School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS: REQUIREMENTS AND MONITORING

Leigh Manasevit, Esq.Steven SpillanBrustein & Manasevit, PLLCFall Forum 2011

SIG FUNDING

FY 2009 ARRA - $3 billion FY 2010 - $546 million FY11 – $534 million FY12:

Proposed $600 million Senate: $534 million House: $0

2

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

3

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).

4

FEBRUARY 2011 ADDENDUM Which are available which years?

5

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. 6

SASA MONITORING

Application ProcessImplementationFiscalTechnical AssistanceMonitoringData Collection

7

2011-2012 MONITORING SCHEDULE

8

State On-Site Week

Hawaii December 5-9 2011

Illinois December 12-16 2011

Georgia January 9-13 2021

Texas January 30- February 3 2012

New York February 13-17 2012

Oregon March 5-9 2012

Puerto Rico March 26-30 2012

Missouri April 16-20 2012

Rhode Island April 30-May 4 2012

BIE May 7-11 2012

Wisconsin May 7-11 2012

District of Columbia September 10-14 2012

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

9

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.

10

“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

11

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 12

PLAS: LISTING RESULTS

13

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.

14

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.

15

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

16

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. 17

IMPLEMENTATION

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

18

SIG 4 MODELS:

TurnaroundRestartClosureTransformation

19

SIG 4 MODELS: TURNAROUND

9 required elements -1. Replace the principal2. Use locally adopted competencies to

measure the turnaround staff effectiveness (50% rule)

3. Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain the appropriate staff

4. Provide ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development

5. Adopt new governance structure

20

SIG 4 MODELS: TURNAROUND

6. Use data to identify and implement an instructional program

7. Promote the continuous use of student data8. Establish schedules and implement strategies

that provide increased learning time9. Provide appropriate social-emotional and

community-oriented services and supports for students

21

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

22

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.

23

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.

24

SIG 4 MODELS: TRANSFORMATION

5 Required Activities1. Replace the principal2. Teacher/Principal evaluations3. Identify and reward school

leaders, teachers, and other staff4. Professional Development5. Implement strategies to recruit,

place, and retain staff25

GUIDANCE - TRANSFORMATION MODEL

LEAs implementing a transformation model must:◦ Provide sufficient operational

flexibility. ◦ Ensure ongoing, intensive technical

assistance and related support.

26

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. 27

FISCAL

The final requirements apply to FY 09 ARRA funds, FY 2010 funds, as well as FY09 carryoverFinal RequirementsGuidanceEDGAR Section 76.710

28

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.

29

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.

30

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. 31

SIG GUIDANCE - COMPARABILITY

LEA is obligated to ensure that all of its Title I schools are comparable to its non-Title I schools.

32

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.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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?

36

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.

37

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?

38

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?

39

LEA MONITORING

o An LEA must establish SEA approved annual goals for student achievement on the State’s assessments o in both reading/language arts and mathematics

that it will use. o to monitor each Tier I and Tier II school that

receives SIG funds. o 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.

40

LEA MONITORING The following metrics constitute key indicators for

the SIG program, collected by SEA:

41

(1) Number of minutes within the school year;(2) Student participation rate on State assessments in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by student subgroup; (3) Dropout rate;(4) Student attendance rate;(5) Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early-college high schools, or dual enrollment classes;

(6) Discipline incidents;(7) Truants;(8) Distribution of teachers by performance level on an LEA’s teacher evaluation system; and(9) Teacher attendance rate.

SEA RENEWAL

o 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?

o An SEA has discretion to examine factors such aso School’s progress on the leading indicators in

section III of the final requirements or o Fidelity with which it is implementing the modelo See section II.C(a)(ii) of the final requirements (I-

16)o Renewal based on ALL factors

42

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.

43

SIG GUIDANCE - NEW LISTS?

44

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.

45

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?

46

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.

47

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.

48


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.

49


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.

50


At the time of ED’s monitoring visit, two schools in an LEA implementing the transformation model had yet to hire a permanent principal.

Further Action Required SEA must work with LEAs to ensure that schools

have a permanent principal in place.

51

SASA MONITORING FINDINGS SEA has not ensured that SIG funds are awarded

and allocated to LEAs in a timely manner to support the full and effective implementation of the each school’s SIG plan.

Further Action Required: SEA must review, approve, and provide funding to its

LEAs in a timely manner after an LEA’s SIG plan is received, reviewed, and approved.

SEA must submit to ED evidence that its LEAs have received their most recent SIG allocations.

SEA must develop procedures to ensure the timely distribution of SIG funds to LEAs for the next school year and beyond.

