Download or read book Early State Implementation of Title I School Improvement Grants Under the Recovery Act written by Jennifer McMurrer and published by . This book was released on 2011 with total page 16 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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.).

Download or read book State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants Under the Recovery Act written by Jennifer McMurrer and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 20 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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.].

Download or read book Early State Implementation of Title I School Improvement Grants Under the Recovery Act written by Center on Education Policy (Washington, D.C.) and published by . This book was released on 2011 with total page 12 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:

Download or read book State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants Under the Recovery Act One Year Later Online Appendix written by Center on Education Policy and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 5 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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.].

Download or read book Key Findings from Two Reports on Federal School Improvement Grants by the Center on Education Policy written by Center on Education Policy and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 4 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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).].

Download or read book 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 written by The Law The Law Library and published by Createspace Independent Publishing Platform. This book was released on 2018-07-22 with total page 86 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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

Download or read book School Turnaround Policies and Practices in the US written by Joseph F. Murphy and published by Springer. This book was released on 2018-12-12 with total page 170 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This volume provides an analysis of what we know about turning around "failing" schools in the United States. It starts with an in-depth examination of the barriers that hinder action on turnaround work. The book analyses the reasons why some schools that find themselves in serious academic trouble fail in their efforts to turn themselves around. Beginning with a discussion of what may best be described as "lethal" reasons or the most powerful explanation for failed reform initiatives, which include an absence of attention to student care and support; a near absence of attention to curriculum and instruction; the firing of the wrong people. Covered in this volume are "critical" explanations for failed turnaround efforts such as failure to attend to issues of sustainability, and "significant" explanations for failed turnaround efforts such as the misuse of test data. The volume concludes by examining what can be done to overcome problems that cause failure for turnaround schools and reviewing ideas in the core technology of schooling: curriculum, instruction, and assessment. As well as exploring problems associated with the leadership and management of schools to see where improvement is possible and an analysis of opportunities found in relationships between schools and their external partners such as parents and community members.

Download or read book Federal Efforts to Improve the Lowest Performing Schools written by Nancy Kober and published by . This book was released on 2011 with total page 32 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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.).

Download or read book The School Improvement Grant Rollout in America s Great City Schools written by Jonathon Lachlan-Hache and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 43 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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.).

Download or read book School Improvement Grants written by Steven Hurlburt and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 66 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: 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.].

Download or read book Enduring Myths That Inhibit School Turnaround written by Coby V. Meyers and published by IAP. This book was released on 2017-05-01 with total page 361 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: The concept of school turnaround—rapidly improving schools and increasing student achievement outcomes in a short period of time—has become politicized despite the relative newness of the idea. Unprecedented funding levels for school improvement combined with few examples of schools substantially increasing student achievement outcomes has resulted in doubt about whether or not turnaround is achievable. Skeptics have enumerated a number of reasons to abandon school turnaround at this early juncture. This book is the first in a new series on school turnaround and reform intended to spur ongoing dialogue among and between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners on improving the lowest-performing schools and the systems in which they operate. The “turnaround challenge” remains salient regardless of what we call it. We must improve the nation’s lowest-performing schools for many moral, social, and economic reasons. In this first book, education researchers and scholars have identified a number of myths that have inhibited our ability to successfully turn schools around. Our intention is not to suggest that if these myths are addressed school turnaround will always be achieved. Business and other literatures outside of education make it clear that turnaround is, at best, difficult work. However, for a number of reasons, we in education have developed policies and practices that are often antithetical to turnaround. Indeed, we are making already challenging work harder. The myths identified in this book suggest that we still struggle to define or understand what we mean by turnaround or how best, or even adequately, measure whether it has been achieved. Moreover, it is clear that there are a number of factors limiting how effectively we structure and support low-performing schools both systemically and locally. And we have done a rather poor job of effectively leveraging human resources to raise student achievement and improve organizational outcomes. We anticipate this book having wide appeal for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in consideration of how to support these schools taking into account context, root causes of low-performance, and the complex work to ensure their opportunity to be successful. Too frequently we have expected these schools to turn themselves around while failing to assist them with the vision and supports to realize meaningful, lasting organizational change. The myths identified and debunked in this book potentially illustrate a way forward.

Download or read book The Budget of the United States Government written by United States. Office of Management and Budget and published by . This book was released on 2015 with total page 1442 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:

Download or read book Recovery Act written by Gene L. Dodaro and published by DIANE Publishing. This book was released on 2011-04 with total page 284 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This report is the latest in a series of reports on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in 16 selected states, certain localities in those jurisdictions, and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental assistance available through the Recovery Act. This report also responds to a mandate to comment on the jobs estimated in recipient reports. This report collected and analyzed documents and interviewed state and local officials and other Recovery Act award recipients. It also analyzed federal agency guidance and interviewed federal officials. Charts and tables. This is a print on demand edition of an important, hard-to-find report.

