pearson’s k-12 solutions school turnaround education

Pearson’s k-12 solutions

school turnaround education Partnership (steP)

imagine what success can look likeK-12 Solutions from Pearson

Copyright © 2010 Pearson education, inc. or its affiliate(s). all rights reserved. 2

Pearson’s steP model:

ten Change elements For school improvement

the ten specified change elements in Pearson k-12 solutions school turnaround education Partnership

(steP) model have been identified from years of experience working with struggling schools and

systematic development using a theory of action process based on research, evaluation and best

practices. the ten change elements are consistent with the school improvement research and evaluation

literature focused on schools that are persistently struggling, many of which have been designated

for restructuring under the federal no Child left Behind act. as noted in the massinsight report

entitled “the turnaround Challenge” (Calkins et al., 2007), these schools generally serve high poverty

communities and fail because the challenges they face are substantial and not dealt with effectively by

the traditional education system. Given the challenges faced by these communities, the current school

improvement literature tends to focus on dramatic transformation of the entire education system for

these schools, transformation that addresses poverty-related barriers to effective teaching and learning.



the intent is to integrate strategies aimed at both academic and non-academic factors to enhance the

learning process, particularly for high-poverty schools in which students often do not have access to the

same developmental assets and social capital as higher socio-economic status communities (e.g. see

Wentzel, 1993).

the massinsight report notes that persistently struggling schools need an external partner, a “lead

turnaround Partner,” to guide them through a comprehensive school change process (Calkins et al.,

2007). the development of a rigorous, comprehensive and research-based school improvement solution

reflects Pearson’s commitment to serving as an effective lead turnaround partner for these struggling

schools. the steP model integrates the following ten change elements to enhance the teaching and

learning conditions for struggling schools, with the ultimate goal of improving student learning and

achievement.

1. systematically Plan for school improvement

2. develop instructional leadership

3. Create Collaborative education Partnerships

4. emphasize school Culture

5. embed achievement support

6. align Curriculum

7. optimize Conditions for teaching & learning

8. Foster knowledge driven decision-making

9. utilize technology for learning

10. evaluate for Continuous improvement

these ten change elements align with the 5 “keys” of urban school success that Bryk & colleagues

(2010) identified from 15 years of data.1 the study notes that, while each of the 5 keys could be linked

to improvement on its own, they were more effective in tandem. in fact, “schools that were rated

strong in all five areas were at least 10 times more likely than schools with strengths in just one or two

areas to achieve substantial gains in reading and math” (Viadero, 2010). the following pages briefly

describe each of the ten change elements of Pearson’s steP model and the research and best practices

supporting each of these elements.

1 Bryk, as, sebring, PB, allensworth, e, luppescu, s, & easton, JQ (2010). organizing schools for improvement: lessons from Chicago. Chicago, il: the university of Chicago Press.



ChanGe element #1.

systematically Plan for school improvement

a systematic approach to planning is critical to the success of any school, district, or state-wide

initiative. Pearson k-12 solutions collaboratively plans and develops a customized steP model with the

school improvement stakeholders to accomplish the following:

• Carry out a diagnostic/needs assessment

• Collaboratively develop a customized steP theory of action with each school

• Collaboratively develop a customized implementation Plan aligned with the theory of action

• develop an evaluation Plan for the customized steP model

research and Best Practices

Borman et al. (2003) note the strong relationship between the quality of comprehensive school reform implementation and positive effects on education outcomes. they report that externally developed

reforms that are clearly defined tend to be implemented with greater fidelity and tend to have stronger

effects on teaching and learning than do less clearly defined reforms. therefore a process is needed to

clearly define school change if implementation of that change is to be successful. the central focus of a

systematic approach to initiative planning and implementation is the theory of action. as maddux and

Cummings (2004) note, absent an explicit statement and a clear understanding of how a given initiative

is expected to produce changes in student learning, the implementation of educational innovations

“can be based only on intuition, trial and error, superstition, popularity or random means unlikely to be

quickly productive in any way.” With a theory of action, educators find, understand and communicate

the connections between the initiative and what we know or suspect about how students learn. The

theory of action provides us with guidelines for implementation that have a good probability of resulting

in educational benefits (maddux & Cummings, 2004). indeed, as lipsey (1990) argues, without the

understanding that comes from a theory of action, an intervention “can only be reproduced as ritual in

the hope it will have the expected effects.”

the theory of action specifies what is to be done and why, while the implementation plan specifies how

it will be done. the strong relationship between the quality of implementation and positive effects on

education outcomes stresses the need for a clearly defined implementation plan (Borman et al., 2003).

as the southwest educational development laboratory (sedl, 1990) report notes:

The theme is that intended users should be privileged to understand what the new

program is all about, what it is expected to produce, and the various ways in which

its implementation may produce the desired results. Until such issues as these

are addressed, there can be little expectation that the desired change, and school

improvement, will be reached through implementors’ efforts.



the evaluation plan specifies benchmarks and other measures by which to assess progress on steP

implementation, as well as a plan for providing immediate feedback for making timely adjustments if

they are deemed necessary. the purpose of ongoing evaluation is clear: it keeps implementation on

target, thereby increasing the likelihood of success. as noted by learning Point associates (2004),

One area of goal setting that often gets left behind is building in an evaluation plan

from the start. It’s one thing to set goals, but it’s quite another to deliberately evaluate

your success—using data as your guide—against the initial goal (p. 20).

