Illinois has launched a new program to improve the lowest performing schools in the state as part of its U. S. Department of Education Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plan. The new structure, called School and District Improvement (formerly IL-EMPOWER), is promoted by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) to provide schools with “greater choice and voice in the school improvement process.” The program departs from the more prescriptive policies of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) (School Improvement Grants) and the NCLB Waiver (Priority and Focus Schools). As Michael Fullan (i) points out, freedom from regulations requires an equally determined and defined sense of what to do next. Fullan calls this the “freedom to” and School and District Improvement is a move in that direction. As the state, districts, and schools prepare to take advantage of the voice and choice provided by School and District Improvement, it is important to reflect on what can be learned from previous large-scale school improvement efforts.
The research literature suggests that prior school improvement efforts produced mixed, and often disappointing, results. The study that created the most headlines recently(ii) concluded that “implementing any [School Improvement Grant]-funded model had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment” on the national scale. However, other studies found evidence of positive impacts in specific locales, such as at the state-level in California and Massachusetts and for urban areas like Philadelphia and Memphis.(iii) A review by the Center on Reinventing Public Education(iv) found that most approaches to state-initiated improvement have shown evidence of effectiveness in at least one state or district. Additional research indicates that school improvement programs are particularly effective in the lowest-performing schools,(v) schools that were not already improving,(vi) and for English Language Learners.(vii)
A key consideration with much of this research is the substantial amount of variation in effectiveness within each approach to school improvement. As one scholar(viii) keenly observed, this should not be surprising given the differences in how states and districts implemented their improvement efforts and the diversity of contexts in which these efforts have been applied. Unfortunately, not many studies have looked across these efforts to examine why some interventions fail while others succeed. As a result, we still know very little about how to affect school improvement at scale and across all contexts, especially in rural areas.(ix)
The experience of School Improvement Grant awardees and Priority and Focus schools in Illinois was decidedly mixed. Districts, schools, and partners that received School Improvement Grants faced a long list of 16 required elements. Whereas many of those elements were research-based, the potential impact was greatly diminished by the overall volume of mandates. Districts, schools, and partners worked to fit the requirements into their sense of what was important for school improvement success. At times, schools found a useful pathway to disrupt the status quo or provide resources for important improvements. However, more often, the schools struggled with the sheer number of requirements heaped on top of already over-burdened institutions. This summary verdict on these efforts should not cloud the bright spots that emerged from the era that can inform those beginning similar improvement efforts.
To fully understand this next wave of school improvement efforts and extend the lessons more broadly, future research needs to identify the components of interventions and contexts of implementation that contribute to successes and failures. Additionally, we need to discern the strategies that worked best and the conditions under which they were successful.(x) For these reasons, our work in this area will focus on situations under which SIG (School Improvement Grant) worked and the features of successful school improvement efforts. The research literature has identified five components of successful school improvement efforts. This typology is based largely on Turnaround Framework developed by The Center on School Turnaround.(xi) The components are:
- Supporting structures and systems at the state and district level, including assistance from proven outside providers, to jump-start improvement efforts.
- A culture shift that engages all stakeholders, spurs intensive transformation, and rallies the school community around a clear and compelling improvement strategy.
- Improvement leadership at the state, district, and school levels that prioritizes improvement efforts and has the desire, capacity, and authority to execute the plan.
- Talent management to recruit, develop, and retain high quality educators and build a collaborative team.
- Instructional transformation that responds to student needs with rigorous, evidence-based interventions and modifies practices based on data.
This is part of a series of articles detailing and providing examples from each of these components. Other articles in the series:
- Overview
- Supporting Structures and Systems
- Culture Shifts
- Turnaround Leadership
- Instructional Transformation
- Talent Management
Download the “Finding the Power in IL-EMPOWER” research and recommendation slides
By Bradford R. White, Interim Director, Illinois Education Research Council (IERC) and David Osta.
i Fullan, M. (2015). Freedom to Change: Four Strategies to Put Your Inner Drive into Overdrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ii Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., Boyle, A., Upton, R., Tanenbaum, C., Giffin, J. (2017). School improvement grants: Implementation and effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Center for Education and Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
iii Cunningham, P. (2017, January 24). Smarick’s Crusade Against SIG. Education Next. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/smaricks-crusade-against-sig/.
iv Jochim, A. (2016). Measures of Last Resort: Assessing Strategies for State-Initiated Turnarounds. Linking State and Local School Improvement. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
v Henry, G. T., Guthrie, J. E., & Townsend, L. W. (2015). Outcomes and Impacts of North Carolina’s Initiative to Turn Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools. The Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University.
vi Dee, T. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (No. w17990). National Bureau of Economic Research.
vii LiCalsi, C., Citkowicz, M., Friedman, L. B., & Brown, M. (2015). Evaluation of Massachusetts Office of District and School Turnaround Assistance to Commissioner’s Districts and Schools: Impact of school redesign grants. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
viii Jochim, 2016
ix Herman, R. (2017, May 9). Obamas’ School Improvement grants flunked the test – now what? The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/332584-obamas-school-improvement-grant-program-flunks-the-test-now-what.
x Dee, 2102; Jochim, 2016
xi The Center on School Turnaround. (2017). Four domains for rapid school improvement: A systems framework. The Center for School Turnaround at WestEd. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.