School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring

1

• School Improvement Grants Requirements and
  Monitoring
• Tiffany Winters, Esq.
• twinters_at_bruman.com
• Steven Spillan, Esq.
• sspillan_at_bruman.com Brustein Manasevit,
  PLLCFall Forum 2012

2
Topic List

• SIG Resources
• Background on the SIG Program
• Monitoring the SIG Program
• Application Process
• Implementation
• Fiscal
• Technical Assistance
• Monitoring
• Data Collection
• SIG, Whats Next?

3
School Improvement Grant 1003(g) (SIG) Resources

• Latest updates http//www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/le
  gislation.htmlguidance
• Final requirements for School Improvement Grants
  authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of
  the ESEA, 75 Fed. Reg. 66363 (Oct. 28, 2010).
• Guidance on fiscal year 2010 School Improvement
  Grants under 1003(g) of the Elementary and
  Secondary Education Act of 1965 (U.S. Department
  of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary
  Education March 1, 2012).

4
Background on the SIG Program
5
SIG Funding

• FY 2009 ARRA 3 billion
• FY 2010 546 million
• FY 2011 535 million
• FY 2012 534 million
• FY13 Level Funding vs. Sequestration

6
SIG Awards

• Priority to the LEAs with the lowest-achieving
  schools that demonstrate
• (A) greatest need and
• (B) strongest commitment

7
Continuation Awards

• Ongoing Activities
• An SEA may award SIG funds to an LEA for a Tier I
  or Tier II school that has implemented, in whole
  or in part, one of the models within the last two
  years so that the LEA and school can continue or
  complete the intervention being implemented.

8
SIG Updates?

• SIG funds authorized for use in priority
  schools through ESEA Waiver Package
• Guidance addendum in March 2012
• Congressional Plans?

9
SASA Monitoring of SIG

• Areas Reviewed by SASA
• Application Process
• Implementation
• Fiscal
• Technical Assistance
• Monitoring
• Data Collection

10
2012-2013 Monitoring Schedule

• Current Published Schedule is Obsolete
• No Monitoring Scheduled Past September
• Behind Schedule

11
SASA On-Site General Schedule

• Day 1 School 1 Site Visit
• School Leadership Team Interview
• Teacher/Parent Interview
• Guided Classroom Observations/Conversations with
  students
• Day 2 LEA 1 Interview
• Day 3 School 2 Site Visit
• Same as Day 1
• Day 4 LEA 2 Interview
• Day 5 SEA Interview

12
Monitoring the SIG Application Process
13
Application

• SEAs application process compliant with both the
  State application, requirements.
• SEA RFP must ensure funds serve persistently
  lowest achieving schools
• Serving schools identified in the Tier System.

14
Persistently lowest-achieving schools (PLAS)

• Lowest-achieving 5 (or lowest 5 schools, which
  ever is greater) of Title I schools in
  improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
  or
• High school that has had a graduation rate less
  than 60 and
• Any secondary school that is eligible for, but
  does not receive, Title I funds that meets the
  same requirements as above.

15
PLAS Identification

• To identify the PLAS, SEA must take into account
  both
• (a) Academic achievement of the
• all students group in a school
• in terms of proficiency on the States
  assessments in reading/language arts and
  mathematics combined and
• (b) The schools lack of progress on those
  assessments
• over a number of years
• in the all students group

16
PLAS Listing results
17
PLAS Tier III - Catchall

• Tier III would include every Title I school in
  improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
  that is not a Tier I or Tier II school.

18
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010

• Expands the group of schools that an SEA may
  identify as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools.
• Does not affect the schools an SEA must identify
  as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools.
• Raised the maximum amount from 500,000 to
  2,000,000.

19
PLAS Newly Eligible Tier I Schools

• Elementary school that is eligible for Title I,
  Part A funds and
• Has not made AYP for at least 2 consecutive
  years or
• Is in the States lowest quintile 20 in
  reading/language arts and mathematics combined
  and
• Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving
  Tier I school

20
Newly Eligible Tier II Schools

• Secondary school that is eligible for Title I,
  Part A funds and
• Has not made AYP for at least 2 consecutive
  years or
• Is in the States lowest quintile 20 in
  reading/language arts and mathematics combined
  and
• Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving
  Tier I school or
• A secondary school that has had a graduation rate
  less than 60 over a number of years.