ChanGe element #2.

develop instructional leadership

the steP model design for leader preparation contains a dual focus on leadership skills and

management training. Principals need instructional knowledge, as well as management skills, to inform

and lead change. We accomplish leadership development by invoking the following change levers:

• engage Principals in the development & monitoring of the steP model for their school

• Provide targeted professional development, including onsite coaching

• Create learning teams to develop leadership skills and distributed leadership

• Facilitate collaborative discourse among cohort leaders, including district and school-site

administrators


of the school’s total impact on student achievement, principals account for 25% while 33% is

attributable to teachers (marzano, Waters, & mcnulty, 2005). however, for teachers to have a

continuous impact on student achievement, they must all be effective; therefore high quality gains in student learning year after year requires high functioning schools led by an effective principal. this

is particularly true for turnaround schools, where studies find no examples of success without strong principal leadership (Berends et al., 2001; duke, 2004). Principals need to be about setting direction,

helping their faculty grow professionally, and redesigning the organization (leithwood et al, 2004).

Without effective leadership, schools and districts are less likely to address school and teacher practices

that impact student achievement in a coherent and meaningful way (marzano, Waters, and mcnulty,

2005). as elmore (2000) warned, unless public schools dramatically change how they define and

practice leadership, they will fail “massively and visibly” in the eyes of the public with respect to broad

scale, standards-based school reform.



instructional leadership is not a one-person job; it is a collegial obligation of both teachers and

principals (Woolfolk hoy & hoy, 2009). Bringing them together around improving instruction through

collaborative learning has the potential to improve instruction and promote distributed leadership.

Without this collaboration, changes in attitudes and knowledge brought about by targeted professional

development do not make it into the classroom in any meaningful way (darling-hammond et al., 2009;

Goldenberg, 2004). results from a 5-year study of Pearson’s collaborative learning teams model

indicate “more focus in grade-level and ilt 2 meetings on student academics, systematic and joint

planning, purposeful use of assessment data (of all kinds), and efforts to implement and evaluate

jointly developed instruction” (Gallimore, et al, 2009, p. 542). research also suggests that PlCs improve

retention as teachers become empowered with greater instructional decision-making (Borman &

dowling 2008). among two thousand past and current California teachers, decision-making autonomy

was the one factor that mattered most to teachers who chose to stay in the field, more so than adequate

pay or effective system supports (Futernick 2007).

For school leadership to achieve transformative results, new leaders for new schools (2009) highlights

the following as critical leadership actions: 1) ensuring rigorous, goal- and data-driven learning and

teaching; 2) building and managing a high-quality staff aligned to the school’s vision of success for

every student; 3) developing an achievement- and belief-based school-wide culture; 4) instituting

operations and systems to support learning; and 5) modeling the personal leadership that sets the tone

for all student and adult relationships in the school.

ChanGe element #3.

Create Collaborative education Partnerships

the Pearson k-12 steP model focuses on developing education partnerships with a wide range of

stakeholder groups to accomplish the following:

• involve & engage communities in the public education system

• Build support and mutual accountability for the steP initiative

• Collaborate to identify and remove potential or actual barriers to successful steP

implementation

• develop a civic culture with high standards, mutual accountability and united community

advocacy of the needs and rights of children (see shirley, 1997)

2 ilt = instructional leadership team.



the partnership will be monitored and supported by three distinct committees:

Committee Members

advisory Pearson team, business partners, district &

school site reps, student reps, parent reps, other

educational partners

district oversight key district administrators, school site

administrators

school site instructional leadership team Pearson team, school site administrators, faculty,

staff


exclusion of teachers from policy development and implementation discussions decreases the

likelihood that district set policies will make it into the classroom (Cross City Campaign for urban school

reform, 2005). Yet for external models of school change to make an important impact within schools,

teachers and administrators must support, “buy into,” or even help “co-construct” the reform design

(Borman et al., 2003; datnow & stringfield, 2000). to accomplish this, observes supovitz (2007), school

districts must function as the center of efforts to spur and support systemwide improvement in teaching

and learning and build systemwide commitment, rather than compliance, to school improvement. he

adds that in working with external partners for school improvement, districts must establish stable

relationships clarifying roles and responsibilities of all parties. Generating collaborative partnerships

with stakeholders in the school improvement process is central to the success of this effort. School reform initiatives have a greater chance of being enacted and sustained when the community is actively engaged as an “empowered change agent” (arriaza, 2004).

Parents are another important stakeholder group to involve. the steP model includes specific focus

on engaging parents (or other responsible family members) in student learning. research indicates

that parental involvement improves student achievement and also positively affects student behavior,

values, and character (mcneal, 1999). Family involvement positively affects outcomes for students,

even at the high school level (e.g., Catsambis, 2001; simon, 2004). these outcomes include:

• higher achievement

• better attendance

• more course credits earned

• more responsible preparation for class

When schools communicate effectively and involve family and community members in activities, an

added benefit is a decline in the need for student disciplinary actions (sheldon & epstein, 2002).



ChanGe element #4.

Focus on school Culture

Pearsons’ steP model addresses school culture as a core ingredient for helping schools improve. We

help schools identify areas in which they could use assistance via the diagnostic assessment, and

collaboratively develop the theory of action to generate strategies for targeting and improving those

areas to enhance the learning environment for all students, faculty, and staff. addressing the following

topics, the Pearson team supports schools in transforming the culture of the school:

• school safety

• adult and student relationships

• Parental involvement

• Communications technology

recommendations for improving school culture to improve student outcomes include interventions

focused on, but not limited to:

