## **GUIDANCE ON THE \$134 MILLION FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATION**

## **FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT**

![](media/image1.png){width="3.6in" height="3.6in"}

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
required to respond to a collection of information unless such
collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control
number for this information collection is 1810-0628 and will expire on
8/31/00. The time required to complete these forms is estimated to
average 24 hours per response, including the time to review instructions
and complete the amendment. If you have any comments concerning the
accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form,
please write to: U.S Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651.
If you have any comments or concerns regarding the status of your
individual submission of this form, write directly to: Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education,
Federal Office Building 6, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20202.

**GUIDANCE ON THE \$134 MILLION FY 2000 APPROPRIATION**

**FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT**

In November 1999, as part of the FY 2000 appropriation for Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Congress responded
to President Clinton's call to strengthen accountability for results by
targeting \$134 million to local educational agencies for the purpose of
carrying out their school improvement and corrective action
responsibilities under section 1116(c) of Title I. The appropriations
statute provides:

• That "\$134,000,000 shall be allocated among the States in the same
proportion as funds are allocated among the States under section 1122,
to carry out section 1116(c)";

• That "100 percent of these funds shall be allocated to local
educational agencies for the purposes of carrying out section 1116(c)
and that local educational agencies shall provide all students enrolled
in a school identified under section 1116(c) with the option to transfer
to another public school within the local educational agency, including
a public charter school, that has not been identified for school
improvement under section 1116(c)"; and

• That "if the local educational agency demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the State educational agency that the local educational agency lacks
the capacity to provide all students with the option to transfer to
another public school, and after giving notice to the parents of
children affected that it is not possible, consistent with State and
local law, to accommodate the transfer request of every student, the
local educational agency shall permit as many students as possible (who
shall be selected by the local educational agency on an equitable basis)
to transfer to a public school that has not been identified for school
improvement under section 1116(c)."

The purpose of this guidance is to clarify for State education
officials, local school boards, superintendents, and principals the
process and criteria by which the U.S. Department of Education and
States may allocate the new school improvement funds, the permissible
uses of these funds, and the nature and scope of local educational
agencies' obligation to implement public school choice. The guidance in
this document does not impose any requirements beyond those specified by
the FY 2000 appropriations statute or by other applicable Federal
statutes or regulations. While State and local educational agencies are
free to develop alternative approaches to complying with the
appropriations statute and other Federal laws, Department officials,
including the Inspector General, will consider State and local
recipients that follow this guidance to be in compliance.

**INTRODUCTION**

The FY 2000 appropriations statute responds to the pressing need to
improve educational opportunities for students in low-performing
schools. By providing new money for local educational agencies to
intervene in low-performing schools while offering students in those
schools the opportunity to transfer to better schools, the
appropriations statute reflects the recognition that substantial
resources are needed to turn around low-performing schools and that,
where possible, students should have the opportunity to attend a better
public school right away. School improvement activities coupled with
public school choice comprise a key reform strategy capable of
delivering a high-quality education to all students. Consistent with the
statute, the Department expects local educational agencies receiving
these funds to implement school improvement activities and public school
choice concurrently, so that all students---both those who transfer out
of schools identified for improvement and those who remain---learn to
high academic standards.

Specifically, the appropriations statute states that the \$134 million
Title I set-aside must be used by local educational agencies "for the
purposes of carrying out section 1116(c)." Section 1116(c) establishes
the basic framework through which States and local educational agencies
work collaboratively to bring about improvement in low-performing
schools. It requires local educational agencies to fulfill a number of
responsibilities, including identifying for improvement schools that
fail to make adequate progress for two consecutive years, providing
technical assistance to help schools develop and implement improvement
plans, and taking corrective action to improve schools that fail to make
adequate progress for three consecutive years following identification
for improvement.

While the FY 2000 appropriation provides local educational agencies with
Title I funds specifically for carrying out section 1116(c), it is
important to note that local educational agencies are responsible for
carrying out section 1116(c) independently of the FY 2000 appropriation.
Indeed, section 1003(a) of Title I allows States to devote up to half a
percent of Title I funds (and, in any event, not less than \$200,000) to
various school improvement activities, including helping local
educational agencies take corrective actions to turn around chronically
low-performing schools. Moreover, local educational agencies may use any
portion of their regular Title I allocation to identify, assist, and
turn around low-performing schools. The \$134 million FY 2000 set-aside
supplements these as well as other non-Federal funds for school
improvement, enhancing the capacity of local educational agencies to
carry out their existing section 1116(c) obligations.

The infusion of new school improvement funds is both timely and
important. Because low-performing schools are often located in
high-poverty communities with inadequate financial and human resources
to plan and implement necessary reforms, States and school districts
must provide the critical impetus and support for change. Currently,
however, States and school districts cannot help all schools that need
it. Although local educational agencies identified nearly 8,000 schools
for improvement under Title I in 1997-98, only 47 percent of schools
reporting that they had been identified for improvement also reported
that they had received additional professional development or technical
assistance as a result. The new school improvement funds will enable
local educational agencies to better fulfill their responsibility to
turn around low-performing schools.

The appropriations statute also requires local educational agencies
receiving these funds to provide students in schools identified for
improvement with an option to transfer to another public school within
the agency that is not identified for improvement. If a local
educational agency can demonstrate to its State educational agency that
it lacks the capacity to provide a transfer option to all students at
schools identified for improvement, then the local educational agency
must provide transfer opportunities to as many students as possible,
selected on an equitable basis. Thoughtfully designed and carefully
implemented, public school choice can provide students in low-performing
schools with better educational opportunities and can increase parental
involvement in education. The public school choice requirement is
discussed in greater detail below.

This guidance consists of questions and answers organized into five
sections:

**A. Title I School Improvement Requirements**

**B. Allocation of Funds from the Department to States**

**C. Allocation of Funds from States to Local Educational Agencies**

**D. Public School Choice**

**E. Uses of Funds by Local Educational Agencies and Schools**

The guidance also contains several appendices, including helpful
resources for turning around low-performing schools.

\* \* \* \*

A. TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS

A1. Under Title I, what are a local educational agency's school
improvement responsibilities?

Title I establishes an accountability framework designed to promote
school and district accountability for student performance. The
framework consists of challenging State academic content standards,
student performance standards, aligned assessments used to measure the
progress of schools toward enabling students to meet State standards,
and a system for rewarding successful schools and districts as well as
identifying and intervening in schools and districts that continually
fail to make adequate progress.

Section 1116(c) describes local educational agencies' responsibilities
for identifying schools for improvement or corrective action, and for
pursuing appropriate interventions. Appendix 3 contains the full text of
section 1116(c). Its key provisions are the following:

• Each local educational agency receiving Title I funds must review
annually the progress of each Title I school to determine whether the
school is making adequate progress toward enabling its students to meet
State standards.

• Each local educational agency must identify for improvement schools
that are not making adequate progress for two consecutive years.

• A school that has been identified for improvement must:

> -- develop or revise its school plan;
>
> -- submit the new or revised plan to the local educational agency for
> approval; and
>
> -- devote, over two consecutive years, an amount equivalent to 10
> percent of its annual Title I allocation to professional development,
> or otherwise demonstrate that the school is effectively carrying out
> professional development activities.

• Each local educational agency must make available technical or other
assistance to identified schools as they develop and implement their new
or revised plans.

• After providing technical assistance and taking other remediation
measures, a local educational agency may, at any time, take corrective
action to turn around a school identified for improvement.

• A local educational agency must take corrective action to improve
schools that fail to make adequate progress after the third year
following identification for improvement.

A2. Do the school improvement responsibilities under section 1116(c)
apply to local educational agencies that receive none of the new school
improvement funds?

Yes. Local educational agencies are responsible for carrying out section
1116(c) regardless of whether they receive new school improvement funds.

A3. What factors should schools and local educational agencies take into
account in developing or reviewing school improvement plans?

A school identified for improvement must develop or revise its school
plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the
performance of participating children in meeting the State's student
performance standards. The plan must be developed in consultation with
parents, the local educational agency, and any school support team
established by the State under section 1117(c)(1) of Title I that is
assisting the school. The new or revised plan must be submitted to the
local educational agency for approval.

Planning for school improvement is a systemic and collaborative process
that involves developing a new or refined vision of educational
excellence, as well as setting priorities and aligning school operations
and all available resources to implement that vision. School and
district staff, parents, and community members together should review
data on student performance in relation to State standards, identify
students' learning needs, and examine factors that affect the quality of
teaching and learning, such as instructional strategies, resource
allocations, professional development, and the school's governance and
organizational structure. School and district staff should use the
knowledge gained from such analysis to select research-based strategies
that address the needs of teachers and students, with particular
attention to the educational needs of low-performing students. The plan
should include student performance targets and other indicators that can
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and to make revisions
as needed.

Resources to help schools and districts think through the planning
process include *Turning Around Low-Performing Schools* (U.S. Department
of Education, 1998), which provides detailed information on strategies
that have improved student achievement, classroom practices, and school
atmosphere in low-performing schools, as well as *Implementing
Schoolwide Programs---An Ideabook on Planning* (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998), which describes effective methods and useful resources
for planning schoolwide programs and measuring their success. To obtain
these publications, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN. In addition, Appendix 4
of this guidance contains the "Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness"
which poses illustrative questions that States, local educational
agencies, and schools can ask to evaluate the effectiveness of school
reform models.

Schools and districts also should consider the planning process used by
schools that use Title I funds for schoolwide programs or schools that
participate in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD)
program or Reading Excellence Act (REA) programs. Both the schoolwide
and CSRD approaches take the view that school improvement must address
all aspects of school effectiveness, including rigorous curriculum and
high standards, efficient school governance, solid community-school
partnerships, ongoing staff development, up-to-date technology, and
increased parent involvement (see Appendix 5). Local educational
agencies and schools that receive CSRD and REA funds should consider how
these funds, in addition to Class Size Reduction funds and other Title I
funds, may be used together and in coordination with other Federal,
State, local, or private funds to leverage school improvement. Moreover,
schools should consider having their improvement plans peer-reviewed by
individuals outside the school or district, such as school support team
members. The peer review process often serves as a useful mechanism for
improving school plans.

A thoughtful and thorough planning process, including a process for
gathering input from stakeholders and making revisions, is critical to
turning around low-performing schools. A lengthy process, however, can
delay implementation of needed changes. Districts and schools should
consider limiting the initial planning period to three months.

A4. When must local educational agencies identify schools for
improvement?

A local educational agency must identify for school improvement any
school served under Title I that:

• has not made adequate yearly progress toward meeting the State
standards for two consecutive years, unless almost every student in such
school is meeting the State's advanced level of performance; or

• is failing to meet the criteria the State has adopted through its
transitional accountability mechanism for two consecutive years.

A5. If a local educational agency identifies a school for improvement,
and if the school believes the identification is in error, is there
anything the school can do to reverse the decision?

Yes. Before identifying a school for school improvement, the local
educational agency must provide the school with an opportunity to review
the school-level data, including assessment data, on which such
identification is based. If the school believes that such identification
was in error for statistical or other reasons, the school may provide
evidence to the local educational agency to support that belief. The
local educational agency should consider such evidence before making a
final decision.

A6. When must local educational agencies take corrective action to turn
around schools identified for improvement?

A local educational agency must take corrective action to turn around
schools that fail to make adequate progress for three years following
identification for improvement. Note that a local educational agency
may, after providing technical assistance and taking other remediation
measures, take corrective action at any time to turn around a school
identified for improvement.

A7. What are appropriate corrective actions?

Corrective actions may take many forms, consistent with State and local
law. For example, a local educational agency could implement a new
research-based curriculum, along with appropriate professional
development, that offers substantial promise of improving educational
achievement for low-performing students. Or, a local educational agency
could require a school to implement a comprehensive school reform model.
Other corrective actions available to a local educational agency include
withholding funds or specifying their use; otherwise decreasing
school-level decision-making authority; reconstituting the school staff;
making alternative governance arrangements such as the creation of a
public charter school; or authorizing students to transfer to other
public schools served by the local educational agency.

**A8. May the section 1116(c) requirements for school improvement and
corrective action be waived by the Department?**

The basic duties that section 1116(c) imposes on local educational
agencies---i.e., to identify schools in need of improvement, to develop
and implement a school improvement plan, to provide effective
professional development, to provide technical assistance and other
remediation measures, and to take corrective action to turn around
chronically failing schools---may not be waived because they go to the
very intent and purposes of Title I. Specific aspects of how these
requirements are implemented, however, are waivable. For example, the
Department has granted a waiver of section 1116(c)(1)(B) to allow
identification of schools for school improvement on the basis of one
year of data, rather than two consecutive years of data. On the other
hand, the Department likely would not look favorably on a request to
waive section 1116(c)(7) to permit schools to exit school improvement
status on the basis of one year of achievement gains, because one-year
gains are generally not sufficient to ensure that systemic improvement
has occurred.

**A9. May a State that has been granted Ed-Flex authority waive school
improvement and corrective action requirements?**

No. Title I requires the development and implementation of a Statewide
accountability system based on performance against State standards as
measured by the State assessment system. Section 1111 of Title I
requires each State to demonstrate in its State plan the criteria it
will use to identify schools and local educational agencies in need of
improvement, and sections 1116 and 1117 set out requirements to ensure
that such schools and local educational agencies receive sufficient
assistance to improve. Ed-Flex authority does not extend to State-level
requirements.

\* \* \* \*

B. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO STATES

B1. How will the Department allocate school improvement funds to States?

The Department will allocate school improvement funds among States in
the same proportion as funds are allocated among the States under
sections 1124 (basic grants) and 1124A (concentration grants) of Title
I. Appendix 2 shows the estimated allocation for each State.

B2. Must a State amend its consolidated or Title I application to
receive school improvement funds?

Yes. Pursuant to section 76.140 of the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations, the Department is requiring States to amend
their State plans in order to receive school improvement funds. The
amendment may be brief (three to five pages) and must describe: (1) the
criteria the State will use to determine which local educational
agencies, among those eligible (see Question C1), will receive funds;
(2) the criteria the State will use to determine how much each local
educational agency will receive; and (3) the steps the State will take
to ensure that each local educational agency receiving funds implements
public school choice consistent with the appropriations statute.

The Department will allocate funds to any State whose submission
demonstrates: (1) that the criteria the State will use to determine
which local educational agencies will receive funds and how much each
will receive clearly serve the purpose of carrying out section 1116(c)
of Title I and are otherwise consistent with the appropriations statute;
and (2) that the State will ensure that each local educational agency
receiving these funds implements public school choice consistent with
the appropriations statute.

B3. When will school improvement funds become available to States?

The Department expects to make allocations to States on or about July 1,
2000. In order to receive their allocations at that time, States must
submit their amended State plans no later than May 1, 2000 to the
Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20202.

B4. May a State educational agency, pursuant to sections 1003(a) and
1603(c) of Title I, reserve one percent of its allocation of school
improvement funds for State administration or half a percent for
State-level school improvement activities?

No. According to the appropriations statute, 100 percent of the school
improvement funds that a State receives must be allocated to local
educational agencies in the State. This requirement overrides the
authority that sections 1003(a) and 1603(c) give to States to reserve
funds from the amount they receive under section 1002(a). However,
States may use funds reserved for State administration under those
sections of Title I to administer these school improvement funds.

B5. May a State educational agency use school improvement funds to meet
its obligations under section 1116(c)(6) to provide technical assistance
to schools or to take corrective action in schools where a local
educational agency has failed to carry out its responsibilities?

No. As noted above, 100 percent of school improvement funds must be
allocated to local educational agencies. A State educational agency must
use funds it has reserved under section 1003(a) for school improvement
or under section 1603(c) for State administration to carry out its
responsibilities under section 1116(c)(6).

B6. Will the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian Affairs receive
school improvement funds?

Under section 1121 of Title I, the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs will receive one percent of the funds appropriated under
section 1002(a), which include the \$134 million set-aside for school
improvement.

\* \* \* \*

C. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM STATES TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

C1. Which local educational agencies are eligible to receive school
improvement funds?

To be eligible to receive school improvement funds, a local educational
agency:

• must have one or more schools identified for improvement or corrective
action under section 1116(c) of Title I; and

• must be prepared to offer public school choice consistent with the
appropriations statute at the same time that it implements school
improvement activities supported by the new funds (see Section D).

A local educational agency need not itself be identified for improvement
in order to receive funds. Moreover, a local educational agency that has
only one school at a certain grade level or that has identified for
improvement all schools at a certain grade level, and is therefore
unable to allow students at that grade level to transfer to another
school not identified for improvement, remains eligible to receive
funds. A local educational agency that otherwise lacks the capacity to
provide a transfer option to all students in schools identified for
improvement, as determined by the State educational agency (see Question
D8), also remains eligible to receive funds.

C2. How should a State educational agency allocate school improvement
funds to eligible local educational agencies?

Although the appropriations statute does not prescribe how States must
allocate school improvement funds to eligible local educational agencies
(there is no minimum or maximum allocation), the Department expects each
State to demonstrate in its State plan amendment that its method of
allocation clearly serves the purpose of helping local educational
agencies carry out their school improvement responsibilities under
section 1116(c) of Title I (see Question B2). Accordingly, the
Department strongly encourages State educational agencies to distribute
funds in ways that target local educational agencies with the greatest
need for assistance and that provide each recipient with an amount large
enough to make a difference. The 1992 Interim Report of the National
Assessment of Chapter 1 (as Title I was called between 1981 and 1994)
made clear that small amounts of funds spread diffusely across many
local educational agencies do not effectively leverage change.

States may allocate funds on a competitive or formula basis, provided
that funds go only to eligible local educational agencies. Among local
educational agencies with at least one school identified for
improvement, States should consider priorities such as these:

• local educational agencies with schools in corrective action;

• local educational agencies with the greatest number or percentage of
schools in school improvement or corrective action;

• local educational agencies with schools that have been in school
improvement or corrective action for the longest period of time;

• local educational agencies with schools farthest from making adequate
yearly progress; and

• local educational agencies with schools that have fared the worst on
State assessments.

Within these priority areas, the Department encourages States to target
greater amounts of funds to local educational agencies with higher
numbers or concentrations of children in poverty.

C3. May a State educational agency allocate school improvement funds to
local educational agencies on the basis of the Title I formula?

States may not allocate these funds to all local educational agencies in
the State according to the Title I formula. That formula distributes
funds to local educational agencies on the basis of poverty, without
regard to whether a local educational agency has identified schools for
improvement. Once States have determined which local educational
agencies, among those eligible, will receive school improvement funds
(see Question C2), States then may allocate funds by formula, including
a poverty-based formula, to those local educational agencies.

C4. Must a State educational agency allocate funds to every local
educational agency with schools identified for improvement or corrective
action?

No. Indeed, the amount of funds likely will not be sufficient for the
State educational agency to provide each eligible local educational
agency with enough funds to make a significant impact. Nevertheless,
regardless of whether it receives new school improvement funds, each
local educational agency is still responsible for carrying out its
school improvement responsibilities under section 1116(c).

C5. Must a State educational agency seek advice from its Committee of
Practitioners regarding the criteria it will use to allocate school
improvement funds?

Yes. By statute, a State's Committee of Practitioners, the majority of
whom must represent local educational agencies, is designed to provide
State educational agencies with a wide range of viewpoints on rules,
regulations, or binding policies that will affect local educational
agencies' implementation of Title I programs. The Committee is thus
well-suited to provide input on a State's criteria for allocating school
improvement funds.

C6. May a State educational agency require its local educational
agencies to amend their local plans to explain how they will use school
improvement funds?

Yes. The Department encourages State educational agencies to require
local educational agencies that seek funding to describe:

• the technical assistance they will provide under section 1116(c)(4) to
schools identified for improvement;

• the corrective actions they will take under section 1116(c)(5), where
appropriate; and

• the plan they will implement to offer public school choice to students
in Title I schools identified for improvement.

C7. If a State educational agency denies a local educational agency's
application for funding, may the local educational agency appeal?

Yes. In programs administered by the Department, section 432 of the
General Education Provisions Act provides local educational agencies
with a right of appeal in disagreements between State and local
educational agencies, including disagreements over funding decisions.
Where a local educational agency alleges that the denial of funding is
"a violation of State or Federal law, rules, regulations, or guidelines
governing the applicable program," it may, within 30 days, request a
hearing from the State educational agency. Once the hearing is held and
the State educational agency issues its written ruling, the local
educational agency may appeal a negative ruling to the Secretary.

C8. May a local educational agency refuse to accept school improvement
funds?

Yes. However, the local educational agency is still responsible for
carrying out its school improvement responsibilities under section
1116(c).

C9. How long are school improvement funds available for obligation?

School improvement funds are available for obligation by local
educational agencies for a maximum of 27 months. They become available
to the Department on July 1, 2000 and will be allocated to States on or
about that date. They remain available for obligation by local
educational agencies under the initial period of availability for 15
months (until September 30, 2001). Under section 421(b) of the General
Education Provisions Act, any funds that remain unobligated may be
carried over for obligation for an additional 12 months (until September
30, 2002).

C10. Must a local educational agency account separately for the school
improvement funds?

With the exception of school improvement funds used in schoolwide
program schools, a local educational agency must account for school
improvement funds separately because those funds were appropriated for a
specific purpose. School improvement funds used in a school operating a
schoolwide program may be combined with the other Federal funds being
used in the schoolwide program to carry out the school's plan. Of
course, such a school would need to demonstrate that it is continuing to
meet its responsibilities under section 1116(c).

\* \* \* \*

D. PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE

D1. What is the purpose of the public school choice requirement?

Public school choice, as required by the FY 2000 appropriations statute,
offers students in low-performing schools an opportunity to attend
higher-quality schools, even as the low-performing schools are being
improved. Together, school improvement activities and public school
choice provide all students with the opportunity to learn to high
standards. When all students---including students with disabilities and
limited English proficient students---are provided high-quality
educational options, and when all parents receive enough information to
make intelligent choices among those options, public school choice can
increase both equity and excellence in education.

D2. Which local educational agencies are required to implement public
school choice?

Only local educational agencies that have one or more Title I schools
identified for improvement and that receive funds from the \$134 million
FY 2000 set-aside must implement public school choice. Of course, local
educational agencies that do not receive funds under the set-aside may
choose to develop and implement choice programs using other Federal,
State, or local funds, consistent with applicable requirements. The
Department strongly encourages all local educational agencies to
consider appropriate mechanisms for expanding public school choice.

D3. What is the basic obligation that the public school choice
requirement imposes on local educational agencies receiving school
improvement funds?

Any local educational agency receiving school improvement funds must, as
the appropriations statute expressly directs, "provide all students in a
school identified \[for school improvement\] with the option to transfer
to another public school within the local educational agency, including
a public charter school, that has not been identified for school
improvement." Where a local educational agency "lacks the capacity" to
offer choice to all students in low-performing schools (see Question
D8), the local educational agency must "permit as many students as
possible," selected on an "equitable basis," to transfer to a school not
identified for improvement (see Question D11). The appropriations
statute thus makes clear that the basic obligation of each local
educational agency receiving funds is to provide as many students in
low-performing schools as possible with a choice to attend a public
school within the local educational agency not identified for
improvement.

D4. When does the Department expect local educational agencies receiving
school improvement funds to implement public school choice?

The Department expects local educational agencies receiving funds to
offer public school choice to students in Title I schools identified for
improvement at the beginning of the 2000-01 school year---i.e., at the
same time that the new funds are used to implement school improvement
activities.

D5. What flexibility do local educational agencies have in designing
their choice programs?

The appropriations statute requires local educational agencies to
provide students in low-performing Title I schools with "the option to
transfer to *another* public school within the local educational agency
... that has not been identified for improvement." Although receiving
schools must be schools that have not been identified for improvement,
local educational agencies are not required to provide students in
low-performing schools with the option to choose among all schools not
identified for improvement. Local educational agencies thus have
flexibility under the statute to determine which schools, among those
not identified for improvement, will comprise the range of alternatives
for students eligible to transfer.

Two key principles circumscribe the flexibility that local educational
agencies have in determining this range. First, as the appropriations
statute makes clear (see Question D3), local educational agencies must
provide as many students in low-performing schools as possible with an
option to transfer to a higher-quality school. The Department expects
each local educational agency receiving funds to provide students in
low-performing schools with real alternatives for obtaining a better
education. Second, a local educational agency's choice program must not
deny any student equal educational opportunity on the basis of race,
color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. In general, Federal
civil rights laws require local educational agencies to implement choice
in a way that guarantees equal educational opportunity for all students,
including limited English proficient students and students with
disabilities. In addition, qualified students with disabilities are
entitled to a free appropriate public education. See Question D14 for
additional information on civil rights requirements.

To the extent consistent with the principles above, a local educational
agency may, in determining its approach to implementing choice, take
into account its ability to provide transportation and to conduct
outreach to parents so that they have sufficient information to make
timely, intelligent choices among schools. A local educational agency
also may take into account its obligations under State or local laws,
including laws related to enrollment or class size reduction. In view of
these considerations, a local educational agency may take any of several
approaches to implementing public school choice, including (where
consistent with the two principles above) dividing the district into
attendance zones and providing students in low-performing schools with
the option to transfer to higher-quality schools within each zone.

D6. May public charter schools be included in the range of school
choices offered by local educational agencies receiving funds?

Yes. A local educational agency may provide students in schools
identified for improvement an option to transfer to public charter
schools located within the local educational agency, as long as such
schools have not been identified for improvement. Public charter schools
should be among the schools that a local educational agency considers in
determining the range of school choice available.

D7. May a local educational agency provide eligible students with an
option to transfer to schools outside of the district?

Yes. A local educational agency may provide such an option if it has
developed cooperative agreements with other local educational agencies
in the area or if it is otherwise authorized to do so by State or local
law. However, the appropriations statute does not require local
educational agencies to provide such an option; it only directs local
educational agencies to provide an option to transfer to another public
school "within the local educational agency."

D8. Under what circumstances does a local educational agency "lack the
capacity" to provide all students in low-performing schools with an
option to transfer?

The Department recognizes that local educational agencies may not be
able to provide a transfer option to every student in Title I schools
identified for improvement in the 2000-01 academic year due to limited
time or resources for parent outreach and transportation, limited space
in schools not identified for improvement, or competing obligations
under State or local laws (for example, laws related to enrollment or
class size reduction). Indeed, some local educational agencies currently
implement public school choice programs that provide transfer options to
many, though not all, students in low-performing Title I schools. Under
the appropriations statute, a local educational agency may provide
choice to fewer than all eligible students if it demonstrates "to the
satisfaction of the State educational agency" that it "lacks the
capacity" to provide all students with an option to transfer to a public
school not identified for improvement. A local educational agency may
make this showing in its local plan amendment requesting school
improvement funds (see Question C5).

State educational agencies are responsible for determining whether a
local educational agency "lacks capacity" and may take into account the
factors mentioned above. However, the Department strongly cautions State
and local educational agencies that allowances for limited capacity must
not undermine the fundamental purpose of the choice requirement: to
provide students in low-performing schools with opportunities to attend
higher-quality schools. In other words, "lack of capacity" may not be
interpreted so broadly as to permit local educational agencies to avoid
their basic obligation to provide choice to as many students as
possible. Nor may "lack of capacity" be interpreted to frustrate civil
rights requirements, including the guarantee of equal educational
opportunity for all students and the provision of a free appropriate
public education to qualified students with disabilities (see Question
D14).

D9. What if all schools within a local educational agency that are
grade-appropriate for students eligible to transfer have been identified
for improvement?

In such cases, the local educational agency clearly and legitimately
lacks the capacity to provide any students in low-performing schools
with an option to transfer to a school within the local educational
agency that has not been identified for improvement. Such a local
educational agency remains eligible to receive school improvement funds
(see Question C1) and, if possible, may provide students with an option
to transfer to schools outside of the local educational agency (see
Question D7).

D10. Must a local educational agency notify parents when it is unable to
provide a transfer option for all eligible students?

Yes. Where it is not possible, consistent with State and local law, to
accommodate the transfer request of every student, the appropriations
statute requires local educational agencies to notify the parents of
children who are affected.

D11. Where a local educational agency lacks the capacity to accommodate
every transfer request, what constitutes an "equitable basis" for
selecting students for transfer?

To the extent that choice is a strategy for helping educationally
disadvantaged students, an "equitable" method of selecting students for
transfer may be to give priority to the lowest-performing students, to
students in the lowest-performing schools, or to students who have
attended low-performing schools the longest time. Alternatively,
consistent with the statute authorizing the Federal Public Charter
School Program, a random lottery may be an "equitable" method of
selecting students when not all students can be accommodated. Whatever
the "equitable basis" for selecting students, it must be consistent with
Federal civil rights law (see Question D14).

D12. Could an existing State or local policy that provides for open
enrollment or public school choice satisfy the requirements in the
appropriations statute?

Yes. Such a policy clearly satisfies the choice requirement if it allows
*all* students in Title I schools identified for improvement to transfer
to another school within the local educational agency not identified for
improvement. Moreover, the intent of the appropriations statute is not
to undo existing choice policies that provide transfer options for many,
even if not all, students in low-performing schools. Thus, even if an
existing policy does not provide all eligible students with a transfer
option, it still may satisfy the choice requirement, provided (1) that
the State educational agency is satisfied that a local educational
agency implementing the policy lacks the capacity to provide a transfer
option to all eligible students, (2) that the local educational agency
notifies parents of affected children that it is not possible,
consistent with State and local law, to accommodate every transfer
request, and (3) that within its limited capacity, the local educational
agency permits as many students as possible, selected on an equitable
basis, to transfer.

D13. For how long must local educational agencies that receive school
improvement funds continue to implement public school choice?

Although the choice requirement does not extend beyond the period in
which a local educational agency uses the FY 2000 school improvement
funds, the Department expects local educational agencies to pursue
choice policies that ensure stability and continuity in students'
educational experiences. Where students have transferred from one school
to another under a choice policy implemented pursuant to the
appropriations statute, the Department strongly encourages local
educational agencies to allow those students to remain in the receiving
school until they finish the top grade of that school, even if their
original school improves and is no longer identified for school
improvement.

D14. How do Federal civil rights laws apply to local educational
agencies implementing public school choice?

A local educational agency must ensure that its public school choice
program, like all of its educational programs, does not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age,
consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Fundamentally, the choice
program must provide equal educational opportunities for all eligible
students.

