School Improvement Grants; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended (ESEA), 65618-65659 [E9-29183]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 236 (Thursday, December 10, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65618-65659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29183]



[[Page 65617]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II



School Improvement Grants; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 236 / Thursday, December 10, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65618]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0010]
RIN 1810-AB06


School Improvement Grants; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, as Amended (ESEA)

ACTION: Final requirements for School Improvement Grants authorized 
under section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) issues final 
requirements for School Improvement Grants authorized under section 
1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA, and funded through both the Department 
of Education Appropriations Act, 2009 and the ARRA. The final 
requirements govern the process that a State educational agency (SEA) 
uses to award school improvement funds to local educational agencies 
(LEAs) with the persistently lowest-achieving Title I schools that 
demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest 
commitment to use those funds to raise substantially the achievement of 
the students attending those schools. Under the final requirements, an 
LEA may also use school improvement funds to serve persistently lowest-
achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, 
Title I funds and Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, 
and restructuring that are not among the persistently lowest-achieving 
schools. The final requirements require an SEA to award school 
improvement funds to eligible LEAs in amounts sufficient to enable the 
persistently lowest-achieving schools to implement one of four specific 
school intervention models.

DATES: The requirements are effective February 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., U.S. 
Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W320, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 
(202) 260-0826 or by e-mail: Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) 
of the ESEA are used in Title I schools identified for improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring that demonstrate the greatest need 
for the funds and the strongest commitment to use the funds to provide 
adequate resources in order to raise substantially the achievement of 
their students so as to enable those schools to make adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) and exit improvement status. These final requirements 
emphasize the use of School Improvement Grants in each State's 
persistently lowest-achieving Title I schools as well as, through a 
waiver, a State's persistently lowest-achieving secondary schools that 
are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds.
    Availability of Funds: Appropriations for School Improvement Grants 
have grown from $125 million in fiscal year (FY) 2007 to $546 million 
in FY 2009. The ARRA provides an additional $3 billion for School 
Improvement Grants in FY 2009. These final requirements govern the 
total $3.546 billion in FY 2009 school improvement funds, an 
unprecedented sum with the potential to transform fundamentally some of 
the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools. The Secretary may 
also use these requirements in subsequent years in which this program 
is in effect.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 6303(g).

    Background:
    Statutory Context:
    Section 1003(g) of the ESEA requires the Secretary to award School 
Improvement Grants to each SEA based on the SEA's proportionate share 
of the funds it receives under Title I, Parts A, C, and D of the ESEA. 
In turn, each SEA must provide subgrants to LEAs that apply for those 
funds to assist their Title I schools identified for improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA. 
This assistance is intended to help these schools implement reform 
strategies that result in substantially improved student achievement so 
that the schools can make AYP and exit improvement status.
    To receive school improvement funds under section 1003(g), an SEA 
must submit an application to the Department at such time, and 
containing such information, as the Secretary shall reasonably require. 
An SEA must allocate at least 95 percent of its school improvement 
funds directly to LEAs, although the SEA may, with the approval of the 
LEAs that would receive the funds, directly provide assistance in 
implementing school reform strategies or arrange for their provision 
through such other entities as school support teams or educational 
service agencies. A subgrant to an LEA must be of sufficient size and 
scope to support the activities required under section 1116 of the 
ESEA. An LEA's total subgrant may not be less than $50,000 or more than 
$500,000 per year for each participating Title I school in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring. An LEA's subgrant is renewable for 
two additional one-year periods.
    In awarding School Improvement Grants, an SEA must give priority to 
LEAs that, in their application to the SEA, demonstrate (1) the 
greatest need for the funds and (2) the strongest commitment to 
ensuring that the funds are used to provide adequate resources to 
enable the lowest-achieving schools to raise substantially the 
achievement of their students.
    Overview of Final Requirements:
    The Secretary published a notice of proposed requirements (NPR) for 
this program in the Federal Register on August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43101). 
That notice contained background information and the Secretary's 
rationale for focusing the historic FY 2009 investment in School 
Improvement Grants on turning around our Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools. The final requirements retain the general provisions 
proposed in the NPR with some changes described later in this notice. 
We note where provisions in the NPR have been reorganized and 
renumbered in these final requirements.
    To drive school improvement funds to LEAs with the greatest need 
for those funds, the Secretary is requiring each SEA to identify three 
tiers of schools:
     Tier I schools: Title I schools in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring that are identified by the SEA under paragraph 
(a)(1) of the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools.
     Tier II schools: Secondary schools that are eligible for, 
but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds and are identified by the SEA 
under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of persistently lowest-
achieving schools.
     Tier III schools: Title I schools in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring that are not Tier I schools.
    An LEA that wishes to receive a School Improvement Grant must 
submit an application to its SEA identifying which Tier I, Tier II, and 
Tier III schools it commits to serve and how it will use school 
improvement funds in its Tier I and Tier II schools to implement one of 
the following four school intervention models intended to improve the 
management and effectiveness of these schools:
     Turnaround model, which includes, among other actions, 
replacing the principal and rehiring no more than 50 percent of the 
school's staff, adopting

