Description
School Turnaround Models Emerging Turnaround Strategies And Results June 2010
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
School Turnaround Models
Emerging Turnaround Strategies and Results
June 2010
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
This report represents an extension of Mass Insight’s research on school turnaround. It focuses on emerging
examples of effective school turnaround from the field, both at the district and partner levels. The following
summaries explain core components of each turnaround initiative and point to early indicators of success.
Turnaround is a relatively new field that emphasizes dramatic and comprehensive interventions for chronically
low-performing schools. This report highlights promising turnaround models from the field. These examples
represent diverse approaches; however, they share an alignment with Mass Insight’s principles for effective
school turnaround. These models serve as a resource for those entering the field and should inform policy in
this area. As the field continues to deepen, we will learn more about promising turnaround efforts and their
impact on student achievement.
Mass Insight continues to lead research and development efforts in the turnaround sector. Our education
reform strategies are defined by two convictions: that change at scale depends on the practical integration of
research, policy, and practice; and that only dramatic and comprehensive change in high-poverty schools will
produce significant achievement gains. In line with these beliefs, we focus our work on a number of core
activities, including the development of cutting edge, research-based toolkits, communication of both our
principles and strategies to key stakeholders, and support for states and districts in designing and implementing
dramatic reform strategies.
The culmination of our research is the launch of the Partnership Zone Initiative, a national effort to implement
proof points of our Partnership Zone framework in six states over the next several years. This work is funded by
an initial grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, with a partial match from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• Introduction and summary of school
turnaround models
• Turnaround models: Districts
• Turnaround models: Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• The following profiles describe (1) how these initiatives are structured, (2) who is involved, and
(3) what strategies are used to affect school-wide improvement.
• School turnaround is a dramatic and comprehensive intervention in low-performing schools that:
a) produces significant gains in achievement within two years; and
b) readies the school for the longer process of transformation into a high-performance
organization.
Introduction: About this research
• The purpose of this research is to highlight promising school turnaround models, both
implemented by school districts and partnership organizations. This analysis summarizes the
following models:
4
Urban Districts
1) Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
2) New Orleans RSD, LA
3) Chicago, IL
4) New York City, NY
5) Baltimore, MD
6) Los Angeles, CA
1) AUSL
2) Green Dot
3) Mastery Schools
4) Friends of Bedford, Inc.
Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
A timeline of school turnaround policy and practice
5
Turnaround is a relatively new approach to education reform; therefore, many of the models
profiled in this report are just now beginning to collect efficacy data. It is important to consider
the context of school turnaround as an emerging field.
2004 2007 2010
2010- The School Turnaround
Group launches the
Partnership Zone Initiative to
provide proof points for The
Turnaround Challenge
2004- Chicago Public Schools
opens the Office of School
Turnaround and launches
Renaissance 2010 to fix
failing schools
2005- AUSL and Mastery
Schools enter the turnaround
space and contract with
school districts to turn around
underperforming schools
2006- Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools launches the
Achievement Zone, which
creates a turnaround zone
within the school district
2009- The USDOE announces
$3.5B in School Improvement
Grants (SIG) to turn around
the nation’s lowest
performing schools
2002- No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) requires schools to
demonstrate adequate yearly
progress (AYP) and creates
tiered sanctions
2007- Mass Insight releases
The Turnaround Challenge,
which Sec. of Education Arne
Duncan recently hailed as the
“bible” of school turnaround
…and in Practice.
In Policy...
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Many turnaround models align with the Partnership Zone
structure
6
Many of the turnaround models outlined in this report share the same principles as Mass Insight’s
framework for Partnership Zones.
Partnership Zones with
flexible operating
conditions
• Supported by state policy and
State Turnaround Office
• Flexibility to make decisions and
establish model systems for
people, time, money, school
programs
School Cluster
Supporting Partners
Lead Partner
State District
Lead Partners working with
districts to support clusters
of 3-5 schools
• New-model partner with
accountability for student
achievement and responsibility to
support school staffing
• Lead Partner aligns the work of all
outside programs and partners
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• Introduction and summary of school
turnaround models
• Turnaround models: Districts
• Turnaround models: Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Three factors for successful turnaround are
conditions, capacity, and clustering
8
The School Turnaround Group has identified three factors for successful school turnaround. The 3 C’s
include: conditions, capacity, and clustering.
What’s needed to enable schools and districts to address the challenges of
chronically underperforming schools?
Conditions
Change the rules and incentives governing
people, time, money, & program
ZONES
Capacity
Build turnaround resources and human
capacity in schools within the zone through
Lead Partners and sufficient funding
PARTNERSHIPS
Clustering
To get to scale, organize clusters of schools
within the zone intentionally and
systematically
CLUSTERS OF
SCHOOLS
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Summary: Lessons learned and promising practices
• Emphasis on human capital
• Employment of a Lead
Partner
• Ongoing professional
development opportunities
• Strong school leadership,
specific to turnaround
• Use of additional partners
and collaborators
9
• Increased autonomy and
flexibility for schools
• Additional resources and
funding
• Emphasis on quality
curricula, instruction, and
use of assessment data
• Streamlined compliance
burden/increased regulatory
freedom
• Adoption of a zone-like
structure for a subset of
schools
• Identification of and focus
on low-performing schools
• Leveraging scale benefits
across schools
• Increased affiliation and
collaboration across a subset
of schools
Capacity Conditions Clustering
The models in this report inform promising practices for successful school turnaround, which
align with the School Turnaround Group’s turnaround principles in the areas of capacity,
conditions, and clustering.
KEY STRATEGIES
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
School turnaround models: Districts
New Orleans,
LA
New York City,
NY
Los Angeles,
CA
Chicago, IL
Charlotte-
Mecklenburg,
NC
Baltimore, MD
Several school districts have transformed and significantly improved educational outcomes
through turnaround initiatives.
10
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Comparison and alignment
11
Models Capacity Conditions Clustering
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
Achievement Zone
New Orleans, LA
Recovery School District
Chicago, IL
Renaissance 2010
NewYork, NY
Chancellor’s District
Baltimore, MD
Innovation Schools
Los Angeles, CA
iDesign Schools
The following chart compares each of the district models and demonstrates their
alignment with the School Turnaround Group’s principles for effective turnaround.
(Sources provided on pg. 28)
* This representation do not necessarily signify the effectiveness of the model; rather, it demonstrate alignment with the strategies and conditions
espoused by the School Turnaround Group.
Significant alignment
Partial alignment
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Achievement Zone,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
• In 2006, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) identified that one-third of the district’s 165 schools were performing far
below other schools. That year, the district established the Achievement Zone to target its lowest-performing schools.
• The Zone represents a non-geographically determined cluster of 11 schools that are selected by the state or are in need of
corrective action under NCLB guidelines. District and zone superintendents then make decisions about transitioning schools in
and out of the Zone. The objective is to improve schools and then transfer them out of the Zone.
• A separate administrative team manages and supports Zone schools.
• These schools receive additional resources in the areas of curriculum and instruction, professional development, discipline,
communications and partnerships, human resources, transportation, and maintenance.
• In 2008-09, CMS launched the Strategic Staffing Initiative (SSI). SSI targets a separate subset of schools with interventions
specifically pertaining to staffing.
• CMS identifies a strong principal to lead the efforts in these underperforming schools.
• The principal then works with a team identify top staff in the district. They recruit those teachers to work in the district’s most
struggling school by offering financial and professional incentives.
• Since its inception three years ago, all Achievement Zone schools have
experienced gains on both reading and math assessments.
• 91% of Zone middle schools met AYP in 2008-09, up from 61% in 2007-08.
• In 2008-09, 68% of student at West Charlotte High School were on grade
level, up from 40% in 2005-06. During that same timeframe, West
Mecklenburg HS saw an increase of 25%, and E.E. Waddell experienced an
increase of 11%.
• CMS is a finalist for the 2010 Broad Prize.
Background & Strategies
Results
(Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use of
partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy; additional
resources; emphasis on curricula,
instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Adoption of a zone-like
structure; identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
12
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Recovery School District,
New Orleans, LA
• The Recovery Schools District (RSD) was launched in 2003 as a special, statewide district run by the Louisiana Department of
Education. The RSD marks an effort to turn around and rebuild underperforming schools in New Orleans, a problem
exacerbated by Hurricane Katrina.
• Schools failing to meet state standards for four consecutive years become eligible for state intervention in the RSD.
• The local school district enters into a memorandum of understanding with the state, which outlines how the local entity must
implement reforms in order to avoid placement in the RSD.
• 112 schools have been in the RSD; this includes both traditional public and charter schools. Schools remain in the RSD for a
minimum of five years.
• School improvement strategies include: (1) extended school day to allow for more instructional time, (2) rigorous curriculum
aligned with grade-level standards, (3) classroom modernization program with technology improvements, (4) strong
leadership by State and RSD superintendents, (5) greater flexibility for principals, (6) partnerships with external
organizations, such as TFA and TNTP, (7) five-block high school schedule, (8) dual-enrollment opportunities for upperclassmen.
• For three consecutive years, RSD students showed greater gains on state
standardized tests than students statewide. Most recently, in 2009-10,
RSD scores increased by 6%, versus 1% statewide.
• The passing rate for first-time 4
th
grade test-takers on the LEAP exam
increased from 36% in 2007 to 58% in 2009.
• The passing rate for first-time 8
th
grade test-takers on the LEAP exam
increased from 32% in 2007 to 50% in 2009.
• Total instructional time in 2008-2009 equaled 76,170 minutes (8 AM – 4:30
PM daily) versus the state requirement of 63,720 minutes.
• Student enrollment surged after experiencing a marked decline post-
Katrina.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Use of partners; strong school
leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy; additional
resources; emphasis on curricula,
instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
Background & Strategies
Results
13 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Renaissance 2010,
Chicago, IL
• In 2004, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) launched a two-part reform initiative known as Renaissance 2010. CPS committed to (1)
opening 100 new charter schools and (2) improving the city’s worst-performing schools through a turnaround strategy.
• First, the Office of New Schools requests proposals for new charter schools. This process focuses on the school model,
curriculum, and hiring.
• Second, the Office of School Turnaround works with existing, troubled schools. They select a new principal, hire new staff,
develop programs, engage partners, and create opportunities for professional development and parent engagement.
• Turnaround schools follow a phased approach in their redesign. During this process, the school receives additional resources,
staff members, and external support.
• CPS launched the Office of School Turnaround in 2008. They identified their first turnaround high school in 2008. Currently,
the district has six turnaround schools.
• The overall reform strategy is governed by several principles: (1) a core curriculum, (2) extended learning time, (3) after-school
tutoring, (4) professional development, (5) staff incentives, and (6) community outreach.
• CPS notes early improvements in the areas of discipline, school safety,
and the school environment. The first phase of the improvement effort
targets school climate, family engagement, and school stabilization, as
opposed to academic gains.
• In their first year, turnaround schools see fewer instances of serious
misconduct, and attendance and PSAE scores increase. The rate of
students on-track to graduate grows incrementally.
• The department acknowledges that turnaround takes five to six years.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use of
partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy; additional
resources; emphasis on curricula,
instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Adoption of a zone-like
structure; identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
Background & Strategies
Results
14 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Chancellor’s District,
New York, NY (1996-2003)
• In 1996, New York City Department of Education Chancellor Rudolph Crew created a citywide improvement zone known as the
Chancellor’s District. This non-geographically determined zone was created to accelerate improvement in the city’s lowest-
performing schools.
• At the time, City schools were managed by local community school districts. By contrast, schools in the Chancellor’s District
would become centrally managed.
• The seven-year initiative marked an unprecedented intervention. In total, the zone removed 58 elementary and middle
schools from local district control. Several of these schools were eventually closed; however, most improved and were
returned to their local district.
• Under new leadership, these schools then received concentrated interventions. Centralized management allowed the schools
to initiate changes to school policies and procedures.
• Chancellor’s District schools implemented the Model for Excellence. Class sizes were reduced, instructional time increased,
and the school calendar was lengthened. District schools implemented after-school programs and followed a prescribed
curriculum and instructional program. The transformation also focused on building internal capacity through intensive
professional development and on-site staff developers. Ineffective teachers were removed from the District.
• The Chancellor’s District was established to increase academic outcomes
and instructional capacity in failing schools.
• A study by New York University’s Institute for Education and Social Policy
found that District schools saw more significant improvements than other
struggling schools citywide.
• The percentage of 4
th
grade students meeting statewide reading standards
increased by approximately 18% in District schools.
• The initiative ended in 2003 when the school district underwent system-
wide restructuring.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use
of partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Additional resources; emphasis
on curricula, instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Adoption of a zone-like
structure; identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
Background & Strategies
Results
15 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Innovation Schools,
Baltimore, MD
• In 2001, Baltimore City Public School Systems (BCPSS) announced a five-year initiative to reform the city’s high schools.
• This included plans to open eight innovation high schools and to create neighborhood schools by converting all of the city’s
large high schools into small learning communities with increased autonomy.
• These schools were to embody three central principles: (1) strong academic rigor, (2) small supportive structures, and (3)
effective, accountable instruction and leadership.
• Innovation schools were launched by or with external partners. They received significant autonomy in terms of staffing,
selecting and implementing curriculum, and allocating resources. Whereas neighborhood schools are filled based on
geographic boundaries, innovation schools are filled based on student interest.
• Most recently, BCPSS announced plans to open transformation schools. They began with an RFP process in 2009-10 to identify
potential school management organizations. The district plans to open 24 schools by 2011-12. Transformation schools will be
small schools serving grades 6 to 12.
• Students in innovation high schools scored between 14 and 30 points
higher on HSA algebra and English tests.
• Innovations schools’ attendance rates were up to 22% higher than the
citywide average.
• Students in innovation and neighborhood schools were more likely stay
enrolled in their initial high school than students at other city schools.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use
of partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy;
additional resources; emphasis on
curricula, instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Identification of low-performing
schools
Background & Strategies
Results
16 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: iDesign Schools,
Los Angeles, CA
• LAUSD launched the Public School Choice Initiative in 2009. The district is exploring new school models to enhance
educational opportunities, including charter, iDesign (partner-managed), and magnet schools.
• The iDesign Schools, Innovation, and Charter Schools Division at LAUSD selects, screens, and approves network partners to
work with the district’s schools.
• iDesign schools have increased decision-making authority over the curriculum, instructional strategies, professional
development, hiring, schools budgets, scheduling, and school programs. The change strategy hinges upon decentralized,
school-based decisions.
• Network partners sign a five-year contract with LAUSD, which confers autonomy and accountability. The district currently
works with four partners that work with a total of 19 schools.
• The district hopes that successful strategies from the iDesign schools will eventually inform district-wide practices.
• Charter school operators, nonprofit organizations, and teacher unions were encouraged to submit bids to operate up to 36
schools in a plan that allows outsiders to manage public schools. The first cohort of schools includes 24 new schools and 12
turnaround schools.
• LAUSD has a robust performance management system for its iDesign
schools, which includes: (1) defining excellence, (2) tracking progress and
creating transparency, (3) making informed decisions, and (4) establishing
recognition and consequences.
• Two schools managed by Mentor Los Angeles (MLA) have posted
significant gains in graduations rates and on the state’s Academic
Performance Index. West Adams Prep’s average API score increased by 31
points in 2009, and Manual Arts HS’s score increased by 22 points.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use
of partners; ongoing PD
? Conditions: Increased autonomy;
additional resources; emphasis on
curricula, instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Identification of low-performing
schools
Background & Strategies
Results
17 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Initiatives to watch…
…In Detroit, MI, the Greater Detroit Venture Fund was established to incentivize school improvement. The
Fund will provide resources to support high school turnaround, which will be facilitated by partnerships with
education intermediaries. The effort will target schools with consistently low graduation rates.
…In Kentucky, the Department of Education recently launched a statewide initiative to turn around 10 schools.
The identified schools have failed to make adequate yearly progress for three consecutive years, during
which time their graduation rates were also less than 60%.
…In Washington, D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee has contracted with outside partners to turn around some
of the city’s poorest-performing schools. Most recently, the city’s revised teachers’ contract includes plans
for new school turnaround models.
…In Mississippi, Mississippi State University launched the Turnaround Leadership Academy. This program,
modeled after a similar program at the University of Virginia, will train educators for successful turnaround.
…In Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, and Louisiana, states will collaborate with local Lead
Partners as part of Mass Insight’s Partnership Zone Initiative. These states will serve as proof points for
successful school turnaround.
18
Given the recent and unprecedented level of support and funding for school turnaround efforts,
several states and districts have just recently started to develop turnaround initiatives…
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• Introduction and summary of school
turnaround models
• Turnaround models: Districts
• Turnaround models: Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Alignment with the
role of the Lead Partner
20
• Sign a 3-5 year performance contract for student achievement with the district or state; the
agreement assigns the Lead Partner responsibility for a small “intentional” cluster of schools
1
where
systems and programs will be aligned and holds the Lead Partner accountable for improving the
student achievement
• Assume authority for decision making on school staffing (as well as time, money and program); in
particular, the Lead Partner:
• Hires a new principal or approves the current one
• Supports the principal in hiring and replacing teachers and has responsibility for bringing in a
meaningful cohort of new instructional staff
• Provide core academic and student support services directly or align the services of other program
and support partners, who are on sub-contracts with the Lead Partner, and build internal capacity
within the schools and by extension, the district
• Has an embedded, consistent and intense relationship with each school during the turnaround
period (5 days per week)
In many ways, the following partnership models mirror the role of the Lead Partner in Mass
Insight’s Partnership Zone Initiative. Lead Partners are nonprofit organizations or units of central
offices on contract with the central office or states for small clusters of 3-5 schools.
Responsibilities of the a Lead Partners
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Summary: Lessons learned and promising practices
• Contract between
Lead Partner and
LEA/SEA
• Lead Partner
accountability for
student
performance
21
• Modified collective
bargaining
agreement
• Ability to hire
principal
• Budget authority
• Program authority
• Time authority
• Presence in
schools five days a
week
Accountability for
student achievement
Authority over key
levers
Provider/
coordinator of all
services
The following models inform promising practices for successful school turnaround with a partnership
organization. These examples align with Mass Insight’s Lead Partner framework, which details the
roles and responsibilities for a partnership strategy.
KEY STRATEGIES
Embedded,
consistent
relationship
• Provision of all
core services
• Management of
supporting
partners
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
AUSL
School turnaround models: Partnerships
Green Dot
Several local education agencies and charter management organizations have partnered with school
districts to transform and significantly improve educational outcomes through turnaround initiatives.
Mastery
Schools
Friends of
Bedford, Inc.
22
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Comparison and alignment
23 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Models Accountability for
student
achievement
Authority over
key levers
Provider/
coordinator of
all services
Embedded,
consistent
relationship
AUSL
Green Dot
Mastery Schools
Friends of Bedford, Inc.
The following chart compares each of the lead partnership models and
demonstrates their alignment with the School Turnaround Group’s structure
for partnerships, which emphasizes authority and accountability.
* This representation do not necessarily signify the effectiveness of the model; rather, it demonstrate alignment with the strategies and conditions espoused by the
School Turnaround Group.
Significant alignment
Partial alignment
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Academy for Urban School Leadership
• AUSL was founded in 2001 as an education reform nonprofit specializing in school management and teacher preparation.
• Since 2005, AUSL has also worked closely with Chicago Public Schools to turn around low-performing schools.
• AUSL’s first turnaround school was in 2006, followed by a second in 2007, three more in 2008, three more in 2009, and four
more in 2010.
• AUSL currently works with 18 schools, and six of those schools also serve as AUSL teacher training academies.
• The AUSL turnaround model includes: (1) replacing the principal, (2) replacing up to 50% of the staff (with many from AUSL’s
training program), (3) revamping the curriculum, and (4) renewing school culture.
• AUSL’s turnaround framework is summarized by the acronym PASSAGE: Positive school culture, Action against adversity, Setting
goals and getting it done, Shared responsibility for achievement, Guaranteed and viable curriculum, and Engaging and
personalized instruction.
• AUSL operates within the context of district compliance and has a unionized staff.
• Four AUSL schools –Morton, Howe, Johnson, and Bethune– are among the
top 5% of the fastest-improving schools in Chicago.
• Howe School of Excellence has increased the number of students meeting
or exceeding ISAT standards by 24% during just two years of turnaround.
• AUSL schools have increased the number of students meeting or exceeding
ISAT standards pre- and post-turnaround by an average of 20 percent.
• Dodge Renaissance Academy has quadrupled the percent of students
meeting or exceeding ISAT standards in seven years (22% to 82%).
• AUSL’s teacher retention rate is over 87%, compared to the national
average of 50% for new teachers.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers: Somewhat
constrained by district and teacher
union compliance
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
Background & Strategies
Results
24 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Green Dot
• Green Dot Public Schools is a charter management organization that has opened 19 charter schools in the Los Angeles area.
• In addition to opening charter schools, Green Dot has begun to support public school turnaround. In 2007, staff at Locke High
School voted to transfer school governance from LAUSD to Green Dot.
• Green Dot describes successful turnaround as having a phase-in-by-grade model, an alternative governance structure that
features autonomy and flexibility from district policies, and a performance-based accountability system.
• The Locke Transformation Project represents a major restructuring. The school was divided into eight small learning
communities, and teachers began to emphasize personalized instruction and high expectations. All students enroll in a college
preparatory curriculum. All schools operate according to the organization’s six tenants of high-performing schools: (1) small,
safe, personalized schools, (2) high expectations for all students, (3) local control with extensive professional development and
accountability, (4) parent participation, (5) maximize school funding to the classroom, and (6) keep schools open later.
• Green Dot has full human resources autonomy, meaning that they have authority over staffing. However, Green Dot’s
teachers have organized as an independent union. Green Dot has created mutual trust with the union; teachers receive
above-average pay but cannot earn tenure, and they are expected to work a professional day (not defined by minutes).
• In 2006, prior to Green Dot’s intervention, only 5% of Locke’s students
attended four-year colleges.
• In 2007, only 28% of entering freshman graduated within four years. That
same year, only 10.5% of schools achieved proficiency in English, and 1.6%
in math.
• Within one year, Green Dot affected major change at Locke. By spring
2009, the school had retained about 500 more students than the
previous year and had tested 38% more students.
• Attendance increased by over 10%. Students and parents report feeling
safer and more supported.
Background & Strategies
Results
25 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Mastery Schools
• Mastery Schools is a charter management organization that works with middle and high schools, using the motto “Excellence.
No excuses.” The organization moved into the turnaround space in 2005.
