27

0,872

8

43,60

0 84

.393

IDEA

Par

t C -

Infan

ts an

d Fam

ilies

-

-

-

-

-

84

.394

State

Fisc

al St

abiliz

ation

Fun

d Edu

catio

n Pro

gram

-

46,5

42,23

4

51

,047,9

32

17

3,234

97,7

63,40

0 93

.708

Head

Star

t ARR

A CO

LA Q

uality

Impr

ovem

ent G

rant

-

5

93,88

9

734

,000

15

7,035

1,4

84,92

4 84

.388

Title

I 100

3(g)

Sch

ool Im

prov

emen

t Gra

nt

-

3,2

72,43

1 8,4

92,93

7

11,7

65,36

8 84

.395

RTTT

- Inc

entiv

es fo

r ESO

L Tea

cher

s

-

-

25,00

0

25,00

0 84

.395

Race

to th

e Top

-

2,029

,831

8,801

,337

1

0,831

,168

84.41

0 Ed

ucati

on Jo

bs F

und

-

31

,656,0

58

-

31,6

56,05

8 To

tal A

rra F

unds

90,00

0

7

4,135

,753

1

21,48

3,699

21,4

79,17

7

206,4

01,65

5 In

stru

ctio

ns: F

or ea

ch o

f the

four

assu

ranc

es, p

lease

iden

tify h

ow A

RRA

fund

s wer

e use

d by

item

izing

expe

nditu

res f

or ea

ch as

sura

nce.

Indi

cate

the g

rant

CFD

A nu

mbe

r as t

he

sour

ce o

f the

fund

s for

the e

xpen

ditu

re.

De

scrip

tion

CFDA

Pl

anne

d Am

ount

Ac

tual

Amou

nt

Plan

ned

FTE

Actu

al FT

E As

sura

nce 1

: In

crea

se te

ache

r effe

ctive

ness

and

addr

ess i

nequ

ities

in th

e dist

ribut

ion

of h

ighl

y qua

lified

teac

hers

(rec

ruiti

ng, d

evelo

ping

, and

reta

inin

g ef

fect

ive te

ache

rs an

d pr

incip

als).

Fund

s to

supp

ort

incre

ased

tea

cher

effe

ctive

ness

by

prov

iding

ong

oing

traini

ng in

se

cond

ary t

rans

ition

plann

ing fo

r stud

ents

with

disab

ilities

and

ass

essin

g an

d pr

omoti

ng

post

traum

atic g

rowt

h in c

hildr

en.

84.39

1

4,30

1,613

.00

1

,239,2

24.00

11

.0 11

.0

Fund

s su

ppor

ting

traini

ng a

nd l

eade

rship

deve

lopme

nt for

pr

incipa

ls, a

ssist

ant

princ

ipals,

and t

each

ers.

84.39

5

-

37

1,443

.00

-

Assu

ranc

e 2: E

stab

lish

and

use a

pre

-K th

roug

h co

llege

and

care

er d

ata s

yste

m to

trac

k pro

gres

s and

fost

er co

ntin

uous

impr

ovem

ent (

build

ing

data

syst

ems t

hat m

easu

re st

uden

t su

cces

s and

info

rm te

ache

rs an

d pr

incip

als h

ow th

ey ca

n im

prov

e the

ir pr

actic

es).

Fund

s wi

ll be

use

d to

con

tinue

the

imple

menta

tion

of s

trateg

ies d

esign

ed to

impr

ove

stude

nt ac

hieve

ment

throu

gh sc

hool

impr

ovem

ent a

nd re

form

proje

cts an

d sup

port

early

ch

ildho

od in

terve

ntion

s an

d sc

hool-

base

d ex

tende

d lea

rning

pro

gram

s. A

waiv

er w

as

appr

oved

for t

he st

atutor

y gra

nt se

t-asid

e for

the

Per P

upil C

alcula

tion

for S

ES to

allo

w the

pro

gram

fund

s to

supp

ort t

he in

stalla

tion

of a

data

repo

sitor

y sys

tem to

mon

itor T

itle

I stu

dents

and

staf

f tha

t wi

ll all

ow t

he a

ppro

priat

e lin

kage

s be

twee

n se

vera

l data

sy

stems

used

in th

e dist

rict.

84.38

9 6

20,28

0.00

620,2

80.00

-

-

Fund

s su

ppor

ting

the u

pgra

de e

xistin

g sc

hool

distric

t data

sys

tems

to en

able

more

po

werfu

l use

of d

ata a

nd c

ollab

orati

on to

enh

ance

insig

ht at

the c

lassro

om a

nd d

istric

t lev

els.

84.39

5

-

68

0,946

.00

-

Assu

ranc

e 3: M

ake p

rogr

ess t

owar

ds ri

goro

us co

llege

and

care

er-re

ady s

tand

ards

and

high

qua

lity a

sses

smen

ts th

at ar

e vali

d an

d re

liabl

e for

all s

tude

nts,

inclu

ding

limite

d En

glish

pr

ofici

ent s

tude

nts a

nd st

uden

ts w

ith d

isabi

lities

(ado

ptin

g in

tern

atio

nally

ben

chm

arke

d st

anda

rds a

nd as

sess

men

ts th

at p

repa

re st

uden

ts fo

r suc

cess

in co

llege

and

the w

orkp

lace)

. Fu

nds

supp

ortin

g the

exp

ansio

n of

cour

se o

fferin

gs i

n Ad

vanc

e Pl

acem

ent

(AP)

, Int

erna

tiona

l Bac

calau

reate

(IB

), an

d Sc

ience

, Te

chno

logy,

Engin

eerin

g, an

d Ma

th 84

.395

-

977,4

42.00

-

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

81

1.1C

Prio

r-Yea

r ARR

A Va

rianc

e Rep

ort

(STE

M) p

rogr

ams t

o pre

pare

stud

ents

for co

llege

and c

aree

r rea

dines

s.

Assu

ranc

e 4: P

rovid

e tar

gete

d, in

tens

ive su

ppor

t and

effe

ctive

inte

rven

tions

to tu

rn ar

ound

scho

ols i

dent

ified

for c

orre

ctive

actio

n an

d re

stru

ctur

ing

(turn

ing

arou

nd lo

west

pe

rform

ing

scho

ols)

. Fu

nds

to su

ppor

t Co

ordin

ated

Early

Inte

rventi

on S

ervic

es (

Read

ing R

ecov

ery)

to

prov

ide in

tensiv

e sup

port

for st

rugg

ling r

eade

rs.

84.39

1

2,37

8,264

.00

2

,535,6

67.00

28

.0 28

.0 Fu

nds

will

be u

sed

to c

ontin

ue th

e im

pleme

ntatio

n of

stra

tegies

des

igned

to im

prov

e stu

dent

achie

veme

nt thr

ough

scho

ol im

prov

emen

t and

refor

m pr

ojects

and s

uppo

rt ea

rly

child

hood

inter

venti

ons

and

scho

ol-ba

sed

exten

ded

learn

ing p

rogr

ams.

Waiv

ers

were

ap

prov

ed fo

r the

stat

utory

gran

t set

-asid

es fo

r SE

S/Ch

oice

Optio

n an

d the

LEA

In

Impr

ovem

ent f

or P

rofes

siona

l Dev

elopm

ent t

o all

ow th

e pr

ogra

m fun

ds to

sup

port

the

imple

menta

tion

of a

summ

er e

nrich

ment

prog

ram

and

profe

ssion

al de

velop

ment

for

scho

ol lea

ders.

84.38

9

10,68

5,215

.00

12

,577,7

17.00

85

.0 80

.0

Fund

s to

supp

ort i

nnov

ative

edu

catio

nal r

eform

stra

tegies

in ta

rgete

d low

per

formi

ng

turna

roun

d sc

hools

that

will e

nsur

e stu

dent

achie

veme

nt an

d su

cces

s with

in fou

r are

as

of pr

iority

tha

t inc

ludes

gov

erna

nce,

attra

ction

/selec

tion

of sta

ff, rig

or,

and

scho

ol cli

mate.

84

.388

-

3

,272,4

31.00

19

.0 19

.0

* Ot

her

Fund

s ar

e su

ppor

ting

distric

t-wide

utili

ties,

and

other

gen

eral

expe

nses

of L

EA fo

r ins

tructi

onal

supp

lies,

textb

ooks

, and

testi

ng m

ateria

ls.

84.39

4

51,22

1,166

.00

51,04

7,932

.00

-

Fund

s to

supp

ort

activ

ities

and

prog

rams

tha

t pr

ovide

tec

hnolo

gy s

uppo

rt an

d int

erve

ntion

s tha

t are

des

igned

to re

duce

refer

rals

to Sp

ecial

Edu

catio

n for

stud

ents

witho

ut dis

abilit

ies an

d outr

each

to su

ppor

t fami

lies o

f stud

ents

with

disab

ilities

. 84

.391

7

,623,4

19.00

11,84

6,200

.00

52.0

40.0

Fund

s to s

uppo

rt the

impr

ovem

ent o

f ser

vice d

elive

ry an

d res

ource

utili

zatio

n.

84.39

2

4

21,80

0.00

284,6

80.00

1.0

1.0

Fu

nds

will

supp

ort t

he c

ontin

ued

expa

nsion

of H

ead

Star

t ser

vices

to 6

0 ad

dition

al ch

ildre

n an

d fam

ilies i

n ce

nter-b

ased

settin

gs th

at wi

ll inc

lude

more

tech

nical

assis

tance

tra

ining

for t

each

ers a

nd pa

rapr

ofess

ionals

. 93

.708

551,8

20.00

73

4,000

.00

8.0

8.0

Fund

s ar

e su

ppor

ting

addit

ional

class

room

pos

itions

in s

choo

ls an

d ap

plica

ble d

istric

t-wi

de fr

inge b

enefi

ts for

scho

ol-ba

sed i

nstru

ction

al pe

rsonn

el.

84.41

0

-

31,65

6,058

.00

68.0

68.0

Fund

s ar

e su

ppor

ting

the a

cquis

ition

of die

sel

partic

ulate

filte

rs an

d cra

nkca

se

venti

lation

syste

ms to

retro

fit die

sel s

choo

l bus

es th

roug

h an

initia

tive a

nd fe

dera

l ARR

A fun

ding p

rovid

ed by

the M

aryla

nd D

epar

tmen

t of th

e Env

ironm

ent.

66.04

0

-

-

-

Fund

s wi

ll su

ppor

t the

imple

menta

tion

of a

Digit

al Le

arnin

g Ini

tiativ

e in

four m

iddle

scho

ols th

at wi

ll inc

reas

e tea

cher

cap

acity

to in

fuse

techn

ology

into

the c

urric

ulum

to pr

omote

stud

ent

achie

veme

nt by

eng

aging

in

hand

s on

man

ipulat

ion o

f co

ntent

(read

ing, la

ngua

ge ar

ts, m

ath an

d scie

nce)

from

vario

us so

urce

s. 84

.389

-

3

,565,2

44.00

-

Fund

s ar

e su

ppor

ting

the e

nhan

ceme

nt an

d ex

pans

ion o

f ser

vices

to th

e ho

meles

s stu

dent

popu

lation

for u

nifor

ms, tr

ansp

ortat

ion, a

nd pe

rsona

l hyg

iene i

tems.

84

.387

-

74,4

35.00

-

To

tal

7

7,803

,577

121

,483,6

99.00

27

2.0

255.0

*In

dicate

any o

ther A

RRA

funds

rece

ived b

y the

scho

ol sy

stem,

inclu

ding t

he C

FDA

numb

er

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

82

TABL

ES 2.

1-2.1

2: M

SA

Tabl

e 2.1:

Mar

yland

Sch

ool A

sses

smen

t Per

form

ance

Res

ults

- Re

adin

g - E

lemen

tary

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

#

Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All S

tuden

ts 25

,976

20,13

9 77

.5 25

,787

20,20

9 78

.4 26

,277

21,52

5 81

.9 13

,342

9,787

73

.4 13

,163

9,741

74

.0 13

,465

10,48

2 77

.8 12

,634

10,35

2 81

.9 12

,624

10,46

8 82

.9 12

,812

11,04

3 86

.2

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

6,045

5,1

01

84.4

3,087

2,5

33

82.1

2,958

2,5

68

86.8

Amer

ican

Indian

or A

laska

Na

tive

89

64

71.9

48

30

62.5

41

34

82.9

Asian

77

4 72

5 93

.7

38

7 35

4 91

.5

38

7 37

1 95

.9

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

17

,491

13,95

5 79

.8

8,9

79

6,726

74

.9

8,5

12

7,229

84

.9

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

40

34

85.0

24

21

87.5

16

13

81.3

Whit

e

1,1

38

1,031

90

.6

59

2 52

2 88

.2

54

6 50

9 93

.2

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

700

615

87.9

348

296

85.1

352

319

90.6

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

2,8

00

1,593

56

.9 2,8

51

1,623

56

.9 2,8

16

1,701

60

.4 1,9

53

1,092

55

.9 2,0

21

1,136

56

.2 2,0

30

1,213

59

.8 84

7 50

1 59

.1 83

0 48

7 58

.7 78

6 48

8 62

.1

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 3,1

55

2,130

67

.5 3,3

86

2,421

71

.5 3,6

68

2,889

78

.8 1,6

73

1,097

65

.6 1,8

16

1,253

69

.0 1,9

96

1,550

77

.7 1,4

82

1,033

69

.7 1,5

70

1,168

74

.4 1,6

72

1,339

80

.1

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als (F

ARMS

) 13

,805

10,06

9 72

.9 15

,119

11,21

7 74

.2 15

,971

12,58

1 78

.8 6,9

64

4,781

68

.7 7,6

21

5,313

69

.7 8,1

35

6,047

74

.3 6,8

41

5,288

77

.3 7,4

98

5,904

78

.7 7,8

36

6,534

83

.4

Tabl

e 2.2:

Mar

yland

Sch

ool A

sses

smen

t Per

form

ance

Res

ults

- Re

adin

g - M

iddl

e

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All S

tuden

ts 27

,652

19,70

9 71

.3 26

,890

19,60

8 72

.9 26

,061

19,45

0 74

.6 14

,100

9,289

65

.9 13

,764

9,270

67

.3 13

,345

9,305

69

.7 13

,551

10,42

0 76

.9 13

,126

10,33

8 78

.8 12

,715

10,14

5 79

.8

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

5,020

3,5

58

70.9

2,578

1,7

69

68.6

2,442

1,7

89

73.3

Amer

ican

Indian

or A

laska

Na

tive

91

63

69.2

46

31

67.4

45

32

71.1

Asian

70

9 60

8 85

.8

37

7 31

0 82

.2

33

2 29

8 89

.8

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

18

,546

13,74

3 74

.1

9,5

43

6,518

68

.3

9,0

03

7,225

80

.3

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

27

24

88.9

13

12

92.3

14

12

85.7

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

83

Tabl

e 2.2:

Mar

yland

Sch

ool A

sses

smen

t Per

form

ance

Res

ults

- Re

adin

g - M

iddl

e

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

#

Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

Whit

e

1,0

34

895

86.6

508

425

83.7

526

470

89.4

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

633

559

88.3

280

240

85.7

353

319

90.4

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

3,1

20

1,256

40

.3 3,1

83

1,416

44

.5 3,1

10

1,453

46

.7 2,1

23

841

39.6

2,177

96

3 44

.2 2,1

35

971

45.5

997

415

41.6

1,006

45

3 45

.0 97

5 48

2 49

.4

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 1,3

89

547

39.4

1,394

59

9 43

.0 1,3

21

477

36.1

767

281

36.6

759

305

40.2

705

253

35.9

622

266

42.8

635

294

46.3

616

224

36.4

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als (F

ARMS

) 13

,984

9,073

64

.9 14

,935

10,07

6 67

.5 14

,765

10,22

8 69

.3 7,1

18

4,230

59

.4 7,5

86

4,669

61

.5 7,4

66

4,791

64

.2 6,8

66

4,843

70

.5 7,3

49

5,407

73

.6 7,2

99

5,437

74

.5

Tabl

e 2.3:

Mar

yland

Hig

h Sc

hool

Ass

essm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce R

esul

ts -

Read

ing

- Hig

h (E

nglis

h II)

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

#

Test

ed

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of

# Te

sted

#

Prof

. %

Pr

of

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# P

rof.

%

Prof

#

Test

ed

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pro

f.

All S

tuden

ts 8,

003

6,03

2 75

.4

9,07

8 6,

254

68.9

9,1

97

6,482

70

.5 3,

807

2,57

4 67

.6

4,50

2 2,

757

61.2

4,6

39

2,963

63

.9 4,

195

3,45

8 82

.4

4,57

5 3,

497

76.4

4,5

58

3,519

77

.2

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

1,080

70

3 65

.1

54

9 33

6 61

.2

53

1 36

7 69

.1

Amer

ican

Indian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

44

33

75

.0

23

15

65

.2

21

18

85

.7

Asian

27

7 23

8 85

.9

14

2 12

2 85

.9

13

5 11

6 85

.9

Blac

k or

Afric

an

Amer

ican

7,318

5,1

13

69.9

3,677

2,2

97

62.5

3,641

2,8

16

77.3

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

-- --

--

--

-- --

-- --

--

Whit

e

43

8 36

1 82

.4

23

5 18

3 77

.9

20

3 17

8 87

.7

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

40

34

85.0

13

10

76.9

27

24

88.9

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

52

7 11

6 22

.0

1,11

3 32

2 28

.9

1,113

32

2 28

.9 38

9 80

20

.6

763

217

28.4

80

7 23

7 29

.4 13

8 36

26

.1

350

105

30.0

34

6 10

8 31

.2

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 14

9 78

52

.3

292

89

30.5

29

2 89

30

.5 73

31

42

.5

143

36

25.2

15

8 43

27

.2 76

47

61

.8

149

53

35.6

13

1 37

28

.2

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

2,50

3 1,

786

71.4

3,

276

2,10

0 64

.1

3,499

2,3

48

67.1

1,09

8 67

2 61

.2

1,52

4 85

8 56

.3

1,691

1,0

41

61.6

1,40

5 1,

114

79.3

1,

752

1,24

2 70

.9

1,808

1,3

07

72.3

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

84

Tabl

e 2.

4- 2

.5 M

SA M

ath

Elem

enta

ry &

Mid

dle

Tabl

e 2.4:

Mar

yland

Sch

ool A

sses

smen

t Per

form

ance

Res

ults

- Ma

th -

Elem

enta

ry

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

#

Test

ed

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

#

Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

All S

tuden

ts 25

,948

19,37

4 74

.7 25

,752

19,96

2 77

.5 26

,248

20,52

3 78

.2 13

,323

9,616

72

.2 13

,141

9,901

75

.3 13

,449

10,19

0 75

.8 12

,625

9,758

77

.3 12

,611

10,06

1 79

.8 12

,799

10,33

3 80

.7 Hi

span

ic/La

tino

of an

y rac

e

6,0

39

4,903

81

.2

3,0

84

2,479

80

.4

2,9

55

2,424

82

.0

Amer

ican

Indian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

89

67

75

.3

48

34

70

.8

41

33

80

.5

Asian

77

5 72

5 93

.5

38

8 36

1 93

.0

38

7 36

4 94

.1 Bl

ack o

r Af

rican

Am

erica

n

17

,472

13,19

6 75

.5

8,9

67

6,492

72

.4

8,5

05

6,704

78

.8

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

40

35

87.5

24

21

87.5

16

14

87.5

Whit

e

1,1

35

1,010

89

.0

59

0 52

1 88

.3

54

5 48

9 89

.7 Tw

o or m

ore

race

s

69

8 58

7 84

.1

34

8 28

2 81

.0

35

0 30

5 87

.1

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

2,7

92

1,264

45

.3 2,8

43

1,502

52

.8 2,8

06

1,440

51

.3 1,9

46

916

47.1

2,016

1,0

82

53.7

2,025

1,0

72

52.9

846

348

41.1

827

420

50.8

781

368

47.1

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 3,1

56

2,189

69

.4 3,3

75

2,529

74

.9 3,6

65

2,749

75

.0 1,6

74

1,152

68

.8 1,8

12

1,355

74

.8 1,9

96

1,504

75

.4 1,4

82

1,037

70

.0 1,5

63

1,174

75

.1 1,6

69

1,245

74

.6

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

13,78

7 9,7

03

70.4

15,09

7 11

,144

73.8

15,95

1 11

,963

75.0

6,953

4,7

36

68.1

7,608

5,4

68

71.9

8,123

5,9

06

72.7

6,834

4,9

67

72.7

7,489

5,6

76

75.8

7,828

6,0

57

77.4

Tabl

e 2.5:

Mar

yland

Sch

ool A

sses

smen

t Per

form

ance

Res

ults

- Ma

th -

Midd

le

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

#

Test

ed

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

#

Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

All S

tuden

ts 27

,570

15,01

2 54

.5 26

,834

14,98

3 55

.8 25

,994

15,19

6 58

.5 14

,056

7,117

50

.6 13

,723

7,241

52

.8 13

,310

7,344

55

.2 13

,514

7,895

58

.4 13

,110

7,742

59

.1 12

,684

7,852

61

.9 Hi

span

ic/La

tino

of an

y rac

e

5,0

06

2,926

58

.4

2,5

63

1,492

58

.2

2,4

43

1,434

58

.7

Amer

ican

Indian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

88

55

62

.5

45

28

62

.2

43

27

62

.8

Asian

70

8 60

1 84

.9

37

7 30

8 81

.7

33

1 29

3 88

.5 Bl

ack o

r Af

rican

Am

erica

n

18

,503

10,33

3 55

.8

9,5

26

4,947

51

.9

8,9

77

5,386

60

.0

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

27

18

66.7

13

8 61

.5

14

10

71

.4

Whit

e

1,0

30

781

75.8

506

357

70.6

524

424

80.9

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

632

482

76.3

280

204

72.9

352

278

79.0

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

3,0

93

925

29.9

3,173

1,0

78

34.0

3,091

1,1

11

35.9

2,100

64

3 30

.6 2,1

67

748

34.5

2,122

76

0 35

.8 99

3 28

2 28

.4 1,0

06

330

32.8

969

351

36.2

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 1,3

87

523

37.7

1,393

54

5 39

.1 1,3

19

470

35.6

764

290

38.0

757

289

38.2

704

262

37.2

623

233

37.4

636

256

40.3

615

208

33.8

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

13,93

7 6,7

72

48.6

14,89

6 7,5

35

50.6

14,72

0 7,8

24

53.2

7,090

3,1

94

45.0

7,559

3,5

98

47.6

7,442

3,7

45

50.3

6,847

3,5

78

52.3

7,337

3,9

37

53.7

7,278

4,0

79

56.0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

85

Tabl

e 2.

6 H

SA M

ath

- Hig

h (A

lgeb

ra/D

ata

Ana

lysi

s)

Tabl

e 2.6:

Mar

yland

Hig

h Sc

hool

Ass

essm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce R

esul

ts -

Math

- Hi

gh (A

lgeb

ra/D

ata A

nalys

is)

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

#

Test

ed

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

ste

d # Prof

. %

Pr

of.

All S

tuden

ts 7,8

61

5,438

69

.2 9,0

26

6,118

67

.8 9,0

34

6,128

67

.8 3,7

66

2,496

66

.3 4,5

24

2,967

65

.6 45

78

2946

64

.4 4,0

95

2,942

71

.8 4,5

01

3,150

70

.0 4,4

56

3,182

71

.4 Hi

span

ic/La

tino o

f any

race

1,0

71

742

69.3

544

381

70.0

527

361

68.5

Amer

ican

Indian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

42

29

69

.0

23

15

65

.2

19

14

73

.7

Asian

26

4 23

3 88

.3

13

3 11

9 89

.5

13

1 11

4 87

.0

Blac

k or

Afric

an

Amer

ican

7,184

4,7

31

65.9

3635

22

35

61.5

3,549

2,4

96

70.3

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

-- --

--

--

-- --

-- --

--

Whit

e

43

4 36

0 82

.9

22

7 18

5 81

.5

20

7 17

5 84

.5

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

39

33

84.6

16

11

68.8

95.0

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

56

3 94

16

.7 1,2

02

272

22.6

1,195

32

2 26

.9 41

1 72

17

.5 82

1 19

3 23

.5 82

9 24

3 25

.7 15

2 22

14

.5 38

1 79

20

.7 36

6 10

9 29

.8

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 14

8 89

60

.1 28

6 17

3 60

.5 28

6 14

2 49

.7 72

\44

61

.1 14

0 86

61

.4 15

8 81

51

.3 76

45

59

.2 14

6 87

59

.6 12

8 61

47

.7

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

2,464

1,6

34

66.3

3,264

2,1

67

66.4

3,450

2,2

76

66.0

1,097

69

9 63

.7 1,5

25

995

65.2

1683

10

81

64.2

1,367

93

5 68

.4 1,7

39

1,172

67

.4 1,7

67

1,195

67

.6

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

86

Tabl

e 2.

7 –

2.9

MSA

Sci

ence

Gra

des

5th, 8

th, &

9th

Ta

ble 2

.7: M

aryla

nd S

choo

l Ass

essm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce R

esul

ts -

Scien

ce -

Elem

enta

ry (G

rade

5)

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

All S

tuden

ts 8,7

93

4,373

49

.7 8,5

73

4,566

53

.3 8,8

06

4,850

55

.1 4,5

22

2,194

48

.5 4,3

23

2,250

52

.0 4,6

09

2,500

54

.2 4,2

65

2,178

51

.1 4,2

46

2,315

54

.5 4,1

97

2,350

56

.0

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

1,918

99

7 52

.0

99

6 52

5 52

.7

92

2 47

2 51

.2

Amer

ican I

ndian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

30

21

70

.0

14

10

71

.4

16

11

68

.8

Asian

28

6 22

4 78

.3

13

3 11

1 83

.5

15

3 11

3 73

.9

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

5,9

48

3,147

52

.9

3,1

40

1,610

51

.3

2,8

08

1,537

54

.7

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

12

8 66

.7

6

4 66

.7

6

4 66

.7

Whit

e

37

4 29

0 77

.5

19

7 15

0 76

.1

17

7 14

0 79

.1

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

238

163

68.5

123

90

73.2

115

73

63.5

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

94

9 21

5 22

.7 98

3 25

8 26

.2 1,1

00

270

24.5

658

152

23.1

664

188

28.3

783

212

27.1

291

63

21.6

319

70

21.9

317

58

18.3

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 82

8 20

7 25

.0 83

0 21

4 25

.8 95

3 30

8 32

.3 44

7 13

4 30

.0 43

6 12

9 29

.6 53

4 17

0 31

.8 38

1 73

19

.2 39

4 85

21

.6 41

9 13

8 32

.9

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als (F

ARMS

) 4,6

31

1,907

41

.2 4,9

10

2,216

45

.1 5,2

95

2,524

47

.7 2,3

63

956

40.5

2,458

1,1

09

45.1

2,738

1,3

02

47.6

2,268

95

1 41

.9 2,4

52

1,107

45

.1 2,5

57

1,222

47

.8

Tabl

e 2.8:

Mar

yland

Sch

ool A

sses

smen

t Per

form

ance

Res

ults

- Sc

ience

- Mi

ddle

(Gra

de 8)

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

All S

tuden

ts 9,2

29

3,677

39

.8 9,1

49

4,039

44

.1 8,9

25

4,254

47

.7 4,6

68

1,798

38

.5 4,6

71

2,052

43

.9 4,5

28

2,092

46

.2 4,5

61

1,879

41

.2 4,4

74

1,985

44

.4 4,3

97

2,162

49

.2

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

1,704

74

0 43

.4

87

3 39

9 45

.7

83

1 34

1 41

.0

Amer

ican I

ndian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

30

12

40

.0

16

7

43.8

14

5 35

.7

Asian

23

9 17

6 73

.6

12

3 89

72

.4

11

6 87

75

.0

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

6,4

07

2,935

45

.8

3,2

53

1,413

43

.4

3,1

54

1,522

48

.3

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

9 5

55.6

2 2

100.0

7

3 42

.9

Whit

e

36

3 26

7 73

.6

18

6 13

0 69

.9

17

7 13

7 77

.4

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

173

119

68.8

75

52

69.3

98

67

68.4

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

91

1 11

2 12

.3 97

4 12

6 12

.9 1,0

20

127

12.5

613

80

13.1

635

98

15.4

692

99

14.3

298

32

10.7

339

28

8.3

328

28

8.5

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 49

4 62

12

.6 43

5 55

12

.6 46

3 41

8.9

28

4 39

13

.7 24

3 34

14

.0 23

9 23

9.6

21

0 23

11

.0 19

2 21

10

.9 22

4 18

8.0

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als (F

ARMS

) 4,5

61

1,412

31

.0 4,9

53

1,733

35

.0 4,9

60

1,948

39

.3 2,3

10

707

30.6

2,524

89

4 35

.4 2,4

90

953

38.3

2,251

70

5 31

.3 2,4

29

839

34.5

2,470

99

5 40

.3

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

87

Tabl

e 2.9:

Mar

yland

Hig

h Sc

hool

Ass

essm

ent P

erfo

rman

ce R

esul

ts -

Scien

ce -

High

(Bio

logy

)

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2009

20

10

2011

20

09

2010

20

11

2009

20

10

2011

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

# Te

sted

# Prof

. %

Pr

of.

All S

tuden

ts 7,8

96

5,007

63

.4 9,0

43

5,553

61

.4 9

,130

5,823

63

.8 3,7

44

2,286

61

.1 4,5

19

2,741

60

.7 4

,601

2,922

63

.5 4,1

52

2,721

65

.5 4,5

24

2,812

62

.2 4

,528

2,901

64

.1

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

1,07

4

666

62.0

54

8

357

65.1

52

6

309

58.7

Amer

ican I

ndian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

42

30

71

.4

22

13

59.1

20

17

85.0

Asian

276

23

1 83

.7

143

12

2 85

.3

133

10

9 82

.0

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

7

,259

4,504

62

.0

3

,640

22

7 61

.2

3

,617

##

##

63.0

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Whit

e

437

35

8 81

.9

232

19

2 82

.8

205

16

6 81

.0

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

42

34

81.0

15

11

73.3

27

23

85.2

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

49

6 11

7 23

.6 1,1

41

314

27.5

1,1

48

331

28.8

367

84

22.9

792

233

29.4

8

01

237

29.6

129

33

25.6

349

81

23.2

34

7

94

27.1

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 14

7 70

47

.6 27

2 12

4 45

.6

278

14

1 50

.7 71

33

46

.5 13

6 67

49

.3

156

80

51

.3 76

37

48

.7 13

6 57

41

.9

122

61

50

.0

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als (F

ARMS

) 2,4

80

1,423

57

.4 3,2

58

1,864

57

.2 3

,450

2,072

60

.1 1,0

87

613

56.4

1,524

86

7 56

.9 1

,666

1,033

62

.0 1,3

93

810

58.1

1,734

99

7 57

.5 1

,784

1,039

58

.2

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

88

TABL

ES 3.

1-3.1

5: H

SA

Tabl

e 3.1:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- En

glish

2010

Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

0th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

All S

tuden

ts 8,4

49

59.5

5,031

31

.2 2,6

32

9.3

786

4,118

55

.3 2,2

78

34.7

1,429

10

.0 41

1 4,3

31

63.6

2,753

27

.8 1,2

03

8.7

375

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

Am

erica

n Ind

ian

or A

laska

Nati

ve

As

ian

Bl

ack o

r Afric

an

Amer

ican

Na

tive H

awaii

an

or O

ther

Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

Sp

ecial

Ed

ucati

on

860

17.2

148

69.8

600

13.0

112

579

18.1

105

69.3

401

12.6

73

281

15.3

43

70.8

199

13.9

39

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 47

2 11

.9 56

23

.7 11

2 64

.4 30

4 24

7 13

.8 34

22

.3 55

64

.0 15

8 22

5 9.8

22

25

.3 57

64

.9 14

6 Fr

ee/R

educ

ed

Meals

(FAR

MS)

3,759

50

.1 1,8

83

37.1

1,393

12

.8 48

3 1,8

11

45.7

827

40.8

738

13.6

246

1,948

54

.2 1,0

56

33.6

655

12.2

237

Tabl

e 3.2:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- En

glish

2010

Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

1th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

All S

tuden

ts 7,3

86

69.4

5,125

27

.6 2,0

42

3.0

219

3,473

63

.7 2,2

12

32.9

1,141

3.5

12

0 3,9

13

74.4

2,913

23

.0 90

1 2.5

99

Hi

span

ic/La

tino o

f an

y rac

e

Amer

ican I

ndian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

Asian

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e rac

es

Sp

ecial

Edu

catio

n 64

1 28

.7 18

4 66

.1 42

4 5.1

33

41

4 29

.5 12

2 64

.7 26

8 5.8

24

22

7 27

.3 62

68

.7 15

6 4.0

9

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 34

1 28

.4 97

66

.9 22

8 4.7

16

19

2 28

.6 55

67

.2 12

9 4.2

8

149

28.2

42

66.4

99

5.4

8 Fr

ee/R

educ

ed

Meals

(FAR

MS)

2,966

62

.1 1,8

41

35.3

1,046

2.7

79

1,3

75

55.8

767

41.1

565

3.1

43

1,591

67

.5 1,0

74

30.2

481

2.3

36

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

89

Tabl

e 3.

