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. [4] As outlined in the SIG regulations, [5] 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.
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. [7] 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. [8] 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.
The theory of action underlying restart, also referred to as "Starting Fresh" as first codified in the charter sector, [9] is that restart allows a state, district, or other authorizing entity to break the cycle of low achievement by making deep and fundamental changes to the way the school operates. Research from the charter sector indicates that in order to realize the full potential of restarting low-achieving schools, states/districts should: [10]
- define explicit expectations for performance;
- empower high capacity school leaders to make dramatic changes absent avoidable intrusion from external governing bodies (e.g., state, school district, or authorizer);
- create a positive new school culture that will catalyze success;
- recruit and retain skilled and committed educators to the schools and classrooms with the greatest need; and
- satisfy and engage parents in order to keep their children in public schools.
School closure model
School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. Other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.
The theory of action underlying the closure model is that school capacity according to multiple measures (e.g., academic performance, school culture/expectations, teacher performance, or facilities) is so low as to preclude a reasonable expectation of dramatic improvement for students currently enrolled. [11] [12] Therefore, closing the school and transitioning students to a higher performing school is the best strategy to dramatically improve their academic outcomes. [13]
The theory of action underlying the transformation model is that the existing configuration of leadership and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. [14] As a result, to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change. Under transformation, change entails literal change of leadership as well as behavioral change by instructional personnel.
Changes required to occur under the transformation model, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education, are: [15]
- Replace principal
- Implement new evaluation system developed with staff
- Use student growth as a significant factor
- Identify and reward staff who are increasing student outcomes; support and then remove those who are not
- Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff
- Select and implement an instructional model based on student needs
- Provide job-embedded professional development designed to build capacity and support staff
- Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction
- Provide increased learning time
- Provide an ongoing mechanism for community and family engagement
- Partner to provide social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports
- Provide sufficient operating flexibility to implement reform
- Ensure ongoing technical assistance
Selecting the "right" intervention model
In fulfilling their obligations outlined under the SIG regulations, LEAs must identify schools targeted for intervention based on persistent low performance and thereafter outline which of the four interventions models each school will adopt. [16]
Guidance developed by the Center on Innovation & Improvement directs LEAs to select the "best" intervention model based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead effort
Research that has emerged from school restructuring efforts [17] in multiple districts using the intervention models outlined in the SIG regulations indicates that determining the best fit should be based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead the effort. [18] Research conducted by the Center on Education Policy [19] has documented that there is not one single "best" approach to dramatic school improvement efforts. Rather, success is generally a result of multiple coordinated initiatives. However, there is strong evidence that a key aspect of successful restructuring under NCLB is use data (e.g., at least once a month) to make decisions about instructional practices. Replacing staff can be a component of school improvement but it can also have negative consequences if not handled well. [20]
There is a growing body of research that indicates that school districts must play a central role in coordinating and supporting change. Individual schools are responsible for implementing the change initiative but the district sets the stage for meaningful and sustainable change. [21] Specifically, LEAs can support school improvement efforts identified in the SIG program by:
- Committing to success in spite of challenges,
- Identifying schools for targeted intervention,
- Assessing capacity in order to determine “best” intervention strategy,
- Cultivating a pipeline of highly capable turnaround/transformation/restart school leaders, and
- Create conditions for success (i.e., grant school leaders the autonomy and flexibility to make the necessary big changes). [22]
Criticism
The legislation has had its critics. For example, in a September 25, 2009 open letter to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Gail Connelly, Executive Director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), wrote, “NAESP supports the Secretary’s initiative to identify the lowest performing schools, establish rigorous interventions, provide them sufficient resources over multiple years to implement those interventions, and hold them accountable for improving student performance. However, we fundamentally disagree with the approach to enact this wide-ranging and transformational reform initiative with the simplistic and reactionary step of replacing principals as the first step in turning around low-performing schools. NAESP strongly supports reform models that provide the essential resources existing principals of low-performing schools must have to succeed. These resources include the necessary time, talent and tools.”
And on March 1, 2010, when President Obama gave a speech speaking of the necessity of letting go teachers at failing schools such as those in the Central Falls (RI) School District's only high school, Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, said, “The tone used to describe the teachers in Central Falls has been disparaging and unforgiving. It's time for federal officials to get out of the blame game and into the classroom. One thing is certain: Firing the entire faculty of a school that is on the path to improvement is no recipe for turning around a struggling high school. And relying on a magical pool of ‘excellent teachers’ to spring forth and replace them is naïve at best and desperately misguided. Approaches that point the finger at educators do nothing to bring about substantive improvements for students. To the contrary, it provides a momentary perception of correcting a problem. But in reality, we all know that the solution is not blame, it is collaboration—collaboration among school employees, management, parents and communities. No one benefits when school staffs are summarily dismissed —- not communities and certainly not students. In the end all that approach gets anyone is a good sound bite.”