[[Page 65619]]

a new governance structure, and implementing an instructional program 
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the 
next as well as aligned with a State's academic standards.
     Restart model, in which an LEA converts the school or 
closes and reopens it under the management of a charter school 
operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education 
management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous 
review process.
     School closure, in which an LEA closes the school and 
enrolls the students who attended the school in other, higher-achieving 
schools in the LEA.
     Transformation model, which addresses four specific areas 
critical to transforming persistently lowest-achieving schools.
    We have fully aligned the school intervention models and related 
definitions across the Race to the Top, the State Fiscal Stabilization 
Fund Phase II, and the School Improvement Grants programs to make it 
easier for States to develop and implement consistent and coherent 
plans for turning around their persistently lowest-achieving schools.
    In awarding School Improvement Grants to an eligible LEA, an SEA 
must provide sufficient funding to the LEA, consistent with its 
proposed budget, to implement the selected school intervention model in 
each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA commits to serve, to close 
schools, and to serve participating Tier III schools. An LEA's total 
grant award must contain funds for each Title I school in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring that the LEA commits to serve, 
including $500,000 per year for each Tier I school that will implement 
a turnaround, restart, or transformation model unless the LEA 
demonstrates that less funding is needed to fully and effectively 
implement its selected intervention.\1\ Once an LEA receives its School 
Improvement Grant, it has the flexibility to spend more than $500,000 
per year in its Tier I and Tier II schools so long as all schools 
identified in its application are served. Recognizing that it takes 
time to implement rigorous interventions and reap results in the 
persistently lowest-achieving schools, the final requirements enable an 
SEA or LEA to apply to the Secretary for a waiver of the period of 
availability of school improvement funds beyond September 30, 2011 so 
as to make those funds available to LEAs for up to three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An SEA may award school improvement funds to an LEA based 
only on the Title I participating schools that the LEA identifies in 
its application. Tier II schools will, thus, not generate any funds 
because they are not Title I schools in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring; however, the LEA may serve them, through a 
waiver requested by the SEA or LEA, with the school improvement 
funds the LEA receives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because data are critical to informing and evaluating the 
effectiveness of the rigorous interventions being implemented, SEAs and 
LEAs must report specific school-level data related to the use of 
school improvement funds and the impact of the specific interventions 
implemented.
    Availability of State Administrative Funds:
    The Secretary has taken two actions to assist SEAs in preparing to 
implement the final requirements at both the State and local levels. 
First, the Secretary published in the Federal Register a notice of 
final adjustments that permits each SEA to reserve an additional 
percentage of Title I, Part A funds (0.3 or 0.5 percent of its Title I, 
Part A ARRA allocation, depending on whether the SEA requests waivers 
of certain requirements) to help defray the costs associated with ARRA 
data collection and reporting requirements (74 FR 55215 (Oct. 27, 
2009)), including those required by ARRA School Improvement Grants. 
Second, the Secretary is awarding immediately the full amount each 
State may reserve from its FY 2009 School Improvement Grant for State 
administration, technical assistance, and evaluation. These funds may 
be used at the State level for such activities as preparing the State 
application and developing LEA applications as well as providing 
technical assistance to LEAs with persistently lowest-achieving schools 
that will be likely to receive a School Improvement Grant. Such 
technical assistance might include disseminating model processes to 
assist LEAs in carrying out needs assessments and screening partner 
organizations; initiating State or regional efforts to recruit and 
develop principals to serve in persistently lowest-achieving schools; 
attracting EMOs and CMOs to the State to restart persistently lowest-
achieving schools; and developing sample competencies that LEAs can use 
to review staff to work in a turnaround environment. An SEA may also 
allocate some of the funds to LEAs in order to provide resources to 
ensure that those LEAs are ready to implement the interventions in 
their Tier I and Tier II schools if and when they receive a School 
Improvement Grant. An LEA might, for example, use the funds to review 
student achievement; evaluate current policies and practices that 
support or impede reform; assess the strengths and weaknesses of school 
leaders, teachers, and staff; recruit and train effective principals 
capable of implementing an intervention; or identify and screen outside 
partners.
    Major Changes from the School Improvement Grants NPR:
    The following is a summary of the major, substantive changes we 
made based on public comments on the School Improvement Grants NPR as 
well as the NPR for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II 
program and the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for the Race to the Top program. 
The rationale for each of these changes is discussed in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section of this notice.

Major Changes Made in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II 
Notice of Final Requirements, Definitions, and Approval Criteria

    Because a central purpose of ARRA funds is to increase the academic 
achievement of students in struggling schools, the notices regarding 
the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II, the Race to the Top Fund, 
and the School Improvement Grants programs each included requirements 
related to struggling schools. Commenters on each notice recommended 
that the Department apply consistent definitions and requirements for 
struggling schools across all three programs. In response, we revised 
the four school intervention models proposed in the School Improvement 
Grants NPR and integrated them into the criteria, definitions, and 
requirements for all three programs. In addition, we developed several 
definitions for use in all three programs.
    Because the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II notice of 
final requirements was the first to be published (74 FR 58436 (Nov. 12, 
2009)), we issued, in that notice, the final requirements for the four 
school intervention models as well as definitions of persistently 
lowest-achieving schools, increased learning time, and student growth. 
The following summarizes the changes reflected in those final 
requirements from the School Improvement Grants NPR. (The section 
citations from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II notice for 
the school intervention models are preceded by ``I.A.2'' and the 
definitions are in new section I.A.3 to conform to the remaining 
citations in the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants 
program.)
     New section I.A.3 adds a definition of persistently 
lowest-achieving

[[Page 65620]]

schools \2\ that incorporates, with the following changes, the proposed 
definitions of Tier I and Tier II schools:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Persistently lowest-achieving schools are the same schools 
targeted in the Race to the Top competitive grant program and on 
which States must report under Phase II of the State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund under the ARRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An SEA must include Title I participating and Title I 
eligible, but not participating, high schools that have had a 
graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), of less than 60 
percent over a number of years.
     An SEA must identify the lowest-achieving five percent of 
secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the 
State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, 
whichever number of schools is greater.
     An SEA has discretion to define ``lack of progress'' in 
the ``all students'' group to identify its persistently lowest-
achieving schools.
     New Section I.A.3 adds a definition of increased learning 
time as that term is used in the definitions for the turnaround and 
transformation models.
     New Section I.A.3 adds a definition of student growth as 
that term is used in describing evaluation systems for teachers and 
principals in the transformation model.
     Section I.A.2(a) makes the following changes in the 
turnaround model:
     In new paragraph (a)(1)(i) (proposed (a)(i)), an LEA must 
give the principal sufficient operational flexibility to implement 
fully a comprehensive approach to improving student achievement and 
increasing graduation rates.
     In new paragraph (a)(1)(ii), using locally adopted 
competencies, an LEA must screen all staff, rehiring no more than 50 
percent, and select new staff.
     In new paragraph (a)(1)(vi) (proposed (a)(vi)), an LEA 
must use data to identify and implement an instructional program that 
is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as 
well as aligned with the State's academic standards.
     New section I.A.2(a)(2) clarifies that a turnaround model 
may include any of the required and permissible activities under the 
transformation model and may be a new school model.
     Section I.A.2(b) clarifies that, in the restart model, an 
LEA may convert a school as well as close and reopen it. This section 
also adds definitions of CMO and EMO that were in the preamble of the 
School Improvement Grants NPR.
     Section I.A.2(c) clarifies that, in the school closure 
model, students from a closed school must be enrolled in higher-
achieving schools that should be within reasonable proximity to the 
closed school and may include, but are not limited to, new schools as 
well as charter schools.
     Section I.A.2(d) makes the following changes in the 
transformation model:
     In new paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) (proposed (d)(i)(A)(1)), an 
LEA must use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems 
for teachers and principals that take into account data on student 
growth and other factors such as observation-based assessments of 
performance and collections of professional practice and that are 
designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.
     In new paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) (proposed (d)(i)(A)(2)), an 
LEA must reward staff who increase student achievement and graduation 
rates and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been 
provided to improve their professional practice, have not done so.
     In new paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(C), an LEA may provide 
additional supports and professional development to teachers and 
principals on implementing effective strategies to support students 
with disabilities in the least restrictive environment and to ensure 
that limited English proficient students \3\ acquire language skills to 
master academic content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Department recognizes that stakeholders often use terms 
such as ``English language learners'' rather than ``students who are 
limited English proficient'' when referring to students who are 
acquiring basic English proficiency and developing academic English 
skills. However, because the ESEA defines the term ``limited English 
proficient,'' and both the statute and the implementing regulations 
use this term, as well as the phrase ``students with limited English 
proficiency,'' we will continue to use the latter terms in this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In new paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), an LEA may integrate 
technology-based supports and interventions as part of a school's 
instructional program.
     In new paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E)(1) (proposed 
(d)(ii)(B)(3)(a)), an LEA may offer advanced coursework that includes 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially 
those that incorporate rigorous and relevant project-, inquiry-, or 
design-based contextual learning opportunities.
     In new paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E)(3) (proposed 
(d)(ii)(B)(3)(c)), an LEA may use, among other strategies, re-
engagement strategies, competency-based instruction, and performance-
based assessments to increase graduation rates.
     In new paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E)(4), an LEA may establish 
early-warning systems to identify students who may be at risk of 
failing to achieve to high standards or graduate.
     In new paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(D), an LEA may expand the 
school program to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten.

Major Changes Made in These Final Requirements

    The following summarizes the major changes from the School 
Improvement Grants NPR that we are making in these final requirements.
     New section I.B.4 clarifies that an SEA may seek a waiver 
from the Secretary to enable an LEA to use school improvement funds to 
serve a Tier II secondary school.
     New section I.B.5 clarifies that an SEA may seek a waiver 
from the Secretary to extend the period of availability of school 
improvement funds beyond September 30, 2011 so as to make those funds 
available to the SEA and its LEAs for up to three years.
     New section I.B.6 clarifies that, if an SEA does not seek 
a waiver under sections I.B.2, I.B.3, I.B.4, or I.B.5, an LEA may seek 
a waiver.
     New section II.A.2(a) (proposed II.A.2) clarifies that an 
LEA's application must include, among other items, the specific 
intervention the LEA will implement in each Tier I and Tier II school 
it commits to serve; evidence of the LEA's strong commitment to use 
school improvement funds to implement the selected interventions; a 
timeline for implementation; and a budget.
     New section II.A.2(b) (proposed II.A.2) prohibits an LEA 
that has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools from implementing the 
transformation model in more than 50 percent of those schools.
     Section II.A.4 clarifies that an LEA's budget may request 
less than $500,000 for a Tier I or Tier II school if the LEA 
demonstrates that less funding is needed to fully and effectively 
implement the selected intervention.
     Section II.A.7 requires an LEA to measure progress on the 
leading indicators in section III of these requirements and to 
establish annual goals for student achievement on the State's 
assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics to monitor 
each Tier I and Tier II school that receives school improvement funds.
     New section II.B.2(c) clarifies that an SEA, consistent 
with State law, may take over an LEA or specific Tier I or Tier II 
schools in order to implement one of the four interventions.
     New section II.B.2(d) clarifies that an SEA may not 
require an LEA to implement a particular intervention in

[[Page 65621]]