In addition, local educational agencies must provide students with
disabilities with a free appropriate public education consistent with
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, section 504, and Title
II of the ADA. In some cases, local educational agencies must provide
transportation and must ensure that facilities in receiving schools are
accessible so that students with disabilities have equal access to the
range of school choices available to other students. The duty not to
discriminate also requires local educational agencies to ensure
effective communication with limited English proficient parents and
parents with disabilities, so that these parents have the same
opportunity as other parents to make timely, informed choices. Moreover,
a local educational agency must ensure that its choice program is
consistent with applicable civil rights commitments regarding student
assignments, including desegregation plans or court orders. For more
information on these and other civil rights requirements, please contact
the Department's Office for Civil Rights or the Department of Justice's
Civil Rights Division.

\* \* \* \*

E. USES OF FUNDS BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AND SCHOOLS

E1. What are the permissible uses of school improvement funds?

Local educational agencies and schools must use school improvement funds
to carry out the school improvement and corrective action
responsibilities described in section 1116(c). Funds may be used to
cover any reasonable costs. For example, schools may use funds to
develop and implement school improvement plans, to conduct required
professional development, to strengthen curriculum, and to enhance
parental involvement. Local educational agencies may use funds to
provide technical assistance to schools as they develop and implement
school improvement plans and, where appropriate, to take corrective
actions. Technical assistance may be provided directly by the local
educational agency or, with the local educational agency's approval, by
an institution of higher education, a private non-profit organization,
an educational service agency, or one of the Department's Comprehensive
Regional Assistance Centers.

A local educational agency also may use these funds to carry out the
requirement that it provide students who attend schools identified for
improvement with the option to transfer to another public school within
the local educational agency that has not been identified for
improvement. In particular, funds may be used for parent outreach costs
and, with some limitations, for transportation costs (see Questions E3
and E6).

E2. May school improvement funds be used to benefit schools that receive
students transferring from Title I schools identified for improvement?

No. Receiving schools are schools that have not been identified for
improvement. They are not the intended beneficiaries of school
improvement activities under section 1116(c). Moreover, Title I dollars
and services do not follow a child who transfers from a Title I school
identified for improvement to a non-Title I school. (See Question E8 for
information about Title I allocations when a student transfers to a
Title I school.)

E3. Does the Title I "supplement not supplant" requirement apply to the
use of school improvement funds?

Yes. Like other Title I funds, school improvement funds must be used to
supplement the level of funds that, in the absence of the Title I funds,
would be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of
children participating in Title I programs. For example, if a local
educational agency is required by State or local law to provide
transportation to students who choose to transfer to another school
under an existing choice plan, it may not use school improvement funds
to supplant the State or local funds that it otherwise would use to
provide transportation, even though transportation costs generally are
an allowable use of school improvement funds.

E4. Who primarily should decide how school improvement funds are
spent---schools or local educational agencies?

It depends. Where a State has targeted its school improvement funds to
local educational agencies with schools in corrective action, local
educational agencies may want to retain control of the funds in order to
take forceful steps toward improving persistently low-performing
schools. By comparison, where a local educational agency is working with
a school newly identified for improvement, it may want to allocate funds
directly to the school so that school officials may take the lead in
developing and implementing an improvement plan. School improvement
efforts ultimately involve buy-in and reform at the school level, but
they also benefit from ongoing district-level support and, at times,
require district-initiated intervention. The proper allocation of
control will depend on the circumstances within a particular local
educational agency---the degree to which its schools are
underperforming, whether the underperformance is due to lack of
resources or inefficient use of resources, and what capacity its schools
have to use new funds effectively. Whatever the distribution of control,
local educational agencies must ensure that both they and their schools
have sufficient funds to carry out their respective responsibilities
under section 1116(c).

E5. May local educational agencies use a portion of school improvement
funds for administrative costs?

In general, a local educational agency may use a portion of its Title I
funds for reasonable and necessary administrative costs incurred in
implementing Title I programs. Because a local educational agency is
responsible for carrying out activities required by section 1116(c),
notwithstanding its receipt of new school improvement funds, presumably
it is already using some of its Title I funds to cover administrative
costs associated with section 1116(c) activities. Those administrative
funds should be sufficient to cover costs associated with administering
any new school improvement funds. Where a local educational agency
initiates a public school choice policy or program in order to comply
with the appropriations statute, it may use a portion of the new school
improvement funds to cover reasonable and necessary administrative costs
associated with planning and implementation. Of course, where a local
educational agency is already implementing an open enrollment or choice
policy consistent with the appropriations statute, it may not use new
school improvement funds to supplant funds already used to cover
administrative costs.

E6. May school improvement funds be used to pay for transportation costs
associated with the public school choice requirement?

Yes. Title I explicitly authorizes the use of funds for transportation
costs when public school choice is implemented as a corrective action. A
local educational agency must take at least one corrective action to
turn around a school that fails to make adequate progress for three
consecutive years following identification for improvement, and it may
take any corrective action to turn around a school identified for
improvement at any time after it has provided technical assistance and
taken other remediation measures to help that school. Thus, the new
school improvement funds may be used for transportation costs associated
with transferring students not only out of schools subject to mandatory
corrective action, but also out of schools identified for improvement as
long as the local educational agency has first provided assistance to
such schools.

A local educational agency would frustrate the intent of the
appropriations statute if it spent all of its school improvement funds
on transportation instead of school improvement activities. However, it
may use these funds to cover transportation costs necessary to implement
public school choice fairly and effectively, subject to two limitations.
First, in a targeted assistance school, transportation may only be
provided for students who receive Title I services. Second, the costs to
Title I must be supplemental to the transportation costs the local
educational agency would otherwise incur. For example, if a local
educational agency currently transports a child two miles to attend a
school identified for improvement, Title I funds may be used only to pay
for the additional cost of transporting the child to a school not
identified for improvement (i.e., the amount beyond what is already
being spent to transport that student to the identified school). Local
educational agencies, especially those with existing open enrollment
programs, should consider whether transportation costs are already
covered through another source, so that school improvement funds will be
used only for purposes not currently funded.

E7. What is the proper balance between using school improvement funds to
implement public school choice and using the funds to support school
improvement activities?

The proper distribution of funds between school improvement and public
school choice activities may be different for each local educational
agency, depending on the resources, policies, and activities already in
place. The Department encourages States to ensure that each local
educational agency receiving funds has sufficient total resources
(Federal, State, and local) to effectively fulfill both its school
improvement responsibilities under section 1116(c) and its obligation to
provide public school choice under the appropriations statute. Note that
the appropriations statute, while requiring public school choice, does
not require local educational agencies to use school improvement funds
for that purpose. As mentioned earlier, local educational agencies
currently implementing State or local open enrollment policies may
already meet the public school choice requirement (see Questions D12 and
E3).

E8. If a child transfers out of her or his school of residence under a
choice plan, should a local educational agency include that child (a) in
the count of children used to determine the Title I allocation to the
school of residence, or (b) in the count used to determine the Title I
allocation to the school of enrollment?

In general, Title I eligibility and Title I allocations of basic and
concentration grant funds are based on the count of poor children who
reside in the school attendance area of a given school. A local
educational agency may also designate as eligible and serve a school
that is not in an eligible attendance area if the percentage of poor
children enrolled in the school is equal to or greater than the
percentage of poor children in a participating school attendance area.
Accordingly, a local educational agency should include children who
transfer as part of the count of children in the school attendance area
of residence---unless the local educational agency uses enrollment to
identify and serve one or more schools. This general rule could be
superseded, however, by a State law that, for example, defines a child's
school of residence as the child's school of choice.

E9. May school improvement funds be used to improve Title I programs for
eligible children in private schools?

Yes. As summarized in the Title I Policy Manual, if an LEA determines
that its Title I program serving private school children has not made
adequate progress for two consecutive school years, the LEA must develop
a program improvement plan that has the greatest likelihood of improving
the performance of participating children in meeting the State's student
performance standards. Accordingly, the LEA may use school improvement
funds to improve its Title I program for private school children.

E10. May funds be used to support a school that does not participate in
Title I but whose lack of progress would qualify it for school
improvement under section 1116(c)?

No. Only Title I schools identified for school improvement or corrective
action under section 1116(c) may receive school improvement funds.

\* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX 1---FY 2000 TITLE I APPROPRIATIONS STATUTE**

Pub. L. 106-113---App. D (113 Stat. 1501A---245)

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
\$8,700,986,000, of which \$2,461,823,000 shall become available on July
1, 2000, and shall remain available through September 30, 2001, and of
which \$6,204,763,000 shall become available on October 1, 2000 and
shall remain available through September 30, 2001, for academic year
2000-2001: *Provided*, That \$6,783,000,000 shall be available for basic
grants under section 1124: *Provided further*, That \$134,000,000 shall
be allocated among the States in the same proportion as funds are
allocated among the States under section 1122, to carry out section
1116(c): *Provided further*, That 100 percent of these funds shall be
allocated to local educational agencies for the purposes of carrying out
section 1116(c) and that local educational agencies shall provide all
students enrolled in a school identified under section 1116(c) with the
option to transfer to another public school within the local educational
agency, including a public charter school, that has not been identified
for school improvement under section 1116(c): *Provided further*, That
if the local educational agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
State educational agency that the local educational agency lacks the
capacity to provide all students with the option to transfer to another
public school, and after giving notice to the parents of children
affected that it is not possible, consistent with State and local law,
to accommodate the transfer request of every student, the local
educational agency shall permit as many students as possible (who shall
be selected by the local educational agency on an equitable basis) to
transfer to a public school that has not been identified for school
improvement under section 1116(c) . . . .

\* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX 2---ESTIMATED ALLOCATION TO EACH STATE**

  -------------------- ------------- ------- ------------------- ------------
  Alabama              \$2,239,376           Nebraska            558,276

  Alaska               330,646               Nevada              404,802

  Arizona              2,126,958             New Hampshire       340,402

  Arkansas             1,374,803             New Jersey          3,078,484

  California           16,556,811            New Mexico          1,152,065

  Colorado             1,236,410             New York            12,807,331

  Connecticut          1,220,591             North Carolina      2,567,507

  Delaware             368,906               North Dakota        343,794

  Florida              6,373,427             Ohio                5,241,730

  Georgia              3,662,555             Oklahoma            1,673,782

  Hawaii               349,593               Oregon              1,188,629

  Idaho                408,150               Pennsylvania        5,861,386

  Illinois             5,676,307             Rhode Island        429,889

  Indiana              2,032,799             South Carolina      1,738,421

  Iowa                 925,121               South Dakota        342,249

  Kansas               975,911               Tennessee           2,334,502

  Kentucky             2,213,377             Texas               11,618,707

  Louisiana            3,317,431             Utah                612,242

  Maine                549,164               Vermont             307,016

  Maryland             1,787,623             Virginia            2,041,514

  Massachusetts        2,661,366             Washington          1,889,622

  Michigan             5,844,679             West Virginia       1,274,452

  Minnesota            1,524,351             Wisconsin           2,182,633

  Mississippi          2,164,275             Wyoming             304,959

  Missouri             2,334,733             District of         441,618
                                             Columbia            

  Montana              456,413               Puerto Rico         4,552,211
  -------------------- ------------- ------- ------------------- ------------

\* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX 3---SECTION 1116(c) OF TITLE I** (codified at 20 U.S.C. §
6317(c))

\(c\) SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.---

\(1\) IN GENERAL.---A local educational agency shall identify for school
improvement any school served under this part that---

> \(A\) has been in program improvement under section 1020 of the
> Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as such section was in
> effect on the day preceding October 20, 1994), for at least two
> consecutive school years prior to such day;
>
> \(B\) has not made adequate progress as defined in the State\'s plan
> under section 6311(b)(2)(A)(i) of this title for two consecutive
> school years, except that---
>
> \(i\) this subparagraph shall not apply to a school if almost every
> student in such school is meeting the State\'s advanced level of
> performance; or
>
> \(ii\) in the case of a targeted assistance school, such school may be
> reviewed on the progress of only those students that have been or are
> served under this part; or
>
> \(C\) has failed to meet the criteria established by the State through
> the State's transitional procedure under section 6311(b)(7)(B) of this
> title for two consecutive years.

\(2\) REQUIREMENT.---

> \(A\) Each school identified under paragraph (1) shall---

(i) in consultation with parents, the local educational agency, and the
    school support team, develop or revise a school plan in ways that
    have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of
    participating children in meeting the State's student performance
    standards; and

> \(ii\) submit the plan or revised plan to the local educational agency
> for approval.
>
> \(B\) Before identifying a school for school improvement under
> paragraph (1), the local educational agency shall provide the school
> with an opportunity to review the school-level data, including
> assessment data, on which such identification is\
> based. If the school believes that such identification for school
> improvement is in error for statistical or other substantive reasons,
> such school may provide evidence to the local educational agency to
> support such belief.
>
> \(C\) During the first year immediately following such identification,
> the school shall implement such school's plan or revised plan.

\(3\) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.---

> \(A\) Each school identified under paragraph (1) shall, as part of the
> school plan under paragraph (2), improve the skills of its staff by
> providing effective professional development activities. A school
> shall demonstrate such school's compliance with this paragraph by---
>
> \(i\) devoting to such activities, over two consecutive years, an
> amount equivalent to at least 10 percent of the funds received by the
> school under this part during one fiscal year; or
>
> \(ii\) otherwise demonstrating that such school is effectively
> carrying out professional development activities.
>
> \(B\) A school may use funds from any source to meet the requirements
> of this subsection.
>
> \(C\) Decisions about how to use the funds made available under this
> part which the school makes available for professional development
> shall be made by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that
> school.

\(4\) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.---

> \(A\) For each school identified under paragraph (1), the local
> educational agency shall provide technical or other assistance as the
> school develops and implements such school's plan or revised plan,
> such as a joint plan between the local educational agency and school
> that addresses specific elements of student performance problems and
> that specifies school and local educational agency responsibilities
> under the plan, and waivers or modifications of requirements of local
> educational agency policy or regulation that impede the ability of the
> school to educate students.
>
> \(B\) Such technical assistance may be provided directly by the local
> educational agency, through mechanisms authorized under section 6318
> of this title, or with the local educational agency's approval, by an
> institution of higher education, a private nonprofit organization, an
> educational service agency, a comprehensive regional assistance center
> under part A of subchapter XIII of this chapter, or other entities
> with\
> experience in helping schools improve achievement.

\(5\) CORRECTIVE ACTION.---

> \(A\) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), after providing
> technical assistance pursuant to paragraph (4) and taking other
> remediation measures, the local educational agency may take corrective
> action at any time against a school that has been identified under
> paragraph (1), but, during the third year following identification
> under paragraph (1), shall take such action against any school that
> still fails to make adequate progress.
>
> (B)(i) Corrective actions are those, consistent with State and local
> law, determined and made public and disseminated by the local
> educational agency, which may include---
>
> \(I\) withholding funds;
>
> \(II\) interagency collaborative agreements between the school and
> other public agencies to provide health, counseling, and other social
> services needed to remove barriers to learning;
>
> \(III\) revoking authority for a school to operate a schoolwide
> program;
>
> \(IV\) decreasing decisionmaking authority at the school level;
>
> \(V\) making alternative governance arrangements such as the creation
> of a public charter school;
>
> \(VI\) reconstituting the school staff; and
>
> \(VII\) authorizing students to transfer, including transportation
> costs, to other public schools served by the local educational agency.
>
> \(ii\) Notwithstanding clause (i), corrective actions taken pursuant
> to this part shall not include the actions described in subclause (I),
> (III), (IV), (VI), or (VII) of clause (i) until the State has
> developed assessments that meet the requirements of\
> subparagraph (C) of section 6311(b)(3) of this title.
>
> \(C\) Prior to implementing any corrective action, the local
> educational agency may refrain from such corrective action for one
> additional year to the extent that the failure to make progress can be
> attributed to extenuating circumstances as determined by the local
> educational agency.
>
> \(D\) A school that is no longer operating its schoolwide program due
> to a corrective action may not resume operation of such a program
> until the local educational agency determines that the school has
> adequately reformed its schoolwide program plan to enable the school
> to make adequate progress toward meeting the State's challenging
> student performance standards.

\(6\) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.---The State educational
agency shall---

> \(A\) make technical assistance under section 6318 of this title
> available to the schools farthest from meeting the State's challenging
> student performance standards, if requested by the school or local
> educational agency; and
>
> \(B\) if such agency determines that a local educational agency failed
> to carry out the local educational agency's responsibilities under
> paragraphs (4) and (5), take such\
> corrective actions as the State educational agency deems appropriate
> and which are in compliance with State law.

\(7\) SPECIAL RULE.---Schools that, for at least two of the three years
following identification under paragraph (1), make adequate progress
toward meeting the State's proficient and advanced levels of performance
shall no longer need to be identified for school improvement.

\* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX 4---CONTINUUM OF EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS**

+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **        | > **Most         | > **Somewhat     | > **Marginal**   |
| \<TBODY\>** | > Rigorous**     | > Rigorous**     |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Theo    | > Does the model | > Does the model | > Does the model |
| ry/Research | > explain the    | > state the      | > explain the    |
| > F         | > theory behind  | > theory behind  | > theory behind  |
| oundation** | > its design,    | > its design     | > its design?    |
|             | > including      | > explaining how |                  |
|             | > references to  | > the model\'s   |                  |
|             | > the scientific | > components     |                  |
|             | > literature,    | > reinforce one  |                  |
|             | > that elucidate | > another to     |                  |
|             | > why the model  | > improve        |                  |
|             | > improves       | > student        |                  |
|             | > student        | > achievement?   |                  |
|             | > achievement?   |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Evalu   | > Have student   | > Have student   | > Have student   |
| ation-based | > achievement    | > achievement    | > achievement    |
| > Evidence  | > gains been     | > gains been     | > gains been     |
| > of        | > shown using    | > shown using    | > shown for a    |
| > Effe      | > experimental   | > between or     | > single school? |
| ctiveness** | > and control    | > within-school  |                  |
|             | > groups created | > comparisons?   |                  |
|             | > through        |                  |                  |
|             | > large-scale    |                  |                  |
|             | > random         |                  |                  |
|             | > assignment or  |                  |                  |
|             | > carefully      |                  |                  |
|             | > matched        |                  |                  |
|             | > comparison     |                  |                  |
|             | > groups?        |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | > Has the model  | > Has the model  | > Has the model  |
|             | > produced       | > produced       | > produced       |
|             | > educationally  | > student        | > improvements   |
|             | > significant    | > achievement    | > on other       |
|             | > pre and post   | > gains relative | > indicators of  |
|             | > intervention   | > to district    | > student        |
|             | > student        | > means or other | > performance,   |
|             | > achievement    | > comparison     | > e.g., student  |
|             | > gains as       | > groups using   | > attendance,    |
|             | > reliably       | > appropriate    | > graduation     |
|             | > measured using | > assessment     | > rates, or      |
|             | > appropriate    | > instruments?   | > student        |
|             | > assessments?   |                  | > engagement?    |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | > Have the       | > Have the       | > Have other     |
|             | > student        | > student        | > indicators of  |
|             | > achievement    | > achievement    | > improved       |
|             | > gains been     | > gains been     | > student        |
|             | > sustained for  | > sustained for  | > performance    |
|             | > three or more  | > one or two     | > been sustained |
|             | > years?         | > years?         | > for one or two |
|             |                  |                  | > years?         |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | > Have the       | > Has the model  | > Has the model  |
|             | > student        | > been evaluated | > been evaluated |
|             | > achievement    | > by a State,    | > by its         |
|             | > gains been     | > district, or   | > developers?    |
|             | > confirmed      | > school         |                  |
|             | > through        | > evaluation     |                  |
|             | > independent,   | > team?          |                  |
|             | > third-party    |                  |                  |
|             | > evaluation?    |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| # **Imple   | Has the model    | Has the model    | Has the model    |
| mentation** | been fully       | been fully       | been fully       |
|             | implemented in   | implemented in   | implemented in   |
|             | multiple sites   | the original     | the original     |
|             | for more than    | site(s) for more | pilot site(s)    |
|             | three years?     | than three       | for a minimum of |
|             |                  | years?           | one school year? |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | Is documentation | Is documentation | Is documentation |
|             | available that   | available that   | available that   |
|             | clearly          | attempts to      | provides a       |
|             | specifies the    | describe the     | general          |
|             | model's          | implementation   | description of   |
|             | implementation   | requirements of  | the program's    |
|             | requirements and | the model        | requirements?    |
|             | procedures,      | including staff  |                  |
|             | including staff  | development,     |                  |
|             | development,     | curriculum,      |                  |
|             | curriculum,      | instruction      |                  |
|             | instructional    | methods,         |                  |
|             | methods,         | materials, and   |                  |
|             | materials,       | assessments?     |                  |
|             | assessments, and |                  |                  |
|             | costs?           |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | Are the costs of | Have the costs   | Is documentation |
|             | full             | of full          | available that   |
|             | implementation   | implementation   | provides general |
|             | clearly          | been estimated?  | information      |
|             | specified? Are   | Does the         | about the        |
|             | the costs of     | estimate of the  | program's costs? |
|             | materials, staff | program\'s       |                  |
|             | development, and | purchase price   |                  |
|             | additional       | include costs of |                  |
|             | personnel        | materials, staff |                  |
|             | included in the  | development, and |                  |
|             | program's        | additional       |                  |
|             | purchase price?  | personnel?       |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | Has the model    | Has the model    | Is information   |
|             | been implemented | been             | on grade level,  |
|             | in schools with  | successfully     | size, student    |
|             | characteristics  | implemented in   | demographics,    |
|             | similar to the   | at least one     | poverty level,   |
|             | target school:   | school with      | and racial,      |
|             | same grade       | characteristics  | ethnic and       |
|             | levels, similar  | similar to the   | language         |
|             | size, similar    | target school?   | minority         |
|             | poverty levels,  |                  | concentration    |
|             | similar student  |                  | available for    |
|             | demographics     |                  | the schools      |
|             | such as racial,  |                  | where the model  |
|             | ethnic, and      |                  | has been         |
|             | language         |                  | implemented?     |
|             | minority         |                  |                  |
|             | composition?     |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| ### **Repl  | Has the model    | Has the model    | Is full          |
| icability** | been replicated  | been replicated  | replication of   |
|             | successfully in  | in a number of   | the model being  |
|             | a wide range of  | schools or       | initiated in     |
|             | schools and      | districts        | several schools? |
|             | districts, e.g., | representing     |                  |
|             | urban, rural,    | diverse          |                  |
|             | suburban?        | settings?        |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|             | Have the         | Have some        | Are promising    |
|             | replication      | replication      | initial results  |
|             | sites have been  | sites been       | available from   |
|             | evaluated,       | evaluated,       | the replication  |
|             | demonstrating    | demonstrating    | sites?           |
|             | significant      | positive gains   | \</TBODY\>       |
|             | student          | in student       |                  |
|             | achievement      | achievement?     |                  |
|             | gains comparable |                  |                  |
|             | to those         |                  |                  |
|             | achieved in the  |                  |                  |
|             | pilot site(s)?   |                  |                  |
+-------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

The following three examples show how the evidence of effectiveness
table might be used to show how the table might be used:

**Example 1**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  A school is considering a model whose stated purpose is to facilitate
  the school\'s development of a common set of goals for the school. The
  model provides five teachers and the principal with coaching in the
  principles of whole school transformation. Each school using the model
  is put in touch with other schools using the model. To date, the
  summary of the research-base for the model suggests that a single
  school which has used the model for the past two years has shown
  improvement in math scores over the last year. There is, however, no
  systematic evaluation of the model currently underway or planned. The
  costs for the model are approximately \$3,000 per participant,
  approximately \$20,000 per school.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the table as a guide, based on the description provided, a State,
local educational agency, or school would probably conclude that the
evidence of effectiveness for the model is unacceptably weak and
therefore would not accept this model.

