');
	document.write('

August 26, 2009

Dear Chief State School Officers:

I am pleased to announce that the U.S. Department of  Education published today a notice in the *Federal Register* seeking  comments on proposed requirements that would govern the fiscal year (FY) 2009 School  Improvement Grants authorized under section 1003(g) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.  6303(g)).  As you know, State educational  agencies (SEAs) currently award funds received under these grants to local  educational agencies (LEAs) to implement reform strategies in Title I schools  identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring so that the  schools exit improvement status.

The appropriation for School Improvement Grants has grown  from $125 million in FY 2007 to $545 million in FY 2009.  Moreover, the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides an additional $3 billion for School  Improvement Grants for FY 2009.  This  large increase in funding affords LEAs an unprecedented opportunity to  implement intensive interventions in the State’s lowest-achieving schools on a  scale never before possible.  For this  reason, I am asking every State to drive school improvement funds to LEAs with  the lowest-achieving schools in each State in order to infuse those schools  with sufficient resources to implement rigorous interventions designed to  significantly improve educational outcomes in such schools.

Specifically, I propose that States identify three tiers of  schools to be served:

- The lowest-achieving five percent of Title I  schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, or the  five lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or  restructuring, whichever number of schools is greater (Tier I schools);
- Equally low-achieving secondary schools (both  middle and high schools) that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I  funds, which would be served through a waiver under section 9401 of the ESEA  (Tier II schools); and
- Other Title I schools in improvement, corrective  action, or restructuring (Tier III schools).

Further, because strong interventions are essential if LEAs  are to reform their lowest-achieving schools, I propose that States award school  improvement funds to LEAs that commit to implementing one of four specific  rigorous interventions aimed at improving educational outcomes for students in  these persistently low-achieving schools:   (1) a “turnaround model” that includes, among other actions, replacing  the principal and at least 50 percent of the school’s staff, adopting a new  governance structure, and implementing a new or revised instructional program;  (2) a “restart model” that requires closing the school and reopening it under  the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization,  or an educational management organization; (3) closing the school and enrolling  the students who attended the school in other, high-performing schools in the  LEA; or (4)  a “transformation model”  that addresses four specific areas critical to transforming low-achieving  schools.

Implementing intensive interventions that would dramatically  turn around the lowest-achieving schools in a State requires substantial  planning at the LEA and school levels.   Although the proposed definitions in this notice are being published for  comment and are not likely to be final by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school  year, they do set out my expectation that school improvement funds be used to  support careful and comprehensive preparations for rigorous interventions in  the lowest-achieving Title I schools and equally low-achieving secondary  schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds.  Because the identity of these schools likely  would not change significantly from this year to next year, I strongly  encourage you to allocate the funds you must reserve from your FY 2009 Title I,  Part A allocation under section 1003(a) of the ESEA to LEAs with the  lowest-achieving schools in order to provide the resources to ensure that those  LEAs are ready to implement the proposed interventions.  For example, an LEA might use section 1003(a)  funds to develop a rigorous intervention strategy for these schools by reviewing  student achievement outcomes; evaluating current policies and practices that  may support or prevent reform; assessing the strengths and weaknesses of school  leaders, teachers, and staff; recruiting and training effective principals capable  of implementing the interventions proposed; or screening and identifying  necessary outside partners.

Although not every LEA and school participating in this  planning process would likely receive section 1003(g) funds, all of those LEAs  and schools can become better positioned to implement interventions that  improve student achievement through their participation in the process.  Moreover, using section 1003(a) funds to set  the conditions for reform would also allow participating LEAs and schools that  actually receive section 1003(g) funds to move more quickly in implementing the  interventions as soon as they receive their funds.

| | Sincerely, 
| | -----------
| | /s/        
| | Arne Duncan