School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness (In Focus Brief)

Publisher: Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research
Jan 18, 2017
Authors
Lisa Dragoset, Jaime Thomas, Mariesa Herrmann, John Deke, Susanne James-Burdumy, Cheryl Graczewski, Andrea Boyle, Rachel Upton, Courtney Tanenbaum, and Jessica Giffin

Key Findings:

  • Schools implementing a SIG-funded intervention model used more SIG-promoted practices than other schools (23 versus 20, out of the 35 practices examined), but there was no evidence that SIG caused schools to use more practices.
  • Implementing a SIG-funded model had no impact on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.
  • Elementary schools had similar improvements in math and reading test scores regardless of which SIG model they implemented.
  • Secondary schools implementing the turnaround model had larger improvements in math test scores than those implementing the transformation model. In contrast, reading improvements were similar for all models. The differences in math improvements across models might be due to factors other than the model implemented, such as differences between schools that existed before they received grants.
This brief summarizes findings from a new report from Mathematica’s multiyear evaluation of School Improvement Grants (SIG) for the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. The brief examines the practices used by schools that received School Improvement Grants (SIG) and schools that did not, examines whether SIG had an impact on student achievement, and examines whether student achievement improved more with some school intervention models than with others.
Project

Evaluating Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants

Funders

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences

Time Frame

2010-2018

Senior Staff

Susanne James-Burdumy
Read More

Mariesa Herrmann
Read More

Lisa Dragoset
Read More

John Deke
Read More

Jaime Thomas
Read More