State Strategies to Improve Low-Performing Schools: California's High Priority Schools Grant Program

Abstract

Background School accountability policies and high-stakes testing have created new demands on state policy makers to provide assistance to low-performing schools. California's response was the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and the High Priority School Grants Program (HPSGP). Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This study explores the effects of the HPSGP on improving academic performance of the lowest performing schools in California. The study focuses on the organizational factors that influenced resource allocation decisions. The discussion addresses what might be done to ameliorate some of the key problems implicated in nonperforming schools. Participants Data for this study came from site visits to 15 schools that received HPSGP funding. Of the 15 schools we studied, 10 were high schools, and the remainder elementary schools. Eleven of the schools were urban, and four were rural. Program Description Schools in the bottom 10th percentile are eligible to apply for HPSGP funds. The State of California provided 655 schools with $400 per pupil each year for three years, with an optional fourth year. Participating schools also could apply for an optional planning grant of $50,000 in the initial year. Research Design Using qualitative case studies of 15 schools in California, the study compares HPSGP recipient schools that made significant academic improvement with HPSGP schools that remained stagnant. The site visits, which took place between February and May 2006, comprised structured interviews with principals, teachers, HPSGP and special program coordinators, and school site council members, as well as classroom observations and focus groups. During a two-day visit, at least five people at each school were interviewed. Conclusion This study found that organizational characteristics, such as leadership of principals, member participation in decision-making, and existence of coherent goals and plans, have a significant influence on the ability of schools to make effective use of grant funding and to achieve higher student performance. The study's main finding was that improving schools were deliberative and purposive in their use of program funds. Nonimproving schools, on the other hand, were opportunistic, lacking a plan or vision for using funding to build effective regimes of teaching and learning.

Leading school improvement through goal-setting: Evidence from New Zealand schools

“…As Greenberg and Baron (2000) noted, unless teachers understand and recognize the need for change, their commitment to change will be minimal and their interest in maintaining the status quo will take precedence. By providing evidence of similar schools achieving at higher levels, principals in this study challenged teachers’ acceptance of the status quo, created a sense of urgency, and gained commitment to the goal (Conzemius and Morganti-Fisher, 2012; Locke and Latham, 2019; Timar and Chyu, 2010; Zimmerman, 2006). Consistent with goal theory, when teachers believed a goal was unattainable, they were less inclined to pursue it.…”

“…School improvement is more likely if there are few and focused improvement strategies aligned to the goal (Bryk et al, 2010; Langley et al, 2009; Lemire et al, 2017; Lewis, 2015; Timar and Chyu, 2010). Clear alignment between goals and strategies impacts staffs’ commitment, as knowing how the school is aiming to achieve the goal can be critical to their acceptance of, and commitment to, the goal (Bendikson et al, 2020; Bryk et al, 2010; Newmann et al, 2001).…”

The Design and Characteristics of School Improvement Plan Templates

“…Extending the previous point, more emphasis on SIP development rather than implementation-specifically the lack of detail on concrete strategies and action steps-may continue preventing educators from viewing their SIPs as a "living" document (Duke, 2015;Timar & Chyu, 2010). Prior work (e.g., Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019;Mintrop et al, 2001) shows that some educators draft SIPs that are just "good enough" (Simon, 1957, p. xxv) for approval by school district and/or SEA officials and, once approved, place those SIPs on a shelf and do not review them until conducting an end-of-school-year "autopsy" (Duke, 2015, p. 89) to assess the effectiveness of improvement efforts.…”