School Improvement Grant

This article is part of a series on
Education in the United States
Summary
By state and in insular areas By subject area History of education in the United States History of education in Chicago History of education in Kentucky History of education in Massachusetts History of education in Missouri History of education in New York City
Issues
Accreditation Primary and secondary Post-secondary Financing Educational attainment Law Literacy Policy Post-secondary issues Bubble Cost and financing Credentialism Elite overproduction Graduate unemployment Student financial aid Student loans Reform Charter schools Inequality Achievement gaps Racial achievement gap Desegregation busing Gender achievement gap Head Start School choice School corporal punishment School meals Sexual harassment Foreign involvement
Levels of education
K–12 - Early childhood (Primary – Secondary) – Post-secondary Organizations
Education portal United States portal
v t e

School Improvement Grants (SIGs) are grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education to state education agencies (SEAs) under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (aka ESEA, reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002). The SEAs, in turn, award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEA’s, also known as school districts) for the purpose of supporting focused school improvement efforts.^[1] In 2009, the Obama administration, and specifically U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, challenged the education community to make the lowest-achieving schools its highest priority.^[2]

With funds allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. Department of Education dramatically increased the funds provided to SEAs under section 1003(g) while issuing program requirements that charged the SEAs with channeling the funds to LEAs for the “persistently lowest-achieving schools” to support rapid improvement through four relatively prescriptive intervention models:
• The turnaround model in which the LEA replaces the principal and rehires no more than 50% of the staff, gives the principal greater autonomy, and implements other prescribed and recommended strategies.
• The “restart model” in which the LEA converts or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, charter management organization, or education management organization.
• The “school closure model” in which the LEA closes the school and enrolls the students in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.
• The “transformation model” in which the LEA replaces the principal (except in specified situations), implements a rigorous staff evaluation and development system, institutes comprehensive instructional reform, increases learning time and applies community-oriented school strategies, and provides greater operational flexibility and support for the school.^[3]