COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY STUDENTS

he goal for America’s educational system is clear: Every student should graduate from 

high school ready for college or a career. Every student should have meaningful 

opportunities to choose from upon graduation from high school. But while all states have 

developed and implemented standards as required under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), in many cases, these standards do not reflect the knowledge and 

skills needed for success after high school, either in further education or in a job. Four out 

of every 10 new college students, including half of those at two-year institutions, take 

remedial courses, and many employers comment on the inadequate preparation of high 

school graduates. And while states have developed assessments aligned with their standards, 

in many cases theses assessments do not adequately measure student growth or the 

knowledge and skills that students need, nor do they provide timely, useful information to 

teachers. We must follow the lead of the nation’s governors and challenge students with 

state-developed, college- and career-ready standards, and more accurately measure what they 

are learning with better assessments. We must reward the success of schools that are making 

significant progress, ask for dramatic change in the lowest-performing schools, and address 

persistent gaps in student academic achievement and graduation rates.

T

OUR APPROACH

►Supporting college- and career-ready standards, preparing college- and career-ready 

students.

►Rewarding progress and success.

►Turning around the lowest-performing schools.
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY STUDENTS

OUR APPROACH

► Rigorous college- and career-ready standards. Require states to set standards that

meaningfully map towards readiness for college or a career.

► Rigorous and fair accountability and support at every level. Reward schools, districts, and 

states for success, require rigorous interventions in the lowest performers, and allow local 

flexibility to achieve results in most cases.

► Measuring and supporting schools, districts, and states. Use disaggregated data on 

progress and growth, as well as graduation rates and (if states choose) achievement in subjects 

other than English language arts and math, to fairly and accurately assess school needs and 

appropriately target strategies. 

► Building capacity for support at every level. Build state and district capacity to support 

schools, school leaders, teachers, and students.

► Fostering comparability and equity. Encourage increased resource equity at every level of 

the system.

Standards and Assessments

State standards and assessments generally do 

not reflect the knowledge and skills needed 

for student success in college and careers. 

The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) established a 

requirement that each state set standards defining 

what their students should know and be able to 

do in critical subjects and assess whether 

students were mastering those standards. Today, 

in part as a result of these federal requirements, 

every state has in place a set of K–12 standards 

for core subjects as well as an assessment system 

that measures progress toward math and literacy 

standards in grades 3–8 and once in high school. 

However, the current ESEA does not ask states 

to consider whether those standards are based on 

evidence of what students need to be successful 

in college and the workplace. Nor does the law 

ask that states’ standards build grade by grade 

toward college- and career-readiness. The result 

is that standards and assessments do not inform 

students, parents, or teachers whether students 

are on track toward college- and careerreadiness.

Low standards and inadequate academic 

preparation of high school graduates result 

in high costs for individuals and the nation. 

Among 2003–04 high school seniors who had 

enrolled in postsecondary education by 2006, 

40 percent took remedial courses; in public twoyear colleges, the remediation was needed for 51 

percent of their entering students (NCES, 2010). 

The total cost of this remediation is $1.4 billion a 

year. Because remedial students are more likely 

to drop out of college, their earning potential 

falls, which costs the nation’s gross domestic 

product an estimated $2.3 billion a year (Alliance 

for Excellent Education, 2006). 

Students who do not attend college will need 

additional workforce training to advance their 

careers. Nearly eight in 10 future job openings in 

the next decade in the U.S. will require some 

workforce training or postsecondary education 
(Holzer and Lerman, 2009). Whether preparing 

for college or a career, high school graduates 

need to have the foundational skills to enable 

them to learn additional academic and jobspecific skills, both at the entry-level and 

throughout their careers (Achieve, 2004). A

comparison of ACT tests that measure workforce

readiness with those that measure college

readiness found similar content and expectations 

on both types of tests (ACT, 2006).

The rigor of standards and assessments 

varies widely from state to state. Under the 

current version of ESEA, virtually every state has 

developed not only its own content standards and 

assessments aligned to those standards, but also 

its own definition of proficiency. Because of this 

lack of uniformity, students with the same actual 

achievement levels could be considered 

“proficient” in one state, but may not be in 

another. Comparing states’ performance on the 

yardstick of the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP), a rigorous 

assessment that is consistent across all states and 

is known as “the nation’s report card,” reveals 

that states have significantly different definitions 

of proficiency. Some states reporting a high 

percentage of students performing at the 

proficient level actually have lower student 

achievement than other states with a relatively 

College Readiness Indicators

Increasing numbers of states are tracking student data on college readiness indicators, showing both that 

States see the importance of such data in judging school quality and that they have already laid the 

groundwork for including such indicators in public reporting and accountability systems: 

► AP course-taking (31 states).

► Dual credit courses (25 states).

► Percentage of high school graduates who go to college (21 states).

► College remediation rates of public high school graduates (32 states).

► College GPA, credit attainment, or other academic indicators for students from individual high 

schools (14 states). 

► SAT, ACT, or AP scores (9 states).

► One year college retention rates (9 states).

Source: U.S. Department of Education (2010); Aldeman and Carey, 2009; Data Quality Campaign (2010).

small percentage of students at the proficient 

level. For example, Mississippi’s state assessment 

indicates that 89 percent of its fourth-graders 

were proficient in reading in 2004–05, compared 

with only 50 percent in Massachusetts. Yet, on 

the consistently applied measure of the NAEP, 

Massachusetts has the highest fourth-grade 

reading score in the nation; Mississippi ranks 

next to last (Carey, 2006). 

By translating each state’s proficiency standard 

into an equivalent NAEP point score, 

researchers have documented the large range of 

variation across the states. Figure 1 illustrates this 

variation for eighth-grade mathematics. The 

range in the NAEP-equivalent proficiency 

standard between South Carolina (312) and 

Tennessee (234) is 78 points, more than twice 

the 37-point difference between the NAEP basic 

(262) and the NAEP proficient (299) level. 

Similar patterns were found for fourth-grade 

reading and math and for eighth-grade reading 

(Bandeira de Mello, Blankenship, and 

McLaughlin, 2009). As a result, students who 

move to another state may find that the 

standards that guided their education in one state 

have not prepared them for what they are 

expected to learn in another state or for the 

demands of college and a career. 
262

279

286

264

265

265

265

266

266

267

267

268

268

270

270

271

271

272

272

273

277

279

278

279

279

281

282

284

285

286

286

289

294

302

312

262

262

260

259

259

253

253

252

251

249

243

234

180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Utah

Nebraska

District of Columbia

California

Tennessee

Georgia

Oklahoma

Illinois

Connecticut

Alabama

West Virginia

Virginia

Colorado

Michigan

Wisconsin

Mississippi

Oregon

Iow a

Idaho

Ohio

Alaska

Florida

Indiana

Nevada

Louisiana

Arizona

Texas

North Carolina

Kansas

South Dakota

Pennsylvania

Delaw are

New Jersey

New York

Arkansas

Maryland

North Dakota

Kentucky

Rhode Island

Wyoming

Montana

New Hampshire

Vermont

New Mexico

Maine

Minnesota

Washington

Missouri

Haw aii

Massachusetts

South Carolina Figure 1

NAEP Scale Equivalent Scores Corresponding to State Standards for 

Proficient Performance in 8th-Grade Mathematics, by State, 2007

NAEP Scale Equivalents

NAEP Proficient (299)

NAEP Basic (262)

Source: Bandeira de Mello et al., (2009)
Under the accountability system introduced 

by NCLB, many states have lowered their 

standards. By comparing the NAEP scale 

equivalent of each state’s standards from 2005 to 

2007, researchers documented that in states with 

a significant change in their NAEP scale 

equivalent, standards most commonly became 

easier. In eighth-grade mathematics, for example, 

among 12 states with a significant change in their 

NAEP scale equivalent, nine had significantly 

decreased their expectations; only three 

significantly increased them. In eighth-grade 

reading, all seven states with a statistically 

significant change had lowered their standards 

(Bandeira de Mello et al., 2009). Recognizing the 

importance of college- and career-ready 

standards, almost every state has joined a stateled initiative to develop a common core set of 

standards for mathematics and English language 

arts (ELA) that reflect what students need to 

know and be able to do for success after high 

school.

Accountability and Support

Current accountability provisions do not take 

into account growth and progress or reward 

excellence. Under the current ESEA, schools 

are labeled and subject to interventions based on 

whether they have made adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) toward the goal of all students performing 

Common Core State Standards Initiative

Governors and state commissioners from 48 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have 

joined a state-led initiative to develop a common core set of standards for mathematics and English 

language arts. Developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, these 

standards will define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K—12 education careers 

so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college 

courses and in workforce training programs. The standards will be based on evidence of what knowledge 

and skills are needed to enroll in college courses without remediation and to be successful in careers, 

internationally benchmarked to the world’s highest performing countries, and build on the strengths and 

lessons of current State standards. 

The initiative is being coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State 

School Officers. An advisory group providing guidance includes experts from Achieve, Inc., ACT, the College 

Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the State Higher Education Executive 

Officers. 

This initiative is intended to benefit:

► Students—by providing clear and consistent expectations across all states of what is expected of 

them to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete globally.

► Parents—by improving understanding of what is expected of students for career and college 

success.

► Educators—by focusing pre-service preparation and professional development on the standards 

and assessments and by having textbooks focused on one set of standards rather than an 

amalgam of different standards across states.

► States—by encouraging the sharing of best practices and enabling cost-sharing and economies of 

scale in test development and administration.

A public draft of the K—12 standards was released in March 2010 and the final standards are expected in 

late spring 2010. 

(Common Core State Standards Initiative, www.corestandards.org)
at the proficient level on state reading and math 

assessments by the 2013–14 school year. To 

make AYP, schools must meet annual measurable 

objectives based on reaching the 2014 goal for 

every student demographic subgroup in the 

school as well as for the school as a whole, must 

assess at least 95 percent of students in every 

subgroup, and must meet annual objectives for 

an “other” academic indicator (e.g., attendance 

rates or graduation rates). If a school fails to 

make AYP for two or more consecutive years, 

NCLB requires that they be identified as in need 

of improvement and implement specific 

interventions. With each additional year a school 

fails to meet AYP, it must implement new 

requirements. Schools move through the stages 

of being identified for school improvement, 

corrective action, and restructuring.1 The 

accountability system predominantly focuses on 

failures and interventions, and does not 

emphasize rewarding success. Schools that begin 

with low achievement but make significant 

progress toward proficiency in most cases do not 

receive recognition for that progress.

NCLB’s accountability measures do not 

adequately differentiate among schools based 

on their specific challenges. All lowperforming schools are not the same: some may 

be making significant gains, while others may be 

stuck in a pattern of chronic low performance. 

