School Improvement Grants (SIGs) are grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education to state education agencies (SEAs) under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ( ESEA, reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002). The SEAs, in turn, award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEA’s, also known as school districts) for the purpose of supporting focused school improvement efforts.U.S. Department of Education (2010). Guidance on School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC. Author. The final requirements for the SIG program, set forth in 74 FR 65618 (December. 10, 2009), and amended by the interim final requirements, set forth in 75 FR (January. 21, 2010) (final requirements), implement both the requirements of section 1003(g) of the ESEA and the flexibilities for the SIG program provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. In 2009, the Obama administration, and specifically U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, challenged the education community to make the lowest-achieving schools its highest priority.Duncan A. (2009). Turning Around the Bottom Five Percent: Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Conference. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.html
With funds allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. Department of Education dramatically increased the funds provided to SEAs under section 1003(g) while issuing program requirements that charged the SEAs with channeling the funds to LEAs for the “persistently lowest-achieving schools” to support rapid improvement through four relatively prescriptive intervention models:• The turnaround model in which the LEA replaces the principal and rehires no more than 50% of the staff, gives the principal greater autonomy, and implements other prescribed and recommended strategies.• The “restart model” in which the LEA converts or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, charter management organization, or education management organization.• The “school closure model” in which the LEA closes the school and enrolls the students in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.• The “transformation model” in which the LEA replaces the principal (except in specified situations), implements a rigorous staff evaluation and development system, institutes comprehensive instructional reform, increases learning time and applies community-oriented school strategies, and provides greater operational flexibility and support for the school.Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds. (2010). Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants Center on Innovation & Improvement. Lincoln, IL.
Announcement
On December 3, 2009, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the final requirements for $3.5 billion in Title I School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to turn around the nation’s lowest performing schools. The applications were due into the U.S. Department of Education by February. 8, 2010. These funds were made available to states by formula and competed for by school districts. As they competed for the funds, school districts/local educational agencies (LEAs) were required to identify the schools they wanted to transform, and then determine which of four models was most appropriate: the turnaround model, the restart model, school closure, or the transformation model. The law delineates the requirements for each of the four models. If a school had begun implementation of one of these four models or components of one of these models within the previous two years, it was permitted to apply to use SIG funds to continue to implement the full model.
Lowest Achieving
The SIG program reflects the federal government's prioritization of the lowest-achieving public schools. The Center on Innovation & Improvement, one of five federally funded content centers, has developed extensive guidance regarding implementation of the SIG program.Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from: http://www.centerii.org/handbook/ As outlined in the SIG regulations,U.S. Department of Education (2010). Guidance on School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC. Author. The final requirements for the SIG program, set forth in 74 FR 65618 (December. 10, 2009), and amended by the interim final requirements, set forth in 75 FR (January. 21, 2010) (final requirements), implement both the requirements of section 1003(g) of the ESEA and the flexibilities for the SIG program provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 the Department has articulated very specific parameters regarding the approaches states and districts are to use to drive dramatic improvement. Under guidance promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education, states must distribute 95% of their SIG grant dollars to districts and, in turn, districts must prioritize awards to districts based on need as measured by individual schools’ academic performance and concentration of poverty. As outlined in the law, when awarding subgrants to districts, states must “give priority to the local educational agencies with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate —(A) the greatest need for such funds; and(B) the 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.”
Under the 2010 guidance related to Section 1003(g), state departments of education are required to identify their “persistently lowest-achieving” schools . School districts that have schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving apply to the state department of education to obtain School Improvement Grants. As part of their grant application, districts must identify which of the four intervention models (i.e., turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation) they intend to implement in each of the identified lowest-achieving schools. While the LEAs must apply one of the four intervention models in schools defined as “persistently lowest-achieving,” once the state has allocated adequate resources to these schools, according to the federal requirements, the state can use the remaining School Improvement Grant funds for districts to implement other interventions and supports to improve other Title I schools (i.e., schools eligible for federal aid under Title I of ESEA [i.e., NCLB] due to high concentrations of poverty) in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Tiers The SIG regulations define three tiers of schools for purposes of obtaining SIG funds.U.S. Department of Education. (2009). School Improvement Grants--American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Notice of proposed requirements. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2009-3/082609d.html Each tier represents a level of priority for the SIG funds. In determining which districts receive grants, the state takes into account (1) the number of low-performing schools in the state, (2) the tiers these schools occupy, and (3) the LEA’s capacity to effectively implement the models and strategies outlined in the SIG application. The three tiers of schools identified as lowest achieving, in priority order for assistance through School Improvement Grants, are: Tier I: Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving.” Tier II: Secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I-Part A funds and are identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving.” Tier III: Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not Tier I schools.
School Improvement Grant intervention models
Turnaround model
Changes required to occur under the turnaround model as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education are: Replace principal Use locally adopted "turnaround" competencies to review and select staff for school (rehire no more than 50% of existing staff) Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff Select and implement an instructional model based on student needs Provide job-embedded professional development (PD) designed to build capacity and support staff Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction Provide increased learning time for staff and students Provide social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports Implement new governance structure Grant operating flexibility to school leader
Schools implementing the turnaround model may also implement any of the required or permissible strategies under the Transformation Model.
The theory of action underlying the turnaround model is that the existing configuration of leadership and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. Therefore, in order to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change.Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The turnaround model. [audiovisual recording]. Prepared for the National Network of State School Improvement Leaders. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/ Under the turnaround model, change entails literal change of personnel as well as behavioral change by the high-capacity personnel that remain.
Restart model
Under the restart model, the district 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) that has been selected through a rigorous review process.For additional information about charter management organizations, see: National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance: http://www.charterresource.org/ A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school. A rigorous review process could take into consideration such things as an applicant’s team, track record, instructional program, model’s theory of action, and sustainability. As part of this model, a state must review the process the LEA will use/has used to select the partner.