leveling the playing field: strategies for schools …...leveling the playing field: strategies for...

Leveling the Playing Field:

Strategies for Schools Serving At-Risk Students in Elementary Schools in Massachusetts

by

Lucy Boyd, Amy Chandran, and Jonathan Hui

Taubman Center for State and Local Government

June 2016

Taubman Center Working Paper

WP –2016 – 02

PolicyAnalysisExercise

LevelingthePlayingField:

StrategiesforSchoolsServingAt-RiskStudentsin

ElementarySchoolsinMassachusettsAnalysisprovidedfortheMassachusettsDepartmentofElementary

andSecondaryEducation

LucyBoyd,AmyChandran,JonathanHui CandidatesforthedegreeofMasterinPublicPolicy,May2016.

Advisor:ProfessorJoshuaGoodman

ThisPAEissubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterin

PublicPolicy.Itreflectstheviewsoftheauthor(s)andshouldnotbeviewedasrepresenting

theviewsofthePAE'sexternalclient(s),northoseofHarvardUniversityoranyofitsfaculty.

2

Acknowledgements

First,wewouldliketothankProfessorJoshuaGoodmanattheHarvardKennedySchoolforhis

directionandsupport.Heprovidedinvaluableguidancethroughthedevelopmentoftheproject,

theanalysisandthecreationofthefinalproduct.Histechnicalexpertiseinempiricalmethodsand

research,aswellashistopicalexpertiseineducationreformmadethisprojectpossible.

Second,wewouldliketothankCarrieConawayandKendraWinnerattheMassachusetts

DepartmentofElementaryandSecondaryEducationfortheirsupportthroughoutthisproject.They

providedtechnicalsupportandadvice,andgrantedusaccesstoDESEdatathatenabledour

researchandanalysis.

Moreover,wewouldliketothanktheadministrationandteachersoftheHyannisWestElementary

School(Barnstable),SumnerSchool(Boston),CarltonM.ViveirosElementarySchool(FallRiver),

NewtonSchool(Greenfield),theMaryM.LynchSchool,KensingtonInternationalSchool,the

WarnerSchool(allSpringfield)andtheBelmontStreetCommunitySchool(Worcester)for

participatinginthisstudy.Theprovidedinvaluableinsightintothestrategiesusedtoimplement

bestpracticestoserveat-riskstudentsinhigh-performingschools.

Furthermore,wewouldliketothankourpeersintheSocialandUrbanPolicySeminaratthe

HarvardKennedySchoolfortheirconstantfeedbackandinsightintoourmethodologyandwriting.

Finally,wewouldliketothankourfamiliesandpeersfortheirunwaveringsupportthroughthis

project.Yourpatience,supportandencouragementwereverymuchappreciated.

3

TableofContents

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................2

I.ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................4

II.Context................................................................................................................................................6

III.ExistingEvidenceonSupportingAt-RiskStudents............................................................7

IV.Methodology....................................................................................................................................8

V.FindingsfromAnalysis..................................................................................................................91. DataDrivenInstruction......................................................................................................................92. Wraparoundservices.........................................................................................................................103. Behavior&DisciplineManagement..............................................................................................114. AcademicInterventionsandEnrichment...................................................................................125. TeacherCulture,TrainingandEmpowerment.........................................................................136. ParentalEngagement.........................................................................................................................157. CultureofAttendance........................................................................................................................168. MonitoringSiteVisitRubrics...........................................................................................................17

VI.Recommendations......................................................................................................................18Recommendation1:EmbedComprehensiveandCohesiveSystems..........................................191.1.DataDrivenInstruction................................................................................................................................191.2.BehaviorManagement..................................................................................................................................201.3.WraparoundServices....................................................................................................................................211.4.AcademicInterventionsandEnrichment..........................................................................................22

Recommendation2:Createstrategiestocultivateapositiveschoolculture..........................242.1.TeacherTraining,CultureandEmpowerment...............................................................................242.2.ParentEngagement.........................................................................................................................................262.3.CultureofAttendance....................................................................................................................................27

Recommendation3:ImproveMonitoringSiteVisitRubric...........................................................283.1.AddAdditionalContinuumPointstoPortionsofMSVRubric...............................................283.2.AddAdditionalIndicatorsforAttendanceStrategies.................................................................29

FrameworkforImplementation..................................................................................................30

VII.Conclusion....................................................................................................................................32

AppendixI:References....................................................................................................................33

AppendixII:DetailedLiteratureReview...................................................................................35

AppendixIII:MethodologyforQuantitativeAnalysis...........................................................47StageI:SchoolMatching.............................................................................................................................47StageII:FindingsfromQuantitativeAnalysisandHypothesisDevelopment..........................47StageIII:CaseStudies..................................................................................................................................49StageIV:AnalysisofMonitoringSiteVisits..........................................................................................50Limitationsofthestudy..............................................................................................................................50

AppendixIV:SchoolSample...........................................................................................................52

AppendixV:SelectionofIndicatorsforStatisticalAnalysis...............................................55SelectedIndicators.......................................................................................................................................55OmittedIndicators.......................................................................................................................................56

AppendixVII:InterviewProtocol................................................................................................58

AppendixVII:StakeholderConsiderations...............................................................................61

4

I.ExecutiveSummaryDistrict and school leaders struggle to overcome the educational challenges associated with the

demographic factors of race and poverty.While these demographic characteristics have become

commonpredictorsofstudentachievement,thisneednotbethecase.SomeMassachusettspublic

schoolsachievehigheducationaloutcomeswiththesametypesofhigh-riskstudents–how?

Thisreportthereforeasks:

What strategies can be implemented in low-performing elementary schools in

Massachusetts serving high-risk students to improve student and school-wide

outcomes?

By focusing inonhigh-performingLevel1and2 (Level1/2)schools inMassachusetts that serve

studentbodieswithademographicmake-upsimilartolowerperformingLevel4and5(Level4/5)

schools, we have identified common practices that improve student performance. This report

outlinesandanalyzesthesebestpracticesasutilizedbyelementaryschoolswithlargepopulations

ofminority and socio-economically disadvantaged students.Whilemany low-performing schools

may already be aware of some of these practices, our recommendations focus on their

implementationandoperationalization.Basedonthisstudyandanalysis,weproposeadoptionof

threemajorrecommendations:

1. Embedcomprehensiveandcohesivesystemsintodailyschooloperationsthat focus

onstudentperformance.

2. Createstrategiestocultivateapositiveschoolculture.

3. Adddata points for these best practices toMonitoring Site Visit Rubrics for school

evaluations.

The first two recommendations are broken down into seven total action steps with detailed

descriptions of school-level implementation and examples. These recommendations seek to go

beyondexistingliteraturebydescribinghowtooperationalizethesebestpracticesasexemplified

byhigh-performingschools.

The third recommendationdetails specific improvements that canbemade to theDepartmentof

ElementaryandSecondaryEducation(DESE)’sMonitoringSiteVisit(MSV)Rubricthatisusedfor

evaluating Level 4 and 5 schools. The improvements align the rubric with the best practices

describedinthefirsttworecommendations.

Throughtheserecommendations,thisreportisintendedtoassistDESEtobettersupportandassist

low-performing schools that are struggling to meet ambitious yearly targets of achieving 100%

proficiencyinMathandEnglishtestsby2016-2017.

OverviewoftheRecommendations:

Inanalyzing implementationofthesebestpractices, twoaspectsofschooloperationsemergedas

core to the effectiveness of the educational environment: systems and culture. High-performing

schools consistently implement systems around data driven instruction, behavior management,

wraparound services, and academic interventions and enrichment opportunities. Secondly, these

5

schools work deliberately to create a positive school culture, particularly in terms of teacher

training and collaboration, parental engagement, and student attendance, leading to teacher

empowerment and higher teacher retention. A summary overview of these specific

recommendationsforschoolsisprovidedinFigure1below.

Furthermore,thelastrecommendationaimstoimproveDESE’sabilitytoevaluateandsupportlow

performing schools when implementing these recommendations.We recommend DESE improve

theMonitoringSiteVisit rubricby:1)addingadditionalcontinuumpoints to theMSVrubric that

reflectspecificbestpracticesand2)addinganadditionalrubricrowaroundstudentabsences.

6

II.Context

This report investigates Level 1 and 2 schools serving students fromminority and economically

disadvantaged backgrounds to develop an understanding of the strategies schools can use to

overcome demographic challenges associated with student success. It is provided to the

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), which has

responsibilityforreviewinglevelsandaddressingissuesthatemergeinunder-performingschools.

Morespecifically,itseekstosupporttheworkoftheDESEOfficeofPlanningandResearch,which

providesanalysis,research,andtoolstoinformdecision-makingandsupportschoolimprovement.

WeusedDESE’sLevelingSystem to identifyhighand lowperforming schools.TheLevel System,

reviewed annually, takes into account absolute test scores, fluctuations and growth in these test

scores,andevidenceofwhethergapsbetween lowandhighperformingstudentswithinaschool

have increasedordecreased.Aschool isclassifiedasLevel1 if it ismeetinggap-narrowinggoals

either in absolute performance (weighted at 75%) and growth (weighted at 25%) for all sub-

groups of students. The top 80% of schools are categorized as Level 1 or Level 2, while the

remaining20%arecategorizedasLevel3,4,or5schools.ThelowestperformingLevel3schools

aredesignatedasLevel4schoolsiftheyremaininthelowestperforminggroupforaperiodoffour

or more years. Designation as a Level 5 school is rare, and reserved for the consistently low

performingschoolsthatshownosignsofimprovement,asdeterminedbytheBoardofElementary

andSecondaryEducation.

Toanswerourresearchquestion,welookedatschoolscategorizedasLevel4or5andfoundLevel

1and2schoolswithsimilarstudentdemographics(seeFigure2).Weprioritizedtheproportionof

studentsfromeconomicallydisadvantagedandminoritybackgroundsforthiscomparisonbecause

ofthestrongassociationsbetweenpoverty,race,andlowstudentachievement.

Toassessthecurrent

practicesinplaceatLevel4

schools,weusedexisting

datafromtheMonitoring

SiteVisits(MSV),whichare

stateorderedobservations

atLevel4schoolsasthey

implementaturnaround

plan.Thisrubricincludes

thefollowingfour

turnaroundfocusareas:1)

Leadership,shared

responsibility,and

professionalcollaboration

2)Intentionalpracticesfor

improvinginstruction3)Student-specificsupportsandinstructiontoallstudentsand4)School

cultureandclimate.BasedontrendsintheMSVrubricdata,weidentifiedgapsinstrategiesused

betweenLevel4andLevel1and2schools.Thisallowedustofocusouranalysisand

recommendationsonstrategiesLevel4schoolsarenotalreadyusing.

Figure2:DemographicDataofSampledLevel1/2Schools

SchoolName %ofStudents

Econ.Disadv. Minority

CharlesSumnerSchool,Boston 57.7% 85.9%

CarltonM.ViveirosSchool,FallRiver 68.9% 32.6%

HyannisWestSchool,Barnstable 59.4% 38.4%

NewtonSchool,Greenfield 63.6% 21.9%

KensingtonSchool,Springfield 76.4% 82.7%

MaryM.LynchSchool,Springfield 77.5% 88%

WarnerSchool,Springfield 67% 78.4%

BelmontStreetSchool,Worcester 71.5% 67%

7

III.ExistingEvidenceonSupportingAt-RiskStudents

Thereisalargebodyofquantitativeandqualitativeacademicliteratureregardingbestpracticesto

support student development during elementary school. However, since much of the literature

focusesongeneralstudentpopulationsandnotourspecificsub-populationofat-riskstudents,itis

oflimitedvalueindeterminingparticularstrategiesfortheschoolsinfocusinthisreport.Inorder

toaddressthisresearchgap,thisstudycombinesexistingacademicliteraturewithoriginalanalysis

ofschool-leveldatainMassachusetts.

Overall, existing literature (seeAppendix II) on supporting at-risk students suggests that school-

level, student-centered systems are essential to improving student achievement. Systems that

increase instructional time, increase use of student-level data, and enhance human capital

developmentall contribute to improvedstudentoutcomes.Within theareaofhumancapital, the

literature also illustrates that increased accountability and training, coupled with intrinsic

incentives (such as empowerment) and extrinsic incentives (such as increased pay), improves

teacherretentionandquality.

Studies have also shown that provision of extensive social-emotional and non-academic

interventions are associated with student achievement. Students in wraparound zones, for

example, see significant improvements in test scores, and teaching students leadership skills and

providing them leadership opportunities could yield long-term benefits. Furthermore, school

culture has also been shown to be highly influential. For example, consistent reinforcement of

positivebehaviorisassociatedwithstudentgrowth.Lastly,evenexternalfactorsofculture(outside

thedirectschoolenvironment)cancontributetostudentlearning.Forinstance,networkingevents

oractivitiesinthecommunitythatimprovesocialcapitalofparentscouldhavepositiveeffectson

studentoutcomes.

Existingliteraturefurtherpointstoseveralfactorsthatareoutsideofthescopeofourresearchand

willthereforenotbeaddressedinthisreport.Forexample,thereisextensiveresearchontherole

of leadership development and career preparation on students’ college and career success, but

since this report focuses on school performance only, the impact on college and workplace

performance will not be addressed. Lastly, existing studies also highlight the importance of

financial incentives and resources such as pay structures or resource allocation. However, since

these are district-level decisions, they are outside of the scope of this report, which focuses on

school-levelsystems.

AfullsummaryoftheacademicliteratureconsideredforthisstudyisincludedinAppendixII.This

summary is focusedon studies concernedwith best practices at the school-level rather than the

community-levelordistrict-level,asthiswasmostrelevanttoourresearchquestion.

8

IV.Methodology

Our research involved four stages described below. A full description of our methodology is

includedinAppendixIII.

Stage I: SchoolMatching:To effectively compare high-performing and low-performing schools

withsimilardemographicmake-up(proportionofstudentsconsideredeconomicallydisadvantaged

or from a minority background), we identified thresholds across these indicators. Using these

thresholds,weidentifiedLevel1and2schoolswithsimilardemographicstoLevel4and5schools.

The thresholds establishedmeant that at least53%of a school’s studentbodywaseconomically

disadvantagedor55%camefromminoritybackgrounds.

StageII:QuantitativeAnalysis&HypothesisDevelopment:UsingschooldatacapturedbyDESE

inSchoolandDistrictProfiles,weranregressions todeterminewhat indicatorswererelevant to

schoolperformance.Wetestedvariablessuchasprincipalretention,teacherretention,numberof

studentsdisciplined,percentageof staff evaluated, andvariousothers, toestablishwhich school-

level characteristics significantly and meaningfully correlated with greater success among

Massachusetts Elementary Schools. Controlling for those variables, including student

demographics,thetwoschool-levelcharacteristicsthatstoodoutwerestudentattendancerateand

teacher retention rate. Using this analysis and existing academic literature, we formulated

hypothesesregardingthecontributionofthesetwocharacteristicstohigherschoolperformanceto

testinStageIII.

Stage III: Interviews, FieldVisits, andQualitativeAnalysis:We invited Level 1 and 2 schools

above our two demographic thresholds to participate in our study. We conducted interviews

and/or visits with principals, teaching staff, administrative staff and specialty teachers in eight

Level1and2schools,andincertainschoolswereabletoviewclassroomoperations.Thisallowed

us to identify and investigate specific best practices common across these high-performing

elementaryschools.

StageIV:AnalysisofMonitoringSiteVisitReports:Oncethesebestpracticeswerecompiled,we

analyzed Monitoring Site Visit (MSV) reports to identify gaps in the implementation of these

practices inLevel 4 schools as comparedwithLevel 1 and2 schools. In comparingour findings

with detailed analysis ofMSV reportswe refined our understanding of key differences between

highandlowperformingschoolsservinghigh-riskpopulationsandtailoredourrecommendations

toaddressthesegaps.

StageI:School

Matching

StageII:Quantitative

Analysis&

Hypothesis

Development

StageIII:Interviews,

FieldVisits

and

Qualitative

Analysis

StageIV:Analysisof

MSV

reports

9

V.FindingsfromAnalysisThissectionpresentsasummaryofthefindingsfromacrossourcasestudies,MSVanalysisand

literaturereview.Thesefindingsformedthebasisforformulationofspecificrecommendations.

Thisanalysisfoundthatwhilelow-performingschoolsgenerallyhaveasenseofwhatworkswell

forhigh-riskstudents,high-performingschoolsaremuchmoreintentionalandstrategic.Our

findingsareorganizedbelowbyfirstexplainingMSVreportexpectationsforthelistedbestpractice

followedbyadescriptionofthegapwithLevel1and2schools.

1. DataDrivenInstruction

Data usage in instruction falls within Turnaround Practice 2: Intentional Practices Improving

Instruction in theMSVrubric. Inorder toachieve thehighest “Sustaining” rating in indicator2.5:

StudentAssessmentDataUse,DESE requires teachersand leaders to consistentlyusebenchmarks

andstateassessmentstomakeschool-widedecisionsregardingschool-widepractices.Relatedly,in

order to achieve the highest “Sustaining” rating in indicator 2.6: Teacher Progress Assessment

Practices, DESE requires teachers and leaders to work collaboratively using a variety of

assessmentstodeterminestudentprogresstowardsintendedoutcomes.

InLevel1/2schoolinterviews,teachersdescribedusingdatain

allcollaborativemeetings,usuallyheldonceortwiceperweek.

At Viveiros in Fall River, teachers analyze the data of the

studentsstrugglingmost(Tier3)weeklyandtwiceamonthin

literacyandmath.AtKensingtonElementary,teachersuseunit

tests and a re-teaching cycle based on trends in student

performance on specific questions. At Warner Elementary,

teachers look at data collaboratively twice a week and administer unit tests followed by a re-

teachingcycle.AtMaryLynchElementary,theschoolreliesonA-net,aneducationalnon-profit,to

provideassessmentsalignedwithstatestandards.Atallotherschoolsinterviewed,similarpatterns

of consistent, frequent and responsive use of data built into the teaching cyclewere evident. In

severalinterviews,teachersalsoreferencedusinginformaldata,suchasgradedhomeworkorexit

tickets,onadailybasistoassessifstudentsareprogressingtowardsteachingobjectives.

MSV reports indicate that Level 4 schools often provide collaborative time for teachers to plan

usingdata.Inaddition,theysuggestleadersusestateassessmentstomakeschool-widedecisionsat

thebeginningoftheyear.Level4schoolsaretypicallyratedas“providing”evidenceofdatadriven

instruction, but not necessarily consistently. One report noted, “Coacheswere looking at data to

make decisions on school-wide practices. However, not all staff examined data to inform school

practices.”Thissuggestsinconsistentschool-wideuseofdata.Anotherreporthighlighted,“…School

leadersuseddatatoidentifyvocabularyasakeyareaforimprovementthisyear.However,itisnot

clearfromthedatathatschoolleadersconsistentlyusestudentresultsonbenchmarkandcommon

assessments—in addition to state assessment data…” Several otherMSVs report that the school

was “providing” evidence of using state assessments but not other benchmarks throughout the

year,muchlessonaweeklybasislikeLevel1and2schoolsinterviewed.

AtViveirosinFallRiver,

teachersanalyzedataof

theirTier3students

weekly,andtherestof

thestudentstwiceper

month.

10

2. Wraparoundservices

Provision of coordinated wraparound services falls

withinTurnaroundPractice4:SchoolClimateandCulture.

In order to achieve the highest rating of “Sustaining”,

DESE requires that school leaders and staff share

“individual and mutual responsibility” for providing

students with comprehensive social-emotional services.