12: H

SA T

est P

arti

cipa

tion

and

Sta

tus

- Eng

lish

2010

Po

pula

tion

: All

12th

Gra

de S

tude

nts

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

All

Stud

ents

7,7

93

74.4

5,801

25

.5 1,9

84

0.1

8 3,6

80

68.0

2,503

31

.8 1,1

71

0.2

6 4,1

13

80.2

3,298

19

.8 81

3 0.0

2

His

pani

c/La

tino

of a

ny ra

ce

A

mer

ican

In

dian

or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

Asi

an

Bl

ack

or

Afr

ican

A

mer

ican

Nat

ive

Haw

aiia

n or

O

ther

Pac

ific

Isla

nder

Whi

te

Tw

o or

mor

e ra

ces

Sp

ecia

l Ed

ucat

ion

630

39.7

250

60.2

379

0.2

1 41

4 40

.3 16

7 59

.7 24

7 0.0

0

216

38.4

83

61.1

132

0.5

1 Li

mite

d En

glis

h Pr

ofic

ient

(L

EP)

247

32.8

81

67.2

166

0.0

0 11

7 25

.6 30

74

.4 87

0.0

0

130

39.2

51

60.8

79

0.0

0

Free

/Red

uced

M

eals

(F

ARM

S)

2,825

68

.3 1,9

29

31.6

894

0.1

2 1,2

71

61.0

775

38.9

495

0.1

1 1,5

54

74.3

1,154

25

.7 39

9 0.1

1

Tabl

e 3.3:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Al

gebr

a/Dat

a Ana

lysis

2010

Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

0th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n

Num

ber

Not

Take

n

All S

tuden

ts 8,3

39

58.7

4,899

35

.2 2,9

37

6.0

503

4,063

57

.1 2,3

22

36.0

1,461

6.9

28

0 4,2

76

60.3

2,577

34

.5 1,4

76

5.2

223

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

Am

erica

n Ind

ian or

Al

aska

Nati

ve

Asian

Blac

k or

Afric

an

Amer

ican

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

90

Tabl

e 3.3:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Al

gebr

a/Dat

a Ana

lysis

2010

Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

0th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n

Num

ber

Not

Take

n

race

s Sp

ecial

Ed

ucati

on

860

17.6

151

74.5

641

7.9

68

579

19.7

114

72.4

419

7.9

46

281

13.2

37

79.0

222

7.8

22

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 46

9 27

.7 13

0 62

.3 29

2 10

.0 47

24

7 32

.0 79

59

.1 14

6 8.9

22

22

2 23

.0 51

65

.8 14

6 11

.3 25

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

3,739

53

.0 1,9

81

42.0

1,570

5.0

18

8 1,8

02

51.9

936

42.1

759

5.9

107

1,937

53

.9 1,0

45

41.9

811

4.2

81

Tabl

e 3.4:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Al

gebr

a/Dat

a Ana

lysis

2010

Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

1th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

All S

tuden

ts 7,2

46

68.9

4,994

27

.2 1,9

72

3.9

280

3,415

66

.9 2,2

86

29.0

989

4.1

140

3,831

70

.7 2,7

08

25.7

983

3.7

140

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

Am

erica

n Ind

ian or

Al

aska

Nati

ve

Asian

Blac

k or

Afric

an

Amer

ican

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

Sp

ecial

Ed

ucati

on

635

28.7

182

66.6

423

4.7

30

411

28.7

118

66.7

274

4.6

19

224

28.6

64

66.5

149

4.9

11

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 34

1 48

.4 16

5 48

.1 16

4 3.5

12

19

3 51

.3 99

45

.6 88

3.1

6

148

44.6

66

51.4

76

4.1

6

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

2,936

63

.1 1,8

52

33.6

986

3.3

98

1,363

61

.1 83

3 35

.4 48

3 3.4

47

1,5

73

64.8

1,019

32

.0 50

3 3.2

51

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

91

Tabl

e 3.

13: H

SA T

est

Part

icip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- A

lgeb

ra/D

ata

Ana

lysi

s 20

10

Popu

lati

on: A

ll 12

th G

rade

Stu

dent

s

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Num

ber

of

Stud

ent

s

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

be r Pa

ssed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Pass

ed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

Num

ber

of

Stud

ents

%

Take

n an

d Pa

ssed

Num

be r Pa

ssed

%

Take

n an

d No

t Pa

ssed

Num

ber

Not

Pass

ed

% N

ot

Take

n Nu

mbe

r No

t Ta

ken

All

Stud

ents

7,6

53

74.4

5,696

25

.5 1,9

52

0.1

5 3,6

34

74.3

2,699

25

.7 93

3 0.1

2

4,019

74

.6 2,9

97

25.4

1,019

0.1

3

His

pani

c/La

tino

of a

ny ra

ce

Am

eric

an

Indi

an o

r A

lask

a N

ativ

e

Asi

an

Bl

ack

or

Afr

ican

A

mer

ican

Nat

ive

Haw

aiia

n or

O

ther

Pac

ific

Isla

nder

Whi

te

Tw

o or

mor

e ra

ces

Spec

ial

Educ

atio

n 62

9 35

.3 22

2 64

.4 40

5 0.3

2

412

37.9

156

62.1

256

0.0

0 21

7 30

.4 66

68

.7 14

9 0.9

2

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Prof

icie

nt (L

EP)

240

64.2

154

35.8

86

0.0

0 11

3 65

.5 74

34

.5 39

0.0

0

127

63.0

80

37.0

47

0.0

0

Free

/Red

uced

M

eals

(FA

RMS)

2,7

95

71.4

1,997

28

.5 79

7 0.0

1

1,257

71

.4 89

7 28

.6 36

0 0.0

0

1,538

71

.5 1,1

00

28.4

437

0.1

1

Tabl

e 3.5:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Bi

olog

y 201

0 Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

0th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s Su

bgro

up

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

All S

tuden

ts 8,4

23

55.7

4,693

33

.3 2,8

06

11.0

924

4,105

55

.9 2,2

94

32.2

1,321

11

.9 49

0 4,3

18

55.6

2,399

34

.4 1,4

85

10.1

434

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

Amer

ican

Indian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

Asian

Blac

k or

Afric

an

Amer

ican

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

92

Tabl

e 3.5:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Bi

olog

y 201

0 Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

0th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s Su

bgro

up

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

86

0 22

.0 18

9 64

.3 55

3 13

.7 11

8 57

9 26

.4 15

3 60

.6 35

1 13

.0 75

28

1 12

.8 36

71

.9 20

2 15

.3 43

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 47

0 19

.1 90

21

.5 10

1 59

.4 27

9 24

7 22

.3 55

21

.5 53

56

.3 13

9 22

3 15

.7 35

21

.5 48

62

.8 14

0

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

3,749

46

.3 1,7

37

39.7

1,487

14

.0 52

5 1,8

08

47.5

859

38.1

688

14.4

261

1,941

45

.2 87

8 41

.2 79

9 13

.6 26

4

Tabl

e 3.6:

HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Bi

olog

y 201

0 Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

1th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s Su

bgro

up

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

All S

tuden

ts 7,3

62

65.1

4,795

31

.4 2,3

14

3.4

253

3,468

65

.6 2,2

76

30.7

1,064

3.7

12

8 3,8

94

64.7

2,519

32

.1 1,2

50

3.2

125

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of

any r

ace

Amer

ican

Indian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

Asian

Blac

k or

Afric

an

Amer

ican

Nativ

e Ha

waiia

n or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

63

7 29

.7 18

9 65

.1 41

5 5.2

33

41

3 30

.8 12

7 63

.9 26

4 5.3

22

22

4 27

.7 62

67

.4 15

1 4.9

11

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 34

2 47

.4 16

2 47

.1 16

1 5.6

19

19

3 48

.2 93

47

.2 91

4.7

9

149

46.3

69

47.0

70

6.7

10

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als

(FAR

MS)

2,954

57

.4 1,6

95

39.3

1,160

3.4

99

1,3

72

58.5

802

38.4

527

3.1

43

1,582

56

.4 89

3 40

.0 63

3 3.5

56

Ta

ble 3

.14: H

SA T

est P

artic

ipat

ion

and

Stat

us -

Biol

ogy 2

010

Popu

latio

n: A

ll 12t

h Gr

ade S

tude

nts

Subg

roup

Al

l Stu

dent

s Ma

le Fe

male

Al

l Stud

ents

7,735

66

.7 5,1

58

33.2

2,567

0.1

10

3,6

63

67.6

2,478

32

.2 1,1

80

0.1

5 4,0

72

65.8

2,680

34

.1 1,3

87

0.1

5 Hi

span

ic/La

tino

of an

y rac

e

Amer

ican I

ndian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

93

Tabl

e 3.14

: HSA

Tes

t Par

ticip

atio

n an

d St

atus

- Bi

olog

y 201

0 Po

pulat

ion:

All 1

2th

Grad

e Stu

dent

s Su

bgro

up

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Asian

Blac

k or A

frican

Am

erica

n

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whit

e

Two o

r mor

e ra

ces

Spec

ial

Educ

ation

63

2 37

.3 23

6 62

.3 39

4 0.3

2

415

40.5

168

59.5

247

0.0

0 21

7 31

.3 68

67

.7 14

7 0.9

2

Limite

d Eng

lish

Profi

cient

(LEP

) 23

0 49

.1 11

3 50

.9 11

7 0.0

0

111

51.4

57

48.6

54

0.0

0 11

9 47

.1 56

52

.9 63

0.0

0

Free

/Red

uced

Me

als (F

ARMS

) 2,7

97

61.5

1,719

38

.4 1,0

75

0.1

3 1,2

62

61.6

778

38.3

483

0.1

1 1,5

35

61.3

941

38.6

592

0.1

2

Tabl

e 3.9:

Gra

duat

es W

ho M

et th

e Hig

h Sc

hool

Ass

essm

ent (

HSA)

Gra

duat

ion

Requ

irem

ent b

y Opt

ion

Sc

hool

Ye

ar

Enro

lled

HSA

Grad

uatio

n Re

quire

men

t Opt

ions

To

tal

Pass

ing

Scor

es o

n Fo

ur

HSAs

16

02 O

ptio

n Br

idge

Pro

jects

W

aiver

s Me

t No

t Met

# #

%

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

All

Stud

ents

2008

-200

9 7,4

96

4,013

53

.5 2,2

03

29.4

983

13.1

211

2.8

7,410

98

.9 86

1.1

20

09-2

010

8,241

4,2

19

2,4

42

1,3

23

15

3

8,137

104

20

10-2

011

8,397

4,3

37

51.6

2,134

25

.4 1,7

33

20.6

60

0.7

8,264

98

.4 13

3 1.6

Male

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1 4,0

56

1,997

49

.2 1,0

71

26.4

868

21.4

27

0.7

3,963

97

.7 93

2.3

Fem

ale

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1 4,3

41

2,340

53

.9 1,0

63

24.5

865

19.9

33

0.8

4,301

99

.1 40

0.9

Tabl

e 3.10

: Brid

ge P

rojec

ts P

asse

d

Scho

ol Y

ear

Alge

bra

Biol

ogy

Engl

ish

Gove

rnm

ent

Tota

l #

# #

# #

All S

tude

nts

2008

-200

9 1,9

25

1,701

2,6

05

1,230

7,4

61

2009

-201

0 2,4

93

2,035

2,8

04

1,671

9,0

03

2010

-201

1 2,6

42

2,203

2,0

19

1,929

8,7

93

Male

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1 1,3

43

1,041

1,1

44

964

4,492

Fem

ale

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1 1,2

99

1,162

87

5 96

5 4,3

01

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

94

Tabl

e 3.11

: Risi

ng S

enio

rs W

ho H

ave N

ot Y

et M

et th

e Gra

duat

ion

Requ

irem

ent

Sc

hool

Ye

ar

Enro

lled

Met

Not Y

et M

et

Need

ing

to P

ass 4

Ne

edin

g to

Pas

s 3

Need

ing

to P

ass 2

Ne

edin

g to

Pas

s 1

Tota

l #

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

All

Stud

ents

2009

-201

0 7,3

29

5,210

71

.1 77

5 10

.6 64

2 8.8

45

0 6.1

25

2 3.4

2,1

19

28.9

2010

-201

1 8,4

36

5,652

67

.0 1,1

83

14.0

788

9.3

515

6.1

298

3.5

2,784

33

.0 20

11-2

012

8,023

5,8

25

72.6

1,159

14

.4 65

6 8.2

38

3 4.8

2,1

98

27.4

Male

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2 3,9

85

2,805

70

.4

66

1 16

.6 32

0 8.0

19

9 5.0

1,1

80

29.6

Fem

ale

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2 4,0

38

3,020

74

.8

49

8 12

.3 33

6 8.3

18

4 4.6

1,0

18

25.2

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

95

TABL

ES 4.

1-4.3

: AMO

A

Tabl

e 4.1:

Sys

tem

AMA

O I, 2

009-

2010

N Nu

mbe

r Who

Met

%

To

tal

13,91

9 9,4

37

67.9

Ta

ble 4

.2: S

yste

m A

MAO

II, 20

09-2

010*

N Nu

mbe

r Who

Met

Tar

get

%

Total

14

,489

2,114

14

.6

Tabl

e 4.3:

Sys

tem

AMA

O III,

2010

-201

1 AYP

Stat

us fo

r Lim

ited

Engl

ish P

rofic

ient S

tude

nts

Re

adin

g Ma

them

atics

% P

rofic

ient

Parti

cipat

ion

Rate

%

Pro

ficien

t Pa

rticip

atio

n Ra

te

2008

No

t Met

Met

Not M

et

Me

t 20

09

Not M

et

Me

t No

t Met

Met

2010

No

t Met

Met

Not M

et

Me

t 20

11

Not M

et

Me

t No

t Met

Met

Indic

ate

Met

or N

ot M

et fo

r Eac

h Co

lumn.

Note

: I

n ord

er fo

r a lo

cal s

choo

l sys

tem to

mee

t the S

ystem

AMA

O I, 2

010-

2011

, at l

east

60%

of st

uden

ts mu

st ma

ke a

15 sc

ale sc

ore p

oint

incre

ase o

n the

2011

LAS

admi

nistra

tion a

s com

pare

d to l

ast y

ear's

admi

nistra

tion

*Not

e: I

n ord

er fo

r a lo

cal s

choo

l sys

tem to

mee

t the S

ystem

AMA

O II,

2010

-201

1, at

leas

t 17%

of st

uden

ts mu

st me

et gr

ade-

spec

ific ta

rgets

for

Engli

sh La

ngua

ge P

rofic

iency

.

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

96

TABL

ES 5.

1-5.4

: AYP

, SCH

OOLS

IN IM

PROV

EMEN

T, (S

II) T

ITLE

I SII

Tabl

e 5.1:

Num

ber a

nd P

erce

ntag

e of A

ll Sch

ools

Makin

g Ad

equa

te Y

early

Pro

gres

s

Scho

ol Y

ear

Elem

enta

ry

Elem

enta

ry/M

iddl

e Mi

ddle

High

Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t

Tota

l # o

f Sc

hool

s Sc

hool

s Mak

ing

AYP

Tota

l # o

f Sc

hool

s Sc

hool

s Mak

ing

AYP

Tota

l # o

f Sc

hool

s Sc

hool

s Mak

ing

AYP

Tota

l # o

f Sc

hool

s Sc

hool

s Mak

ing

AYP

Tota

l # o

f Sc

hool

s Sc

hool

s Mak

ing

AYP

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

2002

-200

3 13

8 62

44

.9 N/

A

N/A

N/

A

27

3 11

.1 21

2

9.5

1 0

0.0

2003

-200

4 13

9 99

71

.2 N/

A

N/A

N/

A

27

7 25

.9 21

2

9.5

1 1

100.0

2004

-200

5 14

0 83

59

.3 N/

A

N/A

N/

A

27

7 25

.9 21

3

14.3

1 1

100.0

2005

-200

6 13

6 87

64

.0 N/

A

N/A

N/

A

27

4 14

.8 21

3

14.3

20

06-2

007

140

106

75.7

N/A

N/

A

N/A

27

4

14.8

22

3 13

.6

2007

-200

8 14

2 12

4 87

.3 N/

A

N/A

N/

A

27

4 14

.8 22

9

40.9

20

08-2

009

139

85

61.2

N/A

N/

A

N/A

27

2

7.4

22

14

63.6

20

09-2

010

126

75

59.5

10

5 50

.0 25

1

4.0

22

5 22

.7 13

2010

-201

1 12

8 57

44

.5 7

6 85

.7 29

1

3.4

22

3 13

.6 7

5 71

.4

Ta

ble 5

.2: N

umbe

r and

Per

cent

age o

f Titl

e I S

choo

ls Ma

king

Adeq

uate

Yea

rly P

rogr

ess

Scho

ol Y

ear

Elem

enta

ry

Elem

enta

ry/M

iddl

e Mi

ddle

High

Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t

Tota

l # o

f Ti

tle I

Scho

ols

Title

I Sch

ools

Makin

g AY

P To

tal #

of

Scho

ols

Scho

ols M

akin

g AY

P To

tal #

of

Title

I Sc

hool

s

Title

I Sch

ools

Makin

g AY

P To

tal #

of

Title

I Sc

hool

s

Title

I Sch

ools

Makin

g AY

P To

tal #

of

Title

I Sc

hool

s

Title

I Sch

ools

Makin

g AY

P

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

2002

-200

3 48

6

12.5

2

0 0.0

N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A

2003

-200

4 47

26

55

.3

3 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

-200

5 48

19

39

.6

3 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2005

-200

6 49

23

46

.9

3 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006

-200

7 50

34

68

.0

1 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2007

-200

8 50

38

76

.0

2 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2008

-200

9 50

24

48

.0

3 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2009

-201

0 53

29

54

.7 3

0 0.0

4

0 0.0

N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A

2010

-201

1 56

5

8.9

3 0

0.0

4 0

0.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

97

Tabl

e 5.3:

Num

ber o

f All S

choo

ls in

Impr

ovem

ent

20

05-2

006 L

evel

of Im

prov

emen

t

Exiting in 2005

2006

-200

7 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2006

(bas

ed o

n 20

05 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

06 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 9

12

4 3

2 1

14

12

9 2

4 4

Midd

le Sc

hools

2

10

0 2

5 0

2 2

10

0 7

1 Hi

gh S

choo

ls 1

18

0 0

0 0

1 8

10

0 0

0 Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t Sch

ools

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Tota

l 12

40

4

5 7

1 17

22

29

2

11

5

20

07-2

008 L

evel

of Im

prov

emen

t

Exiting in 2007

2008

-200

9 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2008

(bas

ed o

n 20

07 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

08 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 12

9

4 6

3 11

4

6 4

1 8

14

Midd

le Sc

hools

1

3 1

10

7 0

1 2

2 1

17

0 Hi

gh S

choo

ls 0

0 7

5 0

7 0

0 0

3 4

3 Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t Sch

ools

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Tota

l 13

12

12

21

10

18

5

8 6

5 29

17

20

09-2

010 L

evel

of Im

prov

emen

t

Exiting in 2009

2010

-201

1 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2010

(bas

ed o

n 20

09 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

10 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 2

4 4

2 7

2 12

1

5 3

8 0

PreK

-8

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Midd

le Sc

hools

0

1 1

2 16

1

3 0

1 1

14

0 Hi

gh S

choo

ls 1

0 0

2 5

0 1

1 0

2 5

0 Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t Sch

ools

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Publi

c Cha

rter

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

Tota

l 5

5 5

6 28

3

16

3 6

6 27

0

20

11-2

012 L

evel

of Im

prov

emen

t

Exiting in 2011

2012

-201

3 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2012

(bas

ed o

n 20

11 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

12 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 14

12

1

4 10

1

PreK

-8

4 0

0 0

0 0

Midd

le Sc

hools

2

2 0

1 15

0

High

Sch

ools

8 2

0 1

6 0

Spec

ial P

lacem

ent S

choo

ls 0

0 0

0 0

0

Pu

blic C

harte

r 0

0 1

0 0

0

To

tal

28

16

2 6

31

1

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

98

Tabl

e 5.4:

Num

ber o

f Titl

e I S

choo

ls in

Impr

ovem

ent

2005

-200

6 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2005

2006

-200

7 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2006

(bas

ed o

n 20

05 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

06 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 1

4 Mi

ddle

Scho

ols

0 0

High

Sch

ools

Spec

ial P

lacem

ent S

choo

ls

To

tal

11

9 2

1 1

1 10

9

6 0

4 4

2007

-200

8 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2007

2008

-200

9 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2008

(bas

ed o

n 20

07 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

08 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 9

6 3

3 1

8 3

3 3

0 3

11

Midd

le Sc

hools

0

0 0

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 2

0 Hi

gh S

choo

ls

Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t Sch

ools

Tota

l 9

6 3

5 1

8 3

3 3

0 5

11

20

09-2

010 L

evel

of Im

prov

emen

t

Exiting in 2009

2010

-201

1 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2010

(bas

ed o

n 20

09 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

10 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 1

2 2

0 2

1 8

1 2

2 3

0 Pr

eK-8

0

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 Mi

ddle

Scho

ols

0 0

0 0

3 0

0 0

0 0

4 0

High

Sch

ools

Spec

ial P

lacem

ent S

choo

ls

Pu

blic C

harte

r

To

tal

1 2

2 0

6 1

8 1

2 2

7 0

2011

-201

2 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2011

2012

-201

3 Lev

el of

Impr

ovem

ent

Exiting in 2012

(bas

ed o

n 20

11 A

YP)

(bas

ed o

n 20

12 A

YP)

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Deve

lopi

ng N

eeds

Pr

iorit

y Nee

ds

Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ye

ar 1

Year

2 CA

Re

stru

ctur

ing

Pl

anni

ng

Rest

ruct

urin

g

Impl

emen

tatio

n El

emen

tary S

choo

ls 5

10

1 2

5 0

PreK

-8

3 0

Midd

le Sc

hools

0

0 0

0 4

0

Hi

gh S

choo

ls N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A

Sp

ecial

Plac

emen

t Sch

ools

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Publi

c Cha

rter

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Tota

l 8

10

1 2

9 0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

99

5.5-5

.7: A

TTEN

DANC

E, G

RADU

ATIO

N RA

TE, D

ROPO

UT

Tabl

e 5.5:

Atte

ndan

ce R

ates

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

Annu

al Me

asur

able

Objec

tive (

AMO)

: 94

%

94%

94

%

90%

* 94

%

94%

94

%

94%

90

%*

94%

94

%

94%

94

%

90%

* 94

%

Subg

roup

s by L

evel

2006

-20

07

2007

-20

08

2008

-20

09

2009

-20

10

2010

-20

11

2006

-20

07

2007

-20

08

2008

-20

09

2009

-20

10

2010

-20

11

2006

-20

07

2007

-20

08

2008

-20

09

2009

-20

10

2010

-20

11

All S

tuden

ts El

emen

tary

94.6

95.2

95.5

95.4

95.4

94.4

95.1

95.4

95.3

95.3

94.7

95.3

95.6

95.5

95.6

Midd

le 94

.6 94

.3 95

.3 95

.3 95

.5 94

.2 93

.9 95

.1 95

.0 95

.4 95

.1 94

.7 95

.6 95

.6 95

.7 Hi

gh

91.5

89.0

91.4

90.0

90.2

91.6

88.9

91.1

89.7

89.9

91.5

89.2

91.7

90.3

90.5

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of a

ny

race

Elem

entar

y 95

.6 95

.5 95

.7 Mi

ddle

95.4

95.3

95.5

High

87

.1 87

.3 86

.9

Amer

ican I

ndian

or A

laska

Na

tive

Elem

entar

y 94

.8 94

.7 95

.0 Mi

ddle

94.9

94.6

95.1

High

88

.0 89

.4 86

.5

Asian

El

emen

tary

96.8

96.7

96.9

Midd

le 96

.9 96

.7 97

.1 Hi

gh

93.8

93.1

94.5

Blac

k or A

frican

Ame

rican

El

emen

tary

95.4

95.2

95.5

Midd

le 95

.6 95

.4 95

.7 Hi

gh

90.6

90.2

91.0

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or O

ther

Pacif

ic Isl

ande

r

Elem

entar

y 94

.7 94

.9 94

.3 Mi

ddle

95.3

93.2

97.2

High

89

.3 87

.2 93

.5

Whit

e El

emen

tary

94.9

94.7

95.0

Midd

le 94

.1 93

.9 94

.2 Hi

gh

91.7

91.8

91.7

Two o

r mor

e rac

es

Elem

entar

y 95

.3 95

.1 95

.4 Mi

ddle

95.8

95.6

96.0

High

93

.8 93

.3 94

.2

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

Elem

entar

y 92

.6 94

.3 94

.0 93

.8 93

.9 92

.6 94

.0 94

.1 93

.8 93

.8 92

.6 94

.6 93

.7 93

.6 94

.0 Mi

ddle

92.5

92.9

93.3

93.4

93.4

92.2

92.4

93.2

93.4

93.4

93.1

93.7

93.6

93.5

93.4

High

88

.8 87

.5 88

.8 86

.5 86

.0 88

.8 87

.2 88

.6 86

.3 85

.9 88

.8 87

.8 89

.1 86

.9 86

.4

Limite

d Eng

lish P

rofic

ient

(LEP

)

