New Hampshire SIG Intervention Models Webinar: Restart and School Closure Presented by: New Hampshire Department of Education & New England Comprehensive

New Hampshire SIG Intervention Models Webinar:

Restart and School Closure

Presented by: New Hampshire Department of Education

& New England Comprehensive Center at RMC Research

2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Thursday, March 18, 2010

** We will begin in a few minutes.**All phones are muted when you join.

Send a CHAT message to the Host if you have a request or question.

For technical problems, call Karen Laba, NECC, at 603 969-0988.

March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education

2

Welcome!

Introductions: Presenters, Host Kathleen Murphy, Director, Division of

Instruction Stephanie Lafreniere, Title I Director Joey Nichol, Title I and School

Improvement Karen Laba, New England

Comprehensive Center Participants


3

WebEx Pointers You will be muted during the session unless otherwise

indicated.

If you have a question or a request, type it into the CHAT box in the lower right hand corner of your screen select the recipient (dropdown box) and click SEND (Note– you can chat privately with the host or

publicly with ALL PARTICIPANTS using the dropdown list)

If you get disconnected, first try logging off the internet and then re-entering; you can stay connected via phone while waiting to reconnect to the web.

If you can’t resolve the problem, call Karen’s cell phone at (603 969-0988) to talk with someone who maybe able to help get you reconnected.


4

Goals of the Session

Examine the details of the restart and school closure SIG intervention models

Discuss guidance on implementation strategies for each of these interventions

Raise any additional questions about SIG models for further investigation


5

SIG Overview What?

School Improvement Grant Funds through Title I, Part A of ESEA, section 1003(g)

Formula to states, by application to LEAs For whom?

New Hampshire-defined eligible, per US ED guidance

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III (see later slides)


6

SIG Overview, cont’d.

How much? State funds Range per school

For how long? Per year, over three years (waiver)

To do what? Take actions to dramatically improve


7

NH Priority Schools: Tier I (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent , or five

(whichever is greater) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State; or

(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; or

(iii) Is Title I-eligible and is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school in (i) above. Additionally, the school must be either in the bottom 20 percent of all schools in the state, or has not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2 consecutive years. The guidance defines “Title I-eligible” as either a school currently receiving Title I funds or a school eligible for, but not receiving funds.


8

NH Priority Schools: Tier II (i) Is Title I-eligible and is within the

lowest-achieving five percent of high schools or the five lowest-achieving, whichever number is greater; or

(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.


9

NH Priority Schools: Tier III (i) Is a Title I school in improvement,

corrective action, or restructuring that did not meet the Tier I criteria, OR

(ii) Is a Title I-eligible school that does not meet the Tier I or Tier II requirements and is in the bottom 20 percent of all schools in the state or has not made AYP for any two years.


10

SIG Application Priority SystemIf an LEA has one or more . . . the LEA must include…Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at

least one Tier II schoolTier I and Tier II schools, but no Tier III schools Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at

least one Tier II schoolTier I and III schools, but no Tier II schools Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I schoolTier II and Tier III schools, but no Tier I schools The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier II and Tier III schools as it

wishesTier I schools only Each Tier I school it has capacity to serveTier II schools only The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier II schools as it wishesTier III schools only The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier III schools as it wishes

** The number of Tier I schools an LEA has capacity to serve may be zero if, and only if, the LEA is using all of the capacity it would otherwise use to serve its Tier I schools in order to serve Tier II schools.


11

NH SIG Timeline

February 26NH DOE submitted SIG application to USED; response/ approval

expected mid-March April 2nd

LEA intent to apply and planning grant request due to the NH DOEApril 5th - 9th

NH DOE review and approval of LEA planning grantMay 7th

Complete LEA application due to the NH DOEMay 10th – 26th

Three step application review May 31st

LEA grants awarded by the NH DOEJune 1st –Sept. 7th

LEA begins implementation of grant and intervention model


12

Questions or Comments

Raise your hand to be recognized or

type a question or comment in the CHAT window


13

Dramatic School Improvement Models

Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers

13


14

THE RESTART MODEL


15

DEFINITION: RESTART MODEL15



16

DEFINITION: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESTART16



17

DEFINITION: RESTART MODEL OPTIONS

17



18

THEORY OF ACTION


18


19

STRATEGIES: CREATE NEW SCHOOL CULTURE SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE


19


20

STRATEGIES: PLANNING CHECKLIST


20


21

Guidance for Restart Options

NH DOE Charter School Contact: Roberta Tenney, 603 271-2079

[email protected] Handbook for Effective Implementation of

School Improvement Grantshttp://www.centerii.org/handbook Chapter 4: Organizational Structures

C. Restarting with a Charter School D. Restarting with an Education Management

Organization


22

STRATEGIES: ESTABLISH RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS


22

*Adapted from Rhim, L. M. (2009). Charter School Replication: Growing a Quality Charter School Sector. National Association of Charter School Authorizers


23

STRATEGIES: RUBRIC TO ASSESS CMO/EMO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


23


24

STRATEGIES: RUBRIC TO ASSESS CMO/EMO FISCAL AND OPERATIONAL RECORD


24


25

STRATEGIES: RUBRIC TO ASSESS CMO/EMO POTENTIAL


25


26

STRATEGIES: DISTRICT ROLE


26


27

STRATEGIES: PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY CHECKLIST


27


28

FAST TRACK- AND EXTENDED- PLANNING RESTART


28


29

FAST-TRACK RESTART TIMELINE


29


30

EXTENDED PLANNING RESTART TIMELINE


30


31

PRACTICAL PITFALLS TO AVOID


31


32

Questions or Comments

Raise your hand to be recognized or

type a question or comment in the CHAT window


33

THE SCHOOL CLOSURE MODEL


34

DEFINITION: SCHOOL CLOSURE


34


35

THEORY OF ACTION


35


36

STRATEGY: ESTABLISH POLICY CONTEXT


36


37


37

STRATEGY: ESTABLISH CLEAR PROCEDURES AND DECISION CRITERIA


38


38

STRATEGY: OPERATE TRANSPARENTLY


39

STRATEGY: PLAN FOR TRANSITION


39


40

STRATEGIES: METHODICAL PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION


40

Source: Steiner, L. (2009). Tough Decisions. Center on Innovation & Improvement.


41

SCHOOL CLOSURE TIMELINE41



42

PITFALLS TO AVOID


42


43

Resources for NH Applicants NH SIG LEA Application(draft sent via email to districts –final will posted upon US ED approval)

NH Eligible Schools List(draft sent via email to districts –final will posted upon US ED approval)

NH DOE Charter School Contact (Restart Model) Roberta Tenney, 603 271-2079

[email protected]

Handbook for Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants http://www.centerii.org/handbook/

US ED SIG Guidance Amended February 2, 2010http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html


44

Thank you for joining us!

For additional information on NH SIG, please contact

Stephanie Lafreniere, Title I [email protected]

603-271-6052


45

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES


45

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

Hassel, B. C., & Hassel, E. A. (2005). Starting fresh in low-performing schools: A new option for school district leaders under NCLB. Chicago, IL: National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Retrieved from http://www.qualitycharters.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=338

Kowal, J.M., & Arkin, M.D. (2005). Contracting with external education management providers. In Learning Points Associates, School restructuring options under No Child Left Behind: What works when? Naperville, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/csri/resources/ncrel/knowledgeissues/Contracting.pdf

National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2005, July.) Resource toolkit for working with education service providers. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.qualitycharters.org/files/public/ESPToolkit2005.pdf

National Association of Charter School Authorizers (2009). Principles and standards for quality charter school authorizing: Revised edition. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.qualitycharters.org/files/public/Principles_and_Standards_2009.pdf


46



46

National Charter School Research Project (2007, August). Quantity counts: The growth of charter school management organizations. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Empowering teachers through a CMO-created union. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.charterresource.org/

National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Implementing an in-house approach to teacher training and professional development. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.charterresource.org/

National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Mapping the landscape of charter management organizations: Issues to consider in supporting replication. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.charterresource.org/

National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Scaling up charter management organizations: Eight key lessons for success. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.charterresource.org/

Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds). (2010). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/survey


47



47

Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/survey

Redding, S., & Walberg, H. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook on statewide systems of support. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/survey

Rhim, L. M. (2009). Charter School Replication: Growing a Quality Charter School Sector. National Association of Charter School Authorizers. http://www.qualitycharters.org/files/public/Charter_School_Replication_Policy_Guide.pdf

Rhim, L. M., & Brinson, D. (2010). Retrofitting bureaucracy: Factors influencing charter schools’ access to federal entitlement programs. Lincoln: ILThe Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook on restructuring and substantial school improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/survey


48



48

Brinson, D., & Rhim, L. (2009). Breaking the habit of low performance. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Kowal, J., & Hassel, B. (2008). Closing troubled schools. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/223

Lane, B. (2009). Exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Editors). (2010). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey

Redding, S., & Walberg, H. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook on statewide systems of support. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://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

Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook on restructuring and substantial school improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/survey


49

FURTHER QUESTIONS….

http://www.centerii.org/

Webinar citation:Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The restart 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/Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief

State School Officers

49

Documents

New Hampshire SIG Intervention Models Webinar: Restart and School Closure Presented by: New Hampshire Department of Education & New England Comprehensive