A-5. Should officials in individual schools examine the data that the SEA and LEA review? A-6. Does the SEA conduct an annual review of schools that do not receive I, Part A funding? A-7. Do the requirements for the annual review apply to charter schools? A-8. How must the LEA the results of a school’s annual review? A-9. May the SEA reward schools that meet or exceed their annual AYP targets? SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS B. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT – YEAR ONE ……………………………………. 5 B-1. What causes a school to school improvement status? B-2. What purpose is served by identifying a school for improvement? B-3. May a school appeal the SEA’s determination that the school has not made AYP for two consecutive years? B-4. Are schools that do not receive Title I, Part A funding subject to consequences if they do not meet AYP targets? B-5. How does a school exit from school improvement status? B-6. When the LEA identifies a school for improvement, what information must it provide to parents? B-7. What information must the LEA provide to both parents and the public regarding schools identified for improvement? B-8. What guidelines should SEAs, LEAs, or schools follow when communicating with parents and the public during the school improvement process? B-9. What are the responsibilities of the LEA after a school is identified for improvement? C. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ……………………………………………….. 8 C-1. What must the school do when it is identified for improvement? C-2. What is the purpose of the school improvement plan?
The LEA can use this outreach as an opportunity to establish a wider conversation about the school and invite greater parent participation in their child’s education — including participation in activities that support the school’s student achievement goals. The more transparent schools and LEAs are about student achievement and the overall condition of a school, the more likely that parents will be involved in the school and the public school system. G-7. What alternative governance arrangements must an LEA plan to implement? The restructuring plan that an LEA prepares must include one of the following “alternative governance” arrangements for the school, consistent with State law: Reopen the school as a public charter school; Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s inability to make AYP; Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public school; Turn the operation of the school over to the SEA if this action is permitted under State law and the State agrees; or Implement any major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that is consistent with the NCLB principles of restructuring. (See H-1.) The list of available alternative governance arrangements are meant to afford an LEA multiple options so that the LEA can choose the best one to address the needs of students in each identified school. Each option leverages a significant shift in how the school is governed. The purpose of restructuring is for the school to improve its ability to teach all children and achieve annual academic performance targets. By achieving this purpose, the school is also removed from restructuring status. §1116(b)(8)(B) G-8. What constitutes “other major restructuring of the school’s governance” under §1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of NCLB? The focus of the school restructuring requirement is on the alternative governance arrangements that an LEA must carry out in a school that does not make AYP for five or more years. In preparing a restructuring plan, §1116(b)(8)(B)(v) permits an LEA to choose “any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance, to improve academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.” This restructuring option provides the LEA the flexibility to choose additional reform
End of 2006-07: School makes AYP; Beginning of 2007-08: no intervention does not make AYP; no intervention End of 2006-07: School makes AYP; Beginning of 2007-08: continues in Year 2 of SI. does not make AYP; implements CA End of 2006-07: School makes AYP; Beginning of 2007-08: no intervention. does not make AYP; implements CA. End of 2006-07: School makes AYP; Beginning of 2007-08: remains in CA. does not make AYP; undergoes Year 1 of R