• Promoting positive student aspirations

• enhancing teacher/student relationships

• Promoting peer bonding

• Promoting high academic expectations

• emphasizing mastery and learning

• Creating a physical learning environment that promotes safety, pride, positive associations

with the school, & easy access to technology


research has identified a replicable correlation between various features of school culture and student

academic and behavioral outcomes. For example, studies indicate that school (edmonds, 1986) and

teacher (Bamburg, 1994; miller, 2001) expectations have an impact on student achievement, and

student expectations strongly predict high school completion (ou & reynolds, 2008). teachers and

administrators note a gap between student capabilities and what they learn in school (Bishop, 1989),

and teachers acknowledge lowering expectations when faced with resistance from students (Farmer,

2002). raffini (1993) explains that students tend to internalize the beliefs teachers have about their

ability. Generally, they “rise or fall to the level of expectation of their teachers.... When teachers believe

in students, students believe in themselves. When those you respect think you can, you think you can.”

evidence suggests that the best intended efforts to turn around schools and enhance student learning

and achievement will not succeed if school culture is ignored. For students, positive school culture

is linked to a strong sense of school membership which in turn is linked to academic and behavioral



outcomes such as fewer incidents of disciplinary referrals and victimization (e.g., deWitt et al, 2003),

and reduced drop out (Christle, Jolivette & nelson, 2007). notably, the physical environment of the

school is linked to the same outcomes.

student aspirations have also been linked to student achievement. Qisa3 researchers have identified 8

conditions as critical in fostering and maintaining student aspirations:

1) Belonging; 2) Heroes; 3) Sense of Accomplishment; 4) Fun & Excitement; 5) Curiosity & Creativity;

6) Spirit of Adventure; 7) Leadership & Responsibility; and 8) Confidence to Take Action. districts that

have targeted these 8 conditions report higher attendance and decreased drop out rates (Qisa, 2009a).

notably, survey results of nearly 150,000 students indicate a decrease in positive perceptions of their

school’s aspirational environment from middle to high school (Qisa, 2009b).

ChanGe element #5.

embed achievement support

the k-12 solutions steP model includes a dedicated achievement support team of local, on-site

achievement advisors and instructional Coaches to oversee the implementation Plan and ensure that

the customized steP goals are realized. at the core of this work is a relentless commitment and focus

on diagnosing student learning challenges and helping teachers improve instruction via ongoing direct

support and development of teachers’ and school leadership effectiveness. the steP model involves

three change levers by which to provide comprehensive support for effective implementation:

• embed achievement advisor (aa) and instructional Coaches (iCs) for ongoing support

• Provide ongoing training to aas and iCs to generate & model a culture of continuous

improvement

• Build local capacity for continuous school improvement

other Pearson k-12 solutions team members who provide client schools with ongoing support include:

• Solutions Technologist - facilitates key aspects of implementing, monitoring, and assessing

technology at the school site and technological solutions critical to the steP model.

• Achievement Director - creates and maintains all site-based training materials to facilitate

weekly teacher trainings; visits school clusters monthly to monitor achievement; and coaches

the site k-12 solutions team.

• Director of Evaluation – has primary responsibility for formulating the theory of action,

aligning the implementation Plan to the theory of action, and developing and executing the

evaluation Plan.3 Qisa = Quaglia institute for student aspirations. more information can be found at www.qisa.org



• Senior VP of K-12 Solutions - responsible for design and implementation of the k-12

comprehensive services portfolio.


Borman et al. (2003) indicate, not surprisingly, a strong relationship between the quality of reform implementation and positive effects on education outcomes. that is, implementation matters (see

also datnow, Borman & stringfield, 2000). this highlights the need for ongoing, comprehensive

support to guide and monitor the implementation of the steP model. at the core of this fundamental

transformation is site-embedded support from educators with the necessary training and disposition

to provide capacity-building improvement. “the turnaround Challenge” report (Calkins et al., 2007)

emphasizes deeply embedded assistance from a turnaround partner as one of four non-negotiables for

serving schools in need of turnaround. the emphasis is on shared accountability and co-management

of the school improvement initiative. Regular presence helps to build a trusted relationship while providing leadership critical to helping the partnering school site become an effective school (Bliss,

Firestone, & richards, 1991).

the achievement advisor and instructional Coach are engaged in what is happening in classrooms on

a daily basis to provide “at elbow” coaching and to continuously monitor progress and provide timely

feedback regarding steP successes and challenges. research indicates that embedded coaching has

a positive effect on enhancing instruction and on student achievement (e.g., matsumara et al., 2008).

the iC models and supports lessons, conducts lesson studies, and works daily in classrooms to improve

instruction and support teacher efficacy. research suggests that when coaching accompanies training,

teachers transfer 80 to 90 percent of what they learn into the classroom, compared to only 5 to 10

percent with training alone (Joyce and showers, 1995). moreover, embedded coaching provides on-the-

job learning, which allows administrators and teachers to learn by doing, reflect on their experiences,

and create new and shared insights with colleagues while engaged in their daily work. this type of

learning is beneficial because it promotes immediate application of what is learned (Galloway, 1995;

louisiana doe, 2006).

ChanGe element #6.

align Curriculum

in a well functioning school, curriculum, assessment, and instruction are closely aligned so that what is

written is taught, and what is taught is effective. When even one of the components is out of alignment,

instruction is less than effective. the following change levers allow our team to focus on the curriculum

ensuring that it provides a roadmap for teachers that leads to successful learning for their students.



• evaluate current curriculum

• devise a plan to enhance curriculum as needed

• support teachers to develop rigorous, relevant curriculum

• monitor curriculum pacing and implementation

during the diagnostic Phase, the Pearson k-12 solutions team measures the effectiveness of the existing

curriculum against a set of research-based standards (Frase, english, Poston, 2000), for example:

• Common instructional curriculum guides teaching, assessment, and learning, and is

consistently implemented. instructional cohesion aligns the system’s curriculum with the state

standards (content, cognitive type, context).