Download or read book Competing for School Improvement Dollars written by Melissa Lazarin and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 43 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: In 2009 the Obama administration announced a focused commitment to turn around 5,000 of the United States' chronically lowest-performing public schools as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This commitment came with $3 billion in funding for the School Improvement Grant program, or SIG, along with new guidelines to ensure that federal dollars are effectively invested at the district and school level. This paper takes a closer look at state grant-making strategies for federal school improvement dollars. Further, it reviews the way in which state funding practices for school improvement have changed as a result of the updated SIG requirements and how states have used their flexibility to implement a competitive grant process. Specifically, this paper details the approach that three states--Illinois, Louisiana, and Vermont--have taken in administering their grant competitions. These states illuminate the spectrum of competitiveness in the state grant-making process that has emerged as a result of the new school improvement regulations. There are five significant findings that emerged from examining these three states that call for further investigation across all states. First, it is evident that states continue to have a great degree of flexibility in implementing their grant-making strategy. Second, as other early research on SIG implementation indicates, access to SIG dollars may be more competitive in some states than in others. Third, all three states needed to provide substantial technical assistance to strengthen the quality of the applications that they received. Fourth, application rates varied substantially across the three states. Fifth and finally, the criteria that states use to monitor districts are clear but the process for grant renewal and termination could be more formal and transparent. This paper begins with an overview of how the SIG program has evolved into a more competitive process. It next takes a brief look at how all states changed their practices once the program was altered and then examines in detail how three states--Illinois, Louisiana, and Vermont--have approached the competitive grant-making process. Lastly, the paper concludes with findings and policy implications and underscores the promise of the SIG program's commitment to turn around schools and address the systemic failures that allow schools to flounder. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, and 98 endnotes.).

Download or read book School Improvement Grants written by Office of Inspector General (ED) and published by . This book was released on 2012 with total page 33 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This final audit report covers the results of the review of five State educational agencies' monitoring plans and awarding processes for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and regular School Improvement Grants funds that the State educational agencies awarded for fiscal year 2009 (for use during school year 2010-2011). The objectives of the audit were to: (1) identify monitoring plans related to School Improvement Grants funds at selected State educational agencies (SEA); and (2) determine whether selected SEAs used award processes that resulted in the appropriate allocations of School Improvement Grants funds only to local educational agencies (LEA) with schools having the greatest need for the funds and to LEAs with the strongest commitment to using the funds to raise student achievement. The audit was conducted at the Florida Department of Education (Florida), Georgia Department of Education (Georgia), New York State Education Department (New York), Ohio Department of Education (Ohio), and Texas Education Agency (Texas). The audit was focused on the five SEAs' monitoring plans and awarding processes for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and regular School Improvement Grants funds that the SEAs awarded for fiscal year 2009 (for use during school year 2010-2011). For the first objective, the audit period reviewed each SEA varied depending on the dates of our site visits. The audit period for the second objective was March 29, 2010, through December 31, 2010. The following are appended: (1) Monitoring Plans for Florida, Georgia, New York, Ohio, and Texas; and (2) Auditee Comments.

Download or read book Recovery Act written by J. Christopher Mihm and published by DIANE Publishing. This book was released on 2010-11 with total page 344 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This report responds to two ongoing mandates under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). It is the latest in a series of reports on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in 16 selected states, certain localities in those jurisdictions, and D.C. These jurisdictions are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental assistance available through the Recovery Act. This report also responds to a mandate to comment on the jobs estimated in recipient reports. The auditor collected and analyzed documents and interviewed state and local officials and other Recovery Act award recipients. He also analyzed federal agency guidance and spoke with individual federal officials. Illustrations.

Download or read book School Improvement Grants written by Lisa Dragoset and published by . This book was released on 2017 with total page 419 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: In response to the recession that began in 2007, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed into law, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5). At an estimated cost of $831 billion, this economic stimulus package sought to save and create jobs, provide temporary relief to those adversely affected by the recession, and invest in education, health, infrastructure, and renewable energy. States and school districts received $100 billion to secure teachers' jobs and promote innovation in schools. This funding included $3 billion for School Improvement Grants (SIG), one of the Obama administration's signature programs and one of the largest federal government investments in an education grant program. The SIG program awarded grants to states that agreed to implement one of four school intervention models--transformation, turnaround, restart, or closure-in their lowest-performing schools. Each of the models prescribed specific practices designed to improve student outcomes, including outcomes for high-need students such as English language learners (ELLs) (U.S. Department of Education 2010a). Given the importance of the SIG program and sizable investment in it, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) commissioned this evaluation to focus on four primary questions: (1) Did schools implementing a SIG-funded model use the improvement practices promoted by SIG, and how did that compare to use of those practices by schools not implementing a SIG-funded model?; (2) Did use of SIG-promoted practices include a focus on ELLs, and did that focus on ELLs differ between schools implementing a SIG-funded model and schools not implementing one?; (3) Did receipt of SIG funding to implement a school intervention model have an impact on outcomes for low-performing schools?; and (4) Was the type of school intervention model implemented related to improvement in outcomes for low-performing schools? This is the final report for this evaluation of SIG. This final report builds on the earlier briefs and report by including an additional year of data (spring 2013) and by examining whether receipt of SIG funding had an impact on student outcomes. The findings in this report suggest that the SIG program did not have an impact on the use of practices promoted by the program or on student outcomes (including math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment), at least for schools near the SIG eligibility cutoff. The following are appended: (1) RDD Impact Analysis; (2) Correlational Analysis; (3) Additional Figures Based on School Surveys; (4) District Reported Practices Aligned with the SIG Application Criteria; (5) Detailed Findings from Interviews and Surveys; (6) Survey Questions Aligned with SIG Practices; and (7) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Implementation Analysis. [For the Executive Summary, "School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness: Executive Summary. NCEE 2017-4012," see ED572213.].