one or more schools unless the SEA has taken over the LEA or school.
     New section II.B.3 requires an SEA to post on its Web site 
all final LEA applications for School Improvement Grants and a summary 
of those grants that includes the following information: name and 
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) identification number 
of each LEA awarded a grant; amount of each LEA's grant; name and NCES 
identification number of each school to be served; and type of 
intervention to be implemented in each Tier I and Tier II school.
     Section II.B.6 requires an SEA to allocate $500,000 per 
year for each Tier I school unless the SEA determines on a case-by-case 
basis, considering such factors as school size, the intervention 
selected, and other relevant circumstances, that less funding is needed 
to fully and effectively implement the intervention.
     New section II.B.10(a) requires an SEA not serving every 
Tier I school in a State with FY 2009 school improvement funds to carry 
over 25 percent of those funds, combine them with FY 2010 school 
improvement funds (depending on the availability of appropriations), 
and award those funds to eligible LEAs consistent with these final 
requirements. That section exempts from this requirement, however, a 
State that does not have sufficient school improvement funds to serve 
all the Tier I schools that LEAs in the State commit to serve. If each 
Tier I school is served with FY 2009 school improvement funds, new 
section II.B.10(b) permits an SEA to reserve up to 25 percent of its FY 
2009 funds and award them in combination with its FY 2010 funds 
(depending on the availability of appropriations) consistent with the 
final requirements.
     New section II.B.11 requires an SEA, in identifying Tier I 
and Tier II schools for purposes of allocating school improvement funds 
in years following FY 2009, to exclude from consideration any school 
that was previously identified and in which an LEA is implementing one 
of the four school intervention models.
     New section II.B.12 requires an SEA that is participating 
in the ``differentiated accountability pilot'' to ensure that its LEAs 
use school improvement funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in a 
Tier I or Tier II school consistent with these requirements.
     New section II.B.13 clarifies that, before submitting its 
application for a School Improvement Grant to the Department, an SEA 
must consult with its Committee of Practitioners established under 
section 1903(b) of the ESEA regarding the rules and policies contained 
therein and may consult with other stakeholders that have an interest 
in its application.
     Section III makes the following changes to the reporting 
metrics:
     Modifies the metric on State assessment scores to require 
SEAs to report on average scale scores on State assessments in reading/
language arts and in mathematics, by grade, for the ``all students'' 
group, for each achievement quartile, and for each subgroup.
     Modifies the metric regarding English proficiency of Title 
III limited English proficient students by expanding it to apply to all 
limited English proficient students in Tier I and Tier II schools who 
attain English proficiency.
     Removes the metric regarding ``AMAO status for LEP 
students.''
     Modifies the metric on advanced coursework to require SEAs 
to report the number and percentage of students completing advanced 
coursework.
     Modifies the metric regarding the number of instructional 
minutes to require SEAs to report the number of minutes within the 
school year.
     Clarifies that SEAs must report rates of ``student 
attendance'' and ``teacher attendance.''
    Analysis of Comments and Changes:
    In response to our invitation in the NPR, 182 parties submitted 
comments. An analysis of the comments and any changes in response to 
those comments follows. Generally, we do not address technical and 
other minor changes.

Analysis of Comments and Changes Included in the State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund Phase II Notice of Final Requirements, Definitions, 
and Approval Criteria

    The following discussion summarizes the comments we received, and 
our responses, on the definitions of Tier I and Tier II schools 
proposed in the School Improvement Grants NPR that are now included in 
the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools. This 
discussion also summarizes the comments and our responses on the four 
school intervention models proposed in the School Improvement Grants 
NPR. These comments and responses were first published in the State 
Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II Notice of Final Requirements, 
Definitions, and Approval Criteria (74 FR 58436 (Nov. 12, 2009)) and 
are repeated here verbatim.

Definition of Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools

    Comment: A number of commenters recommended alternatives to the 
process proposed in the [School Improvement Grants] SIG NPR for 
determining the lowest-achieving five percent of all Title I schools in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State--that is, 
``Tier I'' schools. As proposed in the SIG NPR, a Tier I school is a 
school in the lowest-achieving five percent of all Title I schools in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, or one 
of the five lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is 
greater. Under the SIG NPR, to determine this ``bottom five percent,'' 
a State would have had to consider both the absolute performance of a 
school on the State's assessments in reading/language arts and 
mathematics and whether its gains on those assessments for the ``all 
students'' group over a number of years were less than the average 
gains of schools in the State for the ``all students'' group.
    Several commenters said this proposed process was too prescriptive 
and recommended that States have more flexibility in determining the 
lowest-achieving five percent. The commenters specifically suggested 
permitting States to restrict Tier I schools to schools in 
restructuring if this group constitutes more than five percent of a 
State's identified schools; to apply a State's growth model; or to 
consider such other factors as measures of individual student growth, 
writing samples, grades, and portfolios. One commenter suggested that 
the Department determine the lowest-achieving five percent of schools 
in the Nation rather than have each State determine its own lowest-
achieving five percent. Other commenters recommended changes that 
include taking into account the length of time a school has been 
designated for restructuring, measuring gains related to English 
language proficiency, and including newly designated Title I schools 
(especially secondary schools) that do not yet have an improvement 
status.
    Several commenters also suggested changing the method for 
determining ``lack of progress,'' including using subgroups rather than 
the ``all students'' group, measuring progress in meeting adequate 
yearly progress targets, and narrowing achievement gaps. Another 
commenter recommended clarifying that, even if a school shows gains 
greater than the State average, it should

[[Page 65622]]