21
Newly Eligible Tier III Schools

• A school that is eligible for Title I, Part A
  funds
• Has not made AYP for at least two years or
• Is in the States lowest quintile 20 of
  performance in reading/language arts and
  mathematics combined and
• Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or
  Tier II school.

22
Annual Lists?
23
Monitoring SIG Implementation
24
Implementation

• SASA monitoring will look at how each LEA is
  implementing its SIG grant, focusing on each of
  the 4 turnaround models.
• Focus is on LEAs, but SEAs will bear the burden
  of noncompliance.

25
SIG 4 Models

• Restart
• Closure
• Transformation
• Turnaround

26
SIG Models Restart

• School converts or closes and reopens under a CMO
  or EMO
• Considerable flexibility
• Must enroll any former student who wishes to
  attend the school
• May require agreements covering behavior,
  attendance, or other commitments related to
  academic performance
• May not require students to meet academic
  standards prior to enrolling

27
SIG Models Closure

• LEA closes a school and enrolls students in
  higher achieving schools in the LEA.
• Guidance Critical to engage families and
  community early, selecting the appropriate
  improvement model to assure a smooth transition
  for students and their families at the receiving
  schools.

28
Guidance Unauthorized Closure

• If an LEA closes a Tier I or II school after
  implementing any model other than Closure?
• SEA has the discretion to terminate and rescind.
• If SEA accepts new applications, LEA must meet
  all Closure model requirements.
• ED allows for this circumstance, but notes that
  such an event should be VERY rare.

29
SIG Models Transformation

• IMPORTANT
• An LEA with 9 or more Tier I and Tier II schools
  may NOT implement the transformation model in
  more than 50 of those schools.
• Guidance If an LEA is already exceeding the cap,
  it may not implement the transformation model in
  any additional schools.

30
SIG Models Transformation

• 5 Required Activities
• Replace the principal
• Teacher/Principal evaluations
• Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and
  other staff
• Professional Development
• Implement strategies to recruit, place, and
  retain staff

31
Guidance - Transformation Model

• LEAs implementing a transformation model must
• Provide sufficient operational flexibility.
• Ensure ongoing, intensive technical assistance
  and related support.

32
2011 Transformation Waiver Teacher Evaluations

• August 12, 2011 ED letter to Chiefs
• Invites those LEAs implementing a transformation
  model extra time to develop and implement
  teacher evaluation systems.
• Proposed waiver would allow LEAs to
• Develop the evaluation systems in the 2011-2012
  school year,
• Pilot them next year (2012-2013), and
• Have them up and running by the 2013-2014 school
  year.
• Asked for application by August 26th, but
  expecting later submissions.

33
Transformation Replace Principals

• CEP Report
• 15 out of 45 States using the transformation
  model saw removing the principals as a key
  element of the turnaround.
• 16 States said that the results varied from
  school to school.
• One State said it didn't make a difference, while
  three others thought it was too soon to say.

34
SIG Models Turnaround

• 9 required elements
• Replace the principal
• Use locally adopted competencies to measure the
  turnaround staff effectiveness (50 rule)
• Implement strategies designed to recruit, place,
  and retain the appropriate staff
• Provide ongoing, high-quality job-embedded
  professional development
• Adopt new governance structure

35
SIG Models Turnaround

• Use data to identify and implement an
  instructional program
• Promote the continuous use of student data
• Establish schedules and implement strategies that
  provide increased learning time
• Provide appropriate social-emotional and
  community-oriented services and supports for
  students

36
Turnaround Replace Teachers

• CEP Report
• Highly unpopular with unions
• 8 of the 46 States implementing the turnaround
  model said the process helped pinpoint and enlist
  effective teachers.

37
Increased Learning Time

• Reports show that LEAs are struggling with this
  requirement.
• No uniformity among districts in implementing
  increased learning time.
• What counts as increased learning time?

38
Increased Learning Time

• CEP Report
• Maryland schools were spending the extra time
  primarily on the students who are struggling the
  most academically.
• Michigan schools were pushing to extend the
  school day for all students, with mixed results.
  
• Idaho State and local officials did not see it as
  an essential piece of their school improvement
  formula.

