ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To

Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC

Digest.

ERIC Development Team

www.eric.ed.gov

Table of Contents

If you're viewing this document online, you can click any of the topics below to link directly to that section.

The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest............. 1

HOW ARE LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS DEFINED?................2

WHY DO SCHOOLS PERFORM POORLY?.............................. 3

DO SANCTIONS IMPROVE LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS?....... 3

HOW CAN EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE HELP LOW-PERFORMING

SCHOOLS?................................................................ 4

HOW CAN PRINCIPALS TURN AROUND LOW-PERFORMING

SCHOOLS?................................................................ 5

RESOURCES................................................................... 6

ERIC Identifier: ED478248

Publication Date: 2003-07-00

Author: Lashway, Larry

Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.

The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools.

ERIC Digest.

THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT

ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 1 of 8
ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC

The twentieth anniversary of A Nation at Risk has inspired numerous retrospective

looks at the last two decades of school reform. The verdict is usually the same:

noteworthy progress, but lots of unfinished business.

High on the to-do list is the stubborn problem of low-performing schools in which a

majority of students persistently fail to meet academic standards. Despite repeated

reform efforts, many of these institutions are not performing much better than they did in

1983.

While images of failed schools have long been a motivating force in educational reform,

the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has created a new sense of urgency.

Confronted with a steadily rising bar for achievement, schools that lag behind will lose

students, autonomy, and perhaps even their right to exist.

Moreover, educators and citizens are realizing that low-performing schools go hand in

hand with the achievement gap. Many struggling schools serve largely minority

populations whose test scores persistently fall below those of white students. In an age

when testing carries high stakes for students, the potential social consequences give

the issue even greater significance.

Turning around a school is a complex process in which clear cause-effect relationships

are difficult to isolate, but the recent interest has generated some useful research and

thoughtful analysis. This Digest explores some of the key insights from that literature.

HOW ARE LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS

DEFINED?

For all the attention devoted to low-performing schools, precise definitions remain

elusive. Traditionally, the low-performing label has been applied with a broad brush to

"bad" schools having a wide range of perceived deficiencies: low academic

expectations and achievement, high dropout rates, lack of discipline, inadequate

facilities, and demoralized staff. While accounts of such schools are often anecdotal, the

teachers, principals, and parents who tell the anecdotes can easily name the schools to

avoid.

More recently, low performance has been defined by failure to achieve state-mandated

accountability targets, particularly test scores. By this measure, some 8,652 U.S.

schools were considered low-performing in 2002 (National Association of State Boards

of Education 2002). However, that number encompasses a wide range of performance,

since states have different goals, tests, and criteria for judging success.

NCLB has sharpened the focus on test scores by requiring schools to boost

achievement across all subgroups (including low-income, racial minorities, and

second-language learners). Schools in which even one group fails to make progress will

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 2 of 8 ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest.
be considered low-performing.

Thus, while many low-performing schools under NCLB undoubtedly resemble the

traditional stereotype of "bad schools," others are more accustomed to success and will

find themselves surprised to be among the underachievers.

WHY DO SCHOOLS PERFORM POORLY?

Over the years, researchers and analysts have provided a variety of explanations for

low performance. Three have received the most attention.

Demographics. Some schools serve low-income children living under highly stressful

conditions that inhibit learning. The issue is not just low income, but an environment that

destabilizes home life, undermines support, and creates despair. In addition, many

low-income children are also members of racial minorities that face additional barriers to

high achievement (Shannon and Bylsma 2002).

Insufficient resources. Perhaps not surprisingly, low-performing schools in low-income

areas are frequently plagued by a lack of resources. For example, Greg Orlofsky (2002)

found that high-poverty, high-minority schools received significantly less state and local

money than did other schools; also, students in such schools were almost twice as likely

to be taught by teachers who were inexperienced or teaching outside their specialties

(Jerald 2002).

Ineffective school practices. While high poverty and limited resources are not trivial

challenges, some schools succeed despite the odds (Jerald 2001). Their example

suggests that low performance is not inevitable. Uncoordinated curriculum, superficial

instructional strategies, scattershot professional development, and timid leadership are

some of the factors that may hold schools back.

Undoubtedly, many cases of low performance result from a confluence of forces.

Students at high academic risk are assigned to a school with limited resources, making

it difficult to initiate (much less sustain) improvement efforts. The perceived

undesirability of the school leads teachers, principals, and parents to look elsewhere for

opportunities, creating further instability. Finding a way to break into this vicious cycle is

the key challenge for reformers.

DO SANCTIONS IMPROVE LOW-PERFORMING

SCHOOLS?

While standards-based accountability implicitly recognizes that low-performing schools

may face consequences, many states have been hesitant to intervene except in

extreme cases. By contrast, NCLB prescribes a variety of interventions when schools

fail to meet improvement goals. Some interventions are relatively low-key, such as

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 3 of 8
providing technical assistance or requiring the school to develop an improvement plan.

Others are more aggressive, holding out the possibility of major changes in governance,

including state takeovers.

A number of states have already experimented with sanctions such as reconstitution

(replacing personnel and/or installing new curricula and philosophies) and state

takeovers (removing local authority over the low-performing schools).

Thus far, research on takeovers and reconstitutions has been inconclusive, partly

because these are relatively new strategies, and partly because such wholesale

changes make it difficult to isolate the relevant variables (Education Commission of the

States [ECS] 2002).

Lack of dramatic or immediate results is not surprising. Reconstitution and takeovers do

not by themselves provide detailed blueprints for success. The new managers are still

left with the question, "Now what?"

In its review of the intervention literature, ECS concluded that the success of strong

sanctions may be dependent on the local context. The specific combination of

interventions being used, the amount of time allowed for improvement, the amount of

support provided, and the degree of buy-in from local stakeholders may all influence the

results. ECS analysts concluded that reconstitution and takeovers should be keyed to

achieving specific educational changes, not just to replacing management in the hope

that something better will happen.

HOW CAN EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE HELP

LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS?

Policymakers generally view the breaking up of a school as a last resort, and they prefer

positive state or district action. Recent reviews have identified several promising

practices.

1. Provide technical assistance. David Holdzkam (2001) has described the steps taken

by several states to provide intensive, focused assistance to the schools that need it

most. Their programs include targeting the neediest schools, thoroughly auditing school

needs, and bringing in specially trained principals, teachers, and curriculum specialists

to act as facilitators for change. While no formal research appears to be available,

Holdzkam cites state officials who say that while the intervention has not always moved

schools out of the low-performing category, it has sometimes boosted them into the

highest-performing category.

2. Align policies and practices with academic goals. In a multi-tiered governance system

(federal, state, and local), schools have often been subject to disjointed or contradictory

policies, zigging one way to satisfy a state or federal mandate and zagging back again

to keep the district office happy. However, states have made major strides in aligning

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 4 of 8 ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest.
goals, instruction, and assessment (and sometimes teacher preparation), sending a

consistent message that helps keep schools on track. When states and districts use

their authority to articulate and support a common academic vision, school leaders can

align their own efforts accordingly (NASBE; Tognieri and Anderson 2003).

3. Allocate resources to support achievement. Does money make a difference? The

answer seems to be yes. Diane Pan and colleagues (2003) examined achievement data

and spending patterns in four states, and found "a strong relationship between

resources and student success," particularly when the resources were directed toward

core instructional areas rather than general administration. The authors of the study

found lessons for state, district, and local leaders about the importance of allocating

adequate money and targeting it intelligently.

HOW CAN PRINCIPALS TURN AROUND

LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS?

External assistance can facilitate school renewal, but effective leadership at the school

site is essential. Although empirical research has not uncovered a single "best strategy"

for low-performing schools, researchers and analysts have identified some promising

approaches.

For example, the Washington School Research Center (2002) interviewed teachers and

administrators at elementary schools in which the percentage of students meeting state

standards was significantly above the state average. They found four "primary factors":

a caring and collaborative environment, strong leadership, focused, intentional

instruction, and the use of assessment data to guide instruction. In addition, the

researchers were struck by the high degree of teacher support for reform efforts,

despite the shift in teaching practice that was required. Significantly, these patterns

were the same for high-poverty and low-poverty schools.

