Description
Description talk about examining turnaround efforts funded by school improvement grants.
1 PRINCETON, NJ - ANN ARBOR, MI - CAMBRIDGE, MA - CHICAGO, IL - OAKLAND, CA - WASHINGTON, DC MATHEMATICA-MPR.COM
A growing focus on turning around the nation’s struggling schools has led the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) to invest heavily in grants to states, including the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) and Race to the Top (RTT) programs. To better understand
the implementation and impact of these programs, ED’s Institute of Education Sciences is
conducting a large-scale evaluation of RTT and SIG. As part of this study, Mathematica
Policy Research collected and compared data from low-performing schools that implemented
one of four SIG-funded intervention models with data from similar schools that did not. We
present fndings from these comparisons in “Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring
of School Turnaround,” the frst in a series of briefs from the evaluation of RTT and SIG.
Although these results do not necessarily apply to SIG schools nationwide, they are
nonetheless important because they add to the limited knowledge base about how SIG-
funded turnaround eforts are conducted. At the core of these eforts are four intervention
models that emphasize diferent strategies for turning around schools (see Sidebar).
“Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring of School Turnaround” examines the
use of three inter-related levers for school improvement: (1) school operational authority
or responsibility for decision making, (2) state and district support for turnaround, and
(3) state monitoring of turnaround eforts. SIG principles emphasize that school leaders
should have the autonomy to make decisions on matters such as stafng, calendars, and
budgeting while being supported and monitored by states and districts to ensure progress.
Tis brief examines school practices related to these three levers and highlights the
similarities and diferences between schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention
model and similar comparison schools not implementing such models.
KEY FINDINGS
In almost all operational areas examined, less than half of both groups of schools reported having
primary responsibility. Budgeting was the most common area in which schools implementing
and not implementing a SIG-funded intervention model reported having operational authority
(55 percent and 54 percent).
January 2014
Examining Turnaround Eforts Funded
by School Improvement Grants
1
EDUCATION BRIEF
1. TURNAROUND.
Replace the school
principal; rehire no
more than 50 percent
of school staff; and
grant the new principal
flexibility in areas such
as hiring, length of the
school day, and the
school budget.
2. RESTART.
Convert the school
into a charter or
close and reopen the
school under a charter
school operator,
charter management
organization, or
education management
organization.
3. CLOSURE.
Close the school
and enroll students
in higher-achieving
schools within the
same district.
4. TRANSFORMATION.
Replace the school
principal, take steps
to increase the
effectiveness of
teachers and principals,
institute comprehensive
instructional reforms,
increase learning time,
create community-
oriented schools, and
provide operational
flexibility.
Length of school day:
19% vs. 12%
Professional development
requirements:
53% vs. 39%
Budget:
55% vs. 54%
Schools implementing
SIG intervention model
Schools not implementing
SIG intervention model
Operational authority
2
Follow us on:
Mathematica
®
is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Scan this QR code
to visit our website.
• Schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model were no more likely than schools not
implementing such a model to report having primary responsibility, except in two areas: setting
professional development requirements (53 percent versus 39 percent) and determining the length
of the school day (19 percent versus 12 percent).
• In the other seven operational areas examined, less than half of the schools in both groups
reported having primary responsibility in areas such as student discipline policies (38 percent and
35 percent), stafng (37 percent and 46 percent), assessment policies (25 percent and 21 percent),
and curriculum (18 percent and 16 percent).
Most states, districts, and schools reported providing or receiving some type of turnaround
support. According to states, the most common turnaround supports they provided involved
helping schools develop improvement plans (20 of the 21 states interviewed) and identify
efective improvement strategies (19 of the 21 states interviewed).
• Schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model were no more likely than schools not
implementing such a model to report receiving support in 9 of 12 areas examined, including
working with parents, planning school improvements, and recruiting or retaining teachers.
• Te three exceptions were identifying turnaround strategies (82 percent versus 65 percent),
identifying and supporting efective instructional leaders (61 percent versus 51 percent), and
supporting data use (71 percent versus 40 percent).
Most states reported that monitoring involved site visits and analysis of student data and most
reported that monitoring was also used for formative purposes.
• State monitoring took the form of analyzing student data (21 states), and conducting site visits
(20 states); to a lesser extent, it involved having discussions with parents or the community
(16 states) and surveying school staf (12 states).
• Most states also reported that monitoring was used for formative purposes such as assessing
implementation fdelity (14 states) and identifying additional supports for schools (14 states).
• State-level monitoring may help to inform states when stronger action is needed, such as taking
over failing schools (which 11 states reported having the authority to do) and placing struggling
schools in a special district focused on school improvement (which 5 states reported having the
authority to do).
ABOUT THE STUDY
Te fndings from this study are based on spring 2012 survey responses from 450 school
administrators in 60 districts across 22 states, as well as interviews with administrators in the
60 districts and 21 of the 22 states. Tese data supplement the research base on school turnaround
by providing descriptive information on the use of three levers for improvement in a purposive
sample of states, districts, and schools.
To view the full brief, “Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring of School Turnaround,”
please visit Mathematica’s website www.mathematica-mpr.com or the U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences website:http://ies.ed.gov/.
21 states
analyzed
student data
20 states
conducted
site visits
16 states
engaged
parents or community
12 states
surveyed
school staf
ü
doc_717741290.pdf
Description talk about examining turnaround efforts funded by school improvement grants.
1 PRINCETON, NJ - ANN ARBOR, MI - CAMBRIDGE, MA - CHICAGO, IL - OAKLAND, CA - WASHINGTON, DC MATHEMATICA-MPR.COM
A growing focus on turning around the nation’s struggling schools has led the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) to invest heavily in grants to states, including the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) and Race to the Top (RTT) programs. To better understand
the implementation and impact of these programs, ED’s Institute of Education Sciences is
conducting a large-scale evaluation of RTT and SIG. As part of this study, Mathematica
Policy Research collected and compared data from low-performing schools that implemented
one of four SIG-funded intervention models with data from similar schools that did not. We
present fndings from these comparisons in “Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring
of School Turnaround,” the frst in a series of briefs from the evaluation of RTT and SIG.
Although these results do not necessarily apply to SIG schools nationwide, they are
nonetheless important because they add to the limited knowledge base about how SIG-
funded turnaround eforts are conducted. At the core of these eforts are four intervention
models that emphasize diferent strategies for turning around schools (see Sidebar).
“Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring of School Turnaround” examines the
use of three inter-related levers for school improvement: (1) school operational authority
or responsibility for decision making, (2) state and district support for turnaround, and
(3) state monitoring of turnaround eforts. SIG principles emphasize that school leaders
should have the autonomy to make decisions on matters such as stafng, calendars, and
budgeting while being supported and monitored by states and districts to ensure progress.
Tis brief examines school practices related to these three levers and highlights the
similarities and diferences between schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention
model and similar comparison schools not implementing such models.
KEY FINDINGS
In almost all operational areas examined, less than half of both groups of schools reported having
primary responsibility. Budgeting was the most common area in which schools implementing
and not implementing a SIG-funded intervention model reported having operational authority
(55 percent and 54 percent).
January 2014
Examining Turnaround Eforts Funded
by School Improvement Grants
1
EDUCATION BRIEF
1. TURNAROUND.
Replace the school
principal; rehire no
more than 50 percent
of school staff; and
grant the new principal
flexibility in areas such
as hiring, length of the
school day, and the
school budget.
2. RESTART.
Convert the school
into a charter or
close and reopen the
school under a charter
school operator,
charter management
organization, or
education management
organization.
3. CLOSURE.
Close the school
and enroll students
in higher-achieving
schools within the
same district.
4. TRANSFORMATION.
Replace the school
principal, take steps
to increase the
effectiveness of
teachers and principals,
institute comprehensive
instructional reforms,
increase learning time,
create community-
oriented schools, and
provide operational
flexibility.
Length of school day:
19% vs. 12%
Professional development
requirements:
53% vs. 39%
Budget:
55% vs. 54%
Schools implementing
SIG intervention model
Schools not implementing
SIG intervention model
Operational authority
2
Follow us on:
Mathematica
®
is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Scan this QR code
to visit our website.
• Schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model were no more likely than schools not
implementing such a model to report having primary responsibility, except in two areas: setting
professional development requirements (53 percent versus 39 percent) and determining the length
of the school day (19 percent versus 12 percent).
• In the other seven operational areas examined, less than half of the schools in both groups
reported having primary responsibility in areas such as student discipline policies (38 percent and
35 percent), stafng (37 percent and 46 percent), assessment policies (25 percent and 21 percent),
and curriculum (18 percent and 16 percent).
Most states, districts, and schools reported providing or receiving some type of turnaround
support. According to states, the most common turnaround supports they provided involved
helping schools develop improvement plans (20 of the 21 states interviewed) and identify
efective improvement strategies (19 of the 21 states interviewed).
• Schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model were no more likely than schools not
implementing such a model to report receiving support in 9 of 12 areas examined, including
working with parents, planning school improvements, and recruiting or retaining teachers.
• Te three exceptions were identifying turnaround strategies (82 percent versus 65 percent),
identifying and supporting efective instructional leaders (61 percent versus 51 percent), and
supporting data use (71 percent versus 40 percent).
Most states reported that monitoring involved site visits and analysis of student data and most
reported that monitoring was also used for formative purposes.
• State monitoring took the form of analyzing student data (21 states), and conducting site visits
(20 states); to a lesser extent, it involved having discussions with parents or the community
(16 states) and surveying school staf (12 states).
• Most states also reported that monitoring was used for formative purposes such as assessing
implementation fdelity (14 states) and identifying additional supports for schools (14 states).
• State-level monitoring may help to inform states when stronger action is needed, such as taking
over failing schools (which 11 states reported having the authority to do) and placing struggling
schools in a special district focused on school improvement (which 5 states reported having the
authority to do).
ABOUT THE STUDY
Te fndings from this study are based on spring 2012 survey responses from 450 school
administrators in 60 districts across 22 states, as well as interviews with administrators in the
60 districts and 21 of the 22 states. Tese data supplement the research base on school turnaround
by providing descriptive information on the use of three levers for improvement in a purposive
sample of states, districts, and schools.
To view the full brief, “Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring of School Turnaround,”
please visit Mathematica’s website www.mathematica-mpr.com or the U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences website:http://ies.ed.gov/.
21 states
analyzed
student data
20 states
conducted
site visits
16 states
engaged
parents or community
12 states
surveyed
school staf
ü
doc_717741290.pdf