Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Soliciting, vetting, monitoring, and evaluating: A study of state education agencies’ use of external providers for school improvement efforts

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent United States (U.S.) educational policies—especially the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015—have challenged state education agencies (SEAs) to take greater responsibility for and leadership over improving underperforming schools. SEA capacity to accomplish this charge varies, so many SEAs contract with third-party, external providers in the school improvement industry. Yet, little systematic consideration has been given to the processes that SEAs use to work with appropriate, high-quality external providers. In this study, a substantial dataset consisting of publicly-available documents and survey responses permitted the analysis of how 51 SEAs solicited, vetted, monitored, and evaluated external providers that offered school improvement services. Results, which highlight how various U.S. states are responding to a seemingly ever-changing U.S. educational policy context, suggested more SEAs solicited and vetted, but approaches and procedures often differed. Far fewer SEAs, however, monitored and evaluated external providers. The paper closes with a discussion of each stage of the SEA external provider procurement process along with recommendations for future research on the school improvement industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2014). Is school funding fair? A national report card. Newark, NJ: Education Law Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balser, W. F. (2017). The emergence of PK-12 blended capital partnerships: A framework for understanding how urban school leaders and outside partners work together. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University, Boston, MA.

  • Basheka, B. C. (2008). Procurement planning and accountability of local Government procurement systems in developing countries: Evidence from Uganda. Journal of Public Procurement, 8(3), 379–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birman, B. F., Aladjem, D. K., & Orland, M. (2010). Studying turnaround schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, USA.

  • Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A., & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. Routledge.

  • Chadwick, A. (2001). The electronic face of government in the Internet age: Borrowing from Murray Edelman. Information, Communication & Society, 4(3), 435–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coggburn, J. A. (2003). Exploring differences in the American states’ procurement practices. Journal of Public Procurement, 3(1), 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Department of Education (CDOE). (2016). Turnaround leadership development program. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y4nr58fv.

  • Corbett, J. (2011). Lead turnaround partners: How the emerging marketplace of lead turnaround partners is changing school improvement. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. (2014). Navigating the market: How state education agencies help districts develop productive relationships with external providers. In L. M. Rhim & S. Redding (Eds.), The state role in turnaround: Emerging best practices (pp. 179–194). San Francisco: WestEd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, S. (2010). Inexperienced companies chase U.S. school funds. The New York Times,, A11. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/education/10schools.html

  • Duke, D. L. (2012). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L. (2015). Organizing education: Schools, school districts, and the study of organizational history. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(5), 682–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. L. (2016). The children left behind: America’s struggle to improve its lowest performing schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egalite, A. J., Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 757–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emma, C. (2015). Here’s why $7 billion didn’t help America’s worst schools. POLITICO.

  • Finnigan, K., O’Day, J., & Wakelyn, D. (2001). “Buddy, can you lend us a hand?” The provision of external assistance to Chicago elementary schools on probation. Unpublished report. University of Wisconsin Madison, Department of Education.

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, M. E., Barnes, C., Massell, D., Fink, R., & Francis, A. T. (2013). State education agencies’ acquisition and use of research knowledge in school improvement strategies. CPRE Report RR-77. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

  • Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Mitani, H. (2015). Principal time management skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use, job stress, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(6), 773–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, E. S. (1983). Auditing naturalistic inquiries: The development and application of a model. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 8317108).

  • Hassel, E. A., Hassel, B. C., Arkin, M. D., Kowal, J. M., & Steiner, L. M. (2006). School restructuring under No Child Left Behind: What works when? A guide for education leaders. Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, T., Ahn, M., Ferguson, D., & Rumberger, A. (2019). The role of external support in improving K-3 reading outcomes in New York City. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919877932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawaii Department of Education [HIDOE]. (2009). Relating to state budget 2008–09 (HB 0200, HD 1, SD 1, CD 1 Section 36, Act 162). Honolulu: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henig, J. (2010). Portfolio management models and the political economy of contracting regimes. In K. E. Bulkley, J. R. Henig, & H. M. Levin (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 27–54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, E. M., Salloum, S. J., & Benko, S. L. (2019). The changing ecology of the curriculum marketplace in the era of the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Educational Change, 20(4), 425–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, K., & Miller, R. A. (2015). Winning by default: Why is there so little competition in government procurement? Working paper. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y2t2nb68.

