Archived Information

**NCCSR Issue Briefs are occasional papers on comprehensive school
reform April 2001**

**The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform**

**A Brief for Practitioners on Turning Around Low-Performing Schools:
Implications at the School, District, and State Levels**

**By Naomi G. Housman and Monica R. Martinez**

**Introduction**

In November 2000, the U.S. Department of Education and the Consortium
for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) invited a range of individuals
involved in schoolwide improvement to the Regional Forum on Turning
Around Low-Performing Schools. The participants---a mix of
practitioners, researchers, and policymakers---spent a day and a half
sharing what they have learned and how the U.S. Department of Education
can most strategically and effectively focus technical assistance to
support schools, districts, and states. The panelists were also asked to
consider policy issues that need to be ad-dressed at the federal and
state levels to turn around low-performing schools. This brief captures
the highlights of the conversation that speak most directly to
practitioners working at the local level. The policy implications
emerging from the proceedings are covered more fully in a companion
brief produced by CPRE.

**A Foundation and Themes for Engaging in Whole School Improvement**

The forum began with a brief overview of Department programs and the
Low-Performing Schools Initiative in the context of standards-based
reform---and the local and federal accountability measures now
"beginning to bite." With the bar raised for student achievement,
low-performing schools identified, and systems of reward and sanction in
place, the assembled group was asked to consider whether the will and
the capacity exists in every community and in every state to provide
help to the places that need it most. Will the promise of the standards
movement become a reality or an empty gesture?

Primary federal funding sources for whole school improvement---the Title
I Schoolwide and the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
programs---provide nearly identical conceptual frameworks for school
improvement, as well as funds to bring technical assistance to the
school. The frame-work is designed to put the school in the driver's
seat in the assessment of its needs, development of a unifying vision
for continuous improvement, and sustained implementation of
research-based strategies around a comprehensive plan. Chronically
low-performing schools, however, usually cannot engage in and sustain
improvement without support from local and state infrastructures.

As the symposium discussants shared the strategies and lessons learned
from their engagement with schoolwide reform, three themes emerged:
coherence, context and complexity, and connection. The themes, taken
individually and together as a framework, have implications for how
practitioners approach low-performing schools and provide support to
make improved teaching and learning a reality.

**Organizing Around a Vision: Coherence**

Working towards coherence in low-performing schools---often
characterized as dysfunctional or unstable---requires leadership and
policy with vision. Leaders at all levels are needed who can help
develop, communicate, and nurture a vision shared by the school and
community. First and foremost, however, leaders must believe and
communicate that all children can, and must, achieve to high standards.
Only when leaders make this message the core theme will systems begin to
organize and build the infrastructure needed to support high quality
teaching and learning for all students.

State leaders in North Carolina, for example, have demonstrated how
belief in all children can translate into the commitment of resources
and infrastructure around focused policy. The state made its focus the
goals of turning around low-performing schools and "upwardly" closing
the minority achievement gap statewide by accelerating the progress of
the lowest performing students so that they can reach the high
achievement levels expected of all students. Strategies to accomplish
this are based on ten recommendations made to the state board of
education by a state advisory commission on closing the achievement gap.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
state leadership and Black Leadership Caucus mobilized to influence the
placement of experienced teachers in low-performing schools. One
strategy adopted by the state has been to bring high quality retired
teachers back into the workforce. North Carolina studied a model in five
pilot school systems across the state where financial incentives are
awarded to schools showing progress: all certified educators receive a
bonus of \$750, and if exemplary progress is shown, they receive a
\$1500 bonus. If the school demonstrates through disaggregated data that
it has made significant progress in raising the achievement of ethnic
minorities at a level that has kept pace with overall achievement, the
whole school receives additional monies.

In any state, local leaders must also facilitate the development of a
shared vision to guide district and school efforts. Once a
low-performing school or district has identified its goals and needs,
the challenge is to design a comprehensive, coherent plan around which
all programs and funds are aligned. School districts approach this
process in various ways. In some districts, the focus of re-form efforts
at all schools is selected at the district level; in others, each school
determines its own vital needs. Often, however, district leaders
struggle to find a balance between giving schools autonomy in the
planning process and simply mandating a course of action for schools
that lack the capacity or will to engage in an improvement process.

One urban district chose literacy as its "theory of action" for all
schools, and made an explicit commitment to raising achievement by
focusing on children in the bottom two quartiles. Though the district
chose the focus, schools were free to select whatever whole school
reform model or models would "move the focus forward." The district, in
turn, used the unified focus to provide a coherent, literacy-based,
professional development plan for teachers and principals across the
district. Another system began with a different approach to turning
around its low-performing schools district-wide. Rather than select the
focus for all schools, the district gave each school time and support to
develop its own focus. While the district did intervene if a school,
after a given period of time, failed to develop a shared vision and plan
for change, the district was committed to letting staff grapple with
what needed to happen in their school as a way to begin building
capacity at the site level.