• Curricular content standards are aligned with external assessments administered to students

and linked to state standards/expectations for every grade/instructional level/course offered.

• objectives are clear and precise, delineating content, language, context, and cognitive type.


deep curriculum alignment has been defined as the congruence of the content, context, and cognitive

demands present in the written, taught, and tested curriculum (english & steffy, 2001). research has

established deep curriculum alignment as one of the prominent tools used by educators today to

ensure content is valid and assessed (allen, 2002; downey, 2001). to determine whether the curriculum

is aligned with the intended content, one must evaluate the following five components (reeves,

2003;english & steffy, 2001):

1. the scope of the content covered

2. the level of sophistication and complexity of the knowledge

3. the sequence or order of presentation

4. the richness of the content

5. the texture of the content

Research indicates an aligned and balanced curriculum increases student achievement—test scores

have shown a dramatic increase in subjects where the curricula is deeply aligned (english & steffy,

2001). in addition, because of deep curriculum alignment, teachers have more time to focus on lessons

and to provide more meaningful content; therefore, students are more actively engaged. With an

increase in student performance and achievement, attendance rate has increased and dropout rates

have decreased in numerous schools across the nation (allen, 2002; reeves, 2003).

Best practices in curriculum alignment involve continual review and revision of curriculum documents

to verify that students are being taught that which is most valuable to learn and understand (armstrong,

henson, & savage, 2005).



ChanGe element #7.

optimize teaching and learning

Pearson is committed to optimizing conditions of teaching and learning and begins the process by

looking at teacher performance, opportunity for collaborating for improving instruction, and the tools

teachers need to differentiate and personalize instruction for their students.


research is abundant and clear that teacher effectiveness is a strong determinant of differences in student learning, far outweighing the effects of differences in class size and classroom heterogeneity

(darling-hammond, 1999; nye et al., 2004; sanders & rivers, 1996). For example, sanders and rivers

(1996) found that children assigned to three effective teachers in a row scored at the 83rd percentile in

math at the end of 5th grade, while children assigned to three ineffective teachers in a row scored at the

29th percentile. Jordan et al. (1997) report similar results. hanushek (1992) notes that the difference

between an effective and ineffective teacher can be a full level of achievement within a single school

year. using data from the utd texas schools Project, rivkin et al. (2005) conclude:

teachers have powerful effects on reading and mathematics achievement …The results

suggest that the effects of a costly ten student reduction in class size are smaller than

the benefit of moving one standard deviation up the teacher quality distribution,

highlighting the importance of teacher effectiveness in the determination of school

quality (p. 417).

Pearson’s k-12 solutions invokes the following five change levers to optimize the conditions of teaching

and learning, aligned with Christman et al’s (2009) recommendations:

1. Create Learning Teams for effective teacher and administrator inquiry-based collaboration

to identify student learning needs & instructional strategies; and monitor effectiveness &

revise where necessary (darling-hammond et al., 2009; Gallimore et al., 2009). Without

school-based PlCs for teachers & administrators to regularly assess instruction as it relates to

student needs, changes in attitudes and knowledge brought about by targeted professional

development do not make it into the classroom in any meaningful way (darling-hammond et

al., 2009; Goldenberg, 2004).

2. Build Instructional Competencies using a variety of inputs, including

a. Content and pedagogy focused professional development (PD). research indicates

that Pd, when carefully designed, supported and sustained over time, and focused on

instruction, can change classroom practices. Weiss & Pasley (2006) note that Pd makes

a noticeable impact on teaching after approximately 30 hours of training, and again after

approximately 80 hours. they stress that effective professional development requires a coherent set of strategies that develop both content and pedagogical knowledge.



b. Pearson Learning Teams (see above)

c. Embedded or “at elbow” instructional coaching. research emphasizes the importance of

embedded instructional coaching (e.g., Joyce & showers, 1995; matsumara et al., 2008)

for enhancing instruction & reinforcing Pd.

3. Define and Monitor Achievement Expectations. research indicates the importance of

setting academic goals on student achievement and for long-term change and improvement

(mcdougall et al., 2007).

4. Facilitate Student Mastery on Essential Learning using a mastery learning model (Gentile &

lalley, 2003). research suggests that mastery learning vs. traditional classrooms has a positive

effect on learning rate, engagement in learning & student achievement, and other outcomes

(e.g., Guskey & Gates, 1986; Guskey & Piggott, 1988; kulik et al., 1990).

5. Personalize and Extend Opportunities for Learning using a tiered instruction approach and

extending learning beyond the traditional classroom (e.g., Bryant, et al., 2008). the higher

the quality of instruction, especially as it accommodates students’ differing education

backgrounds, abilities and learning styles, the greater the academic achievement (aronson et

al., 1998; Bryant, smith & Bryant, 2008). moreover, extending the school day and/or school

year, provided that the extra time is engaged learning time, improves student achievement

(aronson et al., 1998).

ChanGe element #8.

Foster knowledge driven decision-making

Collecting, analyzing, and using a variety of data types effectively are important components of

accountability and school improvement. Collecting and analyzing data is also the ongoing process

of confronting sometimes difficult facts and then doing something about them. school improvement

requires that the cultural conditions be shifted towards consummate, informed, collaborative data

users. the Pearson k-12 solutions team, through the customized steP, helps the principal and teachers

see that data is a tool for understanding and improving their own practice, leading to improved student

achievement. Pearson k-12 solutions team is on site to foster Knowledge Powered Achievement using

these four change levers:

• Align Assessment to Student Learning Expectations

• Monitor Achievement Expectations

• Analyze and Interpret Assessment

• Coach Teachers and Instructional Leaders in the Use of Data




the Center on education Policy (2009) lessons from 5 years of studying school restructuring under nClB

indicates that all case study schools that exited restructuring used data frequently to make decisions

about instruction and regroup students by skill level. all schools that exited restructuring reported that

teachers looked at student assessment data at least once a month, and participants in all but one of

these schools said teachers reviewed data at least this often to regroup students by skill level.

For districts and schools to identify specific needs of students, detailed data must be collected and

disaggregated (Boudett, City, & murnane, 2004). Frequently administered assessments, quick turn-

around time for receiving results and close alignment with curriculum all contribute to the utility of

data for instructional decision-making (marsh et al., 2006). moreover, tests that are closely integrated

with daily instruction, i.e. assessments for learning, are viewed as powerful tools for learning (Black &

William, 1998; Boston, 2003; nCme, 2005). hattie’s (1999; hattie & timperley, 2007) extensive review

of multiple meta-analyses of research studies representing millions of students, indicates that effective

feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student achievement.

importantly, nonachievement student outcome measures are also used for decision making in many

districts, such as student attendance and mobility, graduation rates, college prep course taking, and

so on. For example, learning Walks are organized observations of school hallways and classrooms to

assess the quality of instruction (marsh et al., 2006). a common feature of well-designed learning

Walks is the resulting dialogue between the principal and teachers who have been observed. according

to hall and hord (2000) this brief, one-on-one, focused feedback is the most powerful staff development approach available to impact teacher behavior.

Critically, research confirms the importance of providing training on how to use data and connect them

to practice (mason, 2002; supovitz & klein, 2003). training and support are needed to help educators

identify how to act on knowledge gained from data analysis, such as how to identify best practices and

resources that address problems or weaknesses that emerge from the analysis (marsh et al., 2006).

ChanGe element #9.

utilize technology for learning

national and state mandates insist that schools be accountable by providing data to confirm that

teachers are teaching and students are learning. knowledge driven decision-making demands that

timely student data are used to inform, plan, and monitor instruction. during the diagnostic Phase, the

Pearson team assesses existing technology systems, how the system or systems are used and what

technological support administrators and teachers need to adequately implement the customized steP



model. the team collaboratively designs with the stakeholders a partnership focused on aligning district

wide services to help improve instructional effectiveness and build leadership in the following areas:

• implementing a highly effective small learning community structure and collaboration model

• improving the effective use of data to inform instruction and personalize learning

• implementing an interoperable technology strategy to facilitate greater effectiveness of

technology for learning and to initiate a plan to encourage a shift in traditional schools to more

of a blended school design.


the schools interoperability Framework association (siFa) 2006 report indicates states and districts

often have difficulty enabling true ‘data-driven decision making’” due to extensive lag time between

collecting and reporting the data back to the teachers so they could be used for instructional decision

making. according to the report, the crux of the problem is the following:

Data Driven Decision Making is really about easily gaining access to data in a timely

manner in order to improve teaching and learning. The big picture of data in education

is complex…data remains in different applications with ways of extracting and

integrating the applications that are proprietary to each application and vendor. Some

applications do not even allow interoperability at the level of identifying the same data

in a different manner. (SIFA, 2006, p. 2)

as Bill Gates acknowledges, “interoperability is very important. You don’t want all the different systems

to be islands. You can end up with inconsistent information, the inability to track what’s really going on,

and reporting becomes almost impossible” (siFa, 2006, p. 2). in a cost-benefit study, siFa researchers

report that one school made 30% achievement gains as a result of improved interoperability of their

technology systems (siFa, 2006).

the most important issues for educators today revolve around using information technology effectively

to make a difference in student learning (reynolds, 2004). Valdez et al. (2000) generated a useful

3-phase technology framework to guide technology use for learning. Phase 1 uses technology for

instruction on computers, i.e. computerized textbooks with self-contained lessons. From research,

they conclude that the most appropriate Phase 1 use is when teacher content knowledge and skills are

low and when students need remediation. Phase 2 uses technology to expand learning opportunities,

enhance communication and assist teachers (e.g., lesson planning). Based on research studies,

Valdez et al (2000) conclude that student achievement can be improved by instructional technology

use in all subject areas, at all levels for all students, including those with special needs. in Phase

iii, both students and teachers use technology to make data-driven decisions that enhance teaching

and learning. Valdez et al (2000) note the following factors to be important for technology to be most

effectively used in schools: (1) technology-related Pd for teachers is essential; (2) software design &

instructional methods should align with learning goals; (3) research indicates at least one computer for

every 4 or 5 students is necessary for significant impact; and (4) Computers should be connected to the

internet and in classrooms rather than only in difficult-to-access libraries or computer labs.



ChanGe element #10.

evaluate for Continuous improvement

as described in Change element #1, Systematic Planning for School Improvement, Pearson’s steP model

includes the creation of an evaluation Plan that is aligned with the customized theory of action and

implementation Plan for each school. Program evaluation is not added on after the solution has been

underway and stakeholders are curious about results. Building evaluation into the steP model from

the start, during the planning process, can save valuable time and resources by identifying up front the

kind of information that is needed for monitoring implementation, providing feedback to stakeholders

regarding progress, identifying the need for a change of course in a timely manner, and documenting

short-, mid- and long-term outcomes. When evaluation data are collected from the start, program

implementation is monitored continuously, even during the start up phase which is often a difficult

period for instituting change. additionally, progress is monitored from the first day of implementation,

providing stakeholders with much needed information for making decisions about whether changes are

needed.


research suggests that for programs to be effective and sustainable, they must be flexible and

adaptable to local needs (Century, 2009). to accomplish this, programs must be monitored against

benchmarks, timelines and expected outcomes. as programs are implemented, outcome measures

enhance program success by assessing progress from the beginning and all along the way, making it

possible to address problems early on (W.k. kellogg Foundation, 2004).

the kellogg Foundation reports that grant applications frequently lack solid descriptions of how

programs will demonstrate their effectiveness (W.k. kellogg Foundation, 2004). they note that often,

program planners think activities are ends unto themselves, reporting numbers served or numbers of

training sessions held as if those were results. Yet conducting an activity is not the same as achieving

results from implementing that activity. specifying program benchmarks during program design builds

in ways to gather the data required and allows us to regularly assess progress toward identified goals.

the outcomes comprising intended results provide an outline of what is most important to monitor and

gauge to determine program effectiveness.

additionally, in order to conclude that observed changes are associated with the steP model, it is

critical to document how and the extent to which the initiative is implemented. using a participatory

evaluation model in which the client is a key contributor to the design and implementation of the

evaluation, a collaborative plan for both a formative (implementation monitoring) and summative

(outcomes assessment) evaluation is developed. timelines, benchmarks, assessments and outcomes

are addressed as well as the data collection and analysis plan, and the plan for sharing results.



research assessing the value of program evaluation notes the following benefits: reduced programs

costs and/or dollars saved; increased productivity; and streamlined processes (us dept of energy,

2009). Patton (1997) summarizes the benefits of program evaluation, noting that it was born of two

lessons:

First, the realization that there is not enough money to do all the things that need

doing; and second, even if there were enough money, it takes more than money to solve

complex human and social problems. As not everything can be done, there must be a

basis for deciding which things are worth doing. Enter evaluation. (Patton, 1997, p. 11).



references

allen, r. (2002). Keeping kids in school. Education Update, 44 (8). retrieved at www.ascd.org/affiliates/articles/eu200212_allen.html

armstrong, dG, henson, kt, & savage, tV (2005). teaching today: an introduction to education, 7th edition. Boston: allyn & Bacon-merrill.

aronson, J., Zimmerman, J., & Carlos, l. (1998). improving student achievement by extending school: is it just a matter of time? West ed online research report, accessed at http://www.wested.org/cs/we/print/docs/we/timeandlearning/the_research.html

arriaza, G. (2004). making changes that stay made: school reform and community involvement. high school Journal, 87, 4, 10-25.

Bamburg, J. (1994). Raising expectations to improve student learning. oak Brook, il: north Central regional educational laboratory.

Berends, m., kirby, s. n., naftel, s., & mckelvey, C. (2001). implementation and performance in new american schools: three years into scale-up. (no. mr-1145). santa monica, Ca: rand Corporation

Bishop, J. (1989). motivating students to study-expectations, rewards, achievement.” nassP Bulletin (november 1989): 27-38.

Black, P. & William, d. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 1, 7-74.

Bliss, Jr, Firestone, Wa & richards, Ce (1991). Rethinking effective schools: Research and practice. Prentice hall, englewood Cliffs, nJ

Bonczar, tP & easton, JQ (1983). the effect of mastery learning on student achievement. eriC # ed238505. retrieved at http://www.eric.ed.gov

Borman, G.d., hewes, G.m., overman, l.t., & Brown, s. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: a meta-analysis. review of educational research, 73(2), 125-230.

Borman, Gd & dowling, nm (2008). teacher attrition and retention: a meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367-409.

Boston, C (2003). The Concept of Formative Assessment, eriC digest, ed470206, College Park, md.: eriC Clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation, 2002. online at http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/concept.htm

Bryant, d. P., Bryant, B. r., Gersten, r., scammacca, n., Funk, C., & Winter, a. (2008). the effects of tier 2 intervention on first-grade mathematics performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 47–63.



Bryant, d. P., smith, d. d., & Bryant, B. r. (2008). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms (1st ed.). Boston: allyn & Bacon.

Bryk, as, sebring, PB, allensworth, e, luppescu, s, & easton, JQ (2010). Organizing school for improvement: lessons from Chicago. Chicago, il: the university of Chicago Press.

Calkins, a., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & lash, d. (2007). the turnaround Challenge. report accessed at www.massinsight.org

Catsambis, s. (2001). expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education: Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149-177.

Center on education Policy (december, 2009). improving low Performing schools: lessons from Five Years of studying school restructuring under no Child left Behind. retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/

Century, J. (2009). the Vanishing innovation: Why ‘sustaining change’ must be important as ‘scaling up.’ Education Week, 29 (5), 22-23.

Christle, C. a., Jolivette, k., & nelson, C. m. (2007). school Characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 325-339.

Christman, JB, Brown, d., Burgess, s., kay, J., maluk, hP, & mitchell, C. (apr, 2009). effective organizational Practices for middle & high school Grades: a Qualitative study of What’s helping Philadelphia students succeed in Grades 6-12. accessed at: http://pdf.researchforaction.org/rfapdf/publication/pdf_file/555/Christman_J_effective_organizational_Practices_for_middle_and_high_school_Grades.pdf

Cross City Campaign for urban school reform (2005). a delicate balance: district policies and classroom practices. retrieved at www. crosscity.org

darling-hammond, l. 1999. Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. seattle: Center for the study of teaching and Policy.

darling-hammond, l., Chung Wei, r., andree, a., richardson, n., & orphanos, s. (2009). national staff development Council report, “Professional learning in the learning Profession.” accessed at http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/pdf/nsdc_profdev_short_report.pdf

datnow, a., Borman, G., & stringfield, s. (2000). school reform through a highly specified curriculum: a study of the implementation and effects of the Core knowledge sequence. elementary school Journal, 101, 167-192.

datnow, a., & stringfield, s. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of education for students Placed at risk, 5, 183-204.

deWit, d., mckee, C., Fjeld, J., karioja, k. (2003). the Critical role of school Culture in student success, Voices for Children newsletter, accessed at http://www.csgv.ca/counselor/assets/Critical%20role%20of%20school%20Culture%20in%20student%20success.pdf

downey, C.J., steffy, B.e., Poston, W.k., & english, F.W. (2009). 50 Ways to close the achievement gap, 3rd edition. thousand oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.



duke, d. (2004). the turnaround principal: high stakes leadership. Principal magazine, 84(1), 12-23.

elmore, r. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, d.C.: albert shanker institute.

english, FW & steffy, Be (2001). deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high stakes tests of educational accountability. scarecrow education, maryland.

