Research References
Ayscue, J. B., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2019). Magnets and school
turnarounds: Revisiting policies for promoting equitable,
diverse schools.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(72).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1219388
From the ERIC abstract: “This case study examines how
magnet school and school turnaround processes can work
together to promote desegregation and improvement. Based on
cross-case analysis of three magnet schools undergoing
turnarounds, this study draws on data from the 2010 federal
Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant and qualitative
fieldwork through observations, interviews, and focus groups.
In academically struggling schools with high concentrations of
students of color and low-income students, successful magnet
turnarounds involve changes across many aspects of the
schools. While the local context is essential for shaping the
magnet turnaround process, these three schools reveal common
ways in which participants viewed their schools as successful
turnarounds, the elements that supported success, and the
challenges that magnets undergoing a turnaround are likely to
face. Participants’ perceptions of a successful turnaround
were based on increasing family interest and increasing racial
and economic diversity, as well as improvements in curriculum
and instruction, school culture, and academic achievement.
This study helps broaden our definition of a school turnaround
beyond higher test scores and reminds us of the origins of the
concept, which revolved around desegregation. Lessons from the
sites suggest that rather than closing underperforming or
under-enrolled schools, districts should consider magnet
schools as a turnaround approach.”
Basileo, L. D., & Toth, M. (2017, April).
Turning around chronically low-performing schools.
AERA Online Paper Repository, Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Antonio, Texas.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593311
From the ERIC abstract: “The study used tailored
interventions for ten schools which were deemed chronically
low performing in Florida. Treatment schools included a
majority of students that were minorities, economically
disadvantaged and academically struggling or at-risk of
failure. The ten schools received a progression of intensive
professional development and coaching for principals and
teachers. Principals and district leaders received specific
and actionable feedback in 30-day cycles to improve teaching
and ensure fidelity to standards-based instruction. While
teacher and student value-added metrics are not yet available
for analysis, preliminary results show that 70% of schools
increased their school letter grade. Moreover, three treatment
schools increased two letter grades, four schools increased
one letter grade and three schools received the same letter
grade.”
Champagne, E., & Therriault, S. B. (2018). Leveraging research
to improve Massachusetts’s schools.
State Education Standard, 18(2), 24–27.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1179846
From the ERIC abstract: “The Massachusetts Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) and the
Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education are
deeply committed to ensuring that every student in the state
has access to a high- quality education, and they have
combined this commitment with an openness to innovation. After
just one year of School Improvement Grant (SIG) implementation
in the state's turnaround schools, Education Commissioner
Mitchell Chester in 2011 asked his team to document what was
working in the state’s lowest performing schools that had
engaged in redesign efforts. In 2014, they distilled their
findings into a set of turnaround best practices. Supported by
this research, ESE began to align its assistance efforts with
these turnaround practices. The department took four key
steps: (1) It revised the required turnaround planning
template to allow schools and districts to choose
evidence-based strategies that fit their contexts, so long as
they were aligned with the framework of practices; (2) It
aligned its application and scoring rubric for competitive
federal SIG funding with the revised turnaround plan and the
research results from successful schools and in so doing
raised the bar for all SIG-funded schools, which could no
longer focus on only one or two strategies of varying quality;
(3) It changed its process for monitoring progress, adding a
turnaround practices and indicators rubric to assess
implementation of each of the best practices at its turnaround
schools; and (4) It focused its direct assistance toward
supporting better implementation of the turnaround practices
in the field, aligned with the needs identified through the
monitoring process.”
de la Torre, M., Allensworth, E., Jagesic, S., Sebastian, J.,
Salmonowicz, M., Meyers, C., et al. (2012).
