title i 1003(g) school improvement grants sig 2

Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants

SIG 2Presented by:

Title I School Improvement Coordinators

January 14, 2011

Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants 2

• Overview of SIG program• Identification of persistently lowest performing

schools• SEA allocation of funds• Intervention models for Tier I and Tier II schools• SEA and LEA roles• Timeline• Reporting requirements• LEA letter of Intent to Apply• Questions and next steps

2

Overview of SIG Program

• SIG 1 – Tier I = 4 schools received grants– Tier II = 11 schools received grants– Tier III = no schools received grants

• LEAs applied on behalf of schools– Over $15 million was awarded

• Required to carry over 25%• Carryover funds will be combined with

EDFY 10 1003(g) funds for the SIG 2 3

Funding for SIG 2

• EDFY 10-$3,324,544 • EDFY 09 carryover-$5,201,304 • Districts will receive funding through a

competitive grant process.• Priority for funding is given to Tier I

and Tier II schools before Tier III schools may receive funds.

4

Identification of Schools

When identifying the lowest achieving schools, the state must take into account both—• Academic achievement of the “all students”

group in terms of proficiency in both reading/language arts and mathematics

• Lack of progress on state assessments over several years in the “all” students” group

5


Tier I schools - Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that—

• Is among the lowest achieving five percent of Title I ‐schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State or the five lowest-achieving such schools (whichever number of schools is greater); or

• Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years.

Note: West Virginia identified the five lowest-achieving of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for Tier I. These are five different schools than those identified in SIG 1.

6


Tier II schools - Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds that—

• Is among the lowest achieving five percent of ‐secondary schools or the five lowest achieving ‐secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds; or

• Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years.

Tier III schools - Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I

7

Identification of SIG 2 Eligible Schools

Tier Ilowest performing 5 Title I

schools identified for improvement

Tier IITitle I eligible secondary

schools, but not receiving Title I funds

Tier IIIremaining Title I schools

identified for improvement which are currently not receiving SIG 1

funding

Watts ElementaryWelch ElementarySouthside K-8Romney ElementarySpencer Primary

Richwood High Cedar Grove CommunityPhilippi ElementaryCherry River ElementaryNorth JeffersonKeyser Primary/MiddleBluefield IntermediateBrookview ElementaryDoddridge County MiddleClay MiddleMountain View Elem/MiddleVan Devender MiddlePt. Pleasant IntermediatePetersburg Elementary

Purpose for the 1003(g)School Improvement Funds

Provide funds to LEAs that:• Demonstrate the greatest need for funds• Demonstrate the strongest commitment to use the funds to turn around their persistently lowest achieving schools and raise student achievement in those schools

9

Goal for FY101003(g) School Improvement Funds

Target majority of funds to each state’s most persistently lowest achieving schools to significantly transform school culture and improve indicators of student success.

10

QuestionsQuestions

11

SEA Allocation of Funds

• SEA must apportion school improvement funds to provide funding for three years – SY11-12– SY12-13– SY13-14

• LEA is eligible to apply for SIG funds if it – Receives Title I, Part A funds– Has one or more schools that are eligible to

receive SIG funds as identified by the SEA

12

SEA Allocation of Funds• Competitive grants-SEA will prioritize school

improvement grants to LEAs if sufficient school improvement funds are not available for all the schools for which the LEA applies to serve

• $50,000 to 2 million per year for each Tier I and Tier II school

• $50,000 minimum for Tier III schools

13


• SEA must give priority to LEAs that apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools

• SEA may not award funds to any LEA for Tier III schools until the SEA has awarded funds to serve fully, all Tier I and Tier II schools that its LEAs commit to serve.

• If an SEA has provided a SIG grant to each LEA that requested funds to serve a Tier I or Tier II school, the SEA may award remaining school improvement funds to LEAs that seek to serve Tier III schools.

