Turning around High Schools via "Scaffolded Craftsmanship".

The following study provides a unique internal perspective on changes made in schools that “turned around” versus schools that are in the process of “turning around” versus schools that are “stuck. ” After comparing and contrasting these three groupings of schools who received similar state-level support, we learned that the turnaround process began in virtually every case with the appointment of a new principal who replaced a substantial number of teachers and sparked a series of interlocking changes focused on key areas of school operation, including (1) the strength of linkages between the school and both the district central office and the community served by the school; (2) the commitment, climate, and culture affecting student learning; (3) the knowledge and skills that school leaders, teachers, and other staff bring to their jobs; and (4) the structures and processes that support instruction within the school. We coined the term scaffolded craftsmanship to characterize this process of transformation. Key Terms: Turnaround Schools, School Turnaround Reform, Scaffolded Craftsmanship This research project was completed as part of the Race to the Top evaluation for the state of North Carolina. Portions of this manuscript are aligned with our final report submitted to the state and published on the state website. This manuscript has not been published in an academic journal or other copyrighted material. Copyright statement: Authors retain the copyright to the manuscripts published in AABRI journals. Please see the AABRI Copyright Policy at http://www.aabri. com/copyright.html Journal of Instructional Pedagogies Volume 18 Turning around high, Page 2 INTRODUCTION The Washington Post headline read, “Most states lacked expertise to improve worst schools” (Layton, 2015), referring to the Institute of Education Sciences’ (IES, 2008) research brief documenting states’ capacity to support the turnaround of low-performing schools (via billions of dollars from the US Department of Education’s School Improvement Grants and/or Race to the Top programs). At the same time, Tanenbaum, Boyle, Graczewski, James-Burdumy, Dragoset, and Hallgren (2015) claimed that “there is limited existing research on the extent to which states have the capacity to support school turnaround and are pursuing strategies to enhance the capacity” (p. 1); their key findings include: (1) More than 80 percent of states made turning around low-performing schools a high priority, but at least 50 percent of all states found turnaround very difficult. (2) Thirty-eight states (76 percent) reported significant gaps in expertise for supporting school turnaround in 2012, and that number increased to 40 states (80 percent) in 2013. (p. 1) Tanenbaum et al. (2015) further assert that “Unfortunately, there are few examples to date of such low-performing schools producing substantial and sustained achievement gains.It is thus of interest to examine what, if any, strategies these particular states are adopting to enhance their capacity to support turnaround” (p. 3). Our research does just that. We examine North Carolina’s efforts and provide a unique, internal, comparative perspective on the mixed results from schools that “turned around” versus schools that are in the process of “turning around” versus schools that are “stuck. ” While a small but growing body of research has reviewed the processes involved in school turnaround, most studies (a) describe failing schools and the need for intervention, (b) provide case studies of a handful of schools that are/have improved, (c) describe reported approaches and key lessons to turnaround, and/or (d) highlight the differences between schools that have made significant progress versus those that have not (many from across different states, districts, and grant/funding samples) (American Institutes for Research [AIR], 2014a, 2014b; Council of the Great City Schools, 2015; Fryer, 2014; MDRC, 2013). Few studies, if any, have looked at the concerted, coherent efforts of one state and then compared and contrasted mixed results within three groupings of schools (turned around, turning around, and stuck) to learn the nuanced actions taken in each to scaffold improvement or not. From 2010 through 2014, a portion of North Carolina’s $400 million Race to the Top grant enabled the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) to intervene in an effort to improve performance in the lowest-achieving five percent of North Carolina’s schools—118 elementary, middle, and high schools. With modifications to accommodate federal guidelines, the interventions supported by Race to the Top funds built upon experience gained from the NCDPI Turnaround Schools program’s work in similar schools between 2006 and 2010. Between 2006 and 2010, NCDPI and its partner organizations (e.g., New Schools Project) worked with 66 low achieving high schools, 37 middle schools, and 25 elementary schools. These schools were targeted for intervention primarily because their Performance Composites fell below 60% for two or more years. To assess the impact and isolate the effects of the Turnaround Schools program, an analysis of student achievement data and graduation rates was conducted using valueadded models that controlled for differences in student characteristics such as prior achievement, family economic background, and ethnicity as well as characteristics of the schools themselves, including average daily membership (Author, 2011). While we acknowledge the narrowness of judging turnaround efforts based solely on reported improvements in test scores and graduation rates Journal of Instructional Pedagogies Volume 18 Turning around high, Page 3 (as opposed to efforts focused more broadly that create enriching school cultures and enhance the social, emotional and behavioral development of all students), our study was designed around the state’s definition and form of classification. To learn how change took place in the schools that did improve and what frustrated change in those that were slower to improve and/or continued to perform poorly, we selected 12 high schools, 9 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools to study via onsite interviews and examination of plans, reports, and other documents generated during the turnaround process. At each level of schooling, we chose one third whose Performance Composites had improved sharply (by 30 percentage points or more), one third that had improved moderately (about 15 to 20 points), and one third that had made little or no progress (less than 10 points). By contrasting the developments in the most improved, moderately improved, and “stuck” schools, we were able to reveal both the dynamics of improvement and the main obstacles to change. Since the state of North Carolina introduced and then consistently sustained their intervention efforts at the high school level (versus policy shifts, support inequities, and resource/funding limitations and interruptions at the middle and elementary levels), in this article we focus on data from a sample (n=12) of the 66 high schools in turnaround only (Author, 2011).