School Improvement Grant
Encyclopedia
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 (aka ESEA, reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) in 2002). The SEAs, in turn, award subgrants to local educational agencies
(LEA’s, also known as school district
s) 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.
With funds allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
, the U.S. Department of Education dramatically increased the funds provided to SEAs under section 1003(g) while issuing program requirements that charged the SEAs with channeling the funds to LEAs for the “persistently lowest-achieving schools” to support rapid improvement through four relatively prescriptive intervention models:
• The turnaround model
in which the LEA replaces the principal and rehires no more than 50% of the staff, gives the principal greater autonomy
, and implements other prescribed and recommended strategies.
• The “restart model” in which the LEA converts or closes and reopens a school under a charter school
operator, charter management organization, or education management organization.
• The “school closure model” in which the LEA closes the school and enrolls the students in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.
• The “transformation model” in which the LEA replaces the principal (except in specified situations), implements a rigorous staff evaluation
and development system, institutes comprehensive instructional reform, increases learning time and applies community-oriented school strategies, and provides greater operational flexibility and support for the school.
Arne Duncan
announced the final requirements for $3.5 billion in Title I School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to turn around the nation’s lowest performing schools. The applications were due into the U.S. Department of Education by Feb. 8, 2010. These funds were made available to states by formula and competed for by school districts. As they competed for the funds, school districts/local educational agencies (LEAs) were required to identify the schools they wanted to transform, and then determine which of four models was most appropriate: the turnaround model, the restart model, school closure, or the transformation model. The law delineates the requirements for each of the four models. If a school had begun implementation of one of these four models or components of one of these models within the previous two years, it was permitted to apply to use SIG funds to continue to implement the full model.
prioritization of the lowest-achieving public schools. The Center on Innovation & Improvement, one of five federally funded content centers, has developed extensive guidance regarding implementation of the SIG program. As outlined in the SIG regulations, the Department has articulated very specific parameters regarding the approaches states and districts are to use to drive dramatic improvement. Under guidance promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education, states must distribute 95% of their SIG grant dollars to districts and, in turn, districts must prioritize awards to districts based on need as measured by individual schools’ academic performance and concentration of poverty
. As outlined in the law, when awarding subgrants to districts, states must “give priority to the local educational agencies with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate —
(A) the greatest need for such funds; and
(B) the strongest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the goals under school and local educational improvement, corrective action, and restructuring plans under section 1116.”
Under the 2010 guidance related to Section 1003(g), state departments of education are required to identify their “persistently lowest-achieving” schools . School districts that have schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving apply to the state department of education to obtain School Improvement Grants. As part of their grant application, districts must identify which of the four intervention models (i.e., turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation) they intend to implement in each of the identified lowest-achieving schools. While the LEAs must apply one of the four intervention models in schools defined as “persistently lowest-achieving,” once the state has allocated adequate resources to these schools, according to the federal requirements, the state can use the remaining School Improvement Grant funds for districts to implement other interventions and supports to improve other Title I schools (i.e., schools eligible for federal aid under Title I of ESEA [i.e., NCLB] due to high concentrations of poverty) in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Schools implementing the turnaround model may also implement any of the required or permissible strategies under the Transformation Model.
The theory of action underlying the turnaround model is that the existing configuration of leadership
and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. Therefore, in order to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change. Under the turnaround model, change entails literal change of personnel as well as behavioral change by the high-capacity personnel that remain.
. As part of this model, a state must review the process the LEA will use/has used to select the partner.
The theory of action underlying restart, also referred to as "Starting Fresh" as first codified in the charter sector, is that restart allows a state, district, or other authorizing entity to break the cycle of low achievement by making deep and fundamental changes to the way the school operates. Research from the charter sector indicates that in order to realize the full potential of restarting low-achieving schools, states/districts should:
The theory of action underlying the closure model is that school capacity according to multiple measures (e.g., academic performance, school culture/expectations, teacher performance, or facilities) is so low as to preclude a reasonable expectation of dramatic improvement for students currently enrolled. Therefore, closing the school and transitioning students to a higher performing school is the best strategy to dramatically improve their academic outcomes.
Changes required to occur under the transformation model, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education, are:
Guidance developed by the Center on Innovation & Improvement directs LEAs to select the "best" intervention model based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead effort
Research that has emerged from school restructuring efforts in multiple districts using the intervention models outlined in the SIG regulations indicates that determining the best fit should be based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead the effort. Research conducted by the Center on Education Policy has documented that there is not one single "best" approach to dramatic school improvement efforts. Rather, success is generally a result of multiple coordinated initiatives.
However, there is strong evidence that a key aspect of successful restructuring under NCLB is use data (e.g., at least once a month) to make decisions about instructional practices. Replacing staff can be a component of school improvement but it can also have negative consequences if not handled well.
There is a growing body of research that indicates that school districts must play a central role in coordinating and supporting change. Individual schools are responsible for implementing the change initiative but the district sets the stage for meaningful and sustainable change. Specifically, LEAs can support school improvement efforts identified in the SIG program by:
And on March 1, 2010, when President Obama
gave a speech speaking of the necessity of letting go teachers at failing schools such as those in the Central Falls (RI) School District's only high school, Dennis Van Roekel
, president of the National Education Association
, said, “The tone used to describe the teachers in Central Falls has been disparaging and unforgiving. It's time for federal officials to get out of the blame game and into the classroom. One thing is certain: Firing the entire faculty of a school that is on the path to improvement is no recipe for turning around a struggling high school. And relying on a magical pool of ‘excellent teachers’ to spring forth and replace them is naïve at best and desperately misguided. Approaches that point the finger at educators do nothing to bring about substantive improvements for students. To the contrary, it provides a momentary perception of correcting a problem. But in reality, we all know that the solution is not blame, it is collaboration—collaboration among school employees, management, parents and communities. No one benefits when school staffs are summarily dismissed —- not communities and certainly not students. In the end all that approach gets anyone is a good sound bite.”
A critical review of School Improvement Grants was published by Craig Waddell, in April 2011.
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009). School restructuring, What Works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Points Associates. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/School_Restructuring_Guide.pdf
Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The closure model. [audiovisual recording]. Prepared for the National Network of State School Improvement Leaders. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/
Kowal, J., Hassel, E. A., & Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful school turnarounds: Seven steps for district leaders. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Issue brief retrieved from http://centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf webcast retrieved from: http://www.centerforcsri.org/webcasts/school-turnarounds/
Redding, S. & Walberg, H. (2008). Handbook on Statewide Systems of Support. Center on Innovation & Improvement. Available online: www.centerii.org
Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org
Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL, Academic Development Institute, downloaded at www.centerii.org/survey
Steiner, L. (2009). Tough decisions: Closing persistently low-performing schools. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey/
U.S. Department of Education (2010). Guidance on School Improvement Grants
Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC. Author. The final requirements for the SIG program, set forth in 74 FR 65618 (Dec. 10, 2009), and amended by the interim final requirements, set forth in 75 FR (Jan. 21, 2010) (final requirements), implement both the requirements of section 1003(g) of the ESEA and the flexibilities for the SIG program provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
State education agency
A state education agency , or state department of education, is a formal governmental label for the state-level government agencies within each U.S...
(SEAs) under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (aka ESEA, reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act
No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a United States Act of Congress concerning the education of children in public schools.NCLB was originally proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office...
(NCLB) in 2002). The SEAs, in turn, award subgrants to local educational agencies
Local education agency
Local Education Agency is a commonly used synonym for a school district, an entity which operates local public primary and secondary schools in the United States, or provides government services to schools within a local area in the United Kingdom....
(LEA’s, also known as school district
School district
School districts are a form of special-purpose district which serves to operate the local public primary and secondary schools.-United States:...
s) for the purpose of supporting focused school improvement efforts. In 2009, the Obama administration
Barack Obama
Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned following his victory in the 2008 presidential election.Born in...
, and specifically U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
Arne Duncan
Arne Duncan is an American education administrator and currently United States Secretary of Education. Duncan previously served as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools.-Early years and personal:...
, challenged the education community to make the lowest-achieving schools its highest priority.
With funds allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.To...
, the U.S. Department of Education dramatically increased the funds provided to SEAs under section 1003(g) while issuing program requirements that charged the SEAs with channeling the funds to LEAs for the “persistently lowest-achieving schools” to support rapid improvement through four relatively prescriptive intervention models:
• The turnaround model
Turnaround model
The Turnaround Model is one of four strategies available to American local education agencies under the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants programs of the Obama administration...
in which the LEA replaces the principal and rehires no more than 50% of the staff, gives the principal greater autonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision...
, and implements other prescribed and recommended strategies.
• The “restart model” in which the LEA converts or closes and reopens a school under a charter school
Charter school
Charter schools are primary or secondary schools that receive public money but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter...
operator, charter management organization, or education management organization.
• The “school closure model” in which the LEA closes the school and enrolls the students in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.
• The “transformation model” in which the LEA replaces the principal (except in specified situations), implements a rigorous staff evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation is systematic determination of merit, worth, and significance of something or someone using criteria against a set of standards.Evaluation often is used to characterize and appraise subjects of interest in a wide range of human enterprises, including the arts, criminal justice,...
and development system, institutes comprehensive instructional reform, increases learning time and applies community-oriented school strategies, and provides greater operational flexibility and support for the school.
Announcement
On December 3, 2009, U.S. Secretary of EducationUnited States Secretary of Education
The United States Secretary of Education is the head of the Department of Education. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet, and 16th in line of United States presidential line of succession...
Arne Duncan
Arne Duncan
Arne Duncan is an American education administrator and currently United States Secretary of Education. Duncan previously served as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools.-Early years and personal:...
announced the final requirements for $3.5 billion in Title I School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to turn around the nation’s lowest performing schools. The applications were due into the U.S. Department of Education by Feb. 8, 2010. These funds were made available to states by formula and competed for by school districts. As they competed for the funds, school districts/local educational agencies (LEAs) were required to identify the schools they wanted to transform, and then determine which of four models was most appropriate: the turnaround model, the restart model, school closure, or the transformation model. The law delineates the requirements for each of the four models. If a school had begun implementation of one of these four models or components of one of these models within the previous two years, it was permitted to apply to use SIG funds to continue to implement the full model.
Lowest Achieving
The SIG program reflects the federal government'sFederal government of the United States
The federal government of the United States is the national government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that is the United States of America. The federal government comprises three distinct branches of government: a legislative, an executive and a judiciary. These branches and...
prioritization of the lowest-achieving public schools. The Center on Innovation & Improvement, one of five federally funded content centers, has developed extensive guidance regarding implementation of the SIG program. As outlined in the SIG regulations, the Department has articulated very specific parameters regarding the approaches states and districts are to use to drive dramatic improvement. Under guidance promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education, states must distribute 95% of their SIG grant dollars to districts and, in turn, districts must prioritize awards to districts based on need as measured by individual schools’ academic performance and concentration of poverty
Poverty
Poverty is the lack of a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live...
. As outlined in the law, when awarding subgrants to districts, states must “give priority to the local educational agencies with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate —
(A) the greatest need for such funds; and
(B) the strongest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the goals under school and local educational improvement, corrective action, and restructuring plans under section 1116.”
Under the 2010 guidance related to Section 1003(g), state departments of education are required to identify their “persistently lowest-achieving” schools . School districts that have schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving apply to the state department of education to obtain School Improvement Grants. As part of their grant application, districts must identify which of the four intervention models (i.e., turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation) they intend to implement in each of the identified lowest-achieving schools. While the LEAs must apply one of the four intervention models in schools defined as “persistently lowest-achieving,” once the state has allocated adequate resources to these schools, according to the federal requirements, the state can use the remaining School Improvement Grant funds for districts to implement other interventions and supports to improve other Title I schools (i.e., schools eligible for federal aid under Title I of ESEA [i.e., NCLB] due to high concentrations of poverty) in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Tiers
The SIG regulations define three tiers of schools for purposes of obtaining SIG funds. Each tier represents a level of priority for the SIG funds. In determining which districts receive grants, the state takes into account (1) the number of low-performing schools in the state, (2) the tiers these schools occupy, and (3) the LEA’s capacity to effectively implement the models and strategies outlined in the SIG application. The three tiers of schools identified as lowest achieving, in priority order for assistance through School Improvement Grants, are:- Tier I: Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving.”
- Tier II: Secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I-Part A funds and are identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving.”
- Tier III: Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not Tier I schools.
Turnaround model
Changes required to occur under the turnaround model as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education are:- Replace principal
- Use locally adopted "turnaround" competencies to review and select staff for school (rehire no more than 50% of existing staff)
- Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff
- Select and implement an instructional model based on student needs
- Provide job-embedded professional developmentProfessional developmentProfessional development refers to skills and knowledge attained for both personal development and career advancement. Professional development encompasses all types of facilitated learning opportunities, ranging from college degrees to formal coursework, conferences and informal learning...
(PD) designed to build capacity and support staff - Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction
- Provide increased learning time for staff and students
- Provide social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports
- Implement new governanceGovernanceGovernance is the act of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists of either a separate process or part of management or leadership processes...
structure - Grant operating flexibility to school leader
Schools implementing the turnaround model may also implement any of the required or permissible strategies under the Transformation Model.
The theory of action underlying the turnaround model is that the existing configuration of leadership
Leadership
Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". Other in-depth definitions of leadership have also emerged.-Theories:...
and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. Therefore, in order to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change. Under the turnaround model, change entails literal change of personnel as well as behavioral change by the high-capacity personnel that remain.
Restart model
Under the restart model, the district converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school. A rigorous review process could take into consideration such things as an applicant’s team, track record, instructional program, model’s theory of action, and sustainabilitySustainability
Sustainability is the capacity to endure. For humans, sustainability is the long-term maintenance of well being, which has environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and encompasses the concept of union, an interdependent relationship and mutual responsible position with all living and non...
. As part of this model, a state must review the process the LEA will use/has used to select the partner.
The theory of action underlying restart, also referred to as "Starting Fresh" as first codified in the charter sector, is that restart allows a state, district, or other authorizing entity to break the cycle of low achievement by making deep and fundamental changes to the way the school operates. Research from the charter sector indicates that in order to realize the full potential of restarting low-achieving schools, states/districts should:
- define explicit expectations for performance;
- empower high capacity school leaders to make dramatic changes absent avoidable intrusion from external governing bodies (e.g., state, school district, or authorizer);
- create a positive new school culture that will catalyze success;
- recruit and retain skilled and committed educators to the schools and classroomClassroomA classroom is a room in which teaching or learning activities can take place. Classrooms are found in educational institutions of all kinds, including public and private schools, corporations, and religious and humanitarian organizations...
s with the greatest need; and - satisfy and engage parents in order to keep their children in public schools.
School closure model
School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. Other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.The theory of action underlying the closure model is that school capacity according to multiple measures (e.g., academic performance, school culture/expectations, teacher performance, or facilities) is so low as to preclude a reasonable expectation of dramatic improvement for students currently enrolled. Therefore, closing the school and transitioning students to a higher performing school is the best strategy to dramatically improve their academic outcomes.
Transformation model
The theory of action underlying the transformation model is that the existing configuration of leadership and instructional personnel has not created a learning environment in which students are succeeding. As a result, to dramatically change the environment for the benefit of the children currently enrolled in the school, the adults must change. Under transformation, change entails literal change of leadership as well as behavioral change by instructional personnel.Changes required to occur under the transformation model, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education, are:
- Replace principal
- Implement new evaluation system developed with staff
- Use student growth as a significant factor
- Identify and reward staff who are increasing student outcomes; support and then remove those who are not
- Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff
- Select and implement an instructional model based on student needs
- Provide job-embedded professional development designed to build capacity and support staff
- Ensure continuous use of data to inform and differentiate instruction
- Provide increased learning time
- Provide an ongoing mechanism for community and family engagement
- Partner to provide social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports
- Provide sufficient operating flexibility to implement reform
- Ensure ongoing technical assistance
Selecting the "right" intervention model
In fulfilling their obligations outlined under the SIG regulations, LEAs must identify schools targeted for intervention based on persistent low performance and thereafter outline which of the four interventions models each school will adopt.Guidance developed by the Center on Innovation & Improvement directs LEAs to select the "best" intervention model based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead effort
Research that has emerged from school restructuring efforts in multiple districts using the intervention models outlined in the SIG regulations indicates that determining the best fit should be based on an appraisal of school and district capacity as well as an assessment of the supply of external partners or providers available to lead the effort. Research conducted by the Center on Education Policy has documented that there is not one single "best" approach to dramatic school improvement efforts. Rather, success is generally a result of multiple coordinated initiatives.
However, there is strong evidence that a key aspect of successful restructuring under NCLB is use data (e.g., at least once a month) to make decisions about instructional practices. Replacing staff can be a component of school improvement but it can also have negative consequences if not handled well.
There is a growing body of research that indicates that school districts must play a central role in coordinating and supporting change. Individual schools are responsible for implementing the change initiative but the district sets the stage for meaningful and sustainable change. Specifically, LEAs can support school improvement efforts identified in the SIG program by:
- Committing to success in spite of challenges,
- Identifing schools for targeted intervention,
- Assessing capacity in order to determine “best” intervention strategy,
- Cultivating a pipeline of highly capable turnaround/transformation/restart school leaders, and
- Create conditions for success (i.e., grant school leaders the autonomy and flexibility to make the necessary big changes).
Criticism
The legislation has had it critics. For example, in a September 25, 2009 open letter to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Gail Connelly, Executive Director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), wrote, “NAESP support’s the Secretary’s initiative to identify the lowest performing schools, establish rigorous interventions, provide them sufficient resources over multiple years to implement those interventions, and hold them accountable for improving student performance. However, we fundamentally disagree with the approach to enact this wide-ranging and transformational reform initiative with the simplistic and reactionary step of replacing principals as the first step in turning around low-performing schools. NAESP strongly supports reform models that provide the essential resources existing principals of low-performing schools must have to succeed. These resources include the necessary time, talent and tools.”And on March 1, 2010, when President Obama
Barack Obama
Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned following his victory in the 2008 presidential election.Born in...
gave a speech speaking of the necessity of letting go teachers at failing schools such as those in the Central Falls (RI) School District's only high school, Dennis Van Roekel
Dennis Van Roekel
Dennis Van Roekel is President of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association. As NEA president, he leads the largest labor union in the United States.-Background:...
, president of the National Education Association
National Education Association
The National Education Association is the largest professional organization and largest labor union in the United States, representing public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become...
, said, “The tone used to describe the teachers in Central Falls has been disparaging and unforgiving. It's time for federal officials to get out of the blame game and into the classroom. One thing is certain: Firing the entire faculty of a school that is on the path to improvement is no recipe for turning around a struggling high school. And relying on a magical pool of ‘excellent teachers’ to spring forth and replace them is naïve at best and desperately misguided. Approaches that point the finger at educators do nothing to bring about substantive improvements for students. To the contrary, it provides a momentary perception of correcting a problem. But in reality, we all know that the solution is not blame, it is collaboration—collaboration among school employees, management, parents and communities. No one benefits when school staffs are summarily dismissed —- not communities and certainly not students. In the end all that approach gets anyone is a good sound bite.”
A critical review of School Improvement Grants was published by Craig Waddell, in April 2011.
Additional resources and references
Center on Innovation & Improvement. (2010) Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants (2010). Available online: http://www.centerii.org/handbook/The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009). School restructuring, What Works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Points Associates. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/School_Restructuring_Guide.pdf
Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The closure model. [audiovisual recording]. Prepared for the National Network of State School Improvement Leaders. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/
Kowal, J., Hassel, E. A., & Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful school turnarounds: Seven steps for district leaders. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Issue brief retrieved from http://centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf webcast retrieved from: http://www.centerforcsri.org/webcasts/school-turnarounds/
Redding, S. & Walberg, H. (2008). Handbook on Statewide Systems of Support. Center on Innovation & Improvement. Available online: www.centerii.org
Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org
Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL, Academic Development Institute, downloaded at www.centerii.org/survey
Steiner, L. (2009). Tough decisions: Closing persistently low-performing schools. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey/
U.S. Department of Education (2010). Guidance on School Improvement Grants
Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC. Author. The final requirements for the SIG program, set forth in 74 FR 65618 (Dec. 10, 2009), and amended by the interim final requirements, set forth in 75 FR (Jan. 21, 2010) (final requirements), implement both the requirements of section 1003(g) of the ESEA and the flexibilities for the SIG program provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
External links
- Center on Innovation & Improvement
- Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education Dec. 3, 2009 press release entitled "Applications Now Available for $3.5 Billion in Title I School Improvement Grants to Turn Around Nation's Lowest Achieving Public Schools"
- U.S. Department of Education School Improvement Grant application