Delaware Statewide Title I Conference

1. Delaware Statewide Title I Conference School Improvement – The Ever-Changing Landscape – Part II Bill McGrady U. S. Department of Education June 29, 2010

3. Center on Education Policy Study The Center on Education Policy (CEP) studied restructuring in six states – California, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Ohio • Within the six states, in-depth case studies were conducted in 23 school districts and 43 schools • Reports for each of the six states are available at www.cep-dc.org

4. Key Findings – Local Strategies Local strategies for improving low-performing schools: • All of the case study schools that raised achievement enough to exit restructuring used multiple, coordinated strategies, which they revised over time • All case study schools that exited restructuring used data frequently to make decisions about instruction and regroup students by skill level • Replacing staff helped improve many schools but sometimes had unintended negative consequences • Most case study schools that did not exit restructuring used similar strategies but experienced setbacks or needed more time or information

5. Key Findings – Multiple Strategies All of the case study schools that raised achievement enough to exit restructuring used multiple, coordinated strategies, which they revised over time • None of the staff in case study schools that exited improvement could point to a single strategy that they believed was the only thing needed to improve student achievement • All six states encouraged low-performing schools to use specific needs assessments to identify and address the multiple challenges particular to their school

6. Key Findings – Using Data All case study schools that exited restructuring used data frequently to make decisions about instruction and regroup students by skill level • All schools that exited restructuring reported that teachers looked at student assessment data at least once a month and used that data to regroup students • One school district created an academic steering committee to support one of its restructuring schools – the committee was charged with monitoring school progress and supporting the school’s needs by giving administrators direct access to district officials

7. Key Findings – Replacing Staff Replacing staff helped improve many schools but sometimes had unintended negative consequences • Schools that were successful were located in areas of declining enrollment, with no teacher and principal shortages, and a substantial pool of applicants; had a plan or vision for the school that was widely publicized in the community; and had an effective hiring system in place and did not rely on principals alone to recruit and interview applicants • In places where the process was not as smooth, problems encountered included a lack of qualified candidates (which resulted in substitutes being used in some classes), so much time being spent over the summer hiring staff that little or no time was spent planning for the new year, seniority-based staffing impacted one location that was also going through reductions in staff (resulted in teachers in grades for which they weren’t highly qualified)

8. Key Findings – Setbacks Most case study schools that did not exit restructuring used similar strategies but experienced setbacks or needed more time or information • Setbacks included losing key staff, changes in student populations due to new configurations of school boundaries or grade levels, implementing a new curriculum or a new assessment • Research suggests that it takes five years to fully implement new initiatives • In some case study schools school and district officials were not able to clearly articulate why their improvement efforts had failed

9. Key Findings – NCLB Impact Impact of NCLB and related state policies on school improvement: • Differences in accountability systems have led to uneven and sometimes unmanageable numbers of schools in restructuring • Federal restructuring strategies have not shown promise, and all six states in the study have moved away from these options • All six states have begun targeting supports to the most academically needy schools or districts • All six states have leveraged additional support for schools in improvement by relying on partnerships with other agencies and organizations • All six states have increased their use of needs assessments to diagnose challenges in restructuring schools

10. Key Findings – NCLB Impact Impact of NCLB and related state policies on school improvement (continued): • All six states have increased on-site monitoring or visits to restructuring schools • Funding increases for school improvement grants under the Title I program for disadvantaged children may help schools improve

11. Key Findings – Uneven Numbers Differences in accountability systems have led to uneven and sometimes unmanageable numbers of schools in restructuring • Schools in one state might not be in improvement in another state (targets are different; assessments are different in content, difficulty, format, and scoring scales; and some states started classifying schools earlier than others and prior to NCLB (e.g., some case study schools were in year 9 of improvement) • As of 2008-2009, 5,017 Title I schools were in restructuring (9% of all Title I schools) • California had 1,180 schools in restructuring (years 4-9) • Florida had 640 schools in restructuring • Texas had 56 schools in restructuring • New Mexico had 170 schools in restructuring • North Carolina had 102 schools in restructuring • Nebraska had 6 schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring

12. Key Findings – Federal Options Federal restructuring strategies have not shown promise, and all six states in the study have moved away from these options • Four of the states participate in the Department’s “Differentiated Accountability” pilot program which allows states to vary the intensity and type of interventions to match the academic reasons that led to the school’s identification for improvement and to target resources and interventions to those schools most in need of intensive interventions and significant reform • Several research studies have concluded that there is little evidence to indicate that the NCLB options improved schools

13. Key Findings – Targeting Supports All six states have begun targeting supports to the most academically needy schools or districts • The majority of states report that they do not have the capacity to sanction and support all of the schools identified for improvement • Some target schools missing AYP for the “all students” group and provide less support for schools missing subgroup targets • Some provide support only to schools in corrective action and restructuring • Ohio bases its support on the percentage of AYP targets missed and not on the length of time a school has been in improvement • Some like California focus on districts and not schools

14. Key Findings – Partnerships All six states have leveraged additional support for schools in improvement by relying on partnerships with other agencies and organizations • Michigan, for example, uses its intermediate school districts and RESAs that provide coaches • Georgia provides training to district staff through Learning Point Associates using the guide developed by Learning Point • Maryland received assistance from Mass Insight as it developed its Breakthrough Center

15. Key Findings – Needs Assessments All six states have increased their use of needs assessments to diagnose challenges in restructuring schools • In California, the District Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT) provides independent needs assessments and data analysis to districts with severe and pervasive problems and School Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT) provide similar assessments for schools identified for improvement • Michigan uses formal audits for schools in year 1 of improvement that missed the “all students” group and for those in year 2 that missed targets for specific subgroups

16. Key Findings – On-site Monitoring All six states have increased on-site monitoring or visits to restructuring schools • Georgia, Michigan, and New York require some type of on-site visit for all schools in restructuring • All restructuring schools in Michigan have formal audits and receive visits from Process Mentor Teams; schools planning for restructuring receive eight visits and schools implementing restructuring receive four visits • California visits districts in corrective action that they determine have the greatest needs

17. Key Findings – Funding Funding increases for school improvement grants under the Title I program for disadvantaged children may help schools improve • ESEA provides two sources of funds – 1003(a) and 1003(g) • 1003(a) – State reserves 4% of the top of its Title I allocation and then allocates the remaining 95% to districts with schools in improvement based on whatever formula it uses for this purpose • 1003(g) – State receives funds based on the proportion of Title I funds it receives; reserves 5% for use at the state level, and allocates the remainder based on the procedures to be discussed for “persistently lowest-achieving schools”

18. Resources - Publications “A Call to Restructure Restructuring” published by the Center on Education Policy, September 2008 – www.cep-dc.org “School Turnarounds – Actions and Results” published by the Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2008 – www.centerii.org Issue Brief, “Successful School Turnarounds – Seven Steps for District Leaders” published by the Center on Innovation and Improvement, September 15, 2009 – www.centerii.org “Mining the Opportunities in Differentiated Accountability – Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Pilots in Four States” published by the Center on Education Policy, August 2009 – www.cep-dc.org “Handbook on Restructuring and Substantial School Improvement” published by the Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2007 – www.centerii.org

19. Resources - Publications “Handbook on Restructuring and Substantial School Improvement” published by the Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2007 – www.centerii.org “LEA and School Improvement Non-regulatory Guidance” published by the U. S. Department of Education, July 21, 2006 – www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.pdf

20. Resources - Organizations U. S. Department of Education – www.ed.gov Mass Insight Education – www.massinsight.org The Broad Foundation – www.broadeducation.org Center for Innovation and Improvement – www.centerii.org Center for Education Policy - www.cep-dc.org University of Virginia School Turnaround Specialist Program and School Turnaround Resource Center Public Impact – publicimpact.com