Search

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education supports low-performing schools through a process that draws on qualitative and quantitative data from monitoring visits. The data are used to produce ratings for 26 turnaround indicators in four turnaround practice areas relating to school leadership, instructional practices, student supports, and school climate. This study analyzed data on school indicator ratings collected during school years 2014/15-2018/19 from 91 low-performing schools, with a focus on the distribution of the ratings among schools during their first year in the monitoring system and on the relationship of ratings to school outcomes. During the first year in which ratings data were available for a school, a majority of schools were in the two highest rating levels for 21 of the 26 indicators. Schools generally had lower rating levels for indicators in the student supports practice area than in the other three practice areas. Ratings for half the indicators were statistically significantly related to better school-wide student outcomes and had a practically meaningful effect size of 0.25 or greater, and none was statistically significantly related to worse outcomes. Two indicators in the leadership practice area (school leaders' high expectations for students and staff and trusting relationships among staff) were related to lower chronic absenteeism rates. Ratings for five indicators in the instructional practices area were related to higher student academic growth in English language arts or math; two of these indicators (use of student assessment data to inform classroom instruction and school structures for instructional improvements) were related to higher growth in both English language arts and math. Ratings for four indicators in the student supports practice area (teacher training to identify student needs, research-based interventions for all students, interventions for English learner students, and interventions for students with disabilities) were related to higher student academic growth in English language arts or math. Two indicators in the school climate practice area (school-wide behavior plans and adult-student relationships) were related to higher student academic growth in English language arts or math or lower chronic absenteeism rate. Eight indicators were not statistically related to any of the outcomes of interest. [For the Study Brief, see ED612601. For the Study Snapshot, see ED612599. For the appendixes, see ED612602.]

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, like other state education agencies and school districts, recognizes that the quality of instruction is a key lever to turning around low-performing schools. As part of annual monitoring of state-designated low-performing schools, the department's external monitors observe instruction in low-performing schools using Teachstone's Classroom Assessment Scoring System. The external monitors rate low-performing schools on three instructional domains: emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. This study examined the relationships between schoolwide instructional observation scores in these domains and schoolwide student academic achievement (measured by the percentage of students who met or exceeded expectations on state assessments) and growth in low-performing schools while taking into account what might be attributed to the schools' percentage of economically disadvantaged students and to school grade span. It found a statistically significant positive relationship between schoolwide instructional observation scores in the classroom organization domain and schoolwide student achievement in English language arts. There was no significant relationship between scores in any other domain and achievement in English language arts or between scores in any domain and achievement in math. The relationship between instructional observation scores and student achievement may be weak because achievement may be influenced by other factors, including students' prior academic achievement and the economic and social challenges their families face. The study also found statistically significant positive relationships between schoolwide instructional observation scores in each domain and schoolwide student growth in both English language arts and math. On a 7 point scale, a 1 point increase in schoolwide instructional observation score was associated with an increase in schoolwide student academic growth of 4.4 percentile points in English language arts and 5.1 percentile points in math. [For the appendixes, see ED607495; for the study brief, see ED607496; and for the study snapshot, see ED607497.]

Educators at all levels care deeply about helping students succeed academically, graduate on time, and emerge from school well prepared for college and careers. Today's emphasis on holding schools accountable for failure--while necessary--is at best a means to an end. Findings from local and statewide accountability systems can help state education agencies (SEAs) direct funding and other resources to the lowest performing schools, where needs are great. However, struggling students exist in all schools and districts, not only those that fall short of performance thresholds. Schools need ways to identify these students long before their difficulties derail their hopes for graduation and beyond. More state, district, and school leaders are now realizing that the same data they collect for accountability measures also can be used to improve instruction and support better outcomes for students. Early warning systems (EWS) offer a way to use available data to identify students at risk and drive targeted interventions that help them get back on track. Early warning system research originated in districts such as Chicago and Philadelphia (e.g., Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Balfanz & Herzog, 2005; Neild & Balfanz, 2006; Neild, Balfanz & Herzog, 2007). However, more than a decade of student-level data collection has prompted growing interest in early warning systems among state policymakers and leaders as well. This issue paper includes lessons learned from more than seven years of working with individual schools, school districts, and state education agencies as they design, develop, implement, and refine early warning systems. It also provides practical lessons for educators at all levels and backgrounds--whether considering starting a statewide EWS for the first time or revisiting the structure of practices at a school that has been implementing an EWS process for many years, valuable insights and considerations can be found. Lessons are grouped by levels that include schools, districts, and states. [This report was developed by the American Institutes for Research Early Warning Systems in Education team.]