For example, a recent study of low-performing 

schools found that in Indiana and Maryland, a 

sizeable proportion of schools that were in the 

bottom quartile of reading performance in 2005 

made gains over the next four years that put 

them among the top-improving schools in their 

state (Ushomirsky and Hall, 2009). Nevertheless, 

NCLB treats low-performing but improving 

schools the same as low-performing schools that 

have had stagnant performance year after year. In 

addition, while some schools have been 

identified for improvement based on low 

achievement of students throughout the school, 

others have been identified based on 

achievement gaps. Among schools that did not 

make AYP in the 2005–06 school year, 24 

percent missed AYP due to the achievement of a 

single subgroup, while 35 percent missed AYP 

for the achievement of the school as a whole; the 

remaining schools missed for multiple subgroups 

or failing to meet a combination of indicators 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009a). Despite 

these differences among schools, NCLB uses the 

same labels for each type of school and 

prescribes the same series of interventions for all 

schools that do not meet one or more AYP 

status-based targets for two or more years, 

regardless of how many student subgroups are 

low-performing, the amount by which they 

missed achievement targets, or whether the 

school is making progress. 

Under current law, large numbers of schools 

are identified for improvement, and the 

number of schools is likely to continue to 

1 In the first year that a school is identified for improvement, NCLB interventions include requirements for professional 

development, technical assistance, and offering students the option to transfer to a non-identified school in the district. If the 

school misses AYP again after being identified, the district must give students from low-income families the option to receive 

supplemental educational services (e.g., tutoring) from state-approved providers. If such schools miss AYP for another year after 

identification, districts must take at least one of a series of corrective actions at the school, such as requiring a new curriculum or 

replacing school staff members. If a school does not make AYP after one year of corrective action, NCLB calls for major 

restructuring of the school, beginning with a year of planning for restructuring followed by actual restructuring the next year if the 

school misses AYP for a sixth year. NCLB lists specific interventions that schools in restructuring status must implement, 

including replacing all or most of the staff, turning operation of the school over to the State, reopening the school as a charter 

school, or entering into a contract with a private entity to manage the schoolbut the law also allows for “any other major 

restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement.” Identified schools and districts exit improvement status when they make 

AYP for two consecutive years.
grow rapidly, undermining the credibility of 

the law and straining the ability of states and 

districts to intervene effectively to address 

school needs. From 2004–05 to 2008–09, the 

total number of schools in improvement status 

rose by 30 percent (from 9,699 to 12,597), while 

the number in restructuring status more than 

tripled (rising from 1,180 to 5,017) (EDFacts). As 

2014, the year in which NCLB expects all 

students to be proficient, approaches, these 

numbers will likely grow dramatically. The 

increases are expected to be especially large in the 

27 states that set low annual achievement 

objectives in the early years of NCLB 

implementation and whose objectives now 

require large increases each year (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2009a). Moreover, 

states that have set high standards and have 

rigorous definitions of proficiency already have a 

high proportion of schools identified under 

NCLB as needing intervention. In 2006–07, 12 

states had identified more than one-third of their 

Title I schools. 

State officials have frequently expressed concern 

about their capacity to provide continued support 

to the increasing number of schools being 

identified for improvement and the growing 

number of schools moving into corrective action 

and restructuring (U.S. Department of Education, 

2009a). In a survey of state education officials 

conducted by the Center on Education Policy in 

2006, most state educational agency respondents 

reported that insufficient numbers of staff limited 

the state’s capacity to provide technical assistance 

to districts with schools in improvement either to 

a “great extent” (27 states) or a moderate extent 

(18 states). Large numbers of states also pointed 

to lack of in-house expertise, inadequate federal 

funds, inadequate state funds, and an inability to 

attract and retain qualified staff (Minnici and Hill, 

2007). 

States are looking for ways to provide the 

most intensive assistance where it is needed 

most, especially to chronically 

underperforming schools. In July 2008 and 

January 2009, the Department approved waivers 

for nine states to implement differentiated 

accountability pilot plans that allow them to vary 

the intensity and type of interventions provided 

in Title I schools identified for improvement 

(Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Ohio). 

Participating states reported that differentiated 

accountability has improved the state’s capacity 

to provide technical assistance and support that 

was more appropriate to the individual needs of 

schools, particularly for the lowest-performing 

schools (U.S. Department of Education, 

forthcoming). 

Building Capacity for Support at Every Level

State and district capacity to support 

educators in areas like data-driven decisionmaking and effective use of technology are 

important elements of school improvement. 

Districts and schools that are improving 

generally show a commitment to the use of 

student assessment data to diagnose weaknesses 

and guide improvement efforts. They provide 

data to teachers and principals in a timely 

manner, train teachers in how to use these data 

effectively and give the teachers time to analyze 

the data (Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter, 2007; 

Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy, 2002). But few 

districts have the capacity to realize the full 

potential of student data. While nearly all districts 

have student information systems, fewer than 

half have data systems that allow staff to link 

outcomes to inputs and processes that lead to 

continuous improvement. Despite a dramatic 

increase in teacher access to student data in the 

past few years, in most cases the data systems 

available to teachers do not provide the 

information and tools they need for ongoing 

instructional decision making. Only 37 percent of 
all teachers in 2007 had achievement data from a 

data system for their current students, and only 

11 percent had access to longitudinal 

achievement information for current students 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009c). 