Farmer, C. (2002). Creating a culture of high expectations: Voices from the field. retrieved from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/voices/1qtr2002/highexpect.shtml

Frase, le, english, FW, & Poston, Wk (2000). the curriculum management audit: improving school quality. lanham, md: rowman & littlefield Publishers.

Fuchs, ls, Fuchs, d & tindal, G (1986). effects of mastery learning Procedures on student achievement, Journal of educational research, 79(5), 286-91.

Galloway, h. (1995). Job-embedded professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 16.

Gentile, Jr, & lalley, J. (2003). Standards and mastery learning: Aligning teaching and assessment so all children can learn. thousand oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.

Goldenberg, C. (2004). Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching and learning. new York: teachers College Press.

Guskey, t., & Gates, s. (1986). synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 73-80.

Guskey, t., & Pigott, t. (1988). research on group-based mastery learning programs: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 81(4), 197-216.

hall, Ge, & hord, sm. (2000). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: allyn & Bacon.

hanushek, ea (1992). the trade-off Between Child Quantity and Quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100 (1), 84-117.

Joyce, B. & showers, B. (1995). student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. 2nd ed, White Plains, n.Y.: longman.

kulik, C., kulik, J., & Bangert-drowns, r. (1990). effectiveness of mastery learning programs: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265-306.

learning Point associates (2004). Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts: A compilation of knowledge from data retreats and data use at Learning Point Associates. naperville, il: learning Point associates.

lipsey, m.W. (1990). theory as method: small theories of treatments. in Research and Methodology: Strengthening Causal Interpretations of Nonexperimental Data, ed. l. sechrest, e. Perrin, & J. Bunker, eds. Washington, d.C.: u.s. dept. of health & human services.



louisiana department of education (2006). louisiana department of education Best Practices. retrieved from http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/12418.pdf

maddux, C. & Cummings, r. (2004). Fad, fashion, and the weak role of theory and research in information technology in education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 511-533.

marsh, Ja, Pane, JF, & hamilton, ls (2006). making sense of data-driven decision making in education: evidence from recent rand research. occasional papers series, document no. oP-170-edu. retrieved at http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2006/rand_oP170.pdf

marzano, r. J., Waters, t., & mcnulty, B. (2005). school leadership that works: From research to results alexandria, Va: association for supervision and Curriculum development.

matsumara, l.C., Garnier, h., Junker, B., resnick, l., & diPrima Bickel, d. (2008). the influence of Content-Focused Coaching® on reading Comprehension instruction and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the society for research on educational effectiveness (sree).

mcdougall, d., saunders, Wm., & Goldenberg, C. (2007). inside the Black Box of school reform: explaining the how and Why of Change at “Getting results” schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1), 51-89.

mcneal, r.B., Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-144.

miller, r. (2001). Greater expectations to improve student achievement: Panel report. retrieved from http://www.greaterexpectations.org/briefing_papers/improvestudentlearning.html

nCme (2005). national Council on measurement in education newsletter, Vol. 13, no. 3, september.

new leaders for new schools (2009). Principal effectiveness: a new Principalship to drive student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and school turnarounds. retrieved from http://www.nlns.org/documents/uef/princpal_effectiveness_executive_summary_nlns.pdf

nye, B., konstantopoulos, s., & hedges, l. (2004). how large are teacher effects? educational evaluation and Policy analysis, 26(3), 237-257.

ou, s.-r., & reynolds, a. J. (2008). Predictors of educational attainment in the Chicago longitudinal study. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 199-229.

Patton, mQ. (1997). utilization-focused evaluation: the new Century text, 3rd edition. Beverly hills, Ca: sage.

Qisa (2009a). improving drop out statistics through the 8 Conditions Framework, accessed at www.qisa.org .

Qisa (2009b). using the myVoicetm survey as a tool to improve student aspirations, accessed at www.qisa.org .

raffini, J. (1993). Winners without losers: structures and strategies for increasing student motivation to learn. needham heights, massachusetts: allyn and Bacon.



reynolds, Gm (2004). education Policy: using technology in education. learning Point associates nCrel Viewpoints Vol. 12. accessed at http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/vp12/essay.htm

rivkin, sG, hanushek, ea, & kain, JF (2005). teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73 (2), 417-458.

sanders, W., & rivers, J. (1996, november) Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement. knoxville, tn.: university of tennessee Value-added research and assessment Center.

sedl (1990). realizing school improvement through understanding the change process. Issues... about Change, Vol. 1, no. 1, accessed at http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues11.html

sheldon, s. B., & epstein, J. l. (2002). improving student behavior and discipline with family and community involvement. Education in Urban Society, 35(1), 4-26.

siFa (2006). the issue: data interoperability in pk-12 schools applications. the schools interoperability Framework association. accessed at http://www.sifinfo.org/us/upload/press/532964_interoperability%20and%20pk12.pdf

simon, B. s. (2004). high school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185-209.

supovitz, J.a. & klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. university of Pennsylvania, Graduate school of education: Center on reinventing Public education.

supovitz, J. (2007). Why we need district-based reform: supporting systemwide instructional improvement. Education Week, 27 (13), 27-28.

us department of energy (2009). Value of Program evaluation Case studies series. retrieved at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/chapeau-final.pdf

Valdez, G., mcnabb, m., Foertsch, m., anderson, m., hawkes, m., & raack, l. (2000). Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations (rev. ed.). oak Brook, il: north Central regional educational laboratory. accessed at http://www.ncrel.org/tplan/cbtl/toc.htm

Viadero, d. (2010). scholars identify 5 keys to urban school success. Education Weekly, 29 (19), pp. 1 & 9.

