National Title I Conference Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

National Title I Conference Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City, Utah February 2015

Leading with Wonder Celebrating 50 Years of Title I

What Contributed to Successful (or Not As Successful) SIG Turnaround Efforts?

Center on School Turnaround at WestEd February 2015

• Dr. Carlas McCauley
• Dr. Lenay Dunn

California Comprehensive Center at WestEd

Center on School Turnaround at WestEd

Authors

AIR

• Mette Huberman
• Melissa Arellanes
• Jarah Blum
• Lindsay Poland

WestEd

• Lenay Dunn
• Heather Mattson
• Scott Vince

SIG Background

Lowest performing schools eligible Four models Key strategies State run competition Cohort I: 829 schools, $3.5B

SIG Models

• Replace the principal and no less than 50 percent of the staff, introduce

significant instructional reforms, increase learning time, provide professional development, use data to inform instruction, and provide the school additional

• perational flexibility and support.

Turnaround

• Replace the principal, implement a staff evaluation system, introduce significant

instructional reforms, increase learning time and provide the school additional

• perational flexibility and support.

Transformation

• Reopen the school under a charter school operator, a charter or education

management organization. This model requires that all former students be entitled to enroll.

Restart

• Close the school and enroll former students in higher achieving schools.

Closure

California Context

92 Cohort I grantees (11% of national total) 44 Elementary schools (21% of national total) Other studies of CA SIG suggest effectiveness (http://cepa.stanford.edu/thomas-dee/)

Identifying Higher and Lower Performers

Considerations for selection included

• Growth over SIG period
• Demographic stability
• Enrollment stability
• Geographic location
• Contextual information

Selected Schools

Higher-Performing Lower-Performing Urbanicity 3 City, 1 Town, 1 Rural 1 City, 3 Suburb, 1 Rural, Enrollment 524 547 % African American 4% 12% % Hispanic 82% 79% % Low-income (FRPL) 81% 87% % English Learner 42% 59%

Performance Trends

Performance Trends Continued

Data Collection

• California SIG Cohort I K-8 school

principals

• Teachers in identified schools

Surveys

• District SIG coordinators or leaders
• School principals
• Service providers

Interviews

Teacher Survey: Key Factors (N=193)

20 40 60 80

Teacher collaboration Use of student data Professional development Consistent school instructional staff for 3+ years Providing additional student support services

Average Percentage of Teachers Who Selected the Factor Higher Performing School Average Lower Peforming School Average

*No statistically significant differences (p<.05)

Teacher Survey: Key Challenges (N=191)

10 20 30 40 50

*Student behavior/discipline Staff burnout Lack of parent involvement/support High student to teacher ratio Lack of time for teacher collaboration

Average Percentage of Teachers Who Selected the Challenge Higher Performing School Average Lower Peforming School Average

*Statistically significant difference (p<.05)

School Capacity Framing

• The knowledge, skills, commitment, disposition, and intellectual

ability of the members of a school’s staff

Human Capital

• The intangible network of relationships that fosters unity and

trust within a school’s staff

Social Capital

• The degree to which instruction, resources, and staff in the

school are coordinated and integrated into a common framework

Program Coherence

• The physical or organizational tools that a school has at its

disposal to make its improvement goals a reality

Resources

 The knowledge, skills, commitment, disposition, and intellectual ability of the members

• f a school’s staff

Human Capital

Human Capital

• All schools provided trainings and

professional development to increase teacher knowledge and skills around data use.

Professional Development

• Respondents from about half of the

schools reported strong teacher buy-in and commitment to school improvement reforms.

Teacher Commitment

Survey Responses: Impact of SIG

“Most importantly, staff received valuable training needed to improve their craft. We had the funding to think

• utside of the box. With funding ending

we will still be able to move our school forward due to the trainings we were a part of.” “We have received some outstanding professional development opportunities that guided us through long and rich processes of examining our practices as individuals and as a school community.” “The additional funding has enabled us to have excellent training for the

• teachers. I've really learned more new

strategies in the past few years than in my entire career.”

Human Capital Discussion

 What are your school’s greatest Human Capital strengths?  What are your school’s greatest Human Capital weaknesses or challenges?  What are effective strategies your school has used to address gaps?

 The intangible network of relationships that fosters unity and trust within a school’s staff

Social Capital

Social Capital

• Most respondents described problems with culture and climate

before SIG implementation.

• Culture and climate issues were more frequently described as

barriers to academic achievement in lower-performing schools

Culture/Climate

• SIG was described as a catalyst to address culture and climate

issues, specifically student behavior and teacher collaboration, contributing to improved social capital.

SIG as Catalyst

• SIG requirements may have contributed challenges related to

social capital because of staff turnover and burnout as staff worked hard to ensure accelerated school improvement.

Unintended Side Effects

Social Capital Discussion

 What are your school’s greatest Social Capital strengths?  What are your school’s greatest Social Capital weaknesses or challenges?  What are effective strategies your school has used to address gaps?

 The degree to which instruction, resources, and staff in the school are coordinated and integrated into a common framework

Program Coherence

Program Coherence

• Teachers developed a shared

understanding of a common instructional framework.

Common Instructional Approach

• Teachers collaborated around

student data and discussed implications for their teaching.

Teacher Collaboration

Program Coherence Discussion

 What are your school’s greatest Social Capital strengths?  What are your school’s greatest Social Capital weaknesses or challenges?  What are effective strategies your school has used to address gaps?

 The physical or organizational tools that a school has at its disposal to make its improvement goals a reality

Resources

Resources

• SIG funds used to hire additional personnel.
• Higher-performing school respondents also reported focusing
• n building the capacity of current staff.

Staff

• Extended learning time used to provide interventions and

enrichment opportunities for students.

• Most respondents mentioned academic interventions, but

respondents at lower-performing schools also described behavioral interventions.

Learning Time

• Technology infrastructure and training.
• Concern at some lower-performing schools that influx of

technology could distract teachers from instruction and student learning.

Technology

External Supports

External Supports and Partners

Community District Providers Unions State

External Supports and Partners Discussion

 Have you worked with any external partners?  If so, which were most helpful, and how did they help?

Perceived SIG Impacts

Increased teacher collaboration Culture shift Transition to Common Core State Standards

Set the Foundation for Improvement

“[Though] you'd like to see it turn around immediately, I believe [SIG] laid the groundwork for where we need to be in the future [and] provided the basis and structure for where we [want to] be.”

Recommendations for SEAs, LEAs, Schools

Focus on a few initiatives Consider sustainability from the start Involve critical stakeholders Tailor support to schools Provide opportunities for sharing best practices

Questions & Discussion

Thank You

Carlas McCauley cmcauley@wested.org Lenay Dunn ldunn@wested.org