In addition to developing a shared vision, one of the first issues that
a low-performing school considers in any comprehensive improvement
effort is whether or not it has the funds to support the effort. Often,
the dilemma is not lack of funds---low-performing schools frequently
have twice as many programs as other schools---but lack of a coherent
plan with a set of goals around which these programs are organized. In
many high poverty districts, it is common practice to obtain as many
funds as possible; but without a strategic plan, the end result is a
disconnected set of programs layered one on top of the other. Rather
than simply infuse more money into the system, what these schools need
most is assistance to undergo a comprehensive needs assessment process
in which data are reviewed, disaggregated, and then held up to the
programs. Often, what schools require is a process of "organized
abandonment," in which programs are discarded and pared down only to
those most closely serving student and school needs.

Statewide accountability systems can also play a major role to influence
and encourage schools and districts to reallocate federal, state, and
local funds in a focused, strategic way. In one state, schools were
required to submit consolidated plans identifying goals, strategies, and
use of funds in matrix format. In the process of lining up programs
along-side their intended purposes, schools often realized that they
lacked a coherent plan and were duplicating the use of funds. In
essence, schools and districts saw that money was driving their
priorities, rather than any one mission or set of goals. In another
state, a chronically low-performing district identified literacy as its
focus and then used a financial audit to look at all grants and programs
in the district and locate the focus on literacy instruction in each.
This level of analysis allowed the district to hone in and see where
efforts needed to be ramped up or pared down. Ultimately, the district
chose to scale down its programs in preparation for a more focused and
strategic scaling up process.

Schools, however, need good information about the structure and
requirements of state and federal funds in order to allocate resources
effectively. Schools and districts often are unaware of the flexibility
built in to federal programs to encourage coordination across funding
streams. For example, a school that has made professional development a
top priority could begin to leverage the money in various program
"pots"---such as funds available through CSRD and the Reading Excellence
Act---to meet this goal. Federal and state program leaders need to help
practitioners understand how these program funds---and the state and
district bureaucracies administering them---are intended to work
together in new ways towards the goal of improved teaching and learning.

For many low-performing schools and districts, the success of their
efforts---developing and implementing a comprehensive improvement plan
with programs and resources aligned around a shared vision---will be
determined by student scores on statewide standardized assessments.
While state accountability systems of sanction and reward can
successfully motivate a chronically low-performing school to initiate
schoolwide improvement efforts, high-stakes assessments can also force a
school's attention away from a long-term improvement process that
creates deep and lasting change in its practices. It was noted that when
schools are only held accountable for a single test score, it should
come as no surprise that classrooms likely will place a heavy emphasis
on test preparation activity and suspend, or abandon, other more
comprehensive improvement efforts. The disincentive may be even greater
when the state assessment is not aligned with the state standards, or
when districts are given little guidance interpreting a curriculum from
the state standards. Thus, schools choosing to stay the course of
comprehensive school reform must invest significant effort to align
school/district goals and curriculum with state standards and
assessments, as well as to ensure that classroom instruction reflects
this alignment.

It was suggested that having a set of "indicators of improvement" would
facilitate schools' and districts' ability to maintain coherence between
the local efforts and state expectations. Districts could use indicators
that identify, and determine at what rate, low-performing schools are
indeed turning around, and to determine if and when interventions are
needed. Indicators would also allow schools to begin self-identifying
their status "before it's too late" and the stigma of a label or
sanctions are imposed externally. One district is using a set of
"trailing" indicators---evidence of past efforts---to show schools how
they have done so far, and are now building a system of "leading"
indicators, or benchmarks, to guide schools' current and future efforts.
As part of this, the district also will provide subject/grade level
assessments so that schools and parents do not have to wait until third
and fourth grade to find out whether students are making progress and
instructional practices are effective.

**Acknowledging and Addressing Context and Complexity**

One of the points made early in the discussion is that context matters
in fundamental and significant ways. Thus, characteristics attributed to
ineffective schools cannot simply be understood as "the mirror image" of
those attributed to effective schools. Low-performing schools have
unique challenges that require unique approaches and strategies.
Designing a meaningful and effective approach, however, requires a
process of grappling with the context and complexity---the
socioeconomic, political, cultural, and historical realities---that
influence the school and community in which it functions. By
understanding these multiple layers, schools can begin to meaningfully
and thoughtfully interpret student indicators such as test scores and
dropout rates, and to allocate resources and services in a way that will
have the greatest impact.