  • Kolleck, N. (2019). The power of third sector organizations in public education. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(7), 411–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowal, J. M., & Arkin, M. D. (2005). Contracting with external education management providers. Austin, TX: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Floch, K. C., Boyle, A., & Therriault, S. B. (2008). Help wanted: State capacity for school improvement. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 599–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C., & Perry, L. (2019). The third sector and innovation: Competitive strategies, incentives, and impediments to change. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(4), 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusi, S. F. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manna, P. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mass Insight Education and Research Institute [MassInsight]. (2010). Using RFPs to select lead partners. Boston: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education [MDESE]. (2016). COMMBUYS Document #: BD-17-1026-DOE02-DOE01-15777. Boston: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, C. V., & VanGronigen, B. A. (2018). So many educational service providers, so little evidence. American Journal of Education, 125(1), 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massell, D. (1998a). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massell, D. (1998b). State strategies for building local capacity: Addressing the needs of standards-based reform. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinn, P. (2015). Schooling the state: ESEA and the evolution of the US Department of Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J., Dietz, S., & Rentner, D. S. (2011). Early state implementation of Title I school improvement grants under the Recovery Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J., & McIntosh, S. (2012). State implementation and perceptions of Title I school improvement grants under the recovery act: One year later. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnici, A., & Hill, D. D. (2007). Educational architects: Do state education agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB?. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MODESE). (2018). Vendor—RQV. Jefferson City, MO: Author. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y59em2tx.

  • National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2005). Resource toolkit for working with education service providers. Chicago: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2009). Charter school replication: Growing a quality charter school sector. Chicago: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] of 2001. (2002), P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319.

  • Novack, R. A., & Simco, S. W. (1991). The industrial procurement process: A supply chain perspective. Journal of Business Logistics, 12(1), 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, M. T., Berg, B., Shore, R., & Meier, E. (2008). Putting the pieces together: Leadership for change in low-performing urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 670–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peurach, D. J., Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). Governments, markets, and instruction: Considerations for cross-national research. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(4), 393–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., & Lenhoff, S. W. (2012). Make or buy?: That’s really not the question. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(7), 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Placier, M. L. (1993). The semantics of state policy making: The case of “at risk”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 380–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, L. (2008). Document analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 230–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendon, J. M., & Rendon, R. G. (2016). Procurement fraud in the US Department of Defense: Implications for contracting processes and internal controls. Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(6/7), 748–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3–4), 283–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B. (2008). Does the school improvement “industry” (organizations providing schools and governing agencies with information, training, materials, and programmatic resources relevant to instructional improvement problems) help or prevent deep and sound change? Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 197–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. L., Meredith, J., Childs, J., Stein, M. K., & Prine, D. W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state race to the top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 92–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C., & Dibner, K. (2011). Changing tires en route: Michigan rolls out millions in school improvement grants. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastian, J., Camburn, E. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2018). Portraits of principal practice: Time allocation and principal work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 47–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smylie, M., & Corcoran, T. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and the promotion of evidence-based practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA, USA.

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuit, D. A. (2010). Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnarounds and shutdowns in both charter and district sectors. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, C., Boyle, A., Graczewski, C., James-Burdumy, S., Dragoset, L. & Hallgren, K. (2015). State capacity to support school turnaround. NCEE 2015-412. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

  • Texas Comprehensive Center. (2016). Our work project details. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/txcc/our_work/inside_project_detail.php?action=view&id=84.

  • Thai, K. V. (2001). Public procurement re-examined. Journal of Public Procurement, 1(1), 9–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanGronigen, B. A., & Meyers, C. V. (2019). How state education agencies are administering school turnaround efforts: 15 years after no child left behind. Educational Policy, 33(3), 423–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). (2013). Commonwealth of Virginia department of education request for proposal (RFP): Low achieving schools turnaround partners. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y38ouk9j.

  • Weiss, J., & McGuinn, P. (2016). States as change agents under ESSA. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • West Virginia Department of Education (WVDOE). (2015). Application for external supporting partner. Charleston, WV: Author. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yyrg7ag4.

  • Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 89–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2017). Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., & Liao, Y. (2014). Improving citizen participation via e-government: The why and how. In M. Holzer & A. Manoharan (Eds.), E-government and websites: A public solutions handbook (pp. 112–134). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Delaware, 206E Willard Hall Education Building, 16 West Main Street, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

    Bryan A. VanGronigen

  2. Department of Leadership, Foundations and Policy, University of Virginia, Ridley Hall 160, P.O. Box 400265, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA

    Coby V. Meyers

  3. Learning Policy Institute, 1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA

    Caitlin Scott

  4. Education Northwest, 101 SW Main St., Suite 500, Portland, OR, 97204, USA

    Traci Fantz

  5. WestEd, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA

    Lenay D. Dunn

Authors
  1. Bryan A. VanGronigen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Coby V. Meyers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caitlin Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Traci Fantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lenay D. Dunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan A. VanGronigen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

VanGronigen, B.A., Meyers, C.V., Scott, C. et al. Soliciting, vetting, monitoring, and evaluating: A study of state education agencies’ use of external providers for school improvement efforts. J Educ Change 23, 1–32 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09403-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09403-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation