School Improvement Grants PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download School Improvement Grants PDF full book. Access full book title School Improvement Grants by U.s. Government Accountability Office. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: U.s. Government Accountability Office
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781974234806
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Get Book Here
Book Description
"The School Improvement Grant (SIG) program funds reforms in low performing schools. Congress provided $3.5 billion for SIG in fiscal year 2009, and a total of about $1.6 billion was appropriated in fiscal years 2010-2012. SIG requirements changed significantly in 2010. Many schools receiving SIG funds must now use the funding for specific interventions, such as turning over certain school operations to an outside organization (contractor). GAO examined (1) what, if any, aspects of SIG pose challenges for successful implementation; (2) how Education and state guidance and procedures for screening potential contractors and reviewing contractor performance compare with leading practices; and (3) to what extent Education's technical assistance and oversight activities are effectively supporting SIG implementation. GAO surveyed SIG directors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; analyzed Education and state documents; and interviewed officials from 8 states and school districts in those states, SIG contractors, and education experts."
Author: U.s. Government Accountability Office
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781974234806
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Get Book Here
Book Description
"The School Improvement Grant (SIG) program funds reforms in low performing schools. Congress provided $3.5 billion for SIG in fiscal year 2009, and a total of about $1.6 billion was appropriated in fiscal years 2010-2012. SIG requirements changed significantly in 2010. Many schools receiving SIG funds must now use the funding for specific interventions, such as turning over certain school operations to an outside organization (contractor). GAO examined (1) what, if any, aspects of SIG pose challenges for successful implementation; (2) how Education and state guidance and procedures for screening potential contractors and reviewing contractor performance compare with leading practices; and (3) to what extent Education's technical assistance and oversight activities are effectively supporting SIG implementation. GAO surveyed SIG directors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; analyzed Education and state documents; and interviewed officials from 8 states and school districts in those states, SIG contractors, and education experts."
Author: Academic Development Institute
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 228
Get Book Here
Book Description
The purpose of this "Handbook" is to bolster the effective implementation of the intervention models and strategies outlined in the "2010 School Improvement Grant" (SIG) program--section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--in order to achieve the program's clear goal--rapid improvement of persistently low-achieving schools. The "Handbook" offers succinct and practical explanations of the SIG's required and recommended models and strategies, references to the underlying research, and connections to useful resources. The intended audience for this "Handbook" includes: (1) state education agencies (SEAs); (2) local education agencies (LEAs); (3) charter management organizations (CMOs); (4) education management organizations (EMOs); (5) organizational partners engaged in school improvement; and (6) schools engaged in rapid improvement. The "Handbook" is organized into two parts. Part I frames the purposes of the School Improvement Grants, to classify schools within performance strata and identify the "persistently low-achieving" schools, and offers a framework for diagnosing a school's performance and practice in order to target interventions and supports for rapid improvement. Part II itemizes more than 50 strategies relevant to the School Improvement Grants, connects the strategies with research, cites available resources, and offers action principles for the SEA, the LEA, and the school. Appended to the "Handbook" are: (1) Federal Guidance A:15; (2) Indicators of Effective Practice (School) (CII); (3) Indicators of Effective Practice (District) (CII); (4) Indicators of Effective Practice (Rapid Improvement Leader) (CII); and (5) Eight Elements of High School Improvement (NHSC). (Individual chapters contain references and resources.).
Author: Jennifer McMurrer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 16
Get Book Here
Book Description
Over the next three years, states will dedicate an unprecedented amount of federal funding to school improvement efforts at approximately 5,000 of the nation's lowest achieving schools. The $100 billion for education appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the stimulus package, included an additional $3 billion for school improvement grants (SIGs) to help reform low-performing schools. Following passage of ARRA, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) issued new guidance that changed the requirements for using school improvement grants under section 1003(g), including the ARRA SIG funds (ED, 2010a; 2010b). The guidance targets these grants on the most persistently low-achieving schools--a smaller and somewhat different pool of schools than those identified for improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It also requires grantees to use one of four school improvement models: (1) transformation, which entails replacing the school principal and undertaking three other specific reforms; (2) turnaround, which involves replacing many of the school staff; (3) restart, which means becoming a charter or privately managed school; and (4) school closure. To learn more about states' early experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new SIG requirements, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) conducted two surveys. The first, which consisted of questions on a broad range of ARRA implementation issues including SIGs, was administered to state deputy superintendents of education in October and November of 2010. Responses were received from 42 states and the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in all tallies in this report. The second, which focused on how the ARRA has shaped state implementation of school improvement grants, was administered to state Title I directors from November 2010 through early January 2011. A total of 46 states (including D.C.) responded. Three key findings about ARRA SIGs emerged from the survey of state deputy superintendents of education: (1) Despite tight turnaround times, most states (28 of those responding) had awarded all of their ARRA SIG funding to districts by the time of our survey in fall 2010; (2) Many states (20) reported that at least three-quarters of the eligible schools in their states applied for ARRA SIG funds; and (3) The transformation model is the most popular of the ED-endorsed intervention models. Four key findings about the impact of ARRA on SIG implementation emerged from the survey of state Title I directors: (1) The majority of the states surveyed are serving increased proportions of high schools with ARRA SIG funds compared to the proportions served previously with Title I school improvement grants; (2) States plan to provide various types of assistance to districts receiving ARRA SIG funds; (3) The majority of Title I directors surveyed viewed federal ARRA SIG guidance as helpful and federal SIG funding as adequate; and (4) Title I directors had mixed responses about the extent to which the new SIG requirements are targeting the schools most in need of assistance in their state. Survey Development and Data Collection is appended. (Contains 2 figures, 3 tables, 3 boxes and 4 footnotes.).
