[4] As outlined in the SIG regulations,[5] the Department has articulated very specific parameters regarding the approaches states and districts are to use to drive dramatic improvement.
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 .
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 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.
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 sustainability.
The theory of action underlying restart, also referred to as "Starting Fresh" as first codified in the charter sector,[9] 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.
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.
[13] 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.
[16] 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[17] 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.
[18] Research conducted by the Center on Education Policy[19] has documented that there is not one single "best" approach to dramatic school improvement efforts.
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.
[20] There is a growing body of research that indicates that school districts must play a central role in coordinating and supporting change.
[21] Specifically, LEAs can support school improvement efforts identified in the SIG program by: The legislation has had its 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 supports 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.
NAESP strongly supports reform models that provide the essential resources existing principals of low-performing schools must have to succeed.
And relying on a magical pool of ‘excellent teachers’ to spring forth and replace them is naïve at best and desperately misguided.
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.
[23] A study published by the Department of Education in January 2017, days before the end of the Obama administration, found "no significant impact on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment" by the School Improvement Grants program.
Guidance on School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.