Key Findings from Two Reports on Federal School Improvement Grants by the Center on Education Policy PDF Download

Author: Center on Education Policy
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 4

View

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 : 20

View

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: Jennifer McMurrer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 13

View

Book Description
Research has long suggested that significantly increasing quality time in school for teaching and learning can have a positive impact on student achievement. Recognizing this connection, federal guidance requires low-performing schools to increase student learning time if they are implementing two popular reform models using school improvement grant (SIG) funds appropriated by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). This special report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) highlights findings about this increased learning time requirement from two recent CEP studies of SIG implementation in school year 2010-11 and the fall and winter of 2011-12. The first study was based on a CEP survey of state education officials in 46 responding states, including the District of Columbia. The second consisted of in-depth case studies of state and local SIG implementation in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho. Key findings include the following: (1) All 46 states responding to CEP's survey reported that at least some of their SIG-funded schools are implementing one of two federal school improvement models that require increased learning time; (2) Officials in a majority of the states surveyed said the strategy of increasing learning time is, to a great extent or some extent, a key element in improving achievement in SIG-funded schools; (3) All three case study states have ensured that schools using the transformation or turnaround models are increasing learning time, but the degree of state focus on this strategy varies; and (4) All SIG-funded case study schools that are using the transformation or turnaround models have increased students' learning time, as have some non-funded schools, but implementation and emphasis varied. (Contains 1 table and 1 box.) [For related reports, see "Schools with Federal Improvement Grants Face Challenges in Replacing Principals and Teachers" (ED533563) and "Changing the School Climate Is the First Step to Reform in Many Schools with Federal Improvement Grants" (ED533561).].

Author: Jennifer McMurrer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 16

View

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: Anthony S. Bryk
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 0226078019
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 328

View

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: Jennifer McMurrer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 21

View

Book Description
Several hundred of the nation's lowest-performing schools have recently undergone major changes in leadership and teaching staff to comply with federal requirements for using school improvement grants (SIGs) financed by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In particular, schools that receive stimulus-funded SIG awards must choose one of four improvement models aimed at turning around or closing chronically low-achieving schools. The two most popular models--"transformation" and "turnaround"--require schools to replace their principal, among other specific reforms. The turnaround model also requires schools to replace half or more of their teaching staff. Although a SIG award brings substantial extra funding for school reform, it does not guarantee that districts and schools can find principals and teachers with the necessary expertise who are willing to work in the lowest-performing schools. Although many states and school districts are optimistic overall about the reforms being carried out with SIG money, replacing principals and staff is often their greatest challenge to implementation, according to recent research by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at George Washington University. This special report by CEP describes findings about principal and teacher replacement drawn from two CEP studies of SIG implementation in school year 2010-11 and the fall and winter of 2011-12. The first study was a survey of state education officials in 46 responding states, including the District of Columbia, and the second consisted of in-depth case studies of state and local implementation in Idaho, Maryland, and Michigan. The following key findings highlight the main challenges and experiences of states, districts, and schools, including both SIG schools and comparable non-recipient schools, that have implemented principal and staff replacement as part of their efforts to improve achievement: (1) The majority of state officials surveyed viewed principal and teacher replacement as at least somewhat critical to improving student achievement in SIG-funded schools, although several said its importance varied from school to school; (2) Finding and keeping highly effective principals and teachers has been a major challenge for SIG schools in Idaho, Maryland, and Michigan; (3) Legal and union requirements and short funding timelines have posed obstacles to restaffing in some SIG schools; (4) A minority of states surveyed are assisting SIG-funded districts and schools with principal and staff replacement; and (5) Some officials interviewed would like to see more flexibility in the SIG principal and staff replacement requirements. (Contains 1 table and 2 boxes.) [For related reports, see "Increased Learning Time under Stimulus-Funded School Improvement Grants: High Hopes, Varied Implementation" (ED533562) and "Changing the School Climate Is the First Step to Reform in Many Schools with Federal Improvement Grants" (ED533561).].

Author: Nancy Kober
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 32

View

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: Gregg B. Dionne
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 135

View

Book Description
Student success and the mitigation of achievement gaps has been a focus of the federal government since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) is the latest in federal policy inducements to address this. To tell the story of SIG implementation in one Midwestern state, data was collected from two groups of SIG-eligible schools, one group which received SIG funding and the other group which did not. Data was collected over multiple years and included mathematics and reading outcomes as well as graduation, dropout, and attendance rates. Data was obtained for 49 SIG-eligible and funded schools, and 156 SIG- eligible, but not funded schools. In addition, the SIG applications submitted to the state were analyzed for those SIG funded schools, as was implementation survey data as collected by the state. An analysis examined differences in outcomes between the SIG-funded and non-funded schools, and the extent to which, if any, SIG funding, levels of per-pupil SIG funding, and chosen reform model could predict outcomes. This study also examined implementation activities to determine if reported levels of sustainability, buy-in and support, and success could also predict outcomes. Findings from this study indicate that differences in mean outcome changes were not statistically significant between SIG funded and SIG non-funded schools. The receipt of SIG funding, per-pupil SIG funding, and chosen reform model were predictors of some outcomes; however, covariates such as the percent poverty and the percent minority were more consistent in predicting outcomes. Levels of overall reported sustainability were also a predictor of improved outcomes in several models. The extent to which other variables could predict outcomes was not consistent; however, reported technology implementation and extended learning time actually predicted decreased outcomes in some models. Overall, race and poverty are more consistent predictors of outcomes than SIG funding, SIG per-pupil funding, chosen reform model, and multiple implementation variables. More research is needed on federal school reform efforts, such as SIG, to determine what is happening in these schools and how outcomes are being impacted by implementation efforts.

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 764

View

Book Description

Author: Sarah Yatsko
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 42

View

Book Description
In 2009, the federal government committed over $3 billion nationwide to help states and districts turn around their worst-performing schools. The U.S. Department of Education intended for the School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to spur dramatic change. This report looks at the results of a field study of the first-year implementation of those grants in Washington State, which will receive $50 million in SIG funding over three years. CRPE researchers wanted to see what kinds of school-level changes are underway, how they compare to the intent of the grants, and the role that district play in SIG implementation. Researchers provide findings from the state, district, and school level. They found that, with some exceptions, districts and schools in Washington state are approaching the turnaround work in ways only marginally different from past school improvement efforts. Despite the hard work of administrators, principals, and especially teachers, the majority of schools studied show little evidence of the type of bold and transformative changes the SIGs were intended to produce. The report offers recommendations regarding the roles that federal, state, and local education agencies should play in support of school turnaround work. Those administering future grants targeted at the nation's lowest-performing schools could avoid the problems described here and improve their chances of affecting dramatic, not incremental, change. (Contains 1 table and 29 footnotes.).