• Only an LEA that has no Tier I schools, may commit to serving only its Tier III schools

14


The SEA will use the following to prioritize among Tier III schools:

• Tier III schools selecting one of the four intervention models will be given first priority

• The second priority will be given to schools further along in school improvement sanctions and they will be considered for higher levels of funding

• Higher point total received on the LEA application

15

QuestionsQuestions

16

SIG Intervention Models Tier I and Tier II Schools

School closure Turnaround

Restart Transformation

17

School Closure Model

• School closes and students are enrolled in another school in the LEA that is higher achieving– Schools should be within reasonable

proximity to the closed school– Charter schools (not applicable for WV)– New schools for which achievement data

is not yet available

18

School Closure Model

West Virginia applicability• Policy 6204 gives the State

Superintendent of Schools the power to declare that there is a need for an emergency school closure

• This power has not been used aggressively in the past, but WV will consider using this authority if closing a school within a district is the most appropriate intervention for the students at the school and the community.

19

Turnaround Model

• Replace the principal (July 2008)• Measure the effectiveness of staff who can

work within the turnaround environment– Screen all existing staff and rehire no

more than 50 percent– Select new staff for the other 50%

• Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students

20

Turnaround Model

• Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development

• Adopt a new governance structure which may include – requiring the school to report to a new “turnaround

office” in the LEA or SEA– hire a “turnaround leader” who reports directly to

the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer– enter into a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA

to obtain added flexibility in exchange for greater accountability

21

Turnaround Model

• Implement an instructional program that is vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards

• Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction (balanced assessment system)

22

Turnaround Model

• Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time as defined in the final regulations – minimum increase of 300 hours per year for

core academic subjects– Longer school day, week, or year schedule

• Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students

23

Turnaround Model West Virginia Applicability• School closure and the turnaround intervention

options are complicated by the rural nature of the state– More than half of all West Virginia schools are in rural areas – Approximately 40 percent of students statewide are from

rural areas, more than double the national average of 19.4 percent

– 25 of the 55 districts in West Virginia support only one high school

– School closure may not be a viable option, because students will not have another school to attend

– Difficult to replace the principal and more than fifty percent of the staff in districts that are currently struggling to fill all of their teaching positions with highly qualified teachers

24

Restart Model• LEA 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 rigorous review process could take such things into

consideration as an applicant’s team, track record, instructional program, model’s theory of action, sustainability

– SEA must review the process the LEA will use/has used to select the partner

• A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school 25

Restart Model

West Virginia Applicability This option is not currently available in

WV because there is not a charter school law. If a charter school law is passed in the future, this may be an option for struggling schools in WV.

26

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

effectiveness2. Comprehensive instructional reform

strategies3. Extending learning time and creating

community-oriented schools4. Providing operating flexibility and

sustained support27

28


Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness

• Use rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation systems that take into account data on student growth

• Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who have increased student achievement and the graduation rate

29


Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness

• Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model (Flexibility is granted if the principal was replaced no later than the start of the 2008-2009 school year.)

• Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development

• Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain high-quality staff


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

• Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs

30


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 engagement31


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

• 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).

32


West Virginia Applicability This option is available in WV.

LEAs having nine or more schools in Tier I and Tier II, may not implement this model in more than one half of the eligible schools.

At this time, there are not more than nine low-achieving Title I schools in any district in WV, so the federal restriction on the use of the transformation model does not apply.

33

QuestionsQuestions

34

Proposed Flexibility - Waivers

• Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act to extend the period of availability of SIG funds for the SEA and all of its LEAs to September 30, 2014

• Section1116(b)(12) of the ESEA to permit LEAs to allow their Tier I schools that will implement a turnaround or restart model to “start over” in the school improvement timeline.

35

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.

36

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.

37

Proposed Reporting and EvaluationLeading Indicators for Which Schools Receiving

SIG Funds will be Held Accountable

• Number of instructional minutes within a school year

• Student participation rate on State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics by subgroup

• Dropout rate• Student attendance rate • Teacher attendance rate

• Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework or dual enrollment classes

• Discipline incidents• Truants• Distribution of teachers by

performance level on an LEA’s teacher evaluation system

38

SEA Roles

• Identify Tier I, Tier II and Tier III schools in the State

• Write and submit the application to ED to receive the 1003(g) funds

39

SEA Roles

• 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 interventionsMust include the extent to which the LEA:– analyzed the needs of the school – matched an intervention to those needs– designed the interventions as part of a long-term

plan to sustain gains in student achievement– coordinated efforts with other resources– modified its practices, if necessary, to be able to

implement the interventions fully and effectively

40

SEA Roles

• 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 (continued)– 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 grant accordingly.

– Ensure that an LEA with nine or more eligible Tier I and Tier II schools does not implement the same model in more than 50% of those schools.

41

SEA Roles

• Monitor the LEA’s implementation of interventions in and the progress of its participating schools

• Hold each Tier I, Tier II and Tier III school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, the LEA’s student achievement goals

42

SEA Roles

An SEA’s SIG grant award to an LEA must:• Include not less than $50,000 or more than

$2,000,000 per year for each participating school• Provide sufficient SIG funds to meet, as closely as

possible, the LEA’s budget request for each Tier I and Tier II school as well as for serving participating Tier III schools

• Include requested funds for LEA level activities that ‐support implementation of the school intervention models

43

SEA RolesAn SEA’s SIG grant award to an LEA must:• Apportion FY 2010 SIG funds so as to provide

funding to LEAs over three years if the SEA or LEA has requested a waiver to extend the period of availability.

• An SEA that does not have sufficient SIG funds to allow each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II school to implement fully its selected intervention model may take into account the distribution of Tier I and Tier II schools among such LEAs in the State to ensure that Tier I and Tier II schools throughout the State can be served

44

LEA Roles

LEA is required to:• Agree to serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the

LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity or sufficient funds

• Submit a letter of intent to apply for the 1003(g) school improvement funds

• Submit a competitive application to the SEA for the 1003(g) school improvement funds

• Implement one of the four models in Tier I and Tier II schools it has the capacity to serve

45

LEA Roles

LEA is required to: (continued)• 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, Tier II and Tier III school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, those goals

46

47

WV Timeline

Dec – JanIdentify schools Notify districts

Provide overview to pertinent

superintendents and Title I

directors January 14, 2011

Jan - AprilLetter of intent to apply-due March

1, 2011Technical

assistance for writing the grant-March 10, 2011

LEAs write grants-due to SEA on April

15, 2011

April - MaySEA review of

grant applications

LEA presentation of grant

applications

June - September

Award LEA grantsBegin grant

implementation in schools

Onsite technical assistance from

Title I school improvement coordinators

LUNCH BREAK

48

49

External Supporting

Partners

Letter of Intent to ApplyDue to SEA March 1st

• Identify schools the district intends to serve

• Prepare a needs assessment for all schools the district intends to serve

• Determine the LEA capacity based on the District Capacity Index

• Submit a preliminary budget for 3 years for each school the district intends to serve

50


• Identify schools the district intends to serve and the selected intervention model for each Tier I and Tier II school

• Identify schools the district intends to serve and selected intervention strategies for each Tier III school

51

Needs Assessment

1. Analyze data– Overview of school AYP data– External trend data– Student achievement data– Other student outcome data– Analysis of culture, conditions and practices

2. Determine root causes– Administrators and teachers– Curriculum and materials– Master schedule, classroom schedules and classroom

management/discipline– Students and parents

52

Capacity IndexCriteria Poor

1 point Satisfactory 2 points

Commendable 3 points

Points Earned

LEA governance State takeover district Limited SEA intervention No SEA intervention

Title I audit reports Findings in areas requiring a repayment of funds

Findings in areas noted-repayment of funds not required

No findings in the fiscal area

LEA overall achievement ranking

Bottom (5% = 3 districts)

Middle (70% = 38 districts)

Top (25% = 14 districts)

Approval of the district strategic plan by the SEA (entire plan, not just the Title I section)

Not approved by the SEA Approved by the SEA with revisions

Approved by the SEA without revisions

Percentage of Title I schools that met AYP in the last testing cycle

0-50% of the Title I schools met AYP.