not be considered to be making progress if those gains are not greater 
than zero.
    Finally, several commenters suggested that graduation rates be 
taken into account in determining the lowest-achieving Title I high 
schools. One of these commenters suggested including in Tier I all 
Title I high schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring with a graduation rate below 60 percent as well as their 
feeder middle and junior high schools.
    Discussion: In developing our proposed definition of the lowest-
achieving five percent of schools for each State as defined in the SIG 
NPR, we considered several alternatives, including the use of the 
existing ESEA improvement categories and the possibility of using a 
measure that would identify the lowest-achieving five percent of 
schools in the Nation rather than on a State-by-State basis. The goal 
was to identify a uniform measure that could be applied easily by all 
States using existing assessment data. We started with Title I schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as the initial 
universe from which to select the lowest-achieving schools because 
those are the schools eligible to receive SIG funds. ESEA improvement 
categories were deemed too dependent on variations in individual 
subgroup performance, rather than the overall performance of an entire 
school, to reliably identify our worst schools. A nationwide measure, 
although appealing from the perspective of national education policy, 
would likely have identified many schools in a handful of States and 
few or none in the majority of States, making it an inappropriate guide 
for the most effective use of State formula grant funds.
    In general, we believe that the changes and alternatives suggested 
by commenters would add complexity to the method for determining the 
lowest-achieving five percent of schools without meaningfully improving 
the outcome. With the changes noted subsequently, we believe the 
definition proposed in the SIG NPR is straightforward, can be easily 
applied using data available in all States, and can produce easily 
understood results in the form of a list of State's lowest-achieving 
schools that have not improved in a number of years.
    Regarding the determination of whether a school is making progress 
in improving its scores on State assessments, the commenters 
highlighted the complexity and potential unreliability of measuring 
year-to-year gains on such assessments. In response, we are simplifying 
this aspect of the definition to give SEAs greater flexibility in 
determining a school's lack of progress on State assessments over a 
number of years.
    We also agree that it is important to include Title I high schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have low 
graduation rates in the definition. The Secretary has made addressing 
our Nation's unacceptably high drop-out rates--an estimated 1 million 
students leave school annually, many never to return--a national 
priority. In recognition of this priority, and in response to 
recommendations from commenters, we are including in the definition any 
Title I high school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring 
that has had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a 
number of years.
    Accordingly, we have made these changes and incorporated the 
process for determining the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I 
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring--also known 
as Tier I schools for purposes of SIG funds--into a new definition of 
persistently lowest-achieving schools in this notice.
    Changes: The Department has added a definition of persistently 
lowest-achieving schools to this notice that incorporates the process 
described in the SIG NPR for determining the lowest-achieving five 
percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring (or the lowest-achieving five such schools, whichever 
number of schools is greater) (``Tier I'' schools for purposes of SIG). 
This new definition also includes any Title I high school in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that has had a 
graduation rate of less than 60 percent over a number of years (as will 
the ``Tier I'' definition for SIG purposes). We have removed language 
in proposed section I.A.1.a(ii) of the SIG NPR defining ``a school that 
has not made progress.''
    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for including 
chronically low-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but 
not receiving Title I funds as Tier II schools, as proposed in section 
I.A.1.b in the SIG NPR, including one commenter who suggested that LEAs 
be required to fund Tier II schools. Other commenters, however, opposed 
the use of Title I funds in non-Title I schools and recommended that 
other funding be identified to serve those schools or stated that the 
inclusion of those schools is more appropriately addressed in the Title 
I reauthorization. One commenter suggested that it would not be 
appropriate to provide Title I funds to such schools when the SIG NPR 
would restrict the number of Title I schools that can be served in Tier 
I.
    Discussion: We believe that low-achieving secondary schools often 
present unique resource, logistical, and pedagogical challenges that 
require rigorous interventions to address. Yet, many such schools that 
are eligible to receive Title I funds are not served because of 
competing needs for Title I funds within an LEA. The large amounts of 
ARRA funds--available through Stabilization, Race to the Top, and SIG--
present an opportunity to address the needs of these low-achieving 
secondary schools. Accordingly, we have continued in this notice to 
include secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, 
Title I funds in the definition of the persistently lowest-achieving 
schools in a State.
    As proposed in the SIG NPR, such secondary schools would have been 
eligible if they were equally as low-achieving as a Tier I school. We 
realized that this standard was too vague, particularly in light of the 
rigorous interventions that would be required if an SEA identified, and 
an LEA decided to serve, such a school. As a result, we have changed 
the definition to include secondary schools that are eligible for, but 
do not receive, Title I funds and that are among the lowest-achieving 
five percent of such schools in a State (or the lowest five such 
schools, whichever number of schools is greater). An SEA must identify 
these schools using the same criteria as it uses to identify the 
lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, and 
restructuring.
    For the reasons noted earlier in this notice, we have also included 
in the definition any high school that is eligible for, but does not 
receive, Title I funds and that has had a graduation rate that is less 
than 60 percent over a number of years.
    Changes: The Department has added a definition of persistently 
lowest-achieving schools to this notice that incorporates the lowest-
achieving five percent of secondary schools in a State that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds (or the lowest-
achieving five such schools, whichever number of schools is greater) 
(``Tier II'' schools for purposes of SIG). This new definition also 
includes any high school that is eligible for, but does not receive, 
Title I funds that has had a graduation rate of less than 60 percent 
over a number of years (as will the ``Tier II'' definition for SIG 
purposes). We have removed language in proposed section I.A.1.b of the 
SIG NPR that required a comparison of the achievement of secondary 
schools to Tier I schools.

[[Page 65623]]

