Is a School Improvement Grant an Impetus for Change? Evidence From 25 Case Study Schools

• In Event: Schools’ Experiences With School Improvement Grants (SIGs): First-Year Results From SIG Case Studies

Abstract

The recent focus on “school turnaround” seeks to move both policy and practice past slow, incremental approaches to school improvement, suggesting that what is needed are more dramatic interventions that signal a departure from prior practice (Herman et al, 2008). Whether the kind of disruption posited in recent literature on school turnaround (and reflected in SIG) actually produces a more rapid and sustained change process has not been empirically demonstrated. In this proposed paper, we will explore the extent to which SIG was a catalyst for reform in a set of 25 case study schools and the extent to which these schools experienced a set of actions that could be characterized as a disruption from the past.
The paper will begin with a descriptive analysis of the improvement actions underway in the 25 schools, including (for example) new instructional strategies, embedded professional development, rules for student behavior, or data management systems. In conjunction with this analysis, we will discuss whether these improvement actions were attributed to SIG, were simply concurrent with SIG, or were begun under prior reform efforts.
Next, we will explore the extent to which visible departures from past practice (some of which are required by SIG models) took place in these schools by the end of the first year of implementation. Because the literature on turning around low performing schools does not include comparable empirical analyses, the study team identified hypothesized indicators of a disruption from the past. The following eight indicators, or visible changes, are based either on specified elements of SIG (i.e., replacing the principal, replacing at least 50 percent of teachers, and experiencing a governance change) or were identified after preliminary analysis of interview data (i.e., mandatory extension of the school day, changing school organization, changing the physical plant of the school, and public communication about school changes). Implicit for each indicator is the assumption that such actions will create a visible interruption to school practices sufficient to disrupt “business as usual.” Based on interviews and focus groups in spring 2011, we examined whether the actions in these schools signaled a disruption from the past and a new direction for the school.
The proposed paper will conclude with a broader analysis of the extent to which SIG was perceived to be an impetus for school change. For example, in some schools respondents described SIG funding and requirements as the primary impetus for change, that is, reform changes would not have happened were it not for the grant. Elsewhere, respondents described organizations or policies (e.g. district reforms) outside of SIG as the primary impetus for change, though the grant augmented or deepened ongoing reforms. We will also explore the relationship between the catalytic role of SIG and other school-level variables.
Although the analyses described here are complete, the findings are currently embargoed but will be available at the time of the conference. This paper will explore assumptions integral to the literature on school turnaround through a systematic approach that breaks new ground, methodologically and conceptually.

Authors

• Linda Rosenberg, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc

• Kerstin A. Carlson Le Floch, American Institutes for Research

• Megan Hague Angus, University of Wisconsin - Madison