Development of schools as professional learning communities

The school has not yet begun to address the practice of a PLC or an effort has been made to address the practice of PLCs, but has not yet begun to impact a critical mass of staff members.

A critical mass of staff has begun to engage in PLC practice. Members are being asked to modify their thinking as well as their traditional practice. Structural changes are being met to support the transition.

The practice of PLCs is deeply embedded in the culture of the school. It is a driving force in the daily work of the staff. It is deeply internalized and staff would resist attempts to abandon the practice.

Identification of district leadership team and assignment of responsibilities

No district leadership team nor identified person assigned for monitoring implementation

Lacks specific identification of personnel for the district leadership team and for monitoring implementation.

A specific district leadership team is identified and one or more persons are assigned for monitoring implementation.

School Leadership Team

School leadership team members are identified on the district and school level, but little evidence is produced to document whether the requirements of NCLB Sections 1116 and 1117 have been met.

School leadership team members are identified on the district and school level and evidence is produced to document whether the requirements of NCLB Sections 1116 and 1117 have been met.

School leadership team members are identified on the district and school level and include a wide range of stakeholders Evidence is produced to document whether the requirements of NCLB Sections 1116 and 1117 have been exceeded.

Total Points

53

Preliminary Budget

Complete a separate table for each Tier I school or Tier II school. Estimate the amount of funds required to implement the intervention model selected for each school.

School Name: Tier: Turnaround Model Pre-

Implemen-tation

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Replace the principal Use locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment

Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent of existing staff

Select new staff Implement strategies to recruit, place and retrain staff

• Estimate the amount of funds it will take to implement each of the steps of the turnaround model.

• No cost associated with a particular step just put “0”

54

Pre-implementation Activities

• Family and Community Engagement– Community meetings– Student and parent surveys

• Instructional Programs– Summer school programs– Instructional materials

• Professional Development and Support

55

QuestionsQuestions

56

Expectations for Schools Receiving 1003(g) SIG Funds

• Select one of the four ED intervention models to fully implement (Tier I and Tier II schools)

• Select a component or components of one of the intervention models on which to focus the school improvement efforts (Tier III schools)

• Develop a focused, quality grant

5757

Expectations for Schools Receiving 1003(g) SIG Funds

• Replace the principal prior to the start of the 11-12 school year (if a Tier I or Tier II school)

• Become an “early adopter” of the revised educator performance evaluation that takes into account data on student growth

• Organize the school staff into collaborative teams and provide high quality job-embedded professional development

5858

Next Steps

• Submit a letter of intent to apply by March 1, 2011– Needs assessment and root causes– District capacity index– Preliminary Budget

5959

Next Steps

• Assemble a group of relevant stakeholders to provide input to the district team during the grant writing process

• Share the needs assessment with the stakeholders and get input for selecting activities to address the root causes and deficiencies

• Brainstorm activities and timelines to address the components of the intervention model that will be implemented for each Tier I and Tier II school

• Brainstorm activities and timelines to address the specific section of one of the intervention models that will serve as the focus for Tier III schools will be addressed

6060

Timelines• November 30 -SEA submission of application to ED • Early January -approval of application from ED• January 14 -provide initial information on SIG 2• March 1 -Letter of Intent due to the Office of Title I• March 10 -grant writing session for SIG 2• April 15 -SIG 2 grant applications due to Office of

Title I• April 18-29 -SEA review of SIG 2 applications• May 9-13 -SIG 2 grant presentations to the SEA• June 1 -issue SIG 2 grants

Final Thoughts

Things I Understand Questions to be Clarified

62

SEA Contact Information

Title I School Improvement Coordinators

Suzette Cook [email protected] Davies [email protected] Moles [email protected]

Erin Sullivan [email protected]

63

mailto:[email protected]




title i 1003(g) school improvement grants sig 2

Documents

total schools

different schools

lowest achieving schools

sig round

g grant

fy09 sig

g funds

g carryover