REL Midwest Ask A REL Response

Educator Effectiveness

August 2020

Aladjem, D., von Glatz, A., Hildreth, J., & McKithen, C. (2018). Leading low-performing schools: Lessons from the Turnaround School Leaders Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594698

From the ERIC abstract: “Policymakers and practitioners at the local, state, and federal levels have invested considerable time and energy into solving the problem of turning around chronically low-performing schools. As the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) has refined the federal effort to support states and districts to turn schools around, it has adopted targeted strategies. One recent strategy to support school turnaround is the Turnaround School Leaders Program (TSLP). The TSLP invested in partnerships between local school districts and others to build the quality and supply of leaders with the skills and knowledge to turn around low-performing schools. The Department funded two cohorts of grantees, one in 2014, the other in 2015. This study examines the first cohort of grantees in the last year of their three-year grant. This study stands at the intersection between studies of school turnaround and school leadership. This report provides a look at the ways the first cohort of TSLP grantees identified, developed, and supported turnaround school leaders and the early outcomes of their efforts as reflected in program performance measures. To bridge the worlds of research on school improvement and research on leadership development, this study examined four broad study questions: (1) What role did partners play in the TSLP projects, and are partnerships expected to be sustained?; (2) How did TSLP projects identify program participants?; (3) How do TSLP projects develop and support leaders for turnaround schools?; and (4) How successful were program completers in finding leadership positions in turnaround schools, and what factors affected placement rates?”

Childs, J., & Russell, J. L. (2017). Improving low-achieving schools: Building state capacity to support school improvement through Race to the Top. Urban Education, 52(2), 236–266. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1125439

From the ERIC abstract: “Improving low-achieving schools is a critical challenge facing urban education. Recent national policy shifts have pressed states to take an expanded role in school improvement efforts. In 2009, a federal grant competition called Race to the Top (RttT) compelled states to improve their capacity to implement ambitious education reform agendas. Drawing on the theory of organizational capacity, the study sampled five RttT winning states’ plans to support improving low-achieving schools. Findings indicate that states sought to build capacity to productively enact an expanded role and focus resources and expertise toward school improvement initiatives.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Fry-Ahearn, B., & Collins, D. (2016). Getting it right: Designing principal preparation programs that meet district needs for improving low-performing schools (A technical report on innovative principal preparation models). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED571234

From the ERIC abstract: “A grant from the School Leadership Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education during 2008-14 provided the opportunities and resources for SREB to bring together its cutting-edge knowledge base, field experience, and substantial bank of publications and training materials in the closely related fields of school improvement and school leader preparation and development. SREB applied them systematically to create and implement the Florida Leadership Academy for Schools of Innovation and Improvement (FLASII). SREB’s partners in developing and implementing FLASII included the Florida Department of Education (FDOE), the University of North Florida and five high-need school districts that demographically represented urban, suburban and rural student populations. This publication shares the two SREB principal preparation models that evolved from FLASII development and implementation activities: (1) a modified university master’s degree program designed to prepare aspiring principals to implement a continuous school improvement process in schools where they will become leaders and (2) a model for preparing assistant principals, teacher-leaders and district office staff aspiring to become principals with the special skill sets required for turning around chronically low-performing schools. This publication describes in detail the point of view SREB brought to this work and the models’ theoretical underpinnings. It provides program features, implementation processes, results achieved and lessons learned in creating and implementing each of the models, in hopes the work will contribute useful knowledge, practical advice and prototypes that assist others striving to create leadership programs that have lasting, positive impacts on teaching and student achievement.”

