IMPLEMENTING THE SIG REQUIREMENTS 1.  Students who attend a State’s persistently lowest- achieving schools deserve better options and can’t afford to.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
April 15, Through the SIG program, the United States Education Department (USED) requires state educational agencies (SEAs) to use three tiers to.
Advertisements

Presented by : Delaware Department of Education March 15, 2011.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APRIL 27, 2010 VANDERBILT MARRIOTT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION ROLLOUT 1.
1 Supplemental Educational Services Office of Elementary and Secondary Education June 2002.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
North Carolina ESEA Flexibility Request Frequently Asked Questions April 30, 2012 April 27,
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVERS Gayle Pauley Assistant Superintendent Special Programs and Federal Accountability
FY 2012 SIG 1003G LEAD PARTNER REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL (RFSP) BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE February 7, 2011.
1 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT COHORT 2 LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION APRIL 5, 2011.
Support for the Change, Challenge, and Commitment All Maryland Students College and Career Ready.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: RENEWAL PROCESS November 20, 2014.
School Improvement Grants. Over 13,000 schools are currently under some form of improvement status schools = 5% of schools in some form of restructuring.
School Improvement: Tier I, Tier II, Tier II and More! Partnerships for Results: Strategies for Educational Improvement KU/KSDE Lawrence, Kansas June 11,
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS October 5, 2011.
FIELD-TEST FLEXIBILITY: AN OVERVIEW October 31, 2013.
1 Tier 1 Education: Review Participant Training January AmeriCorps External Reviewer Training.
Subtitle 1003(g) School Improvement Grants April 2, 2012.
Federal Program Monitoring and Support Division Charlotte Hughes, Director Donna Brown, Section Chief.
School Improvement Grants (SIG) Overview Adapted from LACOE Intervention for for Persistently Lowest- Achieving Schools 1.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS (SIG): A New Opportunity for Turning Around Low-Performing High Schools January 29, 2010.
School Improvement Grants March, Overview American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Goals and purpose of SIG grants Definition of “persistently lowest-
A Parent’s Guide to Understanding the State Accountability Workbook.
Mississippi Department of Education Office of School Recovery November 18, :30-4:30 Committee of Practitioners Meeting School Improvement Grant 1003(g)
FLDOE Title I Update FASFEPA Technical Assistance Forum September 16, 2009.
Race to the Top (RTTT) Overview of Grant Competition Goals and Requirements 1.
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction March 17, 2011 Presented by: California Department of Education.
Mississippi Department of Education Office of Innovative Support February 17, 2010 Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting.
QUESTIONS MAY BE ED DURING THIS SESSION, OR AFTERWARD TO: Welcome to the SIG Cohort III Webinar Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Update to Arizona Association of School Business Officials July 22, 2009 Arizona Office of Economic Recovery Janice K.
Considerations for Technical Assistance School Improvement Grant 1.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Pennsylvania’s ESEA Flexibility Proposal May 23, >
School Achievement and Progress List Conference Call with Superintendents March 29, 2010.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: AN OVERVIEW September 26, 2011.
School Improvement Overview September 17-18, 2015 Tyson Carter School Improvement Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 We Can Do Better: Becca Walawender, Deputy Division Director,
GUIDANCE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Region VII Comprehensive Center The University of Oklahoma 555 Constitution Street Norman, OK David.
Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants Presented by: WVDE Title I Staff March 9, 2010.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
Center on School Turnaround at WestEd. 2 3 Race to the Top School Improvement Grants Alignment of Existing Federal Resources ESEA Flexibility Lowest-
Top to Bottom and Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Lists Federally Approved Requirements for Identifying Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools August.
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
Accountability Updates Sound Check: Can you hear me now?
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
Office of School Turnaround Center for Accountability and Improvement, Ohio Department of Education 25 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio
S CHOOL I MPROVEMENT G RANTS An Overview of Fiscal Year (FY) DRAFT.
School Improvement Grant (SIG) Title I Section, 1003g Renewal Requirements March 2012.
Virginia Department of Education March 5,  The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) was informed that on March 3, 2010, USED posted the states’
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
February 25, Today’s Agenda  Introductions  USDOE School Improvement Information  Timelines and Feedback on submitted plans  Implementing plans.
Transition to ESSA WVDE Office of Federal Programs March 8, 2016 Alternate Audio Access: #
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015: Highlights and
TTIPS Model Overview.
ESEA Flexibility: An overview
Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting
January 2010 Marilyn Peterson Data and Federal Programs
The Role a Charter School Plays in its Charter Authorizer’s Submission of the Consolidated Federal Programs Application Joey Willett, Unit of Federal Programs.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT
Summary of Final Regulations: Accountability and State Plans
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
School Improvement Grants
ESEA Flexibility: An overview
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together
Presentation transcript:

IMPLEMENTING THE SIG REQUIREMENTS 1

 Students who attend a State’s persistently lowest- achieving schools deserve better options and can’t afford to wait  Not quantity, but quality  Need to build capacity and supports at all levels  Not a one-year activity 2

 Final requirements published on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65618)  Interim final requirements published on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3375). 3

Two groups of schools:  Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (Tier I schools).  Secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds (Tier II schools). 4

 Generally, an SEA may not exclude categories of schools in identifying the persistently lowest- achieving schools in the State.  An SEA has flexibility regarding--  Defining lack of progress.  Determining the number of years over which lack of progress is determined.  Whether to include only students who attend a school for a full academic year.  Whether to apply an extended-year graduation rate.  How to weight elements of the definition. 5

A narrow exception to the general rule is the category of schools specifically designed to serve over-age, under-credited students—i.e., schools designed to re-engage students who have dropped out of high school and who, by definition, cannot graduate within the standard number of years. Within this category, an SEA may decide, on a case- by-case basis, giving careful consideration to the mission of a particular school, student performance, and the intent of SIG, to exclude such a school. 6

Within each group of schools, an SEA must identify—  The lowest-achieving 5% of schools in the State (or lowest- achieving 5 schools, whichever is greater) based on proficiency; AND  Any high school that has had a graduation rate below 60% over a number of years and that is not captured within the lowest 5%. 7

To identify the lowest-achieving 5% of schools in each of the two groups, an SEA must take into account both—  Academic achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on the State’s reading/language arts and mathematics assessments combined; and  Lack of progress on the State’s assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group. 8

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 made two changes to the SIG program:  It expanded the schools eligible to receive SIG funds.  It raised the maximum amount that a participating school may receive from $500,000 to $2,000,000. 9

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 expanded the pool of schools that are eligible to receive SIG funds. Any school that is eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds AND (1) Has not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at least two years; OR (2)Is in the State’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates. “Eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds” includes schools that receive Title I, Part A funds as well as those that are eligible for, but do not receive, those funds. 10

 The definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” does not change; it is the same for SFSF, RTT, and SIG.  An SEA must identify as Tier I schools its persistently lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.  An SEA must identify as Tier II schools its persistently lowest-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds.  An SEA must identify as Tier III schools Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I (with the exception of Title I secondary schools that might qualify for Tier II). 11

An SEA may, at its option, add newly eligible schools to the three tiers. SEA may identify only a subset of schools as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools. e.g.,  Identify newly eligible Tier I and Tier II schools but not newly eligible Tier III schools.  Identify in Tier III only newly eligible schools that are in the lowest decile (rather than quintile) of schools in the State. An SEA may identify in each tier only the schools that meet the requirements for that tier. e.g.,  An SEA may not identify as a Tier III school a newly eligible school that meets the requirements to be identified as a Tier I or Tier II school. 12

A secondary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds AND (1) Has not made AYP for at least two consecutive years; OR Is in the State’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates on the State’s reading/language arts and mathematics assessments combined; AND (2) Is no higher achieving that the highest-achieving school identified by the SEA as a persistently lowest- achieving school in Tier II; OR Is a high school that has had a graduation rate below 60% over a number of years. 13

A school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds AND (1) Has not made AYP for at least two years; OR Is in the State’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates on the State’s reading/language arts and mathematics assessments combined; AND (2) Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II school. 14

Schools an SEA MUST identify in each tierNewly eligible schools an SEA MAY identify in each tier Tier ISchools that meet the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) in the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools.” Title I eligible elementary schools that are no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) in the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” 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 Schools that meet the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) in the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools.” Title I eligible secondary schools that are (1) no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(2)(i) in the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” or (2) high schools that have had a graduation rate of less than 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 IIITitle I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I. 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. 15

 If an SEA identifies newly eligible schools as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools, all requirements that apply to schools in a particular tier apply to the newly eligible schools. e.g.,  A newly eligible Tier I or Tier II school must implement one of the four school intervention models.  An LEA may only serve with SIG funds a newly eligible school that an SEA has identified as a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school. 16

 An SEA must allocate SIG funds to an LEA in an amount that is of sufficient size and scope to support a school intervention model in each Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA commits to serve as well as to support school improvement activities in Tier III schools.  An LEA’s total SIG grant may not be less than $50,000 or more than $2,000,000 per year for each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school it commits to serve. 17

 List of eligible schools  Prioritizing schools  LEA application review and evaluation criteria  Descriptive information  Assurances  Consultation with Committee of Practitioners  Waivers  Attachments 18

 An SEA must give priority to LEAs that apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools.  An LEA with one or more Tier I schools may not receive funds to serve only its Tier III schools.  An 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 only to serve Tier III schools. 19

20 If an LEA has one or more... In order to get SIG funds, the LEA must commit to serve... Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at least one Tier II school Tier I and Tier II schools, but no Tier III schools Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at least one Tier II school 1 Tier I and III schools, but no Tier II schools Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school Tier II and Tier III schools, but no Tier I schools The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier II and Tier III schools as it wishes Tier I schools onlyEach Tier I school it has capacity to serve Tier II schools only The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier II schools as it wishes Tier III schools onlyThe LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier III schools as it wishes [1] [1] The number of Tier I schools an LEA has capacity to serve may be zero if, and only if, the LEA is using all of the capacity it would otherwise use to serve its Tier I schools in order to serve Tier II schools.

 If an SEA does not have sufficient school improvement funds to allocate to each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II school to enable the school to implement fully and effectively the specified intervention throughout the period of availability, the SEA may take into account the distribution of Tier I and Tier II schools among such LEAs to ensure that Tier I and Tier II schools throughout the State can be served.  If not every Tier I school (including both persistently lowest-achieving schools and newly eligible schools) in a State is served, an SEA must carry over 25% of FY 2009 funds to combine with FY 2010 funds and award those funds consistent with requirements.  If an SEA serves all its Tier I schools through its first competition for FY 2009 SIG funds, the SEA may carry over up to 25% of those funds to award along with its FY 2010 SIG funds. 21

 An SEA must 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.  An SEA must describe how it will assess the extent to which the LEA analyzed the needs of each school and matched an intervention to those needs; the design of the interventions; the LEA’s process to recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable; the coordination with other resources; whether the LEA will modify its practices, if necessary, to be able to implement the interventions fully and effectively; and how the LEA will sustain the reforms after the funding period ends.  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 Tier I and Tier II schools does not implement the transformation model in more than 50% of those schools. 22

In making awards, an SEA must take into account LEA capacity to implement selected school interventions. In determining capacity, the SEA may take into account such factors as:  Number of Tier I and II schools  Availability and quality of CMOs and EMOs  Talent  Access and proximity to higher performing schools (closure model) (H-7, School Improvement Guidance) 23

Dec ’09 Final Requirements Application Package Jan ’10 SFSF Part II Interim Final Requirements Revised Application Package Feb ’10 Feb 8, 2010 SIG Application due Award grants March-April ’10 LEA Application Process May ’10 SEA awards grants to LEAs LEAs begin implementation Fall ’10 SIG schools open/reopen 24

The SEA application form is available at ED prefers that an SEA submit its application electronically to: In the alternative, an SEA may submit a paper copy to: Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3W320 Washington, DC An SEA’s application is due to ED on or before Monday, February 8,

Contact: Dr. Carlas McCauley Education Program Specialist Student Achievement & School Accountability Programs (SASA) Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Ave., SW LBJ Building, Rm 3C116 Washington, DC Tel: Fax: Questions?