State Policies for School Restructuring

December 1, 2004

Overview
Some of the thorniest requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) concern the consequences for chronically low-performing schools. A particularly challenging provision requires that if a school fails to meet its state?s adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements for five consecutive years, the school?s district must create a plan to restructure the school in one of the following ways:
| Reopen the school as a public charter school| Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school?s failure to make AYP| Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public school| Turn the operation of the school over to the state education agency, if permitted under state law and agreed to by the state| Any other major restructuring of a school?s governance arrangement.

If the school fails to make AYP again, the district must implement the restructuring plan at the beginning of the school year following the creation of the plan.

While these provisions actually require districts to create and implement the plans, several states have enacted policies that either provide guidance on school restructuring to districts and schools or propel the state to implement the school restructuring policies themselves. In some cases, these policies were enacted because of NCLB and are directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. In other cases, these policies were enacted as part of a state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appear to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.

According to the research for this ECS StateNote:
| Twelve states have enacted policies addressing the closing and reopening of low-performing schools as charter schools.| Twenty-seven states have enacted policies concerning the reconstitution of a low-performing school?s staff.| Fourteen states have enacted policies dealing with contracting with an entity to operate a low-performing school.| Twenty-three states have enacted policies regarding turning over the operation of a low-performing school to the state education agency.| Twelve states have enacted policies addressing other major restructuring of a low-performing school?s governance arrangement.| Seven states have policies that were enacted because of NCLB and are directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. Twenty-four states have policies that were enacted as part of a state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appear to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. Two states have both types of policies. Seventeen states don?t have any such policies in place.

Table 1
State Policies for School Restructuring

Table 1 provides a look at states that have enacted school restructuring policies. In the last column, it also addresses whether these policies were enacted because of NCLB and are directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline or whether these policies were enacted as part of a state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appear to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.

State Charter Reconstitute Contract State Takeover Other Origin of Policies
Alabama N N N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Alaska Y Y Y Y Y Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Arizona N N Y Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Arkansas N Y N N Y Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
California Y Y Y Y Y Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Colorado Y N N N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Connecticut N Y N N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Delaware Y Y Y Y Y Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Florida N Y Y N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Georgia Y Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Hawaii N N N N N N/A
Idaho N N N Y N Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Illinois N Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Indiana N Y Y Y Y Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Iowa N N N N N N/A
Kansas N Y N N Y Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Kentucky N Y N N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Louisiana Y N Y Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Maine N N N N N N/A
Maryland Y Y Y Y Y Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Massachusetts N Y N N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Michigan N N N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Minnesota N N N N N N/A
Mississippi N Y N N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Missouri N N N N N N/A
Montana N N N N N N/A
Nebraska N N N N N N/A
Nevada N Y Y Y Y Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
New Hampshire N N N N N N/A
New Jersey N N N N N N/A
New Mexico Y Y Y Y Y Some policies are pre-NCLB and are unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. Others are post-NCLB and are related to NCLB?s timeline.
New York Y Y Y Y Y Some policies are pre-NCLB and are unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. Others are post-NCLB and are related to NCLB?s timeline.
North Carolina N Y N N N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
North Dakota N N N N N N/A
Ohio Y Y Y Y Y Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Oklahoma N Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Oregon N N N N N N/A
Pennsylvania Y Y Y N Y Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Rhode Island N Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
South Carolina N Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
South Dakota N N N N N N/A
Tennessee Y Y Y Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Texas N Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Utah N N N N N N/A
Vermont N N N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Virginia N N N N N N/A
Washington N N N N N N/A
West Virginia N Y N Y N Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline.
Wisconsin N N N N N N/A
Wyoming N N N N N N/A

