Skip Navigation
Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools
NCEE 2011-4019
May 2011

5. Summary

By September 2010, all states and the District of Columbia had applied for Title I School Improvement Grants and received approval from ED. By January 2011, all states and the District of Columbia (with the exception of Hawaii) had awarded SIG funds to eligible schools. Data on these activities, collected and analyzed in this report, offer a first glimpse at the implementation of the SIG program. Through these initial steps in identifying, funding, and establishing supports for SIG schools, states have set the parameters that will define the next phase of SIG implementation.

By September 2010, all states and the District of Columbia had applied for Title I School Improvement Grants and received approval from ED. By January 2011, all states and the District of Columbia (with the exception of Hawaii) had awarded SIG funds to eligible schools. Data on these activities, collected and analyzed in this report, offer a first glimpse at the implementation of the SIG program. Through these initial steps in identifying, funding, and establishing supports for SIG schools, states have set the parameters that will define the next phase of SIG implementation.

A key finding is that states vary in their planned approach to implementing SIG. For example, state strategies for monitoring local implementation of SIG vary in both frequency and depth (8 SEAs plan to monitor LEAs monthly, while 33 SEAs plan to monitor LEAs annually; Arizona plans to conduct site visits, designate staff for monitoring, hold check-in meetings, and use electronic/online tools, while Delaware just plans to use electronic/online tools). With regard to supports for SIG schools, some states have proposed a comprehensive network of intensive supports, while others plan to offer more limited assistance (for instance, Oregon plans to enhance or restructure their SIG office and engage stakeholders, while New York plans to do all that in addition to designating district/school support teams and providing targeted professional development).

Despite all these variations, commonalities also exist among SIG-awarded schools: for instance, most SIG schools (74 percent) are implementing the transformation model, and they are more likely to be high schools (40 percent of SIG-awarded schools are high schools compared to 21 percent nationwide). Finally, compared to elementary and secondary schools nationwide, SIG-awarded schools are more likely to be high-poverty (68 percent of students in SIG schools are eligible for free and reduced price lunch compared to 45 percent of students nationwide), high-minority (73 percent of students in SIG schools are non-white compared to 45 percent of students nationwide), urban schools (53 percent of SIG schools are in large or middle-sized cities compared to 26 percent of schools nationwide).

Top