School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness. NCEE 2017-4013
Author: Dragoset, Lisa
Date: 2017-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Grants,Educational Improvement,Federal Aid,Federal Programs,Comparative Analysis,Program Implementation,School Involvement,Educational Practices,Outcomes of Education,Academic Achievement,Intervention,Models,Institutional Characteristics,Racial Differences,Rural Urban Differences,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Strategies,Instructional Innovation,Teacher Effectiveness,Administrator Effectiveness,Time Factors (Learning),School Community Relationship,Fidelity,Value Added Models,Achievement Gains,Federal Legislation

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. The following are appended: (1) RDD Impact Analysis; (2) Correlational Analysis; (3) Additional Figures Based on School Surveys; (4) District Reported Practices Aligned with the SIG Application Criteria; (5) Detailed Findings from Interviews and Surveys; (6) Survey Questions Aligned with SIG Practices; and (7) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Implementation Analysis. [For the Executive Summary, &quot;School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness: Executive Summary. NCEE 2017-4012,&quot; see ED572213.]