Mississippi Department of EducationMississippi Department of EducationOffice of School RecoveryOffice of School Recovery

November 18, 2010November 18, 20103:30-4:303:30-4:30

Committee of Practitioners MeetingSchool Improvement Grant 1003(g)

SEA Application

Meeting AgendaMeeting AgendaBackground and Purpose of

School Improvement Grants (SIG)Mississippi’s definition of

“Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools” (PLS)

Statutory RequirementsWaiversQuestions, Answers, and

Feedback

2

BackgroundBackground The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program is authorized by section

1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).

States are to provide subgrants to local educational agencies for the purpose of providing the funds necessary to leverage change and turnaround schools.

School Improvement Grants provide an unprecedented opportunity for states and districts to implement significant reforms to transform chronically low-performing schools.

An SEA 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 funds are used to substantially raise student achievement and meet the goals under school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring.

3

BackgroundBackground• Schools are categorized into three tiers based on factors

such as school improvement status, graduation rates, proficiency on state assessments, and eligibility for Title I funds.

• Mississippi received $47 million in SIG funds in 2009-2010. Following a competitive grant process, eight schools were awarded 3 year grants to implement one of the four school improvement intervention models.

• Funding for the full three years is contingent upon the schools meeting established goals or on a trajectory to do so, as they implement rigorous interventions.

• School grants ranged from $2.4 million to $5.25 million, for a total distribution of $33 million.

4

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding PrinciplesStudents who attend Mississippi’s

persistently lowest—achieving schools deserve better options and can’t afford to wait.

Not quantity of interventions, but quality.

MDE will aid in building capacity and support at all levels.

The grants and reform activities will be on-going in order to improve schools.

5

Funding for MississippiFunding for MississippiThis year Mississippi will award approximately

$18.2 million in School Improvement Grants during a second round of grant competition tentatively scheduled for January / February, 2011.

An SEA must award a School Improvement Grant to an LEA in an amount that is of sufficient size and scope to support the activities required under section 1116 of the ESEA and these requirements.

6

FundingFunding

An LEA’s total grant may not be less than $50,000 or more than $2,000,000 per year for each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school that the LEA commits to serve.

Successful LEAs will receive up to three years of funding under section 1003(g) of the ESEA to implement their proposed interventions.

Continuation of funding is contingent upon a school’s performance in meeting annual benchmarks.

7

• Length of instructional day• Participation rates on state assessments for all

subgroups• Dropout rate• Student attendance rate• Discipline incidents• Truancy• Percentage of students participating in advanced

coursework• Teacher performance levels on evaluation system• Teacher attendance• Student academic proficiency, all subgroups, all

assessments• Student academic growth, all subgroups, all

assessments• Percent of seniors taking ACT and average score• Achievement gaps in proficiency and growth for

subgroups

• Length of instructional day• Participation rates on state assessments for all

subgroups• Dropout rate• Student attendance rate• Discipline incidents• Truancy• Percentage of students participating in advanced

coursework• Teacher performance levels on evaluation system• Teacher attendance• Student academic proficiency, all subgroups, all

assessments• Student academic growth, all subgroups, all

assessments• Percent of seniors taking ACT and average score• Achievement gaps in proficiency and growth for

subgroups

8

Performance IndicatorsPerformance Indicators

Identifying Persistently Identifying Persistently Lowest-Achieving SchoolsLowest-Achieving Schools

In identifying the persistently lowest-achieving schools, the academic achievement of the “all students” group in language arts/mathematics combined –AND– a lack of progress over a number of years in the “all students” group had to be considered.

These persistently lowest-achieving schools are classified into three tiers: Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III.

9

Mississippi’s Definition ofMississippi’s Definition of PLA Schools PLA Schools

Mississippi’s definition of the persistently lowest-achieving schools has been approved by the US Department of Education.

The State’s definition mirrors the final requirements published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010.

10

Identifying Tier I SchoolsIdentifying Tier I Schools

To be included in Tier I, a school had to be in some level of improvement for the 2010-2011 school year and had to meet at least one of two criteria:

(i) Among the lowest-achieving 5% of schools in improvement -or-

Among the lowest-achieving 5 schools in improvement, whichever is greater.

-- OR --(ii) A secondary school in some level of

improvement that had a graduation rate of less than 60% over three years.

11

12

Newly-Eligible Tier I SchoolsNewly-Eligible Tier I Schools

(v) An elementary school eligible for Title I, Part A funds that has not made AYP for two consecutive years-AND-is no higher achieving than the highest achieving school originally identified in (i)

-- OR --(vi) An elementary school eligible for Title I,

Part A funds that is in the state’s lowest 20% of performance-AND-is no higher achieving than the highest achieving school originally identified in (i).

13

Identifying Tier II SchoolsIdentifying Tier II SchoolsTier II schools had to meet at least one of two

criteria:(iii) Among the lowest-achieving 5% of

secondary schools eligible for, but not receiving, Title I funds -or-

Among the lowest-achieving 5 secondary schools eligible for, but not receiving, Title I funds, whichever is greater.

-- OR --(iv) A secondary school eligible for, but not

receiving, Title I funds that had a graduation rate of less than 60% over three years.

14

Newly-Eligible Tier II SchoolsNewly-Eligible Tier II Schools

(vii)A secondary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that has not made AYP for two consecutive years-AND-is no higher achieving than the highest achieving school originally identified in (iii)

-- OR --(viii) A secondary school that is eligible

for Title I, Part A funds that has not made AYP for two consecutive years-AND-that had a graduation rate of less than 60% over the three years

-- OR --

15

Newly-Eligible Tier II SchoolsNewly-Eligible Tier II Schools

(ix) A secondary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that is in the state’s lowest 20% of performance-AND-is no higher achieving than the highest achieving school originally identified in (iii)

-- OR --(x) A secondary school that is eligible for

Title I, Part A funds that is in the state’s lowest 20% of performance-AND-has had a graduation rate of less than 60% over three years.

16

Identifying Tier III SchoolsIdentifying Tier III SchoolsIn addition to the remaining schools in improvement not already identified in Tiers I or Tier II, eligibility for inclusion as a Tier III school includes any school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds –AND–(a) Has not made AYP for at least 2 years

-- OR --(b) Is in the state’s lowest 20% of performance in language arts/mathematics combined.

Note: Once a school is identified in a tier, it cannot be included in subsequent tiers.

The final list of eligible schools has been distributed to superintendents and will be posted on the MDE homepage, November 19th, under the Hot Topics link.

17

Schools Eligible to Receive Schools Eligible to Receive SIG Funds SIG Funds

Four SIG Intervention Four SIG Intervention ModelsModels

18

19

20

RestartRestartRestart model is one in which an LEA 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 such things into consideration as an applicant’s team, track record, instructional program, model’s theory of action, sustainability.• As part of this model, a state must review the process the LEA will use/has used to select the partner.

21

School Closure Model School Closure Model OverviewOverviewSchool 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.

• These 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.• Office for Civil Rights Technical Assistance Module—Struggling Schools and School Closure Issues: An Overview of Civil Rights Considerations

22

Role of MDERole of MDE• Identify Tier I, II, and III schools.• Establish criteria related to the overall quality

of an LEA’s application and to an LEA’s capacity to implement fully and effectively the required interventions.

• Must give priority to LEAs committing to serve Tier I or Tier II schools.

• Review, adjust, and approve LEA budgets by school.

• Monitor the LEA’s implementation of interventions in and the progress of its participating schools.

• Hold each Tier I, II, and III school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, the LEA’s student achievement goals.

23

Role of LEARole of LEA• Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA

demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity or sufficient funds.

• After a comprehensive analysis of data and resources, implement one of the four models in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA has the capacity to serve.o An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may

not implement the transformation model in more than 50% of those schools.

• Provide adequate resources to each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve in order to implement fully one of the four school intervention models.

• Establish three-year student achievement goals in reading/language arts and mathematics and hold each Tier I, II, and III school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, those goals.

24

WaiversWaiversThrough its SIG application, the MDE

will request a waiver of the following provisions:

• Section 241(b) of the General Education Provisions Act to extend the period of availability of SIG funds for the SEA and all of its LEAs to September 30, 2014.

• Section 1116(b)(12) of the ESEA to permit LEAs to allow their Tier I schools that will implement a turnaround or restart model to “start over” in the school improvement timeline.

25

WaiversWaivers• Section 1114(a)(1) of the ESEA to

implement a schoolwide program in a participating Title I school that does not meet the poverty threshold of 40% and is fully implementing one of the four intervention models.

• The Mississippi Department of Education believes that the requested waivers will increase its ability to implement the School Improvement Grant program effectively in eligible schools in the state in order to improve the quality of instruction and raise the academic achievement of students in Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools.

26

Lessons Learned from the Lessons Learned from the Previous SIG Application Previous SIG Application ProcessProcess

• LEA application is being revised to reflect a more “user friendly” format that is aligned with other federal programs grant applications (narratives and budgets)•Technical assistance and training regarding LEA application for interested Tier I and Tier II schools •SIG finalists will participate in an interview as part of the grant review process•Webinar for superintendents, tentatively scheduled for December 6th

27

Tentative TimelineTentative Timeline

ED awards SIG grants to States

28

LEA application process

SEA awards grants to LEA

LEAs begin implementation

SIG schools open/reopen

Questions/CommentsQuestions/Comments

29

Public comments are encouraged, and may be submitted via email to SIGWaivers@mde.k12.ms.us by 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 30, 2010. All comments will be included in the State’s waiver request to the United States Department of Education.

Waiver CommentsWaiver Comments

SIGQuestions@mde.k12.ms.us

Dr. Kim Benton, Bureau ManagerMississippi Department of EducationOffice of School RecoveryP. O. Box 771Jackson, MS 39205-0771601-359-1879kbenton@mde.k12.ms.us

30

Office of School Recoveryhttp://www.mde.k12.ms.us/school_recovery/index.html