Elem

entar

y 95

.0 95

.7 96

.2 95

.8 95

.8 94

.8 95

.7 96

.1 95

.8 95

.8 95

.2 95

.7 96

.2 95

.7 95

.8 Mi

ddle

95.3

95.6

96.6

96.0

96.0

95.2

95.5

96.7

95.9

96.1

95.4

95.7

96.6

96.2

95.8

High

91

.9 90

.4 91

.0 89

.6 87

.6 92

.3 90

.1 91

.3 90

.4 88

.3 91

.5 90

.6 90

.7 88

.5 86

.7

Free

/Red

uced

Mea

ls (F

ARMS

)

Elem

entar

y 93

.9 94

.7 95

.1 94

.8 94

.9 93

.7 94

.5 94

.9 94

.8 94

.7 94

.0 94

.8 95

.3 94

.9 95

.1 Mi

ddle

93.9

93.5

94.8

94.6

94.9

93.5

93.2

94.5

94.2

94.7

94.4

93.9

95.1

94.9

95.0

High

90

.4 87

.5 90

.2 88

.5 88

.9 90

.4 87

.1 90

.0 88

.3 88

.7 90

.4 87

.8 90

.5 88

.7 89

.0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

100

Tabl

e 5.6:

Fou

r-Yea

r Coh

ort G

radu

atio

n Ra

te

Subg

roup

All S

tude

nts

Male

Fem

ale

2008

-200

9 20

09-2

010

2008

-200

9 20

09-2

010

2008

-200

9 20

09-2

010

All S

tuden

ts 74

.5

73.3

67

.9

67.1

81

.0

79.7

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of a

ny ra

ce

62

.0

56

.3

67

.8

Amer

ican I

ndian

or A

laska

Nati

ve

78

.4

70

.0

88

.2

Asian

85.8

85.3

86.3

Blac

k or A

frican

Ame

rican

74.3

67.9

80.9

Nativ

e Haw

aiian

or O

ther P

acific

Islan

der

Whit

e

79.1

72.0

86.9

Two o

r mor

e rac

es

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

55.5

54

.8

53.0

51

.5

60.5

62

.4

Limite

d Eng

lish P

rofic

ient (

LEP)

68

.2

59.6

62

.6

53.1

73

.9

67.4

Free

/Red

uced

Mea

ls (F

ARMS

) 70

.6

68.9

62

.7

61.9

77

.5

75.8

Tabl

e 5.7:

Ann

ual D

ropo

ut R

ate A

cros

s Gra

des 9

– 12

Subg

roup

Al

l Stu

dent

s Ma

le Fe

male

20

09-2

010

2010

-201

1 20

09-2

010

2010

-201

1 20

09-2

010

2010

-201

1 Al

l Stud

ents

≤3.00

5.8

2 3.3

9 6.8

5 ≤3

.00

4.71

Hisp

anic/

Latin

o of a

ny ra

ce

8.

22

8.

90

7.

46

Amer

ican I

ndian

or A

laska

Nati

ve

5.

26

6.

73

3.

49

Asian

≤3.00

≤3.00

≤3.00

Bl

ack o

r Afric

an A

meric

an

5.4

9

6.64

4.2

8 Na

tive H

awaii

an or

Othe

r Pac

ific

Islan

der

8.

11

4.

35

14

.29

Whit

e

5.17

5.83

4.43

Tw

o or m

ore r

aces

4.61

5.15

4.17

Sp

ecial

Edu

catio

n ≤3

.00

6.48

≤3

.00

7.01

≤3

.00

5.39

Limite

d Eng

lish P

rofic

ient (

LEP)

≤3

.00

6.03

≤3

.00

5.95

≤3

.00

6.14

Fr

ee/R

educ

ed M

eals

(FAR

MS)

≤3.00

5.

27

≤3.00

5.

90

≤3.00

4.

61

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

101

TABL

ES 6.

1-6.7

: HIG

HLY

QUAL

IFIE

D ST

AFF

Tabl

e 6.1:

Per

cent

age o

f Cor

e Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Clas

ses T

augh

t by H

ighl

y Qu

alifie

d Te

ache

rs

Ta

ble 6

.2: P

erce

ntag

e of C

ore A

cade

mic

Subj

ect C

lasse

s Tau

ght b

y Hig

hly Q

ualif

ied T

each

ers i

n Ti

tle I

Scho

ols.

Inclu

de T

itle I

Sch

ools

Fund

ed W

ith A

RRA

Fund

s.

Scho

ol Y

ear

% o

f Cor

e Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Cl

asse

s Tau

ght b

y Hig

hly

Quali

fied

Teac

hers

% o

f Cor

e Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Cl

asse

s Not

Tau

ght b

y Hig

hly

Quali

fied

Teac

hers

Scho

ol Y

ear

Tota

l Num

ber o

f Cor

e Ac

adem

ic Su

bjec

t Clas

ses

in T

itle I

Sch

ools

Core

Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Cl

asse

s in

Title

I Sch

ools

Taug

ht b

y Hig

hly Q

ualif

ied

Teac

hers

% o

f Cor

e Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Clas

ses i

n Ti

tle I

Scho

ols t

augh

t by H

QT

2003

-200

4 48

.6 51

.4 20

08-2

009

1,540

1,4

11

91.6

2004

-200

5 62

.0 38

.0

2005

-200

6 62

.1 37

.9 20

09-2

010

5,592

5,2

80

94.4

2006

-200

7 66

.3 33

.7

2007

-200

8 73

.0 27

.0 20

10-2

011

4,946

4,7

77

96.6

2008

-200

9 82

.0 18

.0

2009

-201

0 88

.7 11

.3

2010

-201

1 90

.7 9.3

Tabl

e 6.3:

Num

ber o

f Clas

ses N

ot T

augh

t by H

ighl

y Qua

lified

(NHQ

) Tea

cher

s by R

easo

n

Scho

ol

Year

Expi

red

Certi

ficat

e In

valid

Gra

de L

evel(

s)

for C

ertif

icatio

n Te

stin

g Re

quire

men

t No

t Met

In

valid

Sub

ject f

or

Certi

ficat

ion

Miss

ing

Certi

ficat

ion

Info

rmat

ion

Cond

ition

al Ce

rtific

ate

Tota

l

#

cla

sses

%

#

class

es

%

#

cla

sses

%

#

cla

sses

%

#

class

es

%

#

class

es

%

#

class

es

%

2005

-200

6 64

8 9.7

16

1 2.4

44

5 6.6

1,5

42

23.0

1,453

21

.7 2,4

55

36.6

6,704

10

0.0

2006

-200

7 80

2 17

.1 79

1.7

18

1 3.8

81

0 17

.2 1,3

32

28.3

1,499

31

.9 4,7

03

100.0

20

07-2

008

583

17.0

67

1.9

274

8.0

647

18.8

842

24.5

1,026

29

.8 3,4

39

100.0

20

08-2

009

216

9.2

56

2.4

207

8.8

657

27.9

349

14.8

869

36.9

2,354

10

0.0

2009

-201

0 26

6 8.9

11

9 4.0

44

5 14

.8 1,6

73

55.7

302

10.1

199

6.6

3,004

10

0.0

2010

-201

1 13

2 5.4

10

5 4.3

39

2 16

.1 1,3

16

62.4

209

8.6

75

3.1

2,429

10

0.0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

102

Tabl

e 6.4:

Cor

e Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Clas

ses T

augh

t By H

ighl

y Qua

lified

Tea

cher

s (HQ

T) in

Hig

h Po

verty

and

Low

Pove

rty S

choo

ls By

Lev

el

Core

Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Clas

ses T

augh

t by H

QT

High

Pov

erty

* Lo

w Po

verty

Tota

l Clas

ses

Taug

ht b

y HQT

To

tal C

lasse

s Ta

ught

by H

QT

# #

%

# #

%

2005

-200

6

Elem

entar

y 1,6

72

1,091

65

.3 12

7 89

70

.1

Sec

onda

ry 3,4

96

1,890

59

.1 0

0 0.0

20

06-2

007

E

lemen

tary

1,379

1,0

01

72.6

62

50

80.6

S

econ

dary

3,900

2,2

49

57.7

0 0

0.0

2007

-200

8

Elem

entar

y 1,5

00

1,200

80

.0 65

59

90

.0

Sec

onda

ry 3,8

00

2,660

70

.0 0

0 0.0

20

08-2

009

E

lemen

tary

1,286

1,1

88

92.4

46

41

89.1

S

econ

dary

2,970

2,5

31

85.2

112

89

79.5

2009

-201

0

Elem

entar

y 4,4

12

4,200

95

.2 13

5 12

5 92

.6

Sec

onda

ry 5,4

47

4,894

89

.8 19

4 16

6 85

.6 20

10-2

011

E

lemen

tary

4,260

4,1

28

96.9

229

201

87.8

S

econ

dary

5,546

5,0

60

91.2

229

194

84.7

Tabl

e 6.5:

Cor

e Aca

dem

ic Su

bjec

t Clas

ses T

augh

t By H

ighl

y Qua

lified

Tea

cher

s (HQ

T) in

Hig

h an

d Lo

w Po

verty

Sch

ools

By L

evel

and

Expe

rienc

e Co

re A

cade

mic

Subj

ect C

lasse

s

Scho

ol Y

ear

Leve

l

Hig

h Po

verty

* Lo

w Po

verty

Cl

asse

s Tau

ght b

y Ex

perie

nced

HQT

* Cl

asse

s Tau

ght b

y In

expe

rienc

ed H

QT

Clas

ses T

augh

t by

Expe

rienc

ed H

QT*

Clas

ses T

augh

t by

Inex

perie

nced

HQT

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

2008

-200

9 El

emen

tary

1,031

86

.8 15

7 13

.2 37

90

.2 4

9.8

Seco

ndar

y 2,4

30

87.2

358

12.8

78

87.6

11

12.4

2009

-201

0 El

emen

tary

3,735

89

.4 44

5 10

.6 12

1 96

.8 4

3.2

Seco

ndar

y 4,3

53

89.4

516

10.6

162

97.6

4 2.4

2010

-201

1 El

emen

tary

3,928

95

.2 20

0 4.8

19

3 96

.0 8

4.0

Seco

ndar

y 4,4

21

87.4

639

12.6

189

97.4

5 2.6

* Som

e loc

al sc

hool

syst

ems w

ill no

t hav

e sch

ools

that

qua

lify a

s "hi

gh p

over

ty".