The Study of School Turnaround examines the improvement process in a purposive sample of 35 case study schools receiving federal School Improvement Grants (SIG) over a three-year period (2010-11 to 2012-13 school years). Using site visit, teacher survey, and fiscal data, the case studies describe the school contexts, the principals' leadership styles, the schools' improvement strategies and actions, the supports states and districts provide to the schools, school stakeholders' perceptions of improvement, and how SIG fits into the schools' change process. Findings after the first year of implementation in the 25 "core" sample schools reveal that while all were low-performing, the schools differed in their community and fiscal contexts, performance and reform histories, interpretations of the causes of--and potential solutions for--their performance problems, and perceptions of improvement after the first year of SIG. However, most schools did report that their improvement strategies and actions during the first year of SIG were a continuation of activities or plans that predated SIG, and few schools appeared to have experienced a disruption from past practice as of spring 2011. Five appendices are included: (1) Study of School Turnaround Codebook; (2) Technical Approach to Qualitative Analyses; (3) Analyses of Nonresponse Bias; (4) Classifications Using Survey Data; and (5) Study of School Turnaround Budget Codebook.

The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program was first authorized in 2001 under Title I section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and provides formula-based federal funds to states that then competitively award these funds to districts applying for SIG on behalf of their low-performing schools. These schools use the funds to implement reforms to turn themselves around. SIG funding was substantially increased and SIG requirements were substantially modified with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These modifications were designed to better target SIG to the nation's lowest-achieving schools and to ensure that more aggressive improvement strategies are adopted for such schools than had been previously adopted. Thus far, since the passage of ARRA, two cohorts of schools have received SIG. Cohort I grantees include schools that received SIG during the fiscal year 2009 competition cycle to implement reforms beginning in the 2010-11 school year. Cohort II grantees include schools that received SIG during the fiscal year 2010 competition cycle to implement reforms beginning in the 2011-12 school year. Both cohorts were funded through ESEA. In addition, Cohort I funding was supplemented by ARRA. This report focuses on two key questions: (1) Based on states' Cohort II SIG applications to the U.S. Department of Education, what SIG-related policies and practices did states intend to implement, and how do they compare to the policies and practices in states' Cohort I SIG applications? (States were required to submit an application to obtain a formula-based share of federal SIG funds that they then awarded competitively to districts applying for SIG on behalf of their eligible schools.); and (2) What are the characteristics of the persistently lowest-achieving schools identified by states as eligible for SIG and of the schools awarded SIG funds in Cohort II, and how do they compare to schools in Cohort I? The remainder of the report is divided into four sections. Section 2 provides an overview of SIG. Section 3 addresses the first key question based on information contained in state SIG applications submitted to and approved by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The analysis focuses on how states identified SIG-eligible schools, how states determined whether districts had the capacity to support SIG implementation in their schools, and how states reported monitoring and supporting SIG implementation. Section 4 addresses the second key question through a descriptive analysis of extant data on the characteristics of SIG-eligible schools identified by states, as well as the characteristics of SIG-awarded schools. Section 5 summarizes the report's key findings. Appended are: (1) Methodology for Analyses of State Applications for SIG; (2) Number and Percentage of SIG-Eligible Schools; and (3) Number of SIG-Awarded Schools. (Contains 26 exhibits and 21 footnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Molly Abend, Brian Lundgren, Jennifer Scala, and Jayne Sowers.]

The Study of School Turnaround is an examination of the implementation of School Improvement Grants (SIG) authorized under Title I section 1003(g) of the "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" and supplemented by the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." "Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools" uses publicly-available data from State Education Agency (SEA) websites, SEA SIG applications, and the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data to examine the following: (1) the SIG related policies and practices that states intend to implement, and (2) the characteristics of SIG eligible and SIG awarded schools. This first report provides context on SIG. This baseline report provides an overview of the state policies and practices for SIG implementation as well as a description of the first round of SIG awards made to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and SIG-eligible schools. The report is divided into four sections, organized to mirror the flow of SIG funds as they are disbursed from the federal government to states and then from states to districts and schools. Accordingly, Section 2 provides an overview of the key elements of the SIG program. Section 3 provides an analysis of state SIG applications approved by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), focusing on the definition and identification of SIG-eligible schools, how states determine district capacity and how states are monitoring and supporting SIG implementation. Section 4 reviews descriptive data on the characteristics of SIG-eligible schools identified by states, as well as the characteristics of SIG-awarded schools. Section 5 concludes by synthesizing the key findings from the report. A key finding is that states vary in their planned approach to implementing SIG. Another key finding is that states vary in how they distributed SIG funds to schools. Appended are: Appended are: (A-1) Baseline Data Report--State School Improvement Grant (SIG) Data Capture Elements (from Data Capture Workbook); (B-1) Characteristics of SIG-Eligible Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Eligible Schools Overall and by Poverty Level, Minority Level, and Urbanicity; (B-2) Characteristics of SIG-Eligible Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Eligible Schools by School Level and School Size; (B-3) Characteristics of SIG-Eligible Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Eligible Schools by School Type and Charter School; (C-1) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools Overall and by Tier, Poverty Level, and Minority Level; (C-2) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools by Urbanicity, School Level, and School Size; (C-3) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools by School Type and Charter School; (C-4) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools by Intervention Model. (Contained 32 exhibits and 14 footnotes.)

Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), state education agencies are required to assume new roles and responsibilities. Among these is the establishment of a state system to support schools identified for improvement under the Act. Conceptualizing and operationalizing these systems of support has been a challenge for many state agencies, in part because this role is a departure from the traditional compliance monitoring activities with which state officials are most familiar. This brief presents data from a national survey of state administrators to describe trends in the implementation of this NCLB mandate. We begin by outlining the common components of state systems of support under NCLB and then suggest a set of research-supported indicators of the quality of those supports. Our purpose is to provide state officials and policy analysts a framework with which to assess and refine current and planned systems of state support. This brief is a companion to "Help Wanted: State Capacity for School Improvement" (ED502719). (Contains 4 exhibits and 3 endnotes.)

This research brief reports on findings from an on-line survey conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to study state education agency capacity to develop and deploy a statewide system of support for schools identified for improvement under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). To provide support commensurate with the challenges facing low-performing schools, state education agencies need adequate capacity--including infrastructure, professional resources, and political support. Data from a survey of state officials in all 50 states reveal that: (1) State officials report limited capacity to support school improvement: only 16 states reported "moderate" capacity while 33 reported limited capacity; (2) Respondents in states with more challenging workloads perceived lower levels of capacity; and (3) State officials generally perceive expertise within the state education agency to be a strength, although they report lower levels of expertise regarding the needs of English language learners. In summary, state officials perceive constraints associated with their own capacity to provide support to low-performing schools, particularly with regard to staff, funding, and technology. This brief is a companion to "State Systems of Support under NCLB: Design Components and Quality Considerations" (ED502718). (Contains 4 exhibits and 18 endnotes.)

Public school principals encounter a sizable gap between the autonomy they believe they need to be effective and the autonomy that they actually have in practice, especially when it comes to hiring, firing, and transferring teachers. That is a key finding of this report from the Fordham Institute and the American Institutes for Research, which is based on a series of interviews with a small sample of district and charter-school principals. Regrettably if understandably, many district principals have also come to accept this "autonomy gap" as a fact of life. They learn to work the system, not change the system. The final interview protocol is appended. (Contains 9 tables and 23 endnotes.) [Foreword by: Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli. Additional funding support for this study was provided by the William E. Simon Foundation.]