Search

The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program received over $3 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Through grants to states, SIG focused on turning around the nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools using one of four school intervention models, with the aim of substantially improving student achievement. The main research question for this study is: Did receipt of SIG funding to implement a school intervention model have an impact on the number of SIG-promoted practices used by low-performing schools and student outcomes? This question was answered using a novel research design--a regression discontinuity design (RDD)--and a large sample of schools from many states to provide rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of SIG. The study focused on the effect of SIG awards made in 2010, when over $3 billion in awards were made to all 50 states and DC. The authors selected a sample of 22 states and approximately 60 districts that were geographically diverse, and able to support estimating impacts using a regression discontinuity design (RDD). To efficiently support the RDD analysis, states and districts that had the largest number of schools eligible for SIG, and that had a high proportion of SIG-eligible schools actually receiving SIG funds to implement an intervention model were prioritized. To the author's knowledge, this is the first large-scale RDD that rigorously assesses the effectiveness of SIG using a large sample of schools from many states. The RDD tackles a host of methodological issues simultaneously (including multiple sites, multiple assignment variables, fuzziness, clustering of individuals within schools, and standard errors that take into account the bandwidth selection method). Although many of these issues are not new to the field, this study is the first to face them all at once. Because the analysis methods are based on simulation work and consultation with RDD experts, other education researchers will benefit from learning about how they were used to obtain the findings in this study. [SREE documents are structured abstracts of SREE conference symposium, panel, and paper or poster submissions.]

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 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. [For the full report "School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness. NCEE 2017-4013," see ED572215.]

Race to the Top (RTT), one of the Obama administration's signature programs and one of the largest federal government investments in an education grant program, received $4.35 billion in funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Through three rounds of competition in 2010 and 2011, RTT awarded grants to states that agreed to implement a range of education policies and practices designed to improve student outcomes. This document is the executive summary for the final report on RTT for the evaluation commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education to address the issues related to the RTT grants and the use of policies and practices promoted by RTT. Using 2013 interview data from all states, the study documents whether states that received an RTT grant used the policies and practices promoted by RTT and how that compares to non-grantee states. The report also examines whether receipt of an RTT grant was related to improvements in student outcomes. Findings show that 2010 RTT grantees reported using more policies and practices than non-grantees in four areas (standards and assessments, teachers and leaders, school turnaround, and charter schools), and 2011 RTT grantees reported using more in one area (teachers and leaders). However, the relationship between RTT and student outcomes was not clear, as trends in test scores could be plausibly interpreted as providing evidence of either a positive, negative, or null effect for RTT. [For the full report, "Race to the Top: Implementation and Relationship to Student Outcomes. NCEE 2017-4001," see ED569959.]

Race to the Top (RTT), one of the Obama administration's signature programs and one of the largest federal government investments in an education grant program, received $4.35 billion in funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Through three rounds of competition in 2010 and 2011, RTT awarded grants to states that agreed to implement a range of education policies and practices designed to improve student outcomes. Using 2013 interview data from all states, this report documents whether states that received an RTT grant used the policies and practices promoted by RTT and how that compares to non-grantee states. The report also examines whether receipt of an RTT grant was related to improvements in student outcomes. Findings show that 2010 RTT grantees reported using more policies and practices than non-grantees in four areas (standards and assessments, teachers and leaders, school turnaround, and charter schools), and 2011 RTT grantees reported using more in one area (teachers and leaders). However, the relationship between RTT and student outcomes was not clear, as trends in test scores could be plausibly interpreted as providing evidence of either a positive, negative, or null effect for RTT. The following are appended: (1) Additional Figures Based on State Interviews; (2) Detailed Findings from State Interviews; (3) Interview Questions Aligned with RTT Policies and Practices; (4) Change over Time in States' Use of Policies and Practices Promoted by RTT; and (5) Relationship between RTT Reforms and Changes in Student Outcomes. [For the Executive Summary to this report, see ED569960.]