Changes in student populations and teacher workforce in
low-performing Chicago schools targeted for reform. Issues &
answers
(REL 2012-123). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Midwest.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531351
From the ERIC abstract: “‘Turning around’ chronically
low-performing schools is of increasing interest to educators
and policymakers, as highlighted by the U.S. Department of
Education’s (2010) recent call to rapidly improve the nation’s
5,000 lowest performing schools. Yet there is little rigorous
research on changes in student populations and teacher
workforce in schools undergoing interventions to improve
low-performing schools. To fill this gap, this study examines
turnaround intervention models intended to rapidly improve
student performance in chronically low-performing schools in
the Chicago Public Schools district. It analyzes the changes
in student populations and teacher workforce in 31 public
schools in Chicago selected for district-led reform
interventions for chronically low-performing schools over
1997-2010. Two research questions guided the study: (1) Did
the characteristics of students change in the intervention
schools?; and (2) Did the characteristics of teachers change
in the intervention schools? For the first research question,
descriptive analyses compared students in the school the fall
before the intervention with students in the same grades in
the fall after the intervention began. For the second,
descriptive analyses compared the teacher workforce in these
schools for the same periods. These descriptive analyses show
school-by-school changes in students and teachers organized
around the intervention models. The analyses are based on the
entire population of students and teachers at each school and
are not statistical estimates. Comparing student enrollment
the fall before the intervention and the fall after the
intervention shows that: (1) Twenty-three of 31 schools served
fewer students by grade after the intervention, with five
schools serving at least a quarter fewer students. Four of the
schools with the largest declines in enrollment were part of
the closure and restart model; (2) Except for schools in the
closure and restart model, schools reenrolled 55-89 percent of
students eligible to reenroll. The rates were similar to
reenrollment rates in the years before intervention; (3)
Schools in the closure and restart model reenrolled 0-47
percent of students eligible to reenroll. Schools in this
model were closed for one or two years before opening again,
did not serve all the same grade levels when they reopened,
and held citywide enrollment lotteries, which made it
difficult for students to reenroll; and (4) The composition of
the student body—in race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and
special education status—in intervention schools was largely
similar before and after the interventions in all models
except for the closure and restart model. In that model,
schools after intervention served a larger percentage of
economically advantaged students and of students with higher
prior achievement levels, and smaller percentages of special
education students and of students residing in the
neighborhood near the school. Comparing the teacher workforce
the year before the intervention and the year after the
intervention shows that: (1) The extent of teacher rehiring
varied with the intervention model. Schools in the
reconstitution model rehired 42-66 percent of teachers, and
schools in the STSP model retained 44-80 percent. Schools in
the closure and restart, AUSL, and OSI models rehired just
0-24 percent of teachers; and (2) In all intervention models,
the teacher workforce was more likely to be White, younger,
and less experienced and more likely to have provisional
certification after intervention than before it.”
Dragoset, L., James-Burdumy, S., Hallgren, K., Perez-Johnson,
I., Herrmann, M., Tuttle, C., et al. (2015).
Usage of practices promoted by School Improvement Grants
(NCEE 2015- 4019). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559928
From the ERIC abstract: “The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the
Obama administration's signature competitive education grant
programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants
(SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on
school practices, both programs promoted related policies and
practices, including an emphasis on turning around the
nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable
investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence
on their implementation and impact has been limited to date.
This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do
states and schools that received grants actually use the
policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2)
Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from
states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to
these questions provide context for interpreting impact
findings that will be presented in a future report. The second
volume of this report details our SIG findings, which are
based on spring 2012 surveys of approximately 470 schools in
60 districts and 22 states. Key findings include: (1) Schools
implementing a SIG-funded model reported using more practices
promoted by SIG than schools not implementing such models in
all four areas examined: comprehensive instructional reforms,
teacher and principal effectiveness, learning time and
community- oriented schools, and operational flexibility and
support; (2) Across all schools, usage of practices promoted
by SIG was highest in the comprehensive instructional reforms
area (90 percent of practices examined) and lowest in the
operational flexibility and support area (46 percent of
practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between
schools implementing a SIG-funded model and schools not
implementing one in usage of ELL-focused practices promoted by
SIG. Schools with higher percentages of ELLs used more
ELL-focused practices than schools with lower percentages of
ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between schools
with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps.”
Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J.,
James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., et al. (2017).
School Improvement Grants: Implementation and effectiveness
(NCEE 2017- 4013). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572215
From the ERIC abstract: “In response to the recession
that began in 2007, the U.S. Congress passed, and President
Barack Obama signed into law, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. Law 111-5). At an estimated
cost of $831 billion, this economic stimulus package sought to
save and create jobs, provide temporary relief to those
adversely affected by the recession, and invest in education,
health, infrastructure, and renewable energy. States and
school districts received $100 billion to secure teachers'
jobs and promote innovation in schools. This funding included
$3 billion for School Improvement Grants (SIG), one of the
Obama administration’s signature programs and one of the
largest federal government investments in an education grant
program. The SIG program awarded grants to states that agreed
to implement one of four school intervention
models—transformation, turnaround, restart, or closure-in
their lowest-performing schools. Each of the models prescribed
specific practices designed to improve student outcomes,
including outcomes for high-need students such as English
language learners (ELLs) (U.S. Department of Education 2010a).
Given the importance of the SIG program and sizable investment
in it, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) commissioned
this evaluation to focus on four primary questions: (1) Did
schools implementing a SIG-funded model use the improvement
practices promoted by SIG, and how did that compare to use of
those practices by schools not implementing a SIG- funded
model?; (2) Did use of SIG-promoted practices include a focus
on ELLs, and did that focus on ELLs differ between schools
implementing a SIG-funded model and schools not implementing
one?; (3) Did receipt of SIG funding to implement a school
intervention model have an impact on outcomes for
low-performing schools?; and (4) Was the type of school
intervention model implemented related to improvement in
outcomes for low-performing schools? This is the final report
for this evaluation of SIG. This final report builds on the
earlier briefs and report by including an additional year of
data (spring 2013) and by examining whether receipt of SIG
funding had an impact on student outcomes. The findings in
this report suggest that the SIG program did not have an
impact on the use of practices promoted by the program or on
student outcomes (including math or reading test scores, high
school graduation, or college enrollment), at least for
schools near the SIG eligibility cutoff.”
