State

Assistance Programs found on State Web sites or Related Links

  Alabama

Schools and systems receive one of three rating labels: Academic Clear, Academic Caution, or Academic Alert. Those schools and systems rated Academic Alert receive an additional ranking of 1,2,or 3. Alert 1 rating requires the schools/systems’ faculties and administrators to engage in self-study to determine reasons for low achievement and to develop school improvement plans.  If improved results are not noticed in test scores, Alert 1 school/systems are rated as Alert 2.  Alert 2 schools/systems are assigned a team appointed by the State superintendent to assist with additional planning and implementation of changes to improve performance. If improved results are not noticed, Alert 2 schools/systems are rated as Alert 3. Alert 3 schools/systems receive state intervention with a full assistance team intended to work with local superintendents, school boards, school staff, and the community to ensure that every possible action is taken to improve student performance.

  Alaska

Low performing schools are to work with their communities to implement school improvement plans designed to help students attain state standards.

  Colorado

The amount and type of assistance provided to low-achieving schools are based on local decisions.

  Connecticut

Legislation has been enacted to assist “priority schools;” however, there have not been any funds appropriated at this time. Currently, the Commissioner has the discretion to require local boards to reallocate their state and federal categorical funds to provide additional support of their “priority schools.”

  Delaware

Policies concerning assistance for low-achieving schools or systems are currently under development to be implemented in 2001.

  Florida

Schools receiving Performance Grades of D or F receive intensive assistance and intervention. This assistance may take the form of on-site assistance, preference for grants, and priority for other discretionary funds.

  Georgia

Local school systems belong to one of sixteen Regional Educational Services Agencies (RESA) which, upon request, will provide assistance to low-achieving schools. This assistance may take the form of staff development or redesign of school improvement plans (SIP). In addition, school improvement grants under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act are awarded based on SIP proposals as rated by a trained team of educators and approved by the Georgia School Improvement panel.

  Illinois

All districts receive state funding to develop a School Improvement Plan (SIP). Schools not designated as “exempt” are reviewed annually by an internal process as well as cyclically by an External Review conducted by the State Board of Education. School Improvement Teams are appointed by the State Superintendent to any district where at least one school fails to achieve adequate yearly progress. This team provided assistance in redesign and implementation of these schools’ SIPs and reports school progress regularly to the State Superintendent of Education.

  Kansas

Assistance is available in the form of state oversight with the Accreditation process. No additional assistance was reported for schools that failed to achieve accreditation or those needing additional improvement.

  Kentucky

Schools are provided assistance based on their accountability index (i.e., if the “accountability index falls below its predicted performance by at least one standard error of estimate”). Assistance may take the form of reviews by a scholastic audit team, eligibility for school improvement funds, and development of school improvement plans.

  Louisiana

Assistance intended to provide schools with additional tools and resources to help them improve student achievement is administered on three increasingly intensive levels. In Level I schools/systems work with District Assistance Teams using a state diagnostic process to identify concerns, redesign school improvement plans, and review the school’s use of resources. Although the State Board requested that the Legislature create a School Improvement Fund to provide additional resources to assist these schools, no additional funding was reported. In Level II schools/systems specially trained Distinguished Educators (DE) are assigned by the state to serve in an advisory capacity to assist in improving student achievement and publicly reporting recommendations to the school board.

  Maryland

Schools in need of improvement may request assistance from state-trained, local district Technical Assistance Teams. These teams may provide assistance with data analysis and the adoption of proven programs. In addition, schools may receive mentoring from high-achieving Title I schools.

  Massachusetts

Policies concerning assistance to low-achieving schools/systems are currently under development. No date was given for anticipated implementation.

  Mississippi

Schools/Districts rated as Accreditation Level 1 or 2 must develop corrective action plans with the state Department of Education (SDOE). The State Board of Education (SBE) will implement development programs in probationary districts that they oversee. In addition, the SBE, Superintendent of Education, or Commission on School Accreditation can call for on-site evaluations supervised by outside auditors of Level 1 or 2 school districts in order to provide technical assistance. These evaluations consist of examination of official records, interviews with school personnel, and observations. A report of any deficiencies is then submitted to the state to serve as the basis for providing technical assistance.

  Nevada

Schools are designated “demonstrating a need for improvement” when they have inadequate achievement and low attendance rates. Inadequate achievement is defined as having greater than 40% of regularly tested students in grades 4, 8, and 11 fall in the lowest national quarter in all four subject areas of the Terra Nova. For schools with all three grade levels, two of the three grade levels must meet this criterion to be designated inadequate achievement schools. Low attendance is defined as having an average daily attendance rate of less than 90% of the enrolled students for three consecutive years. Schools designated “demonstrating a need for improvement” for three or more consecutive years for inadequate achievement (or for low testing rates for two or more consecutive years) are considered on “academic probation” by the state Department of Education and are required to prepare a plan to improve the achievement of students as measured by the required tests and/or the number of students tested.