This includes using a systemic approach, involving the

assessment of student and family needs throughout the

year. In Level 1 and 2 schools, these systems are often

coordinated through a single point of contact, responsible for the referral and monitoring of

students receiving external services. In Springfield, this is the responsibility of the district-wide

Student-TeacherAssistanceProgram.Inotherschools,WrapAroundZone(WAZ)servicesareoften

coordinatedthroughoneschoolcounselorordean.

In2012,DESEconductedastudyontheeffectofWAZsonstudentperformance.Thesearestate-

funded non-academic supports that address the climate and culture of the school, as well as

students’ social and emotional capacity. It found significant improvements in standardized test

scores,especiallyforthirdandfourthgraders,butnoimprovementinsuspensionrates,attendance,

or retention (DESE, 2012). Therefore, it concluded that WAZs improve immediate academic

performance for students facing social or emotional challenges, but their long-term effects on

behaviorarelessclear.OurownresearchshowsthatschoolswithcoordinatedandeffectiveWAZ

systemshavehigherstudentattendancerates,lowersuspensionrates,andhigherretentionrates.

These findings suggest WAZ services can have strong effects, particularly when implemented

alongsideotherstudentsupportsystems.

AcademicliteraturereviewsalsosuggestthatWAZservicescouldmakeasignificantdifferenceto

theeducationalachievementofat-riskstudents.Forexample,astudyconductedinChicagoPublic

Schoolsdemonstratedanassociationbetweenoutsidefactors,suchasstrongersocialnetworksfor

parents or decreased crime rates, and improved student achievement and attendance. This and

other studies provide evidence that student outcomes are not only the result of internal school

organization, but external community factors as well. Wraparound Services that provide

coordinated and effective service provision to address the social, emotional, and behavioral

repercussionsofnegativeexternalfactorscouldthereforeimpactstudentachievementandschool

culture.

MSV reports indicate thatwhile low-performing schools oftenprovide amenuof comprehensive

services for students and families, there is no cohesive system that refers students, tracks their

progress,andevaluatestheeffectivenessoftheseservices.Onereportindicatesthat“therewasno

evidence that school leaders and staff tookpart in identifying family needs or services”; another

notes that “such services seem to be limited to some counseling services, but these services are

neitherwidespreadnor systemic.” Indeed,whilemanyLevel4/5 schoolsprovideaccess to these

services,theyareoftennotcoordinatedorlimitedtoone-offindividualreferrals.

InmanyLevel1/2schools,

thesesystemsare

coordinatedthroughasingle

pointofcontact,whois

responsibleforthereferral

andmonitoringofstudents

receivingexternalservices.

11

3. Behavior&DisciplineManagement

Implementationof a school-widebehaviorplan fallswithinTurnaroundPractice4:SchoolClimate

andCulture.DESErequiresfourkeyelementsbeincludedinaschool-widebehaviorplan:1)asetof

highbehavioralexpectationsaredefined;2)asystemofpositivebehaviorsupportsisdeveloped;3)

proceduresareimplementedbyamajorityofthestaff;and4)dataisconsistentlyusedtomonitor

behavior. Our case studies reveal that high-performing schools fulfill these criteria by

demonstrating a coherent system of high expectations while still providing teachers with

autonomy.

While our quantitative analysis indicates the relationship between student discipline rate and

schoolLevelwasnotstatisticallysignificant,themagnitudeofcorrelationwasstilllarge.Amere1

percentincreaseintherateofstudentsreceivingdisciplinaryactioncorrelatedwithadecreasein

the probability that a school is high-performing by 0.80 percentage points (see Appendix III for

empiricaldetails).This suggests thathigherperformingschools tend to take lessdrasticpunitive

measures such as suspensions, and based on our interviews, likely focus more on in-school

discipline systems thatbuildapositive culture.This is further substantiatedbyexisting research

and consistent qualitative findings on behavior management from interviews that indicate

behavioralsystemstobeanimportantfactor.

A2014studyexaminingtheimpactofinstillingacultureofhighbehavioralexpectationsintofailing

publicschoolstestedwhetherthesehighexpectationsproducedharderworkingandmorefocused

students. The schools that implemented these practices increasedmath achievement by 0.15 to

0.18 standard deviations per year. This suggests that implementation of a culture of high

expectationscouldclosetheblack-whiteachievementgapinmathwithinthreeyears.However,the

effects on readingwere onlymarginal and statistically insignificant (Fryer, 2014). Other studies

havealsoshownthatdevelopingconsistentschool-widestructuresforpositivebehaviorsupports

contributetoimprovedstudentbehavior.

Our interviews with high-performing schools also indicate the importance of positive

reinforcement and providing students with a clear set of expectations. Many of the schools use

tiered behavior models to provide this clarity and systematic approach. Some schools run a

‘responsive classroom’model topositively communicateexpectations. Inaddition, all the schools

evidencepositivefeedbacksystemstorewardorrecognizegoodorkindbehavior.

Analysis of theMSV reports indicate that Level 4 schools generally understand best practices in

behaviormanagementandoftenoutlinehighexpectationsforstudents.Moreover,manyLevel4/5

schoolsattempttoimplementpositivebehaviorsupports.Whiletheseschoolscanoftenarticulate

what behavioral interventions are needed, implementation is generally inconsistent and lacks

structure.Forexample,oneMSVreportnotes,“StakeholdersstatedthattheschoolusedPBISforits

behaviorplan…However,thereisnoevidenceofhowconsistentlytheplanisbeingimplementedor

monitored.”Indeed,aconstantthemeacrossMSVreportsisthatschoolsknowwhattodo,butfail

toimplementaschool-widestructuretoreinforcebehavioralexpectationsforstudents.

Interviewswithhigh-performingschoolsalsoindicatedtheimportanceofpositive

reinforcementandprovidingstudentswithaclearsetofexpectations.

12

4. AcademicInterventionsandEnrichment

Another aspect ofwherehigh and lowperforming schools differ is theprovisionof tutoring and

enrichment opportunities for students. These include Extended Learning Time, such as tutoring

beforeandafterschool,aswellasactivitiesinnon-coreacademicareas.ExtendedLearningTimeis

addressedinTurnaroundPractice4:wherea“Sustaining”ratingrequires,“Allstudentshaveaccess

to expanded learning opportunities that are well defined and well supported, and high-needs

students are targeted for participation in these programs.” The availability of tutoring is also

alludedtoinTurnaroundPractice3undertheindicatorofaMulti-tieredSystemofSupport:wherea

“Sustaining” rating requires, “Leaders and teachers activelyuse established systemswith criteria

and protocols for identifying students for interventions and enrichment…” which includes the

processesofidentification,makingdecisionsabout,andmonitoringinterventions.

ExaminationoftheMSVsrevealthatacademictutoringopportunitiesarenotavailableoroflimited

availabilityinmostLevel4schools.Forinstance,atoneschoolextendedlearningopportunitiesand

mentoring programs are not available to all students because of staffing restrictions and lack of

funding. SomeMSVreportshighlight the intention toprovidebeforeorafter-school tutoring,but

theseprogramshavenot yetbegun.Other reports indicate tutoringhasbeendiscontinuedorno

mentionofitsexistenceismade.

Moreover, the types of tutoring offered also limits availability and/or take up. SomeMSVs only

mentiontheexistenceofintensivetutoringasanacademicinterventionforstudentsstrugglingthe

most. InoneschoolwhereCityYearandStarfishruntutoringbeforeandafterschool, interviews

with educators reflect a desire for more resources and programs so that tutoring can become

“formalized operationally, [and]well-disciplined.” There are exceptions. A small number of low

performingschoolsprovidetutoring,butattendanceandalignmentwithcurriculumisnotclearin

theMSVs.

Similarly, evidence of implementation of enrichment

opportunities is sparse. Some MSV reports highlight the fact

that schools are focused on academics and intend to provide

enrichment opportunities later down the road. Other schools

show evidence of limited enrichment opportunities, for

instance, forstudentswho“mightbeready toworkonhigher

level things”. The small number of Level 4 schools that have

implementedenrichmentopportunitiesdonotalwaysmonitor

these for effectiveness. Many reports make no mention of

enrichmentopportunitiesorexplicitlynotethesewerelacking.

By contrast, enrichment and tutoring opportunities are consistently available in the Level 1/2

schools. These include a range of programs such as clubs or elective subjects or providing

additionaltutoringhoursbeforemajortesting.Enrichmentopportunitiesareoftenledbyteachers

with particular interests in subjects outside the traditional curriculum. Inmost of these schools,

programsaremadeavailablethroughgrantsorpartnershipswithorganizationsinthecommunity.

Forinstance,Reeboksponsorsamorningexerciseprogramatoneschoolvisited.

[InLevel1/2schools]

enrichmentopportunities

areoftenledbyteachers

withparticularinterests

insubjectsoutsideofthe

traditionalcurriculum.

13

5. TeacherCulture,TrainingandEmpowerment

Teacher culture falls underTurnaroundPractice4:SchoolClimateandCulture, and is specifically

dealt with in indicator 4.5: Trusting Relationships. Achieving a rating of “Sustaining” requires

teacherstoactina“solutions-oriented”mannerandcollaborateonplanning,analysis,assessment,

anddecision-making.Teacher training fallswithinTurnaroundPractice2:IntentionalPracticesfor

Improving Instruction, and is specifically noted in indicator 2.4:ClassroomObservationDataUse.

Achievingaratingof“Sustaining”requiresteachersareobservedandreceiveactionablefeedback

thatisconsistentlyreviewed.

TeacherRetention:

Ourquantitative analysis indicates that a 1% increase in the teacher retention rate is associated

with a 0.86 percentage point increase in the probability of a school being rated as a Level 1/2

school. Higher teacher retention rates are thereforemeaningfully associated with the likelihood

thataschoolwillberankedLevel1or2.Whilethecausaldirectionofthisrelationshipisn’tclear

from quantitative analysis alone, there is consistent and strong evidence from interviews

conducted that teacher retention is a cause of high student achievement - often expressed in

statementsabouttheimportanceofveteranteachers.

The existing academic literature regarding teacher retention is heavily focused on teacher

incentivesandteacherdevelopment.Forexample,areviewofWashingtonD.C.’scity-wideIMPACT

system, a robust teacher evaluation system with performance pay, found the system improved

outcomesforbothlowandhighperformingteachersandencouragedstrongteacherstoremainin

schools(Dee,2015).Certainaspectsofthisteacherevaluationsystem,suchasfrequentobservation

and feedbackonclassroombestpracticesandadditionalprofessionaldevelopment forstruggling

teachers,couldbeimplementedwithinindividualschools.

Another study demonstrated associations between teacher retention and four elements of staff

culture (Shen,1997).These included:1)hiringmoreexperienced teachers;2) increasing teacher

salaries;3)emphasizingtheintrinsicmeritsofteaching;and4)empoweringteacherstoinfluence

schooldecisionsandpolicies.ManyLevel1/2schoolsconfirmedthesefindingswhendiscussingthe

importance of flexible hiring decisions, veteran teachers, and frequent check-ins with teachers.

However,more research is required tobetterunderstandwhat factors improve the likelihoodof

retainingteachers.

TeacherTraining:

TheMSVreportsalsoindicatethatLevel4/5schoolsoften

have a teacher training system in place that includes

observation and feedback, but is inconsistent.

Additionally,thereappeartobegapsinaccountability,as

instructional leaders do not always review observation

datawithteachersconsistently.OneMSVnotes, “insome

cases, staff reported not being completely aware of the

schoolwideexpectationsforobservationsorhowthesedataareusedtodriveimprovementatthe

school-level.” Another suggests, “There was evidence that classroom observation data are being

used by the individual teachers being observed, but data are not reviewed by the Instructional

Level1/2schoolsemphasized

theimportanceofagradual

releasemodelfordeveloping

strugglingornewteachers.

14

LeadershipTeamoranyotherschool-widemechanism.”Ingeneral,mostteachersareobservedin

their classrooms. The gaps in performance thereforemay result from thedifferences in the data

review and feedback piece of the instructional model. Lastly, MSV reports do not report on the

existence of a gradual releasemodel for teacher training. Gradual releasemodels train teachers

through model teaching by an instructional leader, co-teaching, and finally, observation and

feedbackthattapersoffasthetraineetakescontroloftheclassroom.However,variousLevel1/2

schools emphasized the importance of a gradual release model as a strategy for assisting and

developingstrugglingornewteachers.

TeacherCulture:

MSVreportsindicatethatLevel4/5schoolsareoftendescribedashavinga“positive”staffculture

with teacher-leader communication, but collaboration is often inconsistent and/or not strategic.

OneMSVreportnotes,“Althoughtheprofessionaldevelopmentschedulewasassessedandplanned

overthesummer,therewasnoevidencethatthistimeorCommonPlanningTimewasconsistently

reevaluated…” Another MSV reports, “Although teachers have blocks of time specifically for

planning,notimewasallottedforcollaboration.”Thisindicatesthatwhilelow-performingschools

build collaborative time into their schedules, they are not consistently using this time in a

productiveway.

In analyzing the MSV reports, two trends in teacher empowerment and culture emerge in low-

performingschool:1)teacherslackvoiceinschool-widedecisions;and2)communicationispoor

between administration and staff. As noted in various reports, atmany Level 4 schools, teacher

input is not sought for strategic decisions such as teaching schedules, the structure for

interventions,andwhatinitiativestheschoolshouldpursue.Somenotethatteacherbuy-intothe

school leaders’ vision is inconsistent. Furthermore, many schools struggle with establishing

consistent communication between school leaders and staff; for example, one report quotes a

teachersaying,“there’sa lotofchangeswe’renotmadeawareof.”Bycontrast,Level1/2schools

commonlyhostweeklymeetings and regular individual check-inswith teachers, conduct teacher

climatesurveys,andincludeteachersintheschedule-makingprocess.

VerticalIntegration:

WhilenotexplicitlyaddressedintheMSV

reports,aconsistentthemeacrosshigh

performingschoolsistheimportanceofa

verticallyintegratedteacherculturethat

enablesexpertisesharingacrossgrade-levels.

Indeed,thecamaraderieandwillingnessof

teacherstosupportoneanotherwasobserved

throughtheirinteractionsduringtheinterview

process.Animportantaspectofthisstrongcollegiateand‘team’approachisthepossibilityand

Level1/2schoolshostweeklymeetingsandregularindividualcheck-inswithteachers,

conductteacherclimatesurveys,andincludeteachersintheschedule-makingprocess.

InLevel1/2schools,verticalintegration

providesteacherswithabetter

understandingofhowrigorouslya

particularareaofthecurriculumhas

beencoveredandinsightintowhat

teachingstrategiesproveeffectivefor

particularstudents.

15

executionof‘verticalintegration’acrosstheteachingteamsofdifferentgrades.Whileallschools

(regardlessofLevel)havemandatoryCommonPlanningTime,highperformingschoolsoften

dedicatespecifictimetointegratestaffverticallyandshareknowledgeacrossgrade-levels.

Inschoolswithhigh-riskpopulations,thisapproachisparticularlyvaluablefortworeasons.First,

theissuesfacedbyhigh-riskstudentsareoftentimesnotspecifictograde-levelandstaywiththem

throughadolescence.Therefore, knowledge sharingaboutparticular studentneedsacrossgrade-

levelsmaybeofevenmorevalueinthesecontexts.Second,wherestudentsstruggleacademically

(as a result of external issues, for example), vertical integration allows for greater long-term

monitoring of student progress. For example, in Level 1/2 schools, vertical integration provides

teacherswithabetterunderstandingofhowrigorouslyaparticularareaofthecurriculumhasbeen

coveredandinsightintowhatteachingstrategiesproveeffectiveforparticularstudents.

6. ParentalEngagement

Parental engagement falls within Turnaround Practice 4: School Climate and Culture, and is

specificallyaddressedinthesub-indicator4.6:CommunityEngagement,whichlaysoutfivespecific

aspectsofparentalengagement.The importanceofstrategic,systematicand focusedengagement

withparentsemergedasakeydifferentiatorofsuccessbetweenhighandlowperformingschools

servingstudentsatrisk,whencomparingtheMSVreportswithdatacollectedduringschoolvisits,

ParentinvolvementismixedacrossLevel4schools.Some

schools promote regular engagement through weekly or

monthly opportunities while other Level 4 schools only

engage parents sporadically or are just beginning to

initiate more deliberate engagement opportunities. For

example, oneMSVnotes, “According tooneof the school

leaders,parentswhohadneverbeen in the schoolbefore

werestartingtocomeinforevents,suchastheShiningStarsassemblies.”

Inaddition,thetypeofparentalengagementisimportant.Asonereportnoted,“Familyengagement

is primarily focusedonbuilding social relationships andminimally on academic supports…most

effortsappeartohavebeensocialinnatureandlessfocusedoninformationforparentstosupport

students’academicprogress.”ManyoftheMSVreportscitethesocial,ratherthanacademic,focus

of parental engagement. There are exceptions to this which includes a number of schools that

exitedLevel4toLevel3orhigherinthe2015-16year.Anotherengagementstrategythatiseither

notevidencedintheMSVs,ornotedasonlybeginningtobeimplementedbysomeLevel4schools,

isvisitstoparentsattheirhome.

By contrast, qualitative data on Level 1/2 schools

suggestsmorestrategicandconsistentengagementwith

parents. For example, one school holds “shadow days”

twiceayear(inadditiontoanumberofotherevents),in

which parents are invited to come and sit in on classes

andfollowtheirchildthroughtheday.Anotherschoolis

in the process of hosting meetings (at the principal and

ManyoftheMSVreportscite

thefocusonengaging

parentssociallyratherthan

throughacademic

opportunities.

‘ShadowDays’allowparents

towitnesstheirchild’s

learningenvironmentand

academicexperience.

16

vice-principal level)with every parent of a studentwho recently took the PARCC assessment to

explain the results and review the child’s academic progress. All Level 1/2 schools interviewed

haveadesignatedparentliaisonorstaffmemberwhocoordinatesparentengagement.

Parentalengagementemergesasparticularly important in thecontextofhigh-risk students fora

numberofreasons.First,anecdotalevidencesuggeststhatengagingparentsinconversationsabout

their child’s academic performance is reflected, at least in the short term, in improvements in

studentbehavior.Developingtheconceptofa‘partnership’ofresponsibilitybetweenteachersand

parents increases the likelihood that parents engage their child about their schooling in a

substantiveway at home. Second, existing literature shows that there is an association between

student performance and parents’ social capital. Social gatherings for parents to expand their

networkandexposuretoadditionalresourcescouldhaveaneffectonstudentperformance.Third,

parental engagement can improve student attendance (discussed below). Finally, academic

researchindicatesthatforhigh-riskstudents,thegainsfromeducationalinterventionsarestrongly

tiedtotheacademicabilitiesoftheparents.Therefore,activitiesthatengageparentsacademically

couldimprovestudentperformance.

7. CultureofAttendance

AttendanceisnotdirectlyaddressedinMSVreports,

but both our quantitative and qualitative analysis

indicates that it is an important component of a

successfulschool.Ourstatisticalanalysisshowsthat

a 1% increase in student attendance is associated

with a 7.4 percentage point increase in the

probability of a school being rated as a Level 1/2

school. This suggests that a strong culture of

attendance is strongly associated with being a Level

1/2 school. Existing literature indicates the causal relationship of this finding: an increase in

instructionaltimeprovided(Dobbie&Fryer2011)andadecreaseinstudentabsences(Goodman

2014) are associatedwith significant increases in student achievement. The reason is thatwhen

individualstudentsareabsent,teachersmustcatchthemupduringclasstimeindividually,which

takesawayfromwholegrouplearningandhindersschool-levelperformance(Goodman,2014).

Additionally,everyLevel1/2schoolinterviewedtracksattendanceandholdsstudentsandfamilies

accountable in someway. Daily phone calls aremade to absent student homes, either by a staff

memberor throughanautomatedsystem,at every school. Staff also indicated that theybelieved

thisiskeytoensuringbetterstudentattendance.Manyschoolshaveadditionalincentiveprograms

such as a rewards system for collective or individual attendance goals. In addition, Level 1/2

schoolsuse family-centricattendancestrategies toaddresschronicabsenteeism, suchasvisits to

thehomeandmeetingswithparents.Finally,manyoftheschoolshaveonestaffmemberincharge

oftrackingabsenteeismdata.

Amere1%increaseinstudent

attendanceisassociatedwitha

7.4pointincreaseintheprobabilityofa

schoolbeinghigh-performing.

17

8. MonitoringSiteVisitRubrics

Observing and collating the findings above highlighted gaps in the MSV rubric. While the MSV

rubric is not meant to provide operational support and instead only collect data on school

turnaroundprogress,therearegapsinthetypesofdatatherubriccollects.Whenweanalyzedthe

MSV reportswith the collated setofbestpractices acrosshigh-performing schools,we identified

gaps in the data collection process. Additional continuum points and rubric rows aligned to our

recommendationswill enablecollectionofmorepreciseandhelpful informationabouta school’s

progress.

18

VI.Recommendations

Basedonourquantitativeandqualitativeanalysisofschoolperformance,werecommendschools

servingat-riskstudentpopulations:

1. Embed comprehensive and cohesive systems into daily school operations that focus on

studentperformance;and,

2. Createstrategiestocultivateapositiveschoolculture.

Theserecommendationsandtheirsub-recommendationsemergedfromanalysisofthefindings

describedaboveandencapsulatetheimplementationofbestpracticesbyhigh-performingschools

ascomparedwiththepracticesoflow-performingschools.AsanalysisoftheMSVreports

emphasizethedifficultylow-performingschoolshaveinoperationalizingbestpractices,these

recommendationsarecraftedashighlyspecificactionssteps.Furthermore,whileexistingliterature

alsoidentifiessomeofthesebestpractices,thissectionaimstoillustratethemwithpractical

examplesofhowthesehaveandcanbeimplementedinelementaryschools.Allofour

recommendationsaresummarizedinFigure1onpagefour.

ThethirdrecommendationisaimedatenablingDESEtobettersupportlow-performingschools

throughtheirmonitoringandevaluationprocess.Thisfinalrecommendationtoimprovethe

MonitoringSiteVisitrubricswillallowforbettercollectionofdataandimprovedsupportforthe

lowestperformingschoolsonastatewidelevel.Together,therecommendationssupportschoolsin

implementingbestpracticesandallowDESEtomonitorschools’progressindoingso.This

alignmentisdescribedinFigure3below:

Figure3:AlignmentofSchool-LevelandDESERecommendations

19

Recommendation1:EmbedComprehensiveandCohesiveSystems

We recommend that schools develop and embed comprehensive and cohesive systems for data

driven instruction, behavior management, and the provision of interventions and services. Our

analysisshowsthatLevel1/2andLevel4/5schoolsdonotdiffergreatlyinthetypesofservicesor

initiatives available, but Level 1/2 schools articulate and instigate coherent strategies in

operationalizing these initiatives, and so provide consistent and comprehensive support. This

recommendationthereforeproposesthatinitiativesshouldnotbeimplementedinsilosorad-hoc

ways; rather, they should exist as part of a cohesive school-wide system.

1.1.DataDrivenInstruction

1.1.1. Administer formative assessments multiple times per year and conduct weekly

analysis of student data (at minimum). The notion of data driven instruction should not be

limited to state assessments or summative assessments. Whether schools create their own

formative assessments to use throughout the year, or rely on an outside source, collecting and

analyzing student progress data frequently is a consistent characteristic of Level 1/2 schools.

Weekly analysis can be focused on studentwork or involve using tools such asWilson Literacy

Training. In weekly collaboration meetings, which occur in most schools regardless of Level,

teachersshould lookatstudentdataduringeverymeeting ideallywithan instructional leaderAt

someschools, teachersbroughtactualstudentworktoeachof thesemeetings.This increasesthe

accountability of using data and the rigor with which it is evaluated. By using data on a more

frequentandconsistentbasis,teachersarebetterequippedtomanipulatelessonplanstostudent

needsandbucketstudentsintolearninggroupsastheirneedsshift.Frequentandconsistentuseof

dataisespeciallyimportantforat-riskpopulationsthathavespecificandacuteacademicneedsthat

canbetargetedbyteachers.

AtWarnerElementary in the teacher common room, there is a visual representationof

everystudent’smostrecenttestscoresonacardwiththeirphoto.Thesephotocardsare

placedwithinproficiencycategoriesonthewallsofthestaffroomwiththegoalbeingthat

studentswillgraduallyimprovethroughouttheyearwitheachnewformativeassessment.

Thisvisual cue for teachers is aconstantreminderofwhichstudentsneed assistance in

which areas; and provides a concrete action aligned with their progress against data

measures.

Testingdataisalsoreviewedsystematicallyaftertestsarecompleted.Whenanumberof

students get something incorrect, teachers reteach (or have another teacher reteach)

theseproblematicareasinthefollowingweeks.

AtViveirosinFallRiver,teachersbringinformaldata(gradedhomework,shortresponses,

exit tickets, etc.) to every collaboration meeting and instructional leadership meeting.

Theyusethisdatatoidentifytrendsinstudentlearningacrossclassroomsandrestructure

theirlessonsaccordingly.

ImplementationExample:VISUALCUESANDMONITORING

20

1.2.BehaviorManagement

1.2.1. Implement consistent, positive school-wide behavior management structures that

include clear points of contact and procedures for escalation. Many low-performing schools

articulate a vision for behavior management but leave it up to teachers to design their own

behaviorstandards for theirownclassrooms.Widedisparitiesbetweenclassroomstrategies lead

to inconsistent implementationof school-wide expectations,which canbe confusing for students

and lead to misbehavior. Thus, we recommend that schools design core behavior structures,

uniformacross all classrooms,while allowing teachers autonomy to supplement the school-wide

structure with classroom-specific incentives. Examples of these core structures used by various

Level1/2schoolsincludebuddyrooms,wherestudentsaresenttoapartnerteacher’sclassroom

foratime-out,specificphysicalspacesforstudentstoregroupevenbeforebehavioralissuesarise,

andvisualrepresentationsofbehavioralmonitoring.Forexample,someschoolshaveacolor-coded

system for students tomonitor their own behavior as they progress throughout the day. These

behavioralinterventionsfollowadistinctescalationpathfromtheclassroomtotheprincipal.

Atoneschool,certainbehaviors,suchastalkingback,wouldbedealtwithinsidethe

classroom.Anothersetofmoredetrimentalmisbehavior,suchasatantrum,wouldbe

dealtwithbysendingthestudenttoa“buddyroom”wheretheteacherisexpectingthem.

Finally,studentswhoconsistentlymisbehave,ordemonstratemoreegregiousbehaviors

suchasendangeringotherstudents,aremonitoredbyaschoolleader,whofrequently

checksinwiththem.Oftentimes,thesestudentswillalsotakepartinsocialskills

workshops,workinaseparateclassroomasneeded,andworkwithaschoolcounselorto

overcomebehavioralissues.

ImplementationExample:ESCALATIONLADDER

At theSumner School, theVicePrincipalhasresponsibility for thebehavioral,aswellas

socialandemotional,wellbeingofstudents.Sheconductsdailycheck-inswithstudentsin

the mornings, with an emphasis on positive reinforcement. She also keeps a list of

studentswho struggle themostwithbehaviorandchecks inwith themmore frequently

throughouttheday.HerclearroleallowsstudentstoaccesstheVicePrincipalwhenthey

were‘havinganoffday’,oralternativelyneedsomeotherformofnon-academicsupport.

AtHyannisWestElementary,atieredapproachisconsistentlyimplementedacrossthe

school.Thebasisofthesystemisapositiveinterventionapproach(facilitatedbythe

ResponsiveClassroommethod),inwhichstudentsarefrequentlyrewardedforgoodand

kindbehavior.Inaddition,recognitionisgiveninassembliesfor“randomactsof

kindness”.AspartofTier1,theexpectationsforbehavioraremadeclearforallstudents.

Forinstance,expectationsforhowtobehaveinthehallwaysaredisplayedinthe

corridors.Tier2involvesidentifyingstudentswhoneedmoresupportandcreating

individualinterventionplansasneeded.Forexample,astudentmayhaveadaily“check-

in”and“check-out”withateacherwhospecificallyasksthemwhattheyneedtoget

throughthedayproductively,andthenfollows-upthroughout.Inaddition,theschool

counselorprovidesregularskillsbasedworkshopsforstudentswhostrugglewith

particularsocialskills.Staffandcommunitymembersalsoparticipateinmentoring

studentswhoneedgreaterassistance,volunteeringonaweeklybasistohavealunchor

breakfastwiththestudent.Tier3ofthebehaviorsystemprovidesaseparateclassroom

wherestudentscangoformoreintensivecounseling,tutoring,orotherinterventions.

ImplementationExample:TIEREDAPPROACH;SINGLEPOINTOFCONTACT

21

1.2.2.Conductreviewsofdisciplinedataconsistentlytoevaluatemanagementstructure.We

recommendthatLevel4/5schoolsreviewdisciplinedataaspartofgrade-levelteammeetings.Our

quantitative analysis suggests a strong association between the decrease in students disciplined

andtheprobabilityofschoolsbeingaLevel1/2school.Reviewingstudent-leveldatatounderstand

the causes of disciplinary issues and assessing the trends in behavior management across the

schoolmayhighlight clear areaswhere school-wide systems are consistently failing. This review

should be used to inform changes to the behavior management structure and assess on-going

opportunitiesforimprovementofschool-widesystems.

1.3.WraparoundServices

1.3.1.Createasystemforreferral,monitoring,andevaluationofwraparoundservices,

ideallythroughonepointofcontact.EvidencefromMassachusettsWraparoundZones(WAZ)

demonstratesaclearassociationbetweenWAZservicesandstudentachievement;however,the

mereprovisionofservicesisnotadequate.InWAZschools,acohesivesystemensuresthat

studentsarenotreceivingduplicateservicesandarebeingreferredtothemostappropriateservice

providers.Inaddition,schoolscanmonitortheprogressofeachindividualstudentreceiving

servicesandevaluatetheoutcomesofprogramparticipation.MSVreportsindicatethatteachers

whoarenottrainedtoaccuratelyidentifystudentneedsprimarilyhandlereferralsonaone-off

basis,whichcanresultinduplicativeorinadequateserviceprovision.

Schoolsshouldidentifyonepointofcontact,usuallyacounselororviceprincipal,whohandlesall

studentorfamilyparticipationinoutsideservices.Thispersonshouldberesponsiblefortraining

teacherstoidentifystudentneeds,handlingallreferrals,communicatingwithfamiliesandservice-

providers,andmonitoringtheoutcomesoftheseservices.Theyshouldactasago-toresourcefor

teacherswhohavequestionsorconcernsandmakeregularcontactwithteacherstomonitorand

identifyschool-wideneeds.

HyannisWestkeepsadailylogofbehaviorincidents.Whenstudentsareexitedfroma

classroom,thisabsenceisrecordedinordertoprovidedataonhowmuchschoolingis

missed.Moreseriousmisdemeanorsarereportedinadistrictwidedatasystem,anda

counselorandprincipalreviewthisdataroutinely.

ImplementationExample:ADAILYLOG

SumnerSchoolinBostonconductstwice-annualreviewofstudentdisciplinedatato

addressthecausesofdisciplinaryissuesandtodirectstudentstospecificinterventions

basedontheirdisciplineprofile.Studentsarereferredtosocial-emotionalorbehavioral

servicesbasedonthosedata.Inaddition,thesereviewsareusedasanopportunityto

addressschool-widetrendsanddevelopappropriatesystemicinterventionsthatrespond

tothese.

ImplementationExample:REVIEWOFDATA

22

1.4.AcademicInterventionsandEnrichment

1.4.1.Developconsistentopportunitiesforteacherstotutorallstudentswithdiverseneeds.

Addressingthediverseneedsofstudentsthroughvariedandmulti-tieredacademic interventions

ensures that schools are meeting every child’s needs. Many low-preforming schools focus

interventioneffortsontargetedsub-groups,suchasELLorspecialeducationstudents,butdonot

have systems to identify specific needs across the entire student body. Schools should develop

systems to identify individual students’ needs – whether through data analysis or classroom

observations – and establish tutoring groups and content based on this evaluation. In Level 1/2

schools, tutoring is viewed as most effective when provided by teachers, or as part of the

responsibilitiesofspecialty instructional leaders,ratherthananoutsideandpossibly freesource.

Additionally, Level 1/2 schools oftenprovide tutoring in cycles that are alignedwithunits being

taught and individual student needs. Therefore, if a student needs tutoring for writing but not

readingcomprehension,theyattendthesetutoringsessionswhentheyareoffered,ratherthanan

ad-hocrangeofservicesthatmayormaynotberelevant.

AtViveirosinFallRiver,acounselorreceivesallreferralsfromschoolstaffand

coordinateswithallexternalagencies.Teachersareawareofthespecificprocessesand

requirementstoreferstudentsforservices.Thecounselorisresponsiblefordocumenting

andtrackingreferralstoanexternalserviceprovider.Ratherthanjustbeingan

intermediary,thecounselorfollowsuptoevaluatethestudent’sprogressandliaises

betweentheserviceprovider,teachers,andfamiliesonwhetherthoseservicesare

appropriateandhavedeliveredthedesiredoutcomes.Ifnot,thenchangesaremade.

ImplementationExample:ASYSTEMOFCOORDINATION

AttheBelmontStreetCommunitySchool,eachstudenthasanacademicdevelopmentplan,

aswellasageneralinterventionplanforbothacademicandnon-academicservices.

Interventionsmayincludeadditionalreadingpracticewithateacheroradditionalstudy

skillstime,dependingonthechild’sneeds.Theseinterventionsaredeterminedthrough

datareviewsandmonitoredconsistentlybygrade-levelteachers.

ImplementationExample:STUDENTCENTEREDINTERVENTIONS

AtSumnerinBoston,teacherstutorinsix-weekcyclesandre-evaluatethetutoringgroups

basedondatathatiscollectedthroughouttheunit.Thesecyclesarebasedoncontent,such

asoperationsorwriting,ratherthanstudenttype,suchasELLorSPED.Thetutoringoffered

isalignedwiththecurriculumbeingtaught.Insomecases,teachersalsoprovidetutoringfor

highperformingstudentsinordertochallengeorpushthembeyondthecurrentclassroom

content.Thisensuresthatalltypesofstudentneedsarebeingmet.

ImplementationExample:ALIGNINGTUTORINGANDCURRICULUM

23

1.4.2.Developpartnershipswithexternalproviderstocreateopportunitiesforenrichment

and learning. Many schools that do not have the financial or logistical capacity to provide

enrichmentservicesbyteachersrelyonexternalprovidersforsuchservices.Externalpartnerships

canbedevelopedwith churches, sister schools, local communityorganizations, oruniversities to

provide free or subsidized enrichment programs for students. Schools lacking resources should

considerengaginginlocalpartnershipstoprovidesuchopportunities.

HyannisWestElementarypartnerswitharangeofcommunityservicesandorganizations.

Forexample,membersoftheBigBrotherandBigSisterprogramattendtheParentOpen

House evening at thebeginningof the year. Parentswho feel that their childrenwould

benefitfromtheprogramprovidepermissionfortheirchildtobeassigneda“bigbrother”

or “big sister” to visit the student at lunch or after school. The school also welcomes

‘interns’ or volunteers from two different local high schools who become regular

classroom visitors and are available to assist in reading to small groups or with

organizational aspects of the classroom. The Local Rotary Club is also involved in the

school and provides funds to support literacy programs and guest readers to different

classrooms.Inaddition,thelocalPoliceDepartmentprovidesan‘adoptivepoliceofficer’to

regularly visit the school in order to demonstrate the positive role of the police in the

community.

ImplementationExample:BUILDCOMMUNITYPARTNERSHIPS

24

Recommendation2:Createstrategiestocultivateapositiveschoolculture.

We recommend that schools cultivate a positive school culture through intentional and explicit

strategiesclearlylinkedtodesiredoutcomes.Ouranalysisshowsthatpositiveschoolculturedoes

notonlyimpactstudentbehaviorandparentengagement,butalsostudentattendanceandteacher

retention, both of which are empirically associated with improvements in overall school

performance.WhileMSVreportsoftenindicateapositiveschoolcultureinLevel4schools,thereis

rarely a coherent or intentional plan linking various initiatives with desired outcomes, such as

teachersatisfaction.Ratherthansimplyimplementingalitanyofunalignedinitiatives,schoolsmust

strategically evaluate how those initiatives lead to their desired outcomes. We therefore

recommend that schools develop intentional strategies to strengthen school culture through:

parentengagement, teacher training, culture,empowermentandvertical integration,andstudent

attendance.

2.1.TeacherTraining,CultureandEmpowerment

2.1.1.Implementagradualreleasetrainingmodel.Teacherswhostruggleintheclassroomcan

negatively affect culture and are likely not to be retained. Therefore, a strong teacher-training

model can directly promote a positive culture. Because MSV data reveals that classroom

observationsforLevel4schoolsareinthemidtolowrangeontheirrubric,agradualreleasemodel

couldensurethat the low-rangeteachers improvemorequickly thantheyotherwisemight.Level

1/2schoolsoftenuseagradualreleasetrainingmodelforstrugglingornewteachers.Theschools

we interviewed generally use a 6 to 8week cycle depending on howmuch support the teacher

needs.Themodelteachinglastsaroundtwoweeks,theco-teachingmodellastsaroundtwoorthree

weeksandthentheobservationphaselastsaslongasnecessaryandtapersoffgradually.Basedon

observationdata,thesetimeframesshouldbeadjustedasrequiredforindividualteachers.

2.1.2.Structureandevaluatecollaborationtimeto increaseproductivityandeffectiveness.

Scheduling collaboration time isnot an issue formostLevel4/5 schools;however, ensuring that

thistimeisusedeffectivelycanbeachallenge.Ingeneral,theprincipalorinstructionalleadersin

Level1/2schoolsprovideastructureforthesemeetingsandguidanceonhowthetimeshouldbe

used. Then, an instructional leader or coach runs themeetings. School leaders also consistently

evaluatethisstructurebysittinginonmeetingstoensureitiseffectiveandproductive.Asaresult,

usingthistimeeffectivelynotonlyimprovesstudentoutcomes,butleadstomoresatisfiedteachers

aswell.

AtViveirosinFallRiver,teachersarepairedwithaninstructionalleaderwhomodel

teachesthefirstfewweeksoflessons.Then,theytransitiontoaco-teachingmodel,and

finally,theyshifttoasingleleadteacherclassroomwithobservationfeedbackcycles.

Check-insanddebriefsareincludedthroughouttheentirecycletoensureteachersare

learningfromtheprocess.After6-8weeks,theinstructionalteamlooksatstudentdatato

decidewhichteachersneedadditionalsupportthroughthismodel.

ImplementationExample:GRADUALRELEASEMODEL

Whilevariousmodelsarepossible,onepotentialscheduleforcollaborationtimewould

seethefirst10minutesdevotedtostudent-leveldataanalysis.Thenext20minutes

devotedtotrendsinlearningacrossclassrooms,andthefinal20minutesprovidedfor

teacherstopairoff,revampandgetpeerfeedbackontheirlessonplansforthecoming

week.

ImplementationExample:STRUCTURINGCOLLABORATIVETIME

EFFECTIVELY

25

2.1.3. Empower teachers with autonomy and flexibility through frequent communication

withschoolleaders.ManyLevel1/2schoolsdevelopstrategiesandsystemstoempowerteachers

andgivethemavoice.Providingteacherswiththisgreaterinfluenceandautonomycanencourage

them to stay at the school. School leaders empower teachers by allowing them to make key

decisionsregardingaspectsof teachingsuchas interventionplans,parentengagementstrategies,

or classroom-level reward systems. Furthermore, these schools develop consistent systems for

communication between teachers and school leaders to analyze teacher observation data and

providefeedback.

2.1.4. Dedicate specific planning time to ‘vertical’ meetings, particularly at the end and

beginning of the academic year. Many schools focus collaborative time on grade-level team

meetingsbutprovidefewopportunitiesforcollaborationbetweengrade-levelsteachingteams.In

ordertoensurethatallteacherscanmosteffectivelyaddressachild’sneeds–bothacademicand

social-emotional–,vertical integrationandcommunicationbetweengrade-levels is imperative.At

thesemeetings, teachers should inform the student’s next teacher of specific student needs and

ensurethecontinuationofservicesandinterventions.

Verticalintegrationtimeshouldalsobeusedtoallowforbestpracticesharing.Providingteachers

with theopportunity to learn fromothermoreexperienced teachers,particularlywhere teachers

mayhavetaughtthesamestudentsorcurriculumpreviously,canbeofgreatvalue.InvariousLevel

1/2schools, there isevidenceof consistentandon-goingmeetingsacross staff groups thatallow

teacherstosolicithelpwithparticularstudentsandsubjectmatters.Giventhehigh-needsofat-risk

populations,havingextrainsightsintoparticularstrategiesfordealingwithaspecificchild’sneeds

maybeofsignificantvalue.

AtCarltonViveiros,teachersaregiventheautonomytodesigntheirownspecials

curriculum,teachingstudentsspecialtyelectivesbasedontheirowninterests.

AttheNewtonSchoolinGreenfieldandtheWarnerSchoolinSpringfield,teachersare

giventheflexibilitytodesigntheirownteachingschedulesandworkalongsideschool

administrationtodesigninterventionschedulesthatmeettheirstudents’specificneeds.

Furthermore,theentiredistrictatSpringfieldPublicSchoolscompleteOrganizational

HealthInventory(OHI)surveys,whichareusedforteacherstoassessschoolcultureand

communicationwithschoolleaders.

ImplementationExample:EMPOWERINGTEACHERSINTHEIRCLASSROOMS

AtViveirosinFallRiver,aschoolleadersitsinonmeetingseachweektoevaluatetheir

progressandefficiency.ThisisusuallytheEnglishLanguageArtsinstructionalleader,

Mathleader,orprincipal.Theydonotuseaspecificrubrictoevaluatethesemeetings,but

theseobservationsallowthemtointerveneandprovidefeedbackshouldstaffmembers

needit.Sometimestheywillleadthemeetingtomodelhowcollaborationtimeshouldbe

run.Allofthesecollaborationmeetingsincludestudent-leveldataanalysis,whichteachers

collectinformallythroughouttheweekandbringwiththemtoeverymeeting.

ImplementationExample:EVALUATINGEFFECTIVENESS

26

2.2.ParentEngagement

2.2.1.Dedicatespecificresourcesandplanningeffortstofosterconsistentopportunitiesfor

parentalengagement.Wherepossible,designatespecificresponsibilitiesforparentalengagement

tooneortwostaffmemberstoprovideschoolstheabilitytoplanandexecuteparentalengagement

in more consistent and strategic ways. Create predictable patterns of parental engagement to

enhance parental responsibility, signal high expectations for learning, and deter non-attendance.

Level1/2implementingthesestrategiesdidsoacrossavarietyofforums,includingthroughtheir

parent teacher councils (or equivalents) as well as a program of activities and engagements

throughouttheyear.

2.2.2. Focus engagement opportunities with parents on academic, as well as social or

recognition-based, events. Many Level 4/5 schools mention award ceremonies or social

gatheringsforparents.However, it is justas importantthoughthatparentsare involvedwiththe

academic aspects of school aswell. Thiswill better equip themwith content knowledge and an

understandingoflearningprocessestosupporttheirchildathome.ManyLevel1/2schoolsdothis

byschedulingeventssuchas“ScienceFairs”or“MathNights”oraninteractiveeventbasedaround

aunitbeingtaughtinthecurriculum.Thesebecomeopportunitiesforstudentsandtheirparentsto

engagewithacademicallyrelevantmaterialandshare inthe learningprocesstogetherwithinthe

schoolenvironment.High-performingschoolsalsowelcomedparent involvement in theeveryday

functioningofaclassroom,particularly ifastudentwasstruggling.Someschools formallyextend

thisinvitation,butmostemphasizethatparentsarewelcometoobserveandparticipateinthedaily

runningof the classroomat any time. Socialor recognitionbasedevents also still takeplaceand

usuallyincludesomesortofinformationorresourcesharing.

AtSumnerElementary,theprincipalhiredaparentwhowasalsoapara-teacheralready

staffedattheschooltotakeresponsibilityforengagingandimprovingtheparentcouncil.

Shewasalsobilingualwhichgreatlyhelpedwithcommunication.Theprioritywasto

diversifytheparentcouncilwithmoreHispanicandBlackparents.Now,thegoalisto

engageparentsmoreintheclassroom.Thisinvolvesinvitingparentstoschooltoworkon

projectswiththeirchildrenorshadowthemintheclassroom.Tostartthisinitiative,the

principalhasassignedtwoteachersinthesecondgradetopilottheprogram.Oncethey

havecreatedafluidsystemforparentengagementintheclassroom,theywillrolluptothe

othergrades.Overall,settingshort-termgoalswithoneortwocoordinatorsforparent

engagementhasworkedwellforSumner.

ImplementationExample:STRATEGICENGAGEMENTANDACHIEVEABLEGOALS

Inoneschool,classroomteachersinvitedparentstwiceayearto‘shadow’studentsfora

schooldaytoseedailyclassroompractices.Classroomteachersalsosenthomeprojects

withstudentsthatareintentionallytailoredforparentcollaboration.

Toengageparentssocially,aschoolleaderinvitesthemtoa‘MuffinsforMoms’or‘Donuts

forDads’breakfastwheretheycansocializewitheachotherandreceiveresourcesor

informationaboutschoolprocessessuchasbehaviorexpectations.

ImplementationExample:CATERINGFORACADEMICANDSOCIALENGAGEMENT

27

2.3.CultureofAttendance

2.3.1. Create a family-centered system for addressing chronic absenteeism. To address

chronic absenteeism, Level 1/2 schools dig deeply intowhat the root cause of such absenteeism

could be. Is it transportation?Mistrust of school? Parent’s schedules? Level 1/2 schools create a

profile for each child who is chronically absent and communicate with families consistently to

identifyandsolvetheproblem.

2.3.2.Developasystemtosupportdailyphonecallsincasesofstudentabsence.Thispractice

iswidely implemented among Level 1/2 schools and considered imperative tomaintaining high

attendance. Interviews indicated that for high-needs populations where students face transient

circumstances and lack consistent transportation to school, high expectations and accountability

areessentialformotivatingconsistentattendanceandovercomingexternalbarriers.

AtHyannisWestElementary,theyhaveimplementedanumberofapproachestodealwith

absenteeism,and,inparticular,withchronicabsenteeism.Firstly,theyhavemovedfroma

systemofrewardingstudentsonayearlybasisforperfectattendance,toprovidingmore

regular opportunities for recognition of perfect attendance and punctuality, including

through monthly student assemblies, and posting student names in a bi-monthly

newslettertofamilies.Inaddition,theschoolhas increasedprovisionofbreakfastinthe

classroomsinthemorningtotrytoencouragestudentstocomeontimetoschool.

The school counsellor sends letters home after 5, 7 and 10 days of absence. When a

student has been absent for 10 days, the family is called in for a meeting, in order to

determine thecauseof the absenceanddevelop solutions, suchas transportationneeds

forexample.ArepresentativefromtheLocalDistrictAttorney’sofficeisalsoinvitedtothe

meeting,notasapunitivemeasure,butratherasawayofwideningtherangeofsolutions

available.

ImplementationExample:AMULTI-PRONGEDAPPROACHFORCOMBATTINGABSETEEISM

Allschoolsinterviewedhadimplementedadailycallsysteminsomeway.Insomeschools

this task was performed by the school nurse, and in others a dedicated parent liaison

communicated on a daily basis with absent students’ families. In other cases, such as

across Boston Public Schools, the district had implemented an automated call system,

however,itwasnotedthatthepurposeofthiswasasafetymeasurefirstandforemost.

ImplementationExample:ADAILYCALLSYSTEM

28

Recommendation3:ImproveMonitoringSiteVisitRubric

Our final recommendation focuses on specific changesDESE canmake to theMSV rubric. These

recommendationsarebasedongapsidentifiedinthequantitativeandqualitativeanalysisofdata

fromLevel1/2schoolsandtheevaluationofLevel4/5schools.Whilethisisnotpartofouroriginal

research question for what schools can do, it is in line with the over-arching goal of improving

support for lowperformingschools.Bycollectingbetterdata in theMSVrubric,webelieveDESE

willbeabletobetteridentifyschool-levelgapsandrespondaccordingly.

3.1.AddAdditionalContinuumPointstoPortionsofMSVRubric

3.1.1.Indicator1.5:InstructionalLeadershipandImprovement.Thecurrentcontinuumpoints

includedina“Sustaining”rankingareweeklyordailyobservations,timelyandactionablefeedback,

anddatacollection tomonitorprogress.DESEshouldconsider includingagradual releasemodel

forneworstrugglingteachersinordertoincreaseimplementationofinstructionalbestpractices.

Level 1/2 schools consistently cite the gradual release model as highly effective for improving

teacherqualityineveryclassroom.

3.1.2: Indicator 2.2: Instructional Schedule: The current continuum points included in a

“Sustaining” rankingdescribe collaboration “across grade-levels and content areas”.DESE should

consider including languagearoundvertical integrationsothatcollaborationtimebetweengrade-

levelsisalsomeasuredandreviewed.Basedonourinterviews,atminimumonceperyear,teachers

shouldcollaboratewith teachers fromothergradesand/ormentor teachers todiscussparticular

students and learn from one another about implementation of best practices and coverage of

specificcurriculum.

3.1.3Indicator2.5:StudentAssessmentDataUse.Thecurrentcontinuumpoints included ina

“Sustaining” ranking describe “consistent” use of benchmarks, common assessments and state

assessments. DESE should consider including language around frequency and variety of data

collected. In our interviews, teachers from Level 1/2 schools describe using both informal data

dailyorweeklyandformaldataattheendofeachunit.Werecommendteacherscollectformaldata

aftereachunitandinformaldataonaweeklybasis.Thisdatashouldbeusedtoadjustupcoming

unitsandlessonsbasedonstudentmisunderstanding.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE (SUSTAINING): Struggling or new teachers are paired with an

instructionalleaderforasix-weekgradualreleasemodel.

SAMPLELANGUAGE(SUSTAINING):Teachersanalyzeinformaldataweeklyandformaldata

attheendofeachunittoinformtheirinstructionimmediatelyforthenextweekorunit.

SAMPLELANGUAGE (SUSTAINING): At least onceper year, teachers between grade-levels

meettodiscussindividualstudentneedsandbestpractices.

29

3.1.4:Indicator2.6:TeacherProgressAssessmentPractices.MostLevel4/5schoolsareaware

thattheyshouldanalyzestudentdatatoinforminstruction.OneprimarydifferencebetweenLevel

4/5 schools and Level 1/2 schools is the frequency with which teachers analyze student data

collaboratively as a team. At Level 1/2 schools, teachers analyze data collaboratively at least

weekly.Thecurrent“Sustaining”languagesaysteacherswork“individuallyandcollaboratively”to

determine student progress. This does not include language around frequency.We suggest data

analysisoccurweeklyincollaborationmeetings,evenifonlywithinformaldata,whichisespecially

helpfulforstrugglingteachers.

3.1.5: Indicator 4.1: School Wide Behavior Plan: Most schools seem to have a school wide

behavior plan of some sort, regardless of Level. Currently, the “Sustaining” rating states that the

plan should be implemented by a “majority” of the staff and subsequentlymonitored by school

leadership. The Level 1/2 schools we spoke with had behavior plans that included a ladder of

escalation for student behavior and a single point of contact for studentswho struggle themost

withbehavioralissues.Wesuggestincludingmoredescriptionofwhatthisplanshouldlooklikein

the MSV report. We also believe that “majority” should be changed to “all” to avoid gaps in

consistencybetweenclassrooms.

3.2.AddAdditionalIndicatorsforAttendanceStrategies

Higher attendance rates are correlated with an increase in the probability of being a Level 1/2

school. Our interviews with Level 1/2 schools also reveal the importance of a family-centric

approach to attendance accountability that includes student profiles and home visits for the

chronicallyabsent. Inaddition,dailyphonecallsareconsistentlyabestpracticeacrossLevel1/2

schools as an accountability and information gatheringmechanism. This should be a new rubric

rowunderturnaroundpracticefour.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE (SUSTAINING): Teachers bring student data to weekly collaboration

meetingsforanalysisasateam.

SAMPLELANGUAGE (SUSTAINING): Absent students’ families are called daily; chronically

absentstudentsaregivenaprofileandreceiveahomevisitoncetheyhavemissed10school

days.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE (SUSTAINING): Schools implement a school wide behavior plan that

includesa)aclear ladderofescalationfromclassroomtoprincipal forstudentbehaviorand

b) a single point of contact for students who struggle the most with behavioral issues. All

teachers and leaders, including part-time and specials teachers, implement this plan

consistently.

30

FrameworkforImplementation

Inordertosupportimplementationtheserecommendations,wedevelopedthefollowingquestions

forschoolstoassesstheirneedsandnextsteps.Sinceschoolsvaryinexistingcapacityandneed,we

believe that individual school leadership teams are best placed to determine a particular and

specificplan.Schoolsshouldassesstheirowncapacityandneedstoidentifypriorityareastofocus

on,anddevelopatimelineforimplementingtherecommendationsoutlinedabove.Tothatend,we

recommend that schools ask themselves the following reflection questions to analyze their

strengths and weaknesses. We recommend that schools first focus on impact to identify the

initiativesthatwillproducethegreatestgainsfortheirteacherandstudentpopulations.Following

this, we recommend that schools analyze the feasibility of implementing those initiatives given

their resources, the school’s existing capacity, aswell as district-level constraints. School leaders

shouldprioritize initiatives thathave thehighest impact,andthose thatareeasiest to implement

giventheircurrentsituation.

Werecommendthatschoolleadersusethisframeworktoguidediscussionwiththeirstaff,parents,

and students to strategically develop a unique implementationplan that accurately reflects their

needs and capabilities. Many high-performing schools indicated that they found it ineffective to

attemptallthereformstheydesiredatonce;instead,theyfocusedononeortwokeypriorities,and

then used those as a foundation to build up other reforms and initiatives. This set of reflection

questionsallowsschoolstoidentifytheirprioritiesanddevelopasequenceforaction.

After schools identify their priority initiatives, they can refer to Appendix VII, a summary of the

recommendationsaredividedamongstthekeystakeholdersthatprincipalsneedtopartnerwith,in

ordertoachievedesiredresults.Thereareseparatesummariesforschoolleadership,teachers,and

the counseling department based onwhich stakeholderswe believe aremost closely aligned for

implementing each recommendation. Principals can use this guide to consider the stakeholders

theyneedtoengagewithinordertoachieveeachofthesepriorities.

32

VII.Conclusion

This report outlines twomajor recommendations aimed at improving the systems and culture of

low-performing schools and one additional recommendation for improving the MSV rubrics in

evaluating these schools. Within these two areas of systems and culture, we have highlighted

specific sub-recommendations for school leaders and provided examples of how these best

practices can be operationalized at the school-level. Specifically, we recommend low-performing

schools focus on building systems to support data driven instruction, behavior management,

wraparoundservices, and tutoringandenrichment.Werecommend that theseschoolsalso focus

onintentionallyfosteringastrongandpositivecultureintheareasofteachercommunicationand

empowerment,parentengagementandattendance.

Basedoninterviewswithhighperformingprincipalswhohaveturnedaroundschoolsthemselves,

it is not recommended that all best practices are implemented at once; instead they should be

implementedinasequencetheschool leaderbelievesbestsuitstheirschool. InAppendixVIIwe

haveprovided additional guidance for school leaders tousewhenbeginning the implementation

process that will enable them to determine which stakeholders they should partner with to

implementspecificaspectsoftheserecommendations.

In education, there is general consensus on turnaround best practices. This is apparent in the

indicators includedon theMSV rubrics and in the turnaroundbest practicesdocumentsusedby

DESE. However, where minimal gaps have been identified in the MSV rubrics, our third

recommendationseeks toaddress these.While thespecificsof this thirdrecommendationdonot

directly respond to the initial research question asked, we believe that strengthening the

monitoringandevaluationprocessesofschools,toensureallbestpracticesarecapturedinDESE’s

reviewofschoolsisimperativetoprovidingoptimalsupportandfeedback.

While consensus may exist on what best practices are, there is little available detailing what

implementation should look like,especially inschoolsservinghigh-riskchildren.Through lengthy

interviews with school leaders and teachers, we focused on identification of trends in

implementation. In thisdocument,wehaveprovideddetailsonhow to concretelyoperationalize

thesepotentiallyvaguenotionsofimprovingsystemsandculture.Coupledwithvividexampleson

the school-level, this document seeks to adds additional value to the existing literature by

highlightinghowlowperformingschoolscanbetterserviceatriskstudents.

The reality in Massachusetts, however, is that poverty and race are inextricably tied to school

performanceofmostpublic schools.Schoolswithhigh levelsofpovertyandminorityenrollment

arestillmorelikelythannottobeunder-performing,andtherealitiesofpovertycontinuetobring

obstaclestostudentlearning,bothinandoutofschool.Whilewebelieveourrecommendationswill

produce significant improvements in school performance, our children need much more. The

realities of poverty and race cannot be solely addressed by education reform; it requires a

comprehensive understanding of the types of poverty and the diverse challenges faced by our

studentsandfamilies.

33

AppendixI:References

Abdulkadiroglu,Atila;Angrist,Joshua;Dynarski,Susan;Kane,ThomasandPathak,Parag(2011).

AccountabilityandFlexibilityinPublicSchools:EvidencefromBoston'sChartersandPilots.The

QuarterlyJournalofEconomics126:2,699-748.

Barrera-Osorio,Felipe;Bertrand,Marianne;Linden,LeighandPerez-Calle,Francisco(2011).Improving

theDesignofConditionalTransferPrograms:EvidencefromaRandomizedEducationExperimentin

Colombia.AmericanEconomicJournal:AppliedEconomics3:2167-195.

Bettinger,EricP.,BridgetTerryLong,PhilipOreopoulos,andLisaSanbonmatsu(2012).TheRoleof

ApplicationAssistanceandInformationinCollegeDecisions:ResultsfromtheH&RBlockFAFSA

Experiment.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics127:3,1205-1242.

Bryk,A.S.,BenderSebring,P.,Allensworth,E.,Luppescu,S.andEaston,J.Q.(2010).“TheInfluenceof

CommunityContext.”InA.S.Bryk,P.SebringBender,E.Allensworth,S.LuppescuandJ.Q.Easton(Eds.),

OrganizingSchoolsforImprovement:LessonsfromChicago(pp.137-196).Chicago,IL:Universityof

ChicagoPress.

