Improving Low-Performing Schools:

1. Improving Low-Performing Schools: Lessons from Five Years of Studying School Restructuring under NCLB Caitlin Scott, Ph.D. Center on Education Policy

2. 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

3. Background: NCLB Source: U.S. Department of Education and the Center on Education Policy

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. What have we learned about improving schools?

8. 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.”

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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, 2007-2008 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.

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. What have we learned about the impact of NCLB and related state policies? Finding: All six states have expanded on-site 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

24. 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.”

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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: cep-dc@cep-dc.org w: www.cep-dc.org