Evaluation of Networks for School Improvement

Educators are leaning into network-based continuous improvement (CI) to tackle long-standing problems. Network-based CI involves a group of schools iteratively testing and refining strategies that address a common challenge while learning from each other. The Gates Foundation (the foundation) invested in network-based CI from 2018 to 2025 through its Networks for School Improvement (NSI) initiative, awarding more than $300 million in five-year grants to intermediary organizations that formed 34 networks. The foundation designed the initiative to increase the proportion of Black and Latino students and students experiencing poverty who are on track for high school graduation and college enrollment.^[1]

Intermediary organizations formed each network with about 20 secondary schools and established a team of educators and administrators in each school focused on using CI to improve student outcomes. Intermediaries had the flexibility to design their approach, but they all provided school teams with coaching and opportunities for cross-team collaboration. The foundation expected school teams to engage in structured CI processes, centered in equity, to improve educator practices and student supports. The processes reflected six features that the foundation identified as core to the CI approach: understanding the problem, identifying an aim, defining a theory of practice improvement, selecting a change idea, conducting a disciplined inquiry cycle, and using data throughout the process. Intermediaries used different approaches to inquiry cycles, with the most common involving four stages: plan, do, study, and act (PDSA).

The rapid scaling of networked-based CI through the NSI initiative across a large and diverse group of networks provides a unique opportunity to understand CI implementation and its impact. The foundation funded three organizations to evaluate different aspects of the NSI initiative, providing the education field with information that can strengthen similar efforts. RAND examined how intermediaries designed and implemented each NSI, using interviews, surveys, and case studies. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) evaluated how participating schools implemented CI based on documents that CI teams generated in the course of their work. RAND and AIR also examined correlations across these aspects of implementation. Finally, Mathematica evaluated the impact of each NSI on student outcomes using quasi-experimental and experimental methods and examined which aspects of intermediary supports, school networks, and CI were related to NSI impacts on students.

This brief synthesizes findings across four NSI evaluation reports. The reports provide detailed findings on intermediaries' approaches to developing and supporting school networks (Bush-Mecenas et al., 2026), schools' use of CI (Garet et al., 2026b), the relationship between intermediary support and school CI implementation (Garet et al., 2026a), and the impacts of NSI on student outcomes and the relationships between those impacts and NSI implementation (Johnson et al., 2026).

Key Findings

The NSI initiative had positive impacts on some student outcomes and no impacts on others. Although the NSI initiative initially aimed to address several student outcomes, each network ultimately focused its efforts on a subset of these outcomes. NSI had positive impacts on some of the outcomes they prioritized, including math test scores, course-related outcomes (for example, grade point average), and completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The impacts were medium in size, comparable with other such widely adopted education strategies as in-service teacher professional development (Visscher et al., 2025), early warning systems (Faria et al., 2017), and supports for FAFSA completion (ideas42, 2015; Page, Castleman, and Meyer, 2020). However, NSI did not have consistent impacts on other prioritized outcomes, such as English language arts test scores and college enrollment. In addition, impacts varied across years and by the different outcomes that NSI focused on.

School-to-school connections within a network were related to stronger CI implementation and meaningful impacts on students. NSI with more-dense networks, in which a school connected with other schools and the intermediary in a network, had stronger CI implementation. Intermediaries helped facilitate these network connections through full-network convenings and, as time went on, through role-alike meetings (in which school staff in similar roles, such as counselors, work together across schools), in-person site visits, and coach-facilitated connections. Furthermore, schools with meaningful impacts on student outcomes were more likely to have connections to other schools in the network.

Intermediaries adapted the supports they provided to schools in their networks as they learned what did and did not work. Intermediaries made some changes to minimize schools' burden of engaging in CI. For example, some networks provided evidence-based change ideas to test rather than encourage each school to invent its own change ideas, allowed flexibility in documentation, and tailored coaching frequency and the role of the coach to serve the network's aims and school's needs. Some changes involved trade-offs: Providing change ideas reduced burden and made it easier to share what was learned across schools but reduced flexibility. Intermediaries also shifted leadership to educators as the network matured to prepare schools to lead the work on their own.

Implementation of CI was uneven across schools, but impacts were stronger in schools that implemented core aspects of CI. Most school teams engaged in some aspects of CI, but their inquiry cycles were often incomplete (for example, containing "plan" and "do" stages but not "study" or "act" stages), and the extent of CI implementation varied across NSI. Schools with meaningful impacts on student outcomes were more likely to implement certain core features of CI: identifying a specific aim for their CI work, developing a theory of practice improvement, adopting a change idea at the end of an inquiry cycle, and focusing on equity in their inquiry cycles. In addition, schools with meaningful impacts were more likely to have high engagement in both CI and the network, suggesting that both may facilitate whether the NSI approach is successful in improving outcomes for students.

Schools with stable CI teams and more-supportive school leaders had stronger CI implementation and meaningful impacts on student outcomes. NSI schools with meaningful impacts on student outcomes were more likely to have stable CI teams that experienced less turnover of team members from one year to the next. Schools with meaningful impacts also were more likely to have effective school leaders who actively supported or enabled NSI work. Both of these factors — stable CI teams and more-supportive school leaders — were also related to stronger CI implementation.

Implications for the Education Field

Network-based CI is a promising strategy for improving student outcomes. Despite disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic and limited evidence on how to support this emerging strategy, the NSI initiative succeeded in improving some of the targeted student outcomes. In addition, schools with meaningful impacts were more likely to implement core features of the NSI approach, providing further evidence of its promise. At the same time, because of uneven levels of CI implementation and the lack of impact on certain targeted student outcomes, future efforts should focus on strengthening CI implementation in schools.

Opportunities for knowledge-sharing between schools are key to using CI well. Role-alike meetings, coach-facilitated connections, and opportunities to meet in person can help school teams share change ideas and CI strategies. The experience of the NSI initiative suggests that one way to facilitate better learning across schools is to provide a common set of evidence-based change ideas (for example, change packages that list ideas schools might try and include materials to support implementation).

Intermediaries should tailor their supports to match the challenges schools are tackling. For example, changes to daily classroom instruction might call for weekly coaching to help teachers test their change ideas frequently, whereas changes to college application processes may require less-frequent cycles and less-frequent coaching. In addition, intermediary supports should reflect the maturing of the network. For example, new networks might need more full-network meetings as the school teams get to know one another, whereas more-mature networks might need targeted meetings (e.g., role-alike meetings and site visits to schools) to address specific challenges.

There are multiple approaches to CI. Although networked improvement efforts often emphasize PDSA cycles, many NSI and schools relied on alternative approaches — such as goal-setting and early-warning systems — to guide regular data use. Future initiatives may benefit from clarifying the approaches to CI that schools are using and tailoring intermediary supports to the selected approaches.

Intermediaries and schools should ensure that the conditions are in place to support strong CI. Intermediaries can help schools create the conditions that support strong CI by, for example, coaching school leaders on CI and encouraging them to identify and sustain stable CI teams. In addition, integrating CI into existing collaborative and improvement structures in schools, such as professional learning community meetings, can help minimize the burden on staff while providing the necessary time for network collaboration and CI work in schools. Building CI into regular routines can also prioritize improvement efforts.

References

• Bush-Mecenas, Susan, Rebecca Herman, Karen Christianson, Stephani L. Wrabel, Peter Nguyen, Sarah Zelazny, Tiffany Berglund, Pierrce Holmes, Isaiah Simmons, Nazia Wolters, Samantha E. DiNicola, Laura Assanmal Peláez, and R. L'Heureux Lewis-McCoy, Evaluation of the Networks for School Improvement Initiative—How Network Hubs Develop and Support Continuous Improvement Networks: Final Report, RAND Corporation, RR-A4409-1, 2026. As of April 2026: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4409-1.html
• Faria, Ann-Marie, Nicholas Sorensen, Jessica Heppen, Jill Bowdon, Suzanne Taylor, Ryan Eisner, and Shandu Foster, Getting Students on Track for Graduation: Impacts of the Early Warning Intervention and Monitoring System After One Year, Institute of Education Sciences, April 2017.
• Garet, Michael S., Ryan C. Eisner, Stephani L. Wrabel, Matthew J. Farmer, Tiffany Berglund, Damon Blair, Jonathan Schweig, and Susan Bush-Mecenas, Evaluation of the Networks for School Improvement Initiative: Networks, Coaching, and the Implementation of Continuous Improvement in Schools, AIR, 2026a. As of April 2026: https://www.air.org/project/evaluation-networks-school-improvement-nsi-initiative
• Garet, Michael S., Laura B. Stein, Ryan C. Eisner, Matthew J. Farmer, Sara Mitrano, Damon Blair, Emma G. Wilson, Kathleen T. Jones, and Kianna Medina, Evaluation of the Networks for School Improvement Initiative: School-Level Implementation of Continuous Improvement, AIR, 2026b. As of April 2026: https://www.air.org/project/evaluation-networks-school-improvement-nsi-initiative
• ideas42, "Increasing FAFSA Applications: Making College More Affordable," December 2015.
• Johnson, Matthew, Naihobe Gonzalez, Jeffrey Max, Tareena Musaddiq, Sophia Seifert, Michelle Bennett, and Ren Schlosser, Evaluation of the Networks for School Improvement (NSI) Initiative: NSI Impacts on Students and the Aspects of NSI Implementation Related to Impacts, Mathematica, 2026. As of April 2026: https://www.mathematica.org/publications/evaluation-of-the-networks-for-school-improvement-initiative-student-outcomes-final-report
• Page, Lindsay C., Benjamin L. Castleman, and Katharine Meyer, "Customized Nudging to Improve FAFSA Completion and Income Verification," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 42, No. 1, March 2020.
• Visscher, Adrie J., Natasha Dmoshinskaia, Marta Pellegrini, and Anna Rey-Naizaque, "(When) Do Teacher Professional Development Interventions Improve Student Achievement? A Meta-Analysis of 128 High-Quality Studies," Educational Research Review, Vol. 49, November 2025.

Note

1. This study was sponsored by the Gates Foundation, which created the Networks for School Improvement initiative to support school networks working to improve outcomes for all students, especially those furthest from opportunity, including students who are Black, Latino, or experiencing poverty. For more information, visit usprogram.gatesfoundation.org.Return to content ⤴

Available for Download

Download PDF

Topics

• Academic Achievement Gap
• Educational Program Evaluation
• Secondary Education
• Underserved Students