Exploring the Association Between Short-cycle School Improvement Planning and Student Achievement in Underperforming Schools

Abstract

Some governments require that educational leaders working in underperforming schools create school improvement plans (SIPs) to guide change efforts. Extant research describes two common approaches to SIPs: (a) a “traditional” approach where leaders create a single plan for an entire academic year, and (b) a “short-cycle” approach where leaders create two plans during an academic year (e.g., one for each semester). Despite widespread appeal, surprisingly little research has been conducted on SIPs and their influence on outcomes of interest. Nearly all studies investigate the traditional approach, and no published studies examine the potential influence of short-cycle SIPs on outcomes of interest (e.g., student achievement). In response to these gaps, the purpose of this study was to explore potential associations between short-cycle SIP quality and student achievement in English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics. We used a publicly available rubric to score 389 short-cycle SIPs on 12 planning domains and then employed a correlational design to examine potential relationships between short-cycle SIP quality and student achievement. Results concluded that short-cycle SIP quality increased over time, but despite small, positive relationships between increased short-cycle SIP quality and increased student achievement, there were no statistically significant impacts. Given the number of factors found to influence student learning, these results are unsurprising, but nevertheless encouraging. We close by discussing how educational leaders might need training to best leverage the short-cycle approach and how future research efforts can continue contributing to a sparse, but growing knowledge base on school improvement planning approaches.

The Design and Characteristics of School Improvement Plan Templates

“…A synthesis of this extant research suggests that SIPs tend to be of low quality when assessed against research-informed criteria related to developing clear and coherent organizational plans (Curry, 2007; Meyers & VanGronigen, 2021; Mintrop & MacLellan, 2002; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2020). Other evidence suggests that higher-quality SIPs are correlated with better school performance, such as student scores on ELA and mathematics standardized tests (Huber & Conway, 2015; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2022). In Nevada public schools, for example, Fernandez (2011) found that SIPs with specific, time-bound goals and specific progress-monitoring indicators were associated with increased student scores on state standardized tests.…”

“…These school accountability policy mandates assert that SIPs are an improvement tool for educators to use to set direction, organize resources, and take actions to enhance school performance (Beach & Lindahl, 2007; Doud, 1995). Studies have found that higher-quality SIPs are positively—but often not significantly—correlated with better student achievement in English/language arts (ELA) and/or mathematics (Fernandez, 2011; Huber & Conway, 2015; Strunk et al, 2016; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2022). Yet, other work suggests that educators charged with developing SIPs consider the process to be more of a compliance exercise than a legitimate tool for improving their schools (Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019; Mintrop et al, 2001).…”