Disciplina in civitatem – Education for citizenship. The official motto for Ohio State University is taking on a new, stronger meaning for public school students in Columbus, OH, thanks to a grant designed to help priority school students excel at learning and serving their communities.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland discusses Columbus' service-learning grant as NEA Pres. Dennis Van Roekel looks on.

Last week, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel was in Columbus for the announcement that the NEA Foundation has been awarded a $550,000 grant to partner with Ohio State University’s College of Education and Human Ecology and the Columbus Education Association to provide K-12 teachers in Columbus City Schools professional development that will help them institute service-learning projects for students.

Columbus City Schools, which serve a large population of economically disadvantaged students and students of color, will use service-learning to boost student achievement and community engagement.

Learn & Serve America, a program of the federal Corporation for National and Community Service, awarded the funds to help the NEA Foundation and its partners implement “Bringing Learning to Life.” K-12 teachers will be trained in how to implement service-learning projects that help students see the clear connections between their academic curriculum and real-world experience, while simultaneously strengthening students’ connections to the communities in which they live.

The grant proposal was written by staff from NEA’s External Partnerships and Advocacy Department, and the NEA Foundation will be providing oversight as the grant is used to bring service-learning to Columbus.

“Teachers will receive professional development to help them create more effective hands-on learning opportunities for students,” said Van Roekel. “We look forward to seeing the work that comes out of this project – it is our hope we will be able to replicate it in other places.”

Service-learning, an education movement that traces its roots back more than a century, has been shown in numerous studies to improve academic outcomes for students and to help them build critical thinking and teamwork skills. Students see relevance and results from their service-learning projects, and the projects allow schools to build collaborative relationships with community groups.

During his visit to Columbus, NEA Pres. Van Roekel had the opportunity to witness several innovative programs designed to improve student achievement at Columbus priority schools.

NEA Pres. Dennis Van Roekel addresses students at South Mifflin STEM Academy

Van Roekel toured West High School, a federal School Improvement Grant recipient where nearly all students are classified as economically disadvantaged by the Ohio Department of Education. West is taking a collaborative approach to school reform by forming an “Innovation Team” of teachers and administrators tasked with transforming teaching and learning at the school.

Champion Middle School, another Columbus priority school visited by Van Roekel, is experimenting with a $4,000 a year bonus to attract teachers to this hard-to-staff school.

South Mifflin STEM Academy, an elementary school visited by Van Roekel, is implementing proven academic supports to boost student achievement. The school offers a pre-K program to help four-year-olds prepare for school, and uses subject-area  specialists to provide extra support for students.

South Mifflin also has instituted a parental engagement program, where parents are invited to the school once a month for a coffee klatch.

To read Van Roekel’s impressions from his visit to Columbus and priority schools sites throughout the nation, click here.

Related posts:

1. Educator Union Puts Its Money Where Its Heart Is
2. Denver Priority School Gets Presidential Treatment
3. Connecticut Program Puts Teachers in Charge

The changes at this school in the town of just over 20,000 some 40 miles from Lake Erie?  “The terms of the grant include increasing instructional time, tying teacher pay and evaluations to student achievement data and significantly reshaping the way the high school operates — all of which affect the district’s contract with the Adrian Education Association and thus required negotiations.”

In addition to the new connection between data and evaluation, instructional time is added to the school day and a system of teacher-coaches for students is in place, both with increased compensation for the educators who choose to be involved.

Writes Gable, “The contract language dealing with teacher transfers has been changed. Under the new language, if a teacher is not as successful as they should be and the administration believes it’s because the teacher isn’t a good fit for his or her position, that teacher can be transferred to another role after being given ample opportunity to improve.”

Writing yesterday in the Detroit News, Michigan Education Association president Iris Salters notes that 100 Michigan low-performing schools have a special challenge this year, but also “schools facing the task of transformation will also have a clear example of one way it can be done successfully — Adrian High School… In Adrian, instead of relying on contractors for curriculum, the district will train members of its own staff to develop coursework. Instead of hiring consultants as teacher coaches, AHS will call on its best to mentor others. And perhaps most importantly, instead of spending precious resources to change the culture from the outside, Adrian staff will instigate that change themselves, as they help decide how to implement the goals everyone shares.”

Says Salter, “to truly change the mindset from a struggling school to a culture of success, you must empower the people in the trenches. You need to cultivate support from parents and the community at large. It’s essential to build the capacity of the passionate teachers in the classroom and the dedicated staff in the school. These professionals chose their careers because of their desire to see students succeed — why wouldn’t you follow Adrian’s lead and harness that energy and expertise? It’s a question every parent with a child in a struggling school should be asking.”

Steve Snider

Related posts:

1. Seattle Schools Begin Transformation With School Improvement Grants
2. Education Leaders Plan Collaboration on Priority Schools
3. Educator Union Puts Its Money Where Its Heart Is

National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel conducted a nationwide back-to-school tour from August 23-27, meeting innovative educators and touring priority schools throughout the country. One of his first stops was at Denver’s Math and Science Leadership Academy (MSLA), a union-designed, teacher-led public school that is making a difference for urban students within the Denver Public School System.

MSLA opened in Fall 2009 as a K-2 school with 134 students, and is designed to expand to a K-5 by adding a grade each year. Sixty percent of its students are English-language learners, and up to 90 percent receive free or reduced-price lunches.

The school’s academic program integrates science, mathematics and technology in a standards-based model, and allows students to demonstrate their achievement through hands-on activities and service projects.

The school’s teachers use collaborative planning time to meet with their peers, analyze data and design instruction that meets student needs.

The Math and Science Leadership Academy is among the first teacher-run public schools in the nation, and was proposed by the Denver Classroom Teachers’ Association.

Van Roekel participated in a roundtable discussion at the school, where participants discussed how teachers, support professionals and administrators are breaking down communications barriers to focus on improving student outcomes. To read about his visit and the roundtable, check out Van Roekel’s travel log.

“Our intentions are all honorable,” one participant in the roundtable discussion said, “we really want to achieve the same things for our students.” 

MSLA’s history and progress have been followed closely by NEA’s Priority Schools Campaign. To read previous coverage, click here.

Related posts:

1. CNN Highlights Denver Union-Led School
2. Teacher-Led School is Making the Grade
3. Denver’s MSLA: Everyone a Learner, Teacher, Leader

In two new videos posted on Talk Priority Schools, the official blog of NEA’s Priority Schools Campaign, Spencer explained how the local union assured the school district that they wanted to be partners in transformation, and from there they worked collaboratively to educate members about SIG and the transformation model. Spencer also goes on to share how the priority schools in Des Moines will use the SIG funds and how they plan to check in each month to see how the transformation is working.

Read more on the blog and watch the videos below.

Part 1

Part 2

Related posts:

1. Seattle Schools Begin Transformation With School Improvement Grants
2. The Union’s Role in School Transformation
3. The Sound of School Transformation is a “Tweet”

As educators and policy-makers struggle to find solutions to the persistent problems in low-performing priority schools, there’s a new book that lights the way to school reform that works.

Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago, a recent release from the University of Chicago Press, looks at student achievement data from the early 1990s in Chicago, a brief period when school governance was decentralized and returned to local school councils. This was a time of great experimentation, as these different local councils approached reform and student achievement in varying ways.

For researchers, in retrospect, it “afforded an extraordinary opportunity” to get large amounts of data to “examine and test empirically key propositions about how schools work and how their operations might be improved to enhance student learning.”

The authors found five “essential elements” for school improvement, common to the Chicago schools that orchestrated epic turnarounds – from among the very worst to the most improved.

1.   School Leadership. Principals and other leaders created environments that engaged teachers, parents, and community members in school improvement. They focused on improving teaching and wrote meaningful improvement plans.