State and district supports for high-quality 

early learning programs and promoting 

family engagement can strengthen school 

performance. High-quality preschool programs 

and smooth transitions to kindergarten can help 

prevent and reduce gaps in skills and 

achievement, reduce grade retention and the 

over-identification of students as children with 

disabilities, and ensure that high-need children 

are successful in school and life (Pungello et al., 

2010; Frede, Jung, Barnett, and Figueras, 2009; 

Schweinhart et al., 2005; Schulting, Malone, and 

Dodge, 2005; Bogard and Takanishi, 2005; 

Ramey and Ramey, 2004). Many researchers have 

found that parental involvement in a child’s 

education is positively associated with increases 

in student academic achievement (Jeynes, 2005; 

Fan and Chen, 2001; Henderson and Berla, 

1994), and school-sponsored parental 

involvement programs may indirectly improve 

student achievement by increasing parents’ 

expectations or improving parenting skills related 

to education (D’Agostino, Hedges, Wong, and 

Borman, 2001). Allowing districts and states 

flexibility over how they support their schools in 

implementing these strategies will enable them to 

tailor specific approaches to the individual needs 

of each school. 

Comparability and Equity

The current Title I comparability 

requirement is intended to ensure that Title I 

funds are supplementing an equitable base of 

state and local resources, but it is not having 

that effect. Since 1970, Title I has required 

districts to assure that state and local funds 

provided to Title I schools are comparable to 

those in non-Title I schools. However, the 

comparability provisions have been diluted over 

the years, and current law allows districts to meet 

the requirement by providing a written assurance 

that they have a districtwide salary schedule and 

polices to ensure equivalence among schools in 

various types of resources (McClure, 2008). 

In addition, the law specifies that staff salary 

differentials for years of experience shall not be 

taken into account, so comparability calculations 

are based on average salaries across the district 

rather than actual salaries of staff within each 

school. As a result, the provision allows 

significant within-district disparities in school 

resources, and a high-poverty Title I school with 

less experienced, lower-paid teachers can be 

deemed “comparable” under the law to a lowpoverty non-Title I school with more 

experienced teachers (Hall and Ushomirsky, 

2010; Luebchow, 2009; Roza, 2008).

Nationally, teachers in the highest-poverty 

schools received salaries that were 10 percent 

lower, on average, than those for teachers in 

the lowest-poverty schools (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2009b). An in-depth study of five 

urban districts by Roza and Hill (2004) found

that four out of five urban districts spent less on 

the highest-poverty schools than on the lowestpoverty schools. The difference ranged from 10 

percent to 23 percent of a school’s budget. These 

disparities were largely driven by the ability of 

more experienced, higher-salaried teachers to 

obtain teaching assignments in lower-poverty 

schools while newer, lower-salaried teachers were 

assigned to higher-poverty schools. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACT, Inc. (2006). Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different? Iowa City, Ia.: Author. Retrieved 

April 7, 2010, from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ReadinessBrief.pdf.

Achieve, Inc. (2004). Creating a High School Diploma That Counts. Prepared for The American Diploma 

Project. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.achieve.org/files/ADPreport_7.pdf.

Aldeman, Chad, and Kevin Carey (2009). Ready to Assemble: Grading State Higher Education Accountability 

Systems. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.

Alliance for Excellent Education (2006). Paying Double: Inadequate High Schools and Community College 

Remediation. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/remediation.pdf. 

Bandeira de Mello, Victor, Charles Blankenship, and Donald McLaughlin (2009). Mapping State Proficiency 

Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005–2007 (NCES 2010-456). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 

7, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2010456.pdf.

Bogard, Kimber, and Ruby Takanishi (2005). PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education 

for children 3 to 8 years old. Social Policy Report, 29(3): 3–23. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.fcd-us.org/usr_doc/PK-3AnAlignedandCoordinatedApproach.pdf.

Carey, Kevin (2006). Hot Air: How States Inflate Their Educational Progress Under NCLB. Washington, D.C.: 

Education Sector.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association 

Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.corestandards.org.

D'Agostino, Jerome, Larry Hedges, Kenneth Wong, and Geoffrey Borman (2001). Title I parentinvolvement programs: Effects on parenting practices and student achievement. In Geoffrey 

Borman, Sam Stringfield, and Robert Slavin (eds.), Title I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads. 

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Data Quality Campaign (2009). State survey on 10 state actions to ensure effective data use. Washington, 

D.C.: Author. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from

http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/element6_survey_responses.pdf.

Datnow, Amanda, Vicki Park, and Priscilla Wohlstetter (2007). Achieving With Data: How High-Performing 

School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary Students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational 

Governance, University of Southern California.

Fan, Xitao, and Michael Chen (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1):1–22.

Frede, Ellen, Kwanghee Jung, W. Steven Barnett, and Alexandra Figueras (2009). The APPLES Blossom: 

Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES), Preliminary Results through 2nd Grade, Interim 

Report. New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Hall, Daria, and Natasha Ushomirsky (2010). Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our Schools. Washington, 

D.C.: The Education Trust. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Hidden%20Funding%20Gaps_0.p

df.

Henderson, Anne, and Nancy Berla (eds.) (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family Is Critical to 

Student Achievement. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Education.

Holzer, Harry J, and Robert I. Lerman (2009). The Future of Middle-Skill Jobs. Washington, D.C.: 

Brookings Institution. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/02_middle_skill_jobs_holzer/02_middl

e_skill_jobs_holzer.pdf.