A Closer Look at the Close and Reopen Option

Because this document is being completed within the scope of a project that is examining the option of closing low-performing schools and reopening them as charter schools, the intent of this compilation is to drill deeper into the variation among the close and reopen policies, or lack of policies, across the country. Based upon the research for this ECS StateNote, states are grouped into four categories:
| Six states have policies that were enacted because of NCLB and are directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. These policies essentially restate the language from NCLB regarding the close and reopen option, without providing any more detail about how it will work. [Alaska, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio]| Six states have policies that were enacted as part of a state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appear to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. These policies vary from the language in NCLB regarding this option in different ways ? from requiring a state entity, instead of a school district, to implement the close and reopen option to elaborating the processes, such as a request for proposals, which must be used to implement the close and reopen option. [California, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee]| In 27 states, while the policies are silent on this option, an innovative school district can still implement it within the parameters of the state?s charter school law. [Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming]| In 11 states, the close and reopen option cannot be implemented. In 10 of these cases, it is because the state has not enacted a charter school law. In the other case (Nevada), while the state has enacted a charter school law, the state also enacted school restructuring law that doesn?t include the close and reopen option. [Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia]

Table 2
State Policies for the Close and Reopen Option

Table 2 examines five key elements of state policies regarding the close and reopen option:
| Was the policy enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline? Or, was the policy enacted as part of a state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline?| Is the close and reopen option the only restructuring approach that may be implemented? Or, is it one option among several that may be implemented?| When must/may the close and reopen option be implemented?| Who oversees the closing and reopening of the school?| Does the policy include a request for proposals process?

State
Origin of Policy Only or One Option? When Must/May the Option Happen? Who Oversees the Option? Request for Proposals?
Alaska Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Must create a plan after five years of failing to make AYP; must implement the plan after six years of failing to make AYP. District No
California Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option If a school that receives funding through a state grant program for low-performing schools fails to improve its performance after two years of funding, it becomes a state-monitored school and may be converted. State board of education. Parents at the school may apply directly to the state board of education for conversion of the school. No
Colorado Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. Only option If a school is rated ?unsatisfactory? for three years in a row, it must become a charter school. The state board of education selects an applicant to recommend to the local school board, and the state superintendent (or his or her designee) assists the selected applicant in negotiating a charter with the local school board. Yes
Delaware Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Must create a plan after five years of failing to make AYP; must implement the plan after six years of failing to make AYP. District No
Georgia Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option If a school has received a grade of D or F for a period of three consecutive years or more, it may become a state charter school. State board of education No
Louisiana Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option When a city, parish, or other local school board or other public entity fails to present a plan to reconstitute the failed school to the state board of education, presents a reconstitution plan that is unacceptable to the state board, fails at any time to comply with the terms of the reconstitution plan approved by the state board or the school has been labeled an academically unacceptable school for four consecutive years, the school shall be removed from the jurisdiction of the city, parish, or other local school board or other public entity and transferred to the jurisdiction of the recovery school district, provided the state board approves the transfer. Once it is part of the recovery school district, it may be closed and reopened as a charter school. State board of education No
Maryland Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Must create a plan after five years of failing to make AYP; must implement the plan after six years of failing to make AYP. District No
New Mexico Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Must create a plan after five years of failing to make AYP; must implement the plan after six years of failing to make AYP. District, in conjunction with the state public education department No
New York Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Must create a plan after five years of failing to make AYP; must implement the plan after six years of failing to make AYP. District No
Ohio Post-NCLB policy; related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Must create a plan after five years of failing to make AYP; must implement the plan after six years of failing to make AYP. District No
Pennsylvania Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option Has designated certain districts with a high number of low-performing schools as ?education empowerment districts.? In these districts, the local school board may close and reopen schools as charter schools. Has designated certain districts with a high number of low-performing schools as ?education empowerment districts.? In these districts, the local school board may close and reopen schools as charter schools. No
Tennessee Pre-NCLB policy; unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. One option If the state commissioner of education places a school on probation, it may be converted to a charter school. State commissioner of education No

State Snapshots

This section provides brief summaries of the state policies for school restructuring that are in place on a state-by-state basis.

