Presentation on theme: "School Improvement Grants Tier I and Tier II Schools March, 2010."— Presentation transcript:
School Improvement Grants Tier I and Tier II Schools March, 2010
Overview Planning for the Intervention Model Serving Tier I and Tier II Schools Review of Draft LEA Application and Rubric
Selecting the Intervention Model and Partners/Providers for a Low-Achieving School A Decision-Making and Planning Tool for the Local Education Agency Center on Innovation & Improvement www.centerii.orgwww.centerii.org Planning for the Intervention
Model Profiles Transformation Turnaround Restart Closure School Profile Context Performance Partner/ Provider Profiles Lead Support Internal Partners Intervention Models Which Model for this School? Roles and Contracts Define Roles Set Performance Expectations Establish Benchmarks Establish Monitoring Procedures Working Relationships State LEA Partners/External Providers Principal School Teams Parents & Community Step 1: Develop Model and Partner/Provider Profiles Step 3: Determine Best-Fit Model and Partners/Providers for School Step 4: Define Roles/Develop Contracts Step 5: Forge Relationships Partners/External Providers Which Lead? Which Support(s)? Which Internal (LEA) Partner? Step 2: Develop School Profile
Selecting the Intervention Model Develop the Model and Partner/Provider Profiles Develop School Profile Determine Best-Fit Model and Partners/Providers for Schools Define Roles/Develop Contracts Forge Relationships
Model Profile Consider state statutes and policies that address the model, limit it, create barriers to it, or provide support for it and how Consider district policies that address the intervention model, limit it, create barriers to it, or provide support for it and how Consider district contractual agreements, including collective bargaining, that affect the intervention model and how (Closure) Consider those higher achieving schools available to receive students and number of students that could be accepted at each school
Partners/External Providers Profiles Partner Organization/External Provider Services Provided Experience (Types of Schools and Results) Lead or Support
School Profile - Context Students Grade levels (e.g., 9-12) Total Enrollment % Free/Reduced Lunch % Special Education Students % English Language Learners (ELLs) Home Languages of ELLs Schools enrollment area Feeder schools and/or recipient schools
School Profile - Context Teachers Profile of the teaching staff Process by which teachers are evaluated. By whom? How frequently? Teacher absenteeism
School Profile - Context Administrators Background and core competencies (particular skills, expertise) Years in the position Years employed in the school/LEA Process by which school administrators are evaluated. By whom? How frequently?
School Profile - Context Summary of previous and current reform and improvement efforts, within the last 5 years, and what impeded their success. For example: School adopted a model and curriculum to raise reading scores, but was not able to implement with fidelity. District provided instructional coach but coach was not able to have an impact due to only visiting school twice per quarter. School adopted a block schedule for math and reading but inadequate PD funds limited ability for teachers to change instructional approach and fully utilize longer instructional blocks.
School Profile - Performance Percentage of students proficient on state assessments by: Subgroup Grade level All students over a number of years Average daily attendance percentage Student mobility rate Graduation rate for all students Graduation rate-percentage
School Profile - Performance Example guiding questions: What characteristics of administrators and faculty should be taken into account in selecting a model and external partners? What characteristics of past experience with reform efforts should be taken into account in selecting a model and external partners?
Best-Fit Model for School Assess performance and capacity School Performance School Capacity District Capacity Community Capacity Rank the intervention models Use the guiding questions for each model
Best-Fit Model for School Example: School Capacity Strong existing (2 yrs or less) or readily available turnaround leader (Turnaround) Evidence of pockets of strong instructional staff capacity (Transformation) Evidence of negative school culture (Restart) Physical plant deficiencies (Closure)
Best-Fit Model for School What improvement strategy will result in the most immediate and substantial improvement in learning and school success for the students now attending this school given the existing capacity in the school and the district?
Best-Fit Partners Identify partners based on model Lead Partner/Provider(if applicable) Internal Partner (District Staff) Supporting Partner/Provider Provide rationale for selection
Roles/Contracts Group/Partner/Provider State Education Agency Local Education Agency Internal Partner/Provider (LEA staff) Lead Partner/Provider Support Partner/Provider Principal School Teams Parents & Community
Roles/Contracts What will the performance expectations be for the lead partner/provider and supporting partners/providers? What will be established for quarterly benchmarks? How will the performance be monitored?
Working Relationships How will the LEA promote the working relationships among the groups and partners/providers committed to this intervention?
Starting Now Work with LEAs, unions, IHEs and other stakeholders to: Quickly define and identify Tier I and Tier II schools so that LEAs can plan effectively Review and eliminate policies and practices that are barriers to reform Diagnose causes of failure and appropriate interventions for lowest performing schools Develop or refine process to recruit, screen and select necessary outside partners and providers Fairly and rigorously evaluate teachers and leaders in lowest performing schools Recruit and train turnaround and transformation principals, school leaders and teachers Begin outreach to parents, students and community stakeholders Allocate existing funds such as 1003(a) and Title I A to support planning efforts
Resources LEA Selection of SIG Model Decision Tool: http://www.centerii.org/ http://www.centerii.org/ Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants: http://www.centerii.org/http://www.centerii.org/ SIG Guidance: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html
Turnaround Increased learning time refers to increasing the number of instructional minutes in the school day or days in the school year. To satisfy the requirements of the turnaround model and the transformation model for, a before- or after-school instructional program must be available to all students in the school.
Turnaround Staff includes all instructional staff, but an LEA has discretion to determine whether or not staff also includes non- instructional staff. Includes any positions that may be vacant at the time of the implementation.
Turnaround Job-embedded includes classroom coaching, structured common planning time, meetings with mentors, consultation with outside experts, and observations of classroom practice. When implemented as part of a turnaround model, job-embedded professional development must be designed with school staff.
Restart An LEA need not know the particular EMO or CMO with which it would contract to restart a school Prior to submitting its application. LEA should at least have a pool of potential partners that have expressed an interest in and have exhibited an ability to restart the school.
School Closure Close schools and send students to other higher achieving schools. Other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school. May include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.
School Closure In general, the costs a receiving school will incur to accommodate students who are moved from a closed school are costs that an LEA is expected to cover, and may not be paid for with SIG funds.
Transformation Definitions and other guidance that apply to the elements of turnaround model apply to the transformation model. Involvement by teachers and principals in the design of evaluation systems may or may not include teachers and principals in a school implementing the transformation model.
Transformation LEAs have flexibility to determine both the type and number of opportunities for staff to improve their professional practice before they are removed from a school implementing the transformation model.
Cross-cutting Issues An LEA may use SIG funds to pay for district-level activities to support implementing one of the four school intervention models in each Tier I and Tier II school. For example, an LEA might hire a district-level turnaround specialist to establish an early warning system designed to identify students in Tier I or Tier II schools who may be at risk of failing to achieve high standards or graduate, or to support implementation of a turnaround model. An LEA may not use SIG funds to support district-level activities for schools that are not receiving SIG funds.
Cross-cutting Issues An LEA that receives SIG funds to serve one or more Tier I or Tier II schools that do not receive Title I, Part A funds must ensure that each such school receives all of the State and local funds it would have received in the absence of the SIG funds.
Cross-cutting Issues LEA may have 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. For example, if a Tier I or Tier II school has replaced its principal within the last two years, the SEA may award funds to the schools LEA to implement a turnaround model in the school even though the school will not be required to hire another new principal.