Joseph Shannon, Deputy Chief Academic Officer International Center for Leadership in Education Navigating the School Improvement Grants Joseph Shannon,

Joseph Shannon, Deputy Chief Academic OfficerInternational Center for Leadership in Education

Navigating the School Improvement Grants Joseph Shannon, Deputy Chief Academic Officer

International Center for Leadership in Education

Navigating the School Improvement Grants Joseph Shannon, Deputy Chief Academic Officer

International Center for Leadership in Education

To hear this webinar you will need to choose your audio mode.

Go to the control panel in the upper right corner of your screen and click the button of how you will be listening. Your choices:

Use telephone Use mic & speakers

If using mic & speakers make sure your volume is turned up so you can hear

If using the telephone

Dial: 916-233-3087

Access Code: 308-396-744

Audio PIN: unique PIN shown in audio control panel on screen

Technical difficulties? Contact (518) 399-2776.

www.LeaderEd.com

All participants are on mute.

www.LeaderEd.com

Webinar Guidelines

• All participants are on mute during the entire webinar.

• Presentation portion will be 45 minutes

• Questions and Answers portion will be 15 minutes

• To ask a question type it in the question control panel in the upper right corner of your screen.

• Content questions will be answered in the order they were received at the end of the webinar presentation.

Today’s PowerPoint and archived webinar

will be sent to you in a follow up email.

Agenda•School Improvement Grants and ARRA•Which schools are eligible to receive funding

•Requirements of the four federal models of school reform - Restart, Closure, Transformation, and Turnaround

•Data and information required in district applications for the SIG

•Grant-writing tips and recommendations

NCLB Accountability Schools Eligible for SIG

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 = Restructuring Implementation

NCLB Definition of Struggling Schools

• Title I schools that fail to make AYP for:– 2+ consecutive years are “in

improvement”

– after 4 years are in “corrective action”

– after 5 years are in “restructuring”

(year 5 = planning year; year 6 = implementation)

Current NCLB Definition of Struggling Schools

• 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]

States traditionally select the least rigorous (if any) intervention option for

struggling schools• Of the 45 states with schools in restructuring in

SY 2006-07, 29 selected “other” as their restructuring strategy

• 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%)

From ED, State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX— Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report, 2009 (forthcoming)

School Improvement Grants (SIGs) and the 2009 American Reinvestment and

Recovery Act (ARRA)

• FY2009 :– $546 Million from Title I – $3 billion for School Improvement Grants from

ARRA– $3.546 Billion total

• Unprecedented Funding

Goal for FY09 and ARRA School Improvement Funds

Target each state’s:

• Chronically low-performing schools

• Dramatically transform school culture and increase student achievement.

States Eligible to Date for SIG

• 26 states and the District of Columbia have been awarded SIG funds

• Distributed to states by formula

• Distributed to districts based on competitive application

• School district must have a state-identified "persistently lowest achieving" or a Tier III school

State SIG Awards State Award State Award

Alabama 58M Colorado 40M

Kentucky 56M Missouri 54M

Oklahoma 39M Alaska 10.7M

Virginia 58.8M Arizona 70M

Nevada 23.4M N. Mexico 28M

Utah 17.4M N. Carolina 91M

South Dakota 11.3M Iowa 18M

Connecticut 25.7M Georgia 122M

Texas 338M Indiana 61M

Ohio 132M Maryland 47M

S. Carolina 50.8M DC 12M





Which schools will receiveSIG funds?

There are three tiers of schools that are eligible for SIG funds

Tier I Schools • The state’s bottom 5% of Title I schools in

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (or the state’s bottom 5 lowest-achieving Title I schools, whichever is greater).

• LEAs must prioritize their Tier I schools (i.e., LEAs cannot apply for SIG funds solely for Tiers II or III)

Tier II Schools • The state’s Title I eligible (but not

necessarily participating) secondary schools with equivalently poor performance as Tier I schools

Tier III Schools • Tier III: (only for SEAs that have

sufficient funding for all Tier I and II schools and still have a surplus of SIG funds) Any state Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring

Tier Schools by State

State Tier I Tier II Tier III

Arizona 25 6 275

Indiana 37 27 225

Louisiana 10 5 314

Mississippi 6 91 125





Schools applying for SIG funds can select between four models

1. Turnaround Model

2. Restart Model

3. School Closure Model

4. Transformational Model

Turnaround Model• Replace principal and at least 50% of the staff• Adopt new governance, and implement a new

or revised instructional program • Incorporate interventions that take into account

the recruitment, placement and development of staff to ensure they meet student needs

• Schedules that increase time for both students and staff

• Appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services/supports.

