Summary of States' Strategies and Consequences for ESEA Focus Schools. Solutions. Issue No. 2
Author: Perlman, Carole
Date: 2013-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Accountability,Achievement Gap,School Effectiveness,School Turnaround,Educational Strategies,Needs Assessment,Technical Assistance,Educational Finance,Budgets,Financial Support,Disabilities,English Language Learners,Graduation Rate,High Schools,Sanctions

As of January 1, 2013, 34 states and the District of Columbia have been granted waivers from certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Part of each successful flexibility application was a state accountability system that could identify priority schools (the lowest performing 5% of Title 1 schools) and focus schools (those with the greatest achievement gaps or in which subgroups are furthest behind). This document was written in response to a request made of the Building State Capacity and Productivity Center by a state education agency for information on what other states are doing to assist focus schools and what consequences will be imposed if focus schools fail to improve. This document is an attempt to summarize the states' strategies and consequences for focus schools, primarily from their responses to section 2.3.iii of the flexibility request: Describe the process and timeline the SEA will use to ensure that each LEA that has one or more focus schools will identify the specific needs of the LEA's focus schools and their students, and provide examples of and justifications for the interventions focus schools will be required to implement to improve the performance of students who are the furthest behind. Additional material is drawn from sections 1A--Adopt college-and career-ready standards; 2A--Develop and implement a State-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; 2D--Priority Schools; 2F--Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools; and 2G--Build SEA, LEA, and school capacity to improve student learning. Insofar as possible, the text in the tables comes directly from the states' flexibility requests, although in some instances language in the flexibility requests has been edited, paraphrased or summarized. For readers seeking additional information, a link to each state's approved flexibility request is given. Links to relevant state documents and resources mentioned in the requests have been provided wherever possible. The strategies used with focus schools generally include a needs assessment, development and implementation of a school improvement plan that specifically targets the groups with the greatest achievement gaps, monitoring implementation of the plan, and the provision of technical assistance by the SEA, LEA, regional service center, or outside partner. Often the alignment between budgets and identified needs is also checked and some additional funding provided. The reader should note that states varied enormously in the degree of detail provided for their proposed focus school interventions. Strategies for special populations tended to focus more on students with disabilities and English Language Learners than on other low-achieving groups or high schools with gaps in graduation rate. [For the companion report, &quot;Summary of States' Strategies for ESEA Priority Schools. Solutions. Issue No. 6,&quot; see ED559666.]