ERIC ED562072: School Improvement Grants. Guidance and Tools for the 2015 Amended Regulations: Maximizing the Optional Planning/Pre-Implementation Year

2015·0.32 MB·English

by  ERIC

SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT
GRANTS
Guidance and Tools for the 2015
Amended Regulations:
Maximizing the Optional
Planning/Pre-Implementation Year
Sam Redding, Lenay Dunn,
Carlas McCauley
http://centeronschoolturnaround.org
This work was supported by the Center on School Turnaround through funding from the U.S. Department
of Education, PR/Award Number S283B120015. It does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
U.S. Department of Education and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
The Center on School Turnaround, a partnership of WestEd and the Academic Development Institute
(ADI), the Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education at the University of Virginia, and the National
Implementation Research Network, is part of the federal network of 22 Federal Comprehensive Centers,
Suggested citation: Redding, S., Dunn, L., & McCauley, C. (2015). School Improvement Grants: Guidance
and tools for the 2015 amended regulations: Maximizing the optional planning/pre-implementation year.
San Francisco: WestEd.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful and expert feedback to early drafts from: William Robinson,
University of Virginia/Center on School Turnaround; Dallas Hambrick Hitt, University of Virginia/Center on
School Turnaround; Dean Fixsen, National Implementation Research Network/Center on School Turnaround;
Caryn Ward, National Implementation Research Network/Center on School Turnaround; Kathleen Ryan Jackson,
National Implementation Research Network/Center on School Turnaround. We also thank Pam Sheley and
Lori Thomas for their skillful editing.
Contents
Introduction 1
Background on School Improvement Grants 1
Purpose of SIGs 1
Duration of SIG Awards 1
Eligible Schools 2
Seven Intervention Models: Seven Possible Options 2
Rural School Flexibility 3
State-Developed Alternative Intervention Models 3
Evidence-Based, Whole-School Reform Strategy Model 4
Early Learning Model 4
The SIG Turnaround Application Process: SEA Roles and
Responsibilities 6
SEA Levers 6
Planning and Pre-Implementation Year 8
Purpose and Timeline 8
Selecting Planning Consultants and Lead Partners 10
Enhancing District Readiness 10
Revisiting a School Needs Assessment 11
Confirming an Intervention Model 13
Implementation Plan Checklist 17
Design LEA Support and Monitoring Structure 18
District Support and Monitoring Structure Checklist 18
Selecting Service Providers 19
Share the Emerging Vision 19
Recruitment and Personnel Changes 20
Making Physical Plant Improvements 22
Communicating About Change 22
Establish LEA Policy and Guidance Documents to
Support School Practices 22
Conclusion 23
References and Resources 24
Appendices 25
Appendix A: Plan-Do-Study-Act 25
Appendix B: Essential School Functions 26
About the Authors 27
1
Background on School Improvement Grants
Introduction
The purpose of this guide is to provide states, districts, and schools with information and
support to prepare applications for 2015–2016 School Improvement Grants (SIGs). The guide
includes tools, checklists, and questions for SEAs and LEAs aligned with the revised SIG
requirements, primarily focused on how to leverage the “planning year” to build a foundation
of success for SIG schools.
Background on School
Improvement Grants
Purpose of SIGs priority schools (lowest-performing Title I
schools) and focus schools (schools with
School Improvement Grants (SIGs) are autho-
largest achievement gaps) eligible to receive
rized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the
SIG funds in states that are operating under
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
approved ESEA flexibility plans without
(ESEA). The grants are made to state edu-
requesting a waiver to do so. Furthermore,
cation agencies (SEAs), and the SEAs award
the amended requirements make modifica-
competitive subgrants to local education
tions to the teacher and principal evaluation
agencies (LEAs) that demonstrate (1) the
and support system, clarify the renewal cri-
greatest need for the funds, and (2) the
teria, and call for more support and monitor-
strongest commitment to use the funds in
ing of implementation by the LEAs.
ways that will substantially raise the achieve-
ment of students in the lowest-performing
schools. The funds are to be used to improve Duration of SIG Awards
student achievement in eligible schools.
An LEA may apply for, and the SEA award, a
The federal SIG requirements were origi- SIG grant for:
nally re-regulated in 2010, and the amended
(cid:273)(cid:427) Five years, with the first year being
requirements were finalized in February
a planning year, followed by at least
2015. The amended requirements imple-
three implementation years and one
ment language from the 2014 Consolidated
optional year to sustain reforms or
Appropriations Act thus allowing five-year
continue implementation, or
SIG awards; adding State-determined school
improvement intervention models; add-
(cid:273)(cid:427) Five years, with the first three years
ing evidence-based, whole-school reform
being implementation years, f ollowed
models; and provided some flexibility for
by (up to) two years to sustain
rural schools. The amended requirements
reforms or continue implementation.
also add an Early Learning Model that
focuses on improving outcomes in preschool The grants are annually renewable during
and early grades. Further, the amended the five-year period, based on the state’s
SIG requirements are modified to include determination that the LEA and school have
2
Background on School Improvement Grants
made adequate progress in implementing lowest quintile of performance based on
the intervention model. proficiency rates on the state’s assessments;
and (3) is no higher achieving than the high-
2015–2016 SIG Timeline
est-achieving school identified by the SEA
as a “persistently lowest-achieving school.”
The deadline for SEA submission of its
A school may also be identified as a “newly
application to the Office of Elementary
eligible” school for Tier I or Tier II if it is a
and Secondary Education (OESE) is April
high school that has a graduation rate less
15, 2015. The SEA includes a timeline in its
than 60% over a number of years.
application. Dates below are provided as
an example and will vary according to each
state’s application. SEAs Approved for ESEA Flexibility
For SEAs approved for ESEA flexibility,
SEA notifies LEAs about the SIG competition:
all schools identified as priority schools
February 2015
or focus schools under the criteria in the
LEA applications due to the SEA: ESEA flexibility plan are eligible to receive
June 2015 SIG funds.
SEA conducts review of LEA applications:
June/July 2015 Seven Intervention Models
SEA notifies LEAs about their award status: The turnaround, restart, closure, and trans-
July 2015 formation models remain as defined in
previous iterations of SIG. To these four
SEA awards SIG funds to LEAs: models, three models have been added for
July 2015 2015–2016. An LEA applying to the SEA for
a SIG grant must select one of the following
Optional Planning Year Begins:
intervention models for each SIG-eligible
July/August 2015
school for which it is applying:
OR
1. Turnaround—replacement of prin-
cipal and 50% of staff and other
Implementation Year Begins:
requirements
August/September 2015
2. Restart—close the school and reopen
Eligible Schools as a charter school or school admin-
istered by an Education Management
Organization
SEAs Not Approved for ESEA Flexibility
3. Closure—close the school and assign
SEAs not approved for ESEA flexibility con-
students to other, better-performing
tinue to identify SIG-eligible schools accord-
schools
ing to the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III definitions
used prior to the 2015 amendment to SIG
4. Transformation—replace the principal
requirements. In addition to these schools,
and implement turnaround principles;
the SEA may designate schools as “newly
most significant change in federal
eligible” that meet criteria established in the
requirements for 2015 is the require-
2010 amendment to SIG requirements. A
ment to align the leader and teacher
school may be identified as a “newly eligi-
evaluation system with the criteria in
ble” school for Tier I or Tier II if it: (1) has not
the ESEA flexibility guidance
made adequate yearly progress for at least
two consecutive years; (2) is in the state’s
3
Background on School Improvement Grants
5. NEW: State-Developed Alternative c. Requiring the LEA to provide the
Model (if approved state model principal with operational flexi-
is available) bility in the areas of scheduling,
staff, curriculum, and budget.
