Learning What Works to Turn Around Failing Schools

Rebecca A. MaynardUniversity of PennsylvaniaIES Research ConferenceWashington, DC June 12, 2008

Goals

Review the evidence available to support recommendations

Suggest new research Evidence to support (or not) the recommendations Evidence to support implementation guidelines–

putting what works to work

1. Signal Need for Dramatic Change New leader/change in leadership approach & link with

instructional focus What we know

Sample of success stories (selection on the outcome) New principals came in with clear purpose

Necessary, but not sufficient for recruitment? Successful “sitting” principals became more involved

with students and teachers Necessary or a signaling device?

2. Focus on Improving Instruction Student-level monitoring; data-guided

instruction; professional support for teachers What we know

All successful schools used data to guide policies and practice School; classroom; & student level data and needs

3. Orchestrate “Quick Wins”

Mobilize and motivate

What we know Quick Wins were prevalent among turnaround

schools included in case studies Varied focus—discipline; time use; resources and

physical plan

4. Build a Committed Staff

Shuffle, support, motivate, and (when necessary and feasible) replace

What we know Faculty and staff in successful schools

represented in case studies had shared goals and a common mission

Typically there was some changing of roles, addition of staff, and/or reorganizing of roles

Source of Evidence: Failing Schools

“Turnaround Strategies” Adopted?

Turnaround Success?

Yes No

Yes X

No

EX 1: Successful turnaround schools signaled a need for change Is signaling necessary for turnaround?

Is it sufficient? What are the qualities of effective new

principals? If failing schools hired principals with “effective” qualities,

are they more likely to achieve turnaround?

What would “effective principal involvement” with students and teachers look like? If “sitting” principals in failing schools “engaged,” would

their schools turnaround?

EX 2: Successful turnaround schools improved instruction What school-level data are useful indicators of a

need for change? What are effective responses to “need indicators”? What is the expected impact of recommended responses?

What classroom/teacher-level data are useful indicators of a need for change? What are effective responses to “need indicators”? What is the expected impact of recommended responses?

Ditto for student-level data

EX 3: Study the “empty cells”

“Turnaround Strategies” Adopted?

Turnaround Success?

Yes No

Yes X X

No X X

A sample of ongoing relevant research Observational study relating change strategies with

school performance (Weinbaum & Weiss) Prospective study of 10 turnaround efforts (Dukes et

al.) VAL-Ed study to develop a measure of effective

school leadership (Porter, Polikoff et al.) Effectiveness of VAL-Ed v. BAU assessment

Data driven reform initiatives (Slavin et al.) Effectiveness of DDR v BAU

Whole school reform initiatives

A sample of other useful studies Theory generation

Longitudinal analysis of a representative sample of failing schools Predictors of successful turnaround Case studies of schools with unexpected outcomes

Case study of “unsuccessful” turnaround efforts Research synthesis/secondary analysis

Review evidence related to component recommendations E.g., what is the evidence that data driven instruction improves

outcomes? Impact evaluations

Turnaround training for school leaders Does it lead to higher rates of success? For whom?

Instructional support for failing schools Are the models that are effective? For whom?