2.    Professional Capacity. Successful schools had teachers who were eager to learn new skills and approaches, and were supported in their efforts to get high-quality professional development. They were collaborators, and shared a collective sense of responsibility.

3.    Instruction. Curriculum was aligned across grades and students were regularly assessed. Classroom work went beyond lectures and basic skills worksheets and included active student engagement and the application of knowledge.

4.    Learning Climate. Schools were safe and orderly.

5.    Parent and Community Ties. Teachers reached out to parents and parents grew more involved. Community resources were used in instruction.

The study found that the successful schools had all of these elements.

The schools that didn’t improve offer their own lessons as well. They were more likely, the authors found, to be located in the very poorest, most racially isolated neighborhoods. Their students might have been homeless or living with violence or drug abuse, and their communities offered fewer supports, like churches or civic groups.

If you just considered school lunch data, all these schools looked the same – really poor – but the author’s found that multiple measures of data showed a more nuanced picture of poverty. And, in the worst circumstances, it’s necessary to address both school and community factors. “What is really going on in these school communities, and why are the important tasks of improving schools so difficult to advance? Asking these questions… is a vital role,” they conclude.

Related posts:

1. Case Study: Union-District Collaboration Nets Results in Chattanooga
2. Alabama Schools Turn Tide Through Focus on Collaboration, Outreach
3. Solving the Attendance Issue at Priority Schools

Application Deadline:          February 8, 2010

SEA Requirements

1. ELIGIBLE SCHOOLS.  Provide a list, by LEA name and NCES ID #, of each school designated as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III in the state. 
2. EVALUATION CRITERIA.  Provide the criteria to be used to evaluate the LEA’s application for a SIG grant. 
3. CAPACITY.  Explain how SEA will evaluate whether an LEA lacks capacity to implement a SIG model in each Tier I school. 
4. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION.  Describe process and/or timeline for: approving LEA applications, reviewing LEA annual goals, monitoring LEA progress, determining annual LEA grant renewal, distributing funds if not enough funds to serve all eligible schools for which LEAs apply, determining whether Tier I or Tier II schools should receive <500K, prioritizing Tier III schools, identifying schools and intervention model subject to SEA takeover, and identifying schools subject to direct SEA assistance (and verify intervention model and LEA approval). 
5. ASSURANCES.  Provide assurances related to general compliance, awarding funds to LEAs, using FY 2009 and 2010 SIG appropriations toward ARRA SIG goals, holding charter schools accountable for results, monitoring LEA implementation, posting LEA applications and results on web site, reporting certain school data.
6. SEA RESERVATION.  Describe admin/eval/tech assistance activities and expenses at state level for which SEA may reserve up to 5 percent of SIG funds. 
7. CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS.  Attest that SEA has consulted with Committee of Practitioners and other stakeholders under ESEA Section 1903(b).
8. HWAIVERS.  Describe waivers sought, including to extend period of available funds beyond 2013, allow turnaround or restart to “start over” in ESEA timeline, waive 40 percent poverty rule for Tier I schools, and allow use of SIG for Tier II schools.

LEA Requirements

The following must be included in the application to LEAs:

1. IDENTIFY SCHOOLS TO BE SERVED (Tiers I, II and III) AND INTERVENTION MODEL (Tiers I and II)
2. PROVIDE DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION related to needs of schools to be served, why not all Tier I schools will be served (if applicable), Tier III plans (if any), intervention models selected, capacity, resources, implementation, external resources and providers, sustainability, annual goals, LEA consult with stakeholders during application and implementation phases.
3. PROVIDE BUDGET for amount of SIG funds LEA will use annually in each Tier I, II and III school it commits to serve. 
4. PROVIDE ASSURANCES related to overall implementation, establishing annual goals and measuring progress, “restart” or charter school/CMO/EMO accountability, providing certain school data.
5. INDICATE WHICH SEA WAIVERS THE LEA INTENDS TO USE.  See above (SEA REQUIREMENTS).  LEA may submit the waiver request directly to the Secretary if SEA has not applied for a waiver on its behalf