6. NEW: Evidence-Based, Whole-School
Reform Strategy (created by LEA in 2. Ensure that teachers are effective and
partnership with a strategy developer) able to improve instruction by:
7. NEW: Early Learning Model a. Requiring a review of all staff
and retaining only those who are
determined to be effective and to
Rural School Flexibility
have the ability to be successful in
Under the amended SIG requirements, an supporting the turnaround effort;
LEA eligible for services under subpart 1
b. Preventing ineffective teachers
or 2 of Title VI (Rural Education Assistance
from transferring to a school
Program) of the ESEA may propose to
implementing a SIG intervention;
modify one element of the turnaround or
and
transformation model. In seeking this modi-
fication, the LEA’s application must describe c. Providing job-embedded, ongo-
how the intent and purpose of the element ing professional development
will be met. informed by the teacher evalua-
tion and support systems and tied
to teacher and student needs.
State-Developed Alternative
Intervention Models 3. Establish schedules and implement
strategies that provide increased
An SEA may seek approval from the U. S.
learning time (as defined in the SIG
Secretary of Education for one state-devel-
requirements).
oped intervention model. The model must
address the Department of Education’s 4. Strengthen the school’s instructional
Turnaround Principles to1: program by ensuring that it:
1. Ensure strong leadership by: a. Is research-based, rigorous, and
aligned with state academic con-
a. Requiring a review of the perfor-
tent standards; and
mance of the current principal;
b. Meets student needs.
b. Requiring replacement of the
principal, if such change is 5. Use data to inform instruction and for
necessary to ensure strong and continuous improvement, including
effective leadership, or requiring providing time for collaboration on
the LEA to demonstrate to the the use of data.
SEA that the current principal
6. Establish a school environment that
has a track record in improving
improves school safety and discipline
achievement and has the ability
and addresses other non-academic
to lead the turnaround effort; and
factors that impact student achieve-
ment, such as students’ social, emo-
tional, and health needs.
1 The model description language used in this
guide is taken and/or summarized from the 7. Provide ongoing mechanisms for
Federal Register, Volume 79, Number 173, family and community engagement.
September 8, 2014 Proposed Rules by the
U.S. Department of Education.
4
Background on School Improvement Grants
Evidence-Based, Whole-School 1. Implementing each of the following
Reform Strategy Model early learning strategies:
An LEA may propose to use SIG funds to a. Offer full-day kindergarten;
implement an evidence-based, whole-school
b. Establish or expand a high-quality
reform strategy developed in partnership
preschool program;
with a strategy developer. The LEA must
present evidence supporting the strategy, c. Provide educators, including
and the evidence must include a sample preschool teachers, with time for
population or setting similar to the popula- joint planning across grades to
tion or setting of the school. The evidence facilitate effective teaching and
must include at least one study that meets learning and positive teacher–stu-
the What Works Clearinghouse standards dent interactions.
that found a statistically significant favor-
able impact on student academic achieve- 2. Replacing the principal who led the
ment. The strategy developer must meet school prior to commencement of the
the definition of a strategy developer in the early learning model.
SIG requirements.
3. Implementing the same rigorous,
transparent, and equitable evaluation
An evidence-based, whole-school reform
and support systems for teachers and
strategy is defined as a strategy that (1) is
principals, designed and developed
designed to improve student academic
with teacher and principal involve-
achievement or attainment; (2) is imple-
ment, that is required under the trans-
mented for all students in a school; and
formation model.
(3) addresses, at a minimum and in a com-
prehensive and coordinated manner, school
4. Using the teacher and principal eval-
leadership, teaching and learning in at least
uation and support system to identify
one full academic content area (including
and reward school leaders, teachers,
professional learning for educators), s tudent
and other staff who, in implementing
non-academic support, and family and
this model, have increased student
community engagement.
achievement and identifying and
removing those who, after ample
A “strategy developer” is defined as an
opportunities have been provided for
entity or individual that maintains propri-
them to improve their professional
etary rights for the strategy or, if no entity
practice, have not done so.
