Round 4 of the Partnership Model: 2024-25 Implementation Report
Saved in:
| Title: | Round 4 of the Partnership Model: 2024-25 Implementation Report |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jeremy Singer, Sarah L. Woulfin, Daniel I. Dawer, Lizeth Lizárraga, Katharine O. Strunk, Erica Harbatkin, Wei-Chu Chen, Michigan State University (MSU), Education Policy Innovation Collaborative (EPIC) |
| Source: | Education Policy Innovation Collaborative. 2026. |
| Availability: | Education Policy Innovation Collaborative. 620 Farm Lane, Suite 236, East Lansing, MI 48824. Tel: 517-884-0377; e-mail: epicedpolicy@msu.edu; Web site: https://epicedpolicy.org/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 52 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Education Level: | Elementary Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | School Turnaround, Educational Improvement, Teacher Persistence, Faculty Mobility, Teacher Recruitment, Teacher Selection, Educational Quality, Multi Tiered Systems of Support, Fidelity, Educational Environment, Teacher Administrator Relationship, Attendance, School Districts, Principals, Elementary Secondary Education, Public Schools, Charter Schools, Partnerships in Education |
| Geographic Terms: | Michigan |
| Abstract: | This report describes school improvement efforts of Partnership districts and schools during the 2024-25 school year. We bring together quantitative and qualitative data to describe the implementation of improvement strategies, focusing in particular on human capital, curriculum and instruction, and student attendance. We also discuss Partnership district and school leader views of the Partnership Model and their interactions with the Office of Partnership Districts (OPD) and Intermediate School Districts (ISDs).? Key findings include: (1) Hiring difficulties continued to ease relative to the start of their Partnership status, but staffing challenges remain. Principals reported fewer struggles filling vacancies and less reliance on substitute teachers, yet shortages of certified teachers--especially in high-need subject areas and in charter schools--persist. Teachers' intentions to stay and job satisfaction rose modestly, though turnover continues to disrupt instructional continuity; (2) There were incremental improvements in instructional quality, but Partnership schools still lag behind non-Partnership schools. Teachers in Partnership schools believe their literacy and math instruction has improved, along with school climate and leadership quality, though only modestly. District efforts focused on implementing curricula with fidelity, strengthening multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) systems, and expanding tutoring. However, progress was uneven across grade levels and schools, reflecting both capacity gains and persistent challenges; (3) Student attendance remains a pressing concern, despite modest signs of progress. Fewer teachers identified absenteeism as the greatest challenge facing their schools compared to prior years, and attendance systems are now being implemented more consistently. Still, overall levels of chronic absenteeism remain high in Partnership schools, and many strategies focus on communication and incentives rather than addressing deeper barriers such as transportation; and (4) The Partnership Model provided support for districts, but also caused some challenges. Leaders described Partnership Agreements as aligned with their broader goals, and they valued the support from OPD staff, PALs, and ISD consultants. They also benefited from additional resources associated with Partnership status (e.g., 21h funding). At the same time, the issue of repeated identification, along with various reporting requirements, created fatigue and stigma. District and school leaders characterized the Partnership Model as a critical driver of improvement, but one that carries with it additional burdens. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | ED680346 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This report describes school improvement efforts of Partnership districts and schools during the 2024-25 school year. We bring together quantitative and qualitative data to describe the implementation of improvement strategies, focusing in particular on human capital, curriculum and instruction, and student attendance. We also discuss Partnership district and school leader views of the Partnership Model and their interactions with the Office of Partnership Districts (OPD) and Intermediate School Districts (ISDs).? Key findings include: (1) Hiring difficulties continued to ease relative to the start of their Partnership status, but staffing challenges remain. Principals reported fewer struggles filling vacancies and less reliance on substitute teachers, yet shortages of certified teachers--especially in high-need subject areas and in charter schools--persist. Teachers' intentions to stay and job satisfaction rose modestly, though turnover continues to disrupt instructional continuity; (2) There were incremental improvements in instructional quality, but Partnership schools still lag behind non-Partnership schools. Teachers in Partnership schools believe their literacy and math instruction has improved, along with school climate and leadership quality, though only modestly. District efforts focused on implementing curricula with fidelity, strengthening multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) systems, and expanding tutoring. However, progress was uneven across grade levels and schools, reflecting both capacity gains and persistent challenges; (3) Student attendance remains a pressing concern, despite modest signs of progress. Fewer teachers identified absenteeism as the greatest challenge facing their schools compared to prior years, and attendance systems are now being implemented more consistently. Still, overall levels of chronic absenteeism remain high in Partnership schools, and many strategies focus on communication and incentives rather than addressing deeper barriers such as transportation; and (4) The Partnership Model provided support for districts, but also caused some challenges. Leaders described Partnership Agreements as aligned with their broader goals, and they valued the support from OPD staff, PALs, and ISD consultants. They also benefited from additional resources associated with Partnership status (e.g., 21h funding). At the same time, the issue of repeated identification, along with various reporting requirements, created fatigue and stigma. District and school leaders characterized the Partnership Model as a critical driver of improvement, but one that carries with it additional burdens. |
|---|
