School Improvement Grants

1
School Improvement Grants
2
Over 13,000 schools are currently under some form
of improvement status
13,457 schools in some form of improvement status
under NCLB

• Current NCLB Definition of Struggling Schools
• Title I schools that fail to make AYP for 2
  consecutive years are in improvement
• Schools that fail to make AYP after 4 years are
  in corrective action
• Schools that fail to make AYP after 5 years are
  in restructuring
• (year 5 planning year
• year 6 implementation) and must do one of the
  following
• Close and reopen as charter
• Contract with private management company
• Replace all or most staff
• State management, or
• Other major governance restructuring that makes
  fundamental reforms
• most common option taken

4,941 schools in some form of restructuring
status (planning implementation)
3,200 schools in restructuring implementation
1,000 schools EDs annual target for turnarounds
673 schools 5 of schools in some form of
improvement status
247 schools 5 of schools in some form of
restructuring status
Note There are 1,600 dropout factory schools
that are Title I eligible schools.
3
In recent years, performance of most schools in
restructuring has not improved significantly

• Schools enter restructuring at much higher
  rates than they exit

• Illustrative data from a sample of 14,540
  schools
• 4,289 schools were in restructuring at some point
  in SY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 or 2008-09
• Of those, 12 (503 schools) exited restructuring
  at some point in SY 2006-07, 2007-08 or 2008-09
• Of those, 67 (2,858 schools) entered
  restructuring at some point in SY 2006-07,
  2007-08 or 2008-09

1521 more schools entered restructuring than
exited restructuring over 3 years
Data from EDFacts analyzed by OPEPD
4
States traditionally select the least rigorous
(if any) intervention option for struggling
schools

• Of the 45 states with schools in restructuring in
  SY 2006-07, 29 selected other as their
  restructuring strategy
• Support teams were the most common mechanism for
  delivering support to schools identified for
  improvement in 200607
• Although more than half of the schools in their
  2nd year of restructuring reported that they had
  planned for restructuring, very few schools
  reported any of the named NCLB interventions,
  including
• Replacing all or most of the school staff (17)
• State takeover of the school (3)
• Reopening the school as a public charter school
  (1) or
• Contracting with a private entity to manage the
  school (1)
• These results are consistent with a Government
  Accountability Office report that found that
  about 40 of schools in restructuring had not
  taken any of the five restructuring options under
  NCLB (GAO, 2007)

From ED, State and Local Implementation of the
No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX
Accountability Under NCLB Final Report, 2009
(forthcoming)
5
States select the least rigorous intervention
option details across 5 states
The Center in Education Policy (CEP) analyzed
five states restructuring efforts and found that
they often choose the least prescriptive option
other (Option 5)
6
Goal for FY09 and ARRA School Improvement Funds

• Target majority of funds to each states
  chronically low-performing schools, including
  high schools and their feeder schools, to
  implement robust and comprehensive reforms to
  dramatically transform school culture and
  increase student outcomes.

7
EDs proposed definition of struggling schools
bottom 5 based on performance growth

• Draft Notice of Proposed Priority (NPP) on the
  State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program
  proposes that each state define struggling
  schools within the state, as follows
• The bottom 5 of schools in school improvement,
  corrective action and restructuring targeted for
  turnaround, closing or consolidation is defined
  by the State, except that in so defining the
  State must consider
• Both the absolute performance of schools on State
  assessments in reading/language arts and
  mathematics and
• Whether schools have made progress on those
  assessments (i.e., whether gains on the
  assessment are equal to or greater than the
  average gains of schools in the State on that
  assessment, in the all students category)
• Add additionally flexibility to allow SEA to
  create another eligibility category of schools
  that include Title I eligible, but not
  participating, secondary schools that are
  performing similarly or worse than bottom 5 of
  schools in improvement, corrective action or
  restructuring

8
EDs proposed definition of struggling schools

• Which schools will receive SIG funds?
• There are three tiers of schools that are
  eligible for SIG funds
• Tier I The states bottom 5 of Title I schools
  in improvement, corrective action, or
  restructuring (or the states bottom 5
  lowest-achieving Title I schools, whichever is
  greater).
• Tier II The states Title I eligible (but not
  necessarily participating) secondary schools with
  equivalently poor performance as Tier I schools.
• Tier III only for SEAs that have sufficient
  funding for all Tier I and II schools and still
  have a surplus of SIG funds Any state Title I
  school in improvement, corrective action, or
  restructuring SEAs will set exact criteria,
  which could include rewards for schools with low
  absolute performance but high growth rates over a
  number years, or the bottom 610 of Title I
  schools in improvement, corrective action, or
  restructuring.
• LEAs must prioritize their Tier I schools
  
  (i.e., LEAs cannot apply for SIG funds
  solely for Tiers II or III)

Draft Notice of Proposed Priority (NPP) on the
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program
proposes that each state define struggling
schools within the state
9
Schools receiving SIG funds can select between
four different models

• Turnaround Model

• Restart Model

• Close the school and restart it under the
  management of a charter school operator, a
  charter management organization (CMO), or an
  educational management organization (EMO). A
  restart school must admit, within the grades it
  serves, any former student who wishes to attend.

• Replace principal and at least 50 of the staff,
  adopt new governance, and implement a new or
  revised instructional program. This model should
  incorporate interventions that take into account
  the recruitment, placement and development of
  staff to ensure they meet student needs
  schedules that increase time for both students
  and staff and appropriate social-emotional and
  community-oriented services/supports.

Close/Consolidate Model
Transformation Model
Closing the school and enrolling the students who
attended the school in other, higher-performing
schools in the LEA.

• Develop teacher and leader effectiveness
• Comprehensive instructional programs using
  student achievement data
• Extend learning time and create
  community-oriented schools
• Provide operating flexibility and intensive
  support

10
Definition of SIGs transformation model

• Under SIGs transformation model, a school is
  required to implement all of the following four
  strategies
• 1) Developing teacher and school leader
  effectiveness.
• Use evaluations that are based in significant
  measure on student growth to improve teachers
  and school leaders performance
• Identify and reward school leaders, teachers,
  and other staff who improve student achievement
  outcomes and identify and remove those who do
  not
• Replace the principal who led the school prior to
  commencement of the transformation model
• Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality
  job-embedded professional development
• Implement strategies designed to recruit, place,
  and retain high-quality staff.
• 2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
• Use data to identify and implement
  comprehensive, research-based, instructional
  programs that are vertically aligned from one
  grade to the next as well as aligned with State
  academic standards and
• Differentiate instruction to meet students
  needs.
• 3) Extending learning time and creating
  community-oriented schools.
• Provide more time for students to learn core
  academic content by expanding the school day, the
  school week, or the school year, and increasing
  instructional time for core academic subjects
  during the school day
• Provide more time for teachers to collaborate,
• Provide more time for enrichment activities for
  students
• Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and
  community engagement.

11
SEA Role

• Identify Tier I and Tier II schools in the State
• Determine Tier III criteria
• Establish criteria related to the overall quality
  of the LEAs application and to the LEAs
  capacity to implement fully and effectively the
  required interventions
• Must include the extent to which the LEA analyzed
  the needs of the school and matched an
  intervention to those needs the design of the
  interventions whether the interventions are part
  of a long-term plan to sustain gains in student
  achievement the coordination with other
  resources and whether the LEA will modify its
  practices, if necessary, to be able to implement
  the interventions fully and effectively
• If an LEA lacks the capacity to implement one of
  the four interventions in each of its Tier I
  schools, the SEA would adjust the size of the
  LEAs SIG accordingly.
• Ensure that an LEA with nine or more Tier I and
  Tier II schools does not implement the same model
  in more than 50 of those schools. 
• Monitor the LEAs implementation of interventions
  in and the progress of its participating schools
• Hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable
  annually for meeting, or being on track to meet,
  the LEAs student achievement goals

12
LEA Role

• LEA would be required to
• Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA
  demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity or
  sufficient funds
• Implement one of the four models in Tier I and
  Tier II schools it has the capacity to serve
• An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II
  schools may not implement the same model in more
  than 50 of those schools. 
• Provide adequate resources to each Tier I and
  Tier II school it commits to serve in order to
  implement fully one of the four proposed
  interventions
• Serve Tier I schools before it serves Tier III
  schools
• Establish three-year student achievement goals in
  reading/language arts and mathematics and hold
  each Tier I and Tier II school accountable
  annually for meeting, or being on track to meet,
  those goals

13
Proposed Flexibility

• LEAs serve the number of Tier I and Tier II
  schools they has the capacity to serve
• Tier I and Tier II schools SIG funds are not
  capped, but instead receive amount need to
  successfully implement
• Waivers
• Turnaround or restart schools could receive
  waivers to permit the school to start over
  under NCLBs school improvement timeline and
  waive the choice/SES NCLB provisions.
• SEAs and LEAs will receive waivers to expend the
  funds over three years.
• LEAs may receive a waiver to serve Tier II
  schools
• LEAs may receive waivers to enable Tier I schools
  that are operating targeted assistance programs
  to operate a schoolwide programs

14
Proposed Reporting and Evaluation

• For schools receiving SIG funds, SEAs will be
  required to report annual, school-level data on
  outcome measures and leading indicators
• ED is planning a multi-year evaluation of SIG
  grantees to generate knowledge for the field and
  to help these schools improve their performance
  over time.

15
Planning and Preparing

• Starting now, work with LEAs, unions, IHEs and
  other stakeholders to
• Quickly define and identify Tier I and Tier II
  schools so that LEAs can plan effectively
• Review and eliminate policies and practices that
  are barriers to reform
• Diagnose causes of failure and appropriate
  interventions for lowest performing schools
• Develop or refine process to recruit, screen and
  select necessary outside partners and providers
• Fairly and rigorously evaluate teachers and
  leaders in lowest performing schools
• Recruit and train turnaround and transformation
  principals, school leaders and teachers
• Begin outreach to parents, students and community
  stakeholders
• Allocate existing funds such as 1003(a) and Title
  I A to support planning efforts

16
SIG Comments

• To submit comments on our Notice of proposed
  requirements, go to www.regulations.gov
• or
• send your comments via postal mail, commercial
  delivery, or hand delivery.