A critical review of School Improvement Grants was published by Craig Waddell, in April 2011. [23]
A study published by the Department of Education in January 2017, days before the end of the Obama administration, found "no significant impact on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment" by the School Improvement Grants program. [24] The findings of the report will likely be used to support a push by the incoming Secretary of Education away from such programs designed around intervening in low-performing schools, in favor of implementing "school choice" policies instead. The Trump administration's nominee, Betsy DeVos, has been a proponent of privatization of education and creation of charter schools, instead of attempting to improve currently failing public schools.
Additional resources and references
Center on Innovation & Improvement. (2010) Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants (2010). Available online: http://www.centerii.org/handbook/
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009). School restructuring, What Works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Points Associates. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/School_Restructuring_Guide.pdf
Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The closure 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/
Kowal, J., Hassel, E. A., & Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful school turnarounds: Seven steps for district leaders. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Issue brief retrieved from http://centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf webcast retrieved from: http://www.centerforcsri.org/webcasts/school-turnarounds/
Redding, S. & Walberg, H. (2008). Handbook on Statewide Systems of Support. Center on Innovation & Improvement. Available online: www.centerii.org
Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org
Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL, Academic Development Institute, downloaded at www.centerii.org/survey
Steiner, L. (2009). Tough decisions: Closing persistently low-performing schools. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey/
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 (Dec. 10, 2009), and amended by the interim final requirements, set forth in 75 FR (Jan. 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 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; it included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It supported standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. The Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized and reinvented by its modern, revised No Child Left Behind Act.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a measurement defined by the United States federal No Child Left Behind Act that allows the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district in the country is performing academically according to results on standardized tests. As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), AYP is "the amount of annual achievement growth to be expected by students in a particular school, district, or state in the U.S. federal accountability system, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)." AYP has been identified as one of the sources of controversy surrounding George W. Bush administration's Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Private schools are not required to make AYP.
In education, Response to Intervention is an approach to academic intervention used in the United States to provide early, systematic, and appropriately intensive assistance to children who are at risk for or already underperforming as compared to appropriate grade- or age-level standards. RTI seeks to promote academic success through universal screening, early intervention, frequent progress monitoring, and increasingly intensive research-based instruction or interventions for children who continue to have difficulty. RTI is a multileveled approach for aiding students that is adjusted and modified as needed if they are failing.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) was a not-for-profit advocacy organization that sought to protect and promote the constitutional right to a sound basic education for all public school students in the State of New York. Under the leadership of Michael A. Rebell, the organization filed and won the landmark "CFE v. State of New York" lawsuit, which successfully argued that the state's school finance system under-funded New York City public schools and denied its students their constitutional right.
The Altoona Area School District is a large, urban, public school district based in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The school district encompasses 59.6 square miles (154 km2) which includes all of Altoona, Logan Township and a small portion of Tyrone Township. According to 2000 federal census data, it serves a resident population of 63,248. Per District officials, in school year 2007-08 the Altoona Area School District provided basic educational services to 7,946 pupils. The District employed 569 teachers, 557 full-time and part-time support personnel, and 36 administrators. Altoona Area School District had a student body of approximately 8,000 in 2000, it was the 18th largest school district in Pennsylvania. It is one of the largest employers in Blair County with a staff of over 1,500. In 2002, the Altoona Area School District achieved its long-term goal of becoming ISO 9001 certified. It was the fifth school district in the United States to achieve this designation. AASD received more than $51.7 million in state funding in school year 2007-08.
International Polytechnic High School, commonly abbreviated merely as iPoly, is a public college-preparatory demonstration high school (9-12) located on the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona campus and operated by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) in conjunction with the College of Education and Integrative Studies at the university. iPoly's curriculum is fully accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and is approved by the University of California and California State University. It maintains a unique affiliation with the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts (LACHSA), which is also run by LACOE. Since iPoly does not lie in a fixed school district, it draws students from throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange and Riverside counties. The majority of students come from the Pomona and San Gabriel valleys. In 2009 and 2013, iPoly was honored as a California Distinguished School by the California Department of Education.
Reading School District is a large, urban public school district that serves the city of Reading, Pennsylvania. The Reading School District encompasses approximately 10 square miles (26 km2). According to 2010 federal census data, it serves a resident population of 88,893. In 2009, the Reading School District residents’ per capita income was $13,086, while the median family income was $31,067. In the Commonwealth, the median family income was $49,501 and the United States median family income was $49,445, in 2010. The district's student demographics reflect the racial diversity of the City of Reading. The city's 88,893 residents include 58% Latino/Hispanic, 28% White and 11% Black.
Abraham Lincoln High School, is an urban public high school in San Diego, California, United States. It is part of the San Diego Unified School District. It serves approximately 2100-2700 students in grades 9–12 in the K-12 education system. It is located in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Southeast San Diego, part of the Encanto neighborhoods. It was named after President Abraham Lincoln.
The Bangor Area School District is a midsized, public school district located in Northampton County, Pennsylvania in the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania, in the United States. It covers approximately 87 square miles (230 km2), serving the Boroughs of Bangor, East Bangor, Portland and Roseto and Upper Mount Bethel Township, Washington Township and most of Lower Mount Bethel Township. The school district serves a resident population of 21,093.
The Chichester School District (CSD) is a suburban public school district located in southeastern Delaware County, Pennsylvania. It encompasses approximately 10 square miles (26 km2), covering the Boroughs of Marcus Hook, Trainer, Lower Chichester Township, and Upper Chichester Township in Delaware County. According to 2000 federal census data, Chichester School District serves a resident population of 24,648. In 2009, the district residents’ per capita income was $20,972, while the median family income was $57,240. In the Commonwealth, the median family income was $49,501 and the United States median family income was $49,445, in 2010. According to District officials, in school year 2007–08 the Chichester School District provided basic educational services to 3,571 pupils through the employment of 302 teachers, 239 full-time and part-time support personnel, and 27 administrators. Chichester School District received more than $16.2 million in state funding in school year 2007–08.
Bradford Area High School is a public high school providing grades 9-12. It is located in Bradford, Pennsylvania, in the north central region of the Commonwealth. The current principal is David Ray. In 2010 the enrollment was 941. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has projected enrollment will decline to 700 for the Class of 2020. The demographics of the students body are: 95% of the students are white, while 1% are black, 1% are Hispanic, 1% are Asian and 2% are American Indian.
The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is a cabinet-level agency of the Arkansas state government overseeing public education for K-12, higher education institutions, and career and technical education.
AUSL is a Chicago nonprofit school management organization founded in 2001. Today, it manages 31 Chicago Public Schools serving more than 16,000 students. Over 1,045 teachers have graduated from the AUSL Chicago Teacher Residency.
Race to the Top was a $4.35 billion United States Department of Education competitive grant created to spur and reward innovation and reforms in state and local district K–12 education. Funded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, it was announced by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. States competing for the grants were awarded points for enacting certain educational policies, instituting performance-based evaluations for teachers and principals based on multiple measures of educator effectiveness, adopting common standards, adopting policies that did not prohibit the expansion of high-quality charter schools, turning around the lowest-performing schools, and building and using data systems.
Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) is a division of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that administers programs of financial assistance to State and local education agencies (LEA) and to colleges and universities. Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, SASA administers several Title I programs of supplementary instruction and other services. This includes programs such as the Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs and the Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Under Title III of the ESEA, SASA administers the State Formula Grant Program for English Language Acquisition and Language Enhancement. SASA also administers the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program authorized by the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The Turnaround Model is one of four strategies available to American local education agencies (LEAs) under the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants programs of the Obama administration. The other three programs include Restart, Transformation, and School Closures.
Purchase Line High School, named for the boundary line set by William Penn in the late 1700s and the small village surrounding the school, was established in 1954 and serves students in northeast Indiana and southwest Clearfield counties.
Dr. Allah Bakhsh Malik is a renowned social scientist, public policy expert, academic, researcher, author with erudite experience as management, education and institutional and human development specialist. Dr. Malik primarily focused on education and human development sectors and served at the top positions with distinction for a long time. He served as Secretary Education, leading one of the largest education system around the globe during 2017 -2019. He successfully ensured access, equity and quality in education and 'The Economist' of Feb 2018 wrote on his contributions and achievements. His services were recognized by United Nations - UNESCO and Dr. Malik was conferred UNESCO Confucius Award in 2011. He is popularly known as Educator to the Poor in academic circles around the globe. He has expertise and demonstrated track record in social and governance sectors. He served as Secretary Education Government of the Punjab and Secretary National health Services, Pakistan. He also served in the highest rank of Civil Service of Pakistan BPS-22 grade as the Federal Health Secretary of Pakistan. Dr. Malik belongs to the Pakistan Administrative Service and is considered to be a management, human development and institutional development specialist. He has also led the professional teams in development sector in inter-sectoral, multi-temporal and cross-disciplinary fields in Education, Health, Governance, Institutional Development, Planning, Development and Reforms at national and international level. Dr, Malik retired from Civil Service of Pakistan at the highest professional rank as Federal Secretary to the Government of Pakistan in Grade 22.
Educationportal 
United Statesportal