1 / 17

Turnaround Schools in California: Who Are They and What Strategies Do They Use?

Turnaround Schools in California: Who Are They and What Strategies Do They Use?. Mette Huberman, AIR CERA Conference December 2, 2011 . Study Background. Study part of California Comprehensive Center One of 16 regional centers; AIR subcontractor to WestEd

dusan
Télécharger la présentation

Turnaround Schools in California: Who Are They and What Strategies Do They Use?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Turnaround Schools in California: Who Are They andWhat Strategies Do They Use? Mette Huberman, AIR CERA Conference December 2, 2011

  2. Study Background • Study part of California Comprehensive Center • One of 16 regional centers; AIR subcontractor to WestEd • Federal and state focus on turnaround schools • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) • School Improvement Grants (SIG) • SIG schools lowest 5% of schools; no definition of turnaround • Four turnaround models • 1) Transformation; 2) Turnaround; 3) Restart; 4) Closure

  3. Study Background (cont.) • A need for definitions of both low performance and turnaround • Different definitions and strategies identified in the literature • Purpose of current study • Definition of low performance and turnaround in California (not SIG schools) • Identification of strategies in sample of schools

  4. School Selection Methodology • All CA schools, including charters • Seven year period • Pre-turnaround, 3 years (2003-2005) • Turnaround, 3 years (2006-2009) • Sustainability, 1 year (2009-2010) • Use of average ELA and math standardized California Standards Test mean scale scores • Ten criteria for defining turnaround

  5. Summary of Selection Criteria • Low-performance • Start in lowest third of school performance • Turnaround • End in middle third of school performance • Overall and subgroup growth • No substantial change in student population • Subgroups and enrollment • Sustained performance • Overall and subgroup performance

  6. Selection of School Sample • Ordered the 44 schools from highest to lowest growth • 35 elementary schools • 4 middle schools • 5 high schools • Selected 10 schools: 4 ES, 3 MS, 3 HS • Demographic diversity • Excluded one high school from analysis

  7. School Demographics

  8. School Performance

  9. Data Collection Process • One-hour phone interviews with principals • Ask about three most important factors in process • Probe on answers around strategies from literature • Strong leadership and staff • Cohesive instructional strategies • Use of data to change instruction • Teacher collaboration • Extended learning time • District/external support

  10. Eight Strategies Across Schools • Instructional strategies focused on student subgroups • Shadowing of English learners (Mountain View MS) • An emphasis on teacher collaboration • District-wide Professional Learning Communities (Del Rey ES) • Strong instructional leadership • In classrooms, doing walk-throughs, providing feedback

  11. School Strategies (cont.) • Regular use of assessments and analysis of data • Special project teachers (Prairie Vista MS) • Increased parent involvement • 40 hours of parent service per year (St. Hope PS7 Charter) • Guidance and support provided by the district • District Executive Directors (Silver Wing ES)

  12. School Strategies (cont.) • Use of student engagement strategies • Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) (Silver Wing ES) • Use of extended learning time • After school, Saturday, and support classes (Sweetwater HS)

  13. School Profile: 122nd St Elem, LAUSD • Demographics: K-5; 674 students; 86% poverty; 53% ELs • Performance: PI Year 2; 2010-11: CA Distinguished School and Title I Awards • Strategies • Quick wins (school facilities and parent involvement) • Professional development • Coaching • Teacher collaboration • Challenges • Layoffs; tutoring program cut; low morale

  14. Challenges Across Schools • Budget cuts (8) • Negative perceptions of school (5) • Lack of teacher buy-in to improvement efforts (4) • Having staff who were not “right fit” (4)

  15. Policy and Practice Implications • Clearly define both low performance and turnaround • Too much emphasis on replacement of staff in current SIG models • Focus on how to assist and improve existing staff instead • Define role of district in turnaround process • Create structures for sharing best practices • Study turnaround schools that are able to sustain performance versus schools that are not

  16. Webinar • Webinar on Schools Moving Up • December 8, 10:30 am – 12:00 pm • Strategies for School Turnaround: School and District Level Perspectives • Two research perspectives and reflections from practitioner • http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/webinars/turnaround

  17. Mette Huberman American Institutes for Research mhuberman@air.org California Collaborative on District Reform Questions or Comments?

More Related