Author: Center on Education Policy
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 5
Get Book Here
Book Description
To learn more about states' experiences with implementing school improvement grants (SIGs) funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Center on Education Policy (CEP) administered a survey to state Title I directors. (Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides federal funds to schools in low-income areas to educate academically struggling students.) These ARRA SIG funds are targeted on the "persistently lowest-achieving schools" within each state; these schools must implement one of four school improvement models outlined in U.S. Department of Education guidance. The survey, which was conducted from November 2011 through early January 2012, focused on state processes for renewing the ARRA SIG grants made for school year 2010-11, state assistance to school districts and schools to implement the ARRA SIG reforms, and general perceptions of the ARRA SIG program. A total of 46 states responded, including the District of Columbia. The major findings from this survey are described in the 2012 CEP report, "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later." A last question in the survey asked respondents to share any additional thoughts about their state's experiences with the ARRA SIG program. This appendix shares excerpts from direct quotations from all the responses of state Title I directors to this open-ended question. Responses have been grouped into three categories: positive remarks, frustrations with ARRA SIG, and suggestions for improvement. [For the main report, "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later," see ED532794.].
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: 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: 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: Nancy Kober
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 32
Get Book Here
Book Description
As Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, one topic of debate is the program of school improvement grants (SIGs) authorized by section 1003(g) of Title I. SIGs are intended to help to turn around low-performing schools and are part of the larger ESEA Title I program to improve education for disadvantaged children. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $3 billion in extra funding for section 1003(g) SIGs, which brought the total funding for fiscal year 2009 to more than $3.5 billion. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, provides information about school districts' experiences in implementing ARRA SIGs that can inform the ESEA reauthorization. This report describes school districts' early experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new SIG requirements. The information comes from a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts conducted in late winter and early spring of 2011. Some of the findings are based on responses from all districts in the survey sample, while others are based on responses from the subsets of districts that were eligible for or had received SIG funding. The survey covered a range of topics in addition to SIGs. Other topics in the survey are discussed in a June 2011 report on the fiscal condition of districts (CEP, 2011a) and a September 2011 report on district implementation of the common core state standards (CEP, 2011b). Findings include: (1) ARRA SIG funds were concentrated on a small number of districts, as intended; (2) Most ARRA SIG-funded districts received assistance from their state in implementing improvement models; (3) In the early months of 2011, half of the districts receiving ARRA SIG funds said it was too soon to tell about the results of implementing the transformation, turnaround, or restart models; (4) ARRA SIG-eligible and ineligible districts differed in their views about the effectiveness of key program requirements; (5) Half of the ARRA SIG-eligible districts believe that more than three years may be necessary to improve the lowest-achieving schools; and (6) Among all the nation's districts, there is no clear consensus about the effectiveness of current ARRA SIG requirements. Appended are: (1) Confidence Intervals and Statistical Significance; (2) Study Methods; and (3) Confidence Intervals for Survey Responses. (Contains 7 figures, 1 table and 10 exhibits.).
Author: The Law The Law Library
Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781723570926
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 86
Get Book Here
Book Description
School Improvement Grants - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) - Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (US Department of Education Regulation) (ED) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the School Improvement Grants - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) - Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (US Department of Education Regulation) (ED) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) issues final requirements for School Improvement Grants authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA, and funded through both the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2009 and the ARRA. The final requirements govern the process that a State educational agency (SEA) uses to award school improvement funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) with the persistently lowest-achieving Title I schools that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to use those funds to raise substantially the achievement of the students attending those schools. Under the final requirements, an LEA may also use school improvement funds to serve persistently lowest-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds and Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring that are not among the persistently lowest-achieving schools. The final requirements require an SEA to award school improvement funds to eligible LEAs in amounts sufficient to enable the persistently lowest-achieving schools to implement one of four specific school intervention models. This book contains: - The complete text of the School Improvement Grants - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) - Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (US Department of Education Regulation) (ED) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section
Author: George A. Scott
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 48
Get Book Here
Book Description
The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, which was created in 2002, funds reforms in the country's lowest-performing schools with the goal of improving student outcomes, such as standardized test scores and graduation rates. Congress greatly increased SIG program funding from $125 million available in fiscal year 2007--the first year the program was funded--to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2009 for the 2010-11 school year. Three billion dollars of this amount was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In addition, $546 million was appropriated in both fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and $535 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2011. These funds were provided to states by formula after the Department of Education (Education) approved state SIG grant applications. The funding increases provided by the Recovery Act spurred Education to make substantive changes to the SIG program. For example, the persistently lowest-achieving schools receiving SIG funding must now implement one of four intervention models, each with specific requirements for reform interventions, such as replacing principals or turning over school management to a charter organization or other outside organization. Also, after states receive their grants, states are required to award subgrants to school districts competitively, rather than by formula. State educational agencies evaluate grant applications using several criteria, including the school's proposed intervention model and the district's budget and reform implementation plan, as well as their capacity to implement the reforms effectively. Under the SIG program, a school may receive up to $2 million annually for 3 years to improve student outcomes. Congress requested that GAO conduct a broad review of the SIG program. On the basis of congressional request, this report provides preliminary information on the following questions: (1) How have selected states administered the SIG program for grants starting in school year (SY) 2010-11? (2) What factors influenced the implementation of SIG interventions in selected schools during SY 2010-11? (3) How has Education provided oversight of SIG implementation and measured performance to date? In summary, the nongeneralizable sample and other evidence suggests the following: (1) Among the selected states, some implemented SIG more rigorously than others. States with selective competitions funded only those district applications they identified as the strongest, and thus may be positioned for better student achievement outcomes. In contrast, other states awarded grants to all eligible Tier I and II schools that applied. States also varied in how they designed their grant renewal processes. (2) Local capacity and short time frames affected schools' ability to implement SIG interventions in many of the states we visited. Local capacity--such as the ability to attract and retain administrative staff with school turnaround expertise or high-quality teachers--influenced implementation, and SIG interventions were often challenging for low- capacity districts. Education and state officials told us time frames for planning and implementing interventions were challenging in SY 2010-11 because, in some cases, state applications--which were due in February 2010--were not approved by Education until summer 2010. State and district officials told us that late approval of applications resulted in some SIG interventions not being implemented by the start of SY 2010-11. Despite Education's efforts to address these issues, late approval of state applications has remained an issue for SY 2011-12. For example, as of late June 2011 six states had not received approval of their SIG applications. Education officials told us that in many of these situations, states had submitted applications late. Although Education officials recognized the continuing challenges with SIG time frames, they have not yet identified steps to address these issues. (3) Education oversees SIG and plans to collect school performance data. The agency uses several strategies, such as reviewing state applications and monitoring, to oversee state and district SIG implementation. In addition, Education plans to analyze performance data from SIG schools to identify high-quality practices. To provide districts and schools more time to successfully plan and implement SIG reforms, we are recommending that the Secretary of Education should do the following: Consider options to have SIG grants awarded to districts earlier, such as using an earlier deadline for state applications or approving state applications that include timelines for earlier awards to districts. (Contains 3 footnotes.) Appended are: (1) Briefing Slides; (2) Comments from the Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments.
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: Steven Hurlburt
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 66
Get Book Here
Book Description
The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program was first authorized in 2001 under Title I section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and provides formula-based federal funds to states that then competitively award these funds to districts applying for SIG on behalf of their low-performing schools. These schools use the funds to implement reforms to turn themselves around. SIG funding was substantially increased and SIG requirements were substantially modified with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These modifications were designed to better target SIG to the nation's lowest-achieving schools and to ensure that more aggressive improvement strategies are adopted for such schools than had been previously adopted. Thus far, since the passage of ARRA, two cohorts of schools have received SIG. Cohort I grantees include schools that received SIG during the fiscal year 2009 competition cycle to implement reforms beginning in the 2010-11 school year. Cohort II grantees include schools that received SIG during the fiscal year 2010 competition cycle to implement reforms beginning in the 2011-12 school year. Both cohorts were funded through ESEA. In addition, Cohort I funding was supplemented by ARRA. This report focuses on two key questions: (1) Based on states' Cohort II SIG applications to the U.S. Department of Education, what SIG-related policies and practices did states intend to implement, and how do they compare to the policies and practices in states' Cohort I SIG applications? (States were required to submit an application to obtain a formula-based share of federal SIG funds that they then awarded competitively to districts applying for SIG on behalf of their eligible schools.); and (2) What are the characteristics of the persistently lowest-achieving schools identified by states as eligible for SIG and of the schools awarded SIG funds in Cohort II, and how do they compare to schools in Cohort I? The remainder of the report is divided into four sections. Section 2 provides an overview of SIG. Section 3 addresses the first key question based on information contained in state SIG applications submitted to and approved by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The analysis focuses on how states identified SIG-eligible schools, how states determined whether districts had the capacity to support SIG implementation in their schools, and how states reported monitoring and supporting SIG implementation. Section 4 addresses the second key question through a descriptive analysis of extant data on the characteristics of SIG-eligible schools identified by states, as well as the characteristics of SIG-awarded schools. Section 5 summarizes the report's key findings. Appended are: (1) Methodology for Analyses of State Applications for SIG; (2) Number and Percentage of SIG-Eligible Schools; and (3) Number of SIG-Awarded Schools. (Contains 26 exhibits and 21 footnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Molly Abend, Brian Lundgren, Jennifer Scala, and Jayne Sowers.].
Author: Ann Webber
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 125
Get Book Here
Book Description
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided an unprecedented level of funding for K-12 education. The program created a "historic opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of jobs, support states and school districts, and advance reforms and improvements that will create long-lasting results for our students and our nation." Specifically, the Recovery Act allocated $70.6 billion in funding for K-12 education, of which $6.8 billion was awarded to states through a combination of newly created and existing grant programs, including the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) formula grants, Race to the Top (RTT) discretionary grants, and additional funding for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. In return for Recovery Act grants, recipients were required to commit to four specific core reforms or assurances: (1) Adopting rigorous college-ready and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments; (2) Establishing data systems and using data to improve performance; (3) Increasing teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of effective teachers; and (4) Turning around the lowest performing schools. By linking a commitment to the four assurances with receipt of funding, the Recovery Act signaled federal priorities; provided states, districts, and schools with incentives to initiate or intensify reforms in each of these areas; and encouraged states to pursue a combination of mutually supporting reform strategies. This report is part of the multi-year U.S. Department of Education (ED) evaluation "Charting the Progress of Education Reform: An Evaluation of the Recovery Act's Role." ED seeks to understand through this evaluation how states, districts, and schools are working to implement the education reforms promoted by the Recovery Act. The current report focuses on whether, and how, state education agencies (SEAs) were implementing the reforms that the Recovery Act emphasized one year after the act was passed, and sets the stage for examination of implementation at the local level. It provides a picture of the prevalence and progress of the reform agenda promoted by the Recovery Act. A primary focus is SEA implementation of reforms in 2010-11, the first full school year after all Recovery Act funds were awarded. The education policies embedded in the Recovery Act were introduced into an ongoing stream of federal and state reform activity and states had undertaken some reforms before the act's passage. Therefore, the report also examines SEA implementation of reforms in 2009-10, and explores the extent to which 2010-11 reform activities represented progress. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions: (1) To what extent did SEAs report implementing key reform strategies promoted by the Recovery Act in the 2010-11 school year? (2) How much of the 2010-11 school year implementation reflects progress since the Recovery Act? and (3) What were the greatest reform implementation challenges for SEAs in the 2010-11 school year? Eight appendices include: (1) The Survey Development Process; (2) State-Level Indicators, Components, and Recovery Act Program Requirements; (3) SEA Implementation Progress from 2009-10 to 2010-11: Standards and Assessments; (4) Required Components of a Statewide P-16 Education Data System: America COMPETES Act of 2007; (5) SEA Implementation Progress From 2009-10 to 2010-11: Data Systems; (6) SEA Implementation Progress From 2009-10 to 2010-11: Educator Workforce Development; (7) SEA Implementation Progress From 2009-10 to 2010-11: Support for Improving Low-Performing Schools; and (8) Indicators by State. (Contains 59 tables, 15 footnotes, and 13 figures.).