  New Jersey

Schools are evaluated in annual reviews and 7-year certification processes based upon 30 indicators related to test scores, attendance, finances, and facilities. Districts deemed unable to meet these criteria without monitoring and technical assistance receive Level II evaluations. External review teams are sent by the state to examine the district Board of Education. In addition, these districts must create corrective action plans to address the deficiencies found by the review team.

  New Mexico

Schools are eligible to receive assistance from the state on the design of their school improvement plan if their scaled scores from state standardized tests fall in the bottom 10% for three consecutive years when adjusted for three socioeconomic status factors (i.e., percent of students eligible for free and reduced lunch, rate of student mobility, and percent of Limited English Proficient students). The state may also assist with setting criteria to measure the school’s improvement.

  New York

“A district is required to prepare a local assistance plan (LAP) for schools that fall below 90 percent on any school accountability criterion [or has an annual dropout rate of ³5%]. The plan must include activities to improve performance of all students and to enable the school to meet or exceed accountability criteria.” The plans must also include information regarding the process used to develop the plan, the resources to be used to implement the plan, the professional development to be conducted to support the plan, the timeline to implement the plan, and the goals the plan is to achieve.

  North Carolina

Schools and parents develop school improvement plans (SIP) to be submitted to local Boards of Education. State assistance is available for low-achieving or at-risk schools in the form of Assistance Teams, the NC Helps Program (additional funding, professional development, curriculum alignment, data analysis, etc.) and School Improvement Grants.

  Ohio

  Oklahoma

Districts designated “low-performing” or “high-challenge” are eligible for state intervention in the form of: guidance or assistance, special funding, reassignment of district personnel, transfer of students to other districts, operation of the school by state personnel, mandatory annexation of all or part of the local school district; and operation of the school by an institution of higher learning as a developmental research school. In addition, the state board of education annually reports to the legislature test scores, indicator data, and interventions planned or implemented for these schools and districts.

  Oregon

Districts develop improvement plans to describe problem areas, to plan interventions, and to set time lines to address these problems. Schools needing program improvement must develop or revise their school improvement plans and submit them to the district for approval. The state provides ongoing technical assistance with these improvement plans.

  Rhode Island

Schools develop school improvement plans including recommendations of district personnel and Field Service Representatives based on their school visits. Next, “School Support and Intervention Agreement” is drawn up between schools, their districts, and the state department of education that specifies what district and state assistance will be provided to the school in implementing its revised plan. This assistance may take the form of district programmatic or fiscal changes for increased support as well as various assistance from the state department.

South Carolina

  Tennessee

Schools/systems placed on “notice” or on “probation” receive recommendations from the state contained in an individualized study conducted jointly by the state Department of Education and the Office of Education Accountability. The state commissioner may require the school/system to incorporate these recommendations into its improvement plan.

  Texas

Districts/schools receiving the lowest accountability ratings will be visited by a peer review team in the following school year. Districts/schools must develop an improvement plan to increase student performance. After two consecutive years of low ratings, state interventions increase.

  Vermont

All schools must develop a comprehensive action plan to improve student performance. The schools are reviewed by the commissioner every two years to determine what progress is being made. Schools making inadequate progress receive written recommendations from the commissioner to fulfill standards. After two years of inadequate progress, sanctions may be imposed.

  Washington

Policies concerning the criteria for systems to receive assistance are currently under development. No date has been given for their anticipated implementation. Currently, funding only provides assistance for schools with low math performance. Schools with high numbers of students not meeting state math standards may receive assistance from Helping Corps, statewide teams of educators. OSPI provides school improvement coordinators and specialists to provide additional technical assistance to schools and districts. The assistance provided may take the form of: help with performance data or improvement plans, consultation regarding curricula, implementation assistance for research-based instructional practices or family and community involvement programs, staff training regarding instructional strategies or classroom assessment, as well as other assistance deemed necessary. Additional funding is anticipated for professional development such as Learning Improvement Days, OSPI Summer Institutes, Math Professional Development, and Washington Reading Corps.

  West Virginia

A school with student performance levels below the full accreditation level will be classified as having Temporary Accreditation status and must revise its Unified Improvement Plan (UIP). The county board reviews the revised UIP and submits it to the State Board for approval. If approved, the school is classified as having Conditional Accreditation status and must implement the UIP as approved. If the UIP is not approved or implemented as approved, the school may be classified as Seriously Impaired. If the school is classified as Seriously Impaired, an improvement consultant team is appointed by the state board to make recommendations for improvements. The school has six months to demonstrate sufficient progress, or the county board of the school will be classified as having Temporary Approval status. The state board will then provide consultation and assistance for the county boards in the form of: improving personnel management, establishing more efficient financial management practices, improving instructional programs and rules, or making any other improvements as necessary.