No research basis or other justification is provided for the theory
behind the model, only a very vague statement that school staff should
work together to be effective. The evidence for the effectiveness of the
implementation of the model is sketchy. The description includes a
statement that the model has been implemented in a number of schools,
but there is no analysis of what it would take to implement the model.
Given the estimated costs and the fact that only a few teachers and the
principal would be involved, the model probably provides only a low
level of involvement. The model provides no evidence that this level of
implementation is sufficient to produce results. The only student
achievement results presented are for a single school for a short period
of time in one subject. There is no information on how achievement was
measured nor is any evaluation planned.

Given this level of evidence, the model would likely fall below the
marginal standards of rigor that States, local educational agencies, and
schools would want to consider for a research-based comprehensive model
of school reform. Apart from the marginal evidence of effectiveness, the
model also does not address all nine components of comprehensive school
reform (see Appendix 5).

**Example 2**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  A school is considering a model that emphasizes a curriculum in reading
  and mathematics using specific instructional techniques to guide
  classroom teaching and learning activities. The model provides teachers
  with intensive, ongoing staff development using professional
  facilitators trained by the model developer. In addition to providing
  staff development, the facilitators remain on site as the model is
  implemented to ensure that all components of the model are working
  together. The program has been fully implemented in approximately 300
  schools in 37 districts in nine States around the country. Student
  achievement is measured not only by commercial standardized tests but
  also by State assessment systems where appropriate. Local adaptations
  of the model are available for schools serving a predominately
  Spanish-speaking community. When compared to schools matched on
  socioeconomic characteristics, schools using this model show reading
  and math scores approximately three-quarters of a standard deviation
  higher. These results are similar for both African-American and white
  students. The program has been evaluated by its developer in
  approximately 12 sites over two years.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence for this model is much stronger than for Example 1. While
this model provides some details along each of the four dimensions in
the chart, the implementation evidence is quite general. Furthermore,
the school proposing to implement this model would need to coherently
address, in a coherent manner, all nine components of comprehensive
school reform (see Appendix 5).

There are some additional questions that States, local educational
agencies, and schools might ask about this model: Could the developer
describe what was provided in the way of instructional materials? How
will teachers learn the principles of instruction? For which grades and
which types of schools are the achievement gains demonstrated? Because
the model has only been evaluated by the developer, States, local
educational agencies, and schools should ask if there are any plans for
an independent, third-party evaluation. These questions would help
reveal the relative strengths and weaknesses of this particular model.

**Example 3**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| An elementary school in need of improvement has been studying how it  |
| could improve its students very low scores on State assessments in    |
| reading, math and other core content areas. The school leadership, in |
| consultation with staff, parents, local university representatives,   |
| and community groups, has carefully reviewed school performance data  |
| and assessed what needs to be improved across the entire school       |
| program, concluding that the school needs a comprehensive approach to |
| reform all aspects of its operations and instructional program.       |
|                                                                       |
| As part of this process, participants reviewed both individual        |
| academic curricular programs as well as comprehensive reform models   |
| that include both teaching and learning materials and guidance for    |
| school organization and management. The school and its partners       |
| looked specifically at evidence of effectiveness for both the         |
| individual programs and the comprehensive models. In addition, they   |
| studied the match between the programs and the State's rigorous       |
| content standards of excellence for academic subject matter, and      |
| sought information on how well the programs had been implemented in   |
| similar districts. After considerable discussion among school         |
| administrators, teachers, parents, community members, and outside     |
| experts, the school decided to develop its own comprehensive school   |
| reform model, which would include upgrading curriculum and            |
| instruction, teacher professional development, school organization,   |
| parental involvement activities, and testing.                         |
|                                                                       |
| The school's proposed model is based on the careful integration of    |
| distinct, research-based curricular programs with strong track        |
| records of effectiveness. The goal of the integration is a coherent   |
| instructional package that would address State content and            |
| performance standards; be aligned with district and State assessment  |
| systems; include professional development that helps teachers master  |
| the curricular programs as well as integrate the parts into a unified |
| instructional approach; and include an evaluation strategy so the     |
| school can learn what is working and change what is not. As a result  |
| of this process, the school has decided to work under a Title I       |
| schoolwide approach so that it can bring together a variety of        |
| Federal, State, and other resources to adopt the curricular programs  |
| necessary to reform its instructional program and eventually to move  |
| into a long-term implementation effort.                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Using the table as a guide, the example makes clear that the school has
looked at the evidence of effectiveness that supports its choice of
discrete curricular programs, thus addressing issues in the second row
of the table. However, the first row of the table suggests that, in its
application, the school should explain the theoretical or research
foundation for the model it proposes. At this point the school has not
made clear why it expects its comprehensive model, which combines
multiple discrete curricular elements, to function effectively as a
whole. Regarding implementation, it is unclear how the school has
assessed what will be required to make the program work at the classroom
level. Thus, the school has not yet answered the questions in the third
row of the table. Finally, the example indicates that the school sought
information on the uses in other settings of the selected programs. This
shows a sensitivity to the questions raised in the fourth row of the
table.

\* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX 5---COMPONENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM PROGRAMS**

A comprehensive school reform program is one that coherently integrates
all nine of the following components:

1\. *Effective, research-based methods and strategies.* A comprehensive
school reform program employs innovative strategies and proven methods
for student learning, teaching, and school management that are based on
reliable research and effective practices, and have been replicated
successfully in schools with diverse characteristics.

2\. *Comprehensive design with aligned components.* The program has a
comprehensive design for effective school functioning, including
instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development,
parental involvement, and school management, that aligns the school's
curriculum, technology, and professional development into a schoolwide
reform plan designed to enable all students---including children from
low-income families, children with limited English proficiency, and
children with disabilities---to meet challenging State content and
performance standards and addresses needs identified through a school
needs assessment.

3\. *Professional development.* The program provides high-quality and
continuous teacher and staff professional development and training.

4\. *Measurable goals and benchmarks.* A comprehensive school reform
program has measurable goals for student performance tied to the State's
challenging content and student performance standards, as those
standards are implemented, and benchmarks for meeting the goals.

5\. *Support within the school.* The program is supported by school
faculty, administrators, and staff.

6\. *Parental and community involvement.* The program provides for the
meaningful involvement of parents and the local community in planning
and implementing school improvement activities.

7\. *External technical support and assistance.* A comprehensive reform
program utilizes high-quality external support and assistance from a
comprehensive school reform entity (which may be a university) with
experience or expertise in schoolwide reform and improvement.

8\. *Evaluation strategies.* The program includes a plan for the
evaluation of the implementation of school reforms and the student
results achieved.

9\. *Coordination of resources.* The program identifies how other
resources (Federal, State, local, and private) available to the school
will be utilized to coordinate services to support and sustain the
school reform.