General Comments on the Four Intervention Models

    Comment: One commenter supported the Secretary's intent in 
proposing the four interventions in the SIG NPR. The commenter noted 
that the majority of SIG funds are intended to target the very lowest-
achieving schools in the Nation--schools that have not just missed 
their accountability targets by narrow margins or in a single subgroup. 
Rather, they are schools that have ``profoundly fail[ed]'' their 
students ``for some time.'' Accordingly, the commenter acknowledged 
that the four interventions are appropriately designed to engage these 
schools in bold, dramatic changes or else to close their doors.
    Conversely, several commenters suggested that the four 
interventions are too prescriptive and do not leave room for State 
innovation and discretion to fashion similarly rigorous interventions 
that may be more workable in a particular State. The commenters noted 
that for some school districts, particularly the most rural districts, 
none of the interventions may be feasible solutions. In addition, 
several commenters rejected the idea that there should be any Federal 
requirements governing struggling schools. The commenters suggested 
that schools in need of improvement be permitted to engage in self-
improvement strategies tailored to each individual school's needs as 
determined at the local level based on local data, rather than being 
mandated to adopt specific models by the Federal Government.
    Discussion: We disagree that the four models limit State 
innovation. Each model provides flexibility and permits LEAs to develop 
approaches that are tailored to the needs of their schools within the 
broad context created by each model's requirements. We do not believe 
that any one model is appropriate for all schools; rather, it is the 
Department's intention that LEAs select the model that is appropriate 
for each particular school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested adding a fifth intervention 
option. One commenter, for example, suggested permitting States to 
propose an alternative, but rigorous, intervention model for approval 
through a peer review process. The commenter noted that whatever 
accountability measure is adopted in the SIG notice of final 
requirements should serve to ensure that the model is held accountable 
for results. Another commenter suggested a ``scale up'' model, in which 
an LEA could use SIG funds to expand interventions with documented 
success in producing rapid improvement in student achievement within 
that LEA or in another LEA with similar demographics and challenges. 
Yet another commenter suggested adding a ``supported transformation'' 
model to accommodate, in particular, the needs of children in low-
achieving schools in small, rural communities that lack the capacity to 
transform their schools. The commenter identified the need for an SEA 
to build the capacity of struggling LEAs by working to develop models 
for intervention, to identify specific evidence-based intervention 
strategies, and to provide ongoing, intensive technical, pedagogical, 
and practical assistance so as to increase LEAs' capacity to assist 
their low-achieving schools.
    Discussion: We included the four school intervention models in the 
SIG NPR after an extensive examination of available research and 
literature on school turnaround strategies and after outreach to 
practitioners. Our goal, which we believe was achieved, was to identify 
fundamental, disruptive changes that LEAs could make in order to 
finally break the long cycle of educational failure--including the 
failure of previous reforms--in the Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools. We also believe that these models, despite their 
limited number, potentially encompass a wide range of specific reform 
approaches, thus negating the need for a ``fifth model.'' We 
understand, for example, that school closure may not work in some LEAs, 
but that leaves the turnaround, restart, or transformation models as 
possible options for them. We also know that not all States have a 
charter school law, limiting the restart options available to LEAs in 
such States. However, even where charter schools are not an option, an 
LEA could work with an Education Management Organization (EMO) to 
restart a failed school or could pursue one of the other three 
intervention models. And we understand that some rural areas may face 
unique challenges in turning around low-achieving schools, but note 
that the significant amount of funding available to implement the four 
models will help to overcome the many resource limitations that 
previously have hindered successful rural school reform in many areas.
    The four school intervention models described in the SIG NPR also 
are internally flexible, permitting LEAs to develop their own 
approaches in the broad context created by the models' requirements. 
For example, the turnaround and restart models focus on governance and 
leadership changes, leaving substantial flexibility and autonomy for 
new leadership teams to develop and implement their own comprehensive 
improvement plans. Even the transformation model includes a wide 
variety of permissible activities from which LEAs may choose to 
supplement required elements, which are primarily focused on creating 
the conditions to support effective school turnarounds rather than the 
specific methods and activities targeting the academic needs of the 
students in the school.
    We also note that over the course of the past eight years, States 
and LEAs have had considerable time, and have been able to tap new 
resources, to identify and implement effective school turnaround 
strategies. Yet they have demonstrated little success in doing so, 
particularly in the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools, 
including an estimated 2,000 ``dropout factories.'' Under the ESEA, 
States have been required to set up statewide systems of support for 
LEA and school improvement; to identify low-achieving schools for a 
range of improvement, corrective action, and restructuring activities; 
and to use the school improvement reservation under section 1003(a) of 
the ESEA to fund such improvement activities. However, the overall 
number of schools identified for improvement, corrective action, and 
restructuring continues to grow; in particular, the number of 
chronically low-achieving Title I schools identified for restructuring 
has roughly tripled over the past three years to more than 5,000 
schools. SEAs have thus far helped no more than a handful of these 
schools to successfully restructure and exit improvement status, in 
large part, we believe, because of an unwillingness to undertake the 
kind of radical, fundamental reforms necessary to improve the 
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
    Finally, although we believe this recent history of failed school 
improvement efforts justifies using ARRA SIG funds to leverage the 
adoption of the more far-reaching reforms required by the four school 
intervention models, we note that Part A of Title I of the ESEA 
continues to make available nearly $15 billion annually, as well as an 
additional $10 billion in fiscal year 2009 through the ARRA, that SEAs 
and LEAs may use to develop and implement virtually any reform strategy 
that they believe will significantly improve student achievement and 
other important educational outcomes in Title I schools. In particular, 
we would applaud State

[[Page 65624]]

and local efforts to use existing Title I funds to scale up successful 
interventions or to build State and local capacity to develop and 
implement other promising school intervention models. For all of these 
reasons, we decline to add a fifth school intervention model to this 
notice.
    Changes: None.

Turnaround Model

Principal and Staff Replacement

    Comment: Many commenters opposed replacing principals and staff as 
part of the turnaround model. Although several commenters acknowledged 
that poor leadership and ineffective staff contribute to a school's low 
performance, a majority claimed that staff replacement has not been 
established as an effective reform strategy, others stated that such a 
strategy is not a realistic option in many communities that already 
face teacher and principal shortages, and one commenter suggested that 
replacement requirements associated with turnaround plans would 
discourage teachers and principals from working in struggling schools.
    In addition, many commenters opposed sanctioning principals and 
staff, partly because, as one commenter claimed, the turnaround model 
assumes that most problems in a school are attributable to these 
individuals. One stated that principals face ``trying'' circumstances 
and another stated that the proposed requirements ignore the ``vital 
role'' that principals play in high-need schools. These commenters 
stated that other factors--such as poverty, lack of proper support, and 
tenure and collective bargaining laws--should be addressed before 
decisions are made to replace principals and staff. One commenter 
claimed that principals and teachers in low-achieving schools could 
perform their jobs if they are given adequate training and support and 
working conditions are improved. Another opposed the replacement 
requirement because the commenter believed a stable and consistent 
staff is a key factor in school improvement.
    Discussion: We understand that replacing leadership and staff is 
one of the most difficult aspects of the four models; however, we also 
know that many of our lowest-achieving schools have failed to improve 
despite the repeated use of many of the strategies suggested by the 
commenters. The emphasis of the ARRA on turning around struggling 
schools also reflects, in part, an acknowledgement by the Congress that 
past efforts have had limited or no success in breaking the cycle of 
chronic educational failure in the Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools.
    Accordingly, the Department believes that dramatic and wholesale 
changes in leadership, staffing, and governance--such as those required 
by the turnaround model--are an appropriate intervention option for 
creating an entirely new school culture that breaks a system of 
institutionalized failure. Although we acknowledge the possibility that 
the turnaround model could discourage some principals and teachers from 
working in the lowest-achieving schools, others will likely be 
attracted by the opportunity to participate in a school turnaround with 
other committed staff. In addition, other Federal programs, such as the 
Teacher Incentive Fund and Race to the Top programs, are helping to 
create incentives and provide resources that can be used to attract and 
reward effective teachers and principals and improve strategies for 
recruitment, retention, and professional development.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended changes to the 
principal and staff replacement requirements. One commenter proposed a 
detailed ``fifth model'' that focused upon providing additional support 
to teachers by improving working conditions, such as reducing class 
size and providing professional development opportunities. Others 
recommended (1) providing a principal with the autonomy to make his or 
her own firing and hiring decisions instead of requiring the 
replacement of 50 percent of the staff; (2) allowing staff to reapply 
for their positions; (3) retaining principals who were recently hired; 
(4) providing principals with a ``window'' of opportunity to improve 
their schools before being replaced; (5) suggesting that the 
replacement requirement extend to superintendents and boards of 
education; (6) retaining at least 50 percent of current staff who 
reapply and meet all of the requirements of the redesigned school; and 
(7) focusing on staff qualifications and putting in place effective 
staff rather than on a particular target level of replacements.
    Discussion: We agree with some of the changes to the turnaround 
model suggested by commenters. For example, new language in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of the turnaround model recognizes the vital role played by 
the principal and acknowledges that new principals need authority to 
make key changes required to turn around a failing school. Under this 
new language, the new principal of a turnaround school would have 
``sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/
time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to 
substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high 
school graduation rates.''
    We also recognize that the staff selected for a turnaround school 
must have the skill and expertise to be effective in this context. We 
are adding language clarifying that all personnel must be screened and 
selected based on locally adopted competencies to measure their 
effectiveness in a turnaround environment.
    In addition, while the SIG NPR would have required an LEA to 
replace at least 50 percent of the staff of a turnaround school, new 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of the turnaround model requires an LEA, after 
screening all staff using locally adopted competencies, to rehire no 
more than 50 percent of the school's staff. Further, some commenters 
appear to have overlooked proposed section I.B.1 in the SIG NPR, which 
would give LEAs flexibility to continue implementing interventions 
begun within the last two years that meet, in whole or in part, the 
requirements of the turnaround, restart, or transformation models and, 
thus, would in many cases allow an LEA to retain a recently hired 
principal in a turnaround school. We are retaining this flexibility 
provision in this notice.
    Finally, the turnaround model includes significant provisions aimed 
at supporting teachers. For example, the SIG NPR called for ``ongoing, 
high-quality, job-embedded professional development to staff,'' as well 
as increased time for collaboration and professional development for 
staff. These supports for teachers and other staff are retained in this 
final notice.
    Changes: We have modified the provisions in the turnaround model in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) to give the new principal of a turnaround school 
``sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/
time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in 
order to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and 
increase high school graduation rates.'' As described earlier, we have 
also revised paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to require that an LEA use locally 
adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who can work 
within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students. In 
addition, instead of the requirement that an LEA replace ``at least 50 
percent of the staff'' in a turnaround school, paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) 
of the definition requires an

[[Page 65625]]