Alabama

Alabama has enacted a policy that requires the state superintendent of education to intervene and to appoint a person or persons to run the day-to-day operation of a low-performing school. This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [16-6B-3]

Alaska

Alaska has enacted a policy that requires that if a school fails to meet the state?s AYP requirements for five consecutive years, its district must create a plan to restructure the school in one of the five ways outlined in NCLB. If the school fails to make AYP again, the district must implement the restructuring plan at the beginning of the school year following the creation of the plan. This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [4 AAC 06.870]

Arizona

Arizona has enacted a policy that gives the state board of education the discretion to determine whether governmental, nonprofit and private organizations may submit applications to the state board to fully or partially manage a low-performing school as well as if and to what extent the state board of education shall participate in the operation of the school. This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [15-241]

Arkansas

Arkansas has enacted a policy that requires that if a school fails to make AYP for a fifth consecutive year, the state board of education shall advance that school into restructuring. In restructuring, the state department of education may require the school to dismiss staff and administrators, annex the school to another school that is not in need of improvement, and/or take other such action as deemed necessary by the state department and the state board. This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [ADE 188]

California

California has enacted a policy that permits the state superintendent to allow parents at certain low-performing schools ? called ?state-monitored schools? ? to apply directly to the state board of education to establish a charter school at the existing school site. This policy also allows the state superintendent to reassign principals and other certificated employees at ?state-monitored schools.? Before the state superintendent takes any action against a principal, the policy provides for informal and formal hearing processes. The policy also forbids the state superintendent from taking any action against a principal if he or she has been at the school for one academic year or less.

The policy allows the state superintendent to assign the management of a ?state-monitored school? to a college, university, county office of education or other appropriate educational institution, excluding for-profit organizations. The policy details the qualifications that such entities must possess and details certain kinds of school district involvement that must be specified in the contract. It requires that the costs of the entity to manage the school be established in the contract and be paid by the school district. The policy requires the state department of education to allocate $150 per pupil for purposes of improving the academic performance of these schools. School districts that receive such funds must provide an in-kind match of services or a match of school district funds in an amount equal to the amount received from the state.

While the policy forbids the state superintendent from assuming management of a ?state-monitored school,? it does allow three other major restructuring efforts:
| It allows the state superintendent to renegotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement at the expiration of the existing collective-bargaining agreement for a ?state-monitored school.?| It allows the state superintendent to ?reorganize? a ?state-monitored school.?| It allows the state superintendent to place a trustee at a ?state-monitored school? for a period not to exceed three years. The trustee shall monitor and review the operation of the school and shall possess the qualifications specified in statute. The trustee may stay or rescind those actions of the governing board of the school district or school site principal that, in the judgment of the trustee, may detrimentally affect the conditions of the ?state-monitored school.?

In addition, the policy allows the state superintendent, in consultation with the state board of education, to take any other action considered necessary or desirable against the school district or the local school board, including appointment of a new superintendent or suspension of the authority of the local school board with respect to the ?state-monitored school(s).?

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [52055.5, 52055.54]

Colorado

Colorado has enacted a policy that requires that if a school is rated ?unsatisfactory? for three years in a row, it must become a charter school. The policy requires the state board of education to issue a request for proposals pursuant to a specific process, which includes the formation of a proposal review committee (with its membership defined) as well as the information that a charter school proposal must include to be eligible for consideration. The policy requires that the proposal include a description of the criteria for enrollment decisions, which shall include offering enrollment to students already enrolled in the school and students who would be assigned to the school under school district policy.

An applicant for a charter school may include an individual, a group of individuals, a nonprofit or for-profit company, an existing public school, a school district, or an institution of higher education. The state board of education selects an applicant to recommend to the local school board, and the state superintendent (or his or her designee) assists the selected applicant in negotiating a charter with the local school board.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [22-30.5-301 to 22-30.5-308]

Connecticut

Connecticut has enacted a policy that mandates a local school board must develop a plan for a low-performing school that requires the board to take one or more of the following actions:
| Close and reconstitute the school| Restructure the school in terms of the grades included or the programs offered or both| Provide for site-based management of the school| Allow students in the school?s attendance area to attend other public schools in the school district.

The board may include in the plan a provision for the transfer of employees in conjunction with any such action.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [Public Act 99-288 -1999 Session]

Delaware

Delaware has enacted a policy that requires that if a school fails to meet the state?s AYP requirements for five consecutive years, its district must create a plan to restructure the school in one of the five ways outlined in NCLB. If the school fails to make AYP again, the district must implement the restructuring plan at the beginning of the school year following the creation of the plan. This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [DE ADC 103 6.0]

Florida

Florida has enacted a policy that allows the state board of education to recommend that a local school board reorganize a low-performing school under a new principal who is authorized to hire new staff and implement a plan that addresses the causes of inadequate progress. This policy also permits the state board of education to recommend that a local school board contract for the educational services at a low-performing school.

