Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)

Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Community Recommendations

Community Recommendations 1

PRIORITY AREA 1 - MEANINGFUL & ACTIVE PARENT ENGAGEMENT State LCFF Priority Area - PARENT INVOLVEMENT Building Health Communities (BHC) Priority Area – INVEST IN PARENTS Recommended Strategies Benchmark(s) Rationale 1. Build a strong school-family-community  Percentage of schools that have a Parent Center partnership via the modification of the staffed with a “Home-School Liaison” current Home-School Liaison position. The  Percentage of schools with more than 50% response Home-School Liaison should serve as a rate of parent survey that report feeling welcomed “qualified” Family Involvement and respect at school; the sample of parents are Coordinator, as defined by Henderson, et proportionally representative of the high-needs al. (2007) in Beyond the Bake Sale: The student populations Essential Guide to Family/School  Percentage of schools with Memorandums of When schools, families, and community groups Partnerships. Their role will include Understanding (MOUs) with community organizations work together to support learning, children tend to providing resource services to parents to provide support services to families that promote do better in school, stay in school longer, and like along with students in order to ensure student success. school more. To achieve a strong school-family- students are supported at home and  Percentage of schools reporting that more than 75% community partnership, a “family involvement school. Academic and social-emotional of parents in the school site council and advisory coordinator” is cited as an effective strategy resources and services must be identified groups received proper training on how to role as (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Henderson, et al., 2007; and integrated from the school site and parent leaders (roles and responsibilities, school Jeynes, 2005) community to strengthen the school's budgeting, decision making etc.);provide evidence of programs, family practices, and student training effectiveness (e.g., pre/post result, learning and development. In addition, satisfaction survey, etc.) Home-School Liaison staff person should be  Parents in the school site council and advisory groups certified as a "professional interpreter" are proportionally representative of the high-needs (reflecting the major language group of the student populations (e.g., if 20% of the student high-needs population of families) and population are Hmong, then 20% of the site council / culturally-competent. Home-School advisory groups would reflect this percentage) Liaisons can be assigned to other school  Percentage of schools that have systems in place to sites if there is need for interpretation or recruit and train parents to volunteer in classrooms, translation. after school and summer programs and on parent associations.

PRIORITY AREA 2 - ATTENDANCE State LCFF Priority Area- STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Building Health Communities (BHC) Priority Area – TRACK AND IMPROVE ATTENDANCE Recommended Strategies Benchmark(s) Rationale 1. Pilot Home Visitation Program, targeting 14  85% of students identified as “at-risk chronic absent” Chronic absenteeism is a proven early warning sign “Focus Schools” and foster youth of all will be served; of academic risk in the early grades and of sites. Conduct Home Visits with students  Among those students served, 75% will not be dropping out of school by middle or high school. identified as “at-risk chronic absent” to designated as “chronic absent” Attendance can be significantly improved when identify barriers to attendance and assist districts, families, and communities work together family in developing a plan to address to nurture a culture of attendance and use data to barriers drive interventions. Early attendance can help children learn to read and succeed in school, and can predict attendance in the later years. (Chang & Romero, 2008; Hernandez, 2012). Making home visits to families of chronically absent students has been shown to be an effective method for improving attendance, more so than other strategies (including, providing attendance workshops to parents and referral to a counselor) (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002).