Jeynes, William (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary 

school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 42(1):82–110.

Luebchow, Lindsey (2009). Equitable Resources in Low Income Schools: Teacher Equity and the Federal Title I 

Comparability Requirement. Washington, D.C.: New America Foundation. Retrieved April 7, 2010, 

from www.newamerica.net/files/nafmigration/Equitable_Resources_in_Low_Income_Schools.pdf.

McClure, Phyllis (2008). The history of educational comparability in Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965. In John Podesta and Cynthia Brown (eds.), Ensuring Equal 

Opportunity in Public Education: How Local School District Funding Practices Hurt Disadvantaged Students and 

What Federal Policy Can Do About It. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.

Minnici, Angela, and Deanna D. Hill (2007). Educational Architects: Do State Education Agencies Have the Tools 

Necessary to Implement NCLB? Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.

National Center for Education Statistics (February 2010). 2002 Educational Longitudinal Study: Second 

Followup, 2006, previously unpublished tabulations.

Pungello, Elizabeth, Kirsten Kainz, Margaret Burchinal, Barbara Wasik, Joseph Sparling, Craig Ramey, 

and France Cambpell (2010). Early educational intervention, early cumulative risk, and the early home 

environment as predictors of young adult outcomes within a high-risk sample. Child Development, 

81(1): 410–426.

Ramey, Craig, and Sharon Ramey (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention 

make a difference? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(4): 471–491.

Roza, Marguerite (2008). What if we closed the Title I comparability loophole? In John Podesta and 

Cynthia Brown (eds.), Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education: How Local School District Funding 

Practices Hurt Disadvantaged Students and What Federal Policy Can Do About It. Washington, D.C.: Center 

for American Progress.

Roza, Marguerite, and Paul T. Hill (2004). How within-district spending inequities help some schools fail. 

In Dianne Ravitch (ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2004, sponsored by the Brown Center on 

Education Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Schulting, Amy, Patrick Malone, and Kenneth Dodge (2005). The effects of school-based kindergarten 

transition practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41(6): 860–871. Retrieved 
April 7, 2010, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757260/pdf/nihms143120.pdf. 

Schweinhart, Lawrence, Jeanne Montie, Zongping Xiang, William Barnett, Clive Belfield, and Milagros 

Nores (2005). Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. (Monographs of the 

HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, Mich.: HighScope Press. 

Snipes, Jason, Fred Doolittle, and Corinne Herlihy (2002). Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban 

School Systems Improve Student Achievement. Washington, D.C. Council of the Great City Schools. 

U.S. Department of Education (forthcoming). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Differentiated 

Accountability Program. By Karen Charles, Terri Dempsey, Courtney Burns, Elizabeth Parish, and 

Jordan Hudson. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

U.S. Department of Education (2010a). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume 

IX—Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report. By James Taylor, Brian Stecher, Jennifer O’Day, Scott 

Naftel, and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved April 

7, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

U.S. Department of Education (2010b). EDFacts, previously unpublished tabulations.

U.S. Department of Education (2009a). Title I Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation Findings. 

By Stephanie Stullich, Andrew Abrams, Elizabeth Eisner, and Erica Lee. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service.

U.S. Department of Education (2009b). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act,

Volume VI—Targeting and Uses of Federal Education Funds. By Jay Chambers, Irene Lam, Kanya 

Mahitivanichcha, Phil Esra, Larisa Shambaugh, and Stephanie Stullich. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service.

U.S. Department of Education (2009c). Implementing Data-Informed Decision Making in Schools: Teacher Access, 

Supports and Use. By Barbara Means, Christine Padilla, Angela DeBarger, and Marianne Bakia. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#edtech.

Ushomirsky, Natasha, and Daria Hall (2009). Stuck Schools: A Framework for Identifying Schools Where Students 

Need Change—Now! Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/StuckSchools.pdf.
SCHOOL TURNAROUND GRANTS

OUR APPROACH

► Large grants for significant changes. Support states, districts and schools in implementing 

the rigorous interventions required in each state’s lowest performing schools.

► District choice of four models. All models require dramatic change, but districts have 

substantial flexibility in choosing which model best fits school and community needs.

► Capacity building. Build state capacity to support schools, such as through school quality 

review teams.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB), states and districts frequently chose 

the least intensive reform options. Less than 

one quarter of the schools in the second year of 

restructuring status under NCLB reported using 

the four specific interventions in the law, 

suggesting that the vast majority were 

implementing an “other” strategy as allowed by 

current law (U.S. Department of Education, 

2010). An in-depth study of five states found 

that the “other” option was used from 86 to 96 

percent of the time, depending on the state 

(Center on Education Policy, 2009).

Incremental reforms have failed to turn 

around the nation’s lowest-performing 

schools. Few schools in restructuring status 

have succeeded in moving out of school 

improvement status. Among schools that were 

in restructuring status in 2004–05, only 19 

percent had moved out of restructuring status by 

2006–07 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). 

Districts often approach persistently lowperforming schools by utilizing serial, siloed 

reforms, which are ineffective. For example, 

over the past 11 years, a particular middle school 

in California has experienced a variety of 

incremental reforms. Yet, achievement has 

Forest Grove High School

Forest Grove, Oregon

Forest Grove High School is the only high school in the town of Forest Grove and serves over 1,900 

students. Starting in 2002, the school hired a new principal, who set high expectations for student 

achievement, emphasized data-driven decision-making and provided targeted professional development for 

all teachers. Forest Grove has also implemented a small learning community to personalize the high 

school. Components include an award-winning “Links” program for incoming ninth-graders, “student 

houses” for all ninth and tenth grade students and career pathways for juniors and seniors. In addition, 

Forest Grove has increased its offerings in AP courses from eight to 24.

