School Improvement Grants

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


School Improvement Grants. 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” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of School Improvement Grants

  • *247 schools = 5% of schools in some form of restructuring status673 schools = 5% of schools in some form of improvement status1,000 schools = EDs annual target for turnarounds4,941 schools in some form of restructuring status (planning + implementation)13,457 schools in some form of improvement status under NCLB~3,200 schools in restructuring implementationNote: There are ~1,600 dropout factory schools that are Title I eligible schools.Current NCLB Definition of Struggling SchoolsTitle I schools that fail to make AYP for 2+ consecutive years are in improvementSchools 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 charterContract with private management companyReplace all or most staffState management, or Other major governance restructuring that makes fundamental reforms [most common option taken]

  • ** Data from EDFacts; analyzed by OPEPD

    1521 more schools entered restructuring than exited restructuring over 3 years Schools enter restructuring at much higher rates than they exit

  • *Of the 45 states with schools in restructuring in SY 2006-07, 29 selected other as their restructuring strategySupport teams were the most common mechanism for delivering support to schools identified for improvement in 200607Although 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)

  • *The Center in Education Policy (CEP) analyzed five states restructuring efforts and found that they often choose the least prescriptive option: other (Option 5)

  • 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.


  • *

  • 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

  • Turnaround ModelReplace 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.

    Restart ModelClose 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.

    *Close/Consolidate ModelClosing the school and enrolling the students who attended the school in other, higher-performing schools in the LEA.Transformation ModelDevelop teacher and leader effectivenessComprehensive instructional programs using student achievement data:Extend learning time and create community-oriented schoolsProvide operating flexibility and intensive support

  • *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 developmentImplement 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 studentsProvide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

    4) Providing operating flexibility and sustained support.Give the school sufficient operating flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes; andEnsure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO).

  • Identify Tier I and Tier II schools in the State Determine Tier III criteriaEstablish criteria related to the overall quality of the LEAs application and to the LEAs capacity to implement fully and effectively the required interventionsMust 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 effectivelyIf 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*

  • LEA would be required to:Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity or sufficient fundsImplement one of the four models in Tier I and Tier II schools it has the capacity to serveAn 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 interventionsServe Tier I schools before it serves Tier III schoolsEstablish 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


  • 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

    WaiversTurnaround 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


  • 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.


  • Starting now, work with LEAs, unions, IHEs and other stakeholders to:

    Quickly define and