Flowers, N., Begum, S., Carpenter, D. M. H., & Mulhall, P. F.
(2017). Turnaround success: An exploratory study of three
middle grades schools that achieved positive contextual and
achievement outcomes using the Schools to Watch i3 project.
RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 40(8),
1–14.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1157096. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320293334_Turnaround_Success_An_Exploratory_Study_of_Three_Middle_Grades_Schools_that_Achieved_Positive_Contextual_and_Achievement_Outcomes_Using_the_Schools_to_Watch_i3_Project
From the ERIC abstract: “This article presents the
results of a study examining the highest implementers of the
Schools to Watch (STW): School Transformation Network Project,
and the impact the project had on their teaching/learning
practices and outcomes. The project was funded by the U.S.
Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) grant
program and was designed to improve the educational practices,
experiences, and outcomes of 18 low-performing middle grades
schools in California, Illinois, and North Carolina by
offering a whole school reform model with a multilayered
system of support. The framework for the project was the
National Forum to Accelerate Middle- Grades Reform's STW
criteria, a set of strategies and practices for middle grades
schools. The data presented were collected as part of the
project's evaluation which used a quasi- experimental design.
Data are from the Forum's STW Rubric and the Center for
Prevention Research and Development's (CPRD) Self-Study
Teacher Survey from project schools, as well as student
achievement test scores from project and comparison schools.
The findings showed that the highest implemented STW Project
schools achieved higher levels of implementation of the STW
criteria, teacher collaboration, leadership practices, and
best middle grades instructional practices, and showed
significant improvement in mathematics achievement.”
Gandhi, A. G., Slama, R., & Park, S. J. (2016, March).
Focusing on the whole student: An evaluation of
Massachusetts’ Wraparound Zones Initiative.
Paper presented at the Spring 2016 Conference of the Society
for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567241
From the ERIC abstract: “Over the past twenty years,
efforts to turn around low- performing schools have
increasingly become a central component of federal and state
education policy agendas. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the impact of the Wraparound Zones Initiative (WAZ),
a program supported by the Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE), on student outcomes
including achievement, attendance, retention, and suspension.
The study was conducted as part of a multi-year mixed-methods,
formative and summative evaluation of WAZ that ESE
commissioned from American Institutes for Research (AIR). The
setting consisted of districts and schools in Massachusetts
that had been identified by the state as chronically
underperforming and in need of state intervention. The sample
for this study was drawn from students in Cohort 1 and Cohort
2 WAZ schools serving elementary and/or middle grades, plus
students in a set of matched non-WAZ comparison schools. The
WAZ Initiative is designed to create coordinated district
systems that allow schools to proactively and systematically
address students’ nonacademic needs. Comparative interrupted
time series (CITS) design was used to measure the impact of
receiving a WAZ grant on student outcomes, including student
achievement, attendance, retention, and suspension. Overall,
students in WAZ schools performed better on the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) English language arts
(ELA) and mathematics assessments as compared with students in
comparison schools, when considering prior achievement trends.
Effects were statistically significant after the second and
third years of WAZ implementation for ELA, and after the
second year for mathematics. This research study is
significant in that it demonstrates that a program focused on
student support and social-emotional learning can have an
impact on student achievement, and can be an integral
component of overall school turnaround strategy.”
Garrison-Mogren, R., & Gutmann, B. (2012).