Basic Program Outline and Important Points

•  $3.5 billion goes to all states that submit approved applications for SIG grants
•  States must establish applications for LEAs to fill out and pursue SIG funds
• SEAs choose LEAs with “greatest need” that demonstrate the “strongest commitment”
  

  • “Greatest need” is determined by LEAs with schools in the three tiers (I, II, III)
  • “Strongest commitment” is determined by LEAs that agree to use one of the four intervention models for its Tier I and II schools

• Transformation model cannot be used in more than 50 percent of eligible Tier I and Tier II schools in LEAs with 9 or more such schools
• IMPORTANT LANGUAGE IN FINAL NOTICE:
• The requirements for the turnaround model do not require “blanket firings” of staff.  The Department agrees that staff should be carefully evaluated before any replacement decisions are made and has added new language requiring LEAs to use “locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students.”  If required by State laws or union contracts, principals and staff may have to be reassigned to other schools as necessary. (p. 49 of final notice – not Federal Register version)
• The Department encourages collaborations and partnerships between LEAs and teacher unions and teacher membership associations to resolve issues created by school intervention models in the context of existing collective bargaining agreements.  We also encourage LEAs to collaborate with stakeholders in schools and in the larger community as they implement school interventions.  (p 53 of final notice)
• We note that restart models could include nearly all of the specific reform elements identified under the turnaround and transformation models, but decline to require the use of any particular element or strategy. (pp. 69-70 of final notice)
• School 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. (pp. 75-76)

THE FOUR INTERVENTION MODELS

REQUIRED LEA Activities	TURN-AROUND	TRANS-FORMA-TION	RESTART	CLOSURE
Replace Principal (except those hired previously as part of turnaround or transformation effort)
Operational flexibility (calendar, time, budget, staffing)
Replace >50% of Staff using “locally adopted competencies”
Close & reopen under Charter School Operator/CMO/EMO
Close the school and send students to nearby schools – including but not limited to charter schools or new schools
Rigorous, transparent and equitable teacher and leader evaluation systems using student growth in significant part AND other measures AND designed with teacher/leader input	permissible
Identify/reward effective & remove ineffective personnel	permissible
High-quality, job-embedded, instructionally aligned professional development
Financial incentives, career opportunities and flexible work conditions
New governance structure		permissible
Instructional reform
Student data reform
Increased learning time
Socio-emotional and community supports
Ongoing family and community engagement	permissible
Ongoing intensive technical assistance from LEA, SEA or external partner	permissible

THE FOUR INTERVENTION MODELS

PERMISSIBLE Activities*	TURN-AROUND	TRANS-FORMA-TION	RESTART*	CLOSURE
New school model (e.g. themed, dual language)		see below re:“the-matic learning  academies”
Additional compensation to attract and retain staff
System to measure impact of professional development
Ensure that school is not required to accept teacher without mutual consent of teacher and principal regardless of teacher seniority
Periodic reviews of curriculum
Response to Intervention model
Additional supports to address students with disabilities and English language learners
Using and integrating educational technology
Increasing opportunities for advanced coursework, AP, IB, STEM, early college, dual enrollment, thematic learning academies
Summer transition or freshman academies (middle to high school)
Graduation rate improvement reforms
Early warning systems for at-risk youth
Partner with organizations, clinics, agencies, etc to meet students’ social, emotional, health needs
Extend or restructure school day
Implement approaches to improve school climate and discipline
Full-day kindergarten or pre-K
Per-pupil school-based budget formula weighted by student needs

* Many strategies listed as “permissible” for turnaround and transformation schools above may theoretically be used in the restart model as well; however, because the Department’s final notice does not explicitly list those strategies as “permissible” under restart as it does for the other two models, they are not checked () in the restart column; similarly,  the final notice does not list required or permissible activities for schools receiving students from schools that shut down under the “closure” model.

Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the State—

(a)(1)  Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that–

(i)  Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(ii)  Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and

(2)  Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that–

(i)  Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or

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

(b)  To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both–

(i)  The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

(ii)  The school’s lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.

THE THREE TIERS

(a)  Tier I schools:  A Tier I school is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1) of the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools.”

(b)  Tier II schools:  A Tier II school is a secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds and is identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools.”

(c)  Tier III schools:  A Tier III school is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I school.  An SEA may establish additional criteria to use in setting priorities among LEA applications for funding and to encourage LEAs to differentiate among these schools in their use of school improvement funds.

Related posts:

1. Excerpts from Approved School Improvement Grant Applications
2. Washington Selects Nine Districts for SIG Funds
3. FAQs on the School Improvement Fund

Frequently Asked Questions – School Improvement Fund

Related posts:

1. FAQs on the School Improvement Fund
2. FAQs on School Improvement Grants for Illinois Schools

The challenge at many lower-performing priority schools is to get those students to keep returning, day after day.

Any educator at a priority school will tell you that each day of instruction is precious, especially when students have multi-year skills gaps that need to be addressed. But a recent discussion on the NEA Priority Schools Campaign Facebook page focused on how chronic student absenteeism often keeps educators from adequately helping the students who need the assistance most.

“This issue begins at kindergarten,” said Rosa Linda Samaniego- Ramirez, a kindergarten teacher from Carlesbad, NM. “Look at the student’s track record. From the day a student enters a classroom, we as educators have to stress the importance of attendance to the parents.”

In fact, a 2008 Arizona State University study found that dropout patterns were connected to poor attendance that often began in kindergarten. Once students reach high school, the number of days they are absent from school can mean the difference between graduating and dropping out.

According to researchers from the University of Chicago, 90 percent of Chicago public school students who missed less than a week of school per semester went on to graduate in four years. Students who missed between five and nine days only had a 63 percent graduation rate within four years – students who  missed more than 10 days per semester went on to graduate in four years less than half the time.

It’s only logical that students who miss less school will be more likely to thrive academically and graduate. But the problem of chronic absenteeism has been a thorny one at many priority schools.

So, what’s the solution? Reaching out to parents and community groups is key, several discussion participants noted. Building relationships with the students themselves is also critical.

“We work on talking to every student,” said Dawn Michele Schmitt, an Iowa middle school teacher. “We even ‘adopt’ students who are especially quiet or difficult. Each teacher has certain kids they make a point of talking to each day. Let them know they are missed if they were gone … Let them know you notice them and they matter.”

The availability of before-school programs can also make a difference in reducing absenteeism, according to Nora Howley of the National Education Association’s Health Information Network. Howley points out that school breakfast programs can boost attendance and improve academic achievement and behavior.

Related posts:

1. NEA Priority Schools Campaign: Disrupting the Status Quo
2. Education Leaders Plan Collaboration on Priority Schools
3. What Is the Priority Schools Campaign?

Alabama SIG Schools

Indiana SIG Schools

Iowa SIG Schools

Maryland SIG Schools

Minnesota SIG Schools

New Jersey SIG Schools

New Mexico SIG Schools

North Carolina SIG Schools

Ohio SIG Schools

Oklahoma SIG Schools

Oregon SIG Schools

Utah SIG Schools

Washington SIG Schools

Related posts:

1. SIG Grant Totals by State
2. Oregon County Plans SIG Funds for Four Schools
3. Washington Selects Nine Districts for SIG Funds

Related posts:

1. What Is the Priority Schools Campaign?
2. NEA Priority Schools Campaign: Disrupting the Status Quo
3. Priority Schools Campaign – National Conference Materials