One of the most important roles for leaders at all levels is to
facilitate an ongoing conversation about the school as a dynamic and
complex organization. Leaders, particularly at the federal and state
levels, were encouraged to use the "bully pulpit" to address public and
business community perceptions that there is a "quick fix" for improving
schools, and to "acknowledge the complexity and acknowledge it loudly."
Furthermore, leaders at all levels must take initiative to talk openly
and publicly about the courage, and painstaking work, it will take to
turn around low-performing schools. However, because long-lasting change
is an ongoing process that may require several years' time to show
measurable results, school leaders must also find more immediate ways to
meet needs in high poverty communities.

To make an immediate impact, one district with a dismally low high
school graduation rate started a dropout recovery program. The district
recruited those who had left school, often to work and/or raise
children, by creating a flexible program that adapted the traditional
school day schedule to meet students' needs. The dropout recovery
program responded to a deep community need by providing opportunity for
students who had already dropped out, as well as for those who, lacking
other options, might otherwise have dropped out. Because it quickly and
dramatically increased the number of high school graduates, the
program's success generated positive press attention and helped to build
community support for the superintendent's more long-term improvement
plans.

A major, but often overlooked, part of what makes the school a complex
organization is the work lives of its teachers---the experiences and
belief systems they bring to the classroom, and how they cope with daily
challenges. Changing teacher beliefs about how students learn can be one
of the most powerful ways to create fundamental change in a school.
Experience has shown that teachers' low expectations begin to shift when
they acquire the tools and skills they need to be effective teachers in
their classrooms---and begin to see for themselves that their students
can learn. This remains true for teachers who are identified as "in the
middle." District administrators find that many teachers in
low-performing schools are "in the middle"---teachers who have the
potential to be great teachers given the right support. Unfortunately,
however, most teachers are being asked to do what they have not been
able to do before, and in a context for which they have not been
adequately prepared. Consequently, teachers who express low expectations
for their students often feel demoralized by the fact that they lack the
skills and tools to help these students learn.

The principle that low-performing schools are unique and will require
unique strategies also applies to the content and delivery of
professional development. A plan for professional development should be
designed so that efforts are coherent, are based on the specific needs
of the school, and recognize the experiences and skills of its teachers
and administrators. Further, professional development must be grounded
in adult learning theory---what is known about how adults learn and
change. In the next section of this brief, professional development is
addressed as a vehicle for building meaningful support among teachers as
professional colleagues.

Several discussants shared the vital role local institutions of higher
education and other community organizations can play in developing
effective strategies to retain quality teachers in low-performing
schools. One state university-based initiative used state and local
funds to work across five districts in a region to support novice
teachers in high poverty low-performing schools, and to help veteran
teachers work on content to sharpen their skills. In another city, a
private college of education and the non-profit branch of a teacher
research center are working collaboratively to support teachers in their
first three to five years in the classroom. The goal of the partnership
is to explore ways to help new teachers create and be active
participants in professional learning communities.

Community-based "intermediary" organizations can also play a key role in
preparing and supporting teachers. In one urban district where a highly
structured literacy curriculum model was adopted, the local education
fund worked in partnership with the school district to create a
"literacy intern model." The model, funded through the federal class
size reduction program, was designed to recruit and induct novice
teachers. In the program, noncertificated college graduates are trained
in the school's literacy curriculum and spend their first year in the
classroom as tutors, or literacy interns. The interns are also paired
with veteran teachers who act as mentors as the interns acquire
instructional skills and classroom experience. By using the structured
literacy curriculum to train new teachers, the intern model provides
aspiring teachers with the support and experience they will need to
assume full responsibility of a classroom, and in the process meets the
school's need both for tutors and prepared teachers.

The discussion underscored the fact that no one strategy alone is the
"magic bullet" for turning around all low-performing schools. In the
process of ongoing improvement, creativity, innovation and full
participation are key ingredients. From the many examples offered, it is
clear that low-per-forming schools require unique and multiple
strategies to address the context and complexity of the school and its
community.

**Building Connections**

Teachers and principals in low-performing schools tend to work in
isolation from one another rather than as colleagues in a professional
learning community. Breaking down these walls and building
"connectivity" among educators is ultimately about making an impact on
the classroom---where changes in teaching and learning must occur. A new
culture must be created, in the relationships among and between
students, teachers, and the community so that all are more meaningfully
connected to one another and to the school as a place of learning.
Connectivity is about focused professional development and creating a
learning community for educators within the school and across school
lines. It is about swinging open the doors of the classroom and of the
school, and creating a professional network that minimizes isolation and
provides a venue for sharing, learning and continuous improvement. It is
about connecting schools with expertise from both internal and external
sources, and building capacity in the school.

