Title I 1003(g)
School Improvement Grants
SIG 2
Presented 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
Identification of Schools
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 lowestachieving 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
Identification of Schools
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 I
Tier II
Tier III
lowest performing 5 Title I
schools identified for
improvement
Title I eligible secondary
schools, but not receiving
Title I funds
remaining Title I schools
identified for improvement which
are currently not receiving SIG 1
funding
Watts Elementary
Welch Elementary
Southside K-8
Romney Elementary
Spencer Primary
Richwood High
Cedar Grove Community
Philippi Elementary
Cherry River Elementary
North Jefferson
Keyser Primary/Middle
Bluefield Intermediate
Brookview Elementary
Doddridge County Middle
Clay Middle
Mountain View Elem/Middle
Van Devender Middle
Pt. Pleasant Intermediate
Petersburg 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 FY10
1003(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
Questions
Questions
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 Allocation of Funds
• 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
SEA Allocation of Funds
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
Questions
Questions
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, jobembedded 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
effectiveness
2. Comprehensive instructional reform
strategies
3. Extending learning time and creating
community-oriented schools
4. Providing operating flexibility and
sustained support
27
Transformation Model
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
28
Transformation Model
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 jobembedded professional development
• Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and
retain high-quality staff
29
Transformation Model
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
Transformation Model
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
31
Transformation Model
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
Transformation Model
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
Questions
Questions
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 Evaluation
Leading 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
interventions
Must 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 Roles
An 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
WV Timeline
Dec – Jan
Identify schools
Notify districts
Provide overview
to pertinent
superintendents
and Title I
directors January
14, 2011
Jan - April
Letter of intent to
apply-due March
1, 2011
Technical
assistance for
writing the grantMarch 10, 2011
LEAs write grantsdue to SEA on April
15, 2011
June -
April - May
SEA review of
grant
applications
LEA presentation
of grant
applications
September
Award LEA grants
Begin grant
implementation
in schools
Onsite technical
assistance from
Title I school
improvement
coordinators
47
LUNCH BREAK
48
External
Supporting
Partners
49
Letter of Intent to Apply
Due 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
Identification of Schools
• 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 Index
Poor
1 point
State takeover district
Findings in areas
requiring a repayment of
funds
Satisfactory
2 points
Limited SEA intervention
Findings in areas notedrepayment of funds not
required
Commendable
3 points
No SEA intervention
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.
51-75% of the Title I
schools met AYP.
76-100% of the Title I
schools met AYP.
Criteria
LEA governance
Title I audit reports
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.
Identification of district
leadership team and
assignment of
responsibilities
No district leadership
team nor identified person
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.
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.
Lacks specific
identification of
personnel for the district
leadership team and for
monitoring
implementation.
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.
Points
Earned
No findings in the fiscal
area
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.
A specific district
leadership team is
identified and one or
more persons are assigned
for monitoring
implementation.
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:
PreYear 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total
Turnaround Model
Implementation
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
Questions
Questions
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
57
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 jobembedded professional development
58
Next Steps
• Submit a letter of intent to apply by
March 1, 2011
– Needs assessment and root causes
– District capacity index
– Preliminary Budget
59
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
60
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 scook@access.k12.wv.us
Karen Davies kdavies@access.k12.wv.us
Kenny Moles kmoles@access.k12.wv.us
Erin Sullivan esullivan@access.k12.wv.us
63