Chakrabarti,Rajashri(2014).IncentivesandResponsesUnderNoChildLeftBehind:CredibleThreatsand

TheRoleofCompetition.JournalofPublicEconomics110:124-146.

Chetty,Raj,Friedman,JohnandJonahRockoff(2014).MeasuringtheImpactsofTeachersII:Teacher

Value-AddedandStudentOutcomesinAdulthood.AmericanEconomicReview104:9,2633–2679.

Deming,David(2009).EarlyChildhoodInterventionandLife-CycleSkillDevelopment:Evidencefrom

HeadStart.AmericanEconomicJournal:AppliedEconomics1:3,111-134.

Duflo,Esther;Hanna,RemaandRyan,Stephen(2012).IncentivesWork:GettingTeacherstoCometo

School.AmericanEconomicReview102:4,1241-78.

Fairlie,RobertandRobinson,Jonathan(2013).ExperimentalEvidenceontheEffectsofHome

ComputersonAcademicAchievementamongSchoolchildren.AmericanEconomicJournal:Applied

Economics5:3,211-40.

Figlio,DavidandHart,Cassandra(2014).CompetitiveEffectsofMeans-TestedSchool

Vouchers.AmericanEconomicJournal:AppliedEconomics6:1,133-156.

Fredriksson,Peter;Ockert,Bjorn;andOosterbeek,Hessel(2013).Long-TermEffectsofClassSize.The

QuarterlyJournalofEconomics128:1,249-285.

FryerJr.,Roland(2011).FinancialIncentivesandStudentAchievement:EvidencefromRandomized

Trials.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics126:4,1755-1798.

Goodman,Joshua(2012).TheLaborofDivision:ReturnstoCompulsoryMathCoursework.HKSFaculty

ResearchWorkingPaperSeries12-032.

Goodman,Joshua(2014).FlakingOut:StudentAbsencesandSnowDaysasDisruptionsofInstructional

Time.NBERWorkingPaper20221.

Jackson,KiraboC.,Johnson,RuckerandPersico,Claudia(2014).TheEffectofSchoolFinanceReformson

theDistributionofSpending,AcademicAchievement,andAdultOutcomes.NBERWorkingPaper20118.

Kuhn,PeterandWeinberger,Catherine(2005).LeadershipSkillsandWages.JournalofLaborEconomics

23:3,395-436.

Kuhn,PeterandWeinberger,Catherine(2005).LeadershipSkillsandWages.JournalofLabor

Economics.23:3,395-436.

Marsh,JulieA.,JohnF.PaneandLauraS.Hamilton.MakingSenseofData-DrivenDecisionMakingin

Education:EvidencefromRecentRANDResearch.SantaMonica,CA:RANDCorporation,2006.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html.

NancyFreyandDouglasFisher,“BetterLearningthroughStructuredTeaching:AFrameworkforthe

34

GradualReleaseofResponsibility,”AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment,

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509133.

RolandG.FryerJ.InjectingCharterSchoolBestPracticesintoTraditionalPublicSchools:EvidenceFrom

FieldExperiments*QuarterlyJournalofEconomics(2014).2014;129(3):1355-1407.

2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_into_traditional_public_schools.pdf

Shen,J.(1997).Teacherretentionandattritioninpublicschools:EvidencefromSASS91.TheJournalof

EducationalResearch,91(2),81.Retrievedfromhttp://search.proquest.com.ezp-

prod1.hul.harvard.edu/docview/204546375?accountid=11311

Sugai,GeorgeandRobertR.Horner."APromisingApproachforExpandingandSustainingSchool-Wide

PositiveBehaviorSupport."SchoolPsychologyReview35,no.2(06,2006):245-259.

http://search.proquest.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/docview/219656206?accountid=11311

35

AppendixII:DetailedLiteratureReviewThisAppendixincludesdetailedsummariesandanalysesofliteraturerelevanttothisstudy.ThesedetailedliteraturereviewsaresummarizedinSectionIVofthereport.

1-SystemsandStructuresinSchools

Studies on the impact of systems and structures in schools focus on the allocation ofresources, thedevelopmentof programs, and external partnerships. First, studieson theimpactofresourceallocationinschoolsshowvaryingeffectsonstudentoutcomes.First,anincrease in instructional timeprovided(Dobbie&Fryer2011)andadecrease instudentabsences (Goodman 2014) are associated with significant increases in studentachievement. Second, a decrease in class size is also associated with increases in bothcognitiveandnon-cognitiveoutcomes(Fredrikssonetal.,2013),measuredbycomparingstudents above and below a particular threshold for class size. Furthermore, a studyconducted by Fryer to inject charter school practices in traditional public schools alsoshowed that by improving human capital (and removing ineffective teachers andadministrators),providingadditionaltutoringinterventionsbasedondataandusingdatato drive instruction is associated with closing the math achievement gap in only threeyears. Finally, a study conducted in Chicago Public Schools by Bryk demonstrated anassociation between outside factors, such as collective efficacy of the community, theavailabilityofoutsideconnections,andvariouscommunityfactorssuchascrimerateandpercentageofstudentsneglectedorabusedwithimprovementsbothinstudentoutcomesand student attendance. This suggests that student achievement (and thus, schoolperformance)isnotonlyaresultofactionsandactivitieswithinaschool,butthatwithinthecommunityexternaltotheschool.Furthermore, studies on returns to schooling and schoolprogrammingdemonstrate thattherearefactorsthatmaynotbecapturedinouranalysis.Forinstance,astudyconductedexaminingtheHeadStartprogramshowsitseffectsonlowincomestudentswhogoontoelementaryschool.Participationinprogramslikethisisnotevidencedinourdata,sothismay present a confounding factor. Moreover, this study highlighted significant othervariables,includingmeasuresofamother’sintellectualabilities,whichincreasedtheabilityof students tomaintain increases in test scores for example.The longer-term impacts ofreturns to pre-Kindergarten and early education programs may be a systematic factoracrosstheStateofMassachusetts, thatcannotbeadequatelyaddressedoraccountedforwithintheboundariesofthepresentstudy.

FinancialresourcesTheEffectofSchoolFinanceReformsontheDistributionofSpending,Academic

Achievement,andAdultOutcomes.C.KiraboJackson,RuckerJohnson,ClaudiaPersico.Summary:Thisstudyexaminedtheeffectofschoolfinancereforminitiativesmeanttodecreasethespendinggapbetweenhighandlow-incomeschooldistricts.Itexaminedfourtypesofschoolfinancereforms:adequacy-basedcourt-orderedreforms(basedonargumentthatresourcesforlow-incomedistrictswereinsufficient),equity-basedcourt-orderedreforms(basedonargumentthatresourcesbetweenhighandlow-incomedistrictswereinequitable),reformsthatentailhightaxprices(suchasspendinglimits),andreformsthatentaillowtaxprices(incentivestoincreaselocaltaxes).Itusedpaneldata

36

toexaminetheeffectsofthesereformsonschoolspendingforbothhighandlow-incomedistricts.Finally,italsoexaminedtheeffectsofhigherspendingresultingfromthesereforms,andhowtheyimpacthighschoolgraduationratesandadultoutcomes.Conclusion:Thisstudyfoundthatwhileallreformsreducedinequalityinspending,theydifferedinpracticalimpacts.Adequacy-basedcourt-orderedreformsincreasedoverallspendingforallschools,whileequity-basedcourt-orderedreformshadlittleeffectonoverallspendinglevels.Thestudyshowedthatwhileequity-basedcasesreducedinequalitybyaround$800perstudent,italsodecreasedtheabsolutelevelofspendingbyaround$500perpupil.Ontheotherhand,inadequacy-basedcases,thegaponlydecreasedbyaround$400perstudent,buttheabsolutelevelofspendingincreasedbyover$1,000forlow-incomedistricts.Furthermore,reformsthatentailedhightaxpricesreducedlong-runspendingbyalldistricts,whilethosethatentailedlowtaxpricesincreasedspendinggrowth,especiallyforlow-incomedistricts.Spendinglimitpolicies,forexample,didreduceinequality,butitdecreasedlow-incomedistrictspendingbyalmost$900perstudentinyears10-20.Reward-for-effortmatchinggrants,however,increasedoverallspendingbyaround$100perstudent,withgreaterincreasesforlower-incomedistricts.Thestudyfurtherfoundthata20%increaseinper-pupilspendingperyearforall12yearsofschoolingledtoa0.9morecompletedyearsofeducation,25%higherearnings,anda20percentagepointdecreaseinadultpoverty.RelevancetoPAE:Theseresultsaresomewhatrelevant,asanexaminationofMassachusetts’schoolfinancereforms,andthesubsequenttrendsindistrictspending,couldexplainInstructionaltime&studentabsencesDobbie,W.andR.G.Fryer(2011).Gettingbeneaththeveilofeffectiveschools:Evidence

fromNewYorkCity.WorkingPaper17632,NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.Hoxby,C.M.andS.Murarka(2009).CharterschoolsinNewYorkCity:Whoenrollsand

howtheyaffecttheirstudents’achievement.WorkingPaper14852,NationalBureauof

EconomicResearch.Mostacademicstudiesofinstructionaltimearguethatincreasedinstructionaltimeandlongerschooldayscontributetoimprovedstudentoutcomes.HoxbyandMuraka(2009)arguethatalongerschoolyearhasasignificanteffectonstudentachievement(eachschooldayincreaseisassociatedwitha0.02standarddeviationincreaseinstudentachievement).ThisfindingisfurthersubstantiatedbystudiesbyDobbieandFryer(2011).FlakingOut:StudentAbsencesandSnowDaysasDisruptionsofInstructionalTime.

JoshuaGoodman.Summary:Thisstudyusesstudentandschoolfixedeffects,aswellasinstrumentalvariables,toexaminetheeffectofstudentabsencesandschoolclosuresonstudentachievement.Thestudyreliesontheassumptionthatmoderatesnowfallleadstostudentabsences,whileheavysnowfallleadstoschoolclosures.Conclusion:Thisstudyshowedthatstudentabsencesareassociatedwithdecreasesinstudentachievement,whileentireschoolclosuresdonotimpactstudentoutcomes.Itfoundthateachadditionalabsencewasassociatedwitha0.05standarddeviationdecrease

37

inmathachievement,butthattherewasnosignificantimpactfromeachadditionaldayofclosure.Thestudyexplainsthatthisisconsistentwithteachingpracticeswherecoordinateddisruptionssuchasschoolclosuresarewell-managed,butaredifficulttoadapttosituationswhereindividualstudentsareabsentandcausespecificdisruptions.Thisisbecauseondayswherestudentsareallabsent,teacherscanadjustinstructiontorecovermisseddays,butondayswhereindividualstudentsareabsent,theyarelikelytomissthematerialalreadycovered.RelevancetoPAE:ThisishighlyrelevanttoourPAE,asstudentabsencescouldlikelybeakeyfactorindeterminingstudentperformance.Themoredaysstudentsareatschool,themoreinstructiontheyreceive.WewouldbeinterestedinstudyingstudentabsencedataacrossMassachusetts,andexaminewhetherLevel1/2and4/5schoolsservingsimilardemographicshavesimilarattendancecharacteristics.TeacherqualityMeasuringtheImpactsofTeachersI:MeasuringBiasinTeacherValue-Added

Estimates.Chetty,FriedmanandRockoff.ANDMeasuringtheImpactsofTeachersII:TeacherValue-AddedandStudentOutcomesin

Adulthood.Chetty,FriedmanandRockoff.ThisstudyisnotrelevanttoourPAE,asitaddressesadultoutcomes,andnotimmediatestudentachievement.CurriculumGoodman,Joshua(2012).TheLaborofDivision:ReturnstoCompulsoryMath

Coursework.HKSFacultyResearchWorkingPaperSeries12-032.ThisisnotrelevanttoourPAEasitmeasurestheimpactofstate-levelcurriculumrequirements.SincewearestudyingdifferentialimpactswithinMassachusetts,thefindingsofthisstudyarenotrelevanttoourscope.ClassSizeFredriksson,Peter;Ockert,Bjorn;andOosterbeek,Hessel(2013).Long-TermEffectsof

ClassSize.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics128:1,249-285.Summary:ThisstudyusesaregressiondiscontinuityandIVdesigntoexaminetheeffectsofclasssizesbetweentheagesof10-13forstudentsinSwedenontheirachievementatages13,16and18.Itfurtherexamineslongtermeffectssuchaseducationalattainment,wagesandearningsbetweentheagesof27-42.Conclusion:Thestudyfindsthatsmallerclasssizesbetweentheagesof10-13arebeneficialforbothcognitiveandnoncognitiveoutcomesatage13,andforacademicachievementatage16.Itfindsthatclassesabovetheclasssizethresholdareassociatedwithastatisticallysignificant0.033standarddeviationdecreaseincognitiveachievementatage13,a.0265standarddeviationdecreaseinnon-cognitiveachievementatage13,andadecreaseof0.0233standarddeviationsinacademicachievementatage16.

38

RelevancetoPAE:Thisstudysuggests,particularlyfortheagegroupwearestudying,thatclasssizedoesaffectstudentachievement.WhilethisstudywasdoneinSwedenandholdslessexternalvalidityfortheUnitedStates,thedemographiccharacteristicsofbothcountriesaresimilarenoughthatthesefindingscouldbeextrapolatedtoanAmericancontext.Wewillthereforeattempttofocusonclasssizeasapossiblevariableanddeterminantofschoolperformance.TechnologyFairlie,RobertandRobinson,Jonathan(2013).ExperimentalEvidenceontheEffectsof

HomeComputersonAcademicAchievementamongSchoolchildren.American

EconomicJournal:AppliedEconomics5:3,211-40.Summary:Thisstudyrandomlyselectedstudentsfrom5Californiaschooldistrictsthatdidnotpreviouslyhavecomputeraccessathome,andstudiedchangesinperformancebeforeandaftercomputersweregiventothem.Computerswereprovidedduringthesecondquarteroftheschoolyear;thusfirstquarterdatawasusedaspre-treatmentresults,andthird/fourthquarterdatawereusedaspost-treatmentresults.Theeffectsofcomputeraccesswerethenmeasuredagainststudents’outcomesontests,attendance,discipline,andsurveysoneffort.Conclusion:Thisstudyfoundthatthereisnosignificanteffect,andinmanycases,noeffectatall,ofcomputeraccessathomeonstudentoutcomes.Furthermore,studentsevenreportthathavingacomputerathomedoesnotincreasethelikelihoodthattheywilluseitforwordprocessingorresearch.Itfurtherdoesnothaveanyeffectonacademicoutcomes.ThisstudyisnotrelevanttoourPAEasitaddressestheeffectofhomecomputers,whichoutofthescopeofourstudy.Ourstudyonlystudiesdistrictandschoolpracticeswithintheircontrol;theprovisionofhomecomputersisnot,andthereforeisoutsidethescopeofthisstudy.ReturnstoSchoolingDemingDavid(2009)EarlyChildhoodInterventionandLife-CycleSkillDevelopment:

EvidencefromHeadStartAmericanEconomicJournal:AppliedEconomicsSummary:Thisstudyexaminesthelong-termimpactofHeadStart,anationwidepreschoolprogramforpoorchildren.UsingdatafromtheNationalLongitudinalSurveyofYouth,theauthorcomparessiblingswhodifferedinparticipationintheprogram.Hefindsthattherearemoderatetolargelong-termimpacts,intermsofclosingthegapbetweenchildrenwithmedianandbottomquartilefamilyincomes,whichiscomparabletoothermodelprograms.DetailsoftheStudy:ThedatausedwasfromtheNationalLongitudinalMother-ChildSupplement,trackingparticipantsfrom1984to1990.Thewithin-familydifferencesmodel,andcontrolforothervariantssuchasmaternalworkhistoryorchildcarearrangements.Findings:Thelong-termimpactofHeadStartisabout0.23standarddeviationsonasummaryindexofyoungadultoutcomes,withlargerimpactsforrelativelydisadvantagedchildren.Thisisaroundone-thirdofthegapbetweenthebottompermanentincome

39

quartileandthemedianintheCNLSYsample;itis80%aslargeasgainsfrom“model”preschoolprograms.Resultsarerobusttovariousalterationstothestudydesign.Thestudycommentsthatwhiletestscoresarecommonlyusedbenchmarks,thelinksbetweentheseandadultoutcomesisnotwellunderstood.Thestudythereforealsoshedlightonlife-cyclebenefitsofearly-skillformation.Thestudyshowsthataninitialtestscoregain,atages5-6years,fadesoutby11-14,andthisisparticularlysowithAfricanAmericanandverydisadvantagedchildren.However,thesechildrenexperiencethelargestlong-termbenefits.Thestudyhighlightsthefade-outeffectsontestscoresforstudentswhosemothershadlowAFQTscores.Forchildrenwhosemothersscoredonestandarddeviationbelowtheaverageonacognitivetestscore,thelong-termeffectofHeadStartis0.28standarddeviations,andyettheirnettestscoregainisessentiallyzero.Thus,aprojectionoffuturebenefitsforthesechildrenbasedsolelyontestscoregainswouldgreatlyunderstatetheimpactoftheprogram.Relevance:Thisstudymaybeparticularlyrelevantinhighlightingconfoundingfactorsintermsofwhichschoolshavehighertestscoresormoresuccessfuloveralloutcomesdespitedemographics.Participationinheadstartbyasignificantportionofthestudentpopulationmaybeanimportantfactorthatweshouldacknowledgewouldbeidealtocontrolfor.Inaddition,italsoshowstheimportanceofotherfactorsnotcapturedbyourdata,suchastheintelligenceofthemother,intermsofstudentsuccessandabilitytoretainbenefitsfromlearning.CardDavid(1993)UsingGeographicVariationinCollegeProximitytoEstimatethe

ReturntoSchooling,PrincetonUniversityThisstudyisnotrelevanttoourPAEinsofarasitisexaminingthecausaleffectofschoolonlaterincomeandearningsinlife.Byprovidingevidencethateducationdoeshaveapositiveimpactontheearningsofmalesitgroundsthecasefortheimportanceofeducation,butthisdoesseemasrelevant.Other:Gelber,Isen,Kessler(2014)TheEffectsofYouthEmployment:EvidencefromNewYork

CitySummerYouthEmploymentProgramLotteries.NationalBureauofEconomic

ResearchSummary:NotrelevanttoourPAEasitanalyzestheeffectsofemploymentprogram;notinthescopeofimprovingeducationoutcomes.

2–HumanCapital

Studies on human capital focus on teacher incentives and teacher development. On theteacher level, performance pay is a type of incentive that is highly debated.WashingtonD.C.’s city-wide IMPACT system, a robust teacher evaluation system coupled withperformancepay,hasbeenfoundtoincreasetheperformanceoflowperformingandhighperforming teachersaswell as encourage strong teachers to remain in the schools (Dee,2015).While aperformancepay system isup to the stateordistrict level to implement,certain characteristics of such a teacher evaluation system could be implemented in

40

individualschools.Forexample,theteacherevaluationsysteminWashingtonD.C.includesfrequentobservationandfeedbackonclassroombestpractices.Intermsofstaffculture,astudy(Shen1997)alsodemonstratedassociationsbetweenfourkeyelementswithincreasedteacherretention.Thoseinclude:1)hiringmoreexperiencedteachers;2)increaseteachersalaries;3)emphasizetheintrinsicmeritsofteaching;and4)empoweringteachersininfluencingschooldecisionsandpolicies.

