1. Virginia Department of Education March 5, 2010

2.  The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) was informed that on March 3, 2010, USED posted the states’ definitions of persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools and the list of those schools. USED posted the information for states with an approved definition.  To receive approval from USED, VDOE was required to submit a revised definition of PLA and subsequent list of schools. The list of schools identified as Tier I did not change as a result of the revised definition. The list of schools identified as Tier II did change as a result of the revised definition.  States have been assured that the changes requested by USED will not affect schools previously identified and submitted through the Race to the Top grants. The revised list of schools will have an impact on the 1003(g) School Improvement Grant funds.

3.  A Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring based on the academic achievement of the “all students” group in reading/language arts and mathematics combined and the school has not reduced its failure rate in reading/language arts and/or mathematics by 10 to 15 percent each year for the past two years (Tier I); or  A secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that is among the lowest-achieving five percent of schools based on the academic achievement of the “all students” group in reading/language arts and mathematics combined and the school has not reduced its failure rate in reading/language arts and/or mathematics by 10 to 15 percent each year for the past two years (Tier II); or  A high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent for two years.

4.  As required by the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) – Phase II requirements, the following factors were considered to identify the persistently lowest- achieving schools: 1) the academic achievement of the “all students” group in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and 2) the schools’ lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group. The adding ranks method stipulated in the United States Department of Education (USED) Frequently Asked Questions

6.  Under the initial United States Department of Education (USED) requirements published in December 2009, states were required to identify eligible schools in each of three tiers.  Under the final USED requirements published in January 2010, states were given flexibility to identify additional eligible schools in each of the three tiers.

7. Schools That MUST be Identified Newly Eligible Schools Column 1Column 2 Tier ITitle I schools in Title I School Improvement that are among the lowest- achieving five percent. Title I eligible elementary schools that are no higher achieving than the highest- achieving school in Tier I, Column 1 and are in the bottom 20 percent of all schools in the state. Tier IITitle I eligible secondary schools that are defined as persistently lowest- achieving. None. Tier IIITitle I schools in Title I School Improvement in Years 2-7 that are not in Tier I. Title I eligible schools that are not in Tier I or Tier II and are in the bottom 20 percent of all schools in the state Description of Proposed Tiers

8.  States must submit an application to USED.  USED must approve the state’s application and the state’s definition of persistently lowest- achieving schools before the state may allow eligible local school divisions to apply for funds.  Applications were due to USED on February 8, 2010.  Virginia’s application was submitted on February 5, 2010.  Local school division applications will be available within 14 business days of USED approval of state application.

9.  Schools identified in Tiers I and II MUST implement one of four required USED reform models.

10. Must contract with a Lead Turnaround Partner Must replace principal May “start over” in School Improvement Timeline Must hire a coach Closure RestartXX TransformationX TurnaroundXXX State Transformation X

11. Recommended Estimated Funding ModelFY 2009 (2009-2010) FY 2010 (2010-2011) FY 2011 (2011-2012) Restart $350,000 $550,000* $702,000 $1,127,000* $500,000 $800,000* Turnaround $350,000 $550,000* $702,000 $1,127,000* $500,000 $800,000* Transformation $350,000 Closure $50,000 * Recommended for schools with more than 500 students.

12. If a school division has one or more…… In order to receive SIG funds, the school division must commit to serve…. Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schoolsEach Tier I school it has the capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at least one Tier II school Tier I and Tier II schoolsSame as above. Tier I and Tier III schoolsEach Tier I school it has the capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school Tier II and Tier III schoolsAs many Tier II and Tier III schools as it wishes to serve Tier I only OR Tier II only OR Tier III only As many schools as it has the capacity to serve

13. Low-achieving schools can be categorized into three tiers based on available data, and interventions and supports (including funding) can vary according to the tier. A low-achieving school can be rapidly improved (within three years) through one of three intervention models: Turnaround, Restart, or Transformation. Some schools will not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of adequately responding to one of the three aforementioned intervention models, and their students will benefit from a fourth intervention model– the school’s closure and the students’ placement in higher-achieving schools.

14. Turnaround Zone Lead Turnaround Partner for Reform Support Readiness to LEARN Readiness to ACT Readiness to TEACH Local School Board Internal Lead Partner Superintendent and Division Staff Time: Authority over scheduling, longer day, longer year Money: More budget flexibility, more resources Program: Flexibility to shape program to students’ needs and turnaround priorities People: Authority over selection, compensation and work rules

15. Educational Management Organization (EMO) – Restart, Turnaround Reform Management Organization (RMO) – Transformation

16. Assign a division staff to serve as the Internal Lead Partner or liaison between the LTP and the Superintendent. Develops and manages the Memorandum of Understanding. Must have the division-level authority to make instructional decisions quickly.

17. Meet with ILPs April 7, 2010 in Richmond. Provide information regarding the ins and outs of selecting and contracting with a LTP. Provide a summer institute (July 19-22) in which an MOU is developed between the LTP and the ILP. Both must attend. Meet at least monthly with LTP and ILP through web conference to discuss monthly reports provided to the ILP and VDOE by the LTP. Meet with additional technical assistance provider at least three times during the year. Additional training may be needed.

18. The award decision has not been completed yet. As a matter of clarification the awards will be "contracts" not an approved LTP list. Check the following web site periodically, which is the official public posting site for contract awards: https://vendor.epro.cgipdc.com/webapp/VSSAPPX/Advantage It may take several moments for the screen to fully populate, but once it does enter the following words in the key word search: "turnaround partners" - when that screen appears you will be able to drill down to see if the contract(s) were awarded and to whom. We don't anticipate any award decision until the end of February, but you should check the above link periodically. Wiley Rowsey, Director, Procurement

19. School closure occurs when a school division closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the school division.

20. A restart model is one in which a school division 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. Note: the school may “start over” in the School Improvement timeline.

21. The school division must Replace principal; Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff; Provide ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development; Adopt a new governance structure;

22. Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade level to the next as well as aligned with state academic standards; Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction; Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time; and Provide appropriate social-emotional and community- oriented services and supports for students. Note: the school may “start over” in the School Improvement timeline. Note: the school may implement any of the strategies in the USED transformation model.

23. Increased Learning Time ◦ Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school hours to include additional time for: (a)Instruction in core academic subjects; (b)Instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities; and (c)Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects.

24. The school division must increase teacher and leader effectiveness by: ◦ Replacing the principal; ◦ Using rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals that  Take into account data on student growth as well as other factors such as multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased high school graduation rates; and  Are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement ◦ Identifying and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates and identify and remove those who have not done so;

25. Providing staff ongoing, high-quality, job embedded professional development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff Implementing such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff.

26. The school division must implement instructional reform strategies that: ◦ Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with state academic standards; and ◦ Promote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instruction.

27. The school division must increase learning time and create community-oriented schools by: ◦ Establishing schedules and strategies that provide increased learning time; and ◦ Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community involvement.

28. Increased Learning Time ◦ Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school hours to include additional time for: (a)Instruction in core academic subjects; (b)Instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities; and (c)Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects.

29. The school division must provide operational flexibility and sustained support by: ◦ Giving the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and ◦ Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the school division, state, or a designated external lead partner organization such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO.

30. Also included are numerous permissible activities. See United States Department of Education Final Requirements for School Improvement Grants, January 15, 2010 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html

31. Because the turnaround model relies principally upon an infusion of human capital, along with changes in decision making and operational practice, the following considerations must be taken into account in determining if turnaround is the best fit for a persistently low-achieving school:  How will the LEA select a new leader for the school, and what experience, training, and skills will the new leader be expected to possess?  How will the LEA assign effective teachers and leaders to the lowest achieving schools?  How will the LEA begin to develop a pipeline of effective teachers and leaders to work in turnaround schools?  How will staff replacement be executed—what is the process for determining which staff remains in the school and for selecting replacements?

32.  How will the language in collective bargaining agreements be negotiated to ensure the most talented teachers and leaders remain in the school?  What supports will be provided to staff being assigned to other schools?  What are the budgetary implications of retaining surplus staff within the LEA if that is necessary?  What is the LEA’s own capacity to execute and support a turnaround? What organizations are available to assist with the implementation of the turnaround model?  What changes in decision-making policies and mechanisms (including greater school-level flexibility in budgeting, staffing, and scheduling) must accompany the infusion of human capital?  What changes in operational practice must accompany the infusion of human capital, and how will these changes be brought about and sustained?

33.  Are there qualified charter management organizations (CMOs) or education management organization (EMOs) willing to partner with the LEA to start a new school (or convert an existing school) in this location?  Will qualified community groups initiate a homegrown charter school? The LEA is best served by developing relationships with community groups to prepare them for operating charter schools.  Based on supply and capacity, which option is most likely to result in acceptable student growth for the student population to be served— homegrown charter school, CMO, or EMO?  How can statutory, policy, and collective bargaining language relevant to the school be negotiated to allow for closure of the school and restart?

34.  How will support be provided to staff that are reassigned to other schools as a result of the restart?  What are the budgetary implications of retaining surplus staff within the LEA if that is necessary?  What is the LEA’s own capacity to support the charter school with access to contractually specified district services and access to available funding?  How will the SEA assist with the restart?  What performance expectations will be contractually specified for the charter school, CMO, or EMO?  Is the LEA (or other authorizer) prepared to terminate the contract if performance expectations are not met?

35.  How will the LEA select a new leader for the school, and what experience, training, and skills will the new leader be expected to possess?  How will the LEA enable the new leader to make strategic staff replacements?  What is the LEA’s own capacity to support the transformation, including the implementation of required, recommended, and diagnostically determined strategies?  What changes in decision making policies and mechanisms (including greater school-level flexibility in budgeting, staffing, and scheduling) must accompany the transformation?  What changes in operational practice must accompany the transformation, and how will these changes be brought about and sustained?

36.  What are the metrics to identify schools to be closed?  What steps are in place to make certain closure decisions are based on tangible data and readily transparent to the local community?  How will the students and their families be supported by the LEA through the re-enrollment process?  Which higher-achieving schools have the capacity to receive students from the schools being considered for closure?  How will the receiving schools be staffed with quality staff to accommodate the increase in students?  How will current staff be reassigned—what is the process for determining which staff members are dismissed and which staff members are reassigned?  Does the statutory, policy, and collective bargaining context relevant to the school allow for removal of current staff?

37. Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 School Improvement Grants, authorized under Section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), are grants for use by local school divisions in:  Title I schools in Title I School Improvement identified as the persistently lowest-achieving schools; and/or  Title I eligible schools identified as the persistently lowest-achieving schools.

38.  What supports will be provided to recipient schools if current staff members are reassigned?  What safety and security considerations might be anticipated for students of the school to be closed and the receiving school(s)?  What are the budgetary implications of retaining surplus staff within the LEA if that is necessary?  How will the LEA track student progress in the recipient schools?  What is the impact of school closure to the school’s neighborhood, enrollment area, or community?  How does school closure fit within the LEA’s overall reform efforts?

39.  Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants http://www.centerii.org/handbook/  United States Department of Education Final Requirements for School Improvement Grants, January 15, 2010 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html  United States Department of Education Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, January 21, 2010 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html

40.  Kathleen Smith  Director, Office of School Improvement  Phone: (804) 786-1692  E-mail: Kathleen.Smith@doe.virginia.govKathleen.Smith@doe.virginia.gov  Roberta Schlicher  Director, Office of Program Administration and Accountability  Phone: (804) 225-2870  E-mail: Roberta.Schlicher@doe.virginia.govRoberta.Schlicher@doe.virginia.gov