• Mastery currently operates four schools in Philadelphia. These schools enroll 2,100 students in grades 7 to 12. Three of the
four schools are classified as turnaround schools as opposed to charter schools. These three schools represent a
partnership with the Philadelphia School District to improve several of the district’s lowest-performing schools.
• The turnaround approach integrates solid management and effective educational strategies. Successful turnaround requires
high expectations and high levels of support.
• Mastery emphasizes quality teaching; this includes: outstanding instruction, ongoing professional development, collaboration,
coaching, and feedback. Mastery does not abide by a union contract.
• Mastery schools use a common teaching model and standards-based curricula. These stress the importance of assessments
and using data to improve instruction. All students are expected to graduate having successfully completed the schools’
college-preparatory program.
• Under Mastery’s turnaround leadership, subject-area test scores have
increased an average of 52% in every grade.
• On the Thomas Campus, 56% of 11
th
grade students scored “proficient/
advanced” on the reading PSSA in 2009, up from 33% in 2005; 58% scored
“proficient/advanced” on the math PSSA in 2009, up from 37% in 2005.
• On the Shoemaker Campus, 84% of 8
th
grade students scored “proficient/
advanced” on the PSSA in 2009, compared to 43% in 2006.
• All turnaround schools have closed the achievement gap in 8
th
grade math,
and two have closed the gap in reading.
Background & Strategies
Results
26 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Friends of Bedford
• Friends of Bedford, Inc. is an education consulting firm that is committed to innovative instructional models; they are guided
by the motto: “Academic empowerment is the birthright of every child.”
• The organization is perhaps best known for its work at Bedford Academy High School, a public school in Brooklyn, New York.
The school recently ranked as one of the best in New York State.
• D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) recently entered into a partnership with the organization based on its track record of turning around
chronically underperforming schools in a short period of time.
• The organization is currently contracted by DCPS to turn around two schools: Calvin Coolidge High School and Paul Laurence
Dunbar High School. The organization assumed control of both schools in 2009.
• Friends of Bedford is working with the school district to improve attendance, AYP, and graduation rates.
• Their model includes an emphasis on instruction, content delivery, and preparation for tests determining AYP.
• At Paul Laurence Dunbar, the percent of students scoring proficient on the
reading portion of the DC-BAS test increased from 1.5% to 34.1% between
October 2009 and March 2010.
• During that same time period, math scores increased from 4.4% to 20.2%.
• Daily attendance increased by 8%.
• At Calvin Coolidge, the percent of students scoring proficient on the reading
portion of the DC-BAS test increased from 15.6% to 50.5% between October
2009 and March 2010.
• During that same time period, math scores increased from 33.3% to 39.4%.
• Daily attendance increased by 9%.
Background & Strategies
Results
27 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers: Somewhat
constrained by district and teacher
union compliance
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute 28
Sources
Page 12:
•Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. About Us. Web.
<http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/mediaroom/aboutus/Pages/FactSheets.aspx>.
•Christiansen, Barbara and Jonathan Travers. School Turnaround at the System
Level. Aspen Institute, Apr. 2010. Web.
<http://www.aspeninstitute.org/news/2010/04/20/school-turnaround-system-
level>.
Page 13:
•Recovery School District. Frequently Asked Questions. Louisiana Department of
Education. Web. <http://www.rsdla.net/InfoGlance/FAQs.aspx>.
•American Youth Policy Forum. School Turnaround in New Orleans. Web.
<http://www.aypf.org/documents/051409BackgroundSummary-
SchoolTurnaround.pdf>.
•Recovery School District. Test Score Gains Continue in Recovery School District.
May 26, 2010. Web. < http://www.rsdla.net/Media/PressRelease.aspx?PR=1427 >.
Page 14:
•American Youth Policy Forum. School Improvement and School Turnaround. Dec.
2008. Web. <http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2008/fb120508.htm>.
•Chicago Public Schools Office of School Turanround. CPS Turanround Model. Web.
http://www.cpsturnaround.org/
Page 15:
•Herszenhorn, David M. “A Special Schools District is Gone, but a Study Cites its
Benefits.” New York Times 7 July 2004. Web.
Page 16:
•Cohen, Jennifer and Becky Smerdon. Baltimore City’s High School Reform Initiative.
Urban Institute, Dec. 2007 Web. <http://www.urban.org/publications/
411590.html>.
•Baltimore City Public Schools. Charter, Innovation, and Transformation Schools.
Web. <http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/School_Info/Charter_Schools.asp>.
Page 17:
•Llanos, Connie. Applicants Line Up to Bid in LAUSD School Choice Program.
16 Nov. 2009. Web. <http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_13800651>.
•Mentor L.A. Partner School Model. Web. <http://www.mlapartner
schools.org/>.
•iDesign Schools. Network Partners. Web. <http://www.idesignschools.org/>.
Page 24:
•AUSL. Turnaround Schools. Web. <http://www.ausl-chicago.org/>.
•Web. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/03/whats-possible-turning-around-
americas-lowest-achieving-schools/>.
•AUSL. Fact Sheet. Web. <www.ausl-chicago.org/media/AUSL-media-kit.pdf>.
Page 25:
•U.S. Department of Education. A Promise Kept, A School Renewed: Locke
High School’s Turn Around. Web. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/01/a-
promise-kept-a-school-renewed-locke-high-schools-turn-around/>.
•Hurley, Kelly and Ellen Lin. Turnaround Schools: The Locke Transformation
Project, A Model of Reform. Web. <www.senate.state.tx.us/
75r/senate/commit/.../0322-EllenLin-KellyHurley.pdf>.
•Green Dot. Schools. Web. <http://www.greendot.org/>.
Page 26:
•Mastery Charter Schools. Web. <http://www.masterycharter.org/>.
•U.S. Department of Education. What’s Possible: Turning Around America’s
Lowest-Achieving Schools. Web. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/03/whats-
possible-turning-around-americas-lowest-achieving-schools/>.
Page 27:
•Derrick Cerisier (personal communication, April 26, 2010).
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
The School Turnaround Group is a division of Mass Insight Education, an independent non-profit that
organizes public schools, higher education, business, and state government to significantly improve
student achievement, with a focus on closing achievement gaps.
For more information on how your state can employ these promising practices for school turnaround,
please contact the School Turnaround Group at:
The School Turnaround Group
Mass Insight Education
18 Tremont Street, Suite 930 • Boston, MA 02108 • 617-778-1500
[email protected]
Get involved
The School Turnaround Groups offers a broad range of strategic consulting services to state and district clients. This work
includes building organizational capacity through the development of state and district turnaround offices, securing more
flexible operating conditions, including through the development of modified collective bargaining agreements; attracting
and supporting Lead Partners through the development of Request for Proposal and Memorandum of Understanding tools;
and auditing state and district readiness to implement dramatic turnaround strategies.
In each of our engagements, we seek to deeply understand the needs of our client to offer highly customized solutions and
to develop lasting relationships to support the difficult work of school turnaround over the necessarily long time frame.
29
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Copyright © 2010 by the Mass Insight Education and Research Institute.
Permission granted to the original recipient to copy this document, or sections of this document, without
alteration or removal of this copyright notice, solely for non-commercial use with acknowledgement to the
copyright holder.
The presentation and related documents are the result of a research and development
process led by Mass Insight with the support of various partners.
It should be used in conjunction with the Main Report, “The Turnaround Challenge:
Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in
our worst performing schools,” and a variety of other resources we have developed
and distributed.
doc_555522854.pdf
School Turnaround Models Emerging Turnaround Strategies And Results June 2010
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
School Turnaround Models
Emerging Turnaround Strategies and Results
June 2010
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
This report represents an extension of Mass Insight’s research on school turnaround. It focuses on emerging
examples of effective school turnaround from the field, both at the district and partner levels. The following
summaries explain core components of each turnaround initiative and point to early indicators of success.
Turnaround is a relatively new field that emphasizes dramatic and comprehensive interventions for chronically
low-performing schools. This report highlights promising turnaround models from the field. These examples
represent diverse approaches; however, they share an alignment with Mass Insight’s principles for effective
school turnaround. These models serve as a resource for those entering the field and should inform policy in
this area. As the field continues to deepen, we will learn more about promising turnaround efforts and their
impact on student achievement.
Mass Insight continues to lead research and development efforts in the turnaround sector. Our education
reform strategies are defined by two convictions: that change at scale depends on the practical integration of
research, policy, and practice; and that only dramatic and comprehensive change in high-poverty schools will
produce significant achievement gains. In line with these beliefs, we focus our work on a number of core
activities, including the development of cutting edge, research-based toolkits, communication of both our
principles and strategies to key stakeholders, and support for states and districts in designing and implementing
dramatic reform strategies.
The culmination of our research is the launch of the Partnership Zone Initiative, a national effort to implement
proof points of our Partnership Zone framework in six states over the next several years. This work is funded by
an initial grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, with a partial match from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• Introduction and summary of school
turnaround models
• Turnaround models: Districts
• Turnaround models: Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• The following profiles describe (1) how these initiatives are structured, (2) who is involved, and
(3) what strategies are used to affect school-wide improvement.
• School turnaround is a dramatic and comprehensive intervention in low-performing schools that:
a) produces significant gains in achievement within two years; and
b) readies the school for the longer process of transformation into a high-performance
organization.
Introduction: About this research
• The purpose of this research is to highlight promising school turnaround models, both
implemented by school districts and partnership organizations. This analysis summarizes the
following models:
4
Urban Districts
1) Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
2) New Orleans RSD, LA
3) Chicago, IL
4) New York City, NY
5) Baltimore, MD
6) Los Angeles, CA
1) AUSL
2) Green Dot
3) Mastery Schools
4) Friends of Bedford, Inc.
Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
A timeline of school turnaround policy and practice
5
Turnaround is a relatively new approach to education reform; therefore, many of the models
profiled in this report are just now beginning to collect efficacy data. It is important to consider
the context of school turnaround as an emerging field.
2004 2007 2010
2010- The School Turnaround
Group launches the
Partnership Zone Initiative to
provide proof points for The
Turnaround Challenge
2004- Chicago Public Schools
opens the Office of School
Turnaround and launches
Renaissance 2010 to fix
failing schools
2005- AUSL and Mastery
Schools enter the turnaround
space and contract with
school districts to turn around
underperforming schools
2006- Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools launches the
Achievement Zone, which
creates a turnaround zone
within the school district
2009- The USDOE announces
$3.5B in School Improvement
Grants (SIG) to turn around
the nation’s lowest
performing schools
2002- No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) requires schools to
demonstrate adequate yearly
progress (AYP) and creates
tiered sanctions
2007- Mass Insight releases
The Turnaround Challenge,
which Sec. of Education Arne
Duncan recently hailed as the
“bible” of school turnaround
…and in Practice.
In Policy...
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Many turnaround models align with the Partnership Zone
structure
6
Many of the turnaround models outlined in this report share the same principles as Mass Insight’s
framework for Partnership Zones.
Partnership Zones with
flexible operating
conditions
• Supported by state policy and
State Turnaround Office
• Flexibility to make decisions and
establish model systems for
people, time, money, school
programs
School Cluster
Supporting Partners
Lead Partner
State District
Lead Partners working with
districts to support clusters
of 3-5 schools
• New-model partner with
accountability for student
achievement and responsibility to
support school staffing
• Lead Partner aligns the work of all
outside programs and partners
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• Introduction and summary of school
turnaround models
• Turnaround models: Districts
• Turnaround models: Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Three factors for successful turnaround are
conditions, capacity, and clustering
8
The School Turnaround Group has identified three factors for successful school turnaround. The 3 C’s
include: conditions, capacity, and clustering.
What’s needed to enable schools and districts to address the challenges of
chronically underperforming schools?
Conditions
Change the rules and incentives governing
people, time, money, & program
ZONES
Capacity
Build turnaround resources and human
capacity in schools within the zone through
Lead Partners and sufficient funding
PARTNERSHIPS
Clustering
To get to scale, organize clusters of schools
within the zone intentionally and
systematically
CLUSTERS OF
SCHOOLS
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Summary: Lessons learned and promising practices
• Emphasis on human capital
• Employment of a Lead
Partner
• Ongoing professional
development opportunities
• Strong school leadership,
specific to turnaround
• Use of additional partners
and collaborators
9
• Increased autonomy and
flexibility for schools
• Additional resources and
funding
• Emphasis on quality
curricula, instruction, and
use of assessment data
• Streamlined compliance
burden/increased regulatory
freedom
• Adoption of a zone-like
structure for a subset of
schools
• Identification of and focus
on low-performing schools
• Leveraging scale benefits
across schools
• Increased affiliation and
collaboration across a subset
of schools
Capacity Conditions Clustering
The models in this report inform promising practices for successful school turnaround, which
align with the School Turnaround Group’s turnaround principles in the areas of capacity,
conditions, and clustering.
KEY STRATEGIES
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
School turnaround models: Districts
New Orleans,
LA
New York City,
NY
Los Angeles,
CA
Chicago, IL
Charlotte-
Mecklenburg,
NC
Baltimore, MD
Several school districts have transformed and significantly improved educational outcomes
through turnaround initiatives.
10
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Comparison and alignment
11
Models Capacity Conditions Clustering
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
Achievement Zone
New Orleans, LA
Recovery School District
Chicago, IL
Renaissance 2010
NewYork, NY
Chancellor’s District
Baltimore, MD
Innovation Schools
Los Angeles, CA
iDesign Schools
The following chart compares each of the district models and demonstrates their
alignment with the School Turnaround Group’s principles for effective turnaround.
(Sources provided on pg. 28)
* This representation do not necessarily signify the effectiveness of the model; rather, it demonstrate alignment with the strategies and conditions
espoused by the School Turnaround Group.
Significant alignment
Partial alignment
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Achievement Zone,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
• In 2006, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) identified that one-third of the district’s 165 schools were performing far
below other schools. That year, the district established the Achievement Zone to target its lowest-performing schools.
• The Zone represents a non-geographically determined cluster of 11 schools that are selected by the state or are in need of
corrective action under NCLB guidelines. District and zone superintendents then make decisions about transitioning schools in
and out of the Zone. The objective is to improve schools and then transfer them out of the Zone.
• A separate administrative team manages and supports Zone schools.
• These schools receive additional resources in the areas of curriculum and instruction, professional development, discipline,
communications and partnerships, human resources, transportation, and maintenance.
• In 2008-09, CMS launched the Strategic Staffing Initiative (SSI). SSI targets a separate subset of schools with interventions
specifically pertaining to staffing.
• CMS identifies a strong principal to lead the efforts in these underperforming schools.
• The principal then works with a team identify top staff in the district. They recruit those teachers to work in the district’s most
struggling school by offering financial and professional incentives.
• Since its inception three years ago, all Achievement Zone schools have
experienced gains on both reading and math assessments.
• 91% of Zone middle schools met AYP in 2008-09, up from 61% in 2007-08.
• In 2008-09, 68% of student at West Charlotte High School were on grade
level, up from 40% in 2005-06. During that same timeframe, West
Mecklenburg HS saw an increase of 25%, and E.E. Waddell experienced an
increase of 11%.
• CMS is a finalist for the 2010 Broad Prize.
Background & Strategies
Results
(Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use of
partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy; additional
resources; emphasis on curricula,
instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Adoption of a zone-like
structure; identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
12
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Recovery School District,
New Orleans, LA
• The Recovery Schools District (RSD) was launched in 2003 as a special, statewide district run by the Louisiana Department of
Education. The RSD marks an effort to turn around and rebuild underperforming schools in New Orleans, a problem
exacerbated by Hurricane Katrina.
• Schools failing to meet state standards for four consecutive years become eligible for state intervention in the RSD.
• The local school district enters into a memorandum of understanding with the state, which outlines how the local entity must
implement reforms in order to avoid placement in the RSD.
• 112 schools have been in the RSD; this includes both traditional public and charter schools. Schools remain in the RSD for a
minimum of five years.
• School improvement strategies include: (1) extended school day to allow for more instructional time, (2) rigorous curriculum
aligned with grade-level standards, (3) classroom modernization program with technology improvements, (4) strong
leadership by State and RSD superintendents, (5) greater flexibility for principals, (6) partnerships with external
organizations, such as TFA and TNTP, (7) five-block high school schedule, (8) dual-enrollment opportunities for upperclassmen.
• For three consecutive years, RSD students showed greater gains on state
standardized tests than students statewide. Most recently, in 2009-10,
RSD scores increased by 6%, versus 1% statewide.
• The passing rate for first-time 4
th
grade test-takers on the LEAP exam
increased from 36% in 2007 to 58% in 2009.
• The passing rate for first-time 8
th
grade test-takers on the LEAP exam
increased from 32% in 2007 to 50% in 2009.
• Total instructional time in 2008-2009 equaled 76,170 minutes (8 AM – 4:30
PM daily) versus the state requirement of 63,720 minutes.
• Student enrollment surged after experiencing a marked decline post-
Katrina.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Use of partners; strong school
leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy; additional
resources; emphasis on curricula,
instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
Background & Strategies
Results
13 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Renaissance 2010,
Chicago, IL
• In 2004, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) launched a two-part reform initiative known as Renaissance 2010. CPS committed to (1)
opening 100 new charter schools and (2) improving the city’s worst-performing schools through a turnaround strategy.
• First, the Office of New Schools requests proposals for new charter schools. This process focuses on the school model,
curriculum, and hiring.
• Second, the Office of School Turnaround works with existing, troubled schools. They select a new principal, hire new staff,
develop programs, engage partners, and create opportunities for professional development and parent engagement.
• Turnaround schools follow a phased approach in their redesign. During this process, the school receives additional resources,
staff members, and external support.
• CPS launched the Office of School Turnaround in 2008. They identified their first turnaround high school in 2008. Currently,
the district has six turnaround schools.
• The overall reform strategy is governed by several principles: (1) a core curriculum, (2) extended learning time, (3) after-school
tutoring, (4) professional development, (5) staff incentives, and (6) community outreach.
• CPS notes early improvements in the areas of discipline, school safety,
and the school environment. The first phase of the improvement effort
targets school climate, family engagement, and school stabilization, as
opposed to academic gains.
• In their first year, turnaround schools see fewer instances of serious
misconduct, and attendance and PSAE scores increase. The rate of
students on-track to graduate grows incrementally.
• The department acknowledges that turnaround takes five to six years.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use of
partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy; additional
resources; emphasis on curricula,
instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Adoption of a zone-like
structure; identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
Background & Strategies
Results
14 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Chancellor’s District,
New York, NY (1996-2003)
• In 1996, New York City Department of Education Chancellor Rudolph Crew created a citywide improvement zone known as the
Chancellor’s District. This non-geographically determined zone was created to accelerate improvement in the city’s lowest-
performing schools.
• At the time, City schools were managed by local community school districts. By contrast, schools in the Chancellor’s District
would become centrally managed.
• The seven-year initiative marked an unprecedented intervention. In total, the zone removed 58 elementary and middle
schools from local district control. Several of these schools were eventually closed; however, most improved and were
returned to their local district.
• Under new leadership, these schools then received concentrated interventions. Centralized management allowed the schools
to initiate changes to school policies and procedures.
• Chancellor’s District schools implemented the Model for Excellence. Class sizes were reduced, instructional time increased,
and the school calendar was lengthened. District schools implemented after-school programs and followed a prescribed
curriculum and instructional program. The transformation also focused on building internal capacity through intensive
professional development and on-site staff developers. Ineffective teachers were removed from the District.
• The Chancellor’s District was established to increase academic outcomes
and instructional capacity in failing schools.
• A study by New York University’s Institute for Education and Social Policy
found that District schools saw more significant improvements than other
struggling schools citywide.
• The percentage of 4
th
grade students meeting statewide reading standards
increased by approximately 18% in District schools.
• The initiative ended in 2003 when the school district underwent system-
wide restructuring.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use
of partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Additional resources; emphasis
on curricula, instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Adoption of a zone-like
structure; identification of low-performing
schools; increased collaboration
Background & Strategies
Results
15 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: Innovation Schools,
Baltimore, MD
• In 2001, Baltimore City Public School Systems (BCPSS) announced a five-year initiative to reform the city’s high schools.
• This included plans to open eight innovation high schools and to create neighborhood schools by converting all of the city’s
large high schools into small learning communities with increased autonomy.
• These schools were to embody three central principles: (1) strong academic rigor, (2) small supportive structures, and (3)
effective, accountable instruction and leadership.
• Innovation schools were launched by or with external partners. They received significant autonomy in terms of staffing,
selecting and implementing curriculum, and allocating resources. Whereas neighborhood schools are filled based on
geographic boundaries, innovation schools are filled based on student interest.
• Most recently, BCPSS announced plans to open transformation schools. They began with an RFP process in 2009-10 to identify
potential school management organizations. The district plans to open 24 schools by 2011-12. Transformation schools will be
small schools serving grades 6 to 12.
• Students in innovation high schools scored between 14 and 30 points
higher on HSA algebra and English tests.
• Innovations schools’ attendance rates were up to 22% higher than the
citywide average.
• Students in innovation and neighborhood schools were more likely stay
enrolled in their initial high school than students at other city schools.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use
of partners; ongoing PD; strong leadership
? Conditions: Increased autonomy;
additional resources; emphasis on
curricula, instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Identification of low-performing
schools
Background & Strategies
Results
16 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
District models: iDesign Schools,
Los Angeles, CA
• LAUSD launched the Public School Choice Initiative in 2009. The district is exploring new school models to enhance
educational opportunities, including charter, iDesign (partner-managed), and magnet schools.
• The iDesign Schools, Innovation, and Charter Schools Division at LAUSD selects, screens, and approves network partners to
work with the district’s schools.
• iDesign schools have increased decision-making authority over the curriculum, instructional strategies, professional
development, hiring, schools budgets, scheduling, and school programs. The change strategy hinges upon decentralized,
school-based decisions.
• Network partners sign a five-year contract with LAUSD, which confers autonomy and accountability. The district currently
works with four partners that work with a total of 19 schools.
• The district hopes that successful strategies from the iDesign schools will eventually inform district-wide practices.
• Charter school operators, nonprofit organizations, and teacher unions were encouraged to submit bids to operate up to 36
schools in a plan that allows outsiders to manage public schools. The first cohort of schools includes 24 new schools and 12
turnaround schools.
• LAUSD has a robust performance management system for its iDesign
schools, which includes: (1) defining excellence, (2) tracking progress and
creating transparency, (3) making informed decisions, and (4) establishing
recognition and consequences.
• Two schools managed by Mentor Los Angeles (MLA) have posted
significant gains in graduations rates and on the state’s Academic
Performance Index. West Adams Prep’s average API score increased by 31
points in 2009, and Manual Arts HS’s score increased by 22 points.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Capacity: Emphasis on human capital; use
of partners; ongoing PD
? Conditions: Increased autonomy;
additional resources; emphasis on
curricula, instruction, and assessment
? Clustering: Identification of low-performing
schools
Background & Strategies
Results
17 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Initiatives to watch…
…In Detroit, MI, the Greater Detroit Venture Fund was established to incentivize school improvement. The
Fund will provide resources to support high school turnaround, which will be facilitated by partnerships with
education intermediaries. The effort will target schools with consistently low graduation rates.
…In Kentucky, the Department of Education recently launched a statewide initiative to turn around 10 schools.
The identified schools have failed to make adequate yearly progress for three consecutive years, during
which time their graduation rates were also less than 60%.
…In Washington, D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee has contracted with outside partners to turn around some
of the city’s poorest-performing schools. Most recently, the city’s revised teachers’ contract includes plans
for new school turnaround models.
…In Mississippi, Mississippi State University launched the Turnaround Leadership Academy. This program,
modeled after a similar program at the University of Virginia, will train educators for successful turnaround.
…In Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, and Louisiana, states will collaborate with local Lead
Partners as part of Mass Insight’s Partnership Zone Initiative. These states will serve as proof points for
successful school turnaround.
18
Given the recent and unprecedented level of support and funding for school turnaround efforts,
several states and districts have just recently started to develop turnaround initiatives…
© 2009 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
• Introduction and summary of school
turnaround models
• Turnaround models: Districts
• Turnaround models: Partnerships
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Alignment with the
role of the Lead Partner
20
• Sign a 3-5 year performance contract for student achievement with the district or state; the
agreement assigns the Lead Partner responsibility for a small “intentional” cluster of schools
1
where
systems and programs will be aligned and holds the Lead Partner accountable for improving the
student achievement
• Assume authority for decision making on school staffing (as well as time, money and program); in
particular, the Lead Partner:
• Hires a new principal or approves the current one
• Supports the principal in hiring and replacing teachers and has responsibility for bringing in a
meaningful cohort of new instructional staff
• Provide core academic and student support services directly or align the services of other program
and support partners, who are on sub-contracts with the Lead Partner, and build internal capacity
within the schools and by extension, the district
• Has an embedded, consistent and intense relationship with each school during the turnaround
period (5 days per week)
In many ways, the following partnership models mirror the role of the Lead Partner in Mass
Insight’s Partnership Zone Initiative. Lead Partners are nonprofit organizations or units of central
offices on contract with the central office or states for small clusters of 3-5 schools.
Responsibilities of the a Lead Partners
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Summary: Lessons learned and promising practices
• Contract between
Lead Partner and
LEA/SEA
• Lead Partner
accountability for
student
performance
21
• Modified collective
bargaining
agreement
• Ability to hire
principal
• Budget authority
• Program authority
• Time authority
• Presence in
schools five days a
week
Accountability for
student achievement
Authority over key
levers
Provider/
coordinator of all
services
The following models inform promising practices for successful school turnaround with a partnership
organization. These examples align with Mass Insight’s Lead Partner framework, which details the
roles and responsibilities for a partnership strategy.
KEY STRATEGIES
Embedded,
consistent
relationship
• Provision of all
core services
• Management of
supporting
partners
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
AUSL
School turnaround models: Partnerships
Green Dot
Several local education agencies and charter management organizations have partnered with school
districts to transform and significantly improve educational outcomes through turnaround initiatives.
Mastery
Schools
Friends of
Bedford, Inc.
22
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Comparison and alignment
23 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Models Accountability for
student
achievement
Authority over
key levers
Provider/
coordinator of
all services
Embedded,
consistent
relationship
AUSL
Green Dot
Mastery Schools
Friends of Bedford, Inc.
The following chart compares each of the lead partnership models and
demonstrates their alignment with the School Turnaround Group’s structure
for partnerships, which emphasizes authority and accountability.
* This representation do not necessarily signify the effectiveness of the model; rather, it demonstrate alignment with the strategies and conditions espoused by the
School Turnaround Group.
Significant alignment
Partial alignment
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Academy for Urban School Leadership
• AUSL was founded in 2001 as an education reform nonprofit specializing in school management and teacher preparation.
• Since 2005, AUSL has also worked closely with Chicago Public Schools to turn around low-performing schools.
• AUSL’s first turnaround school was in 2006, followed by a second in 2007, three more in 2008, three more in 2009, and four
more in 2010.
• AUSL currently works with 18 schools, and six of those schools also serve as AUSL teacher training academies.
• The AUSL turnaround model includes: (1) replacing the principal, (2) replacing up to 50% of the staff (with many from AUSL’s
training program), (3) revamping the curriculum, and (4) renewing school culture.
• AUSL’s turnaround framework is summarized by the acronym PASSAGE: Positive school culture, Action against adversity, Setting
goals and getting it done, Shared responsibility for achievement, Guaranteed and viable curriculum, and Engaging and
personalized instruction.
• AUSL operates within the context of district compliance and has a unionized staff.
• Four AUSL schools –Morton, Howe, Johnson, and Bethune– are among the
top 5% of the fastest-improving schools in Chicago.
• Howe School of Excellence has increased the number of students meeting
or exceeding ISAT standards by 24% during just two years of turnaround.
• AUSL schools have increased the number of students meeting or exceeding
ISAT standards pre- and post-turnaround by an average of 20 percent.
• Dodge Renaissance Academy has quadrupled the percent of students
meeting or exceeding ISAT standards in seven years (22% to 82%).
• AUSL’s teacher retention rate is over 87%, compared to the national
average of 50% for new teachers.
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers: Somewhat
constrained by district and teacher
union compliance
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
Background & Strategies
Results
24 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Green Dot
• Green Dot Public Schools is a charter management organization that has opened 19 charter schools in the Los Angeles area.
• In addition to opening charter schools, Green Dot has begun to support public school turnaround. In 2007, staff at Locke High
School voted to transfer school governance from LAUSD to Green Dot.
• Green Dot describes successful turnaround as having a phase-in-by-grade model, an alternative governance structure that
features autonomy and flexibility from district policies, and a performance-based accountability system.
• The Locke Transformation Project represents a major restructuring. The school was divided into eight small learning
communities, and teachers began to emphasize personalized instruction and high expectations. All students enroll in a college
preparatory curriculum. All schools operate according to the organization’s six tenants of high-performing schools: (1) small,
safe, personalized schools, (2) high expectations for all students, (3) local control with extensive professional development and
accountability, (4) parent participation, (5) maximize school funding to the classroom, and (6) keep schools open later.
• Green Dot has full human resources autonomy, meaning that they have authority over staffing. However, Green Dot’s
teachers have organized as an independent union. Green Dot has created mutual trust with the union; teachers receive
above-average pay but cannot earn tenure, and they are expected to work a professional day (not defined by minutes).
• In 2006, prior to Green Dot’s intervention, only 5% of Locke’s students
attended four-year colleges.
• In 2007, only 28% of entering freshman graduated within four years. That
same year, only 10.5% of schools achieved proficiency in English, and 1.6%
in math.
• Within one year, Green Dot affected major change at Locke. By spring
2009, the school had retained about 500 more students than the
previous year and had tested 38% more students.
• Attendance increased by over 10%. Students and parents report feeling
safer and more supported.
Background & Strategies
Results
25 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Mastery Schools
• Mastery Schools is a charter management organization that works with middle and high schools, using the motto “Excellence.
No excuses.” The organization moved into the turnaround space in 2005.
