The School Improvement Grant
Program: Analysis of Performance in
America’s Great City Schools
Council of the Great City Schools
Fall 2014
QUANTITATIVE STUDY
Purpose


Examine trends in performance for schools
across the country that received SIG awards as
part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
Analyze performance for schools receiving grant
awards (SIG Award Schools) compared with:
◦ SIG Eligible Schools – those schools deemed
eligible for SIG awards, but not receiving any funding
in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 of the award cycle;
◦ Non-SIG Eligible Schools – those schools across
the country not eligible for SIG funding due to higher
levels of student achievement.
Methodology

Grades 3-8 Trends
◦ Change in Percentage of Students At or Above Proficient
◦ Percentage of Schools Increasing the Percentage of
Students At or Above Proficient by level of improvement:




No Improvement
1% to 4%,
5% to 9%,
10% or more
◦ Change in Percentage of Students Below Basic

2012-2013 Sample
◦ 13 CGCS States
◦ 21 CGCS Districts
◦ States were excluded based on three criteria:
1.
2.
3.
Fall Testing Dates
Changes in State Assessments (Content and/or Cut Scores)
No Data or Poor Data Quality
GRADES 3-8 TRENDS
Percentage of Students At or Above
Proficient
Percentage of Students Proficient in Math
by School Type, Pre & Post SIG Funding
80%
70%
66.8%
68.1%
68.0%
51.7%
52.9%
52.7%
38.0%
38.1%
10-11
11-12
Academic Year
SIG Awarded Schools (n=173)
12-13
64.6%
60%
50%
49.1%
40%
30%
20%
33.4%
27.4%
09-10 - Baseline
Random Sample of SIG Eligible and Non-Awarded Schools (n=626)
Random Sample of Schools Across the State (n=984)
Percentage of Students Proficient in Reading
by School Type, Pre & Post SIG Funding
Percentage of Students At or Above
Proficient
70%
65%
64.7%
67.4%
67.3%
51.4%
51.4%
36.9%
37.6%
10-11
11-12
Academic Year
12-13
66.1%
60%
55%
50%
47.5%
49.2%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
33.8%
30.6%
09-10 - Baseline
SIG Awarded Schools (n=181)
Random Sample of SIG Eligible and Non-Awarded Schools (n=628)
Random Sample of Schools Across the State (n=986)
Percentage of Schools Improving in Mathematics
by Category and School Type, 2010 to 2013
60%
56.9%
Percentage of Schools Improving
50%
40%
30%
20%
45.9%
34.5%35.6%
27.0%
19.6%
27.6%
27.0%
20.7%
14.9%
18.0%
16.7%
14.7%
12.2%
20.0%
8.8%
10%
0%
No Improvement
Less Than 5 Percentage
Point Improvement
5 to 10 Percentage Point Greater than 10 Percentage
Improvement
Point Improvement
Random Sample of Schools Across States (n=986)
Random Sample of SIG Eligible Non-Award Schools (n=627)
Non-CGCS SIG Award Schools (n=102)
CGCS SIG Award Schools (n=74)
Percentage of Schools Improving in Reading
by Category and School Type, 2010 to 2013
45%
38.8%
40%
Percentage of Schools Improving
35%
35.1%
31.5%
25%
20%
29.9%
30.0%
30%
23.4%
24.2%
24.3%24.7%
21.6%
22.6%
22.1%
21.7%
19.4%
17.5%
15%
13.2%
10%
5%
0%
No Improvement
Less Than 5 Percentage
5 to 10 Percentage Point Greater than 10 Percentage
Point Improvement
Improvement
Point Improvement
Random Sample of Schools Across States (n=989)
Random Sample of SIG Eligible Non-Award Schools (n=628)
Non-CGCS SIG Award Schools (n=103)
CGCS SIG Award Schools (n=77)
Percentage of Students Below Basic
(Lowest Performance Level)
Percentage of Students Below Basic in Math by
School Type, Pre % Post SIG Funding
45%
40%
41.9%
35%
35.9%
30%
31.7%
31.9%
23.0%
22.0%
22.6%
15.3%
14.4%
14.7%
10-11
11-12
Academic Year
12-13
25%
20%
15%
24.1%
16.4%
10%
09-10 - Baseline
SIG Awarded Schools (n=156)
Random Sample of SIG Eligible and Non-Awarded Schools (n=535)
Random Sample of Schools Across the State (n=686)
Percentage of Students Below Basic in Reading
by School Type, Pre & Post SIG Funding
Percentage of Students Below Basic
(Lowest Performance Level)
35%
33.7%
30%
25%
30.5%
22.6%
13.0%
27.5%
19.6%
19.9%
11.8%
12.5%
21.5%
20%
15%
27.5%
13.0%
10%
09-10 - Baseline
10-11
11-12
12-13
Academic Year
SIG Awarded Schools (n=156)
Random Sample of SIG Eligible and Non-Awarded Schools (n=537)
Random Sample of Schools Across the State (n=687)
QUALITATIVE STUDY
Purpose
The Council of the Great City Schools examined how
member districts were implementing School Improvement
Grants (SIG) that were funded through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). What
were the effects of the program on student achievement?
 Districts were chosen for case studies based on state test
scores in math and reading, following an analysis of Cohort
1 data. Some districts were chosen because they showed
increases in scores; others were chosen because they
showed no changes or decreases.
 The Council’s research team interviewed central-office
staff and school-based personnel who were involved in the
design and/or implementation of the grant between 20092013.

Research Questions
The research team was interested in the following research questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What was the political and organizational context of the district during
the SIG implementation? What were the districts’ instructional areas of
focus during the study period?
What were the school goals and objectives beyond state and district
objectives during that period, and what was the process for setting those
goals?
What kind of interventions were put in place to improve academic
performance in the SIG schools?
How were the grant-funded schools held accountable for student
achievement? What measures were used?
What professional development was available for teachers and
administrators to address the academic needs of students and special
populations performing poorly?
What are school and district plans for sustaining programs and
processes implemented with SIG funding?
Districts Interviewed
Cleveland
 Columbus
 Denver
 Miami-Dade County
 Milwaukee
 Philadelphia
 San Francisco
 Seattle

KEY FINDINGS
Political and Organizational Context
Prior to SIG, respondents Post SIG, respondents
reported that there were: reported that there were:
◦ Few support structures in
place for low performing
schools
◦ No clear direction or
organization
◦ Frequent changes in
leadership, and
◦ Few high-quality
interventions in the lowest
performing schools.
◦ Many schools that developed
turnaround plans
◦ Inconsistent initiatives across
buildings--few districts
developed cohesive plans to
address the needs of all SIG
schools
 Schools were often siloed within
the districts
 Turnaround schools could opt
out of district curriculum
 Inconsistent performance
◦ Little consistent direction or
organization across schools
◦ State intervention was
irregular and often not
coordinated with the district.
Goals and Objectives
School goals included:
 Building a strong support team
 Building teacher buy-in and ownership throughout the turnaround
process
 Becoming better users/consumers of data
 Improving student achievement
 Building relationships with the community
 Improving parent engagement
 Improving school climate and morale
 Increasing student attendance and decreasing student suspension
rates
 Setting higher expectations for students by increasing the rigor of
instruction
 Enhancing curriculum materials
 Providing professional development on instructional practices and
data uses
Staffing
Districts used SIG funding to address personnel concerns:
 Hiring turnaround principals
 Working with teacher unions to:
◦ Manage staff turnover process–ensuring low performing schools
attracted high quality teachers, and
◦ Extend school days and professional development hours while working
on a joint understanding of the unique needs of low performing
schools.
Developing unique administrative structures to support low
performing schools (i.e., specific school regions or “chancellors
district”-like structures )
 Hiring:

◦ instructional supervisors/coaches
◦ reading and math specialists
◦ social workers/counselors
Engaging parents and the community
 Ensuring the fidelity of grant implementation

Interventions
Schools targeted grant funds on student learning by:
 Increasing school partnerships with community organizations
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦







AVID
City Year
College Summit
Teach for America
Peace Corps
Communities in Schools
Reducing class sizes
Hiring part-time tutors to support struggling students
Implementing a new and more rigorous curriculum--often with a
literacy focus
Extending school-day time
Adding after-school, intercession, and summer enrichment
programs
Providing incentives for teachers to improve student performance
Increasing professional development hours for teachers
Professional Development
Schools supported staff by:
 Providing extensive professional development to
support SIG initiatives
 Focusing on data use
 Developing an embedded professional
development model, e.g., co-teaching with
veteran or “strong” teachers
 Improving tools to support teachers (i.e.,
dashboards, planning tools, etc.)
 Allotting time for feedback from teachers and
other school leaders
 Increasing professional development hours with
an emphasis on job-embedded support
Accountability
States and districts held schools accountable by:
 Conducting classroom walkthroughs with school,
district, and state leaders–
◦ But there was inconsistent implementation within
buildings
◦ And classroom observations were less punitive and
more informative and supportive


Using assessments to improve classroom
instruction and determine interventions in
addition to teacher evaluations
Implementing more focused weekly supports and
review systems in low performing schools
CONCLUSIONS
Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges
◦ Grant was a temporary solution
for larger systemic issues
 lack of high quality intervention
programs
 difficulty recruiting and retaining
high quality teachers
◦ Loss of staff that were hired
through SIG
◦ Once funding is gone, few plans
for support remained
 across school buildings
 from district and state leaders
Opportunities
Districts and schools may continue to:
◦ Foster partnerships with
organizations to support
schools
◦ Collaborate with central office
staff and seek support
◦ Focus on data to inform
instruction
◦ Engage parents and the
community
◦ Provide support to teachers
through professional
development.
When It Worked and When It Didn’t
When It Worked
 A clear coherent districtwide plan
for turning around low performing
schools.
 Central office supported low
performing schools.
 Schools provided flexibility in
making staff changes/removing
poor performing teachers.
 Well coordinated and targeted
interventions and supports for
struggling students.
 Leveraging data to identify
professional development for
teachers.
 Teachers had clear understanding
of challenges and commitment
needed to succeed.
When It Didn’t
 Disconnected districtwide plans
that often resulted in the lack of a
coordinated strategy.
 State and central office
administrators focused on grant
compliance, not coordination.
 Redundant or contradictory state
and local intervention efforts
 Schools had difficulty removing
poor performing staff or hiring
stronger teachers.
 Excess flexibility for the capacity
of the school.
 Little evaluation of intervention
efforts, and/or leaders were not
always clear about the benefits of
intervention programs.
 Weak instructional interventions
25
Questions and Answers