LEA to screen and rehire ``no more than 50 percent'' of the existing 
staff.
    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concerns that a national 
shortage of principals and teachers would prevent successful 
implementation of the turnaround model. Two commenters stated that, in 
order to replace half of the staff as required by the turnaround model, 
an LEA would likely be forced to hire less experienced teachers and 
rely on emergency credentials or licensure to fully staff a turnaround 
school. One commenter claimed that research shows that large pools of 
available applicants are essential for successful replacement of 
principals and teachers. Another commenter stated that there is a 
``national shortage of transformational leaders'' who can lead 
turnaround schools. Further, many commenters claimed that replacing 
half of a school's staff would be difficult or even impossible in rural 
schools and small communities. One commenter asserted that the shortage 
of teachers in rural areas would disqualify these LEAs from applying 
for school improvement funds. Another stated that even with recruitment 
incentives it would be difficult to fill staff vacancies. One commenter 
urged the Secretary to take such shortages into account before 
requiring ``blanket firings'' of teachers. In addition, several 
commenters observed that chronically low-performing schools already 
suffer from a number of vacancies due to high staff turnover rates. In 
fact, one commenter believed replacing 50 percent of the staff was not 
a ``tough'' consequence because these schools already experience high 
turnover.
    These concerns led several commenters to recommend flexibility 
regarding the staff replacement requirement of the turnaround model, 
including the opportunity to request a waiver if an LEA could 
demonstrate an inability to fill vacancies, and a required evaluation 
before principals and staff can be replaced. Other commenters opposed 
the replacement of principals without consideration of such factors as 
years of experience and district-level support, recommended a three-
year window in which to make replacement decisions based upon multiple 
measures, and suggested the provision of high-quality professional 
development before replacing any staff.
    Discussion: We recognize that the replacement requirement will 
present challenges for LEAs, particularly in rural areas, where highly 
effective principals and teachers capable of leading educational 
transformation may be in short supply; however, the difficulty of 
identifying new qualified teachers and school leaders for a turnaround 
school must be measured against the enormous human and economic cost of 
accepting the status quo for the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving 
schools. We simply cannot afford to continue graduating hundreds of 
thousands of students annually who are unprepared for either further 
education or the workforce, or to permit roughly one million students 
to drop out of high school each year, many of them never to return to 
school. Instead, States and LEAs must work together to recruit, place, 
and retain the effective principals and staff needed to implement the 
turnaround model. The Department is supporting these efforts through 
Federal grant programs that can provide resources for improving 
strategies used to recruit effective principals and teachers, such as 
the Teacher Incentive Fund program, which helps increase the number of 
effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and disadvantaged students 
in hard-to-staff subjects and schools.
    Finally, we wish to clarify that the requirements for the 
turnaround model do not require ``blanket firings'' of staff. The 
Department agrees that staff should be carefully evaluated before any 
replacement decisions are made and has added new language requiring 
LEAs to use ``locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness 
of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the 
needs of students.'' If required by State laws or union contracts, 
principals and staff may have to be reassigned to other schools as 
necessary.
    Changes: As described earlier, we have revised paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 
to require that an LEA use locally adopted competencies to measure the 
effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment 
to meet the needs of students. The LEA must then screen all existing 
staff before rehiring no more than 50 percent of them.
    Comment: Numerous commenters claimed that there is little research 
supporting the replacement of leadership and staff in school turnaround 
efforts. One commenter cited a 2008 Institute of Education Sciences 
(IES) report, ``Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools,'' 
that, according to the commenter, recommends that decisions to remove 
staff should be made on an individual basis. Several others also 
asserted that the proposed requirement to replace at least 50 percent 
of staff was arbitrary, with two commenters recommending instead that 
the Department ``empower the turnaround principal with the autonomy to 
hire, based on merit, for every position in the school.''
    Discussion: We are not claiming that merely replacing a principal 
and 50 percent of a school's staff is sufficient to turn around a low-
achieving school. Although principal and staff replacement are key 
features of the turnaround model proposed in the SIG NPR, they are not 
the only features. The strength of the turnaround model lies in its 
comprehensive combination of significant staffing and governance 
changes, an improved instructional program, ongoing high-quality 
professional development, the use of data to drive continuous 
improvement, increased time for learning and for staff collaboration, 
and appropriate supports for students. The staffing and governance 
changes are intended primarily to create the conditions within a 
school, including school climate and culture, that will permit 
effective implementation of the other elements of the turnaround model. 
Dramatic changes in leadership, staff, and governance structure help 
lay the groundwork to create the conditions for autonomy and 
flexibility that are associated with successful turnaround efforts. 
Accordingly, we decline to remove the requirement for replacing staff 
in a turnaround model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters claimed that teacher tenure, State 
collective bargaining laws, and union contracts prevent school 
administrators from replacing staff as required by the turnaround 
model. Several commenters stated that union contracts would force 
school administrators to reassign dismissed teaching staff to other 
schools, and the turnaround model would not solve the problem of 
removing ineffective teachers from the classroom. One commenter asked 
if an LEA would have to negotiate staff replacement with the union or 
if the Federal grant requirements supersede State due process laws. One 
commenter noted that the Department would have to provide ``involuntary 
transfer authority'' to LEAs in order for them to implement the 
turnaround model in collective bargaining States.
    Several commenters called for the Department to foster 
collaboration with teacher unions as well as the larger community. One 
of these commenters claimed that collaboration ``increases leadership 
and builds professionalism'' and recommended that evidence of 
collaboration be documented. Another asserted the involvement of 
school-based personnel in decision-making is key to the successful 
implementation of

[[Page 65626]]

school interventions. Another recommended that an LEA seek ``feedback'' 
from all stakeholders, including students, parents, and unions, as to 
whether an intervention is ``feasible or warranted.''
    Discussion: We recognize that collective bargaining agreements and 
union contracts may present barriers to implementation of the 
turnaround model; however, we do not believe these barriers are 
insurmountable. In particular, drawing upon pockets of success in 
cities and States across the country, the Secretary believes LEAs and 
unions can work together to bring about dramatic, positive changes in 
our persistently lowest-achieving schools. Accordingly, the Department 
encourages collaborations and partnerships between LEAs and teacher 
unions and teacher membership associations to resolve issues created by 
school intervention models in the context of existing collective 
bargaining agreements. We also encourage LEAs to collaborate with 
stakeholders in schools and in the larger community as they implement 
school interventions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that the term ``staff'' was not 
clearly defined. One commenter presumed it excluded maintenance, food 
services, and other support staff. Another stated that the Department 
should allow LEAs to develop their own definition of ``staff,'' and 
permit LEAs to determine whether non-instructional staff should be 
included in the replacement calculus. Two commenters also requested 
greater clarity regarding the meaning of ``new governance.''
    Discussion: We believe that, in high-achieving schools facing the 
most challenging of circumstances, every adult in the school 
contributes to the school's success, including the principal, teachers, 
non-certificated staff, custodians, security guards, food service 
staff, and others working in the school. Conversely, in a persistently 
lowest-achieving school, we believe that no single group of adults in 
the school is responsible for a culture of persistent failure. For this 
reason, our general guidance is that an LEA should define ``staff'' 
broadly in developing and implementing a turnaround model. The 
Department declines to define the term ``staff'' in this notice, but 
plans to issue guidance that will clarify this and other issues related 
to the turnaround model. As for the term ``governance,'' the language 
in paragraph (a)(1)(v) suggests a number of possible governance 
alternatives that may be adopted in the context of a turnaround model. 
The Department declines to provide a more specific definition in order 
to permit LEAs the flexibility needed to adopt a turnaround governance 
structure that meets their local needs and circumstances.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters asked that the Department consider the 
possible negative consequences of replacing staff on a school and 
community, with one commenter suggesting that replacing half of the 
staff could result in more damage ``to a fragile school than no change 
at all.'' Another commenter stated that maintaining a consistent staff 
is a key to school success.
    Discussion: The Secretary disagrees that implementing a turnaround 
model would be worse than ``no change at all.'' The schools that would 
implement a turnaround model have, by definition, persistently failed 
our children for years, and dramatic and fundamental change is 
warranted. In addition, as st