Project Activities
Research plan
- Which policies and practices promoted by the RTT program did RTT states report using, and how did they compare to the policies and practices that non-RTT states reported using?
- Did receiving an RTT grant relate to improvements in student outcomes?
- Were SIG-funded schools using the improvement practices promoted by the four SIG models, and how did they compare to the practices in schools not implementing a SIG-funded model?
- Did receiving SIG funding to implement an intervention model have an impact on student outcomes?
- Did schools that implemented a particular SIG model experience greater gains in student outcomes than schools that implemented one of the other SIG models?
Structured Abstract
Research design and methods
The RTT sample included all 50 states and DC. Data from spring 2012 and spring 2013 interviews with all states and DC informed the first evaluation question. The second evaluation question was addressed using a short-interrupted time series design with existing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from 2003 to 2015 for reading and math in grades 4 and 8. State-level NAEP scores were compared both before and after the RTT competition (prior to 2010 vs. after 2011), and between states that were awarded an RTT grant and states that applied for but were not awarded an RTT grant (RTT vs. non-RTT states).
The SIG sample included about 500 schools (both SIG schools and other low-performing schools that did not receive SIG) from 60 districts and 22 states. This sample was purposively selected to support a regression discontinuity design to address the fourth evaluation question. Schools whose performance was just low enough to qualify for SIG were compared to otherwise similar schools whose performance was just high enough to not qualify for SIG. Spring 2012 and spring 2013 data from state interviews, district interviews, and school surveys of the SIG sample informed the third and fifth evaluation questions. Student- and school-level math and reading achievement data in all tested grades from the 2009–10 to 2012–13 school years, as well as high school graduation and college enrollment rates (to the extent available), were also collected from administrative records to inform the fourth and fifth evaluation questions.
Key outcomes
Race to the Top
- In spring 2013, 2010 RTT grantees reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than states that did not receive a grant in four of six core RTT reform areas. The four areas with differences were standards and assessments, teachers and leaders, school turnaround, and charter schools. The other two areas were state capacity and data systems.
- In spring 2013, 2011 RTT grantees reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than states that did not receive a grant in one area, which was teachers and leaders.
- In spring 2013 across all states, use of RTT-promoted policies and practices were highest in the data systems area and lowest in the teachers and leaders area: States reported using 76 percent of the 8 RTT-promoted practices examined in data systems, but only 26 percent of the 39 practices in teachers and leaders.
- The relationship between RTT and student outcomes was not clear. Trends in student outcomes could be interpreted as providing evidence that RTT had a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect.
School Improvement Grants
- In spring 2013, SIG schools implementing one of the four models (transformation, turnaround, restart, or closure) reported using more practices promoted by SIG than other schools. SIG schools reported using an average of 23 out of 35 practices examined, whereas other schools reported using 20 practices.
- In spring 2013 across all schools, use of SIG-promoted practices was highest in the area of comprehensive instructional reform strategies and lowest in the area of operational flexibility and support. Schools reported using 89 percent of the 8 SIG-promoted practices examined in the comprehensive instructional reform strategies area, but only 43 percent of the 2 practices in operational flexibility and support (the other two areas examined were increasing teacher and principal effectiveness, and increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools).
- Implementing any of the four SIG models did not have significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.
- In elementary grades, student achievement gains did not differ across the four SIG models. In secondary grades, the turnaround model was associated with larger achievement gains than the transformation model.
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Products and publications
The final report for RTT, titled Race to the Top: Implementation and Relationship to Student Outcomes, along with an interactive exploration of findings, was released in October 2016.
The final report for SIG, titled School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness, along with an interactive exploration of findings, was released in January 2017.
Other publications from this study are listed below.
Reports on the Implementation of RTT and SIG in Spring 2012
- Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants(September 2015)
Briefs on Specific Implementation Topics
- State Capacity to Support School Turnaround (May 2015)
- Are Low-Performing Schools Adopting Practices Promoted by School Improvement Grants? (October 2014)
- State Requirements for Teacher Evaluation Policies Promoted by Race to the Top (April 2014)
- Operational Authority, Support, and Monitoring of School Turnaround (January 2014)
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
