School Improvement Grants (SIGs) exemplify a capacity-building investment to spur sustainable changes in America’s persistently lowest-performing schools and stimulate the economy. This study examines both short- and longer-term effects of the first two cohorts of SIG schools from four locations across the country. Dynamic difference-in-differences models show that SIGs’ effects on achievement in Grades 3 to 8, as measured by state test scores in math and English language arts, gradually increased over the three reform years and were largely sustained for 3 or 4 years afterward. Evidence on high school graduation rates, though less robust, also suggests SIGs had positive effects. SIGs’ effects on students of color and low-socioeconomic-status students were similar to or significantly larger than the overall effects.
AbadieA.AtheyS.ImbensG. W.WooldridgeJ. (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? (NBER Working Paper No. 24003). https://www.nber.org/papers/w24003
2.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
3.
AutorD. H. (2003). Outsourcing at will: The contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/344122
4.
BettsJ.LevinJ.MirandaA. P.ChristensonB.EatonM.BosH. (2010). An evaluation of alternative matching techniques for use in comparative interrupted time series analyses: An application to elementary education. American Institutes for Research Working Paper.
5.
BonillaS.DeeT. (2017). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from focus schools in Kentucky (CEPA Working Paper No. 17-05). Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
6.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125
7.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
8.
CarlsonD.LavertuS. (2018). School improvement grants in Ohio: Effects on student achievement and school administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718760218
DeCorby-WatsonK.MensahG.BergeronK.AbdiS.RempelB.MansonH. (2018). Effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 18(1), Article 684. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5591-6
11.
DeeT. S. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (NBER Working Paper No. 17990). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w17990
12.
DeeT. S.Dizon-RossE. (2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373719849944
13.
DeeT. S.JacobB. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586
14.
Dickey-GriffithD. (2013). Preliminary effects of the School Improvement Grant program on student achievement in Texas. The Georgetown Public Policy Review, 2, 21–39.
15.
DobkinC.FinkelsteinA.KluenderR.NotowidigdoM. J. (2018). The economic consequences of hospital admissions. American Economic Review, 108(2), 308–352.
16.
DragosetL.ThomasJ.HerrmannM.DekeJ.James-BurdumyS.GraczewskiC.BoyleA.UptonR.TanenbaumC.GiffinJ. (2017). School Improvement Grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4013). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
17.
GinsburgA.SmithM. S. (2018). Revisiting SIG: Why critics were wrong to write off the federal School Improvement Grant program. FutureEd, Georgetown University.
18.
Goodman-BaconA. (2018). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing (No. w25018). National Bureau of Economic Research.
19.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.
HeisselJ. A.LaddH. F. (2018). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62, 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.08.001
22.
HenryG. T.GuthrieJ. E. (2016, November3–5). When the LATE ain’t ATE: Comparing alternative methods for evaluating reform impacts in low-achieving schools [Panel paper]. Annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, United States.
HenryG. T.PhamL.KhoA.ZimmerR. (2020). Peeking into the black box of school turnaround: A formal test of mediators and suppressors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720908600
25.
HurlburtS.TherriaultS. B.Le FlochK. C. (2012). School Improvement Grants: Analyses of state applications and eligible and awarded schools (NCEE 2012-4060). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
26.
KyseE. N.Swann-JacksonR.MariniJ.BentonJ.ByrneA.SceppaguercioA.WilsonK. (2014). Final evaluation report for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) evaluation: Summary and recommendations. Center for Research and Evaluation on Education and Human Services, Montclair State University. http://www.nj.gov/education/title1/sig/EvaluationReportC1and2.pdf
27.
McDonnellL. M.ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 2133–2152. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002133
28.
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), 669–691.
29.
OrlandM.HoffmanA.VaughnI. I. I. (2010). Evaluation of the Comprehensive School Reform Program implementation and outcomes: Fifth-year report. U.S. Department of Education.
30.
PapayJ.HannonM. (2018, November7–10). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts [Panel paper]. Annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, United States.
SchuelerB. E.GoodmanJ. S.DemingD. J. (2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332.
34.
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. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00188
35.
StrunkK. O.McEachinA.WestoverT. N. (2014). The use and efficacy of capacity-building assistance for low-performing districts: The case of California’s district assistance and intervention teams. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 719–751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21658
36.
SunM.LiuJ.LeClairZ.ZhuJ. (2019). Using a text-as-data approach to understand reform processes: A deep exploration of school improvement strategies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 510–536.
37.
SunM.PennerE.LoebS. (2017). Resource- and approach-driven multi-dimensional change: Three-year effects of School Improvement Grants. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 607–643
WongV. C.ValentineJ. C.Miller-BainsK. (2017). Empirical performance of covariates in education observational studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1164781
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.