or individual maintains proprietary rights
for the strategy, an entity or individual that
5. Implementing such strategies as
has a demonstrated record of success in
financial incentives, increased oppor-
implementing the strategy in one or more
tunities for promotion and career
low-achieving schools or that, together with
growth, and more flexible work con-
a partner LEA, has a high-quality plan for
ditions that are designed to recruit,
implementing the strategy in a school.
place, and retain staff with the skills
necessary to meet the needs of stu-
dents in the school, taking into con-
Early Learning Model
sideration the results from the teacher
An elementary school eligible for a SIG and principal evaluation and support
award may apply to adopt an early learn- system, if applicable.
ing model. The early learning model must
6. Using data to identify and implement
include:
an instructional program that (a) is
research-based, developmentally
5
Background on School Improvement Grants
appropriate, and vertically aligned educational and developmental needs
from one grade to the next, as well of individual students.
as aligned with state early learning
8. Providing staff ongoing, high-quality,
and development standards and state
job-embedded professional develop-
academic standards and (b) in the
ment such as coaching and mentor-
early grades, promotes the full range
ing (e.g., regarding subject-specific
of academic content across domains
pedagogy, instruction that reflects a
of development, including math
deeper understanding of the commu-
and science, language and literacy,
nity served by the school, or differ-
socio-emotional skills, self-regulation,
entiated instruction) that is aligned
and executive functions.
with the school’s comprehensive
7. Promoting the continuous use of instructional program and designed
student data (such as from forma- with school staff to ensure they are
tive, interim, and summative assess- equipped to facilitate effective teach-
ments) to inform and differentiate ing and learning and have the capac-
instruction in order to meet the ity to successfully implement school
reform strategies.
6
The SIG Turnaround
Application Process: SEA
Roles and Responsibilities
The SIG program, through its requirements, Continuation Versus New Awards
conveys the distinctive roles of SEAs, LEAs,
In this new round of funding, SEAs may
and schools in the process. Of the SIG funds
consider whether to identify new schools or
received by a state, 95% must be allocated
make continuation awards to current schools
directly to LEAs, with up to 5% retained by
implementing SIG from previous cohorts.
the state for administration, evaluation, and
As states contemplate this question, there
technical assistance. However, the SEA is
are obvious pros and cons to either option.
also responsible for the following:
Should an SEA decide to make continua-
(cid:273)(cid:427) Identifying eligible Tier I, Tier II, tion awards to currently implementing SIG
priority, and focus schools; schools, it will provide additional time for
those schools to improve. However, these
(cid:273)(cid:427) Developing SEA application, LEA schools would also not have the luxury of
guidance, and an LEA application having sufficient time to plan for the addi-
template; tional implementation year(s). Thus, these
schools may not use the time as effectively
(cid:273)(cid:427) Reviewing, approving, and award-
as possible due to the lack of planning time.
ing (including school/district grant
There are also pros and cons for identify-
renewals and annual goals);
ing new schools to begin implementation.
(cid:273)(cid:427) Managing and monitoring turnaround First, due to the timing of the release of the
efforts; and SIG grant, there is a shortened timeframe
for schools seeking to implement this fall.
(cid:273)(cid:427) Reporting data on leading indicators.
Similarly, the lack of time may not lead to
effective full implementation in the 2015–
These responsibilities seek to engage SEAs
2016 school year. However, because of the
in ways that may differ from past federal
extended life cycle of the SIG grant, newly
school improvement efforts; because of
funded schools may begin to plan with the
these responsibilities, states have many
end in mind by taking advantage of the new
opportunities to impact turnaround efforts
planning year option. Should an SEA decide
through its decisions and guidance.
to identify new schools for SIG implementa-
tion, one obvious drawback is the increased
SEA Levers number of schools that have been identified
as persistently low-achieving and/or priority
There are several key levers SEAs have at
and focus schools. As a result, the increased
their disposal to guide SIG efforts. Two
number may lead to public contention.
examples are whether to fund continuation
versus new awards and what type of guid-
In choosing whether to offer continuation
ance will help drive systemic and sustainable
awards or new awards, states should analyze
turnaround efforts.
the current turnaround efforts to determine