High-Performing, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools

1. Middle Level School Principal Seminar In partnership of TASSP, Dana Center, STAR Center, and UTEP March 30, 2004 Doubletree Hotel, Austin, Texas High-Performing, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools

2. Seminar Goals • What can be learned from high-performing, high poverty, turn-around middle schools? • How does my school compare to high-performing, high poverty, turn-around middle schools? • What can be done to begin the improvement process at my school?

3. Turning Points 2000

4. Guiding Questions (Marzano) • To what extent do people in schools engage in certain behaviors to address a wide variety of issues? • How much will a change in our current practices increase the academic achievement of our students? • How much effort will it take to significantly change your current practices?

5. High-Performing, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools Ali Picucci Amanda Brownson Rahel Kahlert Andrew Sobel Charles A. Dana Center–University of Texas at Austin Prepared for: The U.S. Department of Education’s Planning and Evaluation Service The cross case analysis and the case studies are available on the Charles A. Dana Web site: www.utdanacenter.org Driven To Succeed:

6. Overview of Study • This study investigated how seven high-poverty middle schools managed to demonstrate strong academic improvement • The purpose of this study was • To contribute to a larger body of work • To focus on what practices, policies, and belief systems enhanced teaching and learning • To capture procedural knowledge that will be useful to other schools in a similar context • To provide recommendations suggested by the findings

7. Site selection • The seven public middle schools selected had the following characteristics: • A strong growth rate • Student performance at or above the state average • At least 50 percent participation in free or reduced-price lunch program • Represented typical high-poverty schools • A good reputation among educational leaders

8. Location of the middle schools • Tonasket, WA • Eagle Pass, TX • Houston, TX • Rockcastle, KY • Atlanta, GA • Pokomoke, MD • Utica, NY

9. Methods • One four-day visit to each site • Interviews • Focus groups • Observations • Teacher surveys • Document collection • Transcribed and coded interview and focus group data for analysis

10. Limitations of the study • Schools did not have a control group • School visit took place at one point in time • Classroom practices were not a focus of this study • Teacher certification issues • School improvement sustainability

11. Key findings • The key findings address two broad areas: • Characteristics (Part 1) To understand characteristics of high poverty middle schools that have demonstrated strong performance • Change and Improvement (Part 2) To understand the process how schools changed and improved

12. Reading Assignment • Executive Summary pages 2-4 • Read in 6 chunks • Findings of This Study • Schools That Support Teaching and Learning • Key Finding 1 • Key Finding 2 • Key Finding 3 • Key Finding 4 • After each chunk, turn to a neighbor and “Say Something” about what you read.

13. Part 1:Key findings—Characteristics • To support teaching and learning, these schools were: • Driven by a common purpose of high expectations for all • Dedicated to collaborative environments • Creating thoughtful organizational structures and building the capacity of the system • Attentive to individual students and their needs

14. Characteristics:I. High expectations • High expectations were sustained through: • Caring about individual students • Instilling pride and recognition for student and staff • Staying focused on high expectations for all

15. II. Dedication to collaborative environments • Collaborative environments were built by: • Collaborating in schools • Redefining relationships within districts • Seeking relationships with outside entities

16. III. Organizational structures and capacity • These schools supported teaching and learning through: • Implementing organizational structures • Using data to make informed decisions • Redefining staff development

17. IV. Attention to individual students • Being attentive to individual students required providing resources such as time and money that could be used for: • Preventing students from being invisible • Extending the school day • Expanding academic opportunities during the school day • Transitioning elementary students

18. Challenges • All of these schools faced challenges to: • Maintaining high expectations • Maintaining collaborative environments • Creating organizational structures • Providing individual attention to each student

19. Walk Away With: • To support teaching and learning, these schools were: • Driven by a common purpose of high expectations for all • Dedicated to collaborative environments • Creating thoughtful organizational structures and building the capacity of the system • Attentive to individual students and their needs

20. Reading Assignment • Executive Summary pages 5-6 • Read in 4 chunks • Understanding How Schools Improved • Key Finding 1 • Key Finding 2 • Key Finding 3 • After each chunk, turn to a neighbor and “Say Something” about what you read.

21. Part 2:Key Findings—Change and improvement • Understanding the process of how schools changedand improved • These schools worked towards • Understanding their context • Intentionally implementing elements of school improvement • Using an approach to school improvement that fits

22. Change and improvement:I. Understanding the context • These schools were driven to understand how their school improvement efforts were affected by the larger context. • This understanding depended on: • Identifying starting points • Recognizing changes in the environment • Reacting positively and proactively

23. Change and improvement: II. Elements of school improvements • Improving these schools required key elements to be put into place. This happened in these schools by: • Building a shared purpose • Shaping a school culture • Reflecting on current situations • Planning and implementing strategies • Re-evaluating

24. Change and improvement:III. Approaches to improvement • Schools implemented changes through two approaches – depending on best fit: • Implementing whole school reform • Implementing incremental change

25. Walk Away With: • Understanding the process of how schools changedand improved • These schools worked towards • Understanding their context • Intentionally implementing elements of school improvement • Using an approach to school improvement that fits

26. Conclusion • We need to remember that • These schools are not unique in their challenges • Staff took responsibility for student learning • Every student can learn and deserves to learn • The successes at these schools are not inimitable