Prior to 2002, fewer than half of students were meeting or exceeding standards in reading, and less than a 

third were proficient in math. By 2008–09, 76 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency in reading, 

83 percent met or exceeded proficiency in math, and in both subjects Forest Grove students outperformed 

their peers at the state levels. Between 2003 and 2009, the percentage of Hispanic students meeting or 

exceeding standards jumped from 19 percent to 60 percent in reading and from 13 percent to 73 percent 

in math, while for low-income students the percentage increased from 18 percent to 63 percent in reading 

and from 10 percent to 73 percent in math. Forest Grove received the state’s “Closing the Achievement 

Gap” Award four years in a row, and has reduced the dropout rate from 7 percent in 2002 to 2 percent in 

2008.
remained stagnant, with only 3 percent of 

students proficient in math and 11 percent in 

English in 2009 (Manwaring, 2010). Research 

indicates that turning around a persistently lowperforming school requires intensive effort and 

strong support from school districts and partner 

organizations (Center on Education Policy, 2009; 

Pinkus, 2009; Mass Insight, 2007). Incremental 

reforms are unlikely to be successful (Mass 

Insight, 2007).

Persistent failure is not inevitablearound 

the nation there are high-poverty, chronically 

low-performing schools making dramatic 

improvements in achievement, rates of 

student growth, and graduation rates. 

Emerging research on recent efforts finds that 

low-performing schools that dramatically 

improve student results rely on common 

strategies to turn around. 

Build a positive culture of high expectations. In 

high-poverty, high-performing schools, school 

staff have high expectations for all students and 

hold themselves accountable for their students’ 

success (Woodworth et al., 2008; Mass Insight, 

2007; Murphy, 2007; Chenoweth, 2007; 

EdSource, 2006; Kannapel and Clements, 2005; 

Benwood Initiative

Chattanooga, Tennessee 

Prior to the start of Chattanooga’s Benwood Initiative, the eight Benwood schools were ranked among the 

state’s 20 lowest-performing elementary schools. With the initiative, the district placed most of their 

emphasis on strengthening staff, replacing most principals in the original eight Benwood schools and 

requiring all teachers to reapply for their jobs, although many were rehired. As part of their talent-focused 

strategy, the initiative invested in teacher professional development to improve the quality of instruction, 

offered incentives to attract and retain effective staff, and provided leadership coaches to help principals 

and assistant principals guide and evaluate teachers. 

Among the gains in student achievement: from 2003 to 2009, the percentage of Benwood third-graders 

scoring proficient or advanced on state reading tests rose by 20 percentage points, from 53 percent to 73 

percent, and in math, students gained 19 percentage points from 50 percent to 69 percent. During that 

same time fifth-graders made even greater gains with large jumps in the percentage of students scoring 

proficient or advanced in reading and math. Students gained 27 percentage points from 62 percent to 89 

percent in reading and 32 percentage points from 57 percent to 89 percent in math.

Education Trust, 1999). Staff in successful 

turnarounds do the same and build a positive 

school culture of high expectations, whereas 

chronically low-performing schools do not 

(Brinson, Kowal and Hassel, 2008; Mass Insight, 

2007; EdSource, 2006; Duke, 2006).

Ensure strong leadership and staff who have the 

commitment and skills to increase student 

achievement. Great teachers matter. Studies 

suggest that a student who has a good teacher for 

several years in a row will be on a path of 

continued growth and success, while a student 

who is taught by a succession of less effective 

teachers will continue to lag behind (Hanushek, 

2009; Rivkin et al., 2005; Nye et al., 2004; 

Aaronson et al., 2003). Strong school leadership 

is also essential. Second to classroom 

instruction, school leadership is the most 

important school-based variable affecting student 

achievement – and key to creating a school 

culture focused on learning and high 

expectations and to providing support for staff 

(Leithwood et al., 2004 and Murphy et al., 2006).

In fact, teachers cite a principal’s support and 

effectiveness as a leading factor that contributes 

to their decision to remain in teaching 

(Futernick, 2007). Where schools have been 
struggling for years, research shows new leaders 

need to be able to build effective teams that are 

able to accomplish this critical work. Thus, 

turnarounds often begin with significant changes 

in school leadership and staff in order to create a 

new school culture that emphasizes achievement 

and shared responsibility for student success 

(Herman et al., 2008; Silva, 2008; Mass Insight, 

2007; Duke, 2006; Kowal and Hassel, 2005). 

Successful turnaround leaders make it a high 

priority to recruit and retain strong staff while 

replacing low performers (Kowal, Rosch, et al., 

2009; Herman et al., 2008; Silva, 2008; Mass 

Insight, 2007; Murphy, 2007; Duke, 2006). And, 

many successful turnarounds provide focused 

and intensive professional development (Silva, 

2008; Herman et al., 2008; Murphy, 2007; 

EdSource, 2006). 

Strengthen the instructional program, extend 

learning time and engage families and 

communities. Many turnarounds also take steps 

to strengthen their instructional programs by 

aligning their curriculum with standards and by 

facilitating teacher collaboration (Herman et al, 

2008; Silva, 2008; Walberg, 2007; Duke, 2006). 

