Transcript Adf - Center on Education Policy

Improving Low-Performing Schools:
Lessons from Five Years of Studying
School Restructuring under NCLB
Caitlin Scott, Ph.D.
Center on Education Policy
Background: NCLB
• Year 4, restructuring planning
Not making AYP for 5 or more years
• Year 5, restructuring implementation
Not making AYP for 6 or more years
• FEDERAL OPTIONS (NCLB, 2002)
–
–
–
–
–
Enter into contract with outside organization
Reopen as charter
Replace staff
Any other
Turn school over to state
Background: NCLB
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
# of Title I
Schools in
Restructuring
% of Title I
Schools in
Restructuring
2,302
4%
3,923
7%
5,017
9%
Source: U.S. Department of Education and the Center on Education Policy
Background: Previous CEP
Restructuring Studies
Issued Annually
• Michigan, 2004-05 through 2008-09
• California, 2005-06 through 2008-09
• Maryland, 2005-06 through 2008-09
• Georgia, 2007-08 through 2008-09
• Ohio, 2007-08 through 2008-09
• New York, 2008-09
Available at www.cep-dc.org
Research Synthesis
Questions
•
•
•
What have we learned from our local case
studies about how to improve struggling
schools?
What have we learned from our state-level
research about the impact of NCLB and
related state policies on state efforts to
improve schools?
From this knowledge, what advice can we offer
for using the $3.5 billion appropriated in 2009
for federal school improvement grants?
Methodology
Data Sources
• Interviews, document reviews, and state test
data in
– State Departments of Education in 6 states
– 23 case study districts, and 48 schools in
restructuring or exiting restructuring
Analyses
• Content analysis and descriptive statistics
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Exited Restructuring
Type
District and State
Annapolis High School
Suburban
Anne Arundel County, MD
Guilford Elementary/Middle
Urban
Baltimore City Public Schools, MD
Hillside Elementary
Rural
Harrison Community Schools, MI
Kennedy Middle
Urban
Atlanta Public Schools, GA
Long Middle
Urban
Atlanta Public Schools, GA
Morrell Park Elementary/Middle
Urban
Baltimore City Public Schools, MD
Newman Elementary
Urban
Mansfield City Schools, OH
Reed Middle
Suburban
Central Islip Union Free Schools, NY
Sobrante Park Elementary
Urban
Oakland Unified, CA
Willow Run Middle
Suburban
Willow Run Community Schools, MI
Woodlawn Middle
Suburban
Baltimore County Public Schools, MD
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: All case study schools that
successfully exited restructuring
reported using multiple, coordinated
improvement activities.
As California State Superintendent Jack
O’Connell said in a speech at a state symposium
in 2007-08, “I wish there was a one size fits all
solution, but there isn’t.”
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: All case study schools that successfully
exited restructuring reported that their reform
efforts had evolved over time.
For example, at Hillside Elementary in Michigan,
the governing board, a group of appointed
district and state officials, was quickly
disbanded. The staff said this structure was too
removed from the day-to-day activities of the
school. Response to Interventions (a new
technique to identify and assist struggling
students) is currently being added.
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: All case study schools that
successfully exited restructuring reported
frequent use of data to guide decisions.
• All reported that teachers looked at student
assessment data at least once a month.
• All but one school reported that teachers used
data at least once a month to regroup students
by skill level.
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: Replacing staff helped improve many
schools, but sometimes had unintended
negative consequences.
Successful schools
• had stable or declining enrollment and no teacher or principal
shortages
• had a widely publicized vision that allowed the school to
overcome its past “bad” reputation and attract highly qualified
applicants
• were in districts that negotiated with the union to resolve
stumbling blocks in the contract
• were in districts that had an effective hiring system and did
not rely on principals alone to recruit and interview applicants.
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: Replacing staff helped improve
many schools, but sometimes had
unintended negative consequences.
Some less successful schools
• had difficulty finding enough qualified teachers
• started the year with substitutes or teachers with
emergency certification
• spent so much time over the summer hiring staff that
they had little or no time to plan for the new school year
• had union contracts that made it difficult to choose staff
or caused restructuring schools to lose new teachers in
restructuring schools due to layoffs.
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: Most case study schools that did not exit
restructuring said they experienced setbacks or
needed more time or information.
Set backs
• Many schools lost key staff members who were
supposed to implement the strategies.
• Some had changes in student populations due to new
configurations of school boundaries or grade levels,
which made the strategies more difficult to implement.
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: Most case study schools that did not exit
restructuring said they experienced setbacks or
needed more time or information.
More time needed
• New Highland Elementary and North Tahoe Middle
School expressed a need for more time in fall 2008 and
then made AYP based on 2008-09 testing.
• Others may also need more time, especially in districts
where schools with similar strategies have been
successful
What have we learned
about improving schools?
Finding: Most case study schools that did not exit
restructuring said they experienced setbacks or
needed more time or information.
More information needed
• A few officials could not say why improvement efforts
failed: “We sought quality instruction and had an
excellent system of professional development and
coaching support. To be quite honest with you, I don’t
know why we didn’t do better.”
• Deeper analysis of achievement data and school needs
assessments might help schools understand and
address barriers to improving student achievement.
Summary:
Improving Schools
All case study schools that successfully exited restructuring
reported
• multiple, coordinated improvement activities
• reform efforts that had evolved over time
• frequent use of data to guide decisions.
Replacing staff helped improve many schools, but
sometimes had unintended negative consequences.
Most case study schools that did not exit restructuring
• experienced setbacks
• needed more time
• needed more information.
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: States use different policies to identify
schools for restructuring, resulting in uneven
numbers of identified schools across states.
