close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

School Improvement Grants

код для вставкиСкачать
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
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.
Current NCLB Definition of Struggling
Schools
пѓ� Title I schools that fail to make AYP
for 2+ consecutive years are “in
improvement”
пѓ� Schools that fail to make AYP after 4
years are in “corrective action”
пѓ� 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]
2
In recent years, performance of most schools in
restructuring has not improved significantly
пѓ� Schools enter restructuring at much higher rates than they exit
1521 more schools entered restructuring
than exited restructuring over 3 years
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2006-07
2007-08
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
3
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
пѓ� Support teams were the most common mechanism for delivering support to
schools identified for improvement in 2006–07
пѓ� 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)
4
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)
5
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.
6
ED’s proposed definition of struggling schools: bottom
5% based on performance + growth
пѓ� 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)
пѓ�
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
7
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
8
Schools receiving SIG funds can select between
four different models
Turnaround Model
Restart Model
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 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 Model
Transformation Model
Closing the school and enrolling the students who attended
the school in other, higher-performing schools in the LEA.
1. Develop teacher and leader effectiveness
2. Comprehensive instructional programs using student
achievement data:
3. Extend learning time and create community-oriented
schools
4. Provide operating flexibility and intensive support
9
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.
A. Use evaluations that are based in significant measure on student growth to improve teachers’ and school leaders’ performance;
B. Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who improve student achievement outcomes and identify and
remove those who do not;
C. Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model;
D. Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development
E. Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain high-quality staff.
2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
A. 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
B. Differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs.
3) Extending learning time and creating community-oriented schools.
A. 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;
B. Provide more time for teachers to collaborate,
C. Provide more time for enrichment activities for students
D. Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.
4) Providing operating flexibility and sustained support.
A. 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
B. 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).
10
SEA Role
1) Identify Tier I and Tier II schools in the State
2) Determine Tier III criteria
3) 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.
4) Monitor the LEA’s implementation of interventions in and the progress of its
participating schools
5) Hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable annually for meeting, or being on
track to meet, the LEA’s student achievement goals
11
LEA Role
LEA would be required to:
1) Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient
capacity or sufficient funds
2) 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.
3) 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
4) Serve Tier I schools before it serves Tier III schools
5) 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
12
Proposed Flexibility
пѓ� 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
пѓ� 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
13
Proposed Reporting and Evaluation
пѓ� For schools receiving SIG
funds, SEAs will be required to
report annual, school-level
data on outcome measures
and leading indicators
пѓ� 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.
14
Planning and Preparing
Starting now, work with LEAs, unions, IHEs and other stakeholders to:
пѓ� Quickly define and identify Tier I and Tier II schools so that LEAs can plan effectively
пѓ� Review and eliminate policies and practices that are barriers to reform
пѓ� Diagnose causes of failure and appropriate interventions for lowest performing
schools
пѓ� Develop or refine process to recruit, screen and select necessary outside partners
and providers
пѓ� Fairly and rigorously evaluate teachers and leaders in lowest performing schools
пѓ� Recruit and train turnaround and transformation principals, school leaders and
teachers
пѓ� Begin outreach to parents, students and community stakeholders
пѓ� Allocate existing funds such as 1003(a) and Title I A to support planning efforts
15
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.
16
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
1
Размер файла
1 250 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа