1. Turnaround Schools in California: Who Are They and What Strategies Do They Use? Mette Huberman, AIR CERA Conference December 2, 2011

2. Study Background Study part of California Comprehensive Center –One of 16 regional centers; AIR subcontractor to WestEd Federal and state focus on turnaround schools –No Child Left Behind (NCLB) –School Improvement Grants (SIG) SIG schools lowest 5% of schools; no definition of turnaround Four turnaround models –1) Transformation; 2) Turnaround; 3) Restart; 4) Closure

3. Study Background (cont.) A need for definitions of both low performance and turnaround Different definitions and strategies identified in the literature Purpose of current study –Definition of low performance and turnaround in California (not SIG schools) –Identification of strategies in sample of schools

4. School Selection Methodology All CA schools, including charters Seven year period –Pre-turnaround, 3 years (2003-2005) –Turnaround, 3 years (2006-2009) –Sustainability, 1 year (2009-2010) Use of average ELA and math standardized California Standards Test mean scale scores Ten criteria for defining turnaround

5. Summary of Selection Criteria Low-performance –Start in lowest third of school performance Turnaround –End in middle third of school performance –Overall and subgroup growth No substantial change in student population –Subgroups and enrollment Sustained performance –Overall and subgroup performance

6. Selection of School Sample Ordered the 44 schools from highest to lowest growth –35 elementary schools –4 middle schools –5 high schools Selected 10 schools: 4 ES, 3 MS, 3 HS –Demographic diversity –Excluded one high school from analysis

7. School Demographics SchoolsDistrictsGrade SpanEnrollmentPovertyELs Elementary Schools Del Rey ElementarySanger UnifiedK–626994%50% 122nd Street ElementaryLos Angeles UnifiedK–567486%53% St. Hope PS7 CharterSacramento City UnifiedK–837863%3% Silver Wing ElementaryChula Vista ElementaryK–643066%56% State Average 52958%28% Middle Schools General Grant MiddleKings Canyon Joint Unified6–854891%37% Mountain View MiddleChatom Union Elementary6–822275%44% Prairie Vista MiddleHawthorne Elementary6–81,02892%30% State Average 82556%19% High Schools Kerman HighKerman Unified9–121,20171%22% Sweetwater HighSweetwater Union High9–122,45684%28% State Average1,39450%14%

8. School Performance

9. Data Collection Process One-hour phone interviews with principals Ask about three most important factors in process Probe on answers around strategies from literature –Strong leadership and staff –Cohesive instructional strategies –Use of data to change instruction –Teacher collaboration –Extended learning time –District/external support

10. Eight Strategies Across Schools 1.Instructional strategies focused on student subgroups –Shadowing of English learners (Mountain View MS) 2.An emphasis on teacher collaboration –District-wide Professional Learning Communities (Del Rey ES) 3.Strong instructional leadership –In classrooms, doing walk-throughs, providing feedback

11. School Strategies (cont.) 4.Regular use of assessments and analysis of data –Special project teachers (Prairie Vista MS) 5.Increased parent involvement –40 hours of parent service per year (St. Hope PS7 Charter) 6.Guidance and support provided by the district –District Executive Directors (Silver Wing ES)

12. School Strategies (cont.) 7.Use of student engagement strategies –Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) (Silver Wing ES) 8.Use of extended learning time –After school, Saturday, and support classes (Sweetwater HS)

13. School Profile: 122 nd St Elem, LAUSD Demographics: K-5; 674 students; 86% poverty; 53% ELs Performance: PI Year 2; 2010-11: CA Distinguished School and Title I Awards Strategies –Quick wins (school facilities and parent involvement) –Professional development –Coaching –Teacher collaboration Challenges –Layoffs; tutoring program cut; low morale

14. Challenges Across Schools Budget cuts (8) Negative perceptions of school (5) Lack of teacher buy-in to improvement efforts (4) Having staff who were not “right fit” (4)

15. Policy and Practice Implications Clearly define both low performance and turnaround Too much emphasis on replacement of staff in current SIG models Focus on how to assist and improve existing staff instead Define role of district in turnaround process Create structures for sharing best practices Study turnaround schools that are able to sustain performance versus schools that are not

16. Webinar Webinar on Schools Moving Up December 8, 10:30 am – 12:00 pm Strategies for School Turnaround: School and District Level Perspectives Two research perspectives and reflections from practitioner http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/webinars/ turnaround

17. Mette Huberman American Institutes for Research mhuberman@air.org Questions or Comments? California Collaborative on District Reform17