• The six states in our restructuring studies had different targets for
percentages of proficient students, e.g. in elementary reading, 20072008 targets ranged from 35.2% proficient in CA to 77.0% proficient
in OH
• Studies by NCES in 2007 and 2009 mapped states’ cut scores for
proficient performance on their state tests onto the scoring scales of
NAEP and found great variation among states (U.S. Department of Education, 2008a;
Bandeira de Mello, Blankenship, & McLaughlin, 2009).
• Finally, the number of schools in improvement, particularly in the
restructuring stage, depends partly on the status of a state’s
accountability system in 2002, when NCLB became law.
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: Some states have identified an unmanageable number
of schools for restructuring, and many schools remain stuck in
restructuring for many years. (Data in table is for 2008-2009)
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Total
CA
265
369
246
117
173
10
1,180
GA
19
11
8
10
10
3
61
MD
3
7
0
0
4
31
45
MI
19
35
7
6
3
1
71
NY
50
50
33
50
53
15
251
OH
67
51
8
16
3
3
148
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: Federal options for restructuring do not
appear promising, and all the states we studied
have moved away from these options.
• CEP studies in the past two years found none of
the federal restructuring options associated with
schools making AYP (CEP, 2008g)
• GA, MD, NY, and OH are piloting differentiated
accountability
• MI and CA have also changed their approach to
supporting school improvement
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: All six states have begun targeting
supports to the most academically needy
schools or districts.
• GA, MD, OH, and NY use differentiated accountability
pilots to offer more support to schools that missed AYP
targets for students as a whole as opposed to schools
that missed AYP targets for fewer subgroups
• CA focuses on districts with the most severe and
pervasive problems
• MI differentiates supports by conducting audits and then
using Process Mentor Teams to help schools implement
the findings of the audits
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: All six states leveraged additional support for
schools in improvement by relying on partnerships with
other agencies and organizations.
• CA: The state approved providers to assess district needs,
and providers can be governmental, non profits, or for profits
• GA & OH: Most assistance was by state employees, but the
states worked with others on their differentiated accountability
systems and trainings
• MD: The state developed a Breakthrough Center, with funding
and assistance from Mass Insight
• MI: Most support was through regional technical assistance
providers
• NY: The state contracted with regional organizations to
provide most assistance
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: All six states have increased their
use of needs assessments to diagnose
challenges in restructuring schools
• All have created or identified needs
assessments that help schools and districts plan
restructuring
• All have also created or identified assessment
tools to be used by outside evaluators in at least
some schools in restructuring
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: All six states have expanded onsite monitoring or visits to restructuring
schools
• GA, MI, NY: Require monitoring visits to
all restructuring schools
• CA, MD, OH: Require visits to some, but
not, all restructuring schools
What have we learned about the impact
of NCLB and related state policies?
Finding: Title I School Improvement Grants may
help restructuring schools improve
• All six states showed an increase in combined Title I
1003(a) and 1003(g) from 2007-08 to 2008-09
• For fiscal year 2009, School Improvement Grants under
1003(g) total $3.5 billion nationally
• This funding increase is welcomed by state and local
educators, who called for more funding throughout our
studies. One principal said in the fall of 2008, “I just hope
the new President’s going to give us more money to
invest in education.”
Summary:
Impact of NCLB and State Policies
States use different policies to identify restructuring schools, resulting in
• uneven numbers of identified schools across states
• an unmanageable number of restructuring schools in some states
• many schools that remain stuck in restructuring.
All six states in our study
• moved away from federal restructuring options
• began targeting supports to the most needy schools or districts
• leveraged additional support for schools in improvement through
partnerships with other agencies and organizations.
• increased their use of needs assessments to diagnose challenges in
restructuring schools
• expanded on-site monitoring or visits to restructuring schools.
New funding for Title I school improvement grants may help states.
What advice do we have about using
$3.5 billion for school improvement?
Recommendation: Federal policymakers
should consider raising or waiving the 5%
cap on the amount of Title I funds states
can reserve for state support to schools in
improvement but should allow flexibility in
the types of specific actions states take to
assist schools.
What advice do we have about using
$3.5 billion for school improvement?
Recommendation: States should consider using their
portion of federal school improvement funds to
experiment with promising practices identified in CEP
studies:
• Targeting supports to the most academically needy
schools
• Building partnerships with regional government agencies
and other organizations to support direct technical
assistance to restructuring schools
• Increasing the use of needs assessment to help
diagnose schools’ challenges and plan improvement
• Increasing on-site visits to low-performing schools.
What advice do we have about using
$3.5 billion for school improvement?
Recommendation: Schools and districts should tailor their
improvement efforts to individual school needs.
These efforts might include:
• Using multiple, coordinated strategies that are well matched
to the needs of the school and students
• Evaluating and revising reform efforts over time in response to
school and student needs
• Analyzing data frequently and regrouping students for
instruction
• Replacing staff, but only if there is an adequate pool of
applicants, a plan or vision that allows the school to overcome
its past reputation, help from the union to resolve stumbling
blocks in the contract, and effective hiring systems.
What advice do we have about using
$3.5 billion for school improvement?
Recommendation: Local, state, and federal
support of schools that exit restructuring
should continue for several years
afterward.
What advice do we have about using
$3.5 billion for school improvement?
Recommendation: Local, state, and federal
officials should join forces to evaluate
improvement strategies.
Report by Caitlin Scott, CEP
consultant
Research assistance by CEP
consultants Elizabeth Duffrin,
Maureen Kelleher, and Brenda
Neuman-Sheldon.
Editing by Nancy Kober, CEP
consultant
Jack Jennings, CEP’s president
and CEO, and Diane Stark
Rentner, CEP’s director of
national programs, provided
advice and assistance.
Center on Education Policy
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 522
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel: 202.822.8065
fax: 202.822.6008
e: [email protected]
w: www.cep-dc.org