School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring Tiffany Winters, Esq. twinters@bruman

1. School Improvement Grants: Requirements and Monitoring Tiffany Winters, Esq. twinters@bruman.com Steven Spillan, Esq. sspillan@bruman.comBrustein & Manasevit, PLLCFall Forum 2012 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

2. Topic List • SIG Resources • Background on the SIG Program • Monitoring the SIG Program • Application Process • Implementation • Fiscal • Technical Assistance • Monitoring • Data Collection • SIG, What’s Next? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

3. School Improvement Grant 1003(g) (SIG) Resources • Latest updates: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/legislation.html#guidance • “Final requirements for School Improvement Grants authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA,” 75 Fed. Reg. 66363 (Oct. 28, 2010). • Guidance on fiscal year 2010 School Improvement Grants under 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education: March 1, 2012). Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

4. Background on the SIG Program Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

5. SIG Funding • FY 2009 ARRA: $3 billion • FY 2010: $546 million • FY 2011: $535 million • FY 2012: $534 million • FY13: Level Funding vs. Sequestration Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

6. SIG Awards • Priority to the LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate — • (A) greatest need; and • (B) strongest commitment Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

7. Continuation Awards Ongoing Activities • An SEA may award SIG funds to an LEA for a Tier I or Tier II school that has 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. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

8. SIG Updates? • SIG funds authorized for use in “priority schools” through ESEA Waiver Package • Guidance addendum in March 2012 • Congressional Plans? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

9. SASA Monitoring of SIG Areas Reviewed by SASA • Application Process • Implementation • Fiscal • Technical Assistance • Monitoring • Data Collection Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

10. 2012-2013 Monitoring Schedule • Current Published Schedule is Obsolete • No Monitoring Scheduled Past September • Behind Schedule Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

11. SASA On-Site General Schedule • Day 1: School #1 Site Visit • School Leadership Team Interview • Teacher/Parent Interview • Guided Classroom Observations/Conversations with students • Day 2: LEA #1 Interview • Day 3: School #2 Site Visit • Same as Day 1 • Day 4: LEA #2 Interview • Day 5: SEA Interview Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

12. Monitoring the SIG Application Process Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

13. Application • SEA’s application process compliant with both the State application, requirements. • SEA RFP must ensure funds serve persistently lowest achieving schools • Serving schools identified in the Tier System. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

14. “Persistently lowest-achieving schools” (PLAS) • Lowest-achieving 5% (or lowest 5 schools, which ever is greater) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; or • High school that has had a graduation rate less than 60%; and • Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that meets the same requirements as above. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

15. PLAS: Identification • To identify the PLAS, SEA must take into account both: • (a) Academic achievement of the • “all students” group in a school • in terms of proficiency on the State’s assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and • (b) The school’s “lack of progress” on those assessments • over a number of years • in the “all students” group Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

16. PLAS: Listing results Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

17. PLAS: Tier III - Catchall • Tier III would include every Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I or Tier II school. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

18. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 • Expands the group of schools that an SEA “may” identify as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools. • Does not affect the schools an SEA must identify as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools. • Raised the maximum amount from $500,000 to $2,000,000. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

19. PLAS: Newly Eligible Tier I Schools • Elementaryschool that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds and: • Has not made AYP for at least 2 consecutive years; or • Is in the State’s lowest quintile [20%] in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and • Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving Tier I school Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

20. Newly Eligible Tier II Schools • Secondaryschool that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds and: • Has not made AYP for at least 2 consecutive years; or • Is in the State’s lowest quintile [20%] in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and • Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving Tier I school; or • A secondary school that has had a graduation rate less than 60% over a number of years. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

21. Newly Eligible Tier III Schools • A school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds: • Has not made AYP for at least two years; or • Is in the State’s lowest quintile [20%] of performance in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and • Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II school. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

22. Annual Lists? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

23. Monitoring SIG Implementation Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

24. Implementation • SASA monitoring will look at how each LEA is implementing its SIG grant, focusing on each of the 4 turnaround models. • Focus is on LEAs, but SEAs will bear the burden of noncompliance. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

25. SIG 4 Models: • Restart • Closure • Transformation • Turnaround Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

26. SIG Models: Restart • School converts or closes and reopens under a CMO or EMO • Considerable flexibility • Must enroll any former student who wishes to attend the school • May require agreements covering behavior, attendance, or other commitments related to academic performance • May not require students to meet academic standards prior to enrolling Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

27. SIG Models: Closure • LEA closes a school and enrolls students in “higher achieving” schools in the LEA. • Guidance: Critical to engage families and community early, selecting the appropriate improvement model to assure a smooth transition for students and their families at the receiving schools. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

28. Guidance – Unauthorized Closure • If an LEA closes a Tier I or II school after implementing any model other than Closure? • SEA has the discretion to terminate and rescind. • If SEA accepts new applications, LEA must meet all Closure model requirements. • ED allows for this circumstance, but notes that such an event should be VERY rare. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

