Presented by : Delaware Department of Education March 15, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Developing School Improvement Plans #101
Advertisements

School Improvement Grants Webinar – Tier I and II Schools April 21, 2010.
School Improvement Grants Tier I and Tier II Schools March, 2010.
Race to the Top Fund Overview of Grant Competition Goals and Requirements (Note: Information contained in this slide is based on draft guidance posted.
April 15, Through the SIG program, the United States Education Department (USED) requires state educational agencies (SEAs) to use three tiers to.
Developing a Title I Budget Title I Directors Budget Workshop June 14, 2011 Waterfront Place Morgantown, WV.
Restructuring Plans Glenbrook Middle School Bel Air Elementary School Rio Vista Elementary School Shore Acres Elementary School Mt. Diablo Unified School.
Delaware Statewide Title I Conference 1 School Improvement – The Ever-Changing Landscape – Part I June 29, 2010 Bill McGrady U. S. Department of Education.
21 st Century Community Learning Centers Continuation Application 2 CohortYearDue DateFiscal Year Sustainability Reduction Cohort 6Year.
School Improvement Grant Section 1003(g) Bidder’s Conference
Elementary and secondary education in Tennessee is governed by Federal law, Tennessee statutes, State Board of Education Rules and policies of local.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APRIL 27, 2010 VANDERBILT MARRIOTT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION ROLLOUT 1.
New Title I/NCLB Directors Workshop NCLB Winter Conference January 16, 2007 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development Margaret MacKinnon, Title.
Targeted Assistance & Schoolwide Programs NCLB Technical Assistance Audio April 18, :30 PM April 19, :30 AM Alaska Department of Education.
Accountability Reporting Webinar: Parent/Guardian Communications, NCLB School Choice and SES August 23, :00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Kenneth Klau.
Title I, Part A District Budget Planning The “Small” Stuff Julie McGuire, MEd Federal Funds Coordinator Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD.
AYP Regional Meetings In Need of Improvement Schools and Districts MDE School Improvement Division and Regional Service Cooperatives August/September 2010.
Dr. John D. Barge, State School Superintendent “Making Education Work for All Georgians” Title I, Part A Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance.
Overview of The Legislation’s Purpose and Requirements CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION School Governance Councils.
Anticipated Grant Opportunities to Support Additional Time for Learning Grant Information Webinar March 14, :00 AM – 11:00 AM 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
1 Marie Izquierdo & Pablo G. Ortiz. Prioritizing Tiered Support to Schools schools defined as “persistently low- achieving” by the requirements.
FY 2012 SIG 1003G LEAD PARTNER REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL (RFSP) BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE February 7, 2011.
Salem Turnaround Community Forum Today’s Agenda How We Got Here What Level 4 Means Now What? How You Can Help Discussion and Questions.
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.
School Improvement Grant (SIG) Cohort 6 Informational Webinar June 10, 2015.
School Improvement Grants. Over 13,000 schools are currently under some form of improvement status schools = 5% of schools in some form of restructuring.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
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-
“An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap” Report of the Superintendent Melinda J. Boone, Ed.D. March 4, 2010.
Mississippi Department of Education Office of School Recovery November 18, :30-4:30 Committee of Practitioners Meeting School Improvement Grant 1003(g)
IMPLEMENTING THE SIG REQUIREMENTS 1.  Students who attend a State’s persistently lowest- achieving schools deserve better options and can’t afford to.
FLDOE Title I Update FASFEPA Technical Assistance Forum September 16, 2009.
Race to the Top (RTTT) Overview of Grant Competition Goals and Requirements 1.
School Improvement Grant Update Fall Grant Purpose School Improvement Grants (SIG), authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary.
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.
Considerations for Technical Assistance School Improvement Grant 1.
REVIEW PROCESS District Capacity Determination:. Review Team Selection Teams will contain geographically balanced representation. Each review team will.
Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement Office of Program Administration and Accountability April 19, 2011.
Title I 2010 Spring Admin. Meeting Spring Title I Administrative Meeting Maryland State Department of Education April 13-14, 2010 Presented by: Maria E.
SAM REDDING ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE CENTER ON INNOVATIONS IN LEARNING CENTER ON SCHOOL TURNAROUND BUILDING STATE CAPACITY AND PRODUCTIVITY CENTER.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: AN OVERVIEW September 26, 2011.
Florida’s Charter Schools Program Grant Award Information Session August 2011.
Choosing a Reform Model District Wide Stakeholder Meeting 1.
School Improvement Overview September 17-18, 2015 Tyson Carter School Improvement Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education
AB Miller High School Community Meeting April 13, 2010.
Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Grants Presented by: WVDE Title I Staff March 9, 2010.
Center on School Turnaround at WestEd. 2 3 Race to the Top School Improvement Grants Alignment of Existing Federal Resources ESEA Flexibility Lowest-
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.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVERS December 2, 2011 House Education Committee Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent
TTIPS Model Overview.
ESEA Flexibility: An overview
Federal Programs Committee of Practitioners Meeting
West Virginia Department of Education
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
School Improvement Grants
ESEA Flexibility: An overview
Developing and Revising Schoolwide Plans
Presentation transcript:

