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 = ED’s 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 • 1521 more schools entered restructuring than exited restructuring over 3 years • 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 * 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 2006–07 • 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 state’s 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. ED’s 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. ED’s 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 state’s bottom 5% of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (or the state’s bottom 5 lowest-achieving Title I schools, whichever is greater).* Tier II: The state’s 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 6–10% 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 SIG’s transformation model Under SIG’s 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. 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; and Ensure 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).

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 LEA’s application and to the LEA’s 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 LEA’s 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 LEA’s 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 LEA’s 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 NCLB’s 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.