SEA must submit these procedures to ED, along with documentation that its revised process will ensure timely funding of its LEAs for the next school year.

52


LEA’s approved SIG application included SIG funds for a program that is not an allowable use of funds under SIG.

Further Action Required LEA must amend its SIG application to reallocate

the SIG funds for allowable activities that support the implementation of the transformation model.

SEA must provide evidence that LEA has an approved amendment to make the required adjustment to its plan and budget.

53


The SEA did not ensure that its application process was carried out consistent with its approved SIG application, or that award amounts were made consistent with SIG requirements.

Further Action Required: SEA must provide to ED evidence that it

administered its competition consistent with its approved FY 2010 SIG application, and that award amounts were consistent with SIG requirements.

Evidence must include the number of reviews conducted and the specific criteria used to determine individual school budgets.

54

SASA MONITORING FINDINGS SEA did not ensure that LEA replaced the

principal in a school implementing the turnaround model consistent with the SIG final requirements.

Further Action Required SEA must submit to ED evidence that it has reviewed

the progress of all schools that received SIG funds to implement the transformation and turnaround model to ensure that any principal hired within the last 2 years who was retained, was retained consistent with the SIG requirement.

SEA must submit to ED the results of that review and the steps the SEA will take to ensure these schools are either in compliance with the SIG requirements or indicate how it will take this into account in determining whether to continue the grant for the next school year.

55


SEA is not monitoring SIG implementation as outlined in its approved application.

Further Action Required: SEA must submit to ED a timeline and monitoring

protocol for onsite and offsite monitoring for SIG recipients.

SEA must also submit to ED evidence that the timeline is being implemented.

56


SEA does not have all the required documentation posted on its website.

Further Action Required: SEA must post on its website within 30 days of

receipt of monitoring report all final LEA applications, including all attachments and appendices.

57

SASA MONITORING FINDINGS The SEA has not ensured that the system of

rewards at LEA is based in part on student achievement.

Further Action Required SEA must work with LEA to develop and

implement a tool or rubric to identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing the transformation model, have increased student achievement.

The tool or rubric must be based in part on student performance and include other indicators such as observations of classroom instruction, attendance, etc.

SEA must submit this tool to ED prior to the next school year and implement it in that school year.

58

SASA MONITORING FINDINGS SEA has not consistently ensured that it has

communicated clear guidance for LEAs to submit substantive programmatic and fiscal amendments to the SEA, and the process the SEA will use to review and approve such amendments.

Further Action Required – SEA must: Develop and post on its website:

Written guidance in a standard format that LEAs must use to propose substantive programmatic and fiscal changes to their SIG applications.

A checklist the SEA staff will use to review and make determinations on substantive programmatic and fiscal amendments to approved SIG plans.

Develop a plan and timeline to train LEA and SEA staff responsible for SIG implementation about the standard format and checklist the SEA will use to review and approve SIG amendments.

59


The SEA did not ensure that the LEAs monitor the schools consistent with the final requirements of the SIG program.

Further Action Required: SEA must submit to ED the process and timeline

that LEAs must implement to monitor schools in the SIG program, as well as how these are communicated to the LEAs.

60

SIG: WHAT’S NEXT?

FY 2012 Funding FightSIG remains top Administration

priorityHouse GOP wants to eliminate fundingSkeptical of the turnaround models

Senate Democrats willing to keep funding, but not at the $600 million requested by the President

61

SIG: WHAT’S NEXT

ESEA Waiver Package Flexibility to Support School Improvement: An

SEA would have flexibility to allocate ESEA section 1003(a) funds to an LEA in order to serve any priority or focus school, if the SEA determines such schools are most in need of additional support.

Flexibility to Use School Improvement Grant (SIG) Funds to Support Priority Schools: An SEA would have flexibility to award SIG funds available under ESEA section 1003(g) to an LEA to implement one of the four SIG models in any priority school.

62

SIG: WHAT’S NEXT

ESEA Waiver Package: Priority School Among the lowest five percent of Title I schools

in the State; A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high

school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; or

A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model.

63

SIG: WHAT’S NEXT

Senate ESEA Reauthorization Two Additional Turnaround Models

Strategic Staffing Strategy – LEA must: (I) replace the principal if he/she has served more than

2 years; (II) allow the principal to staff the school with a

turnaround team of his/her choosing; (III) provide teacher and principal incentives.

Whole School Reform Strategy - must include a partnership with a strategy developer offering a school reform program Based on at least a moderate level of evidence that

the program will have a statistically significant effect on student outcomes

64

QUESTIONS?

65

DISCLAIMERThis presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances. 66

School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring

Documents

Transcript of School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring