Hoping to spur dramatic school turnaround, the federal government channeled resources to the country’s lowest-performing schools through School Improvement Grants (SIG). However, prior research on SIG effectiveness is limited and focuses primarily on student achievement. This study uses a difference-in-differences strategy to estimate program impacts on multiple dimensions across the 3-year duration of the SIG award in one urban school district. Following 2 years of modest improvement, we find pronounced, positive effects of SIG interventions on student achievement in Year 3, consistent with prior literature indicating that improvements from comprehensive school turnarounds emerge gradually. We also identify improvements indicating the process through which change occurred, including reduced unexcused absences, increased family preference for SIG schools, improved retention of effective teachers, and greater development of teacher professional capacity.
AhnT.VigdorJ. (2014). The impact of No Child Left Behind’s accountability sanctions on school performance: Regression discontinuity evidence from North Carolina (No. 20511). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20511
2.
AladjemD. K.LeFlochK. C.ZhangY.KurkiA.BoyleA.TaylorJ. E.. . . FasholaO. (2006). Models matter—The final report of the National Longitudinal Evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED499198). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
BerendsM. (2000). Teacher-reported effects of New American School designs: Exploring relationships to teacher background and school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 65–82.
5.
BerendsM.BodillyS. J.KirbyS. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
6.
BifulcoR.DuncombeW.YingerJ. (2005). Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 47–72.
7.
BloomH. S.HamS.MeltonL.O’BrienJ. (2001). Evaluating the accelerated schools approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_94.pdf
8.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.
9.
BormanK. M.CarterK.AladjemD. K.LeFlochK. C. (2004). Challenges for the future of comprehensive school reform. In CrossC. T. (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 109–150). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
10.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
BurgessS.GreavesE.VignolesA.WilsonD. (2014). What parents want: school preferences and school choice. The Economic Journal, 125(587), 1262–1289.
12.
California Department of Education. (2010, March11). Persistently lowest-achieving schools—Accountability. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pl/
CameronA. C.MillerD. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. The Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372.
15.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. F.McPartlandJ. M.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1966). Equal educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
16.
CookT. D.HabibF.-N.PhillipsM.SetterstenR. A.ShagleS. C.DegirmenciogluS. M. (1999). Comer’s school development program in Prince George’s County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543–597.
de la TorreM.AllensworthE.JagesicS.SebastianJ.SalmonowiczM.MeyersC.GerdemanR. D. (2013). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago: Research report. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
19.
DeeT. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (Working Paper No. 17990). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17990
20.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.
DragosetL.ThomasJ.HerrmannM.DekeJ.James-BurdumyS.GraczewskiC.. . . GiffinJ. (2017). School Improvement Grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
23.
FiglioD. N.RouseC. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?Journal of Public Economics, 90(1), 239–255.
24.
GrossB.BookerT. K.GoldhaberD. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126.
25.
GuthrieJ. E.HenryG. T. (2016, November). When the LATE ain’t ATE: Comparing alternative methods for evaluating reform impacts in low-achieving schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington DC.
HastingsJ. S.KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2005). Parental preferences and school competition: Evidence from a public school choice program (Working Paper 11805). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11805
28.
HastingsJ. S.WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4), 1373–1414.
29.
HeisselJ. A.LaddH. F. (2016). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis (Working Paper No. 156). Washington, DC: CALDER.
30.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS.DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools. IES Practice Guide (NCEE 2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/Turnaround_pg_04181.pdf
31.
HessG. A. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13(4), 494–517.
JacksonC. K. (2012). Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from ninth grade teachers in North Carolina (Working Paper No. 18624). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18624
34.
KantorH.LoweR. (1995). Class, race, and the emergence of federal education policy: From the New Deal to the Great Society. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 4–21.
35.
Lachlan-HachéJ.NaikM.CasserlyM. (2012). The School Improvement Grant rollout in America’s Great City Schools: School Improvement Grants. Council of the Great City Schools. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530694
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (in press). School reconstitution as a turnaround strategy: An analysis of the evidence. In MathisJ.TrujilloT. (Eds.), Test-based education reforms: Lessons from a failed agenda. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
38.
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18(5), 631–660.
39.
McEachinA. J.WelshR. O.BrewerD. J. (2016). The variation in student achievement and behavior within a portfolio management model: Early results from New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 162373 716659928.
40.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48).
41.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55
42.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: An open letter to the American people: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.
PapayJ. P. (2015, November). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the Association of Public Policy and Management Annual Meeting, Miami, FL.
45.
PlayerD.KatzV. (2013). School improvement in Ohio: An evaluation of the School Turnaround Specialist Program (CEPWC Working Paper Series No. 10). Charlottesville, VA: Center on Education Policy and Workforce Competitiveness. Retrieved from http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/10_Player_SchoolTurnaround.pdf
46.
RowanB.MillerR. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252–297.
47.
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). (2010). SFUSD School Improvement Grant (SIG) application executive summary. San Francisco, CA: SFUSD. Retrieved from www.nctq.org/docs/sig-executive-summary.pdf
ScottC.KrasnoffB.DavisD.NorthwestE. (2014, October). Digging into transformation: Implementation of federal school improvement grants in Oregon. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Research Association, Denver, CO.
52.
ScottC.McMurrerJ. (2015). Mission impossible? What states with large percentages of rural schools tell us about federal school improvement grants. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(2), 211–223.
53.
SpillaneJ. P.ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
54.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS. C.DuqueM. R. (2015). The best laid plans: An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309.
55.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS. (2016). Innovation and a return to the status quo: A mixed-methods study of school reconstitution. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 549–577.
56.
StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS.WeinsteinT. (2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 251–282.
57.
SunM.SaultzA.YeY. (2016). Federal policy and the teacher labor market: Exploring the effects of NCLB on teacher turnover. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 102–122.
58.
SundermanG. L. (2001). Accountability mandates and the implementation of Title I schoolwide programs: A comparison of three urban districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 503–532.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Guidance on fiscal year 2010 school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance11012010.pdf
61.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Guidance on school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec1003
62.
WangM. C.WongK. K.KimJ.-R. (1999). A national study of Title I schoolwide programs: A synopsis of interim findings. Laboratory for Student Success, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory at Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development and Education. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED436596#page/n5/mode/2up
63.
WelshR. O.DuqueM.McEachinA. (2016). School choice, student mobility, and school quality: Evidence from post-Katrina New Orleans. Education Finance and Policy, 11(2), 150–176.
WongK. K.MeyerS. J. (1998). Schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 115–136.
66.
ZimmerR.HenryG.KhoA. (2016, November). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
