The School Improvement Grant (SIG) provides funding to help local educational agencies (LEAs) address the needs of schools in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring to improve student achievement. SIG funds are to be used to leverage change and improve technical assistance through LEAs targeting activities towards measurable outcomes. Expected results from the use of these funds include improving student proficiency, increasing the numbers of schools that make adequate yearly progress, using data to inform decisions, and creating a system of continuous feedback and improvement.
Program Description
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
School Improvement Grant Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SIGMART)
Use the SIGMART to view and modify budgets and report quarterly expenditures.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (Updated 24-Jan-2011)
Regional Information (Coming Soon)
Select a region number from the table below to see detailed SIG information by region. Information provided includes a district contact, funding amounts, model selection, and SIG documents such as original applications and currently approved budget documents.

| Region | Counties |
|---|---|
| 1 | Del Norte Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Sonoma |
| 2 | Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity |
| 3 | Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba |
| 4 | Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano |
| 5 | Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz |
| 6 | Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne |
| 7 | Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Tulare |
| 8 | San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern |
| 9 | Imperial, Orange, San Diego |
| 10 | San Bernardino, Inyo, Riverside, Mono |
| 11 | Los Angeles |
SIG Cohort 2
This RFA was closed as of November 18, 2011.The Cohort 2 RFA was re-released on September 30, 2011. The list of funded applications is available and award notifications were mailed on February 1, 2012.
2010 School Improvement Grant Webinar (PPT)
Alternative Text Version of 2010 School Improvement Grant Webinar (DOC)
Cohort 2 Letter of Program Improvement Start-Over (09-Nov-2012)
Cohort 2, Year 2, Renewal Application was approved at the March 2013 State Board of Education meeting and posted March 15, 2013. The application is due no later than September 3, 2013.
SIG Cohort 1
This RFA was closed as of July 2, 2010. The Cohort 1 RFA (Revised 17-Jun-2010) was initially posted June 24, 2010 and was due July 2, 2010. An initial list of SIG applications (XLS) received was posted on July 8, 2010. The list of funded applications is available and award notifications were mailed on September 30, 2010.
School Improvement Grant Update Letter (DOC; Dated 30-Sep-2010)
2009 School Improvement Grant Webinar (WMV; 01:31:08; Dated 15-Apr-2010)
Alternative Text Version of 2009 School Improvement Grant Webinar (DOC)
Cohort 1 Letter of Program Improvement Start-Over
SIG Reporting and Monitoring
SIGMART Logon
SIGMART Instructions
Quarterly expenditure reports are due at the conclusion of each quarter.
Due Date |
Program and Fiscal Reporting Due Dates |
Notes |
|---|---|---|
| September 30, 2012 | Cohort 2 FY 2011-12
|
Reporting is required for those sub-grantees that participated in approved pre-implementation activities. |
October 31, 2012 |
Cohort 1 FY 2011-12
Cohort 1 and 2 FY 2012-13
|
For questions regarding the fifth quarter, please contact your assigned Consultant. |
January 31, 2013 |
Cohort 1 FY 2012-13
Cohort 1 and 2 FY 2012-13
|
Revised Budget Summaries and Narratives are required to reflect actual budget figures, based on reported expenditures. |
March 29, 2013 |
Cohort 2 FY 2012-13
|
* Pending State Board of Education approval at the March 2013 meeting. |
April 30, 2013 |
Cohort 1 and 2 FY 2012-13
|
N/A |
| July 31, 2013 | Cohort 1 and 2 FY 2012-13
|
N/A |
| September 3, 2013 | Cohort 2 FY 2013-14
|
* Pending State Board of Education approval at the March 2013 meeting. |
| October 31, 2013 | Cohort 1 and 2 FY 2012-13
Cohort 2 FY 2013-14
|
For questions regarding the fifth quarter, please contact your assigned Consultant. |
| January 31, 2014 | Cohort 2 FY 2013-14
|
Revised Budget Summaries and Narratives are required to reflect actual budget figures, based on reported expenditures. |
*Thus far cumulative expenditures were reported. Beginning with the 2011-12 fourth quarter expenditure report non-cumulative expenditures should be reported.
** Beginning with the 2011-12 fourth quarter expenditure report
use the SIGMART application to report expenditures. Do not use the California Accountability and Improvement System (CAIS).
On-site Reviews
SIG On-site Reviews
Provides general information about the required reviews including review schedules, training, and the program instrument.
Budget and Program Revision Requests (updated 12-Sept-12)
Budget and Program Revision Requests (Updated 7-Nov-12)
Contact the assigned consultant to discuss the nature of the request and give the consultant notice that you plan to submit a revision request. This allows time to discuss the proposed changes and provides an opportunity for the consultant to provide feedback.
Please use the following criteria from the SIG Non-Regulatory Guidance
when trying to decide if an activity/expenditure is allowable:
- Is the proposed purchase directly related to, as well as reasonable and necessary for, the full and effective implementation of the selected model, including whether it is directly related to and reasonable and necessary for, implementing activities required or permitted under the model;
- Whether, through the needs assessment, the LEA identified a specific need or needs that can be addressed through the proposed activity;
- Whether the proposed activity represents a meaningful change that could help improve student academic achievement from prior years;
- Whether the specific proposed activity is supported by research indicating that, in fact, it will help improve academic achievement; and
- Whether the proposed activity represents a significant reform that goes beyond the basic educational program of the school
Budget Revision Requests
LEAs must submit a budget revision request and receive approval from the CDE prior to increasing or decreasing object code series totals or moving funds from an approved object code series to other object code series. The previous policy allowed LEAs to shift funds locally and without approval for amounts equal to or less than ten percent of the object code series total. However, the SIGMART must contain accurate figures so local, unapproved changes are currently not permitted. Future updates to SIGMART will include allowing an LEA to move funds between object code series without approval if the amount is ten percent or less of the object code series total.
LEAs retain the flexibility to move funds but requests will only be approved if the new use for the money is directly related to implementation of one of the model components of the selected school intervention model and the revision does not compromise the LEA's ability to implement any required element of the selected model(s). Revision requests will only be considered if the change targets the same need(s), or the LEA can demonstrate that the need(s) targeted by the funds is already being met.
Submitting a budget revision is a two part process.
- Prepare a document explaining the details of the revision request. Make sure that the criteria listed above are fully addressed. Revise the hard copy Budget Narrative Form and send it via e-mail to the assigned analyst shown below. Use the last approved budget narrative, striking through, rather than deleting, the old figures and activities and inserting the new figures and activities. All changes to the narrative must be highlighted. We no longer require LEA or School Budget Summary Forms.
- Log on to the SIGMART to enter the proposed budget summary that aligns with the revised narrative submitted in step one. Contact the LEA SIG coordinator to obtain the Username and Password. Be advised that we will only make the budget available for online editing after receipt and acceptance of the revised budget narrative and that from this point forward, recipients must use the SIGMART to submit budget revisions and expenditure reports instead of submitting them in the CAIS.
Programmatic Revision Requests
Prepare a document explaining the details of the revision request and revise the appropriate SIG Implementation Chart to reflect which activities will be added or removed. Submit the details of the revision request and the revised SIG Implementation Chart to the assigned consultant. If the programmatic revision also results in a budget revision, please follow the budget revision process shown above.
Submitting the revised Budget Narrative Form
Cohort |
Send To |
E-mail |
LEA/School Form Number |
|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Ray Gordon, Jr. |
5a/5b |
|
2 |
Thomas Williamson |
4b/5b |
Contact Us
A list of consultants and assigned LEAs.