Presented by : Delaware Department of Education March 15, 2011

Students who attend a States persistently lowestachieving schools deserve better options and cant afford to wait Quality, not quantity, of LEA applications and implementation Need to build capacity and supports at all levels Not a oneyear activity – up to 3 years

Two out of six applications were awarded last summer: Brandywine School District, Mount Pleasant High School Seaford School District, Seaford High School See rtA/1003g.shtml rtA/1003g.shtml

Implement one of 4 interventions (same as Race to the Top) in persistently low-achieving Title I schools and Title I- eligible secondary schools Funds may be used across 3 years, but the majority of funds must be expended to fully implement interventions in Year 1 of the award An LEA must apply for at least $50,000, but no more than $2,000,000 per year for each eligible school it commits to serve

Tier I = 5 lowest performing Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring Tier II = 5 lowest performing Title I eligible secondary schools (but not participating in Title I) regardless of improvement status Tier III = all other Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring

Dover High School Glasgow High School Howard High School Positive Outcomes Charter Stubbs Elementary School

Brandywine High School Delmar High School Lake Forest High School Stanton Middle School Dickinson High School

State FY 11 $1,626,978 regular SIG – 5% for state administration =$1,545,629 + $6,870,000 carryover from FY 10 $8,415,629 for LEAs to turn around schools

1. State Partnership Zone schools that are in SIG Tiers I and II 2. Other SIG Tier I and II schools as follows: 1. Rank of both Tier I and Tier II schools lowest to highest 2. Determine LEA demonstrated capacity within the allocation 3. Fund LEA applications in rank order, lowest to highest, of performance in LEA applications that demonstrated capacity

3. Tier III schools - only where Tier I and/or Tier II schools are already being funded and where Tier III schools choose to implement one of the four SIG models 4. Tier III schools - only where Tier I and/or Tier II schools are already being funded or in LEAs where there are not Tier I or II schools that choose not to implement one of the four SIG model

There are no major changes to the states application to US Ed. There are a few changes to the federal non-regulatory guidance New guidance allows for pre-implementation activities Modifications and new questions are noted in the non-regulatory guidance. There are changes to the LEA application Updated budget section (like Consolidated Application) New questions about pre-implementation activities Rubric developed for LEA self-assessment prior to submission

Examples of how LEAs may use funds before the school year include, but are not limited to: holding parent and community meetings to review school performance, discuss the new model to be implemented, and develop school improvement plans in line with the model selected; recruiting and hiring the incoming principal, leadership team, and instructional staff; conducting a rigorous review process to select, and then contracting with, a charter management organization, an education management organization, or an external provider; providing professional development that will enable staff to effectively implement new or revised instructional programs that are aligned with the schools comprehensive instructional plan and intervention model.

To extend the period of availability of school improvement funds for the SEA and all of its LEAs to September 30, To permit LEAs to allow their Tier I and Tier II Title I participating schools that will implement a turnaround or restart model to start over in the school improvement timeline. Waive the 40 percent poverty eligibility threshold to permit LEAs to implement a schoolwide program in a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating school that does not meet the poverty threshold. To extend the period of availability of FY 2009 carry over school improvement funds to September 30, 2014.

LEA application opened 3/14/11 LEA application closes 4/15/11 SEA initial reviews complete 4/22/11 Approved applications forwarded to Associate Secretary and Secretary for review LEAs with substantially approvable applications notified of revisions needed LEAs with unfunded applications notified

LEA resubmissions due 5/6/11 SEA second round reviews complete 5/11/11 Approved applications forwarded to Associate Secretary and Secretary for review LEAs with additional revisions needed notified LEA subsequent re-submissions due 5/18/11 SEA final re-reviews completed 5/25/11 Goal is to have all approved by 6/1/11

School Closure EMO/CMO Restart Transformation Turnaround

LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving from guidance LEA has discretion to determine which schools are located within a reasonable proximity to a closed school

The LEA must engage in open dialogue with families and the school community early in the closure process Funds may not be used in receiving school

Only 1 year may be funded parent and community outreach services to help parents and students transition to a new school Other costs that cannot be paid Anything that is a regular responsibility of the LEA Unless the costs are directly attributable to the school closure and exceed the costs the LEA would have incurred in the absence of the closure

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) Must enroll any former student who wishes to attend the school

LEA must select provider through a rigorous review process. LEA Application must identify Rigorous process of selection Potential model providers Model providers ability & interest

Provider may require student/parent agreements covering student behavior, attendance, or other commitments related to student achievement Provider may not require students to meet certain academic standards prior to enrolling in the school

If the school is restarting as a charter school, then all requirements under state law and regulation for charter schools must be followed.

Overview of required and permissible elements Review of self-assessment rubric

1003(g) SIG Success Plan Expectations 1003(g) SIG Grant Overview

ESPES Website: USDOE Website: Center for Innovation and Improvement Website: