This morning, I posted an evaluation by Mathematica Policy Research, which concluded that the federal School Improvement Grants had no effect on test scores. A reader named Sara explains here why the SIG program failed, after spending $3.5 billion:
The SIG required certain interventions and did not give any autonomy or decision making power to the people who already worked in the school.
So for example in the school where I work, SIG required that an outside organization provide social emotional support to students- rather than supplementing the counseling and social work staff who are highly qualified and already know the students. Whenever new people come into a situation there is a long learning curve. Also people from an outside organization do not have a long term commitment to the school.
Another example, staff came in for the grant who merely measured and “coached” – what the school really needed was smaller class size, so for example another math teacher instead of a “coach.” Experienced teachers for the most part know what to do, they are just overwhelmed by the large number of students who have special issues – and they do not have support.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on technology – but the librarian and IT person were let go.
The presumption on the part of the administrators (not in the school) of the grant was that the problems in the school lay with the teachers – not with poverty, an insufficient number of qualified staff, and an unstable district.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
at Oped News, I Posted the original article on Sig,http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Study-Finds-School-Improve-in-General_News-Corporate-Fraud_Intervention_Poverty_School-170119-667.html#comment640613
With this intro: “School Improvement Grants(SIG)had no effect on student achievement, according to a new report released by the U.S. Dep’t of Ed. Here’s why the program failed after spending $3.5 billion: The SIG required certain interventions and did not give any autonomy or decision making power to the people who already worked in the school AND the grant ‘staff’ merely measured and “coached” What the school really needed was smaller class size, and another math teacher instead of a “coach.” Experienced teachers for the most part know what to do, but are overwhelmed by the large number of students who have special issues! Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on technology – but the librarian and IT person were let go. WHO TO BLAME; “the problems in the school lay with the teachers – not with poverty, an insufficient number of qualified staff, and an unstable district. Yeah Bad teachers!”
and this commentary…which has links at the page.
“The reason that I chose a tab of ‘corporate fraud’ is because that is exactly what it was. Like so many school reforms across the nation… technology and ‘coaches form industry, are brought in, and paid for to aid TEACHING, when what is needed is to create smaller classes, and SUPPORT the autonomy of the TEACHER who knows what LEARNING looks like for each kid.
The legislators are in the pockets of billionaires who are the EDUCATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/eic-oct_11.pdf oligarchs and corporations who are privatizing education , and the money flows into the pockets of the corporations who supply the useless technology.
Go to my series on Privatization,http://www.opednews.com/Series/PRIVITIZATION-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-150925-546.html
so you will see the speed of the right wing, top-down,movement that is taking over all our schools.
LikeLike
Thanks for this detailed look at what these grants did “on the ground.”
Almost all of the USDE grant programs approached education as a managerial problem, correctable by outsiders and the “right” technology.
LikeLike
Yes, no respect and support for the professionals already doing the work. I did not mention that it led to high teacher turnover which increased instability in the lives of the students.
LikeLike
This is all so true!!!!!
LikeLike
Trevor Noah explained this perfectly. Asking bureaucrats, consultants, non-teachers, and any other outsider to fix a “failing school” is like asking an Amish farmer to fix the inertial guidance system on a space probe.
LikeLike
The majority of the money was spent on administrative or support services which did not directly impact the student.
It’s like the patient is starving and you spend all the money set aside on upgrading their house while neglecting to buy them any actual food.
LikeLike
ditto ditto ditto … technology … outside coaches … experts … reform coordinators … professional trainings… new programs …shiney programs….
LikeLike
teachers – – – reduced class size …paid prep time…decent wages…supplies paid for…supplies in generous amounts… paid prep time before school year starts – a week would be good …reading specialist….at elementary – teachers to do art, music and science and PE….more direct spending in the classroom…
LikeLike
How can we assure that federal money will help solve problems rather than create and/or exacerbate existing ones?
LikeLike
So how can we make sure that government money will help fix the problems rather than exacerbate them and/or create new ones?
LikeLike
Laurie,
Start with practices that are known to be successsful and validated by teachers.
Duncan started with business ideas peddled by Bill Gates that don’t work in education.
LikeLike