Additionally, many turnarounds monitor student 

progress frequently, use data on student learning 

to inform and drive instruction, extend learning 

time, and engage parents and communities to 

support student success (Brinson, Kowal, and 

Hassel, 2008; Herman et al, 2008; Silva, 2008; 

Mass Insight, 2007; Murphy, 2007; Walberg, 

2007; Duke, 2006; EdSource, 2006; Kannapel 

and Clements, 2005). 

Change governance to provide flexibility for 

needed reforms. Governance changes such as 

creating a turnaround zone or providing schools 

with additional operational flexibility over 

budgets, schedules and staffing provide schools 

with needed reform tools (Mass Insight, 2007). 

Converting a persistently low-achieving school to 

a public charter school, another type of 

governance change, can also lead to significant 

improvements when the charter school is of high 

quality (Woodall, 2009; Mass Insight, 2007; Arkin 

and Kowal, 2005).

Denver Public Schools

Denver, Colorado

Denver Public Schools has engaged in a 

comprehensive strategy of school performance 

management since 2004. As a part of that 

strategy, the district has provided supports and 

interventions in schools with declining enrollment 

and persistently low academic performance, 

including offering financial and program supports 

to turn around struggling schools, transforming 

chronically underperforming schools, and closing 

historically underperforming schools. In 2007, as 

part of this broader strategy to turn around 

schools with declining academic performance and 

enrollment, the district closed eight schools and 

placed students in higher-performing or new 

schools. The district also approved significant 

interventions for six additional schools in 2009 

and will begin the implementation of each of the 

four school intervention models in fall 2010. 

In the schools that were closed in 2007-2008, 

data shows that students moved to other schools 

are performing better, on average than they did 

before the school closures. Rates of student 

growth in 2008-2009 exceeded rates from 

previous years in all three tested subjects, and

exceeded the state average, in all three tested 

subjects and increased 8 percentiles in math and 

11 percentiles in writing. For example, Stedman 

Elementary School received students from school 

closures, and students who were transferred have 

shown much academic progress. These students’ 

proficiency rates increased from 14 percent to 42 

percent in writing, 43 percent to 57 percent in 

reading, and 29 percent to 79 percent in math.
Mastery Charter Schools

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mastery has restarted three low-performing schools in Philadelphia, which will all eventually serve grades 

7–12. Also, Mastery serves the same percentages of students with disabilities as its feeder schools; 12 

percent at Thomas, 16 percent at Shoemaker and 21 percent at Pickett. To maintain an achievementdriven environment and culture, all schools have a strict schoolwide disciplinary system in addition to a 

college prep curriculum that includes career training and college admissions seminars. These charter 

schools also tailor courses to meet students’ different skill levels and provide extended learning time as 

needed, so that all students are ready for college when they graduate. 

These efforts have paid off, as Mastery has succeeded in turning around all three campuses that it 

manages. In the year before Mastery began managing these schools: 29 percent of Thomas students were 

proficient in reading and 39 percent in math; 43 percent of Shoemaker students were proficient in reading 

and 31 percent in math; and 22 percent of Pickett students were proficient in reading and 14 percent in 

math. As of the 2008–09 school year: 66 percent of Thomas students were proficient in reading and 

72 percent in math; 78 percent of Shoemaker students were proficient in reading and 87 percent in math; 

and 64 percent of Pickett students were proficient in reading and 69 percent in math. In all schools within 

two years of their restart, the percentage of students scoring proficient in reading and math has almost 

doubled, and in some cases tripled, across all grade levels. Furthermore, in 2009, in all grades tested, 

Mastery students outperformed the district average in the percent of proficient students in both reading 

and math. Meanwhile, African-American and low-income students outperformed the state average in these 

subjects in 7th, 8th and 11th grade.

George Hall Elementary School

Mobile, Alabama

After years of low achievement, George Hall Elementary was identified for restructuring, and the Mobile 

school district decided to start from scratch. Beginning in the 2004–05 school year, they hired a new 

principal, and the entire staff was asked to reapply for their jobs. Few members of the former staff 

returned; the majority of the staff were new to the school. The new staff signed contracts to stay at the 

school for at least five years. The principal focused on developing staff cohesion, a positive culture, and a 

curriculum that was aligned with state standards and connected from one grade level to the next. 

Since then student achievement has risen sharply. In reading, the percentage of students scoring at or 

above the proficient level almost doubled from 24 percent in 2003–04 to 43 percent in 2004–05; math 

gains were even larger, rising from 34 percent to 69 percent. By 2008–09, the percentage of students that 

scored proficient or above reached 90 percent in reading and 94 percent in math. George Hall has won 

numerous accolades, including an Education Trust Dispelling the Myth Award in 2009, designation as a 

U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School in 2008, and Alabama Torchbearer Recognition in 2007 

and 2008.
PS 230 (Roland N. Paterson ES)

Bronx, New York

In 2003, PS 230 was designated as a School Under Registration Review (SURR) by the state of New York 

and would be forced to restructure if its test scores did not improve. That same year, PS 230 hired a new 

principal to turn around the school. Teachers were reassigned to different roles based on their strengths 

and weaknesses, with ten released or counseled out after the first year. After establishing clear 

expectations among the teachers, a Staff Development Consultation Committee made up of the strongest 

teachers in each grade level was created to conduct peer observations and provide feedback. Teachers 

sought and received more planning time to draft lesson plans collaboratively. The school aligned its interim 

assessments with state standards. Teachers also worked together to strengthen the school’s curricular 

materials while implementing New York City’s math and English language arts curricula.