29. SIG Models: Transformation • IMPORTANT: • An LEA with 9 or more Tier I and Tier II schools may NOT implement the transformation model in more than 50% of those schools. • Guidance: If an LEA is already exceeding the cap, it may not implement the transformation model in any additional schools. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

30. SIG Models: Transformation • 5 Required Activities • Replace the principal • Teacher/Principal evaluations • Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff • Professional Development • Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

31. Guidance - Transformation Model • LEAs implementing a transformation model must: • Provide sufficient operational flexibility. • Ensure ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

32. 2011 Transformation Waiver: Teacher Evaluations • August 12, 2011 – ED letter to Chiefs • Invites those LEAs implementing a transformation model “extra time to develop and implement teacher evaluation systems.” • Proposed waiver would allow LEAs to: • Develop the evaluation systems in the 2011-2012 school year, • Pilot them next year (2012-2013), and • Have them up and running by the 2013-2014 school year. • Asked for application by August 26th, but expecting later submissions. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

33. Transformation: Replace Principals • CEP Report: • 15 out of 45 States using the transformation model saw removing the principals as a key element of the turnaround. • 16 States said that the results varied from school to school. • One State said it didn't make a difference, while three others thought it was too soon to say. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

34. SIG Models: Turnaround • 9 required elements: • Replace the principal • Use locally adopted competencies to measure the turnaround staff effectiveness (50% rule) • Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain the appropriate staff • Provide ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development • Adopt new governance structure Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

35. SIG Models: Turnaround • Use data to identify and implement an instructional program • Promote the continuous use of student data • Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time • Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

36. Turnaround: Replace Teachers • CEP Report • Highly unpopular with unions • 8 of the 46 States implementing the turnaround model said the process helped pinpoint and enlist effective teachers. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

37. Increased Learning Time • Reports show that LEAs are struggling with this requirement. • No uniformity among districts in implementing increased learning time. • What counts as increased learning time? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

38. Increased Learning Time • CEP Report: • Maryland schools were spending the extra time primarily on the students who are struggling the most academically. • Michigan schools were pushing to extend the school day for all students, with mixed results. • Idaho State and local officials did not see it as an essential piece of their school improvement formula. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

39. Increased Learning Time • Definition: increasing the length of the school day, week, or year to significantly increase the total number of school hours so as to include additional time for: • Instruction in core academic subjects; • Instruction in other subjects and provision of enrichment activities; and • Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

40. Increased Learning Time • March 2012 Guidance: • LEA must use a longer school day, week, or year to provide additional time for all three types of activities. • Focus should be on instruction of core academic subjects, and time for teacher collaboration & planning. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

41. Increased Learning Time • Can include before- or after- school activities. • Activities must be available to all students. • March 2012 Guidance: • All students must have the opportunity to participate. • School must have the capacity to serve any and all students. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

42. SIG Models: Criticisms • Models do not address school climate and culture. • Ignores non-academic challenges, such as attendance and behavior.  • Any focus on non-academic concerns often get in the way of SIG compliance. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

43. Monitoring SIG Fiscal Requirements Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

44. Fiscal • Final Requirements • Guidance • OMB Circular A-87 • EDGAR Section 76.710 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

45. SIG Fiscal • SEAs: • Ensuring proper LEA use of funds? • Only taking 5% for State admin? • Ensuring adequate funds for three year grants? • LEAs: • How are you spending funds? • Ensuring funds are supporting SIG activities? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

46. SIG Cross Cutting Issues • If not every Tier I school in a State was served with FY 2009 SIG funds in the 2010–2011 school year, an SEA must carry over 25% of those funds, combine them with FY 2010 SIG funds, and award those funds to LEAs in the same manner as FY 2009 SIG funds are awarded. • If a State does not serve every Tier I school, but needs more than 75% to fund all LEAs that it committed to serve – contact ED prior to issuing grants. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

47. SIG “District-wide” Activities • An LEA may use SIG funds to pay for district-level activities: • Support implementation of one of the four school intervention models in each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve, and • Support other school improvement strategies in the Tier III schools it commits to serve. • An LEA may not use SIG funds to support district-level activities for schools that are not receiving SIG funds. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

48. SIG Guidance - Supplanting • SIG funds must supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds a school would otherwise receive • SNS applied to increased learning time • Costs must: • Be directly attributable to the implementation of the model, • Be reasonable and necessary, and • Exceed the cost the district would have incurred in the absence of its implementation model. • This all requires documentation. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

49. SIG Guidance - Comparability • LEA is obligated to ensure that all of its Title I schools are comparable to its non-Title I schools. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

50. Guidance – Improvement Timeline • Receiving a SIG award restarts improvement timeline. • Regardless of where a school is in the improvement timeline, the clock restarts. • A 2012-2013 grantee could enter the first year of improvement (ESEA 1116(b)) --would be 2014-2015. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC