U.S. Department of Education
May 2014

Case Studies of Schools Receiving
School Improvement Grants
Findings After the First Year of Implementation
Kerstin Carlson Le Floch
Beatrice Birman
Jennifer O’Day
Steven Hurlburt
Diana Mercado-Garcia
Rose Goff
Karen Manship
Seth Brown
Susan Bowles Therriault
American Institutes for Research
Linda Rosenberg
Megan Hague Angus
Lara Hulsey
Mathematica Policy Research
Thomas E. Wei

Project Officer
Institute of Education Sciences

 Case Studies of Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants
for their school’s challenges by either addressing the challenges or working to improve the school
despite these challenges. Meanwhile, respondents in five schools attributed their performance
problems to external factors, such as low levels of parent education or English skills.

Exhibit ES.1.
Performance Problems Reported by Core Sample Schools, 2010–11

Source: SST respondent interviews and focus groups, spring 2011.
Note: Includes 25 core sample schools.

Leadership for Change
Research and policy suggest that schools engaging in change efforts often have principals who have a
central role in leading these efforts (Edmonds, 1979; Johnson & Asera, 1999; Picucci, Brownson, Kahlert,
& Sobel, 2002; Rhim, Kowal, Hassel, & Hassel, 2007; Whiteside, 2006). In this sense, principal leadership
could potentially be a catalyst for school change, and, if so, a change in the school leader may have
symbolic as well as substantive purposes in the turnaround process (Herman et al., 2008). SIG guidance
seems consistent with this hypothesis, as SIG schools adopting either the turnaround or the
transformation model are required to replace the principal.
Most schools in the core case study sample (21 of 25) reported replacing their principals in either the
2009–10 or 2010–11 school year in accordance with SIG guidelines (one school did so twice). Most
principals in core case study schools (21 of 25) had prior experience serving as principals either at their
current post or at other schools. They had an average of 5.5 years of experience as principals. Most
principals (20 of 25) also had prior experience working in low-performing schools.
When classified on dimensions of leadership (transformational, instructional, and strategic), few
principals (2 of 25) placed high and few principals (2 of 25) placed low on all three dimensions. According
to teachers, instructional coaches, and members of the school improvement team, the majority of
principals (21 of 25) reportedly exhibited a mixture of these qualities. For example, some principals
received high scores on one or two dimensions of leadership but middling scores on the others.

vii