Networks for School Improvement Evaluation—Implementing Continuous Improvement in Schools

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Thursday 8:00 a.m. Four Seasons Ballroom 2-3
  In Roundtable Session: Networked Continuous Improvement Across Varied Contexts: Results from the First Three Years of the Networks for School Improvement Initiative (Table 1)

Abstract

As part of the NSI initiative, schools were expected to establish teams to engage in CI. We examined whether and how teams focused on each component of the CI work: conducting root cause analyses, defining aims, determining a theory of practice improvement, selecting change ideas to test, and engaging in inquiry cycles. We assessed whether these components were part of a general focus on improved outcomes; gave attention to specific groups of students; gave attention to those groups and referenced a theory of action; or there was no evidence of any of these. We also drew on a framework derived from Gutierrez (2012) to assess whether the work focused on emphasizing achievement on traditional outcomes, ensuring students have access to teachers and resources, providing instruction that engages student identity, and/or encouraging students to use their voice to express agency.
Most of the analyses presented are based on artifacts (documents) generated by CI teams in their work. Analyses are based on data for about 500 schools working with 25 NSI participating in the initiative, collected in 2021-22 and 2022-23 -- years affected by the COVID pandemic. We estimate hierarchical models to examine the variation in implementation between NSI and among schools within NSI.
We find that the majority of teams engaged in CI by focusing on improving student achievement. Teams gave less attention to increasing student access to resources, centering student identity, or supporting student agency (voice). Root cause analyses typically showed a general focus on improved outcomes for students, while aim statements typically referred to specific groups of students. There is limited evidence that CI teams explicitly selected specific groups as the focus of their change ideas. Because many participating schools predominantly serve students in higher-need populations, such as students experiencing poverty, schools may have focused on all students rather than specific groups.
On the whole, we find that most schools showed evidence of attention to the needs of specific groups of students, although this attention was often broad, rather than related to an explicit theory of improvement. We conclude with considerations for CI work in schools.

Authors

• Michael S. Garet, American Institutes for Research

• Ryan C. Eisner, American Institutes for Research

• Kathleen T. Jones, Independent Researcher

• Matthew J. Farmer, American Institutes for Research

• Sara Mitrano, American Institutes for Research

• Beth Gamse, Gamse Partnership

• Kianna Medina, MDRC

• Shelley Rappaport, MDRC

• David Liebowitz, University of Oregon