In recommending either of the above actions, the state board of education must specify the length of time available to implement the recommended action. The state board of education may require the state department of education or the state comptroller to withhold any transfer of state funds to the school district if, within the timeframe specified in state board action, the school district has failed to comply with the action ordered to improve the district?s low-performing schools. Withholding the transfer of funds shall occur only after all other recommended actions for school improvement have failed to improve performance.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [1008.33]

Georgia

Georgia has enacted a policy that requires that if a school receives a grade of D or F for a period of two consecutive years or more, the state board of education may appoint a school master or management team to oversee and direct the duties of the principal until the school?s performance improves and the school is released from intervention, with the cost of the master or management team to be paid by the state.

If a school has received a grade of D or F for a period of three consecutive years or more, the state board of education shall implement one or more of the following interventions or sanctions, in order of severity:
| Removal of school personnel on recommendation of the master or the school improvement team, including the principal and personnel whose performance has continued not to produce student achievement gains over a three-year period as a condition for continued receipt of state funds for administration| Allow for the implementation of a state charter school through the designation by the state board of education| Mandate the complete reconstitution of the school, removing all personnel, appointing a new principal and hiring all new staff. Existing staff may reapply for employment at the newly reconstituted school but shall not be rehired if their performance regarding student achievement has been negative for the past three years| Mandate that parents have the option to relocate their student to other public schools in the local school system to be chosen by the parents of the student with transportation costs borne by the system| Mandate a monitor, master or management team in the school that shall be paid by the district.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [20-14-41]

Idaho

Idaho has enacted a policy that allows schools that fail to meet AYP for five consecutive years to become governed by the state. This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [IDAPA 08.02.03]

Illinois

Illinois has enacted a policy that allows the state board of education to direct the state superintendent of education to appoint an independent authority to exercise such powers and duties as may be necessary to operate a low-performing school for purposes of improving pupil performance and student achievement. This policy also allows the state board of education to authorize the state superintendent of education to direct the reassignment of pupils and administrative staff.

Illinois has also enacted a policy that allows the Chicago Public Schools superintendent and the board of trustees to remove and replace the principal, replace faculty members, reconstitute the attendance center, and replace and reassign all employees of the attendance center of a low-performing school.

These policies were enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appear to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [105 ILCS 5/2-3.25f, 105 ILCS 5/34-8.3, 105 ILCS 5/34-8.4, 23 IAC ? 1.80]

Indiana

Indiana has enacted a policy that allows, during the first year that a school is placed in the lowest category of school improvement, a school?s improvement planning committee to change personnel and/or make a request to the local school board to appoint an outside team to manage the school or assist in the development of a new plan. This policy also allows, if a school still remains in the lowest category of school improvement in the fifth year after initial placement there, a local school board to: merge the school with a nearby school that is in a higher category; assign a special management team to operate all or part of the school; implement state department of education recommendations; implement other options, including closing the school; and/or, revise the school?s plan.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [Ind. Code Ann. ? 20-10.2]

Kansas

Kansas has enacted a policy that allows the state board of education to apply one or more of the following sanctions to a school denied accreditation:
| The state board may direct that district personnel or resources be reassigned or reallocated within the district by the local board of education.| The state board may direct that the local board of education hire one or more designated persons to assist the school in making the changes necessary to improve student performance.| The state board may recommend to the Legislature that it approve a reduction in state funding to the local school district by an amount which shall be added to the local property tax imposed by the local board of education.| The state board may recommend that the Legislature abolish or restructure the local district.| The state board may recommend other action as deemed appropriate.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [K.A.R. 91-31-28]

Kentucky

Kentucky has enacted a policy that allows the state commissioner of education to recommend to a local superintendent that the principal at a low-performing school that is identified by an audit as in need of additional evaluation but who does not respond to an identified professional growth plan be dismissed, demoted or transferred. It also allows the state commissioner of education to recommend to a local superintendent that teachers at a low-performing school that are identified by an audit as in need of additional evaluation but who do not respond to an identified professional growth plan be dismissed or transferred.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [KAR 5:120]

Louisiana

Louisiana has enacted a policy that creates a statewide recovery school district. According to this policy, when a city, parish or other local school board or other public entity fails to present a plan to reconstitute the failed school to the state board of education, presents a reconstitution plan that is unacceptable to the state board, fails at any time to comply with the terms of the reconstitution plan approved by the state board or the school has been labeled an academically unacceptable school for four consecutive years, the school shall be removed from the jurisdiction of the city, parish or other local school board or other public entity and transferred to the jurisdiction of the recovery school district, provided the state board of education approves the transfer. A failed school shall be reorganized, as necessary, and operated by the recovery school district pursuant to its authority in whatever manner is determined by the administering agency of the recovery school district to be most likely to bring the school to an acceptable level of performance. Such reorganization may include closing and reopening the school as a charter school or contracting with an entity to operate the school.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [17:10.5]

Maryland

Maryland has enacted a policy that requires one of the following alternative governance arrangements to be implemented at a school identified for restructuring consistent with state law and as approved by the state superintendent of schools and the state board of education:
| Reopening the school as a public charter school consistent with the requirements of state law and regulation| Replacing all or most of the school staff, including the principal, who are relevant to the failure to make AYP| Entering into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school| Any other major restructuring of the school?s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reform, such as significant changes in the school?s staffing and governance, to improve academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP.

This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [13A.01.04.07, 9-101 to 9-110]

Massachusetts

Massachusetts has enacted a policy that states that if a school fails to demonstrate significant improvement as dictated by its remedial plan within 24 months after the approval of its remedial plan, the state board of education may declare the school to be chronically underperforming. Upon such a determination, the principal of the school shall be immediately removed and shall not be assigned to the school for the following school year unless the board finds that the principal did not play a significant role in the underperformance of the school. In that case, the superintendent may designate a new principal for the school. Any principal of a chronically underperforming school shall have such extraordinary powers, including the power to dismiss any teacher or other employee assigned to the school without regard to the procedures set forth in state law or the provisions of any collective-bargaining agreement.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [69-1J, 603 CMR 2.03]

Michigan

Michigan has enacted a policy that states that a school that has been unaccredited for three consecutive years is subject to one or more of the following measures, as determined by the superintendent of public instruction:
| The superintendent of public instruction or his or her designee shall appoint at the expense of the affected school district an administrator of the school until the school becomes accredited.| A parent, legal guardian or person in loco parentis of a child who attends the school may send his or her child to any accredited public school with an appropriate grade level within the school district.| The school, with the approval of the superintendent of public instruction, shall align itself with an existing research-based school improvement model or establish an affiliation for providing assistance to the school with a college or university located in this state.| The school shall be closed.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [380.1280]

Mississippi

Mississippi has enacted a policy that requires the local superintendent and the local school board to remove the principal and the teachers at low-performing schools in certain situations. This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [37-8-7]

Nevada

Nevada has enacted a policy that states that if restructuring for a Title I school is required pursuant to NCLB, the local school board or the state department of education shall carry out a plan for restructuring that includes one or more of the following:
| Replacing those employees at the school who contributed to the failure of the school to make adequate yearly progress| Entering into a contract with an entity, including, without limitation, a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school| Requesting that the state department oversee the operation of the public school if the local school board is responsible for restructuring| Designating the state department as responsible for overseeing the operation of the school if the state department is responsible for restructuring| Taking any other action to restructure the governance of the school if the action is designed to improve the academic achievement of pupils enrolled in the school and has substantial promise of ensuring the school makes adequate yearly progress.

This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [S.B. 1, Section 32 ? 2003 Regular Session]

New Mexico

New Mexico has enacted policies that allow the state public education department to suspend the authority and responsibility of a local school board over a ?corrective-action? school. In its place, the state public education department may use any or all of the following groups or individuals in managing or operating the ?corrective action? school:| The state public education department| Contracted consultants| Contracted management (e.g., another school district, individual, group, private company, university)| Contracted individuals from other school districts, educational cooperatives, educational organizations or the state?s colleges and universities| Any combination of the above.

These policies also allow the state secretary of education to terminate or discharge district administrators or employees at the ?corrective-action? school in accordance with state law. These policies were enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appear to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [NMAC 6.19.2]

Separately, New Mexico has enacted a policy that states that if a public school fails to make adequate yearly progress for five consecutive years, the school district, in conjunction with the state public education department, shall take one or more of the following actions in addition to other improvements:
| Reopen the school as a charter school| Replace all or most of the staff as allowed by law| Turn over the management of the public school to the department| Make other governance changes.

This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [NMSA 22-2C-7]

New York

New York has enacted a policy that requires that if a school fails to meet the state?s AYP requirements for five consecutive years, its district must create a plan to restructure the school in one of the five ways outlined in NCLB. If the school fails to make AYP again, the district must implement the restructuring plan at the beginning of the school year following the creation of the plan. This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [8 NYCRR 100.2 (p)]

Separately, New York has enacted a policy that allows the New York City Schools chancellor to transfer or remove principals for persistent educational failure. This policy also allows the chancellor to assume joint or direct control of a low-performing school. This policy was enacted prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [N.Y. Educ. Law ? 2590-h]

North Carolina

North Carolina has enacted a policy that requires a local superintendent to take one of the following actions concerning the principal at a low-performing school:| Recommend to the local school board that the principal be retained in the same position| Recommend to the local school board that the principal be retained in the same position and a plan of remediation be developed| Recommend to the local school board that the principal be transferred| Proceed under state law to dismiss or demote the principal.

This policy also allows the state board of education to proceed under state law for the dismissal of teachers, assistant principals, directors and supervisors assigned to a low-performing school. This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 115C-105.38, 115C-105.39]

Ohio

Ohio has enacted a policy that requires that if a school building fails to make adequate yearly progress for five consecutive school years, its district must develop a plan during the next succeeding school year to improve the academic performance of the building, which shall include at least one of the following options:
| Reopen the school as a charter school| Replace personnel| Contract with a nonprofit or for-profit entity to operate the building| Turn operation of the building over to the state department of education| Other significant restructuring of the building?s governance.

For any school building that fails to make adequate yearly progress for six consecutive school years, the district shall implement the plan. This policy was enacted because of NCLB and is directly related to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [3302.04]

Oklahoma

Oklahoma has enacted a policy that allows the state board of education to intervene in low-performing schools in one of the following ways:
| Special funding| Reassignment of district personnel| Transfer of students| Operation of the school by personnel employed by the state department of education| Mandatory annexation of all or part of the local school district| Placing operation of the school with an institution of higher education as a developmental research school pursuant to state law if the low-performing school is within 10 miles of a college of education within an institution of The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education.
This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [70 Okl. St. ? 1210.541]

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has enacted a policy that designates certain districts with a high number of low-performing schools as ?education empowerment districts.? In these districts, the local school board may do any of the following consistent with the school district improvement plan:
| Establish any school as a charter school| Designate any school as an independent school operating under an agreement with the local school board, granting operational control to the governing body of the independent school. The governing body of the independent school, including its membership and selection process, shall be established by the board of school directors and shall include representatives of parents and teachers. A school designated as independent shall have the authority to decide all matters related to the operation of the school. The agreement between the local school board and the independent school shall do the following, consistent with the school district improvement plan:
o Describe the governance structure of the independent school, including the method for the selection of members to the governing body
o Prescribe the educational goals and mission of the independent school and the curriculum to be offered
o Describe the academic, fiscal and other goals and objectives for which the independent school will be held accountable and the evaluation criteria and procedures that will be employed to determine whether the school is meeting its goals and objectives
o Determine the independent school?s funding
o Grant the independent school allocation of and control over its funding and budget
o Grant the independent school control of the educational program and curriculum
o Prescribe the authority of the independent school to establish working conditions, select and assign professional and nonprofessional employees, establish nonteaching duties, extend the length of the school year and schedule of the school day, including holding class after regular hours
o Define the terms under which the agreement may be terminated, extended or renewed| Employ professional staff in accordance with state law as it pertains to certification| Enter into contracts with an individual or a for-profit or nonprofit organization, which shall be authorized to operate a school and employ its own staff to provide educational services| Reconstitute a school| Reassign, suspend or dismiss a professional employee| Supervise and direct principals, teachers and administrators| Rescind without penalty the contract of the superintendent and other administrative personnel entered into after the effective date of this article| Reallocate resources, amend school procedures, develop achievement plans and implement testing or other evaluation procedures for educational purposes.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [17-1701-B to 17-1716-B]

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has enacted a policy that allows the state department of education to exert progressive levels of control over a low-performing school?s budget, program and/or personnel. This control may be exercised in collaboration with the school district and the municipality. This policy also allows the state board of education to reconstitute a low-performing school. Such reconstitution may include restructuring the school's governance, budget, program, personnel and/or may include decisions regarding the continued operation of the school.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [16-7.1-5]

South Carolina

South Carolina has enacted a policy that allows the state superintendent, after consulting with an external review committee and with the approval of the state board of education, to take any of the following actions with regard to a low-performing school:
| Furnish continuing advice and technical assistance in implementing the recommendations of the state board of education| Declare a state of emergency in the school and replace the school?s principal| Declare a state of emergency in the school and assume management of the school.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [59-18-1520]

Tennessee

Tennessee has enacted a policy that allows the state commissioner of education to take any of the following actions against a school on probation for low performance:
| Approve a school or system?s allocation of financial resources to schools on probation| Approve a school or system?s allocation of personnel resources to the schools placed on probation| Present options for a school or system to plan for alternative governance, which may include:
o Contracting with an institution of higher education for operation of the school
o Removing the school from the jurisdiction of the school system and placing the school under the jurisdiction of the department of education
o Restructuring the school as a public charter school should the general assembly enact separate legislation outside the parameters of this section that authorizes the establishment of public charter schools.

According to this policy, the director of each local education agency serving schools placed on probation has the responsibility for the preparation of a plan for alternative governance from the options provided by the state commissioner of education. If after two consecutive years on probation, a school does not make progress to meet the standards for adequate yearly progress, this policy allows the state commissioner of education to assume any or all powers of governance for the school.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [49-1-602]

Texas

Texas has enacted a policy that allows, if a school has been low performing for a period of one year or more, the state commissioner of education to appoint a board of managers composed of residents of the district to exercise the powers and duties of the local school board in relation to the school. If a school has been low performing for a period of two consecutive years or more, the commissioner shall order the closure of the school or reconstitute the school. In reconstituting the school, a special school intervention team shall be assembled for the purpose of deciding which educators may be retained at that school. If an educator is not retained, the educator may be assigned to another position in the district.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [39.132]

Vermont

Vermont has enacted a policy that allows the state commissioner of education to recommend to the state board of education one or more of the following actions with regard to a low-performing school:
| Continue technical assistance| Adjust supervisory union boundaries or responsibilities of the superintendency| Assume administrative control only to the extent necessary to correct deficiencies| Close the school and require the school district pay tuition to another public school or an approved independent school.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [16 V.S.A. ? 165]

West Virginia

West Virginia has enacted a policy that allows the state board of education to intervene in the operation of a low-performing school to cause improvements to be made. This intervention may include, but is not limited to, establishing instructional programs, taking such direct action as may be necessary to correct the impairments, declaring the position of principal is vacant and assigning a principal for the school who shall serve at the will and pleasure of and, under the sole supervision of, the state board.

This policy was enacted as part of the state accountability system that was in place prior to the enactment of NCLB and appears to be unrelated to NCLB?s AYP timeline. [18-2E-5]

Todd Ziebarth is a policy analyst with Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, a Denver-based consulting firm. The U.S. Department of Education?s Public Charter Schools Program provided funding for this document.

? Copyright 2004 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. The Education Commission of the States is a nonprofit, nationwide organization that helps state leaders shape education policy.

To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.


#

tags