Hatch, T., Ahn, M., Ferguson, D., & Rumberger, A. (2019). Mapping the reading improvement sector in New York City: The role of external support providers in improving K-3 reading outcomes (CPRE Research Report WP 2019-1). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED597882

From the ERIC abstract: “This report shares the results of a project designed to help build the collective capacity and increase the impact of the external support providers working to improve K-3 reading outcomes in New York City public elementary schools. In the first phase of the project, we identified all the programs in what we call the K-3 reading improvement sector in NYC 2014-15. In the second phase, we examined the extent to which a sample of these programs have the goals, resources, and personnel to improve reading outcomes system-wide. In the third phase, we mapped the relationships among a sample of programs in the sector in 2016-17, the sources they rely on to support their work, and the NYC schools with whom they partner. Making these relationships visible shows the extent to which students from different backgrounds and schools can get access to information, resources, and expertise, and the extent to which programs are in a position to increase their collective impact through coordination and collaboration. Among the findings: (1) Over 100 programs are working in the K-3 Reading Improvement Sector in NYC; (2) The sample programs in the sector focus on a wide range of reading-related goals, but a limited number of programs have demonstrated effectiveness; (3) Twenty-six sample programs are connected to 161 different schools comprising 16% of all elementary schools in NYC (including 28% of the elementary schools in the Bronx and 26% of the elementary schools in Manhattan); and the programs are partnering with schools with relatively high levels of need in terms of both performance and poverty; (4) Just over half of the sample programs describe themselves as collaborating or partnering with at least one other sample program, but almost half were not in regular contact with any other sample program; and (5) Sample programs received support from 57 different funders and 75 different sources for literacy expertise with little overlap These results suggest that sector programs have the goals, services, and personnel that could help improve K-3 reading outcomes in New York City; they have the connections to share resources and expertise with a large percentage of elementary schools; and several clusters of connected programs could serve as a powerful force for increased focus and collaboration in reading improvement across the city. However, the collective impact of the sector suffers from the evidence that goals vary considerably. Student and teacher programs differ in terms of their goals and personnel, and only a few programs have had formal outside evaluations completed. In addition, many of the sample programs in the sector are working in isolation from other sample programs and are informed by a wide range of sources of funding and expertise that are themselves likely to be only loosely connected. Although the clusters of collaborating and frequently connected programs could serve as a basis for expansion within the sector, the unconnected programs and the disparate sources of funding and expertise suggest that explicit strategies will need to be developed to support greater coherence in the sector and to increase the effectiveness of the sector overall.”

Klute, M., Cherasaro, T., & Apthorp, H. (2016). Summary of research on the association between state interventions in chronically low-performing schools and student achievement (REL 2016-138). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565613

From the ERIC abstract: “This report summarizes the research on the association between state interventions in chronically low-performing schools and student achievement. Most of the research focused on one type of state intervention: working with a turnaround partner. Few studies were identified that examined other types of interventions, such as school closure, charter conversion, and school redesign. Most studies were descriptive, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of the interventions. Results of studies of turnaround partner interventions were mixed and suggested that student achievement was more likely to improve when particular factors—such as strong leadership, use of data to guide instruction, and a positive school culture characterized by trust and increased expectations for students—were in place in schools. Studies in California examined the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program or its successor, the High Priority School Grant Program. Ten studies examined interventions in states other than California. Studies varied somewhat in the details of the interventions studied, including whether additional funding was provided to support implementation of reforms. Unlike interventions in California, studies in other states did not describe school participation in interventions as voluntary.”

Meyers, C. V., & VanGronigen, B. A. (2018). So many educational service providers, so little evidence. American Journal of Education, 125(1), 109–139. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1194273

From the ERIC abstract: “More than 15 years after the passage of No Child Left Behind, billions of dollars have been spent on school-turnaround policies and initiatives. Yet, this growing ‘school improvement industry’ has received surprisingly little consideration. This study is an initial effort to begin to better understand this industry’s supply side. We use qualitative research techniques to analyze the websites of 151 school-turnaround providers that have been endorsed, either directly or indirectly, by 13 state education agencies with publicly available lists of providers. In addition, we conduct a systematic review of the research evidence behind each provider, finding that the types of providers and the services that they purport offering vary considerably. Approximately 50% of providers indicate being research based, but 11% have evidence of impact on student achievement outcomes generally, and only 5% in turnaround contexts specifically. We consider several tensions in policy and practice that arise from this research.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1082546

From the ERIC abstract: “The purpose of this analysis is to increase understanding of the possibilities and challenges of building educational infrastructure—the basic, foundational structures, systems, and resources—to support large-scale school turnaround. Building educational infrastructure often exceeds the capacity of schools, districts, and state education agencies and, thus, requires collaborating with ‘lead turnaround partners’ with specialized capabilities for such work. However, there is little research to guide the selection or operation of lead turnaround partners. The analysis uses a descriptive case study of one organization with success operating as a lead turnaround partner (Success for All) to develop a framework to guide the selection of lead turnaround partners, support their operations, and structure further research. While base level achievement gains can be realized within 3 years, the analysis suggests that fully establishing school-level infrastructure is estimated conservatively as a 7 years process, and fully establishing system-level infrastructure has been an on-going, 40 year process. The analysis suggests a strong need to balance the rhetorical urgency of ‘turnaround’ with the understanding that building educational infrastructure to improve large numbers of underperforming schools will likely require massive, sustained technical, financial, policy, and political support.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Russell, J. L., Meredith, J., Childs, J., Stein, M. K., & Prine, D. W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state Race to the Top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 92–112. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1050966

From the ERIC abstract: “This study sought to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of state designed Race to the Top (RttT) funded reform networks. Drawing on a conceptual framework developed from the networked governance literature, we analyzed the 12 state RttT grantees’ applications. Our analysis revealed that states designed large implementation networks with potential to bring a wide range of resources to bear on reform efforts, particularly through participation of numerous nonsystem actors. However, coordinating large and diverse networks places state education agencies (SEAs) in a new and challenging role. The extent to which networks extend state capacity to support educational improvement or further complicate the work of SEAs remains an open question. We propose a model including a set of theoretical propositions to guide future research.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Stringfield, S., Dariotis, J. K., Clark, V. L. P., Farley, A. N., Allen, A., Carr, K., et al. (2017). Successes and cautionary notes from a two-year study of the Ohio Network of Education Transformation. International Journal of Educational Reform, 26(3), 209–223. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/105678791702600302?journalCode=refa

From the abstract: “The Ohio Network of Education Transformation (ONET) funded schools to implement different models of school reform including Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), the Asia Society’s International Studies Schools Network (ISSN), New Tech, and Early College. This article introduces these four reform models and considers their implementation and impacts for two sites each. Findings from a two-year evaluation focus on overarching themes and lessons learned across reform models. Four subsequent articles present findings from each model in greater detail. Taken together, this set of articles provides an in-depth understanding of educational reform implementation for often understudied reform models.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Wilkerson, S. B., Shannon, L. C., Styers, M. K., & Grant, B. (2012). A study of the effectiveness of a school improvement intervention (Success in Sight). (NCEE 2012-4014). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530416

From the ERIC abstract: “Success in Sight focuses on the interrelated parts of an education system. This systemic school improvement intervention is designed to address schools’ specific needs while building their capacities to plan, implement, and evaluate school improvement practices. It is intended to help schools, leadership teams, and teachers systemically engage in continuous school improvement practices to advance the learning of all students (Cicchinelli et al. 2006). Schools have used Success in Sight over the past 11 years to facilitate school improvement efforts. However, there have been no cluster randomized trials to provide causal evidence regarding its effectiveness in improving student and teacher outcomes. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to provide unbiased estimates of the impact of Success in Sight on student academic achievement in reading or mathematics. The achievement outcome areas of reading and mathematics were chosen for this study based on the NCLB mandate that all students should be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. Additionally, all states assess reading and mathematics achievement in grades 3-5, which are the focus of this study. The study also sought to provide an unbiased estimate of the effects of Success in Sight on teacher capacity for school improvement practices related to data-based decision-making, purposeful community, and shared leadership. This study’s target population was low- to moderate-performing elementary schools located in states served by McREL under its Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and Comprehensive Center grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. This study was the first cluster randomized trial to examine the effectiveness of Success in Sight on primary outcomes—student achievement in reading and mathematics—and intermediate teacher outcomes—city for school improvement practices in data-based decision-making, purposeful community, and shared leadership. The results of the benchmark analyses revealed that Success in Sight did not have a statistically significant impact on student achievement in reading or mathematics or on teacher capacity for school improvement practices in data-based decisionmaking, purposeful community, or shared leadership.”