Restart Model

• Close the school and restart it under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an educational management organization (EMO)

• A restart school must admit, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend

Closure Model

• Closing the school and enrolling the students who attended the school in other, higher-performing schools in the LEA

• The International Center does not support this option

Transformation Model• Replace the principal who led the school prior to the

transformation model• Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other

staff who improve student achievement outcomes• Develop teacher and leader effectiveness• Provide high quality job-embedded professional

development to staff• Develop a comprehensive instructional programs using

student achievement data:• Extend learning time and create community-oriented

schools• Provide operating flexibility and intensive support

Mandated Strategies

1. Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness

2. Comprehensive instructional reform strategies

3. Extending learning time and creating community-oriented schools

4. Ensuring sufficient operating flexibility

Developing teacher and

leader effectiveness

Operating, flexibility, and

sustainable support

Comprehensive Instructional

Reform Strategy

Extending learning time and creating

community-oriented schools



Teacher and Leader Effectiveness

• Effective teacher evaluation system based on student performance

• Action plan to recruit, train, and retain quality teachers

• Community Resource Team

• Extended school day

• Flexible school conditions




Reform Strategy

Instructional Reform Strategies

1. Teacher Evaluation System (TES) based on Student Performance – Use of SAS EVAAS to examine linkage between

teacher and student performance– Formative and summative assessments in core

academic areas – Observation of teacher performance – Professional development for teachers based on

TES – Career pathways for teachers/staff


2. Effective Teaching– Teacher observation using the

Collaborative Instructional Review Process – Accountability Measures– Job-Embedded Coaching– Professional Dialogue/Communities– Targeted Professional Development


3. Programs/Interventions– Implement specific inclusion and co-

teaching strategies to improve performance of SWD

– Small Learning Communities – Expand the End-of-Course and

benchmark assessments – Implement, monitor, and adjust student

interventions (RTI)– Increase opportunities for students to

take college credit bearing courses




Reform Strategy



Extended Learning Time

• Provide more time for students to learn core academic content by expanding the school day, the school week, or the school year

• Provide more time for teachers to collaborate

• Provide more time or opportunities for enrichment activities for students

Community-Oriented Schools• Develop parent/community partnerships to support

Transformational Interventions• Increase parent and community participation in

school-wide decision and events• Increase parent and community awareness of the

impact of poverty on student achievement • Provide parents and community members with

strategies to reverse the impact of poverty on student achievement

• Leverage business and community partnerships




sustainable support


Reform Strategy



Operating Flexibility• Adopt board policy to provide school

leaders with sufficient operating flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes

• Alignment of district and school administration with collective bargaining units

• Unwavering commitment to Transformation




sustainable support


Reform Strategy







State Applications

• Competitive Application Process

• Scored by Rubric

• Points awarded for bold, innovative strategies

• Implementation plan between now and 2013

• Accountability targets

• Budget

State Applications http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/summary/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/summary/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/summary/index.html

Data and Information Needed to Complete Application for Turnaround and

Transformation Model

• Approved Needs Assessment

• Annual Goals for Student Achievement (3 years)

• Intervention Plan if Targets are not met

• Justification for chosen model

• Process for selecting and evaluating external providers



• Required Activities – The LEA Must:

– Implement the four mandated strategies

– Description between now and June 30, 2010

– Description between July 1, 2010-June 20,2013

– Implementation Schedule



• Permissible Activities

– Supportive strategies

– Description between now and June 30, 2010

– Description between July 1, 2010-June 20,2013

– Implementation Schedule

AccountabilityLeading Indicators:

• Number of minutes in a school year

• Participation rate on state assessments by subgroup

• Dropout rates

• Student attendance rates

• Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework

AccountabilityLeading Indicators:

• Discipline incidents

• Truancy

• Distribution of teachers by performance levels on teacher evaluation system

• Teacher attendance





SIG Funding

Mass Insight’s publication The Turnaround Challenge presents one estimate of the per-school cost of a turnaround effort

based on likely expenditures for extending learning time, employing additional staff,

professional development and performance bonuses to staff, engaging

outside partners, and overseeing the effort at the district level

Funding Levels

Student Enrollment

Closure Transformation Turnaround/

Restart

1-199 $100K-150K $325K-375K $375K-425K

200-399 $125K-175K $350K-400K $400K-450K

400-599 $150K-200K $375K-425K $425K-475K

600+ $175K-225K $400K-450K $450K-500K

Planning and PreparingStarting now, work with LEAs, unions, and other

stakeholders to:• Identify Tier I and Tier II schools so that LEAs can plan

effectively• Review and eliminate policies and practices that are

barriers to reform • Diagnose causes of failure and appropriate interventions

for lowest performing schools• Develop or refine process to recruit, screen and select

necessary outside partners and providers

Planning and PreparingStarting now, work with LEAs, unions, and other

stakeholders to:• Fairly and rigorously evaluate teachers and leaders in

lowest performing schools• Recruit and train turnaround and transformation

principals, school leaders and teachers• Begin outreach to parents, students and community

stakeholders• Allocate existing funds such as 1003(a) and Title I A to

support planning efforts

Questions

[email protected]

Year 1 Project Overview

Phase 1Assessing School Conditions

Needs Assessment– Three-day visit to each school based on

comprehensive school profile and data analysis

– Administration of Leadership Assessment to school-based leadership team

– School profile report including a list of top priorities and specific recommendations.

– Completion of the Components of School Excellence and Learning Criteria rubrics

– Submission of final Needs Assessment Report

Phase 2School Improvement Planning

– Review needs assessment findings– Building ownership for school priority goals– Individualized Action Plan (IAP) based on the

needs assessment. The action plan includes:• Prioritized goals• Strategic actions• Accountability Measures• Professional development needs• Challenges and obstacles• Timeline, roles and responsibilities

Phase 3Implementation and Capacity

Building

Principal and Leadership Teams implementation of transformational interventions:

1. Make difficult decisions regarding people, time, money, and programs

2. Assist in recruitment, training, and retention of quality teachers

3. implementation of a teacher evaluation and reward system based on student performance


Building

4. Extend learning time

5. Develop parent/community partnerships to support Transformational Interventions

6. Leverage business and community partnerships


BuildingImprove Teacher Effectiveness: • Develop content expertise

• Individualize teaching based on student data

• Develop teacher and leader effectiveness based on the Rigor/Relevance Framework

• Implement the Collaborative Instructional Review process


Building

• Integration of literacy strategies into each grade level and content areas

• Improve student engagement

• Develop shared responsibility for student achievement

• Implement effective use of common planning time

Unique Benefits of ICLE

• Dr. Bill Daggett - consultation, communication, large-group facilitation

• 19 years experience with high quality contract management and quality assurance

• Proven ability to successfully implement large scale initiatives (e.g. Philadelphia)

• Resources to build system-wide capacity• Alignment to four assurances (ESEA/IDEA/Perkins and FL RTTF)• Team of 120 + national consultants• Expertise in job-embedded instructional leadership coaching• Experience in leadership-and professional development-

conference management• Expertise facilitating teacher networking, train-the-trainer

processes and mentor coaching, benchmarking, process validation

Q & A with Joe

• This is the end of the presentation portion.

• Submit questions at this time and stay on to hear the answers.

• If you are logging off, thank you for attending and we will email you with follow-up information.

For more information www.LeaderEd.com

School Tranformational/Turnaround Intervention Models

(518) 399-2776 | [email protected] | www.LeaderEd.com

Thank you for attending!

www.LeaderEd.com

18th Annual Model Schools Conference

Monday, June 14 - Thursday, June 17Orlando

www.ModelSchoolsConference.com

Joseph Shannon, Deputy Chief Academic Officer International Center for Leadership in Education Navigating the School Improvement Grants Joseph Shannon,

Documents

school slide

schools tier

tier schools

tier i schools

restructuring slide

tiers of schools

secondary schools

sig funds slide