Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants Presented by: WVDE Title I Staff March 9, 2010

1. Title I 1003(g) School Improvement GrantsPresented by:WVDE Title I StaffMarch 9, 2010

2. Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants • Statute and rational for changes to 1003(g) school improvement grant requirement • Coordination of grants • Identification of persistently lowest performing schools • Allocation of funds • Intervention Models for Tier I and Tier II Schools • SEA and LEA roles • Timeline • LEA letter of intent to apply • Questions and discussion

3. Statute and Rationale for Change • Section 1003(g) of ESEA authorizes the Secretary to award school improvement grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) - (original legislation) • First funded in FY 2007 • Increase in funding appropriated from $125 million to $545 million (including ARRA funds) • Section 1003(g) of ESEA-Subgrants to LEAs to assist Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010-expands the number of schools eligible to receive SIG funding • Section 1003(g) of ESEA - Grant awards to be not less than $50,000 & no more than $500,000 for each participating school Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 increased the total available grant award to a maximum of 2 million dollars per year for each Tier I and Tier II school. • SEA must give priority to LEAs with lowest- achieving schools that demonstrate • Greatest Need • Strongest Commitment

4. Rationale for Change Nationally, over 13,000 schools are currently under some form of improvement status • Current NCLB Definition of Struggling Schools • Title I schools that fail to make AYP for 2+ consecutive years are “in improvement” • Schools that fail to make AYP after 4 years are in “corrective action” • 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] 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.

5. Rationale for Change In recent years, performance of most schools in restructuring has not improved significantly • Schools enter restructuring at much higher rates than they exit • 1521 more schools entered restructuring than exited restructuring over 3 years • 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

6. Rationale for Change States traditionally select the least rigorous (if any) intervention option for struggling schools • 45 states with schools in restructuring 29 selected “other” as the restructuring strategy • District support teams-most common mechanism for delivering support to schools identified for improvement • 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

7. Coordination of Grants

8. 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

9. 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 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. 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

10. Identification of SchoolsAdditional Schools that the SEA MAY Add Tier I: Title I eligible elementary schools that are no higher achieving than the highest‐achieving school that is defined as a “persistently lowest‐achieving school” in Tier I and that are: • in the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or • have not made AYP for two consecutive years. Tier II: Title I eligible secondary schools that are (1) no higher achieving than the highest‐achieving school that is defined as a “persistently lowest‐achieving school” in Tier II or (2) high schools that have had a graduation rate below 60 percent over a number of years and that are: • in the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or • have not made AYP for two consecutive years. Tier III: Title I eligible schools that do not meet the requirements to be in Tier I or Tier II and that are: • in the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or • have not made AYP for two years.

11. 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

12. Goal for FY09 and ARRA 1003(g) School Improvement Funds Target majority of funds to each state’s most persistently lowest achieving schools to dramatically transform school culture and increase student outcomes.

14. SEA Allocation of Funds • SEA must apportion school improvement funds to provide funding for three years • SY10-11 • SY11-12 • SY12-13 • 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

15. 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-(unless a lesser amount is needed) • $50,000 minimum for Tier III schools

16. 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 unless and until the SEA has awarded funds to serve fully, throughout the period of availability, all Tier I and Tier II schools across the State 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, including LEAs that apply to serve only Tier III schools.

17. SEA Allocation of Funds • Priority will be given first to LEAs with Tier I and Tier II schools • If grant funds are not sufficient to serve all Tier I and Tier II schools for which LEAs apply then the following criteria will be utilized to determine which LEAs have the greatest need and strongest commitment: • one or more schools in Tier I or Tier II • a total score of twenty or more points on the capacity index • inclusion of a signed assurance statement that the LEA will fully implement one of the rigorous intervention models • LEAs with schools in the bottom 5% of achievement in reading and mathematics • Higher point total received on the LEA application and presentation

18. 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

19. SIG Intervention Models Tier I and Tier II Schools

20. 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

21. 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.

22. Turnaround Model • Replace the principal • 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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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 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

27. 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

28. 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.

29. Transformation Model • Under SIG’s transformation model, a school is required to implement all of the following four strategies: • Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness • Comprehensive instructional reform strategies • Extending learning time and creating community- oriented schools • Providing operating flexibility and sustained support

30. 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 • Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model (Flexibility is granted if the principal was replaced within the last two years.) • Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development • Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain high-quality staff

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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).

34. 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.

36. Proposed Flexibility • LEAs serve the number of Tier I and Tier II schools they demonstrate the capacity to serve • Tier I and Tier II schools SIG funds are not “capped”, but instead receive amount need to successfully implement –not to exceed 2 million dollars per school per year • 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, 2013 • 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. • Section 1114(a)(1) of the ESEA to permit LEAs to implement a schoolwide program in a Tier I school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty eligibility threshold.

37. 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.

38. 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

39. SEA Role • 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 • 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 eligible Tier I and Tier II schools does not implement the same model in more than 50% of those schools.  • 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

40. SEA Role 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 • Apportion FY 2009 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 has not allocated funds to serve each Tier I school must carry over 25% of its FY 2009 SIG funds, combine those funds with its FY 2010 SIG funds, and award those funds to eligible LEAs. • 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

41. LEA Role LEA would be 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 completive 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 • 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 and Tier II 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

42. WV Timeline

43. Discussion of Letter of Intent to ApplyDue to SEA April 9 • Identify schools the district intends to serve and the selected intervention model for each Tier I and Tier II school • 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

44. Quote from Arne Duncan “If we are to put an end to stubborn cycles of poverty and social failure, and put our country on track for long‐term economic prosperity, we must address the needs of children who have long been ignored and marginalized in chronically low‐achieving schools…. Our goal is to turn around the 5,000 lowest‐performing schools over the next five years, as part of our overall strategy for dramatically reducing the drop‐out rate, improving high school graduation rates, and increasing the number of students who graduate prepared for success in college and the workplace.” Arne Duncan Secretary of Education August 2009

45. Rationale for Change Nationally, over 13,000 schools are currently under some form of improvement status • Current NCLB Definition of Struggling Schools • Title I schools that fail to make AYP for 2+ consecutive years are “in improvement” • Schools that fail to make AYP after 4 years are in “corrective action” • 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] 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.

46. Final Thoughts Things I Understand Questions to be Clarified

47. SEA Contact Information Title I School Improvement Coordinators Karen Davies kdavies@access.k12.wv.us Kenny Moles kmoles@access.k12.wv.us Erin Sullivan esullivan@access.k12.wv.us