State and district receipt of Recovery Act funds—A report
from charting the progress of education reform: An
evaluation of the Recovery Act’s role
(NCEE 2012-4057). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535324
From the ERIC abstract: “The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided
an unprecedented level of funding designed to ‘stimulate the
economy in the short-term and invest wisely, using these funds
to improve schools, raise achievement, drive reforms and
produce better results for children and young people for the
long-term health of our nation.’ The distribution of Recovery
Act funds was intended to reflect these multiple goals. Nearly
$97.4 billion were allocated to the U.S. Department of
Education (ED), of which $70.6 billion were awarded by ED for
primary and secondary (K-12) education through existing and
new federal programs. These funds were distributed to states
and districts using formulas based primarily on population and
student poverty and through competitive grants. Consistent
with its emphasis on transparency, the Recovery Act also
included extensive reporting requirements for the receipt and
use of Recovery Act funds. This report brings together
publicly available information about Recovery Act education
grants—all awarded by September 30, 2010— and the sub-grants
made by grant recipients as of December 31, 2010. It examines
(1) how much states and districts received from the Recovery
Act and its different programs; and (2) whether and how the
distribution of funds varied by selected characteristics of
the recipient states and districts. This information lays the
groundwork for ED's multi-year evaluation, ‘Charting the
Progress of Education Reform: An Evaluation of the Recovery
Act's Role.’ The evaluation examines the implementation of
K-12 education reforms promoted by the Act across states,
school districts, and schools. Key findings from this
examination reveal that: (1) the Recovery Act provided an
average of $1,396 per pupil for K-12 programs; (2) the
Recovery Act K-12 funding to individual states ranged from
$1,063 to $3,632 per pupil; (3) on average, 81 percent of
Recovery Act K-12 funding was awarded to local education
agencies (LEAs), either through sub-grants from states or
through direct grants from ED. In total, 93 percent of all
school districts in the nation received Recovery Act funds
from at least one program; and (4) high-need school
districts—defined as those with the highest rates of child
poverty as well as those with the lowest student
achievement—received considerably more funding per pupil than
did districts with less need.”
Golden, L., Harris, B., Mercado-Garcia, D., Boyle, A., Le
Floch, K. C., & O’Day, J. (2014).
A focused look at schools receiving School Improvement
Grants that have percentages of English language learner
students. NCEE Evaluation Brief
(NCEE 2014-4014). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544789
From the ERIC abstract: “The Study of School Turnaround
examines the improvement process in a purposive sample of 35
case study schools receiving federal funds through the School
Improvement Grants (SIG) program over a three-year period
(2010-11 to 2012-13 school years). This evaluation brief
focuses on 11 of these SIG schools with high proportions of
English Language Learner (ELL) students (a median of 45
percent ELLs). Three key findings that emerged from the ELL
case study data collected in fall 2011 include: (1) Although
all 11 schools reported providing specialized supports for ELL
students, the schools' approaches to improvement during the
initial phase of SIG appeared to include only moderate or
limited attention to the unique needs of ELLs; (2) District
and school administrators perceived challenges related to
teachers' expertise and skills in meeting the unique needs of
ELLs; however, teachers' perceptions of their own capacity
were more mixed. The capacity of the schools' district offices
to support ELLs appeared to vary as well, with two small
districts reporting no district-level staff with ELL training
or experience and seven larger districts reporting
district-level English-as-a- second-language (ESL) departments
with multiple trained staff members; and (3) Schools that
appeared to provide stronger attention to the unique needs of
ELLs in their improvement process were more likely to report
having school staff dedicated to ELL needs, such as ELL
coordinators, ELL coaches, and ESL/bilingual teachers and
tutors. Such schools also were more likely to be located in
districts that reportedly provided expertise and an explicit
focus on ELLs within the context of SIG.”
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R.,
Redding, S., et al. (2008).
Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A
practice guide
(NCEE 2008- 4020). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501241
From the ERIC abstract: “This guide identifies
practices that can improve the performance of chronically
low-performing schools—a process commonly referred to as
creating ‘turnaround schools.’ The four recommendations in
this guide work together to help failing schools make adequate
yearly progress. These recommendations are: (1) signal the
need for dramatic change with strong leadership; (2) maintain
a consistent focus on improving instruction; (3) provide
visible improvements early in the turnaround process (quick
wins); and (4) build a committed staff. The guide includes a
checklist showing how each recommendation can be carried out.
It uses examples from case studies which illustrate practices
noted by schools as having had a positive impact on the school
turnaround.”
Herman, R., Graczewski, C., James-Burdumy, S., Murray, M.,
Perez-Johnson, I., & Tanenbaum, C. (2013).
Operational authority, support, and monitoring of school
turnaround. NCEE Evaluation Brief.
NCEE 2014-4008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544585
From the ERIC abstract: “The federal School Improvement
Grants (SIG) program, to which $3 billion were allocated under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
supports schools attempting to turn around a history of low
performance. School turnaround also is a focus of Race to the
Top (RTT), another ARRA-supported initiative, which involved a
roughly $4 billion comprehensive education reform grant
competition for states. Given the size of these federal
investments, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is
conducting a large-scale evaluation of RTT and SIG to better
understand the implementation and impacts of these programs.
The SIG component, in particular, focuses on a purposive
sample of SIG-eligible schools, including: (1) a group of
schools that received SIG to implement one of four
intervention models specified by the U.S. Department of
Education; and (2) a comparison group of schools from the same
districts that are not implementing one of these four
intervention models with SIG support. Though the results from
this evaluation of SIG are not necessarily generalizable to
SIG schools nationwide, they are nonetheless important because
they add to the limited knowledge base about the
implementation and impacts of SIG-funded school turnaround
efforts. This brief focuses on the implementation of SIG by
examining three interrelated levers for school improvement:
(1) school operational authority; (2) state and district
support for turnaround; and (3) state monitoring of turnaround
efforts. Two appendices present: (1) Race to the Top and
School Improvement Grant: Intervention Models as Described by
the U.S. Department of Education SIG Guidance (2012); and (2)
Table B.1. Characteristics of the State Sample as of 2009-2010
and Table B.2. Characteristics of the District Sample as of
2009-2010.”
Jochim, A., & Opalka, A. (2017).
The “City of Firsts” charts a new path on turnaround.
Linking state and local school improvement.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education,
University of Washington.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574140
From the ERIC abstract: “In 2014, the Springfield
Public School district in Massachusetts had tried just about
every strategy in the turnaround playbook to improve a set of
struggling middle schools, but these efforts failed to
generate the desired improvement. In 2015, drawing inspiration
from national efforts to infuse schools with enhanced autonomy
and accountability, the district voluntarily ceded operational
control of six middle school campuses to the newly formed
Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership (SEZP), an
independent nonprofit charged with overseeing the turnaround
effort. SEZP offers principals freedom from district rules in
exchange for increased accountability for results. These
changes, along with a new collective bargaining agreement for
teachers working in SEZP and new supports for students and
principals, represent a marked departure from Springfield’s
previous efforts. This case study profiles SEZP, comparing and
contrasting it with conventional turnaround strategies such as
district-led turnaround, reconstitution, chartering, and
state-initiated turnaround. Key findings include: (1) SEZP
brought together a package of reforms aimed at generating
improvement and a new governance model that gives schools much
greater freedom to change without needing to ask permission or
fear regulatory second-guessing; (2) SEZP offers a ‘middle
way’ between other school turnaround strategies: providing
more local participation and less controversy compared to
either state takeovers or chartering, and committing more
deeply to school autonomy, tailored support, and choice of
talent compared to conventional district-led turnarounds; and
(3) Thus far, SEZP has seen less controversy and more goodwill
than many other turnaround efforts, but whether the strategy
results in improved student outcomes remains to be seen.”
Jochim, A., & Pillow, T. (2019).
Sustaining improvement after state takeovers: Lessons from
New Orleans.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education,
University of Washington.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594442
From the ERIC abstract: “In the wake of Hurricane
Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s Recovery School District took
over responsibility for most of New Orleans’ public schools.
In 2018 the state takeover came to an end. For the first time
since Katrina, nearly all of the city’s public schools are in
the hands of the Orleans Parish School Board. We set out to
understand how the return to local control has shaped the
trajectory of education in the city, with an eye toward
implications for other states and localities facing similar
transitions. We conducted two rounds of interviews, in 2016
and 2018, with local board members, current and former
district staff, charter school leaders and board members,
community-based advocates, and state officials. Our interviews
focused on understanding how the shift to local control has
shaped the role of key government officials and their partners
in the nonprofit sector, how local leaders are responding to
the demands generated by local control, and what concerns
people have about the future of education in New Orleans.
State and local leaders took numerous steps to ensure that a
return to local control did not spell an end to the conditions
enabling the academic improvements that occurred under state
control. We find, in large part, these preparations had their
intended effects. For now, the reforms are insulated from the
opposition by unique state legislation designed to protect
them, as well as from local leaders who have a stake in
sustaining them. But continued progress in New Orleans will
hinge upon whether local leaders can assemble support for
continued action on low performance and address the emerging
challenges facing students, families, and schools. This won’t
be easy. The board faces an increasingly raucous opposition,
and local leaders have yet to aggressively guide the system of
schools in new, productive directions. The wholesale changes
that occurred in New Orleans likely could not have happened
without state intervention. For other localities worried about
sustaining systemic transformations after takeovers end, New
Orleans offers key lessons in how proactive policymaking can
create a bulwark that safeguards school autonomy and other key
features of the reforms and underscores the value of
deliberate transfers of knowledge and talent.”
Klute, M., Cherasaro, T., & Apthorp, H. (2016).
Summary of research on the association between state
interventions in chronically low-performing schools and
student achievement
(REL 2016-138). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Central.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565613
From the ERIC abstract: “This report summarizes the
research on the association between state interventions in
chronically low-performing schools and student achievement.