Community Recommendations 5 PRIORITY AREA 3 - THIRD GRADE READING PROFICIENCY State LCFF Priority Area - STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Building Health Communities (BHC) Priority Area Priority Area – N/A Recommended Strategies Benchmark(s) Rationale 1. Offer 6-week Summer Learning Programs at  100% of Focus Schools provide Summer Learning Ability to read by the 3rd grade is crucial in that 14 Focus Schools, targeting high-need Programs prior to the 3rd grade, children are “learning to students (i.e., English Learners, Foster  70% of high-need students receive Summer Learning read” whereas after the 3rd grade, students are Youth, and Low-Income) and develop plan Program “reading to learn.” Based on research, if students to expand services to all high-need  Of those high-need students that are served, 80% will are not able to read by the 3rd grade, they will students across school district reach/maintain their grade level in English Language continue to struggle throughout their educational Arts / Reading career – will have a greater likelihood of dropping out of school and/or are more likely to engage in 2. Provide literacy intervention programs or unhealthy and risky behaviors. Moreover, without academic-focused, after-school programs  100% of Focus Schools provide Restructured After- access to the enriching activities available to more- at 14 Focus Schools targeting high-need school Programs affluent peers , research shows that children from students (i.e., English Learners, Foster  70% of high-need students receive Literacy low-income families lose as much as three months Youth, and Low-Income) Intervention / Restructured After-school programs of reading comprehension skills over the summer.  Of those high-need students that are served, 80% will By the end of fifth grade, they are nearly three reach/maintain their grade level in English Language grade levels behind their peers (Hernandez, 2012; Arts / Reading The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013). PRIORITY AREA 4 - MEANINGFUL & ACTIVE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT State LCFF Priority Area- STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Building Health Communities (BHC) Priority Area – HIRE MORE COUNSELORS Recommended Strategies Benchmark(s) Rationale 1. Refine current survey mechanism to  At least 70% of the students participating on the measure student engagement led by a Student Survey Team and Youth Advisory Council will representative group of high-need be of the high-needs populations (i.e., English students (i.e., English Learners, Foster Learners, Foster Youth, and Low-Income) Youth, and Low-Income) in the survey  At least 60% of survey respondents will reflect high- Research on promoting student involvement in development process. This ad-hoc Student needs students (i.e., English Learners, Foster Youth, decision-making has indicated that this Survey Team will explore measurement and Low-Income) engagement supports youth autonomy and other methods which encourage student  Upon administration of revised survey tool, 70% of characteristics of self-determination, which have participation (i.e., texting or Facebook). student respondents will report active engagement positive outcomes for students’ academic This group will also be responsible for and involvement in the school (or district) decision- performance. Thus, programs that effectively developing selection processes and making process promote students’ input and involvement can have procedures for the Youth Advisory Council positive educational results for students (Jomaa, et (see below). al., 2010). 2. Develop an LCAP Youth Advisory Council to monitor the implementation of the LCAP, including analyzing annual study survey results to ensure issues raised are reflected in the district's decision-making process. This group will represent high-need students (i.e., English Learners, Foster Youth, and Low-Income)

Community Recommendations 7 PRIORITY AREA 5 - ELIGIBILITY FOR COLLEGE State LCFF Priority Area - STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Building Health Communities (BHC) Priority Area – YOUTH LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT Recommended Strategies Benchmark(s) Rationale 1. Require students to complete A-G courses as  At least 80% of total students develop a To accomplish FUSD's goal to graduate students who part of their graduation requirements college/career plan that is reviewed every 6- are college-prepared and career-ready, students 2. Align English Language Development (ELD) months with counselor; 100% of the high-school must take a rigorous high school program that courses with the A-G eligible English course, aged Foster Youth population will develop a teaches a foundation of skills that will help them to rather than designate as "electives" college/career plan apply, analyze and synthesize complex information. 3. Ensure students and parents/caregivers meet  At least 70% of high-need students identified as By including this recommendation, FUSD will be with their counselor at least once per semester “off-track” or in need of academic assistance will raising the bar for all students to be competitive in to create an individual plan and check on be provided with academic intervention today’s workforce, whether they go straight into a progress at all high schools from 9th through 12th  Of the students served, 85% will show career or go on to a 4-year college (The Campaign for grades. Plans of Foster Youth will include: improvements (i.e., completion of A-G courses, College Opportunity, 2013). Moreover, targeting guidance and counseling services specific to the maintaining grade point average, etc.) Foster Youth and providing specialized services, needs of foster youth (including, college and life  100% of high-school aged Foster Youth will be including the use of mentors or advocates to provide skills courses or resources); career awareness placed with a Foster Youth Educational Liaison social-emotional and academic support and assisting and experience opportunities through off  70% of school staff will be trained on Foster students in navigating resources -- has been shown campus job-site opportunities; opportunities for Youth issues within 12 months in research to promote success during the transition paid internships; and mentoring/tutoring to independence (Hatton & Brooks, 2009). focused on social-emotional and academic support. 4. Restructure current after-school program to serve as source of academic intervention for high-need students (i.e., English Learners, Foster Youth, and Low-Income 5. Target high-need students and enroll in after- school program 6. Provide training for school staff on issues pertaining to Foster Youth, including laws/legislation (including, AB 12 Transitional Youth and Partial-Credit Recovery, etc.), how to identify a Foster Youth in need of assistance, and how to link Foster Youth with available community resources 7. Hire FUSD Foster Youth Educational Liaisons (in addition to the County-DSS staff) who work with high-school aged Foster Youth to implement their College/Career Plan and will have regular communication with parent/caregiver. These individuals will have earned at least a Bachelor's Degree in Social Work, are trained in Foster Youth services, and have Child Welfare experience. The number of staff will be based upon a 1:15 staff to Foster Youth ratio.

Local Recommendation #6- Improve and Expand Restorative Practices Initiative State LCFF Priority Area – SCHOOL CLIMATE Building Health Communities (BHC) Priority Area – KEEP KIDS IN SCHOOL WITH POSITIVE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE Recommended Strategies Benchmark(s) Rationale 1. Expand and fully fund the current Restorative  Within 12 months, all RP staff will be hired, Fresno Unified has already made a historic decision to Practices (RP) initiative, which includes providing trained, and placed at the seven pilot school pilot its restorative practices initiative in the McLane full staffing (1 full-time RP manager, district- sites pyramid, so perfecting and expanding this proven wide; and 1 full-time RP counselor at each of the  There will be significant improvements on method in our schools is a natural next step seven pilot school sites); and training for all identified RP indicators between the baseline students, teachers, staff, and parents and implementation year Research has shown that positive intervention such as 2. Develop clear and publicly available indicators by PBIS and restorative justice, or practices methods are an which to evaluate the current RP pilot program, effective means of keeping kids in school while reducing including collection/reporting of loss of suspensions and expulsions (Sumner, Silverman, & instructional time due to on-school suspension Frampton, 2010). Utilizing punitive discipline policies, on and number of students returning to class after a the other hand, has been shown to increase negative referral. feelings like shame, breaking of healthy adult bonds, and

Community Recommendations 9 3. Assess baselines for identified RP indicators and evaluate annual progress. addiction (American Psychological Association, 2006). 4. Focus group interviews will be conducted among specialized groups of students (including the LGBTQ population) to qualitatively evaluate the RP pilot. References

American Psychological Association (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools: An evidentiary review and recommendations. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf.

Chang, H. & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty: New York.

Epstein, J. L. & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement, Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308-318.

Hatton, H. & Brooks, S. (2009). Factors, characteristics, and practices related to former foster youth and independent living programs: A literature review. Retrieved from: http://academy.extensiondlc.net/file.php/1/resources/LR-ILP.pdf.

Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007) Beyond the Bake Sale: the Essential Guide to Family/School Partnerships. The New Press: New York City.

Hernandez, D. J. (2012). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation: Baltimore.

Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement, Urban Education (40), 237.

Jomaa, L. H., McDonnell, E., Weirich, E., Hartman, T., Jensen, L., and Probart, C. (2010). Student Involvement in Wellness Policies: A Study of Pennsylvania Local Education Agencies. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 42(6): 372-379.

Sumner, M. D., Silverman, C. J., & Frampton, M. L. (2010). School-based restorative justice as an alternative to zero-tolerance policies: Lessons from West Oakland. Retrieved from: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/11-2010_School-based_Restorative_Justice_As_an_Alternative_to_Zero- Tolerance_Policies.pdf.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2013). Early warning confirmed: A research update on third-grade reading. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore.

The Campaign for College Opportunity (2013). Working hard, left behind: Education as a pathway from poverty to prosperity for working Californians. Retrieved from www.collegecampaign.org.