Participants noted how uncommon it is for a school facing a challenge to
look to the resources of a neighboring school right within the same
district. District policies typically do not support this kind of
interaction, but instead rely mainly on external technical assistance
providers to "drop in" and solve a school's problems. Others, however,
were able to share examples of districts actively attempting to counter
this tendency. In one urban community, district leadership created
opportunities for conversation among school principals as a way to
capitalize on the fact that a range of reform models were being adopted
across the district. In these cross-school meetings, principals share
which elements of the model are or are not working, what they are
learning from the model's technical assistance providers, and what their
school is learning through the improvement process. Principals also
participate in cross-school study groups and site visits.

In an ambitious effort to reduce isolation among teachers and
administrators not only within, but also across urban, rural, and
suburban districts, a city agency and a university professor created a
regional consortium now consisting of thirty-one districts. The
consortium's goal is to build relationships and learning opportunities
through a professional network that spans the region. As a result of
meetings convened by the consortium, seven educators decided to work
together, jointly submitted a federal grant application, and were
subsequently awarded \$700,000 earmarked for professional development
activities.

In addition to focused and comprehensive professional development,
school leaders find that the only way to change habits of practice among
teachers---many of whom have become accustomed to professional
isolation---is to provide structured opportunities for teachers to work
on improving instructional practice with their colleagues during the
school day. Perhaps one of the most effective ways to break down
isolation among classrooms is common planning time for teachers to have
professional conversations, both formal and informal, on a daily basis.
Additional time for teachers' professional development is particularly
crucial for schools under state pressure to implement fully and
successfully a comprehensive school reform model that requires teachers
to practice new methods of instruction. District leaders noted that
teacher unions often have been highly supportive of the school
improvement process by making it possible to build additional time for
teachers to plan during and after the school day.

Districts have employed other strategies in an effort to facilitate
interaction among teachers. For instance, to foster a professional
learning community, one district is turning its standard observation
assessment system into a tool for providing the kind of support and
in-class coaching that would most benefit each teacher. Many
participants also agreed that technology can be a powerful tool for
creating connectivity, particularly as a way for more isolated rural
schools to gain access to learning networks and resources. Securing the
funds and infrastructure required to do so, however, often re-mains a
challenge. Nonetheless, schools and districts that understand the
importance of a professional learning community continue to seek new and
creative ways to increase opportunities for teacher interaction and
active engagement in improving student learning.

In addition to the lack of connectivity among educators, low-performing
schools often are also characterized by the lack of personal connection
between teachers and their students. The way that most schools are
structured---particularly on the secondary level---leaves little room
for the vast majority of students to form positive, caring relationships
with adults in the school. Participants offered strategies to foster
such an environment, including reducing class size and the overall size
of schools. Where the physical dimensions---the traditional school
building and number of students---are difficult to change, many schools
have created multiple "schools within a school" so that each student in
a large school has the benefit of a small, intimate learning community.
Extended day and summer programs were also noted as effective strategies
for building meaningful student-teacher relationships and for
maintaining academic continuity throughout the year.

In addition, connecting the school to the students' families remains a
major challenge for most high poverty schools. One urban district's
approach is to make what happens in the classroom more
"transparent"---visible and accessible---to parents. Principals take
photographs of student work and teachers in action and present them to
parents to help describe how the district focus on literacy is helping
improve student achievement. Sharing school and district data with
parents on a regular basis is an important way for school leaders to
build awareness, support, and discourse, as well as to tap into the
resources that parents and other community members can offer to inform
the improvement process.

A district committed to involving community members in the school worked
with the teachers' union to develop a district-wide community engagement
initiative. The "Family, School and Community Partnership Committee" was
established with representatives from the community, district and school
level professional and support staff. The committee identified three
major areas of concern---communication, literacy, and parenting---and
then created a committee to explore the needs, related issues, and
possible solutions for each. Based on one committee's recommendations to
improve communication between the school and community, the district is
now training parent liaisons for each neighborhood school. The liaisons'
role is to listen and work with parents, many of whom are reluctant to
go directly to administrators to share their concerns. The district has
also invested in the translation of all school policies into the seven
predominant languages spoken by families in the community. One key to
the specialized committees' success is that school administrators do not
serve as chairs; instead, a representative from the community and a
professional staff member jointly chair each committee.

