School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring

1. School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring Leigh Manasevit, Esq. Steven SpillanBrustein & Manasevit, PLLCFall Forum 2011

2. SIG Funding • FY 2009 ARRA - $3 billion • FY 2010 - $546 million • FY11 – $534 million • FY12: • Proposed $600 million • Senate: $534 million • House: $0

3. SIG Politics • SIG remains a key component of Administration’s reform agenda • SIG funds authorized for use in priority schools through ESEA Waiver Package • House GOP aiming at SIG funds to create offset for increase to ESEA Title I and IDEA Part B • Senate HELP Committee looking to reorganize turnaround model options

4. SIG Resources • Latest updates: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/legislation.html#guidance • “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: February 23, 2011).

5. February 2011 Addendum • Which are available which years?

6. School Improvement Grant (SIG) 1003(g) • An SEA must subgrant at least 95% of the funds it receives to its LEAs for school improvement activities. • In awarding such subgrants, an SEA must give priority to the LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate — • (A) greatest need for such funds; and • (B) 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.

7. SASA Monitoring • Application Process • Implementation • Fiscal • Technical Assistance • Monitoring • Data Collection

8. 2011-2012 Monitoring Schedule

9. SASA On-Site 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

10. Application • When SASA monitors come in, they will look at the SEA’s application process to make sure it is compliant with both the application the SEA submitted to ED, as well as the SIG requirements. • SEA must show that it will work with LEAs to serve persistently lowest achieving schools, and award funds based on LEAs serving schools identified in the Tier System.

11. “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 a 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

12. PLAS: Identification • To identify the PLAS in the State, an SEA must take into account both: • (a) The academic achievement of the • “all students” group in a school • in terms of proficiency on the State’s assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and • (b) The school’s “lack of progress” on those assessments • over a number of years • in the “all students” group

13. PLAS: Listing results

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. PLAS: Newly Eligible Tier I Schools • SEA may identify as a Tier I school an 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 State’s lowest quintile [20%] in reading/language arts and mathematics combined and is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving Tier I school identified by the SEA definition of PLAS

17. Newly Eligible Tier II & III Schools • Tier II: • Same as Tier I, but also includes option for a secondary school that has had a graduation rate less than 60% over a number of years. • Tier III: • Has not made AYP for at least two years • OR • Is in the State’s lowest quintile of performance in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; • AND • Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II school.

18. Implementation • SASA monitoring will look at how each LEA is implementing its SIG grant, focusing on each of the 4 turnaround models.

19. SIG 4 Models: • Turnaround • Restart • Closure • Transformation

20. SIG 4 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

21. SIG 4 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

22. SIG 4 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

23. SIG 4 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.

24. SIG 4 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.

25. SIG 4 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

26. Guidance - Transformation Model • LEAs implementing a transformation model must: • Provide sufficient operational flexibility. • Ensure ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support.

27. 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 this 2011-2012 school year, • Pilot them next year, and • Have them up and running by the 2013-2014 school year. • Asked for application by August 26th, but expecting later submissions.

28. Fiscal • The final requirements apply to FY 09 ARRA funds, FY 2010 funds, as well as FY09 carryover • Final Requirements • Guidance • EDGAR Section 76.710

29. SIG Cross Cutting Issues • If not every Tier I school in a State was served with FY 2009 SIG funds in the 2010–2011 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.

30. 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.

31. SIG Guidance - Supplanting • SIG funds must supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds a school would otherwise receive • SNS applied to increased learning time (A-32a, et seq.). • 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.

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

33. Guidance – Availability of Funds • Absent a waiver, the period of availability for FY 2010 funds expires September 30, 2012. • Funds are available for pre-implementation activities in the 2010 - 2011 school year and one year of full implementation in the 2011-2012 school year.

34. Guidance - Period of Availability • SEA may request a waiver to extend the availability of FY 2010 funds until September 30, 2014. • ED requests that SEA calculates how carryover and current funds work together to serve the maximum number of schools.

35. 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 2011-2012 school year. • May not use the funds to pay for needs assessment.

36. 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?

37. 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.

38. 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?

39. 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?

40. LEA Monitoring • An LEA must establish SEA approved annual goals for student achievement on the State’s 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.

41. LEA Monitoring • The following metrics constitute key indicators for the SIG program, collected by SEA:

42. 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 LEA’s SIG grant with respect to that school? • An SEA has discretion to examine factors such as • School’s 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

43. 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.

44. SIG Guidance - New Lists?

45. 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.

46. 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?

47. SASA Monitoring Findings • SEA has not ensured that LEAs implementing the turnaround model are using locally adopted competencies to screen and rehire no more than 50% of its existing staff or select new staff. • Further Action Required: • SEA must develop and submit a plan to ensure that the LEAs implement the turnaround model, develop and use locally adopted competencies in its hiring process, and that the 50% rule is adhered to. • SEA must provide evidence of the development and use of these locally adopted competencies by LEAs funded in the FY 2010 competition.

48. SASA Monitoring Findings • SEA has not ensured that LEAs implementing the turnaround model are establishing schedules and implementing strategies that increase learning time. • Further Action Required: • SEA must work with its LEAs to ensure that all schools implementing the turnaround or transformation models have significantly increased the number of school hours and that the additional time is consistently used for instructional purposes, or for teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development by the start of the next school year. • SEA must submit documentation for each school using the model, demonstrating the increase in learning time and evidence that the time is consistently used in accordance with the definition of “increased learning time” in the final requirements.

49. SASA Monitoring Findings • SEA did not ensure that the proposed uses of SIG funds proposed by LEAs and schools in their SIG plans are based on each school’s needs analysis. • Further Action Required: • SEA must develop a rubric for the next SIG competition to review LEA and school budget requests and to inform conversations with LEAs and schools about uses of SIG funds to address the unique needs of individual schools in model implementation. • SEA must disseminate this rubric to all its LEAs eligible to apply for SIG funds and submit a copy to ED.

50. SASA Monitoring Findings • ED monitoring team could not make a determination about whether LEA was using SIG funds to supplement, and not supplant, State and local funds. • Further Action Required • SEA must conduct a review of LEA’s 2009 SIG expenditures to determine if the LEAs use of SIG funds was consistent with the supplement, not supplant requirements. • SEA must report its findings to ED upon completion of this review.