39
Increased Learning Time

• Definition increasing the length of the school
  day, week, or year to significantly increase the
  total number of school hours so as to include
  additional time for
• Instruction in core academic subjects
• Instruction in other subjects and provision of
  enrichment activities and
• Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in
  professional development within and across grades
  and subjects.

40
Increased Learning Time

• March 2012 Guidance
• LEA must use a longer school day, week, or year
  to provide additional time for all three types of
  activities.
• Focus should be on instruction of core academic
  subjects, and time for teacher collaboration
  planning.

41
Increased Learning Time

• Can include before- or after- school activities.
• Activities must be available to all students.
• March 2012 Guidance
• All students must have the opportunity to
  participate.
• School must have the capacity to serve any and
  all students.

42
SIG Models Criticisms

• Models do not address school climate and culture.
• Ignores non-academic challenges, such as
  attendance and behavior. 
• Any focus on non-academic concerns often get in
  the way of SIG compliance.

43
Monitoring SIG Fiscal Requirements
44
Fiscal

• Final Requirements
• Guidance
• OMB Circular A-87
• EDGAR Section 76.710

45
SIG Fiscal

• SEAs
• Ensuring proper LEA use of funds?
• Only taking 5 for State admin?
• Ensuring adequate funds for three year grants?
• LEAs
• How are you spending funds?
• Ensuring funds are supporting SIG activities?

46
SIG Cross Cutting Issues

• If not every Tier I school in a State was served
  with FY 2009 SIG funds in the 20102011 school
  year, an SEA must carry over 25 of those funds,
  combine them with FY 2010 SIG funds, and award
  those funds to LEAs in the same manner as FY 2009
  SIG funds are awarded.
• If a State does not serve every Tier I school,
  but needs more than 75 to fund all LEAs that it
  committed to serve contact ED prior to issuing
  grants.

47
SIG District-wide Activities

• An LEA may use SIG funds to pay for
  district-level activities
• Support implementation of one of the four school
  intervention models in each Tier I and Tier II
  school it commits to serve, and
• Support other school improvement strategies in
  the Tier III schools it commits to serve.
• An LEA may not use SIG funds to support
  district-level activities for schools that are
  not receiving SIG funds.

48
SIG Guidance - Supplanting

• SIG funds must supplement, and not supplant,
  non-Federal funds a school would otherwise
  receive
• SNS applied to increased learning time
• Costs must
• Be directly attributable to the implementation of
  the model,
• Be reasonable and necessary, and
• Exceed the cost the district would have incurred
  in the absence of its implementation model.
• This all requires documentation.

49
SIG Guidance - Comparability

• LEA is obligated to ensure that all of its Title
  I schools are comparable to its non-Title I
  schools.

50
Guidance Improvement Timeline

• Receiving a SIG award restarts improvement
  timeline.
• Regardless of where a school is in the
  improvement timeline, the clock restarts.
• A 2012-2013 grantee could enter the first year of
  improvement (ESEA 1116(b)) --would be 2014-2015.

51
Guidance Pre-Implementation

• LEA may use carryover/current funds prior to full
  implementation.
• Enables an LEA to prepare for full implementation
  of a school intervention model at the start of
  the next school year.
• May not use the funds to pay for needs
  assessment.

52
SIG Guidance Pre-Implementation

• SEA Evaluation Criteria
• Directly related to the selected model?
• Reasonable and necessary?
• Designed to address a specific need?
• Represent meaningful change to improve student
  achievement?
• Research-based?
• Represent a significant reform that goes beyond
  the basic educational program?

53
Pre-Implementation

• Allowable Activities
• Family and Community Engagement
• Rigorous Review of External Providers
• Staffing
• Instructional Programs
• Professional Development and Support
• Preparation for Accountability Measures

54
Monitoring SIG Technical Assistance
55
Technical Assistance

• SASA monitors will look at what types of TA the
  SEA is providing, particularly with respect to
• Conducting the needs-assessment
• Preparing and amending LEA applications
• Preparing and amending budgets
• Selecting the intervention model for each school
• Also how the SEA is determining what types of TA
  to provide and to whom?
• How frequently is the SEA providing technical
  assistance?

56
Technical Assistance at LEA Level

• Has SEA been providing adequate TA?
• How has the LEA supported, how does it currently
  support, and how does it plan to support schools
  in implementing the SIG program?

57
LEA Monitoring

• An LEA must establish SEA approved annual goals
  for student achievement on the States
  assessments
• in both reading/language arts and mathematics
  that it will use.
• to monitor each Tier I and Tier II school that
  receives SIG funds.
• The determination of whether a school meets the
  student achievement goals established by the LEA
  is in addition to the determination of whether
  the school makes AYP as required by section
  1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.

58
LEA Monitoring

• The following metrics constitute key indicators
  for the SIG program, collected by SEA

(1) Number of minutes within the school year (2) Student participation rate on State assessments in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by student subgroup (3) Dropout rate (4) Student attendance rate (5) Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early-college high schools, or dual enrollment classes (6) Discipline incidents (7) Truants (8) Distribution of teachers by performance level on an LEAs teacher evaluation system and (9) Teacher attendance rate.
59
SEA Renewal

• If a Tier I or Tier II school does not meet the
  annual student achievement goals established by
  the LEA, may an SEA renew the LEAs SIG grant
  with respect to that school?
• An SEA has discretion to examine factors, such as
• Schools progress on the leading indicators in
  section III of the final requirements, or
• Fidelity with which it is implementing the model
• See section II.C(a)(ii) of the final requirements
  (I-16)
• Renewal based on ALL factors

60
Guidance Failure to Implement

• LEA Unable to Implement Model
• LEA must notify SEA IMMEDIATELY.
• LEA must cease obligating SIG funds in that
  school.
• If the LEA does NOT want to try a different
  model, SEA rescinds remaining funds and combines
  with carryover.
• If the LEA does want to try another model, SEA
  has discretion to end the award, or ask LEA to
  reapply.

61
Monitoring SIG Data Collection
62
Data Collection

• What process is the SEA/LEA using to collect data
  on the leading indicators?
• How is the SEA/LEA keeping track of or managing
  this data?
• Is the SEA/LEA collecting any additional data
  beyond that required by the SIG program?
• Any plans for using data aside from reporting
  requirements?
• Have LEAs begun collecting any benchmark or
  interim data on the leading indicators? If so,
  what does the data show thus far?

63
Data Collection

• SEA may add additional leading indicators
• SEA may not deny LEA renewal request based on
  failure to make progress on SEA-added indicator,
  providing LEA has made progress
  federally-mandated indicators

64
SIG Whats Next?
65
SIG Whats Next?

• FY 2013 Funding Fight
• SIG remains top Administration priority
• House GOP wants to eliminate funding
• Skeptical of the turnaround models
• Senate Democrats willing to keep funding, but
  offering more models

66
SIG Whats Next

• ESEA Waiver Package
• Flexibility to Support School Improvement An
  SEA would have flexibility to allocate ESEA
  section 1003(a) funds to an LEA in order to serve
  any priority or focus school, if the SEA
  determines such schools are most in need of
  additional support.
• Flexibility to Use SIG Funds to Support Priority
  Schools An SEA would have flexibility to award
  SIG funds available under ESEA section 1003(g) to
  an LEA to implement one of the four SIG models in
  any priority school.

67
SIG Whats Next

• ESEA Waiver Package Priority School
• Among the lowest 5 of Title I schools in the
  State
• A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high
  school with a graduation rate less than 60 over
  a number of years or
• A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program
  that is using SIG funds to implement a school
  intervention model.

68
SIG Whats Next

• Senate ESEA Reauthorization
• Two Additional Turnaround Models
• Strategic Staffing Strategy LEA must
• (I) replace the principal if he/she has served
  more than 2 years
• (II) allow the principal to staff the school with
  a turnaround team of his/her choosing
• (III) provide teacher and principal incentives.
• Whole School Reform Strategy - must include a
  partnership with a strategy developer offering a
  school reform program
• Based on at least a moderate level of evidence
  that the program will have a statistically
  significant effect on student outcomes

69

• QUESTIONS?

70
Disclaimer

• This presentation is intended solely to provide
  general information and does not constitute legal
  advice.  Attendance at the presentation or later
  review of these printed materials does not create
  an attorney-client relationship with Brustein
  Manasevit, PLLC.  You should not take any action
  based upon any information in this presentation
  without first consulting legal counsel familiar
  with your particular circumstances.