Author: Jonathon Lachlan-Hache
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 43
Get Book Here
Book Description
The School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, initially enacted as part of the "No Child Left Behind" amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, underwent a substantial transformation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Under the new program, states identified 2,172 persistently low-achieving schools nationally (Tier I and Tier II schools) and 12,947 low-achieving Tier III schools. The numbers of identified schools that were urban, poor, and enrolling high-minority populations were greater than national averages, and a high proportion of SIG-eligible schools were in districts that are members of the Council of the Great City Schools and were surveyed as part of this study. The "Round One" award process (grants that began in the 2010-11 school year) resulted in 831 Tier I and Tier II schools nationwide receiving awards for school improvement. The average grant award was $2.54 million across three years. Only 416 Tier III schools were awarded SIG funds, however, with an average award of $520,000. In Council districts, 298 Tier I and Tier II schools received an average award of $2.87 million (not including schools pursuing the closure model), and 91 Tier III schools received an average award of $366,000. Responses to the Council's survey also indicated that approximately one third of Tier I and II schools awarded SIG grants saw their three-year awards reduced by an average of $763,000 per school from the amounts for which they applied. Eighteen percent of Tier I and Tier II schools in responding districts that applied for SIG grants did not receive any funding. The most commonly used model nationwide among the four allowable options was the transformation model, which was used by 74 percent of SIG-awarded schools across the country. Some 20 percent of schools used the turnaround model. Survey responses from the Great City Schools indicated that only 54 percent of urban schools awarded SIG grants used the transformation model, while 36 percent of SIG-awarded schools used the turnaround model. Relatively few Great City Schools opted for the restart or closure models. The lack of timeliness in the first round of the SIG grants caused some problems for urban school districts pursuing reforms, according to survey responses. Some 26 percent of survey respondents indicated that award announcements were not made until after August, when the school year typically starts, and another 43 percent did not receive initial award announcements until July or August, after the regular Title I plans were due to the state and mere weeks before the beginning of the school year. For each of the six sample reform tasks listed in the survey, between 40 percent and 58 percent of respondents said they did not have "sufficient time to effectively plan and implement" each task. Information from the survey on previous school-turnaround efforts in urban schools suggest that most if not all of the components of the four turnaround models can be effective, although their configuration, timing, and implementation are key to successful reform work. The most common challenges to the school turnaround process involved removing ineffective teachers; facing community resistance to closing schools; recruiting high-quality, reform-oriented teachers for these challenging schools; and having adequate school-level and district-level resources in place to effectively bring about a school turnaround. The SIG program appears to be an important tool in helping districts address these issues, according to survey respondents. Appended are: (1) Tier I and Tier II Schools by District; (2) Partners in School Turnaround; and (3) Useful Tools and Resources on School Turnarounds. (Contains 18 tables, 10 figures and 11 footnotes.).
Author: Anthony S. Bryk
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 0226078019
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 328
Get Book Here
Book Description
In 1988, the Chicago public school system decentralized, granting parents and communities significant resources and authority to reform their schools in dramatic ways. To track the effects of this bold experiment, the authors of Organizing Schools for Improvement collected a wealth of data on elementary schools in Chicago. Over a seven-year period they identified one hundred elementary schools that had substantially improved—and one hundred that had not. What did the successful schools do to accelerate student learning? The authors of this illuminating book identify a comprehensive set of practices and conditions that were key factors for improvement, including school leadership, the professional capacity of the faculty and staff, and a student-centered learning climate. In addition, they analyze the impact of social dynamics, including crime, critically examining the inextricable link between schools and their communities. Putting their data onto a more human scale, they also chronicle the stories of two neighboring schools with very different trajectories. The lessons gleaned from this groundbreaking study will be invaluable for anyone involved with urban education.
Author: The Law The Law Library
Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781723570988
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 66
Get Book Here
Book Description
School Improvement Grants - Final Requirements (US Department of Education Regulation) (ED) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the School Improvement Grants - Final Requirements (US Department of Education Regulation) (ED) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education adopts final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, authorized under section 1003(g) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These final requirements make changes to the current SIG program requirements and implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, that allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement additional interventions, provides flexibility for rural LEAs, and extends the grant period from three to five years. Additionally, the final requirements make changes that reflect lessons learned from four years of SIG implementation. This book contains: - The complete text of the School Improvement Grants - Final Requirements (US Department of Education Regulation) (ED) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section
Author: Center on Education Policy
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 4
Get Book Here
Book Description
The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, provided an extra $3 billion for school improvement grants (SIGs) under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Along with this funding increase, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance that changed the requirements for using ARRA SIGs and other section 1003(g) funds. Researchers at the Center on Education Policy conducted two studies to learn more about states' experiences in using this unprecedented infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the revised SIG requirements. The first study, "Opportunities and Obstacles: Implementing Stimulus-Funded School Improvement Grants in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho," uses case study research to examine state, district, and school-level implementation of the ARRA SIG program in three geographically diverse states that are taking different approaches to school improvement. Findings are based on interviews with 35 state and local officials and in-depth research on 11 low-achieving schools, including schools that received ARRA SIG funds and those that did not. The second study, "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later," draws on findings from a winter 2011-12 survey of state Title I directors. The District of Columbia and 45 states responded. The survey focused on general perceptions of the ARRA SIG program, state assistance to schools, and state processes for renewing ARRA SIG grants made in school year 2010-11 for a second year. This summary highlights findings that are supported across both studies, as well as important findings unique to each study. [This paper describes key findings from these reports: "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later" (ED532794) and "Opportunities and Obstacles: Implementing Stimulus-Funded School Improvement Grants in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho" (ED532799).].
Author: Government Accountability Office
Publisher: CreateSpace
ISBN: 9781492305149
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Get Book Here
Book Description
Education's changes to SIG requirements in 2010 have led to new responsibilities for the agency, states, and school districts. These entities all play key roles in the SIG award and implementation process, with Education supporting and overseeing state SIG efforts. Before awarding formula grants to states, Education reviews each state's application and approves the state's proposed process for competitively awarding SIG grants and monitoring implementation.
Author: Jennifer McMurrer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 20
Get Book Here
Book Description
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the stimulus package, appropriated $100 billion for education and included $3 billion for school improvement grants (SIGs) to help reform low-performing schools. This amount was in addition to the $546 million provided by the regular fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill for school improvement grants authorized by section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (Title I is the large federal program that provides assistance to low-income schools to improve achievement for students who struggle academically.) This fiscal year 2009 total of more than $3.5 billion for section 1003(g) SIGs represents a seven-fold increase over the previous year's appropriation. Following passage of ARRA, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) changed the requirements for using school improvement grants under section 1003(g), including the ARRA SIG funds (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). These revised requirements target section 1003(g) funds on the "persistently lowest-achieving" schools within each state, typically the lowest 5%, and limit these schools to using one of four school improvement models. These models include (1) transformation, which entails replacing the school principal and undertaking three other specific reforms; (2) turnaround, which involves replacing the principal and many of the school staff; (3) restart, which means becoming a charter or privately managed school; and (4) school closure. According to a report published by the U.S. Department of Education, 1,228 of the nation's lowest-achieving schools were awarded ARRA SIGs as of March 21, 2011 (Hurlburt et al., 2011). This report looks at states' experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new requirements. It is a follow-up to a 2011 CEP report that examined states' early experiences in implementing ARRA SIG grants (CEP, 2011). Both this report and the earlier one are based on surveys of state department of education personnel. For this 2012 report, the authors administered a survey to state Title I directors from November 2011 through early January 2012 that focused on state processes for renewing the ARRA SIG grants made for school year 2010-11, state assistance to schools, and general perceptions of the ARRA SIG program. A total of 46 states responded, including the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in all tallies in the report. Several key findings are evident from the authors' analysis of the survey data: (1) States are generally positive about the ARRA SIG requirements; (2) The transformation school improvement model remains the most popular model chosen by schools in responding states; (3) Most of the states responding to the survey (35 of 46) renewed all of the ARRA SIG awards made in school year 2010-11 for a second year of funding in 2011-12; (4) All of the responding states reported providing technical support to ARRA SIG-funded schools and their districts, and most are providing other types of assistance; (5) More than half of the responding states indicated that they have an adequate level of staff expertise in their state education agency (SEA) to assist ARRA SIG recipients; and (6) Most states (32) reported that external providers played a role in implementing the ARRA SIG program during the first year of funding. (Contains 8 figures, 3 tables, 3 boxes and 3 footnotes.) [For key findings, "Key Findings from Two Reports on Federal School Improvement Grants by the Center on Education Policy," see ED532798. For the appendix, "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later. Online Appendix--State Responses to Open-Ended Questions about the ARRA SIG Program," see ED532793.].
Author: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (ED)
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 78
Get Book Here
Book Description
The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program is authorized by section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Under section 1003(g)(1) of the ESEA, the Secretary must "award grants to States to enable the States to provide subgrants to local educational agencies for the purpose of providing assistance for school improvement consistent with section 1116." From a grant received pursuant to that provision, a State educational agency (SEA) must subgrant at least 95 percent of the funds it receives to its local educational agencies (LEAs) for school improvement activities. In awarding such subgrants, an SEA must "give priority to the local educational agencies with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate: (1) the greatest need for such funds; and (2) 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." The regulatory requirements expand upon these provisions, further defining LEAs with the "greatest need" for SIG funds and the "strongest commitment" to ensuring that such funds are used to raise substantially student achievement in the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the State. This guidance includes revisions and additional questions to previously published guidance reports.
