Turnaround model

Last updated

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. [1]

Contents

The Obama administration increased its control over the education systems across the United States by implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), [2] also known as the 2009 economic stimulus package. [3] This act was instituted as a result of the looming deadline of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The ARRA incorporates three tiers of federal funding to help eligible schools improve: Race to the Top (RTTT), School Improvement Grants (SIG), and Investing in Innovation Fund. [4] The Obama Administration announced that $4.35 billion in RTTT, $3.5 billion in SIG, and $450 million would be given the U.S. Department of Education in order to begin a campaign targeted at increasing student achievement in the lowest performing 5% of schools across the United States. [5]

The grants from RTTT and SIG, which is indirectly supported by RTTT, were made available to various State Education Agencies (SEAs). [6] After receiving the large sums of money, SEAs re-allocated these funds to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs). In order to actually receive and utilize funds from RTTT or SIGs, an LEA had to demonstrate that it contained consistently low performing schools and it had to adhere to one of four generic models or strategies designed to "turn around" a school’s performance. The Turnaround Model is one of the four strategies that an LEA can choose to implement in its local schools in an effort to raise student achievement per a 2009 Department of Education initiative. [7] Though the Turnaround Model shares the name with the overarching program, the model is a particular strategy within the greater initiative. [8]

Policy History

The turnaround initiative stems back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which was enacted by Congress under the Johnson Administration. The bill was designed in part to emphasize equal access to education and excellent educational opportunities for all children. Even though the bill was not originally authorized until 1970, it has been reauthorized every 5 years by Congress. In 2001, ESEA experienced its most significant reauthorization under the George W. Bush Administration in which it was not only reauthorized, but renamed No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB operates with the same charge as ESEA, but focuses specifically on providing all children with accessibility to a high-quality education as measured by standardized assessments. [9] NCLB also required states to create academic state standards and a testing system to measure students’ progress against these standards. Additionally, NCLB pushed accountability for all students and flexibility at the district level, meaning that even students who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage must meet state standards and that districts are able to use federal funding as needed in their area. But unlike ESEA, NCLB introduced a requirement that by the year 2014, 100% of all students would be Proficient in Reading and Math. [10] As the deadline for 100% Proficiency in Reading and Math continues to approach, it became increasingly obvious that unless there was a drastic change, the U.S. would not reach its 100% target and schools would receive various sanctions that correspond with length of underperformance. This reality prompted the Obama Administration to create the School Improvement Grant program (Section 1003(g) of Title I) and the four models of turnaround as a means to incentivize school revitalization through federal funds. [11]

In addition to SIGs to aid school progress, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced a $4.35 billion grant competition titled Race to the Top in July 2009. Funding stems from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and states are evaluated based on a point system for various categories, including but not limited to annual professional performance review for teachers and principals, compliance with nationwide standards and assessment alignment, adoption of the Common Core Standards, and turning around the lowest-performing schools. As such, states that contain school districts with turnaround schools are eligible to apply for RTTT grants to receive additional funding to improve these schools. [12]

Between 2001-2008, a predecessor to the Turnaround Model was originally used by the Chicago Public School System under then Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan. To address the large number of low-performing public schools, Duncan worked with a variety of stakeholders to open new schools and close underperforming schools while simultaneously improve performance and teacher and principal quality. This success likely contributed to President Obama’s selection of Duncan as the U.S. Secretary of Education in January 2009. This experience served as an inspiration to Duncan when creating and implementing the SIG and RTTT programs as Secretary of Education to utilize the $3.5 billion surplus to improve low-performing schools nationwide. [13] Between June and August 2010, 2,000 tenured and untenured teachers were laid off from Chicago Public Schools. Opponents of the move claimed that the main driving force behind the move was budgetary concerns, rather than school improvement, with one laid-off teacher explaining, "...You can hire three new, untenured teachers for the price of a tenured teacher.". [14]

Policy In Action

A school is that is designated in the lowest performing 5% of all schools in the nations has consistently not met Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). [15] As such, schools that are identified in this category are subject to one of the four Initiatives to turn schools around (Turnaround, Restart, Transformation, or Closure). The Turnaround model, specifically, varies from school to school, yet it meets many of the following criteria.

Information in bullet points above is outlined directly from School Improvement Grant.

School designated to be turned around must meet the criteria selected for them in two to three years. [16] Specifically, they must reach target growth goals that ultimately build up to the achievement of AYP in the course of three years. [17] If they do not, they will be subject to further changes that become progressively more severe as time continues to pass, including direct intervention from the state.

