Education’s changes to SIG requirements in 2010 have led to new responsibilities for the agency, states, and school districts. These entities all play key roles in the SIG award and implementation process, with Education supporting and overseeing state SIG efforts. Before awarding formula grants to states, Education reviews each state’s application and approves the state’s proposed process for competitively awarding SIG grants and monitoring implementation. As part of the state application process, states identify and prioritize eligible schools into three tiers: Tier I schools. Receive priority for SIG funding and are the state’s lowest-achieving 5 percent of Title I schools (or 5 lowest-achieving schools, whichever number is greater) in improvement status. Tier II schools. Secondary schools eligible for, but not receiving, Title I funds with equivalently poor performance as Tier I schools. Tier III schools. Title I schools in improvement status that are not Tier I or Tier II schools. After states receive SIG funding, school districts submit applications to states describing their SIG reform plans for eligible schools. Education has required that districts base their plans on an analysis of each school’s needs, called a needs assessment. After reviewing district applications, states distribute their SIG dollars using their approved competitive grant award process, giving priority to districts seeking funding for Tier I and Tier II schools. Education’s regulations and guidance require districts receiving SIG awards for Tier I or Tier II schools to implement one of four intervention models in each school. Select aspects of each model are as follows: Transformation. Transformation schools must replace the principal, implement a transparent and equitable teacher and principal evaluation system that incorporates student academic growth, identify and reward staff who are increasing student outcomes, and provide increased student learning time, among other requirements. Turnaround. In addition to implementing many requirements of the transformation model, turnaround schools must use locally adopted competencies to screen existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent of the existing staff. Restart. The district must reopen the school under the management of a contractor, such as a charter school operator, charter management organization, or education management organization. Closure. The district must close the school and enroll its students in a higher achieving school within a reasonable proximity. Districts may choose to use contractors to implement aspects of their reform plans. Schools enacting a restart model are required to contract with an organization that will assume many of the decision-making and leadership functions in that school. Districts employing other models may also contract with external organizations for services that could include data analysis, teacher professional development, and efforts to create safe school environments. Our work notes the importance of screening potential contractors before awarding contracts, as well as regular evaluation in order to ensure contractors are providing timely and quality services with government funds. In addition to reviewing district applications, states are also responsible for monitoring grant implementation. States make decisions about whether to renew funding for each SIG school for an additional year, based on factors such as whether schools meet annual student achievement goals that districts set for the schools. Pursuant to Education’s guidance, if a school meets its annual goals, the state must renew the school’s SIG grant. If a school does not meet one or more annual goals, Education’s guidance gives states the flexibility to consider other factors such as the “fidelity with which the school is implementing” its chosen intervention model. Education provides states with technical assistance and oversight regarding SIG implementation. For example, Education funds 21 Comprehensive Centers that help build states’ capacity to assist school districts and schools. Sixteen of these organizations serve states in designated regions, and 5 provide technical assistance on specific issues, such as teacher quality. In addition, Education funds Regional Educational Laboratories, a network of 10 laboratories that serve designated regions by providing access to applied education research and development projects, studies, and other related technical assistance activities. Education also monitors states’ implementation of SIG. This monitoring process consists of visits to selected states and several SIG districts and schools within the monitored states, followed by reports documenting any findings. States have an opportunity to respond to any findings before the release of Education’s monitoring reports. States have awarded funding to two cohorts of schools since the program was modified and expanded in 2010. In the first cohort, 867 schools received SIG funding to implement one of the four intervention models in SY 2010-2011, and in the second cohort 488 schools received funding to implement one of the intervention models in SY 2011-2012. Seven have received waivers from Education to delay awarding funding statesto their second cohort of schools until SY 2012-2013 because of various issues, such as turnover of key staff in state educational agencies. The proportion of schools choosing each model was similar in both cohorts and, as shown in figure 1, most schools chose to implement the transformation model. Although most states have increased the amount of staff time devoted to SIG since the program was expanded, some states have struggled to develop the necessary staff capacity to successfully support and oversee SIG implementation because of budget constraints. In our survey, 29 states told us that they have increased the staff time devoted to SIG since they first applied for SIG funds in the expanded SIG program. However, officials from four of the eight states we visited—California, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Texas—told us that because of budgetary constraints, the time staff could devote to administering the SIG program and monitoring district implementation was significantly limited. For example, officials in California said that as a result of the state budget crisis, the state legislature reduced the amount of SIG funds available for state administration from the allowable 5 percent to 0.5 percent, limiting the number of staff available to administer the program and monitor districts. Several state officials we spoke with also reported that their existing workloads made it difficult to focus on SIG. For example, in several states the program was administered by officials who also had responsibilities for other major education programs, such as Race to the Top. In addition, state officials sometimes did not have expertise in supporting school turnaround efforts. Officials from Education and several states and research groups told us that SIG required states to support local reform efforts to a much greater extent than they had in the past, and staff in some states had not yet developed the knowledge base to fulfill these responsibilities. Even when states were able to develop expertise in school reform and hire necessary staff, officials from Education told us that personnel turnover in many states made it difficult to retain such knowledge. For example, Rhode Island officials said they encountered difficulties filling vacated positions because many nearby states were also recruiting from the same small pool of qualified applicants. Several states increased their capacity through actions such as contracting with nationally recognized experts to help them run their grant competitions, establishing school turnaround offices, or hiring turnaround specialists that regularly handled an individualized caseload of SIG schools. For example, 18 states created new turnaround offices to help districts implement SIG, according to our survey. In addition to these state level issues, many districts also struggled to develop the necessary staff capacity to implement successful school reforms. It was particularly difficult for schools to recruit and retain qualified staff members, according to many stakeholders, including officials from several states and districts we visited. They told us that SIG schools were sometimes in rural areas or needed staff to have expertise that was in short supply, such as experience with reform or specialized academic subjects. Among the 12 states that Education monitored during SY 2010-2011, they found that 4 states did not ensure that turnaround schools met requirements to remove at least half of the schools’ staff and hire new staff for those positions based on staff effectiveness. For example, Education found that one monitored district in Minnesota did not base hiring decisions on prospective teachers’ instructional effectiveness. In addition, Education found that three of the monitored states did not ensure appropriate replacement of the principal in turnaround or transformation schools. Moreover, some districts did not have staff with expertise in using performance and evaluation data—such as data on student performance—to inform plans for reforming schools and ongoing instructional improvements. Education officials said that, in many cases, school district staff were able to collect data, but did not have experience linking data to needed interventions. In addition, our review of the needs assessments districts were required to develop when planning SIG interventions showed that some were more extensive than others. Also, in one district we visited, the new teacher evaluation process did not include state assessment data on student achievement as one of the evaluation criteria, as required by Education. Several states, districts, and researchers identified promising practices for recruiting and retaining staff or improving data usage, such as developing “grow-your-own” leadership programs, conducting priority hiring for SIG schools, or hiring data coaches to help teachers collect and analyze student data. Districts also varied in their commitment to use SIG funds to enact major reforms. According to our survey, 35 of 51 states awarded grants to all or most Tier I applicants who applied for grants starting in SY 2010-2011, but several officials from states we visited and research organizations reported that some districts receiving SIG grants were not prepared to make significant reforms. For example, officials in one large school district we visited told us they followed turnaround model requirements to rehire no more than 50 percent of teachers at a SIG school. However, the district officials said they relocated the released teachers to other SIG schools in their district because those schools had almost all of the vacancies. Similarly, in two states we visited, district officials moved a school’s previous principal into another leadership position on site so that person could continue to work in the school even after a new principal was assigned. State and district officials also cited instances where districts chose their SIG model for reasons other than its likelihood of improving student success. For example, the superintendent in one district told us they chose the restart model because they considered it less restrictive than other models. Although many states responding to our survey told us that all or most of their transformation model schools were operating very differently after the first year of SIG, 33 states said that at least some of these schools choosing the transformation model were not.