**

"Exp

erien

ce" f

or th

e pur

pose

s of d

iffer

entia

tion

in ac

cord

ance

with

No

Child

Lef

t Beh

ind,

is d

efin

ed as

two

year

s or m

ore

as o

f the

firs

t day

of e

mpl

oym

ent i

n th

e 200

9-20

10 sc

hool

year

.

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

103

Tabl

e 6.6:

Attr

ition

Rat

es

Attri

tion

Due T

o (C

ateg

ory)

:

Retir

emen

t Re

signa

tion

Dism

issal/

Non-

rene

wal

Leav

es

Tota

l Ove

ral A

ttriti

on

Num

erat

or

Deno

min

ator

%

Nu

mer

ator

De

nom

inat

or

%

Num

erat

or

Deno

min

ator

%

Nu

mer

ator

De

nom

inat

or

%

Num

erat

or

Deno

min

ator

%

2006

-200

7 18

5 8,9

55

2.1

778

8,955

8.7

25

4 8,9

55

2.8

241

8,955

2.7

1,4

58

8,955

16

.3

2007

-200

8 19

1 9,2

00

2.1

750

9,200

8.2

24

0 9,2

00

2.6

220

9,200

2.4

1,4

01

9,200

15

.2

2008

-200

9 18

6 9,0

77

2 70

0 9,0

77

7.7

240

9,077

2.6

19

0 9,0

77

2.1

1,316

9,0

77

14.5

2009

-201

0 19

1 8,9

76

2.1

383

8,976

4.3

70

8,9

76

0.8

218

8,976

2.4

86

2 8,9

76

9.6

2010

-201

1 42

0 8,4

59

5 34

5 8,4

59

4.1

44

8,459

0.5

11

9 8,4

59

1.4

928

8,459

11

.0

Tabl

e 6.7:

Per

cent

age o

f Qua

lified

Par

apro

fess

iona

ls W

orkin

g in

Titl

e I S

choo

ls. I

nclu

de T

itle I

Sch

ools

Fund

ed W

ith A

RRA

Fund

s.

To

tal N

umbe

r of P

arap

rofe

ssio

nals

Wor

king

in T

itle I

Sch

ools

Quali

fied

Para

prof

essio

nals

Wor

king

in T

itle I

Sch

ools

# %

20

08-2

009

395

395

100.0

20

09-2

010

442

442

100.0

20

10-2

011

398

398

100.0

20

11-2

012*

26

1 26

1 10

0.0

*As o

f Jul

y 1, 2

011

Use t

he d

ata a

vaila

ble a

s of S

epte

mbe

r 1st

follo

wing

each

of t

he sc

hool

year

s to

be re

porte

d. R

epor

t dat

a for

the e

ntire

teac

hing

staf

f or f

or te

ache

rs o

f Cor

e Ac

adem

ic Su

bjec

t are

as if

thos

e dat

a are

avail

able.

Ind

icate

the p

opul

atio

n re

flect

ed in

the d

ata:

____

Entir

e tea

chin

g st

aff o

r

CA

di

Sbj

h

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

104

TABL

ES 7.

1-7.1

0: D

ANGE

ROUS

, INCI

DENT

S, S

USPE

NSIO

NS

Tabl

e 7.1:

Num

ber o

f Per

siste

ntly

Dang

erou

s Sch

ools

# of S

choo

ls 20

03-2

004

2004

-200

5 20

05-2

006

2006

-200

7 20

07-2

008

2008

-200

9 20

09-2

010

2010

-201

1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Ta

ble 7

.2: P

roba

tiona

ry S

tatu

s Sch

ools

Scho

ol*

9/30/2

010 E

nrol

lmen

t # o

f Sus

pens

ions

and

Expu

lsion

s Pe

rcen

tage

of E

nrol

lmen

t NA

NA

NA

NA

Tabl

e 7.3:

Sch

ools

Meet

ing

the 2

½ Pe

rcen

t Crit

eria

for t

he F

irst T

ime

Scho

ol*

9/30/2

010 E

nrol

lmen

t # o

f Sus

pens

ions

and

Expu

lsion

s Pe

rcen

tage

of E

nrol

lmen

t NA

NA

NA

NA

* A

dd ro

ws w

hen n

eces

sary

Tabl

e 7.4:

Elem

enta

ry S

choo

ls wi

th S

uspe

nsio

n Ra

tes E

xcee

ding

Iden

tified

Lim

its

# of S

choo

ls

2004

-200

5 20

05-2

006

2006

-200

7 20

07-2

008

2008

-200

9 20

09-2

010

2009

-201

1 Nu

mber

With

a Su

spen

sion R

ate th

at Ex

ceed

ed 18

%

Numb

er W

ith a

Susp

ensio

n Rate

that

Exce

eded

18%

Numb

er W

ith a

Susp

ensio

n Rate

that

Exce

eded

16%

Numb

er W

ith a

Susp

ensio

n Rate

that

Exce

eded

14%

Numb

er W

ith a

Susp

ensio

n Rate

that

Exce

eded

12%

Numb

er W

ith a

Susp

ensio

n Rate

that

Exce

eded

10%

Numb

er W

ith a

Susp

ensio

n Rate

that

Exce

eded

10%

0

0 1

0 0

0 0

Ta

ble 7

.5: Id

entif

ied S

choo

ls Th

at H

ave N

ot Im

plem

ente

d PB

IS

Scho

ol*

Scho

ol ye

ar in

whi

ch th

e sus

pens

ion

rate

wa

s exc

eede

d Pr

ovid

e rea

son

for n

onco

mpl

iance

Pr

ovid

e a ti

meli

ne fo

r com

plian

ce

NA

NA

NA

NA

* Add

rows

if ne

cess

ary

Ta

ble 7

.6 In

ciden

ts o

f Bul

lying

, Har

assm

ent,

or In

timid

atio

n

20

05-2

006

2006

-200

7 20

07-2

008

2008

-200

9 20

09-2

010

2009

-201

1 Nu

mbe

r of I

ncid

ents

52

24

54

77

56

2 45

2

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

105

Ta

ble 7

.7: N

umbe

r of S

uspe

nsio

ns/E

xpul

sions

for S

exua

l Har

assm

ent,

Hara

ssm

ent,

and

Bully

ing

Offe

nse

Sexu

al Ha

rass

men

t Ha

rass

men

t Bu

llyin

g TO

TAL

2003

-200

4 10

0 0

100

2004

-200

5 76

0

76

2005

-200

6 15

5 0

52

207

2006

-200

7 14

4 0

60

204

2007

-200

8 14

3 0

63

206

2008

-200

9 12

6 48

12

0 29

4 20

09-2

010

199

74

500

773

2010

-201

1 15

0 76

49

2 71

8

Tabl

e 7.8:

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s Sus

pend

ed -

In S

choo

l - b

y Rac

e/Eth

nicit

y (Un

dupl

icate

d Co

unt)

Sc

hool

Yea

r En

rolle

d Hi

span

ic/La

tino

of an

y rac

e Am

erica

n In

dian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

As

ian

Blac

k or A

frica

n Am

erica

n Na

tive H

awaii

an

or O

ther

Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whi

te

Two

or m

ore

race

s To

tal

# #

%

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

All S

tude

nts

2008

-200

9 2,4

56

2,456

20

09-2

010

4,235

4,2

35

20

10-2

011

3,582

54

4 15

.2 13

0.4

22

0.6

2,8

99

80.9

1 0.0

58

1.6

45

1.3

3,5

82

544

Male

2008

-200

9 1,5

82

1,582

2009

-201

0 2,5

99

2,599

2010

-201

1 2,1

88

321

14.7

10

0.5

14

0.6

1,778

81

.3 1

0.0

38

1.7

26

1.2

2,188

32

1

Fem

ale

2008

-200

9 86

3

86

3

2009

-201

0 16

36

1636

2010

-201

1 1,

394

223

16.0

3 0.

2 8

0.6

1,121

80

.4 0

0. 0

20

1.4

19

1.4

1,39

4 22

3

Tabl

e 7.9:

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s Sus

pend

ed -

Out o

f Sch

ool -

by R

ace/E

thni

city (

Undu

plica

ted

Coun

t)

Sc

hool

Yea

r En

rolle

d Hi

span

ic/La

tino

of an

y rac

e Am

erica

n In

dian

or

Alas

ka N

ative

As

ian

Blac

k or A

frica

n Am

erica

n Na

tive H

awaii

an

or O

ther

Pac

ific

Islan

der

Whi

te

Two

or m

ore

race

s To

tal

# #

%

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

#

%

# %

All S

tude

nts

2008

-200

9 7,7

20

7,720

20

09-2

010

10,42

6

10

,426

20

10-2

011

9,793

1,1

17

11.4

30

0.3

65

0.7

8,290

84

.7 3

0.0

193

2.0

95

1.0

9,793

1,1

17

Male

2008

-200

9 5,0

86

5,0

86

20

09-2

010

6,888

6,888

2010

-201

1 6,4

58

718

11.1

21

0.3

41

0.6

5,472

84

.7 2

0.0

143

2.2

61

0.9

6,458

71

8

Fem

ale

2008

-200

9 2,6

34

2,6

34

20

09-2

010

3,538

3,538

2010

-201

1 3,3

35

399

12.0

9 0.3

24

0.7

2,8

18

84.5

1 0.0

50

1.5

34

1.0

3,3

35

399

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

106

Ta

ble 7

.10: I

n-Sc

hool

and

Out-o

f-Sch

ool S

uspe

nsio

ns b

y Mos

t Com

mon

Offe

nse C

ateg

ory

Sc

hool

Yea

r In

-Sch

ool S

uspe

nsio

ns

Out-o

f-Sch

ool S

uspe

nsio

ns

#1

#2

#3

#1

#2

#3

All S

tude

nts

2008

-200

9 Cl

assro

om D

isrup

tion

Loite

ring/C

utting

Cl

ass/T

ruan

cy

Disre

spec

t Lo

iterin

g/Cutt

ing

Clas

s/Tru

ancy

Fig

hting

2009

-201

0 Re

fusal

to Ob

ey

Scho

ol Ru

les

Clas

sroom

Disr

uptio

n Ins

ubor

dinati

on

Refus

al to

Obey

Sc

hool

Polic

ies

Insub

ordin

ation

2010

-201

1 Re

fusal

to Ob

ey

Scho

ol Ru

les

Clas

sroom

Disr

uptio

n Ins

ubor

dinati

on

Refus

al to

Obey

Sc

hool

Polic

ies

Insub

ordin

ation

Fig

hting

Male

2008

-200

9 N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A 20

09-2

010

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

-201

1 Re

fusal

to Ob

ey

Scho

ol Ru

les

Clas

sroom

Disr

uptio

n Ins

ubor

dinati

on

Refus

al to

Obey

Sc

hool

Polic

ies

Insub

ordin

ation

Fig

hting

Fem

ale

2008

-200

9 N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A N/

A 20

09-2

010

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

-201

1 Re

fusal

to Ob

ey

Scho

ol Ru

les

Insub

ordin

ation

Cl

assro

om D

isrup

tion

Refus

al to

Obey

Sc

hool

Polic

ies

Fighti

ng

Insub

ordin

ation

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

107

TABL

ES 8.

