School Improvement Grants (SIG) School Improvement Grants (SIG) Overview Overview

Adapted from LACOE

InterventionIntervention forfor

Persistently Persistently Lowest-Lowest-

Achieving Achieving SchoolsSchools

1

Purpose of the ProgramPurpose of the Program

NCLB, Title I, Section 1003(g):– To provide resources to LEAs for use in schools

identified as “persistently lowest-achieving” in order to substantially raise the achievement of their students so as to enable the schools to make AYP.

2

LEA EligibilityLEA Eligibility

•A LEA must:–Receive Title I funds in 2009-10 and–Have an approved LEA Plan

and–Have one or more schools identified as a “persistently lowest-achieving” school.

3

Schools ExcludedSchools Excluded

• Subject to Waiver Approved by USDE

• Schools that:– Improved by 50 points or

more on the API over the last 5 years

– Had an API of 800 or more– Had fewer than 100 valid

test scores in each of the 3 years

4

““Persistently Lowest-Achieving”Persistently Lowest-Achieving”• Lowest 5% of schools based on:

– 3-year average (07, 08 & 09) of combined English Language Arts & Mathematics AYP proficiency rate

OR– Schools with a graduation rate below 60%

over the last 4 years

5

““Persistently Lowest Achieving”Persistently Lowest Achieving”

• Tier I: 5% lowest-achieving PI schools• Tier II: 5% lowest-achieving secondary schools

that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funding

• Tier III: PI schools that were not identified in the 5% “persistently lowest-achieving” schools

SBE ActionSBE Action• Agreed on applying for a waiver to USDE to re-define Tier IIAgreed on applying for a waiver to USDE to re-define Tier II

– 37 schools on the Tier II list were replaced by Tier I secondary PI schools that were lower achieving

6

Identifying the Lowest 5%

Additional 5 schools identified with graduation rate of less than 60% in each of the last four years.

Group NFive

Percent

Elementary schools in PI (Tier I) 1,676 84

Middle schools in PI (Tier I) 601 30

High schools in PI (Tier I) 427 21

Sub-total selected from Tier I 2,704 135

Middle schools, eligible but not receiving Title I funds (Tier II) 292 15

High schools, eligible but not receiving Title I funds (Tier II) 656 33

Sub-total selected from Tier II 948 48

Total 3,652

183 Schools

7

SchoolStudent

EnrollmentEconomically

DisadvantagedYears in

PI

Three Year Proficiency

Rate on AYPFive Year API Net

Gain ScoresGrad Rate 2004-05

Grad Rate 2005-06

Grad Rate 2006-07

Grad Rate 2007-08 Tier

Angeles Mesa ES 485 90% 4 28.5% 36 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Audubon MS 1,219 79% 12 19.0% 46 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Carson SH 3,547 47% 5 37.3% No API for 5 Years 84.0% 77.5% 79.4% 81.7% Tier 2

Carver MS 1,963 89% 12 13.5% 23 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Clay MS 1,301 88% 5 11.0% -6 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Clinton MS 1,149 80% 2 13.8% No API for 5 Years NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Contreras Learning Complex 934 84% 2 25.3% No API for 5 Years NA NA 89.4% 84.7% Tier 1

Crenshaw SH 2,039 80% 11 21.1% No API for 5 Years 65.6% 56.9% 41.0% 51.8% Tier 1

Drew MS 2,156 83% 12 13.4% 26 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

East Valley SH 1,306 79% 2 25.7% No API for 5 Years NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Fulton MS 2,093 87% 12 18.7% 45 NA NA NA 100.0% Tier 1

Gage MS 3,152 89% 12 18.9% 40 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Gardena SH 3,161 62% 5 27.2% No API for 5 Years 59.2% 62.2% 63.6% 64.9% Tier 1

Gompers MS 1,622 76% 12 13.4% 33 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Griffith Joyner ES 934 93% 4 25.7% 46 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Hillcrest Dr. ES 908 92% 12 22.0% 47 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

International Studies SH 760 71% 4 26.7% No API for 5 Years NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Jefferson SH 1,970 84% 12 17.8% 47 66.1% 54.0% 43.1% 48.6% Tier 1

Los Angeles SH 3,170 74% 11 28.8% No API for 5 Years 46.8% 48.5% 50.6% 56.5% Tier 2

Manual Arts SH 3,498 76% 12 20.6% No API for 5 Years 91.4% 81.4% 76.2% 69.0% Tier 1

Markham MS 1,497 82% 12 9.6% 12 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

Maywood Academy SH 1,350 91% 3 34.0% No API for 5 Years NA NA NA 94.9% Tier 2

Muir MS 2,002 77% 12 14.1% 48 NA NA NA NA Tier 1

San Fernando SH 3,261 86% 3 29.2% 49 80.7% 78.5% 74.8% 80.2% Tier 2

South East SH 2,815 80% 3 28.5% No API for 5 Years NA NA 84.8% 85.6% Tier 2

Stevenson MS 2,282 87% 6 19.9% 39 NA NA NA NA Tier 1Sun Valley MS 1,642 90% 5 20.3% 42 NA NA NA NA Tier 2Sylmar SH 3,664 68% 5 30.7% 46 67.9% 77.9% 79.1% 83.0% Tier 2Washington Prep SH 2,384 86% 11 17.6% No API for 5 Years 48.1% 44.5% 52.2% 52.9% Tier 1Woodcrest ES 923 96% 5 18.3% 7 NA NA NA NA Tier 1                     *Belmont SH 1,475 85% 12 19.9% 96 51.1% 42.7% 37.2% 49.5% Tier 1

List of LAUSD Persistently Lowest-achieving Schools from the State

8

Participation RequirementParticipation Requirement• LEAs that apply for and receive a SIG

grant must implement one of 4 selected intervention models in each of the Tier I and Tier II schools that they have committed to serve.

9

4 Intervention Models4 Intervention Models

Restart Turnaround

Transformation Closure

10

Restart Model

School must close and reopen as a new charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) by the first day of the 2010 - 11 school year.

11

Turnaround Model

School must have replaced the principal & up to 50% of instructional staff prior to the beginning of the 2010-11 school year. Must implement additional required improvement activities.

12

Transformation Model

– School must have replaced the principal & increased instructional time by staff by the first day of the 2010-11 school year. The school must implement additional required improvement activities.

– Note: An LEA with 9 or more Tier I and Tier II schools can only use this model in 50% or less of these schools

13

Closure Model

LEA must close and enroll students in higher-achieving schools in the district no later than the end of the 2010-11 school year.

14

Priority for FundingPriority for Funding

LEAs that commit to serve:1. All of their Tier I & Tier II schools 2. Some of their Tier I & Tier II schools3. Tier III schools

Note: CDE does not anticipate

having sufficient funds to serve Tier III schools.

15

Annual Funding Annual Funding Levels Levels Per School School

Minimum Maximum

$2 million

$50,000

• Amount of funding is based on the model selected and the services to be provided.

• Renewal funding may be contingent upon the school’s progress.

16

Recommended LAUSD Schools

Turnaround Model

Transformation Model

Restart Model

•Fremont HS •Gardena HS•Hillcrest ES•Jefferson HS•Washington Prep HS•Maywood HS

•Carver MS•Crenshaw HS•Gompers MS•Griffith Joyner ES•Manual Arts HS•Markham MS•Stevenson MS

17

State’s TimelineState’s TimelineEvent Date

SIG Applications due to CDE June 1, 2010

Award Notifications Mailed July 2010

Submit revised LEA Plan and SPSA to CDE

October 1, 2010

All funds must be expended September 30, 2013 (with approved waiver)

18

LAUSD Timeline/ProcessLAUSD Timeline/ProcessResponsibility Steps

Time Frame for the Week of

DistrictMeet with unions to review SIG process.

April 5, 2010

DistrictDetermine steps that need to be taken for each model.

April 9, 2010

DistrictConvene a meeting of all prospective applicants.

April 12, 2010

SchoolSelected SIG schools must hold a public meeting to engage stakeholders

After April 12, 2010

SchoolReturn School Improvement Intent to Comply with Conditions and Assurances

Due: April 23, 2010

DistrictConvene an advisory group as an outgrowth of the Teacher Effectiveness Taskforce

April 19 – ongoing

DistrictBased on Intervention Models – meet with LACOE & iDesign partners

April 19 – 23, 2010

DistrictWrite Grant April 23 -

ongoing

DistrictPresentation to Board for Grant approval

May 25, 2010

19

Needs AssessmentNeeds Assessment

Data Collection on 9 Indicators

District Assurances

Grant Writing 20