User:Norwichrhim

'SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS' Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (aka ESEA, reauthorized NCLB in 2002), are grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education  to States which in turn award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEA’s, also known as school districts) for the purpose of supporting focused school improvement efforts (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In 2009, the Obama administration, and specifically Secretary Arne Duncan, challenged the education community to make the low-achieving schools its highest priority. The SIG program reflects the federal government's prioritization of the lowest-achieving public schools. As outlined in the SIG regulations, the Department has articulated very specific parameters regarding the approaches states and districts are to use to drive dramatic improvement. Under guidance promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education, states must distribute 95% of their SIG grant dollars to districts and in turn, districts must prioritize awards to districts based on need as measured by individual schools’ academic performance and concentration of poverty. As outlined in the law, when awarding subgrants to districts, states must “give priority to the local educational agencies with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate — (A) the greatest need for such funds; and (B) the strongest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the goals under school and local educational improvement, corrective action, and restructuring plans under section 1116.”

In 2009 the U.S. Department of Education announced a dramatic increase in the funds that would be provided to SEAs under section 1003(g) while issuing program requirements that charged the SEAs with channeling the funds to LEAs for the “persistently lowest-achieving schools” to support rapid improvement through four relatively prescriptive intervention models:

•	The “turnaround model" in which the LEA replaces the principal and rehires no more than 50% of the staff; gives greater principal autonomy; implements other prescribed and recommended strategies

•	The “restart model” in which the LEA converts or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, charter management organization, or education management organization

•	The “school closure model” in which the LEA closes the school and enrolls the students in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving; and

•	The “transformation model” in which the LEA replaces the principal (except in specified situations); implements a rigorous staff evaluation and development system; institutes comprehensive instructional reform; increases learning time and applies community-oriented school strategies; and provides greater operational flexibility and support for the school.

Under the 2010 guidance relate to 1003(g), states, that is state departments of education, are required to identify their “persistently lowest-achieving” schools. School districts that have schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving apply to the state department of education to obtain School Improvement Grants. As part of their grant application, districts must identify which of the four intervention models (i.e., turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation) they intend to implement in each of the identified lowest-achieving schools. While the regulations require districts to use one of the four models for their lowest performing schools, While the LEAs must apply one of the four intervention models in schools defined as “persistently lowest-achieving,” once the state has allocated adequate resources to these schools, according to the federal requirements, the state can use the remaining School Improvement Grant funds for districts to implement other interventions and supports to improve other Title I (i.e., schools eligible for federal aid under Title I of ESEA (i.e., NCLB) due to high concentrations of poverty) schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

The SIG regulations  define three tiers of schools for purposes of obtaining SIG funds. Each tier represents a level of priority for the SIG funds. In determining which districts receive grants, the state takes into account 1) the number of low-performing schools in the state, 2) the tiers these schools occupy, and 3) the LEA’s capacity to effectively implement the models and strategies outlined in the SIG application. The three tiers of schools identified as lowest achieving, in priority order for assistance through School Improvement Grants are: •	Tier I: Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving.”

•	Tier II: Secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I-Part A funds and are identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving.”

•	Tier III: Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not Tier I schools.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT INTERVENTION MODELS

School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. Other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.

The theory of action underlying the closure model is that school capacity according to multiple measures (e.g., academic performance, school culture/expectations, teacher performance, or facilities) is so low as to preclude a reasonable expectation of dramatic improvement for students currently enrolled. Therefore, closing the school and transitioning students to a higher performing school is the best strategy to dramatically improve their academic outcomes.

Changes required to occur under the turnaround model as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education are:

•	Replace principal

•	Use locally adopted “turnaround” competencies to review and select staff for school (rehire no more than 50% of existing staff)

•	Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staff

•	Select and implement an instructional model based on student needs

•	Provide job-embedded PD designed to build capacity and support staff

•	Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction

•	Provide increased learning time for staff and students

•	Social-emotional and community- oriented services and supports

•	Implement new governance structure

•	Grant operating flexibility to school leader

Schools implementing the turnaround modelmay also implement any of the required or permissible strategies under the Transformation Model

The theory of action underlying the turnaround model is that the existing configuration of leadership and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. Therefore, in order to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change. Under the turnaround model, change entails literal change of personnel as well as behavioral change by the high capacity personnel that remain.

Under the restart model, the district converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. •	A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school.

•	A rigorous review process could take such things into consideration as an applicant’s team, track record, instructional program, model’s theory of action, sustainability.

•	As part of this model, a State must review the process the LEA will use/has used to select the partner.

The theory of action underlying restart, also referred to as “Starting Fresh” as first codified in the charter sector,  is that restart allows a state,   district, or other authorizing entity to break the cycle of low achievement by making deep and fundamental changes to the way the school operates. To realize the full potential of restarting low-achieving schools, states/districts must: •	define explicit expectations for performance;

•	empower high capacity school leaders to make dramatic changes absent avoidable intrusion from external governing bodies (e.g., state, school district, or authorizer);

•	create a positive new school culture that will catalyze success;

•	recruit and retain skilled and committed educators to the schools and classrooms with the greatest need; and

•	satisfy and engage parents in order to keep them in public schools.

Changes required to occur under the transformation modelas outlined by the U.S. Department of Education are: •	Replace principal

•	Implement new evaluation system developed with staff

•	Uses student growth as a significant factor

•	Identify and reward staff who are increasing student outcomes; support and then remove those who are not

•	Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staff

•	Select and implement an instructional model based on student needs

•	Provide job-embedded professional development designed to build capacity and support staff

•	Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction

•	Provide increased learning time

•	Provide ongoing mechanism for community and family engagement

•	Partner to provide social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports

•	Provide sufficient operating flexibility to implement reform

•	Ensure ongoing technical assistance

The theory of action underlying the transformation model is that the existing configuration of leadership and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. As a result, to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change. Under transformation, change entails literal change of leadership as well as behavioral change by instructional personnel.

SELECTING THE "RIGHT" INTERVENTION MODEL

A critical first step in dramatic school improvement is determining which model is the best approach given the local context.

•Determining best fit should be based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead effort

•States, districts and individual schools must commit to making intentional choices and making intentional changes

•School districts must develop and implement a strategic approach to achieve goals given challenges To determine the best model, districts must:

•Develop model and partner/provider profiles

•Develop school profile

•Determine best-fit model and partners/providers for school

•Define roles/develop contracts

•Forge relationships among the key stakeholders charged with implementing and supporting the particular intervention model.

Determining the best fit should be based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead effort States, districts and individual schools must commit to making intentional choices and making intentional changes. School districts must develop and implement a strategic approach to achieve goals given challenges. The first step to successfully implementing a dramatic improvement strategy is to identify the appropriate strategy given the capacity of the school and the district and the supply of potential partners and external providers or both.

School districts must play a central role in supporting change and under the new SIG program, assisting schools to determine the “best intervention strategy. Individual schools are responsible for implementing the change initiative but the district really sets the stage for the entire production. As such, they have a couple of key roles to play. First, from the start, districts must

•	Commit to success

•	Identify schools for targeted intervention

•	Assess capacity in order to determine “best” intervention strategy

•	Cultivate pipeline of highly capable leaders

•	Create conditions for success

External Links [Center on Innovation and Improvement: http://www.centerii.org/] [Center on Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement http://www.centerforcsri.org] [U.S. Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html]  REFEERNECES/RESOURCES U.S. Department of Education (2010). Guidance on School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC. Author. The final requirements for the SIG program, set forth in 74 FR 65618 (Dec. 10, 2009), and amended by the interim final requirements, set forth in 75 FR (Jan. 21, 2010) (final requirements), implement both the requirements of section 1003(g) of the ESEA and the flexibilities for the SIG program provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/03/whats-possible-turning-around-americas-lowest-achieving-schools/

Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds. (2010). Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants Center on Innovation & Improvement. Lincoln, IL.

•	Kowal, J., Hassel, E. A., & Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful school turnarounds: Seven steps for district leaders. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Issue brief retrieved from http://centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf webcast retrieved from: http://www.centerforcsri.org/webcasts/school-turnarounds/

•	The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009). School restructuring, What Works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Points Associates. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/School_Restructuring_Guide.pdf

•	Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The closure model. [audiovisual recording]. Prepared for the National Network of State School Improvement Leaders. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/

•	Center on Innovation & Improvement. (2010) Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants (2010). Available online: http://www.centerii.org/handbook/