1-8.3

: EAR

LY L

EARN

ING

Tabl

e 8.1:

Per

cent

age o

f All K

inde

rgar

ten

Stud

ents

at R

eadi

ness

Sta

ges

% F

ully

Read

y %

App

roac

hing

Rea

dine

ss

% D

evelo

ping

Rea

dine

ss

SP

LL

MT

ST

SS

TA

PD

Composite

SP

LL

MT

ST

SS

TA

PD

Composite

SP

LL

MT

ST

SS

TA

PD

Composite

2004

-200

5 57

.0 41

.0 39

.0 25

.0 34

.0 64

.0 67

.0 48

.0 33

.0 44

.0 43

.0 52

.0 50

.0 31

.0 29

.0 43

.0 10

.0 16

.0 17

.0 22

.0 16

.0 6.0

4.0

10

.0 20

05-2

006

58.0

44.0

41.0

27.0

36.0

67.0

71.0

51.0

33.0

42.0

43.0

51.0

47.0

28.0

25.0

33.0

9.0

15.0

16.0

22.0

17.0

5.0

4.0

9.0

2006

-200

7 61

.0 48

.0 49

.0 40

.0 44

.0 69

.0 73

.0 59

.0 30

.0 39

.0 38

.0 46

.0 44

.0 25

.0 23

.0 34

.0 8.0

13

.0 14

.0 14

.0 12

.0 5.0

4.0

8.0

20

07-2

008

63.0

50.0

49.0

44.0

49.0

73.0

76.0

63.0

30.0

39.0

39.0

45.0

43.0

24.0

21.0

33.0

7.0

11.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

3.0

3.0

5.0

2008

-200

9 67

.0 59

.0 62

.0 57

.0 60

.0 78

.0 82

.0 71

.0 26

.0 32

.0 30

.0 35

.0 33

.0 19

.0 15

.0 24

.0 7.0

9.0

8.0

8.0

7.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

20

09-2

010

68.0

57.0

59.0

54.0

58.0

76.0

81.0

68.0

24.0

33.0

31.0

36.0

34.0

20.0

16.0

26.0

8.0

10.0

9.0

10.0

8.0

4.0

3.0

5.0

2010

-201

1 75

.0 70

.0 73

.0 70

.0 74

.0 85

.0 89

.0 79

.0 19

.0 23

.0 20

.0 24

.0 20

.0 13

.0 9.0

17

.0 5.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

6.0

2.0

1.0

4.0

Tabl

e 8.2:

Per

cent

age o

f Kin

derg

arte

n St

uden

ts w

ith P

revio

us P

rekin

derg

arte

n Ex

perie

nce

% F

ully

Read

y %

App

roac

hing

Rea

dine

ss

% D

evelo

ping

Rea

dine

ss

LL

MT

LL

MT

LL

MT

2004

-200

5 48

.0 46

.0 43

.0 43

.0 10

.0 12

.0 20

05-2

006

51.0

51.0

39.0

39.0

9.0

11.0

2006

-200

7 56

.0 56

.0 36

.0 35

.0 8.0

9.0

20

07-2

008

57.0

56.0

36.0

37.0

6.0

7.0

2008

-200

9 66

.0 69

.0 29

.0 27

.0 5.0

4.0

20

09-2

010

63.0

65.0

30.0

29.0

7.0

6.0

2010

-201

1 74

.0 77

.0 21

.0 19

.0 5.0

5.0

Tabl

e 8.3:

Sep

tem

ber 3

0 Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

Enro

llmen

t Pr

ince

Geo

rges

Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

(4 ye

ar o

ld) E

nrol

lmen

t Dat

a 9.30

.10

Scho

ol

Half

Day

or F

ull D

ay

Tota

l Stu

dent

s En

rolle

d 9.3

0.10

Inco

me E

ligib

le St

uden

ts

(Prio

rity 1

) St

uden

ts E

nrol

led U

nder

Oth

er

Crite

ria (P

riorit

y 2)

Acco

keek

Aca

demy

Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Adelp

hi Fu

ll Day

19

19

0

Allen

wood

Fu

ll Day

43

43

0

Andr

ew Ja

ckso

n Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Apple

Gro

ve

Full D

ay

43

43

0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

108

Tabl

e 8.3:

Sep

tem

ber 3

0 Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

Enro

llmen

t Pr

ince

Geo

rges

Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

(4 ye

ar o

ld) E

nrol

lmen

t Dat

a 9.30

.10

Scho

ol

Half

Day

or F

ull D

ay

Tota

l Stu

dent

s En

rolle

d 9.3

0.10

Inco

me E

ligib

le St

uden

ts

(Prio

rity 1

) St

uden

ts E

nrol

led U

nder

Oth

er

Crite

ria (P

riorit

y 2)

Ardm

ore

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Ar

rowh

ead

Full D

ay

21

21

0 Av

alon

Full D

ay

19

19

0 Ba

den

Full D

ay

19

19

0 Ba

rack

Oba

ma

Full D

ay

39

39

0 Ba

rnab

y Man

or

Full D

ay

41

41

0 Be

acon

Heig

hts

Full D

ay

57

57

0 Be

ltsvil

le Ac

adem

y Fu

ll Day

43

43

0

Blad

ensb

urg

Full D

ay

88

88

0 Bo

nd M

ill Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Brad

bury

Heigh

ts Fu

ll Day

35

35

0

Bran

dywi

ne

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Ca

lverto

n Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Capit

ol He

ights

Full D

ay

20

20

0 Ca

rmod

y Hills

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Caro

le Hi

ghlan

ds

Full D

ay

86

86

0 Ca

rrollto

n Fu

ll Day

88

88

0

Cathe

rine T

. Ree

d Fu

ll Day

20

20

0

Cesa

r Cha

vez

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Ch

apel

Forg

e ECC

Fu

ll Day

19

16

3

Cher

okee

Lane

Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Chillu

m Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Clint

on G

ove

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Co

lumbia

Par

k Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Conc

ord

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Co

ol Sp

rings

Fu

ll Day

11

0 11

0 0

Coop

er La

ne

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Co

ra L.

Rice

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Deer

field

Run

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Di

strict

Heig

hts

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Do

dge P

ark

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Do

swell

E. B

rook

s Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Flints

tone

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Fo

rest

Heigh

ts Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Fort

Foote

Fu

ll Day

22

18

4

Fort

Was

hingto

n For

est

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Fr

ancis

Fuc

hs E

CC

Full D

ay

121

111

10

Fran

cis S

. Key

Fu

ll Day

56

56

0

Fran

cis T

Eva

ns

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Ga

ywoo

d Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Glad

ys N

. Spe

llman

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Glas

sman

or

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Gl

enar

den W

oods

Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

109

Tabl

e 8.3:

Sep

tem

ber 3

0 Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

Enro

llmen

t Pr

ince

Geo

rges

Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

(4 ye

ar o

ld) E

nrol

lmen

t Dat

a 9.30

.10

Scho

ol

Half

Day

or F

ull D

ay

Tota

l Stu

dent

s En

rolle

d 9.3

0.10

Inco

me E

ligib

le St

uden

ts

(Prio

rity 1

) St

uden

ts E

nrol

led U

nder

Oth

er

Crite

ria (P

riorit

y 2)

Glen

ridge

Fu

ll Day

65

65

0

Gree

nbelt

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Gree

nbelt

Chil

dren

's Ce

nter

Full D

ay

18

18

0 H.

Wins

hip W

heatl

ey

Full D

ay

71

63

8 Hi

gh B

ridge

Fu

ll Day

17

17

0

High

land P

ark

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Hi

llcre

st He

ights

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Ho

llywo

od

Full D

ay

40

40

0 Hy

attsv

ille

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Ind

ian Q

ueen

Fu

ll Day

20

20

0

Jame

s Har

rison

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Jame

s McH

enry

Full D

ay

66

66

0 Ja

mes R

yder

Ran

dall

Full D

ay

29

23

6 Jo

hn B

ayne

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Judg

e S. W

oods

Fu

ll Day

42

42

0

Kenil

worth

Fu

ll Day

15

15

0

Kenm

oor

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Ke

tterin

g Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

King

sford

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Lake

Arb

or

Full D

ay

44

44

0 La

mont

Full D

ay

66

66

0 La

ngley

Par

k McC

ormi

ck

Full D

ay

83

83

0 La

urel

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Le

wisd

ale

Full D

ay

88

88

0 Lo

ngfie

lds

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Ma

gnoli

a Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Marlto

n Fu

ll Day

19

19

0

Mary

Harri

s “Mo

ther”

Jone

s Fu

ll Day

88

88

0

Matta

poni

Full D

ay

21

21

0 Me

lwoo

d Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Montp

elier

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Mt. R

ainier

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

North

For

estvi

lle

Full D

ay

22

22

0 No

rthvie

w Fu

ll Day

41

41

0

Oakc

rest

Full D

ay

21

21

0 Oa

kland

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Over

look

Full D

ay

19

19

0 Ox

on H

ill Fu

ll Day

27

27

0

Paint

Bra

nch

Full D

ay

60

60

0 Pa

nora

ma

Full D

ay

20

20

0 Pa

tuxen

t Fu

ll Day

17

17

0

Perry

wood

Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Phyll

is E.

Willi

ams

Full D

ay

19

19

0

2011

Ann

ual P

GCP

S Pa

rt I

Mas

ter P

lan

Upd

ate

Pa

ge |

110

Tabl

e 8.3:

Sep

tem

ber 3

0 Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

Enro

llmen

t Pr

ince

Geo

rges

Pre

kinde

rgar

ten

(4 ye

ar o

ld) E

nrol

lmen

t Dat

a 9.30

.10

Scho

ol

Half

Day

or F

ull D

ay

Tota

l Stu

dent

s En

rolle

d 9.3

0.10

Inco

me E

ligib

le St

uden

ts

(Prio

rity 1

) St

uden

ts E

nrol

led U

nder

Oth

er

Crite

ria (P

riorit

y 2)

Point

er R

idge

Full D

ay

14

14

0 Po

rt To

wns

Full D

ay

110

110

0 Po

tomac

Land

ing

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Pr

inceto

n Fu

ll Day

34

34

0

Ridg

ecre

st Fu

ll Day

60

60

0

Rive

rdale

Fu

ll Day

66

66

0

Robe

rt Fr

ost

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Ro

bert

Gray

Fu

ll Day

35

35

0

Rock

ledge

Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Roge

rs He

ights

Full D

ay

66

66

0 Ro

sa P

arks

Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Rosa

ryville

Fu

ll Day

20

20

0

Rose

Vall

ey

Full D

ay

19

19

0 Sa

muel

Chas

e Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Samu

el Ma

ssie

Acad

emy

Full D

ay

41

41

0 Sc

otchto

wn H

ills

Full D

ay

40

40

0 Se

abro

ok

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Se

at Pl

easa

nt Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Skyli

ne

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Su

itland

Fu

ll Day

41

41

0

Taya

c Fu

ll Day

21

21

0

Temp

leton

Fu

ll Day

66

66

0

Thom

as C

lagge

tt Fu

ll Day

21

21

0

Thom

as S

Ston

e Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Tulip

Gro

ve

Full D

ay

22

22

0 Un

iversi

ty Pa

rk Fu

ll Day

44

44

0

Valle

y View

Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

Vans

ville

Full D

ay

44

44

0 W

aldon

Woo

ds

Full D

ay

43

43

0 W

illiam

Bea

nes

Full D

ay

39

39

0 W

illiam

Hall

Aca

demy

Fu

ll Day

23

23

0

Willi

am P

aca

Full D

ay

41

41

0 W

oodm

ore

Full D

ay

21

21

0 W

oodr

idge

Full D

ay

44

44

0 Yo

rktow

n Fu

ll Day

22

22

0

TOTA

L

4848

48

17

31

Incom

e elig

ible f

amilie

s can

apply

to an

y elem

entar

y sch

ool w

ith av

ailab

le sp

ace.

The

re is

no w

aiting

list fo

r Prio

rity 1

stude

nts.

Date post:	22-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	max-pugh
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

BTE 2011 Master Plan Part 1

Documents