Similarly, research in Texas (Just for the Kids, Inc. 2000) has identified half a dozen

promising practices used by high-performing schools with low-income students:

* High-energy, hands-on principal leadership that articulates the vision and keeps the

school focused on instruction

* Broad-based planning that sets clear instructional priorities and meaningful

benchmarks for improvement

* Focused, research-based professional development that is driven by identified

instructional needs

* Continual monitoring and assessment

* Flexible grouping for instruction based on identified student needs

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 5 of 8
* Immediate intervention for struggling students

While suggestive, these studies of successful schools do not yet yield a detailed

roadmap for principals taking the reins at low-performing schools. Even in

comprehensive school reform, which provides concrete models and resources,

implementation varies considerably from school to school (Murphy and Datnow 2003).

But even at this early stage of research it seems evident that turning around a school

requires leaders who nurture an educational vision, keep a laser-like focus on

instruction, and work to build a professional learning community.

RESOURCES

Education Commission of the States. State Interventions in Low-Performing Schools

and School Districts. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 2002.

Online at http://www.ecs.org/

Holdzkom, David. "Low-Performing Schools: So You've Identified Them-Now What?"

Charleston, West Virginia: AEL, 2001. 16 pages. ED 463 566. Online at

http://www.ael.org/

Jerald, Craig D. Dispelling the Myth Revisited: Preliminary Findings from a Nationwide

Analysis of "High-Flying" Schools. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, 2001. 27

pages. ED 462 485. Online at http://www.edtrust.org/

-----. All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-of-Field Teaching. Washington, D.C.:

The Education Trust, 2002. 16 pages. ED 468 741. Online at http://www.edtrust.org/

Just for the Kids, Inc. Promising Practices Study of High Performing Schools. Austin,

Texas: Just for the Kids, Inc., 2000. Online at http://www.just4kids.org/

Murphy, Joseph, and Amanda Datnow. "Leadership Lessons from Comprehensive

School Reform Designs." In Leadership Lessons from Comprehensive School Reforms,

edited by Joseph Murphy and Amanda Datnow. 263-278. Thousand Oaks, California:

Corwin Press, 2003.

National Association of State Boards of Education. From Sanctions to Solutions:

Meeting the Needs of Low-Performing Schools. Alexandria, Virginia: National

Association of State Boards of Education, 2002. Online at http://www.nasbe.org/

Orlofsky, Greg F. The Funding Gap: Low-Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer

Dollars. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, 2002. 12 pages. ED 468 550. Online at

http://www.edtrust.org/

Pan, Diane; Zena Rudo; Cynthia L. Schneider; and Lotte Smith-Hansen. Examination of

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 6 of 8 ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest.
Resource Allocation in Education: Connecting Spending to Student Performance.

Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2003. Online at

http://www.sedl.org/

Shannon, G. Sue, and Peter Bylsma. Addressing the Achievement Gap: A Challenge

for Washington State Educators. Olympia, Washington: Office of the Superintendent of

Public Instruction, 2002. Online at http://www.k12.wa.us/

Tognieri, Wendy, and Stephen E. Anderson. Beyond Islands of Excellence: What

Districts Can Do To Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools. Washington,

D.C.: Learning First Alliance, 2003. Online at http://www.learningfirst.org/

Washington School Research Center. Bridging the Opportunity Gap: How Washington

Elementary Schools Are Meeting Achievement Standards. Seattle: Author, 2002.

Available online at http://www.spu.edu/wsrc

-----

A Product of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of

Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207.

This publication was prepared with funding from the Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. ED-99-C0-0011. The ideas and

opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of

IES, ED, or the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public domain and may be freely

reproduced. The text of this Digest may be viewed electronically at

http://eric.uoregon.edu EA032618.

Title: The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest.

Note: Digest number 169.

Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs)

(071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073);

Available From: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of

Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207. Tel: 541-346-2332; Tel: 800-438-8841 (Toll Free);

Fax: 541-346-2334; Web site: http://eric.uoregon.edu. For full text:

http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest169.html.

Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Accountability, Educational Assessment,

Educational Environment, Educational Resources, Elementary Secondary Education,

Instructional Leadership, Low Achievement, Outcomes of Education, Performance,

Public Schools, Sanctions, School Effectiveness, School Policy, School Restructuring,

School Role, Standards

Identifiers: ERIC Digests, No Child Left Behind Act 2001

###

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest. Page 7 of 8
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 8 of 8 ED478248 2003-07-00 The Mandate To Help Low-Performing Schools. ERIC Digest.