Teacher/LeaderAutonomyAbdulkadiroglu,Atila;Angrist,Joshua;Dynarski,Susan;Kane,ThomasandPathak,

Parag(2011).AccountabilityandFlexibilityinPublicSchools:EvidencefromBoston's

ChartersandPilots.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics126:2,699-748.Summary:Thispaperisfocusedonthedifferencesinstudentachievementbetweencharterschoolsversuspilotschools.Charterschoolsareautonomousentitiesthatarenotboundbyunioncontracts.Pilotschoolsareinnovationschoolsthatarestillboundtounioncontracts.Thisaffectscompensation,hours,expectations,etc.Thisdoesnotnecessarilyfitnicelyintoan“incentive”categoryperse,butcouldspeaktothebenefitsofautonomyofbothleadersandteachers.Inthatway,autonomythenbecomesanincentive-yourelinquishunionboundcontractsandsecurityformoreautonomyandflexibility.RelevancetoPAE:Wecouldargueformoreautonomyintheseschoolsforprincipalsandteachers,andalsolongerschooldays,butthatisslightlyastretchhere.Itisdifficulttoknowhowmuchautonomyeachcharterprovidesetc,butthelengthofstudentschooldayisabsolutelyrelevant.Duflo,Esther;Hanna,RemaandRyan,Stephen(2012).IncentivesWork:Getting

TeacherstoCometoSchool.AmericanEconomicReview102:4,1241-78.Summary:TeacherabsenteeisminIndia,andmanydevelopingcountries,isalargeissue.Toaddressthis,thisstudymonitoredandcompensatedteachersfromincreasedattendanceatschool.Theymonitoredviacamerasandcompensatedfinancially.Thiswasarandomizedcontroltrial.Theteacherstreatedthoughareinnon-traditionalschoolswhoarenotpartofthepoliticallyactiveteacher’sgroup.Theyarepara-teachersinstead,andtheschoolsarerunbynonprofitgroupsetcratherthanthegovernment.Conclusion:Thetreatmentgroup’sabsenteeismfellby21percentagepointsandstudenttestscoresincreasedby0.17standarddeviations.Theyfoundthatteachersrespondstrongly(highelasticity)tofinancialincentivesinthismodel.Becausetheincentiveswereprovidedfornon-traditionalschoolstoteacherswhodonotmakeupthelargepoliticallyactiveteachingblock,itishardtotellwhetherthiswouldworkwithregularteachers.RelevancetoPAE:Financialincentivesseemtoworkintermsofgettingeliminatingabsenteeism.Thisthoughiscontext-specific:IndiahasanunusuallyhighabsenteeismproblemsotheeffectonthemarginmaynotbeaslargeinplacesliketheU.S.whereabsenteeismisnotassevereonaverage.Additionally,thiswasimplementedwithnon-traditionalschoolswhoemploypara-teachers(signedonyearlycontracts)ratherthanthepoliticallyactiveteachingblockintraditionalschools.Thisisequivalenttounionizedversusnon-unionizedintheU.S.andbyextensionperhaps,charterversusnon-charter.One

41

thingtoconsiderisfinancialincentivesforadditionalresponsibilitiesortasks-moredataanalysisforXamount?moreafter-schooltutoringforYamount?takeoncoachingthreeteachersforZamount?WewouldneedtolookatU.S.specificstudieswithfinancialincentivestotrulyunderstandhowpowerfulfinancialincentivescanbeinthisculturethough.

3–Social-EmotionalandAcademicInterventionsforStudents

Non-cognitiveskilldevelopmentisadifficultoutcometomeasure.Onelarge, longitudinalstudythoughlookedattheassociationbetweenexhibitingleadershipskillsinhighschooland wages. It found that those who occupy two leadership positions in high school onaverage earn 6.9 percent higher wages ten years later and are more likely to holdmanagerial positions in life (Kuhn,2005).This study isunique inmeasuring leadershipsskillsbefore entering the labormarket and so is relevant toourquestionof school-levelbestpractices.Importantly,thestudyfoundthatleadershipskillsarecapturingsomeeffectassociatedwith“sociability”andnotcognitiveability.Howdoyouteachleadershipingradeschool?Thereislittleconsensusbehindananswertothisquestion.Wecaninferfromthisstudy though that providing students in early grades with the skills needed to occupyleadership positions in high school could lead to improved outcomes later in life. Moregenerally, teaching leadership skills in school could have profound effects on long-termstudentoutcomes.Intermsoftheimpactofnon-cognitiveskilldevelopmentonlowincomeorminoritystudents,therearenomajorstudiesonthistopic.Secondly, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Massachusettsconducted a study on the effect ofWrap Around Zones (WAZ) on student performance.Thesearestate-fundednon-academicsupportsthataddresstheclimateandcultureoftheschool as well as students’ social and emotional capacity. They found that significantimprovements in standardized test scores, especially for third and fourth grades, but noimprovement in suspension rates, attendance or retention (DESE, 2012). Therefore, theWAZsupportsareeffective for increasing immediateacademicperformance for studentsfacing social or emotional challenges, but it is less clear whether this affects long-termbehavior.Lastly, studies on incentives for improving student outcomes range from intrinsic andextrinsic rewards for students. To identify school-level best practices, looking at teacherspecific and student specific incentives are most relevant because they are under thecontroloftheschoolratherthanthelocalorstatelevel.Onthestudentlevel,onaverage,financial incentives forpoorandminority studentsare statistically zero, and likelynot asustainable intervention(Fryer,2011).Young,secondgradestudentswere foundtoreadmore when they were paid for reading more books. Other students, who were offeredpayment for increasing their grades or test scores, were not found to increase theirperformance.Therationaleisthatstudentsdonotcompletelyunderstandhowtoincreasetestscoresorgrades,butdoknowhowtoreadthebook.Thisfindingsupportstheideathatstudentsrespondpositivelytoincentivesforspecificactions,suchasreadingmorebooksor memorizing vocabulary words, that can lead to better outcomes like test scores orgrades.Ontheschool-level, thiscould take the formofdailyrewardsystems,publicdatacollectionandtracking,oracademiccompetitions.

42

Non-cognitiveSkillDevelopmentKuhn,PeterandWeinberger,Catherine(2005).LeadershipSkillsandWages.Journal

ofLaborEconomics23:3,395-436.Summary:Thisisalongitudinalstudythatregressesadultwagesonindicatorsofleadershipskillstakenbeforelabormarketentrywhilecontrollingforcognitivemeasures(testscoresprimarily),familybackground,andhighschoolfixedeffects.Thepurposeistoevaluatetheadditionaleffectof“noncognitive”skillssuchasleadershipexhibitedinhigh-schoolonfutureearnings.Thefundamentalassumptionisthattheseleadershipindicators(captain,classpresident,etc)arebasedrealleadershipskill(ie.thecoachchoosesacaptainbecausetheyexhibitleadershipskillsratherthannepotismorsomeotherreason).Additionally,theyalsousedaself-surveytoassessleadershipskillsasanindicator.Conclusion:Studentswhoexhibitleadershipskillsinhighschoolearnsignificantlymore10yearslater-6.9%higherwageonaverageifastudentwasbothapresidentandcaptainofaclub/team.Thisisnotthecaseforteamorclubmembersonlywhichsupportstheirhypothesisthatitstheleadershipskills(ratherthantheotherskillsacquiredfrombeingonateamorinacertaintypeofclub)thatdifferentiatesthesestudents.Studentswhoinhabitleadershippositionsinhighschoolarealsomorelikelytoholdmanagerialpositions11yearslaterinlife.Overall,wecanconcludethatonaverage,controllingforfamilyandhighschoolandcognitivevariables,studentswhoexhibitleadershipskillsinhighschoolgoontoearnhigherwagesonaveragehaveahigherprobabilityofoccupyingmanagerialpositionslaterinlife.Forourpurposes,itisdifficulttohowtheseleadershipskillsareattained-innateortaught?Andwhen-K-8?orduringhigh-schoolleadershipopportunities?Ifweassumethatstudentsarechosenorelectedtoleadershippositionsorperceivethemselvesasleadersbasedonrealleadershipskills,thenthissuggestsleadershipskillsareeitheracquiredormanifestedbeforetheyoccupysaidleadershipposition.Ifthatisthecase,thenthereisanargumenttobemadethatleadershipissomethingthatcanbedevelopedduringadolescentandyoungadultyears.Thestudyfindsthatstudentswhoattendschoolswithmoreleadershipopportunitiesearnmorelateronaverage.Theeffectthoughisonlystatisticallysignificantforstudentswhoexhibitleadershipskillsbeforetenth-grade,suggestingacomplementaritybetweeninnateandacquiredleadershipskills.RelevancetoPAE:Wecouldarguestudentsneedmoreleadershipopportunitiesinschool,butalsothattheyshouldreceivemoreleadershiptrainingearlieron.Ingeneral,thisstudyismostrelevanttohighschool,butwecouldextrapolatetoearliergradesandtheleadershipskillsandopportunitiesbeingpresentedtostudentsthere.

• Movingforward,weshouldtakenoteofschoolsthatdeliberatelydevelopleadershipskillsinstudentsorprovideopportunitiesforleadershippositionstobeheld.

• FallsRiverVivieroshasimplementedcurriculumaroundcharacterbuilding,butnotdistinctlyleadershipskills.Theresponsiveclassroommaycultivateleadershipsskills(empathy,self-control,patienceetc)butitdependsonhowyoudefineleadershipskill.

43

TransparencyofInformation/PersonalAssistanceBettinger,EricP.,BridgetTerryLong,PhilipOreopoulos,andLisaSanbonmatsu

(2012).TheRoleofApplicationAssistanceandInformationinCollegeDecisions:

ResultsfromtheH&RBlockFAFSAExperiment.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics

127:3,1205-1242.ThisarticleisirrelevanttoourPAE.ItisconcernedwiththeincreaseincollegeenrollmentandfinancialreceiptwhenprovidedpersonalassistanceandinformationregardingcollegecostandtheFAFSA.Whileitprovidesexcellentinsightintothebenefitsofprovidingpersonalassistanceforincreasingparticipationincertainprograms(healthcare,governmentsupports,etc),thisisnotrelevanttoourPAEeither.Thiscouldbeusedasevidenceforincreasingpersonalassistanceforparentsinschoolchoicemodels,soperhapsamentioninafootnoteoranappendix,butotherwise,thisresearchdoesnotapplytoourPAE.

4–Culture&Incentives

School culture envelopes the culture built for both students and teachers. The mostrelevant studies look at specific best practices on the school-level. In a study by RolandFryer,heanalyzestheimpactofinjectingempiricallybackedcharterschoolbestpracticesinto traditional public schools that were previously failing. The five best practices thatwere“injected”intotraditionalpublicschoolswereincreasedtimeofschooldayandyear,improved human capital (teachers and leadership), more student level differentiationthrough tutoring, frequent use of data to inform instruction, and a culture of highexpectations. The schools that implemented thesepractices increasedmath achievementby0.15 to0.18standarddeviationsperyear. Inotherwords, theycouldclose theblack-whiteachievementgap inmathwithinthreeyears.Theeffectsonreadingweremarginalandstatisticallyinsignificant(Fryer,2014).Thestudentpopulationswereprimarilypoor,BlackandHispanicstudents.Furthermore,otherstudieshavealsoshownthatdevelopingconsistentschoolwidestructuresforpositivebehaviorsupports,specifically,contributetoimproved student behavior. Because of these significant gainswith a student populationsimilartothepopulationwearestudyinginMassachusetts,wehavereasontobelievethatschoolsimplementingsome,ifnotall,ofthesebestpracticesarebetterequippedtoserveatriskstudents.

RolandFryer.InjectingCharterSchoolBestPracticesintoTraditionalPublicSchools:

EvidencefromFieldExperiments.HarvardUniversity.ExaminestheeffectivenessofinjectingcharterschoolbestpracticesintotraditionalpublicschoolsinHouston,Texas.ThebestpracticesweredeterminedfromFryer’sotherpapercalled“GettingBeneaththeVeilofEffectiveSchools:EvidencefromNewYorkCity”.Thispaperfoundsignificantincreasesineffectivenessfortraditionalresourcebasedmodels(classsize,perpupilexpenditure,non-certifiedteachersetc)doesnotexplainvariation.Thefollowingfivepractices,ascollectedinfouryearsofcasestudiesandqualitativeanalysis,explainoverfiftypercentofvariationinhighperformingcharterschools.

44

BestPracticesinclude:

• IncreasedTime.Lengthenedschooldaysbyonehourandschoolyearsbytendays.StudentswereincentivizedtoattendschoolonSaturdays.

• ImprovedHumanCapital.19of20principalswereremovedaswellas46%oftheteachingstaff.

• MoreStudentLevelDifferentiation.Allfourth,sixthandninthgraderswereprovidedatutorandothergradeswereprovidedadditionaltutoringbasedontheMATCHmodel.

• FrequentUseofDatatoInformInstruction.Interimassessmentswererequiredeverythreetofourweeks,threecumulativeassessmentswereprovided,andassistanceinanalyzingandpresentingdatawasprovidedtoteachers.

• ACultureofHighExpectations.Providedclearexpectationsforleadership,arubricforschoolandclassroomenvironment,andstudent-parent-teachercontracts.Specificstudentperformancegoalsweresetforeachschoolandtheprincipalwasheldaccountableandincentivizefinancially.

Conclusion:Allstatisticalapproachesleadtothesamebasicconclusions.Injectingbestpracticesfromcharterschoolsintolowperformingtraditionalpublicschoolscansignificantlyincreasestudentachievementinmathandhasmarginal,ifany,effectonEnglishLanguageArtsachievement.Themathresultsweresuchthattheycouldeliminatetheachievementgapinthreeyearstime.

Bryk,A.S.,BenderSebring,P.,Allensworth,E.,Luppescu,S.andEaston,J.Q.(2010).“The

InfluenceofCommunityContext.”InA.S.Bryk,P.SebringBender,E.Allensworth,S.

LuppescuandJ.Q.Easton(Eds.),OrganizingSchoolsforImprovement:Lessonsfrom

Chicago(pp.137-196).Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.StudyoftestscoreandschoolattendancegrowthinChicagofoundnumeroussocialfactorsthatleadtosubstantialgrowth:

1. Religiousparticipation2. Collectiveefficacy(communitysocialcapital)3. Outsideconnections4. Crimerateofimmediateneighborhood5. Percentageofstudentsabusedorneglected

Trust:whiletrustdoesnotcontributedirectlytostudentlearning,itcreatesthefabricbywhichschoolimprovementstrategiesbecomesustainable,andfacilitatescoreorganizationalchange.

• Trustallowsfortheexpansionandsustainabilityofessentialsupports• Smallerschools/academiesenablerelationaltrust• TrustisbuiltonteacherANDstudentretention

45

CompetitionChakrabarti,Rajashri(2014).IncentivesandResponsesUnderNoChildLeftBehind:

CredibleThreatsandTheRoleofCompetition.JournalofPublicEconomics110:124-

146.Summary:TheyusedRegressionDiscontinuityDesign(RD)totestwhetherAYPincreasedperformanceinmath,reading,andattendance.ThepurposewastoinvestigatewhetherhighstakestestingandthethreatofclosurebyNCLBencouragedschoolsto:

• Focusonhighstakesstakessubjects(readingandmath)atthesacrificeoflowstakessubjects?

• Focusonlyonstudentsrightaroundthecutoffforproficiency?Withexpenseforthosegroupsofstudentsattheend?

• Focusmoreonsub-groups?• DoschoolsrespondtocompetitioninducedbyproximitytoAYPadequateschools?• Increasetestparticipation,attendance,andgraduation?

Conclusions:

• Focusonhighstakesstakessubjects(readingandmath)atthesacrificeoflowstakessubjects?NO.Infact,spillovereffectsfromfocusingonreadingseemedtohaveincreasedperformanceinlanguageartsdespitebeingalow-stakessubject.

• Focusonhighstakestestinggrades?YES.Therewasadecreasedinthirdgradebecausefourthgradeisatestingyear.

• Focusonlyonstudentsrightaroundthecutoffforproficiency?Withexpenseforthosegroupsofstudentsattheend?NO.

• Focusmoreonsub-groups?NO.Actuallyledtodeteriorationofperformanceforeconomicallydisadvantagedandspecialeducation.Overall,performanceforsub-groupofWhitesincreasedthemost.

• DoschoolsrespondtocompetitioninducedbyproximitytoAYPadequateschools(duetothreatofstudentstransferringtoAYPpassschools)?YES.AYPfailedschoolsfacingmorecompetitionperformedbettermorebroadlyandstrongly.Theyachievedstatisticallysignificantincreasesinattendance,graduationrates,andtestparticipationaswellasgreatershiftstotherightofstudentsbeingproficientoradvancedproficient.Thecredibilityofthethreatswasalsofoundtomatter.Additionally,itwasfoundthatdistrictsdidnotallocatemoreresourcestowardsAYPfailedschoolseithersoitisnotaresourceallocationissue.

• Increasetestparticipation,attendance,andgraduation?NO.• Overall,schoolsincreasedreadingperformanceandmathperformanceiftheyfailed

onthosemeasurestobeginwith.Therefore,itseemstheyrespondedtotheincentiveofnotfailingAYPagainbasedonwhattheyfailedbefore.Thisdidnotimprovetheperformanceoverallthoughforothersubjectsorothernon-testinggradesforexample.

RelevancetoPAE:Sincethesearedistrict-levelandstate-levelresults,itisdifficulttopulloutbestpractices.Thatbeingsaid,thenotionthateconomicallydisadvantagedstudentsandspecialeducationstudentssufferwhenhighstakestestingisinplaceisworthconsideringwhenschoolsdecidehow/when/whytoimplementtheirowntestinganddatacollection.Additionally,italsoencouragesschoolstotakespecialcareofthosespecialsub-groupsinpreparationforanupcomingstandardizedtest.Additionally,theideaofcompetitionwasveryinteresting.Inbothcases(mathandreadinginducedfailures)increasedcompetitionincreasedperformance.Forbestpracticeswithinschool,perhaps

46

thisfurtherencouragesdatacollectionbetweenclassroomsortheteacherobservation-feedbacksystem.Thefactthatperpupilspendingwasunassociatedwithincreasesinperformancealsoconfirmsthathypothesisthatthebestpracticesarefromwithinschoolsamongthepersonnelversusexternalvariables.Overall,becausethisismoreconcernedwithdistrict-levelandstate-levelpolicies,wecanonlyextrapolategeneralcharacteristicsofthesystemratherthandiscretebestpractices.Figlio,DavidandHart,Cassandra(2014).CompetitiveEffectsofMeans-TestedSchool

Vouchers.AmericanEconomicJournal:AppliedEconomics6:1,133-156.Conclusion:Increasedcompetitionthroughvouchersincreasesstudentperformanceandarenotassociatedwithstudentcompositionorresourceallocation.RelevancetoPAE:ThisisnotentirelyrelevanttoourPAEbecauseMassachussettsdoesnothaveavouchersystem,butthenotionofcompetitionasanincentiveisaninterestingone.Keyquestionstoaskare:

• Aretherewaystoincreaseasenseofcompetitionforschoolswithoutavouchersystem?Perhapsthelevelingsystemisadequate.

• Arecharterschoolsasufficientcompetitiveforce?• Aretherewaystoinduceasenseofcompetitivenesswithinschoolsperhaps?• Perpupilspendingonceagainisnotassociatedwithincreasedstudentperformance

-whatarebestpracticesthatDONOTcostadditionalmoney?

47

AppendixIII:MethodologyforQuantitativeAnalysisOurresearchinvolvedfourkeysteps:SchoolMatching,HypothesisDevelopment,CaseStudiesandQuantitativeReviewofFindings.TheSchoolMatchingphaserequiredidentifyingandgroupingschoolsthathavesimilarEconomicandMinorityStatus.TheHypothesisDevelopmentstageusesthesegroupingsandconductsdataanalysistoidentifycorrelativerelationshipsbetweenschoolpracticesandperformance,andhowthosedifferbetweenschoolswithinthesegroups.Furthermore,theCaseStudystagewaswherewetestedthehypothesescreatedthroughdataanalysis,andusedqualitativeresearch(casestudies,interviewsandfieldvisits)toevaluatethevalidityofourhypotheses,refiningthem,andconcludingbyidentifyingbestpracticesthatdifferentiatehigh-andlow-performingschoolswithsimilardemographiccharacteristics.Finally,theAnalysisofMonitoringSiteVisitReportswillexaminestrategiesemployedbyLevel4schoolsandtoidentifyareasofgrowthforthoseschoolsbasedonourhypothesisdevelopmentandcasestudystages.

StageI:SchoolMatching

TheSchoolMatchingstageinvolvesgroupingLevel1/2andLevel4/5schoolswithsimilarEconomicandMinoritystatustogether,inordertoconductacomparativeanalysisofdemographicallysimilarschools.Weidentifiedeconomicdisadvantage(FreeandReducedPriceLunchenrollment)andminoritystatusastwokeycharacteristicsforassignmentofgroups,asthesearecommonlyreferencedpredictorsofstudentperformance.ThesecomparisongroupsconsistofLevel1/2andLevel4/5schools,wheretheproportionofstudentsofeconomicallydisadvantagedstudentsattendingwaswithin3.5percentagepointsofeachother.AcutoffthresholdwasalsodeterminedbycomparingthedemographicdataofLevel4/5schools.OursampleonlyincludedLevel1/2schoolsthatmettheminimumthresholdofeconomicallydisadvantagedandminoritystudents,setatthe10thpercentilemarkoftheproportionofeconomicallydisadvantagedandminoritypopulationsamongLevel4/5schools.Weusedthe10thpercentilemarkinordertoeliminateanyoutliersamongLevel4/5schools;tobeincludedinthesample,Level1/2schoolsthereforemusthaveatleast53%economicallydisadvantagedpopulationor55%minoritypopulation.AfulllistingofthesampleschoolscanbefoundinAppendixIV.Analysisofthesecomparisongroupsrevealedthatsufficientnumbersofdemographicallysimilarschoolsforcomparisononlyexistamongstelementaryschools.Therewereveryfewmiddleandhighschoolsthatmetthethresholdforcomparison.Asaresult,ouranalysisandcomparisonfocusesmainlyonelementaryschools.Indeed,highperformingschoolswithbothhighpovertyandhighminoritypopulationsisananomaly.Thus,thisstudywillfocusonstrategiesthatfocusspecificallyonservingthesepopulations,andschoolsthathavedemonstratedsuccessdoingso.

StageII:FindingsfromQuantitativeAnalysisandHypothesisDevelopment

Withthematchinggroupscreated,weuseddatatocomparetheschoolswithinthosegroupsandidentifythepracticesthatdifferentiateLevel1/2andLevel4/5schoolswithineachgroup.Hypothesisdevelopmentwillfirstrelyonliteraturereviewofexistingworkonschoolreformtoidentifydriversofschoolimprovement.Wethenconductedananalysisofschool-leveldatatoestablishcorrelativerelationshipsbetweenpracticesandstudentoutcomes.

48

Basedontheliteraturereview,wedeterminedthefollowingindicatorsarepossibledriversanddeterminantsofschoolperformance.Wedidnotincludeanyindicatorsthatwouldbeendogenoustoschoolperformance,orwouldaffectaschool’sLevelratingthroughfactorsotherthanitself.AfulldescriptionofomittedvariablesandanexplanationfortheiromissioncanbefoundinAppendixV.Theselectedindicatorsforanalysiswere:

1) AttendanceRate2) Percentageofstudentintakesperyear(studentsthatenrolledafter1stdayof

school)3) Principalretentionrate4) Teacherretentionrate5) Percentageofstaffevaluatedperyear6) Percentageofteachersteachingintheirlicensedsubjectarea7) PercentageofteachersincoresubjectareasthatareHighlyQualified8) Percentageofstudentsdisciplined

Amultivariateregressionwasusedtoanalyzehoweachofthesefactorscorrelatewiththeprobabilityofaschoolbeingahighperforming(Level1or2)school,controllingforallothervariables.Analysissuggestedthatonlytwofactors–studentattendancerateandteacherretentionrate–hadastatisticallysignificanteffectonaschool’slikelihoodofbeingahigh-performingschool.Theregressionfunctionsarebelow:

(1) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(AttendanceRate)

(2) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(StudentIntakeRate)

(3) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(PrincipalRetentionRate)

(4) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(TeacherRetentionRate)

(5) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(%ofStaffEvaluated)

(6) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(%ofTeachersinLicensedArea)

(7) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(%ofCoreTeachersHighlyQualified)

(8) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(StudentDisciplineRate)

(9) γ(DummyvariableforLevel1/2status)=β0+β1(AttendanceRate)+β2(Student

IntakeRate)+β3(PrincipalRetentionRate)+β4(TeacherRetentionRate)+β5(%of

StaffEvaluated)+β6(%ofTeachersinLicensedArea)+β7(%ofCoreTeachers

HighlyQualified)+β8(StudentDisciplineRate)Theanalysisdemonstratedtheassociationsbetweenvariousindicatorsandtheprobabilityofaschoolbeingahigh-performing(Level1or2)school.Thisanalysissuggestedthatonlythestudentattendancerateandteacherretentionratehadastatisticallysignificanteffectonaschool’slevelstatus.Thefulltableofresultsisasfollows:

49

Table1:EffectofschoolindicatorsontheprobabilityofbeingaLevel1/2school

(allfiguresrepresentpercentagepointincreasesinprobabilityofbeingaLevel1/2school)

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Studentattendancerate 12.8*** - - - - - - - 7.4***

%studentintakes - 3.2*** - - - - - - -0.79

Principalretentionrate - - 0.28*** - - - - - 0.096

Teacherretentionrate - - - 1.4*** - - - - 0.86**

%staffevaluated - - - - - - - 0.033

%teachersinlicensedarea - - - - - 0.89** - - -1.1*

%coreteachershighlyqualified - - - - - - 0.97** - 0.094

%ofstudentsdisciplined - - - - - - - 2.5*** 0.80

StageIII:CaseStudies

Inordertoidentifybestpracticesspecifictohigh-performingschoolsandtosupplementourliteraturereviewandquantitativeanalysis,weconductedfieldvisitsandcasestudiesofLevel1and2schoolsinoursample.Wevisitedandinterviewedtheprincipal,schoolleadersandteachersatsixelementaryschools,andusedthosefindingstoidentifycommonthreadsandpracticesacrossoursampleofhigh-performingschools,thatwereeithernotevidencedbyorunavailablefromthequantitativedata.Ateachschool,weconductedinterviewswiththeprincipalandschoolleaders,includingassistantprincipals,instructionalcoaches,andgrade-levelleadteachers.Atsomeschools,separateteacherfocusgroupswerealsoconductedtogaugealignmentbetweentheadministrationandtheinstructionalstaff.Ourinterviewprotocolwasbasedonourinitialhypothesisdevelopment,andincludedquestionsaboutschoolculture,humancapital,familyandcommunityinvolvement,instructionanduseofdata,andservicesforstudents.ThefullinterviewprotocolcanbefoundinAppendixVI.Theeightschoolswevisitedorinterviewedwere:1. CarltonM.VivierosSchool,FallRiver2. NewtonSchool,Greenfield3. MaryLynchElementarySchool,Springfield4. WarnerSchool,Springfield5. KensingtonInternationalSchool,Springfield6. BelmontStreetCommunitySchool,Worcester7. CharlesSumnerElementarySchool,Boston8. HyannisWestElementary,Barnstable

50

StageIV:AnalysisofMonitoringSiteVisits

OneofthelimitationsofthisinterviewapproachwasthelackofadirectcomparisonpointwithLevel4or5schools.Whilewecouldidentifycommonaspectsofschoolcultureandpracticeassociatedwithhigh-performingschoolsinoursample,withoutaccesstoqualitativedataaboutLevel4and5schools,therewasnowayofconfirmingthesepracticeswereonesthatdifferentiatedhigh-performingfromlow-performingschools.Inordertoaddressthis,weconductedananalysisoftheMonitoringSiteVisitreports(MSVs)thatDESEconductsinordertoevaluatetheprogressofLevel4schools.TheseMSVsidentifystrategiesforperformanceandgrowth,basedonfourturnaroundpracticessetbyDESE,andindicatetheschool’splannedstrategiesandassesstheexecutionandimplementationofthosestrategies.ThefouroverarchingstrategieshighlightedbytheMSVsasareasforimprovementincluded:1. Leadership,SharedResponsibility,andProfessionalCollaboration2. IntentionalPracticesforImprovingInstruction3. Student-SpecificSupportsandinstructiontoAllStudents4. SchoolClimateandCultureEachofthesecategoriescomprisedofanumberofindicators,alongwhichschoolswereratedaseithershowing:“NoEvidence”,“Developing”,“Providing”,“Sustaining”or“CoherentImplementation”.Further,qualitativereportsofaschool’sachievementagainsttheseindicatorsisgiveninthedetailoftheMSV.Usingthismoredetailedanalysis,wesummarizedourfindingsfromthecasestudiesandMSVreportreviewsfor8keystrategies.

Limitationsofthestudy

Thoughbasedonrigorousanalysisofboththequantitativeandqualitativedataavailabletous,thisresearchissubjecttoanumberoflimitations.Whilethesearevaried,threemainareaspresentasparticularlyimportantwhenconsideringourfindingsandrecommendations.Thefirstisthesizeofthesampleavailable.Asnoted,theschoolsbeingexaminedareananomalytogeneralpatternsacrossdemographyandoutcomesineducation.Therefore,thestudy,bydesignissomewhatlimitedinitsinternalvalidity–thesamplewasnotsufficientlylargeenoughtoprovidestrongevidenceofthepatternsobserved.Similarly,theselectionforinterviewwasnotrandom.AllschoolsthatwereLevel1or2andhadsimilardemographicstotypicalLevel4or5schoolswereinvitedtoparticipateinthestudy.Onlythoseschoolsthatrepliedwereinterviewed;therefore,itispossiblethataselectionbiasinthesetypesofschoolsisalsoatwork.Nevertheless,giventhesmallnumberofschoolsintheoriginalpool,itisunlikelythiswillhaveaffectedresultstoodramatically.Asecondlimitationarisesoutofthenatureofthedataitself.Itbecamecleartous,fromspeakingwithprincipalsandteacherswhohadpreviouslyhadexperienceinLevel4/5schools,thatthecategoryof“economicdisadvantage”isawideone.ThismeansthatwhilesomeoftheschoolsthatareperformingattheLevel1/2standardlooksimilaronthefaceofthedata,toLevel4/5schools,theremaybemoreconsistent,substantivedifferencesthatreallyaccountforthedifferencesinperformance.Inparticular,thetypeofpovertyoreconomicdisadvantagediffersdependingonthesuburbandarea,whetheraschoolislocatedregionallyorinanurbancenter,forexample.ItwasnotedtousthatinLevel4/5schools,someofthesamestrategieshadbeenappliedwithoutsuccess,simplybecausethe

51

issuesfacingstudents,forexample,intermsofhowpervasiveviolenceintheircommunitywas,weresomuchmoreserious.Thethirdlimitationofthestudyissimplythatthereareanumberofareas,highlightedbytheliteraturereviewconducted,aswellasourschoolvisits,thatwedonothaveclearorsystematicdataabout.Alargeareathatwasnotexaminedindepthbyourteamwasthebudgetaryandfinancialconstraintsofdifferentschools.Similarly,therewasevidencethatdistrict-wideleadershipplayedaroleinmakingcertainaspectsofschoolculturemoreorlesspervasive.These,andmanyotheraspectsofschooloperationsarelikelyimportanttocontrolfororexaminetounderstandpreciselywhattheleversforsuccessare.

52

AppendixIV:SchoolSample

Level School Type EDIS%

Minority

%

2014TestScores:

Average

Proficientor

above

2014Test

Scores:

Proficientor

aboveinELA

2014Test

Scores:

Proficientor

aboveinMath

1

Lowell-SChrista

McAuliffeElementary Public 54.7 51.4 53 43 63

1

Springfield-AliceBBeal

Elementary Public 58.6 64.3 60 58 62

1

Fitchburg-Crocker

Elementary Public 61.4 56.3 62 64 60

1

Lawrence-South

LawrenceEast

ElementarySchool Public 66.3 89.3 54.5 44 65

1

Lowell-CharlotteM

MurklandElementary Public 67.5 33.1 51.5 40 63

1 FallRiver-JohnJDoran Public 66.8 34.4 43 43 43

1

Springfield-DanielB

Brunton Public 67.2 78.8 47 40 54

1

Lawrence-FrancisM

Leahy Public 66.4 97.4 40 31 49

1

WestSpringfield-PhilipG

Coburn Public 69.9 22.1 56.5 46 67

1

FallRiver-CarltonM.

ViveirosElementary

School Public 68.9 32.6 43.5 39 48

1

Worcester-UnionHill

School Public 71 68.6 46 42 50

1

Lawrence-GerardA.

Guilmette Public 70.7 95.8 54.5 46 63

1

Worcester-Belmont

StreetCommunity Public 71.5 67 37.5 36 39

1

Chicopee-GenJohnJ

Stefanik Public 77.9 80.3 59.5 56 63

1

Springfield-MaryM

Lynch Public 77.5 88 51.5 47 56

1 Boston-JosephHurley Public 72.3 78.4 62 59 65

2

Quincy-SnugHarbor

CommunitySchool Public 55.1 21.2 42 36 48

2 Boston-JosiahQuincy Public 56.8 32.2 61.5 54 69

2

NewBedford-ElwynG

Campbell Public 55 40.7 52.5 51 54

2

Peabody-WilliamA

WelchSr Public 55.1 42.9 51.5 52 51

2

NewBedford-SgtWmH

CarneyAcademy Public 55.8 48.7 54.5 54 55

2 Brockton-EdgarBDavis Public 55.3 75.3 43 48 38

2 Boston-CharlesSumner Public 57.7 85.9 45 40 50

53

2

FallRiver-WilliamS

Greene Public 59.3 23.1 43.5 40 47

2

Barnstable-Hyannis

WestElementary Public 59.4 38.4 55 49 61

2

Greenfield-Newton

School Public 63.6 21.9 53 36 70

2 Taunton-HHGalligan Public 63.2 36.1 59.5 59 60

2

Springfield-Frederick

Harris Public 63.9 75.3 52 41 63

2

NewBedford-JamesB

Congdon Public 64.7 52.5 45.5 42 49

2

Holyoke-LtClayre

SullivanElementary Public 66.3 79 37.5 39 36

2

Springfield-FrankH

Freedman Public 66.1 82.9 49 55 43

2 Springfield-Warner Public 67 78.4 64.5 53 76

2 Lawrence-JohnKTarbox Public 68.4 98.3 45 38 52

2

NewBedford-Carlos

Pacheco Public 72.1 62.6 49 38 60

2

Springfield-ArthurT

Talmadge Public 72.1 75.6 49 49 49

2

Springfield-Kensington

Avenue Public 76.4 82.7 38.5 40 37

4 Boston-HenryGrew Public 55 85.2 30 28 32

4

Boston-WilliamEllery

Channing Public 54.6 92.2 28 28 28

4 Boston-Mattahunt Public 58.4 94.5 13.5 10 17

4

Lawrence-Oliver

PartnershipSchool Public 58.9 96.1 37 28 46

4 Boston-JohnWinthrop Public 63.9 91.1 16.5 18 15

4

Athol-Royalston-

Riverbend-SandersStreet

School Public 68.2 16.9 23.5 23 24

4

Worcester-ElmPark

Community Public 66.4 63.4 18 22 14

4

Lawrence-UPAcademy

LeonardMiddleSchool Charter 66.5 97.9 44.5 53 36

4

NewBedford-

Hayden/McFadden Public 70.1 57.1 25.5 20 31

4

Lawrence-Community

DayArlington Charter 69.3 97.7 30 26 34

4

FallRiver-Samuel

Watson Public 71.8 33.1 21 23 19

4 Springfield-WhiteStreet Public 77.4 81.1 47.5 40 55

4

Springfield-WilliamN.

DeBerry Public 80.8 95.2 30 21 39

4

Springfield-Milton

BradleySchool Public 79.2 95.9 20.5 20 21

5 NewBedford-John Public 60.8 55.1 44 43 45

54

AveryParker

5 Boston-PaulADever Public 66 85.7 34 27 41

5 Boston-JohnPHolland Charter 64.7 85.6 19.5 14 25

5

Holyoke-Morgan

Elementary Public 84.2 97.2 15.5 19 12

55

AppendixV:SelectionofIndicatorsforStatisticalAnalysis

SelectedIndicators

AttendanceRate:theaveragepercentageofthenumberofdayspresentforallstudents.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisasourresearchandliteraturereviewhasshownthatincreasedstudentattendanceandlearningtimeisassociatedwithimprovedlearningoutcomes.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.Studentintakerate:thepercentageofallenrolledstudentsthatenrolledafterthefirstdayoftheschoolyear.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisasahigherpercentageofstudentsthatentertheschoolafterthebeginningoftheyearislikelytoaffectschoolperformance;itisreasonabletoassumethatstudentsthatenteraschoolafterthefirstdaywillneedmoretimetoadjusttoanewsettingandcurriculum,andmaysufferacademicallyasaresult.Whileeffectscouldbebothpositiveornegative,webelievethisisarelevant,exogenousvariablethatshouldbeexamined.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.Principalretentionrate:thepercentageofprincipalsthatremainattheschoolfortheentireyearandreturnforthebeginningofthenextyear.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisasconsistencyandstabilityinschoolleadershipislikelytoaffectstudentoutcomes.Consistentschoolleadershipmeansthatteachersandstudentsaremorelikelytobeaccustomedtotheadministration’spolicies,andoutcomesaremorelikelytorepresenttheleadership’spriorities.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.Teacherretentionrate:thepercentageofteachersthatremainattheschoolfortheentireyearandreturnforthebeginningofthenextyear.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisasconsistencyandstabilityininstructionalstaffislikelytoaffectstudentoutcomes.Consistencyininstructionalstaffmeansthatteacherscancontinuallyimproveinsteadofhavingtoberetrainedyearafteryear,andcanfocusonimprovementratherthanspendingtimeintransition.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.Percentageofstaffevaluatedperyear:thepercentageofteachingstaffthatreceivedanevaluationthepreviousyear.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisaswebelievethataccountabilityincentivesarelikelytobeassociatedwithstudentoutcomesandschoolperformance.Ifteachersarebeingevaluated,theyareheldaccountabletotheirperformance,incentivizingthemtoimprovetheirownperformance.This,then,willinturnimpactstudentoutcomesandschoolperformance.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.Percentageofteachersteachingintheirlicensedsubjectarea:thepercentageofteachersthatarelicensedinthespecificsubjectareathattheyareassignedto.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisaswebelievethatteachersthatteachintheirspecificlicensedsubjectarea,inwhichtheyareexperts,aremorelikelytobeeffective.Forexample,teacherstrainedandcertifiedtoteachmathematicsaremorelikelytobeeffective

56

mathematicsteachersthanteacherstrainedandcertifiedinliterature.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.PercentageofteachersincoresubjectareasthatareHighlyQualified:thepercentageofteachersincoreclasses(ELA,math,socialstudies,science,foreignlanguages,arts)thatholdaMassachusettsteachinglicenseanddemonstratesubject-mattercompetencyinthesubjecttheyteach.ThisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisaswebelievethatHighlyQualifiedteachersaremorelikelytobeeffectivethannon-HighlyQualifiedteachers.Teachersthathavebeencertifiedasexpertsoftheircraftshouldbemoreeffectivethanthosethathavenotreceivedsuchcertification.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.Percentageofstudentsdisciplined:thepercentageofallenrolledstudentsthatreceivedadisciplinarydisposition,includingin-schoolsuspensions,out-of-schoolsuspensions,permanentexpulsions,andremovalstoalternatesettings,suchasalternativeschooling,homeorcommunityservice.Thisindicatorwasselectedforanalysisaswebelievethatstudentdisciplineisastrongdeterminantofschoolperformance.Schoolswherestudentsarenotdisciplinedarelikelytohavepoorercultures,andseesignificantinstructionaltimewastedondisciplinaryinterventions.Furthermore,theseschoolsalsoexpendmoreresourcesaddressingdisciplineissues,takingresourcesawayfrominstruction.WewillthereforeanalyzestatewidedataforMassachusettstodeterminewhetherthisisalsoassociatedwithaschool’saccountabilitylevel.

OmittedIndicators

Studentdropoutrate:thepercentageofenrolledstudentsthatdroppedoutofschoolanddidnotreturntoanyschoolbeforeOctober1ofthenextyear.Thiswasnotincludedasstudentdropoutrateislikelytobeanendogenous;theperformanceandlevelofaschoolislikelytoimpactthestudentdropoutrate.Studentsatpoorperformingschoolsaremorelikelytodropout.Thisisthereforeanunreliabledeterminantofthevariablesthatcontributetoschoolperformance;iftheirperformanceaffectsthisvariable,wecannotconcludethatthevariablewill,inreverse,alsoaffectschoolperformance.Studentretentionrate:thepercentageofenrolledstudentsthatreturnedtoenrollinthesamegradeastheprecedingyear.Thiswasnotincludedasstudentretentionrateislikelytobeanendogenous;theperformanceandlevelofaschoolislikelytoimpactthestudentretentionrate.Wecannotdeterminewhetherstudentshavetorepeatayearbecauseofpoorschoolperformance,orwhetherstudentsrepeatingleadstoaschoolperformingbetter.Furthermore,wecannotdeterminewhetherstudentsareretainedbecauseaschoolhasrigorousassessmentpractices,orwhetherstudentsaresufferingfrompoorteaching.Thisisthereforeanunreliabledeterminantofthevariablesthatcontributetoschoolperformance;iftheirperformanceaffectsthisvariable,wecannotconcludethatthevariablewill,inreverse,alsoaffectschoolperformance.Studentchurnrate:thepercentageofallenrolledstudentsthatenteredorexitedtheschoolafterthefirstdayofschoolandbeforethelastdayofschoolofthatyear.Thiswasnotincludedasstudentchurnratealessreliableindicatorofstudentstabilitythanthestudentintakerate.Studentsthatleavebeforetheendoftheschoolyeardonotaffecta

57

school’stestscoresforthatcurrentyear.Thisisthereforeanirrelevantvariabletomeasure.Studentenrollmentstability:thepercentageofallenrolledstudentsthatremainedattheschoolfortheentireyear.Thiswasnotincludedasstudentenrollmentstabilitywasnotausefulindicatorofstudentperformance.Whetherastudentleavestheschoolbeforethelastdayoftheyeardoesnotaffecttheirperformanceattheircurrentschool,andthereforehasnobearingontheirtestscoresandacademicperformanceatthatschool.Ageofteachers:theproportionofteachersineachagegroup.Thiswasnotincludedaswebelievethatwhilethenumberofyearsofteachingexperiencemaycontributetostudentoutcomes,teachers’ageitselfisunlikelytohaveanybearingonstudentperformance.Raceofteachers:theproportionofteachersofeachracialgroup(Black,White,Hispanic,Asian,NativeAmerican,Biracial,Other).Thiswasnotincludedaswebelievethatwhilestudentsmayrespondbettertoteachersofthesamerace,theproportionofteachersofanyraceattheentireschoolisirrelevant.Thereisnodatamatchingstudentandteacherraces,andthusaschool-widedatapointisnotusefulforanalysis.Teacherevaluationratings:thepercentageofteachersreceivingexemplary,proficient,needsimprovementorunsatisfactoryevaluationratings.Thiswasnotincludedaswebelievethatteacherevaluationratingsarelikelytobeendogenoustoschoolperformance.Lowperformingschoolsoftenhavelowperformingprincipals,whoassignratingstoteachers.Teacherevaluationsaresubjectiveandarerelativetooverallschoolperformance,notcomparedtoschoolsacrosstheentireCommonwealth.Studentattritionrate:thepercentageofstudentsenrolledataschoolattheendofaschoolyearthatdidnotenrollonthefirstdayofthefollowingschoolyear.Thiswasnotincludedasstudentattritionrateislikelytobeanendogenous;theperformanceandlevelofaschoolislikelytoimpactthestudentattritionrate.Studentsatpoorperformingschoolsaremorelikelytoleaveortransfertoadifferentschool.Thisisthereforeanunreliabledeterminantofthevariablesthatcontributetoschoolperformance;iftheirperformanceaffectsthisvariable,wecannotconcludethatthevariablewill,inreverse,alsoaffectschoolperformance.Thefollowingindicatorswereomittedbecausetheyareabsolutenumbers,notpercentages,andarethereforenotasusefulforcomparison:

• Numberofstudentsabsenttendaysormore• Numberofstudentschronicallyabsent• Numberofstudentswith10ormoreunexcusedabsences• Numberofteachersevaluated• Numberofstudentsreceivingdifferenttypesofdisciplineinterventions

58

AppendixVII:InterviewProtocol

InterviewProtocolThisisthelistofquestionsweintendtouseduringourinterviewswhileconductingresearchforthe

purposeofanalyzingeffectivestrategiesusedinschoolsservingdisadvantagedpopulations.

Introduction:

Mynameis(LucyBoydorJonathanHuiorAmyChandran)fromHarvardUniversity,andIamaskingyou

totakepartinaresearchstudywiththeMassachusettsDepartmentofElementaryandSecondary

Education.WearelookingtocompareLevel1/2schoolsservingdemographicallysimilarpopulationsas

variousLevel4/5schoolsacrosstheState.Thisinterviewisintendedtoprovideuswithabetterpicture

aboutthespecificwaysyou,andyourschool,havebeenabletoachievehighlevelsofstudent

performanceandaneffectiveschoolenvironment.Theinterviewwilllastabout30minutes.Beinginthis

studyisvoluntary.Pleasetellmeifyoudonotwanttoparticipateatanytime.Youcanskipquestions

thatyoudonotwanttoanswerorstoptheinterviewatanytime.

Ifyousorequest,IwillkeepthedataIcollectconfidential,andwillnotshareyourpersonalinformation

orspecificdatayouprovidewithanyoneoutsidetheresearchteam.Otherwise,Iwouldliketobeableto

includesomeofyourresponsesinasetcasestudytobepublished,wheretheseareparticularlypertinent

toourfindings.

Wouldyoubehappyforustousequotesorfactsfromthisinterviewtohighlightkeyfindingsinourdata

collectionprocess?

(Ifso)Isusingyournameandresponsespublicallyokaywithyou?Alternatively,mayweciteyour

responsesanonymously?

Areyouhappyformetorecordthisconversation?

Ifyouhaveanyquestions,youcanalsocontactmyresearchadvisor,JoshGoodman,whocanverifythe

detailsortheresearchprojectscopeorprovidefurtherclarification:[email protected].

OpeningQuestionforAllInterviewees:

1. Overall,whatdoyoubelievearetheprimarymechanismsbywhichyourschoolachieveshigh

studentperformance?

ForPrincipals:

Nowwearegoingtoaskaseriesofspecificquestionsthatrelatetothefollowingfocusareas:student

culture,humancapital,datadriveninstruction,tutoring,andadditionalservices.Wewillendwitha

seriesofspecificquestionsaboutservingstudentsfromdiversebackgrounds.

1. StudentCultureBestPractices:

a. Whatarespecificwaysinwhichyouincreasestudentattendancerates?Whichhave

beensuccessful?Whichhavenot?Howdoyouknowthis?

b. Yourschool’sattritionratesarealsorelativelylow.Howhaveyoumanagedtokeep

studentturnoverlow?Whataresomespecificpracticesyourschoolhasused?

c. Pleasedescribeyourschool’sdisciplinarysystemandprocedures(PossibleProbes:Do

youtrackstudentdisciplinedata?Isthereanincentivestructure?)

d. Pleasedescribethestudentcultureofyourschool.Pleasebeasspecificaspossible.

i. Wouldyoucallyourschool’scultureoneofhighexpectations?Whatarethese

expectations?

59

ii. Arethereanyspecificactivitiesorenvironmentalpromptsinplacethatyou

believeareespeciallyimportantinbuildingthisculture?

e. Canyoudescribeparentandcommunityinvolvementintheschool.

i. Howdoyourparentandcommunityengagementstrategiesimpactschool

culture?Whataresomestrategiesthathaveworkedforyou?

2. HumanCapitalBestPractices:

a. Whatarespecificwaysinwhichyouaddressteacherretention?(PossibleProbe:Asa

principal,whatisyourstrategyforimprovingtheteacherexperienceatyourschool?)

b. Pleasedescribehowyourschooltrainsteachersanddevelopstheirteachingskills.

i. HowmanyhoursofProfessionalDevelopmentdoteachersengageineach

year?

c. Howmanyclassroomobservationsdoteachersreceiveeachyear?

d. Whatistheaveragenumberofteacherabsencesperyear?

3. DataDrivenInstruction:

a. Pleasedescribetheroleofdatainyourinstructionhere.(PossibleProbe:Areteachers

collectingdatafrequently?Ifso,whatdotheydowiththisdataanddoesitinformtheir

instruction?)

i. Whatdodatameetingslooklike?Dotheyallsharecommonpractices?Ifso,

whatarethey?

ii. Whatkindsofdataareyourteacherscollectinganddiscussing?

b. Isthereanyoneontheadministrativeorteachingstaffthathasparticularresponsibility

fordatacollectionandanalysis?Ifnot,howisthisprocessmanaged?

4. AcademicsandTutoring:

a. Howmanyhoursperdayarestudentsinschool,excludingafterschoolprogramming?

b. Howmanyschooldaysperyearisyourschoolinsession?DoyouhostSaturdayschool?

c. Doesyourschoolprovideextraresourcestostudents;Iamthinkingoftutoring,extra

homeworkassistancehours,specialopportunityclassesorotheropportunitiesfor

students?

d. (Ifyestoabove)Pleasedescribeyourschool’stutoring(orother)program,ifitexists.

(PossibleProbe:Isit1:1,grouptutoringorsomeotherformat?Wholeadsthetutoring?

Howarestudentsidentifiedfortutoring?)

5. OtherServices:

a. Doesyourschooluseanyothertypesofnon-academicservicesin-house?Examples

includesupportwithclimateandcultureoftheschool,socio-emotionalneedsof

students,orbehavioralneedsofstudents?Thismighttaketheformofaschoolor

counselor,forexample.

i. (Ifyes)Howmanyhoursdoeseachservicetypicallyspendservicingstudents

perweek?

b. Doyouhavealistingofyourextracurricularprogramsandactivities?Whichone(s)

wouldyouhighlightasyourmostsuccessfulorpopular?Howdoyouknowthey

contributetotheholisticdevelopmentofyourstudents?

6. FinalFollowupQuestions:

a. Asyouareaware,wearelookingatyourschoolbecauseitservesastudentbodythatis

demographicallysimilartosomeschoolsthathavenotbeenassuccessfulasyours.We

arethereforeparticularlyinterestedinstrategiesthatyouseeasimportanttoservinga

studentbodywithalargeproportionofchildrenfromeconomicallydisadvantaged

backgroundsand/orethnicminorities.Isthereanythingyourschoolhasdoneto

addressthesegroupsinparticular,oranythingyoubelieveiskeytoacultureof

successfullyservingthesepopulations?

b. YourschoolhasachievedLevel½statusintheDepartment’srankingservice,whatdo

youseeashavingbeenmostimportanttoachievingthissuccess?

60

c. Isthereanythingthatwehaven’tdiscussedthatyouthinkhasbeenparticularly

importantforyourschool’ssuccess,oranythingelseyouwouldliketomention?

ForTeachers:

Nowwearegoingtoaskaseriesofspecificquestionsthatrelatetothefollowingfocusareas:student

culture,humancapital,anddatadriveninstruction.

1. StudentCultureBestPractices:

a. Pleasedescribethestudentcultureofyourschoolandmorespecifically,thecultureof

yourclassroom.Pleasebeasspecificaspossible.

i. Arethereanyspecificactivitiesorenvironmentalpromptsinplacethatyou

believeareespeciallyimportantinbuildingthisculture?

b. Whathasyourschooldonetomakesurestudentsarecomingtoschoolandarestaying

fromyeartoyear?

2. HumanCapitalBestPractices:

c. Howdoesyourschoolsupportteachers?Doyoufeelthatthisisaparticularstrengthof

theschool?Why?

d. Whatpracticesdoesyourschoolputinplacetoretainitsteachers?Doyouthinkthese

areeffective?

e. Pleasedescribetheprofessionaldevelopmentandteachertrainingimplementedat

yourschool.(PossibleProbes:Doyouhaveamentorteacher?Howoftenareyou

observed,ifatall?Doyouengageinafterschooltrainingwithotherteachers?)

f. Howmanyhours(approximately)ofprofessionaldevelopmentareyourequiredto

undertakeperyear?

3. DataDrivenInstruction:

g. Areyouengagedincollectingdataaboutteachingpracticesoryourinstructionona

regularbasis?

h. Ifso,pleasedescribetheroleofdatainyourinstructionhere.(PossibleProbe:Howdo

youusedatatoinformyourinstruction?)

4. AcademicSupportforStudents:

a. Doesyourschoolhaveparticularprocessesfordealingwithstudentswhoarestruggling

academically,orisacase-by-caseassessmentmadeforstudentneeds?

b. Whatsupportsystemsareinplaceforstudentswhomayneedextraassistance?

c. Howeffectivedoyouthinkthesesystemsareinbridgingachievementgapswithinyour

classroom?Howdoyouknowthis?

5. FinalFollowupQuestions:

d. Asyouareaware,wearelookingatyourschoolbecauseitservesastudentbodythatis

demographicallysimilartosomeschoolsthathavenotbeenassuccessfulasyours.We

arethereforeparticularlyinterestedinstrategiesthatyouseeasimportanttoservinga

studentbodywithalargeproportionofchildrenfromeconomicallydisadvantaged

backgroundsand/orethnicminorities.Isthereanythingyourschoolhasdoneto

addressthesegroupsinparticular,oranythingyoubelieveiskeytoacultureof

successfullyservingthesepopulations?

e. YourschoolhasachievedLevel½statusintheDepartment’srankingservice,whatdo

youseeashavingbeenmostimportanttoachievingthissuccess?

f. Isthereanythingthatwehaven’tdiscussedthatyouthinkhasbeenparticularly

importantforyourschool’ssuccess,oranythingelseyouwouldliketomention?

Thankyousomuchforyourtime.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorfeedback,pleasefeelfreetoreachoutto

[email protected].

61

AppendixVII:StakeholderConsiderationsThefollowingbriefguidesbreakdownourrecommendationsbywhichgroupofpeopleprincipalswillneedtocollaboratewithtoimplementthem.Theygroupsare:theleadership

team,teachers,andcounseling/supportstaff.

TheLeadershipTeam

Areaof

ImprovementIdeal

BehaviorManagement

• Oneschoolleaderisresponsibleforhandlingstudentmisbehaviorthatmustbedealtwithoutsideoftheclassroomaspartofauniformescalationmodel.

o Seerecommendation1.2.1. • Oneschoolleadertracksstudentdisciplineandbehaviordataand

theleadershipteamevaluatesthisdataconsistentlyduringleadershipmeetings.

o Seerecommendation1.2.2.

TeacherCollaboration

• Atleastoneschoolleaderattendsaportionofteachercollaborationmeetingstoevaluateproductivityandeffectiveness.

• Seerecommendation2.1.2.

TeacherEmpowerment

• Schoolleadersmeetwithteachersonaconsistentbasisforcheck-insandconductteachersatisfactionsurveys.


DataDrivenInstruction

• Schoolleadersreviewformalandinformaldatawithteacherstoprovidefeedbackandsupportinadaptinglessonstostudentneeds.


ParentEngagement • Oneortwoschoolleadersareresponsibleforcreatingastrategytoengageparentsbothsociallyandacademically.Theyworkwithteachersineachgrade-leveltodelegatetasksandscalebestpractices.


StudentAttendance • Oneschoolleaderisresponsibleforrecognizingstudentsonamonthlybasisforperfectornearperfectattendance.

o Seerecommendation2.3.1.• Oneschoolleader,orarotatingteamofleaders,callhomesdailyof

studentswhoareabsent.o Seerecommendation2.3.2.

EnrichmentOpportunities

• Oneschoolleaderisresponsibleforreachingouttolocalorganizationstoorchestrateenrichmentopportunitiesforstudentsafterschool.


62

Teachers

Areaof

ImprovementIdeal

TeacherTraining • Veteranorhighperformingteacherssupportstrugglingornewteachersthroughagradualreleasemodel.

• Seerecommendation2.1.1.

TeacherCollaboration

• Grade-levelteacherscollaborateduringcommonplanningtimeweekly,includingspecialistsandinterventionists.

o Seerecommendation2.1.2.• Grade-spanteacherscollaborateatkeypointsthroughouttheyear.


TeacherEmpowerment

• Teachersaregivenautonomyandflexibilityoverschedulingandresponsibilities.


Tutoring • Teachersprovidetutoringincyclesthroughouttheyearbasedonspecificstudentneedsthatarere-evaluatedattheendofeachcycle.


BehaviorManagement

• Everyteacherhasaclassroomlevelbehavioralsystemthatfeedsintoaschool-widebehavioralsystemthroughaseamlessescalationladder.


DataDrivenInstruction

• Teacherscollectformalandinformaldataonaweeklybasisandevaluatestudent-leveldatainweeklycollaborationmeetingsandwithaninstructionalleader.


63

TheCounselor,SocialWorkerorSupportPersonnel

Areaof

ImprovementIdeal

StudentAttendance • SocialWorkerorCounselorshouldkeepprofilesofstudentswhoarechronicallyabsentandworkwithteachersandleadershiptodevelopindividualinterventioniststrategies.• Seerecommendation2.3.1.

BehaviorManagement

• SocialWorkerorCounselorworkscollaborateswithschoolleaderresponsibleforstudentbehaviordatatoreferstudentsforsocial,emotional,orbehavioralservices.


WraparoundServices

• SocialWorkerorCounseloractsascentralpointofcontactforallreferralservicesthatconnectsteachers,leaders,andserviceproviderstooneanother.

• SocialWorkerorCounselormonitorstheeffectivenessofthissystemforeachchildandensuresduplicateservicesarenotbeingprovided.

o Seerecommendation1.3.

StudentEnrichment • SocialWorkerorCounselorisresponsibleforreachingouttolocalorganizationstoorchestrateenrichmentopportunitiesforstudentsafterschool.


leveling the playing field: strategies for schools …...leveling the playing field: strategies for...

Documents