**Closing Thoughts for the Journey Ahead: Commitment and Collaboration**

The U.S. Department of Education's first regional forum on turning
around low-performing schools began an important conversation about the
responsibilities of federal, state, and local entities to do what is
needed for students in high poverty communities to reach levels of
academic excellence. Participants in the forum offered a range of
effective policies and practices based on the successes and failures of
schools and districts engaged in comprehensive school improvement. Along
with the effective strategies and lessons from the field, participants
also offered additional questions and uncertainties to be grappled with
in the work that lies ahead. From the dialogue, however, a clear message
emerged: the process of change requires sustained commitment and
collaboration across community and governance structures. Further, the
transformational process of turning around low-performing schools
requires that leaders and stakeholders acknowledge and proactively
address the context and complex set of factors influencing schools and
communities. Organizing around a shared vision for coherence and deeper
connectivity among educators, students and families, lays the foundation
for the journey.

**About the Authors**

Naomi G. Housman, Ed.M., is based at the Institute for Educational
Leadership and is the assistant director for outreach for the National
Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform. Ms. Housman has taught in
high poverty urban communities, and coordinated an innovative
after-school and summer academic program for students in Boston's public
schools. Ms. Housman has also worked in policy and research on issues of
teacher recruitment, training and retention.

Monica R. Martinez is based at the Institute for Educational Leadership
and is the director of

outreach for the National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform
(NCCSR). Ms. Martinez has worked in a variety of higher education
institutions and for intermediary organizations that provide informal
and programmatic assistance in partnership development, school change,
research and evaluation. Her work has focused on the educational needs
of low-income and minority students across the K-16 educational
pipeline. Ms. Martinez served as the associate director for the
University of Maryland's National Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching (NPEAT), funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, and as assistant dean of the College at Williams College. Ms.
Martinez is currently completing her Ph.D. at New York University.

**Forum Participants**

**Hugh Burkett**, U.S. Department of Education

**Deanna Burney**, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of
Education

**Mitchell D. Chester**, School District of Philadelphia, PA

**Michael Cohen**, U.S. Department of Education

**Tom Corcoran**, University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education

**Susan Fuhrman**, University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education

**Peg Goertz**, University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education

**David Green**, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of
Education

**Merle Horowitz**, Upper Darby School District, PA

**Janice Jackson**, Boston College, Lynch School of Education

**Joe Jacovino**, Penn Delco School District, Sun Valley High School, PA

**Joe Johnson**, University of Texas/Austin, Charles A. Dana Center

**Julia Lara**, Council of Chief State School Officers

**Sharon Lewis**, Council of the Great City Schools

**James (Torch) Lytle**, Trenton Public Schools, NJ

**JoAnn Manning**, Temple University, Laboratory for Student Success

**Nancy J. McGinley**, Philadelphia Education Fund

**Jennifer O'Day**, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for
Policy Research in Education

**Marvin Pittman**, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

**Linda Plattner**, Council for Basic Education

**Charlene Rivera**, George Washington University, Region III
Comprehensive Center

**David Robinson**, School District of Philadelphia, McKinley School, PA

**Elliot Seif**, Bucks County Intermediate Unit, PA

**Nancy Streim**, University of Pennsylvania

**Sam Stringfield**, Johns Hopkins University, Center for the Social
Organization of Schools

**Rachel Tompkins**, The Rural School and Community Trust

**Jeanne Vissa**, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of
Education

**Margaret Wang**, Temple University, Laboratory for Student Success

**About NCCSR**

The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (NCCSR)
collects and disseminates information that builds the capacity of
schools to raise the academic achievement of all students. This is
accomplished by continuously examining the literature related to
comprehensive school reform (CSR), adding high quality materials to our
online databases and actively sending useful information to educators
and policy makers at the local, state and national levels. Through our
web site, reference and retrieval services and publications, NCCSR is
the central gateway to information on CSR.

**Visit NCCSR's web site at goodschools.gwu.edu**

**Email:** <AskNCCSR@goodschools.gwu.edu>

**The National Clearinghousefor Comprehensive School Reform**

**2121 K Street, Suite 250 Washington, DC 20037**

**Phone: (877) 766-4277**

**Fax: (877) 308-4995**

The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (NCCSR) is
funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. It is operated by The George Washington
University under Contract No.

ED-99-CO-0137 in partnership with the Council for Basic Education and
the Institute for Educational Leadership. The views expressed do not
necessarily reflect the views of The George Washington University or the
U.S. Department of Education. The mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government. Readers are free to duplicate and use these materials in
keeping with accepted publication standards. NCCSR requests that proper
credit be given in the event of reproduction.