Because the tenets of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are relatively new, there is no precedent in how schools can push their students to reach AYP in the turnaround model. School administrations and principals are given a sense of freedom in their methods to reach projected target growth goals each year. [18] There have, however, been several models for this process from schools and districts that have attained "turnaround" status.

Several case studies have been performed since the inception of the SIG and RTTT programs in assisting schools deemed turnaround. One study gathered data on four states (California, Illinois, North Carolina and Tennessee,) that contained districts and schools that received SIG funding for the 2010-2011 school year. [19] District officials and representatives from several State Educational Agencies (SEAs) also offered information on SIG implementation and accountability within their respective states. The analysis found that some school districts with eligible low-performing schools did not apply for SIG funding because "they lacked the capacity, resources, and budget to implement and support the major changes required by the federal intervention models." [20] The studies also found that state and local resistance to federal intervention in improving schools prevented broader participation in applications for SIG funding. Lastly, the analysis discovered that data systems and improved accountability measurements enhanced the states’ ability to accurately apportion funds based on student performance. [21] The primary message of these case studies in California, Illinois, North Carolina and Tennessee is that the requirements outlined to receive SIG (as well as RTTT) funds ultimately compel states to use such funding in a manner that collectively seeks to improve the lowest performing schools nationwide. [22]

One school that is currently in its second year of being turned around is Benjamin Stoddert Middle School in Prince George’s County, MD. Like Central High School, Benjamin Stoddert engages in PLCs as a method of teacher reflection and improvement. [23] This year, the school aimed to increase the bar for rigor by requiring all staff to participate in Research for Better Teaching (RBT). As its name indicates, this professional development model aims to use assessment data to help teachers and strategize ways to increase standardized test scores. [24] From the 2009-2010 Academic Year to the 2010-2011 Academic Year, when Benjamin Stoddert was designated Turnaround, percentage of eighth grade students achieving advanced or proficient scores on the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) in Reading increased from 47.7% to 51.7%. [25] Furthermore, percentage of eighth grade students achieving advanced or proficient scores on the MSA in Math from the 2010 Academic Year to the 2011 Academic Year increased from 15.8% to 21.1%. While there was evidence for improvement, Benjamin Stoddert did not meet its personal target growth goals for the Academic Year of 2011. [26]

Policy Evolution

The Turnaround Model as well as the other models aimed at changing the trajectory of the lowest performing schools in the nation has not changed significantly since it was only implemented in 2009. [27]

What is more notable is the fact that the size of the federal grant has changed over time. The School Improvement Grant Program had already been established in 2007 because almost 10% of the nation’s public schools were not meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). At this time, however, the grant only included $125 million. Since 2007, the grant progressively increased, especially with the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). [28]

Furthermore, out of 15,277 schools that were eligible for a grant, only 1,128 schools were awarded the grant. [29] Even though the need for funding for failing schools is high, only 7.3% of those schools are awarded these improvement grants. In addition, only 20% of the total school funded are identified as TurnAround. [30] Most of the schools identified either have a high population of minority students or high population of students from a lower socioeconomic background.

A final point to note is that although the inherent structure of the Turnaround Model has not changed over the course of two years, the actual implementation of it does vary from school to school. While there are certain criteria that must be met at every school, districts and principals have relative freedom to utilize the structures that best suit the needs of the student audience receiving the education. [31]

Related Research Articles

United States Department of Education

The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.

No Child Left Behind Act former United States Law

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.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act United States law, part of Johnsons War on Poverty

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 the most far-reaching federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress.

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.

Bilingual Education Act language education law of the United States

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA), also known as the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, was the first United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of limited English speaking ability (LESA) students. The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough and was both approved by the 90th United States Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968. While some states, such as California and Texas, and numerous local school districts around the country already had policies and programs designed to meet the special educational needs of elementary and secondary school students not fluent in the English language, this act signaled that the federal government now also recognized the need for and value of bilingual education programs in U.S. public education. Passed on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, its purpose was to provide school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.

Higher Education Act of 1965 U.S. law establishing a student loan program

The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) was legislation signed into United States law on November 8, 1965, as part of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society domestic agenda. Johnson chose Texas State University, his alma mater, as the signing site. The law was intended "to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education". It increased federal money given to universities, created scholarships, gave low-interest loans for students, and established a National Teachers Corps. The "financial assistance for students" is covered in Title IV of the HEA.

Education reform in the United States since the 1980s has been largely driven by the setting of academic standards for what students should know and be able to do. These standards can then be used to guide all other system components. The SBE reform movement calls for clear, measurable standards for all school students. Rather than norm-referenced rankings, a standards-based system measures each student against the concrete standard. Curriculum, assessments, and professional development are aligned to the standards.

IDEA 2004

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is a United States law that mandates equity, accountability and excellence in education for children with disabilities. As of 2018, approximately seven million students enrolled in U.S. schools receive special education services due to a disability.

The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act - formerly known as the Bilingual Education Act - is a federal grant program described in Title III Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and again as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. This section is specifically targeted to benefit Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. The statute states that LEP students must not only attain English proficiency but simultaneously meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas. Federal funding is provided to assist State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in meeting these requirements. In 2011, ESEA Title III awards were granted to 56 SEAs and the average award given to an individual SEA was $12,158,046.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative is the only federal funding source dedicated exclusively to afterschool programs. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reauthorized 21st CCLC in 2002, transferring the administration of the grants from the U.S. Department of Education to the state education agencies. Each state receives funds based on its share of Title I funding for low-income students. Funds are also allotted to outlying areas and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.The No Child Left Behind Act narrowed the focus of 21st CCLC from a community learning center model, where all members of the community benefited from access to school resources such as teachers, computer labs, gymnasiums and classrooms, to an afterschool program model that provides services only to students attending high-poverty, low-performing schools. The services they provide include Academic enrichment activities that can help students meet state and local achievement standards. They also provide additional services designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program, such as: drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology education programs, and character education programs. Programs also may provide literacy and related educational development services to the families of children who are served in the program.

WestEd is a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization. The organization's mission states, "WestEd, a research, development, and services agency, works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults."

Race to the Top, abbreviated R2T, RTTT or RTT, 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.

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. The SEAs, in turn, award subgrants to local educational agencies for the purpose of supporting focused school improvement efforts. 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.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program provides scholarships to low-income children in Washington D.C. for tuition and other fees at participating private schools. The program was the first Federally funded school voucher program in the United States. It was first approved in 2003 and allowed to expire for the first time in 2009 under the Obama administration. The program was reauthorized under the SOAR Act in 2011, but again defunded at the end of the second Obama presidency. The program was reinstated under President Trump.

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortium featuring two states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Educational Activity, and the Bureau of Indian Education, that work to create and deploy a standard set of K–12 assessments in Mathematics and English, based on the Common Core State Standards.

Dropout Prevention Act

The Dropout Prevention Act – also known as: Title I, Part H, of No Child Left Behind - is responsible for establishing the school dropout prevention program under No Child Left Behind. This part of No Child Left Behind was created to provide schools with support for retention of all students and prevention of dropouts from the most at-risk youth. It is estimated that 1.2 million American students drop out of high school each year. The US Department of Education assesses the dropout rate by calculating the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not currently enrolled in school and who have not yet earned a high school credential. For example, the high school dropout rate of the United States in 2008 was 8.1%.

The highly qualified teacher provision is one of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. The term highly qualified teachers (HQT) comes from the original language of Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act. Title II of NCLB designates federal funds to educational agencies for the purpose of improving the student achievement through the professional development of highly qualified teachers and principals. To qualify for this funding, states must comply with a series of conditions stipulated in NCLB, and track their progress toward goals each state sets. Title II was originally known as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, and has undergone several reauthorizations, though the original intent has remained relatively intact. The main goals of the highly qualified teacher provision is to ensure that every classroom is staffed by a teacher deemed "highly qualified" under conditions set by NCLB. As some point out, this section of NCLB is quite at odds with the general thrust of NCLB because it focuses on school inputs rather than student outcomes. The sections of NCLB designated to HQTs allocates the majority of the funds to the states and does not clearly define at the federal level what is and what is not a highly qualified teacher, allowing for more local definitions of this term. This provision has come under much scrutiny, as it is up to states to decide how to measure highly qualified, and states are not holding their teachers to the same level of rigor across the country. Since its reauthorization in 2001, Title II has yet to reach its stated goal of ensuring that 100% of teachers in public schools in the United States are highly qualified.

The term 'community school' refers to a type of publicly funded school in the United States that serves as both an educational institution and a centre of community life. A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, youth development, family support, health and social services and community development leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities. Using public schools as hubs, community schools bring together many partners to offer a range of support and opportunities to children, youth, families and communities—before, during and after school, and on weekends.

Student Success Act

The Student Success Act is a bill that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th Congress. The bill deals with education policy and would alter parts of both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act. The Student Success Act passed in a House vote of 221-207 on July 19, 2013.

Every Student Succeeds Act

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a US law passed in December 2015 that governs the United States K–12 public education policy. The law replaced its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and modified but did not eliminate provisions relating to the periodic standardized tests given to students. Like the No Child Left Behind Act, ESSA is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which established the federal government's expanded role in public education.

References

  1. ↑ "Federal Funding and the Four Turnaround Models – The School Turnaround Field Guide." The Wallace Foundation (2011) http://www.wallacefoundation.org/Pages/federal-funding-school-turnaround-field-guide.aspx. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  2. ↑ "Federal Funding and the Four Turnaround Models – The School Turnaround Field Guide." The Wallace Foundation (2011) http://www.wallacefoundation.org/Pages/federal-funding-school-turnaround-field-guide.aspx. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  3. ↑ Manna, Paul and Laura L Ryan. "Competitive Grants and Educational Federalism: President Obama’s Race to the Top Program in Theory and Practice." The Journal of Federalism 41.3 (2011): 522-546. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  4. ↑ "Federal Funding and the Four Turnaround Models – The School Turnaround Field Guide." The Wallace Foundation (2011) http://www.wallacefoundation.org/Pages/federal-funding-school-turnaround-field-guide.aspx. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  5. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  6. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to Turnaround." The Center for American Progress (June 2011) www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  7. ↑ "Obama Administration Announces Historic Opportunity to Turn Around Nation’s Lowest-Achieving Public Schools." U.S. Department of Education (26 Aug. 2009) http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/08/08262009.html. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  8. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  9. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  10. ↑ Maleyko, G. and Marytza A. Gawlik. "No Child Left Behind: What We Know and What We Need to Know." Education 131.3 (2011): 600-624. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  11. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to School Turnaround." Center for American Progress (June 2011) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ 2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 22 October 2011.
  12. ↑ Manna, Paul and Laura L. Ryan. "Competitive Grants and Educational Federalism: President Obama’s Race to the Top Program in Theory and Practice." The Journal of Federalism 41.3 (June 2011): 522-546. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  13. ↑ "Arne Duncan - U.S. Secretary of Education Biography." U.S. Department of Education 25 Aug. 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/duncan.html. Web. 26 Oct. 2011
  14. ↑ Kristina Betinis; Christopher Davion (27 August 2010). "Chicago teachers speak about mass layoffs - World Socialist Web Site". www.wsws.org. International Committee of the Fourth International. Archived from the original on 20 October 2015. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
  15. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  16. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  17. ↑ Brooks, Sterling. "Turnaround School Employee Interview." Personal Interview by Jenna Diggs. 22 October 2011.
  18. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  19. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to Turnaround." The Center for American Progress (June 2011) www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  20. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to Turnaround." The Center for American Progress (June 2011) www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  21. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to Turnaround." The Center for American Progress (June 2011) www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  22. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to Turnaround." The Center for American Progress (June 2011) www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  23. ↑ Diggs, Jenna. "Turnaround School Employee Interview." Personal Interview by Emily Ellis. 22 Oct. 2011.
  24. ↑ "About RBT." Research for Better Teaching (2011) http://www.rbteach.com/rbteach2/about.html. Web. 22 Oct 2011.
  25. ↑ "MSA Results." 2011 Maryland Report Card (2011) http://www.mdreportcard.org/MsaTrends.aspx?PV=1:8:16:0615:1:N:0:13:1:2:1:1:1:1:3. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
  26. ↑ Brooks, Sterling. "Turnaround School Employee Interview." Personal Interview by Jenna Diggs. 22 October 2011.
  27. ↑ "Obama Administration Announces Historic Opportunity to Turn Around Nation’s Lowest-Achieving Public Schools." U.S. Department of Education (26 Aug. 2009) http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/08/08262009.html. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
  28. ↑ Quillin, Jessica. "Snapshot of SIG: A Look at Four States’ Approaches to Turnaround." The Center for American Progress (June 2011) www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/sig_report.pdf. Policy File via ProQuest. Web. 25 Oct 2011.
  29. ↑ Hurlburt, Steven; Le Floch, Kerstin Carlson; Therriault, Susan Bowles; Cole, Susan. "Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools. NCEE 2011-4019." National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (May 2011): 71.
  30. ↑ Hurlburt, Steven; Le Floch, Kerstin Carlson; Therriault, Susan Bowles; Cole, Susan. "Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools. NCEE 2011-4019." National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (May 2011): 71.
  31. ↑ "Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant." American Institutes for Research (2011) http://www.air.org/files/0669_PG_SchoolTurnaround_Online_d41.pdf. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.