Weiss, ir, & Pasley, Jd (2006). scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional development: insights from the local systemic change initiative. Consortium for Policy research in Education Research Brief (march), 5-6.

W.k. kellogg Foundation (2004). using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation and action: logic model development guide. retrieved at www.wkkf.org

Woolfolk hoy, a. W., & hoy, W. k. (2009). Instructional leadership: A research-based guide to learning in schools (3rd

ed.). Boston: allyn & Bacon.



Flexible allocation for support tools

one size does not fit all, and nowhere is that more true than in what’s needed to help persistently under-

achieving schools.

Within our steP school improvement model is a Flexible allocation for support tools (Fast) which

enables the collaborative selection and introduction of tools and resources to meet needs as they

are uncovered during each year of the engagement. it allows access to Pearson’s resources in all

areas, including assessment, intervention, rti, Professional development, english learner supports,

technology tools and instructional resources, as well as content resources in all subject areas.

The FAST program:

• is responsive to each school’s diagnostic findings and our on-the-ground experience with the

school.

• is designed to support each school’s unique needs as they improve through the

implementation plan

• does not replace what’s working in the school, but rather supports and enhances existing

effective resources

• introduces new resources in coherent way at the right time with right support for maximum

impact on student learning

• ensures teachers and students have the resources to succeed, configured for their needs and

integrated into the overall improvement system without additional budgeting requirements

• enables access to world-class products and professional development services from Pearson,

the leader in education leader in products, services and technology.

the Fast is part of Pearson’s core implementation model, and has the advantage of allowing predictable

budgeting and preferred pricing on Pearson programs.

a summary of selected examples of the resources available as part of the Fast program are described in

the following table.


Product & Service Overview Grade Content CoverageSpecial Student

PopulationsRTI

Pk k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ellspecial

ed

students well below grade

level

tier 1

tier 2

tier 3

Supplemental - Print Delivery

amP math system ©2009 math intervention for 6-12

amP reading system ©2006 reading intervention for 6-12

dra2 ©2005 diagnostic reading assessment

dra leveled libraries (multiple ©) leveled readers for k-3

evaluacion del desarrollo de la lectura (edl2) ©2005

diagnostic reading assessment - spanish version

focusmath intensive math intervention

Gmade, Group mathematics assessment & diagnostic evaluation

in a norm-referenced, group-administered diagnostic mathemathics assessment that provides both individual and group results

Good habits, Great readers ©2007 Balanced literacy curriculum

Grade, Group reading assessment & diagnostic evaluation

in a norm-referenced, group-administered diagnostic reading assesment

keymath-3 diagnostic assessment mathematical concepts & skills

keymath-3 essential resources math intervention program

language Central intervention for ell in 6-10

mysidewalks early reading intervention ©2008

early reading intervention for k

my sidewalks intensive reading intervention ©2008

intensive reading intervention for 1-5

the reader’s Journey ©2009 novel-based language arts program

Qreads ©2008 Fluency intervention for 6-12

Quick reads ©2002 Fluency intervention for 2-6

reading street ©2008 - leveled readers

leveled readers for k-6

reality Central nonfiction anthology for 6-8

Words their Way ©2005 Word study

Words their Way ell ©2009 Word study for ell

Supplemental - Digital Delivery

aimsWeb Benchmark and progress monitoring

ellis essentials english language acquistion software

ellis academic english language acquistion software

enVision math ©2009 - Premium digital Path

digital core math instruction

mathXl online practice for math

novanet Comprehensive online courseware

successmaker k-8 intervention software

Waterford early learning Program Prek-2 intervention software

Writetolearn online essay-writing practice

Professional Development

teacher assessment & Coaching suite of services

Customizable coaching and assessment tool that delivers a personalized learning plan for teachers’ professional development

assessment for learning suite of services

trains teachers to monitor student progress frequently and closely, to motivate students to become more involved in their own learning, and to adapt instructional methods and sequences to better serve student needs and curricular goals

learning teams suite of services

evidence-based, collaborative instruction model that brings together teachers to learn from each other, renew their skills to improve student performance and self-assess their progress

sioP (sheltered instruction observation Protocol) suite of services

helps teachers use “sheltered instruction” to teach subjects such as math, science or social studies in a way that makes the concepts easier to understand, while at the same time strengthening a student’s academic english language development

Content area Professional learning: literacy, mathematics, science, social science

developmentally staged programs guide educators in using student-centered teaching practices to improve understanding in mathematics and literacy from foundations through high level concepts

response to intervention (rti) suite of services

helps educators and administrators understand how to use instructional practices to enhance intervention and gain an understanding of research-based intervention, necessary assessment and progress monitoring methods and strategies for working in productive rti teams

Professional development evaluation suite of services

helps school districts measure the impact of professional development initiatives and provide critical insights to guide decisions about follow-up training and support

pearson’s k-12 solutions school turnaround education

Documents