(1) The general assembly finds that:
Developing high-quality leadership for struggling schools has become a clear prioritynationwide to systematically improve academic performance among low-achieving students;
Leadership for low-performing schools is fundamentally different than leadership forhigher-performing schools. Extensive research shows that, to achieve real turnaround and academic improvement, low-performing schools need to experience significant and fundamental change in instructional practices as well as in the school's climate and culture. Turnaround leadership requires dramatic and transformative intervention in a culture of underperformance within a short amount of time. The research further articulates the skills and competencies that school leaders must have to produce this type of change in a school and that these skills and competencies are dramatically different from those practiced by most school leaders.
There is also a significant amount of research and evidence around the practices thatare needed to train, recruit, incentivize, and sustain successful, high-quality school turnaround leaders;
In addition to school principals, teacher leaders within schools and district-level personnel who coordinate and support turnaround efforts for multiple schools of a school district are crucial to achieving increased academic performance within low-performing schools and must be included in programs to train successful, high-quality school turnaround leaders;
For the 2013-14 school year, one hundred nineteen public schools serving fifty-fivethousand eight hundred fourteen students in Colorado are accredited with priority improvement plans, and forty-nine public schools serving seventeen thousand three hundred eleven students are accredited with turnaround plans. For the 2013-14 school year, fourteen school districts are accredited with priority improvement plans, and two school districts are accredited with turnaround plans. Given these levels of performance in the public schools, Colorado must address the need to develop, nurture, and support aspiring and practicing school turnaround leaders.
There is a tremendous opportunity for the state to recruit, develop, and facilitate newand existing leadership development programs that are specifically focused on developing leaders to serve low-performing schools.
(1.5) The general assembly further finds that, while school leadership is a crucial aspect of improving the performance of struggling schools, factors such as school culture, teacher professional development, and the transformation of instruction in the classroom are also necessary elements of the plan to transform a public school and raise the academic performance of the students enrolled in the school.
The general assembly therefore finds that it is imperative and in the best interests ofthe state to create the school transformation grant program within the department to contract with providers and award grants to school districts throughout the state to use in developing outstanding school leaders with the skills and competencies required to turn around lowperforming public schools in the state and to provide grants to school districts, the institute, and charter schools to support them in improving educator professional development and transforming instruction, which may include planning for and implementing rigorous school redesign strategies.
The general assembly declares that, for purposes of section 17 of article IX of thestate constitution, the school transformation grant program is an important element in implementing accountable programs to meet state academic standards and may therefore receive funding from the state education fund created in section 17 (4) of article IX of the state constitution.
Source: L. 2014: Entire article R&RE, (SB 14-124), ch. 342, p. 1519, § 1, effective June 5. L. 2018: (1.5) added and (2) and (3) amended, (HB 18-1355), ch. 324, p. 1954, § 19, effective May 30.