• Mastery currently operates four schools in Philadelphia. These schools enroll 2,100 students in grades 7 to 12. Three of the
four schools are classified as turnaround schools as opposed to charter schools. These three schools represent a
partnership with the Philadelphia School District to improve several of the district’s lowest-performing schools.
• The turnaround approach integrates solid management and effective educational strategies. Successful turnaround requires
high expectations and high levels of support.
• Mastery emphasizes quality teaching; this includes: outstanding instruction, ongoing professional development, collaboration,
coaching, and feedback. Mastery does not abide by a union contract.
• Mastery schools use a common teaching model and standards-based curricula. These stress the importance of assessments
and using data to improve instruction. All students are expected to graduate having successfully completed the schools’
college-preparatory program.
• Under Mastery’s turnaround leadership, subject-area test scores have
increased an average of 52% in every grade.
• On the Thomas Campus, 56% of 11
th
grade students scored “proficient/
advanced” on the reading PSSA in 2009, up from 33% in 2005; 58% scored
“proficient/advanced” on the math PSSA in 2009, up from 37% in 2005.
• On the Shoemaker Campus, 84% of 8
th
grade students scored “proficient/
advanced” on the PSSA in 2009, compared to 43% in 2006.
• All turnaround schools have closed the achievement gap in 8
th
grade math,
and two have closed the gap in reading.
Background & Strategies
Results
26 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Partnership models: Friends of Bedford
• Friends of Bedford, Inc. is an education consulting firm that is committed to innovative instructional models; they are guided
by the motto: “Academic empowerment is the birthright of every child.”
• The organization is perhaps best known for its work at Bedford Academy High School, a public school in Brooklyn, New York.
The school recently ranked as one of the best in New York State.
• D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) recently entered into a partnership with the organization based on its track record of turning around
chronically underperforming schools in a short period of time.
• The organization is currently contracted by DCPS to turn around two schools: Calvin Coolidge High School and Paul Laurence
Dunbar High School. The organization assumed control of both schools in 2009.
• Friends of Bedford is working with the school district to improve attendance, AYP, and graduation rates.
• Their model includes an emphasis on instruction, content delivery, and preparation for tests determining AYP.
• At Paul Laurence Dunbar, the percent of students scoring proficient on the
reading portion of the DC-BAS test increased from 1.5% to 34.1% between
October 2009 and March 2010.
• During that same time period, math scores increased from 4.4% to 20.2%.
• Daily attendance increased by 8%.
• At Calvin Coolidge, the percent of students scoring proficient on the reading
portion of the DC-BAS test increased from 15.6% to 50.5% between October
2009 and March 2010.
• During that same time period, math scores increased from 33.3% to 39.4%.
• Daily attendance increased by 9%.
Background & Strategies
Results
27 (Sources provided on pg. 28)
Alignment with STG's turnaround
principles:
? Accountability for student achievement
? Authority over key levers: Somewhat
constrained by district and teacher
union compliance
? Provider/coordinator of all services
? Embedded, consistent relationship
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute 28
Sources
Page 12:
•Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. About Us. Web.
<http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/mediaroom/aboutus/Pages/FactSheets.aspx>.
•Christiansen, Barbara and Jonathan Travers. School Turnaround at the System
Level. Aspen Institute, Apr. 2010. Web.
<http://www.aspeninstitute.org/news/2010/04/20/school-turnaround-system-
level>.
Page 13:
•Recovery School District. Frequently Asked Questions. Louisiana Department of
Education. Web. <http://www.rsdla.net/InfoGlance/FAQs.aspx>.
•American Youth Policy Forum. School Turnaround in New Orleans. Web.
<http://www.aypf.org/documents/051409BackgroundSummary-
SchoolTurnaround.pdf>.
•Recovery School District. Test Score Gains Continue in Recovery School District.
May 26, 2010. Web. < http://www.rsdla.net/Media/PressRelease.aspx?PR=1427 >.
Page 14:
•American Youth Policy Forum. School Improvement and School Turnaround. Dec.
2008. Web. <http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2008/fb120508.htm>.
•Chicago Public Schools Office of School Turanround. CPS Turanround Model. Web.
http://www.cpsturnaround.org/
Page 15:
•Herszenhorn, David M. “A Special Schools District is Gone, but a Study Cites its
Benefits.” New York Times 7 July 2004. Web.
Page 16:
•Cohen, Jennifer and Becky Smerdon. Baltimore City’s High School Reform Initiative.
Urban Institute, Dec. 2007 Web. <http://www.urban.org/publications/
411590.html>.
•Baltimore City Public Schools. Charter, Innovation, and Transformation Schools.
Web. <http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/School_Info/Charter_Schools.asp>.
Page 17:
•Llanos, Connie. Applicants Line Up to Bid in LAUSD School Choice Program.
16 Nov. 2009. Web. <http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_13800651>.
•Mentor L.A. Partner School Model. Web. <http://www.mlapartner
schools.org/>.
•iDesign Schools. Network Partners. Web. <http://www.idesignschools.org/>.
Page 24:
•AUSL. Turnaround Schools. Web. <http://www.ausl-chicago.org/>.
•Web. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/03/whats-possible-turning-around-
americas-lowest-achieving-schools/>.
•AUSL. Fact Sheet. Web. <www.ausl-chicago.org/media/AUSL-media-kit.pdf>.
Page 25:
•U.S. Department of Education. A Promise Kept, A School Renewed: Locke
High School’s Turn Around. Web. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/01/a-
promise-kept-a-school-renewed-locke-high-schools-turn-around/>.
•Hurley, Kelly and Ellen Lin. Turnaround Schools: The Locke Transformation
Project, A Model of Reform. Web. <www.senate.state.tx.us/
75r/senate/commit/.../0322-EllenLin-KellyHurley.pdf>.
•Green Dot. Schools. Web. <http://www.greendot.org/>.
Page 26:
•Mastery Charter Schools. Web. <http://www.masterycharter.org/>.
•U.S. Department of Education. What’s Possible: Turning Around America’s
Lowest-Achieving Schools. Web. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/03/whats-
possible-turning-around-americas-lowest-achieving-schools/>.
Page 27:
•Derrick Cerisier (personal communication, April 26, 2010).
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
The School Turnaround Group is a division of Mass Insight Education, an independent non-profit that
organizes public schools, higher education, business, and state government to significantly improve
student achievement, with a focus on closing achievement gaps.
For more information on how your state can employ these promising practices for school turnaround,
please contact the School Turnaround Group at:
The School Turnaround Group
Mass Insight Education
18 Tremont Street, Suite 930 • Boston, MA 02108 • 617-778-1500
[email protected]
Get involved
The School Turnaround Groups offers a broad range of strategic consulting services to state and district clients. This work
includes building organizational capacity through the development of state and district turnaround offices, securing more
flexible operating conditions, including through the development of modified collective bargaining agreements; attracting
and supporting Lead Partners through the development of Request for Proposal and Memorandum of Understanding tools;
and auditing state and district readiness to implement dramatic turnaround strategies.
In each of our engagements, we seek to deeply understand the needs of our client to offer highly customized solutions and
to develop lasting relationships to support the difficult work of school turnaround over the necessarily long time frame.
29
© 2010 Mass Insight Education & Research Institute
Copyright © 2010 by the Mass Insight Education and Research Institute.
Permission granted to the original recipient to copy this document, or sections of this document, without
alteration or removal of this copyright notice, solely for non-commercial use with acknowledgement to the
copyright holder.
The presentation and related documents are the result of a research and development
process led by Mass Insight with the support of various partners.
It should be used in conjunction with the Main Report, “The Turnaround Challenge:
Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in
our worst performing schools,” and a variety of other resources we have developed
and distributed.
doc_555522854.pdf