In 2003, only 18 percent of fourth-graders scored proficient on state exams and only 12 percent in reading. 

By 2009, 82 percent of fourth-graders were proficient in math, while 54 percent were proficient in reading.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa Barrow, and William Sander (2003). Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago 

Public High Schools. Chicago, Ill.: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. 

Arkin, Matthew, and Julie Kowal (2005). School Restructuring Options Under No Child Left Behind: What 

Works When? Reopening as a Charter School. Washington, D.C.: Center for Comprehensive School 

Reform and Improvement. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/restructuring/KnowledgeIssues2Chartering.pdf.

Brinson, Dana, Julie Kowal, and Bryan C. Hassel (2008). School Turnarounds: Actions and Results. Lincoln, 

Ill.: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Turnaround%20Actions%20and%20Results%203%202

4%2008%20with%20covers.pdf. 

Center on Education Policy (2009). Improving Low-Performing Schools: Lessons from Five Years of Studying School 

Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from

http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument

&documentid=300&documentFormatId=4588.

Chenoweth, Karin (2007). It’s Being Done: Academic Success in Unexpected Schools. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

Education Press. 

Duke, Daniel L. (2006). Keys to sustaining successful school turnarounds. ERS Spectrum, 24(4): 21–25.

EdSource (2006). Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? Mountain View, Calif.: 

Author.

Education Trust (1999). Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations. Washington, D.C.: 

Author.

Futernick, Ken (2007). A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Can Learn. Sacramento, 

Calif.: California State University. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.calstate.edu/teacherquality/documents/possible_dream.pdf.

Hanushek, Eric (2009). Teacher deselection. In Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway (eds.), Creating a New 

Teaching Profession. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/Hanushek%202009%20CNTP%2

0ch%208.pdf. 

Herman, Rebecca, Priscilla Dawson, Thomas Dee, Jay Greene, Rebecca Maynard, Sam Redding, and 

Marlene Darwin (2008). Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A Practice Guide (NCEE 

2008–4020). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/Turnaround_pg_04181.pdf.

Kannapel, Patricia, and Stephen Clements (2005). Inside the Black Box of High-Performing High-Poverty Schools. 

Lexington, Ky.: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from

http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/pdf/FordReportJE.pdf. 

Kowal, Julie, and Emily Ayscue Hassel (2005). Turnarounds With New Leaders and Staff. Washington, D.C.: 

Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

Kowal, Julie, Jacob L. Rosch, Emily Ayscue Hassel, and Brian C. Hassel (2009). Performance-Based 
Dismissals: Cross-Sector Lessons for School Turnarounds. Lincoln, Ill.: Center on Innovation and 

Improvement. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from

http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Performance-Based_Dismissals.pdf.

Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom (2004). How Leadership 

Influences Student Learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachme

nts/PDF/ReviewofResearch-LearningFromLeadership.pdf. 

Manwaring, Robert (2010). Restructuring ‘Restructuring’: Improving Interventions for Low-Performing Schools and 

Districts. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.

Mass Insight Education and Research Institute (2007). The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s Best 

Opportunity to Dramatically Improve Student Achievement Lies in Our Worst-Performing Schools. Boston: 

Author. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.massinsight.org/resourcefiles/TheTurnaroundChallenge_2007.pdf.

Murphy, Joseph (2007). Restructuring through learning-focused leadership. In Herbert J. Walberg (ed.), 

Handbook on Restructuring and Substantial School Improvement. Lincoln, Ill.: Academic Development 

Institute. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/training/handbooks/cii_handbook.pdf. 

Nye, Barbara, Spyros Konstantopoulos and Larry Hedges (2004). How large are teacher effects? 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(3): 237–257.

Pinkus, Lindsay (2009). Action Required: Addressing the Nation’s Lowest-Performing High Schools. Washington, 

D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

http://www.all4ed.org/files/ActionRequired.pdf. 

Rivkin, Steven, Eric Hanushek, and John Kain (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. 

Econometrica, 73(2): 417–458. 

Silva, Elena (2008). The Benwood Plan: A Lesson in Comprehensive Teacher Reform. Washington, D.C.: 

Education Sector.

U.S. Department of Education (2010). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume 

IX – Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report. By James Taylor, Brian Stecher, Jennifer O’Day, Scott 

Naftel, and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved April 

7, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

U.S. Department of Education (2009). Title I Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation Findings. 

By Stephanie Stullich, Andrew Abrams, Elizabeth Eisner, and Erica Lee. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service.

Walberg, Herbert J. (2007). Changing and monitoring instruction. In Herbert J. Walberg (ed.), Handbook 

on Restructuring and Substantial School Improvement. Lincoln, Ill.: Academic Development Institute. 

Retrieved April 7, 2010, from 

www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/training/handbooks/cii_handbook.pdf. 

Woodall, Martha (2009). Philadelphia charter schools honored. Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 6, 2009. 

Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.masterycharter.org/files/1-26319217%20Eprint.pdf.
Woodworth, Katrina, Jane David, Roneeta Guha, Haiwen Wang, and Alejandra Lopez-Torkos (2008). San 

Francisco Bay Area KIPP schools: A study of early implementation and achievement. Final report. Menlo Park, CA: 

SRI International.