New Hampshire SIG Intervention Models Webinar: Restart and School Closure 2: 00 pm – 4: 00 pm Thursday, March 18, 2010 Presented by: New Hampshire Department of Education & New England Comprehensive Center at RMC Research ** We will begin in a few minutes. ** All phones are muted when you join. Send a CHAT message to the Host if you have a request or question. For technical problems, call Karen Laba, NECC, at 603 969 -0988.
Welcome! o Introductions: Presenters, Host n Kathleen Murphy, Director, Division of Instruction n Stephanie Lafreniere, Title I Director n Joey Nichol, Title I and School Improvement n Karen Laba, New England Comprehensive Center o Participants March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 2
Web. Ex Pointers o You will be muted during the session unless otherwise indicated. o If you have a question or a request, type it into the CHAT box in the lower right hand corner of your screen n select the recipient (dropdown box) and n click SEND (Note– you can chat privately with the host or publicly with ALL PARTICIPANTS using the dropdown list) o If you get disconnected, first try logging off the internet and then re-entering; you can stay connected via phone while waiting to reconnect to the web. o If you can’t resolve the problem, call Karen’s cell phone at (603 969 -0988) to talk with someone who maybe able to help get you reconnected. March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 3
Goals of the Session o Examine the details of the restart and school closure SIG intervention models o Discuss guidance on implementation strategies for each of these interventions o Raise any additional questions about SIG models for further investigation March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 4
SIG Overview o What? n School Improvement Grant Funds through Title I, Part A of ESEA, section 1003(g) n Formula to states, by application to LEAs o For whom? n New Hampshire-defined eligible, per US ED guidance n Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III (see later slides) March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 5
SIG Overview, cont’d. o How much? n State funds n Range per school o For how long? n Per year, over three years (waiver) o To do what? n Take actions to dramatically improve March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 6
NH Priority Schools: Tier I Ø (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent , or five (whichever is greater) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State; or Ø (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C. F. R. § 200. 19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; or Ø (iii) Is Title I-eligible and is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school in (i) above. Additionally, the school must be either in the bottom 20 percent of all schools in the state, or has not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2 consecutive years. The guidance defines “Title I-eligible” as either a school currently receiving Title I funds or a school eligible for, but not receiving funds. March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 7
NH Priority Schools: Tier II Ø (i) Is Title I-eligible and is within the lowest-achieving five percent of high schools or the five lowest-achieving, whichever number is greater; or Ø (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C. F. R. § 200. 19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years. March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 8
NH Priority Schools: Tier III Ø (i) Is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that did not meet the Tier I criteria, OR Ø (ii) Is a Title I-eligible school that does not meet the Tier I or Tier II requirements and is in the bottom 20 percent of all schools in the state or has not made AYP for any two years. March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 9
SIG Application Priority System If an LEA has one or more. . . the LEA must include… Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools o Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at least one Tier II school Tier I and Tier II schools, but no Tier III schools o Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school OR at least one Tier II school Tier I and III schools, but no Tier II schools o Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve; at a minimum, at least one Tier I school Tier II and Tier III schools, but no Tier I schools o The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier II and Tier III schools as it wishes Tier I schools only o Each Tier I school it has capacity to serve Tier II schools only o The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier II schools as it wishes Tier III schools only o The LEA has the option to commit to serve as many Tier III schools as it wishes ** The number of Tier I schools an LEA has capacity to serve may be zero if, and only if, the LEA is using all of the capacity it would otherwise use to serve its Tier I schools in order to serve Tier II schools. March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 10
NH SIG Timeline February 26 NH DOE submitted SIG application to USED; response/ approval expected mid-March April 2 nd LEA intent to apply and planning grant request due to the NH DOE April 5 th - 9 th NH DOE review and approval of LEA planning grant May 7 th Complete LEA application due to the NH DOE May 10 th – 26 th Three step application review May 31 st LEA grants awarded by the NH DOE June 1 st –Sept. 7 th LEA begins implementation of grant and intervention model March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 11
Questions or Comments Raise your hand to be recognized or type a question or comment in the CHAT window March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 12
13 Dramatic School Improvement Models Turnaround Restart Closure Transformation Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 13
THE RESTART MODEL March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 14
DEFINITION: RESTART MODEL 15 LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. A rigorous review process could take A restart model must such things into As part of this model, enroll, within the consideration as an a State must review grades it serves, any applicant’s team, the process the LEA former student who will use/has used to track record, wishes to attend the instructional program, select the partner. school. model’s theory of action, sustainability. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 15
16 DEFINITION: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESTART Across-the-board change Authority to do things differently Based upon a relationship outlined in a performance contract Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 16
DEFINITION: RESTART MODEL OPTIONS 17 Restart School Converts to charter Performance contract Educatio Charter n Manage ment Organiza tion Charter School Board Educatio Charter n Manage Indepen Manage dent ment Operator Organiza tion Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 17
THEORY OF ACTION 18 Starting fresh allows a state, district, or other authorizing entity to break the cycle of low achievement by making deep and fundamental changes to the way the Source: National Association of Charter School Authorizers school operates (2005). Starting Fresh Series Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 18
STRATEGIES: CREATE NEW SCHOOL CULTURE SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE 19 To realize the full potential of restarting low-achieving schools, states/districts must: Source: National Association of Charter School Authorizers (2005). Starting Fresh Series • define explicit expectations for performance; • empower high capacity school leaders to make dramatic changes absent avoidable intrusion from external governing bodies (e. g. , state, school district, or authorizer); • create a positive new school culture Prepared for NNSSILwill catalyze success; and Council of Chief State School Officers that by Center on Innovation & Improvement March • recruit and retain skilled and 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education committed educators to the schools 19
20 STRATEGIES: PLANNING CHECKLIST Allocate time to plan / prepare Establish rigorous selection process Recruit and select highly skilled providers/leaders • Board and/or EMO/CMO-level • School level (principal / CEO) Establish conditions to support restart • Freedom to act • Staff aligned with mission / approach Engage parents and community Implement effective instructional practices and rigorous performance accountability Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 20
Guidance for Restart Options o NH DOE Charter School Contact: n Roberta Tenney, 603 271 -2079 rtenney@ed. state. nh. us o Handbook for Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants http: //www. centerii. org/handbook n Chapter 4: Organizational Structures o C. Restarting with a Charter School o D. Restarting with an Education Management Organization March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 21
STRATEGIES: ESTABLISH RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS 22 Rubric to assess CMO/EMO quality* Academic? Fiscal and operational? Potential? *Adapted from Rhim, L. M. (2009). Charter School Replication: Growing a Quality Charter School Sector. National Association of Charter School Authorizers Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 22
23 STRATEGIES: RUBRIC TO ASSESS CMO/EMO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT What is the CMO/EMO’s academic performance relative to local and state averages? Has the CMO/EMO demonstrated student academic growth over time, particularly among student populations similar to the target population for the proposed replication? Has the CMO/EMO demonstrated improved graduation rates and readiness for post-secondary education? What is the post-secondary success rate of graduates of CMO/EMO schools? Is there evidence of unmet demand for the school model (e. g. , waitlists)? Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 23
24 STRATEGIES: RUBRIC TO ASSESS CMO/EMO FISCAL AND OPERATIONAL RECORD Does the CMO/EMO have a track record of successfully recruiting high-quality school leadership and instructional personnel? Has enrollment in schools operated by the CMO/EMO been stable or grown over time? Does the application from the CMO/EMO include evidence of a wellfunctioning governance board or boards? Has the CMO/EMO met state and federal financial reporting requirements in the states in which it operates? Does the CMO/EMO’s most recent fiscal audit indicate positive financial health? Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 24
STRATEGIES: RUBRIC TO ASSESS CMO/EMO POTENTIAL 25 Plan for sustainable growth? • Specific projections regarding anticipated growth? • Rational plan reflecting awareness of key policy issues and potential challenges? • Appropriate performance expectations based on evidence? • Skilled and stable management team charged with leading restart effort? • Practical plan to create pipeline of teachers and leaders? Evidence of Successful Transferability? • Corporate mission and vision statement? • Evidence based educational model reflecting best practice? • Coherent corporate voice regarding school model reflecting clear company culture? • Capacity to provide professional development to support school model? • Plan to train all new school personnel on an ongoing basis? • Means to track fidelity of implementation of school model? Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 25
STRATEGIES: DISTRICT ROLE 26 Cultivate supply of restart providers (e. g. , non-profits, charter operators, IHE) Extend freedom to act Attract restart providers (e. g. , EMO/CMO’s with track record of success) Develop rigorous selection criteria Negotiate relationship terms Hold providers accountable for outcomes Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 26
27 STRATEGIES: PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY CHECKLIST Establish clear, measurable, and achievable student achievement and organizational performance goals; Collect a tangible body of evidence; Establish process for evaluation that includes examining academic, organizational, financial and compliance data; Develop data gathering and reporting cycle; Articulate consequences for failure to meeting performance targets Prepare to retry if restart falters, and Develop criteria for renewal or revocation of the contract. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 27
28 FAST TRACK- AND EXTENDEDPLANNING RESTART Fast - Track Planning Restart Extended Planning Restart March – September Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 28
FAST-TRACK RESTART TIMELINE 29 Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 29
30 EXTENDED PLANNING RESTART TIMELINE Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 30
PRACTICAL PITFALLS TO AVOID 31 “Conventional wisdom” about degree of prescription outlined in collective bargaining agreements Weak/bureaucratic—as opposed to performance based —provider selection procedures Ambiguous relationship terms Failure to consistently implement effective instructional practices Undefined accountability metric Absence of consequences for failure to meet performance goals Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 31
Questions or Comments Raise your hand to be recognized or type a question or comment in the CHAT window March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 32
THE SCHOOL CLOSURE MODEL March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 33
DEFINITION: SCHOOL CLOSURE 34 School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. Other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 34
THEORY OF ACTION 35 School capacity according to multiple measures (e. g. , academic performance, school culture/expectations, teacher performance, or facilities) is so low as to preclude a reasonable expectation of dramatic improvement for students currently enrolled. Therefore, closing the school and transitioning students to a higher performing school is the best strategy to dramatically improve their academic outcomes Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 35
36 STRATEGY: ESTABLISH POLICY CONTEXT Strategically decide if closing schools is a feasible and necessary option, by considering: • How will closing low-achieving schools contribute to the larger district reform effort? • To what extent have current (or past) school interventions led to improved school performance in persistently lowachieving schools, and which schools have not improved despite repeated interventions and increased resources? • Which schools, if any, are having a negative impact on students’ academic achievement? Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 36
37 STRATEGY: ESTABLISH CLEAR PROCEDURES AND DECISION CRITERIA Include key stakeholders, including business and community leaders, in developing criteria for closing schools. Develop a consistent and data-based method of assessing school performance, such as a performance index, that supplements state-level academic achievement data and that is uniformly applied to schools across the district. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 37
STRATEGY: 38 OPERATE TRANSPARENTLY Communicate the decision to close schools, through: • Ongoing and upfront communication with the school board or school committee members. • Keeping the district leadership and school board unified (example: asking school board members to vote on a slate of closures, rather than individual school closures). • Developing and articulating a clear rationale for the school closures, including the immediate benefit that students will receive as a result of the school closure. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 38
STRATEGY: PLAN FOR TRANSITION 39 Plan for orderly transition of students AND staff in both closing school and receiving schools. • Develop and implement a transition plan for students and staff. • Create options and ensure immediate placement of displaced students. • Communicate directly (e. g. , face-toface) with the families of all displaced students. • Take proactive measures to communicate with staff and plan for transitioning displaced staff. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 39
40 STRATEGIES: METHODICAL PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION There are steps that districts can take to diminish the extent of the challenges and obstacles that will surface when using the closing schools strategy Embed school closure decisions in broader district reform strategy Develop a supply of higher-performing school option Make certain data guides decision-making at all stages of the process Clearly explain benefits of closure to students currently enrolled in the low-achieving schools Anticipate and avoid battles with school board members Provide support to students and family during transition to new, higher performing schools Clarify receiving principals role in transition Provide staff members with clear information about closure process Source: Steiner, L. (2009). Tough Decisions. Center on Innovation & Improvement. Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 40
SCHOOL CLOSURE TIMELINE 41 March-April ’ 10 • LEA application process • LEA develops criteria to identify schools for closure • LEA develops options for students from to-be-closed schools • LEA develops clear rationale for closing schools May ’ 10 • Identify schools to be closed • Develop/ implements campaign to announce and explain closure decisions • Engage community • Develop plan to transition students to higher performing schools • Notify schools to be closed • Begin logistical process to close school at end of the year June ‘ 10 July ‘ 10 August ‘ 10 Fall ’ 10 • Continue • Communicate • Provide • SIG schools campaign to directly with professional open/reopen announce and students and development to • Provide explain closure families leaving personnel in methodical decision • Provide support receiving support to schools • Initiate to schools students transition plan receiving transitioning to • Develop students from new schools campaign to • Communicate closing schools welcome new directly with students to students and higher families leaving performing closed schools • Communicate • Continue to with receiving engage sending school and receiving communities to ease transition at the beginning of the school year Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 41
PITFALLS TO AVOID 42 Failing to communicate urgency due to persistent low-achievement Perception that criteria are subjective or driven by an alternative agenda Public disagreement between school board members about closure Belief that students are better served in persistently low-achieving school than higher performing alternative Reversing course in the face of opposition Permitting opposition to “control the story” Failing to prepare for and support transition for key stakeholders (i. e. , students, families, principals, and teachers) Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 42
Resources for NH Applicants o NH SIG LEA Application (draft sent via email to districts –final will posted upon US ED approval) o NH Eligible Schools List (draft sent via email to districts –final will posted upon US ED approval) o NH DOE Charter School Contact (Restart Model) n Roberta Tenney, 603 271 -2079 rtenney@ed. state. nh. us o Handbook for Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants http: //www. centerii. org/handbook/ o US ED SIG Guidance Amended February 2, 2010 http: //www 2. ed. gov/programs/sif/faq. html March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 43
Thank you for joining us! For additional information on NH SIG, please contact Stephanie Lafreniere, Title I Director Stephanie. lafreniere@ed. state. nh. us 603 -271 -6052 March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 44
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 45 The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2009). School restructuring, What works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Points Associates. Retrieved from http: //www. centerforcsri. org/files/School_Restructuring_Guide. pdf Hassel, B. C. , & Hassel, E. A. (2005). Starting fresh in low-performing schools: A new option for school district leaders under NCLB. Chicago, IL: National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Retrieved from http: //www. qualitycharters. org/i 4 a/pages/Index. cfm? page. ID=338 Kowal, J. M. , & Arkin, M. D. (2005). Contracting with external education management providers. In Learning Points Associates, School restructuring options under No Child Left Behind: What works when? Naperville, IL: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. ncrel. org/csri/resources/ncrel/knowledgeissues/Contracting. pdf National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2005, July. ) Resource toolkit for working with education service providers. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. qualitycharters. org/files/public/ESPToolkit 2005. pdf National Association of Charter School Authorizers (2009). Principles and standards for quality charter school authorizing: Revised edition. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. qualitycharters. org/files/public/Principles_and_Standards_2009. pdf Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 45
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 46 National Charter School Research Project (2007, August). Quantity counts: The growth of charter school management organizations. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Empowering teachers through a CMO-created union. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. charterresource. org/ National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Implementing an in-house approach to teacher training and professional development. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. charterresource. org/ National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Mapping the landscape of charter management organizations: Issues to consider in supporting replication. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. charterresource. org/ National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance (2010). Scaling up charter management organizations: Eight key lessons for success. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http: //www. charterresource. org/ Perlman, C. L. , & Redding, S. (Eds). (2010). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from www. centerii. org/survey Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 46
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 47 Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www. centerii. org/survey Redding, S. , & Walberg, H. (Eds. ). (2008). Handbook on statewide systems of support. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from www. centerii. org/survey Rhim, L. M. (2009). Charter School Replication: Growing a Quality Charter School Sector. National Association of Charter School Authorizers. http: //www. qualitycharters. org/files/public/Charter_School_Replication_Policy _Guide. pdf Rhim, L. M. , & Brinson, D. (2010). Retrofitting bureaucracy: Factors influencing charter schools’ access to federal entitlement programs. Lincoln: ILThe Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Walberg, H. J. (Ed. ). (2007). Handbook on restructuring and substantial school improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from www. centerii. org/survey Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 47
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 48 Brinson, D. , & Rhim, L. (2009). Breaking the habit of low performance. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Kowal, J. , & Hassel, B. (2008). Closing troubled schools. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from http: //www. crpe. org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/223 Lane, B. (2009). Exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Perlman, C. L. , & Redding, S. (Editors). (2010). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: Deciding. Learning. Connecting. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Redding, S. , & Walberg, H. (Eds. ) (2008). Handbook on statewide systems of support. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Steiner, L. (2009). Tough decisions: Closing persistently low-performing schools. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Walberg, H. J. (Ed. ). (2007). Handbook on restructuring and substantial school improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/survey Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 48
FURTHER QUESTIONS…. 49 http: //www. centerii. org/ Webinar citation: Center on Innovation & Improvement (Writer, Producer), & Council of Chief State School Officers (Producer). (2010, March). School improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models: The restart model. [audiovisual recording]. Prepared for the National Network of State School Improvement Leaders. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http: //www. centerii. org/ Prepared for NNSSIL by Center on Innovation & Improvement and Council of Chief State School Officers March 18, 2010 New Hampshire Department of Education 49
Скачать презентацию New Hampshire SIG Intervention Models Webinar Restart and
313a21841125e9b261a9ac18ef5b1f4c.ppt