Most of the research focused on one type of state
intervention: working with a turnaround partner. Few studies
were identified that examined other types of interventions,
such as school closure, charter conversion, and school
redesign. Most studies were descriptive, which limits the
conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of the
interventions. Results of studies of turnaround partner
interventions were mixed and suggested that student
achievement was more likely to improve when particular
factors—such as strong leadership, use of data to guide
instruction, and a positive school culture characterized by
trust and increased expectations for students— were in place
in schools. Studies in California examined the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program or its successor,
the High Priority School Grant Program. Ten studies examined
interventions in states other than California. Studies varied
somewhat in the details of the interventions studied,
including whether additional funding was provided to support
implementation of reforms. Unlike interventions in California,
studies in other states did not describe school participation
in interventions as voluntary.”
Le Floch, K. C., O’Day, J., Birman, B., Hurlburt, S., Nayfack,
M., Halloran, C., et al. (2016).
Case studies of schools receiving School Improvement Grants:
Final report
(NCEE 2016-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565615
From the ERIC abstract: “The Study of School Turnaround
(SST) examines the change process in a diverse, purposive
sample of schools receiving federal School Improvement Grants
(SIG) from 2010-11 to 2012-13. With the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the SIG
program underwent three major shifts. First, ARRA boosted
total SIG funding in fiscal year 2009 to approximately 6.5
times the original 2009 appropriation through Title I, section
1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
SIG funds were distributed to states by formula based on each
state's Title I share. States then had to competitively make
SIG awards to districts with eligible schools. Second, ARRA
targeted funds at only the very worst schools— those that were
in the bottom 5 percent of performance and had been low
performing for an extended period of time. Third, schools
receiving SIG were now required to implement one of four
prescriptive intervention models believed to be more
aggressive and comprehensive than those generally adopted
under prior policies. By increasing the level of funding,
better targeting these funds to the persistently
lowest-achieving schools, and requiring that schools adopt
specific intervention models, the revamped SIG program aimed
to catalyze more aggressive efforts to turn around student
performance. This report focuses on a small sample of schools
receiving SIG over the first three years of the revamped SIG
program, from 2010-11 to 2012-13. It presents findings from
the study's 25 core sample schools, which were the focus of
data collection in spring 2011 and spring 2012, and a
subsample of 12 of the 25 schools (collectively referred to as
the core subsample), which were selected for data collection
in spring 2013 and are the focus of more in-depth analyses
looking across all three years of SIG. The findings include:
(1) A majority of the 25 core sample schools replaced their
principal (21 schools) at least once in the year before SIG
(2009-10) or in Year 1 of SIG (2010-11); (2) About half of the
25 core sample schools (12 schools, including 9 turnaround, 2
restart, and 1 transformation) replaced at least 50 percent of
their teachers during the 2009-10, 2010-11, or 2011-12 school
years; (3) According to teacher survey data, more teachers
reported participating in professional learning on math,
literacy, and data use than on ELL instruction, special
education, or classroom management during Year 2 of SIG
(2011-12); (4) Core sample schools reported receiving support
from their district (22 of 22 schools) and external support
provider(s) (22 of 25 schools), but in some cases, respondents
described shortcomings in their district or external support;
(5) Among the 12 core subsample schools, those that appeared
to engage in more efforts to build human capital in Years 1
and 2 of SIG (7 schools) were more likely to improve their
organizational capacity (or sustain their already higher
capacity); and (6) Sustainability of any improvements may
prove fragile.”
Osborne, D. (2016). Denver expands choice and charters.
Education Next, 16(3), 34–43.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102667
From the ERIC abstract: “Some of the most dramatic
gains in urban education have come from school districts using
what is known as a ‘portfolio strategy.’ Under this approach,
districts negotiate performance agreements with public
schools—traditional, charter, and hybrid models. The
arrangement affords school leaders substantial autonomy to
handcraft their schools to fit the needs of their students.
Districts give parents choices among the schools while working
to replicate successful schools and replace failing ones. Many
doubt such a strategy is possible with an elected board,
because closing schools and laying off teachers triggers
fierce resistance. In this article, the author presents how an
elected school board in Denver, Colorado, employs portfolio
strategy to lift achievement.”
Rosenberg, L., Christianson, M. D., Angus, M. H., & Rosenthal,
E. (2014).
A focused look at rural schools receiving School
Improvement Grants. NCEE Evaluation Brief
(NCEE 2014-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544784
From the ERIC abstract: “The Study of School Turnaround
is a set of case studies of the school improvement process in
a purposive sample of 35 schools receiving federal funds
through the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program over a
three-year period (school years 2010-11 to 2012-13). This
evaluation brief focuses on the nine SIG schools that were in
rural areas and how respondents in these schools perceived
their rural context to influence specific turnaround
activities. Key findings that emerged from the rural case
study data collected in spring 2012 include: (1) Although
rural SIG schools reported some challenges that nonrural SIG
schools have also reported, such as low student motivation and
staff morale, the rural schools reported additional challenges
resulting from their schools’ remote locations and large
catchment areas. For example, respondents reported that these
rural characteristics affected the recruitment or retention of
teachers and, to a lesser extent, parents’ involvement in the
schools. (2) School and district administrators in eight of
the nine schools suggested that long teacher commutes or
isolated communities posed challenges to recruiting or
retaining teachers. To counter these challenges, respondents
in two schools reported offering direct support for teacher
commutes (for example, gas stipends or vans), and respondents
in three schools reported offering signing bonuses to incoming
teachers. (3) School and district administrators and teaching
staff in the nine schools mentioned multiple factors limiting
parent involvement in school-based activities. Respondents
from five schools perceived that a lack of access to
transportation limited parent involvement, whereas respondents
from three schools noted that the distance between schools and
parents’ homes was a contributing factor. Four schools focused
on hiring or expanding the role of parent liaisons to increase
parent involvement.”
Scott, C., & Ostler, N. (2016).
Reshaping rural schools in the Northwest Region: Lessons
from federal School Improvement Grant implementation
(REL 2016-107). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northwest.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565803
From the ERIC abstract: “The five states in the
Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Northwest Region have
many rural schools that have been designated as in need of
improvement. And all five states had rural schools in the
first cohort of federal School Improvement Grant (SIG)
recipients. To address school improvement, the majority of
those schools implemented the transformation model, which
requires strategies related to improving instruction, ensuring
high-quality staff, and engaging families and communities. REL
Northwest Region state and district leaders asked REL
Northwest to conduct a study examining the extent to which
rural schools across the nation implemented the transformation
model, the challenges they experienced, and the technical
assistance they received. This report provides information
about rural schools using the transformation model. REL
Northwest Region leaders may be able to use this study to
inform future assistance for their rural schools in need of
improvement. A survey was conducted in spring 2014, after most
cohort 1 grant activities were complete. The survey
respondents included 135 principals (67 percent of the 201
schools surveyed) in rural schools implementing the
transformation model. The most salient findings include: (1)
Few rural schools fully implemented the SIG transformation
model. Only 5 percent of the principals surveyed said their
school had fully implemented the 12 transformation strategies
that the survey examined. On average, principals said their
school had fully implemented 6 of the 12 strategies; (2) More
schools implemented strategies related to improving
instruction than strategies related to ensuring high-quality
staff or engaging families and communities. For example, 77
percent of principals reported that their school had fully
implemented the use of student achievement data to inform
instructional decisions, whereas 52 percent reported that
their school had fully implemented staff evaluation systems
that tied evaluation to student achievement, and 40 percent
reported that their school had engaged families; (3) More
schools reported facing implementation challenges related to
ensuring high-quality staff and engaging families and
communities than challenges related to improving instruction.
For example, almost half (47 percent) of principals reported
challenges to rewarding staff financially—a strategy related
to ensuring high-quality staff—and about a third (34 percent)
reported challenges to engaging families and communities. In
contrast, fewer principals (26 percent) reported challenges to
expanding learning time to improve instruction; (4) Almost all
schools received technical assistance from at least one
provider, with districts the most frequently identified
provider. Most principals (93 percent) reported that their
school had received technical assistance from at least one
provider for at least one of the transformation strategies
examined in the survey. More principals reported that their
school had received this assistance from their district (91
percent) than from the state (70 percent), a university (19
percent), or another type of organization (42 percent); and
(5) The more strategies for which principals reported facing
challenges, the fewer strategies they reported their school
had fully implemented. When principals reported challenges
with three or more strategies, they also reported that their
school had fully implemented an average of only 5.2
strategies. In contrast, when principals reported challenges
with fewer than three strategies, they reported that their
school had fully implemented an average of 7.5 strategies. The
more strategies for which principals reported receiving
technical assistance, the more strategies they reported that
their school had fully implemented. When principals reported
receiving technical assistance for more than 7 strategies,
they also reported that their school had fully implemented an
average of 7.2 strategies. In contrast, when principals
reported receiving technical assistance for 7 or fewer
strategies, they reported that their school had fully
implemented an average of only 5.7 strategies.”
Stein, L., LiCalsi, C., Kistner, A., Garcia-Piriz, D., &
Melchior, K. (2017, April).
Measuring impact and understanding implementation of School
Improvement Grants in Massachusetts.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Antonio, Texas.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593310
From the ERIC abstract: “Despite largely mixed reports
about the impact of School Improvement Grants (SIGs) on school
improvement nationwide, Massachusetts has experienced proven
success with these grants, termed School Redesign Grants
(SRGs) in Massachusetts, as evidenced by comparative
interrupted time series analyses, which show that SRGs have a
significant impact on student achievement in both English
language arts and mathematics one, two, and three years after
grant receipt. This study builds upon previous impact studies
of SRGs in Massachusetts, by incorporating additional schools
and additional cohorts, and utilizes qualitative analyses to
identify specific turnaround strategies or activities that
distinguish schools able to improve student outcomes from
schools struggling to do so, despite receiving the same grant
and being afforded the same autonomies.”
Troppe, P., Milanowski, A., Garrison-Mogren, R., Webber, A.,
Gutmann, B., Reisner, E., et al. (2015).
State, district, and school implementation of reforms
promoted under the Recovery Act: 2009–10 through
2011–12
(NCEE 2015-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559930
From the ERIC abstract: “This report, based on surveys
completed by all 50 State Education Agencies (SEAs) and the
District of Columbia (DC) and nationally representative
samples of districts and schools during spring 2011 and 2012,
examines implementation of the key education reform strategies
promoted by the Recovery Act in 2011-12, the extent to which
implementation reflected progress since Recovery Act funds
were first distributed, and challenges with implementation.
Findings showed variation in the prevalence and progress of
reform activities across the areas of reform assessed and by
state, district, or school level. Implementation progress was
most consistent across the areas of reform at the state level.
At all levels, implementation challenges related to educator
evaluation and compensation were common.”
Webber, A., Troppe, P., Milanowski, A., Gutmann, B., Reisner,
E., & Goertz, M. (2014).
State implementation of reforms promoted under the Recovery
Act
(NCEE 2014-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544746
From the ERIC abstract: “The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided
an unprecedented level of funding for K-12 education. The
program created a ‘historic opportunity to save hundreds of
thousands of jobs, support states and school districts, and
advance reforms and improvements that will create long-lasting
results for our students and our nation.’ Specifically, the
Recovery Act allocated $70.6 billion in funding for K-12
education, of which $6.8 billion was awarded to states through
a combination of newly created and existing grant programs,
including the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) formula
grants, Race to the Top (RTT) discretionary grants, and
additional funding for the School Improvement Grant (SIG)
program. In return for Recovery Act grants, recipients were
required to commit to four specific core reforms or
assurances: (1) Adopting rigorous college-ready and
career-ready standards and high-quality assessments; (2)
Establishing data systems and using data to improve
performance; (3) Increasing teacher effectiveness and the
equitable distribution of effective teachers; and (4) Turning
around the lowest performing schools. By linking a commitment
to the four assurances with receipt of funding, the Recovery
Act signaled federal priorities; provided states, districts,
and schools with incentives to initiate or intensify reforms
in each of these areas; and encouraged states to pursue a
combination of mutually supporting reform strategies. This
report is part of the multi-year U.S. Department of Education
(ED) evaluation ‘Charting the Progress of Education Reform: An
Evaluation of the Recovery Act’s Role.’ ED seeks to understand
through this evaluation how states, districts, and schools are
working to implement the education reforms promoted by the
Recovery Act. The current report focuses on whether, and how,
state education agencies (SEAs) were implementing the reforms
that the Recovery Act emphasized one year after the act was
passed, and sets the stage for examination of implementation
at the local level. It provides a picture of the prevalence
and progress of the reform agenda promoted by the Recovery
Act. A primary focus is SEA implementation of reforms in
2010-11, the first full school year after all Recovery Act
funds were awarded. The education policies embedded in the
Recovery Act were introduced into an ongoing stream of federal
and state reform activity and states had undertaken some
reforms before the act's passage. Therefore, the report also
examines SEA implementation of reforms in 2009-10, and
explores the extent to which 2010-11 reform activities
represented progress. Specifically, this report addresses the
following questions: (1) To what extent did SEAs report
implementing key reform strategies promoted by the Recovery
Act in the 2010-11 school year? (2) How much of the 2010-11
school year implementation reflects progress since the
Recovery Act? and (3) What were the greatest reform
implementation challenges for SEAs in the 2010-11 school
year?”
Zimmer, R., Henry, G. T., & Kho, A. (2017). The effects of
school turnaround in Tennessee’s Achievement School District
and Innovation Zones.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4),
670–696.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1158183
From the ERIC abstract: “In recent years, the federal
government has invested billions of dollars to reform
chronically low-performing schools. To fulfill their federal
Race to the Top grant agreement, Tennessee implemented three
turnaround strategies that adhered to the federal restart and
transformation models: (a) placed schools under the auspices
of the Achievement School District (ASD), which directly
managed them; (b) placed schools under the ASD, which arranged
for management by a charter management organization; and (c)
placed schools under the management of a district Innovation
Zone (iZone) with additional resources and autonomy. We
examine the effects of each strategy and find that iZone
schools, which were separately managed by three districts,
substantially improved student achievement. In schools under
the auspices of the ASD, student achievement did not improve
or worsen. This suggests that it is possible to improve
schools without removing them from the governance of a school
district.”
